ACADEMIC YEAR 2013-2014
YEAR ONE: INTRODUCTION TO LANGUAGE LEARNING AND TEACHING
#9: OTHER COGNITIVE FACTORS
(based in part on: Majer, J. 2010.  Second language acquisition and foreign language learning .
In Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, B. (Ed.), New Ways to Language. A
ódz
: A
ódz
University Press. 352-375).
1. Individual learner differences and language learning
MODALITY
PREFERENCES
" visual
" auditory
LEARNING LEARNING
" kinaesthetic
STYLE STRATEGIES
LANGUAGE
" analytic vs. holistic " metacognitive
LEARNING
" visual vs. verbal " cognitive
FL APTITUDE
" active vs. passive " social-affective
components
" phonemic coding
" language analytic
" memory
aptitudinal preference
" memory vs. analytic
(based on Skehan 1998: 268; Pavi%0ńić Taka%0ń 2008: 45)
2. Modality
There are essentially three MODALITY PREFERENCES, indicative not only of various systems to
experience outside reality but also of individual learner differences  VISUAL, AUDITORY and
KINAESTHETIC ( action ). These correspond to general predispositions to use different sensual
approaches to learning (Skehan 1998: 267). According to a research study conducted by Reid
(1987) on the preferred input channel, 40 per cent of learners appear to prefer visual input, 30 per
cent auditory input, and 30 per cent kinaesthetic input (major preferences only). She also suggests
that modality preferences may be fairly fixed in individuals, which might also reflect more general
processing preferences.
By and large, learners with VISUAL MODALITY PREFERENCE naturally like reading, studying
graphic information, writing and drawing, and they are generally better stimulated by colour than
sound. On the other hand, because information is better understood and remembered when it is
being read, processing auditory input can be difficult, while extensive listening can easily induce
impatience. Typically, such learners will take detailed notes in class and follow the instructor with
their eyes. Additionally, their oral output is usually kept short or best avoided, if possible.
In contrast, learners with AUDITORY MODALITY PREFERENCE easily take in information which
they hear. Consequently, they are not terrified of listening activities, though they might find reading
and writing tasks somewhat more challenging. Such learners also make good participants of role
plays, dialogues or class discussions, and are good at storytelling and presenting prepared talks.
Whereas oral work is their obvious strength, written tests are not. Needless to say, auditory learners
are easily stimulated by music.
1
Finally, learners with KINAESTHETIC MODALITY PREFERENCE learn best when they are being
engaged in hands-on, physical activities or experiments. In other words, they need to involve sight
and hearing as well as action in order to learn. Besides, because they are TACTILE learners, they like
to touch objects and use hands in the process of learning. Objects are also among their typical
learning tools and memory aids, while their oral output is characterized by active gesticulation. On
the other hand, sitting still in the classroom may be a real challenge and extended concentration
quite problematic.
3. Learning style
The concept of LEARNING STYLE refers to the way in which an individual approaches problem
solving (Ellis 2008). Generally speaking, learning style is  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). In this respect, learning style
can also be linked to the above-described construct of modality. In the context of SLA or FLL, three
modalities will play a significant role: visual, auditory and kinaesthetic. From a different point of
view, learning style can be marked along the field-dependence/independence continuum.
According to Brown (2007: 106), FIELD-DEPENDENCE is a style in which a learner tends to
approach the whole of a learning task which is made up of many items. In other words, one is able
to see the whole picture, the general configuration of a problem or idea. But when he/she needs to
focus on a particular item, such a learner experiences problems, since the item cannot be easily
perceived when it forms part of a  field of other items. Consequently, in L2 study field-dependent
learners prefer inductive lessons and communicative tasks. They are better at learning in informal,
naturalistic language learning environments, as they have a tendency to socialize and empathize
(Abraham & Vann 1987).
