5

LEARNING STYLES
AND STRATEGIES
Carol Griffiths

Background
The concepts of learning styles and learning strategies are intuitively appealing, since they offer the
potential to enhance learning and to make it more enjoyable and successful. Because of this, they both
aroused a lot of interest in the second half of the last century, and this interest continues into the pre-
sent. They have also, however, both kindled a lot of controversy. This chapter will attempt to provide
background on the two topics, research evidence to date, recommendations for how the concepts
might be applied in practice, and suggestions for how the issues might be dealt with in the future.

Definition
Although learning styles and strategies are often confused, and although they do indeed have simi-
larities and they often overlap, they are different. Perhaps the most influential and enduring defini-
tion of learning style was provided by Reid (1995, p. viii), who described the concept as:

an individual’s natural, habitual and preferred way(s) of absorbing, processing, and retain-
ing new information and skills.

Since learning styles are thought to describe how learners prefer to learn, they are usually expressed
as adjectives (e.g., “auditory” and “reflective”) or as nouns (e.g., “accommodator” and “diverger”).
This descriptive/nominative function helps to distinguish styles from strategies, which tend
to be expressed as verbs: they are actions, they are what learners do (e.g., “I read for pleasure” or
“writing a diary”). One definition is by the well-known strategy protagonist Andrew Cohen who
wrote that strategies are:

Thoughts and actions, consciously chosen and operationalized by language learners, to

assist them [foreign language learners] in carrying out a multiplicity of tasks from the very
onset of learning to the most advanced levels of target language performance.
(2011, p. 7)

Another is by strategy expert Rebecca Oxford who wrote:

learning strategies are complex, dynamic thoughts and actions, selected and used by
learners with some degree of consciousness in specific contexts in order to regulate

DOI: 10.4324/9781003270546-7 82
 Learning Styles and Strategies

multiple aspects of themselves (such as cognitive, emotional, and social) for the purpose
of (a) accomplishing language tasks; (b) improving language performance or use; and/or
(c) enhancing long-term proficiency. Strategies are mentally guided but may also have
physical and therefore observable manifestations. Learners often use strategies flexibly
and creatively; combine them in various ways, such as strategy clusters or strategy chains;
and orchestrate them to meet learning needs. Strategies are teachable. Learners in their
contexts decide which strategies to use. Appropriateness of strategies depends on multiple
personal and contextual factors.
(2017, p. 48)

Oxford’s definition quoted here is, of course, very comprehensive but, while by no means disagree-
ing with it, we might also argue that it goes well beyond merely defining, as noted also by Thomas
et al., 2021.
Unlike Oxford’s definitions, which have become more expansive over time, Griffiths’ defini-
tions have become more and more minimal, the most recent being: “actions chosen by learners for
the purpose of learning language” (Griffiths, 2018, p. 19). In addition, however, to the four basic
ingredients of this definition (action, choice, purpose, and language learning), Griffiths (2018) also
discusses the possibility of including other elements to accommodate “dimensions of variation”
(Gu, 2012, p. 330). These might include:

•• The issue of consciousness, which deals with the question of whether learners are always
aware of their strategy choices (e.g., Cohen, 2011; Oxford, 2017) or whether strategy choice
operates on a continuum between deliberate and automatic (Griffiths, 2018; Wenden, 1991).
•• The question of whether strategies are purely mental (Macaro, 2006) or whether physical
activities such as highlighting or making flashcards can also be included (Oxford, 2017).
•• The question of whether other kinds of strategies, such as the “Compensation” group in the
Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) should be included as language learning strate-
gies, as Oxford (1990) argues, or whether these other kinds of strategies are used for different
purposes which makes them distinct from learning strategies (Ellis, 1994; Cohen & Dörnyei,
2002).

As can be seen from the above, there is still a lack of consensus about exactly how to define lan-
guage learning strategies. However, as Griffiths (2018) concludes, the really important issue is,
perhaps, not so much that there may or may not be a definitive definition, but that for each study
the definition should be clearly stated and theoretically justified.
Although learning styles and learning strategies are different, they often overlap and interact
(e.g., Cohen, 2012; Wong & Nunan, 2011). We might expect, for instance, a student identified
with an auditory style would benefit from strategies that utilize hearing (such as listening to CDs
or lectures), a visual learner would profit from reading books or watching movies, a learner with
a kinaesthetic style would be likely to employ strategies which involve moving around and being
active, and so on.

Concept Development
Historically, although there had been previous work on learning styles (e.g., Witkin, 1962), a keen
interest in the concept developed around the mid-1970s. This resulted in numerous learning style
instruments aimed at measuring the concept (see the Research section for more details of some
of these). However, although interest in learning styles was at one time keen, in more recent years,
the concept has been criticized for failing to produce the hoped-for results in terms of student
achievement (Pashler et al., 2009;Willingham, Hughes, & Dobolyi, 2015). Concerns have also been

