CHAPTER TWO
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
During the recent three decades, a large number of studies on second language acquisition focused on exploring individual differences among second language learners (e.g., Ellis, 1994; Keefe, 1987; O’Malley & Chamot, 1990; Oxford, 1989, 1990; Reid, 1995; Rubin, 1987). Learning style and learning strategy are two important issues concerning individual differences. Though research into language learning strategies has received tremendous attention in the field of SLA (e.g., Chamot, 1987; Oxford, 1990; Rubin, 1981, 1987), not until recently has the focus been somewhat shifted from the study of general language learning strategies to the study of vocabulary learning strategies in particular. Some studies (e.g., Catalán, 2003;
Fan, 2003; Gu & Johnson, 1996; Schmitt, 1997) have been conducted in this field to identify ESL/EFL learners’ use of vocabulary learning strategies, classify them, and investigate variables, such as learners’ backgrounds and achievement, which influence use of vocabulary learning strategies. In this chapter, previous studies on vocabulary learning strategies and learning styles will be reviewed respectively.
Research on Vocabulary Learning Strategy
In this section, related literature of vocabulary learning strategies is reviewed.
Since much of the work on vocabulary learning strategies has been built upon the theory and framework of language learning strategies, studies on general language learning strategy will be briefly introduced before the background of vocabulary learning strategies research, studies on vocabulary learning strategies, and issues on vocabulary learning strategies.
Research on General Language Learning Strategy
Since 1970s, language learning strategies have drawn much attention in the field
teaching-oriented perspective, to one which included interest in how the actions of learners might affect their acquisition of language,” and the “growing awareness that aptitude was not the governing factor in language learning success” (Schmitt, 1997, p.
199). In other words, researchers believed that language learning success depends mainly on individual learner’s endeavors, instead of stable learner traits such as aptitude or teaching methods or techniques (Brown, 2000). Language learners are perceived as active language learners instead of passive objects who respond only to what is taught.
Regarding the definitions of language learning strategies, there is a lack of agreement in the literature. O’Malley, Chamot, Stewner-Manzanares, Kupper, and Russo (1985) defined learning strategies as “any set of operations or steps used by a learner that will facilitate the acquisition, storage, retrieval, or use of information” (p.
22). Rubin (1987) asserted that learning strategies “are strategies which contribute to the development of language system which the learner constructs and which affect learning directly” (p.23). According to Oxford (1990), “learning strategies are specific actions taken by learners to make learning easier, faster, more enjoyable, more self-directed, more effective, and more transferable to new situations” (p. 8).
Meanwhile, most researchers (e.g., Cohen, 1998; O’Malley & Chamot, 1990; Oxford, 1990) suggested that language learning strategy use, by definition, must involve some degree of consciousness and awareness. Cohen (1998) defined second language learning strategies as processes consciously chosen by students that result in action
“taken to enhance the learning or use of a second language…through storage, retention, recall, and application” (p. 4).
The investigations of language learning strategies can be traced back to the
“good language learners” studies in the early 1970s. A number of studies have been devoted to identifying and classifying language learning strategies used by second or
foreign language learners. For example, Bialystok (1978) classified language learning strategies into two major categories: formal strategies and functional strategies. Formal strategies, including monitoring and formal practicing, focused on language form, such as memorizing vocabulary and word sounds. Functional strategies, including inferencing and functional practicing, were concerned with language use, such as communicating in the target language. Naiman, Frohlich, Stern and Todesco (1978) also presented a classification scheme by means of having interviews with 34 proficient language learners and adapting an earlier strategy scheme proposed by Stern (1975). Their scheme consisted of five primary categories (i.e. active task approach, realization of language as a system, realization of language as a means of communication and interaction, management of affective demands, and monitoring of second language performance) and eleven secondary categories. Primary strategies were found to be more commonly adopted by good language learners than secondary strategies. In 1981, Rubin distinguished direct from indirect strategies. Direct strategies contributed directly to learning, including clarification/verification, monitoring, memorization, guessing/inductive inferencing, deductive reasoning, and practice; whereas indirect strategies indirectly affected learning, consisting of creating opportunities to practice and use of production tricks.
Later, Rubin (1987) synthesized her former research and suggested a “typology of strategies” (p. 22), which divided strategies into three groups: (1) learning strategies, comprising cognitive and metacognitive strategies; (2) communication strategies; and (3) social strategies. Besides, O’Malley, Chamot, and their research group (1985) carried out research in the United States of second language learning strategies, identifying a total of 26 strategies. They collected data by observing and interviewing beginning and intermediate ESL students in small groups. These recognized strategies were grouped into three categories: metacognitive, cognitive,
and social-affective learning strategies. Metacognitive strategies involve thinking about the learning process, planning and monitoring the task, and evaluating how well one has learned. Cognitive strategies involve interacting with the material to be learned. Socio-affective strategies involve interacting with another person or using affective control to assist a learning task. Finally, Oxford (1990) synthesized previous studies and developed a very complete strategy system. In her scheme, language learning strategies are classified into two major classes (i.e. direct and indirect) and a total of six subcategories (memory, cognitive, and compensation under the direct class; metacognitive, affective, and social under the indirect class). The direct strategies are made up of “memory strategies for remembering and retrieving new information, cognitive strategies for understanding and producing the language, and compensation strategies for using the language despite knowledge gaps” (Oxford, 1990, p. 14). The indirect strategies are composed of “metacognitive strategies for coordinating the learning processes, affective strategies for regulating emotions, and social strategies for learning with others” (p. 15). Based on the taxonomy, Oxford developed the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL, 1990), which has become the most widely used instrument for eliciting language learning strategies.
Vocabulary learning researchers (Kudo, 1999; Schmitt, 1997) also adopted the classification as their framework.
Background of Vocabulary Learning Strategy Research
In 1987, Meara stated that “the field of vocabulary studies is now anything but a neglected area.” Due to the increasing attention to general language learning strategies and the emergence of interest in vocabulary learning, the research of vocabulary learning strategies rose. Indeed, before 1997, the research of vocabulary learning strategies was in an embryonic state (Schmitt, 1997). One of the reasons for limited studies on vocabulary learning strategies prior to 1990s is the lack of an
inventory of individual vocabulary learning strategies (Schmitt, 1997). To bridge this gap, Schmitt, one of the important researchers in categorizing vocabulary learning strategies, developed a comprehensive taxonomy of vocabulary learning strategies (see Appendix B). The strategies in his taxonomy were compiled from various sources, such as a number of vocabulary reference books and textbooks, Japanese intermediate learners’ responses to a questionnaire, and interviews with language teachers. The taxonomy contains totally 58 strategies, but Schmitt claimed that “it should not be viewed as exhaustive, but rather as a dynamic working inventory which suggests the major strategies” (p. 204). As to categorizing the taxonomy, the classification system for general language learning strategies proposed by Oxford (1990) was seen to be “best able to capture and organize the wide variety of vocabulary learning strategies identified” (Schmitt, 1997, p. 205). There are originally six categories in Oxford’s system, but Schmitt adopted only four of them:
Social Strategies (SOC), Memory Strategies (MEM), Cognitive Strategies (COG) and Metacognitive Strategies (MET). Oxford’s classification is generally suitable, but it was unsatisfactory for categorizing the vocabulary-specific strategies concerning discovery of a new word’s meaning without recourse to another person’s expertise.
