Chapter 5: Individual Differences PDF

CH AP TER 5 INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES Polish-born Magdalena is fluent in four languages: her native Polish; English learned in secondary school on up; Spanish learned as a major in college and then as a resident in Ecuador since age twenty-five; and Italian learned in college studies, fr...

CH AP TER 5 INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES Polish-born Magdalena is fluent in four languages: her native Polish; English learned in secondary school on up; Spanish learned as a major in college and then as a resident in Ecuador since age twenty-five; and Italian learned in college studies, from travels in Italy, and from a college romance with an Italian boyfriend. She can “get by” in two other languages: French (learned in college) and Russian, learned as a mandatory subject in primary school. Magdalena self-reports an intense interest in people and cultures, is on the high end of extroversion, loves the music of various cultures, sings, dances, reads voraciously, mostly in Spanish and English, and has high energy. Her young children are bilingual in Spanish and Polish, and their father is a native Spanish speaker. Magdalena dreams in Spanish, and says her identity is “Spanish.” She taught English in private schools in Poland, and currently works in Quito as a teacher educator and highly successful marketing agent for a publisher of English language textbooks and materials. What kinds of questions would you like to ask Magdalena about her “secret to success” in becoming so capable in four languages? Was age a factor? Or genetics? How did the support of her parents contribute to her ultimate suc- cess? Did she receive remarkable language instruction in school? Did person- ality, motivation, and intelligence play roles? Did she employ—either consciously or subconsciously—certain strategies, techniques, or other self- regulatory procedures that were significant? What is it that seems to set her apart from those who are monolingual and who struggle a bit with languages? Does she just happen to have a “knack” for learning languages—and if so, what are the components of that knack? In this chapter we’ll address some of these questions under the rubric of individual differences (Dewaele, 2009; Dörnyei, 2009) that distinguish one individual from another, along with a close look at self-regulatory techniques that have been found to be effective. 109 110 CHAPTER 5 Individual Differences SOME HISTORICAL BACKGROUND As our knowledge of SLA increased markedly during the 1970s, teachers and researchers came to realize that no ultimate method of language teaching would usher in an era of universal success in L2 learning. We even saw that certain learners seemed to be successful regardless of methods of teaching. More importantly, we began to see the importance of individual variation in language learning. Some people appeared to be endowed with abilities to suc- ceed; others lacked those abilities. All the apparent individual differences among successful and unsuccessful learners led some linguists, most notably Rubin (1975) and Stern (1975), to ask: What would we discover if we described notable attributes of a group of “good” language learners? That is, what distinguishing techniques and approaches are employed by successful language learners? Rubin and Thompson (1982) later summarized such characteristics, paraphrased and summarized here. Good language learners: 1. Take charge of their own learning, seeking out opportunities to use the language. 2. Are unafraid to creatively experiment with the language and make intelli- gent guesses. 3. Learn chunks of language and conversational gambits to help them per- form “beyond their competence.” 4. Use various memory strategies, production tricks, and comprehension techniques. 5. Monitor themselves, allow errors to work for them, and learn from mistakes. Such lists, speculative as they were at the time, spurred quite a string of studies and books that proposed to identify characteristics of “successful” lan- guage learners (Naiman et al., 1978; Rubin & Thompson, 1982; Brown, 1989, 1991; Marshall, 1989; Stevick 1989) as well as unsuccessful learners (Vann & Abraham, 1990). What ultimately emerged was a collective set of suggestions, or strategies, on how to be a successful language learner. As interest grew in what became known as “strategies-based instruction” (SBI), detailed classifications of strategies were drawn up (O’Malley & Chamot, 1990; Oxford, 1990a, 2011b) with a view to providing teachers with a taxonomy of strategic options for their learners. C LASSROOM C ONNECTIONS What would you list as your “top five” characteristics of a “good language learner”? How many of those describe you? Has a teacher ever encouraged the development of these abilities or skills in a foreign language class that you have taken? How would you, as a teacher, go about promoting these traits in your students?  CHAPTER 5 Individual Differences 111 More recently, some new perspectives on thirty years of strategy research have emerged. Drawing on the work of Vygotsky (1978) and Bakhtin (1986, 1990), Norton and Toohey (2001) adopted a sociocultural approach that viewed learners as participants in a community of language users in “local contexts in which specific practices create possibilities for them to learn English” (p. 311). Fundamental to their point of view is the identity that each learner creates in a socially constructed context. As learners invest in their learning process, they create avenues of success. Harsh criticisms emerged from cognitive linguists who assert that strategies are conceptually ill-defined, too broadly conceived, and not supported by empir- ical research (Dörnyei & Skehan, 2003; Dörnyei, 2005, 2009). However, Cohen and Macaro (2007) and Oxford (2011b), both giants in the field of strategy research, contend that such “dismissive” criticism is unwarranted. Instead, we can productively, even if cautiously, pursue the value to language pedagogy of attention to strategic options. Oxford (2011b) and others (Zimmerman, 1990, 2000) prefer to capture such pursuits under the rubric of self-regulation. We will return to this concept later in the chapter. Earlier views of successful learners and more recent social constructivist research may merge together in the form of some pedagogical advice: Teachers can benefit from attending to what might indeed be very common strategies for successful learning across cultures and contexts, but they also need to be ever mindful of individual needs and variations as well as specific cultural contexts of learning. LEARNING STYLES One of the most perplexing problems in language acquisition research is the multiplicity of individual differences that bear on attempts to construct a model or theory of SLA. It seems that we humans vary from one another in an infinite number of possible ways, so many that pinpointing the components of such a theory is frustrating, yet at the same time a challenge worth pursuing. The response to the challenge has so far yielded some great strides toward the construction of a model of SLA. One such step is in a genre of research that identifies styles of learning, thinking, and operating on our environment. Styles are what a learner “brings to the table” in learning a language. They are part of the entry behavior that was mentioned in Chapter 4. Styles are general characteristics of intellectual functioning (and person- ality type, as well) that pertain to you as an individual, and that differentiate you from someone else. They are consistent and rather enduring tendencies or preferences within an individual. For example, you might be more visually ori- ented, more tolerant of ambiguity, or more impulsive than someone else—these would be styles that characterize a general or dominant pattern in your thinking or feeling. So, styles vary across individuals, and as such are an important starting point for a teacher in assessing an approach to an individual learner that will be appropriate. 112 CHAPTER 5 Individual Differences C LASSROOM C ONNECTIONS Before reading on about styles, try this: Describe yourself as a language learner in a classroom setting you have experienced. Who are you? How do you differ from other learners you know? Do you tend to speak out easily? Sit in the front or back of the room? Do you need rules and explanations for everything, or are you okay with being a little “lost” for a while? Don’t worry about technical terminology right now. Just do your best to describe yourself in a list of items or a short paragraph. Learning styles differ from learning strategies in that the latter are spe- cific methods of approaching a problem or task, techniques for achieving a particular end, or designs for controlling and manipulating certain information. Oxford and Ehrman defined L2 learning strategies as “specific actions, behav- iors, steps, or techniques... used by students to enhance their own learning” (1988, p. 22). Because they are contextualized “battle plans” that might vary from moment to moment, or from one context to another, or even from one culture to another, they vary within an individual. Each of us has a number of possible options for solving a particular problem, from which we choose a particular line of “attack.” Here’s a true story: My flight finally landed in Naples, Italy at 3:00 A.M., after a harrowing day of missed flights, delays, and rerouting that had started early the previous morning in Barcelona. The airport was practically deserted, and to top it off, my luggage was missing! No one around me could speak English and my Italian was limited to phrases like “How much does this cost?” and “Where is the train for Rome?”