Learning and Teaching Styles in Foreign and Second Language Education Richard M Felder North Carolina State University Eunice R

Home , Foreign Language Annals, Second language

Learning and Teaching Styles In Foreign and Second Language Education Richard M Felder North Carolina State University Eunice R. Henriques Universidade Estadual de Sao Paulo

ABSTRACT The ways in which an individual characteristically acquires, retains, and retrieves information are collectively termed the individual’s learning style. Mismatches often occur between the learning styles of students in a language class and the teaching style of the instructor, with unfortunate effects on the quality of the students’ learning and on their attitudes toward the class and the subject. This paper defines several dimensions of learning style thought to be particularly relevant to foreign and second language education, outlines ways in which certain learning styles are favored by the teaching styles of most language instructors, and suggests steps to address the educational needs of all students in foreign language classes.

Students learn in many ways—by seeing and of language learning by Oxford and her col- hearing; reflecting and acting; reasoning logi- leagues (Oxford 1990; Oxford et al. 1991; Wal- cally and intuitively; memorizing and visualiz- lace and Oxford 1992; Oxford & Ehrman ing. Teaching methods also vary. Some 1993), and over 30 learning style assessment instructors lecture, others demonstrate or dis- instruments have been developed in the past cuss; some focus on rules and others on ex- three decades (Guild & Garger 1985; Jensen amples; some emphasize memory and others 1987). understanding. How much a given student Serious mismatches may occur between the learns in a class is governed in part by that stu- learning styles of students in a class and the dent’s native ability and prior preparation but teaching style of the instructor (Felder & Sil- also by the compatibility of his or her charac- verman 1988; Lawrence 1993; Oxford et al. teristic approach to learning and the instructor’s 1991; Schmeck 1988), with unfortunate poten- characteristic approach to teaching. tial consequences. The students tend to be The ways in which an individual character- bored and inattentive in class, do poorly on istically acquires, retains, and retrieves infor- tests, get discouraged about the course, and mation are collectively termed the individual’s may conclude that they are no good at the sub- learning style. Learning styles have been ject of the course and give up (Felder & Silver- extensively discussed in the educational man 1988; Godleski 1984; Oxford et al. 1991; psychology literature (Claxton & Murrell 1987; Smith & Renzulli 1984). Instructors, Schmeck 1988) and specifically in the context confronted by low test grades, unresponsive or hostile classes, poor attendance, and dropouts, Richard M. Felder (Ph.D., Princeton University) is may become overly critical of their students the Hoechst Celanese Professor of Chemical (making things even worse) or begin to Engineering at North Carolina State University, question their own competence as teachers. Raleigh, NC. In this paper, we will explore the following Eunice R. Henriques (Ph.D., University of North questions: Carolina at Chapel Hill) is Livre Docente of 1. Which aspects of learning style are Languages, Universidade Estadual de Campinas, particularly significant in foreign and second Campinas, São Paulo, Brazil. language education?

