A Consideration of Individual Learner
Differences in Japanese EFL/ESL Contexts
Pino Cutrone

Abstract
This paper provides a brief overview of some of the individual learner differences
shown to influence second language acquisition in Japanese EFL/ESL contexts. In addi­
tion to learner variables, the Japanese learning style, teacher variables and task varia­
bles are also examined. The purpose of this paper is to inform language pedagogy in theJapanese EFL context. With a broader understanding of how individual learner differ­ences and classroom variables influence learning outcomes, it is the writer's modest
hope that teachers would not only be more aware of, but also more equipped to cater
their lessons to the individual needs of their students.
Keywords: Individual Learner Differences, SLA, Learner Strategies, Learning Styles,
Task Variables, Japanese EFL/ESL Contexts,

PDIntroduction
EFL/ESL teachers may sometimes be perplexed as to why some of their learners are able toimmediately acquire features of language targeted in their instruction, while others in the same c­lass show no improvement at all over time. It is tempting to simply conclude that some learners
progress better than others due to an innate predisposition for foreign language acquisition;
however, due to the complex and multifaceted nature of this issue, this would not adequately tell
the whole story. Undoubtedly, there exist a great many other factors that can influence learning
outcomes in the foreign language classroom to varying degrees. In the field of second language
acquisition (SLA), the study of individual learner differences (IDs) has become an area inspiring
a great deal of research attention and scholarly discussion (Fewell 2010). In this paper, thewriter considers how various IDs might affect learning outcomes in the Japanese EFL/ESL con­texts. The following sections describe how (2) learner variables, (3) the Japanese learning style,(4) teacher variables and (5) task variables may influence the language classroom.

QDLearner Variables
There are several learner variables which are likely to influence L2 performance. Ellis(1994: 472) offers us a general outline of the some of the learner variables by listing the resultsof three well­known surveys in this field.

― 11 ―

Journal of the Faculty of Global Communication, University of Nagasaki No.12(2011)

Altman (1980)

Skehan (1989)

Larsen­Freeman and Long (1991)

1. Age1. Language Aptitude

1. Age2. Sex2. Motivation

2. Socio­psychological factors

3. Previous Experience with

3. Language Learning Strategies

a. motivation

4. Cognitive and Affective Factors

b. attitude

a. extroversion/introversion

3. Personality

b. risk­taking

a. self­esteem

5. Personality Factors

c. intelligenceb. extroversion

6. Language Aptitude

d. field independencec. anxiety

7. Attitudes and Motivatione. anxiety

d. risk­taking

Language Learning
4. Proficiency in the native Lan­guage

8. General Intelligence (IQ)

e. sensitivity to rejection

9. Sense Modality preference

f. empathy

10. Sociological preference (e.g.

g. inhibition

learning with peers vs. learn­h. tolerance of ambiguity

ing with the teacher)

4. Cognitive Style

11. Cognitive Styles

a. field independence/dependence

12. Learner Strategies

b. category widthc. reflexivity/impulsivity
d. aural/visuale. analytic/gestalt
5. Hemisphere specialization
6. Learner Strategies
7. Other Factors e.g. memory, sex

Many of the above­mentioned variables are found in all three surveys and will be discussed
further below. Gardner and MacIntyre (1992) divide ten such variables into two categories: cog­
nitive and affective. The cognitive variables described in Section 2.1 include language aptitude,
intelligence and language learning strategies. The affective variables described in Section 2.2 in­clude attitudes, motivation, language anxiety, self­confidence, personality and learning style. Be­
sides these cognitive and affective variables, there are several other learner variables which
merit discussion. The two variables that will be described in Section 2.3 are age and sex.
２.１ Cognitive
Language Aptitude: Clearly, there is evidence to suggest that learners do indeed differ intheir innate ability to acquire new languages (Skehan, 1990). Carroll and Sapon (1959) and Pim­
sleur (1966) developed some early tests measuring this, namely the Modern Language Aptitude
Test (MLAT) and the Pimsleur Language Aptitude Battery (PLAB) respectively. These tests
involved measuring learners' abilities to recognize and memorise new sounds, to identify new
syntactic patterns, to detect similarities and differences in form and meaning, and to relate
sounds to written symbols. This research initially showed great promise, and the empirical work
involved in developing these tests was very rigorous; however, unfortunately, research involving
this work has not been followed up more extensively in recent years.
Intelligence: Genesee (1976) found a correlation between intelligence and academic skills― 12 ―

