5 Learning Styles and

Strategies

Carol Griffiths
 learning styles and learning strategies
• Important& Interesting
• Controversial

Background This chapter

• provides background on the two topics,
research evidence to date
• recommendations for how the concepts might
be applied in practice, and suggestions for how
the issues might be dealt with in the future
 Reid (1995, p. viii)

• learning style is an individual’s natural,

habitual and preferred way(s) of absorbing,
processing, and retaining new information
and skills.

Definition Andrew Cohen.(2011, p. 7)

• strategies are: Thoughts and actions,

consciously chosen and operationalized by
language learners, to assist them [foreign
language learners] in carrying out a
multiplicity of tasks from the very onset of
learning to the most advanced levels of
target language performance
 Rebecca Oxford(2017, p. 48)
• learning strategies are complex, dynamic thoughts
and actions, selected and used by learners with
some degree of consciousness in specific contexts
in order to regulate multiple aspects of themselves
(such as cognitive, emotional, and social) for the
purpose of (a) accomplishing language tasks; (b)
improving language performance or use; and/or (c)
enhancing long-term proficiency.

Griffith(Griffiths, 2018, p. 19)

• “actions chosen by learners for the purpose of
learning language” . In addition, however, to the
four basic ingredients of this definition (action,
choice, purpose, and language learning).
 • The issue of consciousness, which deals with the question
of whether learners are always aware of their strategy
Other elements choices or whether strategy choice operates on a continuum
between deliberate and automatic (Griffiths, 2018; Wenden,
to 1991).

accommodate • The question of whether strategies are purely mental

(Macaro, 2006) or whether physical activities such as
“dimensions of highlighting or making flashcards can also be included.

variation” • The question of whether other kinds of strategies, such

(Griffith, 2018) as the “Compensation” group in the Strategy Inventory for
Language Learning (SILL) should be included as language
learning strategies.
There is still a lack of consensus about exactly
how to define language learning strategies.
However, as Griffiths (2018) concludes, the
really important issue is, perhaps, not so
much that there may or may not be a
definitive definition, but that for each study
the definition should be clearly stated and
theoretically justified.
 learning styles
developed around the mid-1970s
• Numerous learning style instruments aimed at
measuring the concept
• In more recent years, the concept has been
criticized for failing to produce the hoped-for
Concept results in terms of student achievement
• Concerns have also been expressed that
Development identification of a learner’s style might become
a self-fulfilling prophecy
• Although in the past, learning style has tended
to be regarded as a relatively stable individual
characteristic , increasingly the concept of
style-stretching (that is, maintaining stylistic
flexibility) has been gaining recognition
 Rubin (1975) identified seven strategies characteristic of good language learners:
guessing/inferring, communicating, managing inhibitions, attending to form, practicing,
learning monitoring one’s own and the speech of others, and attending to meaning.
Stern (1975) produced a list of ten language learning strategies used by good language
strategies learners.
O’Malley et al. (1985) identified 26 strategies which they divided into three categories:
metacognitive (knowing about learning), cognitive (involving mental engagement with the
gathered target material), and social (relating to interaction with others).
Oxford (1990) took this process a step further. From an extensive review of the literature,
momentum she identified a large number of strategic activities which she divided into six groups in the
frequently used instrument known as SILL: memory, cognitive, compensation,
in the metacognitive, affective, and social.
Cohen et al. (2003) adopted a somewhat different approach and classified strategies
1970s according to skills (listening, speaking, reading, writing, vocabulary, and translation). In
addition, rather than asking students to rate strategies according to how frequently they
used them, they asked students to reflect on their own strategy use.
 Criticisms

By the turn of the millennium, however, the strategy field had attracted serious criticism for
being atheoretical (e.g., Ellis, 1994), resulting in Dörnyei and Skehan (2003) and Dörnyei (2005)
recommending the abandonment of the strategy concept in favor of self-regulation, a concept
favored by psychologists.

in order to self-regulate, students need strategies, which brings the argument more-or-less
full-circle.

