A Study of Language Learning Strategies Used by Applied English
Major Students in University of Technology
Shr-Chau Huang 黃士晁
I-Chen Chen 陳怡真
Southern Taiwan University of Technology
Abstract
Studies in the area of language learning strategies are blooming in Taiwan;
however, little attention has been paid to students majoring in applied English
departments. In view of this, this study was undertaken to understand applied English
major students’ language learning strategy use and to investigate how factors such as
academic level and gender were associated with their language learning strategy use.
A total of 267 students at a university of technology in southern Taiwan participated
in this study to answer a widely used language learning strategy questionnaire,
Oxford’s (1990) Strategy Inventory for Language learning (SILL) during their regular
classes. Descriptive statistics was conducted to understand students’ tendency in using
language learning strategies whereas one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was
conducted to examine whether gender and academic level had any significant effects
on their strategy use. The results indicated students in this study used learning
strategies in the medium range. The most frequently used strategies were social
strategies followed by metacognitive, compensation, cognitive, affective and memory
strategies. As far as the effects of gender and academic level on learning strategy use,
gender made no significant differences in overall strategy use and in any of the six
strategy categories whereas academic level made significant differences in overall
strategy use, cognitive strategy use, memory strategy use and compensation strategy
use. Finally, based on the results of this study, implications for learning strategy
training in classroom are generated and discussed.
Keywords: Learning strategy, Applied English majors, gender, academic level
Introduction
In the past few decades, the ESL / EFL education has shifted its focus from the
teachers' teaching to the learners' learning. This shift has increased numbers of studies
investigating learners’ perspectives, especially, on language learning strategies. In
addition, more teachers and educators have realized that the application of language
learning strategy training into regular classroom activities will enhance students’
learning. Influenced by these changes, teachers tend to encourage students to learn in
a self-directing way so as to realize how to learn a language autonomously rather than
learning a language relying on the teacher's lectures.
1
Learning strategies as defined by Oxford (1990) were specific actions taken by
the learner to make learning easier, faster, more enjoyable, more self-directed, more
effective and more transferable to new situations. These strategies involved a wide
range of learning behaviors that helped learners become autonomous, self-regulated,
and goal-oriented in their learning, which in turn enhanced their academic
achievement through developing language skills. Since language learning strategies
were considered as actions taken by learners to facilitate their learning, it is hoped that
this study will give English teachers valuable information on how their students
process information, plan and select the most suitable strategies to fit in their learning
contexts. As a result, teachers can help their students become better language learners
by training them in using the appropriate strategies.
Although studies on learners' language learning strategy use have received much
attention (Chen, 2000; Chung, 2000; Ku, 1995; Yang, 1992), most of these studies
were conducted with heterogeneous student samples. Very little attention had been
paid to English major students. Given their academic major, these students needed to
receive teachers’ attention because their use of learning strategies might be
proportionally higher than students majoring in other areas. These students at least
received six years of formal English education since our education system decreed
English as a required course starting from the first year in junior high school to the
freshman year at the university or college. In general, these students had fundamental
English skills before entering the college or university for receiving advanced English
education.
In the past, many English departments usually emphasized on traditional English
literature and linguistics training, lacking practical aspects of English skill training in
specialized areas such as translation and interpretation, English teaching and business
English. In light of the demands for more practical English programs by students,
English departments started to offer more practical English courses and some applied
English departments were established in recent years to meet students’ need and train
English major students as language professionals to be involved in various kinds of
careers. Therefore, these students were reasonably expected to experience more
language learning strategies than students majoring in other areas.
Since few studies on language learning strategy had been conducted with English
major students, the present study, therefore, aimed to fill in this gap by investigating
English major students at university of technology on their learning strategy use and
factors affecting their choice of language learning strategies. This study was
organized around the following research questions:
1. What language learning strategies do university English major students report using?
And what are their most frequently used language learning strategies？
2. What are the differences between female and male students in the use of learning
strategy categories in the SILL？
3. What are the differences among students at academic level one, two, three and four
in the use of learning strategy categories in the SILL？
2
Specially, this study was directed at testing the following null hypotheses:
Hypothesis 1: There is no significant difference between female and male students in
the use of learning strategy categories in the SILL.
