0% found this document useful (0 votes)

55 views

Lessons From Good Language Learner Part13 Chapter9

Uploaded by

MegabiteUQ

Available Formats

Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

0% found this document useful (0 votes)

55 views

Lessons From Good Language Learner Part13 Chapter9

Uploaded by

MegabiteUQ

Available Formats

Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

You are on page 1/ 11

Cambridge Books Online

http://ebooks.cambridge.org/

Lessons from Good Language Learners

Edited by Carol Griffiths

Book DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511497667

Online ISBN: 9780511497667

Hardback ISBN: 9780521889636

Paperback ISBN: 9780521718141

Chapter

5 - Gender and good language learners pp. 73-82

Chapter DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511497667.008

Cambridge University Press

5 Gender and good language learners
Martha Nyikos

Gender and its impact upon the ways that the sexes think, reason, and
solve problems is once more becoming a hot topic in the popular press,
and like any hot topic, it is at once fascinating and controversial. With
the help of technology, the last five years of research on the male and
female brain have given new insight into differences in their development
and modes of information processing (Tyre, 2005). In this chapter we are
interested not so much in gender differences per se, but in the processes
that may contribute to bringing about a language performance differen-
tial between boys and girls, women and men. For language educators
interested in enhancing the achievement of learners, it is certainly inter-
esting to note that quantitative studies show boys and girls behaving in
“strikingly different ways” (Dörnyei, 2005, p. 59).
It is those “different ways” which are the focus of research which seeks
to tease out the contribution of gender in the complex array of factors
that impact all learning and language learning and pedagogy in particu-
lar. Some factors are related to our human state and traits, and others are
environmental or situational, dependent on the context or setting.
As educators, our departure point has to include the realization that
our own socialized views of gender differences will impact our teaching
and judgments. In fact, those views are so subtle and pervasive that they
will influence the way we interpret the results being reported in this
chapter. Our socialization as gendered beings has influenced our own
learning and teaching styles, which in turn affect our students.
Regardless of the care we take to give our students many opportunities
to discover their optimal learning style, we have to be vigilant of our own
subconscious biases and expectations which may manifest themselves in
the ways we engage our students in learning.

How is gender defined?

Gender as a broad term is often used to denote not only the biologically
based, dichotomous variable of sex (that is, male or female) but also the
socially constructed roles (i.e., gender) which are created by the different
ways in which the sexes are raised from birth and socialized within a

Cambridge Books Online © Cambridge University Press, 2009

Downloaded from Cambridge Books Online by IP 130.102.42.98 on Sun May 12 05:30:38 WEST 2013.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511497667.008
Cambridge Books Online © Cambridge University Press, 2013
Gender and good language learners

certain culture (see also Ellis 1994). In this chapter the term sex is used
in a more restricted sense to denote merely the physical dichotomy of
male versus female, while the term gender connotes largely culturally and
environmentally formed roles into which males and females are social-
ized (see also Ushioda, this volume).
Gender is often neglected as a variable in language learning by writers
and researchers: “The effects of gender roles, relations and identities are
everywhere. Ironically, because of this, in much writing and thinking on
English language teaching, gender appears nowhere” (Sunderland, 1994,
p. 211). However, Sunderland (2000) points out, a wide range of lan-
guage phenomena, such as literacy practices, language tests, test perfor-
mance, self-esteem, styles, and strategies, have been shown to be
gendered, since male and female students tend to be represented or to
behave or feel differently. The potential for gender to affect language
learning can therefore not be ignored.
In this paper the term gender will denote the confluence of biology
and socialization, of nature and nurture which in each culture creates
the totality of what is conveniently classified as male or female. Despite
great variation within each sex, clear and systematic differences in this
tightly interwoven complex of characteristics is observable between the
sexes. It is on these differences that we focus our research to discover if
there are significant variations based on gender in how students learn
language.
Biological research reported in recent articles in the popular press are
increasingly shedding light on neurological and hormonal differences in
the brains of males and females. For example, women have more nerve
cells in the left half of the brain where language is centered (Legato,
2005a), and have a richer connection between the two sides of the brain
(Tyre, 2005). Women seem to use more of their brains to listen and to
speak which “may make activities essential to communication easier for
them” (Legato, 2005b, p. 183). Brain scan imagery performed by neu-
roscientists shows that women utilize the same area of the brain as men
to process language but, depending on the linguistic task, women often
use both sides of the brain, and, given identical assignments, women acti-
vate more areas in their brain than men do (Legato, 2005a). Perhaps
most importantly for educators, research has reconfirmed that girls have
“language centers” that mature earlier than that of boys (Tyre, 2005,
p. 59). These reports in the popular press are important because they are
a good indicator of current interest and are most likely to reach parents
and help form beliefs and expectations regarding gender differences.
But these findings should not be interpreted as only biological. From
infancy on, there are other powerful influences at work. Psychological
studies stress gender-specific socialization and expectations which mold

