The Comparison and Analysis of Three Mainstream Researches On Second Language Learning Style

李浩江

【Abstract】Since the lack of relevant studies concerning with the language learning styles of Chinese language students， the paper makes a brief introduction and comparison of three mainstream researches on language learning styles abroad with the purpose to offer those who are devoted to study the learning styles of Chinese students and provide some basically theoretical sources for further researches.

【Key words】comparison research； Dunns model； Kolbs model； Oxfords model

Since the significance of learning styles for foreign language teaching and learning process has been recognized on the parts of both instructors and learners， researchers have approached this field from different perspectives and made great contribution to the exploration of learning styles. Several meaningful learning style models have been developed and in the meantime some versions of learning style inventory have been used to assess different dimensions of learning styles by using investigating instruments varied in length， format and complexity. In this section， several significant and representative models of learning styles will be presented in order to get a global view of this topic.

1. The Dunn and Dunns Learning Style Model

The Dunns， as pioneering researchers in the field of learning styles， have conducted fruitful researches on this construct over the past decades. Their research is initiative and original in that it provides one of the versions of learning styles elements. As the earliest research which takes consideration into the environmental and physical elements of learning styles， the Dunns' model is particularly useful and informative for educators because it represents more comprehensively the complexity of variables that potentially influence students' distinct approach to learning. This model views a learning style as multidimensional， encompassing five stimulus categories of twenty-one elements that affect each individuals learning （Thomson & Mascazin， 2003）： environmental （sound， light， temperature， design）； physical （perceptual， intake， time， mobility）； emotional （motivation， persistence， responsibility， structure）； sociological （self， pair， peers and team， adult， variety versus concentrating in routines and patterns）； and psychological （global versus analytic， right-brained versus left-brained， reflective versus impulsive）.

The Dunns style model is unique and significant because it covers a wide range of environmental and physical elements of learning styles and it recognizes that people respond differently to their surroundings in the learning situation， especially when they are confronted with challenging learning tasks （Sims， 1995）. The Dunns emphasis on environmental and physical elements is crucial important for those who are responsible for training-program design and syllabus development. Because of the breadth of the five categories， Dunn and Dunns learning style model became the basis for much of the later studies in the field since their original research in the late sixties.

2. Kolbs Experiential Learning Model

Kolbs experiential learning theory and learning-styles typology， as one of the most influential learning models， provides a framework for the teaching and learning process. According to Kolb （1984）， “l(fā)earning is the process whereby knowledge is created through the transformation of experience， knowledge results from the combination of grasping experience and transforming it.” He proposes that experiential learning has six main characteristics：

□ Learning is best conceived as a process， not in terms of outcomes.

□ Learning is a continuous process grounded in experience.

□ Learning requires the resolution of conflicts between dialectically opposed modes of adaptation to the world （learning is by its very nature full of tension）.

□ Learning is a holistic process of adaptation to the world.

□ Learning involves transactions between the person and the environment.

□ Learning is the process of creating knowledge that is the result of the transaction between social knowledge and personal knowledge.

Much of his research is conducted on the leaning environments and the learning styles preferences. He states that “it is the combination of how people perceive and how people process that forms the uniqueness of learning style” （Kolb， 1984）. Kolbs investigation of learning styles begins with the examination of differences in the learning orientations based on the degree to which people emphasize the four modes of the learning process： concrete experiences， reflective observation， abstract conceptualization and active experimentation：

Concrete experience （feeling）： Learning from specific experiences and relating to people； sensitive to other's feelings.

Reflective observation （watching）： Observing before making a judgment by viewing the environment from different perspectives； looks for the meaning of things.

Abstract conceptualization （thinking）： Logical analysis of ideas and acting on intellectual understanding of a situation.

Active experimentation （doing）： Ability to get things done by influencing people and events through action； includes risk-taking.

This model is particularly useful because it follows the natural progression of the learning cycle （Figure1）：

Perception：

（1） Students are motivated by getting involved through their concrete experiences.

（2） They analyze their experiences through reflective observation.

Process：

（3） Students assimilate new concepts through abstract conceptualization.

（4） They practice their new material through active experimentation

Figure 1： Stages of the learning cycle according to Kolb， 1984

Finally， the students personalize information and accommodate their newly acquired knowledge to higher level experiences. In addition to the four steps Kolb identifies in the learning cycle， he combines two dimensions of perception （concrete experience and reflective observation） with two dimensions of process （active experimentation and abstract conceptualization）， then further placed the learners into four categories： diverger， assimilator， converger， or accommodator. McCarthy （1980） describes Kolbs four learning styles as follows：

Style one： Divergers （Innovative Learners）. These learners seek personal meaning and have a need to be involved personally. They perceive information concretely and process it reflectively. They are divergent thinkers who believe in their own experience. These students are interested in people and culture， and they function through social interaction. They model themselves on those they respect. Their favorite question is “why do I need to learn this？”

Style two： Assimilators （Analytic Learners）. These learners seek facts and intellectual competence； they need to know what experts think. They perceive information abstractly and process it reflectively. They learn by thinking through ideas， and they function well in traditional classrooms. These students are less interested in people and more interested in facts. They need to know the “important things，” and they prefer the chain of command. Their favorite question is “what do I need to learn？”