—these were now useless. What did I do? With a style that tends to be generally tolerant of ambiguity, I refrained from getting flustered, and remained calm in spite of my fatigue. My left-brain style told me to take practical, logical steps and to focus only on the important details of the moment. Simultaneously, my sometimes equally strong propensity to use a right-brain approach allowed me to empathize with airport personnel and to use numerous alternative communicative strategies (mostly nonverbal gestures and presumed cognates) to get messages across. I was reflective enough to be patient with miscommunications and my inability to communicate well, yet impul- sive to the extent that I needed to insist on some action as soon as possible.  CHAPTER 5 Individual Differences 113 The way we learn things in general and the way we address a problem seem to hinge on a rather amorphous link between personality and cognition; this link is referred to as cognitive style. When cognitive styles are specifically related to an educational context, where affective and physiological factors are intermingled, they are usually referred to as learning styles. Learning styles might be thought of as “cognitive, affective, and physiolog- ical traits that are relatively stable indicators of how learners perceive, interact with, and respond to the learning environment” (Keefe, 1979, p. 4). Or, more simply, Peter Skehan defined learning style as “a general predisposition, volun- tary or not, toward processing information in a particular way” (1991, p. 288). In the enormous task of learning a second language, one that so deeply involves affective factors, a study of learning style brings important variables to the forefront. Learning styles mediate between emotion and cognition, as you will soon discover. For example, a reflective style invariably grows out of a reflective personality or a reflective mood. An impulsive style, on the other hand, usually arises out of an impulsive emotional state. Some researchers claim that styles are stable traits in adults, while others question such sta- bility (Dörnyei & Skehan, 2003). It would appear that individuals show gen- eral tendencies toward one style or another, but that differing contexts will evoke differing styles in the same individual. Perhaps an “intelligent” and “successful” person is one who is “bi-cognitive”—one who can manipulate both ends of a style continuum? Over the decades, educators and psychologists have identified a long list of just about every imaginable sensory, communicative, cultural, affective, cog- nitive, and intellectual factor among possible styles (Ausubel, 1968; Hill, 1972; Oxford & Anderson, 1995; Reid, 1995; Ehrman, 1996; Cohen, 1998; Wintergerst, DeCapua, & Itzen, 2001; Ehrman & Leaver, 2003). Here are a few of the more salient styles this research has defined: Field independence vs. field dependence (sensitivity) Random (nonlinear) vs. sequential (linear) Global (big picture) vs. particular (attention to details) Inductive vs. deductive Synthetic (integrative) vs. analytical (systematizing) Concrete (attention to physical, literal) vs. abstract Impulsive vs. reflective Other researchers (Stevick, 1982; Chapelle, 1983; Chapelle & Roberts, 1986; Danesi, 1988; Reid, 1995; Brown, 2002) added further factors: Left-brain vs. right-brain dominance Ambiguity tolerance vs. intolerance Visual vs. auditory vs. kinesthetic modalities 114 CHAPTER 5 Individual Differences The identification and measurement of styles has not met with universal acceptance from researchers. Dörnyei (2005, 2009) has been one of the most strident critics of the literature on cognitive and learning styles. Admitting to the “seemingly straightforward and intuitively convincing” (2005, p. 121) nature of learning styles, and to their potential value in an educational context, Dörnyei posed a number of problematic issues in conceptualizing styles, but in the final analysis, curiously, admits that they constitute an “as yet unrealized potential” (p. 160). Because of their historical value and intuitive (if not yet fully theoretically defined) relevance to teaching, five styles have been selected here as illustrative of the significance of learning styles in L2 classroom settings. Field Independence and Field Sensitivity In Sunday newspaper comic pages, you will sometimes find two almost identical drawings with the caption: “Find six differences between the two pictures.” In a few minutes, careful scrutiny of tiny details reveals very small differences—a smaller lamp, an arm that has moved. The speed and ability to find those differ- ences hinge on field independence, the perception of a particular, relevant item or factor in a “field” of distracting items. In general psychological terms, that field may be perceptual, or it may be more abstract, pertaining to a set of thoughts, ideas, or feelings within which you must distinguish specific relevant subsets. Field dependence is, conversely, the tendency to be “dependent” on the total field so that the parts embedded within the field are not distracting, as you perceive the total field as a unified whole. Field dependence is synonymous with field sensitivity, a term that carries a more positive connotation. A field independent (FI) style enables you to distinguish parts from a whole, to concentrate on something (like reading a book in a noisy train sta- tion), or to analyze separate variables without the contamination of neigh- boring variables. On the other hand, too much FI may result in cognitive “tunnel vision”: you see only the parts and not their relationship to the whole. “You can’t see the forest for the trees,” as the saying goes. Seen in this light, develop- ment of a field sensitive (FS) style has positive effects: You perceive the whole picture, the larger view, the general configuration of a problem or idea or event. It is clear, then, that both FI and FS are necessary for most of the cognitive and affective problems we face. Early research on FI/FS (Witkin, 1962; Witkin & Goodenough, 1981) found some interesting relationships. Affectively, persons who were more predomi- nantly FI tended to be generally more independent, competitive, and self- confident. FS persons tended to be more sociable, to derive their self-identity from persons around them, and were usually more empathic and perceptive of the feelings and thoughts of others. The same studies also found FI/FS to be a presumably stable trait in adulthood, a claim that is now widely disputed in view of the difficulty of defining the construct (Dörnyei, 2009), and the implausibility  CHAPTER 5 Individual Differences 115 of an L2 learner’s manifesting one side of the continuum with no utilization whatsoever of the other side. How does all this relate to second language learning? Two conflicting hypoth- eses emerged. First, some studies concluded that FI is closely related to classroom learning that involves analysis, attention to details, and mastering of exercises, drills, and other focused activities (Naiman, Fröhlich, Stern, & Todesco, 1978; Hansen & Stansfield, 1981; Stansfield & Hansen, 1983; Hansen, 1984; Jamieson, 1992; Johnson, Prior, & Artuso, 2000). Other similar findings were reported for FI: success in paper-and-pencil tests (Chapelle & Roberts, 1986); in deductive lessons (Abraham, 1985); and in pronunciation accuracy (Elliott, 1995a, 1995b). The second hypothesis proposed that an FS style, by virtue of its associa- tion with empathy, social outreach, and perception of other people, yields suc- cessful acquisition of the communicative aspects of a second language. While no one denies the plausibility of this second claim, little empirical evidence has been gathered to support it. The principal reason for the dearth of such evidence is in the measurement of FI/FS. The standard measure of FI, the Group Embedded Figures Test (Oltman, Raskin, & Witkin, 1971) only measures visual perception; moreover, a high score on FI certainly does not imply a low score on FS! With the absence of a true test of FS, we are left with little hard data on the topic, leading some linguists to be harshly critical of what they called a “theoretically flawed” con- struct (Griffiths & Sheen, 1992, p. 133). Others were more moderate in recom- mending “re-conceptualizations” and new measurement tools before drawing conclusions (Chapelle, 1992; Dörnyei & Skehan, 2003). C LASSROOM C ONNECTIONS Given that both field independence and field sensitivity can ben- efit language learners, what are some activities or techniques that you have experienced that rely fairly strongly on FI? And on FS? How might you help students to become aware of this style con- tinuum and to put their awareness into action? Could FI and FS both be equally important? The two styles deal with two different kinds of language learning. One kind of learning implies natural, face- to-face communication, the kind of communication that occurs too rarely in the average language classroom. The second kind involves familiar classroom activities: drills, exercises, and tests. It is most likely that “natural” language learning in the “field,” beyond the constraints of the classroom, is aided by an FS style, and classroom learning is enhanced, conversely, an FI style. Obviously, both styles are facilitative within appropriate contexts. 