Therefore, a new category for these strategies was created: Determination Strategies (DET).
Schmitt also adopted the Discover/Consolidation distinction suggested by Cook and Mayer (1983). This is a distinction used to differentiate two kinds of word learning activities: (a) the initial discovery of a new word’s meaning and (b) remembering that word once it has been encountered. To discover a word’s meaning, learners can use Discovery Strategies, including Determination Strategies like consulting a bilingual dictionary, and Social Strategies like asking someone who knows the meaning. Consolidation strategies are used to remember a word once it
has been introduced. They are categorized into four groups: Social, Memory, Cognitive, and Metacognitive Strategies.
Schmitt (1997) defined each strategy category as follows. Determination strategies are used “when faced with discovering a new word’s meaning without recourse to another person’s expertise” (p. 205). Social strategies “use interaction with other people to improve language learning” (p. 205). Memory strategies are
“approaches which relate new materials to existing knowledge” (p. 205). The definition of cognitive strategies is adopted from Oxford (1990): “manipulation or transformation of the target language by the learner” (p. 43). Finally, metacognitive strategies are defined as “a conscious overview of the learning process and making decisions about planning, monitoring, or evaluating the best ways to study” (p. 205).
Schmitt’s taxonomy is the most recent, comprehensive and detailed classification system for vocabulary learning strategies. It is widely adopted by many studies (e.g., Catalán, 2003; Chen, 1998; Wang, 2004) as an instrument to assess vocabulary learning strategies in use.
Recent Surveys on Vocabulary Learning Strategies
Schmitt (1997) employed his own taxonomy to investigate Japanese learners’
vocabulary learning strategy use and their perceived helpfulness. In this large-scale survey, there were 600 participants composed of four groups: junior high school students, senior high school students, university students, and adult learners.
Participants were asked to identify the most used and least used strategies as well as what they perceived as the most helpful and least helpful strategies. If the respondent did not use a certain strategy, he/she was asked to answer whether it was helpful or not. The results indicate that “using bilingual dictionaries” and “asking classmates for meaning” were the most used discovery strategies. “Written repetition,” “verbal repetition,” and “studying the spelling of a word” are the most
used consolidation strategies. Besides, six of the most used and most helpful strategies are the same: “bilingual dictionary,” “written repetition,” “verbal repetition,” “saying a new word aloud,” “studying a word’s spelling,” and “taking notes in class.” However, Schmitt was cautious about the generalization of the results. He asserted that since strategies may be culture-specific (Cohen, 1998;
O’Malley & Chamot, 1990), the findings may be different by observing participants of different L1 backgrounds.
Similar to Schmitt (1997), Fan (2003) conducted a large-scale survey in Hong Kong concerning the frequency, perceived usefulness, and actual usefulness of second language vocabulary strategies used by Cantonese speakers. A total of 1067 university freshmen of various disciplines participated in this study. Fan proposed his own scheme of vocabulary learning strategies, consisting of 60 strategies under 9 categories: Management1, Sources, Guessing, Dictionary, Repetition, Grouping, Analysis, Association, and Known Words. A questionnaire was used to measure the frequency of the vocabulary learning strategies. Learners’ vocabulary size was determined by a vocabulary test, similar to the Word Levels Test discussed by Nation (1990). The major findings were as follows. First, the top five most frequently used strategy categories were: Guessing, Known Words2, Analysis, Dictionary, and Sources3. Second, the top five perceived useful strategy categories were: Known Words, Dictionary, Sources, Guessing, and Analysis. Third, Sources, Guessing, Dictionary, and Known Words were positive predictors of English vocabulary size, while Repetition and Association were negative predictors. Unlike the Japanese learners in Schmitt’s (1997) study, Hong Kong learners unexpectedly did not use repetition strategies more often than other kinds of strategies.
1 Management is a category of metacognitive strategies.
2 The category of Known Words includes three items: (1) revising words recently learned, (2) using known words in learning the L2, and (3) learning the new usage of known words.
3 Strategies for finding sources for encountering new words belong to Sources Strategy, such as “ I
Vocabulary Learning Strategy Studies on Taiwanese EFL Learners
With the growing awareness of the importance of vocabulary and learning strategies, some studies on vocabulary learning strategies have been conducted in Taiwan. To begin with, Cortazzi and Jin (1994) investigated the vocabulary learning strategies used by 244 university students from mainland China and Taiwan. A questionnaire, comprising 24 items of vocabulary learning approaches, was administered to the participants. The results showed that the major methods for the participants to learn English vocabulary were reading textbooks, listening to audio cassettes and radio programs, and memorizing words in vocabulary books.
Chen (1998) replicated Schmitt’s (1997) study on Japanese learners, employing the same taxonomy to survey the vocabulary learning strategy use of 194 college freshman and 81 senior high school students in Taiwan. The study focused on comparing the strategy use between Japanese and Taiwanese learners. The results reveal that Japanese learners and Taiwanese learners had a lot in common. First, both of the groups believed that “bilingual dictionary” and “guessing from textual context” were more effective for discovering a new word’s meaning. Second,
“written and verbal repetition”, relatively shallow strategies, were used most by the two different groups to consolidate a word. Third, both groups believed that
“continuing to study over time” would benefit learning vocabulary. Fourth, both groups paid much attention to forms and form-sound matching strategies, like
“studying the sound of a word,” “saying a new word aloud when studying,” and
“studying the spelling of a word.” Chen assumed that the similarities were “mainly due to social and cultural resemblance between Chinese and Japanese” (p. 227). If only the Chinese students were concerned, “bilingual dictionary,” “guessing from context,” “analyzing part of speech” are the top three favored discovery strategies.
“Verbal repetition,” “studying the sound of a word,” and “written repetition” were the top three favored consolidation strategies.
Lin (2001), on the other hand, investigated seven Taiwanese children’s vocabulary learning strategies at the elementary level via case study. The data were collected by means of classroom observations, the participants’ daily written record of vocabulary learning, oral interviews, and think-aloud protocols. In this study, seventy-three strategies were identified and classified into 18 major groups under three categories: 4 metacognitive strategies (advanced preparation, selective attention, monitoring, self-management); 11 cognitive strategies (written repetition, verbal repetition, segmentation, phonics application, association, resourcing, predicting, elaborating, recalling, note taking, reading English texts aloud, and reading the target vocabulary once); and 3 social-affective strategies (asking for help, cooperating with others, and testing each other). The results also indicate that students’ vocabulary learning was often limited to “rote memorization” (p. 145). They used rote memorization much more frequently than sought opportunities or partners to learn and practice English lexical items after class. Besides, students were in lack of the ability to plan as well as organize their vocabulary learning. Furthermore, vocabulary assignments and quizzes given by teachers influenced students’ use of strategy. Lin (2001) suggested that teachers should (1) provide direct and explicit instruction on vocabulary learning strategies, (2) refine and develop vocabulary learning strategies, (3) devise appropriate vocabulary assignments and vocabulary quizzes, and (4) create opportunities for vocabulary learning.