In contrast, FIELD INDEPENDENCE describes the ability to recognize a particular item in the
group of many distracting items. It is a learning style in which a learner is capable of concentrating
on a particular item and can perceive it against the background of many other distracting items
(Brown 2007: 106). That is why, in order to investigate subjects perception of a  field ,
researchers have devised various tests, of which the most widely used one is the space-orientation
trial called the GROUP EMBEDDED FIGURES TEST (GEFT; Witkin et al. 1971). It requires the
subjects to locate a simple geometrical figure (such as a triangle) within a more complex design of
intersecting lines and shapes and thus extrapolate from visual-spatial abilities.
It has to be said that both FD and FI have their strengths and weaknesses. For example, FI
enhances concentrating on an activity or distinguishing parts from the whole, but when excessive, it
may cause one to perceive only the small items and prevent one from noticing their relation to the
whole. As for the relationship between FD/FI cognitive styles and L2 learning, one hypothesis that
has been investigated is whether FI learners are good at deductive, analytical tasks and paying
attention to details, doing better on measures of formal language learning (e.g., discrete point tests).
Yet, according to Hansen (1984), FI learners can also perform better on integrative tests and tests of
communicative competence, theoretically designed to favour FD learners. Recapitulating, both
kinds may profit from different types of learning situation.
2
·ð Category width
The concept of CATEGORY WIDTH accounts for the distinction between two types of learners 
BROAD CATEGORIZERS and NARROW CATEGORIZERS. The former accept a wide range of items as
belonging to one category, risking the inclusion of items that might not fit it, and so they tend to
overgeneralize  thus, for example, applying a restricted language rule to all verb forms. In
contrast, the latter tend to exclude items from categories, even when they may fit them. As
claimed by Stern (1983: 374), they  limit the rule to a specific context in which it was
encountered . Where pedagogical implications of category width are concerned, the most
successful learners seem to be the ones in between the two extremes  neither narrow, nor broad
categorizers. As stated by Stern,  the good language learner is reasonably precise in the
application of rules and yet prepared to take risks in order to test the limits of a rule (ibid.).
·ð Reflectivity/impulsivity
Cognitive style may also distinguish between REFLECTIVITY and IMPULSIVITY. If treated as a
dichotomy rather than a continuum, this distinction perceives language learners as making either
slower (reflective) decisions or spontaneous (impulsive) guesses. Accordingly, reflective
learners consider a problem carefully and extensively, whereas impulsive, intuitive learners tend
to  gamble before arriving at the solution to a given problem. They can answer promptly, with
little concern for accuracy. To be sure, as indicated by Jamieson (1994: 120f.), reflective
learners tend to make fewer errors than impulsive students, but they may require more time to
find the right answer.
·ð Learner style
Rather than elaborate on learning or COGNITIVE STYLES, Willing (1987) has put forth the concept
of LEARNER STYLE. The types distinguished by the researcher are as follows:
LEARNER STYLE MAIN CHARACTERISTICS
CONVERGER solitary, avoiding groups; independent and sure of his own abilities;
analytic; imposing his own structures on learning
CONFORMIST emphasizing learning about language over learning to use it; dependent on
those in authority; happy to work in a non-communicative classroom, doing
what he is told; a classroom of conformists prefers to see well-organized
teachers
CONCRETE like a conformist, but also enjoying social aspects of learning; profiting from
direct experience; interested in language use and language as
communication rather than language as a system; enjoying games and group
work
COMMUNICATIVE language use orientated; comfortable out of class, showing confidence and
willingness to take risks; much more interested in social interaction with
other speakers of L2 than in analysis of how the language works; perfectly
happy to operate without the guidance of the teacher
3
4. Memory
In very general terms, memory can be defined as the mental capacity to store and retrieve
information that is acquired through senses. According to Wade and Tavris (1990: 247), this
concept also refers to  the mental structure or structures that account for this capacity and to the
material that is retained . Since the 1960s, there have been published numerous studies concerning
the functions of various areas of the left and the right hemisphere, as well as the workings of
memory. These works have measured the length of information storage and in this way three basic
types of memory have been distinguished:
·ð SENSORY MEMORY, which registers in-coming information very rapidly and feeds directly into
short-term memory. It fades almost immediately after it has occurred (Anderson 1995: 160).
