Novitas-ROYAL, 2009, Vol.: 3(1), 29-44[i].
UNDERSTANDING TOLERANCE OF AMBIGUITY OF EFL
LEARNERS IN READING CLASSES AT TERTIARY LEVEL
Abstract: This study aimed
to explore tolerance of ambiguity (AT) of a group of tertiary level Turkish EFL
learners at a state university in
Keywords: ambiguity, tolerance,
reading, gender difference
Özet:
Bu çalışma İngilizce öğrenmekte olan bir grup Türk
üniversite öğrencisinin belirsizlik hoşgörüsünü
araştırmayı amaçlamıştır. Bu doğrultuda, 188
hazırlık sınıfı öğrencisine demografik
soruları da içeren İkinci Yabancı Dil Belirsizlik Hoşgörüsü
ölçeği uygulanmıştır. İstatistik analiz,
öğrencilerin öğrenme sürecinde genel olarak düşük düzeyde
belirsizlik hoşgörüsüne sahip olduklarını göstermektedir.
Kız öğrencilerin erkek öğrencilerden daha az hoşgörülü
oldukları tespit edilmiştir. Öğrencilerin belirsizlik
hoşgörüleri ile yabancı dilde yazılan materyalleri okumaya
ilişkin başarı algıları ve kendilerine verilen
strateji bilgilendirmeleri arasında manidar ilişkiler
belirlenmiştir. Bulgular ve güncel
alan yazın ışığında sınıf içi
uygulamalara ve bu konuda yapılabilecek araştırmalara
ilişkin öneriler sunulmuştur.
Anahtar sözcükler: belirsizlik
hoşgörüsü, okuma, cinsiyet farklılığı
Introduction
Literature Review
Ambiguity and tolerance
Early
definitions of ambiguity regarded uncertainty in real life. In such
definitions, ambiguity was described as caused by the nature of cues available
in the context or stimulus given. McLain (1993), for example, defines ambiguity
as not having sufficient information about a context. According to Budner
(1962), ambiguous situations can be of three different types: new situations,
complex situations, and contradictory situations. These are, respectively,
where there are not sufficient or nonexistent cues, where there are too many
cues, and where cues are not easy to distinguish. Norton (1975), further,
summarizes causes of ambiguity as 1) multiple meanings, 2) vagueness,
incompleteness, or fragmentation, 3) a probability, 4) unstructured, 5) lack of
information, 6) uncertainty, 7) inconsistencies
and contradictions, and 8)
unclear. Kazamina summarizes current definitions and concludes that ambiguity
is marked by novelty, complexity, insolubility and lack of structure (1999:
69).
Related
to the concept of ambiguity is tolerance. Websters Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary
of English Language defined tolerance as n.1. a fair and objective attitude
toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc.
differ from ones own; freedom from bigotry. Such a definition of tolerance
precludes acceptance of ambiguous situations whereas intolerance may entail
considering uncertainties and unclear meanings as potential sources of
discomfort and treat (Norton, 1975). Tolerance of ambiguity, then, can be a
reflection of our personality (Ely, 1989; Ehrman, 1993; 1994). As such, people with tolerance of ambiguity
are likelier to feel comfortable under uncertain conditions (Budner, 1962).
Ambiguity Tolerance (AT) and language learning
Many of
the ambiguous situations are also common in language learning, be it in the
classroom with a group of students (Ely, 1995) or individually when people
engage in self-instructed language study (White, 1999). This is simply because
both linguistic input and cultural knowledge is very likely to constitute one
of the ambiguous situations described above. As such, in the simplest sense
when students encounter new lexical and grammatical structures, they often face
shortage or even a lack of information, multiple meanings, vagueness, and so on
(Chapelle and Roberts, 1986; Grace, 1998). Ambiguity in language learning can
cause anxiety (Ehrman, 1999; Oxford, 1999), which may create a degree of
apprehension and frustration which may ... [be] deleterious to progress
(White, 1999: 456).
