Respecting lndividual Differences in the Teaching of English as a Foreign Language

坂 本 政 子*

Respecting lndividual Differences in the Teaching of English as a Foreign Language

Masako Sakamoto

要 旨 本橋では， 英語学習者団本人大学生 ) 各々の言語学能力・学習スタイノレ 学習方法等の相違

点を把握する事の重要書性について検討する。 日本の大学の英語教育は過去多面にわたって批判合受け，

その問題点、が論議され， また事実いろいろな改善方法が昨今提示されている。 しかしいずれも学習者の 類似点 (学習者の共通性) に焦点が当てられたものが多く， 学習者の相違点についての研究は余り行わ れていないのが現状である。 現在の大学英語教育の環境の中では， 先ずはF最大稿約数jの学生に焦点 を当てて授業をするの事が先決ではあるが， 全体の学習者が何を英語教育の中に求め， また何を必要と しているか真の意味で理解するには， 学習者一人一人の相違点にも務認する必要があると考える。 人は 様々な方法でいろいろな事を学ぶが， 英語学習も例外ではなし、。 千差万別の学習方法そして教授方法が ある。 本稿はこの多種多様な方法で学ぶ学習者と， どのように教師が関わりあい授業を進行する事がよ り効果的かつ誇学向上のみに止まらず， 学生の成長にも貢献できるのかを考察する。

Introduction

The purpose of this paper is to explore whether or not it is important to recognize individual learn­

ing differences in teaching English as a foreign language at Japanese universities， where the main thrust of teaching has not been toward individual students. The teaching of English in Japan has often been criticized as unsuccessful， and there have been a lot of factual data， obseI可rations and sug­

gestions about how to improve the quality of English education. However， most of them usually con­

centrate on“similarities of students" but not much on“differences of students". How learners are simi1ar naturally leads the energy of teaching toward how the majority of the students in the c1assroom learn effectively， interact， behave etc. The focus here is to :find the common denominator so that the teacher can satisfy the majority of the students in c1ass even though some teachers try to pay more attention to underachievers. This is valid and makes sense in Japan's English education environment.

However， it seems equally important to search for how the rest of the students are different so that we can see the whole picture of the reality of the c1assroom in the teaching of English and would be able more sensitive to learners' needs. In order to examine how vital to assess and pay at­

tention to individual differences for effective and e伍cient teaching of English at Japanese univer-

*本学専任講銅 英語教授法 (TESOL)

-

9

sities， 1 will focus on discussing learner characteristics such as learning styles， learning strategies and language aptitude which seem to infìuence what kind of learners there are. At the end 1 will report some of the fìndings in an experimental four-skill integrated English class to clarify the pur­

pose of this paper.

Learner Characteristics

1n the light of individual learner differences， th巴re are always two extreme different types of learners， that is， some language learners are“naturally" successful but some are total failures.

羽弓ly are they so di査erent? 1s this because of their di笠erent language aptitude or learning styles or strategies?

ou can name dozens of elements. Which elements divide them into the black and white results? These questions suggest a need to pursue not only how good learners learn， but also how unsuccessful learners approach their learning. We should acknowledge that individual learners acquire a foreign language differently and accomplish various outcomes. It is also important to recognize that good language learners' strategies can not be simply applied to unsuccessful learners.

For instance， there are some language learners who can write better with music or the radio on，

but we can not carelessly employ such a strategy to unsuccessful learners. By examining how students acquire a foreign language di茸erently and what characteristics of the le註.rners bring different results， language teachers might be able to conduct more effective and improved language lessons in the classroom.

1.

