How Reliable and Valid is the Japanese Language...

3232

JALT JournAL

How Reliable and Valid is the Japanese Version of the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL)?

Gordon RobsonShowa Women’s UniversityHideko MidorikawaShowa Women’s University

ThisstudylooksattheinternalreliabilityoftheStrategyInventoryforLanguageLearning(Oxford,�990),usingtheESL/EFLversioninJapanesetranslation.Theresultsof theCronbach’salphaanalysis indicateahighdegreeof reliabilityfortheoverallquestionnaire,butlesssoforthesixsubsections.Moreover,thetest-retestcorrelationsforthetwoadministrationsareextremelylowwithanaveragesharedvarianceof�9.5percentattheitemleveland25.5percentatthesubsectionlevel.Inaddition,theconstructvalidityoftheSILLwasexaminedusingexploratoryfactoranalysis.While theSILLclaimstobemeasuringsixtypesof strategies, the two factor analyses include asmany as �5 factors.Moreover,anattempttofit thetwoadministrationsintoasix-factorsolutionresultsinadisorganizedscatteringofthequestionnaireitems.Finally,interviewswithparticipatingstudentsraisedquestionsabouttheabilityofparticipantstounderstand themetalanguageused in thequestionnaire aswell as theappropriatenessof some items fora JapaneseandEFL setting.TheauthorsconcludethatdespitethepopularityoftheSILL,useandinterpretationofitsresultsareproblematic.

本研究は、Oxford(1990)の外国語学習ストラテジー・インベントリー(SILL)のEFL/ESL用日本語版の内部信頼性及び構成概念妥当性を実験と統計によって検証したものである。クロンバック・アルファ検定による内部信頼性については、インベントリーの全項目は全体としては信頼性が高かったが、6タイプのサブカテゴリーに分類されたストラテジーについては信頼性が低かった。また、インベントリーを用いたテスト・再テストの相関は低く、全項目では平均寄与率19.5パーセント、サブカテゴリーでは25.5パーセントであった。構成概念妥当性検定のための説明的因子分析の結果は、6タイプのストラテジーが15因子に細分化されたこと、さらに、全項目を6因子に分けた結果、それぞれの因子が無秩序に分類される結果となった。最後に、インタビューによって、この実験に参加した被験者学生にインベントリーの各項目の内容理解について確認した結果、日本語がわかりにくく判断しいくい記述、日本のEFLの状況では理解しにくい記述があることが明らかになった。以上のすべてから、SILLの実用的評価にもかかわらず、それを用いること、また、そこから得た結果の解釈には問題が含まれているというのが、本研究の研究者が得た結論である。

malcolmswanson

Text Box

Note: Due to file damage, this issue may not be accurate or complete. Please use the print version for referencing purposes

3333robson & MidorikAwA

Theuseofself-reportinstrumentstoinvestigatevariousaspectsofindividuallearnerdifferencesisacommonandacceptedprac-tice in thefieldofsecondlanguageacquisitionresearch.Asa

consequence,alargenumberofsuchinstrumentshavebeendevelopedandusedover theyears.These include theAttitude/MotivationTestBattery(A/MTB)(GardnerandLambert,�972),theForeignLanguageClassroomAnxietyScale(FLCAS)(Horwitz,Horwitz,andCope,�986),andtheinstrumentunderdiscussionhere,theStrategyInventoryforLanguageLearning(SILL)(Oxford,�990).However,despitethewideacceptanceanduseoftheseinstruments,issuessuchastheirreliabilityandvalidityareoftenlostintheenthusiasmtofindoutwhatstudentsreallyfeelorbelieve.Althoughagiveninstrumentmayhavebeenrigor-ouslydevelopedandevensubjectedtovariousmeasuresofreliabilityandvalidity,whenitistranslatedintoanotherlanguageorusedinaculturalsettingdifferentfromtheoneoriginallyintended,itmustonceagainberigorouslyexamined,assuggestedbyGriffee(�999).

Thisreportwillpresenttheinitialresultsoftheresearchers’attemptstoprovidereliabilityandvaliditydataontheSILLinaJapaneseuniversitysetting.Thisstudyisgroundedintheresearchers’numerousotherat-temptstovalidateotherJapanesetranslationsofmeasuresofindividuallearnerdifferences,suchasmotivation,anxiety,learningstyles,learningbeliefs,andlearningstrategies.ReliabilityistypicallymeasuredthroughstatisticssuchasCronbach’salphaormultipleadministrationsofatestwiththesamesubjects,bothofwhichareusedhere.Regardingvalidity,althoughinthepastothermethodsofvalidatinghavebeenputforward,recentlyChapelle(�994)andMessick(�989)havepersuasivelyarguedforvaliditytobecondensedintoasingle,generalapproachwherethefocusisontheinstrumentasaconstruct.Asthemeasurestypicallyusedinthistypeofresearchhavebeenself-reportquestionnairesinwhichitemsweregroupedintocategoriesorsubscales,researchershavefa-voredfactoranalyticvalidationforthevariousgroupingsorcategoriesassignedtothequestionnaireitems.Theuseoffactoranalysistoconfirmatheorizedgroupingofitemsisalong-establishedpractice(Guilford&Fruchter,�973),especiallyinthefieldofpersonalityresearch,whereithasbeenusedtovalidateself-reportquestionnairesforover50years(seeforexampleAllport,�937;Guilford,�940;McCrae,�989).Therefore,thiswillbetheapproachtakeninvalidatingthesixgroupsofstrategiesmakinguptheSILL.

What is Reliability and Validity?

Therearevariousapproachestotestingandconfirmingthereliability

3434

JALT JournAL

andvalidityofagivenresearchinstrument.Wecandefinethereliabilityastheproportionofthevariationintestscoresthatistruevariationandnoterror(Bachman,�990;Brown,�988).Typically,whenmeasuringreliability,theitemsonthequestionnairearesubjectedtooneormoretypesofstatisticalmeasurement.ThemostcommonlyemployedstatisticisCronbach’salpha,whichmeasurestheinternalconsistencyofatest.Anotherapproachistoobtainsimplecorrelationsbetweentestitemsofameasurethatisgiventothesamepopulationtwoormoretimes.Thisisreferredtoastest-retestreliability.

Ingeneral,thevalidationofaself-reportinstrumentismuchmoredifficultandinthepastinvolvedseveraldifferenttypesofvaliditysuchasfacevalidity,contentvalidity,constructvalidity,factoranalyticvalid-ity,andcriterion-relatedvalidity.However,inaninsightfularticleMes-sick(�989)pointsoutthatwhileitisimportanttovalidatethemethodofdatacollection,themorecrucialareaistovalidatetheinferences,interpretations,andactionstakenbasedonthescoresderivedfromthedata.Moreover,Chapelle(�994)arguesthat“constructvalidityiscentraltoallfacetsofvalidityinquiry,”andasanongoingprocess,thereisnoonceandforevervalidity(p.�6�).