Hypothesis 2: There is no significant difference among students at academic level one,
two, three and four in the use of learning strategy categories in the SILL.
Limitations of This Study
The sample population involved in this study was limited to English majors at a
university of technology in southern Taiwan. As a result, the generalization of the
results was confined to the population with a homogeneous nature and did not apply
to populations with different educational, cultural, or language backgrounds.
Literature Review
Research into language learning strategies began in the 1960s due to the
development in the cognitive psychology arousing attentions to language learning
strategy studies. In most of the studies on language learning strategies, the primary
concerns were on the identification of what good language learners reported how they
were learning a second language (Rubin, 1987). This type of research focused on
what a good language learner did and which language learning strategies they chose
in language learning (Naiman, Frohlich, Stern, & Todesco, 1978; Rubin, 1975; Stern,
1975). Their assumptions were learning strategies could be identified and once
successful learning strategies were identified, these strategies could be taught to less
successful learners to make their learning become more effective and efficient. For
example, O’Malley and other researchers (1985) interviewed beginning and
intermediate level ESL students and finally they identified twenty-six language
learning strategies.
Like general learning strategies, language learning strategies involved techniques
that learners used to remember what they had learnt; that was, their storage and
retrieval of new information (Rubin, 1987). Also, language learning strategies
included receptive strategies dealing with receiving the message and productive
strategies related to communication (Brown, 1994; Chamot & Kupper, 1989). In
terms of the classification, language learning strategies had been classified into
several ways. O’Malley et al (1985) categorized strategies into three categories:
cognitive, metacognitive and social-affective. Later Oxford (1990) developed
O’Malley et al’s classification into a learning strategy system in which she divided
learning strategies into direct and indirect strategies. Direct strategies were considered
as a “performer” in a stage play working with the language itself in a variety of tasks
and situations including memory strategies for remembering and retrieving new
information, cognitive strategies for understanding and producing the language, and
3
compensation strategies for using the language despite knowledge gap. Indirect
strategies were considered as a “director” of a play dealing with the general
management of learning including metacognitive strategies for coordinating the
learning process, affective strategies for regulating emotions, and social strategies for
learning with others. Both direct and indirect strategies supported and helped one
another for the best of possible learning outcomes.
Investigations on language learners often showed that successful learners
intended to use appropriate learning strategies leading to improvement, use strategies
suitable to the learning tasks and even to use more and better strategies than the poor
learners (Chamot & Kupper, 1989; O' Malley & Chamot, 1990; Oxford, 1993b).
According to Rubin and Thompson (1994), good language learners could find their
own way in charge of their learning, organizing their language information and
creating their own opportunities for practicing the language. In addition, they are
more purposeful in their approach to a language task. They used linguistic knowledge
and contextual clues to help them comprehend while working on a language task.
Therefore, it seemed good language learners possessed abilities to succeed while
others lacked these abilities.
Research had also shown factors other than language proficiency had influences
on the strategies language learners used. For example, gender was one factor explored
by many researchers (Ehrman, 1989; Green & Oxford, 1995; Oxford & Nyikos, 1989)
and in many EFL contexts, studies on language learning strategy use in which gender
was involved, the results usually showed female learners tended to use learning
strategies more frequently than did the male learners (Oxford, 1993a). Other factors
such as culture background (Oxford & Burry-Stock, 1995), learning styles (Sheorey,
1998), and years of studying English (Chiang & Liao, 2002) had also been researched
and proposed as mediators of language strategy use.
Method
Instrumentation
Information on strategy use was elicited by the Strategy Inventory for Language
Learning ESL/EFL Version 7.0 (Oxford, 1990). The SILL was a five point
Likert-scale questionnaire containing 50 statements related to learning strategies used
by language learners. It had been widely used in learning strategy research to
investigate the relationships of strategy use with various learner variables such as
language learner’s level of proficiency, achievement, gender, nationality, or
motivation, just to name a few. According to Green and Oxford (1995), the SILL had
been used among 8000 learners in worldwide studies and had been extensively
checked for high levels of reliability and validity (Oxford, 1996). However, the
questionnaire, which was originally created to investigate western learners, might be
4
culturally biased when used in different social contexts and might not transfer well
from one setting to another. Especially, when the questionnaire was translated and
used in other cultures, the respondents in different settings might differ in how they
interpreted the items. In order to make the measure accurate, avoid any
misunderstanding and answer the questions easily in the instrument, the researcher
translated the SILL into Chinese but kept the same total number of items, the
arrangement of items, and the essential meaning of each item. Then, the researcher
checked the translated questionnaire by consulting his advisor, a translation instructor,
a linguist and a few graduate students in the same setting to make sure each item
remained its essential meaning and the translation was easily understood. Based on
their valuable suggestions and comments, the final questionnaire was made.
