1. Individual Differences in SLA: Styles / Strategies Learning styles – our preferred (natural, habitual, “without thinking”) way of learning. global v. analytic field in / dependence feeling v. thinking impulsive v. reflective intuitive-random v. concrete-sequential closure-oriented v. open extroverted v. introverted visual v. auditory v. tactile/kinesthetic Oxford & Anderson. (1995). A cross-cultural view of learning styles. Language Teaching, 28, 201–215. 1

2. Individual Differences in SLA: Styles / Strategies Learning styles – our preferred (natural, habitual, “without thinking”) way of learning. For the most part, scholars determine learners’ styles through use of instruments, often—but not always—questionnaires. Field In / Dependence has been studied widely. It is “the extent to which a person perceives part of a field as discrete from the surrounding field as a whole, rather than embedded” (p. 121). Jamieson, J. (1992). The cognitive styles of reflection / impulsivity and field independence / dependence and ESL success. Modern Language Journal, 76, 491–501. 2

3. Individual Differences in SLA: Styles / Strategies Field In / Dependence 3 In studies of Field In / Dependence learner style is determined by two tests: the Matching Familiar Figures Test (MFFT). Match the figures …

4. Individual Differences in SLA: Styles / Strategies Field In / Dependence 4 … and the Group Embedded Figures Test (GEFT). Find the embedded figure in the more complex graphic …

5. Individual Differences in SLA: Styles / Strategies Field In / Dependence 5 … and the Group Embedded Figures Test (GEFT). What embedded figures to you see here?

6. Individual Differences in SLA: Styles / Strategies Field In / Dependence There is complex empirical evidence on the impact of field in / dependence on language learning. What do you think it might be? If we are field dependent (more holistically oriented; focusing on the comprehensive field) … FD people are more socially oriented, and may have more success in SLA in communicative, naturalistic situations. If we are field independence (oriented more toward discrete parts than the whole) … FI people are more self reliant (independent), and may succeed in analytical SLA situations. 6

7. Individual Differences in SLA: Styles / Strategies Learning strategies – the conscious decisions we make about the learning task (strategies). 1.cognitive strategies, involving the manipulation or transformation of learning materials / input (e.g., repetition, summarizing, using images); 2.metacognitive strategies, involving higher-order strategies aimed at analyzing, monitoring, evaluating, planning, and organizing one’s own learning process; 7

8. Individual Differences in SLA: Styles / Strategies Learning strategies – the conscious decisions we make about the learning task (strategies). 1.cognitive strategies; 2.metacognitive strategies; 3.social strategies, involving interpersonal behaviors aimed at increasing the amount of L2 communication and practice the learner undertakes (e.g. initiating interaction with native speakers, cooperating with peers); 4.affective strategies, involving taking control of the emotional conditions and experiences that shape one’s subjective involvement in learning. 8

9. Individual Differences in SLA: Styles / Strategies Learning strategies – the conscious decisions we make about the learning task (strategies). 1.cognitive strategies; 2.metacognitive strategies; 3.social strategies; 4.affective strategies. Dörnyei & Skehan. (2003). Individual differences in SLA. In Doughty & Long (Eds.), Handbook of SLA (pp. 589–630). Blackwell. (Note the slightly different taxonomy of strategies than in Carson and Longhini.) 9

10. Individual Differences in SLA: Styles / Strategies Learning strategies O’Malley, Chamot, Küpper. (1989). Listening comprehension strategies in SLA. Applied Linguistics, 10, 418–437. 11 high school students; Spanish as first language. 8 “effective learners” and 3 “ineffective learners,” as categorized by their teacher “think aloud strategy” – students described what they were thinking during 8 pauses in taped passages. Student comments on their own processes / strategies were taped, coded, and analyzed. 10

11. Individual Differences in SLA: Styles / Strategies O’Malley, Chamot, Küpper 11 Ineffective listeners: approached texts on a word-by-word basis; were unaware of inattention; did not redirect attention to the oral text when needed; did not make connections between new information and their own lives. Effective listeners: monitored attention lapses; redirected attention as necessary; listened for larger “chunks” of text; shifted attention to individual words only when there was a breakdown in comprehension; related new information to prior information.

12. Individual Differences in SLA: Styles / Strategies O’Malley, Chamot, Küpper How would we characterize this research? Is it correlation research, involving the use of an instrument and performance data? Qualitative research, maybe a case study. What do we gain in understand individual differences in SLA from this kind of research? thick description provides nuances in how people differ (i.e., beyond the static categories that orient instruments -- integrative v. instrumental motivation, e.g.); we get a clearer sense of the process of SLA. 12

13. Individual Differences in SLA: Styles / Strategies O’Malley, Chamot, Küpper How would we characterize this research? Is it correlation research, involving the use of an instrument and performance data? Qualitative research, maybe a case study. What do we lose? parsimony; neatness; generalizability. More? Into which group does Carson and Longhini (2002) fall? 13