Fromastatisticalpointofview,thereareseveralwaystoconfirmtheconstructvalidityofaninstrument.Theuseofcorrelationapproachesand factor analysishasbeennotedpreviously. Typically these ap-proachesinvolveusingseveraltestsorquestionnairesthatarebelievedtorepresentaconstruct,suchaslanguage-learningstrategies,andthenconfirmingthevalidityof the itemsthroughhighcorrelations. If thecorrelationsarehighenough,thenwecaninferthattheymeasurethehypothesizedconstruct.Factoranalysiscanbeusedwhenmeasuresforseveraldifferentconstructsarebeingused,suchasformotivation,strategies,andpersonality.Subsequently,theirloadingsondistinctfac-torsconfirmthattheymeasureseparateaspectsoflearnerbehavior.Aseconduseoffactoranalysisistobreakameasureintosubgroupings,suchasthesixhypothesizedpartsoftheSILL,andthenfactorthemtoseeifthesedivisionsarevalid.Evidenceofameasure’svaliditycanalsobeconfirmedexperimentallyorquasi-experimentallythroughrelatedoutcomesusing,forexample,ameasureoflanguagelearningstrategiesandscoresonsomemeasureoflanguagelearningsuchastheTOEFLTest.Thiswouldindicatenotonlythatthemeasurewasvalidlymeasur-ingstrategies,butalsothatsuchstrategieswereuseful.


The Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL)

TheStrategy Inventory for LanguageLearning (SILL) is a self-reportquestionnaire for determining the frequencyof language learningstrategyuse.Itconsistsof50itemswithfiveLikert-scaleresponsesofneveroralmostnevertrueofme,generallynottrueofme,somewhattrueofme,generallytrueofme,alwaysoralmostalwaystrueofme.Basedonafactoranalysisofanearlier,largerversion,OxfordorganizedtheSILLintosixstrategysubscales:(a)MemoryStrategies(9items),(b)CognitiveStrategies(�4items),(c)CompensationStrategies(6items),(d)MetacognitiveStrategies(9items),(e)AffectiveStrategies(6items),and(f)SocialStrategies(6items).ThequestionnairewastranslatedintoJapaneseaspartoftheJapaneselanguageversion(Oxford,�990/�994)ofOxford’s(�990)LanguageLearningStrategies:WhatEveryTeacherShouldKnow.AlthoughOxforddoesnotdirectlydiscusstheprocessforestablishingthereliabilityandvalidityoftheSILL,anotetoChapterSixexplainsthatanearlier,�2�-itemversionoftheSILLwasfoundtohaveareliabilityof.96basedona�,200-personsampleand.95witha483-personsample.Shethengoesontostatethatthereliabilityof9of�0factorswasfoundtobemoderatetohighwithfiguresof.60to.86,althoughforthe�0thfactoritwasonly.3�.Thisisnotthetypicalwayofreportingtheresultsoffactoranalysis,andifthe�2�-itemversionwasclaimingtomeasuresixstrategytypes,thena�0-factorsolutionishardlyconfirmation.Thenotegoesontostatethatthefifty-itemversion7.0oftheSILLunderdiscussionherewasstillbeingassessedforreli-abilityandvalidity.Thus,whileitwouldseemthatthevariousversionsoftheSILLhaveaprovenlevelofreliability,thisdoesnotsuggestthatthequestionnaireisvalid.AsBachman(�990)hasstated,ｴheprimaryconcernintestdevelopmentanduseisdemonstratingnotonlythattestscoresarereliable,butthattheinterpretationsanduseswemakeoftestscoresarevalid(p.237).IfatthispointintheSILL’sconstructionitwerefoundtobeunreliable,therewouldbenoneedtoproceed,asanunreliablemeasureissimilarlynotvalid.

Oxford(�996)discussesthepsychometricqualitiesoftheSILL,andin termsof reliability, shecitesWatanabe (�990),wherea JapaneseversionoftheSILLachievedaCronbach’salphareliabilityof.92,andotherstudieswithsimilarreliabilitiesinthe.90range.Followingtheabove-mentionedMessick(�989)andChapelle(�994)approachtotestvalidity,OxfordexaminedanumberofstudieswheretheSILLcorrelatedsignificantlywithvariousmeasuresof language learning. InOxford,Park-Oh,Ito,andSumrall(�993),amultiple-regressionanalysisfoundlowbutsignificantpredictiverelationshipsbetweenstrategiesandfinal

3636

JALT JournAL

testgrades(.20).Takeuchi(�993),alsousingmultiple-regressionanalysiswithlanguageachievementasmeasuredbytheComprehensiveEnglishLanguageTest (CELT), found that fourSILL items(�7,2�,22and32)positivelypredictedlanguageachievementwhilefouritems(6,30,43and49)negativelypredictedlanguagesuccess.Finally,Watanabe(�990)foundlowcorrelationsbetweenSILLitemsandstudents’self-ratingsoftheirownproficiency.Althoughtheseresultsprovidesomemeasureofvalidation,onlyafewSILLitemsareinvolved,andthecorrelationsareextremelylow.

InBrown,Robson,andRosenkjar(�996)anindependentlytranslatedversionoftheSILLwasusedinamultiple,individuallearnerdifferencesstudy.Theoverallreliabilityofthattranslatedversionwas.94withthereliability for the six strategy typesbeing .74 forMemoryStrategies,.84 forCognitiveStrategies, .69 forCompensationStrategies, .88 forMetacognitiveStrategies,.63forAffectiveStrategies,and.73forSocialStrategies.ThefactoranalysisintheBrownetal.(�996)studywasonlyusedtodetermineiftheSILLwasmeasuringsomethingdistinctfromtheothermeasuresofsuchvariablesaspersonality,anxiety,andmo-tivation.Thesixstrategytypeswerefoundtoloadonasinglefactor,whichconfirmedthattheSILLwasmeasuringavariabledistinctfromtheother instruments.The researchersknowofnootherpublishedstudythathasattemptedtoestablisheitherreliabilityorvalidityinthismannerusingaJapaneseversionoftheSILL.

However,atTESOL2000inVancouver,Canada,HsiaoandOxford(2000)presentedtheresultsofamulti-groupconfirmatoryfactoranalysisforan80-itemSILL.Thefactoranalysisplacedonly�7itemsintothesixhypothesizedgroupings,leaving63itemswithnorelationtothesixstrategycategorieshypothesized.The�7itemswereMemoryStrategies(4,5,8),CognitiveStrategies(26,27,28),CompensationStrategies(4�,43),MetacognitiveStrategies(49,53,55),AffectiveStrategies(66,68,69),andSocialStrategies(72,73,74).Ofthese,onlyitems5,27,28,68,and72arethesameasorsimilartoitemsonthe50-questionversionoftheSILLunderstudyhere.