Style three： Convergers （Common Sense Learners）. These students seek usability and have a need to know how things work. They perceive information abstractly and learn by testing theories in active practical ways. They judge things by their usefulness， and they function through kinesthetic awareness. They see authority as necessary but will work around it if forced. They learn by doing rather than by watching. Their favorite question is “How does this work？”

Style Four： Accommodators （Dynamic Learners）. These students learn through self-discovery. They perceive information concretely and process it actively. They are adaptable to change and relish it； they excel in situations calling for flexibility. They are at ease with people and often reach accurate conclusions in absence of logical justification. These learners tend to disregard authority. Their favorite question is “What if…？”

As Violand-Sánchez （2002） states： in any classroom we find all four styles represented in the student body No learning style is better than another； they are simply different. Each learning style is special and has its own particular strengths and weakness. However， in order to prepare our students for future challenges， we must help them adjust and function in styles that may not be the most comfortable for them.

3. Oxfords Learning Style Model

Oxford et al. （1991） propose four main categories of learning styles which all involve in an interaction with each other： cognitive， affective， physiological， and behavioral. Cognitive elements include preferred or habitual patterns of mental functioning， which are sometimes called “cognitive styles”. The affective factors reflect patterns of attitudes and interests that influence what an individual will pay most attention to in a learning situation （including all environmental distractions and physical comfort）. The physiological factors involve perceptual tendencies of the person. The behavioral factors indicate a tendency to seek situations compatible with ones own learning patterns. Out of more than 20 style dimensions， Oxford et al. consider nine dimensions as being the most significant for ESL/EFL learning： global vs. analytic， field-independent vs. field dependent， feeling vs. reflective， intuitive-random vs. concrete-sequential， closure-oriented vs. open， extroverted vs. introverted， and visual， auditory， and hands-on.

Moreover， according to Oxford et al， among the four related groups of learning styles （global/analytic styles， field-dependent/field-independent styles， feeling/thinking styles， and impulsive/reflective styles）， the primary style dimension appears to be global/analytic.

Thus Oxford （1993） identifies five learning style contrasts in her Style Analysis Survey （SAS）， and makes the point that each style preference offers significant benefits for learning and that the important thing is for learners to identify the style preferences for that work and to apply them whenever possible. In addition， she notes that learners' “comfort zone” is their favorite style and this comfort zone can be stretched through practices that do not seem quite suited to their style preferences and expend the learning and working potential.

The following is a description of the style contrasts that appear on the SAS：

The use of physical senses for study and work： visual vs. auditory vs. hands-on.

Visual means learning best through visual means—books， video， graphics while auditory refers to the preference of listening and speaking activities， such as， discussion， debates， audiotapes， role-plays， lectures， meetings etc. Learners preferring hands-on usually benefit from doing projects， conducting experiments， playing active games， working with objects， and moving around the room.

Dealing with other people： extroversion vs. introversion.

Extroversion style refers to enjoying a wide range of social， interactive learning task such as discussions， debates， and role-plays while learners preferring introversion style so more independent learning or working alone or with another person they know well.

Handling possibilities： intuitive-random vs. concrete-sequential.

Intuitive-random style means that the learner is future-oriented， able to find the major principles of the topic， valuing speculation about possibilities， enjoying abstract thinking and avoiding step-by-step instruction， while concrete-sequential style learners are oriented to the present， they prefer one-step-at-a-time learning activities and want to know where they are going in their learning at every moment.

Approaching tasks： closure-oriented vs. open.

Closure-oriented learners focus carefully on all tasks， meeting deadlines， planning ahead， preferring neatness and structure， and wanting rapid decisions. Open style means enjoying discovery learning in which the learner picks up information in an unstructured way， accepting messiness， putting off decisions， preferring to learn or work without deadlines or rules.

Dealing with ideas： global vs. analytic.

Global style means that the learner is concerned about getting the main idea， guessing meanings， predicting what will come next in a story or in an activity， and communicating with others even if he or she does not know all the words or concepts. Analytic style refers to focusing more on details， logical analysis， and contrasts while the learner is learning； he or she likes to break broad concepts into units and prefers to have specific rules.

References：

[1]Thomson，B.S.，& Mascazine，J.R.（2003）.Attending to learning styles in Mathematics and Science classrooms.Retrieved October 14，2006，from ERIC Digest：www.ericdigests.org/2000-1/attending.html.

[2]Sims，R.&Sims，S.（1995）.Learning and learning style：A review and look to the future.In Sims，R.&Sims，S.（eds.）The Importance of Learning Styles：Understanding the Implications for Learning，Course Design，and Education.Westport：Greenwood Press.

[3]Kolb，D.A.（1984）.Experiential Learning：experience as the source of learning and development.pp25-41.New Jersey：Prentice-Hall.

[4]Violand-Sánchez，E.（2002）.Cognitive and learning styles of high school students：implications for ESL curriculum development.In Reid，J.（ed.），Learning Styles in the ESL/EFL Classroom.pp49-62.Beijing：Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.

[5]Oxford，R.L.& Lavine，R.Z.（1991）.Teacher-student “style wars” in the language classroom：Research insights and suggestions.Bulletin of the Association of Departments of Foreign Languages，23（2），pp38-45.

[6]Oxford，R.L.（1993）.Style Analysis Survey（SAS）.Tuscaloosa， AL：University of Alabama.