Major, minor, and negative learning style preferences of university students

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

System 39 (2011) 103e112

www.elsevier.com/locate/system

Major, minor, and negative learning style preferences of university students Angeliki Psaltou-Joycey a,1, Zoe Kantaridou b,* a

School of English, Department of Theoretical & Applied Linguistics, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 541 24 Thessaloniki, Greece b University of Macedonia, Egnatia 156, 54006 Thessaloniki, Greece Received 27 August 2010; revised 29 October 2010; accepted 29 October 2010

Abstract This paper reports research on the learning style preferences of 1616 university students learning foreign languages for academic purposes across eight fields of study in a given educational and cultural context, namely, tertiary education in Greece. Data was collected by using the Style Analysis Survey the outcomes of which were further analysed into major, minor, and negative student style preferences. Results showed that the visual, intuitive-random and global styles constitute major preferences in all eight fields, the closure-oriented, extroverted, and concrete-sequential styles vary between major or minor preferences, the hands-on, open, and analytic styles show a variation between minor and negative preferences, and the auditory and introverted styles are negative in all fields. Conclusions suggest that foreign language instructors who are sensitive to learner-centred issues and have questioned generalised teaching approaches should be made aware of more informed teaching suggestions that employ specific language learning strategies and teaching activities. Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Academic fields of study; Cultural context; Language learning strategies; Language learning styles; Second language learning

1. Introduction The term learning style refers to the preferred way(s) in which an individual approaches a task, a learning situation or tries to solve a problem (Cassidy, 2004; Cohen, 2003; Oxford et al., 1991; Oxford, 2003; Peacock, 2001). Learning styles have been variously defined as “the overall patterns that give general direction to learning behaviour” (Cornett, 1983: 9), “.the biologically and developmentally imposed set of characteristics that make the same teaching method wonderful for some and terrible for others” (Dunn and Griggs, 1988: 3), or as, “.the characteristic cognitive, affective and physiological behaviours that serve as relatively stable indicators of how learners perceive, interact with and respond to the learning environment .” (Keefe, 1979). A considerable body of research, both in educational psychology and in the field of Second Language Acquisition (SLA), has been concerned with the typology of learning styles and has developed various models and instruments for the description of learners’ style preferences. Although one can find numerous distinctions in the literature, the * Corresponding author. Tel.: þ30 2310 891369 (office). E-mail addresses: [email protected] (A. Psaltou-Joycey), [email protected] (Z. Kantaridou). 1 Tel.: þ30 2310 997405 (office); fax: þ30 2310 997432. 0346-251X/$ - see front matter Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.system.2011.01.008

A. Psaltou-Joycey, Z. Kantaridou / System 39 (2011) 103e112

104

following dimensions seem to have drawn the attention of second language research specialists (Cohen, 2003; Cohen and Do¨rnyei, 2002; Ehrman, 1996; Ehrman and Oxford, 1990; Oxford et al., 1992; Reid, 1995) as being particularly useful and relevant to the language learning process: sensory preferences, personality types, desired degree of generality, and biological differences. Such dimensions have been researched in relation to learners’ educational and cultural background, foreign language proficiency, learning strategies, academic field, occupational involvement, age, and gender, to mention just some of the most currently discussed areas. Interest in learning styles originated from the recognition that, in order to cater for their learners effectively, “teachers of L2s need to learn to identify and understand their students’ significant individual differences” (Carrell et al., 1996). In the Greek educational and cultural context, with homogenous L1 background learners who learn foreign languages, there has been little research on similar issues. We consider such a context as one that merits special attention with regard to learners’ learning perceptions, study habits, and problem solving reactions as “language learning is fully situated within a given cultural context” (Oxford, 1996: x). In particular, we look at the learning style preferences (as presented above) of Greek university students registered in eight broadly defined fields of study, who attend foreign language courses in English, French, German, and Italian. 1.1. Literature review of learning style preferences in relation to fields of study A number of studies on L2 language learning styles that have been concerned with the ways adults or young adults (university students) approach their language learning have researched the link between learning styles and fields of study or occupation in second language learning. For their research, some scholars have used the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator/MBTI (Ehrman and Oxford, 1989; Li and Qin, 2006; Moody, 1988), and researched personality preferences, and others Reid’s Perceptual Learning Style Preference Questionnaire/PLSPQ (Reid, 1987; Rossi-Le, 1995; Peacock, 2001), and investigated perceptual learning style preferences. Furthermore, some other L2 specialists have used Oxford’s Style Analysis Survey (SAS) (Carson and Longhini, 2002; Chi, 2001; Gallin, 1999, both cited in Cohen, 2003; Gresham, 2007; Oxford and Nam, 1998; Sain, 2007; Walters, 2006; Yoon, 2005 among others) but none of them to our knowledge focused on learners’ fields of study. Differences in the above studies indicate that the learning style preferences of adult language learners are influenced by their educational and occupational engagements. However, the fact that the groups belonging to the same field of study in the above studies do not quite coincide in their sensory/perceptual and personality preferences for language learning, even in the studies using the same instrument, must relate to existing cultural and educational/ instructional differences among the respondents. Indeed a number of studies in ESL/EFL settings have identified that culture plays a significant role in the learning style preferences of many members of a culture (Harshbarger et al., 1986; Reid, 1987; Rossi-Le, 1995; Stebbins, 1995). Characteristically, Oxford et al. (1992: 441) have pointed out: “Although culture is not the single determinant, and although many other influences intervene, culture often does play a significant role in the learning styles unconsciously adopted by many participants in the culture”. 2. The present study 2.1. Purpose The primary aim of the study is to illustrate the learning style preferences of the Greek university students across fields of study and identify potential differences among them. A secondary aim is to link the empirical data with teaching practices, in other words, to provide a link between learning styles, language learning strategies, and language classroom activities. With regard to the first aim, we predict that: In the sensory mode, our Greek students will be, (a) visual, because visual learning is preferred by older students in most western cultures (Keefe, 1979; Oxford, 1995a; Price et al., 1981; Reid, 1987) and especially among educated people who have more exposure to the written word; however, we expect students of Engineering, Sciences, Medicine and Computer Science to also show preference for the hands-on style because of the practical nature of their studies.