Rose (2012) argued that the strategy and self-regulation concepts are not incompatible,
and Dörnyei and Ryan (2015) conceded that language learning strategies remain “alive and
kicking” (p. 141). Strategies have therefore continued to be a fertile area of research and
publication up until the present, as noted by Griffiths (2020).
 Theory

Learning style
learners’ stylistic choices will vary according to individual
Style preference may also vary according to the prevailing social
human factors such as their age, gender, personality, culture,
and ecological context with which the learner must interact, as
degree of autonomy, affective characteristics, strategy
well as in response to the demands of specific learning tasks.
preferences, aptitude, beliefs, motivation, and so on
 Theory

Learning strategies
the taxonomy developed by O’Malley et al. (1985) also
introduced sociocultural theory to the strategy field.
strategies were seen as a way for learners to engage Behaviorism can be found in strategies that involve This theoretical eclecticism leads, in turn, to the idea
cognitively with their learning and also to take repetition, structuralism in actions such as looking for that strategies are complex and dynamic, therefore
metacognitive control (O’Malley et al., 1985). rules, self- regulation in metacognitive strategies such as fitting into complex/dynamic systems theory
monitoring one’s progress, and humanism in affective
strategies such as rewarding oneself (Oxford, 1990).
Research: Evidence
Learning style
An overview of the studies noted above leads Using her own Perceptual Learning Style
to the conclusion that learning style was not a Ehrman and Oxford (1995) similarly found no
Preference Questionnaire (PLSPQ), Reid (1987)
major factor in successful language learning in correlation between proficiency and learning
found a general preference for tactile,
most cases. Nevertheless, in spite of these style among Foreign Service Institute (FSI)
individual, and kinaesthetic styles, but
negative conclusions, interest in the learning students as measured by the Learning Style
according to her results, learning style was not
style concept continues, especially in the form Profile (LSP) (Keefe & Monk, 1989).
significantly related to proficiency.
of what has come to be called “differentiated
instruction”

Limited significance was also found by

Griffiths and Inceçay (2016) when they
A similarly guarded conclusion was reached by
Using the Productivity Environmental surveyed students using the Inventory of
Andreou, Andreou, and Vlachos (2008) using
Preference Survey (Dunn et al., 1991), Bailey et Language Learning Styles (ILLS) the ratings of
Kolb’s (1985) Learning Style Inventory who
al. (2000) found only a “modest proportion of which were correlated with the exam results;
concluded that: “It cannot be assumed that
variance” (p. 126) could be accounted for by of the 18 items in the inventory, only three
learning styles determine … performance in
learning style. were found to correlate significantly with exam
every case” (p. 672).
scores, and the effect sizes were all relatively
small.
 Learning strategies Porte (1988) interviewed under-achieving
A similar observation was made by Vann and
most of the research has revolved around the adolescent learners in private language schools in
Abraham (1990) during a think-aloud study of two
fundamental question of the relationship between London, he concluded that the “poor” learners
low-level Saudi Arabian women who made slow
strategy use and proficiency, and the answer to this were using very similar strategies to those reported
progress in spite of being active strategy users.
question has not always been positive. by “good” learners.

Other studies have produced somewhat ambiguous

results. For instance, studies by Bialystok (1981),
O’Malley et al. (1985), Huang and Van Naerssen
(1987), and Ehrman and Oxford (1995) all failed to
For yet other studies, results for the relationship
find a significant relationship between overall
between strategy use and proficiency have been
frequency of language learning strategy use and
positive.
successful learning, although they managed to
show relationships between effective learning and
various types of strategies (e.g., metacognitive,
functional practice, or cognitive).
 Green and Oxford (1995), for instance, discovered a “significantly greater overall
use of language learning strategies among more successful learners” (p. 285).

Dreyer and Oxford (1996) also reported a positive relationship between frequency
of strategy use and successful learning.

Likewise, Griffiths (2003) found that the higher-level students reported using more
strategies more frequently than the lower-level students.

