Kyungsim Hong Nam

8/10/2019 Kyungsim Hong Nam

1/17

Language learning strategy use of ESL students inan intensive English learning context

Kyungsim Hong-Nam *, Alexandra G. Leavell

Department of Teacher Education and Administration, University of North Texas, Denton, TX 76203, USA

Received 5 September 2005; received in revised form 9 February 2006; accepted 14 February 2006

Abstract

This study investigated the language learning strategy use of 55 ESL students with differing cul-tural and linguistic backgrounds enrolled in a college Intensive English Program (IEP). The IEP is alanguage learning institute for pre-admissions university ESL students, and is an important step in

developing not only students basic Interpersonal Communications Skills (BICS), but more impor-tantly their Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency (CALP). Proficiency with academic English isa key contributor to students success in learning in their second language. Using the Strategy Inven-tory for Language Learning (SILL), the study examines the relationship between language learningstrategy use and second language proficiency, focusing on differences in strategy use across genderand nationality. The study found a curvilinear relationship between strategy use and English profi-ciency, revealing that students in the intermediate level reported more use of learning strategies thanbeginning and advanced levels. More strategic language learners advance along the proficiency con-tinuum faster than less strategic ones. The study found that the students preferred to use metacog-nitive strategies most, whereas they showed the least use of affective and memory strategies. Femalestended to use affective and social strategies more frequently than males. Conclusions and pedagog-

ical implications of the findings are discussed. 2006 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Keywords: Language learning strategies; English as a second language; Intensive English learning; Measurementof learning strategies; Strategy inventory for language learning (SILL); Cognitive academic language proficiency(CALP)

0346-251X/$ - see front matter 2006 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

doi:10.1016/j.system.2006.02.002

*

Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 940 565 3397x565 4403; fax: +1 940 565 4952.E-mail addresses: [email protected](K. Hong-Nam),[email protected](A.G. Leavell).

System 34 (2006) 399415

www.elsevier.com/locate/system

SYSTEM
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


2/17


3/17

Foreign Language (TOEFL) scores. Other findings have exposed a relationship betweenstudents perceptions of their language proficiency and strategy use. Oxford and Nyikos(1989)affirmed that greater strategy use accompanied perceptions of higher proficiency,while Wharton (2000) demonstrated a significant correlation between the two factors,

indicating the higher a students language proficiency self-rating, the more frequent strat-egy use was.

Studies have established a great deal of evidence of gender differences in the use of lan-guage learning strategies. The results have usually favored females as more frequent usersof strategies (Ehrman and Oxford, 1989; Green and Oxford, 1995; Oxford, 1993). Whenlooking at the types of strategy use, females show more use of social learning strategies(Politzer, 1983; Ehrman and Oxford, 1989), more frequent use of formal rule-based prac-tice strategies, and conversational or input strategies (Oxford and Nyikos, 1989). Genderdifferences appear most evident in the use of socially based strategies such as group learn-ing. However, gender difference findings in favor of greater strategy use by females may betempered by the context and/or culture of the language learning. For example, in a studyof adult Vietnamese refugeesTran (1988)found that males were more likely to use a vari-ety of learning strategies than females. Refugees are a population typically characterizedby survival learning wherein men would be highly motivated to learn English for sur-vival needs (e.g., supporting their family in the new society). Bilingual college studentsin Singapore evidenced no statistically significant gender effect in their reported strategyuse (Wharton, 2000). This may be attributable to an overall superiority in language learn-ing ability and expertise on the part of bilingual students which may have equalized anypotential gender differences in strategy use.

Cultural background (sometimes referred to as ethnicity or nationality) has been linkedto use and choice of language learning strategies (Bedell and Oxford, 1996; Grainger, 1997;Oxford and Burry-Stock, 1995; Politzer, 1983; Reid, 1987; Wharton, 2000).Politzer (1983)found that Hispanics used more social, interactive strategies, while Asian groups educatedin traditionally didactic settings chose memorization strategies. Wharton (2000) foundthat bilingual Asian students learning a third language (English) favored social strategiesmore than any other types. Culturally-specific strategy use may be a by-product of instruc-tional approaches favored by specific cultural groups as opposed to inherent predisposi-tions based on nationality or ethnicity of the individual. For instance, students educatedin the environments of lecture- and textbook-centered teaching approach(es) may use dif-

ferent strategies compared to students trained in student-centered contexts. Because lan-guage is so culturally situated (Garcia, 2005), it is difficult to parse out whetherdifferences between groups are a result of differences in instructional delivery, socio-cul-tural elements, or other culturally specific factors.

3. Purpose of the study

There is little in the extant literature which focuses specifically on the language learningstrategies of students learning English in the context of Intensive English Programs (IEPs)at the university level. The IEP course is a vital step in developing students Cognitive Aca-

demic Language Proficiency (CALP) (Cummins, 1979), which is receiving increasing atten-tion as a contributing factor to learners academic success. Therefore, this studyinvestigated the overall language learning strategy use of English learners enrolled in a uni-versity IEP, looked at the relationship between language learning strategy use and second

K. Hong-Nam, A.G. Leavell / System 34 (2006) 399415 401


4/17

language proficiency, and assessed any differences in strategy use by gender andnationality.