A. Psaltou-Joycey, Z. Kantaridou / System 39 (2011) 103e112

105

In the personality type, they will be, (b) extroverted, as the Mediterranean climate and culture favour outdoors gregarious activities. However, we expect students of Humanities, Foreign Languages and Education to be more introverted because of the theoretical and more abstract nature of their studies (see similar findings in Moody, 1988; Ehrman and Oxford, 1989), (c) more concrete-sequential and in need of guidance as, according to Hofstede (1991), the Power Distance Index (PDI) is larger in the Greek culture than in other countries of the western world, thus suggesting that learners are recipients of knowledge from the authority. (d) closure-oriented or rather intolerant of ambiguity as the Greek culture is at the top of the list in Hofstede’s (1991) Uncertainty Avoidance Index (UAI). In the cognitive dimension, they will show, (e) a balance between the global and analytic styles, in agreement, on the one hand, with their extroversion, and, on the other, with their predicted sequentiality (Reid, 1995). 2.2. Participants The participants were all undergraduate students (N ¼ 1616) from two universities in Greece, attending foreign language tuition in English, French, German, and Italian (see Table 1 for more details). 2.3. Instrument The instrument used in the present study was Oxford’s (1995b: 208e215) Style Analysis Survey (SAS) which consists of 110 items designed to assess an individual’s general approach to learning and working environments and to indicate overall style preferences. Its items are grouped into five dimensions: (a) How I use my physical senses (visual, auditory, hands-on), (b) How I deal with other people (extraversion vs. introversion), (c) How I handle possibilities (intuitive-random vs. concrete-sequential), (d) How I approach tasks (closure-oriented vs. open), and (e) How I deal with ideas (global vs. analytic). More specifically, “sensory/perceptual preference refers to the sensory modality with which the learner is most comfortable and through which most perception is channeled for that individual”, (Oxford et al., 1991: 7). Extroverted learners derive energy from the external world, benefit from interaction with others, have many friendships, some of which are deep but others are not, whereas introverted learners find their energy in the internal world, seek solitude and prefer just a few friendships which are rather deep (Ehrman and Oxford, 1989; Leaver et al., 2005; Oxford, 2001). Intuitive-random people are abstract, speculative thinkers, and work in a non-sequential way; concrete-sequential people are characterised as practical individuals, are present-oriented, and like to think in a step-by-step sequence (Ehrman and Leaver, 2003; Oxford, 1995b). Closure-oriented people work better with deadlines, take work seriously and systematically, prefer neatness, and are intolerant of ambiguity; on the other hand, open learners prefer to postpone closure, like negotiating, are tolerant of ambiguity (Ely, 1995; Norton, 1975), and with regard to L2 learning, Table 1 Percentages and (frequencies) of the participants in gender, age and field of study. N ¼ 1616 Male Female Age Humanities (HUM) Foreign Languages majors (FL) Engineering (ENG) Sciences (SC) Medicine (MED) Economics (ECON) Education (EDU) Computer Science (COMP)

