ehrman-1988-effects of sex differences, career choice, and psychological-000

8/13/2019 Ehrman-1988-Effects of Sex Differences, Career Choice, And Psychological-000

1/14

Effects of Sex Differences, Career Choice, and Psychological Type on Adult LanguageLearning StrategiesAuthor(s): Madeline Ehrman and Rebecca OxfordSource: The Modern Language Journal, Vol. 72, No. 3 (Autumn, 1988), pp. 253-265

Published by: Blackwell Publishingon behalf of the National Federation of Modern Language TeachersAssociationsStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/327503.

Accessed: 28/03/2011 17:11

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black..

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Blackwell PublishingandNational Federation of Modern Language Teachers Associationsare collaborating

with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Modern Language Journal.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=blackhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=nfmltahttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=nfmltahttp://www.jstor.org/stable/327503?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=blackhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=blackhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/327503?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=nfmltahttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=nfmltahttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black


2/14

E f f e c t s o e x Differences C a r e e r C h o i c en d Psychologicaly p e o d u l tanguage earning Strategies

MADELINE EHRMAN and REBECCA OXFORDForeignServicenstitute TheAnnenberg/CPBroject

MUCH RESEARCH HAS LOOKED AT THErelationships between learner characteristicsand language learning performance. Our studydiffers in that it examines relationships amonglearner characteristics themselves. Using asample of relatively sophisticated adult lan-guage learners, it examines learning strategiesin relation to: 1) sex differences; 2) careerchoice (and the underlying motivation that itimplies); 3) cognitive style; and 4) aspects ofpersonality. For purposes of this study, cogni-tive style and personality variables are treatedtogether as psychological type, using a modelbased on Jung's work.RESEARCH BACKGROUND

A brief look at published research revealsthat learning strategies (steps taken to facilitateacquisition, storage, retrieval, and use of infor-mation) influence the degree of proficiency ob-tained in a second language. Many researchershave found, not surprisingly, that conscious useof appropriate learning strategies typifies goodlanguage learners.' Learning strategies aremore specific than cognitive style (one's gen-eral approach to structuring and conceptualiz-ing the world) or personality traits (patterns ofbehavior that characterize a person's responseto the environment) and can more easily bemodified through training.2University students, military ESL students,and high school students were found to use alimited number and type of strategies.3 Suchstudies show that second language learners do

not automatically use the best or widest rangeof strategies.Research shows sex differences in generalsocial behavior, verbal ability, use of language,and language learning strategies. Maccoby andJacklin's work on sex differences suggests thatfemales are superior to, or at least very differentfrom, males in many social skills, with femalesshowing a greater social orientation.Gilligan found the predominantfemale socialimage to be the web and the predominant malesocial image to be the hierarchy. Similarly,Bardwick distinguished between the malemind (oriented to separation) and the femalemind (oriented to relatedness) and noted thatgirls are more likely to show a continuing needfor social approval and acceptance and aremore likely to stay amenable to cultural pat-terning (p. 92). We think that social orienta-tion is highly related to communication in bothfirst and second languages.These findings suggest that we can expectfemales to use social learning strategies (tech-niques involving at least one other person)more than males. Because social learning strat-egies have been found to be particularly impor-tant for exposing the learner to the target lan-guage, increasing the amount of interactionwith native speakers, and enhancing motivation(11), it is reasonable to anticipate that they willenhance verbal learning.Research data already support the notionthat females and males may use different strate-gies to learn a second language. For example,in Politzer's (33) study of language learningstrategies, females reported a significantlygreater propensity than males to engage insecond-language social interactions with othersoutside of class. Though Politzer described itas of minor importance, this sex difference

TheModernLanguageournal,72, iii (1988)0026-7902/88/0003/253 $1.50/001988 TheModernLanguageournal


3/14

254 Madeline Ehrman & RebeccaOxfordmight contribute to better understanding ofhow males and females go about learning a sec-ond language.

Among 1,200 university foreign languagestudents, females reported using more learningstrategies with significantly greater frequencythan males in three of the five possible cate-gories: 1) formal practice; 2) standard studyhabits; and 3) the highly social category of inputelicitation. Males did not show statisticallygreater use of strategies in any category (32).Each of the four dimensions is independentof the other three, so that sixteen possible com-binations of preferences result, called types,each of which is referred to by the initial lettersindicated above. For example, a person withpreferences for extraversion, intuition, think-ing, and judging is referred to as an ENTJ.Type distributions of a sample are usually dis-played in a conventional array called a typetable (e.g., Tables I-IV below).The StrategyInventory or Language Learning(SILL) is a 121-item, Likert-scaled, self-reportinstrument which assesses the frequency withwhich the respondent uses a variety of differenttechniques for second or foreign languagelearning.9 In a field test at the Defense Lan-guage Institute (DLI), a preliminary factoranalysis of SILL results produced ten factors,which we refined slightly and interpreted toyield the factors on which the MBTI-SILLpilotstudy are based. These factors are: 1) generallearning trategiesor reading and study; e.g. pre-viewing lessons, arranging the study environ-ment, skimming the reading passage beforereading in detail, and checking one's own per-formance; 2) authentic language use, includingseeking native speakers with whom to talk,initiating conversations in the new language,reading authentic, natural texts, etc.; 3) search-ingfor and communicatingmeaning,e.g. guessingwhen complete information is not available,using text markers to aid comprehension, find-ing alternative ways to express meaning; 4) in-dependent trategies,which can be used withoutinvolving anyone else, e.g. reading aloud toself, using a tape recorder, practicing newwords mentally, listing related words, etc.; 5)memorystrategies (mnemonics), e.g. listing newwords, using rhyming or repetition, using flash-cards, using one's own phonetic markers andsymbols to memorize sounds, and making asso-ciations; 6) social strategies, e.g. asking for