Pino Cutrone : A Consideration of Individual Learner Differences in Japanese EFL/ESL Contexts

such as reading, grammar and vocabulary; however, no correlation between intelligence and oral
proficiency was found. Further, it appears that intelligence is strongly correlated with instructionof the L2, and, in less formal situations, this variable seems less important. In comparison toother variables mentioned, relatively little research attention in SLA has been given to the role ofintelligence.
Learner Strategies: It is generally accepted that learners who actively engage in the learning
process are more likely to be successful. Ellis and Sinclair (1989) offer the following patterns of
behavior associated with successful language learners. Good language learners are generally a­ware of their own positive or negative feelings to learning, have a genuine interest in learning thelanguage, are curious and want to learn more about the language, monitor and assess their own
progress, set themselves short attainable objectives, explore strategies to find the ones that best
suit them, take risks by experimenting with the language, organize their time effectively, and use
resources available to them inside and outside the classroom.
２.２ Affective
Motivation: This area has received a large amount of research attention, and the consensus
seems to be that motivation is related to success in language learning (Skehan, 1989). However,
the research does not tell us whether it is the success that leads to motivation or whether it is the
motivation that leads to the success. Further, as can be seen in Gardner's Socio­Educational
Model (Gardner and MacIntyre, 1993), the multifaceted nature of motivation can be quite com­plex and deep­seated within learners, and thus more research into this area seems warranted.
Attitudes: Positive attitudes towards the target language and culture generally enhancelearning, while negative attitudes generally impede learning. Keeping this in mind, the relation­
ship between attitudes and SLA is extremely complex. It is unclear whether it is achievementthat causes positive attitudes or whether positive attitudes cause achievement. In his Socio­Edu­
cation Model, Gardner (1985) suggests a reciprocal causation.
Language Anxiety: Much of the early research (Chastain, 1975; Kleinman, 1977; and Scovel,1978) into this area was difficult to interpret due to contradictory results. Part of the reason has
been attributed to the general measurement techniques taken in the earlier studies. Kleinman(1977) and Scovel (1978) found that a certain amount of language anxiety actually helped learn­
ers' performance in the L2. Conversely, in more recent studies using a more specific approach tomeasurement, Gardner and MacIntyre (1993), Gardner et al. (1976) and Horwitz et al. (1986)
found evidence to support the widespread view that language anxiety generally has a debilitating
affect on L2 performance. Similar to the other affective variables, language anxiety is complex
and likely affected by a host of other factors such as motivation, personality and self­confidence.
Self­confidence/Self­esteem: On the basis of the research in the field, Oxford and Ehrman(1993) contend that positive beliefs about oneself and one's learning make a definite contribution
to learning success. Self­confidence can be broken down into two types: trait or state. Trait confi­― 13 ―

Journal of the Faculty of Global Communication, University of Nagasaki No.12(2011)

dence generally will not vary according to the situation and is based on positive self­perceptionsin broad areas such as athletic ability, physical appearance, and academic achievement. State
confidence, on the other hand, is related to feelings of self­confidence in a specific situation. Thisvariable may help to explain the great variability learners often exhibit in self­confidence andproficiency in different tasks.
Personality: The widespread view that extroverts make better language learners than in­troverts has not necessarily been supported by the research (Ellis, 1994; Naiman et al., 1978).
The effect of personality on SLA has proven to be difficult to measure, as many of the studies inthis area have produced inconclusive and contradictory findings. Difficulties arise when we lookat what exactly is measured in terms of proficiency in these studies. Further, the methods used
to measure personality traits in many of these studies have been questioned, and thus any results
related to SLA will be of limited value.
２.３ Age and Sex
Age: There is general agreement that older learners tend to exhibit an initial advantage inrate of acquisition of the L2; however, ultimately, younger learners tend to achieve a higher levelin the language than older learners. Long (1990) suggests that learners who begin studying theL2 after six years old cannot achieve a native­like accent. In contrast, Scovel (1988) argues thatthe critical period for acquiring native­like competence is twelve years old.
Sex: There have been many claims that females tend to learn languages more effectively
than males. Research into this area may provide us with some of the reasons. Gardner and Lam­bert (1972) and Spolsky (1989) report that females seem to have more positive attitudes towards
L2 learning than males. Moreover, Gass and Varonis (1986) and Bacon (1992) have shown thatwomen actually approach language learning differently than men. That is, they tend to be more
active strategy users than men and may be more sensitive to input.