Tosummarize,theSILLappearstoenjoyahighdegreeofreliabilityin its variousversions and the languages inwhich ithasbeenem-ployed.However,thereliabilityhasbeenfortheSILLasawhole,withtheexceptionofBrownetal.(�996),whereseveralofthescaleswereratherlow.Thisstillleavesthequestionofvalidity,whichbasedonthesourcesdiscussedseemsfarfromestablished,andhasledustoaskthefollowingresearchquestions.


Research Questions

�.HowreliableistheJapaneselanguageversionoftheSILLforJapaneseuniversitystudents?

2.TowhatdegreeistheJapaneselanguageversionoftheSILLvalidforJapaneseuniversitystudents?

Method

Thepresent study isbasedon twoadministrationsof theofficiallytranslatedSILL(Oxford�990/�994)tothesamegroupof�53Japaneseuniversitystudents.Thegroupwascomprisedof��0first-andsecond-yearfemalesand43first-andsecond-yearmalesstudyingataprivatewomen’suniversityandaprivatecoeducationaluniversityinTokyo.TheirEnglishproficiency levelwasapproximately lowintermediate.Thefirstadministrationwasconductedatthebeginningofthespringsemester.Asecondadministrationwasconductedduringthebeginningofthefallsemesterusingaversioninwhichtheorderoftheitemshadbeenrandomized.Therewerenochangesinthemakeupofthegroupofsubjectsforthetwoadministrationsofthequestionnaire.Inaddi-tion,post-administrationinterviewswereconductedwithtenrandomlyselectedstudents,fourmalesandsixfemalestogetfeedbackonwhatthestudentsthoughtaboutthequestionnaire.Theinterviewswerecon-ductedindividuallyinJapanesebytheJapanesenativespeakerauthorofthisstudywitheachoftheinterviewees.Theywerequestionedabouttheirthoughtsoneachofthe50itemsandtheirresponsesweretakendownintheformofnotes.

Analysis

ThedatacollectedfromthetwoadministrationsoftheSILLwerefirstanalyzedforitemstatisticsfollowedbydescriptivestatisticsforthesixpartsaswellastheentireSILL.Thealphalevelforallstatisticaldecisionswassetat .05.BothadministrationswerethenexaminedforinternalconsistencyusingCronbach’salphaforeachofthesixpartsaswellasoverallreliabilityforbothadministrations.Next,eachTimeOneitemwascomparedtoitsidenticalTimeTwoitemusingthePearsoncorrelation.Theresultingcorrelationswerethensquaredtodeterminethedegreeofsharedvariance.Thesquaredvalueofthecorrelationcoefficientcanbeinterpretedastheproportionofsimilaritybetweenthetwoitems(Hatch&Lazaraton,�99�).ThisprocedurewasrepeatedforthesixpartsoftheSILLandfortheentireSILLaswell.Finally,thetwoadministrationswere

3838

JALT JournAL

examinedusingprincipalcomponentanalysis(PCA),whichisatypeofexploratoryfactoranalysis,withvarimaxrotationandeigenvaluessetatone.Thesearethetypicalproceduresforcarryingoutfactoranaly-sis.Asiscommon,loadingsof.30andabovewereconsideredstrongenoughforinclusioninagivenfactor(Hatch&Lazaraton,�99�).IntheinitialuseofPCA,theanalysiswasallowedtoselectasmanyfactorsascouldbefoundwithaneigenvalueover�.00;however,asecondPCAwasrunonbothadministrationsinwhichtheanalysiswasforcedtochoosesixfactorsbasedonOxford’stheorizedgrouping.ScreeplotsforallPCAswerealsocalculated.TheseadditionalprocedureswereconductedtoprovidetheSILLwithasmanyopportunitiesaspossibletosupplysupportforitstheoreticalbasis.Finally,thenotestakendur-ingtheinterviewswereexaminedtodeterminethetypesofdifficultiesthestudentshadunderstandingthequestionnaireitemsandhowtheirdifficultiescomparedtooneanother.

Results

Table�showstheitemsthemselveswiththeirgroupings,themeanoneachitemandthestandarddeviation,withTable2showingthemeansandstandarddeviations for the itemson thesecondadministration.Table3provides thedescriptive statistics for the six subsectionsoftheSILLandtheentireSILLforbothadministrations.Thedistributionsarealleitherpositivelyornegativelyskewedandthosewithskewnessstatisticsat�.0orgreaterareproblematic(Brown,�997).Theseskeweddistributionscanreducethetestreliabilityandareviolationsoftheas-sumptionsofnormalityforthecorrelationstatisticsandfactoranalysis,whichcouldadverselyaffecttheseresults.

Table�:MeanScoresandStandardDeviationsfortheItemsandTheirStrategyTypes,TimeOne(n=�53)

Item Statement Type M SD

� IthinkofrelationshipsbetweenwhatIalready knowand newthingsIlearninEnglish. Memo 2.79 0.942 IusenewEnglishwordsinasentencesoI canrememberthem. Memo 2.56 0.953 IconnectthesoundofanewEnglishword andanimageorpictureofthewordtohelp meremember. Memo 3.02 �.094 IrememberanewEnglishwordandan imageorpictureofasituationinwhichthe wordmightbeused. Memo 2.63 �.�25 IuserhymestoremembernewEnglishwords. Memo 2.4� �.��6 IuseflashcardstoremembernewEnglishwords. Memo 2.�9 �.42