26.7% (416) 73.3% (1142) 19.5 yrs (SD ¼ 2.08) 17% (274) 14% (226) 7.2% (116) 8% (130) 14% (226) 25.2% (408) 7% (113) 7.6% (123)

A. Psaltou-Joycey, Z. Kantaridou / System 39 (2011) 103e112

106

take it less seriously (Oxford, 2001). Global people are holistic in learning by viewing the ‘big picture’ rather than details and by synthesing the input they receive, whereas analytic people are particular and detail-oriented, seek perfection and accuracy, and like logical analyses and contrasts while learning (Carbo, 1997; Littlemore, 2001; Messick, 1994; Oxford, 1995b). The Cronbach a reliabilities of the scales in the Greek translation that was used in the present study are given in Table 2. Three of the scales (extroverted, introverted, closure-oriented) are quite reliable according to the .70 criterion for Cronbach’s alpha set by Nunnally and Bernstein (1994) and three more (intuitive-random, open, global) can be marginally acceptable. The three sensory/perceptual scales and analytic style have relatively low reliabilities although all efforts (back translation, discussion of items with students and colleagues) have been made to improve them after the pilot stage. The sensory component of the SAS has rendered low reliabilities in other studies (Isemonger and Watanabe, 2007; Isemonger, 2008) in which its construct validity was questioned. However, we decided to keep the scales in the study in order to retain the instrument as a whole, while being aware of their limitations and possible debatable results. We are also aware of the fact that the instrument used may not be the most recent or the most elaborate one in the field of style research but its use was justified on the grounds that it: a) b) c) d)

is user-friendly (Do¨rnyei, 2005), is more focused on language learning than other instruments (Cohen and Do¨rnyei, 2002), provides a better overview of the styles used as it has many categories, could provide a better match with the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (Oxford, 1990), which has been used in the larger scale design of our original project.

The style that characterises the respondent is the one with the maximum score in each dimension above. If scores are less than two points apart in the dimension, the respondent is characterised as a balanced type. 2.4. Procedure The SAS was administered to the students by their language teachers during the Language for Academic Purposes (LAP) course, which is a compulsory requirement for the awarding of their degree. The sample is conveniently random in the sense that it draws on the students that happened to be present in class on the day of the administration of the questionnaire. 2.5. Data Analysis First the sum of the 10 items comprising each learning style were calculated and then these sums were analysed in two ways: (a) descriptive statistics, in order to calculate the frequencies and percentages of learning styles in the various fields of study, and (b) a series of univariate analyses of variance to compare the differences in learning styles Table 2 Reliabilities of the SAS scales in the Greek translation. Styles

Cronbach a

Visual (V) Auditory (Au) Hands-on (H) Extroverted (Ex) Introverted (In) Intuitive-random (IR) Concrete-sequential (CS) Closure-oriented (CL) Open (O) Global (G) Analytic (A)

a a a a a a a a a a a

¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼

.4974 .4056 .5397 .7727 .7747 .6533 .5950 .8071 .6564 .6279 .5897

A. Psaltou-Joycey, Z. Kantaridou / System 39 (2011) 103e112

107

(dependent variable) among the various fields of study (fixed variable). The Tukey HSD test was also used to check multiple comparisons post hoc. The data were all analysed using the statistical programme SPSS 17. The significance level was set at 5%, p < 0.05. 3. Results Descriptive statistics revealed that the overall learning style preferences of Greek university students are visual, extroverted, intuitive-random, closure-oriented and global. Fig. 1 indicates the overall learning styles profile of Greek students in the eleven SAS styles (absolute/clear styles/types) and their combinations (balanced types), e.g., visual and auditory-VAu. Statistically significant differences among the fields of study were indicated in five learning styles: visual, auditory, hands-on, extroverted, and concrete-sequential. Table 3 summarises the means and standard deviation for the eleven learning styles in the eight fields of study. In order to make the results of the analyses of variance more helpful or practical, we adopted Reid’s (1987) distinction into major, minor and negative learning style preferences according to the preference mean score the fields of study demonstrate in the different style dimensions. Thus, Table 3 turns into Table 4, as certain important observations, not immediately apparent from the anovas, can be made clear. Reid’s scale was adapted to fit our 0-30 scale. Consequently, Major preference (16.2 and above) signifies any learning method that comes natural, ‘normal’ to the learner. Minor preference (13.80e16.19) signifies any learning method in which the learner can function adequately according to the demands of the tasks. Negative preference (anything below 13.79) indicates a learning method that may cause the learner difficulty, so they will not opt for it spontaneously. Table 4 and Fig. 1 indicate some noteworthy points: a) HUM and FL presented exactly the same style preferences and so did ENG and SC. b) Visual is a major style in all eight fields, as predicted, and hands-on appeared as a minor preference for ENG, SC, MED and COMP, as predicted, but also for EDU and ECON, indicating that action during learning is an option counterbalancing our students’ major preference for visual. c) Although extroversion represented the majority of students, as predicted, it came out as a major preference only in ECON and COMP, whereas the others indicated a minor preference. Our predictions about introversion were not confirmed: it is definitely a negative preference.