examples, working with peers, asking for help,asking for correction, asking the other personto slow down, practicing with friends, andswitching back briefly to one's own languageduring conversation; 7) affective trategies,whichrelate to dealing with learner's own feelings andattitudes about language learning, e.g. over-coming fear, frustration, and anxiety byvarious methods; 8) self-management, .g. cor-recting own written errors, encouraging one-self, considering one's own progress, planningfor future language tasks, and identifying goals;9) visualization strategies, e.g. using mentalimages, linking sounds with visual images,visualizing spelling, and drawing pictures ofnew words; 10)formal model-building,e.g. con-structing and testing hypotheses about the lan-guage, analyzing one's own errors, applyingand revising grammar rules, analyzing wordsinto component parts, and looking for patternsin the new language.Sample. Seventy-eight subjects took part inthis exploratory study: thirty FSI students (For-eign Service Officers, military officers, andspouses) studying Japanese, Thai, and Turkish;twenty-six FSI language instructors (nativespeakers of Japanese, Thai, Turkish, Indo-nesian, Italian, and Hungarian); and twenty-two professional language trainers with gradu-ate degrees in linguistics or equivalentexperience.Although the teachers are not native speakersof English, all have lived in the United Statesfor a number of years and are proficient atreading and understanding English. Most didnot come to FSI as professional language teach-ers but rather began teaching to make a livingwith their most distinctive asset, their nativelanguage. They have since adopted teaching asa profession. Because of the possible effects oflanguage and culture on the teachers when theycompleted the MBTI, extra effort was made tobe sure they understood and validated theresults of the MBTI for themselves.The students include United States Govern-ment employees from the Department of State,the United States Information Agency, and theDepartment of Defense, and their spouses. Allstudents are at least college graduates; a num-ber hold advanced degrees in subjects like his-tory or political science. Most have studiedFrench or Spanish in high school or college; afew entered with previous study at FSI or with


4/14

Adult LanguageLearning Strategies 255background in non-Indo-European languages.The study did not account for previous lan-guage learning experience, age, or aptitude,however.

The professional language trainers are mem-bers of the supervisory and management staffof the FSI School of Language Studies and ofthe technical staff of the Center for AppliedLinguistics (CAL). Four are university profes-sors of linguistics and related subjects.Tables I-IV show the type distributions of theresearch sample.Data Collection. Instructors in Indonesian,Japanese, Thai, and Turkish were invited toparticipate in a staff training exercise. Theycompleted the MBTI, had a group interpreta-tion session, and then received a one-dayworkshop on learning and teaching based onpsychological type concepts. A number re-quested and received individual discussions oftheir MBTI results. Approximately six weekslater they completed the SILL. Italian andHungarian instructors completed the MBTI aspart of team-building exercises and were in-vited to participate in the MBTI-SILL studylater.Students entering training in Japanese,Thai, and Turkish in August 1986 were invitedto volunteer for the project. All of them agreedto complete the MBTI;, ike the teachers, theywere given a three-hour MBTI interpretationand a one-day workshop on psychological typeand learning. All but six completed the SILLfour to six weeks later. All FSI participants inthe study received a follow-up group presenta-tion on the SILLand the meanings of the SILLfactors.The professional language trainers were in-vited to participate in the study at various inter-vals. Most of the FSI and CAL staff completedthe MBTI as part of team-building exercises.They completed the SILLwhen they agreed toparticipate in the research project.Scoringand Data Analysis. Each of the 121 SILLitems was associated with one and only onefactor from the DLI factor analysis for scoringpurposes. Each SILL actor received a score. Al-though the average of the ten factor scores wasalso calculated, it was not found to be explana-tory.The research literature is sparse regardingthe direct effect of career choice on success insecond language learning. However, Politzer