Cambridge Books Online © Cambridge University Press, 2009

gender roles, attributes, and behavior of children from an early age (Beal,
1994; Legato, 2005). It should be noted that individual factors such as
spatial, language, and reasoning skills are linked to gender, but not
directly attributed to it. As Beal (1994, p. 223) cogently argues,
“Children first learn to talk in a social context that varies by gender”.
Parents talk more to baby girls than boys, responding more to girls’ early
attempts to use language. Parents have longer and more complex con-
versations with daughters and encourage more responses from them than
sons (Reese and Fivush, cited in Beal, 1994, p. 224). Much of the per-
ceived female superiority in language capability may be due to the added
effort which adults tend to lavish on baby girls compared with baby
boys. In the crucial early years of life, female brains may be better stim-
ulated due to the subconscious expectations of adults.
Gender socialization may be a key factor in any relative success that
women and men of any age have in language learning. The psychologi-
cal literature is rightfully cautious in designating sources of difference in
learning and processing as due to gender. Sociocultural influences
shaping young people as gendered beings include many cultural expec-
tations of male and female roles and attribution of certain qualities each
should possess, both in society and in the classroom. Today, construc-
tivist views push learning into the social space where students must work
collaboratively to achieve the desired goal (Slavin, 1996) as students co-
construct their understanding and responses to specific tasks. When we
push language acquisition into the social space, we deal with group
dynamics and the interplay of social status, personality, learning prefer-
ences and individual differences of many kinds. The very nature of co-
operative tasks in the classroom is that they bring together many kinds
of learning preferences, strategies, and styles which require individuals
to work together to negotiate solutions to problems.
Sociocultural theory (Vygotsky, 1978; Donato and McCormick, 1994;
Swain and Lapkin, 1998) holds that cognitive development or construc-
tion of knowledge occurs as a result of social interaction. Most studies
in this area examine the language produced during communicative tasks
where negotiation of meaning and cooperation with peers is necessary
for completing the linguistic tasks. Gender is a significant, defining
dimension of our humanity and as such has at least some influence on
the way we learn.

Research into gender in language learning

Rubin’s (1975) landmark article marks a significant change in focus from

teacher-centered methods to learner-centered approaches. Although a

Cambridge Books Online © Cambridge University Press, 2009

host of factors interact in determining the ease and degree of success in

language learning, we will concentrate here only on how gender impacts
upon the process. Although we should keep in mind that much of
the data are self-reported and thus filtered through a gendered lens of
self-perception, some interesting findings have emerged from the
research initiatives.
In their review article, Oxford, Nyikos, and Ehrman (1988) argued
that women have an early and persistent advantage over men with
respect to skills and social integration. These general tendencies are then
strengthened and channeled by cultural and societal norms, factors, and
institutions. Women encourage conversational partners to talk, remem-
ber more details, are more polite, and more likely to try to reach con-
sensus. Women’s greater tendency to accept cultural norms and their
desire for social approval motivate them to strive for higher grades than
men (Nyikos, 1990; Oxford and Nyikos, 1989). Their greater desire for
social connection and greater valuation of communicative competence
lead them to utilize more social interaction strategies. Women almost
invariably use more language learning strategies than men, and make
greater use of general study strategies and formal rule-related practice
strategies than men. Because women have more complex and tightly
knit social connections, they tend to have social interactive learning
styles and practice strategies in groups. This sharing may partially
explain why research has consistently found that women report at least
equivalent but often greater use of learning strategies than men, espe-
cially strategies for authentic language use, for communicating meaning,
and for self-management as well as for general, social, and affective strat-
egy purposes.
One study modeled language learning strategies and examined the
degree to which males and females found one or another particular strat-
egy more effective for learning German (Nyikos, 1990). Various lan-
guage learning strategies were modeled for different groups of students
in beginner’s German courses, using the Modern Language Aptitude Test
(Carroll and Sapon, 1959) to control for aptitude. As measured by five
subsequent quizzes, the study found that women were significantly more
successful (p ⬍ .05) in terms of quiz scores when utilizing color associa-
tion than men, possibly due to women’s socialized sensitivity to color.
Similarly, the men were more successful (p ⬍ .05) when utilizing visual
images linking and color association together, possibly due to men’s
socialized sensitivity to visual data (Nyikos, 1990). Test scores showed
that men and women who used “learning strategies that are in tune with
their socialized learning style” (Nyikos, 1990, p. 285) had equal chances
for success. This provides hope that as individuals mature, they may
acquire learning strategies through socialization that are particularly