116 CHAPTER 5 Individual Differences Left-Brain and Right-Brain Dominance We have already observed in Chapter 3 that left-brain and right-brain dominance is a potentially significant issue in developing a theory of SLA. As the child’s brain matures, various functions become lateralized to the left or right hemisphere. The left hemisphere is associated with logical, analytical thought, with mathematical and linear processing of information. The right hemisphere perceives and remem- bers visual, tactile, and auditory images; it is more efficient in processing holistic, integrative, and emotional information (Urgesi & Fabbro, 2009). A compilation of a variety of characteristics of left-brain (LB) and right-brain (RB) characteristics is listed in Table 5.1 (Edwards, 1979; Torrance, 1980; Joseph, 2012). While Table 5.1 emphasizes differences between LB and RB characteristics, one must not overlook the importance of left and right hemispheres operating together as a “team.” Through the corpus callosum, messages are sent back and Table 5.1 Left-brain and right-brain characteristics Left-Brain Dominance Right-Brain Dominance Relies strongly on the intellect Uses intuitive processes Remembers names Remembers faces Responds to verbal instructions and explanations Responds to demonstrated, illustrated, or symbolic instructions Experiments systematically and with control Experiments randomly and with less restraint Makes objective judgments Makes subjective judgments Is planned and structured Is fluid and spontaneous Prefers established, certain information Is comfortable with elusive, uncertain information Reads analytically Reads with synthesis Relies on language in thinking and remembering Relies on images in thinking and remembering Is stronger in talking, writing, and verbal Is stronger in drawing, images, and communication manipulating objects Prefers multiple-choice tests Prefers open-ended questions Controls feelings More free with feelings Deciphers linguistic cues, lexical, and Interprets body language, attends to facial, grammatical subtleties nonverbal communication Uses empirical description Uses metaphors and verbal imagery Favors logical problem solving Favors intuitive problem solving  CHAPTER 5 Individual Differences 117 forth so that both hemispheres are involved in much of the neurological activity of the human brain. Most problem solving involves the capacities of both hemi- spheres, and often the best solutions to problems are those in which each hemisphere has participated optimally (Danesi, 1988). The LB/RB construct helps to define another useful learning style con- tinuum, with implications for L2 learning and teaching (Scovel, 1982). Danesi (1988) used “neurological bimodality” to analyze the way in which various lan- guage teaching methods have failed by appealing too strongly to LB processes. Krashen, Seliger, and Hartnett (1974) found that LB dominant L2 learners pre- ferred a deductive approach to teaching, while RB dominant learners were more successful in inductive techniques. Stevick (1982) concluded that LB dominant second language learners are better at producing separate words, gathering the specifics of language, carrying out sequences of operations, and dealing with classification, labeling, and reorganization. RB dominant learners, on the other hand, appeared to deal better with whole images, generalizations, metaphors, emotional reactions, and artistic expressions. You may be asking yourself how left- and right-brain functioning differs from FI and FS. While few studies have set out explicitly to correlate the two factors, intuitive observation of learners and conclusions from studies of both hemispheric preference and FI/FS show a strong relationship (Urgesi & Fabbro, 2009; Joseph, 2012). Thus, in dealing with either type of cognitive style, we are dealing with two styles that are highly parallel. C LASSROOM C ONNECTIONS In your foreign language learning experiences, what are some examples of left-brain and right-brain activities or techniques that you have experienced? (Examples: LB: explaining a grammatical rule; RB: responding to a piece of poetry.) In the activities you think of, what could you do as a teacher to help students to “cross over” to their less preferred brain orientation? For example, how would you help students who are strongly left-brain-oriented to appreciate and respond to poetry? Ambiguity Tolerance How willing are you to tolerate ideas and propositions that run counter to your own belief system or structure of knowledge? Some people—those that are ambiguity tolerant (AT)—are relatively open-minded in at least enter- taining ideologies, events, and facts that contradict their own views. Others, more closed-minded and dogmatic, tend to reject items that are contradictory or incongruent with their existing system. In their ambiguity intolerance (AI), 118 CHAPTER 5 Individual Differences they wish to see every proposition fit into an acceptable place in their cogni- tive organization, and if they do not, they are rejected. Again, advantages and disadvantages are present on each end of a con- tinuum. The person who is AT is free to entertain a number of innovative and creative possibilities and not be cognitively or affectively disturbed by uncer- tainty. In second language learning a great amount of apparently contradictory information is encountered: words that differ from the native language, rules that not only differ but that are internally inconsistent because of certain excep- tions, and sometimes a whole cultural system that is distant from that of the native culture. Successful language learning necessitates tolerance of such ambiguities, at least for interim periods or stages, during which time ambiguous items are given a chance to become resolved. On the other hand, too much AT can have a detrimental effect. People can become “wishy-washy,” adopting an “anything goes” mentality, accepting virtu- ally every proposition before them, and inefficiently subsuming necessary facts into their cognitive organizational structure. Grammatical rules and word defi- nitions, for example, eventually need to be discarded—pruned—in favor of more-encompassing linguistic conceptualizations. AI also has its advantages and disadvantages. An optimal level of intolerance enables one to guard against the wishy-washiness referred to above, by closing off avenues of hopeless possibilities, rejecting contradictory material, and dealing with the reality of the system that one has built. On the other hand, AI can close the mind too soon, especially if ambiguity is perceived as a threat, and the result is a rigid, dogmatic, brittle mind that is too narrow to be creative. This may be particularly harmful in second language learning. Only a few research findings are available on this style in second language learning. Both Naiman et al. (1978) and Chapelle and Roberts (1986) found that learners with high AT were slightly more successful in certain language tasks, suggesting, though not strongly so, that AT may be an important factor in L2 learning. It is hard to imagine a compartmentalizer—a person who sees every- thing in black and white with no shades of gray—being successful in the over- whelmingly ambiguous process of learning a second language. C LASSROOM C ONNECTIONS Foreign language students often want explanations and rules and are sometimes not willing to allow more difficult material to simply and slowly “sink in.” For example, in reading, they may insist on looking up every unknown word in a dictionary before continuing to read, rather than moving on in a passage and allowing meanings to be inductively absorbed later. How would you help such students to overcome what you perceive as a block to reading efficiency?  CHAPTER 5 Individual Differences 119 Reflectivity and Impulsivity Have you ever been tempted to make an impulsive decision to buy a pair of shoes simply because you like them, without carefully calculating their afford- ability in your budget? Yet another style is an individual’s tendency to be com- fortable making quick or gambling (impulsive) decisions versus a tendency to make slower, more calculated (reflective) decisions. Impulsive or systematic thinkers tend to weigh all the considerations in a problem, work out all the loopholes, and then, after extensive reflection, venture a solution. An impul- sive or intuitive style involves making a number of different gambles on the basis of “hunches,” with possibly several successive gambles before a solution is achieved (Ewing, 1977). Educational research reveals that children who are conceptually reflective tend to make fewer errors in reading than impulsive children (Kagan, 1965). However, impulsive persons are usually faster readers, and eventually master the “psycholinguistic guessing game” (Goodman, 1970) of reading. In another study inductive reasoning has also been found to be more effective with reflec- tive persons (Kagan, Pearson, & Welch, 1966). Measurement issues abound, as the only recognized test of reflectivity/impulsivity (R/I) is visually oriented (Kagan, 1965; Cairns & Cammock, 1989), as was the case in measuring FI/FS. Extrapolations of performance on such tests to other cognitive functioning is therefore problematic. In L2 learning contexts, Doron (1973) found that reflective adults were slower but more accurate than impulsive students in reading. Abraham (1981) concluded that reflection was weakly related to performance on a proofreading task. Jamieson (1992) found that “fast-accurate” learners, or good guessers, were better language learners as measured by the standard- ized Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL), but warned against assuming that impulsivity always implies accuracy. Some of her subjects were fast and inaccurate. C LASSROOM C ONNECTIONS Jamieson (1992) concluded that the combination of speed and accuracy led to success on timed, standardized tests. Time emerges as an important factor in language success: tests, reading, writing (composing), responding to listening, and speaking flu- ently are all subject to time constraints. In your learning of a foreign language in the classroom, were you fast and accurate as well? How might a teacher go about helping students to develop both speed and accuracy? 