Data Collection
The data collection of this study included a pilot study and a formal study. The
results of the pilot study served as the basis for fine-tuning the questionnaire and
improving the test procedures, including checking the needed length of testing time,
the clarity of the testing instructions, the distribution of questionnaire and so on.
Pilot Study
Before the formal study, the researcher obtained the permission of the instructor
of an English class to conduct a pilot study during the students’ regular class session.
The questionnaire was pilot tested with a class of thirty junior English students. Five
cases were unusable and hence discarded because of incomplete responses to the
questionnaire resulting in a final sample of twenty five cases. The reasons for
choosing junior students as pilot study subjects were due to their similar educational
background with the intended participants; that is, they had language programs
identical to those of the intended participants. As a result of discussions and
comments with these pilot subjects, some minor changes were made in test
procedures. After the pilot study, the internal consistency reliability of the SILL
questionnaire was measured by Cronbach’s alpha yielding a reliability coefficient of
0.93. Also, the reliability coefficients for the six strategy categories in the SILL
questionnaire were all above 0.70. These values were acceptable based on a criterion
of 0.70 as a minimally acceptable alpha value (Bobko, 2001; Litwin, 1995; Nunally,
1994). Table 1 showed the internal consistency reliability coefficients for the six
strategy categories in the SILL questionnaire.
5
Table 1: Reliability Coefficients for the SILL Questionnaire in the Pilot Study
Strategy Category
Reliability Coefficients
Memory strategies ( item 1 to item 9)
Cognitive strategies ( item 10 to item 23)
Compensation strategies ( item 24 to item 29)
Metacognitive strategies ( item 30 to item 38)
Affective strategies ( item 39 to item 44)
Social strategies (item 45 to item 50)
Overall strategy
0.76
0.87
0.72
0.84
0.72
0.81
0.93
Formal Study
The formal study was conducted at the same site as the pilot study but a different
sample from the one used for the pilot study was used in the formal study. A total of 8
classes of English majors, or 285 students, participated in the formal study. Eighteen
cases were discarded because of incomplete or illegible responses. Thus the final
sample was 267 cases, 52 were male and 215 were female. Among these students, 63
were the first year students; 60 came from the second year class; 63 came from the
third year class; and the other 81 were in their fourth year of study. Table 2 indicated
the internal consistency reliability coefficients of the SILL questionnaire in the formal
study. For the entire questionnaire, Cronbach’s alpha achieved a coefficient of 0.926.
Also, the coefficients of the six strategy categories in the SILL questionnaire were all
above 0.70.
Table 2: Reliability Coefficients for the SILL Questionnaire in the Formal Study
Strategy Category
Reliability Coefficients
Memory strategies ( item 1 to item 9)
Cognitive strategies ( item 10 to item 23)
Compensation strategies ( item 24 to item 29)
Metacognitive strategies ( item 30 to item 38)
Affective strategies ( item 39 to item 44)
Social strategies (item 45 to item 50)
0.72
0.86
0.71
0.87
0.70
0.75
Overall strategies
0.93
Data Analysis
The SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Science) version 10.0 (Pallant,
2001) was used to score the data and answer the research questions. The significance
level was set at p< 0.05 for all statistical analysis. Descriptive statistics and one-way
analysis of variance (ANOVA) were statistical analysis methods used in this study:
6
1. Descriptive statistics such as mean scores, standard derivations, and frequencies
were computed to summarize the learners’ responses to the SILL with a view to
presenting the strategy use profiles of these applied English major students and hence
to address the first research question.
2. One way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed to determine whether there
were significant differences in the use of the overall language learning strategies and
in the use of each strategy category due to the two factors: gender and academic level.
