Introduction chapter knowledge of individual differences between learners

1.2 Learning style and strategies
In the process of learning, be it a foreign language or any other subject matter, certain ways must be used, so that the result the learner wishes for is achieved.
Learning style is a “general approach to language learning”⁵ (Oxford, 1994). The ways the learner applies while studying are called learning techniques. If used in combination to develop a plan, they are called learning strategies. According to Oxford (1990), learning strategies are “specific actions, behaviours, steps, or techniques students use – often consciously – to improve their progress in apprehending, internalizing, and using the L2”. “Researchers have identified active strategies commonly employed by learners which help them learn more effectively (Naimen et al., 1978; Wesche, 1979).⁶ These include, for example, repeating silently what is heard, thinking through one's own answer and comparing [it] to the one given, memorising dialogues, identifying oneself with one's foreign language identity, seeking opportunities for communication in the target language, and finding ways to widen the scope for social interaction”. With regard to preferred learning activities, a learning style of an individual can be identified. According to Straková (2004:18), learning styles are “general approaches we use to learn a new language. These are the same styles we use in learning other subjects”. The most general viewpoint differentiates between:

• 
  analytical (field independent) students who concentrate on grammatical details but feel less safe in communicative activities. They tend to learn therules and principles of a language and do not like improvisation or taking guesses if an unfamiliar language situation occurs.
  
• 
  global (field dependent) students who are more sociable, like interaction and communication. They are not keen on grammatical rules and often use compensation strategies to avoid blocks in communication.Based on sensory preference of an individual learner, the following learning styles can be identified:
  
• 
  Visual – students who prefer to use their sight to receive information;
  
• 
  Auditory – students who prefer to use their hearing to receive information;
  
• 
  Kinaesthetic – students who need active movement and involvement to learn;
  
• 
  Tactile – students who like handling objects and use their touch to receive information.
  

Another classification divides students into innovative, analytical, common sense and dynamic learners (adapted from Svoboda and Hrehovčík, 2006; Straková, 2004)⁷.
When acquiring a foreign language, learning strategies can be of significant importance. According to Oxford (1990:9), language learning strategies:⁸

• 
  allow learners to become more self-directed;
  
• 
  expand the role of language teachers;
  
• 
  are problem-oriented;
  
• 
  involve many aspects, not just the cognitive;
  
• 
  can be taught;
  
• 
  are flexible;
  
• 
  are influenced by a variety of factors.
  