(34) found that academic field was a significantfactor in some aspects of language learning forintensive ESL students, contrasting engineers/scientists with business/social studies/educationstudents. In another study, university majorwas shown to have a statistically significant in-fluence on choice of second language learningstrategies, particularly in favor of humanities,social science, and education majors and to alesser degree majors in computers, science, ormath (32).Career choice may be a proxy for motiva-tion, which has been widely studied in relationto second language learning (we have hereadopted the widely used distinction between

integrative and instrumental motivation).4Motivation was the single most important influ-ence on learning strategy use in the above-men-tioned study of 1,200 university languagelearners. Self-ratings of motivational intensityhad highly significant relationships with fourof the five factors (formal practice, functionalpractice, standard study habits, and input elici-tation) (32).The best known cognitive style dimension inlanguage learning is field independence.5Others frequently mentioned include (38): 1)modality preference; 2) reflective vs. impulsivetempo; 3) systematic vs. random problem solv-ing; 4) leveling vs. sharpening; 5) risk taking,etc. These distinctions are important factors inmany of the cognitive style models that havebeen useful to individual language trainingpractitioners (17). Schema theory, which de-scribes how the person integrates new informa-tion into an existing mental framework, has hada substantial impact on training design forreading and listening comprehension.6

Personality traits that appear to correlatemoderately to highly with success in languagelearning include sense of humor, achievementorientation, assertiveness, outgoingness, impul-sivity, risk-taking, adventurousness, flexibility,tolerance of ambiguity and frustration, confi-dence, determination, and empathy.7 (Notethat some of these may also be classified by cer-tain researchers as elements of cognitive style;conversely, cognitive style can be viewed as aspecialized set of personality dimensions.)Psychological type can be viewed as a com-bination of a number of personality and cogni-tive variables. The best known and most widelyused measure of psychological type is the


5/14

256 Madeline Ehrman & RebeccaOxfordMyers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI), whichdescribes four dimensions using Carl Jung's ter-minology: 1) extraversion vs. introversion; 2)sensing vs. intuition; 3) thinking vs. feeling;and 4) judging vs. perceiving.The relationship of psychological type tolearning styles in general has been investigatedin many dissertations and articles, summarizedby Gordon Lawrence. To the best of our knowl-edge, however, no previous work has used thepsychological type model to integrate cognitiveand emotional factors in adult language learn-ing.METHODOLOGY

The exploratory study reported here is partof a larger investigation being conducted byMadeline Ehrman at the Foreign Service Insti-tute (FSI). It treats the utility of psychologicaltype to language training and involves teachertraining, student training and counseling, andquantitative and qualitative research. Thepresent study is the first quantitative product.Instrumentation. Two paper-and-pencil in-struments were used for this study: the MBTIfor psychological type (personality and cogni-tive elements), and the Strategy Inventory forLanguage Learning (SILL),a self-report surveyof preferred language learning techniques.The MBTI is a 126-item, forced-choice, nor-mative, self-report questionnaire (15) designedto reveal basic personality preferences on fourdimensions.8 Based on the work of Jung, itreflects the theory that behavior in daily life isa manifestation of underlying stable and un-changing preferences for certain ways of func-ioning.MBTI theory posits that individuals havepreferences that affect what they pay attentionto in a given situation and how they draw con-clusions or make decisions about what they per-ceive. While all people develop the ability toact in both poles of each of the four dimensions,the theory suggests that they have a naturalpreference for one or the other of the poles and,all other things being equal, will gravitatetoward that preference. All preferences are con-sidered normal variants of personality. Thefour indices that the MBTI measures are: 1)ExtraversionE)-Introversion(I). An extravert isenergized by interaction with others and puts

primary interest in the outer world of peopleand events. An introvert tends to be energizedby solitary activities and is oriented primarilytoward concepts and ideas in his or her innerworld; 2) Sensing(S)-Intuition (N). Relying ondata gathered through the five senses, a personwith a preference for sensing perception seesthe world in a practical and factual way. Anintuitor is likely to be aware first of relation-ships, possibilities, and meanings and will bedrawn to the innovative and theoretical; 3)Thinking T)-Feeling (F). A preference for think-ing judgment results in decisions made on im-personal, objective, cause-and-effect criteria.Judgments made on feeling grounds are madeon the basis of personal or social values andautomatically take into account personal rela-tionships and the feelings of others; 4)Judging(J)-Perceiving(P). This dimension describes theprocess the individual mostly uses to deal withthe outside world. A person who prefers judg-ing deals with the outside world through think-ing or feeling (the judging process) and is likelyto look for a planned, organized, and controlledlife, seeking closure. The perceiver, on theother hand, deals with the outer world throughsensing or intuition (the perceiving process) andvalues spontaneity, flexibility, freedom, andautonomy, liking to play it by ear, adapt, andstay open.

Descriptive statistics were obtained throughthe SAS statistical package for the MBTI andSILLresults. Then the SAS general linear modelprocedure was used to conduct analyses ofvariance, with MBTI preferences as inde-pendent variables and SILLfactor scores as de-pendent variables. Results were considered sta-tistically significant at the .05 level.