When necessary, Scheffé's post-hoc test was utilized to determine the differences of
mean scores of strategy use among students at different academic levels since Scheffé
's post-hoc test was generally used when sample groups contain unequal numbers.
Results
Research Question One
What language learning strategies do university English major students report
using? And what are their most frequently used language learning strategies?
Descriptive analysis of the SILL items was performed to answer the research
question one. Table 3 listed the mean scores and standard derivations of all SILL
items. Generally, an item with mean score greater than 3.5 indicated that the language
learning strategy which had been described in the item was in the high frequency of
use; an item with mean score between 2.5 to 3.4 indicated the strategy was in the
medium frequency of use; and an item with mean score smaller than 2.4 indicated a
low frequency of use of that particular strategy (Oxford, 1990). As showed in table 3,
item 32 (M= 3.97), item 29 (M= 3.88), item 12 (M= 3.83), item 45 (M= 3.78), item
33 (M= 3.76), item 42 (M= 3.68), item 31 (M= 3.63), item 15 (M= 3.61), item 11 (M=
3.53), item 10 (M=3.50) were strategies in the high frequency of use, which indicated
that students used these strategies more often than the other strategies. The other item
mean scores in Table 3 ranged from 3.49 to 2.40 and were in the medium frequency of
use. Only the mean score of item 43 (M= 1.81) was below 2.4 and was in the low
frequency of use.
Table 3: Mean Scores and Standard Derivations for the SILL Items
Item description
N
M
1.學習英文時，我會把新學的東西與已學過的部分做聯想。
267 3.30
2.我會用新學的單字造句，以加深記憶。
267 2.70
3.我會把英文單字的發音與其相關的形象或圖形聯想，以幫助記 267 3.09
憶。
4.我記新的英文單字時 會想像在什麼情況下會使用到這個字。 267 3.08
5.我利用相類式的發音(例如 rice 和 ice; no 和 know)或押韻來記新 267 2.40
的英文單字 (Ex: The rain in Spain stays mainly in the plain.)。
7
SD
0.90
0.91
1.05
0.99
1.07
267 2.72
1.06
7.我會用肢體語言來幫助記憶單字。譬如說當我剛認得 Hit 是 267 2.60
“打”的意思，我就會邊念 Hit，邊用手比劃一下 “打”的動作。
8.我會時常複習英文功課。
267 2.94
9.我會靠英文單字或片語出現在書上，黑板上，或標誌上的位置來 267 2.89
記憶。
10.我會反覆練習說或寫英文生字。
267 3.50
11.我嘗試說得像以英語為母語的人一樣。
267 3.53
12.我練習英語發音。
267 3.83
13.我以不同的方式練習我所學的英文。
267 3.19
14.我會盡量以英語與他人交談。
267 2.74
1.06
267 3.61
267 2.92
267 3.04
0.95
18.閱讀英文時，我會先很快瀏覽英文片段，然後再回頭仔細研讀。267 3.39
19.我看到英文單字時會想一想中文裏哪一個字有類似的意思。 267 3.33
20.我在閱讀英文時，會分析英文的句型以增進了解。
267 3.16
21.我會把一個英文生字分解成幾個我認得的部份（如字首或字 267 3.25
根），以找出它的意義。
22.在理解英文時，我會避免逐字翻譯。
267 3.21
23.我會將我所聽到的和讀到的英文作成摘要筆記。
267 3.00
0.92
24.我遇到不熟悉的英文字時，我會猜一猜它的意思。
267 3.47
25.在英語會話中，若我想不起某個字，我會使用手勢或動作來表 267 3.35
達。
26.當我不知道適切的英文字時，我會自己造字(發明新的單字)來 267 2.84
表達（如用 air ball 來表達汽球 balloon）。
27.在閱讀英文遇到新的單字時，我會每個字都去查字典。
267 3.19
28.用英語交談時，我會去猜測別人下一句要說的英文。
267 2.86
29.當我想不出某個英文字時，我會使用意義相通的字或辭。
267 3.88
30.我會盡其所能地尋找各種方式來運用我所學的英文。
267 3.39
0.89
267 3.63
267 3.97
267 3.76
267 2.63
267 2.99
267 3.15
267 3.06
267 3.16
0.85
6.我會使用單字卡來背英文生字。
15.我會看英語發音的電視節目或電影，或收聽英語廣播。
16.我閱讀英文書刊以作為娛樂、消遣。
17.我用英文來通訊、寫筆記、書信、或做報告。
31.我會留意自己的英語錯誤，並利用它來改進我的英文程度。
32.當別人說英語時，我會留意聽。
33.我會試著找出如何學好英語的方法。
34.我會訂立作息表，以使自己有足夠的時間學習英語。
35.我會留心尋訪我可以用英語交談的對象。
36.我會尋覓時機多閱讀英文。
37.對於增進我的英語能力，我會訂立明確的目標。
38.我會自我檢討自己學習英語進步的情形。
8
0.88
1.09
0.86
0.99
0.89
0.99
0.88
0.98
0.93
0.98
0.99
1.02
0.97
0.97
1.08
1.14
0.99
1.05
0.83
0.92
0.79
0.85
0.98
1.09
0.94
0.93
0.93
267 3.38
1.13
40.即使畏懼犯錯，我仍會鼓勵自己說英語。
267 2.92
41.每當我的英語表現良好，我會獎勵自己。