·ð SHORT-TERM MEMORY (STM), also referred to as working memory, which is where received
information is stored for a short period of time, i.e. up to 30 seconds, while it is being
interpreted. STM can be said to be a system of limited capacity and limited duration. Ever
since the publication of the seminal work by George Miller (1956) the capacity of STM has
been believed to range from 5 to 9 items, the average being 7. However, if an item is to be
retained in LTM, it has to be rehearsed and memorized.
STM is further subdivided into the following components:
o ICONIC MEMORY, used for storing visual information before it is categorized and
committed to LTM; it appears to have large capacity but is ephemeral.
o ECHOIC MEMORY, i.e. acoustic-based auditory memory, used for holding in unanalyzed
form  perhaps the last two-seconds worth of speech input (Cooper and Robbins 1988:
53).
o VERBAL MEMORY, which is employed when processing verbal sequences or silently
rehearsing words or phrases.
·ð LONG-TERM MEMORY (LTM), which is where information is stored more permanently. Data
can be retrieved even years after it entered the system, while the capacity of LTM is probably
unlimited. A characteristic feature of LTM is that information may not be stored in the same
form in which it was originally received. For example, a listener may hear a sentence The
pneumatic drill Fiona left by the side of the road was flattened by a passing steam roller and,
using STM, he/she may be able to repeat it accurately immediately upon hearing it. However,
on trying to recall the sentence a few days later the listener may produce it as Fiona s
pneumatic drill was run over by a steam roller, using information in LTM which is in a
different form from the original message (Richards & Schmidt 2010: 175).
Researchers have subcategorized LTM as:
o PROCEDURAL MEMORY, responsible for storing information on learned skills and
procedures  also employed in creating mind associations, conditioned reflexes,
addictions and fears; data stored in this type of memory is apparently never forgotten.
4
o DECLARATIVE MEMORY, which enables an individual to consciously remember
knowledge about people, places and events; the fading of declarative memory traces is
caused by mere passing of time, but it may also be due to drugs or injuries. Researchers
distinguish two subtypes of declarative memory, which seem to be critical for leading a
life without disturbing memory problems:
Ä…ð SEMANTIC MEMORY, characteristic only for human beings. It is made up
predominantly of  memories that constitute the general knowledge of our personal
history, including attitudes and feelings (Puff 1982: 445), but because it is that part
of the memory system in which words are organized according to semantic groups or
classes, it also contributes to the processing of verbal messages. However, its
efficiency is largely dependent on how well-read and educated an individual is.
Words are believed to be stored in LTM according to their semantic properties (e.g.
canary is linked in memory to bird, while rose to flower; Richards & Schmidt 2010:
95). Semantic memory is believed to still develop until the age of 60.
Ä…ð EPISODIC MEMORY, which refers to the record of one s experiences and the knowledge
about the world and is therefore organized in terms of personal experiences and
episodes. It starts to fade around 35.
In order to ensure that lexical material moves into permanent long-term memory, a few
conditions have to be fulfilled:
·ð Repetition must take place over spaced intervals.
·ð As every piece of information becomes better learned, the intervals can gradually be
extended.
·ð Learners should be given the opportunity to pace their own rehearsal activities.
Another important feature of LTM is retrieval. To recall information from LTM, STM has to be
activated  hence, it is also called working memory. In other words, in the process of retrieval the
information returns from LTM to STM. A cue is needed, either from an external stimulus or from
our own conscious attempt to find a link with information already present in working memory.
Individuals vary as to the potential of their memory applied to SLA or FLL, particularly in the
efficiency of remembering lexical items. But despite language teachers best efforts, all learners
tend to forget L2 vocabulary. On average, the scale of forgetting seems rather discouraging at first,
but then the rate slows down. According to Gairns & Redman (1986: 90), 80% of information is
lost within 24 hours of initial learning.
Two psychological theories can perhaps explain why L2 words are easily forgotten. The first is
INTERFERENCE THEORY. Child (1986: 121) accounts for it as follows:  the interplay and possible
confusion in the build-up of memories interfere with retention. By this means, some memories may
not actually disappear altogether, but become obscured and overlaid with more recent memories .