4. Methods

4.1. Participants

Fifty-five ESL students enrolled in an IEP at a large Southwestern university partici-pated in this study. When ranked by class level based on tested proficiency with Englishthere were 11 Beginning, 30 Intermediate, and 14 Advanced learners. The age of the stu-dents ranged from 18 to 40 (M= 22). The sample was fairly balanced across males(n = 25) and females (n= 30). The participants were from various countries (Brazil,China, Germany, Indonesia, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Taiwan, Thailand, and Togo), rep-resenting 10 different languages. Japanese was the largest original-language group of thesample (40%), followed by Taiwanese (22%). The third largest language group was Korean(20%), and the remaining groups comprised 18% of the sample (see Table 1).

The IEP is a language learning institute for pre-admissions university ESL students.The participants reported having studied English in this IEP for total periods of time rang-ing from at least one month to one and a half years. The students years of formal Englishinstruction (i.e., English learned in any academic setting) ranged from 1 to 10. The major-ity of the participants were learning English to seek higher education or to earn a degreeafter completion of the IEP. In the beginning of the program, a placement test was givento all students, and they were placed in one of six English proficiency levels from Level 1

Table 1Demographic description of participants

n %

English proficiencyBeginning 11 20.0Intermediate 30 54.5Advanced 14 25.5

GenderMale 25 45.5Female 30 54.5

Self-rated English proficiencyBeginning 17 30.9Intermediate 31 56.4Advanced 7 12.7

NationalityJapan 22 40.0Taiwan 12 22.0Korea 11 20.0China 3 5.5Indonesia 2 3.6German 1 1.8Brazil 1 1.8Malaysia 1 1.8Togo 1 1.8Thai 1 1.8

402 K. Hong-Nam, A.G. Leavell / System 34 (2006) 399415


5/17

(Beginning) to Level 6 (Advanced) according to the results of the language screeningadmissions testing. The test assesses listening, speaking, reading, grammar, and composi-tion. IEP learners engage in some form of language instruction in English for 45 hoursdaily in the classroom. Students may also take advantage of the language learning lab

at their convenience.

4.2. Instruments

The Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL version 7.0 for ESL/EFL learn-ers, 50 items), a self-report questionnaire, was used to assess the frequency of use of lan-guage learning strategies (Oxford, 1990). The SILL has been employed as a key instrumentin numerous studies. Studies have reported reliability coefficients for the SILL rangingfrom .85 to .98 making it a trusted measure for gauging students reported language learn-ing strategy use (Bremner, 1998; Oxford and Burry-Stock, 1995; Park, 1997; Sheorey,1999; Wharton, 2000). A Cronbachs a calculated for this study also revealed an accept-able reliability (.67). In the SILL, language learning strategies are grouped into six catego-ries for assessment: Memory strategies for storing and retrieving information, Cognitivestrategies for understanding and producing the language, Compensation strategies forovercoming limitations in language learning, Metacognitive strategies for planning andmonitoring learning, Affective strategies for controlling emotions, motivation, and Socialstrategies for cooperating with others in language learning.

The SILL uses five Likert-type responses for each strategy item ranging from 1 to 5 (i.e.,from never or almost never true of me to always true of me). In this study, learners were

asked to respond to each item based on an honest assessment of their language learningstrategy use. Once completed, the SILL data furnishes a composite score for each categoryof strategy. A reporting scale can be used to tell teachers and students which groups ofstrategies they use the most in learning English: (1) High Usage (3.55.0), (2) MediumUsage (2.53.4), and (3) Low Usage (1.02.4). Scale ranges were developed byOxford(1990).

An Individual Background Questionnaire (IBQ) was created by the researchers and wasdistributed to collect demographic information about the students. Information collectedincluded nationality, home language, years of English study, time in the United States, andtime in the IEP. Participants were also asked to rate their English proficiency (see Appen-

dix Afor the IBQ).

4.3. Data collection and analysis

The SILL was administrated to ESL students by the classroom teacher during a reg-ular class period. The full descriptive instructions regarding the procedures of adminis-tration were provided to and discussed with the instructor of the classes before theadministration. The students were told that there were no right or wrong answers toany question and that their confidentiality was secured and their response would be usedfor research purposes only. They were also informed that while their participation would

not affect their grades, they still had the option not to participate. All students chose tofill out the surveys.

Data analyses included the computation of descriptive statistics (means, standard devi-ation, and frequencies) to compile information about demographics of the participants

http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-


6/17

and to calculate overall strategy use. In order to determine any variation in strategy userelative to English proficiency, gender, and nationality, an analysis of variance (ANOVA)was conducted using these factors as independent variables and the six categories of strat-egies as dependent variables. The Scheffepost-hoc test was used to find where any signif-

icant differences in strategy use lay.

5. Results

5.1. Overall strategy use

A one-way analyses of variance (ANOVA) revealed statistically significant differences(F= 20.79, p= 0.00) in the overall use of strategies by participants (see Table 2). Specif-ically, the results of the Scheffepost-hoc test revealed a statistically significant difference inthe use of memory and affective strategies compared to cognitive, compensation, metacog-nitive, or social strategies. These four categories ranked high in use (M= 3.45.0). Theleast preferred strategies were affective (M= 3.02) and memory (M= 3.04). The most pre-ferred group of the six strategy categories for participants was metacognitive strategies(M= 3.66) followed by social strategies (M= 3.62), compensation strategies,(M= 3.59), and cognitive strategies (M= 3.44).