7 IphysicallyactoutnewEnglishwords. Memo �.80 0.888 IreviewEnglishlessonsoften. Memo 2.66 0.669 IremembernewEnglishwordsorphrasesby rememberingtheirlocationonthepage,onthe board,oronastreetsign. Memo 2.56 �.24�0 IsayorwritenewEnglishwordsseveraltimes. Cog 3.98 0.99�� ItrytotalklikenativeEnglishspeakers. Cog 3.09 �.23�2 IpracticethesoundsofEnglish. Cog 3.40 �.05�3 IusetheEnglishwordsIknowindifferentways. Cog 2.89 0.96�4 IstartconversationsinEnglish. Cog 2.�7 0.86�5 IwatchEnglishlanguageTVshowsspokenin EnglishorgotomoviesspokeninEnglish. Cog 3.25 �.09�6 IreadforpleasureinEnglish. Cog 2.77 0.97�7 Iwritenotes,messages,lettersorreportsinEnglish.Cog 2.�9 �.06�8 IfirstskimanEnglishpassage(readoverthe passagequickly)thengobackandreadcarefully. Cog 3.39 �.09�9 Ilookforwordsinmyownlanguagethatare similartonewwordsinEnglish. Cog 2.39 �.�620 ItrytofindpatternsinEnglish. Cog 2.8��.072� IfindthemeaningofanEnglishwordbydividing itintopartsthatIunderstand. Cog 2.70 �.�822 Itrynottotranslateword-for-word. Cog 2.96 0.9923 ImakesummariesofinformationthatIhear orreadinEnglish. Cog �.97 0.9224 TounderstandunfamiliarEnglishwords, Imakeguesses. Comp 3.44 0.9225 WhenIcan’tthinkofawordduringa conversationinEnglish,Iusegestures. Comp 3.65 �.�626 ImakeupnewwordsifIdonotknowthe rightonesinEnglish. Comp 2.23 �.��27 IreadEnglishwithoutlookingupeverynewword. Comp 3.07 �.0528 Itrytoguesswhattheotherpersonwillsay nextinEnglish. Comp 2.35 0.9929 IfIcan’tthinkofanEnglishword,Iuseaword orphrasethatmeansthesamething. Comp 3.8� 0.9430 ItrytofindasmanywaysasIcantousemyEnglish.Meta 2.60 �.0�3� InoticemyEnglishmistakesandusethat informationtohelpmedobetter. Meta 3.37 �.0�32 IpayattentionwhensomeoneisspeakingEnglish. Meta 3.60 0.9833 ItrytofindouthowtobeabetterlearnerofEnglish. Meta 2.73�.0734 IplanmyschedulesoIwillhaveenoughtime tostudyEnglish. Meta 2.3� 0.8935 IlookforpeopleIcantalktoinEnglish. Meta 2.�9 �.0336 Ilookforopportunitiestoreadasmuchas possibleinEnglish. Meta 2.50 0.9737 IhavecleargoalsforimprovingmyEnglishskills. Meta 2.94 �.2938 IthinkaboutmyprogressinlearningEnglish. Meta 3.09 �.0439 ItrytorelaxwheneverIfeelafraidofusingEnglish.Aff 2.80 �.0740 IencouragemyselftospeakEnglishevenwhen Iamafraidofmakingamistake. Aff 3.07 �.�64� IgivemyselfarewardortreatwhenIdowell

4040

JALT JournAL

inEnglish. Aff 3.43 �.0942 InoticeifIamtenseornervouswhenIam studyingorusingEnglish. Aff 3.08 �.�643 Iwritedownmyfeelingsinalanguagelearningdiary. Aff �.480.8644 ItalktosomeoneelseabouthowIfeelwhen IamlearningEnglish. Aff �.99 0.9945 IfIdonotunderstandsomethinginEnglish,Iask theotherpersontoslowdownorsayitagain. Soc 4.�4 0.8846 IaskEnglishspeakerstocorrectmewhenItalk. Soc 2.65 �.�947 IpracticeEnglishwithotherstudents. Soc 2.24 �.0�48 IaskforhelpfromEnglishspeakers. Soc 2.69 �.2449 IaskquestionsinEnglish. Soc 2.44 �.0950 ItrytolearnaboutthecultureofEnglishspeakers. Soc 3.03 �.2�

Note:ThestatementforeachitemisintheEnglishoriginalfromwhichtheJapanesetranslationwasmade.KeyforStrategyType:Memo=Memory,Cog=Cognitive,Comp=Compensation,Meta=Metacognitive,Aff=Affective,Soc=Social

Table2:MeanScoresandStandardDeviationsfortheItems,TimeTwo(n=�53)

Item M SD Item M SD Item M SD Item M SD

� 2.99 �.�4 �6 3.95 0.89 3� 3.39 �.06 46 2.08 �.042 3.25 �.�3 �7 2.5� �.24 32 3.�5 �.04 47 2.97 �.223 3.52 0.90 �8 3.24 �.�7 33 2.88 �.07 48 3.47 �.044 2.36 0.82 �9 2.22 �.06 34

Table3:DescriptiveStatisticsfortheSILLandSubsections,TimesOneandTwo(n=�53)

Measure M SD Min Max Range Skew

SILL,TimeOne �39.00 24.60 66 207 �4� -.24Memo,TimeOne 22.64 4.66 �� 36 25 -.04Cog,TimeOne 39.95 7.65 �8 6� 43 -.20Comp,TimeOne �8.33 3.60 8 28 20 -.04Meta,TimeOne 25.03 6.34 9 40 3� -.�6Aff,TimeOne �5.84 3.64 7 27 20 .07

4�4�robson & MidorikAwA

Table4givesthereliabilityforthesixpartsandtheoverallreliabilityforbothadministrations.WhiletheSILLasawholeforbothtimesoneandtwohasveryhighreliabilityat.93,severalofthesubsectionsarevery low. Inparticular, theTimeOne reliabilities forMemo,Comp,andAffareunacceptablylow.ThesameistrueforMemo,Comp,Aff,andSocinTimeTwo.Theresultsforthesecondmeasureofreliability,test-retest,areshowninTables5and6.Thedegreeofsharedvariancefortheitemsdoesnotexceed46percentwithsomeaslowas3,4,5,and7percent.Theaverageforalltheitemsisjust�9.5percent.Forthesubsections,thesharedvarianceissimilarlylow,withtheonlyexcep-tionbeingfortheSILLasawholeat58percent.

Soc,TimeOne �7.�8 4.89 6 30 24 .��SILL,TimeTwo �44.58 25.22 63 229 �66 -.26Memo,TimeTwo 26.67 4.94 �� 4� 30 -.29Cog,TimeTwo 37.84 7.9� �6 66 50 .�3Comp,TimeTwo �8.85 3.4� 8 27 �9 -.42Meta,TimeTwo 26.2� 5.7� 9 44 35 -.�6Aff,TimeTwo �7.45 3.73 6 27 2� -.38Soc,TimeTwo �7.54 3.65 6 26 20 -.25

KeyforStrategyType:Memo=Memory,Cog=Cognitive,Comp=Compensation,Meta=Metacognitive,Aff=Affective,Soc=Social

Table4:InternalConsistencyfortheSILLandSubsections,TimesOneandTwo(n=�53)

Measure Alpha Measure Alpha

SILL,TimeOne .93 SILL,TimeTwo .93

Memo,TimeOne .63 Memo,TimeTwo .66

Cog,TimeOne .80 Cog,TimeTwo .83

Comp,TimeOne .67 Comp,TimeTwo .58

Meta,TimeOne .85 Meta,TimeTwo .79

4242

JALT JournAL

Table5:PercentageofSharedVarianceBetweenSILLItems,TimesOne&Two(n=�53)