In recent years, Wang (2004) and Kung (2004) adopt Schmitt’s (1997) taxonomy to survey Taiwanese students’ use of vocabulary learning strategies. Wang’s (2004) participants included 271 senior high school students. She aimed to investigate their vocabulary learning strategy use and further examine their relationships with learners’
vocabulary size. Nation’s (1990) Vocabulary Level Tests for 2000-word and 3000-word level were used to estimate participants’ vocabulary size. The major
findings are summarized as follows. First, the participants were moderate users of vocabulary learning strategies; cognitive strategies were the most frequently used strategies, while metacognitive and social strategies, the least frequently used.
Second, strategies related to “rote repetition” or “the form of a word” were favored by participants. Third, the use of strategies was significantly correlated with vocabulary size. Last, there was a significant difference between good and bad learners. Good learners favored learning a word in context, while poor learners tended to learn a word in isolation.
Kung (2004) conducted a survey on Taiwanese EFL elementary school students’
use of vocabulary learning strategies and tried to explore the correlation between English proficiency and vocabulary learning strategies. One hundred and seventy-two sixth graders in Taipei were recruited. The data were collected from multiple sources: interviews, vocabulary learning strategy questionnaires designed based on Schmitt’s (1997) framework and Lin’s (2001) research, and proficiency tests adapted from the Cambridge Young Learners English Tests-Starter (2001). The findings of the study reveal that students did not use vocabulary learning strategies very often, even the more proficient students. The participants favored Determination and Metacognitive strategies the most and Memory and Cognitive strategies the least. Besides, more proficient learners used vocabulary learning strategies significantly more often than less proficient ones.
Hsu (2005) carried out an investigation on Taiwanese EFL learners’ vocabulary learning strategy use and their relationship with proficiency level. The participants consisted of 47 business major college students, with a wide range of proficiency-- from higher beginner to advanced level. A questionnaire, adapted from Gu and Johnson’s (1996) study and consisting of 96 items grouped into four categories (memory, cognitive, social and metacognitive), was distributed to identify
participants’ vocabulary learning strategies. Besides, the participants’ proficiency level was determined by a mini-TOEIC test from TOEIC official Test-Preparation Guide published by A Chauncey Group International. The results show that students did not use vocabulary learning strategies very often. Metacognitve and social strategies were found to be more popular than cognitive and memory strategies. In addition, more proficient students used vocabulary learning strategies significantly more often than those of low proficiency. Visual repetition was used most frequently by low proficient students, while oral repetition was the top choice for those from the intermediate group. As to the most proficient students, interacting with others was the most popular strategy type.
Hsu’s (2005), Kung’s (2004) and Wang’s (2004) studies had two common findings. First, Taiwanese students did not use vocabulary learning strategies very often. Second, Taiwanese students’ English proficiency or vocabulary size were correlated with their use of vocabulary learning strategies. In addition, Chen (1998), Hsu (2005), Lin (2001), and Wang (2004) produced a consistent result that Taiwanese students favored rote memorization strategy like repetition. However, the participants in the above studies included elementary school students, senior high school students, and university students. Investigations on junior high school students’ vocabulary learning strategy use are needed to further verify their findings.
Factors Associated With Use of Vocabulary Learning Strategies
Learner background factors are widely acknowledged to be closely related to use of learning strategies (Oxford & Nyikos, 1989). In this section, the discussion will focus on four of the most discussed factors in use of vocabulary learning strategies (i.e.
proficiency level, age, learning context, and gender) and examine how these factors are related to vocabulary learning strategies.
Vocabulary Learning Strategies and Learning Outcomes
Learning outcomes in the present study is used as a general term to cover learning results, including vocabulary size, general English proficiency, and achievement. In the field of second language acquisition, many researchers (e.g., Ahmed, 1989; Gu & Johnson, 1996; Kojic-Sabo & Lightbown, 1999) have investigated how proficiency influences the choice of vocabulary learning strategies.
Ahmed (1989) was one of the pioneers that studied vocabulary learning strategies as a whole. He conducted a qualitative study to investigate how 300 Sudanese learners of English learned 14 new words. Approaches like think-aloud protocols, observation, and interviews were used to collect data. The study identified 38 types of microstrategies that could be grouped into 6 macrostrategy types. Good learners in this study were found to be more aware of how to learn new words, and more conscious of the semantic relationships between new and previously-learned words than poor learners. They also used more strategies. Most importantly, good learners tended to learn words in context, while poor learners tended to learn words in isolation, which was supported by Wang’s (2004) study on Taiwanese students.
Sanaoui (1995) investigated adult learners’ approaches to learning vocabulary in second languages by conducting three consecutive studies. First, an exploratory inquiry into 50 ESL learners’ approaches to vocabulary study was conducted.
Second, case studies of four ESL learners’ approaches to vocabulary learning and mnemonic procedures were conducted. Finally, case studies of 8 adult FSL learners (French as a Second Language) in a French conversation course were investigated.
The methods for data collection included interviews and daily learners’
self-documenting of the approaches they adopted to the task of vocabulary learning, reporting on their individual learning approaches, and discussing with other learners in the course. The findings of all 12 case studies were consistent with those of the initial, exploratory study of 50 ESL learners. Two distinct approaches to vocabulary
learning were identified—“structured” and “unstructured.” These two approaches can be viewed as two extremes of a continuum on how much vocabulary learning is
“organized” or “structured” by individual learners. They differed in five aspects: (1) the extent to which learners engaged in independent study, (2) the range of self-initiated learning activities in which learners engaged, (3) the extent to which learners recorded vocabulary items they were learning, (4) the extent to which learners reviewed such records, and (5) the extent to which they practiced using the words they were learning outside their course.
Furthermore, to explore the link between vocabulary learning approaches and vocabulary knowledge, Sanaoui administered a vocabulary learning questionnaire herself developed to 74 FSL learners in continuing education courses and 10 instructors who taught those courses in Vancouver. Students’ scores on a French vocabulary achievement test served as a measurement of vocabulary knowledge.
The results indicate that learners using structured approach were more successful in acquiring vocabulary items than those who followed an unstructured approach. A structured approach was found to be more effective than an unstructured approach for both beginning and advanced learners.
However, following Sanaoui’s (1995) research, Lessard-Clouston (1996) did not find any relationship between students’ approaches to vocabulary learning and their vocabulary size or overall English proficiency. He administered a questionnaire, adapted from the one designed by Sanaoui (1992), to 14 students enrolled in a TOEFL preparation course. Vocabulary size tests and students’ TOEFL scores were used to determine their vocabulary size and proficiency level. The findings indicate that students’ vocabulary learning strategies did not seem to predict their performance on the vocabulary test. The structured group students got the lowest TOEFL scores, whereas the unstructured group ones obtained the highest.
