Learning and Teaching StylesIn Foreign and Second Language Education

Richard M FelderNorth Carolina State University

Eunice R. HenriquesUniversidade Estadual de Sao Paulo

ABSTRACT The ways in which an individual characteristically acquires, retains, and retrievesinformation are collectively termed the individual’s learning style. Mismatches often occur be-tween 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 theclass and the subject. This paper defines several dimensions of learning style thought to beparticularly relevant to foreign and second language education, outlines ways in which certainlearning styles are favored by the teaching styles of most language instructors, and suggests stepsto address the educational needs of all students in foreign language classes.

Students learn in many ways—by seeing andhearing; reflecting and acting; reasoning logi-cally and intuitively; memorizing and visualiz-ing. Teaching methods also vary. Someinstructors lecture, others demonstrate or dis-cuss; some focus on rules and others on ex-amples; some emphasize memory and othersunderstanding. How much a given studentlearns in a class is governed in part by that stu-dent’s native ability and prior preparation butalso by the compatibility of his or her charac-teristic approach to learning and the instructor’scharacteristic approach to teaching.

The ways in which an individual character-istically acquires, retains, and retrieves infor-mation are collectively termed the individual’slearning style. Learning styles have beenextensively discussed in the educationalpsychology literature (Claxton & Murrell 1987;Schmeck 1988) and specifically in the context

Richard M. Felder (Ph.D., Princeton University) isthe Hoechst Celanese Professor of ChemicalEngineering at North Carolina State University,Raleigh, NC.Eunice R. Henriques (Ph.D., University of NorthCarolina at Chapel Hill) is Livre Docente ofLanguages, Universidade Estadual de Campinas,Campinas, São Paulo, Brazil.

of language learning by Oxford and her col-leagues (Oxford 1990; Oxford et al. 1991; Wal-lace and Oxford 1992; Oxford & Ehrman1993), and over 30 learning style assessmentinstruments have been developed in the pastthree decades (Guild & Garger 1985; Jensen1987).

Serious mismatches may occur between thelearning styles of students in a class and theteaching style of the instructor (Felder & Sil-verman 1988; Lawrence 1993; Oxford et al.1991; Schmeck 1988), with unfortunate poten-tial consequences. The students tend to bebored and inattentive in class, do poorly ontests, get discouraged about the course, andmay conclude that they are no good at the sub-ject of the course and give up (Felder & Silver-man 1988; Godleski 1984; Oxford et al. 1991;Smith & Renzulli 1984). Instructors,confronted by low test grades, unresponsive orhostile classes, poor attendance, and dropouts,may become overly critical of their students(making things even worse) or begin toquestion their own competence as teachers.

In this paper, we will explore the followingquestions:1. Which aspects of learning style areparticularly significant in foreign and secondlanguage education?

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

FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS—SPRING 1995

2. Which learning styles are favored by theteaching styles of most language instructors?3. What can be done to address the educationalneeds of all students in foreign and secondlanguage classes?

Dimensions of Learning StyleIn the sections that follow, we describe five

dichotomous learning style dimensions derivedfrom work of Felder et al. (1988, 1993),indicating the ways in which the educationalneeds of students with strong preferences forcertain poles of the dimensions are not met bytraditional approaches to language instruction.The concluding section offers a summary ofsuggestions for meeting the needs of thosestudents.

The proposed learning style dimensions maybe defined in terms of the answers to thefollowing five questions:

1. What type of information does the studentpreferentially perceive: sensory—sights,sounds, physical sensations, or intuitive—memories, ideas, insights?2. Through which modality is sensory infor-mation most effectively perceived: visual—pictures, diagrams, graphs, demonstrations, orverbal—written and spoken words and formu-las?3. How does the student prefer to process in-formation: actively—through engagement inphysical activity or discussion, or reflectively—through introspection?4. How does the student progress toward un-derstanding: sequentially—in a logical pro-gression of small incremental steps, orglobally—in large jumps, holistically?5. With which organization of information isthe student most comfortable: inductive— factsand observations are given, underlyingprinciples are inferred, or deductive—principlesare given, consequences and applications arededuced?

Sensing and Intuitive LearnersIn his theory of psychological types, Jung

(1971) introduced sensation and intuition as the

two ways in which people tend to perceive theworld. Sensing involves observing, gatheringdata through the senses; intuition involvesindirect perception by way of the sub-conscious—accessing memory, speculating,imagining. Everyone uses both faculties con-stantly, but most people tend to favor one overthe other. The strength of this preference hasbeen assessed for millions of people using theMyers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) (Myers& McCaulley 1985; Myers and Myers 1980),and the different ways in which sensors andintuitors approach learning have been char-acterized (Lawrence 1993). Sensor–intuitordifferences in language learning have beenexplored by Moody (1988) and Ehrman andOxford (1990).