Furthermore, they are “especially important for language learning because they are tools for active, self-directed involvement, which is essential for developing communicative competence⁹” (Oxford, 1990:1).
As far as intelligence as a factor influencing learning in general or foreign language acquisition is concerned; again, rather controversial results have been found. First of all, there is no clear evidence whether aptitude and intelligence are separate issues. Ellis (1985:11) argues that ’aptitude’ is to be contrasted with ’intelligence’, as the first refers to the special ability involved in language learning and its effects are “measured in terms of proficiency scores achieved by classroom learners”. ’Intelligence’, on the other hand, refers to the “general ability that governs how well we master a whole range of skills, linguistic and nonlinguistic.” On the other hand, Oller (1980, according to Ellis, 1985) states that general intelligence and ability to use language in language tests is essentially the same.
Whether we are in favour of the first opinion or the latter, most authors believe intelligence is one of the factors influencing foreign language acquisition. Bogaards (1996) states that many studies have shown the existence of a positive correlation between intelligence and foreign language learning, but also that this link is relatively weak and subject to significant variations (cf. Bogaards, 1988:45).
He also adds that links have, for instance, been found between the ’working memory’ (Baddeley, 1986) and some forms of intelligence (cf. De Jong and DasSmaal, 1995). In 1962, Pimsleur, Mosberg and Morrison discussed intelligence in connection with foreign language acquisition. On the basis of 40 articles that they felt were pertinent, they stated there is a “positive correlation between intelligence and foreign language achievement. Intelligence, they said, is a significant factor”(Lambert, 1993:2). According to Gardner’s model (as cited in Norris-Holt, 2000:2) “in a formal setting intelligence and aptitude play a dominant role in learning.” He also introduces four individual differences which are believed to be the most influential in second language acquisition. These are the variables of intelligence, language aptitude, motivation and situational anxiety. Genesee (1976, as quoted in Ellis, 1985:111) found that “intelligence was strongly related to the development of academic L2 French language skills (reading, grammar, and vocabulary), but was in the main unrelated to ratings of oral productive skills by native speakers.”
Ekstrand (1977, according to Ellis, 1985) found high correlation while measuring proficiency on tests of reading comprehension, dictation and free writing. There are some authors who express their opinions on intelligence in connection with learning in much more general terms. Barton, Dielman and Cattel (1972) (as quoted in AbiSamra, 2000) declare that IQ together with the personality factor predict achievement in all areas. Nevertheless, there are some psycholinguists who declare that intelligence and language do not necessarily demonstrate any positive relationship. Pinker (in press) states that individuals with catastrophic losses in language do not always perform badly at other aspects of intelligence, such as those measured on the nonverbal parts of IQ tests. He also says that there are syndromes showing opposite dissociation, where intact language coexists with severe retardation. “These cases show that language development does not depend on fully functioning general intelligence”¹⁰ (Pinker, in press: 4).
According to Gorzelanczyk et al. (1998), in their study, the authors have been looking for correlates between the parameters of the learning process and various components of intelligence. Their results surprisingly show that “no significant correlates have been found” Gorzelanczyk et al. (1998:2). They also state that memory-related components of intelligence do not play a visibly more significant role in the learning process than other components. Some authors even add to the unclearness of the matter, as Spoerl (1939), according to her study using tests, proclaims that significant correlations between language learning and intelligence have been found for women; however, none for man. She, thus, suggests there is a presence of diverse factors. The fact that her results were reached quite a long time ago and, therefore, could have been influenced by the then differentiation in social position and status of males and females must be taken into consideration.
The above controversial findings prompted the idea to carry out research with the intention of finding out whether there is a relationship between English grammar acquisition and the level of cognitive processes in Slovak learners. Before the actual research is presented, the most important notions in the area of intelligence are discussed in the forthcoming chapter.
This paper presents the results of a comparative investigation into the learning styles and strategies of effective and ineffective language learners. Subjects for the study were one hundred and ten undergraduate university students in Hong Kong.¹¹
They were categorized as ‘more effective’ or ‘less effective’ learners, on the basis of their scores on a standardized public English examination administered at the end of secondary school. Subjects completed an online questionnaire through which data were collected on their learning strategy preferences as well as patterns of language practice and use. The study revealed key differences in learning strategy preferences, learning styles and patterns of language use. Implications of the study are presented and discussed. Over the last twenty years, there has been growing interest in incorporating a focus on learning strategies and learning-how-to-learn into language curricula.
There is a general belief that such a focus helps students become more effective learners and facilitates the activation of a learner-centered philosophy. It is also believed that learners who have developed skills in learning-how-to-learn will be better able to exploit classroom learning opportunities effectively, and will be more adequately equipped to continue with language learning outside of the classroom.