This
study focuses on AT in reading in a foreign language, which can itself prove to
be rather ambiguous. Apart from linguistic forms and text structures which students
are supposed to tackle for successful comprehension of texts, they often have
to survive with their incomplete background knowledge (Alderson,
2000; Carrell, 1987; Carrell and Eisterhold, 1983) and compensate for
the lack of crucial elements to complete
the task of comprehension (Grabe and Stoller, 2002). Further, people from
different cultural backgrounds bring different expectations and habits to the language
learning environment, which involves establishing shared meanings. Making sense
of different cultural norms can also cause ambiguity (Lustig and Koester;
1993), and increase the cognitive load of learning which may negatively
influence reading comprehension (Alptekin, 2006; Erten and Razı, in press).
Ely
(1989) defines AT as the acceptance of uncertainties. Such tolerance can be
translated into the language learning context as an ability to deal with
ambiguous new stimuli without frustration or without appeals to authority. It
allows for indeterminate rather than rigid categorization (Ellis, 1994: 518).
In this sense, students with AT, then, are expected to feel comfortable with
learning a new language with its uncertainties and unknown structural and
cultural norms to be dealt with. McLain (1993), for example, reports that
students who are tolerant of ambiguity are more willing to take risks and open
to change (Rubin, 1975; Stern, 1975; Naiman, Frohlich, Stern and Todesco, 1978)
and show endurance on tasks and higher levels of achievement (Chapelle, 1983;
Naiman, Todeso, and Froclich, 1975). Similarly, White (1999) views AT as a
reaction to uncertainties whereby ambiguity is accommodated so that it does not
impede progress.
Our level
of AT may also influence the use of certain language learning strategies.
Ehrman and
Ehrman (1993;
1999) maintains that tolerance of ambiguity operates at three different levels:
intake; tolerance of ambiguity proper; and accommodation. On the first level, tolerance enables learners to
receive linguistic input. Students with tolerance
of ambiguity can perceive and accept new information even though it involves
many unknown elements. The second level involves being able to hold
contradictory or incomplete information without either rejecting one of the
contradictory elements or coming to premature closure on an incomplete schema
(1993: 331). At this level, the learner
has taken new information in and needs to deal with contradictory or incomplete
information (e.g. inferring meanings of unknown vocabulary in an article). The
last level has been borrowed from constructivist psychology (Piaget, 1967) and
involves adapting the self according to new material. That is, this level
entails integrating new information with the existing schemata, restructuring
the latter.
Research
into tolerance of ambiguity so far has focused on its relationship to other
personality traits (Ehrman and Oxford, 1990), language achievement (Chapelle
and Roberts; 1986; Naiman, et. al. 1978; Lori, 1990), and reading comprehension
(El-Koumy, 2000). The results of these
studies suggest that there may be positive correlation between the degree of
tolerance and the levels of language achievement. Chapelle and Roberts (1986),
for example, illustrate that tolerance of ambiguity is one of the factors
associated to end-of-term achievement in multiple choice grammar tests,
dictation tests, and parts of speaking tests. Tolerance of ambiguity has also
been shown to be related to success in listening comprehension and imitation
tasks by Naiman et. al. Lori, too, identified a positive relationship between
tolerance of ambiguity and English achievement.
Related
to this study, El-Koumy (2000), the only study that we could identify dealing
with ambiguity tolerance and reading comprehension, also found a positive
relationship between tolerance of ambiguity and reading comprehension. Having classified tertiary level learners of
English, he administered a general tolerance of ambiguity scale (Norton, 1975)
and reading comprehension subtest of TOEFL. His results indicated that the
middle ambiguity tolerance group outscored both the low and high tolerance
groups. There was no difference between the high and low tolerance groups.
AT has
also been shown to be one of the important affective factors in reading.
Kondo-Brown (2006) identified avoidance of ambiguity as a factor in her pursuit
of understanding affective variables in reading ability. Correlational analysis
revealed a close relationship between AT and intrinsic motivation. She comments
that only those with higher intrinsic orientation are more likely to work at
reading Japanese. These students are also more likely to be tolerant of
ambiguity in learning Japanese and adopt analytical approaches in studying kanji
(ibid: 63). This was in keeping with what Chapelle (1983) described as longer
endurance on tasks when students had higher levels of AT.
How tolerant should learners be of ambiguity?
Ambiguity
is an inevitable reality of learning a new language and people do tend to have
different levels of ambiguity. As reviewed above, research indicates that AT is
related to achievement in language learning. However, concerns have also been
expressed regarding over-tolerance. This is because such high levels of
tolerance may result in unquestioned acceptance (Ely, 1995; Kazamina, 1999).