120 CHAPTER 5 Individual Differences Visual, Auditory, and Kinesthetic Styles Yet another dimension of learning style—one that is salient in a formal class- room setting—is the preference that learners show toward visual, auditory, and/or kinesthetic input. Visual learners tend to prefer reading and studying charts, drawings, and other graphic information. Auditory learners prefer lis- tening to lectures and audiotapes. And kinesthetic learners will show a prefer- ence for demonstrations and physical activity involving bodily movement. Of course, most successful learners utilize both visual and auditory input, but slight preferences one way or the other may distinguish one learner from another, an important factor in examining individual differences in SLA. In one study of adult learners of ESL, Reid (1987) found some significant cross-cultural differences in visual and auditory styles among Korean, Chinese, Japanese, and Arabic speakers. Reid (1995) later reported a study of kinesthetic styles with results that confirmed the importance of attending to such prefer- ences among learners. C LASSROOM C ONNECTIONS In your foreign language classes, how have you been either helped or hindered by an appeal to visual, auditory, and/or kines- thetic modalities? What are some methodological techniques that you could use as a teacher to ensure that students are exposed to all three modalities? At the risk of some oversimplification, Table 5.2 suggests some SLA advan- tages to various styles. For each advantage, of course, some disadvantages should also be taken into account. Measurement of Learning Styles A number of options are available for helping learners to identify their own styles, preferences, strengths, and weaknesses. The most common method is a self-check questionnaire in which the learner responds to various questions, usually along a scale of points of agreement and disagreement. Examples of such measures include a standard for a number of years, Kolb’s (1999) Learning Style Inventory (LSI); Oxford’s (1995) Style Analysis Survey; Wintergerst, DeCapua, and Verna’s (2002) Learning Styles Indicator; and later in this chapter, a Styles Awareness Checklist (Figure 5.1). Similar checklists can be found in Brown’s (2002) self-help guide for English language learners. Measurement of style preferences by means of self-check questionnaires is problematic (Ehrman & Leaver, 2003; Jones, 2009), in that external, objective  CHAPTER 5 Individual Differences 121 Table 5.2 Summary of possible SLA style advantages Styles SLA Advantages? Left-brain processing Analyzing linguistic systems, rules, structures, definitions Perceiving the logic of language systems Right-brain processing Integrating diverse linguistic input Comprehending and producing metaphors Field Independence Expressing and comprehending key ideas concisely Remembering lexical and syntactic details Field Sensitivity Getting the overall gist of oral and written input “Reading between the lines” of oral and written input Ambiguity tolerance Transcending linguistic complexity perceived as difficult Maintaining attention to a difficult conversation or text Ambiguity intolerance Ascertaining order and system within complexity Questioning/clarifying misunderstood information Reflectivity Taking time to mentally sort through linguistic complexity Speaking out only when certain of linguistic systems Impulsivity Taking linguistic risks in the face of possible error Taking initiative in conversations measures are not available. Then, the fact that learners’ styles represent preferred approaches rather than immutable stable traits means that learners can adapt to varying contexts and situations, regardless of their overall general preferences. As Oxford noted, “Although the learner might have some strong style tendencies, they are not set in stone and are influenced by the sociocultural context” (2011b, p. 40). Styles can be a reflection, if not a direct product, of one’s cultural back- ground (Oxford & Anderson, 1995; Wintergerst, DeCapua, & Itzen, 2001), spur- ring teachers to be sensitive to students’ heritage languages and cultures. With that “grain of salt” added to the consideration of learning styles in SLA, it is nevertheless important for teachers to gauge (even if intuitively) stu- dents’ preferences, strengths and weaknesses, propensities, and abilities in order to tailor an effective methodological approach. AUTONOMY AND AWARENESS A glance at the history of language teaching reveals some interesting “changing winds and shifting sands,” as noted in Chapter 1. One way of looking at this his- tory is to consider the extent to which methodological trends have emphasized the respective roles of the teacher and the learner. Until some of the “designer” methods appeared in the 1970s, most of language teaching methodology was 122 CHAPTER 5 Individual Differences teacher-centered. Students entered a classroom, sat down dutifully in their desks, and waited for the teacher to tell them what to do. Those directives might have been to translate a passage, to memorize a rule, to read aloud, or to repeat a dialogue. Then, in the last half of the twentieth century, the educational profession began to emphasize the value of learner autonomy in the form of learner- centered approaches, discovery learning, problem-posing, group work, coop- erative learning, and selecting certain goals for individual pursuit (Slavin, 2011). In L2 teaching, methods emphasized allowing learners to initiate oral produc- tion, practice language through small-group tasks, and engage in using the language out in the “real world” (Brown, 2007). In keeping with a popular social trend of “self-help” manuals for everything from weight loss to how to feel that you’re “okay,” the language teaching profession began to encourage learners to “take charge” of their own learning, and to chart their own “pathways to success” (Brown, 1991, 2002). The process of developing within learners a sense of autonomy required the use of strategies (Wenden, 1992). After all, how many students enter a foreign language class knowing anything at all about the process of language learning, or about the “tricks of the trade” in SLA? With the aid of research on achieving autonomy, language programs and courses have increasingly emphasized the importance of self-starting and of taking responsibility for one’s own learning (Riley, 1988; Pemberton, 1996; Benson & Voller, 1997; Pennycook, 1997; Cotterall & Crabbe, 1999; Benson, 2001; Benson & Toogood, 2002; Palfreyman, 2003; Schmenk, 2005; Barfield & Brown, 2007; Lamb & Reinders, 2008; Pemberton, Toogood, & Barfield, 2009). The literature on the topic raises some caution flags. Schmenk (2005) appropriately described the nonuniversality of the concept of autonomy, and Pennycook (1997) warned us about the potential cultural imperialism involved in assuming that every cul- ture equally values and promotes autonomy, especially in educational institu- tions. For language teaching in sub-Saharan Africa, Sonaiya questioned “the global validity of the so-called autonomous method of language learning... which has obvious origins in European and North American traditions of indi- vidualism” (2002, p. 106). However, other studies are more encouraging. Dixon’s (2011) review of literature on autonomy reveals encouraging signs. Carter suggested that while learners in Trinidad and Tobago traditionally rely heavily on teachers as man- agers of their learning, autonomy could nevertheless be fostered through what she described as a “context-sensitive” model (2001, p. 26). Similarly, Spratt, Humphreys, and Chan (2002) found that autonomy could be promoted among learners in Hong Kong, as long as an appropriate level of motivation was present. Schmenk recommended a “glocalization” (a combination of both global and local considerations) of the concept of autonomy in non-Western cultures, one that involves “a critical awareness of... specific cultural backdrops and impacts” (2005, p. 115).  CHAPTER 5 Individual Differences 123 Closely linked to the concept of autonomy is the demand on learners to become aware of their own processes of learning. In your foreign language courses, did your teacher or your textbook help you to become aware of what language learning was all about? Were you encouraged to monitor your own learning process? Or to assess your own strengths and weaknesses, and follow up with strategic action? Probably not. Until recently, few courses in languages provided such opportunities for learners to become aware of what language learning was all about and what they could do to become better learners. Now, with the backdrop of a good deal of research on awareness and “consciousness raising,” language programs are offering more occasions for learners to develop a metacognitive awareness of their ongoing learning (Byram, 2012). The journal Language Awareness is, in fact, devoted to the concept. The supporting research stockpile is growing on awareness-raising among L2 learners in classrooms around the world: (Lightbown & Spada, 2000; Rosa & Leow, 2004; Simard & Wong, 2004; Nakatani, 2005). C LASSROOM C ONNECTIONS Research on learning styles supports learners’ becoming aware of their preferences, strengths, and weaknesses, and further sug- gests that they need to distinguish between styles that work for them and those that may work against them. What are some styles that have worked for you in your foreign language learning experiences? What about styles that worked against you? What could you do as a teacher to capitalize on such self-knowledge? What are we learning from these studies? Beyond the simple conclusion that learners can indeed benefit from raised awareness of their own processes of learning, one interesting finding is an optimal level of awareness that serves learners (Lightbown & Spada, 1990; Rubin, Chamot, Harris, & Anderson, 2007). Too much awareness, overattention to monitoring for correctness, or explicit focus on grammar will smother a learner’s yearning to simply use language. Even too much thinking about strategic options—with too little intuitive, subconscious communication—can block open communication. On the other hand, some levels of awareness are clearly warranted, and in this chapter we will speak to the issue of strategic awareness: the conscious application of appropriate strategies. SELF-REGULATION The culmination of research on autonomy coupled with the principle of aware- ness-raising lies in what researchers (Zimmerman, 1990, 2000; Cohen & Macaro, 2007; Dörnyei, 2009) have called self-regulation: the autonomous process 124 CHAPTER 5 Individual Differences of developing awareness, setting goals, monitoring performance, using effec- tive strategies, and holding positive beliefs about oneself. Rebecca Oxford (2011b) expanded Zimmerman’s original (1990, 2000) concept to what she calls strategic self-regulation (S2R), the