plik

EAR

Second Language Acquisition

CADEMIC

EAR

2011-2012

#11: Learning strategies and ambiguity tolerance

1. Individual learner differences and language learning

(based on Skehan 2000: 268; Pavičić Takač 2008: 45)

2. Defining learning strategies

Just as there is no consensus among researchers as to whether cognitive styles

and learning styles refer to the same concepts, or whether intelligence and

aptitude overlap, so too there is controversy as to whether learning strategies can

be distinguished from ordinary learning activities (cf. Brown 2001, 2007; Dörnyei

and Skehan 2003; Dörnyei 2005; Ellis 2008; Oxford 2011).

In very general terms, a strategy can be defined as

a specific method of

approaching a problem or task, or as a planned design for controlling and

manipulating information. In the context of foreign language study, however, we

can speak of a learning strategy as

a conscious action or behaviour that a student

engages in order to make his or her learning more effective and efficient.

Oxford (1990) defines learning strategies as "(…) specific actions taken by the

learner to make learning easier, faster, more enjoyable, more self-directed, more

effective, and more transferrable to new situations" (p. 8). Oxford & Nam (1998:

53) argue further that learning strategy preferences are often linked to dominant

learning styles. Thus, an individual with a predominant visual learning style will

employ the strategies of taking notes and outlining, while an auditory learner might

MODALITY

PREFERENCES

•

visual

•

auditory

•

kinaesthetic

APTITUDE

components

•

phonemic coding

•

language analytic

•

memory

aptitudinal preference

•

memory vs. analytic

EARNING

STYLE

•

analytic vs. holistic

•

visual vs. verbal

•

active vs. passive

EARNING

TRATEGIES

•

metacognitive

•

cognitive

•

social-affective

LANGUAGE

LEARNING

record lectures and listen to them after class. By the same token, analytic learners

tend to use strategies that involve decomposing material into smaller units, whereas

global learners naturally choose strategies

that help them quickly make sense of the

main concept without concentrating on detail. According to Oxford (1990: 9),

language learning strategies are often conscious, yet not always observable. Learner

strategy training aims at teaching effective plans, so that learners can use adequate

study skills and thus become more self-directed and autonomous. Both early (e.g.

Rubin 1975; Stern 1975; Naiman

et al. 1978) and recent (e.g. Chamot 2001)

research has suggested that such strategies are adopted more often by good

language learners than by less successful ones.

2. Types of learning strategies

There exist numerous taxonomies of learning strategies. The one below comprises

three most general and most distinguished types (based chiefly on O'Malley &

Chamot 1990 and Oxford 1990).

 Cognitive strategies address specific learning tasks and they result in direct

manipulation of the learning material itself (such as analyzing, synthesizing,

transforming or recombining). Typical applications involve:

resourcing

imagery

transfer

repetition

auditory representation

inferencing

grouping

keyword method

note taking

deduction

elaboration

translation

 Metacognitive strategies involve knowledge about or regulation of cognition.

They result in:

planning

one's

learning

monitoring one's

output and

comprehension

evaluating one's

learning

 Socioaffective strategies pertain to ways in which learners seek output

opportunities in social interaction or transactional discourse by cooperating

with other speakers, e.g. by:

asking for

repetition or

explanation

questioning for

clarification

negotiating

meaning

3. Ambiguity tolerance

Tolerance of ambiguity is defined as the degree to which an individual is

cognitively prepared to tolerate concepts, ideas and propositions that conflict with

his/her own inner belief system or structure of knowledge (Ely 1989). Ambiguity

directly refers to anything in L2 that is perceived as vague, incomplete and lacking

consistency. It stems from the fact that L1 and L2 are usually significantly

different systems, as regards their structure, lexis, phonology and spelling. Ely

(1995) observes that when confronted with a linguistic item that is ambiguous or

vague, certain learners feel discomfort or even threat. An intense feeling of this

kind may be detrimental to learning, as it can lead to avoidance of taking risk in

classroom participation or loss of interest in classroom activities. On the other

hand, as pointed out by McDonough (1981: 134), it is essential for language

learners to be able to accommodate any explanations or rules that run counter to

the ones already accepted and internalized at earlier stages of study.