Ely maintains that the lack of sensitivity to ambiguous linguistic data may
cause early pidginization or fossilization in language development. The
question then becomes what level of ambiguity is ideal for success in language
learning?
It is generally
suggested that a moderate level of tolerance of ambiguity should be beneficial
for effective language learning. Ely claims [t]he ideal case, of course, is
that of the learner who is neither inhibited by low tolerance of ambiguity nor
oblivious to linguistics subtleties (ibid: 93). However, Kazamina (1999) purports
that this mid point has not yet been fully defined. To elucidate this mid
point, El-Koumy (2000) illustrated that moderately tolerant students were more
successful than both high tolerance students and low tolerance students. His
findings are illustrative of what degree of tolerance is suitable for language
learning and reading comprehension. Yet, more research is needed to understand
the nature and place of AT in the process of reading in a foreign language.
Rationale for the study
Discussions
and studies regarding ambiguity tolerance usually concern ESL contexts (e.g.
Chapelle, 1983) and usually focus on general language learning achievement,
with the exception of El-Koumy (2000) who related AT to reading comprehension.
Further, recent years have seen an emergence of studies investigating affective
issues in skill specific domains (Kondo-Brown, 2000). Even so, these studies
are scarce in the world and no studies were found investigating this trait and
its relation to different variables in the Turkish context.
Therefore,
seeing the need to better understand this powerful construct, we designed a
descriptive correlational study using survey methodology. A group of EFL
learners in reading classes of a mandatory one-year English language
preparation class at Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University, Turkey were asked to
fill in a tolerance of ambiguity scale (Ely, 1995) as well as a set of
demographic and self-evaluation questions.
Study
Aim of the study
This study aimed to understand how tolerant learners of English are in
the preparatory classes of
1-
How
tolerant are Turkish university level EFL learners of ambiguity?
2-
Are
females and males different in terms of their tolerance of ambiguity?
3-
Does
tolerance of ambiguity increase as level of English proficiency develops?
4-
Is
receiving instruction on how to tackle reading problems helpful to improve
tolerance of ambiguity?
5-
Is
tolerance of ambiguity related to self-perceived success of Turkish EFL
learners in reading in a foreign
language?
Setting and Participants
The study was carried out at
A total of 232 students, approximately 90% of the total number of
students, participated in the study. After examining the care check items in
the questionnaire used for data collection, some participants were excluded
from the data analysis due to careless coding, bringing the final number of
students to 188. Demographic information about the participants is summarized
in Table 1.
When the data were collected, the students had received English
instruction for at least seven months at the institution, with a possibility of
previous exposure to foreign language instruction. Students had been assigned to
their language proficiency groups after a placement test. The previous length
of exposure to language instruction was ignored in this study as length does
not necessarily indicate the quality and intensity of language instruction
received.
Of the 188 participants, the majority was females while there were fewer
male students (106 56% vs. 67 36%). Fifteen students did not report their
gender. The students had a mean age of 19.67 (SD=1.51), representing a very
close age band. They generally had a pre-intermediate level of English
proficiency (108 57%), followed by elementary (48 26%), and intermediate
(27 14%) students. A big proportion of students perceived themselves as
average readers (115 -61%) while 34 students (18%) reported that they thought
they were good at reading in English. An important proportion of students (19%)
thought they were not good at reading in English.
Instrument & procedures for data collection
The data were collected through the Second Language Tolerance of Ambiguity
Scale (SLTAS) (Ely, 1995) with some embedded demographic questions. Although
there are other scales for measuring AT available in the literature (e.g. Budner,
1962; Norton, 1975), to the best of our knowledge, the SLTAS is the only
published scale especially designed for measuring ambiguity tolerance in
language learning.
The version of SLTAS used in this study has 12 items with a four point likert
scale. The items aim to measure students agreement level with statements
depicting intolerance of ambiguity in given situations. This version of the SLTAS was previously
reported to have high internal consistency (Kazamina, 2000) and was employed in
this study with the consent of Professor Christopher M. Ely.