267 2.61
42.當我讀英文或說英語的時候，我會注意自己是否會緊張。
267 3.68
43.我會和別人討論自己學英語的感受。
267 1.81
44.我會在筆記本上寫下自己學習英語的心得。
267 3.12
45.假如在英語會話中，我有聽不懂的地方，我會要求對方說慢一 267 3.78
點或重說一遍。
46.說英語時，我會要求對方改正我的錯誤。
267 3.14
47.我會與其他同學練習英文。
267 3.13
48.我會向講英文的人求助。
267 3.45
1.07
49.我會發問以澄清及證實英文上的問題。
267 3.17
50.我會試著學習瞭解英語系國家的文化(以說英語為主的國家)。 267 3.49
0.95
39.每當我感到害怕使用英語時，我會設法先放鬆自己心情。
1.27
1.19
0.92
1.32
0.95
1.03
0.98
0.99
1.06
Table 4 presented the rank order of the six strategy categories according to their
frequencies of use. Based on the average use of the six strategies, table 4 revealed that
social strategies (M= 3.36) had the highest mean score followed by metacognitive
strategies (M= 3.30), compensation strategies (M= 3.27), cognitive strategies (M=
3.26), affective strategies (M= 2.92), while memory strategies (M= 2.86) ranked the
lowest mean. It was also noticed that the six strategies categories fell in the medium
use range.
Table 4: Mean Scores and Standard Derivations of SILL Categories.
Strategy Category
N
M
SD
Rank
Social strategies
Metacognitive strategies
Compensation strategies
Cognitive strategies
Affective strategies
Memory strategies
267
267
267
267
267
267
3.36
3.30
3.27
3.26
2.92
2.86
0.66537
0.64067
0.63871
0.56212
0.73282
0.55923
1
2
3
4
5
6
Research Question Two
What are the differences between female and male students in the use of learning
strategy categories in the SILL？
Null Hypothesis One
There is no significant difference between female and male students in the use of
learning strategy categories in the SILL.
One-way analysis of variance was conducted to determine any significant
difference between male and female students in the use of overall language learning
strategies and in each of the strategy categories. The ANOVA results, as showed in
9
table 5, revealed no significant difference between male and female students in the
use of language learning strategies as a whole and in any of the six strategy
categories. The results implied that male and female subjects did not differ in their
frequencies of using language learning strategy as a whole and in any of the six
strategy categories.
Table 5: ANOVA Results for the Effect of Gender on Strategy Category Use (N=267)
Strategy category
Memory strategies
Cognitive strategies
Compensation strategies
Metacognitive strategies
Affective strategies
Social strategies
Overall Strategies
SS
F
P
Between Groups
0.23
0.75
0.39
Within Groups
82.96
Between Groups
0.001
0.001
0.95
Within Groups
84.05
Between Groups
0.08
0.2
0.65
Within Groups
108.43
Between Groups
0.11
0.27
0.61
Within Groups
109.07
Between Groups
0.31
0.57
0.45
Within Groups
142.54
Between Groups
0.21
0.47
0.49
Within Groups
117.55
Between Groups
0.01
0.05
0.82
Within Groups
57.09
*p<0.05
Table 6 summarized the mean scores and standard derivations of strategy use by
male and female students. The mean scores of each strategy category in the SILL and
the total mean scores reported by male and female students showed that the mean
scores of strategy use of female students were higher than male students in memory,
cognitive, metacognitive, and social strategies. Conversely, the mean scores of male
students were higher than female students in the use of compensation and affective
strategies. However, the differences between their mean scores of strategy use were
slight.