Cambridge Books Online © Cambridge University Press, 2009

effective for themselves, regardless of what relative role nature and

nurture play in language learning strategy choice and use.
Although certain strategies appear to be at least marginally more suc-
cessfully and efficiently employed by one sex or the other, variation in
language learning strategy use between the sexes, although sometimes
significant, does not tend to be great in magnitude, as Griffiths (2003)
discovered. Using the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning or SILL
(Oxford, 1990), Griffiths analyzed the reported frequency of language
learning strategy use of 348 students studying English at a private lan-
guage school in Auckland, New Zealand according to a range of learner
variables, including gender. Although female students reported using lan-
guage learning strategies more frequently on average than males, the dif-
ference was neither large nor significant.
It is possible that some of the variation between male and female choices
(and implementation) in learning strategies may be due to variation of per-
sonality types between the sexes. Ehrman and Oxford (1989, 1990, 1995)
measured personality type along four axes: extraversion–introversion,
sensing–intuition, thinking–feeling, and judging–perceiving, using the
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI, Myers 1962). Women tend to prefer
the feeling pole of the thinking–feeling measure more often than men, and
both sexes on the thinking–feeling personality continuum tend to prefer
similar learning strategies. This indicates that perhaps personality type
may be an even more significant variable than gender, at least for the pref-
erence for certain types of language learning strategies.
Different cultures provide varying opportunities and rewards for the
use of specific strategies by the two sexes. For example, in Puerto Rico,
Green and Oxford (1995) found that men used television and movies to
learn English far more than women because English language program-
ming appealed more to men than women. More specifically, television
programs in Puerto Rico are more likely to be broadcast in English if
they are sports or action movies whose primary audience is male.
Assumptions regarding males’ less frequent use of social strategies as
compared to females does not hold true for all cultures. For example, in
Jordan, where there are single-sex classes, boys used social strategies just
as often as did girls (Kaylani, 1996). Most pervasively and powerfully,
even within a specific culture, males and females have separate study cul-
tures in which males generally have lower levels of motivation which
affect effort and performance: even when student characteristics such as
ability, socio-economic status, and parental involvement are statistically
controlled, it appears that girls’ culture is more study-oriented and sup-
portive of academic achievement (Van Houtte, 2004). Furthermore,
according to Gurian and Steven’s research (Tyre, 2005), American
schools are “girl-friendly”, at least partially because the teaching styles

Cambridge Books Online © Cambridge University Press, 2009

of the predominantly female teaching population do not fit the way boys
learn. In other words, in considering how gender relates to “good” learn-
ing, even the cultures of schools themselves need to be taken into
account, emphasizing the importance of situational factors stressed by,
for instance, Norton and Toohey (2001)
Studies have consistently found that females place a greater relative
importance on and invest more time in language learning than males,
because they see greater potential benefit from languages in their future
careers and personal lives (Gu, 2002). Women prefer social strategies
which stress communication such as forming study groups and practic-
ing with native speakers (Green and Oxford 1995, Jimenez Catalan,
2003). Women also tend to use emotionally supportive affective strate-
gies such as self-encouragement, setting up rewards for their progress
and reassuring themselves that they have insufficient background knowl-
edge when encountering difficulties (Young and Oxford, 1997). In
general, women are more willing to test the usefulness of a wider array
of strategies and consistently use more of them than men (Oxford,
Lavine, Felkins, Holloway, and Saleh, 1996). In general, men are more
career-oriented, placing lower importance on studying language than on
their primary major, they are more goal-oriented and more instrumen-
tally motivated for studying what will be on the next test, and they tend
to monitor their progress, such as timing their reading pace and tend to
prefer visual strategies such as forming a mental image of a word and
labeling objects (Nyikos, 1990). Men also tend to work alone more, sum-
marizing the readings and defining unfamiliar words to themselves
(Young and Oxford, 1997). Some studies have shown that women are
more flexible in their use of language learning strategies and favor com-
municative strategies, both of which are qualities of the good language
learner (Nyikos, 1987). Men tend to use rote memorization, repetition,
and translation more often, all of these tend to be used more heavily by
less successful language learners (Nyikos, 1987).
It would seem a natural conclusion that since women tend to desire
higher grades more than men and use learning strategies more frequently
than men (Oxford, Nyikos, and Ehrman, 1988), that the combination of
greater motivation and strategy use should lead to greater success for
women in language learning. Most studies show a slight but significant
advantage for women (Gu, 2002; Sunderland, 2000). The most notable
exception to this is Ehrman and Oxford (1995); they found no correla-
tion between the types of strategies women preferred and those preferred
by better language learners in general, nor was there a difference in per-
formance between men and women “by any measure” (Ehrman and
Oxford, 1995, p. 81). It is therefore crucial to emphasize once more that
differences in language learning preferences between males and females,