RESULTSOverallMBTIResults.A Look at theSample.The

sample is almost evenly divided between intro-verts and extraverts and shows a preponder-ance of intuitives over sensing types, morethinkers than feelers, and a majority of judgersover perceivers (see Table I). These features arereadily explainable by the occupational prefer-ences of the subjects.The students are largely US Foreign ServiceOfficers (see Table II). In the Foreign Service


6/14

Adult LanguageLearning Strategies 257TABLE IType Distribution: All Participants, N = 79

(N) (%)ISTJ ISFJ INFJ INTJ E 39 49N=6 N=4 N=3 N=6 I 40 51(8%) (5%) (4%) (8%) S 34 43***** **** *** ***** N 45 57

T 47 59F 33 41ISTP ISFP INFP INTP J 42 53N=4 N=1 N=6 N=10 P 37 47(5%) (1%) (8%) (12%) IJ 19 24**** * ***** ***** IP 21 26

* ***** EP 16 20EJ 23 29ST 20 25SF 14 17ESTP ESFP ENFP ENTP NF 18 23N=3 N=3 N=6 N=4 NT 27 34

(4%) (4%) (8%) (5%) SJ 23 29******* **** SP 11 13* NP 26 33

NJ 19 24ESTJ ESFJ ENFJ ENTJ TJ 26 33N=7 N=6 N=3 N=7 TP 21 26(9%) (8%) (4%) (9%) FP 16 20FJ 16 20***** ***** *** *****

** IN 25 32EN 20 25IS 15 18ES 19 24= one person.Percents do not add up to precisely 100 because ofrounding.

as a whole, more than half are introverted.Roughly sixty percent are intuitive thinkers andtwenty-five percent are sensing thinkers.10Spouses and students from other governmentagencies bring more balance to the type distri-bution of students.The teachers (Table III) are largely extra-verted sensing types; their backgrounds arevery mixed, and they are considerably closerto representing the population at large than arestudents or trainers. This description is consis-tent with the fact that most did not come to FSI

TABLE IIType Distribution: Students, N = 30

(N) (%)ISTJ ISFJ INFJ INTJ E 14 47N=4 N=2 N=0 N=3 I 16 53(13%) (7%) (0%) (10%) S 13 43

N 17 57T 20 67F 10 33

ISTP ISFP INFP INTP J 17 57N=2 N=0 N=2 N=3 P 13 43(7%) (0%) (7%) (10%) IJ 9 30** ** *** IP 7 23

EP 6 20EJ 8 27ST 9 30SF 4 13ESTP ESFP ENFP ENTP NF 6 20N=0 N= 1 N=4 N= 1 NT 11 37

(0%) (3%) (13%) (3%) SJ 10 33**** * SP 3 10NP 10 33NJ 7 23TJ 14 47TP 6 20

ESTJ ESFJ ENFJ ENTJ FP 7 23N=3 N=1 N=0 N=4 FJ 3 10(10%) (3%) (0%) (13%) IN 8 27***** EN 9 30IS 8 27ES 5 16

= one person.Percents do not add up to precisely 100 because ofrounding.

intending to devote their careers to languageteaching.Professional language trainers (Table IV)show an overwhelming preference for introver-sion and intuition, which is consistent with theiracademic backgrounds: the field of linguisticsis likely to appeal to intuitive thinkers, whogravitate to scientific subjects.OverallSILL Results: Averages.The best gen-eral view of the SILL results comes from thefactor averages. High averages were consideredto be in the range of 3.5 to 5.0, moderate 2.5


7/14

258 Madeline Ehrman & RebeccaOxfordTABLE IIIType Distribution: Language Teachers, N = 26

(N) (%)ISTJ ISFJ INFJ INTJ E 17 65N= 1 N=2 N=0 N=0 I 9 35(4%) (8%) (0%) (0%) S 20 77

N 6 23T 12 46F 14 54

ISTP ISFP INFP INTP J 13 50N=2 N=1 N=2 N= P 13 50(8%) (4%) (8%) (4%) IJ 3 12** * ** * IP 6 23

EP 7 27EJ 10 38ST 10 38SF 10 38ESTP ESFP ENFP ENTP NF 4 16N=3 N=2 N=1 N=1 NT 2 8

(11%) (8%) (4%) (4%) SJ 12 46*** ** * SP 8 31NP 5 19NJ 1 4TJ 5 19TP 7 27

ESTJ ESFJ ENFJ ENTJ FP 6 23N=4 N=5 N=1 N=0 FJ 8 31(15%) (18%) (4%) (0%) IN 3 12**** ***** * EN 3 12IS 6 23ES 14 53

* = one person.

to 3.4, and low 1.0 to 2.4. Averages across thewhole sample are shown in Table V (in theorder of highest to lowest).These averages were higher than those of anyother sample which has taken the SILL, indi-cating that this sample is fairly sophisticated aslanguage learners relative to the other groups(primarily university foreign language studentsand military language school students).RESULTS FOR EACH HYPOTHESIS