Fig. 1. The percentages of the learning styles in each dimension for the total population.

A. Psaltou-Joycey, Z. Kantaridou / System 39 (2011) 103e112

108

Table 3 Means and (SD) for the 11 learning styles in the 8 fields of study.

HUM FL ENG SC MED ECON EDU COMP F (7:1608) p

V

Au

H

Ex

In

IR

CS

CL

O

G

A

17.71a (3.5) 17.76b (3.4) 17.18 (4.1) 17.59 (4.4) 17.32 (3.9) 16.64ab (3.9) 17.56 (4.0) 17.19 (4.1) 2.79 .007

12.20c (3.1) 12.05f (3.2) 12.61 (3.3) 12.51 (3.8) 12.33d (3.1) 12.01e (3.2) 12.32 (3.6) 13.51cdef (3.9) 3.18 .002

13.51 (4.1) 13.42gh (4.5) 14.93g (4.3) 14.59 (4.7) 14.01 (4.1) 13.90 (4.1) 14.13 (4.2) 14.89h (4.4) 3.07 .003

15.65i (4.8) 15.20k (4.6) 15.33j (4.8) 15.82 (5.5) 15.69 (4.9) 16.25 (4.8) 16.12 (4.5) 17.32ijk (5.0) 2.89 .005

11.35 (4.8) 11.09 (4.6) 10.98 (5.4) 10.62 (4.9) 11.54 (5.2) 10.84 (5.0) 10.61 (5.3) 11.41 (5.3) e e

17.62 (3.8) 17.43 (3.8) 18.38 (3.7) 17.86 (3.8) 17.85 (3.8) 17.49 (3.9) 17.48 (4.2) 18.61 (4.4) e e

15.06m (3.9) 15.42 (3.9) 15.43 (3.5) 16.09 (3.8) 15.99 (3.5) 15.63 (3.7) 16.44m (4.2) 16.17 (4.1) 2.60 .011

16.69 (5.6) 16.51 (5.7) 16.45 (5.4) 17.07 (5.5) 16.33 (5.2) 15.91 (5.6) 17.11 (5.7) 16.45 (5.2) e e

13.14 (4.3) 13.22 (3.9) 12.99 (4.3) 12.70 (4.0) 13.40 (4.1) 13.41 (4.3) 13.91 (4.2) 13.11 (4.2) e e

17.30 (3.5) 17.25 (3.6) 18.05 (3.6) 17.17 (3.8) 17.27 (3.7) 17.08 (3.9) 17.83 (4.3) 18.15 (3.5) e e

13.53 (3.4) 13.22 (3.3) 13.41 (3.5) 13.73 (3.6) 13.94 (3.2) 13.44 (3.6) 13.72 (4.0) 13.69 (3.9) e e

The same letter index (in the power position) next to the mean score indicates significant differences in the given style between two fields of study. For example, a, which appears twice in the V column below, indicates that HUM and ECON differ significantly in the visual style, and so on.

d) Contrary to our predictions, intuitive-random came out as a major preference, while concrete-sequential was a minor preference for most fields and major only for EDU. We can, therefore, assume that, in the ‘handling of possibilities’, Greek students are fairly balanced between intuition and concreteness (see also Fig. 1). e) As predicted, closure-oriented came out as a major preference for most fields, and as a minor only for ECON. f) Our prediction of a balanced cognitive dimension was not confirmed, because global appeared as a major preference for all eight fields while analytic as negative for seven fields (minor only for MED). Regarding flexibility and balance in learning style preferences, we observed that: 1. The most flexible learners appear in the fields of EDU (5 major þ 3 minor) and MED (4 major þ 4 minor) who can employ 8 different styles in their learning (major and minor together), 2. The least flexible learners appear in HUM and FL as they only employ 6 learning styles (4 major þ 2 minor) and consequently indicate the most negative learning preferences (5 styles),

Table 4 Major, minor and negative preferences of the 11 styles in the 8 fields of study. Styles