Zhang and Xiao (2006) also found a relationship between language learning strategies and proficiency levels,
and according to the results of a study reported in Griffiths (2018), the higher-level students reported
significantly higher levels of agreement for a number of the strategy items in the survey.
Strategy use in relation to various other
factors

other individual
context task
differences
Data Elicitation

self-report questionnaires
Other learning style surveys employed
a quadrant model, including the
Learning Style Inventory (Kolb, 1976),
The instruments noted were not
One of the earliest learning style the Style Delineator (Gregorc, 1979),
designed exclusively for language
instruments was the five-stage the Learning Styles Questionnaire
learning, although over the years
Learning Style Inventory by Dunn et (Honey and Mumford, 1982), and the
some of them have been used for that
al. (1975). VARK (which stands for visual,
purpose.
auditory, read- ing/writing, and
kinaesthetic; Fleming and Mills,
1992).
 Language learning style survey
Although questionnaires such as
Other learning style instruments
the PLSPQ (Reid, 1987) and SILL
specific to language learning
(Oxford, 1990) can be very
The first well-known language followed, for instance, the Style
useful for gathering large
learning style survey was the Analysis Survey (Oxford, 1993),
quantities of data quickly and
PLSPQ (Reid, 1987) which was the Learning Style Survey
relatively cheaply (e.g., Nunan,
based on five modalities. (Cohen et al., 2002), and the
1992; Dikilitaş and Griffiths,
Learning Style Questionnaire
2017), they also have issues
(Ehrman and Leaver, 2003).
and limitations.
 Issue of Data collection
Woodrow (2005) questioned the
value of pre-validated questionnaires
on the grounds that it is not possible
Turner (1993) suggested that
Gu et al. (1995) also questioned the for any one instrument to be
“limitations in language ability may
degree to which student self-report applicable for all possible learners in
prevent [students] from responding in
ratings can be relied on to be an all possible contexts; she therefore
a manner that accurately reflects their
accurate reflection of actual use. concluded that “there is a need for
true opinion or attitude” (p. 736).
richer descriptions of LLS use [which]
can be achieved by using more
qualitative methods” (p. 96).
 Issue of Methodology
Also gaining popularity is a A mixed methodology
Qualitative methods have
tradition of narrative inquiry achieved by combining
become more popular in
(Barkhuizen, 2011), which, qualitative and quantitative
recent years and include
according to Barcelos (2008, p. approaches is capable of
interviews, observations,
37), is “an excellent method to achieving triangulation by
think-aloud protocols, learning
capture the essence of human looking at particular issues
logs, diaries, or journals
experience and of human from different perspectives
(Dikilitaş & Griffiths, 2017).
learning and change”. (e.g., Griffiths & Oxford, 2014).
 Issue of analysis
The appropriateness of relying
Furthermore, it has been argued exclusively on probability and
Jamieson (2004) argued that Likert
(e.g., by Dörnyei, 2005; Dörnyei and significance (p-values) has also
scales (which are frequently used in
Ryan, 2015) that Likert scales, since been questioned , since such
styles and strategies studies) are
they commonly consist of discrete statistics are dependent on sample
often abused since, by their nature,
and independent items, are often size. They argue that the effect size,
such scales produce ordinal data
not cumulative (that is, the ratings which represents the magnitude of
for which non-parametric tests are
cannot be added together and an effect or strength of a
appropriate.
averaged). relationship, is a much more useful
unit of measurement.
To avoid misinterpretation of results
As Loewen et al. (2014) put it:
“If theoretical insights and
Appropriate procedures should pedagogical recommendations
be employed (e.g., Lazaraton, are to be trusted, they must
2000). come as the result of the
accurate use of appropriate
methods” (p. 379).