HypothesisOne. Females report greater strat-egy use than males. Very trong supportappearedfor this hypothesis.The females showed a signifi-

TABLE IVType Distribution: Professional Language Trainers,N= 22

(N) (%)ISTJ ISFJ INFJ INTJ E 7 32N= 1 N=0 N=3 N=3 I 15 68(5%) (0%) (13%) (13%) S 1 5*** N 21 95

T 15 68F 7 32ISTP ISFP INFP INTP J 11 50N=0 N=0 N=2 N=6 P 11 50(0%) (0%) (9%) (27%) IJ 7 32

** ***** IP 8 36* EP 3 14EJ 4 18ST 1 5SF 0 0ESTP ESFP ENFP ENTP NF 7 32N=0 N=0 N= 1 N=2 NT 14 63

(0%) (0%) (5%) (9%) SJ 1 5* ** SP 0 0NP 11 50NJ 10 45TJ 7 32TP 8 36

ESTJ ESFJ ENFJ ENTJ FP 3 14N=0 N=0 N=1 N=3 FJ 4 18(0%) (0%) (5%) (13%) IN 14 63EN 7 32IS 1 5ES 0 0

* = one person.

TABLE VAverage SILL Results by FactorFactor AverageSearching for and communicatingmeaning 4.0General strategies 3.7Affective strategies 3.7Formal model building 3.6Authentic language use 3.2Memory devices 3.1Social strategies 3.1Self-management 3.1Visualization 3.0Independent strategies 2.8


8/14

Adult Language Learning Strategies 259cant advantage for four SILL factors: generalstrategies (F = 10.06, p


9/14

260 Madeline Ehrman & RebeccaOxfordIntuitive judges surpassed sensing perceiversin reported use of general study strategies

(F = 3.36, p < .02). Both intuitive judgers andintuitive perceivers exceeded sensing judgers inreported use of strategies for searching for andcommunicating meaning (F = 2.77, p


10/14

Adult LanguageLearning Strategies 261sult is not surprising. In all other respects teach-ers were similar to students. Since, unlike stu-dents, they have extensive exposure to theoriesand techniques of language learning and uselanguage learning strategies daily for their con-tinuing study of English, this similarity is un-likely to be occupational. On the other hand,this similarity may be related to psychologicaltype: the great majority of the teachers preferssensing, as does a sizable proportion of thestudents.Since students are more evenly divided thanlanguage trainers between sensing types andintuitives (thirteen sensing and seventeen intui-tives), the effects of intuition on preferredstrategies that we saw for the latter were mutedfor students. There were no strategies that stu-dents preferred more than other groups.Career choice as an influence on strategy useappeared to be even more strongly supportedin this study than in the earlier studies de-scribed above. The underlying variable of moti-vation, while not directly measured, can be in-ferred in the career results. For instance, theprofessional language trainers may have bothintegrative and instrumental drives for learn-ing (and teaching) languages. Our informal ob-servations indicate that such people are as in-terested in functional and personal languageuse (reflecting integrative motivation) as theyare in using language to do their jobs well (in-strumental motivation).FSI language teachers may have mixedc(integrative and instrumental) relationship totheir own native language and to their use ofEnglish. For students who are government em-ployees, the motivation for learning the otherlanguage is likely to be instrumental in nature;for their spouses, it may be either instrumentalor integrative.

Differencesby PsychologicalType.Extraversion.When compared with introverts,extraverts significantly prefer visual strategies.This preference could be related to the defini-tion of the extravert as one oriented to the outerworld of people and things; visualization is away of making connections between elementsof outer-world experience and the symbols ofwhich language is composed. Extraverts alsoreport greater use of affective strategies thanintroverts, suggesting either a greater effect offeelings on extraverted language learners or a

greater facility by these extraverts at dealingwith their feelings.Introversion. Introversion has a significantrelationship to searching for and communicat-ing meaning. The introvert is defined as beingconcerned with the inner world of ideas, andmeaning certainly relates to this. Introvertstend to look for meaning and context beforeacting.Intuition. The most striking result is the sta-tistically significant connection between intui-tion and strategies for searching for and com-municating meaning, affective strategies, au-thentic language use, and formal model build-ing. In combination with extraversion, intui-tion also relates positively to visualization andmemory strategies. In combination with judg-ing, intuition relates positively to generalstrategies.This connection with techniques that buildon drawing inferences (searching for and com-municating meaning, formal model building),seeing the whole (formal model building andpossibly visualization), and working with pat-terns (searching for and communicating mean-ing, formal model building, affective strategies)fits with such features of intuition as interestin the whole, preference for the abstract, globalthinking, and alertness to patterns rather thandetails. Preliminary qualitative observations(10) have shown that intuitive students seemto have relatively little trouble with languagelearning techniques; when they have difficulty,it is more likely to be affective (e.g. perceivedthreat to competence) or connected to uncon-genial teaching methods (e.g. boredom withdrilling or unwillingness to keep content simple).