RDJapanese Learning Style
Having looked at some of the general variables affecting EFL learners, I will now focus
more specifically on the learning styles of Japanese EFL learners. The learning preferences of
the Japanese EFL learner will be presented according to the following learner style dimensions,which Oxford and Anderson (1995: 204) describe as the most significant for second or foreign
language learning :å Global and Analyticå Field Dependent and Field Independentå Feeling and Thinking
å Impulsive and Reflective
å Intuitive­random and Concrete­sequential
å Closure Orientated and Open Styles― 14 ―

Pino Cutrone : A Consideration of Individual Learner Differences in Japanese EFL/ESL Contexts

å Extroverted and Introverted
å Visual, Auditory and Haptic
Global and Analytic: Global learners typically employ a holistic approach to learning inwhich they search for the general idea rather than accuracy, and tend to favour experiential
learning and learning through communication. Conversely, analytic learners typically focus on
the details rather than the overall picture, and tend to prefer rules focusing on the step­by­step
presentation of materials. Research suggests that Japanese EFL learners are analytic learners
who prefer formal, individual learning in a classroom environment (Oxford and Bury­Stock,1995). This can be largely attributed to what Peak (1991: 107) describes as unconscious cultur­
al structuring pervasive in Japanese society in which the educational practices are highly struc­tured and promote continued repetition of routines indicative of the analytic style dimension.
Field Dependent and Field Independent: A learner employing a field dependent learning
style typically tends to think holistically, values ideas over facts before arriving at their own con­clusions, and exhibits good social skills. In contrast, a learner employing a field independent styletends to think analytically, values facts over ideas, and prefers to work in isolation. Research has
shown that Japanese EFL learners possess qualities belonging to both learning styles. Japaneselearners can be seen as field independent, as they have been shown to think analytically, and as
Tudjman (1991: 239) notes, they tend to communicate according to the confines of their own
environment . On the other hand, as evidence that Japanese are field dependent learners, Nelson(1995) points to the fact that the Japanese, particularly in Japanese settings, seem to preferauthority figures and demonstrate a high degree of sensitivity to group relations.
Feeling and Thinking: Students employing a feeling style tend to prefer to study in personal­
ized settings and place a high value on harmony and relationships. Conversely, students em­
ploying a thinking style tend to study more effectively in impersonal settings and base their deci­
sions on logic and analysis. While there has been much research to suggest that the Japanese
speaking style tends to be indirect and favors harmony in communication (Barnlund, 1974),
research focusing more specifically on Japanese EFL learning styles seems to suggest thatJapanese EFL learners are generally employing a thinking style. For instance, Harshbinger et al(1986) illustrate that Japanese learners prefer to talk about their thoughts rather than their feel­ings in the EFL classroom, and Tudjman (1991) demonstrates that Japanese EFL students
prefer to base their decisions on organizational demands rather than personal feelings.
Impulsive and Reflective: Impulsive learners tend to behave impetuously in classroom set­tings and tend to sacrifice accuracy for fluency when producing the L2. In contrast, reflective
learners prefer systematic investigations of hypotheses and generally put a much greater empha­
sis on accuracy over fluency in producing the L2. Research suggests that Japanese EFL learners
are more reflective than impulsive. For instance, in examining comparative research, Peak(1991) notes that Japanese students, though usually the slowest in completing tasks, typically
produced the least amount of errors.