Increasingly, the focus of university level instruction is on learning-how-to-learn rather than mastery of bodies of factual information. In a recent statement Professor Tsui Lap-Che, Vice Chancellor of the University of Hong Kong, and an eminent geneticist, stated that. Learning is not about cramming in information. It is about learning by doing. It is about looking at issues in various ways and developing capacities, especially the ability to dig below the surface to reach the truth. … That is why our goal is to teach students to learn how to learn rather than merely passing information to them¹².
Research into learning styles and strategies has focused on a wide variety of questions and issues. These include the relationship between learning strategy preferences and other learner characteristics such as educational level, ethnic background and first language; the issue of whether effective learners share certain style and strategy preferences; whether strategies can be explicitly taught, and, if so, whether strategy training actually makes a difference to second language acquisition; and whether effective learners share attitudes towards, and patterns of language practice and use outside of the classroom.
In relation to language learning styles, Willing (1994) identified four major styles: communicative, analytical, authority-oriented and concrete. These styles were derived from learner strategy preferences, which, in Willing’s data, clustered in the following ways.
Communicative: These learners were defined by the following learning strategies: they like to learn by watching, listening to native speakers, talking to friends in English, watching television in English, using English out of class, learning new words by hearing them, and learning by conversation.
Analytical: These learners like studying grammar, studying English books and newspapers, studying alone, finding their own mistakes, and working on problems set by the teacher.
Authority-oriented: The learners prefer the teacher to explain everything, having their own textbook, writing everything in a notebook, studying grammar, learning by reading, and learning new words by seeing them.
Concrete: These learners tend to like games, pictures, film, video, using cassettes, talking in pairs, and practicing English outside class. Learning strategies are the specific mental and communicative procedures that learners employ in order to learn and use language (Chamot, 2005, O’Malley and Chamot, 1990). Every task and exercise will be underpinned by at least one strategy, although in most classrooms learners are unaware of these strategies. One of the hypotheses being tested by learning strategy researchers is that awareness and deployment of strategies will lead to more effective language acquisition.Weinstein and Mayer (1986) state that the goal of learning strategies is to “affect the learner’s motivational or affective state, or the way in which the learner selects, acquires, organizes, or integrates new knowledge” (p. 315). Learning strategies enable students to take more responsibilities of their own language learning and personal development. “Learners’ proactive contribution to enhancing the effectiveness of their own learning” (Dörnyei, 2005, p. 166) is essential in developing skills in learning-how-to-learn.
Oxford (1990a) draws a distinction between direct and indirect strategies. Direct strategies include memorizing, analyzing, reasoning and guessing intelligently. These are specific procedures that learners can use to improve their language skills. Indirect strategies, on the other hand, include things such as evaluating one’s learning and cooperating with others. Learning styles are general approaches to language learning, while learning strategies are specific ways to deal with language tasks in particular contexts (Cohen, 2003, Oxford, 2003). The research perhaps most closely related to the links between learning styles and strategies is Oxford’s (1993) study on the five learning styles contrasts identified in her Style Analysis Survey (SAS): visual versus auditory (the use of physical senses for study and work), extroversion versus introversion (dealing with other people), intuitive-random versus concrete-sequential (handling possibilities), closure-oriented versus open (approaching tasks), global versus analytic (dealing with ideas). Each of the five style contrasts constitutes a comparative style continuum. It is important for learners to identify these learning styles and recognize their strengths and thus expand their learning potential. Oxford (1993) notes that once learners are aware of their own learning styles, it enables them to adapt their learning strategies to suit different learning tasks in particular contexts. Learners can take advantages of their learning styles by matching learning strategies with their styles; similarly, learners can compensate for the disadvantages of their learning styles to balance their learning by adjusting learning strategies.
There is some evidence to support that notion that incorporating a learning-how-to-learn dimension into the language curriculum has a positive impact on second language acquisition¹³, although the evidence of a direct relationship is relative scant. Training has a significant impact on motivation, aptitude, knowledge of strategies, and the perceived usefulness of directly applying strategies to language learning and use. What is uncertain is whether all strategies have an equal impact on these constructs and, ultimately, on acquisition, or whether some strategies are more potent than others. The search for the ‘good language learner’ has provided a sub-theme within the research literature into learning styles and strategies. Rubin (1975) took the lead in studying the good language learner through classroom observations and identified seven strategies favored by them. Stern (1975) noted ten strategies of good language learning and described successful language learners in the aspects of personal characteristics, styles, and strategies. Naiman et al. (1978) used an interview questionnaire to study 34 good L2 language learners and found five major learning strategies shared among them. These studies documented some major characteristics of the good language learner, including awareness of learning styles and strategies, autonomy and self-direction in the learning process, and active language use.