In 1996, on the other hand, Gu and Johnson examined 850 Chinese university learners’ use of English vocabulary learning strategies and their beliefs about vocabulary learning. They also tried to identify their relationships with learners’
vocabulary size and general English proficiency. A questionnaire that consisted of 17 statements of beliefs about vocabulary learning and 91 vocabulary learning behaviors (divided into two major parts: Metacognitive Regulation and Cognitive Strategies) was developed by them to elicit participants’ beliefs about vocabulary learning and vocabulary learning strategy use. Two vocabulary size tests and the College English Test were measurements for vocabulary size and general English proficiency. The results reveal that the participants predominantly believed that vocabulary should be carefully studied and put to use. High achievers were found to use more learning strategies than low achievers. As to vocabulary strategy use, the participants reported using a wide variety of vocabulary learning strategies. As far as metacognitive strategies were concerned, self-initiation and selective attention emerged as positive predictors of general proficiency. At the cognitive level, strategies such as “contextual guessing,” “skillful use of dictionaries,” “note-taking,”
“paying attention to word formation,” “contextual encoding,” and “intentional activation of new words” all positively correlated with general proficiency and vocabulary size. Contrary to the popular belief that Asian students persisted in using rote repetitive strategies (O’Malley, 1987), the participants of the study did not use much rote memorization, but they reported using more meaning-oriented strategies than rote strategies. One thing interesting to note is that “oral repetition” positively correlated with general proficiency, while “visual repetition of new words” was the strongest negative predictor of both vocabulary size and general proficiency.
Kojic-sabo and Lightbown (1999) investigated 47 ESL and 43 EFL students’ use of vocabulary learning strategies and also tried to identify the relationship between
vocabulary learning strategy use and overall English proficiency. They adapted Sanaoui’s (1995) questionnaire to elicit students’ strategy use and designed a cloze test to assess English proficiency. The results revealed that time spent on vocabulary, learner independence, and the amount of strategy use were strongly correlated with vocabulary knowledge and overall English proficiency.
Gu (2003) was interested in advanced learners’ use of vocabulary learning strategies. He conducted a qualitative research, by using think-aloud and interviews, to explore the characteristics of two advanced vocabulary learners in China in the process of reading a text. He found that their procedures of learning vocabulary through intensive reading were surprisingly similar. Their approaches to vocabulary learning showed many similarities. The following quote from Gu (2003, pp. 96-97) illustrates the similarities.
Metacognitively, both learners
Θʳ had high levels of self-initiation in learning and went well beyond what was required in their English course
Θʳ consciously chose to treat different words with different strategies Θʳ selected vocabulary to learn based on three criteria: (a) its
relevance to test comprehension, (b) its interest to them, and (c) an on-the-spot evaluation of its importance
Θʳ consciously emphasized multiword units such as phrasal verbs and idiomatic expressions as well as other words of their choice Cognitively, both learners
Θʳ employed a wide range of vocabulary-learning strategies
Θʳ engaged in frequent contextual inferencing using a variety of clues
Θʳ used the dictionary for comprehension purposes, negotiating
between dictionary definitions and contextual meaning
Θʳ used the dictionary for vocabulary-learning purposes, taking various types of notes when they felt necessary
Θʳ spent considerable time on and demonstrated remarkable skill in memorizing word lists
Θʳ tried to use some of the words they had just learned so as to cater to the knowledge and skill aspects of vocabulary learning (Ellis, 1994)
Θʳ tried to find and create opportunities to use English in authentic
or semiauthentic situations In short, Gu (2003), Gu and Johnson (1996), Kojic-sabo and Lightbown (1999),
and Sanaoui (1995) had a consistent finding that metacognitive strategies were positive predictors of English proficiency. Besides, Ahmed’s (1989), Gu and Johnson’s (1996), and Kojic-sabo and Lightbown’s (1999) studies shared the finding that high proficiency learners significantly employed more vocabulary learning strategies than low proficiency learners.
Vocabulary Learning Strategies and Age Difference
Age is believed to be one of the variables affecting vocabulary learning strategy use. Schmitt’s (1997) survey on 600 Japanese learners composed of junior high school students, senior high school students, university students, and adult learners shows that the patterns of strategy use could change over time as learners became more mature or more proficient in English. As Table 1 shows, the rate of using
“written repetition,” “study spelling of word,” “word lists,” “use textbook vocabulary section,” and “flash cards” decreased as learners got older. On the other hand, learners used more strategies, such as “bilingual dictionary,” “guess from textual context,” “image word’s meaning,” “ask teacher for paraphrase or synonym,” “skip or
pass new word,” “analyze part of speech,” “connect word to personal experience,”
and “part of speech (remembering)” when they got more mature. It is obvious that when learners grew older, they tended to use strategies which required greater cognitive efforts. Observing this phenomenon, Schmitt commented that
it may be that some learning strategies are more beneficial at certain ages than others, and that learners naturally mature into using different strategies. If this is true, then we must take our learners’
cognitive maturity and language proficiency into account when recommending strategies (p. 226).
Table 1
Trends of Vocabulary Strategy Use (Schmitt, 1997, p. 223)
Strategy JHS HS U A (%)
Written repetition Study spelling of word Word lists
Use textbook vocabulary section Flash cards
Bilingual dictionary Guess from textual context Image word’s meaning
Ask teacher for paraphrase or synonym Skip or pass new word
Analyze part of speech
Connect word to personal experience Part of speech (remembering)
91 89 67 66 51 77 47 37 25 25 20 17 12
89 77 67 57 29 73 69 47 37 29 29 33 27
75 70 50 42 12 95 93 57 46 55 37 45 40
50 60 33 29 10 97 89 58 61 57 43 53 41 JHS = junior high school (years 7-9)
HS = high school (years 10-12) U = university
A = adult
Vocabulary Learning Strategies and Learning Contexts
learning strategy use. Kojic-sabo and Lightbown (1999) were interested in whether different language learning contexts would influence students’ approaches to vocabulary learning and how vocabulary learning strategy use related to learning success. In their research, 47 ESL and 43 EFL adult learners were participants.
They modified Sanaoui’s (1992) questionnaire to survey students’ vocabulary learning strategies, aiming to distinguish five criterion variables: (1) time, (2) learner independence, (3) vocabulary notes, (4) reviewing, and (5) dictionary use. A set of tests were used as indicators of students’ vocabulary knowledge and overall English proficiency. The findings demonstrate that the differences between ESL and EFL learners in independence and review categories were statistically significant. To be more specific, ESL learners applied significantly more independence strategies, while EFL learners adopted significantly more review strategies than ESL learners.
Besides, EFL learners used more time strategy and ESL learners employed more dictionary use, though the difference was not significant. Kojic-sabo and Lightbown suggest that due to the differences in the learning environment, some strategies seem to “come more naturally” (p. 189) to ESL students. They are “in a better position to initiate independent learning activities geared to vocabulary acquisition” (p. 189).