Table 6: Mean Scores and Standard Derivations of Strategy Category Use by Gender
(N=267)
Male (N=52)
Female (N=215)
Strategy category
Mean Std. Deviation
Mean Std. Derivation
Memory strategies
Cognitive strategies
Compensation strategies
Metacognitive strategies
2.8
3.26
3.3
3.26
2.87
3.27
3.26
3.31
0.56
0.54
0.72
0.65
10
0.56
0.57
0.62
0.64
Affective strategies
2.99
0.78
2.9
0.72
Social strategies
Overall strategies
3.30
3.15
0.76
0.7
3.38
3.16
0.64
0.66
Research Question Three
What are the differences among students at academic level one, two, three and
four in the use of learning strategy categories in the SILL？
Null Hypothesis Two
There is no significant difference among students at academic level one, two,
three and four in the use of learning strategy categories in the SILL.
To determine the differences in the use of overall language learning strategies
and in the use of each strategy category, one way ANOVA was used. The ANOVA
results, as showed in table 7, indicated that there were significant differences on the
use of the overall language learning strategies and on memory, cognitive and
compensation strategies.
Although we knew that students at different academic level groups differed in
the use of overall language learning strategies and in the use of memory, cognitive
and compensation strategies, we did not know where these differences among the
groups occurred. We needed to further understand which two of the academic level
groups being compared were significantly different from one another in their learning
strategy use. Therefore, post-hoc Scheff é test was used to evaluate pair-wise
difference among students at academic level one, two, three and four in the use of
overall strategies, memory, cognitive and compensation strategies. Table 8 to table 11
illustrated the reports of post-hoc Scheffé tests for the mean differences among
students at different academic level groups in overall strategy use and in the use of
memory, cognitive, and compensation strategies. In addition, the mean difference that
was significant at the 0.05 level was reported with an asterisk on the upper right side
of it.
The results of Scheffé's post-hoc test revealed there were significant differences
between freshmen and juniors in the mean scores of memory and compensation
strategies in favor of the freshmen. This indicated freshman students significantly
used more memory strategies and compensation strategies than the juniors. Also, the
results indicated significant differences between juniors and seniors in mean scores of
cognitive strategies and overall strategies in favor of the seniors, which indicated that
seniors employed more cognitive strategies and overall strategies than the juniors
11
Table 7: AVOVA Results for the Effect of Academic Level on Strategy Category Use
(N=267)
Strategy Category
Memory strategies
Cognitive strategies
Compensation strategies
Metacognitive strategies
Affective strategies
Social strategies
Overall strategies
SS
F
P
Between Groups
3.37
3.70
0.01*
Within Groups
79.82
Between Groups
3.35
3.64
0.01*
Within Groups
80.70
Between Groups
4.51
3.80
0.01*
Within Groups
104.00
Between Groups
2.34
1.92
0.13
Within Groups
106.84
Between Groups
0.23
0.14
0.93
Within Groups
142.61
Between Groups
2.71
2.07
0.10
Within Groups
115.05
Between Groups
2.29
3.66
0.01*
Within Groups
54.81
*p<0.05
Table 8: Scheffé's Post-Hoc Test for Mean Difference Between Academic Levels in
Memory Strategies
Academic Level
Freshman
Sophomore
Junior
Senior
Freshman
Sophomore
Junior
Senior
-0.14250
-0.32275*
-0.11973
-0.18025
0.02277
0.14250
0.32275*
0.18025
0.11973
-0.02277
0.20302
-0.20302
Table 9: Scheffé's Post-Hoc Test for Mean Difference Between Academic Levels in
Cognitive Strategies
Academic Level
Freshman
Sophomore
Junior
Senior
Freshman
Sophomore
Junior
Senior
0.02421
-0.22676
0.06173
-0.25096
0.03752
-0.02421
0.22676
0.25096
-0.06173
-0.03752
0.28849*
-0.28849*
Table 10: Scheffé's Post-Hoc Test for Mean Difference Between Academic Levels in
Compensation Strategies
Academic Level
Freshman
Sophomore
Freshman
Sophomore
Junior
Senior
-0.14749
-0.37566*
-0.17166
-0.22817
-0.02418
0.14749
12
Junior
0.37566*
0.22817
Senior
0.17166
0.02418
0.20400
-0.20400
Table 11: Scheffé's Post-Hoc Test for Mean Difference Between Academic Levels in
Overall Strategies
Academic Level
Freshman
Sophomore
Junior
Senior
Freshman
Sophomore
Junior
Senior
-0.01724
-0.22691
-0.01044
-0.20966
0.00681
0.01724
0.22691
0.20966
0.01044
-0.00681
0.21647*
-0.21647*
Table 12 summarized the mean scores and standard deviations of strategy
category use by the subjects at four different academic level groups. It was noted that,
across all the academic levels, except academic one, the order of the six strategy
categories is unchanged. The first was social strategies followed by metacognitive
strategies and cognitive strategies. The fourth category was always compensation
strategies. In the fifth place was affective strategies followed by memory strategies.