self-stimulated application by a learner of cognitive, affective, and sociocultural-interactive strategies. Her S2R model includes a host of practical suggestions for teachers and learners to develop autonomy, awareness, and action. At the heart of Oxford’s S2R model is the principle of learners acting on their learning. Autonomy and awareness without action would be relatively useless. Once learners can become aware of their predispositions, their styles, and their strengths and weaknesses, they can then take appropriate action in the form of a plethora of self-regulated strategies that are available to them. Not all strategies are appropriate for all learners. A learner who, for example, is already aware of an ambiguity-tolerant, right-brain style surely will not need a battery of new strategies to open up, to be calm in the face of a storm of incom- prehensible language, or to take in the big picture. Such strategies are already naturally in place. However, a learner who is intolerant of ambiguity and employs analytical, linear thinking can obviously benefit from an awareness of those proclivities and from taking appropriate strategic action. What do we know about self-regulated learners? The list of “good language learner” characteristics from Naiman et al. (1978) turns out not to be as passé as one might think. According to Oxford (2011b, p. 15), strategically self-regu- lated learners do the following: Actively participate in their own autonomous learning process Control various aspects of their learning for accomplishing specific goals Regulate their cognitive and affective states Form positive beliefs about themselves Use strategies to move from conscious knowledge to automatic proce- dural knowledge Select appropriate strategies for widely differing purposes and contexts Make the connection between strategy use and learning outcomes Does this list sound familiar? Yes, the concepts are more sophisticated and are now better defined than they were in 1978, but we are still attending to what “good language learners” do to achieve success. STRATEGIES Styles are general characteristics that differentiate one individual from another—they are significant markers of our many individual differences (Dewaele, 2009). Strategies are those specific actions that we take to solve a given problem, and that vary considerably within each individual. Ana Chamot  CHAPTER 5 Individual Differences 125 defines strategies quite broadly as “procedures that facilitate a learning task... Strategies are most often conscious and goal driven” (2005, p. 112). Over the last five decades, research on SLA has offered a mélange of types of strategies, not to mention hundreds of specific strategies, or, in Oxford’s (2011b) terminology, tactics. Following are just a few examples of general cat- egories of strategy that have at one time or another been employed in researching and teaching SLA (O’Malley et al., 1983, 1985a, 1985b, 1987, 1989; Chamot & O’Malley, 1986, 1987; Chamot, 1990; O’Malley & Oxford, 1990a, 2011b; Chamot, Barnhart, El-Dinary, & Robbins, 1999; Cohen & Macaro, 2007). Learning vs. Communication Metacognitive Memory Direct vs. Indirect Cognitive Affective Socio-affective (also, Social) Sociocultural-Interactive Input (comprehension) vs. Output (production) Skill-oriented (relating to the four skills) Avoidance Compensatory Self-regulated A bewildering array of strategic options, but perhaps such proliferation of typology is simply part of the historical growing pains of a long period of research. As the intricacies of a learner’s strategic investment in L2 learning were uncovered, the refining and redefinition process necessitated new frame- works on which to build an increasingly sophisticated science. In order to simplify where we appear to stand regarding what I like to call strategic investment in SLA, I will use Oxford’s (2011b) typology to describe the current state of the art. She employed three broad categories (or meta-strategies— for general management and control) within which to consider strategic self- regulation (S2R): cognitive, affective, and sociocultural-interactive strategies. These three categories will be used to summarize an extensive range of work by Chamot, Cohen, Dörnyei, O’Malley, Oxford, Rubin, and others. Cognitive Strategies The first of Oxford’s (2011b) three overall meta-strategies is a group of cogni- tive strategies, which help the learner “construct, transform, and apply L2 knowledge” (p. 24). Included in this category are a number of subcategories, each of which includes specific tactics: “specific manifestations of a strategy or meta-strategy by a particular learner in a given setting for a certain purpose.” 126 CHAPTER 5 Individual Differences Table 5.3 Cognitive strategies and tactics Cognitive Strategies Examples of Tactics Planning Previewing, reviewing, setting schedules, deciding to attend to a specific aspect of language input, planning for and rehearsing linguistic components necessary to carry out an upcoming language task, deciding to postpone speaking Organizing Deciding to attend to specific aspects of language input or situational details that will cue the retention of language input, reordering, classifying, labeling items in the language Monitoring Correcting one’s speech for accuracy in pronunciation, grammar, vocabulary, imitating a language model, including silent rehearsal, and self-checking Evaluating Checking the outcomes of one’s own language learning against an internal measure of completeness and accuracy Using senses Creating visualizations and pictures to remember, noticing phonological sounds, acting out a word or sentence Activating knowledge Using the first language for comparison/contrast to remember words and forms, applying rules by deduction, using translation to remember a new word Contextualization Placing a word or phrase in a meaningful language sequence, relating new information to other concepts in memory Going beyond the data Guessing meanings of new items, predicting words or forms from the context Table 5.3 lists some of the possibilities (synthesized from O’Malley et al., 1985 and Oxford, 2011b). Affective Strategies The second of Oxford’s meta-strategies is a set of affective strategies that help the learner to employ beneficial emotional energy, form positive attitudes toward the learning process, and generate and maintain motivation. The list in Table 5.4 is a synthesis of affective strategies from Oxford (1990b, 2011b), Brown (2002), and Cohen and Macaro (2007). Sociocultural-Interactive Strategies The third of Oxford’s categories contains what others have called communi- cation strategies (Dörnyei, 1995) or socioaffective strategies (O’Malley et al., 1985b), both of which refer to the learner’s tactics for generating and  CHAPTER 5 Individual Differences 127 Table 5.4 Affective strategies and tactics Affective Strategies Examples of Tactics Activating supportive Encouraging oneself, making positive statements, making lists of emotions one’s abilities, rewarding oneself for accomplishments, noticing what one has accomplished to build self-confidence, writing a lan- guage learning diary Minimizing negative Using relaxation to lower fear or anxiety, using positive self-talk to emotions lower self-doubt, generating interesting charts, images, or dialogues to lower boredom, making a list of “to do” items to avoid feeling overwhelmed Generating motivation Learning about the culture of a language, setting personal goals and monitoring their accomplishment, listing specific accomplishments, turning attention away from tests and toward what one can do with the language Building positive attitudes Using relaxation to lower fear or anxiety, generating interesting activities to lower boredom, empathizing with others to develop cultural understanding maintaining interactive communication within a cultural context. Oxford’s sociocultural-interactive (S-I) strategies “help the learner interact and communicate (despite knowledge gaps) and deal [effectively] with culture” (2011b, p. 24). Let’s look at examples (Table 5.5) drawn from several sources, including Dörnyei (1995), Oxford (1990a), and Brown (2002). Table 5.5 Sociocultural-interactive strategies and tactics S-I Strategy Examples of Tactics Interacting to learn Cooperating with one or more peers to obtain feedback, pool information, or model a language activity Overcoming knowledge gaps Asking a teacher or other native speaker for repetition, para- phrasing, explanation, and/or examples, questioning for clarifi- cation, using memorized chunks of language to initiate or maintain communication Guessing intelligently Using linguistic clues in lexicon, grammar, or phonology to predict, using discourse markers to comprehend Generating conversation Initiating conversation with known discourse gambits, main- taining conversation with affirmations, verbal and nonverbal attention signals, asking questions Activating sociocultural Asking questions about culture, customs, etc., reading about schemata culture (customs, history, music, art) 128 CHAPTER 5 Individual Differences C LASSROOM C ONNECTIONS The three lists above enumerate quite a number of tactics that learners have used to successfully learn foreign languages. Have you used any of these tactics in your L2 learning? If you could choose a few of them to highlight, how would you teach them to students? The three classifications of meta-strategies outlined above only begin to capture the complexity of the L2 learner’s potential strategic investment in learning the target language. A study of the work of Andrew Cohen (2011), Zoltan Dörnyei (2009), and Rebecca Oxford (2011a, 2011b) is strongly recom- mended for anyone who wishes to pursue such complexity and to apply it in a comprehensive way to teaching L2s. Compensatory Strategies A further note is in order, however, before moving on to a commentary on the research and to pedagogical implications of research on strategies. It is of sin- gular interest that many language learners who possess a “knack” for gaining communicative control of a second language have some special insights into what Dörnyei (1995, 2009) and others have called compensatory strategies, a few of which were listed under sociocultural-interactive strategies in Table 5.4. A review of various self-help books and “how to” manuals on learning a foreign language shows a strong emphasis on how the learner can compensate for weaknesses and avoid various pitfalls (Lai, 2009). The “knack” seems to be composed quite prominently of such “tricks” and techniques. Consider the list of tactics drawn from Dörnyei (1995) and Brown (2002) in Table 5.6. All of these compensatory strategies are designed to make up for gaps in one’s ability. Such communicative or sociocultural-interactive strategies often spell the difference between a person who “survives” in a language and one who does not. What psycholinguistic elements are involved in these tactics? Avoidance is a tactic for preventing a pitfall, a linguistic weakness that could break down communicative flow. Syntactic, phonological, and lexical avoidance are common tactics in successful learners, as is topic avoidance. Psychologically, avoidance is a combination of face-saving and maintaining communicative interaction. To save embarrassment, the following L2 learner switched to another construction: L2 Learner: I lost my road. Native Speaker: You lost your road? L2 Learner: Uh,... I lost. I lost. I got lost.  