Items RSquared Items RSquared

� .03 26 .282 .�6 27 .�03 .�6 28 .�04 .2� 29 .�45 .�8 30 .246 .07 3� .�87 .�8 32 .�88 .07 33 .249 .�3 34 .�8�0 .�8 35 .4�� .34 36 .25�2 .26 37 .42�3 .�2 38 .�6�4 .29 39 .24�5 .29 40 .22�6 .29 4� .34�7 .27 42 .08�8 .�4 43 .2��9 .�4 44 .0520 .�4 45 .�42� .27 46 .4622 .07 47 .2423 .�� 48 .2824 .07 49 .0725 .36 50 .04

Table6:PercentageofSharedVarianceBetweentheSILL&Subsections,TimesOne&Two(n=�53)

Measure RSquared

Memo .25Cog .36Comp .�4Meta .35Aff .�7Soc .26SILL .58

KeyforStrategyType:Memo=Memory,Cog=Cognitive,Comp=Compensation,Meta=Metacognitive,Aff=Affective,Soc=Social


Tables7and8showtheresultsofthefirstPCAswitha�5-factorso-lutionforTimeOneanda�3-factorsolutionforTimeTwo.Wewouldexpectthefactoranalysistogroupitems�through9inonefactor,items�0through23inasecondfactor,items24through29inathirdfactor,items30through38inafourthfactor,items39through44inafifthfac-tor,anditems45through50inasixth.However,theresultsfortheTimeOnePCAshowveryfewitemsloadingtogether.Thegreatestgroupofitemsloadingtogetherisinfactor�4withitems46through49together;however,beyondthis,therearenogreatergroupsofloadingsthanjusttwoorthreeitemstogether.Factoronetakesup23percentofthetotalvariancewiththeotherfactorsaccountingforconsiderablyless,whichisconfirmedbytheeigenvalues.Inaddition,thecommunalities,whichshowthedegreetowhichthefactorsareaccountingforeachitem,arenotparticularlyhighexceptforitems24,25,35and36.AsimilarstateofaffairsisfoundfortheTimeTwoPCA;however,therearenogroupsofloadingsgreaterthantwo,makingtheresultsappearevenlesssystem-aticthanwiththoseoftheTimeOneanalysis.Again,almostallthetotalvarianceisbeingaccountedforbyfactorone.Also,withtheexceptionsofitems�3and�4,thecommunalitiesarenotparticularlyhigh.

Tables9and�0showtheattempttoforcetheSILLintoasix-factor

Table7:PrincipalComponentAnalysis,TimeOne(n=�53)

Item FactorLoadings Factor� Factor2Factor3 Factor4 Factor5Communalities

35 0.85 0.9�36 0.85 0.9�23 0.64 0.4730 0.60 0.5850 0.44 0.6�32 0.72 0.5729 0.66 0.5�4� 0.59 0.533� 0.56 0.6240 0.53 0.5839 0.45 0.5020 0.70 0.579 0.63 0.35�9 0.58 0.442� 0.39 0.458 0.79 0.4934 0.49 0.54�6 0.45 0.57Table7cont...

4444

JALT JournAL

Item FactorLoadings Factor� Factor2Factor3 Factor4 Factor5Communalities

44 0.79 0.38� 0.32 0.38

Eigenvalues ��.54 3.�9 2.40 2.02 �.98PercentofTotalVariance 23.08 6.37 4.8� 4.04 3.95

Item FactorLoadings Factor6 Factor7Factor8 Factor9 Factor�0Communalities

24 0.9� 0.9�25 0.9� 0.9�27 0.43 0.5926 0.79 0.3933 0.63 0.5338 0.56 0.5537 0.52 0.5��2 0.38 0.53�0 0.78 0.3845 0.4� 0.496 0.79 0.4342 0.53 0.35

Eigenvalues �.69 �.60 �.45 �.33 �.22PercentofTotalVariance 3.39 3.20 2.9� 2.66 2.45

Item FactorLoadings Factor�� Factor�2 Factor�3 Factor�4 Factor�5Communalities

�8 0.68 0.4722 0.65 0.50�3 0.37 0.453 0.74 0.464 0.58 0.5�7 0.46 0.4�5 0.46 0.44�7 0.73 0.49�4 0.59 0.65�5 0.58 0.42�� 0.48 0.5948 0.70 0.5746 0.64 0.6547 0.52 0.6343 0.52 0.4649 0.5� 0.6�Table7cont...


28 0.74 0.422 0.47 0.36

Eigenvalues�.�9 �.�8 �.�2 �.08 �.04PercentofTotalVariance2.38 2.36 2.24 2.�6 2.09

Note:Onlyitemswithloadingsequaltoorover0.30areindicatedinthetable

Table8:PrincipalComponentAnalysis,TimeTwo(n=�53)

Item FactorLoadings Factor� Factor2 Factor3 Factor4 Factor5Communalities

�7 0.72 0.6635 0.7� 0.7626 0.65 0.594� 0.6� 0.5630 0.58 0.52�9 0.53 0.5522 0.46 0.48�2 0.43 0.4�8 0.39 0.5�2� 0.38 0.549 0.69 0.5838 0.64 0.4844 0.62 0.4940 0.56 0.5437 0.55 0.56�0 0.54 0.5�32 0.49 0.55�� 0.48 0.5542 0.66 0.6�28 0.65 0.53�6 0.63 0.6245 0.63 0.4729 0.54 0.5�5 0.38 0.42�5 0.67 0.4247 0.59 0.533� 0.5� 0.55� 0.5� 0.533 0.46 0.494 0.38 0.37�3 0.85 0.9��4 0.85 0.9�

Eigenvalues ��.94 3.02 2.70 2.09 �.89PercentofTotalVariance 23.88 6.04 5.4� 4.�8 3.79

4646

JALT JournAL

Table8cont...Item FactorLoadings Factor6 Factor7 Factor8 Factor9 Factor�0Communalities

2 0.76 0.4236 0.45 0.5346 0.85 0.48�8 0.73 0.5�20 0.52 0.6624 0.49 0.4725 0.42 0.4643 0.77 0.4650 0.49 0.4�49 0.39 0.5�6 0.62 0.387 0.43 0.42

Eigenvalues �.58 �.46 �.39 �.36 �.20PercentofTotalVariance 3.�6 2.9� 2.79 2.73 2.40

Item FactorLoadings Factor�� Factor�2 Factor�3 Communalities

48 0.72 0.3739 0.43 0.6434 0.37 0.4923 0.75 0.5333 0.40 0.7027 0.72 0.3�

Eigenvalues �.�6 �.�0 �.05PercentofExplainedVariance 2.3� 2.20 2.09

Note:Onlyitemswithloadingsequaltoorover0.30areindicatedinthetable.

solution.Herewehaveaclearerpictureofwhythefirstfactoristak-ingupsomuchofthetotalvariance,althoughwithTimeTwo,thereislessofaconcentrationofitemsinthefirstfactor.Nonetheless,theloadingsforbothPCAsshowacombinationofrelatedandunrelateditems fromthesixsubgroups loading together.Figures�and2givevisualrepresentationsoftheeigenvaluesthroughscreeplots,which,ifwecountthenumberoffactorstotheleftofthepointwherethelineturnsstronglytotheright,seemtoindicatethataonefactoranalysisoftheSILLwouldbemostappropriate.