83
 Carol Griffiths

expressed that identification of a learner’s style might become a self-fulfilling prophecy (Vasquez,
2009). For instance, a student who was told that s/he was a visual, auditory, or kinaesthetic learner
might accept that as a fixed reality and not attempt to gain the benefits of stylistic flexibility.
Although in the past, learning style has tended to be regarded as a relatively stable individual
characteristic (e.g., Nel, 2008), increasingly the concept of style-stretching (that is, maintaining
stylistic flexibility) has been gaining recognition. Cohen and Dörnyei (2002), for instance, suggest
that learners should be encouraged to engage in style-stretching, and Oxford (2011) asserts that
styles “are not set in stone” (p. 40). Stylistic flexibility is also included by Wong and Nunan (2011)
as one of the characteristics of effective learners, and Gregersen and MacIntyre (2014) recommend
style-stretching as a way of coping when students “find themselves outside their comfort zones” (p.
174). According to Griffiths and Inceçay (2016), the top-scoring students in their study were much
more stylistically eclectic than the lower-scoring students.
Like learning styles, interest in learning strategies also gathered momentum in the 1970s. Rubin
(1975) identified seven strategies characteristic of good language learners: guessing/inferring, com-
municating, managing inhibitions, attending to form, practicing, monitoring one’s own and the
speech of others, and attending to meaning. These strategies were divided by Rubin (1981) into
two types: those that contribute directly to learning and those that contribute indirectly to learning.
At around the same time as Rubin (1975) published her “good learner” study, Stern (1975)
produced a list of ten language learning strategies used by good language learners. He believed
that good language learners are characterized by positive learning strategies, among which he
included experimenting, planning, developing the new language into an ordered system, revising
progressively, searching for meaning, practicing, using the language in real communication, self-
monitoring, developing the target language into a separate reference system, and learning to think
in the target language.
A decade later, O’Malley et al. (1985) identified 26 strategies which they divided into three
categories: metacognitive (knowing about learning), cognitive (involving mental engagement with
the target material), and social (relating to interaction with others). The metacognitive and cogni-
tive categories correspond approximately to Rubin’s indirect and direct strategies. However, the
addition of the social mediation category was an important step in the direction of acknowledging
the importance of interactional strategies in language learning and reflected the growing interest
in socioculturalism at the time.
Oxford (1990) took this process a step further. From an extensive review of the literature, she
identified a large number of strategic activities which she divided into six groups in the frequently
used instrument known as SILL: memory, cognitive, compensation, metacognitive, affective, and
social. Unlike the essentially psycho-social classification systems adopted by previous inventories,
Cohen et al. (2003) adopted a somewhat different approach and classified strategies according to
skills (listening, speaking, reading, writing, vocabulary, and translation). In addition, rather than ask-
ing students to rate strategies according to how frequently they used them, they asked students to
reflect on their own strategy use.
By the turn of the millennium, however, the strategy field had attracted serious criticism for
being atheoretical (e.g., Ellis, 1994), resulting in Dörnyei and Skehan (2003) and Dörnyei (2005)
recommending the abandonment of the strategy concept in favor of self-regulation, a concept
favored by psychologists. This prompted Gao (2007) to ask the somewhat desperate question: “Has
language learning strategy research come to an end?” (p. 615). However, according to well-known
psychologists (e.g., Winne, 1995; Boekaerts et al., 2000; Zimmerman & Schunk, 2011), in order
to self-regulate, students need strategies, which brings the argument more-or-less full-circle. Rose
(2012) argued that the strategy and self-regulation concepts are not incompatible, and Dörnyei
and Ryan (2015) conceded that language learning strategies remain “alive and kicking” (p. 141).
Strategies have therefore continued to be a fertile area of research and publication up until the
present, as noted by Griffiths (2020).

84
 Learning Styles and Strategies

Theory
There has not been a great deal written about learning styles from a theoretical perspective, but,
given the emphasis on the individual which the concept of learning style assumes, we can, perhaps,
suggest that the underlying theory is essentially humanistic, a theoretical approach which was
attracting the attention of the language teaching profession as interest in behaviorism and cognitiv-
ism was beginning to fade (Maslow & Rogers, 1979). Learning style theory suggests that learners’
stylistic choices will vary according to individual human factors such as their age, gender, person-
ality, culture, degree of autonomy, affective characteristics, strategy preferences, aptitude, beliefs,
motivation, and so on (Griffiths & Soruç, 2020).
Style preference may also vary according to the prevailing social and ecological context with
which the learner must interact, as well as in response to the demands of specific learning tasks. In
other words, rather than being a fixed individual characteristic as it was once assumed to be, learn-
ing style is now accepted as dynamic and dependent on a complex interaction among numerous
other factors such as individual differences, context, and task (Nel, 2008; Griffiths, 2012)
As for strategies, from the beginning, strategy theory tended to emphasize the cognitive aspects
of language learning (Bialystok, 1978; Rubin, 1981; Chamot & O’Malley, 1986). In other words,
strategies were seen as a way for learners to engage cognitively with their learning and also to
take metacognitive control (O’Malley et al., 1985). As noted above, the taxonomy developed by
O’Malley et al. (1985) also introduced sociocultural theory to the strategy field. Behaviorism can
be found in strategies that involve repetition, structuralism in actions such as looking for rules, self-
regulation in metacognitive strategies such as monitoring one’s progress, and humanism in affective
strategies such as rewarding oneself (Oxford, 1990). This theoretical eclecticism leads, in turn, to
the idea that strategies are complex and dynamic, therefore fitting into complex/dynamic systems
theory (Amerstorfer, 2020). This theoretical eclecticism does not have to be seen as a weakness,
however. On the contrary, it might be seen as a major strength: strategy theory has avoided dog-
matic theoretical positions and drawn on the best of what is available to date to facilitate effective
language learning for as broad as possible a spectrum of learners.

