language learning strategy preferences of chinese learners and their implications in english...
TRANSCRIPT
T.C
İstanbul Üniversitesi
Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü
İngiliz Dili Eğitimi Bilim Dalı
Yüksek Lisans Tezi
Language Learning Strategy Preferences of Chinese
Learners and Their Implications in English Language
Teaching
Mağfiret Aziz
2501030752
Tez Danışmanı:Yrd.Doç.Dr. Dilek İNAL
İstanbul 2007
iii
Abstract The present study aimed to explore the frequency level of language learning strategy use of non-English major students in XinJiang University. In the study, the association of English achievement, gender, and major of the students in the use of strategies have also been examined. Altogether 103 second-year non-English major students from four classes were participated in the study. Their strategy use was measured with Oxford’s ‘‘Strategy Inventory of Language Learning’’. Language achievement was established by the score of College English Proficiency Test Band Four. In addition, ranking lists were applied to the head teachers of the target classes to place the strategy use frequency level of the students from the most to the least used in six categories according to their classroom observations. A small interview was held with nine students to learn the situation of language learning and teaching in terms of strategy use. Results showed that 1. The frequency of overall strategy use of non-English majors in XinJiang University was not high and the most frequently used strategies were compensation strategies and the least frequently employed strategies were social strategies. 2. High achievers presented a wider range of strategies at a higher frequency than low achievers. The biggest difference was in the use of metacognitive strategies. 3. In contrast, females used affective strategies more than males, while males applied compensation strategies more than females. 4. A significant correlation was found between the overall strategy use and English achievement. 5. Among the six types of strategies, metacognitive strategies appeared to be the strongest positive predictor of English achievement. It is suggested that the low frequency of language learning strategy use among non-English majors in XinJiang University should be a real concern of English teachers.
Öz Bu çalışmanın amacı Şincan Üniversitesi öğrencilerinin dil öğrenme stratejilerini farkındalığını ve bunları hangi sıklıkta kullandığını incelemektir. Çalışmada, strateji kullanımıyla öğrencilerin İngilizce dil başarısı, cinsiyeti ve öğrencilerin oldukları bölümler aralarındaki ilişki de araştırılmştır. Dört sınıftan oluşan toplam 103 ikinci sınıf öğrencisi araştırmaya katılmıştır. Öğrencilerin strateji kullanımı Oxford’un ‘‘Dil Öğrenme Stratejileri Anketi’’ yle, İngilizce başarılarıysa Üniversite İngilizce Yeterlik Sınav sonuçlarıyla elde edilmiştir. Ayrıca, hedef sınıfların sınıf öğretmenlerinden öğrencilerinin dil öğrenme stratejilerini kullanımları farkındalığını görmek için, 6 kategoriye göre öğrencilerin en sık ve en az kullandıkları stratejileri sıralamaları istenmiştir. Öğrencilerin strateji kullanım açısından dil öğrenim ve öğretim durumunu öğrenmek amacıyla dokuz öğrenciyle de yüz yüze görüşme yapılmıştır. Çalışmadan aşağıdaki sonuçlar elde edilmiştir: 1. Şincan Üniversite öğrencilerinin dil öğrenme stratejilerini kullanım sıklığı pek yüksek değildir. En sık kullandıkları stratejiler telafi stratejileriyken en az kullandıkları staretejiler ise sosyal stratejilerdir. 2. Yüksek başarılı öğrencilerin strateji kuıllanımının başarısız öğrencilerden daha çeşitli, daha sık olduğu görülmüştür. Aralarındaki en büyük fark bilişötesi stratejilerin kullanımındadır. 3.Karşılaştırıldığında, kız öğrenciler duygusal stratejileri daha sık, erkek öğrencilerse telafi stratejileri daha sık kulanmaktadır. 4. İngilizce dil başarısıyla genel olarak strateji kullanımı arasında anlamlı bir ilişki saptanmıştır. 5. Altı strateji kategorisinde, bilişüstü stratejiler İngilizce dil başarısının güçlü bir göstergesi olduğu saptanmıştır. Öğrencilerin strateji kullanımının düşük olması, Şincan Üniversitesindeki İngilizce öğretmenlerinin özellikle üzerinde çalışması gereken bir konu olduğu düşünülmüştür.
iv
Preface
With the recognition of the importance of strategies in language learning, the
study made an attempt to explore the language learning strategy preferences of
Chinese learners, the level of frequency use of the strategies and to examine the
association of English achievement, gender, and major of the students in the use of
strategies. The work as a whole was quite demanding to be completed within a
limited time. However, with the immeasurable help of many people this study has
come out in the present form finally. I cannot possibly thank them all here, but I do
want to express my appreciation to those whose help has been most valuable.
First and foremost, I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude to my supervisor
Assistant Prof. Dilek İNAL, who has constantly guided me in the process of my
thesis writing. Without her enlightening supervision and careful revision, this thesis
would not have been completed. I am also greatly indebted to Professor Tülin
POLAT, Professor Nilüfer TAPAN and Assistant Prof. Özlem İlker Etuş in the
Department of Foreign language Teaching in Istanbul University for their excellent
lectures and inspiring ideas, which I have benefited immensely.
In addition, I am sincerely grateful to some of my former colleagues for their sincere
help for conducting the survey and encouragement, and the students who have
participated in my research with enthusiasm. It is their cooperation and generous help
that made this thesis a reality.
Last but not the least my special thanks go to my beloved parents who have showed
endless support, love and understanding by looking after my baby during the time. I
also express my thanks to my dear husband Haşim. Without their understanding,
support and help, I would never have accomplished this thesis.
v
Contents
Abstract/Öz.............................................................................................iii
Preface....................................................................................................iv
Contents..................................................................................................v
List of Tables.........................................................................................viii
List of Figures........................................................................................ix
List of Abbreviations..............................................................................x
Introduction.............................................................................................1
1. Review of the Related Literature........................................................4 1.1. Historical Outline of LLS Research................................................................4
1.2. Clarifying The Concept of LLS......................................................................8
1.2.1. Learner Strategies and LLS..................................................................8
1.2.2. Definitions of LLS................................................................................9
1.2.3. Characteristics of LLS........................................................................13
1.3. Taxonomy of LLS.........................................................................................16
1.3.1. Wong-Fillmore’s Classifications of LLS............................................16
1.3.2. Bialystok’s Classifications of LLS.....................................................17
1.3.3. Rubin’s Classifications of LLS...........................................................17
1.3.4. O’Malley and Chamot’s Classifications of LLS................................19
1.3.5. Oxford’s Classifications of LLS........................................................ 21
1.3.6. Wenden’s Classifications of LLS.......................................................24
1.3.7. Stern’s Classifications of LLS............................................................24
1.3.8. Cohen’s Classifications of LLS..........................................................26
1.4. Factors Affecting LLS.................................................................................. 26
1.4.1. Individual Differences Factors............................................................26
1.4.1.1.Age............................................................................................... 26
vi
1.4.1.2.Gender.......................................................................................... 28
1.4.1.3.Aptitude........................................................................................ 29
1.4.1.4.Learning Style.............................................................................. 29
1.4.1.5.Learner Beliefs............................................................................. 30
1.4.1.6.Motivation.................................................................................... 32
1.4.1.7.Personality......................................................................... 33
1.4.2. Situational Factors............................................................................. 34
2. Research Methodology...................................................................... 38 2.1. Objectives..................................................................................................... 38
2.2. Participants................................................................................................... 38
2.3. Instruments................................................................................................... 41
2.4. Data Collection and Analysis Procedure...................................................... 43
2.4.1. Quantitative Analysis......................................................................... 45
2.4.2. Qualitative Analysis............................................................................45
3. Results and Discussions.....................................................................46 3.1. Quantitative Results.......................................................................................46
3.1.1. LLS Use of Non-English Majors..................................................... ..46
3.1.2. LLS Use in Different Majors..............................................................49
3.1.3. LLS Use of GLL and LSL..................................................................53
3.1.4. LLS Use of Females and Males .........................................................56
3.1.5. LLS Use and Language Achievement................................................58
3.2. Qualitative Results.........................................................................................60
3.3. Discussions....................................................................................................62
3.3.1. Frequency of LLS Use of Non-English Majors.................................62
3.3.2. Differences of LLS Use Between GLL and LSL............................... 65
3.3.3. Differences of LLS Use Between Females and Males.......................68
3.3.4. LLS Use and Language Achievement................................................68
vii
Conclusion..............................................................................................71
Bibliography...........................................................................................74
Appendix 1.............................................................................................79
Appendix 2.............................................................................................80
Appendix 3.............................................................................................82
Appendix 4.............................................................................................85
Appendix 5.............................................................................................89
Appendix 6.............................................................................................92
Appendix 7.............................................................................................94
Appendix 8.............................................................................................95
Appendix 9 ............................................................................................97
Appendix 10...........................................................................................99
viii
List of Tables
Table1: Definitions of LLS in the Literature
Table2: Wong-Fillmore’s Classifications of LLS
Table3 : Rubin’s Classifications of LLS
Table 4: O’Malley and Chamot’s Taxonomy of LLS
Table 5: Oxford’s Framework of LLS
Table 6: Wenden’s Classifications of LLS
Table 7: Strategies Preferred for Different Language Tasks
Table 8: Basic Information of the Subjects
Table 9: Basic Information of GLL and LSL
Table 10: Description of Variables
Table 11: Overall Frequency of Strategy Use of Non-English Majors
Table 12: Correlations of Strategy Use and Language Achievement
Table 13: Six Categories of Strategies Predicting English Achievement
ix
List of Figures
Figure 1: Typology of Procedural Knowledge
Figure 2: Frequency of Strategy Use of All Non-English Majors in Six Categories
Figure 3: Frequency of Strategy use of Students Majored in Biochemistry
Figure 4: Frequency of Strategy Use of Students Majored in Mathematics
Figure 5: Frequency of Strategy Use of Students Majored in Law
Figure 6: Frequency of Strategy Use of Students Majored in Computer Science
Figure7: Comparison of the Frequency of Strategy Use in Different Majors
Figure 8: Overall Frequency of Strategy Use in Different Majors
Figure 9: Differences in Strategy Use between GLL and LSL
Figure 10: Overall Strategy Use of GLL and LSL
Figure 11: Individual Strategy Use of GLL and LSL
Figure 12: Differences in Strategy Use between Females and Males
Figure13: Individual Strategy Use of Males and Females
x
List of Abbreviations
CET-4 — College English Test Band Four
SPSS —Statistical Package for Social Science
ESL — English as a second language
EFL — English as a foreign language
SILL —Strategy Inventory for Language Learning
LLS — language learning strategies
GLL — good language learners
LSL — less successful learners
MEM — memory
COG — cognitive
COM — compensation
MET — metacognitive
AFF — affective
SOC — social
SLA — second language acquisition
FLT — foreign language teaching
Sig. —significance
S.D. — Standard deviation
L2 — second language
TL — target language
FL — foreign language
a — alpha
M — mean score
N — number
P — probability
R — correlation coefficient
1
Introduction
‘‘The only man who is educated is the man who has learned how to learn; the man who has learned how to adapt and change; the man who has realized that no knowledge is secure, that only the process of seeking knowledge gives a basis for security.’’(Rogers, 1969:104 cited in Dickinson, 1996:34)
To date, the complexity and rapidity of changes in this technological society
have led to the need for lifelong learning. There is no longer a fixed body of
knowledge that can be transmitted onto the learners. In other words, what is learned
at school can no longer satisfy the needs of a learner throughout his or her life to
adapt to changes. What education can do and should do is providing learners with the
ability necessary to carry on learning for a lifetime. Only when they are helped to
become autonomous learners or learn how to learn in particular can they be ready for
fulfilling the lifelong task on their own.
In the late 1960s, with the development of cognitive psychology educators
and researchers became aware that learning is a dynamic mental process in which
learners construct their own understanding of meaning, new ideas or concepts
actively rather than receiving stimuli passively. With the discovery of learning
process, there has been a prominent shift within the field of education with greater
emphasis being put on learning rather than teaching. One consequence of this shift
was an increasing awareness of the importance of language learning strategies (LLS
hereafter) in second language teaching. Researchers such as Rubin (1987) and Stern
(1992) have found that successful learners use a greater variety of strategies in order
to help them process new information and to understand, learn or remember the
information while acquiring the language. Wenden (1991) has attached a further
dimension to the process of learning by claiming that the use of LLS is operated by
the knowledge of an individual to control the learning process which is called
metacognitive knowledge. Thus, the need to become aware of the strategies in
language learning and attain the knowledge about managing the process has gained
significant value in promoting effective learning.
2
Now, it is widely accepted that language teaching should be learner-centered.
The focus of the teaching is making available better learning for learners. It is
believed that training students with strategies can be an efficient way of heightening
learners awareness to use LLS and it enables learners to know what, how, when,
where, and why strategies can be used so that learners will become better learners
and be prepared for lifelong learning as autonomous and self-directed learners.
Identification of the strategies that learners already use, however, is a prerequisite
procedure for implementing the training successfully.
Meanwhile, there is a noteworthy fact that a learner is an individual with his
or her unique differences such as age, sex, learning needs, abilities, feelings, styles,
strategies, etc. Learning, on the other hand, takes place in various contexts.
Apparently, all these factors would have considerable effect on language learning as
well as LLS. Depending upon the humanistic view of education, before training the
learners to use strategies one must take into account all the factors that affect the use
of LLS if learners are put into the first place in teaching. Then training will be useful
and LLS will make learning ‘‘easier, faster, more enjoyable, more self-directed, more
effective, and more transferable to new situations’’. (Oxford, 1990)
Bearing all these in mind, this study aims to take an initial step towards how
Chinese learners learn. Trying to establish teaching towards a more learner-centered
perspective, English teaching in China has suffered from the firm root of traditional
methods of teaching. Chinese students have long been accustomed to the traditional
teaching style and they have great difficulties in involving themselves in learning
enthusiastically and spontaneously. They tend to depend on textbooks and teachers,
while they are about to become aware of their own responsibilities that they should
shoulder in the study. Teachers, on the other hand, lay more emphasis on teaching
while neglecting the dynamic part of the students. No sufficient attention has been
paid to how learners learn and what specific LLS the learners choose to use in their
foreign language learning. There is an urgent need to investigate the LLS of students
in the Chinese context so that teachers may have a better understanding of what
strategy training their students may need to achieve their learning goals. It is
3
presumable that the research will do a great deal to change the current situation of
English teaching.
In the study, both quantitative and qualitative methods are employed to
collect data. Through analyzing the data, the thesis is meant to answer the following
questions.
• What LLS that Chinese non-English major students report to
use most frequently in XinJiang University?
• How does the teachers’ observation of strategy use relate with
the actual strategy use of the students?
• Is there any difference due to major and gender of the students?
• What is the difference of strategy use between good language
learners (GLL hereafter) and less successful learners (LSL
hereafter)?
• Is there any relationship between strategy use and language
achievement?
By answering the questions, the author will try to draw the implications of
strategy use within the Chinese culture and to make some suggestions for future
teaching in the context. Yet, the study has its limitations. Only one Chinese
university and a participating group of 103 students may not form the best
representation of the Chinese university context. Thus, the results of the study may
be limited to indicate certain facts in the context of the study. It could have been
more beneficial if the study was conducted on a much larger scale.
4
1. Review of the Related Literature
Over the last few decades, with the development of cognitive psychology, the
active role of the learner in the language learning process has been clearly
acknowledged. The major emphasis in research on the role of the learner in the
learning process is the work that has been done on LLS. The interest in LLS research
was initiated in the late 1960s out of a communicative perspective on language
teaching methods, which emphasized learner involvement in the process. In this
chapter what has been done during the time with the field will be handled in more
detail.
1.1. Historical Outline of LLS Research The earliest research on strategy in language learning dates back to 1966, to
the work of Aaron Carton, ‘‘The Method of Inference in Foreign Language Study’’
in which he connected learner variation in language learning to the ability to make
sound and reasonable inferences (Wenden,1987). This was followed in the mid
1970s by a large number of empirical studies of GLL, notably by Rubin (1975),
Naiman et al (1978). This was the real starting point of the research studies on LLS.
This early research on GLL has concentrated on identifying the strategies
utilized by those GLL under the assumption that an identification of effective
strategies used by the successful learners could provide an agenda for strategy
training with those who are less successful in learning languages. It is presumed that
once trained the less successful learners can be able to learn a foreign or second
language more effectively and efficiently.
In her studies, Rubin mainly focused on observing learning behaviors of
successful learners and investigating their LLS via questionnaires and interviews. In
her work, she listed out seven characteristics that formed the profile of GLL.
According to the list, GLL
1. are active and accurate guessers;
2. have a strong drive to communicate,
3. are willing to make errors;
5
4. are willing to practice;
5. spend time monitoring their own speech and that of others;
6. are attentive to form; and
7. focus on meaning. (cited inWilling,1989:1)
Later, Rubin (1981) divided all LLS that she had found into two categories—
learning strategies (contributing directly to learning development) and
communication and social strategies (influencing learning indirectly) ( Rubin,1987 ).