For EFL students, they may need to go somewhat “out of their way” (p. 189) to learn and practice new words. They do so by spending more time on vocabulary learning, taking notes, and reviewing them frequently. Despite the environmental differences, dictionary use strategies are a solid base for vocabulary learning.
Vocabulary Learning Strategies and Gender Difference
Gender is often seen as one of the major factors that influence language learning.
Many studies have shown that females hold more positive attitudes towards language learning, be more motivated, and achieve higher grades in language learning (e.g.,
Bacon & Finneman, 1992). However, studies specifically designed to study gender difference in vocabulary learning are rare. In 2002, Gu employed Gu and Johnson’s (1996) Vocabulary Learning Questionnaire to investigate Chinese EFL learners’ use of vocabulary learning strategies and explore the link between gender and vocabulary learning strategies. He also wanted to find out how vocabulary size and general English proficiency were related to gender. A questionnaire consisting of three belief categories, two metacognitive strategy categories, eighteen cognitive strategy categories, and an item of study time was distributed. Participants’ vocabulary size was determined by two vocabulary size tests and their proficiency level was measured by the College English Test. All the sophomore non-English majors (N = 648) at Beijing Normal University participated in this survey. The study reveals that female participants reported significantly more use of two belief strategy categories, two metacognitive strategies categories, ten cognitive strategies categories, and the item of study time. It is also worth noting that female participants were found to make more use of almost all the strategies that Gu and Johnson (1996) found related to success in EFL learning (guessing, dictionary work, note-taking, oral repetition, contextual encoding, and activation in using new words in authentic context). This finding echoed back to another finding of this research that female participants significantly outperformed their male counterparts on both vocabulary size and general English proficiency.
Similar findings were found in Catalán’s (2003) study. In 2003, Catalán conducted a study to investigate gender differences in L2 vocabulary learning in La Rioja and Navarre, Spain. The participants were 581 Spanish-speaking students, including 279 males and 302 females, learning English and Basque as their second language. The ages of the participants ranged from 11 to 56. The purpose of the study was to find out whether male and female language learners differed in the
number and the range of vocabulary strategies in use. Schmitt’s (1997) taxonomy of vocabulary learning strategies was administered to all the participants as an instrument. The results show that the strategies female learners used significantly outnumbered those that male learners used. Second, female learners reported using a wider range of strategies than males did. Third, nine of the ten most frequently used strategies of the two groups were the same (that is, “using a bilingual dictionary,”
“taking notes about the word in class,” “guessing from textual context,” “asking teacher for an L1 translation,” “asking classmates for meaning,” “analyzing part of speech,” “connecting the word to cognates,” “using English-language media,” and
“saying word aloud when studying”). Fourth, the most favored strategies were similar to the results obtained by Schmitt (1997): “using a bilingual dictionary,”
“guessing from context,” “asking classmates for meaning,” and “saying the new word aloud when studying.” To interpret the findings, Catalán suggested that “the sex differences obtained in the reporting of usage of vocabulary learning strategies may be due to differences in language learning styles as well as different degree of motivation for males and females” (p. 68).
As suggested in Catalán (2003), learning styles may be a variable affecting the choice of vocabulary learning strategies. However, there are few, if any, studies on the relationship between language learning styles and vocabulary learning strategies.
The role of learning styles in vocabulary learning strategies deserves more investigation.
Learning Style Research
Learning style research flourished during the recent three decades; however, the studies on learning styles are still fragmented due to the following two reasons. First, many researchers investigated different aspects of learning styles and labeled their learning styles with different terminology. These learning styles terminology may
conflict or overlap. This problem makes learning style research less accessible.
Second, the line between learning styles and learning strategies is not clear, which may cause confusion in the literature and hinder the progress of learning style research (Reid, 1995). To depict a clearer picture of learning style research, this section provides an overview of the literature related to learning style. The historical background of learning style research will be presented first, followed by definitions and classification of learning styles, instruments for measuring learning styles, studies on perceptual learning styles, studies on sociological learning styles, and variables in learning styles.
Historical Background of Learning Style Research
The term “learning style” did not appear until Herb Thelen (1954) used it in discussing the dynamics of groups at work (Keefe, 1987). Before the 1970s, educational theorists and researchers focused on cognitive style. This line of research becomes the origin of learning style research. Early researches (e.g., Hill, 1971; Kagan, 1966; Witkin, 1976) examined personal cognitive characteristics, such as mental functions, information processing, memory, and perceptions. Later, the concept of cognitive styles was broadened into learning styles, encompassing cognitive style along with affective and physiological styles (Keefe, 1987). Since then, numerous researchers (e.g., Dunn & Dunn, 1979; Ehrman & Oxford, 1989; Ellis, 1994; Park, 1997, 2000) conducted studies on learning styles. In the 1980s, learning style research began to divide into two lines (Keefe, 1987). Researchers like McKenney and his associates (1974), Gregorc (1979), and Letteri (1980) maintained a strong preference for the internal cognitive style, focusing on human information processing, cognitive models and cognitive style characteristics. On the other hand, researchers like Dunn and Dunn (1978), Reid (1984), and O’Brien (1985) emphasized
the external applied models of learning style, trying to develop interview techniques or self-report questionnaires to identify students’ perception of their own characteristic traits (Keefe, 1987).
Definition and Classification of Learning Style
A variety of definitions and models have been used to describe learning style.
Keefe (1979) considered learning styles as “characteristic cognitive, affective, and physiological traits that are relatively stable indicators of how learners perceive, interact with and respond to the learning environment” (p. 4). Though Keefe’s (1979) definition covered both internal and external traits and was widely accepted, some researches proposed the flexibility of learning styles (e.g., Kirby, 1988; McCarthy &
Schmeck, 1988; Rossi-Le, 1995). Ellis (1989) asserted that learning styles are both nature and nurture. Some are biological and stable, such as an individual’s responses to sound, light, perception, etc., which are unchangeable; others are developmental and flexible, such as sociological preferences, need for structure, and the like, which can be trained and improved. In addition, according to Dunn (1984), the learning style was “the way in which each person absorbs and retains information and/or skills” (p. 4). They are also considered as “preferred or habitual patterns of mental functioning and dealing with new information” (Ehrman & Oxford, 1990, p. 311) and as a person’s “natural, habitual, and preferred ways of absorbing, processing, and retaining new information and skills which persist regardless of teaching methods or content area” (Kinsella, 1995, p. 171). Similarly, Reid (1995) defined learning styles as “individual’s natural, habitual, and preferred way(s) of absorbing, processing, and retaining new information and skills” (p. viii).