Research
Evidence
Although there have been multiple attempts to develop instruments to adequately conceptualize
and measure learning style, actual empirical research into language learning is surprisingly scarce,
perhaps reflecting the more “applied” appeal of the style construct. Such studies as there are can
be difficult to compare because of the divergent nature of the very way the studies were carried
out and the instruments used. Let us, nevertheless, attempt an overview of some of the language
learning style research to date.
Using her own Perceptual Learning Style Preference Questionnaire (PLSPQ), Reid (1987) found
a general preference for tactile, individual, and kinaesthetic styles, but according to her results,
learning style was not significantly related to proficiency. Ehrman and Oxford (1995) similarly
found no correlation between proficiency and learning style among Foreign Service Institute
(FSI) students as measured by the Learning Style Profile (LSP) (Keefe & Monk, 1989). Using the
Productivity Environmental Preference Survey (Dunn et al., 1991), Bailey et al. (2000) found only a
“modest proportion of variance” (p. 126) could be accounted for by learning style. A similarly
guarded conclusion was reached by Andreou, Andreou, and Vlachos (2008) using Kolb’s (1985)
Learning Style Inventory who concluded that: “It cannot be assumed that learning styles determine
… performance in every case” (p. 672). Limited significance was also found by Griffiths and
Inceçay (2016) when they surveyed students using the Inventory of Language Learning Styles (ILLS)
the ratings of which were correlated with the exam results; of the 18 items in the inventory, only

85
 Carol Griffiths

three were found to correlate significantly with exam scores, and the effect sizes were all relatively
small.
An overview of the studies noted above leads to the conclusion that learning style was not a
major factor in successful language learning in most cases.This conclusion is echoed in mainstream
education, for instance by Pashler et al. (2009), who found “virtually no evidence for validating
the educational applications of learning styles” (p. 105). Landrum and McDuffie (2010) similarly
conclude that “there is insufficient evidence … to support learning styles as an instructionally use-
ful concept” (p. 6), and Husmann and McLoughlin (2019) found no correlation between course
results and learning style. Evidence to date, therefore, has failed to show consistently that there are
any particular styles that can be identified to guide student and teacher decision making regard-
ing which learning styles should be adopted or promoted to facilitate more successful learning.
Nevertheless, in spite of these negative conclusions, interest in the learning style concept continues,
especially in the form of what has come to be called “differentiated instruction” (Bondie & Zusho,
2018; Koppers, 2019; Tomlinson, 2017)
As for language learning strategies, most of the research has revolved around the fundamental
question of the relationship between strategy use and proficiency, and the answer to this question
has not always been positive. For instance, when Porte (1988) interviewed under-achieving ado-
lescent learners in private language schools in London, he concluded that the “poor” learners were
using very similar strategies to those reported by “good” learners. A similar observation was made
by Vann and Abraham (1990) during a think-aloud study of two low-level Saudi Arabian women
who made slow progress in spite of being active strategy users. Other studies have produced some-
what ambiguous results. For instance, studies by Bialystok (1981), O’Malley et al. (1985), Huang
and Van Naerssen (1987), and Ehrman and Oxford (1995) all failed to find a significant relation-
ship between overall frequency of language learning strategy use and successful learning, although
they managed to show relationships between effective learning and various types of strategies (e.g.,
metacognitive, functional practice, or cognitive).
For yet other studies, results for the relationship between strategy use and proficiency have been
positive. Green and Oxford (1995), for instance, discovered a “significantly greater overall use of
language learning strategies among more successful learners” (p. 285). Dreyer and Oxford (1996)
also reported a positive relationship between frequency of strategy use and successful learning.
Likewise, Griffiths (2003) found that the higher-level students reported using more strategies more
frequently than the lower-level students. Zhang and Xiao (2006) also found a relationship between
language learning strategies and proficiency levels, and according to the results of a study reported
in Griffiths (2018), the higher-level students reported significantly higher levels of agreement for a
number of the strategy items in the survey.
In addition to looking at the relationship between strategy use and proficiency, strategy use has
also been investigated in relation to various other factors in an attempt to explain disparate findings.
However, although strategies have been found to vary according to context (e.g., Takeuchi et al.,
2007; Gao, 2010; Grenfell & Harris, 2017), task (e.g., Pinter, 2006; Uhrig, 2015; Cohen & Wang,
2018), and other individual differences (e.g., Pawlak, 2012; Oxford & Amerstorfer, 2018; Griffiths
& Soruç, 2020), there is much room for further research in these areas.

Data Elicitation
As noted by Rose et al. (2018) in their systematic review, a great deal of language learning strategy
research to date has depended on self-report questionnaires. This also applies to the learning style
concept. Over the years, numerous attempts have been made to develop questionnaires to measure
styles and strategies. One of the earliest learning style instruments was the five-stage Learning Style
Inventory by Dunn et al. (1975). Other learning style surveys employed a quadrant model, including
the Learning Style Inventory (Kolb, 1976), the Style Delineator (Gregorc, 1979), the Learning Styles