Sensors tend to be concrete and methodical,intuitors to be abstract and imaginative. Sensorslike facts, data, and experimentation; intuitorsdeal better with principles, concepts, andtheories. Sensors are patient with detail but donot like complications; intuitors are bored bydetail and welcome complications. Sensors aremore inclined than intuitors to rely onmemorization as a learning strategy and aremore comfortable learning and following rulesand standard procedures. lntuitors like variety,dislike repetition, and tend to be betterequipped than sensors to accommodate newconcepts and exceptions to rules. Sensors arecareful but may be slow; intuitors are quick butmay be careless.

Moody (1988) administered the MBTI to491 college language students at the first- andsecond-year levels. Fifty-nine percent of thestudents were intuitors, substantially more thanthe 40 percent found for a sample of 18,592general college students (Myers & McCaulley1985). This pattern is not altogether surprisingif one presumes that a substantial number of thestudents were either majoring in a language ortaking the courses as electives. As Moodynotes, language is by its nature symbolic, whichwould tend to make it more attractive tointuitors than to the more concrete and literal-minded sensors.

Ehrman and Oxford (1990) studiedlearning strategies and teaching approaches

22

FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS—SPRING 1995

preferred by sensors and intuitors in anintensive language training program. Thesensors used a variety of memorizationstrategies like internal drills and flash cards,liked class material that might better bedescribed as practical than fanciful, and likedhighly structured and well organized classeswith clear goals and milestones forachievement. Intuitors preferred teachingapproaches that involved greater complexityand variety, tended to be bored with drills, andwere better able than sensors to learnindependently of the instructor’s teaching style.

Basic language instruction that involves agreat deal of repetitive drill and memorizationof vocabulary and grammar (the sort of teach-ing style often found in pre-college and com-munity college classes) is better suited tosensors than intuitors. If there is too much ofthis sort of thing without a break, the intu-itors—who constitute the majority of the class,if Moody’s results are representative—may be-come bored with the subject and their courseperformance may consequently deteriorate. Onthe other hand, strongly intuitive languageinstructors may tend to move too quicklythrough the basic vocabulary and rules ofgrammar in their eagerness to get to “the moreinteresting material”—grammatical complexi-ties, nuances of translation, linguistic concepts,and cultural considerations. While the intuitivestudents may enjoy these topics,overemphasizing such material may result ininsufficient grounding in the building blocks ofthe language. The sensors, in particular, maythen start to fall behind and do poorly onhomework and tests.

Effective instruction reaches out to all stu-dents, not just those with one particular learningstyle. Students taught entirely with methodsantithetical to their learning style may be madetoo uncomfortable to learn effectively, but theyshould have at least some exposure to thosemethods to develop a full range of learningskills and strategies (Smith & Renzulli 1984).To be effective, language instruction shouldtherefore contain elements that appeal tosensors and other elements that appeal tointuitors. The material presented in every class

should be a blend of concrete information(word definitions, grammatical rules) andconcepts (syntactical and semantic information,linguistic and cultural backgroundinformation), with the percentage of eachbeing chosen to fit the level of the course(beginning, intermediate, or advanced) and theage and level of sophistication of the students.

Visual and Verbal LearnersWe propose to classify the ways people re-

ceive sensory information as visual, verbal, andother (tactile, gustatory, olfactory). Visuallearners prefer that information be presentedvisually—in pictures, diagrams, flow charts,time lines, films, and demonstrations—ratherthan in spoken or written words. Verbal learn-ers prefer spoken or written explanations to vi-sual presentations. The third category (touch,taste, smell) plays at most a marginal role inlanguage instruction and will not be addressedfurther.

This categorization is somewhat unconven-tional in the context of the learning style liter-ature (e.g., Barbe & Swassing 1979; Dunn,Dunn, & Price 1978), in which sensory modal-ities are classified as visual, auditory, andkinesthetic. Since the five human senses areseeing, hearing, touching, tasting, and smelling,we suggest that “kinesthetic” does not properlybelong on a list of sensory input modalities. Astudent’s preference for motion or physicalactivity of some sort during the learningprocess belongs in a separate learning stylecategory: our proposed system and Kolb’s(1984) model place it in the active/reflectivedimension, and the familiar model based onJung’s typology (Lawrence 1993) includes it inthe extravert-introvert dimension.