In 1978, Naiman et al. (1978) made a large-scale study based on Rubin’s
speculations what strategies GLL use. Compared with other studies on GLL, Naiman
et al. (1978) achieved a significant improvement in the study of LLS in both depth
and breadth. In their book of The Good Language Learner five broad categories of
LLS were proposed. They are
1. an active task approach,
2. realization of language as a system,
3. realization of language as a means of communication and interaction,
4. management of the affective demands of L2,
5. monitoring of L2 performance. (cited in Johnson, 2001:147 )
The most important contribution of Naiman et al. (1978) is that they made
descriptions and classifications of LLS1. Early studies of GLL tended to make lists of
strategies and other features presumed to be essential for all GLL, which proved a
useful way of investigating how strategies affect language learning. In 1980s, as a
branch of LLS, communication strategy2 has started its real career under the direction
of Canale and Swains’s (1980) influential model of communicative competence
(Purpura, 1999:19). Since the 1980s, studies on LLS have developed rapidly.
One of the major studies in 1980s had been that conducted by O’Malley et al
(1985). O’Malley et al. (1985) made an investigation into LLS use of beginner
students and intermediate students who take English as their L2 (Skehan, 1989:86).
1See Appendix1for Naiman et al.’s LLS classifications 2See Appendix 2 for classifications of communication strategies
6
The data was collected through self-report and 26 strategy items were
identified. These strategies were divided into three main subcategories as
metacognitive strategies, cognitive strategies, and socioaffective mediation. Unlike
other previous studies, the greater focus was on metacognitive strategies in their
study of which there are nine. O’Malley and Chamot stated that:
“Students without metacognitive approaches are essentially learners without
direction or opportunity to review their progress, accomplishments, and future
directions.’’(O’Malley and Chamot, 1990: 8)
In addition, they found that the use of LLS has a link to proficiency level of
the learners. O’Malley et al. have also tried to test trainability of LLS (cited in
Skehan, 1989:86). More studies were carried out by Politzer and McGroarty (1985),
Huang and Van Naerssen (1985), Chesterfield and Chesterfield (1985),Wenden and
Rubin (1987). Among them, Wenden and Rubin’s study on LLS is wide-ranging
theoretically and practically. In Learner Strategies in Language Learning edited by
Wenden and Rubin in 1987, papers on LLS in the 1980s were included, concerning
the definitions and classifications of LLS, research methodology of LLS, LLS use
and how to train learners in using strategies effectively.
Politzer and McGroarty (1985) made an investigation of different cultural
background of English language learners, from which they found that LLS are
closely related with cultural background and previous academic training. In the same
year, Huang and Van Naerssen (1985) investigated the strategies for achieving
Chinese learners’ oral production success (cited in Skehan, 1989:92 and Brown,
1994:124). Chesterfield and Chesterfield (1985) have also researched into strategy
use and through a longitudinal case study found that learners would use different
LLS when their learning stages have changed. (cited in Ellis, 1994:555) According to
them, LLS tend to be acquired in a certain order. Easier strategies might be learned
earlier, the difficult ones acquired later.
All of these studies in the 1980s have brought two comprehensive works in the
year of 1990, which have made a great contribution to LLS literature. One is the
7
work of Language Learning Strategies by Oxford (1990) and the other is Learning
Strategies in Second Language Acquisition by O’Malley and Chamot. Language
Learning Strategies is one of the most useful manuals of learner strategy training for
teachers currently available. The reason is that the book presents the most
comprehensive and detailed framework of LLS under which the present study is set
out. It also provides a host of learning and communication strategies used by GLL
and exercises in style awareness and strategy development. Besides, Oxford
developed a questionnaire strategy inventory for language learning (SILL hereafter).
The questionnaire includes six parts, respectively dealing with six major LLS
grouped by Oxford. These strategies are not overtly stated in the questionnaire but
are embodied in 50 statements. SILL has been widely used as an instrument to
measure the frequency level of strategy use of learners. Her work has provided
teachers with useful insights into what learners need to know and can do to plan and
regulate their learning.
As for, O’Malley and Chamot’s work, they produced an extensive taxonomy of
LLS, in which three major types of LLS are distinguished, in accordance with the
information-processing model. Compared with other works, O’Malley and Chamot
(1990) placed their studies within the framework of second language acquisition
(SLA hereafter) for the first time, and discussed research methodology for LLS and
training learners in using LLS effectively. Since the 1990s, researches of LLS mainly
focused on the following three aspects:
1. The combination of studies on LLS with learner autonomy: Learner
Strategies for Learner Autonomy written by Wenden in 1991 aims to help teachers
acquire the knowledge and skills they need to plan and implement learning that will
help language learners become more autonomous learners.
2. The marked shift to strategy training: In 1998, Cohen published Strategies
in Learning and Using a Second Language, concerning strategy training and
strategies-based instruction. In order to facilitate teachers to integrate LLS into their
everyday class, researchers also edited some handbooks which introduce strategies
and strategy training in detail, e.g. How to Be a More Successful Language Learner
by Rubin and Thompson (1994) and the Learning Strategies Handbook by Chamot et
al (1999).
8
3. Interest in the correlation between LLS and culture: Oxford’s book of
Language Learning Strategies around the World—Cross-cultural Perspective edited
in 1996, includes important papers dealing with studies on LLS throughout the world.
1.2. Clarifying the Concept of LLS
1.2.1. Learner Strategies and LLS
A distinction is sometimes made between the terms of LLS and learner
strategies in the literature. In Ellis’ words, (1985) learner strategies refer to any types
of strategies taken by learners of foreign or second language in order to facilitate
target language learning. Ellis (1994) suggested that a learner strategy consists of
both mental and behavioral activity related to some specific stage in the overall
process of language acquiring or language use (Ellis, 1994: 529). He provided the
following framework for different learner strategies, which seem to apply for second
language learning.
Figure1. Typology of Procedural Knowledge (see Ellis, 1985:165)
9
Thus, there is no doubt for the appearance of the distinction between
strategies of language use and language learning as Tarone(1980) and Cohen(1998)
have made under the heading of learners strategies in SLA. Unlike them, Corder
distinguished between productive strategies and receptive strategies (cited in
Bialystok, 1990:26). In his view, LLS and communication strategies belong to
productive strategies.
Although these distinctions are important, they may not be easily applied for
they rest on a learner’s intention of strategy use. As Oxford (1990) argued that it is
not easy to decide whether a strategy is motivated by a desire to learn or a desire to
communicate and added ‘‘even if the purpose is communication, the result may be
learning’’. Opposed to making distinction between learning strategies and
communication strategies, Oxford (1990) combined all strategies for language
learning and use, provided the broadest system of LLS. Perhaps this is one of the
reasons for there is no consensus agreement on the definitions of the term. One
should be cautious that in most learning strategy studies, the term LLS is used to
refer to a combination of learning and use strategies and it is so in the study.
1.2.2. Definitions of LLS
To date, much effort has been made by researchers and educators to define
the term of LLS, yet no unanimous opinion has ever been reached on the definition
of LLS. The concept of LLS is still “a somewhat fuzzy one” and “not easy to tie
down” (Ellis, 1994:529). To draw a conclusion, it might be useful to turn to some
definitions taken from the relevant literature as seen in the following table.
10
Bialystok, 1978
LLS are ‘‘optimal means for exploiting available information to improve competence in a second language.’’(cited in O’Malley and Chamot,1990:10)
Tarone, 1983
A language learning strategy is ‘‘an attempt to develop linguistic and sociolinguistic competence in the target language.’’ (Tarone, 1983)
Stern, 1983
LLS refer to ‘‘general tendencies or overall characteristics of the approach employed by the language learner, leaving learning techniques as the term to refer to particular forms of observable learning behavior, more or less consciously employed by the learner.’’ ( cited in Bialystock, 1990:27)
Weinstein and Mayer,1986
‘‘Learning strategies are the behaviors and thoughts that a learner engages in during learning, that are intended to influence the learners’ encoding process.’’ (cited in Ellis,1994:531)
Rubin, 1987
‘‘Learning strategies are strategies which contribute to the development of the language system which the learner constructs and affect learning directly.’’ (Rubin,1987)
Chamot, 1987
‘‘Learning strategies are techniques, approaches or deliberate actions that students take in order to facilitate the learning, recall of both linguistic and content area information.’’(Chamot,1987)
Oxford, 1990
‘‘ Language learning strategies are specific actions taken by the learner to make learning easier, faster, more enjoyable, more self-directed, more effective, and more transferable to new situations.’’(Oxford,1990:8)
O’Malley and Chamot,1990
‘‘The special thoughts or behaviors that individuals use to help them comprehend, learn, or retain new information.’’ (O'Malley and Chamot, 1990:14)
Wenden, 1991
‘‘Learning strategies are mental steps or operations that learners use to learn a new language and to regulate their efforts to do so.’’ (Wenden,1991:18)
11
Cohen, 1998
“Language learning strategies can be defined as those processes which are consciously selected by learners and which may result in action taken to enhance the learning of a second or foreign language, through the storage, retention, recall, and application of information about that language.”(Cohen,1998:4)
Table 1: Definitions of LLS in the Literature
From the above sample of definitions one can detect that while the early work
was focused on the product of LLS (linguistic or sociolinguistic competence), and
later work put greater emphasis on the characteristics and the processes of LLS.
However, the literature on the nature of LLS remains somewhat confusing as
revealed.
There lie a number of problems in the definitions. Firstly, whether the precise
nature of LLS should be regarded as the general approach and characteristics
mastered by learners in language acquisition or the specific technique used by
learners in accomplishing a certain language task still remains a puzzle to the
researchers. As revealed, Stern defined LLS as ‘‘approaches’’. He made a distinction
between ‘‘strategies’’ and ‘‘techniques’’. In his view, the former is referred to as
general or overall ‘‘approaches’' whereas the latter as particular forms of observable
learning behaviors.
Wenden (1987) argued that strategies such comparing target language (TL
hereafter) rules with native language rules, repeating a phrase to remember it and
listening to a TV program, etc could be specific actions rather than characteristics
that describe a learner’s general approach. What Ellis (1994) thought is that it is not
suitable to distinguish approach from technique. Indeed, for a particular strategy it is
sometimes difficult to identify whether the specific action is a technique or an
approach as illustrated beneath.
a) To find the answers, searching the context for corresponding details;
b) To get the main idea, regarding the passage as a whole;
c) To comprehend the passage, engaging linguistic and non-linguistic
knowledge in reading;
12
Among the above three reading strategies, b can be regarded as an approach
compared with a, for it is more general. When speaking of c, b would be definitely a
technique because of c is even more general. It is not right to separate strategies from
techniques.
Secondly, it is not clear whether strategies are to be perceived as behavioral
or as mental, or as both. This most likely stemmed from the fact that each researcher
has defined strategy within the context of his or her own study. For instance,
researchers whose studies are usually based on the investigation of successful
learners through observing their learning behaviors, have defined LLS as ‘‘actions’’
and ‘‘behaviors’’. However, it is admittedly true that some strategies are purely
mental or unobservable. For instance, retrieval strategies identified by Cohen would
be those strategies used to call up language material from storage, through whatever
memory searching strategies the learner can master and memorizing strategies are
used to store language material into memory (Cohen, 1998:6).
In applying these strategies, the processes of memorizing and retrieving take
place in mind. In this case, studying learners’ behaviors can only enable one to
obtain those readily observable strategies like note taking, repeating a phrase, asking
for a clarification, co-operating. It is thus that some recent research methods with the
intention of revealing learners’ mental strategies such as diary studies and verbal-
report have been proved practical for making up the gap.
A third problem is whether LLS are to be seen as conscious and intentional or
as subconscious. Cohen especially emphasized the element of choice in his definition
because he thinks it gives special character to a strategy as conscious. Disapproving
him, Bialystok referred to LLS as “making choices without conscious consideration”
drawing from the study of young children. On the contrary, Chamot et al. through a
three-year research project on describing the strategies used by pupils in Japanese,
French, and Spanish found out that even young children are capable of describing
their strategies (Cohen,1998:11).
Many researchers think LLS as “conscious or at least potentially conscious
actions which learners employ intentionally”. Oxford (1990) added that ‘‘after a
13
certain amount of use and practice, LLS, like any other skill or behavior, can become
automatic’’ (Oxford, 1990, 12). What the author thinks is that LLS are conscious in
most cases. In general, learners are aware of the strategies they use. They employ
them with the purpose of facilitating their language learning to improve language
proficiency. That is when learners choose and use strategies they purposefully, or
consciously do so. If their learning behaviors are unconscious, it will be impossible
for learners to describe the strategies they use, as a result, collecting data through
verbal report loses the significance of studies on LLS.
A fourth problem concerns whether LLS are seen as having a direct or
indirect effect on language development. Rubin (1987) asserted that LLS could affect
learning directly and contribute to language development. Ellis considered most
strategies have an indirect effect on language development, whereas only a small
number of them have a direct effect.
It is thought that direct and indirect are relative concepts. Both of them are
equally important and support each other. In other words, certain strategies
apparently do not have a direct link with language development; however, if the
broad use of strategies and the general development of language proficiency are
taken into account, the conclusion that they are directly connected might be drawn.
Although problems exist in defining the term as seen, for a definition to the current
study, the author turns for Chamot’s (1987), that is LLS are techniques, approaches
or deliberate actions that students take in order to facilitate the learning, recall of
both linguistic and content area information.
1.2.3. Characteristics of LLS
In the face of inconsistency of the definitions of LLS, researchers have tried
to put forth their main characteristics in order to make clear the elusive nature of the
term, which has been discussed previously. It might be best here to list the
characteristics before a universally accepted definition is set as Ellis (1994)
suggested.
14
Referring to Oxford (1990), the aim of LLS has been viewed as being
oriented towards the development of communicative competence and there are
twelve key features that LLS possess as put forward in the following.
1. LLS contribute to the main goal - communicative competence. LLS both
help learners to participate in communication and build up their language system. All
LLS are aimed at developing the communicative competence of the students.
2. LLS allow learners to become more self-directed. Learning is an individual
task that there is no always a teacher to direct students. LLS encourage self-directed
learning and enable learners to continue learning outside the formal context of
learning.
3. LLS expand the role of teachers. LLS challenge teachers to take more
responsibility as helper, facilitator, guide, consultant, adviser and the like. Teachers
should be ready to diagnose student’s problems, identify their LLS and conduct
training on LLS as an essential part of language education.
4. LLS are problem-oriented. LLS are tools that used to solve problems
encountered during the process of language learning, or accomplish a language task
at hand, or to meet a particular need of students. For example, memory strategies are
used to remember lexical information, reasoning or guessing strategies are applied to
understand a reading text better, cooperating and asking help strategies are employed
to provide opportunity for ourselves to practice TL, arranging and planning strategies
are used to direct the learning process.
5. LLS are specific actions taken by the learner. Strategies are specific actions
taken by the learner in order to enhance their learning as such listening to tapes and
broadcasts, watching TV news, asking for help, cooperating with others, keeping a
diary, using flash cards, and etc.
6. LLS involve many aspects of the learner, not just the cognitive. LLS are not
only restricted to cognitive functions such as mental processing and manipulation,
they also include metacognitive functions like planning, evaluating, and arranging
15
one’s own learning; and emotional and social functions such as reducing anxiety,
raising self-confidence, taking risks and asking questions.
7. LLS support learning both directly and indirectly. Those involve direct
learning and uses of the subject matter are called direct strategies, and those
contribute indirectly to learning, including metacognitive, affective and social
strategies, are called indirect strategies.
8. LLS are not always observable. Whereas many aspects of co-operating with
someone else to achieve a learning goal are observable, it is impossible to observe
such a act of making mental associations of a learner.
9. LLS are often conscious. Most of strategies are conscious efforts of learners
to take control of their learning. However, after a certain amount of use and practice,
learning strategies, like any other skill or behavior, can become automatic.
10. LLS can be taught. LLS are not stable like personality traits or learning style
of a learner. Therefore, they are easier to teach and change. The main concern of this
work is strategy training that can be considered as an essential part of language
education.
11. LLS are flexible. LLS are not always found in predictable order or in
accurate pattern. Individual learner can choose, combine and sequence the strategies
in a way he or she wants. Nevertheless, in some cases, such as in reading a passage,
learners use some strategies in a predictable way, for example learners first preview
the text by skimming or scanning, and then read it more closely by using guessing.
12. LLS are influenced by a variety of factors. There are individual differences
and situational factors affect in the choice of strategies such as age, sex, nationality,
learning style, personality traits, motivation, teacher’s expectations, task
requirements, purpose for learning and the language itself which will be presented
later in this chapter in more detail.
1.3. Taxonomy of LLS
16
As mentioned previously, different researchers have classified LLS in various
ways according to the context of their own studies. Thus, there exists a diversity of
categorizations of LLS.
1.3.1. Wong-Fillmore’s Classifications of LLS
Through a longitudinal observation of five young children in a natural setting
of language use, Wong-Fillmore (1976) discovered eight strategies used by children,
and grouped them into two main categories, cognitive strategies and social strategies
as seen in the Table2.
Social strategies
Cognitive strategies
1. Join a group and act as if you understand what is going on, even if you don’t. 2. Give the impression, with a few well-chosen words that you can speak the language 3. Count on your friends for help
1. Assume that what people are saying is directly relevant to the situation athand Metastrategy: Guess 2.Get some expressions you understand, and start talking 3. Look for recurring parts in the formulas you know 4. Make the most of what you’ve got. 5.Work on the big things; save the details for later
Table2: Wong-Fillmore’s Classifications of LLS (Skehan,1989: 74)
1.3.2. Bialystok’s Classification of LLS
17
Bialystok (1978) identified four LLS in her model of second language
learning (cited in O’Malley and Chamot, 1990) and they are classified into two types
as follows.
