Language Learning Strategies In Visually Impaired Students Of English As A Foreign Language
Author(s):
Ivana Hovorakova (presenting / submitting)
Conference:
ECER 2016
Format:
Poster

Session Information

ERG SES D 02, Interactive Poster Session

Poster Session

Time:
2016-08-22
13:30-15:00
Room:
OB-H1.49 (ALE 2)
Chair:
Agnieszka Bates

Contribution

The principle of equal opportunities of education belongs among basic principles of the European Union (EU). According to this principle, every citizen of the EU should have equal access to education. To fulfil the principle, there are several programmes supporting disadvantaged people, such as national minorities and the handicapped. Also, the European Commission introduced an action plan to promote language learning and linguistic diversity in (2003), one of the main objectives of which is developing language learning for persons with special needs.  According to WHO, the number of people with visual handicap is 180 mil. worldwide. Because numbers of visually handicapped students in common schools are growing, teaching this specific group of students should stand in the centre of our attention.

Theoretical background

Learning strategies are grounded in constructivist theory of learning, which has its roots in constructivism. Cognitive constructivism is tightly connected to Jean Piaget’s genetic epistemology and American cognitive constructivism. Piaget claimed that knowledge is not passively absorbed from the environment, but is constructed via interactions between mental structures and the environment (Labinowitz E., 1980). ‚Children do not apply general cognitive structures on tasks and school education materials, but they construct structures specific for certain context to organize their activities for each task or learning situation in which they are.‘ (Bidell T. R. & Fischer K. W., 1992)

Language learning strategies (LLS) are complex cognitive skills that are based on one’s cognitive style. Cognitive style is ‘a characteristic way in which people perceive, remember information, think, solve problems and make decisions’ (Tennant, 1998) and is a determinant for one’s learning style. Dörnyei and Skehan define learning style as ‘a typical preference for approaching learning in general’ (2003). A person’s preferred learning style has an impact on the way he learns, in other words, learning styles define learning strategies. LLS are ‘steps taken by the learner to make language learning more successful, self-directed, and enjoyable‘(Oxford, 1990). Oxford says that ‚Language learning styles and strategies are among the main factors that help determine how – and how well – our students learn a second or foreign language.‘ (2003). Numerous researches in LLS have been conducted since the concept of learning strategies emerged in 1960’s (Rubin, 1975, Stern, 1975, Naiman, 1978, Oxford, 1990, Vlčková, 2007, Tragant & Victori, 2012). However, limited number of studies focused on learning strategies in visually impaired learners (Hoz & Alon, 1999, D’Allura, 2002). Having found the lack of knowledge in that scientific field and seeing the need of deeper understanding, we have designed a research that will bring us closer to comprehension of this issue.

 

Research question

The main objective of our research is to identify LLS used by blind university students according to Oxford’s classification of LLS. Secondary goals are to find out what is the influence of visual impairment on LLS choice and usage and suggest application of our findings in teaching practice of visually impaired students of English as a foreign language.

According to the research objectives, we formulated following research questions:

The main research question: Which language learning strategies are used by blind university students learning English language as a foreign language?

Research sub-questions:

1.)    Do congenitally blind learners use different LLS to learners blind due to a vision loss?

2.)    Are there any LLS that are not used by the blind at all? Which ones?

3.)    What are the reasons for not using some of the LLS?

4.)    Are there any LLS used by blind learners that were not defined by Oxford and are not included in her classification? Which ones?

Method

Our research follows explanatory sequential design – (quan → qual) (Creswell & Clark, 2011). The quantitative part of the research will be conducted as a cross-sectional survey (Creswell, 2012). The qualitative part is designed as a multiple case study (Yin, 2009). Combination of qualitative and quantitative data should maximize the complexity of collected material. To collect quantitative data, we will use a language strategy inventory. We excluded some of the existing inventories: LSUS (Language Strategy Use Survey, Cohen, Oxford, & Chi, 2002) – it is aimed at different age group than our research, LASSI (Learning and Study strategies Inventory, Weinstein, Schulte, & Palmer, 2002) – it aims at learning strategies generally, and Questionnaire About the Learning of English (Tragant & Victori, 2012) – the LLS classification is not so complex as the Oxford’s one. We will use SILL (Strategy Inventory for Language Learning, Oxford, 1990) for its complex LLS classification. Moreover, it has been used in numerous surveys previously and will allow data comparison. SILL has been translated into Czech language and adapted by Vlčková (2007b). We made some further adaptations. SILL will be evaluated according to Oxford (1990). Qualitative data will be collected by interviews. Each interview will consist of three parts, the first one focusing on information such as personal data, educational background, motivation to language learning and visual handicap of the learner; the second one gaining extensive information on the respondent’s answers in SILL; and the third part is based on the LLS inventory constructed by Tragant and Victory (2012) and will provide further data on LLS used by the learner. Interviews will be recorded, transcribed word by word and coded by two independent evaluators using codes set a priori according to Oxford’s LLS classification (1990). The agreement between the evaluators will be validated by Cohen’s Kappa coefficient. The sample will be recruited by complete collection method (Flick, 2006). We will contact blind students of all public universities in the Czech Republic. The students must be congenitally blind or blind after a vision loss and must have knowledge of English language on level A2 – B2 according to CEFR (Council of Europe, 2002). Twelve cases will be selected for interviews.