With regard to the classification of learning styles, since learning style is a multidimentional construct, researchers developed different classification systems and models for it. For example, Keefe’s (1987) framework showed three dimensions of
learning styles: (1) cognitive styles, which deal with information processing habits; (2) affective styles, which were concerned with personality elements; and (3) physiological styles, which depicted human body variables. In addition, Dunn and Dunn (1993) renewed their Learning Style Inventory (1979), describing learning style in terms of individual reactions to twenty-three elements in five basic strands: (1) environmental stimulus, such as sound, light, temperature, and seating design; (2) emotional stimulus, such as motivation, persistence, responsibility, and structure; (3) sociological stimulus, such as self-oriented, peer-oriented, and team (4) physiological perceptual preferences stimulus, such as intake, time of day, and mobility; (5) psychological stimulus, such as hemisphericity, impulsive/reflective, and global/analytic. Besides, Reid (1995) divided learning styles into three major categories: (1) cognitive learning styles, including field independent/dependent learning styles, analytic/global learning styles, reflective/impulsive learning styles, and Kolb experiential model; (2) sensory learning styles, including perceptual learning styles and environmental learning styles; and (3) personality learning styles, including Mybers-Briggs temperament styles and tolerance of ambiguity styles.
The present study aims to investigate the four perceptual learning styles (visual, auditory, tactile, and kinesthetic) and two social learning styles (group and individual) proposed by Reid (1995).
Instruments for Measuring Learning Styles
In order to elicit and identify learners’ characteristic traits, a variety of tests and self-report learning style questionnaires were developed. As far as cognitive styles are concerned, Kolb’s (1976) Learning Style Inventory measures learners’ cognitive styles as Converger, Diverger, Assimilator and Accommodator; Witkin’s (1971) Group Embedded Figures Test (GEPT) is used to determine field independent/dependent
(MFFT) is employed to identify reflection vs. impulsivity dimensions. Myers and Briggs’ (1987) Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI)) is a measurement for personality learning style, judging four dimensions of learning style:
introversion/extroversion (attitudes), sensing/intuition (processes of perception), thinking/feeling (processes of judgment), and judging/ perceiving (style of dealing with the outside world). As to sensory learning style, Dunn, Dunn, and Price’s (1975) 100-item Learning Style Inventory (LSI) identifies a wide range of environmental, emotional, sociological and physical learning style preferences. O’Brien’s (1990) Learning Channel Preference Checklist (LCPC) uses thirty-six items to identify learners’ three sensory learning styles (visual, auditory and haptic). Oxford’s (1993) Style Analysis Survey (SAS), containing 110 items, identifies sensory styles (visual, auditory, and hands-on), affective styles (extroverted/introverted, intuitive/concrete-sequential, and closure/open), and cognitive styles (global/analytic).
Kinsella’s (1994) Perceptual Learning Styles Survey, consisting of 32 items, involves four categories: visual/verbal, visual/nonverbal, auditory and kinesthetic/tactile style preferences. In the present research, Reid’s (1984) inventory for learning styles, Perceptual Learning Style Preference Questionnaire (PLSPQ), was adopted to identify four perceptual (visual, auditory, kinesthetic, and tactile) and two social learning style preferences (individual and group). Thus, the following section reviews the studies that focused on two categories of learning styles: perceptual learning style and sociological learning style.
Studies on Perceptual Learning Styles
In the beginning of the study of learning styles, considerable studies have been done with students whose native language is English (Reid, 1995). However, Oxford and Anderson (1995) noted that visual, auditory, and hands-on styles were among the significant learning style modalities for ESL or EFL learners. In the
following section, the studies on ESL and EFL learners’ perceptual learning style preferences will be reviewed.
ESL Learners’ Perceptual Learning Style
Before 1987, “there is no published research that describes the perceptual learning style preferences of NNSs (non-native English speakers)” (Reid, 1995, p. 91).
Reid (1987) conducted a pioneering and large-scale research on the learning styles of international ESL students. The study was replicated later by Stebbins (1995), Rossi-Le (1995), and Park (1997, 2000). In Reid’s study, the PLSPQ designed by herself was administered to 1234 ESL students in 39 intensive English language programs and to 154 native-speaking university students. The total of 1388 participants, ranging from teenagers to senior adults, represented 98 countries, 29 major fields of study, and 52 language backgrounds. Their responses were analyzed to identify the relationships of learning style preferences to eight variables (that is, language background, major field of study, level of education, TOEFL score, age, sex, length of time in the United States, and length of time studying in the U.S.).
Generally speaking, this study shows that NNSs’ learning style preferences differed from those of NSs (Native speakers) and that language background was a factor influencing ESL students’ learning style preferences. Besides, other variables such as major field of study, level of education, TOEFL score, age, sex, length of time in the United States, and length of time studying in the U.S. were also significantly related to students’ preferred learning styles. To be more specific, regarding gender, males preferred visual and tactile modes than females significantly. As far as language background was concerned, Korean language group, followed by Arabic and Chinese, showed strong preference for visual learning. Arabic and Chinese speakers chose auditory learning as a major learning style, while Japanese speakers were the least auditory. ESL students preferred to learn kinesthetically except Japanese
speakers. Native speakers were significantly less tactile than all the other language groups. All language groups, including English, had minor or negative preferences for group learning. And no language groups showed a strong preference for individual learning. As to TOEFL scores, though the statistical analysis did not result in significant difference, there is a tendency that the learning style preferences of students with higher TOEFL scores more closely paralleled those of native speakers of English. Finally, it was found that ESL students could modify and extend their learning styles to adapt to the U.S. academic environment. Reid’s research was praised for providing baseline data on perceptual mode preferences, leading to “an increasing understanding of the similarities and differences in the ways ESL students and NESs process information” and “an increasing awareness of the need for culturally sensitive instructional methods that may help maximize L2 learning” (Stebbins, 1995, p. 109).
Stebbins (1995) replicated Reid’s (1987) study to investigate further the perceptual learning style preferences of postsecondary students of English as a second language. Reid’s (1984) PLSPQ was administered to 660 ESL students in eight university-affiliated intensive English programs and 121 native English speakers of English at the University of Wyoming. Totally, 764 participants were surveyed, representing 63 countries, 43 language backgrounds, and 92 major fields of study.
Participants’ proficiency levels were measured by TOEFL scores and the judgment of program administrators. There are five findings that paralleled Reid’s (1987) results.
First, compared to NESs, kinesthetic and tactile modes were preferred significantly more by ESL students. Second, except those ESL students with low proficiency level, group learning was the least preferred mode by NESs and ESL students. Third, Spanish speakers show major preferences for the kinesthetic mode. Fourth, Arabic and Korean students demonstrated multiple learning styles. Finally, Japanese
students did not show any strong learning style preferences. Stebbins (1995) claimed that those similar results “give evidence not only of the stability of culturally influenced learning styles, but also of the reliability and validity of Reid’s original testing instrument” (p. 110).