Foreign Language Annals, 28, No. 1,1995, pp. 21–31

FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS—SPRING 1995

2. Which learning styles are favored by the two ways in which people tend to perceive the teaching styles of most language instructors? world. Sensing involves observing, gathering 3. What can be done to address the educational data through the senses; intuition involves needs of all students in foreign and second indirect perception by way of the sub- language classes? conscious—accessing memory, speculating, imagining. Everyone uses both faculties con- Dimensions of Learning Style stantly, but most people tend to favor one over In the sections that follow, we describe five the other. The strength of this preference has dichotomous learning style dimensions derived been assessed for millions of people using the from work of Felder et al. (1988, 1993), Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) (Myers indicating the ways in which the educational & McCaulley 1985; Myers and Myers 1980), needs of students with strong preferences for and the different ways in which sensors and certain poles of the dimensions are not met by intuitors approach learning have been char- traditional approaches to language instruction. acterized (Lawrence 1993). Sensor–intuitor The concluding section offers a summary of differences in language learning have been suggestions for meeting the needs of those explored by Moody (1988) and Ehrman and students. Oxford (1990). The proposed learning style dimensions may Sensors tend to be concrete and methodical, be defined in terms of the answers to the intuitors to be abstract and imaginative. Sensors following five questions: like facts, data, and experimentation; intuitors deal better with principles, concepts, and 1. What type of information does the student theories. Sensors are patient with detail but do preferentially perceive: sensory—sights, not like complications; intuitors are bored by sounds, physical sensations, or intuitive— detail and welcome complications. Sensors are memories, ideas, insights? more inclined than intuitors to rely on 2. Through which modality is sensory infor- memorization as a learning strategy and are mation most effectively perceived: visual— more comfortable learning and following rules pictures, diagrams, graphs, demonstrations, or and standard procedures. lntuitors like variety, verbal—written and spoken words and formu- dislike repetition, and tend to be better las? equipped than sensors to accommodate new 3. How does the student prefer to process in- concepts and exceptions to rules. Sensors are formation: actively—through engagement in careful but may be slow; intuitors are quick but physical activity or discussion, or reflectively— may be careless. through introspection? Moody (1988) administered the MBTI to 4. How does the student progress toward un- 491 college language students at the first- and derstanding: sequentially—in a logical pro- second-year levels. Fifty-nine percent of the gression of small incremental steps, or students were intuitors, substantially more than globally—in large jumps, holistically? the 40 percent found for a sample of 18,592 5. With which organization of information is general college students (Myers & McCaulley the student most comfortable: inductive— facts 1985). This pattern is not altogether surprising and observations are given, underlying if one presumes that a substantial number of the principles are inferred, or deductive—principles students were either majoring in a language or are given, consequences and applications are taking the courses as electives. As Moody deduced? notes, language is by its nature symbolic, which would tend to make it more attractive to Sensing and Intuitive Learners intuitors than to the more concrete and literal- In his theory of psychological types, Jung minded sensors. (1971) introduced sensation and intuition as the Ehrman and Oxford (1990) studied learning strategies and teaching approaches

FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS—SPRING 1995 preferred by sensors and intuitors in an should be a blend of concrete information intensive language training program. The (word definitions, grammatical rules) and sensors used a variety of memorization concepts (syntactical and semantic information, strategies like internal drills and flash cards, linguistic and cultural background liked class material that might better be information), with the percentage of each described as practical than fanciful, and liked being chosen to fit the level of the course highly structured and well organized classes (beginning, intermediate, or advanced) and the with clear goals and milestones for age and level of sophistication of the students. achievement. Intuitors preferred teaching approaches that involved greater complexity Visual and Verbal Learners and variety, tended to be bored with drills, and We propose to classify the ways people re- were better able than sensors to learn ceive sensory information as visual, verbal, and independently of the instructor’s teaching style. other (tactile, gustatory, olfactory). Visual Basic language instruction that involves a learners prefer that information be presented great deal of repetitive drill and memorization visually—in pictures, diagrams, flow charts, of vocabulary and grammar (the sort of teach- time lines, films, and demonstrations—rather ing style often found in pre-college and com- than in spoken or written words. Verbal learn- munity college classes) is better suited to ers prefer spoken or written explanations to vi- sensors than intuitors. If there is too much of sual presentations. The third category (touch, this sort of thing without a break, the intu- taste, smell) plays at most a marginal role in itors—who constitute the majority of the class, language instruction and will not be addressed if Moody’s results are representative—may be- further. come bored with the subject and their course This categorization is somewhat unconven- performance may consequently deteriorate. On tional in the context of the learning style liter- the other hand, strongly intuitive language ature (e.g., Barbe & Swassing 1979; Dunn, instructors may tend to move too quickly Dunn, & Price 1978), in which sensory modal- through the basic vocabulary and rules of ities are classified as visual, auditory, and grammar in their eagerness to get to “the more kinesthetic. Since the five human senses are interesting material”—grammatical complexi- seeing, hearing, touching, tasting, and smelling, ties, nuances of translation, linguistic concepts, we suggest that “kinesthetic” does not properly and cultural considerations. While the intuitive belong on a list of sensory input modalities. A students may enjoy these topics, student’s preference for motion or physical overemphasizing such material may result in activity of some sort during the learning insufficient grounding in the building blocks of process belongs in a separate learning style the language. The sensors, in particular, may category: our proposed system and Kolb’s then start to fall behind and do poorly on (1984) model place it in the active/reflective homework and tests. dimension, and the familiar model based on Effective instruction reaches out to all stu- Jung’s typology (Lawrence 1993) includes it in dents, not just those with one particular learning the extravert-introvert dimension. style. Students taught entirely with methods The distinction between the visual-auditory antithetical to their learning style may be made and visual-verbal classifications has to do with too uncomfortable to learn effectively, but they whether reading prose is more closely related to should have at least some exposure to those seeing pictures (which leads to the visual- methods to develop a full range of learning auditory contrast) or to hearing speech (visual- skills and strategies (Smith & Renzulli 1984). verbal). Three mechanisms have been proposed To be effective, language instruction should for the process of extracting lexical significance therefore contain elements that appeal to from written words (Martin 1978): direct sensors and other elements that appeal to access (the reader jumps directly from the intuitors. The material presented in every class

FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS—SPRING 1995 printed form of the word to its lexical their verbal classroom presentation with non- meaning), indirect access (the printed words verbal visual material—for example, showing are translated internally into sounds before in- photographs, drawings, sketches, and cartoons formation about their meaning can be located in to reinforce presentation of vocabulary words, lexical memory), and dual encoding (lexical and using films, videotapes, and dramatizations memory can be reached either directly or to illustrate lessons in dialogue and indirectly). An extensive body of research pronunciation. supports a form of the dual encoding hypothesis. Direct access is possible when words are Active and Reflective Learners familiar or when artificial conditions imposed The complex mental processes by which in a research setting make speech encoding perceived information is converted into inefficient; however, when material is unfa- knowledge can be conveniently grouped into miliar or difficult, lexical memory is speech- two categories: active experimentation and re- accessed (Crowder & Wagner 1992). The flective observation (Kolb 1984). Active pro- implication is that expository prose of the sort cessing involves doing something in the one finds in books and on classroom chalk- external world with the information—dis- boards is much more likely to be speech-me- cussing it or explaining it or testing it in some diated than directly accessed when silently way—and reflective processing involves ex- read, and so belongs in the verbal rather than amining and manipulating the information in- the visual category. trospectively. An active learner is someone Most people extract and retain more infor- with more of a natural tendency toward active mation from visual presentations than from experimentation than toward reflective obser- written or spoken prose (Dale 1969), while vation, and conversely for a reflective learner. most language instruction is verbal, involving Active learners learn well in situations that predominantly lectures, writing in texts and on enable them to do something physical and re- chalkboards, and audiotapes in language flective learners learn well in situations that laboratories. Given the preference of most stu- provide them with opportunities to think about dents for visual input, one would expect the last the information being presented. The more of these modes of presentation in particular to opportunities students have to both participate be unpopular, an expectation borne out in and reflect in class, the better they will learn research cited by Moody (1988). When new material and the longer they are likely to community college students were asked to retain it (KoIb 1984; McCarthy 1987). rank-order 13 instructional modes, including Language classes in which all students are rel- lectures, discussion, slides, field trips, and au- egated to passive roles, listening to and ob- diotapes, audiotapes ranked at or near the serving the instructor and taking notes, do little bottom for the overwhelming majority of stu- to promote learning for either active or dents surveyed. reflective learners. Language classes should Recent studies of learning styles in foreign therefore include a variety of active learning language education (e.g., Oxford & Ehrman experiences, such as conversations, enactment 1993) consistently place reading in the visual of dialogues and minidramas, and team category, implying that instructors can meet the competitions, and reflective experiences, such needs of visual learners solely by relying on as brief writing exercises and question written instructional material. Certainly visual formulation exercises. learners learn better if they see and hear words Small-group exercises can be extremely ef- in the target language, but so do auditory fective for both active and reflective learners learners: presenting the same material in (Johnson et al. 1991). Pose a question or prob- different ways invariably has a reinforcing ef- lem (“Translate this sentence.” “What’s wrong fect on retention. The challenge to language with what I just wrote?” “How many synonyms instructors is to devise ways of augmenting

for ‘happy’ can you think of in 30 seconds?”24 “What question do you have about what we

FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS—SPRING 1995 covered today?”) and have students come up picture, but once they have it they can often see with answers working in groups of three, with connections that escape sequential learners. On one group member acting as recorder. Such the other hand, sequential learners can function exercises engage all the students, not just the with incomplete understanding of course small minority who typically participate in material, but they may lack a grasp of the broad class, and are a rich source of responses and context of a body of knowledge and its material for subsequent discussion. The exer- interrelationships with other subjects and cises also relieve the monotony of continuous disciplines. lectures. In our experience, as little as five Many authors who have done research on minutes of group work in a 50-minute period cognitive or learning styles have noted the im- can be enough to maintain the students’ at- portance of this dichotomous pairing, and var- tention for the entire class. ious terms have been used to describe Group work must be used with care, how- categories that appear to have points in com- ever: simply telling students to work together mon with what we term the sequential and on problems or projects can do more harm than global categories: analytic and global (Kirby good. Most references on cooperative learning 1988; Schmeck 1988); field-independent and (e.g., Johnson et al. 1991) point out that field-dependent (Witkin & Goodenough 1981); students often respond negatively to group serialistic and holistic (Pask 1988); left-brained work at first, and that the benefits of the and right-brained (Kane 1984); atomistic and approach are fully realized when the group holistic (Marton 1988); sequential and random work is structured to assure such features as (Gregorc 1982). Luria’s (1980) working brain positive interdependence, individual ac- model postulates successive and simultaneous countability, and appropriate uses of teamwork modes of processing, and Pask (1988) similarly and interpersonal skills. Reid (1987) studied distinguishes between stringing and clumping students from a variety of ethnic backgrounds modes of coding information and structuring and found that every background expressed a responses. Schmeck (1988) believes that the minor or negative preference for group work, analytic/global dimension encompasses all with English speakers giving it the lowest other cognitive styles, a belief shared by rating. When language students have been Oxford et al. (1991). taught cooperative skills, however, they Oxford (1990) proposes that this learning showed positive results in both language skill style dimension can be tapped through studies and altruism (Gunderson & Johnson 1980; of brain hemisphericity. She cites studies of Jacob & Mattson 1987). Leaver (1986) suggesting that left-brain (sequential) thinkers deal more easily with gram- Sequential and Global Learners matical structure and contrastive analysis, Sequential learners absorb information and while right-brain (global) thinkers are better at acquire understanding of material in small learning language intonation and rhythms. Se- connected chunks, and global learners take in quential learners gravitate toward strategies that information in seemingly unconnected frag- involve dissecting words and sentences into ments and achieve understanding in large component parts and are comfortable with holistic leaps. Before global learners can master structured teaching approaches that stress the details of a subject they need to understand grammatical analysis; global learners prefer how the material being presented relates to holistic strategies such as guessing at words their prior knowledge and experience, a and searching for main ideas, and may respond perspective that relatively few instructors well to relatively unstructured approaches like routinely provide. Consequently, strongly community language learning that might not global learners may appear slow and do poorly appeal to sequential learners. on homework and tests until they grasp the total

Inductive and Deductive Learners: A Perspective on the Language

FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS-SPRING 1995 Learning/Acquisition Dichotomy understand, retain, and use in conversation what Induction is a reasoning progression that they have taken in. Throughout the process they proceeds from particulars (observations, mea- gain in their ability to transfer strategies, make surements, data) to generalities (rules, laws, assumptions about the new language system, theories). Deduction proceeds in the opposite formulate and test rules, and either keep or direction. In inductive presentation of class- abandon them. They continue this process room material, one makes observations and (most of which is subconscious) until they infers governing or correlating principles; in fossilize, which they may do as soon as they deductive presentation one starts with axioms, feel they have learned what they need to in principles, or rules, deduces consequences, and order to communicate in the language (Coulter formulates applications. As with the previous 1983). In its progression from specifics to dimensions, students may have moderate or generalizations, acquisition is an inductive strong preferences for one or the other process. presentation mode; in particular, they may On the other hand, language learning is a prefer deductive presentation because of its largely conscious process that involves formal relatively high level of structure. exposure to rules of syntax and semantics fol- A large percentage of classroom teaching in lowed by specific applications of the rules, with every subject is primarily or exclusively de- corrective feedback reinforcing correct usage ductive, probably because deduction is an ef- and discouraging incorrect usage. The flow of ficient and elegant way to organize and present the learning process from general to specific material that is already understood. However, suggests its characterization as a deductive there is considerable evidence that process. incorporating a substantial inductive compo- Three well-known approaches illustrate de- nent into teaching promotes effective learning. ductive and inductive approaches to language Inductive reasoning is thought to be an instruction. The first is the grammar- important component in academic achievement translation method, rooted in the formal (Ropo 1987). Current cognitive research teaching of Latin and Greek that prevailed in emphasizes the importance of prior knowledge Europe for many centuries (Rivers 1968). This in learning (Glaser 1984); introducing new method involves the translation of literary texts material by linking it to observed or previously followed by explanation (in the students’ native known material is essentially inductive. The language) of rules of grammar. As Corder benefits claimed for inductive instructional notes, grammar-translation is “the most approaches (e.g., discovery or inquiry learning) deductive approach” (Allen & Corder 1975, include increased academic achievement and 13). A later approach is the direct method, in enhanced abstract reasoning skills (Taba 1966), which classes are taught entirely in the target longer retention of information (McConnell language; grammar is taught inferentially and 1934; Swenson 1949), and improved ability to plays a secondary role to oral communication. apply principles (Lahti 1986). This approach, which was in vogue in many Insofar as foreign languages are concerned, countries throughout the nineteenth century we propose that the distinction between in- (Allen & Corder 1975, 18), is almost purely duction and deduction is akin to the distinction inductive. between language acquisition and learning. To The third approach is the audio-oral method, acquire a language means to pick it up according to which language is a set of habits gradually, gaining the ability to communicate with vocabulary being of secondary concern. In with it without necessarily being able to this method, which was influenced by articulate the rules. Individuals absorb what behavioral psychology and structural they can from the abundant and continuous linguistics, students learn by repeating input that bombards them; they cannot grasp all structural patterns and eventually automatize they hear, but each day increases their ability to the structures, aided by positive reinforcement