CHAPTER 5 Individual Differences 129 Table 5.6 Compensatory strategies Strategy Tactic Avoidance Avoiding a topic, concept, grammatical construction, or phonological element that poses difficulty Circumlocution Describing an object or idea with a definition (e.g., You know, that thing you open bottles with—for corkscrew) Approximation Using an alternative term which expresses the meaning of the target lexical item as closely as possible (e.g., ship for sailboat) Word coinage Creating a nonexistent L2 word based on a supposed rule (e.g., vegetable-ist for vegetarian) Nonverbal signals Mime, gesture, facial expression, or sound imitation Prefabricated patterns Using memorized stock phrases, usually for “survival” purposes (e.g., Where is...? How much is...? (morphological components are not known to the learner) Code switching Using an L1 word with L1 pronunciation while speaking in L2 (e.g., Je serais à la rehearsal—for repetition) Appeal to authority Asking for aid either directly (e.g., What do you call...?) or indi- rectly (e.g., rising intonation, pause, eye contact, puzzled expression) Keeping the floor Using fillers or hesitation devices to fill pauses and to gain time to think (e.g., well, now let’s see, uh, as a matter of fact) Another compensatory trick is the memorization of certain stock phrases or sentences without internalized knowledge of their components. These memorized chunks of language, known as prefabricated patterns, are often found in pocket bilingual phrase books: “How much does this cost?” “Where is the toilet?” “I don’t speak English.” Such phrases are memorized by rote to fit a context. In my first few days of Kikongo learning in the Congo, I tried to say, in Kikongo, “I don’t know Kikongo” to anyone who attempted conversation. I was later embarrassed to discover that instead of saying Kizeyi Kikongo ko, I had said Kizolele Kikongo ko (I don’t like Kikongo)—not a good way to endear yourself to Kikongo speakers! Code-switching is the use of a first or third language within a stream of speech in the second language. Often code-switching occurs subconsciously between two advanced learners with a common first language, but, in such a case, usually not as a compensatory strategy. Learners in the early stages of acquisition, however, might code-switch—use their native language to fill in missing knowledge—whether the hearer knows that native language or not. Yet another common compensatory strategy is a direct appeal for help, often termed appeal to authority. Learners may, if stuck for a particular word or phrase, directly ask a proficient speaker or teacher for the correct form, or consult a dictionary. An English learner, when asked to introduce himself to the 130 CHAPTER 5 Individual Differences class, said, “Allow me to introduce myself and tell you some of the...” At this point he reached for his iPhone bilingual dictionary app, and finding the word he wanted, continued, “some of the headlights of my past.” Oops, those apps are useful, but language learners beware! C LASSROOM C ONNECTIONS Have you used any of these compensatory strategies? Some are difficult to teach, as learners tend to use them subconsciously. Pick a few of the compensatory tactics discussed above and decide how you would “coach” students with advice on compen- sating for gaps in their competence. Research on Learning Strategies The research of the last four decades on L2 strategies has slowly but surely been pushing toward a theory of language learning strategies (Griffiths & Parr, 2001; Hsiao & Oxford, 2002; Dörnyei & Skehan, 2003; Cohen & Macaro, 2007; Oxford, 2011b). One of the major conundrums of the hundreds of research studies on strategies has been the identification of the theoretically most parsi- monious way of categorizing strategies. Oxford’s three meta-strategies com- prise one lens—among many—through which to view strategies. Identifying Types of Strategy Other pedagogically useful studies separate strategies for acquiring the four skills of listening, speaking, reading, and writing. Learning (input) strategies, as opposed to communication (output) strategies, emphasize differences between learning receptive skills of listening and reading in contrast to producing lan- guage in speech and writing. O’Malley, Chamot, and Kupper (1989) found that L2 learners developed effective listening skills through monitoring, elaboration, and inferencing. Selective attention to keywords and advance organizers, infer- ring from context, prediction, using a worksheet, and taking notes were shown to be teachable (Rost & Ross, 1991; Ozeki, 2000; Carrier, 2003; Vandergrift, 2003). And reading strategies such as bottom-up and top-down processing, predicting, guessing from context, brainstorming, and summarizing have also been shown to be effective (Anderson, 1991; Chamot & El-Dinary, 1999; Pressley, 2000). Communication or output strategies, defined by Faerch and Kasper as “potentially conscious plans for solving what to an individual presents itself as a problem in reaching a particular communicative goal,” (1983a, p. 36) comprise yet another research focus. Attention to communication strategies (Bongaerts & Poulisse, 1989; Oxford & Crookall, 1989; Bialystok, 1990a; Rost & Ross, 1991; Dörnyei, 1995; McDonough, 1999; Anderson, 2005; Chamot, 2005) has been  CHAPTER 5 Individual Differences 131 directed in large part to the compensatory nature of communication strategies, mentioned above. Other current approaches (Cohen, 2011; Oxford, 2011b) take a more positive view of communication strategies as elements of an overall stra- tegic competence (see Chapter 9) in which learners bring to bear all the possible facets of their growing competence in order to send clear messages in the second language. Such strategies can be consciously self-regulatory (Bongaerts & Poulisse, 1989; Oxford, 2011b) as well as subconscious or implicit. Cross-Cultural Issues Another theoretical issue probes the effectiveness of strategy use and instruction cross-culturally, which has already been alluded to above in our discussion of autonomy (Oxford & Anderson, 1995; Oxford, 1996; Pemberton, 1996; McDonough, 1999). Do cross-cultural factors facilitate or interfere with strategy use among learners? Conclusions from an extensive number of studies in many countries promise more than a glimmer of hope that strategy instruc- tion and autonomous learning are viable avenues to success: China ( Jun Zhang, 2003; Gan, Humphreys, & Hamp-Lyons, 2004); Egypt (Nelson, Carson, Al Batal, & El Bakary, 2002); Italy (Macaro, 2000); Japan (Ozeki, 2000; Taguchi, 2002; Cohen, 2004); Korea (Lee & Oxford, 2005), Kuwait (El-Dib, 2004); Taiwan (Lai, 2009); and Singapore (Wharton, 2000). C LASSROOM C ONNECTIONS In your experience, what are some specific cultural issues in either researching or teaching strategies? Do awareness and autonomy fit well with cultures that you know? How would you as a teacher help learners in more traditional educational systems (where learners expect the teacher to control everything and tell them everything they need to know) to act more strategically on their learning? Measuring Strategy Use A controversial issue in both research and pedagogy is the measurement of strategy use. One of the most widely used instruments for learners to identify strategies is Oxford’s (1990a) Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL), a questionnaire that has been tested in many countries and translated into sev- eral languages. The SILL’s 50 items, divided into six categories, each present a possible strategy (e.g., “I use rhymes to remember new words”), which responders must indicate on a five-point scale of “never true of me” to “always true of me.” Once style preferences have been identified, a learner can presum- ably proceed to take action through strategies. 