Learning Styles

What are learning styles? There are many defìnitions to be mentioned， but according to Rita Dunn (1988) ， only 3 comprehensive models of learning styles exist in the United States. One of these is the Dunn， Dunn， and Price model (1984) which defìnes the construct in terms of individual student reactions to 23 elements that affect how people concentrate on， process， absorb， and retain information. Those elements include:

(a) the instructional environment (noise level， lighting， temperature， and furniture design) ; (b) emotionality (motivation， persistence， responsibility， and need for either external or interω nal structure) ; (c) the people with whom one learns most easily (alone， pair， peers，

authoritative or collegial adult， and with either variety or patterns) ; (d) physical characteristics (perceptual strengths， energy levels during the day or night， intake needs， and mobility requirements) ; and (e) psychological or cognitive inclinations (global/analytic，

hemispheric style， and impulsive/refìective) (Dunn 1988: 306) .

There was a surγey done by Dunn's group on learning styles to determine which of the 23 elements are of major or minor importance to an individual or within a group. According to the survey， no one was affected by all 23 elements of learning styles and most students responded

10 -

strongly to between 6 and 14; a few were in:fluenced by fewer or more. R. Dunn also mentions that

‘a dozen experiments have revealed that， when taught in ways that complemented their Learning Style Inventory diagnosed learning styles， students did achieve higher test scores than when taught in ways that they were dissonant from their styles' (Dunn 1988: 307).

The Dunn's study was on more than a million young language learners (grade 3-12) in the United States; therefore， the fìndings might not ex旦ctly correlate to Japanese university students，

but at least the study proves that individual learners' learning styles should be respected and re丑ected in foreign language teaching if we expect good outcomes. However， what can you do if you have 50 to 60 students in your class， which is quite common at Japanese universities? The answer would not be simple but， fìrst and foremost， it is important to at least be aware of the fact.

That is to say， individual learners are unique individuals who bring different backgrounds， ap­

titudes， learning styles etc. and who use different learning strategies and if the teacher uses good mixture of modalities， s/he could reach more students.

Another question might be raised here is that Japanese university students are not particularly easy to “reach". This calls a need to assess their learner characteristics. There is a study on Japanese university students' learning styles by Hyland (1994). His study confìrms Reid's (1987) fìnding that Japanese (native) speakers appear to have no strong learning style preferences. Accor­

ding to Hyland， preferences for auditory， kinesthetic， and group learning all increased over time with native speaker instruction. This may re:flect the teachers' own preferences for communicative methodologies which emphasize spoken English， interactive tasks， role幽play， and active participa­

tion in group work (Hyland 1994). This fìnding shows that it is possible to expand learning styles which eventually advance language learning.

Concerning learning styles， it is noteworthy to take a look at the styles of teachers and students.

It is quite obvious that teachers are a very important affective factor in any learning. If you are lucky enough to meet a great teacher， you might be in:fluenced and motivated by him/her. My students who major in English and English literature are no exception. Every year 1 found a good number of students who decided to study English at college because they had met a“wonderful"

English teacher when they started learning English for the fìrst time or in high school. Whatever they meant by a“wonderful" teacher， it could be interpreted that they had a positive experience with the teacher who encouraged them to continue studying English or made them like English.

This would seem to indicate that the teacher plays a very crucial role for students' motivation.

There would be various reasons that they classifìed their teachers “wonderful"， but one of the reasons could be they liked their personalities or felt comfortable with the way their teachers taught. Their teaching styles together with their personalities could have played a signifìcant role.

The styles of the students and the teacher might have been matched so the students felt comfor­

table with him/her. Bialystok (1985) has argued that disparities between the styles of teachers and students will reduce the potential e笠ects of instruction， while it is di:flicult to draw clear conclusions from the literature on style matching. According to her， such differences have a negative effect on

-

1 1

attitudes to learning and the grades of many EFL learners.

Style matching seems to play a sensitive role in foreign language teaching and may need further research and studies. In the meantime， what could be said is that if the teacher can at least keep in mind that it is not always true that his/her teaching style can fìt to all students， that will be favorable. There is an interesting observation which might make us re梢examine our teaching styles.

