How to Cite
Abstract
This article discusses the most popular diagnostic instruments employed when exploring the role of individual learner differences in foreign/second language acquisition. It thus focuses on the advantages and disadvantages of the quantitative research tradition, which relying on data recorded in numerical form, resorted to various inventories, but most importantly questionnaires designed for a specific research objective. In spite of their obvious drawbacks, highly structured questionnaires do not in any way seem to be devoid of certain research merits. However, since quantitative and qualitative research approaches represent different ways of thinking about and understanding the surrounding world, it is more advisable to adopt compromise in research, which will enable the researcher to place the phenomenon explored in a wider perspective.
References
Carroll, J.B., Sapon, S. 1959. The Modern Languages Aptitude Test. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
Cohen, A.D., Dörnyei, Z. 2002. “Focus on the language learner: Motivation, styles, and strategies.” (w) An Introduction to Applied Linguistics: 170 – 190, (red. N. Schmitt). London: Edward Arnold.
Cohen, A.D., Oxford, R.L., Chi, J.C. 2002. Learning Style Survey. The SBI Institute, June, 2001, także: http://carla.acad.umn.edu/profiles/Cohenprofile.html DW 10.05.2008.
Cohen, A.D., Scott, K. 1996. “A synthesis of approaches to assessing language learning strategies.” (w) Language Learning Strategies Around the World: Cross-Cultural Perspectives: 89 – 106. (red. R.L. Oxford). Honolulu: Hawaii University Press.
Dewaele, J.M., 2002. “Psychological and sociodemographic correlates of communicative anxiety in L2 and L3 production.” International Journal of Bilingualism, 6: 23 – 39.
Dörnyei, Z. 2001. Teaching and Researching Motivation. Harlow: Longman.
Dörnyei, Z. 2005. The Psycholog y of the Language Learner. Individual Differences in Second Language Acquisition. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Eliason, P.A. 1995. ”Difficulties in cross-cultural learning styles assessment.” (w) Learning Style in the ESL/EFL Classroom: 19 – 33. (red. J.M. Reid). Boston: Heinle and Heinle.
Ellis, R. 2004. “Individual differences in second language learning”, (w) The Handbook of Applied Linguistics: 525 – 551, (red. A. Davies, C. Elder). Oxford: Blackwell.
Horwitz, E. K. 2000. “It ain’t over till it’s over. On foreign language anxiety, first language deficits, and the confounding of variables.” Modern language Journal, 84/2: 256 – 259.
Horwitz, E.K., Horwitz, M.B. Cope, J., 1986. “Foreign language classroom anxiety.” Modern Language Journal, 70: 125 – 132.
Gardner, R.C., Lambert, W.E. 1972. Attitudes and Motivation in Second Language Learning. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Gardner, R.C. 1985. Social Psycholog y and Second Language Learning: the Role of Attitudes and Motivation. London: Edward Arnold.
Kinsella, K. 1995a. “Perceptual learning preferences survey”, (w) Learning Styles in the ESL/EFL Classroom: 221 – 231, (red. J.M. Reid). Boston: Heinle and Heinle.
Kinsella, K. 1995b. „Understanding and empowering diverse learners in the ESL classroom”, (w) Learning Styles in the ESL/EFL Classroom: 170 – 194, (red. J.M. Reid). Boston: Heinle and Heinle.
Lesiak-Bielawska, E.D. 2008a. „Różnice indywidualne i ich role w procesie akwizycji językowej.”Jęz yki Obce w Szkole numer specjalny 6: 15 – 26.
Lesiak-Bielawska, E.D. 2008b. “The relationship between learning style preferences and reading strategy use in English as a foreign language.” Glottodidactica XXXIV: 93-103. Poznań: Adam Mickiewicz University Press.
MacIntyre, P.D., Gardner, R.C. 1994. “The subtle effects of language anxiety on cognitive processing in the second language.” Language Learning, 44: 283 – 305.
Myers, I.B., McCaulley, M.H. 1985. Manual: A Guide to the Development and Use of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologist.
O’Malley, J.M., Chamot, A.U. 1990. Learning Strategies in Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge/New York: CUP. Chamot, A.U., O’Malley, J.M. 1994. The CALLA Handbook. Implementing the Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach. New York: Addison Wesley Longman.
Oxford, R.L. 1990. Language Learning Strategies. What Every Teacher Should Know. New York: Newbury House.
Oxford, R.L., Nyikos, M. 1989. “Variables affecting choice of language learning strategies by university students.” The Modern Language Journal 73/3: 291 – 300.
Piechurska-Kuciel, E. 2008. Language Anxiety in Secondary Grammar School Students. Opole: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Opolskiego.
Prokop, I., Wiśniewska D. 2002. “Metodologia i narzędzia badawcze zastosowane w projekcie.” (w) Autonomizacja w dydaktyce jęz yków obcych. Doskonalenie się w komunikacji ustnej: 109 – 128, (red. W. Wilczyńska). Poznań: Wydawnictwo Naukowe UAM.
Reber, A.S., Reber, E.S. 2001. The Penguin Dictionary of Psycholog y. London: Penguin Books Ltd.
Skehan, P. 1989. Individual Differences in Second Language Learning. London: Edward Arnold.
Skehan, P. 1991. “Individual differences in second language learning.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13/2: 275 – 298.
Skehan, P. 1998. A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Spielmann, G., Radnofsky, M.L. 2001. “Learning language under tension: New directions from a qualitative study.” Modern language Journal, 85/2: 259 – 278.
Weaver, S.J., Cohen, A.D. 1997. Strategies-Based Instruction: A Teacher Training Manual. CARLA Working Papers Series 7. Minneapolis, MN: Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition, University of Minnesota.
License
Copyright (c) 1970 Elżbieta Danuta Lesiak-Bielawska
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Authors
Authors of texts accepted for publication in Neofilolog are required to complete, sign and return to the Editorial team’s office the Agreement for granting a royalty-free license to works with a commitment to grant a CC sub-license.
Under the agreement, the authors of the texts published in Neofilolog grant Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań a non-exclusive, royalty-free license and authorize the use of Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-ND 4.0) Creative Commons sub-license.
The authors retain the right to the free disposal of the work.
Users
Interested Internet users are entitled to use works that have been published in Neofilolog since 2017, under the following conditions:
▪ attribution – obligation to provide, together with the distributed work, information about the authorship, title, source (link to the original work, DOI) and the license itself.
▪ no derivatives – the work must be preserved in its original form. Without the author's consent, it is not possible to distribute the modified work in the form of translations, publications, etc.
Copyrights are reserved for all texts published since 2017.
Miscellaneous
Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań retains the property right as a whole (layout, graphic form, title, cover design, logo etc.).