Cambridge Books Online © Cambridge University Press, 2009

although in some cases statistically significant, tend to be slight, with far

greater variation between individuals than between the sexes.

Implications for the teaching/learning situation

It seems clear that differential language learning success is caused by a

combination of nature and nurture. To the degree that these choices are
reflective of a deeper match between gender and innate cognitive abili-
ties, gaining understanding of the relative cognitive strengths of each sex
will enrich our ability to help students discover, design, and use appro-
priate strategies that will enable teachers and students to share responsi-
bility for optimal learning in the classroom. Sensitivity to the learning
preferences of boys will go a long way to creating a supportive learning
environment for male language learners. Our new appreciation of boys’
greater need for kinetic, hands-on experience and their intense need for
clear-cut, concrete, goal-oriented assignments will help teachers meet
their needs more expediently.
Males appear to need to have explicit, essential information, and con-
crete, visual examples. Due to generally lower motivation, male students
also need continuous and concrete reminders regarding the advantages
of foreign language study for their future careers. Due to the lower rela-
tive importance they place on language studies, males are immediately
disadvantaged in their opportunity for social study, whereas females are
more likely to form study groups and use social strategies to practice and
share information. They are better positioned to co-construct their
knowledge through cooperative social interaction. Teachers wishing to
foster male participation in study groups should consider helping form
these groups. It is essential to help formulate concrete goals and activi-
ties which will help students discover and enhance their language
learning strategies and find the style that best suits their individual char-
acteristics.

Questions for ongoing research

Although once simplistically regarded in terms of male or female, gender

is now understood to be a much more complicated phenomenon which
is at least partially socially constructed. The role of gender in language
learning, however, is still not well understood. We need considerably
more research in order to clarify how gender is interpreted and how it
takes its place in a complex web of characteristics that define us as
human beings and as learners.

In an age where gender equality has become a basic human right, the
idea that there might be gender differences in language learning is not
always considered politically correct, and fear of giving offence has,
perhaps, nipped potential research initiatives in the bud. In recent years,
however, there has been growing concern over the educational perfor-
mance of boys (for instance Tyre, 2005; Van Houtte, 2004), especially in
relation to learning language. Perhaps it is time to put the political
niceties in their place and look honestly at the role of gender in language
learning, at how gender differences relate to language development, and
at the pedagogical implications of gender differences.

Conclusion

The greatest impact of Rubin’s (1975) article was that it effectively shifted
the focus of language learning from teachers and researchers to the learner
by emphasizing that good learners have control over their language learn-
ing and could be guided to take even more control. It prompted interest in
individual learner differences that led to the synthesis of numerous strands
of research into language learning, including strategies, motivation, learn-
ing styles, culture, age, personality, aptitude, and gender.
Although females are often believed to be better language learners
than males, research evidence for this belief has proven elusive. This may
be partly because “gender, as one of the many important facets of social
identity, interacts with race, ethnicity, class, sexuality (dis)ability, age,
and social status in framing students’ language learning experiences, tra-
jectories, and outcomes” (Norton and Pavlenko, 2004, p. 504). Based
on the research evidence we have, however, it would seem safe to gener-
alize that both males and females can be good language learners. The
ongoing challenge, for researchers, is to discover how students may learn
most effectively regardless of gender, and, for teachers, to discover how
both their male and female students may be supported to achieve
maximum success as language learners.

References

Beal, C. (1994) Boys and girls: the development of gender roles. New York:
McGraw-Hill, 213–234.
Carroll, J.B. and Sapon, S.M. (1959) Modern Language Aptitude Test (MLAT)
Manual. New York: Psychological Testing.
Donato, R. and McCormick, D. (1994) A sociocultural perspective on language
learning strategies: the role of mediation. Modern Language Journal, 78(4),
453–464.