Rita Dunn et

state:

There is a commonly ascribed-to belief that， “Teachers teach the way they were taught." A more accurate statement would be， “Teachers teach the way they learned." In our investigations into individual teaching styles， we found that instructors believe that the way they learn is the “easy" or “right" way， and that they therefore direct their students， offsprings， and spouses toward mastering knowledge in much the same man- ner.

“Teaching style" thus tends to correspond how each person learned， which partially explains why some teachers are traditional instructors and others are informal ones. Although one's style may be ingrained and difficult to modi私it

can

2.

Learning Strategies

Individual learners possess their own unique learning styles and strategiès. O'Malley affirms that 'an individual's learning style may predispose that person to adopt particular learning strategies' (O'Malley 1990: 163). Bialystok defìnes that‘learning strategies are construed as activities under­

taken by learners， whether consciously or not， that have the effect of promoting the learner's ability either to analyze the linguistic knowledge relevant to the language under study， or to improve the control of procedures for selecting and applying that knowledge under specifìc contextual condi­

tions' (Bialystok 1985: 258).

The effect of learning strategies in foreign language learning cannot be overemphasized. If students acquire good and e笠ective strategies and begin to experience some success in using newly learned strategies， they may develop confìdence in their own ability to enhance language learning.

Strategy training could help reluctant students， who often believe that they are not good at learning a foreign language， but their failures can be attributed to the lack of effective strategies rather than to the lack of ability.

The important question that follows is the signifìcance of learning strategies: Are learning strategies really trainable? According to Skehan， who analyzed recent studies of learner strategies， the current evidence on the trainability of strategies is not encouraging but it would be premature to discount the possibility of effective training in the 如何回 (Skehan 1989). Here it seems worth looking at some other studies in teaching strategies.

Bialystok reports that‘Brown et al. (1983) present a variety of evidence to show that teaching ex­

plicit strategies for reading comprehension that are successfully used by good readers does not in general improve the comprehension of poor readers trained in the use of these strategies'

-

1

CBia1ystok 1985: 256) . Another interesting企nding by O'Malley is that‘students whose initia1 educa­

tiona1 training emphasized rote memorization of curricu1um content may have deve10ped quite effec酬 tive memory strategies but be rather inexperienced with comprehension or prob1em-so1ving strategies. (This :finding a1so describes how Japanese university students were taught before they entered university.) O'Malley et al. found resistance from Asian students to using strategies for im­

agery and grouping to 1earn vocabu1ary de:finitions' (O'Malley et al. 1990: 165). Those are just a few :findings but they warn us that to teach strategies is not a simp1e matter in foreign 1anguage teaching and that it requires carefu1 and sensitive attention to the 1earners' characteristics.

In the previous section， the compatibi1ity of teaching and 1earning sty1es is discussed to be an im­

portant aspect of successfu1 foreign 1anguage teaching， then how about strategies? How cou1d teaching and 1earning strategies influence to each other? Bia1ystok exp1ains that 冗he approach or strategy taken by the teacher or programme has important consequences for the 1earning outcomes of the student， irrespective of the content. . . . In terms of teaching and 1earning strategies， the genera1 princip1e wou1d seem to be that everything he1ps a 1itt1e， whether initiated by the teacher or the 1earner， but that great disparities between the strategies used by teachers and the present abi1ities and strategies emp10yed by the 1earners will effective1y reduce the potentia1 bene:fit of in­

struction' CBia1ystok 1985: 259-260).

3.

Language Aptitude

Language aptitude is not a new notion in foreign 1anguage 1earning but when 1earner differences are concerned， it cannot be ignored and in fact it is one of the important 1e昌rner characteristics.

Language aptitude has been discussed in the literature on 1anguage 1earning for quite some time，

but what 1anguage teachers want to know is how 1anguage aptitude influences 1earners and if 1anguage aptitude is a crucia1 e1ement in successfu1 foreign 1anguage 1earning. If so， is it possib1e to improve 1anguage aptitude?