86
 Learning Styles and Strategies

Questionnaire (Honey and Mumford, 1982), and the VARK (which stands for visual, auditory, read-
ing/writing, and kinaesthetic; Fleming and Mills, 1992).
The instruments noted above were not designed exclusively for language learning, although
over the years some of them have been used for that purpose (see examples in the Research sec-
tion of this chapter). The first well-known language learning style survey was the PLSPQ (Reid,
1987) which was based on five modalities. Other learning style instruments specific to language
learning followed, for instance, the Style Analysis Survey (Oxford, 1993), the Learning Style Survey
(Cohen et al., 2002), and the Learning Style Questionnaire (Ehrman and Leaver, 2003). Many of the
instruments noted above have also had updated versions published over the years.
Although questionnaires such as the PLSPQ (Reid, 1987) and SILL (Oxford, 1990) can be
very useful for gathering large quantities of data quickly and relatively cheaply (e.g., Nunan, 1992;
Dikilitaş and Griffiths, 2017), they also have limitations. For instance, Turner (1993) suggested that
“limitations in language ability may prevent [students] from responding in a manner that accu-
rately reflects their true opinion or attitude” (p. 736). Gu et al. (1995) also questioned the degree
to which student self-report ratings can be relied on to be an accurate reflection of actual use, for
example what is “often” to one respondent may be rated quite differently by another; however,
they acknowledged that questionnaires can be useful if administered and interpreted with care,
Woodrow (2005) is another who questioned the value of pre-validated questionnaires on the
grounds that it is not possible for any one instrument to be applicable for all possible learners in
all possible contexts; she therefore concluded that “there is a need for richer descriptions of LLS
use [which] can be achieved by using more qualitative methods” (p. 96). Qualitative methods have
become more popular in recent years and include interviews, observations, think-aloud protocols,
learning logs, diaries, or journals (Dikilitaş & Griffiths, 2017). Also gaining popularity is a tradition
of narrative inquiry (Barkhuizen, 2011), which, according to Barcelos (2008, p. 37), is “an excel-
lent method to capture the essence of human experience and of human learning and change”. A
mixed methodology achieved by combining qualitative and quantitative approaches is capable of
achieving triangulation by looking at particular issues from different perspectives (e.g., Griffiths &
Oxford, 2014).
In addition to the issue of data collection, yet more controversy has been generated from the
way style and strategy research has been analyzed. Although it has been common to analyze styles
and strategies questionnaire data using parametric tests (e.g., Pearson), and although this is some-
times appropriate (e.g., with test results, which are numerical), Jamieson (2004), for instance, argued
that Likert scales (which are frequently used in styles and strategies studies) are often abused since,
by their nature, such scales produce ordinal data for which non-parametric tests are appropriate, as
also acknowledged by Dörnyei (2007) and Cohen et al. (2018). Furthermore, it has been argued
(e.g., by Dörnyei, 2005; Dörnyei and Ryan, 2015) that Likert scales, since they commonly consist
of discrete and independent items, are often not cumulative (that is, the ratings cannot be added
together and averaged). The appropriateness of relying exclusively on probability and significance
(p-values) has also been questioned (e.g., Gass et al., 2021; Ellis, 2000; Lazaraton, 1991; Norris &
Ortega, 2000; Plonsky & Oswald, 2014 ), since such statistics are dependent on sample size. They
argue that the effect size, which represents the magnitude of an effect or strength of a relation-
ship, is a much more useful unit of measurement. When it comes to data analysis, the important
issue would seem to be that, in order to avoid misinterpretation of results, appropriate procedures
should be employed (e.g., Lazaraton, 2000). As Loewen et al. (2014) put it: “If theoretical insights
and pedagogical recommendations are to be trusted, they must come as the result of the accurate
use of appropriate methods” (p. 379).
When it comes to analyzing qualitative data, perhaps the most commonly employed method has
been what is known as grounded theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Strauss & Corbin, 1998).This typ-
ically involves a three-stage process of examining the data recursively for emerging themes, group-
ing the themes around common axes, and drawing conclusions from the material thus obtained

87
 Carol Griffiths

(Oxford et al., 2014). This kind of methodology produces rich, personal insights which can be
especially valuable when triangulated with quantitative methods using a mixed-method paradigm.

Practical Applications
Although learning style is not “set in stone” (Oxford, 2011), and stylistic flexibility has been found
to be typical of more successful students (e.g., Wong & Nunan, 2011; Griffiths & Inceçay, 2016), it
is a common observation that learners do tend to have a preferred learning style with which they
feel most comfortable (Nel, 2008).The conclusion which follows logically from this is that students
should be allowed “to equitably develop their individual learning styles” (Kinsella, 1995, p. 193) as
much as may be practically possible within such constraints as may exist within a given environ-
ment, such as regarding space or noise level.
Flexibility is also important when it comes to strategies, and in order to raise students’ aware-
ness of the strategy options available, teachers need to provide strategy instruction (e.g., Chamot
& Harris, 2018). The principle of the teachability of language learning strategies, however, is by
no means universally accepted. According to Rees-Miller (1993) for instance, attempts at strategy
training have produced “only qualified success” (p. 679). Examples of less-than-successful strategy
programs include the one described by Wenden (1987) who found that less than 50% of the stu-
dents thought that the strategy training had been useful, leading Wenden to conclude that “learner
training was not considered relevant in its own right” (p. 164).
Other results are more mixed. For instance, when O’Malley (1987) randomly assigned students
to one of three instructional groups, a significant difference was discovered in favor of the treat-
ment groups for speaking, but not for listening, while the control group actually scored slightly
higher than the treatment groups for vocabulary. Another study by Ikeda and Takeuchi (2003)
in Japan divided students of mixed proficiency levels into two groups for reading instruction;
they found no increase in the frequency of strategy use among the low-proficiency students but
increased frequency among the high-proficiency learners.
However, other studies have reported successful results for strategy instruction. For instance,
when Carrell et al. (1989) investigated the effects of metacognitive strategy training on ESL
reading, they concluded that the training was effective in enhancing reading ability. The effects
of strategy instruction on vocabulary acquisition were studied by Eslami Rasekh and Ranjbary
(2003) who found that the treatment group showed significantly higher gains in vocabulary
than the control group; similar results were found by Mizumoto and Takeuchi (2009). When the
effectiveness of listening strategy instruction was investigated by Vandergrift and Tafaghodatari
(2010), they found the experimental group significantly outperformed the control group in the
final assessment.
In spite of this rather mixed bag of results relating to the effectiveness of strategy instruction,
evidence nevertheless seems to be mounting that strategy instruction can be useful. Following a
systematic review of available research, Hassan et al. (2005) reported that “there is sufficient research
evidence to support claims that training language learners to use strategies is effective” (p. 2). A
meta-analysis by Plonsky (2011) also concluded that there was a “small to medium overall effect of
SI [strategy instruction]” (p. 993).
The literature provides several important principles underlying effective strategy instruction:

•• An important element of strategy instruction is the raising of students’ awareness of language

learning strategy options (Rubin, 1987). If students know the alternatives available, they are in
a better position to make informed choices.
•• Practice is another important element of strategy training (Oxford, 1990). If new strategies are
rehearsed, they will become automatic and stored in a student’s individual strategy repertoire
to be called on as needed.