The distinction between the visual-auditoryand visual-verbal classifications has to do withwhether reading prose is more closely related toseeing pictures (which leads to the visual-auditory contrast) or to hearing speech (visual-verbal). Three mechanisms have been proposedfor the process of extracting lexical significancefrom written words (Martin 1978): directaccess (the reader jumps directly from the

23

FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS—SPRING 1995

printed form of the word to its lexicalmeaning), indirect access (the printed wordsare translated internally into sounds before in-formation about their meaning can be located inlexical memory), and dual encoding (lexicalmemory can be reached either directly orindirectly). An extensive body of researchsupports a form of the dual encoding hypoth-esis. Direct access is possible when words arefamiliar or when artificial conditions imposedin a research setting make speech encodinginefficient; however, when material is unfa-miliar or difficult, lexical memory is speech-accessed (Crowder & Wagner 1992). Theimplication is that expository prose of the sortone finds in books and on classroom chalk-boards is much more likely to be speech-me-diated than directly accessed when silentlyread, and so belongs in the verbal rather thanthe visual category.

Most people extract and retain more infor-mation from visual presentations than fromwritten or spoken prose (Dale 1969), whilemost language instruction is verbal, involvingpredominantly lectures, writing in texts and onchalkboards, and audiotapes in languagelaboratories. Given the preference of most stu-dents for visual input, one would expect the lastof these modes of presentation in particular tobe unpopular, an expectation borne out inresearch cited by Moody (1988). Whencommunity college students were asked torank-order 13 instructional modes, includinglectures, discussion, slides, field trips, and au-diotapes, audiotapes ranked at or near thebottom for the overwhelming majority of stu-dents surveyed.

Recent studies of learning styles in foreignlanguage education (e.g., Oxford & Ehrman1993) consistently place reading in the visualcategory, implying that instructors can meet theneeds of visual learners solely by relying onwritten instructional material. Certainly visuallearners learn better if they see and hear wordsin the target language, but so do auditorylearners: presenting the same material indifferent ways invariably has a reinforcing ef-fect on retention. The challenge to languageinstructors is to devise ways of augmenting

their verbal classroom presentation with non-verbal visual material—for example, showingphotographs, drawings, sketches, and cartoonsto reinforce presentation of vocabulary words,and using films, videotapes, and dramatizationsto illustrate lessons in dialogue andpronunciation.

Active and Reflective LearnersThe complex mental processes by which

perceived information is converted intoknowledge can be conveniently grouped intotwo categories: active experimentation and re-flective observation (Kolb 1984). Active pro-cessing involves doing something in theexternal world with the information—dis-cussing it or explaining it or testing it in someway—and reflective processing involves ex-amining and manipulating the information in-trospectively. An active learner is someonewith more of a natural tendency toward activeexperimentation than toward reflective obser-vation, and conversely for a reflective learner.

Active learners learn well in situations thatenable them to do something physical and re-flective learners learn well in situations thatprovide them with opportunities to think aboutthe information being presented. The moreopportunities students have to both participateand reflect in class, the better they will learnnew material and the longer they are likely toretain it (KoIb 1984; McCarthy 1987).Language classes in which all students are rel-egated to passive roles, listening to and ob-serving the instructor and taking notes, do littleto promote learning for either active orreflective learners. Language classes shouldtherefore include a variety of active learningexperiences, such as conversations, enactmentof dialogues and minidramas, and teamcompetitions, and reflective experiences, suchas brief writing exercises and questionformulation exercises.

Small-group exercises can be extremely ef-fective for both active and reflective learners(Johnson et al. 1991). Pose a question or prob-lem (“Translate this sentence.” “What’s wrongwith what I just wrote?” “How many synonyms

24

FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS—SPRING 1995

for ‘happy’ can you think of in 30 seconds?”“What question do you have about what wecovered today?”) and have students come upwith answers working in groups of three, withone group member acting as recorder. Suchexercises engage all the students, not just thesmall minority who typically participate inclass, and are a rich source of responses andmaterial for subsequent discussion. The exer-cises also relieve the monotony of continuouslectures. In our experience, as little as fiveminutes of group work in a 50-minute periodcan be enough to maintain the students’ at-tention for the entire class.

Group work must be used with care, how-ever: simply telling students to work togetheron problems or projects can do more harm thangood. Most references on cooperative learning(e.g., Johnson et al. 1991) point out thatstudents often respond negatively to groupwork at first, and that the benefits of theapproach are fully realized when the groupwork is structured to assure such features aspositive interdependence, individual ac-countability, and appropriate uses of teamworkand interpersonal skills. Reid (1987) studiedstudents from a variety of ethnic backgroundsand found that every background expressed aminor or negative preference for group work,with English speakers giving it the lowestrating. When language students have beentaught cooperative skills, however, theyshowed positive results in both language skilland altruism (Gunderson & Johnson 1980;Jacob & Mattson 1987).