Table 3ranks reported strategy use by individual item mean scores on the SILL for theentire sample; results are presented in descending order from most to least used. The mostused strategy by participants was a compensation strategy, When I cant think of a wordduring a conversation in English, I use gestures (M= 4.25). The least used item for the par-

ticipants (and the only one that fell within the Low usage range of 1.02.4) was affective, Inotice if I am tense or nervous when I am studying or using English (M= 1.76).

5.2. Use of the strategies by English proficiency

When participant data was grouped by tested English proficiency (Beginning, Interme-diate, or Advanced Level) data analysis revealed statistically significant differences for theuse of compensation strategies. (A summary of the ANOVA results for the use of six cat-egories of strategies by English proficiency is shown in Table 4.) Compensation strategieswere used more by the Intermediate level participants than the Advanced level (F= 5.04,

p= 0.01). The most preferred strategy category for students in Beginning and Intermedi-

Table 2Descriptive statistics for the variables and F-tests for main difference between the six strategy categories

Variable Mean SD Minimum Maximum Rank F Significance Difference*

Memory 3.04 0.42 2.00 4.22 5 20.79 0.00 Mem, Aff < Cog,Com, Met, SocCognitive 3.44 0.43 2.64 4.71 4

Compensation 3.59 0.49 2.50 4.67 3Metacognitive 3.66 0.48 2.56 4.67 1Affective 3.02 0.53 1.67 4.33 6Social 3.62 0.51 2.33 5.00 2

Total 3.40 0.55 1.67 5.00

Mem (Memory strategies), Cog (Cognitive strategies), Com (Compensation strategies), Met (Metacognitivestrategies), Aff (Affective strategies), Soc (Social strategies).

* p< 0.05.



7/17

Table 3Preference of language learning strategies by ESL students

Strategycategory

StrategyNo.

Strategystatement

Rank Mean

High usage(M=3.50 or above)Com 25 When I cannot think of a word during

a conversation in English, I use gestures1 4.25

Aff 44 I talk to someone else abouthow I feel about learning English

2 4.16

Met 32 I pay attention whensomeone is speaking English

3 4.13

Com 24 To understand unfamiliarEnglish words, I make guesses

4 4.05

Met 33 I try to find out how to bea better learner of English

5 4.02

Cog 12 I practice the sounds of English 6 3.98Com 29 If I cant think of an English word,

I use a word or phrase thatmeans the same thing

7 3.95

Met 38 I think about myprogress in learning English

8 3.89

Cog 11 I try to talk likenative English speakers

9 3.84

Soc 48 I ask for help from English speakers 10 3.84Met 31 I notice my English mistakes and use

that information to help me do better11 3.82

Cog 15 I watch TV shows spoken in English or

go to movies spoken in English

12 3.78

Aff 39 I try to relax wheneverI feel afraid of using English

13 3.78

Cog 20 I try to find patterns (grammar) in English 14 3.67Soc 46 I ask English speakers to correct me when I talk 15 3.67Met 37 I have clear goals for improving my English skills 16 3.64Cog 14 I start conversations in English 17 3.60Met 35 look for people I can talk to in English 18 3.60Met 30 I try to find as many ways as

I can to use my English19 3.58

Soc 49 I ask questions in English 20 3.56Soc 50 I try to learn about the

culture of English speakers

21 3.56

Cog 17 I write notes, messages,letters or reports in English

22 3.51

Mem 1 I review English lessons often 23 3.50

Medium Usage(M=2.53.4)Cog 10 I say or write new

English words several times24 3.45

Soc 47 I practice English with other students 25 3.42Mem 2 I use new English words in a sentence

so I can remember them26 3.40

Mem 3 I connect the sound of a new

English word and an image orpicture of the word tohelp me remember the word

27 3.40

(continued on next page)



8/17

ate levels were metacognitive strategies (M= 3.51 and M= 3.77, respectively). The most

frequently used strategies for the Advanced group were social strategies, (M= 3.67). Theleast preferred categories for Beginning and Intermediate groups were affective strategies(M= 3.21 andM= 2.92, respectively), and for Advanced and Beginning levels were mem-ory strategies, (M= 2.97 and M= 3.21, respectively).

Table 3 (continued)

Strategycategory

StrategyNo.