132 CHAPTER 5 Individual Differences How adequate are self-reports for identifying strategy use? And is fre- quency of use (as implied in the SILL and other questionnaires) an appropriate gauge of a learner’s ability to select strategies appropriate for many different contexts? Self-report questionnaires may best be taken with a grain of salt, in that learners may not actually understand the strategy being named, may incor- rectly claim to use strategies, and could possibly fail to remember strategies they have used (White, Schramm, & Chamot, 2007). Other forms of identifying styles and strategies, and for raising them to the consciousness of learners, include self-reports through interviews (Macaro, 2001); written diaries and journals (Halbach, 2000; Carson & Longhini, 2002); think-aloud protocols (O’Malley & Chamot, 1990; Macaro, 2000) in which ques- tions like, “Why did you hesitate and restate that verb form?” require a learner response; student portfolios (Chamot, 2005); and inventories that focus on learning the four skills (Cohen, Oxford, & Chi, 2003). The Effectiveness of Strategy Instruction We have seen mounting evidence of the usefulness of learners’ incorpo- rating strategies into their classroom learning process. Strategy training has appeared in three basic forms: (1) textbook-embedded instruction (with hints and strategic suggestions within a student textbook and a teacher’s manual); (2) student manuals that promote autonomous self-help strategy training (e.g., Brown, 2002); and (3) strategies-based advice, hints, and tips within a teacher’s planned or impromptu classroom procedures. All three have been demonstrated to be effective for learners in various contexts (Wenden, 1992; Hill, 1994; Cohen, 1998; McDonough, 1999; Dörnyei & Skehan, 2003; Anderson, 2005; Chamot, 2005). We turn to strategies-based instruction (SBI) in the next section. STRATEGIES-BASED INSTRUCTION Much of the work of researchers and teachers on the application of strategies to classroom learning has come to be known generically by several terms: learner strategy training, learning strategy instruction, styles- and strategies- based instruction (SSBI) (Cohen, 1998; Cohen & Weaver, 2006), and perhaps more simply as strategies-based instruction (SBI) (Cohen, 1998; McDonough, 1999). As we seek to make the language classroom an effective milieu for learning, it has become increasingly apparent that “teaching learners how to learn” is crucial. Wenden (1985) was among the first to assert that learner strat- egies are the key to learner autonomy, and Chamot (2005) stressed the impor- tance of including facilitation of that autonomy through explicit instruction. Drawing on an understanding of what makes learners successful and unsuccessful, teachers can establish in the classroom an atmosphere for the realization of successful strategies. Teachers cannot always expect instant suc- cess in that effort since students often bring with them certain preconceived notions of what “ought” to go on in the classroom (Bialystok, 1985). However,  CHAPTER 5 Individual Differences 133 it has been found that students will benefit from SBI if they (1) understand the strategy itself, (2) perceive it to be effective, and (3) do not consider its imple- mentation to be overly difficult (MacIntyre & Noels, 1996). Therefore our efforts to teach students some technical know-how about how to tackle a language are well advised. C LASSROOM C ONNECTIONS In what ways have you been helped by a teacher (or through your own effort) to utilize certain strategies or “tricks” for learning a language? What could you do as a teacher to help students to take “action” through strategy use? Stimulating Awareness The effective implementation of SBI in language classrooms involves several steps and considerations: 1. identifying learners’ styles and linking them with potential strategies 2. incorporating SBI in communicative language courses and classrooms 3. providing extra-class assistance for learners One way of accomplishing the first of these objectives is to administer a simple checklist to students, with a view to acquainting students with their own preferences in learning. Figure 5.1 shows a Styles Awareness Checklist (SAC), a simple scaled questionnaire to familiarize students with their styles (not strate- gies at this point). From Awareness to Action The SAC is an instrument that has immediate practical value. Once students have had a chance, with no advance coaching, to fill out the checklist, you can engage them in any or all of the following: a discussion of why they responded as they did small-group sharing of feelings underlying their responses an informal tabulation of how people responded to each item some advice, from your own experience, on why certain practices may be successful or unsuccessful reaching the general consensus that responses in the A and B categories are usually indicative of successful approaches to language learning. 134 CHAPTER 5 Individual Differences Check one box in each item that best describes you. Boxes A and E would indicate that the sentence is very much like you. Boxes B and D would indicate that the sentence is somewhat descriptive of you. Box C would indicate that you have no inclination one way or another. A B C D E 1. I don’t mind if people I get embarrassed if laugh at me when I speak. people laugh at me when I speak. 2. I like to try out new I like to use only words and structures language that I am that I’m not completely certain is correct. sure of. 3. I feel very confident in I feel quite uncertain my ability to succeed in about my ability to learning this language. succeed in learning this language. 4. I want to learn this I am learning this language because of what language only because I can personally gain from someone else is it. requiring it. 5. I really enjoy working I would much rather with other people in work alone than with groups. other people. 6. I like to “absorb” I like to analyze the language and get the many details of general “gist” of what is language and said or written. understand exactly what is said or written. 7. If there is an I am very annoyed by abundance of language to an abundance of master, I just try to take language material things one step at a time. presented all at once. 8. I am not overly I “monitor” myself very conscious of myself when closely and consciously I speak. when I speak. 10. I find ways to I look to the teacher continue learning and the classroom language outside of the activities for everything classroom. I need to be successful. Figure 5.1 Styles Awareness Checklist  CHAPTER 5 Individual Differences 135 The SAC is designed so that each item highlights a major tenet in a list of “good language learner” characteristics. Item by item, numbered 1 through 10, the questionnaire reiterates the following 10 “maxims”: 1. Lower inhibitions. 2. Encourage risk taking. 3. Build self-confidence. 4. Develop intrinsic motivation. 5. Engage in cooperative learning. 6. Use right-brain processes. 7. Promote ambiguity tolerance. 8. Practice intuition. 9. Process error feedback. 10. Set personal goals. As mentioned, most current language textbooks now include strategy aware- ness modules. With “Did You Know?” boxes and sections on “Hints for Learning,” a standard language course embeds styles and strategy awareness and action into the curriculum. Another option being used by language teachers is to stimulate strategy awareness and practice in their students with the use of short, simple manuals written for students, designed to raise their awareness, and to offer multiple strategic options (Ellis & Sinclair, 1989; Brown, 1991, 1989, 2002; Rubin & Thompson, 1994; Murphey, 2006). These practical handbooks are easy to follow, incorporate many self-check inventories, offer practical advice, and in some cases suggest that L2 learning can be fun (Murphey, 2006). Even without such published, predesigned material, teachers can engage in their own SBI as an integral part of their methodology. As teachers utilize such techniques as communicative games, rapid reading, fluency exercises, and error analysis, to name a few, they can help students to understand why they are doing these activities and help them to extrapolate to the use of successful strategies beyond the classroom. For example, when students are playing a guessing game, performing a skit, or singing songs, the teacher can remind them that they are practicing strategies for lowering inhibitions. Table 5.7 pro- vides a list of ways to “build strategic techniques” in a language classroom. C LASSROOM C ONNECTIONS Encouraging students to set their own goals for learning is prob- lematic in any culture. Students almost universally expect teachers to set goals and to inform them of expectations. Have you ever set goals for yourself in learning a foreign language? How could a teacher approach students with a proposal that they set some goals for themselves? How would you, or your students, assess the accomplishment of those goals? 136 CHAPTER 5 Individual Differences Table 5.7 Building strategic techniques 1. To lower inhibitions: Play guessing games and communication games; do role plays and skits; sing songs; use plenty of group work; laugh with your students; have them share their fears in small groups. 2. To encourage risk taking: Praise students for making sincere efforts to try out language; use fluency exercises where errors are not corrected at that time; give outside-of-class assign- ments to speak or write or otherwise try out the language. 3. To build students’ self-confidence: Tell students explicitly (verbally and nonverbally) that you do indeed believe in them; have them make lists of their strengths, of what they know or have accomplished so far in the course. 4. To help students develop intrinsic motivation: Remind them explicitly about the rewards for learning English; describe (or have students look up) jobs that require English; play down the final examination in favor of helping students to see rewards for themselves beyond the final exam. 5. To promote cooperative learning: Direct students to share their knowledge; play down com- petition among students; get your class to think of themselves as a team; do a considerable amount of small-group work. 6. To encourage students to use right-brain processing: Use movies and tapes in class; have stu- dents read passages rapidly; do skimming exercises; do rapid “free writes”; do oral fluency exercises where the object is to get students to talk (or write) a lot without being corrected. 7. To promote ambiguity tolerance: Encourage students to ask you, and each other, questions when they don’t understand something; keep your theoretical explanations very simple and brief; deal with just a few rules at a time; occasionally resort to translation into a native lan- guage to clarify a word or meaning. 