V Au H Ex In IR CS CL O G A

Fields Of Study HUM/FL

EDU

ECON

MED

ENG/SC

COMP

major negative negative minor negative major minor major negative major negative

major negative minor minor negative major major major minor major negative

major negative minor major negative major minor minor negative major negative

major negative minor minor negative major minor major negative major minor

major negative minor minor negative major minor major negative major negative

major negative minor major negative major minor major negative major negative

A. Psaltou-Joycey, Z. Kantaridou / System 39 (2011) 103e112

109

3. The fields of ECON, ENG, SC and COMP appear as fairly balanced as they can employ 7 styles (major and minor together) out of the 11 that were investigated. 4. Discussion In this section we explore the reasons for partial non-confirmation of our predictions, comment on how teachers can handle the students’ attested learning style preferences in the respective fields of study, and finally, make teaching suggestions. 4.1. Non-confirmed predictions Counter to our predictions for the concrete-sequential style, all fields showed a major preference for the intuitiverandom style and a minor and major preference for the concrete-sequential, thus, showing a balance between intuitiveness and abstraction, on the one hand, and concreteness and guidance, on the other. As all four values are required in the pursuit of academic studies, Greek students seem to have successfully managed to develop them satisfactorily. Moreover, this result is suggestive of the cultural changes the Greek society is undergoing with regard to Hofstede’s (1991) PDI, by not accepting power relations unquestionably and moving towards stronger beliefs of equality than in the past. We attribute the non-confirmation of our prediction about HUM, FL, and EDU showing some preference for introversion to the strong influence of the Greek culture and to the nature of these students’ career orientations (L1 and L2 teachers), demanding the need to constantly build up and maintain social relations with their students. Our students’ preference for the global style implies that they need reference to prior knowledge and experience as well as to the ‘big picture’ of the subject in order to absorb new information (Felder and Henriques, 1995: 25). These findings agree with their attested preference for extroversion, as the global style also relates to sensitivity and consideration about the social context (Oxford, 1995a), and implies that students like learning through experience and interaction with others (Reid, 1995). Our prediction about the analytic counterbalancing the global style was not confirmed, probably because sequentiality was not proved to be a major preference for our students, a quality that accompanies analytic people (Schmeck, 1988). 4.2. Fields of study HUM and FL were indicated as the least flexible with five negative style preferences: Au, H, In, O, A. As the majority of graduates from these disciplines are going to become L1 or L2 language teachers, they urgently need training to enable them to stretch their ‘comfort zones’ (Ehrman, 1996). EDU and MED indicated the most flexible students, each showing a minor style preference that matches their field: (a) open for EDU indicates an easy-going personality, willingness to have fun, and ability to accept novel perceptions from pupils (as nursery or primary school teachers) in order to guide them into the structured world of education. Moreover, their major preferences for intuition, concreteness and closure will control excessive preference for openness. (b) Analytic for MED signifies emphasis on details and concern for precision, both very important characteristics for a medical practitioner. ENG, SC, COMP, and ECON, who were fairly balanced, also deserve some comments: (a) the major preference of ENG, SC, and COMP for closure renders them well prepared for any kind of projects they will be involved in; (b) the major preference of COMP for extroversion creates a new picture for the computer expert who extends his/her socialisation beyond face-to-face communication to other kinds of digital interaction with unlimited prospects; (c) on the other hand, ECON’s minor preference for closure should probably be further consolidated in the deadline-driven world of financial economics. 4.3. Implications for teaching In this part, we will suggest introducing learning strategies and teaching activities that match the learning styles, on the assumption that learner training through experience with appropriate learning strategies and teaching activities

110

A. Psaltou-Joycey, Z. Kantaridou / System 39 (2011) 103e112

Table 5 Suggested language learning strategies and teaching activities matching the learning styles. Language learning strategies Major/minor styles Visual Memory: creating mental images Cognitive: highlighting with different colours Metacognitive: setting goals and objectives goals Hands-on Compensation: mimes and gestures Memory: using physical response Social: cooperating with others

Extroverted

Intuitiverandom

Concretesequential

Closureoriented

Global

Social: cooperating with peers/proficient users, asking for clarification Metacognitive: organise own learning, seeking practice opportunities (mainly out of class) Do not use affective strategies. Do not favour solitary/ concentrated study. They support more indirect strategies than direct ones. Memory: associating, elaborating Compensation strategies: guessing from context Metacognitive: planning Cognitive: analysing and reasoning Social strategies: asking questions Affective: (limited use): lowering anxiety, encouraging oneself Cognitive: practising Memory: imagery, employing action, structured reviewing, rote memorisation Metacognitive: arranging and planning Memory: associating/elaborating, structured reviewing Metacognitive: arranging and planning, evaluating, goal-setting with deadlines, overviewing and linking with previous material Cognitive: practising (formal, drill-like) Social: asking for correction, clarification Memory: semantic mapping, grouping, Cognitive: skimming, summarising, analysing contrastively Compensation: guessing Social: cultural understanding

Teaching activities Extensive reading, written instructions, using outlines, flash cards, TV, videos, internet

Making posters, collages, activities that allow students to move around, change groups frequently, projects, CALL, role playing, activities that make authentic use of the language Discussions/debates, role playing, cooperative tasks, question-generating activities, activities that make students act physically.