Sensing.Equally striking is the fact that sens-ing has no significant relationship with any ofthe SILLfactors. While our initial observations(10) indicate that a number of the individualsensing students are exceptionally good lan-guage learners in the classroom, they havemastered the inferencing and recombiningtechniques that are more associated with intui-tion. Some also use strategies that are not re-ported on the SILL, such as close observationand expert mimicry. Weaker students who pre-fer sensing are likely to get into trouble whenthey are required to recombine memorizedmaterial or make inferences, especially guess-ing from context.


11/14

262 Madeline Ehrman & RebeccaOxfordThinking and Feeling. Feelers tend to bepeople-oriented and may therefore use strate-gies that will bring them into contact withothers, fellow students as well as teachers and

native speakers. Hence the nearly significantsuperiority of feelers in terms of social strate-gies is not surprising. The reasons are less clearfor the superiority of feelers in terms of gen-eral strategies.Intuitive thinkers showed a numerical butstatistically non-significant superiority over theother function pairs for formal model building.Hypothesis seven predicted that intuitive think-ers like formal model building because it in-volves analysis and working with patterns oflanguage structure. The failure of this hypothe-sis may result from the element of risk in mak-ing and testing grammatical hypotheses. Intui-tive thinkers are perhaps not likely to take risksunless they feel sure of their competence. Thelanguage learning classroom is not a placewhere most of FSI's intuitive thinking studentsfeel competent; they may therefore be reluctantto take this kind of learning risk unless theyhave had previous language learning success.On the other hand, the professional languagetrainers (sixty-three percent intuitive thinkers),who are sure of their competence in a language-learning setting, reported significant use offormal model building. Further tests of thishypothesis will have to control for such vari-ables as language learning background.

Judging. Judgers when compared with per-ceivers show a significant preference only forgeneral study strategies. Judgers are those thatget tasks done and complete their assignments,which is a part of this factor (22: pp. 39, 131).

Perception.Perceivers show a significant pref-erence over judgers when searching for andcommunicating meaning. This may result fromthe moderate statistical correlation betweenintuition and perception (22: p. 150). Perhapsperceivers hold off coming to closure longerthan do judgers. An important part of search-ing for and communicating meaning is stayingopen to further information in order to guessat meaning from context, even when there areunfamiliar elements.TOPICS FOR FURTHER INVESTIGATIONThis exploratory study suggests that rich in-formation can be gained by using a largersample. Such a sample would ideally control

for such variables as previous language learn-ing experience, aptitude, and career status (e.g.the sample of students includes spouses of For-eign Service and military officers, and spousesmay be different as language learners from offi-cers, especially the Foreign Service Officerswhose careers are oriented to foreign culture).

Questions that we would like to investigateinclude, among others:* Are certain learning strategies, as often seenin previous studies, associated with betterlearners?* Do better learners have certain psychologi-cal type preferences or combinations of pref-erences?* What is the reason for the strong sex differ-ences in strategy choice? Does it have to do

mostly with differences in social behavior? Orverbal aptitude? Or psychological type? Ormotivational intensity or kind of motivation?* Is there a real link between intuitive think-ing and formal model building that thecurrent data suggest but do not prove? (Asample that controls for intuitive thinkers'confidence in their competence might giveclearer information.)

* Will a different sample show the superiorityof intuitive feelers - the natural communica-tors-that MBTI theory suggests?* What is the precise role of motivation in afairly sophisticated group of language learn-ers and trainers such as this one, as well asin other less sophisticated groups?* How malleable are second language learningstrategies?* For adults, can such strategies be effectivelyand permanently modified (improved)through short-term training? If so, should thistraining be overt or embedded?* Does improvement of such strategies requirechanges in the underlying level or type ofmotivation (instrumental vs. integrative)?A new set of hypotheses related to psycho-

logical type suggested by this study might in-clude the following:* introversion relates to techniques involvinginternal manipulation of concepts.* extraversion might show up in out-of-class-room techniques involving native speakers,which are not a separate factor in the SILL(but are included in the authentic languageuse factor).


12/14


13/14

264 Madeline Ehrman & RebeccaOxfordpp. 27-51 & 167-74) and studies of creativity (Myers &McCaulley: p. 214ff).

Type samples seldom fall into a normal distribution pat-tern. The figures that are usually used for the US popula-tion at large are approximately seventy-five percent extra-verted, twenty-five percent introverted; seventy-five percentsensing, twenty-five percent intuitive; (males) sixty percentthinking, forty percent feeling; (females) thirty-five percentthinking, sixty-five percent feeling; fifty-five to sixty per-cent judging, forty to forty-five percent perceiving (Myers& McCaulley: 45).9The SILLwas developed by Oxford (30) for the ArmyResearch Institute (ARI) and the Defense LanguageInstitute (DLI). Its five-point scale ranges from never oralmost never to always or almost always. The strategieswere drawn from a comprehensive taxonomy of second lan-guage learning strategies that systematically covers the fourlanguage skill areas of listening, reading, speaking, andwriting (28, 30). The taxonomy was based on an exten-sive research review (31).