26 provided by the teacher. This approach combines acquired verbal skills (inductive)

FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS-SPRING 1995 with learned reading and writing skills (de- ideal classroom setting for teaching a foreign ductive), with emphasis on the former. As language would be one that stimulates and fa- Allen and Corder point out, “Advocates of the cilitates both inductive and deductive learning oral method .have assumed that language processes, both acquisition and learning. We learning is an inductive rather than a deductive return to this theme in the concluding section of process.” (Allen & Corder 1975, 46). Many the paper. common instructional techniques (e.g., the silent way, suggestopaedia, community lan- Validity and Utility of the Proposed guage learning, the total physical response, the Learning Style Classification Scheme communicative approach) essentially fall into Several critical points can legitimately be this category, although all may involve some raised regarding the proposed learning style deductive elements. categories. The categories are by no means A long-standing controversy in language ed- comprehensive: no finite number of dimensions ucation has to do with whether languages can could ever encompass the totality of individual be acquired in the classroom or only learned. student differences, and components of other Brown (1980, 7), McLaughlin (1987, 20), and learning style models in the references cited in Gregg (1987) believe that both learning and the introductory section also play important acquisition may go on in classrooms. Krashen roles in determining how students receive and and Terrell (1983, 18) hold that acquisition can process information. Moreover, the dimensions only occur in natural settings, but later admit have not been shown to be fully independent, that “despite our conclusion that language and validated instruments to assess individual teaching is directed at learning and not preferences on all of them do not exist. Finally, acquisition, we think that it is possible to en- the teaching style with which students feel courage acquisition very effectively in the most comfortable may not correspond to the classroom” (Krashen & Terrell 1983, 27). We style that enables them to learn most agree, and believe that the key question facing effectively. (The same point could be made language educators is, what classroom with respect to all other learning style models.) conditions and procedures facilitate the oc- Having said all that, we would add that these currence of language acquisition? disclaimers do not limit the usefulness of this An important consideration in attacking this or any other model. Although it can be helpful question has to do with the use to which an for an instructor to know the distribution of acquired or learned language is likely to be learning styles in a class, the point is not to applied. By its very nature, language acquisi- place all students into one or another style tion is more likely to manifest in oral fluency category and to teach each student exclusively than in correct utilization of the written lan- according to his or her preferred style. Even if guage and conversely for language learning. this formidable goal could be achieved it would Complete command of a language thus in- not be desirable, for reasons to be discussed. volves both acquisition—an inductive process, Rather, the goal is a balanced teaching style, in required to speak fluently—and learning—a all classes at all levels. Our hypothesis is that deductive process, required to write language instructors who adapt their instruction grammatically. The two processes are not to address both poles of each of the five given competitive but complementary, just as in- dimensions should come close to providing an ductive and deductive reasoning are essential optimal learning environment for most (if not and coequal components of the scientific all) students in a class. method. By analogy, it would appear that an

A Multistyle Approach 27 Studies show that matching teaching styles To Foreign Language Education to learning styles can significantly enhance