― 15 ―

Journal of the Faculty of Global Communication, University of Nagasaki No.12(2011)

Intuitive­random and Concrete­sequential: Intuitive­random learners prefer to develop amental picture of the L2 in an intuitive and random fashion. They typically use speculative andpredictive strategies in order to make sense of the underlying language system. Conversely, con­crete­sequential learners require a great deal of structure and rigidity to make progress in acquir­ing the L2. They generally prefer lessons which are strictly planned and adhered to and taught
sequentially. The research supports that Japanese EFL learners are generally concrete­sequen­
tial learners. Oxford et al. (1992) report that, when offered an alternative teaching style,
Japanese EFL learners clung to concrete­sequential preferences with great force. Further, Har­
shburger et al. (1986) demonstrated that Japanese EFL learners reported feeling distress in theabsence of step­by­step instruction.
Closure Orientated and Open Styles: Students employing a closure orientated style tend to
perform better when given structured activities and specific tasks which are required to be com­pleted within a certain period of time. In contrast, students employing an open style tend to favor
flexibility, a free and open schedule and can tolerate a high degree of ambiguity. Research has
shown that Japanese EFL learners generally conform to the closure orientated style (Oxford etal., 1992; Harshburger et al., 1986).
Extroverted and Introverted: Extroverted students work most productively in groups andtend to favor social goals, whereas introverted students often prefer working alone and tend tofavor impersonal rewards. According to Call (1995) and Harshburger (1986), Japanese EFL
learners would generally seem to conform to that of the introverted learner. Hofstede (1986) ex­
plains that introverted behavior is typical of such a culture which favors the needs of the groupover the individual.
Visual, Auditory and Haptic: Visual students perform most effectively when the class in­volves visual materials such as textbooks, handouts, and board work. Auditory students perform
most effectively in a classroom environment which involves auditory input such as radio, oral in­
struction, oral communication and audiotape. Haptic students tend to like to be physically in­volved in the activities and prefer tasks involving Total Physical Response (TPR), Mime andRole­play. Although several studies into this area have been attempted (Reid, 1987; Call, 1995;
and Hyland, 1949), none were able to provide sufficient evidence grouping Japanese EFL learn­
ers into a specific perceptual/sensory learning style. Hyland's (1994) study, however, did offersome insights as the findings suggest that Japanese EFL learners' perceptory/auditory prefer­ences increase with the amount of exposure to native speakers, thus corroborating Tudjman's(1991) claim that Japanese learners communicate according to the confines of their environment.

SDTeacher Variables
There are several teacher variables that influence the EFL classroom. The following section
will discuss some of the ones commonly mentioned in the research, which include the teacher's
experience and education, knowledge of the teaching context, use of the L1 in the classroom and― 16 ―

Pino Cutrone : A Consideration of Individual Learner Differences in Japanese EFL/ESL Contexts

approach to error correction.
Experience and Education: Conventional wisdom is that the more experience and educationa teacher has in their field, the more effective they will be in teaching their students in the class­room. While this may indeed be true, there are several other factors which are related and may
also affect how teachers develop over time. For instance, some research has shown that what
teachers learn in teacher education programs is filtered by their prior experiences in the class­room (Lortie, 1975). That is, on the basis of their prior experiences, teachers subconsciously
seem to develop beliefs about how languages are learned and taught, and, in some cases, thismay negatively affect their ability to be open to new methods which are presented in training
programs. According to Freeman (1991), the extensive body of research shows that if theteachers' beliefs are not made explicit, questioned and challenged, teacher training and othermodes of self­improvement will have little impact on teachers' practices and development.
Knowledge of the teaching context: As the large amount of research into learner styles
would seem to indicate, EFL teachers would be well served in adapting their methods to best suit
their students' styles. While this may not be difficult for EFL teachers in monolingual settings
who are of the same nationality as their students, this presents somewhat of a challenge for for­eign instructors (Byram, 1997, 1998, 2001; Ruane, 2001). For example, in my experience teach­ing in Japan, I have come to learn that the educational practices here are quite different fromwhat I have become accustomed to growing up in Canada. Many of my learners expect, andperhaps prefer, language learning to involve teacher reliance rather than self­regulation, rotelearning as opposed to creative language use and an emphasis on accuracy at the expense offluency. One option available to teachers is attempting to modify the learners' styles, as there isevidence to suggest that learners can change as they gain proficiency, or in response to pedagogi­
cal intervention in the form of strategy training (Oxford, 1990; O' Malley & Chamot, 1993; Co­
hen, 1998; Skehan, 1998). With this in mind, there is always a danger that students will show
resentment to teachers who try to change them (Brumfit, 1980, cited in Alptekin & Alptekin,
1984: 17). An approach useful for the Japanese EFL context, suggested by Anderson (1993), is
one in which involves a combination of techniques that draw upon the dynamics of the Japaneseclassroom with strategies that promote a Western style of interaction.
Use of the L1 in EFL classes: Similar to the variable directly above, it is necessary to con­sider the nationalities of the students and the teachers. There has long been an assumption that
English­only (i.e., immersion) classes provide the students with the best environment for learn­ing English; however, the research to date has been largely inconclusive and arguments could bemade for both sides. Opponents of the use of L1 in the EFL classroom such as Hawks (2001)
and Phillipson (1992) argue that learners' exposure to the L2 should be maximized as it is limitedin EFL settings, and that learners should be shown the importance of the L2 through its con­tinual use. Meanwhile, researchers such as Critchley (1999) and Mitchell (1988) contend that us­
ing the L1 in the classroom does not hinder learning, and indeed has a facilitating role in theclassroom.