Strategystatement

Rank Mean

Cog 19 I look for words in my own language that

are similar to new words in English

28 3.40

Cog 18 I first skim (read over the passage quickly) anEnglish passage then go back and read carefully

29 3.38

Cog 21 I find the meaning of an English word bydividing it into parts that I understand

30 3.29

Cog 13 I use the English words I know in different ways 31 3.27Met 36 I look for opportunities to read

as much as possible in English32 3.24

Aff 41 I give myself a reward or treatwhen I do well in English

33 3.24

Mem 4 I use flashcards to remember new English words 34 3.20

Com 27 I read English without looking up every new word 35 3.18Com 28 I try to guess what the otherperson will say next in English

36 3.15

Aff 43 I write down my feelings in a language learning diary 37 3.09Soc 45 If I do not understand something in English,

I ask the other person to slow down or say it again38 3.09

Met 34 I plan my schedule so I will haveenough time to study English

39 3.04

Cog 16 I read for pleasure in English 40 3.02Cog 22 I try not to translate word-for-word 41 3.02Mem 8 I make connection between what

I already know and new things I learn in English42 3.00

Com 26 I make up new words if I do notknow the right ones in English

43 2.98

Cog 23 I make summaries of informationthat I hear or read in English

44 2.95

Mem 9 I remember new English words byremembering their location on the page,on the board, or on a street sign

45 2.90

Aff 40 I encourage myself to speak Englisheven when I am afraid of making a mistake

46 2.82

Mem 7 I physically act out new English words 47 2.80Mem 5 I use rhymes to remember new English words 48 2.70Mem 6 I remember a new English word by imagining

(mental picture) a situation in which the word might be used

49 2.50

Low Usage(M=2.4 or below)Aff 42 I notice if I am tense or nervous

when I am studying or using English50 1.76

Mem (Memory strategies), Cog (Cognitive strategies), Com (Compensation strategies), Met (Metacognitivestrategies), Aff (Affective strategies), Soc (Social strategies).



9/17

5.3. Use of the strategies by gender

Table 5shows results for the use of language learning strategies when participants weregrouped by gender. Although the difference in overall strategy use between male andfemale students was not statistically significant, a statistically significant difference in theuse of affective strategies was found between males and females (F= 3.98, p = 0.05), withfemales reporting higher use of affective strategies. Mean differences revealed that females(M= 3.45) engaged in strategy use more frequently than males (M= 3.34). Males favoredthe use of metacognitive (M= 3.65) and compensation strategies (M= 3.62) most, and

affective strategies the least (M= 2.87). Female participants reported using social(M= 3.70) and metacognitive strategies (M= 3.67) most and memory strategies the least(M= 3.06).

5.4. Use of the strategies by nationality

As shown inTable 1, the majority of participants were from Japan, Taiwan, Korea, orChina (87.5%). Because some nationalities had very low representation, certain subgroupswere combined in order to evaluate statistically possible differences in strategy use by

Table 5Summary of variation in use of strategy categories by gender

Variables Male Female F Significance Difference*

Mean SD Mean SD

Mem 3.01 0.37 3.06 0.46 0.15 0.70 M < FCog 3.34 0.39 3.53 0.44 2.73 0.10Com 3.62 0.51 3.57 0.48 0.13 0.72Met 3.65 0.52 3.67 0.46 0.03 0.87Aff 2.87 0.53 3.14 0.50 3.98 0.05Soc 3.54 0.49 3.70 0.53 1.25 0.27

Total 3.34 0.55 3.45 0.54 3.13 0.08

Mem (Memory strategies), Cog (Cognitive strategies), Com (Compensation strategies), Met (Metacognitivestrategies), Aff (Affective strategies), Soc (Social strategies), M = male, F = female.

* p< 0.05.

Table 4Summary of variation in use of strategy categories by English proficiency (Level)

Variables Beginning Intermediate Advanced F Significance Difference*

Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD

Mem 3.21 0.40 3.01 0.39 2.97 0.48 1.22 0.31 Adv < IntCog 3.41 0.42 3.49 0.48 3.37 0.33 0.43 0.66Com 3.40 0.49 3.76 0.50 3.37 0.30 5.04 0.01Met 3.51 0.45 3.77 0.38 3.55 0.65 1.79 0.18Aff 3.21 0.58 2.92 0.53 3.07 0.46 1.32 0.28Soc 3.39 0.59 3.69 0.46 3.67 0.54 1.44 0.25

Total 3.35 0.49 3.44 0.57 3.33 0.52 1.46 0.23

Mem (Memory strategies), Cog (Cognitive strategies), Com (Compensation strategies), Met (Metacognitivestrategies), Aff (Affective strategies), Soc (Social strategies), Adv = Advanced, Int = Intermediate.

* p< 0.05.



10/17

nationality. Because of the similarities between languages spoken in China and Taiwanthese groups were combined under the category Chinese. Additionally, the smallremaining number of students from other countries (n= 7), were grouped as Other.The ultimate grouping by nationality was: Japanese (n= 22), Chinese (n= 15), Korean(n= 11), and Other (n= 7).

AsTable 6shows, all participants engaged in active use of strategies in language learn-

ing regardless of their nationalities. ANOVA results revealed a statistically significant dif-ference in the use of metacognitive strategies for Japanese over Other (F= 4.35,p = 0.01)Participants from Japan, Korea, and Other reported using use metacognitive strategiesmost (M= 3.80, M= 3.53, and M= 4.02, respectively), while Chinese students preferredto use social strategies most (M= 3.78). Affective strategies were least selected by Japanesestudents (M= 2.86) and Other (M= 3.14), whereas the Korean group showed the leastuse of memory strategies (M= 3.08). Chinese students reported the lowest use of bothmemory and affective strategies (M= 3.00).

6. Discussion

6.1. Overall strategy use

When considered as one group, these second language learners reported using metacog-nitive and social strategies more frequently than any other strategy during their languagelearning. ESL students in the IEP appeared familiar with the need to manage their learningprocesses and indicated they were in control of planning, organizing, focusing, and eval-uating their own learning, behaviors inherent in most definitions of metacognition (Bor-kowski et al., 1987).