27 FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS-SPRING 1995 academic achievement, student attitudes, and forced to work entirely with unfamiliar, student behavior at the primary and secondary awkward, and uncomfortable methods, prob- school level (Griggs & Dunn 1984; Smith & ably with disastrous results from the students’ Renzulli 1984), at the college level (Brown point of view. Fortunately, instructors who wish 1978; Charkins et al. 1985), and specifically in to address a wide variety of learning styles need foreign language instruction (Oxford et al. not make drastic changes in their instructional 1991; Wallace & Oxford 1992). This is not to approach. The way they normally teach say that the best thing one can do for one’s addresses the needs of at least five of the students is to use their preferred modes of in- specified learning style categories: regular use struction exclusively. Students will inevitably of at least some of the instructional techniques be called upon to deal with problems and given below should suffice to cover the challenges that require the use of their less remaining five. preferred modes, and so should regularly be given practice in the use of those modes (Hunt • Motivate learning. As much as possible, 1971; Friedman and Alley 1984; Cox 1988). teach new material (vocabulary, rules of However, Smith and Renzulli (1984) caution grammar) in the context of situations to that stress, frustration, and burnout may occur which the students can relate in terms of their when students are subjected over extended personal and career experiences, past and periods of time to teaching styles inconsistent anticipated, rather than simply as more with their learning style preferences. material to memorize (intuitive, global, A point no educational psychologist would inductive). dispute is that students learn more when information is presented in a variety of modes • Balance concrete information (word defini- than when only a single mode is used. The tions, rules for verb conjugation and adjec- point is supported by a research study carried tive-noun agreement) (sensing) and con- out several decades ago, which concluded that ceptual information (syntactical and semantic students retain 10 percent of what they read, 26 patterns, comparisons and contrasts with the percent of what they hear, 30 percent of what students’ native language) (intuition) in every they see, 50 percent of what they see and hear, course at every level. The balance does not 70 percent of what they say, and 90 percent of have to be equal, and in elementary courses it what they say as they do something (Stice may be shifted heavily toward the sensing 1987). What must be done to achieve effective side, but there should periodically be foreign language learning is to balance something to capture the intuitors’ interest. instructional methods, somehow structuring the class so that all learning styles are • Balance structured teaching approaches that simultaneously—or at least sequentially—ac- emphasize formal training (deductive, commodated (Oxford 1990). The approach sequential) with more open-ended unstruc- recommended in this paper is designed to meet tured activities that emphasis conversation this goal. and cultural contexts of the target language The prospect of tailoring language instruc- (inductive, global). tion to somehow accommodate 32 (25) different learning styles might seem forbidding to • Make liberal use of visuals. Use photographs, instructors. This reaction is understandable. drawings, sketches, and cartoons to illustrate Teaching styles are made up of the methods and reinforce the meanings of vocabulary and approaches with which instructors feel words. Show films, videotapes, and live most comfortable; if they tried to change to dramatizations to illustrate lessons in texts completely different approaches they would be (visual, global.)

28 vide practice in basic vocabulary and gram- • Assign some repetitive drill exercises to pro- mar (sensing) but don’t overdo it (intuitive).

FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS-SPRING 1995 1981. Teaching through Modality Strengths: • Do not fill every minute of class time Concepts and Practices. Columbus, OH: lecturing and writing on the board. Provide Zaner-Bloser. intervals—however brief—for students to Bonwell, C.C., and J.A. Eison. 1979. Active think about what they have been told; assign Learning: Creating Excitement in the brief writing exercises (reflective). Raise Classroom. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education questions and problems to be worked on by Report No. 1. Washington, DC: George students in small groups; enact dialogues and Washington University. mini-dramas; hold team competitions Brown, D. 1980. Principles of Language (active). Learning And Teaching. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. • Give students the option of cooperating on at Brown, R. 1978. “The Effects of Congruency least some homework assignments (active). Between Learning Styles and Teaching Active learners generally learn best when Styles on College Student Achievement.” they interact with others; if they are denied College Student Journal 12 : 307-309. the opportunity to do so they are being deprived of their most effective learning tool. Charkins, R.J., D.M. OToole, and J.N. Wetzel. 1985. “Linking Teacher and Student • Balance inductive and deductive presenta- Learning Styles with Student Achievement tion of course material. Instruct some or all and Attitudes.” J Economic Education, of the class in the language being taught, to Spring 1985: 111-120. facilitate language acquisition and develop Claxton, CS., and P.H. Murrell. 1987. Learning skill in oral communication (inductive). In styles: Implications for Improving parallel, provide explicit instruction in syntax Educational Practice. ASHE-ERIC Higher and semantics to facilitate formal language Education Report No. 4, Washington, DC: learning and develop skill in written George Washington University. communication and interpretation (deduc- Coulter, S.P. Cited in Robinett, B.W., and J. tive). Schachter. 1983. Second Language Learning: Contrastive Analysis, Error Instructors confronted with this list might Analysis, and Related Aspects. Ann Arbor: feel that it is impossible to do all that in a University of Michigan Press, 179. course and still cover the syllabus. Their con- Cox, V. 1988. “Some Implications of Cognitive cern is not unreasonable: extensive use of some Science, Cognitive Psychology, and Human of the recommended approaches—particularly Information Processing for Engineering those involving opportunities for student Education of the Future: Problem Solving, activity during class—could indeed add to the Cognition and Metacognition.” 1988 ASEE time it takes to present a given body of Annual Conference Proceedings. Portland, material. The idea, however, is not to adopt all OR: American Society for Engineering the techniques at once but rather to pick several Education. that look feasible and try them on an occasional Crowder, R.G., and R.K. Wagner. 1992. The basis; keep the ones that work; drop the others; Psychology of Reading, 2nd Edition. New and try one or two more later in the course or in York: Oxford University Press, Ch. 9. the next course. In this way a teaching style Dale, E. 1969. Audio-Visual Methods in that is both effective for students and Teaching, 3rd Ed. New York, Holt, Rinehart comfortable for the instructor will evolve naturally, with a potentially dramatic effect on and Winston. the quality of learning that subsequently occurs.