This kind of methodology

When it comes to analyzing produces rich, personal insights
qualitative data, perhaps the which can be especially
most commonly employed valuable when triangulated
method has been what is known with quantitative methods
as grounded theory. using a mixed-method
paradigm.
 Practical Applications Practical Applications

• Although learning style is not • Flexibility is also important when

“set in stone”, and stylistic it comes to strategies, and in
flexibility has been found to be order to raise students’
typical of more successful awareness of the strategy options
students, it is a common available, teachers need to
observation that learners do tend provide strategy instruction.
to have a preferred learning style
with which they feel most
comfortable.
Teachability of language learning strategies

studies reporting successful results for strategy

instruction
Carrell et al. (1989) Eslami Rasekh and
investigated the Ranjbary (2003) Vandergrift and Hassan et al. (2005)
effects of &Mizumoto and Tafaghodatari (2010) reported that “there Plonsky (2011) also
metacognitive Takeuchi (2009) found found the is sufficient research concluded that there
strategy training on that the treatment experimental group evidence to support was a “small to
ESL reading, they group showed significantly claims that training medium overall effect
concluded that the significantly higher outperformed the language learners to of SI [strategy
training was effective gains in vocabulary control group in the use strategies is instruction]” (p. 993).
in enhancing reading than the control final assessment. effective” (p. 2).
ability. group
Teachability of language learning
strategies

Mixed Results
Ikeda and Takeuchi (2003)
Rees-Miller (1993) O’Malley (1987) discovered found no increase in the
Wenden (1987) found that
attempts at strategy a significant difference was frequency of strategy use
“learner training was not
training have produced in favor of the treatment among the low-proficiency
considered relevant in its
“only qualified success” (p. groups for speaking, but not students but increased
own right” (p. 164).
679). for listening. frequency among the high-
proficiency learners.
Principles underlying effective strategy
instruction

raising of students’ awareness of Strategy instruction should also be

Strategy training needs to be
language learning strategy Practice implicit (e.g., Cohen, 1998; Harris,
explicit (e.g., Wenden, 1991)
options (Rubin, 1987). 2001).

other aspects of the intervention,

such as increased motivation, curvilinear development; Griffiths
evaluation (Tang & Griffiths,
heightened attention to the target (2003, 2018) suggests a spiral
2014).
structure, and increased model
engagement in learning activities.
Future Directions

Learning styles have suffered from relative neglect in more recent years.

This may be a pity, since learning style is an observable phenomenon operating in real-life
classrooms, at least at the surface level of learning behavior (e.g., Nel, 2008), suggesting that it
retains its potential to facilitate more effective learning if well managed, and flexibility is
maintained by both students and teachers.

Research remains to be done, however, on how best to maximize the potential benefits, perhaps
in relation to context, task, and other individual differences such as personality, motivation, and so
on.
 Research also remains to be done
As for research methodology,
in the strategy area, especially in
Strategy instruction is also in questions have been raised about
regard to the relationship between
urgent need of further research. the reliability of self- report
strategies and situational, task, and
questionnaires.
human variables.

As technology develops, other

In addition, qualitative methods interesting methods are also
can be added to questionnaires to emerging, such as eye tracking and
achieve triangulation from a mixed- brain scans, which have the
method perspective (Zhang et al., potential to add valuable new
2019). insights to our existing knowledge
(Latif, 2019).
 Debates in the styles and strategies area
A major unresolved debate in the styles Also being questioned is the exclusive
and strategies area relates to reliance on the p-value (which is
quantitative data analysis. Although dependent on sample size) as the
parametric tests have been the default, ultimate indicator of a factor’s
Effect sizes remain rare in styles and
increasingly their use for the type of importance. Effect size, which provides a
strategies research.
ordinal data produced by the kinds of measure of the strength of the effect of
instruments common in styles and one variable on another, independent of
strategies studies (Likert scales) is being sample size, is a much more useful
questioned. statistic.
 As Amerstorfer (2020) comments: “a
complexity perspective can generate
it is important to recognize the increasing
new, profound information” (p. 21), and
interest in a complex/ dynamic view .
this suggests a very useful direction for
future styles and strategies research.

From a theoretical perspective