Skehan points out that ‘quanti:fication-based studies generally demonstrate that aptitude is at least as important， and usually more important than any other variab1e investigated' (Skehan 1989:

38) . In the TESL/TEFL :fie1ds， 1anguage aptitude has been discussed and reported in various ways.

Some 1inguists say other factors are much more important than aptitude and some be1ieve aptitude is innate so that some peop1e have more of it than others. It seems it a1so depends on how we de:fine 1anguage aptitude， but Carroll's de:finition can be worthwhile to take a 100k at. Carroll's four major components of foreign 1anguage aptitude are examined from a cognition and 1earning strategies perspective.

1. Phonetic coding ability: An ability to identify distinct sounds， to form associations between those sounds and symbols representing them， and to retain these associations.

2. Grammatical sensitivity: The ability to recognize the grammatical functions of words Cother linguistic entities) in sentence structures.

3. Rote learning ability for foreign language materials: The ability to learn associations between sounds

13

and meaning rapidly and e伍ciently， and to retain these associations.

4. Inductive language learning ability: The ability to infer or induce the rules governing a set of language materials， given samples of language materials that permit such inferences. (Carroll 1981: 105)

By eliciting some examples with the above four-component defìnition of aptitude， O'Malley sum­

marizes that ‘it seems entirely possible that the link between aptitude and effective learning strategy use is a strong one. If this is the case， then aptitude should not be seen as an innate trait but as a strategic ability that can be learned' (O'Malley 1990: 163). This is an encouraging fìnding.

Based on these studies on language aptitude， we can at least say that aptitude is one of the essen­

tial elements of foreign language learning and can be improved. Skehan found out that‘the higher the aptitude the less time it takes to reach a certain level of performance' (Skehan 1989: 13).

However， αρtitude would not seem to be an absolute element because foreign language learning in­

volves myriad variables other than aptitude which in:fl.uence each other in a veηT complex cognitive processing. One can conc1ude that we need a further research and studies to discover which variables would be more signifìcant factors than others in foreign language learning.

4.

Other Learner Characteristics

It has been said that if the learner is motivated and has a good attitude toward the language which he is learning or its culture or people， these factors wi11 help him learn the language better. There seems to be numerous learner characteristics worth examining to pursue more successful foreign language teaching， but here 1 wi11 share three variables which 1 have been wondering about: learner preferences， personality and general intelligence.

(a) Learner preferences

Is a preference a strength? Generally speaking， people tend to do a thing better if they like that particular activity. A preference seems a kind of positive factor in learning， but how positive is it?

According to elaborate studies done by Rita Dunn (1988)， learner preferences must be their strength. She reports that in various studies， students tested with the Learning Style Inventory (Dunn， Dunn & Price 1984) who reported either strong negative or positive preferences for selected elements were placed into academic situations where they were taught and/or tested in ways that matched and mismatched their self-reported preferences. In every case， students who were matched with methods， resources or environments that complemented their reported strong preferences achieved statistically higher， but statistically they did not achieve as well when they were mismatched with their preferences. R. Dunn says， “Because our experiments - both in laboratories and in c1assroom studies - have yielded consistently signifìcant scores， it is only reasonable to conc1ude that since students achieve better when taught through their preferences，

their preferences must be their strength" (Dunn 1984: 13).

If learner preferences are their strength， how about teacher preferences? Teachers tend to teach the way they like or they were taught and this is quite natural. This may be the best way for

ー は ^ー

the teacher to perform his/her 1essons， but the important question is that it may not be the best way for his/her students to 1earn. This raises another question which concerns the compatibility of teaching/1earning sty1es and strategies and preferences. Since 1earning a foreign 1anguage takes ex­

treme1y comp1ex cognitive processing， it wou1d seem to require further research to clarify this com聞 p1ex but interesting aspect.