In its original version the SLTAS was used with anchors being at 4
(Strongly Agree), 3 (Agree), 2 (Disagree), and 1 (Strongly Disagree). In this
current study, however, to avoid any bias and not to make students take a
forced decision between a negative or positive choice (Dörnyei, 2001), Elys
SLTAS was modified to have a five point Likert scale, inserting a new anchor 3
(not sure). Moreover, the scale,
originally written in English, was translated into Turkish. Back translation
measures were taken and no significant semantic shift was detected by two
expert readers. The Cronbachs alpha internal consistency reliability for
Turkish version of the SLTAS with the five point Likert scale was found to be
.75.
Findings
How tolerant/intolerant are EFL learners of
ambiguity at tertiary level?
To
identify the level of ambiguity tolerance of the students, descriptive statistics
were utilized. To avoid any misunderstandings, the readers are reminded that
the items in the SLTAS sought respondents reactions to statements describing intolerance
of ambiguity in some language learning contexts. Disagreement with an item, then,
is conversely a sign of tolerance. Therefore, while interpreting how tolerant students
are, a mean of 3.00, which was also the anchor for not sure, can be used as the borderline of tolerance/intolerance.
Values above this borderline will indicate lower levels of tolerance while
those below will suggest more tolerance depending on their distance to the mean
score of 3.00. Further, a composite score of tolerance of ambiguity will be
referred to rather than treating individual scale items as separate ambiguity
indicators. Table 2 presents students mean scores from the SLTAS.
The participants reported a level of tolerance of
ambiguity that is a little above the mid point (mean= 3.69). This was also
congruent with what Kazamina (1999) found with Greek civil servants. This
gives support to
Such a classification can be made by calculating each students
ambiguity scores and placing her in an ambiguity group on a continuum ranging
from high tolerance to low tolerance (see for example, Ely, 1995; El-Koumy,
2000). An alternative to this can be
cluster analysis which is a reductionist statistical technique similar to
factor analysis. The main difference between the two is that while factor
analysis examines whether certain constructs in the forms of different
variables do hold together and form meaningful groups, cluster analysis
attempts to group cases (i.e. participants)
according to their scores on one or more variables (for details see,
Hatch and Lazaraton, 1991).
To explore whether participants could be placed in the suggested three
ambiguity groups, a further K-means cluster analysis on SPSS was performed. It
illustrated that the participants could be classified into three distinct clusters
of students according to their ambiguity scores. The results can be seen in
Table 3.
A further analysis of variance (ANOVA) between
these three groups confirmed that these clusters of students were distinct
from one another (p<.000) in terms of their AT. The differences can be seen
in Table 4.
Descriptive statistics, coupled with cluster analysis and analysis of
variance, point to three different groups of students according to their
tolerance of ambiguity. An important proportion
of students (f=83; 47.4%) had very high levels of intolerance (mean= 4.07),
while a similar proportion (f= 74; 42.3%) had moderate levels (mean= 3.50).
Only a very small group of students (f=18; 10.30%) reported they can tolerate
ambiguity to a great extent (mean= 2.71). This means that, expectedly, there
are variations among language learners and they will not always tolerate
ambiguity unanimously.
Gender is related to many affective constructs in the process of language
learning. To identify any gender differences, an independent samples t-test
was conducted. The results are presented in Table 5.
As can be seen from Table 5,
although both groups had a mean score that is above the mid-point indicating
lower tolerance of ambiguity, female participants appeared to be less tolerant
of ambiguity than their male peers. To further elaborate on this, the distribution
of male and female participants to each of the previously identified tolerance
groups was explored. An analysis of
frequency confirmed the findings from the t-test. These can be seen in Table
6.
A careful reading of the frequency analysis in Table 6 reveals that, in
addition to mean differences in ambiguity scores, large proportions of female
students tended to fall into low (53.46%) and moderate (42.57%) tolerance
groups while these figures were low with male students (40.67% and 37.28%
respectively). 13 of 59 male students (22.03) reported high tolerance of
ambiguity while the proportion of female students who fell into this tolerance
group was only 3.96% (f=4). This indicated higher levels of intolerance of
ambiguity among female students in language learning.
