The Learner's Side of Foreign Language Learning:

Predicting Language Learning Strategies from

Language Learning Styles among Iranian Medical

Students

Mansoor Fahim

English Department, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran

Rezvan Noormohammadi

English Department, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran

undergraduates. Two self-reported inventories, the Persian version of Learning Style Questionnaire (E&L

LSQ) (Ehrman & Leaver, 2002), and the Persian version of the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning

(SILL) (Oxford, 1990) were used. Semi-structured interviews have been performed among 34 high and low

achievers in the qualitative aspect of the study. The analyses indicate that the synoptic language learning style

significantly predicts more language learning strategies than ectenic style, thus turning out to be the more

influential language learning style variable affecting learners' language learning strategy choices. Unlike low

achievers, high achievers are synoptic driven in style, and capable of exercising more frequent and

sophisticated strategies in general and compensation strategies in particular. The pedagogical implications of

the study are discussed.

a standard definition for learning styles as: "an individual's natural, habitual, and preferred way(s) of absorbing,

processing, and retaining new information and skills" (p. 121). Keefe (1979) also defines a learning style as "cognitive,

affective and physiological behaviors that serve as relatively stable indicators of how learners perceive, interact with

and respond to the learning environment" (p. 197). On the other hand, Cohen (1998) defines strategies as "learning

processes which are consciously selected by the learner" (p. 162). Oxford (1999) offers a comprehensive and currently

the best definition of learning strategies as: "Specific actions, behaviors, steps, or techniques that students use to

improve their own progress in developing skills in a second or foreign language". (p.163)

Sternberg and Grigorenko (2001) emphasize the difference between the degree of consciousness involved in styles

and strategies: Styles work without individual awareness, whereas strategies demand a conscious choice of alternatives.

Oxford, Ehrman and Levin (1991) stress the importance of learners' discovering strategies that suit their learning styles;

a study of seventy-nine foreign language learners at a large language institute. They administered Oxford's Strategy

Inventory for Language Learning, and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator to learners. They found that 1) extroverts

reported using more social strategies than introverts; 2) sensing (concrete) learners liked memory strategies, while

intuitive learners liked compensation strategies; 3) thinkers liked metacognitive strategies while feelers liked social

strategies; and 4) perceivers (flexible learners) liked affective strategies, which judgers (closure-oriented learners)

rejected.

Myers Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) when measuring learning styles. Even when employing a learning style

measurement, most of the studies in the L2 field employed scales of learning styles that are language-independent, as

evidenced by the fact that most of the items in the style batteries could be used for any subject matter (not just for

English language learning). Hence, this study could be the first that attempts to identify the nature of the linkage

between language learning styles and strategies, employing a L2 specific measure of learning styles: Ehrman and

Leaver Learning Style Questionnaire (E&L LSQ) (2002).

A study of this kind would throw new lights on the current teaching and learning situation in Iran. Once language

learners get to know their language style preferences, it may be easier for them to see why they prefer using certain

contexts and ultimately achieve learner autonomy.

4. What are the qualitative differences in language learning strategies between high achievers and low achievers?

To remain conservative, the researcher estimated null hypotheses as follow:

1. Language learning styles are not significant predictors of language learning strategies.

2. There is no significant difference between learners with either synoptic or ectenic language learning style, in their

application of language learning strategies.

Questions three and four are descriptive and do not pose any relation or interaction among variables. Hence, no

hypothesis was stated for them.

This study is a kind of descriptive, mixed method study, having both quantitative phase and then follow-up

qualitative interview phase, adding flesh to the bones. Language learning styles were taken to be the independent

were randomly selected from medical fields of: speech therapy, audiometry, optometry, technical orthopedics,

physiotherapy, occupational therapy, radiotherapy, surgical technology and laboratory science. They were sophomores

and already passed two prerequisites English courses to be prepared for general and then academic English. The

participants included 190 female and 75 male students, ranging in age from 18 to 25 (M=19.5, SD=.92). The group was

not controlled for gender, age, or any other variables except the variables of the study.

Moreover, for the qualitative phase of the study, 34 sub-sample students were selected based on stratified sampling

for in-depth study; branching questionnaires respondents into two groups of high achievers (n=17) and low achievers

(n=17). Students' reported scores on the objective questions of the final English test in the second semester of their first

academic year were used as the indices of the students' language learning outcomes and the basis for their division in

this study. The test items consisted of listening comprehension, reading comprehension, cloze and vocabulary,

process of learning foreign language in its startup. Although Iranian university students, when beginning their higher

education, they have already studied English for seven years in the middle school and high school, it seems that most

students when entering university lack skills necessary for learning language. Therefore, the first years of their

university study are in fact the beginning of their higher-educational learning of a foreign language that demands

improving even after seven years of instruction at school.