88
 Learning Styles and Strategies

•• Strategy training needs to be explicit (e.g., Wenden, 1991), otherwise students will not transfer
the new strategies beyond the immediate task to new ones.
•• Strategy instruction should also be implicit (e.g., Cohen, 1998; Harris, 2001). That is, strategy
instruction needs to be embedded into regular classroom activities so that it is not seen as just
a waste of time and a distraction from the real task of learning a new language.
•• Another important dimension of strategy instruction is evaluation (Tang & Griffiths, 2014).
This is important so that students can reflect on their strategy use and make adjustments as
necessary.
•• The effects of strategy instruction are at least partly due to other aspects of the interven-
tion, such as increased motivation, heightened attention to the target structure, and increased
engagement in learning activities.

Effective strategy instruction should also consider the fact that strategies are not used in isolation:
effective learners know how to orchestrate their strategies, that is to combine them in clusters or
sequences to achieve the best outcome (e.g., Anderson, 2008). Also, strategy development may
not always proceed in a straight line. Other models include curvilinear development: Green and
Oxford (1995), for instance, found that their intermediate students reported more frequent strat-
egy use than either the beginners or the advanced students. Griffiths (2003, 2018) suggests a spiral
model, where the development of one strategy supports the development of another, which in turn
supports the development of yet more sophisticated strategies in an ever-expanding spiral, which
was dubbed the tornado hypothesis.

Future Directions
As noted above, although initially greeted with enthusiasm for its potential to enhance learning
(e.g., Reid, 1987, 1995), learning styles have suffered from relative neglect in more recent years.
This coincides more broadly with their falling out of favor in research in the learning sciences and
educational psychology. This may, however, be a pity, since learning style is an observable phenom-
enon operating in real-life classrooms, at least at the surface level of learning behavior (e.g., Nel,
2008), suggesting that it retains its potential to facilitate more effective learning if well managed,
and flexibility is maintained by both students and teachers. Research remains to be done, however,
on how best to maximize the potential benefits, perhaps in relation to context, task, and other
individual differences such as personality, motivation, and so on.
Research also remains to be done in the strategy area, especially in regard to the relationship
between strategies and situational, task, and human variables. Strategy instruction is also in urgent
need of further research. Although language learning strategy issues are rarely dealt with at the
teacher education stage (e.g., Chamot & Harris, 2018), pre-service teachers need to be informed
of the current research on the topic so that they have the background knowledge to deal with the
issue in their classes. They also need to learn techniques for developing awareness and integrating
language-learning-strategy instruction into the fabric of their lessons so that strategy instruction
is both explicit and embedded, and they should learn how to provide practice and encourage stu-
dents to self-evaluate their own strategy use.
As for research methodology, although questions have been raised about the reliability of self-
report questionnaires (Turner, 1993; Gu et al., 1995; Woodrow, 2005), we should, perhaps, remem-
ber that questionnaires can be useful when trying to research phenomena which are difficult to
investigate any other way (Nunan, 1992; Dörnyei, 2007; Dikilitaş & Griffiths, 2017). In addition,
qualitative methods can be added to questionnaires to achieve triangulation from a mixed-method
perspective (Zhang et al., 2019). As technology develops, other interesting methods are also emerg-
ing, such as eye tracking and brain scans, which have the potential to add valuable new insights to
our existing knowledge (Latif, 2019).

89
 Carol Griffiths

A major unresolved debate in the styles and strategies area relates to quantitative data analysis.
Although parametric tests have been the default, increasingly their use for the type of ordinal data
produced by the kinds of instruments common in styles and strategies studies (Likert scales) is
being questioned (Dörnyei, 2007; Plonsky & Oswald, 2014; Cohen et al., 2018). Also being ques-
tioned is the exclusive reliance on the p-value (which is dependent on sample size) as the ultimate
indicator of a factor’s importance. As previously noted, effect size, which provides a measure of the
strength of the effect of one variable on another, independent of sample size, is a much more use-
ful statistic. Effect sizes remain rare in styles and strategies research, however, although their use is
increasing. Resolution of these differences is urgently needed, as the ongoing controversies mean
that results are often difficult to compare across studies, thereby weakening the overall impact of
research in this area.
From a theoretical perspective, it is important to recognize the increasing interest in a complex/
dynamic view (Chapter X). Originally introduced into the language learning field by Larsen-
Freeman (1997), it has been taken up by many since (Mercer, 2014; Dörnyei, et al., 2015; Ushioda,
2015; Larsen-Freeman, 2019; Griffiths and Soruç, 2020). Essentially, this theory acknowledges the
reality that language learning and language learners are not simple; on the contrary, they consist
of a complex amalgamation of a vast array of dynamically interacting factors, including the socio-
ecological context, task demands, and the learners’ own individual characteristics. As Amerstorfer
(2020) comments: “a complexity perspective can generate new, profound information” (p. 21), and
this suggests a very useful direction for future styles and strategies research.