This means that learners tend to memorize new lexical items at the cost of forgetting old ones. The
other approach, called DECAY THEORY, is based on the assumption that information stored in
memory falls into disuse, unless it is activated regularly. Hence, it may be said that learners forget
what they were taught due to insufficient recycling of L2 material.
5
5. Learning strategies
Just as there is no consensus among researchers as to whether intelligence and aptitude overlap, so
too there is controversy as to whether LEARNING STRATEGIES can be distinguished from ordinary
learning activities (cf. Dörnyei & Skehan 2003; Dörnyei 2005; Brown 2007; Ellis 2008). In general
psychological terms, a strategy can be defined as a particular method of approaching a problem or
task, or as a plan for controlling and manipulating information. In the context of SLA or FLL,
however, we can speak of a learning strategy as a conscious action or behaviour that a student
engages in order to make his/her learning more effective and efficient.
Oxford (1990, 2011) 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 (1990, p. 8). Oxford & Nam (1998: 53) argue further that preference
for a particular learning strategy is often linked to a dominant learning style. Thus, an individual with a
predominant visual learning style will employ the strategies of taking notes and outlining, while an
auditory learner might 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 to quickly make sense of the main concept without
having to attend to detail. According to Oxford (1990: 9), language learning strategies are often
conscious, yet not always observable.
There exist several taxonomies of learning strategies. The most general and most widely recognized
are the three types distinguished by O Malley & Chamot (1990):
·ð COGNITIVE STRATEGIES, which address specific learning tasks as they result in direct
manipulation of the learning material itself (such as analyzing, synthesizing, transforming or
recombining). Typical applications involve:
o resourcing o imagery o transfer
o repetition o auditory representation o inferencing
o grouping o the keyword method o note taking
o deduction o elaboration o translation
·ð METACOGNITIVE STRATEGIES, which involve knowledge about or regulation of cognition.
These are used to organize and evaluate learning. They result in:
o planning one s o monitoring one s output o evaluating one s
learning and comprehension learning
·ð SOCIOAFFECTIVE STRATEGIES, which pertain to ways in which learners seek output
opportunities in social interaction or transactional discourse by cooperating with other
speakers, e.g. by:
o asking for a repetition o questioning for o negotiating meaning
or an explanation clarification
6
6. Ambiguity tolerance
In general psychological terms, TOLERANCE OF AMBIGUITY can be defined (Ely 1989) as the extent
to which an individual is ready to accept concepts, ideas and propositions that conflict with his/her
own belief system or cognitive structure. With reference to the SLA and FLL context, ambiguity
directly refers to items in L2 that are perceived as vague, incomplete and inconsistent. Those
differences between the systems of L1 and L2 which are subjectively believed to be lacking logic or
clarity may cause that learners with a low level of ambiguity tolerance can feel uncomfortable or
even threatened (Ely 1995). This, in turn, may be detrimental to learning. In fact, too little tolerance
of ambiguity can make L2 study very difficult, if not impossible. As argued by Naiman et al.
(1978), only those learners who tolerate uncertainty without the feeling of confusion or
apprehension will not become easily discouraged by  linguistic surprises in the L2 material.
On the other hand, it has to be pointed out that the optimum level of ambiguity tolerance is not
necessarily high, but moderate. Too much acceptance of vagueness may cause certain learners to
make false assumptions about the system of L2 (Brown 2007). However, this does not mean that
seemingly vague or inconsistent items in the target language have to be indiscriminately committed
to memory as unanalyzable chunks. Before ambiguities in L2 become integrated into the
INTERLANGUAGE system, they must become meaningful for the learner.
REFERENCES AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY
Abraham, R. & Vann, R. 1987. "Strategies of two language learners: A case study". In Wenden, A. & Rubin, J. (Eds.),
Learner Strategies in Language Learning: Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Anderson, J. R. 1995. Learning and Memory: An Integrated Approach. New York: John Wiley.
Andreou, G., Vlachos, F. & Andreou, E. 2005. "Affecting factors in second language learning". Journal of
Psycholinguistic Research 34/5: 429-438.