Theinterviewsrevealedsomeveryinterestingproblemsthequestion-

4747

Table9:PrincipalComponentAnalysiswithSixForcedFactors,TimeOne(n=�53)

Item FactorLoadings Factor� Factor2 Factor3 Factor4 Communalities

35 0.79 0.9�36 0.79 0.9��4 0.69 0.6547 0.68 0.6449 0.68 0.6�30 0.67 0.5946 0.67 0.6548 0.60 0.5723 0.55 0.47�7 0.5� 0.4950 0.49 0.6240 0.47 0.5828 0.44 0.42�6 0.43 0.574 0.42 0.5��5 0.39 0.42�3 0.35 0.4526 0.3� 0.3920 0.72 0.572� 0.66 0.45�9 0.59 0.4422 0.49 0.50�8 0.44 0.4739 0.43 0.509 0.43 0.357 0.40 0.423 0.39 0.465 0.35 0.4432 0.69 0.57�� 0.62 0.5945 0.57 0.49�2 0.56 0.5329 0.55 0.5�38 0.5� 0.5533 0.5� 0.533� 0.49 0.6237 0.44 0.5��0 0.39 0.388 0.69 0.4934 0.49 0.532 0.48 0.366 0.44 0.43

Eigenvalues ��.54 3.�9 2.40 2.02PercentofTotalVariance 23.09 6.37 4.8� 4.04

4848

JALT JournAL

Table9cont...Item FactorLoadings Factor5 Factor6 Communalities

43 0.53 0.4644 0.53 0.38� 0.43 0.384� 0.37 0.5324 0.86 0.9�25 0.86 0.9�27 0.44 0.50

Eigenvalues �.98 �.69PercentofTotalVariance 3.96 3.39


Table�0:PrincipalComponentAnalysiswithSixForcedFactors,TimeTwo(n=�53)

Item FactorLoadings Factor� Factor2 Factor3 Factor4 Communalities

38 0.63 0.4844 0.58 0.4932 0.57 0.5539 0.57 0.6437 0.57 0.563� 0.56 0.5524 0.53 0.4740 0.52 0.544 0.47 0.3725 0.47 0.46�5 0.40 0.4235 0.68 0.7622 0.66 0.4826 0.65 0.59�7 0.59 0.66�3 0.57 0.9��4 0.57 0.9�6 0.54 0.387 0.5� 0.424� 0.5� 0.5630 0.5� 0.5233 0.44 0.7023 0.39 0.532� 0.39 0.54�0 0.38 0.5��6 0.72 0.6242 0.65 0.6�


Table�0cont...20 0.65 0.6628 0.64 0.5329 0.6� 0.5�45 0.49 0.47�8 0.47 0.5�5 0.47 0.423 0.37 0.4934 0.37 0.4947 0.59 0.5349 0.57 0.5�36 0.57 0.53� 0.52 0.5348 0.49 0.3750 0.48 0.4�8 0.44 0.5��2 0.32 0.4�

Eigenvalues ��.94 3.02 2.70 2.09PercentofTotalVariance 23.88 6.04 5.4� 4.�8Item FactorLoadings Factor5 Factor6 Communalities

9 0.62 0.58�� 0.58 0.55�9 0.56 0.5543 0.39 0.462 0.69 0.4227 -0.52 0.3�46 -0.42 0.48

Eigenvalues �.89 �.58PercentofTotalVariance 3.79 3.�6


naireposedfortherespondents.Themajorityofstudentsinterviewedhaddifficultyunderstandingitems�,5,6,7,�4,�9,20,22,26,43,44,and47.ThemostcommonlycitedreasonfortheirlackofunderstandingwasunfamiliarJapaneseorEnglishexpressions.Thiswasparticularlytrueforitems5,6,22,and43.Anotherreasonrespondentsgavefortheirdifficultyinunderstandingwasthattheycouldnotimaginethesituation.

Discussion

TheresultsreportedaboveprovideahighlevelofreliabilityfortheSILL

5050

JALT JournAL

Figure�:ScreePlot,PrincipalComponentAnalysis,TimeOne(n=�53)

Figure2:ScreePlot,PrincipalComponentAnalysis,TimeTwo(n=�53)

5�5�robson & MidorikAwA

asawhole,whichisproblematic,astheSILLshouldbemeasuringsixdifferent typesof strategies,notonegrand strategy type.Moreover,thealphasforthesubsectionsshowasimilarlylowlevelofreliabilityaswasfoundbyBrownetal.(�996).Onereasonforthiscouldbethenumberofitemsinthesubsections,wherethelongersubsectionssuchasCognitiveStrategieshavehigherreliability.Lengthisanimportantfactorinreliability,aslongermeasurestendtobemorereliable(Bach-man,�990).Moreover,aswasnotedpreviously,allthedistributionsareskewed,whichmustalsobeaffectingthelevelofreliability.Forexample,SocialStrategiesTimeOnehasfairlyhighreliability,butatTimeTwoitdropsto.59.However,thereisalsoanincreaseintheskewbetweentimesone(.��)andtwo(-.25).Nevertheless,theseskeweddistributionscannotfullyexplaintherelativelylowreliabilityastheCognitiveStrate-giessubsectionhasaconsistentlevelofreliabilityfromTimeOnetoTimeTwo,butskeweddistributionsof-.20and.�3.Thetest-retestreli-abilityasindicatedbythepercentageofsharedvariancefortheitems,subsectionsandentiremeasureshowthattheSILLishighlyunreliable.Itisimportanttorememberthatreliabilitycanbemeasuredseveraldif-ferentways,andthatdependenceonasingleapproachcanberisky.Onereasonforthelowfigureshasbeenfoundinotherstudieslookingateitherbeliefsorstrategies(forexampleGaies&Sakui,�999),wherethestudentswerefoundtochangeovertime.Althoughitisdifficulttodeterminetheexactreasonsforchangewithoutconductingextensivepost-administrationinterviews,studentsmayinterpretthequestionsonagivenmeasureinlightoftheircurrentlearningsituationandnotlearn-ingsituationsingeneral.Moreover,theeffectsoftrainingandlearningmustalsobetakenintoaccount.Inaddition,itisimportanttoremem-berthatstrategiesarenotpersonalitytraits,whichhavebeenshowntoremainstableovertimeandacrosssituations(seeAngleitner,�99�).Thus,itishardlysurprisingthatthepercentageofsharedvarianceshouldbesolowbetweenthetwoadministrations.However,thereareotherpossibleexplanationsforthelowlevelsofreliability.Again,theskeweddistributionscouldbeadverselyaffectingtheresults,oritispossiblethatthepopulationsurveyedwastoohomogeneous.Thesubjectsareallfromasinglelanguagebackgroundandculturewithclosesimilaritiesinageandpossiblyeducationalexperience.Theskeweddistributionsarelikelypartoftheexplanation.Nonetheless,theJapaneseversionoftheSILLwasdesignedtoexaminejustthistypeofpopulation.Moreover,theeducationalbackgroundofthisgroupofsubjectsisprobablynotallthathomogeneous.Thestudentsatthewomen’suniversitycomefromawideareanorthandwestofTokyoandattendedbothprivateandpublichighschoolswherethereareeducationaldifferencesfromone

5252

JALT JournAL

schooltothenext.Theco-edschoolsubjectsaresimilarinthisregard.ItalsoseemsreasonabletoexpectthatmostadministratorsorteacherswillusetheSILLundersimilarconditionsinJapan.