References
Amerstorfer, C. M. (2020). The dynamism of strategic learning: Complexity theory in strategic L2 develop-
ment. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 10, 21–44.
Anderson, N. (2008). Metacognition and good language learners. In C. Griffiths (Ed.), Lessons from good lan-
guage learners (pp. 99–109). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press
Andreou, A., Andreou, G., & Vlachos, F. (2008). Learning styles and performance in second language tasks.
TESOL Quarterly, 42, 665–674.
Barcelos, A. (2008). Learning English: Students’ beliefs and experiences in Brazil. In P. Kalaja,V. Menezes, & A.
Barcelos (Eds.), Narratives of learning and teaching EFL (pp. 35–48). Houndmills, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Barkhuizen, G. (2011). Narrative knowledging in TESOL. TESOL Quarterly, 45, 391–444.
Bialystok, E. (1978). A theoretical model of second language learning. Language Learning, 28, 69–83.
Bialystok, E. (1981). The role of conscious strategies in second language proficiency. The Modern Language
Journal, 65, 24–35.
Bailey, P., Onwuegbuzie, A., & Daley, C. (2000). Using learning style to predict foreign language achievement
at the college level. System, 28, 115–133.
Boekaerts, M., Pintrich, P., & Zeidner, M. (Eds.). (2000). Handbook of self-regulation. San Diego, CA: Academic
Press.
Bondie, R., & Zusho, A. (2018). Differentiated instruction made practical. New York and London: Routledge.
Carrell, P., Pharis, B., & Liberto, J. (1989) Metacognitive strategy training for ESL reading, TESOL Quarterly,
23, 647–673.
Chamot, A. U., & Harris,V. (Eds.). (2018). Learning strategy instruction in the language classroom: Issues and imple-
mentation. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Chamot, A. U., & O’Malley, M. (1986). A cognitive academic language learning approach: An ESL content-based cur-
riculum. Wheaton, Md.: National Clearing house for Bilingual Education.
Cohen, A. D. (1998). Strategies in learning and using a second language. London and New York: Longman.
Cohen, A. D. (2011). Strategies in learning and using a second language (2nd ed.). London: Longman.
Cohen. A. D. (2012). Strategies:The interface of styles, strategies and motivation on tasks. In S. Mercer, S. Ryan
& M. Williams (Eds.), Language learning psychology: Research, theory and pedagogy (pp. 136–150). Basingstoke,
UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Cohen, A. D., & Dörnyei. Z. (2002). Focus on the language learner: Motivation, styles and strategies. In N.
Schmitt (Ed.), An introduction to applied linguistics (pp. 170–190). London: Edward Arnold.
Cohen, A. D., Oxford, R. L., & Chi, J. C. (2002). Learning style survey: Assessing your own learning styles.
Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition.

90
 Learning Styles and Strategies

Cohen, A., Oxford, R., & Chi, J. (2003). Learning strategies survey. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota
Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition.
Cohen, A. D., & Wang, I. K.-H. (2018). Fluctuation in the functions of language learner strategies. System, 74,
169–182.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2018). Research methods in education (8th ed.). London and New York:
Routledge.
Dikilitaş, K., & Griffiths, C. (2017). Developing teacher autonomy through action research. Cham, Switzerland:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second language acquisition.
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dörnyei, Z., & Ryan, S. (2015). The psychology of the language learner revisited. London: Routledge.
Dörnyei, Z., & Skehan, P. (2003). Individual differences in second language learning. In C. Doughty, & M.
Long (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 589–630). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Dörnyei, Z., MacIntyre, P. D., & Henry, A. (Eds.). (2015). Motivational dynamics in language learning. Bristol, UK:
Multilingual Matters.
Dreyer, C., & Oxford, R. L. (1996). Learning strategies and other predictors of ESL proficiency among
Africaans speakers in South Africa. In R. L. Oxford (Ed.), Language learning strategies around the world: Cross-
cultural perspectives (pp. 61–74). Hawaai: Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Centre: University of
Hawai’i at Manoa.
Dunn, R., Dunn, K., & Price, G. (1975). The learning style inventory. Lawrence, KS: Price Systems.
Dunn, R. Dunn, K., & Price, G. (1991). Productivity environmental preference survey. Lawrence, KS: Price
Systems.
Ehrman, M., & Leaver, B. (2003). Cognitive styles in the service of language learning. System, 31, 393–415.
Ehrman, M., & Oxford, R. L. (1995). Cognition plus: Correlates of language learning success. The Modern
Language Journal, 79(1), 67–89.
Ellis, N. (2000). Editor’s statement: Statistical reporting of effect sizes. Language Learning, 50(1), xi–xii.
Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Eslami Rasekh, Z., & Ranjbary, R. (2003). Metacognitive strategy training for vocabulary learning. TESL-EJ,
7(2), 1–15.
Fleming, N., & Mills, C. (1992). Not another inventory, rather a catalyst for reflection To Improve the Academy,
11, 137–149.
Gao, X. (2007). Has language learning strategy research come to an end? A response to Tseng et al. Applied
Linguistics, 28(4), 615–620.
Gao, X. (2010). Strategic language learning:The roles of agency and context. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Gass, S., Loewen, S., & Plonsky, L. (2021). Coming of age: The past, present and future of quantitative SLA
research. Language Teaching, 54(2), 245–258.
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. New York: Aldine.
Green, J., & Oxford, R. L. (1995). A closer look at learning strategies, l2 proficiency and gender. TESOL
Quarterly, 29(2), 261–297.
Gregersen, T., & MacIntyre, P. D. (2014). Capitalizing on language learners’ individuality: From premise to practice.
Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Gregorc, A. (1979). Learning/teaching styles: Potent forces behind them. Educational Leadership, 36, 236–238.
Grenfell, M., & Harris,V. (2017). Language learner strategies: Contexts, issues and applications in second language learn-
ing and teaching. London: Bloomsbury.
Griffiths, C. (2003). Language learning strategy use and proficiency. (PhD thesis). University of Auckland, New
Zealand. http://hdl​.handle​.net​/2292/9
Griffiths, C. (2012). Learning styles: Traversing the quagmire. In S. Mercer, S. Ryan, & M. Williams
(Eds.), Language learning psychology: Research, theory and pedagogy (pp. 151–168). London, UK: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Griffiths, C. (2018). The strategy factor in successful language learning (2nd ed.). The Tornado Effect. Bristol, UK:
Multilingual Matters.
Griffiths, C. (2020). Language learning strategies: Is the baby still in the bathwater? Applied Linguistics, 41(4),
607–611.
Griffiths, C., & Inceçay, G. (2016). New directions in language learning strategy research: Engaging with the
complexity of strategy use. In Gkonou, C., Tatzl, D., & Mercer, S. (Eds.), New directions in language learning
psychology (pp. 25–38). Berlin: Springer.
Griffiths, C., & Oxford, R. (2014). Twenty-first century landscape of language learning strategies. System, 43,
1–10.
Griffiths, C., & Soruç, A. (2020). Individual differences in language learning. London: Palgrave.