Arrowsmith Young, B. & Danesi, M. 2001. Studying How the Brain Learns. Are There Any Useful Implications for
Instruction? Toronto: University of Toronto.
Benjamin, A. S. & Ross, B.H. (Eds.), 2007. Skill and Strategy in Memory Use. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Bielska, J. 2006. Between Psychology and Foreign Language Learning. Katowice: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu
ÅšlÄ…skiego.
Brown, H. D. 2007. Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. Fourth Edition. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice
Hall.
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.
Child, D. 1986. Psychology and the Teacher. London: Cassell Educational Limited.
Cook, V. 2008. Second Language Learning and Language Teaching. Fourth Edition. London: Hodder & Arnold.
Cooper, P. J. & Robbins, T W. 1988. Psychology for Medicine. London: Edward Arnold.
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. 2005.  Individual differences in second language learning . In Davies, A. & Elder, C., (Eds.), Handbook of
Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell. 388-405.
Ellis, R. 2008. The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Second Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
7
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.
Gairns, R. & S. Redman (1986). Working with Words. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gao, X. 2010. Strategic Language Learning. The Roles of Agency and Context. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Gass, S. M. & Selinker, L. 2008, Second Language Acquisition. An Introductory Course. Third Edition. New York:
Routledge.
Grenfell, M. & Harris, V. 1999. Modern Languages and Learning Strategies. In Theory and Practice. London:
Routledge.
Gruszka, A., Matthews, G. & Szymura, B. (Eds.), 2010. Handbook of Individual Differences in Cognition. Attention,
Memory, and Executive Control. New York: Springer.
Hansen, L. 1984. "Field dependence-independence and language testing: Evidence from six Pacific island cultures".
TESOL Quarterly 18: 311-324.
Hurd, S. & Lewis, T. (Eds.), 2008. Language Learning Strategies in Independent Settings. Clevedon: Multilingual
Matters.
Jamieson, J. 1994. "The cognitive styles of reflection/impulsivity and field independence/dependence and ESL
success". In Brown, H. D. & Gonzo, S. (Eds.), Readings on Second Language Acquisition. Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents. 119-137.
Keefe, J. 1979. "Learning style: An overview". In Keefe, J. (ed.) Student Learning Styles: Diagnosing and Describing
Programs. Reston, VA: National Secondary School Principals.
Miller, G. A. 1956. "The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing
information". Psychological Review 63: 81-97.
Morris, P. E. & Gruneberg, M. (Eds.), 1994. Theoretical Aspects of Memory. 2nd Edition. London: Routledge.
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. 2011. Teaching and Researching Language Learning Strategies. Harlow: Longman.
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.
Pavi%0ńić Taka%0ń, V. 2008. Vocabulary Learning Strategies and Foreign Language Acquisition. Clevedon: Multilingual
Matters.
Pincas, A. 1996. "Memory and foreign language learning". Modern English Teacher 5/1: 9-19.
Puff, R. C. (Ed.), 1982. Handbook of Research Methods in Human Memory and Cognition. New York: Academic Press.
Reid, J. M. 1987. "Learning style preferences of ESL students". TESOL Quarterly 21: 87-111.
Reid, J. M. (Ed.), 1998. Understanding Learning Styles in the Second Language Classroom. Upple Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice Hall Regents.
Richards, J. C. & Schmidt, R. 2010. Longman Dictionary of Applied Linguistics and Language Teaching. Fourth
Edition. Harlow, Essex: Longman.
Rubin, J. 1975. "What the 'good language learner' can teach us". TESOL Quarterly 9: 41-51.
Skehan, P. 1998. A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Stern, H. H. 1975. "What can we learn from the good language learner?" Canadian Modern Language Review 31: 304-
318.
Stern, H. H. 1983. Fundamental Concepts of Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wade, C. & Tavris, C. 1990. Psychology. Harper & Row, Publishing Inc.
Willing, K. 1987. Learning Styles and Adult Migrant Education. Adelaide: National Curriculum Resource Centre.
Witkin, H., Oltman, O., Raskin, E. & Karp, S. 1971. A Manual for the Embedded Figures Test. Palo Alto, CA:
Consulting Psychology Press.
8