Sequential and Global LearnersSequential learners absorb information and

acquire understanding of material in smallconnected chunks, and global learners take ininformation in seemingly unconnected frag-ments and achieve understanding in largeholistic leaps. Before global learners can masterthe details of a subject they need to understandhow the material being presented relates totheir prior knowledge and experience, aperspective that relatively few instructorsroutinely provide. Consequently, stronglyglobal learners may appear slow and do poorly

on homework and tests until they grasp thetotal picture, but once they have it they canoften see connections that escape sequentiallearners. On the other hand, sequential learnerscan function with incomplete understanding ofcourse material, but they may lack a grasp ofthe broad context of a body of knowledge andits interrelationships with other subjects anddisciplines.

Many authors who have done research oncognitive or learning styles have noted the im-portance of this dichotomous pairing, and var-ious terms have been used to describecategories that appear to have points in com-mon with what we term the sequential andglobal categories: analytic and global (Kirby1988; Schmeck 1988); field-independent andfield-dependent (Witkin & Goodenough 1981);serialistic and holistic (Pask 1988); left-brainedand right-brained (Kane 1984); atomistic andholistic (Marton 1988); sequential and random(Gregorc 1982). Luria’s (1980) working brainmodel postulates successive and simultaneousmodes of processing, and Pask (1988) similarlydistinguishes between stringing and clumpingmodes of coding information and structuringresponses. Schmeck (1988) believes that theanalytic/global dimension encompasses allother cognitive styles, a belief shared byOxford et al. (1991).

Oxford (1990) proposes that this learningstyle dimension can be tapped through studiesof brain hemisphericity. She cites studies ofLeaver (1986) suggesting that left-brain (se-quential) thinkers deal more easily with gram-matical structure and contrastive analysis,while right-brain (global) thinkers are better atlearning language intonation and rhythms. Se-quential learners gravitate toward strategies thatinvolve dissecting words and sentences intocomponent parts and are comfortable withstructured teaching approaches that stressgrammatical analysis; global learners preferholistic strategies such as guessing at wordsand searching for main ideas, and may respondwell to relatively unstructured approaches likecommunity language learning that might notappeal to sequential learners.

25

FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS—SPRING 1995

Inductive and Deductive Learners:A Perspective on the Language

Learning/Acquisition DichotomyInduction is a reasoning progression that

proceeds from particulars (observations, mea-surements, data) to generalities (rules, laws,theories). Deduction proceeds in the oppositedirection. In inductive presentation of class-room material, one makes observations andinfers governing or correlating principles; indeductive presentation one starts with axioms,principles, or rules, deduces consequences, andformulates applications. As with the previousdimensions, students may have moderate orstrong preferences for one or the otherpresentation mode; in particular, they mayprefer deductive presentation because of itsrelatively high level of structure.

A large percentage of classroom teaching inevery subject is primarily or exclusively de-ductive, probably because deduction is an ef-ficient and elegant way to organize and presentmaterial that is already understood. However,there is considerable evidence thatincorporating a substantial inductive compo-nent into teaching promotes effective learning.Inductive reasoning is thought to be animportant component in academic achievement(Ropo 1987). Current cognitive researchemphasizes the importance of prior knowledgein learning (Glaser 1984); introducing newmaterial by linking it to observed or previouslyknown material is essentially inductive. Thebenefits claimed for inductive instructionalapproaches (e.g., discovery or inquiry learning)include increased academic achievement andenhanced abstract reasoning skills (Taba 1966),longer retention of information (McConnell1934; Swenson 1949), and improved ability toapply principles (Lahti 1986).

Insofar as foreign languages are concerned,we propose that the distinction between in-duction and deduction is akin to the distinctionbetween language acquisition and learning. Toacquire a language means to pick it upgradually, gaining the ability to communicatewith it without necessarily being able toarticulate the rules. Individuals absorb whatthey can from the abundant and continuousinput that bombards them; they cannot grasp all

they hear, but each day increases their ability tounderstand, retain, and use in conversation whatthey have taken in. Throughout the process theygain in their ability to transfer strategies, makeassumptions about the new language system,formulate and test rules, and either keep orabandon them. They continue this process(most of which is subconscious) until theyfossilize, which they may do as soon as theyfeel they have learned what they need to inorder to communicate in the language (Coulter1983). In its progression from specifics togeneralizations, acquisition is an inductiveprocess.

On the other hand, language learning is alargely conscious process that involves formalexposure to rules of syntax and semantics fol-lowed by specific applications of the rules, withcorrective feedback reinforcing correct usageand discouraging incorrect usage. The flow ofthe learning process from general to specificsuggests its characterization as a deductiveprocess.

