ìA more practiced eye,
A more receptive ear,
A more fluent tongue,
A more involved heart,
A more responsive mind.
These are the characteristics we want to stimulate in students to enable them to become more proficient language learners.î (Oxford, 1990, p. ix)
Oxfordís work came out of her dissatisfaction with the traditional way she had been taught a second language. Traditionally, grammar translation involves memorization of word lists, reciting passages, verbatim translations and no real interaction in the language. (Oxford, 1990)
As a teacher, she also felt a compelling need to emancipate herself from the audio-lingual style of instruction which followed the traditional methods. Audio-lingual methodology is linear, author-controlled and guided with a focus on drill and discrete units. (Meskill, 1991)
In her book, Oxford espouses the communicative approach prevalent in many second language (L2) classrooms today. This approach is student-controlled and focuses on contextualized, authentic language. She also offers L2 teachers a number of language development strategies beneficial in a ístudent-centeredí environment. Such strategies as brainstorming, creating mental linkages, applying images and sound to key words and expressions, repeating, recombining, guessing intelligently and role-playing are described.
Within a ìstudent-centeredî environment, communicative competence involving reading, writing, listening and speaking proficiency in the target language is the main objective. Fundamental to learning in all areas of the curriculum and an essential life skill, reading proficiency is undoubtedly one of the most crucial cognitive achievements. It requires great interpretive skill. Unfortunately for many students, misinterpretation of the written word can lead to frustration, poor self-esteem, a need for remediation and even a diagnosis as learning disabled with attendant complications. Success in reading is a common educational goal that continues to elude some students and baffle teachers.
Whatever the reading skill level of the student, teachers are giving increased attention to individualization of the learning process. (Garrett, 1995; Anderson, 1991; Snow; 1977) Even for the more practiced teacher, however, adapting to the needs of the individual learner continues to be a challenge. To address problems associated with reading and other disciplines, Oxford and other researchers have suggested that teachers identify their studentsí language learning styles and teach to those styles. (Dunn and Dunn, 1979; Oxford and Lavine, 1992)
Language learning styles were defined by Oxford and Lavine as ìgeneral approaches that students use in acquiring a new languageî.(p. 38-39) They consist of four dimensions:
i) global/analytic, which refers to students who tend to be socially interactive and less concerned with accuracy versus those who are particular about detail but are less communicative;
ii) intuitive-random/sensory-sequential, which distinguishes learners who think in abstract rather than concrete ways;
iii) closure-oriented/open, which classifies learners oriented toward closure as ìjudgersî and the open learners as ìperceiversî;
iv) auditory/visual/kinesthetic/tactual, which focuses on the perceptual modalities; auditory learners depend on speaking and hearing, visual learners on what they see, kinesthetic learners on large muscle movement and tactual learners on small muscle movement and emotions.
More than a decade ago the author of this study attended a professional development workshop dealing with learning styles and sensory-motor modalities. These modalities corresponded to the auditory, visual, kinesthetic and tactual dimensions identified in Dunn and Dunn (1979) Oxford and Lavine (1992) and Haggart (1995). Since then, each school year, students' learning styles have been assessed. Adaptation of teaching style to accommodate the studentsí individual strengths has been a focus of classroom practice. The guiding principle is that all students have potential to grow and learn and that each child will flourish given the right circumstances. The challenge that follows, for an educator, is to find appropriate modality-specific learning approaches and resources.
One area that holds promise for enhancing language development and which appears to be a viable option in meeting the challenge to find resources for specific modality learning is the use of multimedia instructional software. ìThe term multimedia refers to information in different formats: text, still images, sound, music, video and animation.î (Peltonen, 1999) Multimedia software has been around for quite some time. More recently, in combination with the Internet, CD-ROM and DVD, computer-based multimedia technology has had a celebrated impact on society. In the education system, its prevalence is manifested in the use of such things as Brøderbund's Living Books (for example, Green Eggs and Ham by Dr. Seuss), a variety of games, web sites, and multimedia encyclopedias.
However, this celebrity is not without its detractors. Some educators,
such as Dorothy Chun, have expressed concern about the impact of uninformed
use of multimedia on young minds.
"I become increasingly distressed when I look at web sites in general
and particularly those aimed at children. There is too much color and too
many flashing, blinking, and otherwise moving icons and objects. One is
bombarded with too much complexity, thus making it a cognitive chore to
decide what to focus on. If young children are faced with this from early
on, I suspect this may very well hinder learning rather than enhance it.
How do young children learn to navigate, how to focus, how to decide what
is important? Do the complex and numerous graphic images cause cognitive
overload of some sort?î (Chun, 1999)
Another perspective on the use of multimedia is given by Ross and Shultz. (1999) They cite Schlecher (1991) who argued that ìeffective CAI (Computer Assisted Instruction) can correct for many teachersí inability to meet the needs of all learners. Yet, although important to multimedia instruction, CAI may not be the preferred mode of learning for all learners.î (p.9)
Ross and Schultz also make reference to studies done by Butler (1984),
Gregorc (1985) and others which addressed the sometimes invasive and inappropriate
use of computer technology on certain types of students. For example, intuitive-random
learners are very sociable and enjoy learning with others. Computer assisted
instruction does not always provide such a learning environment. However,
Ross and Shultz suggest this technology offers significant advantages to
learning for other students. For example, sequential learners who like
the order, detail and exactitude of a machine.
ìIt remains essential, then, that the computer continue to be used
as a tool for supplementing classroom instruction. Some learners may need
greater support and guidance from the teacher, while others may be able
to learn from the computer relatively independently.î (p.21)