1. Functional strategies are applied to the use of language.
a. Inferencing strategies
b. Functional practicing strategies
2. Formal strategies are employed to master language form.
a. Monitoring strategies
b. Formal practicing strategies
Depending on her model, Bialystok has developed the framework of LLS on
the basis of degree of explicitness of knowledge and the kind of knowledge such as
linguistic v. world knowledge, and form-focused knowledge v. meaning focused
knowledge (Cohen,1998:12).
1.3.3. Rubin’s Classification of LLS
Rubin (1981), one of the earliest pioneers in the field of LLS, identified the
strategies that reported by students or observed in language learning situations in her
study of GLL and proposed a classification scheme that subsumes learning strategies
under two primary groupings and a number of subgroups as illustrated in Table 3.
18
Primary strategy
classification
Representative
secondary strategies
Representative examples
Clarification/verifica-
tion
Asks for an example of how to use a word or expression, repeats words to confirm understanding
Monitoring
Corrects errors in own /other’s pronunciation, vocabulary, spelling, grammar, style
Memorization
Takes notes of new items, pronounces out loud, finds a mnemonic, writes items repeatedly
Guessing/inductive
inferencing
Guesses meaning from key words, structures, pictures, context, etc
Deductive reasoning
Compares native/other language to target language Groups words Looks for rules of co-occurrence
Strategies that
directly affect
learning
Practice
Experiments with new sounds
Repeats sentences until pronounced easily
Listens carefully and tries to imitate
Creates opportunities
for practice
Creates situation with native speaker Initiates conversation with fellow students Spend time in language lab, listening to TV, etc.
Processes that
contribute
indirectly to
learning
Production tricks
Uses circumlocutions, synonyms, or cognates Use formulaic interaction Contextualizes to clarify meaning
Table3: Rubin (1981)’s Classification of LLS (cited in O’Malley and Chamot,
1990:8)
As clearly seen, the early work of Rubin was concentrated on listing the
strategies that have been elicited by a longitudinal observation and self-reporting of
GLL. Little attempt was made to classify the strategies to general categories. Yet her
19
study has provided a foundation for the emergence of the comprehensive LLS
systems made by Oxford (1990), O’Malley and Chamot later.
1.3.4. O’Malley and Chamot’s Classification of LLS
Within the theoretical framework of Anderson’s information-processing
theory, O’Malley and Chamot (1990) proposed a more detailed schema by dividing
LLS found in their previous studies into three major categories: metacognitive
strategies, cognitive strategies and social/affective strategies.
Metacognitive strategies Cognitive strategies Social/Affective strategies
Planning: previewing the organization of either written or spoken discourse
Repetition: repeating a word or phrase in the course of performing a task
Questioning for clarification: eliciting from a teacher or peer additional explanation.
Directed attention: deciding in advance to attend to a learning task
Resourcing: using available reference sources of information
Cooperation: working with peers to solve problems, pool information, get feedback, etc.
Selective attention: focusing on special aspects of leaning tasks
Grouping: ordering, classifying, or labeling material to be learned
Self- management: understanding and arranging for the conditions that help one learn
Note-taking: writing down key words, outlines and main ideas
Self-monitoring: checking, verifying, or correcting one’s comprehension or performance
Deduction/Induction: consciously applying learned or self- developed rules
Problem identification: Explicitly identifying the central point needing resolusion in a task or identifying an aspect of the task
Elaboration: linking new information with known information
Self-evaluation: checking Translation: using first language to understand
20
Table4: O`Malley and Chamot’s Taxonomy of LLS (O’Malley and Chamot,
1990:137-139) 3
In their system, metacognitive strategies are those that make use of
knowledge of cognitive processes and constitute an attempt to regulate the language
learning process, which requires planning for learning, thinking about the learning
process as it is taking place, monitoring of one's production or comprehension, and
evaluating learning after an activity is completed. These strategies are planning,
directed attention, selective attention, self-management, self-monitoring, problem
identification, self-evaluation.
Cognitive strategies are those appear to be more limited to the performance
of particular learning tasks and they involve more direct manipulation of the learning
material itself including repetition, resourcing, grouping, note taking,
deduction/induction, substitution, elaboration, summarization, translation, transfer,
inferencing. They have an operative or cognitive-processing function.
Social/affective strategies involve the ways in which learners interact with
others and control themselves in order to enhance their learning. The examples are
cooperation, question for clarification. These strategies are used by learners to
motivate, encourage them; to reduce or counter anxiety or frustration; to benefit from
learning as a social activity through interaction and cooperation with others. This
3 See Appendix 3 for the definitions of LLS
learning outcomes and produce L2
Transfer: using known linguistic information to facilitate new learning
Inferencing: using available information to guess meanings of linguistic items
21
classification of LLS is well recognized by scholars and researchers. It is
theoretically motivated and believed to be helpful for learners in having a better
understanding of learning procedures.
1.3.5. Oxford’s Classification of LLS
Oxford is generally believed to have established the most comprehensive,
detailed, and systematic framework, which organizes specific strategies into a
hierarchy of levels. On the basis of direct or indirect influence of strategies on
language learning, Oxford (1990) divided LLS into two main classes, direct and
indirect, which are further divided into six groups containing 19 sets. The former
consists of “strategies that directly involve the target language” in the sense that they
“require mental processing of the language”(Oxford, 1990), while the latter
“provides indirect support for language learning through focusing, planning,
evaluating, seeking opportunities, controlling anxiety, increasing cooperation and
empathy and other means” (Oxford,1990:151).
22
Direct strategies
Indirect strategies
1.Memory strategies
Creating mental linkage
Applying images and sounds
Reviewing well
Employing action
1.Metacognitive strategies
Centering your learning
Arranging and planning your learning
Evaluating your learning
2.Cognitive strategies
Practicing
Receiving and sending messages
strategies
Analyzing and reasoning
Creating structure for input and output
2.Affective Strategies
Lowering your anxiety
Encouraging yourself
Taking your emotional temperature
3.Compensation strategies
Guessing intelligently
Overcoming limitations in speaking
and writing
3.Social strategies
Asking questions
Cooperating with others
Empathizing with others
Table 5: Oxford’s (1990) Framework of LLS4
4 See Appendix 4 for the original
23
In Oxford’s system, the subcategories of direct strategies contain memory,
cognitive, and compensation strategies. Memory strategies are those used for
storage of new information that include ten strategies under the subgroups of creating
mental linkage, applying images and sounds, reviewing well, and employing action.
Cognitive strategies are the essential strategies for second or foreign
language learning that enable learners to make sense of their learning. There are
fifteen strategies grouped into practicing, receiving and sending messages, analyzing
and reasoning, creating structure for input and output in the category. Compensation
strategies help learners to overcome knowledge gaps and difficulties to continue the
communication. Ten strategies are grouped into strategies of guessing intelligently
and overcoming limitations in speaking and writing.
The subcategories of indirect strategies are metacognitive, affective and
social strategies. Metacognitive strategies allow learners to regulate their learning
process. There are ten sub strategies under the subclass of centering, arranging,
planning, and evaluating. Affective strategies are concerned with the learner’s
emotional requirements such as confidence, motivations which include ten strategies
within the subgroups of lowering your anxiety, encouraging yourself, taking your
emotional temperature. Social strategies lead to increased interaction with the target
language. Oxford listed six strategies under the subgroups of asking questions,
cooperating with others and empathizing with others.
Oxford’s framework is comprehensive, elaborate, systematic and well
received. Her categorization is more operational than other categorizations and has
provided teachers with useful insights into what learners need to know and can do to
plan and regulate their learning. With this classification, learners may perceive the
learning aspects and learning strategies in a more direct way and they are more likely
to select the strategies they need with greater assurance and confidence. Therefore,
this classification is adopted to serve as the basis for this study.
24
1.3.6. Wenden’s Classification of LLS
Wenden was the first to introduce the significance of ‘‘metacognitive
knowledge’’ into the literature on autonomy in language learning. She
distinguished two main kinds of strategies based on their function in learning-
cognitive and self-management strategies. Wenden(1991) views cognitive
strategies as mental steps or operations that learners use to process both
linguistic and sociolinguistic content and self-management strategies as
strategies used by learners to oversee and manage their learning.
Strategies Function
1.Select input
2.Comprehend input
3.Store input
Cognitive
4.Retrieve input
1.Planning
2.Monitoring
Self-management
3.Evaluating
Table 6.Wenden’s Classification of LLS (see Wenden1991:30)
1.3.7. Stern’s Classification of LLS
According to Stern (1992), there are five main sets of LLS. These are
management and planning strategies, cognitive strategies, communicative-
experiential strategies, interpersonal strategies and affective strategies. (Stern
1992: 262)
Management and planning strategies are related with the learner's intention
to direct his own learning. It is thought that a learner can take charge of the
development of his own program when a teacher whose role is that of an adviser and
resource person helps him. Examples of the strategies are
25
1. Decide what commitment to make to language learning
2. Set reasonable goals
3. Decide on an appropriate methodology, select appropriate resources,
and monitor progress,
4. Evaluate one’s achievement in the light of previously determined
goals and expectations
Cognitive strategies are steps or operations used in learning or problem
solving that require direct analysis, transformation, or synthesis of learning materials.
They are exhibited as follows:
1. Clarification / Verification
2. Guessing / Inductive Inferencing
3. Deductive Reasoning
4. Practice
5. Memorization
6. Monitoring
Communicative-experiential strategies are techniques used by learners to
keep a conversation going which include
1. Circumlocution
2. Gesturing, paraphrase
3. Asking for repetition and explanation
The purpose of using these techniques is to avoid interrupting the flow of
communication.
Interpersonal strategies are strategies that should monitor the learners’ own
development and evaluate their own performance. Learners should contact with
native speakers and cooperate with them. Learners must become acquainted with the
target culture.
Affective strategies are used to create associations of positive affect towards
the foreign language and its speakers as well as towards the learning activities
involved. Stern thinks the strategies are very important for success in language
learning as GLL proved in his studies. (Stern,1992: 266)
26
1.3.8. Cohen’s Classification of LLS
According to the purposes of strategy use, Cohen (1998) divided the learner
strategies into two systems that LLS and language use strategies. He views that LLS
have the explicit goal of assisting learners in improving their knowledge in a target
language, which include the following subsets.
1. Identifying the material for learning
2. Distinguishing it from other material
3. Grouping it for easier learning
4. Repeatedly engaging oneself in contact with the material
5. Remembering it with efforts
1.4. Factors Affecting LLS
The identifications of strategies in SLA have done much to explore how
learners use the strategies. Thus, findings indicate that complexity of LLS results
from a number of different factors involved in forming and using strategies such as
age, sex, learning style, beliefs, motivation, personality, personal background,
teacher demands, nature and difficulty of task, cultural background, etc. These
factors can be summarized into two categories, which are individual differences
factors and situational factors (Oxford, 1990, Ellis, 1994). In this section, some major
findings concluded thus far in the studies of the factors within the field of SLA will
be handled.
1.4.1. Individual Differences Factors
1.4.1.1. Age
People learn differently at different stage, which is an undeniable fact. Thus,
age emerged as the most important factor influences language learning. Many
researchers have considered the early childhood is an ‘‘optimal’’ or ‘‘critical’’ period
for language learning (Liu, 2002). These claims only explained the advantage of
27
early childhood for phonology in language learning achieving a native-like accent or
fluency in the end yet failed to prove children are better learners than adult learners
are. One of the major reasons is that learning is an active, mechanical process; it
occurs best when learners fully engage in the process of learning and are able to
select the appropriate strategies and adopt them where necessary. Although young
learners do possess a certain amount of cognitive and metacognitive knowledge, they
lack the ability to use that knowledge and produce spontaneously those strategies that
enhance language learning when faced with a problem (Nisbet and Shucksmith,
1986). With regard to this aspect, adults benefit from efficient language learning for
the ability of learning and using strategies develops with age.
Seeing the importance of the factor of age in language learning, many
empirical studies have been held to examine how it influences in the way of using
LLS. Results show that most child learners perform a strategy only asked or directed
for they are not able to diagnose the task types and match the strategies with the tasks
properly (Nisbet and Shucksmith, 1986). Even when they are directed and taught to
use strategies, they can only apply them in narrowly defined tasks. As a result, child
learners have been found to use simple and small quantity of strategies. On the
contrary, adult learners have already developed some LLS with them and use them
spontaneously and flexibly whenever needed. Their strategies have been found to be
more complex and sophisticated, and large in number.
To illustrate, Chesterfiel et al. have discovered that strategies of repetition,
memorization, and the use of formulaic language seem to occur in the early stage of
age. Other more complex strategies such as elaboration, monitoring, or grouping are
likely to appear later. They exhibited the order for the appearance of strategy
repertoire of young children over time: repetition (the most popular and
earliest)>memorization>use of formulaic expression>verbal attention getter> answer
in unison >talking to self> elaboration> anticipatory answer>monitoring> appeal for
assistance>request for clarification> and role play (the least popular and last to
appear). (cited in McDonough,1999)
Brown et al. added that rehearsal for child learners entails rote repetition
while for adult learners it consists of ‘‘active, systematic, elaborative
procedures’’(O’Malley and Chamot,1990). In Graham’s (1997) study, younger
28
learners reported that they did not use strategies of seeking for cognates to aid
comprehension, while older learners cited this as an area of progress (Graham, 1997:
40).This might be resulted from the unawareness of the similarity of two languages
in the early stage of language learning.
In addition to those, Wong-Fillmore found that social strategies are more
important for child learners for they are more interested in establishing social
relationships than in learning language (Wong-Fillmore, 1979 cited in Skehan,
1989:74). All these findings indicate that the use of strategy may differ from age to
age in the preferences, sophistications and variety for there is a developmental
sequence of language learning capabilities of an individual. Thus, all aspects in
relation to the developmental sequence of strategy use must be taken into
consideration before a specific strategy taught to the learner including social,
emotional stage of development as Grenfell and Harris emphasized (cited in Graham,
1997:41).
1.4.1.2. Gender The idea of gender as a factor is emerged primarily in the studies of Oxford.
Examining 1200 university students of French, Spanish, Italian, German and Russian
learning foreign languages, Oxford and Nyikocs found gender to have a profound
impact on the choice of strategies (cited in Ellis,1994:545 and Graham, 1997:41).
Females showed greater strategy use than males for general study, and they tended to
use formal-rule related practice, and conversation input elicitation strategies more
frequently than male (Graham, 1997: 41, Oxford, 1990:13).
Similarly, in the other study of teachers and students in the Foreign Service
Institute, Ehrman and Oxford (1990) discovered that gender differences were
strongest in the use of strategies for general strategies, authentic language use,
searching for and communicating meaning and self-management strategies (Ellis,
1994:545 and Graham, 1997: 41).
These findings indicate that there exist some gender-related differences in
language learning. For one reason, females’ seeking strategies for language use
might be related to their greater orientation towards social interaction in real life. As
29
it is known, in general women are likely to reach agreement through negotiation and
ask more questions than men. For another reason, as commented by Oxford et al. the
language course taught in the university was more analytic rather than
communicative, with great attention on the attainment of good grades. It might be
therefore, female students used greater strategies and formal-rule-related practice
strategies with a desire for social approval and an inclination to conform in an
academic setting as argued by Oxford et al. (Graham,1997:42). Unlike the studies,
some other studies (Vandergrift, 1997 cited in Chamot, 2004 & Shmais, 2003) have
found no significant differences between females and males in the use of strategies.
1.4.1.3. Aptitude It is believed that there is such an inherent ability in individuals for language
learning, which differs them to some degree, and this is referred in terms of language
learning aptitude. Language learning aptitude does not appear to be strongly related
to strategy use as age and sex.
However, some research displayed that learners with high intelligence always
conclude and form their individual effective strategies through everyday learning
(Yan et al., 1999). Whereas learners with low intelligence need specific direction
from teachers and cannot possess these strategies unless they are rehearsed
frequently because of their mechanical and ineffective learning, which most probably
results in failure in choosing right strategies when tasks and situations have changed.
Aside form this, Leino (1982) put forth that learners with high conceptual levels
were better at describing their strategies than those with low conceptual levels (Ellis,
1994:541).
1.4.1.4. Learning Style It is a fact that each individual has his own preferred way of going about
learning; this simply refers to learning style or cognitive style in the literature. It is
relatively stable characteristic of a learner due to the age, personal background, and
personality traits of each individual. Although there is little research that has
examined the relationship between learning style and LLS, one can easily assume
that ‘‘a strong relationship exists between the individual’s use of learning strategies
and the individual’s learning style’’ as Oxford once claimed (Ellis, 1994). For proof,
30
one may turn to the descriptors of four learning styles that Willing (1988) has
identified in the study of 517 learners from different ethnic groups as follows.
1. ‘Concrete’ learners tend to like games, picture, films, videos, using
cassettes, talking in pairs and practicing English outside class.
2. ‘Analytical’ learners liked studying grammar, studying English books
and reading newspapers, studying alone, finding their own mistakes, and
working on problems set by the teacher.
3. ‘Communicative’ learners like to learn by watching, listening to native
speakers, talking to friends in English and watching television in English,
using English out of class in shops, trains, etc., learning new words by
hearing them, and learning by conversations.
4. ‘Authority-oriented’ learners preferred the teacher to explain everything,
liked to have their own textbook, to write everything in a notebook, to
study grammar, learn by reading, and learn new words by seeing them
(Nunan, 1995:170).