To the best of our knowledge, gender differences in ambiguity tolerance
have not been directly investigated. However, there are studies from affective
and cognitive domains that deal with the issue. One such study by Fukuchi and
Saamoto (2005: 342) reports less tolerance among men than women. Though their
findings were not conclusive, more men reported discomfort when they did not
completely understand grammar, or that they felt discomfort when they could
not find English words that meant the same as the Japanese words with which
they are familiar. The authors maintain that ambiguity tolerance may be less
common among men than women. However,
research from learning styles and personality traits report similar results to
the findings of this study. It was often reported that males are more
field-independent than females and therefore can identify details from
confusing backgrounds more effectively than their female peers (
Does tolerance of ambiguity improve as
proficiency improves?
A slight
improvement has been detected in tolerance of ambiguity as the level of
English proficiency increases. Table 7 presents mean values for tolerance of
ambiguity for each proficiency level while Table 8 shows the findings from
analysis of variance.
The only significant difference was observed between elementary and
intermediate students in favour of the latter (p<.007). Although there was
also a considerable difference between the pre-intermediate and intermediate
learners, this difference was slightly outside the significance level
(p<.055). This finding shows that as students improve their language
proficiency, their level of tolerance also improves. This is to be expected as
students becoming more equipped may feel safer in dealing with new
information. After all, with their intermediate level of language proficiency,
the participants must have mastered both an important proportion of
grammatical structures and very valuable basic vocabulary to be able to read
without looking up unknown words (Nation, 1990).
Is receiving instruction on how to tackle
reading problems helpful to improve tolerance of ambiguity?
One of the aims of learner training is to help learners become
independent in the learning process and become more confident with the
uncertainties of language learning. Therefore, students who can become more
confident can better tolerate ambiguities. To see whether receiving any form
of such help influences tolerance of ambiguity, correlation coefficients were
calculated between tolerance of ambiguity scores and the amount of help
received from lecturers. A moderate negative correlation was identified
between the two variables (n=170, r=-.246, p<.001). Such a finding
indicates that the more students receive instruction on know-how of reading in
a foreign language, the more tolerant they can become of ambiguity in language
learning. This is congruent with many learner training studies reporting that introducing
and equipping learners with crucial strategies may improve their self-confidence,
self-sufficiency and perception of responsibility in learning as well as
enable them to acquire techniques for enhancing their learning (Atkinson,
1985; Dickinson, 1987; Chamot and Kupper, 1989). Without a doubt much more investigation is necessary to determine the
precise role of learner training in improving tolerance of ambiguity, but even
at this stage it could be suggested that teachers should become more aware of the
crucial role of training to help learners cope with their fears in the language
classroom.
Is tolerance of ambiguity related to self-perceived
success of Turkish EFL learners in reading in a foreign language?
A strong relationship between tolerance of ambiguity and perceived
success in reading in a foreign language was identified (n=173, r=-.303,
p<.000), implying that the more tolerant learners are of ambiguity, the
more successful they can be in the reading process. This is in keeping with
previous research that reported a positive impact of ambiguity tolerance on
success in language learning (Chapelle & Roberts; 1986; Naiman, et. al.
1978; Lori, 1990). Obviously, students who can cope with the uncertainties of
learning a new language, be it coping with new language structures or dealing
with new vocabulary and cultural issues, feel more successful in reading in a
foreign language or vice versa. This finding on the other hand did not support
the preferable moderate level of ambiguity tolerance (Ely, 1995, Ehrman,
1999). To further elaborate on this issue, the difference between different
tolerance groups in self-perceived reading success was examined. The results
of the analysis of variance can be seen in Table 9 and Table 10.
The high tolerance group reported better self-perceived success than
both the moderate and low tolerance groups, the low tolerance group reporting
the lowest level of self-perceived success. This is not in keeping with El-Koumy
(2000) who reported that moderately tolerant students outscored both highly
tolerant students and those with low tolerance. Yet, success in reading in a foreign language
appears to be related to how much language learners can tolerate uncertainties
in the reading process. The question of how much tolerance is more preferable
remains to be answered in further research.
Conclusions and
Implications
This study aimed to explore the nature of ambiguity tolerance in
reading in a foreign language among tertiary level learners of English and to
determine likely relationships between ambiguity tolerance and different
personal and cognitive variables such as gender, proficiency level, perceived
success in reading and strategy training. The findings of this study allow the
authors to draw some conclusions. Firstly, the tertiary EFL learners
participating in this study reported having a moderate level of ambiguity
intolerance in language learning. Cluster analysis confirmed that the majority
of the learners have either a high or moderate level of intolerance while only
a small number of them have low intolerance. Therefore, it can be said that learners
in an EFL context are generally less tolerant of ambiguity. The findings also
suggested that there is a significant difference between ambiguity tolerance
and learners language proficiency levels, indicating that the higher the
proficiency level, the more tolerant learners become in foreign language learning.