Brainstorming, naturalistic input, applying rules to new situations, synthesis of information from randomly selected sources, inference tasks, tasks offering change and variety, skip around a text Activities with clear instructions, synthesis of information from carefully selected sources, well-planned homework, using realia, drawings, kinesthetic input Activities that have a clear goal, tasks that follow a predictable sequence to get a sense of organisation

Mind-maps, inductive tasks, finding similarities/differences/main idea, open-ended questions, extensive reading, discussions, learning through experiential tasks

Negative styles Auditory

Open

Analytic

Introverted

Memory: representing sound in memory Cognitive: note-taking from auditory input Social strategies: asking questions Cognitive: recombining, analysing, getting the idea quickly, practising naturalistically Metacognitive: seeking practice opportunities Compensation: guessing Social: cooperating Affective: Using humour to lower anxiety, rewarding oneself Cognitive: scanning, practising, analysing contrastively, reasoning deductively Metacognitive strategies: centering one’s learning Metacognitive (generally preferred): planning for a language task, careful organisation of learning, Cognitive: analysing and reasoning (formal strategies) Affective/social(generally rejected) Self-encouragement

Reading aloud, discussions, group work, using songs, music Discovery learning, activities involving risk taking, entertainment, cooperation

Drawing flowcharts with linkage of ideas, taking detailed notes, deductive tasks, dissecting vocabulary (suffixes/prefixes), drilling exercises Individual tasks/work, cooperative tasks or pair work with familiar/ trusted classmate in stress free environment, CALL

