Vol. IX No. 2
May 1997



Editorial

Teachers Ask

Return to:


As a society, we are becoming more and more sensitive to the diverse nature of our population. We see diversity in our country, our communities, our workplaces, our schools and our families. We are encouraged not only to recognize that differences exist but to learn from and celebrate the characteristics that make each of us unique. In addition to the variety of cultural backgrounds represented in our country, we see diversity in terms of physical, social, emotional and intellectual challenges facing individuals. As educators, we need to be particularly cognizant of the diversity of needs present in their learning environments.

Our classrooms are, in fact, a microcosm of our society. As is true in the larger context, understanding and addressing diversity in the classroom is not simply a matter of identifying differences between our students. Action is needed if we truly want each child to benefit fully from their learning experience. For example, many teachers have been involved in professional development activities which help us to make the classroom an inclusive and welcoming place children of varying ethnic backgrounds. The education system has also invested resources into programs which give needed support to those children with identified learning disabilities. Initiatives in these two areas are essential but recognizing differences in learners does not stop here.

Common sense tells us that in any given learning environment we will be faced with diversity in terms of culture, personality, motivation, attitudes, talents, skills, life experiences, and so on. One individual difference that is perhaps the most relevant in terms of education, and one that is sometimes ignored, is that of learning styles. The question may then be asked: "what exactly are learning styles and how do we as language teachers address them in their classrooms?"

Shrum & Glisan (1994) have summarized research on language learning styles in five ways: "the analytic/global aspect (detail-oriented learner vs. a holistic one); sensory preferences (inclinations toward a certain sense: visual, auditory, kinesthetic and/or tactile); intuition-sensory/sequential learning (random, abstract thinking vs. concrete a step-by-step approach); orientation to closure (the degree to which ambiguity can be tolerated); and competition-cooperation (competitive vs. cooperative learners) (pp.199-200). Several other researchers (e.g., Kolb, 1981) have also presented models for classifying and describing the variety of possible learning styles. Regardless of how styles are labelled, the significant point for teachers is that we find ways to address this sort of learner diversity.

Firstly, teachers are encouraged to reflect on their own preferences in terms of learning in order to discover how they may be affecting their teaching style. In some cases, teachers assume that the best way to teach the target language is through activities that fit with our own learning preferences. Shrum and Glisan (1994) suggest that this assumption may lead to teacher-student style conflicts. They outline a practical method to deal with these conflicts which always begins with awareness and understanding of the learning diversity present in your classroom. They then point out that modifications to teaching strategies may be necessary in order to create a multisensory learning environment which encourages different types thinking and interaction. Curriculum may need to be examined to determine whether it would make the learning environment more accommodating to learner diversity. In addition, teachers may wish to reflect on the ways in which they group students in order to assess whether they are making the most of learning style differences.

Secondly, as teachers, we also need to create learning environments which accommodate differing learning styles. Lightbown and Spada reiterate this thought and also warn teachers not to conclude that certain ways of learning are wrong (p. 41). For example, a student who may find it helpful to see words as well as hear them, should not be criticized for their need for visual support. The need for sensitivity toward learning styles does not mean that we cannot help students to stretch beyond their preferred ways of learning. Oxford (1990 in Scarcella & Oxford, 1992) concurs with the need for support of learning styles but also states that students must be encouraged to go beyond their "stylistic comfort zone." In this way students would learn and develop strategies that may not be within their instinctive learning style repertoire.

The teachability of learning strategies is another issue related to this discussion. Research related to "good language learners" (e.g., Stern,1975; Rubin, 1985; Reiss, 1985) has been particularly valuable in providing insight into those strategies seen as most effective for language learning. Prokop (1989) goes as far as to suggest that "the ultimate purpose of identifying the learning strategies used by successful language learners is to enable the teacher to teach them to those students who are not yet using them." (p.121).

Although sometimes referred to as separate entities, the previous points show important links between learning styles and strategies. In Lightbown and Spada book entitled How languages are learned, learning styles are described as varied approaches to a task using different "sets of skills and preferred strategies." (1993, p. 40). Scarcella and Oxford add that, "while learning styles describe general orientations toward learning, strategies are seen as specific actions, behaviours, steps or techniques used by students to enhance their own learning." (p. 63). Researchers such as Oxford (1990) and O'Malley & Chamot (1990) have developed inventories which classify and describe the wide variety of strategies potentially used by language learners. These lists reveal the complexity and diversity involved in the ways in which people learn and develop language competency.

The National Core French Study (NCFS), initiated by Stern's research into effective language learning and teaching strategies, points to the importance of a curriculum which includes a strategic dimension. The NCFS' General Language Education syllabus describes the pedagogical implications of developing the strategic component of "communicative competence" (Canale and Swain, 1980). O'Malley and Chamot (1990) have identified a framework for learning strategy instruction which includes preparation (develop awareness of strategies); presentation (develop knowledge about strategies); practice (develop skills through use of strategies): evaluation (develop ability to evaluate strategy use); expansion (develop the transfer of strategies to other tasks) (p. 158).

Teachers who are sensitive to the existence of learning styles are taking a step toward facilitating the language learning process. Becoming informed about the means students are using to become more proficient in a language can provide a great deal of insight into this process. It is important for educators not simply to recognize differences in their learners but also to provide a context in which students have an opportunity both to use their preferred strategies and to add new strategies to their language learning skill inventory. When we make our classroom a more "style-friendly" environment, we also make it a safer place to be a risk-taker in terms of language learning.

Primary References:

Lightbown, P.M. & Spada, N. (1993). How Languages are Learned. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

O'Malley, J.M. & Chamot, A.U. (1990). Learning Strategies in Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Prokop, M. (1989). Learning Strategies for Second Language Users. Wales: The Edwin Mellen Press, Ltd.

Scarcella, R.C. & Oxford, R.L. (1992). The Tapestry of Language Learning: The individual in the communicative classroom. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.

Shrum, J.L. & Glisan, E.W. (1994). Teacher's Handbook: Contextualized Language Instruction. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.