The intensive learning environment of the IEP program may be a prime contributor

in several ways to the preferred use and selection of both metacognitive and socialstrategies. In terms of metacognitive strategies, learners enrolled in intensive Englishprograms typically have a strong instrumental motivation for learning English. Unlikelearners who might enroll in a foreign language for fun or self-advancement or because

Table 6Summary of variation in use of strategy categories by nationality

Variables Japanese(n= 22)

Chinese(n= 15)

Korean(n= 11)

Others(n= 7)

F Significance Difference*

Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD

Mem 3.00 0.48 3.00 0.27 3.08 0.48 3.19 0.43 0.42 0.74 C < J,OCog 3.45 0.38 3.50 0.49 3.26 0.46 3.56 0.40 0.91 0.44Com 3.67 0.43 3.58 0.48 3.35 0.44 3.79 0.69 1.50 0.23Met 3.80 0.35 3.39 0.40 3.53 0.57 4.02 0.59 4.35 0.01Aff 2.86 0.56 3.00 0.47 3.29 0.50 3.14 0.48 1.87 0.15Soc 3.62 0.39 3.78 0.62 3.39 0.54 3.67 0.56 1.22 0.31

Total 3.40 0.55 3.37 0.54 3.32 0.50 3.56 0.59 1.85 0.15

Mem (Memory strategies), Cog (Cognitive strategies), Com (Compensation strategies), Met (Metacognitivestrategies), Aff (Affective strategies), Soc (Social strategies), C = Chinese, J = Japanese, O = Others.

*

p< 0.05.



11/17

a language course is required (what Diab (2000) refers to as integrative reasons), IEPstudents are learning English to advance their academic and professional lives. The(self-imposed) threat of failing the program is a huge motivator for taking controlof their learning. The sooner they graduate the program (which can only be accom-

plished by achieving adequate scores on the Test of English as a Foreign Language(TOEFL)) the sooner they can begin taking regular university coursework. Efficientplanning and self-monitoring of ones learning progress (both metacognitive behaviors)by the student are instrumental in achieving their goal of completion. Metacognitiveknowledge and increases in academic performance go hand in hand (Pintrich and Gar-cia, 1994).

The IEP may also play a role in high use of social strategies by participants, manyof whom showed a strong preference for learning with others by asking questions andcooperating with peers. This particular IEP has a very student-oriented philosophyunderpinning its curriculum. In terms of the participants high social strategy use,which is a departure in some ways from culturally driven learning practices that aremore independent, the environment (e.g., high availability of native-English speakersaround the students) of and instruction in the IEP strongly encourage and supportmore interactive learning for the sake of developing greater linguistic fluency. Thesefindings are in line with those of Phillips (1991) study of Asian ESL students alsoenrolled in college IEPs who used social strategies more than affective and memorystrategies.

The least favored strategies by participants in this study were affective strategies andmemory strategies. In terms of affect, these learners reported that despite efforts to relax

when they were uncertain about speaking English, their fears of making a mistake oftenkept them from trying. Asian cultural mores encourage listening to others and discouragepublic discussion of feelings. As the majority of the students participating in this investi-gation were Asian, their upbringing and previous school experiences may have impactedtheir behavior in this area (Politzer, 1983; Reid, 1987).

Low use of memory strategies was initially surprising in that these are largely in keepingwith instructional delivery systems typically employed in many Asian countries which arefrequently didactic and emphasize rote memorization. However, further examination ofthe literature revealed that other studies have also had contradictory findings to this per-haps too common assumption that Asian students have strong preferences for memory

strategies rather than communicative strategies such as working with others, asking forhelp, and cooperating with peers (Al-Otaibi, 2004; Bremner, 1998; Politzer and McGro-arty, 1985; Wharton, 2000; Yang, 1999).

Again the impact of the IEP training might have influenced changes in student strat-egy preferences. Another possibility is that memory strategies can be defined differentlyin different studies. Politzer and McGroarty (1985) found strong preferences for ESLlearners for using memory strategies. They defined memory strategies as rote-memoriza-tion of words, phrases, and sentences. By contrast, the least used memory strategies inthe SILL for the current study were not related whatsoever to rote memorization, ratherthey were things like acting out new vocabulary, using rhymes, and creating a mental or

spatial image. It is possible these were less popular with adult learners and thus notused as much or at all. Memory strategies that did rank higher were those such asreviewing English lessons frequently, and using words in sentences, more traditionalstudy skills.



12/17

6.2. Strategy use by English proficiency

While proficiency level does not necessarily equate with amount of language learning(i.e., number of years), more experienced language learners have been shown to use more

strategies (Bremner, 1998; Green and Oxford, 1995; Oxford and Burry-Stock, 1995; Park,1997; Sheorey, 1999; Wharton, 2000). Research examining strategy use and English pro-ficiency of ESL students has shown a positive linear relationship between the two factors(Bremner, 1998; Green and Oxford, 1995; Oxford and Nyikos, 1989; Wharton, 2000).However, the current study found that when students were grouped by both tested andself-rated English proficiency, the students at the intermediate level reported using moreoverall strategies than beginnersor advanced language learners. Only one other study (Phil-lips, 1991) also showed this curvilinear relationship between strategy use and languageproficiency.