91
 Carol Griffiths

Gu,Y. (2012). Learning strategies: Prototypical core and dimensions of variation. Studies in Self-Access Learning
Journal, 3(4), 330–356.
Gu,Y., Wen, Q., & Wu, D. (1995). How often is Often? Reference ambiguities of the Likert-scale in language
learning strategy research. In Occasional papers in English language teaching, 5 (pp. 19–35). Hong Kong: ELT
unit, Chinese University of Hong Kong.
Harris,V. (2001). Helping learners learn: Exploring strategy instruction in language classrooms across Europe. Strasbourg:
Council of Europe Publishing.
Hassan, X., Macaro, E., Mason, D., Nye, G., Smith, P., & Vanderplank, R. (2005). Strategy training in language
learning: A systematic review of available research. Research evidence in education library. London: EPPI-Centre,
Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of London.
Honey, P., & Mumford, A., (1982). The manual of learning styles. Maidenhead, UK: Peter Honey Publications.
Huang, X., & van Naerssen, M. (1987). Learning strategies for oral communication. Applied Linguistics, 8(3),
287–307.
Husmann, P., & McLoughlin, V. (2019). Another nail in the coffin for learning styles? Disparities among
undergraduate anatomy students’ study strategies, class performance, and reported VARK learning styles.
Anatomical Sciences Education, 12, 6–19.
Ikeda, M., & Takeuchi, O. (2003). Can strategy instruction help ESL learners to improve their reading ability?
An empirical study. JACET Bulletin, 37, 49–60.
Jamieson, S. (2004). Likert scales: How to (ab)use them. Medical Education, 38, 1212–1218.
Keefe, J., Monk, J., with Letteri, C., Languis, M., & Dunn, R. (1989). Learning style profile. Reston,VA: National
Association of High School Principals.
Kinsella, K. (1995). Understanding and empowering diverse learners. In J. Reid (Ed.), Learning styles in the
ESL/EFL classroom (pp. 170–195). Boston, MA: Heinle and Heinle.
Kolb, D. (1976). The learning style inventory: Self-scoring test and interpretation. Boston, MA: McBer.
Kolb, D. (Ed.). (1985). Learning style inventory. Boston, MA: McBer.
Koppers, K. (2019). Differentiated instruction in the teaching profession. Alexandris,VA: EduMatch.
Landrum, T., & McDuffie, K. (2010). Learning styles in the age of differentiated instruction. Exceptionality,
18(1), 6–17.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (1997). Chaos/complexity science and second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics,
18(2), 141–165.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2019). On language learner agency: A complex dynamic systems theory perspective. The
Modern Language Journal, 103, 61–79.
Latif, M. (2019). Eye-tracking in recent L2 learner process research: A review of areas, issues, and methodologi-
cal approaches. System, 83, 25–35.
Lazaraton, A. (1991). Power, effect size and second language research. TESOL Quarterly, 25(4), 759–762.
Lazaraton, A. (2000). Currents trends in research methodology and statistics in applied linguistics. TESOL
Quarterly, 34(1), 175–181.
Loewen, S., Lavolette, E., Spino, L., Papi, M., Schmidtke, J., Sterling, S., & Wolff, D. (2014). Statistical literacy
among applied linguists and second language acquisition researchers. TESOL Quarterly, 48(2), 360–388.
Macaro, E. (2006). Strategies for language learning and for language use: Revising the theoretical framework.
The Modern Language Journal, 90(3), 320–337.
Maslow, A., & Rogers, C. (1979). Humanistic psychology. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 19(3), 13–26.
Mercer, S. (2014). The self from a complexity perspective. In S. Mercer, & M. Williams (Eds.), Multiple perspec-
tives on the self in SLA. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Mizumoto, A., & Takeuchi, O. (2009). Examining the effectiveness of explicit instruction of vocabulary learn-
ing strategies with Japanese EFL university students. Language Teaching Research, 13(4), 425–449.
Nel, C. (2008). Learning style and good language learners. In C. Griffiths (Ed.), Lessons from good language learn-
ers (pp. 49–60). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Norris, J., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-
analysis. Language Learning, 50(3), 417–528.
Nunan, D. (1992). Research methods in language learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
O’Malley, J. M. (1987). The effects of training in the use of learning strategies on learning English as a second
language. In A. Wenden, & J. Rubin (Eds.), Learner strategies in language learning (pp. 133–143). Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
O’Malley, J. M., Chamot, A. U. Stewner-Manzanares, G. Russo, R., & Kupper, L. (1985) Learning strategy
applications with students of English as a second language. TESOL Quarterly, 19(3), 557–584.
Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies:What every teacher should know. New York: Newbury House.
Oxford, R. L. (1993). Style analysis survey (SAS). Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama.
Oxford, R. L. (2011). Teaching and researching language learning strategies. Harlow: Pearson Longman.