(b) Personality

It is common know1edge that persona1ity cannot be changed easi1y but the question here is that how di笠erent personalities affect foreign 1anguage 1earning. 1s there a“better" persona1ity to 1earn a foreign language? Are extroverts better language learners than introverts? Ely discloses that

‘researchers have generally assumed extroversion to be promotive of L2 pro:fìciency. However，

while some studies have indeed found extroversion and 1anguage pro:fìciency to be positive1y re1ated， others have found either a negative association or no re1ationship at all' (E1y 1986: 2) . Our persona1ity seems to p1ay some kind of ro1e in 1anguage learning， but we still do not know how exact- 1y it affects on 1anguage 1earning. Wright explains that‘our personality fundamentally affects how we react under different circumstances. . . . Another view is that our personalities are shaped on1y by experiences， in much the same way as attitudes are formed' (Wright 1987: 25). If experiences shape our persona1ities， it seems possib1e to deve10p a“better or efficient" 1anguage 1earner per­

sonality through class activities or contents. We need further research on this factor. Wright con­

:fìrms by saying that‘in the intimacy of the teaching/1earning situation， it is extreme1y like1y that persona1ities will be modi:fìed. . . . The internalization of the new 1anguage may bring about changes in the persona1ity of the 1earner' (Wright 1987: 46).

(c) General intelligence

Do intelligent peop1e 1earn a foreign language more successfully than 1ess intelligent people?

How can intelligence influence foreign 1anguage 1earning? Carroll (1965) explains that in­

telligence is the 1earner's capacity to understand instruction and to understand what is r・equired of him in the 1earning situation. In other words intelligence is conceived of as a sort of efficiency fac­

tor， a ta1ent for not getting sidetracked or wasting one's efforts.

It wou1d seem that intelligence is re1evant to 1earning situations and a positive factor but only be­

ing intelligent does not mean a good 1anguage 1earner. There are many intelligent peop1e who do not speak foreign languages well. On the other hand， 1 have met some academically unsuccessfu1 1anguage learners who have great communicative competence， which might be said intelligence is not a“crucia1" factor in successfu1 1anguage learning.

In the previous learner characteristics section， it was discussed as to how important it is to respect learners' di鉦erent characteristics in language teaching. In order to raise the awareness of respecting individual differences at ]apanese universities， it is necessa可to 100k at student needs assessment. This student needs assessment has been unfortunately neglected at most of the

-15-

Japanese universities. The following is one of the surveys done by PANS (Pro:file of Attitudes，

Needs and Student Interests 1991)， which indicates how little the notion of student needs assess­

ment has been taken at those universities.

The survey poses that descriptions of needs assessment surveys and reports of their results are very scant in Japan. A :finding in‘A survey 01 the EL T Needs 01 Jal加�ese UniversiかStudents' sug胸 gests that ‘there is little connection between student motivation and what actually is taught in university English departments at Japanese universities. . . . The most important result of this survey is the dichotomy between what students want to leam and experience in university English classes， and what they are actually taught there. Since maturational and social development is a ma­

jor motive in coming to university， and since academic knowledge of English is not highly regarded，

it would make sense to develop English language courses that take account of this. . . . It is clear that the great majority of university English classes are failing to satisfy leaner needs in any way'

(Widdows & Voller 1991: 132-135).

Based on such a survey， both administrators and teachers need to work together to improve the situation. It would seem ineffective and unrealistic to tackle this kind of problem alone. In the mean­

time individual teachers can try to be more tuned to individual leamer needs. The following quota嶋 tion can tell us something we often need to remind ourselves about when we think about student needs and different leaming styles. Rubin states:

As 1 have begun to observe classes， what fascinates me is how often the teacher plows ahead with the lesson seemingly with little awareness of what is going on in each student， and often without directing the atten­

tion of poorer students to how the successful student arrived at his answer. That is， many foreign language teachers are so concerned with韮nding the best method or with getting the correct answer that they fail to attend to the learning process. If they attended to it more， they might be able to tailor their input to their students' needs and might be able to provide the student with techniques that would enable him to learn on his own. Indeed， no course could ever teach all we need to know about a language and the teacher must :find the means to help the student help himself， when the teacher is not around. CRubin 1975: 44-45)

An Experimental Four-Skill Integrated English Class

In order to clarify what 1 have discussed in the previous sections， 1 would like to report on an ex­

perimental class focused on individual leaming di能rences. It is easy to say teachers should pay more attention to individual learners and their di鉦erences， but time and energy are the key factors.