In order to shed light on this unexpected finding, we turned to the extant literature onhow strategic learning abilities develop along the continuum from novice learner to expert.In their classic work on strategic reading, Paris et al. (1994) identified three kinds ofknowledge acquired as learners progress from novice to expert: declarative knowledge,procedural knowledge and conditional knowledge. Declarative knowledge is describedas knowledge about learning tasks (i.e., I know that speaking English and writing Englishrequire different types of grammar)and personal abilities(i.e., I am good at speaking Eng-lish).Procedural knowledge is knowledge about how to learn. Knowing how to scan textfor answers to objective questions, knowing how to make inferences from text, and know-ing how to summarize are examples of procedural knowledge. While both of these types of

knowledge are necessary to move a learner along the continuum from novice to expert,they alone are not enough. A third type of knowledge, conditional knowledge, completesthe triarchy of strategic learning by allowing the reader or learner to orchestrate his or herlearning by choosing the correct strategy for the correct task.

Using our understanding of these three types of strategic knowledge as a windowthrough which to view the findings regarding proficiency and strategy use, the followingexplanation seems plausible. Beginning L2 learners may possess little in the way of declar-ative knowledge regarding their second language learning, much less conditional knowl-edge about how to effectively apply learning strategies (Phillips, 1991). However,intermediate level learners have reached a point in their learning where they have gained

enough vocabulary and competence with the L2, along with some procedural knowledgeto be able to step back and reflect on how effectively their learning process is working. Suchreflection is a primary characteristic of learners who are able to move beyond the basic lev-els of memorizing vocabulary and grammar structures. As learners engage in more activemanagement of their language learning strategy choices and out the ways of learning thatare best for them, their heightened level of awareness means they are very conscious of howthey are learning. It would follow that they would report more strategy use.

For the advanced learners, the results indicate that once language learners reach thishigh level of language proficiency, their need to consciously administer and deliberateabout their learning choices becomes less necessary. Their learning process becomes more

intrinsic and is so well established they need only be conscious of their process if they areconfronted with a very difficult or novel learning task. Carl Bereiter (1995)describes thisinternalization as resulting from the deepest and most thorough understanding (p. 23),whereby the process becomes so incorporated into the way we perceive the world and



13/17

comprehend communications. . . [we] should not have to remember to transfer the learn-ing, but experience it automatically (p. 24). Advanced learners habitual and successfulapplication of language strategies may be so internalized that they do not report what hasbecome for them an automated process, thus their strategy use appears to be lower than

that of the intermediate group.It was interesting to note that students in advanced levels used social strategies more

than any other levels. With increased proficiency came increased confidence, allowingthe learners to interact with others by practicing their language knowledge to promotecommunicative skills. The high sense of confidence in learning English is likely to encour-age students to use various strategies with more emphasis on the use of social and func-tional practice strategies (Horwitz, 1987; Siebert, 2003; Yang, 1999).

6.3. Strategy use by gender

Much research has shown that females tend to use more learning strategies than males(Ehrman and Oxford, 1989; Oxford, 1990; Oxford and Ehrman, 1995; Politzer, 1983;Oxford and Nyikos, 1989; Green and Oxford, 1995). The findings of this study bear thisout. There was a statistically significant difference in affective strategy use by females.(Women also used social strategies more according to mean differences; however, therewas no statistical significance). Women tend to build relationships and use social networkswith greater consistency than men. Thus, this use of emotional and social support systemsin the context of language learning is not unexpected.

6.4. Strategy use by nationality

Several studies have found that cultural background is related to language strategy use(Bedell and Oxford, 1996; Grainger, 1997; Oxford and Burry-Stock, 1995; Politzer, 1983;Reid, 1987; Wharton, 2000). However, culture as a construct is incredibly complex. AsOxford (1990) has stressed, it would be impossible (and undesirable) to try to attributeone particular language learning approach to a specific cultural group. The only statisticallysignificant difference was in the use of metacognitive strategies by Japanese and Others.Mean differences did indicate certain preferences by nationality groups, i.e., Chinese stu-dents favored social strategies while all others favored metacognitive. Since over 87% of this

studys sample is Asian, it is tempting to want to embrace a popular belief about frequent useof strategies like rote-memorization by Asian students. Nevertheless, findings of this studyand others reject this assumption (Phillips, 1991; Sheorey, 1999; Yang, 1999; Wharton,2000). Educators should be mindful that there are individual differences among studentsregardless of socio-cultural, educational, and other aspects of individual backgrounds.

7. Conclusion and implications

This study showed that English language learners enrolled in an intensive English pro-gram were clearly aware that learning strategies were a part of their language learning pro-

cess. Strategy use reported by these learners indicated a high preference for metacognitivestrategies which helped them in directing, organizing, and planning their language learning(metacognitive strategies). The teacher of these students can facilitate learning by address-ing both content and process. For example, instead of handing out a simple list of 40



14/17

vocabulary words, the teacher can organize the terms in groups based on a unifying con-cept for each group. The teacher should also take a few minutes to tell students how andwhy the terms are organized as they are and how the graphic organization of the terms canhave a positive impact on their understanding. This explicit attention to building strategic

awareness in learners has been shown to be quite successful in enhancing their skills aslearners (Keene and Zimmermann, 1997).