― 17 ―

Journal of the Faculty of Global Communication, University of Nagasaki No.12(2011)

Approach to error correction: This continues to be a highly debated topic in EFL. In my
EFL classes in Japan over the years, I have witnessed firsthand some of the issues associatedwith error correction in this context. While the majority of learners I have encountered stated ex­
plicitly that they wanted to be corrected as much as possible, their largely anxious reactions andsubsequent taciturn behavior to overt error corrections seemed to indicate otherwise (Cutrone,2003). Cathcart and Olsen (1976) report that ESL learners wanted more error correction thanthey are usually provided with, while Krashen (1982) has stated that error correction is largely
useless to acquisition and dangerous in that it may lead to a negative affective response. Opinions
abound as to what type of error correction is best, but there is little empirical support to make an
informed choice. Presently, there are two methods that seem to be gaining support. One is thaterror correction should occur at an optimum time in learner's interlanguage development (Ellis,
1994: 586). That is, teachers would be well advised to correct only the errors that the learners
are ready to eliminate and to wait until a certain level of trust has been established between
themselves and the student. The other belief that is finding wide approval is that self repair ismore conducive to SLA than other repair, as it is less likely to result in a negative affective
response (Van Lier, 1988).

TDTask Variables
With recent support towards task­based syllabi in EFL, task variables have received a great
deal of research attention (Long, 1985; Prabhu, 1987; Long and Crookes, 1992). This is of
relevance to EFL practitioners, as they would have more control over the level of difficulty of thetasks they use in their classrooms. Some of the variables that have been suggested in the
research include the following:
Code complexity: This is concerned with the traditional areas of syntactic and lexical
difficulty and range associated with learning new languages (Skehan, 1996: 52).
Prior knowledge/Familiarity: Tasks in a domain which learners have prior knowledge of areeasier than tasks in a domain in which learners have no prior knowledge of (Robinson, 1998).
Single versus Dual Tasks: A single task is one which makes only one demand on the learner.
For instance, a learner sequencing the qualities belonging to a good worker would be doing a sin­
gle task. A dual task, thought to be more difficult, is one in which more than one demand is madeof the learner (Robinson, 1998). For example, a task requiring learners to think up a route on a
map and describe it at the same time would be a dual task. A number of studies (Long, 1980, cit­
ed in Ellis, 1994: 596; Doughty and Pica, 1986) have shown that dual tasks result in an increased
negotiation of meaning.
Planning time: Tasks that include planning time are generally considered easier than ones
without planning time (Bygate, 1987). Furthermore, according to Long (1989:14), who focuseson the impact interaction has on tasks, planned tasks stretch interlanguages and promote― 18 ―

Pino Cutrone : A Consideration of Individual Learner Differences in Japanese EFL/ESL Contexts

destabilization more than unplanned tasks.
Scale: This refers to a range of factors associated with the task such as the number of par­ticipants and the relationships involved in the task. Tasks involving more elements are moredifficult than tasks involving fewer elements (Brown et al., 1984).
Modality: Speaking leads to more pressure than writing, and listening leads to more pres­sure than reading (Ellis, 1987).
Stakes: Tasks in which it is important to do the task correctly are more difficult than tasks
where there are not any consequences that follow from task completion (Willis, 1993).
Control: Tasks in which the participants have a great deal of control are easier than tasks inwhich the participants have less control (Pica et al., 1993).