With our main job， teaching， we are some time unable to spend enough time assessing student characteristics and needs even though we know it is verγimportant. Needless to say， our time is limited.

In the following experimental class， 1 did not make any particular survey format but had collected student personal information and found out their learning characteristics and needs through teaching writing for two years. Maybe it is true， if you start a new class， you do not have any ac­

cumulated student information， so you need to do some kind of student needs ass巴ssment.

ou can

16

do a basic and brief survey at the beginning of the course to which you will be ab1e to add more ac­

curate and va1uab1e information as the class proceeds.

For instance， when 1 started teaching a new writing class， 1 asked my students to do two things:

(1) To hand in a persona1 information card indicating their personality， interest， which high schoo1 they graduated from etc. (2) To write why they decided to major in Eng1ish and Eng1ish 1iterature at this particu1ar university. At the beginning this was enough for me to start teaching the class since 1 was ab1e to collect up-to-date student information through reading their journa1s every other week. Their journa1s and other writing assignments gave me p1enty information to he1p my teaching. This is the way 1 had accumu1ated quite he1pfu1 student information and found out their needs before 1 started planning this experimental class. Probab1y， writing class巴s are specially infor­

mative to the teacher but di笠erent types of c1asses can give us various kinds of information about students; therefore， it is not always necessarγto have a time欄consuming survey to find out student needs at the beginning. If time allows， needless to say， it will be very beneficia1 to conduct a thorough 1earner needs assessment.

Having ana1yzed the two-year accumu1ated student information time to time for the experimenta1 class， 1 was ab1e to confirm things that 1 had been wondering about. Some of the findings were :

1. The students studied ora1-aura1 Eng1ish， reading and writing but they seemed to treat those three di妊erent courses as all separate entities， in other words there was not much reinforcement at all- this was not the students' fault but the curricu1um's.

2. They were discouraged because there was not much opportunity in rea1 situations to use their English， ie. what they have practiced or 1earned in most of their Eng1ish classes - they seemed to have gotten tired of practicing Eng1ish in“unrea1" situations. What they really needed was to see what they had 1earned was not wasted but cou1d be used in prac­

tica1 situations.

3. They seemed to be1ieve that they were not ab1e to communicate in Eng1ish well even though this was their most needed skill for their・overseas program in their third year.

4. 羽市at kind of topics they were interested in and needed became much clearer， for examp1e，

Speech側Self-Este側Wins JNSA (the j(α金an National Student Association) Contest，‘Magic' Johnson Talks ab側:tHIV側dHis New Mission， Model Agency Head Dis，長els Myth about Stuめling Abroad，αnd Judgement Day (ABC news on how to apply for admission to a U .S.

university or college).

Those findings were not a tota1 surprise to me because 1 was a1so ab1e to ta1k with those students time to time. Taking account of this tangib1e and intangib1e d註ta， 1 organized an experimenta1 four-

- 17

skill integrated course. The following is the course description.

Structure of the Course:

Elective (4 credits) /90 minutes twice a week/60 female juniors majoring in English and English literature/ diversified English proficiencies

Goals:

(1) To provide opportunity in which students can try and use what they have learned in their previous and present ongoing English classes

(2) To make them aware how important it is to have knowledge about topics that they talk or write about in English

(3) To raise their consciousness to be more independent learners (4) To respect individual preferences as much as possible

Concerning the goals and the limitation， that is， the class size and the diversified English proficien­

cies， the content of the course and assignments were focused on both cross cultural and linguistic aspects. (Since those students were going to study in the U.S. for a month in the second semester in order to try what they had learned in English classes and an American culture class， the students needed to know what to talk about with their host families. Therefore， the course content was designed to give them opportunities to deepen their own culture， and compare and contrast American and Japanese cultures. 1 discovered the students were much more interested in issues regarding students and women which they could more easily relate to.)