REFERENCES Ehrman, M., and R. Oxford. 1990. “Adult Allen, J.P.B., and S.P. Corder, eds. 1975. Language Learning Styles and Strategies in Papers in Applied Linguistics. II. London: 29 an Intensive Training Setting.” The Modern Oxford University Press. Language Journal, 74: 311-327. Barbe, W.B., R.H. Swassing, and M.N. Milone. Felder, R.M. 1989. “Meet Your Students. I.

FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS-SPRING 1995 Stan and Nathan.” Chemical Engineering Indicator in Higher Education, J.A. Provost Education 23: 2, 68-69. and S. Anchors, Eds. Palo Alto: Consulting ______1993. Reaching the Second Tier: Psychologists Press, 181-206. Learning and Teaching Styles in College Johnson, D.W., R.T. Johnson, and K.A. Smith. Science Education.” J Coll. Sci. Teaching 1991. Cooperative Learning: Increasing 23: 286-290. College Faculty Instructional Productivity. Felder, R.M., and L.K. Silverman. 1988. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. “Learning and Teaching Styles in 4. Washington, DC: George Washington Engineering Education.” Engineering University. Education 78: 674-681. Jung, C.G. 1971. Psychological Types. Friedman, P., and R. Alley. 1984. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. “Learning/Teaching Styles: Applying the Kane, M. 1984. “Cognitive Styles of Thinking Principles.” Theory into Practice, 23, 1: 77- And Learning: Part One.” Academic Therapy 81. 19(5): 527. Glaser, R. 1984. “Education and Thinking: The Kirby, J.R. 1988. “Style, strategy, and skill in Role of Knowledge.” American Psychologist reading.” In Schmeck (1988), Ch. 9, 53-82. 39: 93-104. KoIb, D. 1984. Experiential Learning: Godleski, ES. 1984. “Learning Style Experience as the Source Of Learning and Compatibility of Engineering Students and Development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Faculty.” Proceedings, Annual Frontiers in Prentice-Hall. Education Conference. ASEE/IEEE, Krashen, S., and T.D. Terrell. 1983. The Philadelphia, 362. Natural Approach: Language Acquisition in Gregg, K.R. 1987. “Krashen’s Monitor and the Classroom. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Occam’s Razor.” Applied Linguistics, 5: 79- Lahti, A.M. 1956. “The Inductive-Deductive 100. Method and the Physical Science Gregorc, AF. 1982. An Adult’s Guide to Style. Laboratory.’ J Experimental Education Maynard, MA: Gabriel Systems. 24:149-163, cited in McKeachie, W.J. 1986. Griggs, SA., and R.S. Dunn. “Selected Case Teaching Tips, 8th ed. Lexington, MA: Studies of the Learning Style Preferences of Heath, 168. Gifted Students.” Gifted Child Quarterly 28, Lawrence, G. 1993. People Types and Tiger 3:115-119. Stripes: A Practical Guide to Learning Guild, P.B., and S. Garger. 1985. Marching to Styles, 3rd edition. Gainesville, FL: Center Different Drummers. Alexandria, VA: for Applications of Psychological Type. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Leaver, B.L. 1986. “Hem isphericity of the Development. Brain and Foreign Language Teaching.” Gunderson, B., and D. Johnson. 1980. “Build- Folio Slavica 8: 2- 15. ing Positive Attitudes by Using Cooperative Luria, A.R. 1980. Higher Cortical Functions in Learning Groups.” Foreign Language Man, 2nd ed. New York: Basic Books. Annals 13: 39-43. Martin, M. 1978. “Speech Recoding in Silent Hunt, D.E. 1971. Matching Models in Reading.’ Memory and Cognition 6:108-114. Education: The Coordination of Teaching Marton, F. 1988. “Describing and Improving Methods with Student Characteristics. Learning.” In Schmeck (1988), Ch. 3, 229- Toronto: Institute for Studies in Education. 274. Jacob, E., and B. Mattson. 1987. Using McCarthy, B. 1987. The 4MAT System: Cooperative Learning with Language Teaching to Learning Styles with Right/Left Minority Students: A Report from the Field. Mode Techniques. Barrington, IL: EXCEL, Washington: Center for Language Education Inc.