UDConclusion
This paper has served to examine some of the most important variables associated with the
EFL classroom. Before any overall conclusions can be rendered, it is important for the reader tounderstand that the list of IDs presented in this paper is not meant to be exhaustive nor mutually
exclusive. Further, many of the IDs discussed in this paper are presented in the literature as if
they were meant to be measured on a binary scale (i.e., global vs. analytic, introverted vs. ex­troverted, etc.), which runs the risk of reducing complex realities to easy­to­control polar oppo­
sites. Thus, it is especially important for readers to understand that even within an ID category,there will be a great deal individual variation. In other words, teachers have to be careful not tofall into the culturist trap of attempting to predict learner behaviours based on what other learn­
ers did in the past. By exploring some of the learner variables, teacher variables and task varia­
bles found in the EFL classroom, I hoped to have developed a broader understanding of my own
teaching context and that of my study into Japanese EFL learners' acquisition of English. Thus,
in conclusion, it is the writer's hope that this paper has served to help other teachers to not only
become more aware of, but also more equipped to cater their lessons to the individual needs oftheir students.

References
ALPTEKIN, C. & ALPTEKIN, M. (1984) The question of culture: EFL teaching in non­EFL
speaking countries. ELT Journal, 38, 14‑20.
ALTMAN, H. (1980) Foreign language teaching: focus on the learner. IN ALTMAN, H. &VAUGHAN JAMES, C. (Eds.) Foreign Language Teaching: Meeting Individual Needs. Ox­
ford, Pergamon.
ANDERSON, F. (1993) The enigma of the college classroom: Nails that don't stick up. IN
WADDEN, P. (Ed.) A Handbook for Teaching English at Japanese Colleges and Universities.

― 19 ―

Journal of the Faculty of Global Communication, University of Nagasaki No.12(2011)

New York, Oxford University Press.
BACON, S. (1992) The relationship between gender, comprehension, processing strategies andcognitive and affective response in second­language listening. Modern Language Journal,
76, 160‑178.
BARNLUND, D. (1974) The public self and the private self in Japan and the United States. IN
CONDON, G. & SATO, M. (Eds.) Intercultural Encounters with Japan. Tokyo, Simul Press.
BROWN, G., ANDERSON, A., SHILLCOCK, R. & YULE, G. (1984) Teaching talk: Strategies
for production and assessment, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
BRUMFIT, C. (1980) Problems and Principles in Language Teaching, Oxford, Pergamon Press.
BYGATE, M. (1987) Speaking, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
BYRAM, M. (1997) Teaching and assessing intercultural communicative competence, Clevedon,
Multilingual Matters.
BYRAM, M. (1998) Cultural Studies in Foreign Language Education, Clevedon, Multilingual
Matters.
BYRAM, M. (2001) Developing Intercultural Competence in Practice, Clevedon, Multilingual Mat­
ters.
CALL, J. (1995) The language learning styles of Japanese students in English as a foreign lan­
guage. Unpublished Masters Thesis, Ohio University.
CARROLL, J. & SAPON, S. (1959) Modern Language Aptitude Tests ‑ Form A, New York, The
Psychological Corporation.
CATHCART, R. & OLSEN, J. (1976) Teachers' and students' preferences for correction ofclassroom errors. IN FANSELOW, J. & CRYMES, R. (Eds.) On TESOL '76. Washington,
D.C., TESOL.
CHASTAIN, K. (1975) Affective and ability factors in second language in second language ac­quisition. Language Learning, 25, 153‑161.
COHEN, A. (1998) Strategies in learning and using a second language, London, Longman.
CRITCHLEY, M. (1999) Bilingual Support in English Classes in Japan: A survey of Student
Opinions of L1 Use by Foreign Teachers. The Language Teacher, 23, 10‑13.
CUTRONE, P. (2003) A look at language anxiety and how it affects Japanese EFL learners
when performing oral tasks. The Journal of Nagasaki University of Foreign Studies, 6, 61‑72.
DOUGHTY, C. & PICA, T. (1986) Information Gaps tasks: do they facilitate second lan­
guage acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 20, 431‑469.
ELLIS, R. (1987) Interlanguage variability in narrative discourse: style shifting in the use of thepast tense. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 9, 12‑20.
ELLIS, R. (1994) The Study of Second Language Acquisition, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
ELLIS, R. & SINCLAIR, B. (1989) Learning to Learn Language, Cambridge, Cambridge Univer­sity Press.
FEWELL, N. (2010) Language learning strategies and English language proficiency: an investi­
gation of Japanese EFL university students. TESOL Journal, 2, 159‑174.
FREEMAN, D. (1991) To make the tacit explicit': teacher education emerging discourse andconcepts of teaching. Teacher and Teaching Education, 7, 439‑454.
GARDNER, R. & LAMBERT, W. E. (1972) Attitudes and Motivation in Second Language Learn­― 20 ―