A. Psaltou-Joycey, Z. Kantaridou / System 39 (2011) 103e112

111

which use the learners’ major/minor preferences or ‘comfort zones’ as a starting point, can contribute towards stretching their negative preferences to adapt to the teaching conditions (Cohen and Do¨rnyei, 2002). Research has demonstrated that adults can modify and extend their learning styles so that they can adapt to the demands of instruction, context, task, or occupation (Cohen, 2003; DeCapua and Wintergerst, 2005; Fourier, 1984; Schmeck, 1981; Tarone, 1979). Also Brown (1994), Cohen (1984), Ehrman and Oxford (1990), and O’ Malley et al. (1985) have shown a link between learning styles and learning strategies as the latter can be employed consciously by language learners who are trained accordingly in order to enhance their language learning (see also Carson and Longhini, 2002; Li and Qin, 2006; Littlemore, 2001; Wenden, 1986). Table 5 summarises the learning strategies (Oxford, 1990) and suggested teaching activities according to the styles they appeal to. 5. Conclusion and implications for future research In our empirical research we have investigated the language learning style preferences of a large number of Greek university students across the variable ‘field of study’ in an attempt to approach the learning process from the learners’ perspective. The students formed a specific cultural group with sub-cultural distinctions, being seen in a specific learning context e language learning for academic purposes. By employing Oxford’s SAS we have been able to investigate a variety of perceptual, personality and cognitive style dimensions; also by adopting Reid’s distinction into major, minor, and negative style preferences, we have been able to make finer distinctions of disciplinary differences and go beyond a general description of learning style differences. Our findings have allowed us to make useful teaching suggestions regarding the use of learning strategies, as the latter can be more directly related to language achievement (Ehrman and Oxford, 1990, Ely, 1995). We are aware of the limitations posed by some of the instrument’s low scale reliabilities and we expect this to initiate further research into refining it. Further studies may also be directed into whether students’ attested styles actually match the types of strategies they use in the different fields of study as well as into whether teaching styles match the attested student learning styles. Such further examination stimulated by our research will lead to increased teacher awareness of how to make lessons more effective and more learner-friendly. References Brown, D.H., 1994. Principles of Language Learning and Teaching, third ed. Prentice Hall Regents, Englewood Cliff, NJ. Carbo, M., 1997. Reading styles times twenty. Educational Leadership 54, 38e42. Carrell, P.L., Prince, M.S., Astica, G.G., 1996. Personality types and language learning in an EFL context. Language Learning 46 (1), 75e99. Carson, J.G., Longhini, A., 2002. Focusing on learning styles and strategies: a diary study in an immersion setting. Language Learning 52 (2), 401e438. Cassidy, S., 2004. Learning styles: an overview of theories, models, and measures. Educational Psychology 24 (4), 419e444. Chi, J., 2001. The Relationship between Learning Style Preferences and Listening Strategy Use for Advanced Adult ESL Learners. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Department of English as a Second Language. University of Minnesota. Cohen, A., 1984. Studying second-language learning strategies: how do we get the information? Applied Linguistics 5 (2), 101e112. Cohen, A.D., 2003. The learner’s side of foreign language learning: where do styles, strategies, and tasks meet? IRAL 41 (4), 279e291. Cohen, A.D., Do¨rnyei, Z., 2002. Focus on the language learner: motivation, styles, and strategies. In: Schmitt, N. (Ed.), An Introduction to Applied Linguistics. Arnold, , London, pp. 170e190. Cornett, C., 1983. What You Should Know about Teaching and Learning Styles. Phi Delta Kappa, Bloomington, IN. DeCapua, A., Wintergerst, A.C., 2005. Assessing and validating a learning styles instrument. System 33 (1), 1e16. Do¨rnyei, Z., 2005. The Psychology of the Language Learner: Individual Differences in Second Language Acquisition. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc, USA. Dunn, R., Griggs, S., 1988. Learning Styles: Quiet Revolution in American Schools. National Association of Secondary School Principals, Reston, VA. Ehrman, M.E., 1996. Understanding Second Language Learning Difficulties. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, London, New Delhi. Ehrman, M., Leaver, B.L., 2003. Cognitive styles in the service of language learning. System 31 (3), 393e415. Ehrman, M.E., Oxford, R.L., 1989. Effects of sex differences, career choice, and psychological type on adult language learning strategies. Modern Language Journal 73 (1), 1e13. Ehrman, M.E., Oxford, R.L., 1990. Adult learning styles and strategies in an intensive training setting. Modern Language Journal 74, 311e327. Ely, C.M., 1995. Second language tolerance of ambiguity scale. In: Reid, J.M. (Ed.), Learning Styles in the ESL/EFL Classroom. Heinle & Heinle, Boston, Mass., pp. 216e217. Felder, R.M., Henriques, E.R., 1995. Learning and teaching styles in foreign and second language education. Foreign Language Annals 28 (1), 21e31. Fourier, M.J., 1984. Disclosure of cognitive style information: effects on achievement of adult learners. Adult Education Quarterly 34, 147e154.