Rossi-Le (1995) studied the perceptual learning style preferences of 147 adult immigrants in ESL programs in two community colleges. The aims of her study were to (a) investigate how PLSP influences learners’ language learning behaviors and (b) examine the relationship(s) between preferred learning styles and the chosen strategic approaches to language learning. The participants, ranging from 20 to 52 years old, represented the following linguistic backgrounds: Chinese, Laotian, Vietnamese, Spanish, and Other (Cambodian, Japanese, Polish, and Korean). Based on the scores on the Michigan Test of Language Proficiency, their proficiency level ranged from low, intermediate, to advanced. The average period of their residence in the United States was 3.5 years. Reid’s (1984) PLSQ and Oxford’s (1986) SILL (Strategy Inventory for Language Learning) were adopted to elicit participants’
learning styles and language learning strategies in use. The findings demonstrate that a majority of the adult immigrants expressed strong preferences for tactile and kinesthetic modes. Besides, all the language groups showed a preference for group learning but a minor or negative preference for individual learning. In addition, learners’ native language backgrounds were proved to have an effect on their perceptual learning style preferences. Furthermore, visual learning mode was preferred by older students and students with higher proficiency. Finally, there was a positive correlation between learning style and language strategies in use. The most frequently used strategies were social strategies, which corresponded to the participants’ kinesthetic characteristics.
Park’s (1997) study of 1283 ESL students in the secondary school revealed that
all ethnic groups showed major preferences for kinesthetic learning; and there were significant differences among high achievers, middle achievers, and low achievers in auditory, individual, visual, and group learning style preferences. High achievers showed a significantly positive preference for auditory and individual learning. Park (2000) investigated the perceptual learning style preferences of 738 Southeast high school students with Reid’s PLSPQ and found that there were not any learning style differences among high, middle, and low achieving groups. But, all ethnic groups showed major preferences for kinesthetic learning. Southeast Asian students exhibited much greater preferences for visual and auditory learning when compared with Whites.
Reid’s (1987), Stebbin’s (1995), Rossi-Le’s (1995), and Park’s (1997, 2000) studies had two common findings. First, kinesthetic and/or tactile learning were strongly preferred by all language groups. Second, learning styles were affected by cultures among diverse ethnic groups.
EFL Learners’ Perceptual Learning Style
In 1984, Reid developed and normed the PLSP questionnaire. This questionnaire allowed ESL students to identify their own preferred learning styles.
Several EFL teacher-researchers also conducted the PLSP surveys in EFL programs in non-English speaking countries. For example, according to Reid (1998), she surveyed more than 100 EFL teachers-in-training in Egypt in 1992; Vicioso administered the PLSPQ to 193 secondary school students in Spain; Gedeon and Takacs investigated 138 university students’ learning styles in Hungary; and Korotkikh administered the PLSP survey to 193 EFL undergraduate majors and minors in Russia. The studies in Egypt, Hungary, and Russia show that participants chose kinesthetic and tactile as major learning styles and demonstrated preferences for
multiple learning styles. None of the student groups selected auditory learning as a major learning style. The study on Spanish secondary school students reveals that kinesthetic was the most strongly preferred style. Vicioso’s students ranked tactile learning dramatically lower than they ranked kinesthetic learning. He explained that this may be due to their lack of experience with tactile techniques in their educational environment. Compared these results with those in Reid’s (1987) study on ESL learners, there are some differences. First, Reid found that auditory learning was a minor learning style for her EFL Egyptian students, whereas the results in her previous study (1987) reveal that ESL Arabic students had a major learning style preference for auditory learning. In addition, Vicioso found that tactile learning style was not favored by his students in Spain, whereas Reid (1987) found that Spanish ESL learners had a major learning style preference for tactile mode.
ESL learning usually takes place in English-speaking countries, where learners learn English in an immersion situation. While in the EFL context, many of the classrooms are relatively homogeneous in terms of first language and culture;
moreover, the students are rarely exposed to the learning styles of U.S. classrooms.
According to the above review of studies, the differences between ESL and EFL learning opportunities and environments appear to make a difference in learners’
learning style preference.
Perceptual Learning Style Studies on Taiwanese EFL Learners
Since the 1990s, a great number of studies have been carried out to investigate Taiwanese learners’ perceptual learning styles at different levels (e.g., Chao, 2005;
Chen, 2004; Cheng, 1997; Lin & Shen, 1996; Tsao, 2002). Lin and Shen (1996) surveyed 1050 Taiwanese junior college students’ learning styles, using Reid’s PLSPQ as an instrument. They did not find any major learning style among their
various learning styles than males and showed higher willingness to learn. Female students were found to achieve better and have better teacher-student relationships.
Similarly, Cheng’s (1997) study, using Reid’s PLSPQ, on 140 Taiwanese military college students, indicates that the participants did not show any strong preference in learning style. She discovered that their learning styles were not directly in relation to English achievement, which was measured by mid-term and final examinations.
On the other hand, Chang (1998) adopted Oxford’s (1993) Style Analysis Survey to investigate 95 Taiwanese college English-major freshmen’s learning styles and their relationship to TOEFL scores. The results reveal that more than half of the participants displayed a visual preference, and the global learning style had significant correlation with participants’ TOEFL total score.
However, different results were found in Cheng’s (2001) and Tseng’s (2001) studies. Cheng (2001) adopted Reid’s PLSPQ to investigate the preferred learning styles of students in the seven departments at the Chung-Hua Institute of Medical Technology in Taiwan. The study also assessed different genders’ preferred learning styles and determined the differences in preferred styles between teachers and students. Valid responses came from 68 teachers and 666 students. The major results include: (1) students perceived auditory style as their most preferred learning styles and individual styles as their least preferred learning styles; (2) the individual style was the least preferred style for both students and teachers; and (3) teachers preferred students to demonstrate their learning through kinesthetic and group styles to a greater degree than students wanted to use those styles in learning.
Tseng (2001), using Reid’s PLSPQ, identified the preferred learning styles of 333 nontraditional EFL students randomly selected in three Taiwanese universities which offered weekend and evening English learning programs. The results showed that the participants preferred auditory style most, while individual and visual styles were
preferred least. On the other hand, Chang (2003) investigated Taiwanese traditional and nontraditional college students’ preference for English learning strategies and styles by using three different instruments: Chang’ (2003) Individual Language Background Inventory, Oxford’s (1989) SILL, and Reid’s (1984) PLSPQ. The participants included 843 students (486 traditional and 357 nontraditional) enrolled in English classes in six universities in Taiwan. Findings emerging from this study showed that a greater percentage of participants prefer cognitive and tactile styles, but individual style, the least. Also, traditional students preferred auditory and kinesthetic styles more than nontraditional students. Female students preferred auditory and kinesthetic styles more than male students.
Tsao (2002) explored the perceptual learning style and learning strategy use among 346 Taiwanese senior high school EFL students. Reid’s PLSPQ and Oxford’s SILL were used as instruments. The results revealed that the subjects did not express very strong preference in any style. Besides, all of the students’ perceptual learning styles were significantly correlated to their learning strategy categories.
Students’ English achievement was significantly correlated to their learning styles except for group and tactile learning style. Besides, female participants had a wider preference for perceptual learning styles than males did. On the other hand, Chen (2004) adopted a revised Learning Style Inventory (Dunn et al., 1989) to explore the learning styles of 170 senior high female EFL learners in Taipei County. The results demonstrated that the students preferred kinesthetic style most, tactile style the second, visual style the third, and auditory style the least.