Expected Outcomes

The main aim of the pilot study was to test the designed methodology and tools, secondary goal was to gain first data. It was conducted with two blind male students: DB, aged 33, knowledge of English language on B2 level, blind since the age of 20; BT, aged 29, knowledge of English language on A2 level, blind since the age of 20. The results of SILL show (on the scale of 5) that the strategies the student DB uses the most are compensation (3.3), cognitive (3.2) and metacognitive (3.1); strategies used least are memory (2.9) and affective (2.1). Student BT uses the most metacognitive LLS (3.61) and compensation (3.1) and the least memory LLS (2.8). The transcripts of the interviews were coded by two evaluators. The inter-rater agreement illustrated by Cohen’s Kappa reached 0.518 and 0.587, which we consider to be satisfactory taking into account the character of coded material and number or items. The most interesting findings were that the respondents use some strategies with certain modifications (e.g. using imagery – use of haptic imagery). It was confirmed that they cannot use some strategies at all (e.g. highlighting- replaced by making notes or using specific characters, e.g. #). We found out one new strategy the respondents are using: they use Czech synthesis for English text as it makes it easier to understand. The importance of audio input seems to be of high importance. We learned about lack of learning tools ever introduced to these students, e.g. using cards to learn vocabulary. The pilot study confirmed applicability of selected methodology. We gained some important incentives that will help us in conducting the main research data collection. Moreover, the factual findings of the study enlightened our view on the research topic. At present, we are collecting data for the main research.

References

Bidell T. R., & Fischer K. W. (1992). Cognitive development in educational contexts. In Neo-Piagetian Theories of Cognitive Development: Implications and Applications for Education (pp. 11–30). Routledge. Cohen, A. D., Oxford, R. L., & Chi, J. C. (2002). Language strategy use survey. In A. D. Cohen & S. J. Weaver, Styles-and-strategies-based instruction: a teacher’s guide (pp. 68–74). Minnesota: University of Minnesota. Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions (2003). Action plan on language learning and linguistic diversity. Council of Europe. (2002). Common European framework of reference for languages: learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge university press. Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research. Pearson. Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2011). Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. SAGE. D’Allura, T. (2002). Enhancing the social interaction skills of preschoolers with visual impairments. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 98(8), 576–584. Dörnyei, Z., & Skehan, P. (2003). Individual Differences in Second Language Learning. In Doughty, C. & Long, M. The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. (pp. 589-630). Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Flick, U. (2006). An Introduction to Qualitative Research. SAGE. Hoz, R., & Alon, A. (1999). The learning tactics and strategies, and knowledge representations employed by visually impaired students in learning materials. not published. Labinowitz E. (1980). The Piaget Primer. Thinking, Learning, Teaching. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company. Naiman, N. (1978). The Good Language Learner. Multilingual Matters. Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: what every teacher should know. Newbury House Publisher. Oxford, R. L. (2003). Language learning styles and strategies. Mouton de Gruyter. Retrieved from http://hyxy.nankai.edu.cn/jingpinke/buchongyuedu/learning%20strategies%20by%20Oxford.pdf Rubin, J. (1975). What the “Good Language Learner” Can Teach Us. TESOL Quarterly, 9(1), 41. http://doi.org/10.2307/3586011 Stern, H. H. (1975). What can we learn from the good language learner?, 31, 304–318. Tennant, M. (1998). In Mareš, J. Styly učení žáků a studentů. (p. 50). Praha: Portál. Tragant, E., & Victori, M. (2012). Language Learning Strategies, Course Grades, and Age in EFL Secondary School Learners. Language Awareness, 21(3), 293–308. Vlčková, K. (2007). Strategie učení cizímu jazyku: výsledky výzkumu používání strategií a jejich efektivity na gymnáziích. Paido. Yin, R. K. (2009). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. SAGE.

Author Information

Ivana Hovorakova (presenting / submitting)
Masaryk University
Brno

Update Modus of this Database

The current conference programme can be browsed in the conference management system (conftool) and, closer to the conference, in the conference app.
This database will be updated with the conference data after ECER. 

Search the ECER Programme

  • Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
  • Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
  • Search for authors and in the respective field.
  • For planning your conference attendance, please use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference and the conference agenda provided in conftool.
  • If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.