ThefactoranalysisresultsdonotconfirmOxford’ssixstrategycat-egoriesevenwhenattempting to force theanalysis intoa six-factorsolution.Infact,theSILLiseithermeasuring�5or�3differenttypesofstrategies,orevenjustoneasindicatedbytheeigenvaluesandscreeplots.Thereareanumberofpotentialreasonsforthis.Thelowreli-abilityisanimportantfactorasisthesizeofthepopulation.HatchandLazaraton(�99�)recommendatleast35subjectspervariableforPCA,whichinthisstudywouldnecessitateannsizeofabout�,750subjects.Withasamplesizeofonly�53,thereisconsiderablelossofstatisticalpower.Nonetheless,other studieswith larger sampleshave shownsimilarresults(Hsiao&Oxford,2000)andbasedonthosefoundhereaswellasinBrownetal.(�996),itwouldseemsafertolimittheSILLtoonegrandlanguagelearningstrategiesfactorinsteadoftryingtobreakitintotheorizedgroups.

Attemptingtolabeleachofthesestrategytypesisverydifficult.Thereseemstobealmostnosystemtothefactorloadings,although,someofthefactorscanbetentativelylabeled.Forexample,TimeOnefactor�4seemstoberelatedtoOxford’sSocialStrategies,whilefactor2con-tainsitemsfromtheAnalyzingandReasoningsubgroupwithinCogni-tiveStrategies.Factor�2seemstobetheMemoryStrategysubgroupApplyingImagesandSounds.ThefactorsolutionforthesecondtimeshowsanevengreatermixingofitemsfromdifferentstrategygroupsalmostnecessitatingacompleteabandonmentofOxford’scategories.However,bylookingatthewording,wecanapplytentativelabels.Forexample,factortwocanbeinterpretedasvariousspeakingstrategies.Inaddition,thereseemtobegroupingsofitemsinbothTimeOneandTimeTwobasedonthetypeofactionexpressedbytheverbinJapa-nese.AnexamplewouldbeTimeOnefactorfour,wherethesubjectsseemtoplaceemphasisonsuchactionsas“review,”“read,”and“plan.”TheattempttoforcetheSILLintosixfactorsforTimeOneresultedinwhatlookslikeaone-factorsolutionincludingsomeitemsfromeachsubsection.IftheseresultshadbeenrepeatedinTimeTwo,therewouldhavebeenanopportunitytosupportaone-factorsolutionbasedonthisdata.Unfortunately,theitemsinthefirstfactordiffer.

Theproblemsstudentshadunderstandingthequestionnairewerepartiallyrevealedbythepost-administrationinterviewsconductedwithaverysmallsample.Thesestudentswereunfamiliarwithsuchexpres-sionsorsituationsaskokoroniegaku(makingamentalpicture)initem4,inotsukau(userhymes)initem5,“flashcards”initem6,andkarada


dehyｴnshite(physicallyactout) in item7.Forexample,duringtheadministrationofthequestionnaire,themajorityofstudentscouldnotreadthecharacterin,whichmeansrhymeinJapanese,anddidnotknowitsmeaningwhenitwasreadtothem.Moreover,otheritemsthatwereincomprehensiblewereonesthatreflectamoreWesternapproachtolearningstrategiesthanonewithwhichJapanesestudentsarefamiliar,suchaswithitems4and7.Inaddition,studentshaddifficultyrelatingmanyof the situationspresented in thequestionnaire to theirownlearning.First,thequestionnairepresumesanESLlearningsituation,wherethesituationinJapanisclearlyEFL.Thus,thesestudentshavefewopportunitiesfortargetlanguageuseoutsideoftheclassroom.Ofthe�0interviewees,3hadexperiencedstudyinginanEnglish-speak-ingcountryandhadfewcomprehensionproblemswiththelearningsituationspresented.However, for the remaining7 students, targetlanguagestudyandusewaslimitedtotheclassroom,library,home,train,ortheirEnglishSpeakingSociety(ESS)meetingsandtheyfoundmanyofthelearningsituationsinthequestionnaireunimaginableorstrange.Moreover,aswasnotedabove,theintervieweesrespondedtoitemsbasedontheircurrentlearningsituationandnotlearningsitua-tionsingeneral.

Conclusion

Thesimplestconclusiononecandrawfromthisinitialattemptatde-terminingthereliabilityandvalidityoftheJapaneselanguageversionoftheSILListhatitisneitherreliablenorvalidbasedonthisstudentsample.AlthoughtheSILLhasshownahighdegreeofinternalreliabilityfortheentirequestionnaire,itclaimstomeasuresixdifferentstrategiesandthusmustbeanalyzedassixdifferentmeasures.Infact,thehighdegreeofreliabilityfortheentireSILL,asnotedabove,isnotnecessarilyagoodthing.Thesubsectionshaveagenerallylowandunacceptablealphalevel.Moreover,thereareseriousquestionsabouthowreliabletheresultsarewhengiventothesamegroupmorethanonceandhowvalidthecategoriesusedtogrouptheitemsonthequestionnaireare.Inotherwords,whiletheSILLmayindeedbemeasuringlanguage-learn-ingstrategies,itdoesnotseemtobemeasuringgroupsofstrategiesinthemannerOxfordhasclaimed,atleastfortheselearners.Itwouldseemreasonable,basedonthehighreliabilityfortheentireSILL,theeigenvalues,andscreeplots, todescribe theSILLasageneralmea-sureoflanguage-learningstrategiesandnotameasureofsixdifferentstrategytypes.Theresearchersbelievethattheseconclusionscanbedrawnbasedonthesedatainspiteofpotentialproblemswithnsize,

5454

JALT JournAL

thepossiblyhomogeneouspopulation,skeweddistribution,andlowreliability.