Three well-known approaches illustrate de-ductive and inductive approaches to languageinstruction. The first is the grammar-translation method, rooted in the formalteaching of Latin and Greek that prevailed inEurope for many centuries (Rivers 1968). Thismethod involves the translation of literary textsfollowed by explanation (in the students’ nativelanguage) of rules of grammar. As Cordernotes, grammar-translation is “the mostdeductive approach” (Allen & Corder 1975,13). A later approach is the direct method, inwhich classes are taught entirely in the targetlanguage; grammar is taught inferentially andplays a secondary role to oral communication.This approach, which was in vogue in manycountries throughout the nineteenth century(Allen & Corder 1975, 18), is almost purelyinductive.

The third approach is the audio-oral method,according to which language is a set of habitswith vocabulary being of secondary concern. Inthis method, which was influenced bybehavioral psychology and structurallinguistics, students learn by repeatingstructural patterns and eventually automatizethe structures, aided by positive reinforcement

26

FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS-SPRING 1995

provided by the teacher. This approachcombines acquired verbal skills (inductive)with learned reading and writing skills (de-ductive), with emphasis on the former. AsAllen and Corder point out, “Advocates of theoral method .have assumed that languagelearning is an inductive rather than a deductiveprocess.” (Allen & Corder 1975, 46). Manycommon instructional techniques (e.g., thesilent way, suggestopaedia, community lan-guage learning, the total physical response, thecommunicative approach) essentially fall intothis category, although all may involve somedeductive elements.

A long-standing controversy in language ed-ucation has to do with whether languages canbe acquired in the classroom or only learned.Brown (1980, 7), McLaughlin (1987, 20), andGregg (1987) believe that both learning andacquisition may go on in classrooms. Krashenand Terrell (1983, 18) hold that acquisition canonly occur in natural settings, but later admitthat “despite our conclusion that languageteaching is directed at learning and notacquisition, we think that it is possible to en-courage acquisition very effectively in theclassroom” (Krashen & Terrell 1983, 27). Weagree, and believe that the key question facinglanguage educators is, what classroomconditions and procedures facilitate the oc-currence of language acquisition?

An important consideration in attacking thisquestion has to do with the use to which anacquired or learned language is likely to beapplied. By its very nature, language acquisi-tion is more likely to manifest in oral fluencythan in correct utilization of the written lan-guage and conversely for language learning.Complete command of a language thus in-volves both acquisition—an inductive process,required to speak fluently—and learning—adeductive process, required to writegrammatically. The two processes are notcompetitive but complementary, just as in-ductive and deductive reasoning are essentialand coequal components of the scientific

method. By analogy, it would appear that anideal classroom setting for teaching a foreignlanguage would be one that stimulates and fa-cilitates both inductive and deductive learningprocesses, both acquisition and learning. Wereturn to this theme in the concluding section ofthe paper.

Validity and Utility of the ProposedLearning Style Classification SchemeSeveral critical points can legitimately be

raised regarding the proposed learning stylecategories. The categories are by no meanscomprehensive: no finite number of dimensionscould ever encompass the totality of individualstudent differences, and components of otherlearning style models in the references cited inthe introductory section also play importantroles in determining how students receive andprocess information. Moreover, the dimensionshave not been shown to be fully independent,and validated instruments to assess individualpreferences on all of them do not exist. Finally,the teaching style with which students feelmost comfortable may not correspond to thestyle that enables them to learn mosteffectively. (The same point could be madewith respect to all other learning style models.)

Having said all that, we would add that thesedisclaimers do not limit the usefulness of thisor any other model. Although it can be helpfulfor an instructor to know the distribution oflearning styles in a class, the point is not toplace all students into one or another stylecategory and to teach each student exclusivelyaccording to his or her preferred style. Even ifthis formidable goal could be achieved it wouldnot be desirable, for reasons to be discussed.Rather, the goal is a balanced teaching style, inall classes at all levels. Our hypothesis is thatlanguage instructors who adapt their instructionto address both poles of each of the five givendimensions should come close to providing anoptimal learning environment for most (if notall) students in a class.