It contains 30 items using a 9- point semantic differential scale format and provides a rich set of data about an

individual language learning styles which has the advantage of generality and specificity. This complex battery has an

particular, 5: Impulsive–reflective, 6: Synthetic–analytic, 7: Analogue–digital, 8: Concrete–abstract, 9: Random–

sequential, 10: Inductive–deductive.

This study, however, applied the general aspects of E&L LSQ: namely Synoptic and Ectenic language learning styles

indices as predictors of achievement in the use of language learning strategies. While, Synoptic pole includes the first

one of each opposing pair, Ectenic pole includes the second part of each pair. In this study, Cronbach alphas

of .91and .92 were found for synoptic and ectenic language learning styles respectively.

It contains a 50-item four-Point Likert-Scale ranging from 'never' to 'always' used to assess a broad range of L2

learning strategies. It consists of six strategy categories, each of which corresponds to a specific set of strategy items. It

measures the frequency with which a student uses memory, cognitive, compensation (under direct class), metacognitive,

two groups of high achievers and low achievers. The whole interview protocol fell into two parts searching for more in-

depth analyses of the variables of the study.

Part one, was intended to find out whether the students were aware of their own learning styles and the effects of the

learning styles on their English learning. Questions such as "imagine today is holiday and you are to study English, do

you prepare yourself immediately or it takes time to call forth your attention? How?"; "Are you learning new words as

you are reading the text through context or you need to check the meaning of the words in the dictionary to be sure?

What's your experience?" deserved the interviewees' answering. To Ehrman (1996) common styles dimensions are

sequential- random, field sensitive- field insensitive and concrete- abstract, all of which covered in the interview part.

Second part, was interested in gathering data about the participants' strategies in learning English. Typical questions

addressed were: "you have been successful in learning language, what did you do that lead you to success?" asked from

hand for many tasks (taking note), we also need the non-dominant hand for other tasks (at the same time, speaking on

the phone) and to support the work of the dominant hand. We are quite literally crippled without both hands. Similarly,

a person who prefers to learn inductively (discovering rules from data) most of the time sometimes needs _ or even

wants_ to learn deductively (learn rules first), depending on the time available.

Further, to point to the interest, curiosity, and engagement as the qualities of the state inducive to learning and

understanding, the participants were provided with a picture of a young lady to find hidden picture of an old lady within

the first (Fig. 1).

major style, 28% favored auditory as the first, 16% liked kinesthetic and the least favored was that of tactile style with

only 6% of students. In other words, students reported learning language better by reading (or seeing) than listening to

someone. Implicitly, it could be challenging for them to be asked by the teacher to close the books and just listen.

To answer the first research question of the study linear regression was utilized to examine the association between

language learning styles and strategies. Due to multicollinearity effect, a condition that can be problematic in regression

analyses, leading to inaccurate results, multiple regression was not employed to answer this research question.

Results of the relationships between E&L LSQ scales (synoptic and ectenic) and each of the 6 language learning

strategies were synthesized into Table 2.

The above preliminary correlation matrix indicated that 6 out of the 12 correlation coefficients were statistically

significant. The intercorrelations, however found to be low. It is important to refer to Hatch and Farhady (1981) who

suggested not depending on figures without applying logical reasoning, meaning that a correlation coefficient might be

fairly low and still meaningful. In fact, low predictability, could be due to taking generality (rather than specifity)

aspects of styles.

strategies, whereas ectenic style found to be significantly related to just memory, and metacognitive language learning

strategies. Further, in order to investigate the regressions between language learning styles and strategies, the six

Linear regression was conducted to determine the best linear association of synoptic and ectenic language learning

styles for predicting SILL strategies. Both style variables significantly predicted memory strategies F= 5.69 for synoptic

style variables, both of them were a significant predictor of two types of language learning strategies (memory and

metacognitive). The synoptic style was also a significant predictor of just one type of language learning strategies

(social).

To answer the second research question of the study or handling the first research question of the study from different

perspective to find more exact picture, multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was utilized to examine the

differences among language learning strategies employed by learners with different language learning style dominances.

When there is more than one independent variable (in this study: synoptic and ectenic styles) and several related

dependent variables (subscales of strategies) MANOVA is useful. The major assumption of MANOVA include:

homogeneity of variance/covariance matrices. Table 4 presents numbers of students with different dominant language