Difficulty in dealing with anxiety related to language learning was reported by mostparticipants. The women in the current study appeared to utilize their social networksas a means of support. While male participants apparently did not prefer to talk to theirpeers about their feelings, students might benefit from an opportunity to journal for a fewminutes at the end of each learning session as to how they felt about class and their per-formance on that day. This may help students express feelings in a more private way, andrecognize how those feelings may have impacted the days learning. In addition, as trust isbuilt between teacher and student, the instructor may request access to journal entrieswhich would provide an additional source of information useful in mediating studentsprogress.

Last, the finding that learners at the intermediate level report more strategy use thanbeginners or advanced students indicates that learners at different levels have differentneeds in terms of teacher intervention in the learning process. For beginning learners,the teacher needs to be explicit in developing declarative and procedural knowledge thathelps heighten understanding of the what and how of successful language learning. Thismetacognitive awareness of how students can control and positively impact their languagelearning must be supported until the crucial element of conditional knowledge is in place;

only then can learners reach independence in their language learning.Relating daily learning tasks to students prior knowledge of how they learn best is veryimportant. Beginning language learners tend to be more passive due to shyness or lack ofvocabulary. In terms of content, the teachers role would be to increase vocabulary andperhaps to introduce simple conversation opportunities as early as possible to build con-fidence and fluency. Effective teachers should consider each learning task from a novicesperspective and scaffold the learning process through purposeful strategy choices. He orshe can use the strategy as an instructional technique and be sure to discuss with studentswhy one particular approach may be a better way to learn. For example, in introducing averb or group of verbs that involves actions, (to talk, to sit, to run) the teacher might dem-

onstrate the actions (Total Physical Response) during the lesson and then talk to studentsabout the value of acting out (or at least visualizing) the action of the verb.

For intermediate students, the teachers role changes with the understanding that thesestudents have a growing body of strategic knowledge, along with a fair amount of content(i.e., vocabulary, grammar, etc.). The task these learners face is how to select the rightstrategies for specific learning tasks and for themselves as individuals. The teacher mustbe cautious about imposing his or her own learning style upon the students; thus, the con-versation around the learning should include questions like, What might be some differ-ent ways to approach this task, and which of those would work best for you? Self-reflection is crucial here. The teacher should be prepared to give suggestions, but must also

allow students to make their own choices.This is even truer for the advanced learners. The teacher must realize that they are

becoming autonomous in their ability to guide their learning and the teachers role shiftsfrom mediator to facilitator. If the teacher sees the student struggling, then he or she



15/17

should intervene with assistance. At this advanced level, the teacher should step back andlet the student lead the way in terms of how he or she approaches the language learningtask. The teacher should consider the learning task in terms of what the student will beable to accomplish independently before needing the teachers assistance. For example,

can students work in pairs or a small group to create a dialogue using the vocabularyand grammar for the day? Then the teacher monitors their progress. The groups subse-quently share their dialogue and the class assists in any changes or corrections. If the tea-cher is careful about ensuring students are prepared for such tasks, the activities can buildconfidence and greater independence for all language learners.

Appendix A. Individual background questionnaire

Please choose (only one) or write the most appropriate answer to you after reading eachstatement.

1. Age _____________________2. Sex: Male _______ Female _______3. Nationality _____________________________________________________4. Level of your communication class 1 2 3 4 5 65. Language(s) you usually speak at home ________________________________6. Language(s) you usually speak with your friends _____________________________7. How long have you been studying English as second/foreign language in a formal

setting (school)? ____________________________________________

8. How long have you been in the Unites States? _______________________________9. How long have you been studying English at IELI? ___________________________10. What do you think is your level of English proficiency?

Beginning Intermediate Advanced

References

Al-Otaibi, G.N., 2004. Language learning strategy use among Saudi EFL students and its relationship tolanguage proficiency level, gender and motivation. Doctoral Dissertation, Indiana University of Pennsylvania,Indiana, PA.

Bedell, D., Oxford, R.L., 1996. Cross-cultural comparisons of language strategies in the Peoples Republic ofChina and other countries. In: Oxford, R. (Ed.), Language Learning Strategies around the World: Cross-Cultural Perspectives. University of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI, pp. 4760.

Bereiter, C., 1995. A dispositional view of transfer. In: McKeough, A., Lupart, J., Marini, A. (Eds.), Teaching forTransfer: Fostering Generalization in Learning. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 2134.

Borkowski, J.G., Carr, M., Pressley, M., 1987. Spontaneous strategy use: Perspectives from metacognitive theory.Intelligence 11, 6167.

Bremner, S., 1998. Language learning strategies and language proficiency: Investigating the relationship in HongKong. Asian Pacific Journal of Language in Education 1 (2), 490514.

Cummins, J., 1979. Cognitive/academic language proficiency, linguistic interdependence, the optimum age

question and some other matters. Working Papers on Bilingualism 19, 121129.Diab, R.L., 2000. Political and socio-cultural factors in foreign language education: the case of Lebanon. Texaspapers in Foreign Language education 5, 177187.