The Content of土he Course

Teaching materials were collected from four-skill areas to meet the students' needs. The follow­

ing is a brief outline of the syllabus.

1. Reading

Newspaper articles and excerpts from books on Japanese and American characteristics and behaviors， Japan's education， English education in Japan， social problems such as A1DS and women's issues， such as equal opportunity， prejudice and sexual harassment. (Some of these reading materials were used for discussion.)

11. Speaking & III. Listening

1nterviews and oral reports of interviews， speeches， videos (American universities/families and comparative women's issues)， discussions and debates

- 18ー

IV. Writing

Interview reports， speech texts， haiku in English， an茸nglish magazine (The students were ask働 ed to contribute two papers for this assignment: one was a rewrite on something that they had already handed in and the other one was a short essay or report on their overseas experience or any related writing for their magazine theme.)

The course assignments

In order to respect student preferences， the assignments were divided into required and elec‘

tive ones. Moreover， both individual and group assignments were given to let them experience different responsibilities as language learners.

Findings in the Experimental Class

1. Most of the students took time to decide which elective assignments they should do. They seem­

ed more conscious about which assignments they were able to do better. Rubin says，“Con­

sciousness“raising is not incidental to learning. It is assumed that making learning decisions conscious can lead both poorer and better learners to improve the obtaining， storing， retrieving and using of information， that is， can lead them to learn better" (Rubin 1987: 16).

2. Two types of group discussions were held: groups of 5 to 8 students in a large classroom and one group of 5 to 8 students in a small room with the teacher for 30 minutes. The students decided to select their group members by their preferences. In the classroom discussion， they were asked to discuss an issue in the article or video that they had studied in the previous lesson. General discussion questions were made by the teacher. On the other hand， each discus幽 sion group in the small room had total responsibi1ity and did the whole process together: selec­

ting a discussion topic， collecting and reading materials or data， practiced how to convey what they want to say in English， how to handle unexpected questions when 1 asked them etc. One in­

teresting :finding in those two di宜erent types of group discussions was that all the students preferred discussing in the small room with their favorite group members and in fact they per­

formed much better than in the large classroom.

3. The students de:finitely wanted more individual attention from the teacher， in other words they prefer to study in a small class since most of their classes were big ones. If you have a big class，

need1ess to say it physically 1imits the teacher to give attention to individua1 students. In this ex­

perimenta1 class (60 students) ， 1 tried to do three different kinds of activities at the same time to have this small group activity possib1e.

The following are (1) the outline of how 1 managed the three different activities at the same time and (2) the :findings.

- 19 -

(1) Outline: 2nd Semester (14 weeks) IEvery Friday (90 minutes) 1. 1nstruction at the beginning (15 minutes)

11. Three Different Activities (60 minutes)

Activity 1 Activity 2 Activity 3

(Half hour-Discussion) (Preparation/Practice for Discussion) (English Magazine Production)

1st half hour Group 1 Group 2-4 Group 5-9

2nd half hour Group 2 Group 3…4 Group 5-9 & 1 with the instructor Group study in a large classroom

III. Refiection Session (15 minutes)

Comments on the two discussion groups on that day linstruction for the next lesson

(2) Findings

(a) The students had opportunity to discuss in ]apanese what they wanted to say in English beforehand. This was quite helpful because they were adult learners; therefore， they had a desire to convey something intelligent. However， they usually could not express themselves in English at their intelligence level because of the gap between their English proficiency and intelligence level. The preparation in ]apanese - they discussed their topic in ]apanese first so that they knew the content of the topic well before they practiced it in English helped them to be able to say something more intelligent than in usual oral activities. This seemed to help raise their self幽esteem.