From the descriptions above, it can be easily seen that strategies are directly
tied to one’s learning style. In other words, ‘‘Styles are made manifest by learning
strategies (Ehrman, Leaver, and Oxford, 2003). To illustrate, a communicative
learner may use strategies to find meaning (guessing, scanning, predicting) and to
communicate without knowing all the words (paraphrasing, gesturing). An analytical
learner may tend to use strategies such as contrastive analysis, rule-learning,
reasoning, and dissecting words, phrases, and what not. As proven in the studies of
GLL, if a strategy fits a learner’s own learning style it will be useful and leads to
success in learning.
1.4.1.5. Learner Beliefs Learner beliefs are described as “mini theories of L2 learning” by Hosenfeld
(1978) (cited in Bernat,2005) which cover a wide range of views that can influence
their motivation to learn, expectations about language learning, their perceptions
31
about what is easy or difficult about a language. It is considered that beliefs are likely
to influence greatly in the use of LLS. In her study, Wenden (1987) identified three
main categories of learner beliefs on the basis of the statements made by learners
about how a language should be learned. Her categories are as follows.
I. Use the language: in this view, the focus is put on the role of language as
a means of communication and social interaction.
1. Learn the natural way.
2. Practice.
3. Think in your second language.
4. Live and study in an environment where the target language is spoken.
5. Don’t worry about mistakes.
II.Learn about the language: this view stresses linguistic features of
language. The learners believe that language is only understood or learned by means
of making intellectual efforts and hard work.
1. Learn grammar and vocabulary.
2. Take a formal course.
3. Learn from mistakes.
3. Be mentally active.
III.Personal factors are important: this view emphasizes the importance of
affective interaction of the learners with the TL and the process of learning.
1. The emotional aspect is important.
2. Self-concept.
3. Aptitude for learning.
(adapted from Wenden, 1987)
As examined by Wenden in the study, learners who emphasized the
importance of using language relied on communication strategies, while learners who
emphasized the importance of learning about the language inclined to utilize
cognitive strategies that helped them to better understand and remember specific
items of language.
32
1.4.1.6. Motivation ‘‘Motivation is commonly thought of as inner drive, impulse, emotion, or desire
that moves one to a particular action ’’ (Brown, 1994:152). In most cases, motivation
determines on whether study or not, how much effort is put and how long one
perseveres. Thus, it is considered as the most important factor that influences the rate
and success of second or foreign language learning.
Gardner and Lambert(1971) distinguished between two types of motivations
based on social psychology in early studies – ‘‘instrumental motivation’’ and
‘‘integrative motivation ’’(cited in Brown,1994:152).Instrumental motivation is the
desire to learn a second language for attaining instrumental goals, such as getting a
good job, gaining a social recognition, translation, etc. Integrative motivation on the
other hand, is the desire to learn a second language with the purpose of making
friends, integrating oneself within the culture of the L2 or becoming a member of the
target language community.
Later, in educational psychology motivation was classified into ‘‘intrinsic
motivation’ and “extrinsic motivation” (Ehrman, Leaver, and Oxford, 2003). Oxford
and Nyikos (1989) claimed that ‘‘the degree of expressed motivation was the single
most powerful influence on the choice of language learning strategies’’ (cited in Ellis,
1994:542).
As claimed studies show that highly motivated learners employ a
significantly greater range of appropriate strategies than do less motivated learners.
Besides, the type of motivation has also been proven to determine the type of
strategies that one uses. In the same study conducted by Oxford and Nyikos (1989),
it is displayed that learners with instrumental goals prefer to apply formal practice
and general study strategies to functional practice strategies in the aim of getting
good grade. However, in Ehrman’s study (1990) on adult students instrumental
motivation has also displayed the learners’ inclination to more communicative
strategies for the career reasons.
The contradictory results can be explained by claiming that since extrinsically
motivated learners are always with low interest in learning the target language, the
strategies they use turn out to be monotonous. That is, they will only employ those
33
strategies that can facilitate them to achieve instrumental goals, like formal practice
and accuracy strategies, etc. In contrast, intrinsic motive stems from the great interest
in learning; therefore, learners comprehensively combine all kinds of effective
strategies to improve their language proficiency.
1.4.1.7. Personality
There are four dichotomous categories of personality types according to
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. They are extroversion versus introversion, sensing
versus intuition, thinking versus feeling, judging versus perceiving (Brown,
1994:147). These personality types have also been proposed as one of the factors
likely to influence the choice of LLS.
In a study to measure overall personality type of students and teachers with
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, Erhman (1990) suggested that “each personality trait is
associated with ‘assets’ and ‘liabilities’ where language learning is concerned” and
outlined both the ‘assets’ and the ‘liabilities’ of those personality types
(Ellis,1994:542). To illustrate, extroverts are believed to have a willingness to take
conversational risks as an asset but a dependency on outside stimulation and
interaction as a liability (Brown, 1994:151). However, little evidence was offered by
Ehrman to support the claim. The relationship between individual traits and reported
strategy use were puzzling in some cases.
Among the studies which have sought to discover a link between the types
and L2 learning only in Ehrman and Oxford’s (1990) study their subjects displayed
some difference that extroverts used social strategies consistently and easily while
introverts rejected them (Brown, 1994:150). Sensing students exhibited a strong
liking for memory strategies; intuitive were better at compensation strategies.
However, other results turned out to be opposite of what was expected. Such as,
introverts reported significantly greater use of strategies that involved searching for
and communicating meaning than did extroverts, feeling-people reported using
general study strategies to greater extent than thinkers did (Ellis, 1994:542).
34
1.4.2. Situational Factors
Apart from individual differences factors, situational factors are also found to
be important such as teachers, the language being learnt, the learning setting, the
types of learning tasks, and the learners’ cultural background.
Teachers play a vital role in forming and employing the strategies of L2
learners in educational context (Oxford, 1990; Cohen, 1998). The reason is that
learners will receive direct effects from strategy training carried out through
strategies-based instruction and indirect impacts of teachers’ including their teaching
methods, their style and even the materials they choose to use in class. In fact,
teachers have such a profound effect that in every aspect no matter in giving new
knowledge or training skills, may change students’ choice of strategies, positively or
negatively. Teachers’ higher expectation will strongly shape the strategies of learners
in learning; for example, explaining what students should do, telling them when and
how to use certain strategies, suggesting communicative activities to enhance
students social strategies, such things will be helpful to raise students awareness of
using strategies widely and appropriately. What is more, the emphasis of a teacher on
grammar learning will result in development of leaning strategies like analysis and
reasoning, rather more global strategies for communication and vice versa.
The language itself appears to make some difference in the choice of LLS.
Some studies report that learning some languages results in greater strategy use than
learning others. For example, Politzer (1983) found that FL students of German and
French employed more strategies than those of Spanish (cited in Ellis: 1994:543).
In addition to these, the learning setting also has a function to change learners’
strategy use. Many researchers have explored that strategies used by learners in a
classroom are different from those used in a more natural setting. As suggested by
Chamot et al. (1988) classroom learners rarely mention the use of social and
affective strategies (Ellis, 1994:544). This is likely that little opportunity is provided
by classroom settings for the use of such strategies in carrying out interaction. In a
natural setting, communication occurs naturally and consistently which directly
35
forces an individual to use social strategies in the face of maintaining a realistic
interaction. Such evidence was displayed in Wong-fillmore’s study in that young
learners used social strategies extensively in a play situation.
With regard to the learning setting, there is another significant factor to take
into consideration. It is whether the language is studied in a FL or L2 setting. An L2
setting supplies with a powerful integrative motive in itself towards learners
compared with FL setting (Dörnyey, 2003). An illustration of this is that China as a
FL learning environment is strikingly different from many bilingual or multilingual
European countries in that it is largely monolingual and monocultural, and languages
are taught primarily as a school subject of FL with very limited direct contact with
L2 speakers. Without doubt, L2 learners are more motivated to learn the language
than FL learners are for the availability of language in the community. Thus, the
higher degree of motivation will enhance learners’ use of strategies both widely and
appropriately for fulfilling the desire of language learning as mentioned earlier in this
chapter.
Apart from the factors presented above, task types have been demonstrated to
have considerable effect on the actual choice of strategy. The nature of the task
determines the strategies naturally employed to carry out the task. As long as
learners’ learning tasks have changed, e.g. from reading to writing, they will choose
different strategies in accomplishing the task. Reading tasks lead to the use of
“skimming” and “scanning” while writing tasks lead to “note-taking” and
“summarizing”. For further illustration, the table below provided by O’Malley and
Chamot will be desirable.
36
Task Metacognitive Strategies Cognitive Strategies
Vocabulary
Listening
Cloze
Writing
Self-monitoring Self-evaluation Selective attention Self-monitoring Problem identification Self-monitoring Self-evaluation
Organizational Planning
Self-monitoring Self-evaluation
Resourcing Elaboration Note taking Elaboration Inferencing Summarizing Translation Deduction Inferencing Elaboration Resourcing Translation Deduction Substitution Elaboration Summarizing
Table 7.Strategies Preferred for Different Language Tasks
(See O’Malley and Chamot, 1990:142)
Finally, cultural background seems to have significant influence on learners’
choice of LLS as well. In her study, Willing (1988) reported that different ethnic
groups have different learning style preferences as well as LLS according to their
cultural backgrounds. To illustrate, the most preferred learning modes of Chinese
learners were:
I like the teacher to explain everything to us. 54%
I like the teacher to tell me all my mistakes. 51%
I like to practice the sounds and pronunciation. 50%
I like to learn many new words. 43%
In class, I like to learn by conversations. 43%
I like to learn English words by doing something. 43%
(cited in Rechards & Lockhart, 1996:62)
That of Arabic speakers was:
37
I like to practice the sounds and pronunciation. 77%
I like the teacher to explain everything to us. 77%
I like to study grammar. 65%
I like to learn by talking to friends in English. 56%
I like the teacher to help me talk about my interests. 56%
In class, I like to learn by conversations. 56%
(cited in Rechards & Lockhart, 1996:62)
In addition to that, through the observations of Hispanic and Asian ESL
learners, Politzer and McGroarty(1983) have also noticed the influence of cultural
background on the use of strategies. Strategies such as correcting fellow students,
asking for clarification, volunteering, seeking help for confirmation, or requesting
repetition were more part of the Western than the Asian learning behavior repertoire
(Galloway and Labarca, 1990).
To sum up all the factors that have been briefly discussed, it can be said in
one word that there is no single strategy to fit everyone, in every context. One must
recognize the context dependency of strategies as they can only be applied to a
particular linguistic situation. It is therefore certain language tasks give rise to
specific strategies. Meanwhile, one should not forget that a learner is an individual
with his or her distinctness and uniqueness. S/he makes choices according to her or
his individual needs, interests, preferences, abilities and the like. These will do much
on the extent to which any types of strategies are employed. ‘‘Listing only the
repertoire of possible strategies available to a learner understates the individual
variation present strategy use’’. (Grenfell, 2000) Hence, it is suggested that before
training students to use strategies, all of the factors pointed out above must be taken
into account fully. Then training will be useful and LLS on the other hand make
learning ‘‘easier, faster, more enjoyable, more self-directed, more effective, and
more transferable to new situations’’.
38
2. Research Methodology
It has been accepted that students’ use of LLS is of vital importance for
enhancing their learning process and attaining higher achievement. However, few
studies have been done in the province of XinJiang to enrich the educators’
understanding of the students’ LLS use and its relationship with their achievement.
In order to bridge the gap, this study is carried out to investigate the strategy use of
students and demonstrate the correlation between strategies and language
achievement. In this chapter, the survey that was conducted to make a tentative study
on LLS of non-English majors in XinJiang University will be reported.
2.1. Objectives
The main objectives of this study are:
1. To assess the frequency level of LLS use of sophomore non-English
major students;
2. To investigate if any differences exist due to differences in majors,
language proficiency, and gender difference;
3. To determine the correlation between English achievement and LLS
use;
so as to make some suggestions for students and teachers in college English
learning and teaching in the region.
2.2. Participants
126 non-English majors from four classes in XinJiang University were
randomly selected to participate in the study. Non-English majors here refer to
majority Han Chinese (the major ethnic group) students who pursue undergraduate
degree in a variety of disciplines such as arts, sciences, engineering, management,
law, medical science, etc., in universities around China. The English course they take
39
is called College English. College English is an integral part of higher education,
which the Ministry of Education specifies as a compulsory course that everyone
entering the university is required to take, starting from College English band 1 to
band 4 in their first two years.
College English is a course with four components which are integrated skills,
listening and speaking, extensive reading course, and fast reading. Among them the
most crucial one is integrated skills course that students attend four hours each week.
The secondary important course is listening and speaking course that students take an
hour each week in language lab. Extensive reading and fast reading are additional
courses that can be incorporated into the classroom teaching in accordance with the
teacher’s pace of teaching.
College English has been regarded as a very important part of higher
education since its emergence in 1986. To examine the implementation of the
curriculum and to evaluate classroom teaching and learning, after the first two years
of English study, students are assessed using a nationwide, standardized English
proficiency test called College English Test Band 4 (CET-4 hereafter) designed by
the National College English Test Committee(Wang and Cheng, 2005).
Thus, the participants in the study were second-grade non-English majors in
Mathematics, Biochemistry, Computer science, and Law departments respectively.
They had studied English for more than seven years as a requirement before they
entered the university in September 2004, and had taken the CET-4 in December
2005. These students had completed more than three semesters’ study of College
English, at the time of the administration of the survey in June 2006.
The second-year college students were chosen for this study due to two basic
reasons. For one, it was assumed that after three semesters' study of English at
university they may have formed LLS of their own, and that they would be more able
to reflect on their English learning experiences and strategy use compared with
freshmen students. For another, non-English majors at college will not have College
English in the third and fourth grade. Therefore, it is necessary to help students of
second grade raise their awareness of effectiveness of strategy use in English study,
which may result in their improved English proficiency and better independent
learning for future.
40
Thus, twenty-six students were first sampled from the four classes in order to
pilot the questionnaire. All this students later participated in the real survey and were
among the subjects of this study.
Students with total number of 124 from the four classes responded to the
English Learning Strategy Questionnaire in June 2006. However, some students did
not complete the questionnaire seriously. Some students did not fill in their CET-4
scores or their gender and some others left one or two items incomplete. Only 103
students finally entered the data analysis and they were thus treated as the subjects in
the survey study. The basic information about the subjects is displayed in the Table 8.
Gender Average
age Majors CET-4 Scores
Male Female
Biochem
istry
Math
Law
Compu
ter
Min Max Mean
43
60
19.5
22
29
29
23 28 88 62.5
Table 8: Basic Information of the Subjects
In order to identify differences in strategy use between more and less
successful students, 26 students (roughly the top 25%) were categorized as
successful students (GLL), and 26 students (roughly the bottom 25%) as less
successful students (LSL). The categorization was based on their CET-4 scores in the
survey study. (CET-4 scores were used as a major criterion for judging whether a
learner is successful or not in this study, because CET-4 is a nation-wide
standardized proficiency test designed to evaluate the second-year students’ language
achievement, and it is considered that its scores can essentially reflect students’ real
language proficiency.) The other 51 students were excluded from the study for the
sake of ensuring the reliability of the results and conclusions. The basic information
about GLL and LSL is displayed in Table 9.
41
Gender CET-4 Scores Groups
Male Female Min Max Mean
GLL 6 20 70 88 75.6
LSL 12 14 28 56 48.5
Table 9: Basic information of GLL and LSL
2.3. Instruments
Four instruments were used to gather the data for this study: (1) a
questionnaire on LLS; (2) language proficiency test scores; (3) a ranking list of
strategy use (4) and some interviews. Below are brief descriptions of each instrument.
1. LLS Questionnaire5: Considering the purposes of this study, it is decided to
use Oxford’s Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL)—Version for ESL
(Version 7.0, 1989). In addition to personal details including age, gender, major and
CET-4 score, the questionnaire includes six parts, respectively dealing with six major
LLS grouped by Oxford. These strategies were not overtly stated in the questionnaire
but were embodied in 50 statements. Part A contains nine statements concerning
memory strategies; Part B consists of 14 statements of cognitive strategies; Part C
covers six items of compensation strategies; Part D contains nine statements about
use of metacognitive strategies; Part E includes six statements about affective
strategies; and Part F contains six statements concerning social strategies.
The instructions in the questionnaire were written in Chinese to make sure
that the subjects understand why and how to do the questionnaire. The rest of the
questionnaire was written in English. Students responded on a five-point Likert
5See Appendix 5 for the questionnaire
42
scale which are : 1) Never, or almost never true of me; 2) Usually not true of me; 3)
Sometimes true of me; 4) Usually true of me; 5) Always or almost completely true of
me. Therefore the higher marks a student scores, the more frequently he/she uses the
strategy.
According to Oxford’s SILL, the overall average is used to indicate how
frequently the student tend to use LLS. The frequency of strategy use is divided into
three levels—high, medium and low. The high level includes two sub-levels. An
average ranging from 4.5 to 5.0 indicates that a student always or almost always uses
LLS; and an average ranging from 3.5 to 4.4 indicates that a student usually uses
LLS. The overall average score of the medium level is from 2.5 to 3.4, which
suggests that a student sometimes uses strategies. The low level also includes two
sub-levels. An average ranging from 1.5 to 2.4 indicates that a student usually does
not use learning strategies; and an average ranging from 1.0 to 1.4 means that a
student never or almost never uses learning strategies. The averages for each part of
the questionnaire indicate which groups of strategies the students tend to use most
frequently.