8. To help students use their intuition: Praise students for good guesses; do not always give explanations of errors—let a correction suffice; correct only selected errors, preferably just those that interfere with learning. 9. To get students to make their mistakes work for them: Tape-record students’ oral production and get them to identify errors; let students catch and correct each other’s errors—do not always give them the correct form; encourage students to make lists of their common errors and to work on them on their own. 10. To get students to set their own goals: Explicitly encourage or direct students to go beyond the classroom goals; have them make lists of what they will accomplish on their own in a particular week; get students to make specific time commitments at home to study the lan- guage; give “extra credit” work. From Classroom Action to Autonomy Finally, it is important to note that style awareness and strategic action are not and should not be limited to the classroom. Most successful learners reach communicative goals by virtue of their own self-motivated efforts to extend learning well beyond the confines of a classroom. Teachers can help learners  CHAPTER 5 Individual Differences 137 to achieve this further step toward autonomy by helping learners to see that raising their awareness of styles and strategies aids them in the authentic use of language “out there.” The classroom is an opportunity for learners to begin the journey toward success, and to grasp the reality that beyond those class- room hours are dozens of hours weekly that can be devoted to practicing meaningful uses of their new language. ✬ ✬ ✬ ✬ ✬ This chapter has highlighted individual differences among learners across both cognitive and affective domains. An awareness of these factors will help you, the teacher, to appreciate that not all learners are alike. No one can be neatly pigeonholed into a cognitive type or style or set of preferred strategies. A potentially infinite number of cognitive/affective “profiles” might be identified among the L2 learners of the world! Perhaps the best moral lesson here is the importance of the “specialness” of each student and our responsibility as teachers to respect all those unique differences that our students manifest. Doing so requires recognizing and understanding a multiplicity of cognitive variables active in the L2 learning process, making appropriate assessments of individual learners, meeting them where they are, and providing them with the best possible opportunities for learning. Remember Magdalena, described at the beginning of this chapter? Would you like to know what her “secret” to success was? I asked her lots of questions, and her answers are distilled here into some advice from one who is certainly qualified to give it! “I think some of what you are calling ‘success’ is simply good fortune. My par- ents were always very supportive of my quirky interest in language, my crazy ques- tions about words and people and cultures. I mostly attended public schools, so I can’t say I received extraordinary attention in school, but I was taught the value of education and even as a child appreciated (and enjoyed?) learning. Being able to learn English and Russian at a very young age helped—because it came more naturally. Falling in love with a handsome Italian at age 21 gave me lots of intrinsic ☺ motivation. From a young age I loved Spanish and Spanish culture, so I majored in Spanish literature in college. Moving to Ecuador was a natural step, and then meeting my future husband propelled my Spanish to perfection! Now in my work teaching English, training English teachers, and working for a major textbook pub- lisher, English is second nature to me now. What can I say? I love words and books and literature and culture and language, so I don’t think I have any ‘secret’ to suc- cess, just a growing appreciation for what languages mean to people, and the importance of language for all of us to understand each other around the world.” 138 CHAPTER 5 Individual Differences SUGGESTED READINGS Cohen, A. (2011). Second language learner strategies. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning: Volume II. (pp. 681–698). New York: Routledge. A concise survey of current issues, definitions, controversies, and peda- gogical uses of learning strategies in SLA, including sections on the four skills. Oxford, R. (2011a). Strategies for learning a second or foreign language. Language Teaching, 44, 167–180. A comprehensive annotated bibliography of virtually every research study on L2 learning strategies over the last four decades. Oxford, R. (2011b). Teaching and researching language learning strategies. Harlow, UK: Pearson. A description of Rebecca Oxford’s model of strategic self-regulation (S2R) for L2 learners, complete with charts, lists, tables, practical applications, and sections on the four skills. Cohen, A., & Macaro, E. (Eds.). (2007). Language learner strategies: Thirty years of research and practice. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. A survey and update by numerous research experts on researching and teaching strategies, including separate chapters on the four skills. LANGUAGE LEARNING EXPERIENCE: JOURNAL ENTRY 5 Note: See Chapter 1 for general guidelines for writing a journal on a previous or concurrent language learning experience. List each of the five learning styles discussed in the chapter (FI/FS, left-/ right-brain dominance, ambiguity tolerance, reflectivity/impulsivity, visual/auditory/kinesthetic). Write a few sentences about which side you think is dominant for you, and list some examples in your language learning to illustrate. Which of your preferences, styles, or tendencies, if any, do you think might be working against you? Make a short list of specific things you could do to help push yourself to a more favorable position. Take the Styles Awareness Checklist (Figure 5.1, p. 134). Do you think you should try to change some of your styles, as they are described on the checklist? How would you do that? How autonomous are you as a language learner? Make a list of ways that you could become more autonomous. And, for a challenge, write about what a teacher can do to help a learner develop autonomy.  CHAPTER 5 Individual Differences 139 If you are now taking a foreign language, you are becoming quite aware of your own learning processes. In previous language learning experi- ences, how overtly aware were you of factors like “good language learner” characteristics, your own styles, and strategies you could con- sciously apply? What would you have done differently then, knowing what you know now? What can you do differently in a current or future language learning situation, given what you now know about styles and strategies? Using the four lists of learning strategies (Tables 5.3, 5.4, 5.5, 5.6), describe examples of two or three strategies that you have already used. Pick one or two that you don’t use very much and list them as your chal- lenge for the near future. Brainstorm some compensatory strategies that you have used. Does the list in Table 5.6 give you some ideas about what you could be doing to further your communicative success? Write down one or two specific things you will try out in the near future in a foreign language. How does your teacher (either now or in the past) measure up as a strategies-based instructor? What does this tell you about how your own teaching might help students to be more successful learners? FOR THE TEACHER: ACTIVITIES (A) & DISCUSSION (D) Note: For each of the “Classroom Connections” in this chapter, you may wish to turn them into individual or pair-work discussion questions. 1. (A) Divide students into pairs or small groups. Ask them to share what each of them perceives to be their more dominant learning style along the continua presented here: FI/FS, left/right brain dominance, ambiguity tolerance, reflective/impulsive, and visual/auditory/kinesthetic. Ask them to talk about examples of how they manifest those styles in language classrooms. 2. (A) Ask students to look at the list of differences between left- and right-brain processing in Table 5.1, and individually to check or circle the side that corresponds to their own preference. Then, in pairs, have them compare their preferences and talk about examples in their lives in general, in educational contexts, and in language classes they have taken. 3. (A) As a follow-up to exercise 2 above on left-/right-brain dominance, form four groups, with one of the four remaining cognitive styles assigned to each group. Ask each group to list the types of activities or techniques in foreign language classes that illustrate both sides of its style continuum. Have each group share their results with the rest of the class. 140 CHAPTER 5 Individual Differences 4. (D) Ask the class to look at the list of “good language learner” characteristics from 1970s research on page 110. Which ones seem the most important? Which the least? Which ones have students used? Would they be able to add some items to the list, from their own or others’ experiences? 5. (A) In small groups, ask students to share their own opinion, from a cultural perspective, about the importance of learner autonomy as an avenue to success in learning a foreign language. Can learners from any culture develop the autonomy that researchers recommend? 6. (D) Ask the class to share any instances in which they have used any of the compensatory strategies listed on page 129. Ask them to be creative in suggesting other compensatory strategies that have worked for them. 7. (A) Ask students on their own to take the Styles Awareness Checklist on page 134 (Figure 5.1). Then, in pairs, have them look at a partner’s responses and find one item on which partners differ greatly (e.g., A vs. E, A vs. D, or B vs. E). Next, ask them to talk about experiences in their own language learning that illustrate their choice. Finally, ask them to decide which side of the continuum (the “A–B” side or the “D–E” side) gives them more of an advantage. Have them share the results with the rest of the class.