Pino Cutrone : A Consideration of Individual Learner Differences in Japanese EFL/ESL Contexts

ing, Rowley, Mass, Newbury House.
GARDNER, R. & MACINTYRE, P. D. (1992) A student's contributions to second language
learning: Part 1: Cognitive Variables. Language Teaching, 25，211‑220.
GARDNER, R., SMYTHE, P., CLEMENT, R. & GLIKSMAN, L. (1976) Second Langauge Ac­
quisition: a social psychological perspective. Canadian Modern Language Review, 32，198‑
213.
GASS, S. & VARONIS, E. M. (1986) Sex differences in NNS/NNS interactions. IN DAY, R.
(Ed.) Talking to Learn: Comprehension in Second Language Acquisition. Rowley, Mass, New­bury House.
GENESEE, F. (1976) The role of intelligence in second language learning. Language Learning,
26，267‑280.
HARSHBURGER, B., ROSS, T., TAFOYA, S. & VIA, J. (1986) Dealing with multiple learning
styles in the E.S.L. classroom. Annual meeting of the Teachers of English to Speakers of Other
Languages. San Francisco, CA.
HAWKS, P. (2001) Making Distinctions: A discussion of the mother tongue in the foreign lan­
guage classroom. Hwa Kang Journal of TEFL, 7，47‑55.
HOFSTEDE, G. (1986) Cultural differences in teaching and learning. International Journal of In­
tercultural relations, 10，301‑320.
HORWITZ, E., HORWITZ, M. & COPE, J. (1986) Foreign language classroom anxiety. Modern
Language Journal, 26，125‑132.
HYLAND, K. (1994) The learning styles of Japanese students. JALT Journal, 16，55‑74.
KLEINMAN, H. (1977) Avoidance behavior in adult second second language acquisition Lan­guage Learning, 27，93‑107.
KRASHEN, S. (1982) Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition, Oxford, Pergamon.
LARSEN­FREEMAN, D. & LONG, M. (1991) An Introduction to Second Language Acquisition
Research, London, Longman.
LONG, M. (1980) Input, Interaction and Second Language Acquisition. Los Angeles, Universityof California at Los Angeles.
LONG, M. (1985) A role for instruction in second language acquisition: task­based language
teaching. IN HYLTENSTAM, K. & PIENEMANN, M. (Eds.) Modelling and Assessing Se­
cond Language Acquisition. Celevedon, Avon, Multilingual Matters.
LONG, M. (1989) Task, group, and task­group interactions. University of Hawaii Working Papers
in ESL, 1‑26.
LONG, M. (1990) Maturational constraints on language development Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 12，251‑286.
LONG, M. & CROOKES, G. (1992) Three approaches to task­based syllabus design. TESOL
Quarterly, 26，27‑56.
LORTIE, D. (1975) Schoolteacher: A Sociological Study, Chicago, University of Chicago Press.
MITCHELL, R. (1988) Communicative Language Teaching: In Practice, London, CILT.
NAIMAN, N., FROHLICH, M., STERN, H. & TODESCO, A. (1978) The Good Language
Learner: Research in Education Series No 7, Toronto, The Ontario Institute for Studies in
Education.