2. Language Proficiency Test scores: The language proficiency test which
was pointed out in this study is College English Test Band Four —a nation-wide
standardized proficiency test designed to evaluate the second-year students ‘language
achievement after two years’ study of College English. The English achievement in
the present study is established by CET-4 scores, which are believed to reflect
essentially the subjects’ real language proficiency.
3. Ranking list 6: Ranking lists of strategy use were distributed to teachers for
ranking the strategy use of students according to their classroom observations. The
ranking lists5 contained the definitions of six categories of LLS made by Oxford and
teachers were asked to order the strategy types from the most used to the least used
one with the aid of their knowledge on the students. This would be useful to relate
the observation with the actual use of strategies by students in terms of teachers’
beliefs on the subjects.
6 See Appendix 6 for the list
43
4. Interviews: In addition to the questionnaire survey, a small interview with
nine students was carried out. The purpose of conducting the interview was to get
further information about the subjects’ strategy use situation, factors such as their
beliefs, teachers’ instruction, and the learning setting. The students were also asked
to describe how they learn the language in and out of the EFL classroom.
2.4. Data Collection and Analysis Procedure
Achievement was measured by means of CET-4 in this study. All the subjects
had taken CET-4 in December 2005 after three semesters' study of English at college.
Then they were given the questionnaire to answer in June 2006.
The questionnaire was piloted a week before its actual use in the study. The
pre-measured questionnaire contained two parts: the first part about personal
background, the second part concerning LLS inventory of 50 items. Twenty-six
students were sampled from four second-grade classes of XinJinag University in
order to try out the instrument. All the students later participated in the real survey
and were among the subjects of this study. The subjects in the pilot study reported
that they could understand the questionnaire quite well, so no change was made to
the questionnaire for its actual application to the target subjects.
The real questionnaire survey was conducted in June 2006 in individual
classes. In order to make the students take it seriously, their teachers were asked to
conduct it. The questionnaire and the research as a whole were explained to the
teachers so that they would be able to answer questions if there were any from the
students.
Each time before the students responded to the questionnaire, the teacher
would explain the purpose of this study and the contribution it would make to FLT.
The teacher also emphasized that there were no right or wrong answers to all the
items in the questionnaire and the students should answer it according to their true
situation. The students were allowed to ask questions about the questionnaire when
they had. The students were given about 30 minutes to finish the questionnaire in
class. When the students were working on the questionnaire, some did not quite
understand one or two statements, but their teacher helped them out. After they
44
finished the questionnaire, the teacher asked them to check and make sure that they
did not miss any items in the questionnaire. Finally, the teacher collected the
questionnaires and thanked the participants. Altogether 126 questionnaires were administered and the same number
returned. After all the questionnaires collected, they were numbered and the invalid
ones were discarded, such as those without the required personal information and
those that left some items unanswered. Thus, 103 students entered final data analysis
and were treated as the subjects in the survey study.
In November, 2006�raw data obtained from the subjects were put into the
computer. With SPSS ( version 10), internal consistence reliability was calculated for
the instrument as a whole and each category of the inventory based on Oxford’s
(1990) classification. The overall Cronbach alpha reliability for the 50-item strategy
inventory of the questionnaire was 0.9025, which reached the statistic requirement (a
≥ 0.6). It shows that the questionnaire could be employed for further statistical
analysis. Table10 describes the names of variables, the number of items categorized,
the content and reliability coefficients of the variables.
Variables (N) Brief description of variables Alpha
Memory Strategies (9)
Creating mental linkage, applying
images and sounds, reviewing well,
employing action
0.655
Cognitive Strategies (14)
Practicing, receiving and sending
messages, analyzing and reasoning,
generalizing, creating structure for input
and output
0.776
Compensation Strategies ( 6) Guessing intelligently, overcoming
limitations in speaking and writing 0.717
Metacognitive Strategies (9) Centering learning, arranging and
planning learning, evaluating learning 0.822
Affective Strategies (6) Lowering anxiety, being self-encourage,
taking emotional temperature 0.604
45
Social Strategies (6) Asking questions, cooperating with
others, empathizing with others 0.725
Table 10: Description of Variables
2.4.1. Quantitative Analysis
The present study is primarily a quantitative study. SPSS (10.0) was used to
analyze the data. The quantitative analysis involved several statistical procedures:
(1) Descriptive statistics, including frequencies, means and standard deviations were
computed to summarize the students' responses to strategy items;
(2) Pearson correlations analysis was conducted to examine the relationship between
the strategy use of non-English majors and their English proficiency;
(3) Multiple regression analysis was used to examine the relationships between the
six categories of learning strategies in order to find out, which one was the strongest
predictor of English achievement;
2.4.2. Qualitative Analysis An addtional qualitative analysis has also been conducted to obtain some
background information on related factors in the use of LLS such as teachers’
instruction, learning situation, and some beliefs that students hold on learning
language. Consequently, after preliminary results of the questionnaire were obtained,
an interview with a small number of students was conducted. Altogether nine
students were interviewed within two groups.
Students were made available with the outline7 before the interview had been
carried out and given 15 minutes to review. Students were interviewed in two small
groups with four in one group and five in another. With the intention of arousing
students’ interest to involve in the talk, interviews with the students were carried on
mainly in English and Chinese was used when only necessary.
7 See Appendix 7 for the interview outline
46
For getting further information on learners’ preferences in strategy use,
teachers’ observation of their students preferences in strategy use has also been
checked by applying ranking lists of strategy use to teachers. Thus, four ranking lists
of strategy use have been distributed to the teachers of the target classes, and done
with conscientious efforts of the teachers.
As a whole, the present study is just a descriptive study aiming to examine
the general situation of the university non-English majors LLS use. This chapter has
reported the methodology of the investigation conducted at XinJiang University with
second-grade non-English majors. The results of the statistical analyses of the data
and additional qualitative data will be reported with a discussion in the next chapter.
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Quantitative Results The quantitative analysis involved several statistical procedures, such as
descriptive statistics, Pearson correlations analysis, and regression analysis. The
results of the statistical analyses of the data are presented as follows.
3.1.1. LLS Use of Non-English Majors In order to observe the preferences of strategy use of non-English majors, the
data gained from the questionnaire were put under the descriptive study. In this part
of the study, the frequency of the overall strategy use, the frequency of strategy use
in six categories, and the frequency in individual strategy use of all non-English
majors will be reported.
Table11 presents the frequency of the overall strategy use of non-English
majors. The results showed that almost 80% of the students sometimes use strategies
(at medium level of frequency), only about 8.7% use strategies at high level of
frequency, and about 11.7% students usually do not use strategies (at low level of
frequency).
47
Table11: Overall Frequency of Strategy Use of Non-English Majors
The frequency of LLS use in the six categories has been as displayed in the
Figure2. Students’ mean score for memory strategies has been 2.8; for cognitive
strategies has been 2.97; for compensation strategies has been 3.21; for
metacognitive strategies has been 3.10; for affective strategies has been 2.86; and the
mean score for social strategies has been 2.76.
All Non-English Majors
2,82,97
3,213,1
2,862,76
MEM COG COM MET AFF SOC
Figure2: Frequency of Strategy Use of All Non-English Majors in Six Categories
The means for all the six categories were higher than 2.5, which indicated that
the subjects were generally aware of using LLS. In addition, the most frequently used
strategies by the second-grade non-English majors have been compensation
strategies and the least frequently used ones have been social strategies. The
statistical order of strategy use from the most used to the least used has appeared as:
Frequency of Strategy Use Overall average Total (N=103)
Always or almost always use 4.5—5.0 0 High
Usually use 3.5—4.4 9 (8.7%) Medium Sometimes use 2.5—3.4 82 (79.6%)
Usually not use 1.5—2.4 12 (11.7%) Low Never or almost never
use 1.0—1.4 0
48
Compensation strategies> Metacognitive strategies>Cognitive strategies>
Affective strategies>Memory strategies>Social strategies
Individual strategy use in each category has also been explored, drawing upon
the statistics8 the most frequent used strategies (M>3.5) by non-English majors have
been the items of 10, 18, 24, 29, 33 exhibited as below.
1. I say or write new English words several times.
2. I first skim an English passage (read over the passage quickly) then go back and
read carefully.
3. To understand unfamiliar English words, I make guesses.
4. If I cannot think of an English word, I use a word or phrase that means the same
thing.
5. I try to find out how to be a better learner of English.
On the contrary, the least used strategies among non-English majors have
been the items of 6, 14, 17, 35, 43 (M<2.4) as beneath.
1. I use flashcards to remember new English words.
2. I start conversations in English.
3. I write notes, messages, letters, or reports in English.
4. I look for people I can talk to in English.
5. I write down my feelings in a language learning diary.
6. I ask questions in English.
As viewed above, among the frequent used strategies three are strategies for
vocabulary learning, one is for reading, and the other is for trying to find a better way
of learning. However, among the least used strategies, five are strategies for using
the language, and only one is strategy for memorizing.
8 See Appendix 8 for the mean numbers
49
3.1.2. LLS Use in Different Majors
As reported that the subjects of the study were from four classes of second-
grade in different departments, hence, the data gathered from those classes have been
analyzed respectively to see whether there would be any difference in strategy use
between the students from different majors.
The first class under the survey has been Biochemistry-2004, which
contained 22 subjects in number. Their mean scores in six categories of LLS have
been calculated. Drawing upon the statistics, the subjects show the means in six
categories respectively as that: the mean number for memory strategies has been 2.87,
for cognitive strategies has been 3.08, for compensation strategies has been 3.13, for
metacognitive strategies has been 3.23, for affective strategies has been 2.85, and for
social strategies has been 2.84 as shown in Figure3.
Students Majored in Biochemistry
2,87
3,08 3,133,23
2,85 2,84
MEM COG COM MET AFF SOC
Figure3. Frequency of Strategy Use of Students Majored in Biochemistry
As clearly shown in the Figure, the mean numbers of six categories were
higher than 2.5, which mean the subjects sometimes use strategies in language
learning. The students appeared to use mostly metacognitive strategies (M=3.23),
followed by compensation strategies (M=3.13), and the least used strategies were
social strategies (M=2.84).
The second class has been Mathematics-2004 class, which had 29 subjects
under the statistical analysis. Statistics (see Figure 4) displayed that the means for the
50
use of strategies respectively have been 2.76 for memory strategies, 2.7 for cognitive
strategies, 3.21 for compensation strategies, 2.93 for metacognitive strategies, 2.74
for affective strategies, and 2.51 for social strategies. Similar to the first class, all the
mean numbers of six categories were higher than 2.5 means they sometimes use LLS.
Students Majored in Mathematics
2,76 2,73,21 2,93 2,74 2,51
MEM COG COM MET AFF SOC
Figure4. Frequency of Strategy Use of Students Majored in Mathematics
Seemingly, except from compensation strategies the means for all strategies
of the class were a little lower than the first class. What’s more, the most used
strategies have been compensation strategies; the use of these strategies was rather
higher than the other strategies. The least used ones have been social strategies.
Comparatively speaking the use of social strategies was rather low than the use of
other strategies.
The third class under the survey has been Law-2004 class. The subjects from
the class were 29 in number. As seen in the Figure5 mean numbers of strategy use
have been separately that 2.88 for memory strategies, 3.09 for cognitive strategies,
3.34 for compensation strategies, 3.11 for metacognitive strategies, 3.06 for affective
strategies, and 2.92 for social strategies.
51
Students Majored in Law
2,88
3,09
3,34
3,11 3,062,92
MEM COG COM MET AFF SOC
Figure5. Frequency of Strategy Use of Students Majored in Law
Judging by the scores of CET-4, it was found that the class has been more
successful in language learning compared with other classes in which everyone has
passed the exam. Consistent with that, the use of strategies has come higher in the
rate than other classes as demonstrated. This has confirmed the previous finding once
again that the effective use of strategies leads to success in learning. It can be
obtained that the most frequently used strategies have been compensation strategies
just as the subjects majored in Mathematics and the least used strategies are memory
strategies followed by social strategies.
The last class under the survey has been Computer Science-2004, in which 23
subjects have provided with the data for the study. The mean numbers of the subjects
in six categories of the class have been appeared to be close to the class of
Biochemistry; they are 2.66 for memory strategies, 3.08 for cognitive strategies, 3.1
for compensation strategies, 3.15 for metacognitive strategies, 2.77 for affective
strategies, and 2.81 for social strategies as demonstrated in Figure 6.
52
Students Majored in Computer Science
2,66
3,08 3,1 3,15
2,77 2,81
MEM COG COM MET AFF SOC
Figure6. Frequency of Strategy Use of Students Majored in Computer Science
The strategy types used most have been metacognitive strategies followed by
compensation strategies, which are the same with the class of Biochemistry.
However, the least used strategies are memory strategies like the class of Law. The
strategy use of the all majors could be described statistically as the Figure 7 presents
beneath.
Comparison of the strategy use in different majors
0,000,501,001,502,002,503,003,504,00
MEM COG COM MET AFF SOC
Law
Math
Biochemistry
Computer science
Figure7. Comparison of the Frequency of Strategy Use in Different Majors
All the categories of LLS use have been turned out to be very close with each
other as viewed. The means are higher than 2.5 and lower than 3.5. Referring to
53
Oxford all the rates presented in the Figure was at medium level. In the categories of
social and cognitive strategies, students in Mathematics showed the lowest rates.
The overall strategy use of students in different majors can be concluded as
Figure8. Students who were majored in Law show the highest number, whereas
students who were majored in Mathematics show the lowest rate. The result is
consistent with some early finding that higher language achievement is related with
the wider use of strategies.
Overall Strategy Use
3
2,81
3,06
2,93
Bio Math Law Com
Figure8. Overall Frequency of Strategy Use in Different Majors
3.1.3. LLS Use of GLL and LSL Descriptive statistics were also carried out to check the difference in LLS use
between GLL whose scores are in the top 25% of the subjects and LSL whose CET4
scores are in the bottom 25% of the subjects. Through calculating the means of
strategy use in six categories, the strategy use frequency of GLL have been appeared
that 2.97 for memory strategies, 3.27 for cognitive strategies, 3.22 for compensation
strategies, 3.4 for metacognitive strategies, 3.04 for affective strategies, and 2.93 for
social strategies. Whereas the strategy use frequency of LSL have been 2.72 for
memory strategies, 2.71 for cognitive strategies, 3.15 for compensation strategies,
2.86 for metacognitive strategies, 2.79 for affective strategies, and 2.58 social
strategies.
The differences in strategy use of the two groups are presented in the following
Figure.
54
GLL and LSL
00,5
11,5
22,5
33,5
4
MEM COG COM MET AFF SOC
LSL
GLL
Figure9.Differences in Strategy Use between GLL and LSL
As shown in Figure 9 that GLL have demonstrated significantly higher
frequency of using memory strategies, cognitive strategies, and metacognitive
strategies, affective and social strategies. The difference in metacognitive strategies
was the most significant. Furthermore, while metacognitive strategies and cognitive
strategies appeared to be preferred mostly by GLL, compensation, and metacognitive
strategies have been most favored by LSL.
As about overall strategy use of the two groups, GLL has displayed much
higher frequency in strategy use than LSL referring to Figure10.
Overall Strategy Use3,13
2,79
GLL LSL
Figure10. Overall Strategy Use of GLL and LSL
An analysis of individual strategy use within each category has also revealed
some differences. Referring to the mean scores9, significant differences have been
9See Appendix 9 for the means scores
55
found in some items, of which GLL have reported higher level of frequency use
(M>3.5) than the LSL. They are
1. I say or write new English words several times.
2. I practice the sounds of English.
3. I first skim an English passage (read over the passage quickly) then go back
and read carefully.
4. I find the meaning of an English word by dividing it into parts that I
understand.
5. I try not to translate word-for –word.
6. To understand unfamiliar English words, I make guesses.
7. If I can’t think of an English word, I use a word or phrase that means the
same thing.
8. I notice my English mistakes and use that information to help me do better.
9. I pay attention when someone is speaking English.
10. I think about my progress in learning English.
11. I try to relax whenever I feel afraid of using English.
12. If I do not understand something in English, I ask the other person to slow
down or say it again.
13. I try to learn about the culture.
There also have been some items (M<2.4) disfavored by LSL, but favored by GLL.
They are
1. I try to talk like native English speakers.
2. I look for people I can talk to in English.
3. I ask English speakers to correct me when I talk.
4. I practice English with other students.
5. I ask for help form English speakers.
6. I ask questions in English.
However, no difference was found between the two groups in using the two
items of affective strategies. One is “I write down my feelings in a language learning
diary” which has also been found to be the least used item by all non-English majors.
56
The other item is “I talk to someone else about how I feel when I am learning
English”.
Based on the mean scores, individual strategy use of GLL and LSL can be
described as the following Figure.
Case Number
4946
4340
3734
3128
2522
1916
1310
74
1
Valu
e
4,5
4,0
3,5
3,0
2,5
2,0
1,5
GLL
LSL
Figure11: Individual Strategy Use of GLL and LSL
As presented, the two lines are basically on the upper side of the scale rather
than on the lower side or in the middle. In other words, most points on the lines are
between 2 and 4, which shows the subjects are generally aware of using LLS. And
the two lines of the mean scores basically share the same changing tendency. This
shows both groups used certain strategies while some strategies were seldom used by
either of the two groups. In sum, the red line is to the upper side of the green one,
which shows the GLL mean scores are generally higher than those of the LSL.
