Methodology in Language Learning: The Ehrman & Leaver Construct

The complex pattern study has an elaborate underlying theoretical construct and has undergone extensive field-testing and validation at the Foreign Service Institute. Therefore it represents a serious attempt to reconceptualize cognitive styles in the service of language learning and warrants a closer inspection. The E&L Construct, as Ehrman and Leaver have named their new system, is similar to Riding’s theory in that it reorganizes a number of established style dimensions under a new, comprehensive, and parsimonious construct. However, unlike Riding’s taxonomy, here only one superordinate style dimension is provided, with the two poles labeled ectasis and synopsis. The main difference between the two extremes is that an ectenic learner wants or needs conscious control over the learning process, whereas a synoptic learner leaves more to preconscious or unconscious processing. The complete system is made up of 10 subdimensions, and many of those are similar to the ones targeted.

As they pointed out, all the 10 subscales of the E&L Construct represent established style dimensions with a body of relevant literature available for each, although one dichotomy, the analogue–digital dimension, has not been applied to learning contexts before. Let us briefly consider each subscale.

§  Field dependent–independent and field sensitive–insensitive: Field dependence– independence has been discussed in a separate section before; although the terms (in)dependence and (in)sensitivity have often been used in the literature in an interchangeable manner, Ehrman and Leaver distinguish them to the extent that they constitute two different scales in the overall construct. Based on  that field dependence–independence refers to the preference for selection and prioritization vs. treating the whole context as the same, whereas field sensitivity–insensitivity concerns the preference for considering materials in a situated manner and being aware of their position in their broader context. Thus, field sensitivity relates to foreground and background together whereas field dependence treats the foreground and the background as the same. Field-sensitive learners prefer to address material as part of the context in contrast to their field-insensitive counterparts, who make little or no use of the context.

§  Random (non-linear) vs. sequential (linear): This dimension relates to how the learner processes information. Random learners follow their own, internally developed and idiosyncratic order of processing (which may seem random to others), whereas sequential learners prefer a step by-step, externally provided order of processing (such as the units in a syllabus)

§  Global–particular: This dimension is well encapsulated by the top down vs. bottom-up processing metaphor.

§  Inductive–deductive: Inductive learners start with the details and facts, then form hypotheses, and finally test them; deductive learners start out with rules or theories and then try to apply them to examples.

§  Synthetic–analytic: Synthetic learners like to use pieces to build new wholes, whereas analytic students like to disassemble wholes into parts to understand their componential structure.

§  Analogue–digital: Analogue learners prefer to use metaphors, analogies, and conceptual links among units and their meanings, whereas digital learners take a more surface approach, characterized by a literal and logical understanding of what they can hear or see.

§   Concrete–abstract: Concrete learners prefer a relationship with direct experience to the extent of sensory contact, whereas abstract learners may have more interest in the system underlying language than in the actual language of communication.

§   Leveling–sharpening: This dimension concerns how people perceive, store, and retrieve information. Levelers often blur things together and form a generalized image, whereas sharpeners notice small differences and store them as salient attributes in their memories.

§  Impulsive–reflective: Impulsive learners tend to respond rapidly, often acting on gut, whereas reflective learners prefer to think things through before they respond. Ehrman and Leaver emphasized that this is a real style dimension—rather than an ability continuum in which impulsive is inefficient and reflective efficient—in the sense that both poles can be beneficial or dysfunctional.

 

The E&L Construct has been operationalized by the Ehrman & Leaver Learning Style Questionnaire. This instrument contains 30 items using a 9- point semantic differential scale format and provides a rich set of data about an individual in the form of an emerging profile, which has the advantage both of generality and specificity.

 

As Ehrman and Leaver explained, the synoptic–ectenic construct level can be used when a learner has a clear set of preferences tending to the right or the left of the chart (as is the case in the sample grid), which allows for a concise description. At the same time, the profile can also yield a more elaborate portrayal of an individual through the interplay of the ten subscales. However, because of the intercorrelation of the subscales, the multiplicity of profiles still falls within the same relatively standardized system.

©

 

University of Oxford - post gradual studies 2009 'English Language Teaching'

 

Bibliography:

1)  Blundell, Lesley and Stokes, Jackie, Task listening, Cambridge University Press, 198r.

2)  Gore, Lesley, Listening to Maggie, Longman, 1979.

3)  McClintock, John and Stern, Borje, Let's listen, Heinemann Educational Books, 1974.

4)  Maley, Alan and Moulding, Sandra, Learning to listen, CambridgeUniversity Press, 198 I.

5)  Scott, Wendy, Are you listening?, Oxford University Press, 1980.

6)  Stokes, Jacqueline StClair, Elementary task listening, CambridgeUniversity Press, 1984.

7)  Underwood, Mary and Barr, Pauline, Listeners (series), Oxford University Press, 1980.

8)  Abbs, Brian and Jones, T., Cloudsongs, Longman, 1977.

9)  Abbs, Brian and York, N., Skyhigh, Longman, 1975.

10)         Jones, Christopher, Back home, Longman, 1980.

11)         Kingsbury, Roy, and O'Shea, Patrick, Seasons and people and other songs,Oxford University Press, 1979.

12)         Wilson, Ken, Mister Monday and other songs for the teaching of English,Longman, 197r.

 

13)         Wilson, Ken and Morrow, Keith, Goodbye rainbow, Longman, 1974. 

14)         Seidl, Jennifer and McMordie, W., English idioms and how to use them, Oxford University Press, 1978.

15)         Wilson, F. P. (ed. ), Oxford Dictionary of English Proverbs, Oxford University Press, 1970.

16)         Brown, Gillian, Listening to spoken English, Longman, 1977.

17)         Brown, Gillian, 'Understanding spoken language', TESOL Quarterly 12:2, 1978.

18)         Brown, Gillian and Yule, George, Teaching the spoken language, Cambridge University Press, 1983.

19)         Byrne, Donn, 'Listening comprehension', Teaching oral English, Longman, 1976.

20)         Crystal, David and Davy, Derek, Investigating English style, Longman, 1969:

21)         Curfs, Emile, 'Listening deserves better', Modern English Teacher 9:3, 1982.

22)         Geddes, Marion, 'Listening', inK. Johnson and K. Morrow (eds. ),

23)         Communication in the classroom, Longman, 1981. Geddes, Marion and White, Ron, 'The use of semi-scripted simulated authentic speech and listening comprehension', Audio-visual Language journal, 1978.

24)         Littlewood, William, Communicative language teaching, Cambridge University Press, 198 I.

25)         Maley, Alan, 'The teaching of listening comprehension skills', Modern English Teacher, 1978.

26)         Porter, Don and Roberts, Jon, 'Authentic listening activities', English Language Teaching]ournal, 1981.

27)         Richards, Jack C., 'Listening comprehension', TESOL Quarterly, 1983.

28)         Rivers, Wilga, 'Hearing and comprehending', Teaching foreign language skills (revised edn.), University of Chicago Press, 1980. Widdowson, Henry, Teaching language as communication, Oxford University Press, 1978. The teaching of listening comprehension, British Council, E.L. T. Documents Special, 1981