Internal consistency reliability using Cronbach's alphais .96 based on a 1,200-person Purdue University sampleand .95 based on a 483-person DLI sample. Contentvalidity is .95 using classificatory agreement between twoindependent raters who matched each of the SILL tems withstrategies in the comprehensive taxonomy cited above. Con-struct validity is based on strong relationships between SILLfactors and self-ratings of language proficiency and languagemotivation (32).Social desirability response bias was empirically checkedwith three samples: twenty-three clinical trial subjects inWashington in 1985; 483 DLI subjects in 1985; and 1,200Purdue University students in 1986. No statistical or ethno-graphic evidence for such bias appeared.10onformation provided by FSI's School of ProfessionalStudies.

I1The authors wish to thank Frederick Jackson of FSIforhis assistance and suggestions during data collection withFSI students and teachers.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Bardwick, Judith M. Psychology f Women:A StudyofBio-culturalConflicts. New York: Harper & Row, 1971.2. Bates, Elizabeth. Language and Context. New York:Academic, 1972.3. Bialystok, Ellen. The Role of Conscious Strategies inSecond Language Proficiency. Modern LanguageJournal 65 (1981): 24-35.4. & Maria Fr6hlich. Variables of ClassroomAchievement in Second Language Learning.Modern LanguageJournal 62 (1978): 327-66.5. Bowen, J. Donald, Harold Madsen & Ann Hilferty.TESOL Techniques nd Procedures.Rowley, MA: New-bury House, 1985.6. Carrell, Patricia. Evidence of a Formal Schema in Sec-ond Language Comprehension. LanguageLearning34 (1984): 87-112.7. . Schema Theory and ESL Reading: ClassroomImplications and Applications. Modern LanguageJournal 68 (1984): 332-43.8. Dansereau, Diane F. The Development of a LearningStrategies Curriculum. LearningStrategies.Ed. H. F.O'Neil, Jr. New York: Academic, 1978: 1-29.9. Derry, Sharon J. & Debra A. Murphy. Designing Sys-tems that Train Learning Ability: From Theory toPractice. Review of Educational Research 43 (1986):455-67.

10. Ehrman, Madeline E. Current tatusoftheAsian andAfri-can LanguageDepartmentLearningStylesProject:Reportto the Dean. Arlington, VA: School of LanguageStudies, Foreign Service Institute, US Departmentof State, 1987.

11. Fillmore, Lily Wong. The Second Time Around: Cog-nitive and Social Strategies in Second Language Ac-quisition. Diss., Stanford Univ., 1976.12. Gardner, Robert C. SocialPsychology nd SecondLanguage

Learning: The Role ofAttitudesandMotivation. London:Arnold, 1985.13. Gardner, Robert C. & Wallace E. Lambert. Attitudesand Motivation in Second Language Acquisition.CanadianJournal of Psychology 13 (1972): 266-80.14. Gilligan, Carol. In a Different Voice.Psychological Theoryand Women'sDevelopment.Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniv. Press, 1982.15. Hicks, Lou E. Some Properties of Ipsative, Norma-tive, and Forced-choice Normative Measures.Psychological Bulletin 74 (1970): 167-84.16. Jung, Carl G. PsychologicalTypes(Trans. H. G. Baynes;rev. by R. F. Hull). Bollingen Series 20,6. Prince-ton: Princeton Univ. Press, 1921-71.17. Keefe, James W. StudentLearningStylesandBrain Behavior.Reston, VA: NASSP, 1982.

18. Lawrence, Gordon. A Synthesis of Learning Style Re-search Involving the MBTI. Journal of PsychologicalType 8 (1984): 2-15.19. Maccoby, Eleanor E. & Carol Jacklin. The Psychologyof Sex Differences. Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ.Press, 1974.

20. McGroarty, Mary. Patterns of Persistent Second Lan-guage Learners: Elementary Spanish. Paper,TESOL Annual Meeting, Miami, 1987.21. Myers, Isabel B. Manual: The Myers-Briggs Type Indi-cator. Princeton: ETS, 1962.

22. - & Mary H. McCaulley. Manual: A Guideto theDevelopment nd Use of theMyers-Briggs TypeIndicator.Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists, 1985.23. - with Peter B. Myers. Gifts Differing. Palo Alto,CA: Consulting Psychologists, 1980.24. Naiman, Neil, Maria Fr6hlich & Angie Todesco. TheGood Second Language Learner. TESOL Talk 5(1975): 58-75.25. O'Malley, J. Michael, Rocco P. Russo & Anna U.Chamot. A Review of the Literatureon Learning Strate-gies in theAcquisition of English as a SecondLanguage:The Potential or ResearchApplications. Rosslyn, VA:


14/14

Adult LanguageLearningStrategies 265InterAmerica Research Associates, 1983.26. - , Gloria Stewner-Manzanares & Lisa Kupper.LearningStrategiesUsed byHigh SchoolStudents n Learn-ing English as a SecondLanguage. Rosslyn, VA: Inter-America Research Associates, 1983.