― 21 ―

Journal of the Faculty of Global Communication, University of Nagasaki No.12(2011)

NELSON, G. (1995) Cultural differences in learning styles. IN REID, J. (Ed.) Learning Styles inthe ESL/EFL Classroom. Boston, Heinle & Heinle.
O'MALLEY, J. & CHAMOT, A. (1993) Learner characteristics in second­language acquisition.
IN HADLEY OMAGGIO, A. (Ed.) Research in Language Learning: Principles, Processes, andProspects. Chicago, Lincolnwood.
OXFORD, R. (1990) Language Learning Strategies: What Every Teacher Should Know, Boston,
Mass, Heinle and Heinle.
OXFORD, R. & ANDERSON, N. J. (1995) A cross­cultural view of learning styles. Language
Teaching, 28，210‑215.
OXFORD, R. & BURRY­STOCK, J. A. (1995) Assessing the use of language learning strategies
worldwide with the ESL/EFL version of the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning(SILL). System, 23，153‑175.
OXFORD, R. & EHRMAN, M. (1993) Second language research on individual differences. An­
nual Review of Applied Linguistics, 13，188‑205.
OXFORD, R., HOLLOWAY, M. E. & MURILLO, D. (1992) Language learning styles: researchand practical considerations for teaching in the multicultural tertiary ESL/EFL classroom.
System, 20，439‑456.
PEAK, L. (1991) Training learning skills and attitudes in Japanese early education settings. IN
FINKENSTEIN, B., IMAMURA, A. & TOBIN, J. (Eds.) Transcending Stereotypes: Dis­
covering Japanese Culture and Education. Yarmouth, Maine, Intercultural Press.
PHILLIPSON, R. (1992) Linguistic Imperialism, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
PICA, T., KANAGY, R. & FALODUN, J. (1993) Choosing and using communication tasks forsecond language research and instruction. IN GASS, S. & CROOKES, G. (Eds.) Tasks andLanguage Learning. London, Multilingual Matters.
PIMSLEUR, P. (1966) Pimsleur Lanuage Aptitude Battery (PLAB), New York, Harcourt Brace
Jovanovich.
PRABHU, N. S. (1987) Second Language Pedagogy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
REID, J. (1987) The learning style preferences of ESL students. TESOL Quarterly, 21，87‑111.
ROBSINSON, P. (1998) State of Art: SLA theory and second language syllabus design. The
Language Teacher, 22 < http://www.jalt­publications.org/tlt/files/97/jul/robinson.htm> [ac­cessed 18 December 2006]
RUANE, M. (1999) Teaching culture: implications for language teacher education. Irish Associa­
tion for Applied Linguistics/the Royal Irish Academy, 93‑103.
SCOVEL, T. (1978) The effect of affect on foreign language learning: A review of the anxiety
research. Language Learning, 28，129‑142.
SCOVEL, T. (1988) A Time to Speak: A Psycholinguistic Enquiry into the Critical Period for Hu­
man Speech, Rowley, Mass, Newbury House.
SKEHAN, P. (1989) Individual Differences in Second­Language Learning, London, Edward Ar­
nold.
SKEHAN, P. (1996) A framework for the implementation of task­based instruction. Applied Lin­
guistics, 17，38‑62.
SKEHAN, P. (1998) A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning, Oxford, Oxford University― 22 ―

Pino Cutrone : A Consideration of Individual Learner Differences in Japanese EFL/ESL Contexts

Press.
SPOLSKY, B. (1989) Conditions for Second Language Learning, Oxford, Oxford University
Press.
TUDJMAN, M. (1991) Culture and information society: the Japanese way. Information Process­ing and Management, 27，229‑243.
VAN LIER, L. (1988) The Classroom and the Language Learner, London, Longman.
WILLIS, D. (1993) Syllabus, corpus, and data­driven learning. IN KENNEDY, C. (Ed.) Plena­ries from the 1993 IATEFL Conference. Swansea, IATEFL.

― 23 ―