27

FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS-SPRING 1995

A Multistyle ApproachTo Foreign Language Education

Studies show that matching teaching stylesto learning styles can significantly enhanceacademic achievement, student attitudes, andstudent behavior at the primary and secondaryschool level (Griggs & Dunn 1984; Smith &Renzulli 1984), at the college level (Brown1978; Charkins et al. 1985), and specifically inforeign language instruction (Oxford et al.1991; Wallace & Oxford 1992). This is not tosay that the best thing one can do for one’sstudents is to use their preferred modes of in-struction exclusively. Students will inevitablybe called upon to deal with problems andchallenges that require the use of their lesspreferred modes, and so should regularly begiven practice in the use of those modes (Hunt1971; Friedman and Alley 1984; Cox 1988).However, Smith and Renzulli (1984) cautionthat stress, frustration, and burnout may occurwhen students are subjected over extendedperiods of time to teaching styles inconsistentwith their learning style preferences.

A point no educational psychologist woulddispute is that students learn more when in-formation is presented in a variety of modesthan when only a single mode is used. Thepoint is supported by a research study carriedout several decades ago, which concluded thatstudents retain 10 percent of what they read, 26percent of what they hear, 30 percent of whatthey see, 50 percent of what they see and hear,70 percent of what they say, and 90 percent ofwhat they say as they do something (Stice1987). What must be done to achieve effectiveforeign language learning is to balanceinstructional methods, somehow structuring theclass so that all learning styles aresimultaneously—or at least sequentially—ac-commodated (Oxford 1990). The approachrecommended in this paper is designed to meetthis goal.

The prospect of tailoring language instruc-tion to somehow accommodate 32 (25) differentlearning styles might seem forbidding toinstructors. This reaction is understandable.Teaching styles are made up of the methodsand approaches with which instructors feel

most comfortable; if they tried to change tocompletely different approaches they would beforced to work entirely with unfamiliar,awkward, and uncomfortable methods, prob-ably with disastrous results from the students’point of view. Fortunately, instructors who wishto address a wide variety of learning styles neednot make drastic changes in their instructionalapproach. The way they normally teachaddresses the needs of at least five of thespecified learning style categories: regular useof at least some of the instructional techniquesgiven below should suffice to cover theremaining five.

• Motivate learning. As much as possible,teach new material (vocabulary, rules ofgrammar) in the context of situations towhich the students can relate in terms of theirpersonal and career experiences, past andanticipated, rather than simply as morematerial to memorize (intuitive, global,inductive).

• Balance concrete information (word defini-tions, rules for verb conjugation and adjec-tive-noun agreement) (sensing) and con-ceptual information (syntactical and semanticpatterns, comparisons and contrasts with thestudents’ native language) (intuition) in everycourse at every level. The balance does nothave to be equal, and in elementary courses itmay be shifted heavily toward the sensingside, but there should periodically besomething to capture the intuitors’ interest.

• Balance structured teaching approaches thatemphasize formal training (deductive,sequential) with more open-ended unstruc-tured activities that emphasis conversationand cultural contexts of the target language(inductive, global).

• Make liberal use of visuals. Use photographs,drawings, sketches, and cartoons to illustrateand reinforce the meanings of vocabularywords. Show films, videotapes, and livedramatizations to illustrate lessons in texts(visual, global.)

28

FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS-SPRING 1995

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

• Do not fill every minute of class timelecturing and writing on the board. Provideintervals—however brief—for students tothink about what they have been told; assignbrief writing exercises (reflective). Raisequestions and problems to be worked on bystudents in small groups; enact dialogues andmini-dramas; hold team competitions(active).

• Give students the option of cooperating on atleast some homework assignments (active).Active learners generally learn best whenthey interact with others; if they are deniedthe opportunity to do so they are beingdeprived of their most effective learning tool.

• Balance inductive and deductive presenta-tion of course material. Instruct some or allof the class in the language being taught, tofacilitate language acquisition and developskill in oral communication (inductive). Inparallel, provide explicit instruction in syntaxand semantics to facilitate formal languagelearning and develop skill in writtencommunication and interpretation (deduc-tive).

Instructors confronted with this list mightfeel that it is impossible to do all that in acourse and still cover the syllabus. Their con-cern is not unreasonable: extensive use of someof the recommended approaches—particularlythose involving opportunities for studentactivity during class—could indeed add to thetime it takes to present a given body ofmaterial. The idea, however, is not to adopt allthe techniques at once but rather to pick severalthat look feasible and try them on an occasionalbasis; keep the ones that work; drop the others;and try one or two more later in the course or inthe next course. In this way a teaching stylethat is both effective for students andcomfortable for the instructor will evolvenaturally, with a potentially dramatic effect onthe quality of learning that subsequently occurs.

REFERENCESAllen, J.P.B., and S.P. Corder, eds. 1975.

Papers in Applied Linguistics. II. London:Oxford University Press.

Barbe, W.B., R.H. Swassing, and M.N. Milone.1981. Teaching through Modality Strengths:Concepts and Practices. Columbus, OH:Zaner-Bloser.