92
 Learning Styles and Strategies

Oxford, R. L. (2017). Teaching and researching language learning strategies: Self-regulation in context (2nd ed.). New
York: Routledge.
Oxford, R., & Amerstorfer, C. (Eds.). (2018). Situated strategy use: Language learning strategies and individual learner
characteristics. New York: Bloomsbury.
Oxford, R., Griffiths, C., Longhini, A., Cohen, A., Macaro, E., & Harris,V. (2014). Experts’ personal metaphors
and similies about language learning strategies. System, 43, 11–29.
Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rohrer, D., & Bjork, R. (2009). Learning styles: Concepts and evidence. Psychological
Science in the Public Interest, 9(3), 105–119.
Pawlak, M. (Ed.). (2012). New perspectives on individual differences in language learning and teaching. Berlin: Springer.
Pinter, A. (2006). Verbal evidence of task related strategies: Child versus adult interactions. System, 34(4),
615–630.
Plonsky, L. (2011).The effectiveness of second language strategy instruction: A meta-analysis. Language Learning,
61(4), 993–1038.
Plonsky, L., & Oswald, F. (2014). How big is “Big”? Interpreting effect sizes in L2 research. Language Learning,
64(4), 878–912.
Porte, G. (1988). Poor language learners and their strategies for dealing with new vocabulary. ELT Journal,
42(3), 167–171.
Rees-Miller, J. (1993). A critical appraisal of learner training: Theoretical bases and teaching implications.
TESOL Quarterly, 27(4), 679–687.
Reid, J. (1987). The learning style preferences of ESL students. TESOL Quarterly, 21(1), 87–111.
Reid, J. (Ed.) (1995). Learning styles in the ESL/EFL classroom. Boston, MA: Heinle and Heinle.
Rose, H. (2012). Reconceptualizing strategic learning in the face of self-regulation:Throwing language learn-
ing strategies out with the bathwater. Applied Linguistics, 33(1), 92–98.
Rose, H., Briggs, J., Boggs, J., Sergio, L., & Ivanova-Slavianskaia, N. (2018). A systematic review of language
learner strategy research in the face of self-regulation. System, 72, 151–163.
Rubin, J. (1975). What the ‘good language learner’ can teach us. TESOL Quarterly, 9(1), 41–51.
Rubin, J. (1981). Study of cognitive processes in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 117–131.
Rubin, J. (1987). Learner strategies: Theoretical assumptions, research history and typology. In A. Wenden, & J.
Rubin (Eds.), Learner strategies in language learning (pp. 15–19). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Stern, H. (1975). What can we learn from the good language learner? Canadian Modern Language Review, 34,
304–318.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research:Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory
(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Takeuchi, O., Griffiths, C., & Coyle, D. (2007). Applying strategies to contexts: The role of individual, situ-
ational and group differences. In A. Cohen, & E. Macaro (Eds.), Language learner strategies (pp. 69–92).
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Tang, Y., & Griffiths, C. (2014). The keys to highly effective English learning. Shenzhen: Jiangxi Education
Publishing House.
Thomas, N., Rose, H., & Pojanapunya, P. (2021). Conceptual issues in strategy research: Examining the roles of
teachers and students in formal education settings. Applied Linguistics Review, 12(2), 353–269.
Tomlinson, C. (2017). How to differentiate instruction in academically diverse classrooms (3rd ed.). Alexandria, VA:
ASCD.
Turner, J. (1993). Using likert scales in L2 research. TESOL Quarterly, 27(4), 736–739.
Uhrig, K. (2015). Learning styles and strategies for language use in the context of academic reading tasks.
System, 50, 21–31.
Ushioda, E. (2015). Context and complex dynamic systems theory. In Z. Dörnyei, P. D. MacIntyre, & A. Henry
(Eds.), Motivational dynamics in language learning (pp. 47–54). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Vandergrift, L., & Tafaghodatari, M. (2010). Teaching L2 learners how to listen does make a difference: An
empirical study. Language learning, 60(2), 470–497.
Vann, R., & Abraham, R. (1990). Strategies of unsuccessful language learners. TESOL Quarterly, 24(2),
177–198.
Vasquez, K. (2009). Learning styles as self-fulfilling prophecies. In R. Gurung, & L. Prieto (Eds.), Getting culture:
Incorporating diversity across the curriculum (pp. 53–63). Sterling,VA: Stylus.
Wenden, A. (1987). Incorporating learner training in the classroom. In A. Wenden and J. Rubin (Eds.), Learner
strategies in language learning (pp. 159–167). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Wenden, A. (1991). Learner strategies for learner autonomy. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Willingham, D., Hughes, E., & Dobolyi, D. (2015). The scientific status of learning styles theories. Teaching of
Psychology, 42(3), 266–271.
Winne, P. (1995). Inherent details in self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 30, 173–187.

93
 Carol Griffiths

Witkin, H. (1962). Psychological differentiation. New York: Wiley.

Wong, L., & Nunan, D. (2011). The learning styles and strategies of effective language learners. System, 39(2),
144–163.
Woodrow, L. (2005). The challenge of measuring language learning strategies. Foreign Language Annals, 38(1),
90–98.
Zhang, L. J., & Xiao, Y. (2006). language Learning strategies, motivation and EFL proficiency: A study of
Chinese tertiary-level non-English majors. Asian Englishes, 9(2), 20–47.
Zhang, L. J., Thomas, N., & Qin, T. (2019). Language learning strategy research in System: Looking back and
looking forward. System, 84, 87–92.
Zimmerman, B., & Schunk, D. (Eds.). (2011). Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance. New York:
Routledge.

94