As to the learning styles of Taiwanese junior high school students, Chen (1999), using O’Brien’s Learning Channel Preference Checklist (LCPC), investigated the perceptual learning style of 187 junior high school students and 5 English teachers.
The results suggest that most students preferred visual modality, and all the five
teachers were visual learners. Besides, students who had similar preferences to their teachers had better achievement. On the contrary, Ko (2002) adopted Kinsella’s (1993) Perceptual Learning Preferences Survey to examine 161 junior high school students’ learning styles. It was found that the participants preferred kinesthetic/tactile, visual/nonverbal, and auditory styles to visual/verbal style, and that the multiple and the visual/nonverbal style subjects performed better in English achievement. However, Chao (2005) recruited 345 junior high school students and examined their learning styles with Reid’s PLSPQ. Her study shows that the participants had no major preferences for any style; but among all the styles, auditory learning style was preferred the most, while individual style was preferred least.
To sum up, Lin and Shen’s (1996), Cheng’s (1997), Tsao’s (2002), and Chao’s (2005) studies proved that Taiwanese EFL students did not show any particularly strong preferences for any learning style. However, in Chang’s (1998) and Chen’s (1999) studies, the participants displayed a major visual preference. The results of Cheng’s (2001) and Tseng’s (2001) studies demonstrated that their participants perceived auditory style as their most preferred learning style. Ko’s (2002) and Chen’s (2004) studies reveal that students preferred kinesthetic and tactile styles the most. Among the studies in Taiwan reviewed above, less attention was paid to high school students because more than half of them concerned adult college level students.
Since learning style preferences might evolve with age (Kinsella, 1995), the results obtained from college students might not be applicable to students at secondary school level. There is a need to investigate further Taiwanese high school students’
learning styles.
Studies on Sociological Learning Styles
Sociological learning styles, identifying students’ group/individual learning
preferences, are considered by many researchers as a factor influencing their second/foreign language learning (e.g., Chao, 2005; Chen, 2004; Dunn & Dunn, 1975;
Kinsella, 1995; Reid, 1987). Price’s (1980) study indicate that many students in grades 3-8 learned better in small, well-organized groups than either alone or with the teacher. However, students from grades 9-12 learned better individually. Reid (1987) found that most groups with diverse language backgrounds had a minor or negative preference for group learning. Park (2000) found that group learning was the least preferred mode for Japanese ESL college students in New Zealand.
However, Rossi-Le (1995) claimed that Chinese adult immigrant students showed strong preference for group learning. Park’s (1997) study found that the high achievers had major preferences for individual learning while the low achievers preferred group learning. Regarding the recent studies conducted in the context of Taiwan, Chao (2005) showed that Taiwanese junior high school students expressed strong preference to learn in a group, while the individual learning style was the least preferred mode. Similarly, Chang (2003) found that Taiwanese traditional and nontraditional students prefer individual styles the least. Results of Tsao (2002) also showed that most senior high school students preferred group-learning style to individual learning style and the low achievers preferred group learning style the most;
so did the participants in Chen (2004). Chen’s (2004) study reveal that most senior high school students preferred learning in a collaborative way and low achievers preferred group learning the most. Similar findings were found in Cheng’s (2001) and Tseng’s (2001) studies. Cheng (2001) found that most of the college-level students considered individual style as their least preferred learning style. Tseng (2001) reported that nontraditional EFL students preferred group learning second to auditory learning, while they preferred individual learning the least.
To sum up, the above studies indicated that group/individual learning style
preferences may be related to students’ age, culture, and proficiency level. Group learning mode was usually strongly preferred by low achievers and Chinese students tended to express negative preference for individual learning. However, researches on sociological learning styles are still underdeveloped so there is a need to investigate Taiwanese junior high school students’ sociological learning styles.
Factors Associated With Learning Style Preferences
With the development of learning style theory and practice, many factors are believed to affect students’ learning styles. In this section, the influences of three major variables (i.e. culture, achievement and gender) will be discussed.
Culture
Cultural background has been proven by several researchers to play an important role in perceptual learning style preferences (e.g., Nelson, 1995; Park, 1997, 2000;
Reid, 1987; Rossi-Le, 1995; Stebbins, 1995; Torkleson, 1995). Oxford and Anderson (1995) asserted that “sensory preferences are very significant in the multicultural ESL/EFL classroom” (p. 209). If native language is considered as one aspect of the broader definition of cultural background, then it is not surprising to find similarities in the way people select their perceptual preferences (Stebbins, 1995).
Many studies on ESL learners’ perceptual learning styles indicate that tactile and/or kinesthetic learning styles were preferred by all ethnic groups (e.g., Park, 1997, 2000; Reid, 1995; Rossi-Le, 1995; Stebbins, 1995). Reid (1987) investigated 1234 ESL students and 154 native-speaking university students and found that the total of 1388 participants mostly had strong preferences for kinesthetic and tactile learning.
Similar findings were obtained in Stebbins’ (1995) study that ESL college students strongly preferred kinesthetic and tactile learning styles. Paralleling Stebbins’ (1995)
findings, Rossi-Le (1995) examined 147 ESL adult immigrants in America and found that a majority of her participants expressed a major preference for tactile and kinesthetic learning. Besides, Park’s (1997, 2000) studies reveal that ESL high school students demonstrated major preferences for kinesthetic learning.
Still, the findings of some studies demonstrate that Asian ESL students preferred visual and/or auditory learning styles (e.g., Park, 1997, 2000; Reid, 1987; Rossi-Le, 1995; Stebbins, 1995). Reid (1987) found that Chinese American students were strong visual learners and showed a strong preference for auditory learning. In Park’s (2000) study, Southeast Asian high school students exhibited much greater preferences for visual and auditory learning when compared with Whites. Similarly, in Rossi-Le’s (1995) study, Chinese and Vietnamese students demonstrated a very strong preference for visual learning. On the other hand, the results of Stebbins’
(1995) study shows that Chinese participants had no strong preference for any learning styles, whereas Korean American students strongly preferred the visual mode.
Also, Korean American students were found to be the most visual learners in Park’s (1997) study. However, different from Reid’s (1987), Park’s (1997, 2000), and Rossi-Le’s (1995) findings, Dunn, Gemake, Jalali, and Zenhausern (1990) investigated the learning styles for Chinese, African, Greek, and Mexican elementary school students, and found that the Chinese were the most kinesthetic and tactile among four ethnic groups (cited in Park, 2000).
According to the above studies, it’s obvious that culture has an effect on learning styles. Oxford and Anderson (1995) stated that “we must understand our students’
styles, not superficially but on a culturally deep level, if we are to provide the best language instruction for these students” (p. 201). To improve the English education in Taiwan, the recognition of cultural influences on learning styles can guide teachers to develop “culture-sensitive pedagogy” (Stebbins, 1995).