Asdiscussedpreviously, themethodsOxfordused tovalidateanearlierversionoftheSILLaresomewhatsuspect.Takentogetherwiththelackofestablishedreliabilityorvalidityforthelaterversions(de-spiteclaimsbyYamato,2000,p.�42,tothecontrary),thoseusingtheEnglishversionoftheSILLwillnotbeabletorelyontheresults.More-over,HsiaoandOxford’s(2000)confirmatoryfactoranalysisdoesnotprovidemuchconfidenceeither.CautionaryusebecomesevenmorenecessarywiththeJapanesetranslation,asitisnowanewquestion-naire thathasnotgone througha rigorous reliabilityandvalidationprocess.Theseissuesandproblemsarenotjustaboutstrategies,butrelatetoanyuseofaself-reportquestionnaire.Itshouldbeclearfromthisanalysisthatsimplytakingaquestionnaire,translatingitintoanotherlanguage,administeringittoagroupofstudentsandthenusingthere-sultsformakingeducationalpolicydecisionsareveryunwisepractices.Moreover,anyquestionnairemustreflecttheactuallearningsituationsofthetargetpopulation,theirstrategyuse,thetypeoflanguagewithwhichtheyarefamiliar,andanyculturaldifferencesthatmightaffecttheoutcome.TheresearchershopethatthroughthisinitialattemptatvalidatingOxford’squestionnaireotherresearchersandlanguage-teach-ingprofessionalswilltakeamorecautiousapproachtoquestionnaireuseandinterpretation.

AcknowledgementsThisisamuchrevisedandexpandedversionofapaperdeliveredatAILA99inTokyo.Theauthorswouldliketothankthetwoanonymousreviewersfortheirsuggestionsandvaluablecomments.

GordonRobsonisProfessoratShowaWomen’sUniversity.Hisresearchinterestsincludereadingstrategiesandindividuallearnerdifferences.

HidekoMidorikawa isProfessor at ShowaWomen’sUniversity.Herresearchinterestsincludereadingstrategiesandteachereducation.

ReferencesAllport,G.W.(�937).Personality:Apsychological interpretation.NewYork:

Holt,Rinehard&Winston.

Angleitner, A. (�99�). Personality psychology: Trends anddevelopments.EuropeanJournalofPersonality,5,�56-�7�.


Bachman,L.F.(�990).Fundamentalconsiderationsinlanguagetesting.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.

Brown, J.D. (�988).Understanding research in second language teaching:A teacher’s guide to statistics and researchdesign. London:CambridgeUniversity.

Brown,J.D.(�997).Statisticscorner,questionsandanswersaboutstatistics:Skewnessandkurtosis.Shiken:JALTtesting&evaluationSIGnewsletter,�(�),�6-�8.

Brown,J.D.,Robson,G.,&Rosenkjar,P.(�996).Themotivation,anxiety,learningstylesandproficiencyof Japanesecollege students.UniversityofHawai’iWorkingPapersinESL,�5(�),33-72.

Chapelle,C.(�994).AreC-testsvalidmeasuresforL2strategyresearch?SecondLanguageResearch,�0(2),�57-�87.

Gaies,S.,&Sakui,K.(�999).Symposiumonlearners’beliefsaboutlanguagelearning.Paperpresentedatthe�2thWorldCongressofAppliedLinguistics,Tokyo,Japan.

Gardner,R.C.,&Lambert,W.E.(�972).Attitudesandmotivationinsecond-languagelearning.Rowley,MA:NewburyHouse.

Griffee,D. (�999). Translatingquestionnaires fromEnglish into Japanese:Is itvalid?InA.Barfield,R.Betts, J.Cunningham,N.Dunn,H.Katsura,K.Kobayashi,N.Padden,N.Parry&M.Watanabe(Eds.),OnJALT98:Focusontheclassroom(pp.�76-�80).Tokyo:JapanAssociationforLanguageTeaching.

Guilford,J.P.(�940).AninventoryoffactorsSTDCR,manualofdirectionsandnorms.BeverlyHills:SheridanSupplyCo.

Guilford,J.P.&Fruchter,B.(�973).Fundamentalstatisticsinpsychologyandeducation.NewYork:McGrawHill.

Hatch,E.&Lazaraton,A.(�99�).Theresearchmanual:Designandstatisticsforappliedlinguistics.NewYork:NewburyHousePublishers.

Horwitz,E.K.,Horwitz,M.B.,&Cope,J.(�986).Foreignlanguageclassroomanxiety.TheModernLanguageJournal,70,�25-�32.

Hsiao,T.-Y.,&Oxford,R.L.(2000).Learningstrategyuseandtargetlanguages:confirmatory factor analysis across languages. Paper presented at theannualmeetingoftheTeachersofEnglishtoSpeakersofOtherLanguages,Vancouver,Canada.

McCrae,R.R.(�989).WhyIadvocatethefive-factormodel:JointanalysesoftheNEO-PIandotherinstruments.InD.M.Buss&N.Cantor(Eds.),Personalitypsychology:Recenttrendsandemergingdirections(pp.237-245).NewYork:Springer-Verlag.

Messick,S.(�989).Validity.InR.E.Linn(Ed.),Educationalmeasurement(3rded.,pp.�3-�03).NewYork:Macmillan.

Oxford,R.L.(�990).LanguageLearningStrategies:WhatEveryTeacherShouldKnow.NewYork:NewburyHouse.

5656

JALT JournAL

Oxford,R.L.(�994).Gengogakushusutoratejiiｴgaikokugokyoushigashitteokankerebanaranaikoto[LanguageLearningStrategies:WhatEveryTeacherShouldKnow](M.Shishido&N.Ban,Trans.).Tokyo:Bonjinsha. (originalworkpublished�990)

Oxford,R.L.(�996).Employingaquestionnairetoassesstheuseoflanguagelearningstrategies.AppliedLanguageLearning,7,(�&2),25-45.

Oxford, R. L., Park-Oh,Y., Ito, S.,& Sumrall,M. (�993). Factors affectingachievementinasatellite-deliveredJapaneselanguageprogram.AmericanJournalofDistanceEducation,7,�0-25.

Takeuchi,O.(�993).AstudyoflanguagelearningstrategiesandtheirrelationtoachievementinEFLlisteningcomprehension.BulletinoftheInstituteforInterdisciplinaryStudiesofCulture,�0,�3�-�4�.

Watanabe,Y.(�990).Externalvariablesaffectinglanguagelearningstrategiesof JapaneseEFL learners: Effects of entrance examination, years spentat college/university, and stayingoverseas.Unpublishedmaster’s thesis,LancasterUniversity,Lancaster,U.K.

Yamato,R.(2000).Awarenessandrealuseofreadingstrategies.JALTJournal,22(�),�40-�64.

(ReceivedAugust5,2000;revisedMay3,200�)

How Reliable and Valid is the Japanese Language...

Documents

Transcript of How Reliable and Valid is the Japanese Language...