A Study of Interactions among Ambiguity Tolerance, Classroom Work Styles, and English Proficiency

Abstract

This article presents a preliminary investigation of the inter-relationships between English learners' tolerance for ambiguity, their classroom work styles, and their level of English proficiency. The study population comprised 46 English as a foreign language (EFL) students attending a technical college in Taiwan. The findings indicated that a large percentage of these students had moderate to high levels of tolerance for ambiguity. In contrast to the findings of previous studies, our results showed no significant relationship between ambiguity tolerance and classroom work styles. The relationship between ambiguity tolerance and English proficiency in terms of the Test of English for International Communication (TOEIC) scores was almost statistically significant. However, tolerance for ambiguity and classroom work styles showed a statistically significant association with English proficiency. Recommended extensions of the study are discussed, and general directions for future research are suggested. Teaching implementations are also proposed.

Psychological distress during the COVID-19 pandemic: The interplay between protective and risk factors

“…However, it has to be taken into consideration the peculiarity of the COVID-19 situation, de ned as "infodemic" (WHO, 2020), thus referring to the overabundance of information, often inconsistent, fragmented, incomplete and not accurate. High ambiguity intolerant people, who generally nd it di cult to manage contradictions and incomplete information (Chiang, 2016), may have experienced a sense of confusion and overload that have prevented them from seeking out further information. It might be that high ambiguity intolerant people, when overwhelmed by numerous and incoherent information, struggle to integrate them in a coherent picture and then tend to avoid searching for other information.…”

Influence of Augmented Reality on the Achievement and Attitudes of Ambiguity Tolerant/Intolerant Students

“…This result may be due to the fact that with its new stimuli that combine reality with virtual elements, AR technology suited the nature and characteristics of the ambiguity-tolerant students. These students are capable of accepting the content in its new form, and they have a great interest in learning in an enjoyable way with new stimuli, as pointed out by Chiang (2016), Saeed et al, (2009), Tayebinik andPuteh (2003), and Owen and Sweeney (2002).…”

“…The literature emphasizes the importance of studying student learning styles in order to understand how students learn in, perform in, react to, succeed in, and respond to the learning environment (Chiang, 2016;Tayebinik & Puteh, 2013;Shahsavar & Hoon, 2011). Learning styles are stable indicators of different learner characteristics, including their cognitive, affective, intellectual, and psychological behaviors (Chiang, 2016;Shahsavar & Hoon, 2011). Thus, teachers should develop an awareness of these personal characteristics to help them design instruction to support the learning preferences of their students (Saeed, Yang, & Sinnappan, 2009).…”

“…In contrast, ambiguity-intolerant individuals perceive those same stimuli as a threat (Budner, 1962), finding the absence of information frustrating, stressful, and risky, making them more likely to escape, avoid, reject, and delay reaching judgments. On the other hand, ambiguity-tolerant individuals are more likely to perform well and enjoy encountering a complex, innovative, and uncertain situation (Chiang, 2016;Tayebinik & Puteh, 2013;Owen & Sweeney, 2002).…”

“…Much research literature compares students who are ambiguity tolerant or intolerant in terms of their language learning, performance, achievement, participation, attitudes, and communicative competence (Chiang, 2016;Atamanova & Bogomaz, 2014;Shahsavar & Hoon, 2011;Owen & Sweeney, 2002). The results of these studies found no significant differences between students tolerant or intolerant of ambiguity.…”