Ehrman, M., Oxford, R.L., 1989. Effects of sex differences, career choice, and psychological type on adultlanguage learning strategies. Modern Language Journal 73, 113.



16/17

Garcia, E.E., 2005. Teaching and Learning in Two Languages: Bilingualism and Schooling in the United States.Teachers College Press, New York.

Grainger, P.R., 1997. Language-learning strategies for learners of Japanese: Investigating ethnicity. ForeignLanguage Annals 30 (3), 378385.

Green, J., Oxford, R.L., 1995. A closer look at learning strategies, L2 proficiency, and gender. TESOL Quarterly

29 (2), 261297.Griffiths, C., Parr, J.M., 2001. Language-learning strategies: Theory and perception. ELT Journal 53 (3), 247

254.Holec, H., 1981. Autonomy and Foreign Language Learning. Pergamon Press, Oxford.Horwitz, E.K., 1987. Surveying student beliefs about language learning. In: Wenden, A., Rubin, J. (Eds.),

Learner Strategies in Language Learning. Prentice/Hall International, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, pp. 119129.Keene, E.O., Zimmermann, S., 1997. Mosaic of Thought. Heinemann, Portmouth, NH.Mansanares, L.K., Russo, R.P., 1985. Language learning: Learning strategies used by beginning and intermediate

ESL students. Language Learning 35 (1), 2142.OMalley, J., Chamot, A., 1990. Learning Strategies in Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge University

Press, Cambridge.

OMalley, J.M., Chamot, A.U., Stewner-Manzanares, G., Russo, R.P., Kupper, L., 1985. Learning strategyapplication with students of English as a second language. TESOL Quarterly 19 (3), 557584.Oxford, R.L., 1990. Language Learning Strategies: What Every Teacher Should Know. Heinle and Heinle,

Boston, MA.Oxford, R.L., 1993. Instructional implications of gender difference in language learning styles and strategies.

Applied Language Learning 4, 6594.Oxford, R.L., Burry-Stock, J., 1995. Assessing the use of language learning strategies worldwide with the ESL/

EFL version of the strategy inventory of language learning (SILL). System 23 (1), 123.Oxford, R.L., Ehrman, M., 1995. Adults language learning strategies in an intensive foreign language program in

the United States. System 23 (3), 359386.Oxford, R.L., Nyikos, M., 1989. Variables affecting choice of language learning strategies by university students.

The Modern Language Journal 73 (3), 291300.

Paris, S., Lipson, M., Wixson, K., 1994. Becoming a strategic reader. In: Ruddell, R., Ruddell, M., Singer, H.(Eds.), Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading, fourth ed. International Reading Association, Chicago,pp. 788810.

Park, G.P., 1997. Language learning strategies and English proficiency in Korean University. Foreign LanguageAnnals 30 (2), 211221.

Phillips, V., 1991. A look at learner strategy use and ESL proficiency. CATESOL Journal (Nov), 5767.Pintrich, P.R., Garcia, T., 1994. Self-regulated learning in college students: Knowledge, strategies, and

motivation. [On line]. Available from: http://ccwf.cc.utaxas.edu/~tgarcia/p&gpub94pl.html.Politzer, R., 1983. An exploratory study of self-reported language learning behaviors and their relation to

achievement. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 6, 5465.Politzer, R., McGroarty, M., 1985. An exploratory study of learning behaviors and their relationship to gains in

linguistic and communicative competence. TESOL Quarterly 19, 103124.

Reid, J.M., 1987. The learning style preferences of ESL students. TESOL Quarterly 21, 87111.Rubin, J., 1987. Learner strategies: Theoretical assumptions, research history and typology. In: Wenden, A.,

Rubin, J. (Eds.), Learner Strategies in Language Learning. Prentice/Hall International, Englewood Cliffs, NJ,pp. 1530.

Sheorey, R., 1999. An examination of language learning strategy use in the setting of an indigenized variety ofEnglish. System 27, 173190.

Shmais, W.A., 2003. Language learning strategy use in Palestine. TESL-EJ 7 (2), 117.Siebert, L., 2003. Student and teacher beliefs about language learning. The ORTESOL Journal 21, 739.Stern, H.H., 1975. What can we learn from the good language learner? Canadian Modern Language Review 31,

304318.Tran, T.V., 1988. Sex differences in English language acculturation and learning strategies among Vietnamese

adults aged 40 and over in the United States. Sex Roles 19, 747758.Wenden, A., 1987. How to be a successful language learner: Insights and prescriptions from L2 learners. In:

Wenden, A., Rubin, J. (Eds.), Learner Strategies in Language Learning. Prentice/Hall International,Englewood Cliffs, NJ, pp. 103118.

http://ccwf.cc.utaxas.edu/~tgarcia/p&gpub94pl.htmlhttp://ccwf.cc.utaxas.edu/~tgarcia/p&gpub94pl.html


17/17

Wharton, G., 2000. Language learning strategy use of bilingual foreign language learners in Singapore. LanguageLearning 50 (2), 203243.

Yang, N.D., 1999. The relationship between EFL learners beliefs and learning strategy use. System 27, 515535.


Kyungsim Hong Nam

Documents

Transcript of Kyungsim Hong Nam