Bonwell, C.C., and J.A. Eison. 1979. ActiveLearning: Creating Excitement in theClassroom. ASHE-ERIC Higher EducationReport No. 1. Washington, DC: GeorgeWashington University.

Brown, D. 1980. Principles of LanguageLearning And Teaching. Englewood Cliffs,NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Brown, R. 1978. “The Effects of CongruencyBetween Learning Styles and TeachingStyles on College Student Achievement.”College Student Journal 12 : 307-309.

Charkins, R.J., D.M. OToole, and J.N. Wetzel.1985. “Linking Teacher and StudentLearning Styles with Student Achievementand Attitudes.” J Economic Education,Spring 1985: 111-120.

Claxton, CS., and P.H. Murrell. 1987. Learningstyles: Implications for ImprovingEducational Practice. ASHE-ERIC HigherEducation Report No. 4, Washington, DC:George Washington University.

Coulter, S.P. Cited in Robinett, B.W., and J.Schachter. 1983. Second LanguageLearning: Contrastive Analysis, ErrorAnalysis, and Related Aspects. Ann Arbor:University of Michigan Press, 179.

Cox, V. 1988. “Some Implications of CognitiveScience, Cognitive Psychology, and HumanInformation Processing for EngineeringEducation of the Future: Problem Solving,Cognition and Metacognition.” 1988 ASEEAnnual Conference Proceedings. Portland,OR: American Society for EngineeringEducation.

Crowder, R.G., and R.K. Wagner. 1992. ThePsychology of Reading, 2nd Edition. NewYork: Oxford University Press, Ch. 9.

Dale, E. 1969. Audio-Visual Methods inTeaching, 3rd Ed. New York, Holt, Rinehartand Winston.

29

FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS-SPRING 1995

Ehrman, M., and R. Oxford. 1990. “AdultLanguage Learning Styles and Strategies inan Intensive Training Setting.” The ModernLanguage Journal, 74: 311-327.

Felder, R.M. 1989. “Meet Your Students. I.Stan and Nathan.” Chemical EngineeringEducation 23: 2, 68-69.

______ 1993. Reaching the Second Tier:Learning and Teaching Styles in CollegeScience Education.” J Coll. Sci. Teaching23: 286-290.

Felder, R.M., and L.K. Silverman. 1988.“Learning and Teaching Styles inEngineering Education.” EngineeringEducation 78: 674-681.

Friedman, P., and R. Alley. 1984.“Learning/Teaching Styles: Applying thePrinciples.” Theory into Practice, 23, 1: 77-81.

Glaser, R. 1984. “Education and Thinking: TheRole of Knowledge.” American Psychologist39: 93-104.

Godleski, ES. 1984. “Learning StyleCompatibility of Engineering Students andFaculty.” Proceedings, Annual Frontiers inEducation Conference. ASEE/IEEE,Philadelphia, 362.

Gregg, K.R. 1987. “Krashen’s Monitor andOccam’s Razor.” Applied Linguistics, 5: 79-100.

Gregorc, AF. 1982. An Adult’s Guide to Style.Maynard, MA: Gabriel Systems.

Griggs, SA., and R.S. Dunn. “Selected CaseStudies of the Learning Style Preferences ofGifted Students.” Gifted Child Quarterly 28,3:115-119.

Guild, P.B., and S. Garger. 1985. Marching toDifferent Drummers. Alexandria, VA:Association for Supervision and CurriculumDevelopment.

Gunderson, B., and D. Johnson. 1980. “Build-ing Positive Attitudes by Using CooperativeLearning Groups.” Foreign LanguageAnnals 13: 39-43.

Hunt, D.E. 1971. Matching Models inEducation: The Coordination of TeachingMethods with Student Characteristics.Toronto: Institute for Studies in Education.

Jacob, E., and B. Mattson. 1987. UsingCooperative Learning with LanguageMinority Students: A Report from the Field.Washington: Center for Language Education

and Research (CLEAR) Project, Center forApplied Linguistics. (Cited in Ehrman andOxford, 1990.)

Jensen, G.H. 1987. “Learning Styles,” inApplications of the Myers-Briggs TypeIndicator in Higher Education, J.A. Provostand S. Anchors, Eds. Palo Alto: ConsultingPsychologists Press, 181-206.

Johnson, D.W., R.T. Johnson, and K.A. Smith.1991. Cooperative Learning: IncreasingCollege Faculty Instructional Productivity.ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No.4. Washington, DC: George WashingtonUniversity.

Jung, C.G. 1971. Psychological Types.Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Kane, M. 1984. “Cognitive Styles of ThinkingAnd Learning: Part One.” Academic Therapy19(5): 527.