(b) They also felt very comfortable with the members of their group since they made their group according to their own preference. Apparently， they were psychologically very comfortable and safe in their learning environment before they took any risks. There are so many ex­

amples to illustrate this anxiety aspect of foreign language learning.

(c) Since they were encouraged to use their knowledge that they had acquired before and then e去 pand it for their discussions， they seemed to realize that it is important and favorable to have knowledge and their own opinions to improve their English.

1n summary， this experimental class has helped me clarify the following:

1 Learner preferences are a definitely strength in language learning.

2 Most students appreciate receiving more attention from the teacher and it could be said that the appropriate attention to individual students is a motivational factor.

3 ]apanese university students， especially female students seem to be reluctant to explore social or world issues， but they seem to be able to find value in discussing those issues and raising their

20 一

learner-consciousness through more learner幽centered activities， which is also very important to improve their English.

Conclusion

Assessing and analyzing individual learning differences is not a simple matter and usually takes time and energy， but it is ideal to respect and re:flect individual learning differences in foreign language teaching. Even acknowledging the idea would seem favorable to improve the teaching situation at most of the ]apanese universities as a first step. This is because ]apanese universities in the past have neglected individual learτlers， that is

they have not paid much attention to individual students because of the pattern of having a large number of students in a class. It has been a“sink or swim" situation for the majority of the university students. However， for the past few years some of the universities have started to develop and create their unique curricula to attract more prospective students. The前inistry of Education also has started encouraging ]apanese universities to improve their curricula and teaching methods， and this year it is surveying all 95 national univer­

sities about their efforts to reform their curricula and teaching methods (The Daily Yomiuri 1994:

2). This could become a positive stimulus to in:fluence other private universities to reconstruct their curricula and teaching methods. Eventually this， 1 hope， will improve foreign language teaching，

more specifically the teaching of English at ]apanese universities so that ]apanese university students would receive more attention and satisfaction in their English classes.

References

Bialystok， E.

1985.

Applied Linguistics 6 (3): 255-262.

Brown， A. L.， J. D. Bransford， R. A. Ferrara and J. C. Campione.

1983.

ding. In J. H. Flavel1 and E. M. Markman (eds.).

Carmichael's Manual 01 Child Psychology 1.

Wiley.

Carrol1， J B.

1965.

Training，

Research， and Education.

. 1981.

Individtωl D(約rences and Universaゐin La抑♂tage Learning Aptitude.

Dunn， R. S. and K. J. Dunn.

1979.

Educational Leadership 36: 238-244.

and G. E. Price.

1984.

.

1984.

Theory Into丹'(Jctice.23 (1): 10-19.

. 1988.

Journal 01 Readt'ng 31: 304-309.

Ely， C. M.

1986.

La招guage Learning 36 (1): 1-25.

Hyland， K.

1994.

JALT Journal 16 (1): 55-74.

Q'Mal1ey， J. M. and A. U. Chamot.

1990. Learning Strategies in Second Language Acquisition.

bridge University Press.

Reid， J. M.

1987.

TESOL Qnarterly 21: 87-109.

Rubin， Joan.

1975.

TESOL Qlta付er�ァ9 (1): 41-51.

.1987.

-21 -

and

].

Leamer Strategies in Language Leaming

Skehan， P. 1989. Individual Differences in Second制Language Leaning. London: Edward Amold.

“Universities being polled about curriculum reforms." The Daily Yomiuri， August 27， 1994， Sec. C， p. 2， cols.

1-3.

Widdows， S. and P. Voller. 1991. A surver of the ELT needs of Japanese university students. Cross Currents 18 (2): 127-141.

Wright， T. 1987. Roles of Teachers and Leamers. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

- 22