3.1.4. LLS Use of Females and Males Statistic analysis has also been carried out to see whether there would be any
difference in strategy use between females and males. Therefore, data gathered from
60 females and 43 males have been put under the analysis. The mean numbers of
57
strategy use of males in six categories have been respectively that 2.8 for memory
strategies, 3 for cognitive strategies, 3.27 for compensation strategies 3.07 for
metacognitive strategies, 2.70 for affective strategies, and 2.77 for social strategies.
The mean numbers of females have been 2.79 for memory strategies, 2.97 for
cognitive strategies, 3.18 for compensation strategies, 3.14 for metacognitive
strategies, 2.95 for affective strategies, and 2.77 for social strategies. The differences
might be drawn from the Figure12 beneath.
Females and Males
2,4
2,6
2,8
3
3,2
3,4
MEM COG COM MET AFF SOC
FemalesMales
Figure12: Differences in Strategy Use between Females and Males
The line for females and the line for males are almost overlapped with each
other at three points, which mean no significant differences in the categories of
memory strategies, cognitive strategies, and social strategies. The point for
metacognitive strategies is also very close as seen. As for other strategies, affective
strategies are likely to be used more by females than males, and compensation
strategies seem more favored by males. The numbers of overall LLS use have
showed no difference between females (M=2.97) and males (M=2.94).
Having looked at the means10 of individual strategy in each category, only
two items of metacognitive strategies demonstrated some difference in the use
between females and males. They are “I pay attention when someone is speaking
English” and “I look for people I can talk to in English”. Males (M> 2.5) more
10See Appendix10for the means
58
favored the strategies than females. Based on the mean scores, the Figure below can
be drawn. It can be easily viewed that the red line for males and the green line for
females are almost overlapped with each other at most points means no significant
differences as stated already.
Case Number
4946
4340
3734
3128
2522
1916
1310
74
1
Valu
e
4,5
4,0
3,5
3,0
2,5
2,0
1,5
Males
Females
Figure13: Individual Strategy Use of Males and Females
3.1.5. LLS Use and Language Achievement In this part of the study, the correlation between language achievement and
the strategy use has been tested with the statistical program. The results came out as
presented in the table below. Correlation analysis has showed a number of
relationships between different variables. As shown in Table 12, the analysis of
Pearson’s correlation between independent and dependent variables produced
positive results. Significant positive correlations existed between the overall LLS
use and foreign language achievement (r=0.275, p<0.01). Cognitive strategies,
metacognitive strategies, and social strategies have also demonstrated significant
correlations with language achievement. Besides, there exists a close relationship
59
between the six categories of LLS. Among them cognitive strategies had the
strongest correlation with metacognitive strategies (r = 601, p<0.01).
CET-4
score
MEM COG COM MET AFF SOC
MEM .147
COG .388�� .430��
COM .043 .296�� .376��
MET .399�� .458�� .601�� .378��
AFF .168 .401�� .534�� .313�� .417��
SOC .269�� . 512�� .566�� .298�� .513�� .583��
Overall .275�� .493�� .598�� .362�� .527�� .713�� .991�� ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Table12:Correlations of Strategy Use and Language Achievement
Correlation analysis demonstrates the relationship between the variables, but
it cannot be used to determine to what extent LLS use (independent variables)
predicts English proficiency (dependent variable). Thus, multiple regression analysis
was done for this purpose, and the results were shown in Table 13. In the table,
“Multiple R” means the multiple correlation between independent variables and
dependent variable. “R Square” means the coefficient of determination, which can be
interpreted as the proportion of variance in dependent variable that is contained in
independent variables. “Adjusted R Square” means the overall predictive power of
the six independent variables. “Beta” means the predictive power of each
independent variable. “Beta” has two orientations: positive and negative. “Positive
value” means the bigger positive Beta value the higher scores the students may
achieve, while “negative value” means the opposite.
60
Dependent
Variable Multiple R R Square
Adjusted R
Square
F-
value
P-
value
CET-4
Score .500(a) .250 .191 4.269 .000
Independent variables Beta
Memory Strategies
Cognitive Strategies
Compensation Strategies
.061
.308
.210
Metacognitive Strategies
Affective Strategies
Social Strategies
.362
.163
.116 a Predictors: (Constant), SOC, COG, COM, MEM, MET, AFF Table 13: Six Categories of Strategies Predicting English Achievement (enter method)
3.2. Qualitative Results
The qualitative data was additonally used to have some knowledge on the
current situation of learning and teaching, common beliefs among the learners, and
teachers knowledge of their learners in the use of strategies. Thus, we only made a
summary of the whole procedure.
Through the interview, it has been learnerd that College English has been
taught in such a way that teachers occupy most of the time in the classroom by
making clear of every point of the new words to the students such as the use of words
in different contexts, synonyms, antonyms, plural forms, and collocations, phrasal
verbs, useful expressions, introducing the background of the text, telling the genre of
the written work, explaining the written text sentence by sentence, analyzing some
sentence pattern. To the researcher’s knowledge, very limited time has been spent on
doing activities of oral practice such as discussions, role-play, making dialogue, and
the like.
61
During the interview, it was told that do more reading and having large
vocabulary in quantity are the most helpful things to improve English that learners
have been believing for so long. When talking about the aims of learning English, the
importance of learning English for communication has been pointed out by learners.
Yet it has been gained that much effort of the students has been put on learning
grammar for it plays a very important role in achieving higher academic records in
formal education. When talking about LLS, students have put forward their
recognition of their role in learning, yet they have never been taught to use specific
strategies in the class. They themselves have never stopped to think which strategies
they should apply in performing certain type of task.
The interview as a whole, confirmed the common beliefs of the author on
Chinese learners and English teaching. Nonetheless, with the time limitation and
learners’ unfamiliarity with specific strategies the interview was restricted from
developing freely. As regards the ranking lists applied to teachers, the following
results were obtained.
1. Teacher of Class 2004 -Biochemistry
Memory strategies (the most used) >Compensation strategies>Cognitive strategies>
Metacognitive strategies> Affective strategies>Social strategies (the least used)
2. Teacher of Class 2004-Computer science
Cognitive strategies (the most used)> Memory strategies > Compensation strategies
> Metacognitive strategies>Affective strategies> Social strategies(the least used)
3. Teacher of Class 2004- Law
Memory strategies (the most used) > Cognitive strategies> Metacognitive
strategies>Affective strategies> Social strategies> Compensation strategies (the least
used)
4. Teacher Class 2004-Mathematics
Memory strategies (the most used) > Compensation strategies> Cognitive strategies>
Metacognitive strategies> Affective strategies>Social strategies (the least used)
62
None of the orders came out consistent with the actual use of strategies of the
students as the statistics reported. Referring to the lists three teachers have put
memory strategies for the most used strategies, and social strategies for the least used
ones, only one teacher has put them in the second most and second least used ones.
This indicates that memory strategies and social strategies have been believed to be
the most and least used strategies respectively by the teachers. It is a common
knowledge that memory-based learning has long been the traditional way of learning
for Chinese learners. It is notable that learners try hard to memorize dozens of words,
long sentences, and even texts. This might be attributed the teachers to the belief that
their students must have used memory strategies most. On the contrary, the least use
of social strategies has been proven true as observed by the teachers. It might be
suggested that regardless of their majors all Chinese learners rely less on social
strategies.
3.3. Discussions Based on the results of both quantitative and qualitative analysis presented
above, further discussions are made below, trying to interpret these findings as
follows.
3.3.1. Frequency of LLS Use of Non-English Majors The results of descriptive statistics revealed that the frequency of overall
strategy use by non-English majors in XinJiang University was not high (see Table
11). The majority of students (79.6%) sometimes used LLS (at medium level of
frequency); only about 8.7% students frequently used strategies and about 11.6%
students usually did not use strategies. When interviewed, the students reported that
they did know the role of strategies in language learning, but when it came to the
specific learning material or the specific learning task, they were at a loss as to deal
with it. That is to say, they did not have the appropriate strategies to approach their
language learning in general, neither were they equipped with corresponding
strategies to solve the specific problems. Such results should arouse concern and
63
prompt the teachers and researchers to help students acquire good knowledge of LLS
and train them how consciously employ strategies in their learning of English. In fact,
it is empirically true that it is not sufficient for teachers only to resort to their
teaching methods to enhance the students’ English learning. Much attention should
be paid to strategy training according to the learners’ individual differences in future
classroom instructions.
As for the six categories of strategies, the subjects in the study used
compensation strategies most frequently. Some researchers (Hickson et al., 1994;
Grainger, 1997) had also found that Asian students used compensation strategies
most frequently. Perhaps, this is a characteristic of Asian students, trying to make up
for their lack of knowledge by other means such as paraphrasing or guessing when
learning English as a foreign language. According to Oxford (1990), compensation
strategies— guessing when the meaning is not known, or using synonyms or gestures
to express meaning of an unknown word or expression—are the heart of strategic
competence.
Social strategies were the least reported by both students and teachers in the
present study. It is true that most Chinese non-English majors are not likely to use
social strategies, such as asking teachers for clarification or verification, seeking
situations to communicate with native speakers, practice English with classmates
outside class. This might be attributed to the influence of the cultural background,
and the social context of China for language learning in the use of the strategies.
Most Chinese students’ attitudes towards their teachers are characterized by
respect, obedience and reliance, which may be said to have resulted from the
domination of the teacher-centered education for so long (Fu, 1999). There are rare
interactions or communications between students and teachers, between students and
students.
Moreover, the fear of making mistakes and losing face are culturally
appropriate behaviors in the Chinese social and academic contexts. The shyness will
probably inhibit learners’ communication attempts and the use of social strategies.
The social context of language learning may also have some negative effect. The
reason is English can only be learned as a foreign language in China where there is
little opportunity to experience the TL outside of class. The motivational power of
64
social context has already been discussed in chapter one. Given the aspect, it can be
said that Chinese learners are not culturally motivated to use the language, let alone
employ those strategies needed.
A point noteworthy is that in the study memory strategies were reported
second least used strategies. The result is similar to that of the study conducted by
Bremner (1999) on Hong Kong learners. However, it is contradict to the commonly
accepted accounts of Chinese learners’ LLS use. It might be speculated that the
students might have a tradition of memorisation as drawn from the teachers, they
probably did not know about the specific techniques such as memorizing new words
by using rhymes or connecting the sounds of them to an image or picture, by putting
them into a sentence or acting them out physically.
As with the individual strategy, students showed a tendency to prefer the
absorption of linguistic knowledge rather than functional use of language. It is a
common knowledge that China has a strict exam system in English language
teaching. Almost all colleges and universities in China required bachelor’s degree
students to pass the CET-4. This might be a reason to use these strategies, which are
likely to be helpful for better performance on the tests.
With regard to the students’ major, it can be drawn that their major may not
have any influence in the use of strategies. Statistical results showed no significant
difference in the overall use of strategies and each type of strategies use. Only the
fact that LLS use contributed to success in learning was obtained in that part of the
study.
Finally, drawing upon the results of teachers’ reported order of frequency
level in six types of strategies, none of the order came out consistent with the actual
use of strategies by the students. It can be argued that teachers’ knowledge on their
students learning is far lacking. It is a common knowledge that a teacher in China
means a person on the stage who tells students what to do, what to learn and who
pours out all she or he knows to the students. This may partly resulted from the
teachers’ ignorance of the dynamic part of learning. The reason might be that
Chinese teachers themselves have had little training on teaching throughout their
career life for there is always an urgent need of teachers towards large population of
65
students in universities every year. It is hoped that the gap in teaching will be made
up in the nearest future within the reform moment of English language teaching. 3.3.2. Differences between GLL and LSL
Resorting to the results that were put forth in previous chapter, it can be
attained that there is variation in strategy use between GLL and LSL. Even among
GLL, the different focuses on strategy choice were discovered. On the other hand,
the disfavored strategies are by no means inappropriate ones. It should be noted that
these strategies are disfavored mainly by the LSL. In other words, they are still used
by the GLL. As a matter of fact, if the LSL want to improve their language
proficiency, they should pay more attention to these strategies that they are not using
but are favored by the GLL. The fact that some strategies are favored and some
others are disfavored in the present study can be attributed to both internal and
external factors.
Internal factors can be individual differences factors as have been touched,
which are the closest determinants that give rise to kinds of learner’s responses.
Whereas external factors those situational factors related with learning environment
in which learners select their specific strategies. It is obvious that neither factors
operate exclusively nor there is any claim that internal subjective factors have a more
profound or more decisive influence than external objective factors or vice versa. In
fact, Chinese ideology of education, culture, circumstances, teaching methodology
and the learners’ psychological and emotional characteristics all work together to
shape the strategies the students are using. Yet it cannot be hoped to explore all the
factors in one research. Therefore, there is an urgent need for further research.
As shown in Figure 13, the GLL’ mean scores are generally higher than those
of LSL. To be more exact, among the 50 items, for 45 items, the GLL’ mean scores
are higher than those of the LSL; only for 5 items, the LSL’ mean scores are higher.
From this, it can be inferred that the GLL use LLS better than the LSL do, that is to
say, the GLL are using these strategies at higher frequencies than the LSL. This is in
line with the results of many other researchers (e.g., O’Malley and Chamot, 1990). In
the Figure 9, the GLL demonstrated significantly higher frequency of using
compensation strategies, metacognitive strategies and social strategies than the LSL.
66
Among the six categories of LLS, the biggest difference lies in the use of
metacognitive strategies. O’Malley and Chamot (1990) have asserted that higher-
proficiency students are more likely to use metacognitive strategies than low-
proficiency ones and to use them more effectively as well, which is identical with the
result of this study. The GLL reported markedly higher frequency of using
metacognitive strategies than the LSL: the average GLL’ score is as high as 3.4,
while less successful students get 2.86 on average.
According to correlation analysis and multiple regression analysis, the
metacognitive strategies are confirmed to be most significantly correlated with and
the strongest predictor of English achievements. From these results, it can be seen
that among the six categories of strategies, metacognitive strategies that lead to the
biggest differences in English achievement between the GLL and the LSL. It can be
inferred that GLL usually assessed their needs, arranged and planned their learning,
evaluated progress and gave direction to their learning instead of following the
teacher’s instructions passively, thus, made greater progress in the English learning.
On the contrary, LSL might not have been fully aware that they should take full
responsibility for their own learning.
As it is known, metacognitive strategies, involve executive processes in
planning for learning, monitoring one’s comprehension and production, and
evaluating how one has achieved a learning objective. O’Malley (1990) pointed out
that ‘‘students without metacognitive approaches were essentially learners without
direction and ability to review their progress, accomplishments, and future learning
directions’’. Wenden (1987) concluded that metacognitve strategies had potential for
enhancing success in language learning. Therefore, the results in the present study
are consistent with the findings. They also support Wen & Johnson’s (1997) finding
that the striking differences between the high and low achievers were in the use of
planning and evaluation strategies. In Wen’s studies, planning, monitoring, and
evaluation strategies were put under the category of management strategies,
including making schedules, setting goals, choosing strategies, evaluating progress,
monitoring learning strategies, monitoring learning performance, and regulating
one’s emotion. She concluded that this set of strategies played a more important role
67
in language learning than any other specific strategies (Wen, 2001, Wen & Johnson,
1997).
Furthermore, followed by metacognitive strategies GLL scored the use of
cognitive strategies higher. As it is recognized that cognitive strategies provide
learners the benefits of deep processing, meaningful associations, and ordered
retrieval of complex information. They are essential for language learning.
Metacognitive strategies on the other hand are used to regulate the cognitive
activities and process. It is believed that combined with metacognitive awareness
cognitive strategies hold great potential for maximizing the learning or
internalization process (Galloway and Labarca, 1990). The results have proven to be
true that the combination use of the strategies enhances learning and yields positive
results.
GLL have also demonstrated higher use of affective strategies. Affective
strategies involve managing emotions. The affective side of the learners encloses
such concepts as self-esteem, attitudes, motivation, anxiety, culture shock, inhibition,
risk taking, and tolerance for ambiguity. The affective factors probably influence
most greatly language learners’ success or failure among all the factors. As Stern
(1992) stated that language learning can be frustrating in some cases. (Stern,
1992:266) In some other cases, L2 learners may have negative feelings about native
speakers of L2 or feeling of strangeness. GLL are more or less conscious of these
emotional problems. They try to create associations of positive affect towards the
foreign language and its speakers as well as towards the learning activities involved.
The result of the study has also come out the same with early findings of GLL in this
respect.
Lastly, both GLL and LSL showed less use of social strategies. As known,
social strategies involve interacting with other people to assist learning. The lower
frequency of these strategies may attribute to the cultural background and the
educational pattern in China. The traditional educational pattern shapes students to
be good listeners and gives no chance of cooperation with their teachers and peers.
Teachers give them an impression of authoritative dominators so that students
seldom ask questions for clarification from teachers and are not accustomed to
cooperating with others.
68
3.3.3. Differences between Females and Males
Referring to the result in the overall strategy use no difference was found
between female and male students. They all showed the same level of efforts in the
use of strategies. However, in the use of each category of LLS, females have
presented higher use of affective strategies and lower use of compensation strategies
than males. With regard to gender related difference, studies have revealed that
greater anxiety, lower self-esteem and self-confidence have been problems chiefly
concerning females (Graham, 1997). Indeed, by contrast worrying about uncertainty,
or making mistakes, fearing of loosing face, or negative evaluation, discomfort with
appearing foolish are the behaviors that more appealing to females. Females’ greater
anxiety may be caused by their perfectionism and greater need for approval.