Dörnyei, Z. (2005) Motivational dynamics, language attitudes and language

globalization, (unpublished manuscript).
Ehrman, M.E. and Oxford, R.L. (1989) Effects of sex differences, career choice,
and psychological type on adult language learning strategies. Modern
Language Journal 73(1), 1–13.
Ehrman, M.E. and Oxford, R.L. (1990) Adult language learning styles and strate-
gies in an intensive training setting. Modern Language Journal 74(3), 311–
327.
Ehrman, M.E. and Oxford, R.L. (1995) Cognition plus: correlates of language
learning success. Modern Language Journal 79(1), 67–89.
Ellis, R. (1994) The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Green, J.M. and Oxford, R.L. (1995) A closer look at learning strategies, L2 pro-
ficiency, and gender. TESOL Quarterly 29(2), 261–297.
Griffiths, C. (2003) Language Learning Strategy Use and Proficiency. (http://
www.umi.com/umi/dissertations/).
Gu, Y. (2002) Gender, academic major, and vocabulary learning strategies of
Chinese EFL learners. RELC Journal 33(1), 35–54.
Jimenez Catalan, R.M. (2003) Sex differences in L2 vocabulary learning strate-
gies. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 13(1), 54–77.
Kaylani, C. (1996) The influence of gender and motivation on EFL learning
strategy use in Jordan. In R.L. Oxford (ed.), Language Learning Strategies
Around the World: Cross-cultural Perspectives. Honolulu: Second
Language Teaching and Curriculum Center, pp. 75–88.
Legato, M.J. (2005a) Why Men Never Remember and Women Never Forget.
New York: Rodale.
Legato, M.J. (2005b) What you say, what he hears: how to bridge the gap.
Prevention 57(10), 180–212.
Myers, E.I.B. (1962) The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Palo Alto, CA:
Consulting Psychologists Press.
Norton, B. and Pavlenko, A. (2004) Addressing gender in the ESL/EFL class-
room. TESOL Quarterly, 38(3), 504–514
Norton, B. and Toohey, K. (2001) Changing perspectives on good language
learners. TESOL Quarterly, 35(2), 307–322.
Nyikos, M. (1987) The effects of color and imagery as mnemonic strategies on
learning and retention of lexical items in German. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation. Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN.
Nyikos, M. (1990) Sex-related differences in adult language learning: socializa-
tion and memory factors. Modern Language Journal, 74(3), 273–287.
Oxford, R.L. (1990) Language Learning Strategies: What Every Teacher Should
Know. New York: Newbury House.
Oxford, R.L. and Nyikos, M. (1989) Variables affecting choice of language
learning strategies by university students. Modern Language Journal, 73(3),
291–300.
Oxford, R.L., Nyikos, M., and Ehrman, M.E. (1988) Vive la différence?
Reflections on sex differences in use of language learning strategies. Foreign
Language Annals 21, 321–329.

Oxford, R.L., Lavine, R.Z., Felkins, G., Hollaway, M.E., and Saleh, A. (1996)
Telling their stories: Language students use diaries and recollective studies.
In R.L. Oxford (ed.), Language Learning Strategies Around the World:
Cross-cultural perspectives. Manoa: University of Hawai’i Press, 19–34.
Rubin, J. (1975) What the “good language learner” can teach us. TESOL
Quarterly 9(1) 41–51.
Slavin, R. (1996) Research on cooperative learning and achievement: what we
know, what we need to know. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21,
43–46.
Sunderland, J. (ed.) (1994) Exploring Gender: Questions and Implications for
English Language Education. Hemel Hempstead: Prentice Hall.
Sunderland, J. (2000) Issues of language and gender in second and foreign lan-
guage education. Language Teaching, 33, 203–223.
Swain, M. and Lapkin, S. (1998) Interaction and second language learning: two
adolescent French immersion students working together. Modern Language
Journal, 82(3), 320–337.
Tyre, P. (2005) Boy brains, girl brains. Newsweek, CXLVI(12), 58.
Ushioda, E. (this volume). Chapter 1: Motivation and good language learners.
Van Houtte, M. (2004) Why boys achieve less at school than girls: the difference
between boys’ and girls’ academic culture. Educational Studies 30(2), 159–
173.
Vygotsky, L. (1978) Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological
Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Young, D.J. and Oxford, R.L. (1997) A gender-related analysis of strategies used
to process written input in the native language and a foreign language.
Applied Language Learning 8(1), 26–43.