112

A. Psaltou-Joycey, Z. Kantaridou / System 39 (2011) 103e112

Gallin, R., 1999. Language Learning Styles and Their Effect on the Reading Comprehension Strategies of ESL Students. Unpublished Double Plan B Paper, Department of English as a Second Language. University of Minnesota. Gresham, G., 2007. An invitation into the investigation of the relationship between mathematics anxiety and learning styles in elementary preservice teachers. Journal of Invitational Theory and Practice 13, 24e31. http://www.invitationaleducation.net/journal/Volume%2013%20% 5BComplete%5D.pdf#page¼26. Harshbarger, B., Ross, T., Tafoya, S., Via, J., 1986. Dealing with Multiple Learning Styles in the ESL Classroom. Symposium presented at the annual meeting of TESOL, San Fransisco, CA. Hofstede, G., 1991. Cultures and Organisations: Intercultural Cooperation and Its Importance for Survival: Software of the Mind. GB. McGrawHill International. Isemonger, I., 2008. Scores on a Japanese-language version of the learning channel preference checklist. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment 26 (2), 148e155. Isemonger, I., Watanabe, K., 2007. The construct validity of scores on a Japanese version of the perceptual component of the Style Analysis Survey. System 35, 134e147. Keefe, J., 1979. Learning style: an overview. In: Keefe, J.W. (Ed.), Student Learning Styles: Diagnosing and Prescribing Programs. National Association of Secondary School Principals, Reston, VA, pp. 1e17. Leaver, B.L., Ehrman, M.E., Shekhtman, B., 2005. Achieving Success in Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Li, J., Qin, X., 2006. Language learning styles and learning strategies of tertiary-level English learners in China. RELC Journal 37 (1), 67e89. Littlemore, J., 2001. An empirical study of the relationship between cognitive style and the use of communication strategy. Applied Linguistics 22 (3), 221e265. Messick, S., 1994. The matter of style: manifestations of personality in cognition, learning, and teaching. Educational Psychologist 29 (3), 121e136. Moody, R., 1988. Personality preferences and foreign language learning. Modern Language Journal 72 (4), 389e401. Norton, R.W., 1975. Measurement of ambiguity tolerance. Journal of Personality Assessment 39, 607e619. Nunnally, J.C., Bernstein, I.H., 1994. Psychometric Theory. McGraw-Hill, New York. O’Malley, J.M., Chamot, A.U., Stewner-Manzanares, G., Ku¨pper, L., Russo, R., 1985. Learning strategies used by beginning and intermediate ESL students. Language Learning 35 (1), 21e46. Oxford, R.L., 1990. Language Learning Strategies: What Every Teacher Should Know. Heinle & Heinle, Boston, Massachusetts. Oxford, R.L., 1995a. Gender differences in language learning styles: what do they mean? In: Reid, J.M. (Ed.), Learning Styles in the ESL/EFL Classroom. Heinle & Heinle, Boston, Massachusetts, pp. 34e46. Oxford, R.L., 1995b. Style Analysis Survey (SAS): assessing your own learning and working learning styles. In: Reid, J.M. (Ed.), Learning Styles in the ESL/EFL Classroom. Heinle & Heinle, Boston, Massachusetts, pp. 208e215. Oxford, R.L., 1996. Language Learning Strategies Around the World: Cross-cultural Perspectives. University of Hawai’i at Manoa. Oxford, R.L., 2001. Language learning styles and strategies. In: Celce-Marcia, M. (Ed.), Teaching English as a Second Language. Heinle & Heinle, Boston, pp. 359e366. Oxford, R.L., 2003. Learning styles and strategies: Concepts and relationships. IRAL 41, 271e278. Oxford, R.L., Ehrman, M.E., Lavine, R.Z., 1991. Style wars: teacher-student style conflicts in the language classroom. In: Magman, S.S. (Ed.), Challenges in the 1990s for College Foreign Language Programs. Heinle & Heinle, Boston, pp. 1e25. Oxford, R.L., Hollaway, M.E., Horton-Murillo, D., 1992. Research and practical implications for teaching in a multicultural tertiary ESL/EFL classroom. System 20 (4), 439e456. Oxford, R.L., Nam, C., 1998. Learning styles and strategies of a partially bilingual student diagnosed as learning disabled: a case study. In: Reid, J.M. (Ed.), Understanding Learning Styles in the Second Language Classroom. NJ: Prentice-Hall Regents, pp. 53e61. Peacock, M., 2001. Match or mismatch? Learning styles and teaching styles in EFL. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 11 (1), 1e19. Price, G.E., Dunn, J.R., Sanders, W., 1981. Reading achievement and learning style characteristics. The Clearing House 54, 224e225. Reid, J.M., 1987. The learning style preferences of ESL students. TESOL Quarterly 21 (1), 87e111. Reid, J.M. (Ed.), 1995. Learning Styles in the ESL/EFL Classroom. Heinle & Heinle, Boston, Massachusetts. Rossi-Le, L., 1995. Learning styles and strategies in adult immigrant ESL students. In: Reid, J.M. (Ed.), Learning Styles in the ESL/EFL Classroom. Heinle & Heinle, Boston, Massachusetts, pp. 118e125. Sain, N.B., 2007. Upper secondary students’ perception towards kinaesthetic learning activities conducted in an English classroom: an insight. MEd dissertation, Universiti Technologi Malaysia. Schmeck, R.R., 1981. Improving learning by improving thinking. Educational Leadership 38 (5), 384e385. Schmeck, R.R. (Ed.), 1988. Learning Strategies and Learning Styles. Plenum Press, New York and London. Stebbins, C., 1995. Culture-specific perceptual-learning-style preferences of postsecondary students of English as a second language. In: Reid, J.M. (Ed.), Learning Styles in the ESL/EFL Classroom. Heinle & Heinle, Boston, Massachusetts, pp. 108e125. Tarone, E., 1979. Interlanguage as chameleon. Language Learning 29 (1), 181e191. Walters, J., 2006. Methods of teaching inferring meaning from context. RELC Journal 37 (2), 176e190. Wenden, A., 1986. What do L2 learners know about their language learning? A second look at retrospective accounts. Applied Linguistics 7 (2), 186e205. Yoon, H., 2005. An Investigation of Students’ Experiences with Corpus Technology in Second Language Academic Writing. PhD Dissertation. Ohio State University. http://www.ohiolink.edu/etd/sendpdf.cgi/Yoon%20Hyunsook.pdf?acc_num¼osu1109806353.