In such cases, affective strategies are fully beneficial in easing anxiety,
decreasing discomfort and providing a safer environment for learners. Therefore, to
bridge the gap between the weaknesses that produced by personality characteristics
females might have employed affective strategies more than their counter-parts.
With regard to compensation strategies, it is considered that the strategies are
deployed to use the language despite large gaps in knowledge. In the literature of
gender difference, males appear to progress by greater involvement in
comprehensible output (i.e. practice), whereas females benefit from greater exposure
to comprehensive input (Graham, 1997). The learning style decided by gender
difference may possibly account for males’ superiority in using compensation
strategies for seeking to use the language. There is no any significant difference
found in the use of individual strategy between the two genders.
3.3.4. LLS Use and Language Achievement
In this study, the results of Pearson correlations analysis revealed that there
were positive correlations between the overall LLS use and English achievement.
69
Those who used LLS more often tended to have higher English achievement. This
result is consistent with previous research with regard to this aspect. In the use of
strategy categories on the SILL, significant positive correlations were found between
cognitive, metacognitive and social strategies and English achievement.
Metacognitve strategies had the closest relationship with English achievement
(r=0.399, p<0.01). The more often students used the categories of LLS, particularly
metacognitve strategies, the more likely they tended to receive higher grades in
foreign language examinations. Besides, it seems there is a close relationship
between the six categories of LLS. Cognitive strategies had the strongest correlation
with metacognitive strategies (r = 0.601, p<0.01). This finding was consistent with
O’Malley and Chamot’s (1990) belief that “Cognitive and Metacognitive strategies
are often used together, supporting each other”. In a sense, this finding confirmed
O’Malley’s suggestion: “transfer of strategy training to new tasks can be maximized
by pairing cognitive strategies with appropriate metacognitive strategies”. It indicates
that well tailored combinations of strategies often have more impact than any single
strategy.
The results of multiple regression analysis presented in Table 13 indicated
that the six independent variables combined to explain 19.1% of variation in English
achievement. This suggests that there are other variables affecting English
achievement. The factors in the system of LLS influence each other and condition
each other. Future research should be involved in other variables such as learners’
beliefs about language learning, motivation, cultural background, learning style, type
of tasks, tolerance of ambiguity, etc.
The multiple correlation between the six categories of strategies and CET-4
achievement was overall significant (F=4.269, p<0.01). Among them, metacognitive
strategies were the strongest predictor (Beta=0.362), then cognitive strategies,
compensation strategies, affective strategies, social strategies and memory strategies
in order of predictive force.
70
As pointed out metacognitive strategies are grouped into indirect strategies by
Oxford (1990) and are considered as management strategies by Wenden(1991)and
they have an executive function. They can be used to regulate and control the whole
process of language learning and specific learning activities as well. Metacognitive
strategies, to some extent, determine the effectiveness of learners' use of other kinds
of strategies and their outcomes of language learning. For example, those learners
who use metacognitive strategies such as “advance preparation” have a clear idea of
what they will learn in their English course. They make detailed plans of what to do
and carry out them almost exactly. Taking new vocabulary for instance, the learners
do not remember every new word they come across. They, first of all, try to evaluate
whether it is worth remembering, because they know no one can remember all the
new words in his/her lifetime. They must remember those that they think are
important.
Those who use metacognitive strategies consciously make greater progress in
their English study. In the study, these strategies were turned out to be the second
most used strategies by the subjects, which is meant that as college students they
have become aware what is meant by learning and how to control the process though
they have little knowledge about what techniques to be employed for the process.
71
Conclusion
The present study is mainly designed to examine the general situation of
strategy use of non-English majors in XinJiang University. In doing so, related
theories or ideas about LLS were studies; and SILL was used in which altogether 50
learning strategies have been proposed and put in six categories based on their
specific functions in the process of language learning. These strategies are assumed
to cover the important aspects of English learning carried out by non-English majors
in Chinese context.
In order to examine, how non-English majors use these strategies, a research
project was conducted, which mainly consisted of a questionnaire survey,
proficiency test scores, some interviews and ranking lists. The main findings of the
study may be summarized as follows:
Firstly, the frequency of overall strategy use of non-English majors in
XinJiang University was not high. The most frequently used strategies were
compensation strategies and the least frequently employed strategies were social
strategies.
Secondly, GLL showed a wider range of strategies at a higher frequency than
LSL. The biggest difference was in the use of metacognitive strategies. Some
differences were found in the use of strategies between male and female students. In
contrast, females used affective strategies more than males, while males used
compensation strategies more than females. However, no significant difference was
found between students in different majors.
Thirdly, the overall strategy use has demonstrated significant correlation with
English achievement. With regard to the correlation of six categories of strategies,
cognitive strategies had displayed the strongest correlation with metacognitive
strategies. Moreover, metacognitive strategies have proven to be the strongest
predictor of English achievement.
The findings indicate that since the frequency of overall strategy use of non-
English majors is not high, more attention should be directed to the cultivation, on
the students’ part, of the awareness of the importance of the strategy use. How to
72
help students become aware of and acquire LLS will be a new task for College
English teachers. Teachers should keep in mind that they should not only teach
students the knowledge of the TL, but also help them learn how to learn. In this case,
the teachers’ role must be changed. Chinese teachers should not always play the role
of instructors; instead, they must play the role of facilitators, and help students
become more independent, and more responsible for their own learning.
What is more, strategy preferences of the students within Chinese culture
have showed us the strong influence of the cultural factors in the use of strategies. It
should be noted that in order to obtain effective use of strategies all the factors
presumably affect in the use of strategies must be taken into full consideration before
training. Learners should be helped to change their negative beliefs and attitude
toward learning and provide with a supportive environment both in and outside
classrooms. Besides, more emphasis should be placed on training the students’
acquisition of metacognitive strategies as they are proven to be crucial in promoting
learning and achieving higher proficiency. The study as a whole further confirmed
the previous findings that effective use of LLS will lead to success and assist in
achieving higher language proficiency.
It is apparent that the appropriate use of LLS not only promotes learners’
language learning effectiveness, but also can be transferred to the learning of other
subjects, and learning in general, so the students can develop toward the attainment
of the abilities of lifelong learning. Just as the Chinese saying goes, “If you give a
man a fish, you feed him for a day. If you teach a man how to fish, you feed him for
a lifetime.’’ This can be made available through training learners to be aware of the
strategies contribute to effective learning, and to discover those strategies suit them
best used by GLL. Assessing learners’ strategy use on the other hand is of vital
importance for providing effective training. Thus, the study is presumed to be
beneficial for College English teachers in terms of understanding the learners and the
importance of training at the same time.
However, due to some limitations resulted from the constraint of the time and
place the study suggests some further investigations.
73
1. Though it is found that workable LLS do exist and play a decisive role in
language learning, it is still beyond our knowledge how a specific strategy directly or
indirectly contributes to language learning, and what is the best way to help learners
make those strategies part of their own and put them to best use. Further
investigations should be done in depth and in width so as to obtain more fruitful
findings.
2. The subjects in the present study have been small and data were collected
primarily by means of a quantitative method. Given the relatively small number of
subjects in this study, it cannot assure that whether the findings in this specific study
would occur with a much larger number of subjects in a foreign language context.
Consequently, it is suggested that future research with a larger sample size might be
more revealing and should adopt multi method to have a clearer picture of LLS use
by non-English majors.
3. It is agreed that English learning is a complex process influenced by lots of
factors such as cultural background, beliefs, learning style, motivation, attitude, etc,
yet the present study is LLS oriented. Therefore, future research can further explore
relevant English learning variables with more reference of related literature. By
doing so, a clearer picture of the variables affecting LLS use would be attained and
may contribute to strategy training.
Research on LLS of non-English majors in XinJiang is still rare, so it is an
urgent need to survey them to help the learners become more autonomous language
learners and to obtain higher achievement in their learning. Although the present
study has only made a probe into the LLS of non-English majors within a limited
scope with limited investigation data, it is hoped that it can serve as a basis for
further investigations into LLS in depth and width and shed some light on College
English teaching and learning.
74
Bibliography Bernat, E.: (2005), ‘‘Beliefs about Language Learning: Current Knowledge,
Pedagogical Implications, and New Research Directions’’, TESL-EJ, Vol.9, No:1,
June, http://tesl-ej.org/ej33/a1.html, 05 December2006.
Bialystok, E.: (1990), Communication Strategies: A Psychological Analysis of
Second-language Use.UK, Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Bremner, S.: (1999), ‘‘Language Learning Strategies and Language Proficiency:
Investigating the Relationship in Hong Kong’’, Canadian Modern Language
Review, Vol.55, No:4, June, http://www.utpjournals.com/product/cmlr/554/554-
Bremner.html, 08January2007.
Brown, H. D.: (1994), Principles of Language Learning and Teaching, 3rd edition.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents.
Chamot, A.: (1987), “The Learning Strategies of ESL Students”, Learner Strategies
in Language Learning, Ed. by. A.Wenden & J. Rubin, Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.pp.71-83.
Chamot, A.: (2004), ‘‘Issues in Language Learning Strategy Research and
Teaching’’, Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching
Vol. 1, No: 1, pp. 14-26, http://e-flt.nus.edu.sg/v1n12004/chamot.htm,12April 2007.
Chamot, A .U., Barnhardt, S., El-Dinary, P. B., & Robbins, J.: (1999), The Learning
Strategies Handbook, NewYork, Longman.
Cohen, A. D.: (1998), Strategies in learning and using a second language, New
York: Longman.
Dickinson, L.: (1987), Self-instruction in Language Learning, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
75
Dörnyey, Z. & Scott, M. L.: (1997), ‘‘Communication Strategies in A Second
Language: Definitions and Taxonomies’’, Language Learning, March 1997,Vol.47,
No:1, pp.173-210.
Dörnyey, Z.: (2003), ‘‘Attitudes, Orientations, and Motivations in Language
Learning: Advances in Theory, Research, and Applications’’, Language
Learning,Vol.53, No:3, September2003. pp.3-32.
Ehrman, M., Leaver, B.L. & Oxford, R.: (2003), ‘‘A Brief Overview of Individual
Differences in Second Language Learning’’, System31:3, pp.301-330.
Ellis, R.: (1994), The Study of Second Language Acquisition, Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Ellis, R.:(1985), Understanding Second Language Acquisition, Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
FU, ZHENG.:(1999), “Language Learning strategy Preferences of Some College
English Students”, College English Teaching Series in China, BeiJing: Foreign
Language Teaching and Research Press. pp.314-327.
Galloway, V. & Labarca, A.: (1990), “From student to learner: Style, process, and
strategy”, New Perspectives and New Directions in Foreign Language Education,
Ed. by D.W. Birckbichler, Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook Co. pp111-158.
Graham, S.: (1997), Effective language learning: Positive strategies for advanced
level language learning, Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Grainger, P.R.: (1997), ‘‘Language-learning strategies for learners of Japanese:
Investigating ethnicity’’, Foreign Language Annals, Vol.30, No:3, pp.378-385.
76
Grenfell, M.: (2000), “Learning and Teaching Strategies”, New Perspectives on
Teaching and Learning Modern Languages, Ed. by. S. Green, Clevedon,
Multilingual Matters LTD.pp.1-23.
Hickson, J., Land, A.J & Aikman, G.:(1994), ‘‘Learning style differences in middle
school pupils from four ethnic backgrounds’’, School Psychology International
Vol.15, No.4, pp.349-359.
Johnson, K.: (2001), An Introduction to Foreign Language Learning and
Teaching, Malaysia: Pearson Education.
Liu, Xiaotian.: (2001), ‘‘On Major Factors of Successful Language Learning’’,
Teaching English in China, March2001,Vol.24, No:1, Beijing, Foreign Language
Teaching and Research Press.pp.9-11.
Mc.Donough, S.: (1999), ‘‘A Hierarchy of Strategies?’’, Learner Autonomy in
Language Learning: Defining the Field and Effecting Change, Ed.by S.Cotterall
& D. Crabbe, Bayreuth Contributions to Glottodidactics, Vol 8. Frankfurt am Main:
Peter Lang.
Nisbet, J. & Shucksmith, J.:(1986), Learning Strategies, New York: Routledge.
Nunan, D.: (1995), Language Teaching Methodology: A textbook for teachers,
New York: Prentice Hall.
O’Malley, J. M. & CHAMOT, A.U.:(1990), Learning strategies in second
language acquisition, New York: Cambridge University Press.
Oxford, R.: (1990), Language learning strategies: What every teacher should
know, New York: Newbury House.
77
Oxford R. (ed.): (1996), Language Learning Strategies around the World: Cross-
cultural Perspectives, Honolulu: University of Hawaii, Second Language Teaching
& Curriculum Center.
Politzer, R. & M. McGroarty.: (1985), ‘‘An Exploratory Study of Learning
Behaviours and Their Relationship in Gains in Linguistic and Communicative
Competence’’, TESOL Quarterly, Vol.19, No:1, pp. 103-124.
Purpura, J.E.: (1999), Learner strategy use and performance on language tests:
A structural equation modeling approach, Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Rechards, J. C& Lockhart.CH.: (1996), Reflective Teaching in Second Language
Classrooms, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rubin, J.: (1987), “Learner strategies: theoretical assumptions, research history and
typology”, Learner strategies in language learning, Ed. by. A.Wenden & J. Rubin,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, pp.15-30.
Rubin, J. & Thompson, I.: (1994), How to Be a More Successful Language Learner, Boston: Heinle & Heinle .
Shmais, W, A.: (2003), ‘‘Language Learning Strategy Use In Palestine’’, TESL-EJ,
Vol.7, No: 2, September, http://www-writing.berkeley.edu/TESL-EJ/ej26/a3.html,
12 April 2007.
Skehan, P.: (1989), Individual Differences in Second-Language Learning, London:
Edward Arnold.
Stern, H.H.: (1992), Issues and Options in Language Teaching, Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
78
Tarone, E.: (1983), ‘‘Some thoughts on the notion of communication strategy’’,
Strategies in Interlanguage Communication, Ed. by. C. Faerch & G. Kasper,
London: Longman, pp.61-74.
Wang, Hong & Cheng, Liying.: (2005), ‘‘The Impact of Curriculum Innovation on
the Cultures of Teaching’’, Asian EFL Journal, Vol 7. No:4, http://www.asian-efl-
journal.com/December_05_hw&lc.php, 10 November2006.
Wen, Qiufang.: (2001), Applied Linguistics Research Methods and Thesis
Writing, BeiJing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Wenden, A.:(1987), ‘‘Conceptual Background and Utility’’, Learning Strategies in
Language Learning, Ed. by. A .Wenden & J. Rubin, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice
Hall, pp.3-13
Wenden, A.: (1987), ‘‘How to Be a Successful Language Learner: Insights and
Prescriptions from L2 Learners ’’, Learning Strategies in Language Learning, Ed.
by. A .Wenden & J. Rubin, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, pp.103-117.
Wenden, A.: (1991), Learner Strategies for Learner Autonomy, New York:
Prentice Hall.
Wen, Qiufang & Johnson, R. K.: (1997), ‘‘Second Language Learner Variables and
English Achievement: A Study of Tertiary Level English Majors in China’’, Applied
Linguistics, Vol.18, No.1, pp. 27-48.
Willing, K.: (1989), Teaching How to Learn Learning Strategies in ESL: Activity
Worksheets, Sydney: Macquarie Univesity.
�����������.:�1999�, ������������������������
79
Appendix 1
Naiman et al.’s Classifications of LLS
Source: O’Malley and Chamot (1990)
80
Appendix 2
Various Taxonomies of Communication Strategies
81
Source: Dörnyey and Scott (1997a : 196-197)
82
Appendix 3
Definitions of Language Learning Strategies
Metacognitive strategies involve thinking about the learning process, planning for learning, monitoring the learning task, and evaluating how well one has learned.
1. Planning: Previewing the organizing concept or principle of an anticipated learning task (advance organization); proposing strategies for handling an upcoming task; generating a plan for the parts, sequence, main ideas, or language functions to be used in handling a task (organizational planning).
2. Directed attention: Deciding in advance to attend in general to a learning task and to ignore irrelevant distractors; maintaining attention during task execution.
3. Selective-attention: Deciding in advance to attend to specific aspects of language input or situational details that assist in performance of a task; attending to specific aspects of language input during task execution.
4. Self-management: Understanding the conditions that help one successfully accomplish language tasks and arranging for the presence of those conditions; controlling one’s language performance to maximize use of what is already known.
5. Self-monitoring: Checking, verifying, or correcting one’s comprehension or performance in the course of a language task. This has been coded in the think-alouds in the following ways:
a. Comprehension monitoring: checking, verifying, or correcting one’s understanding.
b. Production monitoring: checking, verifying, or correcting one’s language production.
c. Auditory monitoring: using one’s ‘‘ear’’ for the language (how something sounds) to make decisions.
d. Visual monitoring: using one’s ‘‘eye’’ for the language (how something looks) to make decisions.
e. Style monitoring: checking, verifying, or correcting based upon an internal stylistic register.
f. Strategy monitoring: tracking use of how well a strategy is working. g. Plan monitoring: tracking how well a plan is working. h. Double-check monitoring: tracking, across the task, previously
undertaken acts or possibilities considered. 6. Problem identification: Explicitly identifying the central point needing
resolution in a task or identifying an aspect of the task that hinders its successful completion.