27. -, Rocco P. Russo, Anna Chamot, GloriaStewner-Manzanares & Lisa Kupper. LearningStrategy Applications of Students of English as aSecond Language. TESOL Quarterly 9 (1985):557-84.28. Oxford, Rebecca. A New Taxonomyof SecondLanguage

Learning Strategies. Washington: ERIC Clearing-house, 1985.29. - . SecondLanguage LearningStrategies:Whatthe Research has to Say. ERIC/CLL News Bulletin9 (1985):3-5.30. - . Development nd PsychometricTesting of theStrategyInventoryor LanguageLearning. Army Research Insti-tute Technical Report. Alexandria, VA: US ArmyResearch Institute for the Behavioral & Social Sci-ences, 1986.31. - . SecondLanguage Learning Strategies:CurrentRe-searchand Implicationsor Practice.Los Angeles: Centerfor Language Education and Research, Univ. of'California, 1986.32. - , Martha Nyikos &David Crookall. LearningStrategiesof UniversityForeignLanguageStudents:A Large-Scale Study. Paper, TESOL AnnualMeeting, Miami, 1987.33. Politzer, Robert L. Research Notes: An ExploratoryStudy of Self Reported Language Learning Be-haviorsand Their Relation to Achievement. Studiesin Second Language Acquisition 6 (1983): 54-68.34. - . Linguisticand Communicative CompetenceAchieved in Relation to Repeated Motivation andLearning Behaviors in an Intensive ESL Course.Unpubl. ms., Stanford Univ., nd.

35. - . Motivation,LearningBehavior,andAchieve-ment in an Intensive ESL Course. Unpubl. ms.,Stanford Univ., nd.36. Rubin, Joan. What he 'GoodLanguageLearner'CanTeach Us. TESOLQuarterly (1975): 41-45.37. - & Irene Thompson. How to Be a More SuccessfulLearner.Boston: Heinle, 1982.38. Russo, Rocco P. &Gloria Stewner-Manzanares. The

Training and Use of Learning Strategies for Eng-lish as a Second Language in a Military Context.Paper,American EducationalResearchAssociationAnnual Meeting, Chicago, 1985.39. Shipman, Stephanie &Virginia C. Shipman. Cogni-tive Styles: Some Conceptual, Methodological,andApplied Issues. Review of Research n Education, 12.Ed. E. Gordon.Washington:AmericanEducationalResearch Association, 1985.40. Slobin, Dan I. DevelopmentalPsycholinguistics. ASurvey of Linguistic Science. Ed. W. O. Dingwall.College Park: Univ. of Maryland Linguistics Pro-gram, 1971.41. Stansfield, Charles W. &Jacqueline Hansen. FieldDependence-Independenceas a Variable in SecondLanguage Cloze Test Performance. TESOLQuarterly7 (1983): 29-38.42. Van Dijk, Teun A. & Walter Kintsch. Strategies fDiscourseComprehension. ew York: Academic, 1983.43. Weinstein, Claire E., Ann C. Schulte & Eduardo C.Cascallar. The Learning and Study StrategyInventory(LASSI): Initial Design and Development.Alexandria,VA: Army Research Institute, 1984.

44. Wenden, Anita. LearnerStrategies. TESOLNews-letter19 (1985): 1-7.45. Witkin, HermanA. &Donald R. Goodenough. FieldDependence and Interpersonal Behavior. Psycho-logical Bulletin 84 (1977): 661-89.

National Foreign Language Center ResearchFellowship OpportunitiesTHE NFLC ENCOURAGES EMPIRICAL RE-search in foreign language pedagogy and thestudy of related policy issues. Its aim is toimprove the spoken and written use of foreignlanguages in the United States.Through support from the Mellon Founda-tion, the Institute of Advanced Studies providesa residential environment in which scholars,teachers, and administrators interested in im-proving foreign language competence can pur-sue their research and share their findings withothers concerned with similar foreign languageissues. Research undertaken at the NFLC is ex-pected to have a broad applicability from anational perspective, focus on improving for-eign language instructional systems, and ad-

dress related questions relatively unattendedelsewhere.In addition to foreign language scholars,practitioners and administrators involved in alllevels of the educational system, the NFLCwel-comes applications from specialists within thehumanities, social sciences, and public policy.Fellowship awards will be made on an indi-vidual and/or collaborative basis. The closingdate for applications is 1 November 1988.For details and application materials, write:Program Officer, National Foreign LanguageCenter at Johns Hopkins University, 1619Massachusetts Avenue, NW, 4th Floor, Wash-ington, DC 20036 [PANNewsletter,July 1988].

ehrman-1988-effects of sex differences, career choice, and psychological-000

Documents