One factor that may have impacted this result is that, as learners develop
their linguistic knowledge, the need to control every detail in language
learning becomes less important, thus resulting in higher tolerance of
ambiguity. Another aspect of ambiguity that has been explored in this study
was gender differences. The findings revealed that females are less tolerant
of ambiguities in the language classroom than their male peers. This may show
us that since females are more intolerant they do not take things for granted
and study more to see the details, a desirable habit when the complexities in
language learning are taken into account. One last aspect of this study dealt
with ambiguity tolerance, success in reading and strategy training. A significant
correlation between these variables was found, which allows us to conclude
that affective and cognitive factors do influence one other. As such, the more
students are trained about strategies they could employ while reading in a
foreign language, the more tolerant they can become of ambiguities, which may
eventually bring success in reading in a foreign language.
The implications of this study are two fold: pedagogical and further
research. Firstly, students were found to have low tolerance of ambiguity.
Such levels of intolerance can simply interfere with the learning process. As
active agents in this learning process, teachers, then, have responsibilities
to assist learners in their efforts to succeed in language learning. They should
be prepared to set an agenda and share it with their students to help them
increase their awareness of classroom procedures as well as the content to be
learnt. As suggested by the literature, when learners are informed about
classroom procedures, they feel more comfortable, self-confident and motivated
in the language classroom (Dörnyei, 2005; Williams and Burden, 1997), which
may in return help lower tolerance of ambiguity. Secondly, as this study also indicated,
elementary learners tend to be less tolerant of ambiguity. Therefore, it could
be more conducive to learning if teachers adopt a teaching approach, especially
with such low proficiency level students, that includes more insight into
negative affective factors influencing language learning. This way, teachers are
more likely to give valuable guidance and navigation about what and how to
learn in the language classroom. Thirdly, the findings show that ambiguity
tolerance is closely associated to perceived success in reading in a foreign
language. This conclusion calls for the employment of ambiguity reducing
strategies by teachers. To do this, they can use a number of pre, while and
post reading activities. While pre-reading activities can help learners set an
agenda and have a purpose for reading, while-reading activities will reduce
any ambiguities inevitable in the process of reading comprehension. Finally,
this study showed that being informed about strategies seems to reduce intolerance
in the reading process, with high tolerance relating to perceived success.
Therefore, this has a clear message for language teachers in that they should
be able to identify what strategies their learners use, introduce some alternative
effective strategies in real reading tasks such as guessing and inferencing,
thus helping students to learn how to cope without appeals to authority
(Ellis, 1994: 518).
As for implications for further research, we need to note that this
study is not without limitations. Firstly, this study did not employ a
standard measure of reading comprehension. Neither did it measure the students
proficiency level through a standardized placement test. Finally, this study
focused on a small number of university level EFL learners from one
educational context. Therefore, it would be fruitful to further explore the
relationship between all these variables employing more standardized measures
and larger samples.
This study relied upon learners reports on how frequently teachers
introduced useful reading strategies. Therefore, one cannot be sure of the
intensity or quality of the training process the learners received. For this
reason, it is recommended that further research into this issue could incorporate
measurements of ambiguity tolerance in a planned, deliberate training process.
Only then can we be sure of the relationship between the two constructs. These
coupled with standardized measures of proficiency levels and reading
comprehension can better help us elucidate the issue under question.
Alderson,
J. C. (2000). Assessing reading.
Alptekin, C. (2006). Cultural
familiarity in inferential and literal comprehension in L2 reading. System, 34, 494-508.
Atkinson, R. C. (1985).
Mnemotechnics in second-language learning. American
Psychologist, 30, 821-28.
Budner, S. (1962). Intolerance of
ambiguity as a personality variable. Journal of Personality, 30, 29-50.
Carrell, P. L. (1987). Content and
formal schemata in ESL reading. TESOL
Quarterly, 21, 461-481.