Kirby, J.R. 1988. “Style, strategy, and skill inreading.” In Schmeck (1988), Ch. 9, 53-82.

KoIb, D. 1984. Experiential Learning:Experience as the Source Of Learning andDevelopment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice-Hall.

Krashen, S., and T.D. Terrell. 1983. TheNatural Approach: Language Acquisition inthe Classroom. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Lahti, A.M. 1956. “The Inductive-DeductiveMethod and the Physical ScienceLaboratory.’ J Experimental Education24:149-163, cited in McKeachie, W.J. 1986.Teaching Tips, 8th ed. Lexington, MA:Heath, 168.

Lawrence, G. 1993. People Types and TigerStripes: A Practical Guide to LearningStyles, 3rd edition. Gainesville, FL: Centerfor Applications of Psychological Type.

Leaver, B.L. 1986. “Hem isphericity of theBrain and Foreign Language Teaching.”Folio Slavica 8: 2- 15.

Luria, A.R. 1980. Higher Cortical Functions inMan, 2nd ed. New York: Basic Books.

Martin, M. 1978. “Speech Recoding in SilentReading.’ Memory and Cognition 6:108-114.

Marton, F. 1988. “Describing and ImprovingLearning.” In Schmeck (1988), Ch. 3, 229-274.

McCarthy, B. 1987. The 4MAT System:Teaching to Learning Styles with Right/LeftMode Techniques. Barrington, IL: EXCEL,Inc.

30

FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS-SPRING 1995

McConnell, T.R. 1934. “Discovery VersusAuthoritative Identification in the Learningof Children.” Studies in Education 2, 5:13-60.

McLaughlin, B. 1987. Theories of SecondLanguage Learning. London: Edward ArnoldPublishers.

Moody, R. 1988. “Personality Preferences andForeign Language Learning.” The ModernLanguage Journal 72: 389-401.

Myers, lB., and M.H. McCaulley. 1985.Manual: A Guide to the Development andUse of the MyersBriggs Type Indicator. PaloAlto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Myers, lB., and P.B. Myers. 1980. GiftsDiffering. Palo Alto, CA: ConsultingPsychologists Press.

Oxford, R.L. 1990. ‘Missing Link: Evidencefrom Research on Language Learning Stylesand Strategies,” in Georgetown UniversityRound Table on Languages and Linguistics1990. Washington, DC: GeorgetownUniversity Press.

Oxford, R.L., and M.E. Ehrman. 1993. “SecondLanguage Research on IndividualDifferences.” Annual Review of AppliedLinguistics 13: 188-205.

Oxford, R., M. Ehrman, and R. Lavine. 1991.“Style Wars: Teacher-Student StyleConflicts in the Language Classroom,” in S.Magnan, ed., Challenges in the 1990’s forCollege Foreign Language Programs.Boston: Heinle and Heinle.

Pask, G. 1988. ‘Learning strategies, teachingstrategies, and conceptual or learning style.”In Schmeck (1988), Ch. 4, 83-100.

Reid, J.M. “The Learning Style Preferences ofESL Students.” TESOL Quarterly 21:87-111.

Rivers, W.M. 1968. Teaching ForeignLanguage Skills. Chicago: Univ. of ChicagoPress, 14.

Ropo, E. 1987. “Skills for Learning: A Reviewof Studies on Inductive Reasoning.”Scandinavian Journal of EducationalResearch 31: 3 1-39.

Schmeck, R.R., ed. 1988. Learning Strategiesand Learning Styles. New York: PlenumPress.

Smith, L.H., and J.S. Renzulli. 1984. “LearningStyle Preferences: A Practical Approach ForClassroom Teachers.” Theory into Practice23: 44-50.

Stice, J.E. 1987. ‘Using KoIb’s Learning CycleTo Improve Student Learning.” EngineeringEducation 77: 29 1-296.

Swenson, E.J. 1949. “Organization andgeneralization as factors in learning, transfer,and retroactive inhibition.” Learning Theoryin School Situations. Minneapolis: Univ. ofMinnesota Press.

Taba, H. 1966. Teaching Strategies andCognitive Functioning in Elementary SchoolChildren. U.S.O.E. Cooperative ResearchProject No. 2404. San Francisco: SanFrancisco State College.

Wallace, B., and R.L. Oxford. 1992. “Disparityin Learning Styles and Teaching Styles inthe ESL Classroom: Does This Mean War?”AMTESOL Journal 1: 45-68.

Witkin, H.A., and DR. Goodenough. 1981.Cognitive Styles: Essence and Origins. FieldDependence and Field Independence. NewYork: International Universities Press.

31