and Research (CLEAR) Project, Center for McConnell, T.R. 1934. “Discovery Versus Applied Linguistics. (Cited in Ehrman and 30 Authoritative Identification in the Learning Oxford, 1990.) of Children.” Studies in Education 2, 5:13- Jensen, G.H. 1987. “Learning Styles,” in 60. Applications of the Myers-Briggs Type McLaughlin, B. 1987. Theories of Second

FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS-SPRING 1995 Language Learning. London: Edward Arnold Rivers, W.M. 1968. Teaching Foreign Publishers. Language Skills. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Moody, R. 1988. “Personality Preferences and Press, 14. Foreign Language Learning.” The Modern Ropo, E. 1987. “Skills for Learning: A Review Language Journal 72: 389-401. of Studies on Inductive Reasoning.” Myers, lB., and M.H. McCaulley. 1985. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Manual: A Guide to the Development and Research 31: 3 1-39. Use of the MyersBriggs Type Indicator. Palo Schmeck, R.R., ed. 1988. Learning Strategies Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. and Learning Styles. New York: Plenum Press. Myers, lB., and P.B. Myers. 1980. Gifts Smith, L.H., and J.S. Renzulli. 1984. “Learning Differing. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Style Preferences: A Practical Approach For Psychologists Press. Classroom Teachers.” Theory into Practice Oxford, R.L. 1990. ‘Missing Link: Evidence 23: 44-50. from Research on Language Learning Styles Stice, J.E. 1987. ‘Using KoIb’s Learning Cycle and Strategies,” in Georgetown University To Improve Student Learning.” Engineering Round Table on Languages and Linguistics Education 77: 29 1-296. 1990. Washington, DC: Georgetown Swenson, E.J. 1949. “Organization and University Press. generalization as factors in learning, transfer, Oxford, R.L., and M.E. Ehrman. 1993. “Second and retroactive inhibition.” Learning Theory Language Research on Individual in School Situations. Minneapolis: Univ. of Differences.” Annual Review of Applied Minnesota Press. Linguistics 13: 188-205. Taba, H. 1966. Teaching Strategies and Oxford, R., M. Ehrman, and R. Lavine. 1991. Cognitive Functioning in Elementary School “Style Wars: Teacher-Student Style Children. U.S.O.E. Cooperative Research Conflicts in the Language Classroom,” in S. Project No. 2404. San Francisco: San Magnan, ed., Challenges in the 1990’s for Francisco State College. College Foreign Language Programs. Wallace, B., and R.L. Oxford. 1992. “Disparity Boston: Heinle and Heinle. in Learning Styles and Teaching Styles in Pask, G. 1988. ‘Learning strategies, teaching the ESL Classroom: Does This Mean War?” strategies, and conceptual or learning style.” AMTESOL Journal 1: 45-68. In Schmeck (1988), Ch. 4, 83-100. Witkin, H.A., and DR. Goodenough. 1981. Cognitive Styles: Essence and Origins. Field Dependence and Field Independence. New Reid, J.M. “The Learning Style Preferences of York: International Universities Press. ESL Students.” TESOL Quarterly 21:87-111.