The level of ambiguity tolerance is probably related to academic achievement.

Learners who are more tolerant of ambiguity have been reported (e.g. by Chapelle

& Roberts 1986) to outperform those who meticulously study irregularities. This is

apparently because the latter are more dogmatic and they reject ideas or facts

that contradict their beliefs. Too little tolerance of ambiguity can cause language

learning very difficult, if not impossible. In contrast, the former types of learners

are more flexible towards new ideologies that are incongruent with their belief

system, as well as more willing to accept new concepts or views - even if they are

against their nature (Brown 2007). They can readily adapt to change, and they

generally make better risk-takers in language learning environments (McLain

1993). As claimed by Naiman

et al. (1978), if language learners tolerate

uncertainty without the feeling of confusion or apprehension, they will not

become easily overwhelmed by the novelty of the material.

Let it be pointed out, however, that the optimum level of ambiguity tolerance is

not high, but moderate. Too much acceptance of vagueness and wishy-washiness

may lead a language student not only to accept every linguistic proposal and

believe that indeed "anything goes", but also to make false assumptions about the

system of L2. Brown (2007: 111) believes that a good language learner is the one

who is able to maintain a balanced level of ambiguity tolerance - neither too low,

nor too high. Certain aspects of L2 need to be carefully thought out and then

effectively integrated into the interlanguage system, rather than being

indiscriminately memorized in the form of meaningless chunks.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY

Brown, H. D. 2001.

Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. Fourth Edition. White Plains, NY:

Pearson Education.

Brown, H. D. 2007.

Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. Fifth Edition. Englewood Cliffs,

NJ: Prentice Hall Regents.

Chamot, A. U. 2001. "The role of learning strategies in second language acquisition". In Breen, M.

P. (Ed.),

Learner Contributions to Language Learning. New Directions in Research. Harlow:

Longman. 25-43.

Chapelle, C. & Roberts, C. 1986. "Ambiguity tolerance and field independence as predictors in

English as a second language".

Language Learning 36/1: 27-45.

Dörnyei, Z. 2001.

Motivational Strategies in the Language Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Dörnyei, Z. 2005.

The Psychology of the Language Learner: Individual Differences in Second

Language Acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Dörnyei, Z. and Skehan, P. 2003. “Individual differences in L2 learning”. In Doughty, C. J. and Long,

M. H. (Eds.),

The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford. Blackwell Publishing.

589-630.

Ellis, R. 2008.

The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Second Edition. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Ely, C. 1989. “Tolerance of ambiguity and use of second language strategies”.

Foreign Language

Annals 22: 437-445.

Ely, C. 1995. "Tolerance of ambiguity and the teaching of ESL". In Reid, J. M. (Ed.),

Learning Styles

in the ESL/EFL Classroom. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.

Gao, X. 2010.

Strategic Language Learning. The Roles of Agency and Context. Bristol: Multilingual

Matters.

Grenfell, M. & Harris, V. 1999.

Modern Languages and Learning Strategies. In Theory and Practice.

London: Routledge.

Hurd, S. & Lewis, T. (Eds.), 2008.

Language Learning Strategies in Independent Settings. Clevedon:

Multilingual Matters.

McDonough, S. 1981.

Psychology in Foreign Language Teaching. London: Allen and Unwin.

McLain, D. L. 1993. "The MSTAT-1: A new measure of an individual's tolerance for ambiguity".

Educational and Psychological Measurement 53: 183-189.

Naiman, N., Fröhlich, M., Stern, H. H. & Todesco, A. 1978.

The Good Language Learner. Research

in Education Series No. 7. Toronto: The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.

O'Malley, J. & Chamot, A. U. 1990.

Learning Strategies in Second Language Acquisition.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Oxford, R. L. 1990.

Language Learning Strategies. What Every Teacher Should Know. Boston: Heinle

& Heinle.

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. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents. 52-

61.

Oxford, R. 2011.

Teaching and Researching Language Learning Strategies. Harlow: Pearson

Education.