7. Self-evaluation: Checking the outcomes of one’s own language performance against an internal measure of completeness and accuracy; checking one’s
83
language repertoire, strategy use, or ability to perform the task at hand. This has been coded in the think-alouds as:
a. Production evaluation: checking one’s work when the task is finished. b. Performance evaluation: judging one’s overall execution of the task. c. Ability evaluation: judging one’s ability to perform the task. d. Strategy evaluation: judging one’s strategy use when the task is
completed. e. Language repertoire evaluation: judging how much one knows of the
L2, at the word, phrase, sentence, or concept level.
Cognitive strategies involve interacting with the material to be learned, manipulating the material mentally or physically, or applying a specific technique to a learning task.
1. Repetition: Repeating a chunk of language (a word or phrase )in the course of performing a language task.
2. Resourcing: Using available reference sources of information about the target language, including dictionaries, textbooks, and prior work.
3. Grouping: Ordering, classifying, or labeling material used in a language task based on common attributes; recalling information based on grouping previously done.
4. Note taking: Writing down key words and concepts in abbreviated verbal, graphic, or numerical form to assist performance of a language task.
5. Deduction/Induction: Consciously applying learned or self-developed rules to produce or understand the target language.
6. Substitution: Selecting alternative approaches, revised plans, or different words or phrases to accomplish a language task.
7. Elaboration: Relating new information to prior knowledge; relating different parts of new information to each other; making meaningful personal associations to information presented. This has been coded in the think-aloud data in the following ways:
a. Personal elaboration: Making judgments about or reacting
personally to the material presented. b. World elaboration: Using knowledge gained from experience in the
world. c. Academic elaboration: Using knowledge gained in academic
situations. d. Between parts elaboration: Relating parts of the task to each other. e. Questioning elaboration: Using a combination of questions and
world knowledge to brainstorm logical solutions to a task. f. Self-evaluation elaboration: Judging self in relation to materials. g. Creative elaboration: Making up a story line, or adopting a clever
perspective. h. Imagery: Using mental or actual pictures or visuals to represent
information; coded as a separate category, but viewed as a form of elaboration.
84
8. Summarization: Making a mental or written summary of language and information presented in a task.
9. Translation: Rendering ideas from one language to another in a relatively verbatim manner.
10. Transfer: Using previously acquired linguistic knowledge to facilitate a language task.
11. Inferencing: Using available information to guess the meanings or usage of unfamiliar language items associated with a language task, to predict outcomes, or to fill in missing information.
Social affective strategies involve interacting with another person to assist learning or using affective control to assist a learning task. 1. Questioning for clarification: Asking for explanation, verification,
rephrasing, or examples about the task; posing questions to the self. 2. Cooperation: Working together with peers to solve a problem, pool
information, check a learning task, model a language activity, or get feedback on oral or written performance.
3. Self-talk: Reducing anxiety by using mental techniques that make one feel competent to do the learning task.
4. Self-reinforcement: Providing personal motivation by arranging rewards for oneself when a language learning activity has been successfully completed.
Source: O’Malley and Chamot (1990:137-139)
85
Appendix 4
Oxford’s Classifications of LLS
86
87
88
Source: Oxford (1990: 18-21)
89
Appendix 5
Strategies Questionnaire (Oxford, 1990)
Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL)
Gender________________ Age_________________ Major_________________ Score________________
�������������������������������������
1=����������������
2=����������
3=���������
4=���������
5=�������������
����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������!
Part A
1. I think of relationships between what I already know and new things I learn in
English.
2. I use new English words in a sentence so I can remember them.
3. I connect the sound of a new English word and an image or picture of the word to
help me remember the word.
4. I remember a new English word by making a mental picture of a situation in which
the word might be used.
5. I use rhymes to remember new English words.
6. I use flashcards to remember new English words.
90
7. I physically act out new English words.
8. I review English lessons often.
9. I remember new English words or phrases by remembering their location on the
page, on the board, or on a street sign.
Part B
10. I say or write new English words several times.
11. I try to talk like native English speakers.
12. I practise the sounds of English.
13. I use the English words I know in different ways.
14. I start conversations in English.
15. I watch English language TV shows spoken in English or go to movies spoken in
English.
16. I read for pleasure in English.
17. I write notes, messages, letters or reports in English.
18. I first skim an English passage (read over the passage quickly) then go back and
read carefully.
19. I look for words in my own language that are similar to new words in English.
20. I try to find patterns in English.
21. I find the meaning of an English word by dividing it into parts that I understand.
22. I try not to translate word-for-word.
23. I make summaries of information that I hear or read in English.
Part C
24. To understand unfamiliar English words, I make guesses.
25. When I can't think of a word during a conversation in English, I use gestures.
26. I make up new words if I do not know the right ones in English.
27. I read English without looking up every new word.
28. I try to guess what the other person will say next in English.
29. If I can't think of an English word, I use a word or phrase that means the same
thing.
91
Part D
30. I try to find as many ways as I can to use my English.
31. I notice my English mistakes and use that information to help me do better.
32. I pay attention when someone is speaking English.
33. I try to find out how to be a better learner of English.
34. I plan my schedule so I will have enough time to study English.
35. I look for people I can talk to in English.
36. I look for opportunities to read as much as possible in English.
37. I have clear goals for improving my English skills.
38. I think about my progress in learning English.
Part E
39. I try to relax whenever I feel afraid of using English.
40. I encourage myself to speak English even when I am afraid of making a mistake.
41. I give myself a reward or treat when I do well in English.
42. I notice if I am tense or nervous when I am studying or using English.
43. I write down my feelings in a language learning diary.
44. I talk to someone else about how I feel when I am learning English.
Part F
45. If I do not understand something in English, I ask the other person to slow down
or say it again.
46. I ask English speakers to correct me when I talk.
47. I practise English with other students.
48. I ask for help from English speakers.
49. I ask questions in English.
50. I try to learn about the culture of English speakers.
Appendix 6
Ranking List of Language Learning Strategies
92
(For teachers)
Language learning strategies have been defined as operations employed by the
learner to aid the acquisition, storage, retrieval and use of information (Oxford, 1990).
Oxford classifies language learning strategies into six groups:
Memory strategies: strategies used by students to help them remember new
language items, such as creating mental linkages, applying images and sounds,
reviewing well, using physical response or sensation, etc.
Cognitive strategies: strategies that help students think about and understand the
new language, such as practicing, reviewing and sending messages, analyzing and
reasoning, taking notes, summarizing and highlighting, etc.
Compensation strategies: strategies used by students to help them compensate for
lack of knowledge, such as guessing intelligently, overcoming limitations in
speaking and writing by switching to the mother tongue, coining words, using
synonyms, etc.
Metacognitive strategies: strategies used by students to center, arrange and evaluate
their learning, such as setting goals and objectives, arranging and planning learning
and evaluating learning by self-monitoring and self-evaluating, etc.
Affective strategies: strategies relating to how students feel about new language,
such as lowering anxiety by using relaxation and music, taking risks wisely,
rewarding oneself, reflecting on the learning of the new language, etc.
Social strategies: strategies used by students that involve interaction with other
people, such as asking questions for clarification or correction, cooperating with
others, empathizing with others, trying to learn about the culture, etc.
Question: In your professional opinion, which of these strategy types would you say
your students use most frequently? Could you please number them from6 to1 where:
93
6= most frequent, 1= least frequent
6 (most frequent) _____________________
5 _____________________
4 _____________________
3 _____________________
2 _____________________
1 (least frequent) _____________________
Thank you!
Appendix 7
Interview Outline
1. How was your previous learning experience of English in your middle and high
school? Did you think that laid a good foundation for college English?
94
2. What is your aim of learning English?
3. Could you describe your college English class?
4. What is your own way of learning English at college?
5. What do you do concretely for mastering the four skills such as listening,
speaking, reading and writing?
6. What is the most helpful or important thing that you think in learning English?
7. Do you make learning plans and set your learning goals usually?
8. Do you always evaluate your learning process (whether your English is getting
better or worse) and try to find out your weaknesses?
9. How do you feel when your grade is not as good as you wish?
10. When you meet with a difficulty in learning how do you deal with the problem?
11. Do you think your learning method affects directly your achievement?
Appendix 8
Means of All Non-English Majors in Individual Strategy
Category of LLS
Item No. No. Min Max Mean SD.
1 103 1 5 2,96 0,959 2 103 1 5 3,15 0,868
Memory strategies 3 103 1 5 2,85 0,944
95
4 103 1 5 2,8 0,964 5 103 1 5 2,76 1,208 6 103 1 5 2,15 0,984 7 103 1 5 2,59 0,868 8 103 1 5 3,08 0,997 9 103 1 5 2,92 1,054
10 103 1 5 3,77 1,021 11 103 1 5 2,61 1,041 12 103 1 5 3,31 0,98 13 103 1 5 2,85 0,856 14 103 1 5 2,4 0,821 15 103 1 5 3,02 0,95 16 103 1 5 3,02 0,95 17 103 1 4 2,28 0,879 18 103 1 5 3,46 0,937 19 103 1 5 2,89 0,938 20 103 1 5 2,79 0,967 21 103 1 5 3,38 0,909 22 103 1 5 3,18 0,988
Cognitive strategies
23 103 1 5 2,82 0,926 24 103 1 5 3,75 0,947 25 103 1 5 3,22 1,019 26 103 1 5 2,7 1,083 27 103 1 5 3,26 0,949 28 103 1 5 2,72 1,07
Compensation strategies
29 103 1 5 3,64 0,999 30 103 1 5 2,75 0,894 31 103 1 5 3,33 0,868 32 103 1 5 3,41 0,923 33 103 1 5 3,68 0,942 34 103 1 5 3 0,939 35 103 1 5 2,4 1,023 36 103 1 5 2,98 0,918 37 103 1 5 3,16 0,947
Metacognitive stratgeies
38 103 1 5 3,24 1,014
39 103 1 5 3,24 1,005 40 103 1 5 3,14 0,919 41 103 1 5 3,05 1,023 42 103 1 5 3,1 1,024
Affective strategies
43 103 1 5 2,04 0,979
44 103 1 5 2,67 1,033 45 103 1 5 3,42 0,823 46 103 1 5 2,66 1,015 47 103 1 5 2,53 0,838
Social strategies
48 103 1 5 2,55 0,86
96
Appendix 9
49 103 1 5 2,45 0,967 50 103 1 5 3,02 1,084
97
Means of GLL and LSL in Individual Strategy
GLL(N=26) LSL (N=26)
Item No. Min Max Mean SD Min Max Mean SD.
1 1 4 3,1154 0,90893 1 5 2,8462 1,155592 2 5 3,2692 0,87442 1 4 3 0,894433 1 5 3 1,13137 1 5 2,7692 0,908084 2 5 3 0,84853 1 4 2,6538 0,935625 1 5 2,6538 1,29437 1 5 3,0385 1,248386 1 3 1,8846 0,71144 1 4 2,4615 1,028827 1 4 2,6538 0,74524 1 5 2,5385 0,859348 2 5 2,9231 0,79614 1 4 2,6538 1,017549 1 5 3,1538 1,00766 1 5 2,6538 1,01754
10 2 5 3,8462 0,96715 2 5 3,4231 1,0265711 2 5 3,1923 0,98058 1 4 2,1538 0,7844612 2 5 3,8846 0,76561 1 4 2,9615 0,8236913 2 4 3 0,74833 2 4 2,6923 0,6176914 1 4 2,4615 0,70602 1 3 2,1154 0,7114415 2 5 3,2308 0,95111 1 5 2,7692 1,031816 2 5 3,0385 0,91568 1 4 2,8077 0,8494317 1 4 2,3077 0,97033 1 3 1,9615 0,8236918 2 5 3,7308 0,82741 2 5 3,3462 1,0561219 1 5 3,0769 0,89098 1 4 2,7692 0,9080820 2 5 3,3077 0,83758 1 4 2,5 0,9486821 2 5 3,7308 0,77757 1 4 3,0769 0,7961422 2 5 3,8077 0,80096 1 5 2,8846 1,0705923 1 5 2,8077 0,98058 1 4 2,7308 0,8274124 2 5 4 0,74833 2 5 3,6923 0,7358925 1 4 3,2308 0,95111 1 5 3,3846 0,8978626 1 5 2,5385 1,1395 1 4 2,6154 0,8978627 1 5 3,2692 0,96157 2 5 3,2692 0,8744228 1 5 2,6923 0,88405 1 5 2,6538 1,0175429 1 5 3,9615 0,95836 1 5 3,3462 0,9356230 2 4 2,9231 0,79614 1 4 2,6154 0,8978631 3 5 3,7308 0,60383 1 5 3,0385 0,9583632 2 5 3,6923 0,61769 2 5 3,3077 0,9703333 3 5 3,9615 0,72004 1 5 3,6154 0,8521534 1 5 3,1154 0,90893 1 4 2,6154 0,6972535 1 5 2,7308 1,07917 1 4 2,0769 0,7442136 1 5 3,1154 1,03255 1 4 2,5769 0,8566537 2 5 3,3077 1,01071 1 4 2,8077 0,8009638 1 5 3,5385 0,98917 1 5 3,1538 0,96715
98
39 1 5 3,5385 0,90469 1 5 3 0,9380840 2 5 3,2308 0,81524 1 4 2,8462 0,8805641 1 4 3,1923 1,02056 1 5 3,0769 1,1635542 1 5 3,3462 0,89184 1 5 3,1154 1,1428743 1 5 2,0769 1,09263 1 3 2 0,844 1 5 2,6923 1,19228 1 5 2,6923 0,8375845 1 5 3,5 0,90554 2 5 3,4231 0,8086146 1 4 2,9231 0,89098 1 5 2,3077 1,1582547 1 4 2,6923 0,78838 1 5 2,2692 0,8744248 1 4 2,5385 0,70602 1 4 2,3462 0,845849 1 4 2,5385 0,85934 1 5 2,2308 0,9511150 2 5 3,4615 0,90469 1 5 2,9231 1,19743
Appendix 10
99
Means of Males and Females in Individual Strategy
Males (N=43)
Females (N=60)
Item No. Min
Max Mean SD Min
Max Mean SD
1 1 5 3,0698 0,91014 1 5 2,85 0,953582 1 5 3,1163 0,98099 2 5 3,15 0,798833 1 5 2,6977 0,98886 1 5 2,9833 0,892374 1 5 2,6744 1,01702 1 5 2,85 0,917355 1 5 2,6744 1,40951 1 5 2,8 1,054456 1 5 2,1395 1,03697 1 4 2,1333 0,947197 1 4 2,6512 0,84187 1 5 2,5 0,892538 1 5 3,2326 0,99612 1 5 2,9333 0,954329 1 5 2,9767 0,98774 1 5 2,9167 1,10916
10 1 5 3,907 1,04229 1 5 3,6833 0,9998611 1 5 2,5116 1,14168 1 5 2,6833 0,9653612 1 5 3,2558 1,13585 1 5 3,35 0,8601313 1 5 3 0,89974 1 4 2,75 0,8156314 1 5 2,3721 0,90035 1 4 2,4167 0,7656115 1 5 3,0465 0,97476 1 5 3 0,9388116 1 5 3 1,06904 1 5 3,05 0,8718817 1 4 2,186 0,87982 1 4 2,3667 0,8629218 1 5 3,4651 0,93475 2 5 3,4833 0,9295819 1 5 3,093 0,8948 1 5 2,7833 0,9930520 1 4 2,7442 0,95352 1 5 2,8333 0,9771421 1 5 3,5349 0,88234 1 5 3,2667 0,9181222 1 5 3,0233 1,07987 2 5 3,3167 0,9111723 1 5 2,9302 0,96103 1 5 2,7333 0,8994724 2 5 3,7209 0,98381 1 5 3,7667 0,927325 1 5 3,2558 1,09312 1 5 3,2333 0,9631626 1 5 2,8837 1,23846 1 5 2,5833 0,9618427 1 5 3,4186 1,00552 1 5 3,1667 0,8861828 1 5 2,7907 1,14555 1 5 2,7 0,996629 1 5 3,6047 1,07215 1 5 3,6667 0,9507730 1 5 2,7442 1,02569 1 5 2,7833 0,8044731 1 5 3,3023 0,93948 2 5 3,3667 0,8018332 1 5 3,2093 1,03643 1 5 3,5833 0,8293733 1 5 3,7674 0,94711 1 5 3,65 0,9535834 1 5 3,1163 1,00497 1 5 2,9333 0,8804235 1 5 2,186 0,98212 1 5 2,55 1,0321136 1 5 2,8372 0,94944 1 5 3,05 0,9283737 1 5 3,2558 1,07111 2 5 3,1333 0,8726938 1 5 3,2558 1,11469 1 5 3,2833 0,95831
39 1 5 3,0698 1,05549 1 5 3,4 0,9777240 1 5 3,0465 0,97476 1 5 3,25 0,894941 1 5 3,0698 1,07781 1 4 3,05 1,0155642 1 5 3,0465 1,21407 1 5 3,1667 0,9051
100
43 1 4 1,8837 0,90526 1 5 2,2 1,0382544 1 5 2,6279 1,04707 1 5 2,6833 1,0166745 1 5 3,5116 0,85557 1 5 3,35 0,7988346 1 5 2,6279 1,11319 1 5 2,7 0,9442147 1 5 2,5349 0,90892 1 4 2,5333 0,7911948 1 4 2,5349 0,82661 1 5 2,5667 0,8899949 1 5 2,3953 1,09413 1 4 2,4667 0,8726950 1 5 3,0698 1,12113 1 5 3,0167 1,09686