Carrell, P. L., & Eisterhold,
J. C. (1983). Schema theory and ESL reading. TESOL Quarterly, 17, 553-573.
Chamot, A.U. & Kupper, L. (1989).
Learning strategies in foreign language instruction. Foreign Language Annals, 22, 13-24.
Chapelle, C. (1983). The
relationship between ambiguity tolerance and success in acquiring English as a
second language in adult learners. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Chapelle, C., & Roberts, C. (1986).
Ambiguity tolerance and field independence as predictors in English as a
second language. Language Learning, 36 (1), 27-45.
Dickinson,
L. (1987). Self-instruction in
Language Learning.
Dörnyei, Z. (2001). Questionnaires in second language research:
construction, administration, and processing.
Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner.
Ehrman, M., & Oxford, R. (1990).
Adult language learning styles and strategies in an intensive training
setting. Modern Language Journal, 74
(3), 311-327.
Ehrman, M. E. (1994). Weakest and
strongest learners in intensive language training: a study of extremes. In
Klee C. A. (ed.). Faces in a crowd: the individual learner in multisection
courses.
Ehrman, M. (1999). Ego boundries
and tolerance of ambiguity in second language learning. In Arnold, J. (ed.). Affect in language learning.
El-Koumy, A. S. A. (2000).
Differences in FL reading comprehension among high-, middle-, and
low-ambiguity tolerance students. Paper
presented at the national symposium on English language teaching in Egypt,
March 21-23, 2000,
Ellis, R. (1994). The study
of second language acquisition.
Ely, C. (1989). Tolerance of
ambiguity and use of second language strategies. Foreign Language Annals, 22, 437-445.
Ely, C.M. (1995). Tolerance of
ambiguity and the teaching of ESL. In Reid, J. M. (ed.). Learning styles in
the ESL/EFL classroom.
Erten, I.H., & Razı, S. In
press. The effects of cultural
familiarity on reading comprehension.
Fukuchi, N. T., & Sakamoto, R. (2005).
Affective dimensions of the Japanese foreign language learner: implications
for psychological learner development in
Grabe, W., & Stoller, L. F. (2002). Teaching and researching reading.
Grace, C.
(1998). Personality
type, tolerance of ambiguity, and vocabulary retention in CALL. CALICO Journal, 15 (1-3): 19-46.
Hatch, E., & Lazaraton, A. (1991). The research manual: Design and statistics for applied linguistics.
Kazamina, V. (1999). How tolerant
are Greek EFL learners of foreign language ambiguities.
http://www.leeds.ac.uk/linguistics/WPL/WP1999/kazamina
.
Kohonen,
V. (1999). Authentic assessment in affective foreign language education. In
Kondo-Brown, K. (2006). Affective
variables and Japanese L2 reading ability.
Larsen-Freeman,
D., & Long, M. (1991). An
introduction to second language acquisition research.
Lori,
A. A. (1990). Self-concept, tolerance of
ambiguity, English achievements, Arabic achievement, and overall school
achievement as factor contributing to
Bahraini high school seniors attitudes toward learning English as a foreign
language. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Lustig,
M., & Koester, J. (1993). Intercultural competence: Interpersonal
communication across cultures.
McLain, D.L. (1993). The MSTAT-1: A
new measure of an individuals tolerance for ambiguity. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 53,
183-189.
Naiman, N., Frohlich, M., &
Todesco, A. (1975). The good language learner; TESL Talk, 6, 58-75.
Naiman, N., Frohlich, M., Stern,
H., & Todesco, A. (1978). The good
language learner.
Nation, I.
S. P. (1990). Teaching and learning vocabulary.
Nishimo, T. (2007). Beginning to read extensively: a case study
with Mako and Fumi.
Norton, R.W. (1975). Measurement of
ambiguity tolerance. Journal of Personality Assessment, 39, 607-619.
Piaget,
J. (1967). Six psychological studies.
Rubin, J. (1975). What the Good
Language Learner can teach us. TESOL
Quarterly, 9, 41-51.
Stern, H. (1975). What can we learn
from the good language learner? Canadian
Modern Language Review, 31, 321-240.
White, C. (1999). Expectations and
emergent beliefs of self-instructed language learners. System, 27, 443-457.
Williams, M., & Burden, R. L. (1997). Psychology for language teachers.
[1]
[2]