Moreover, the total mean scores of strategy use reported by students at four academic
levels indicated that, in overall strategy use, the mean scores of strategy use of
students at academic level one were higher than students at the other academic levels.
Table 12: Mean Scores and Standard Deviations of Strategy Category Use by
Students at Four Academic Levels (N= 267)
Level 1
Strategy Category
Memory strategies
Cognitive strategies
Compensation strategies
Metacognitive strategies
Affective strategies
Social strategies
Overall strategies
(N=63)
Level 2
(N=60)
Level 3
(N=63)
Level 4
(N=81)
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
3.00
0.50
2.86
0.57
2.68
0.45
2.88
0.64
3.29
0.53
3.32
0.58
3.07
0.44
3.36
0.62
3.44
0.60
3.29
0.67
3.06
0.57
3.27
0.66
3.28
0.58
3.39
0.72
3.15
0.60
3.38
0.65
2.94
0.77
2.92
0.78
2.87
0.71
2.95
0.69
3.42
0.67
3.44
0.57
3.18
0.57
3.40
0.78
3.23
0.56
3.20
0.56
3.00
0.73
3.20
0.67
Discussion
Since the subjects of this study were applied English major students at a
university of technology, the results of this study might not be totally consistent with
previous language learning strategy studies but their frequencies of strategy use were
greater than those of other student population (i.e. high school and non-English
majors) participating in similar previous studies (Chen, 2000; Chung, 2000; Ku, 1995;
Yang, 1992).
13
A close look at the frequency use of learning strategies of these students revealed
that applied English major students’ learning strategy use, on the average, was of
medium use (M= 3.16) with social strategies used more frequently (M= 3.36), which
was in contrast to the stereotype that Chinese students were shy and resist partaking in
social interaction to improve their language skills. Since social strategies referred to
the ways in which learners managed interacting with other learners or native speakers
to facilitate their learning including skills such as asking questions for clarification,
cooperating with peers, and developing cultural understanding, these strategies, in
general, helped learners work with others to get input and practice. The high use of
social strategies may be due to the teaching objectives and curriculum design in the
applied English program that usually emphasize training students in practical and
communicative aspects of English skills. For example, teachers in the applied English
program often adopted the communicative approach to motivate students to learn the
language. Teachers often engaged their students in learning English by partnering up
the students in pairs or small groups to complete learning tasks through
communicative activities. As a result, applied English majors were encouraged to
employ social strategies more often than other strategies. In addition, the high use of
social strategies is opposed to the learning behavior study by Polizer and McGroarty
(1985) suggesting that Asian students seemed to prefer strategies involving rote
memorization of language rules, rather than communicative strategies. Also, the
findings of social strategies used more often than other strategies were different from
the studies of Ku (1995) and Yang (1992) reporting that college students used
compensation strategies most frequently among the six strategy categories in the
SILL.
With regard to the effect of gender on strategy use, many studies had consistent
findings that females appeared to use a far wider range of language learning strategies
than did males (Belen M, 1995; Green & Oxford, 1995; Oxford, Lavine, & Crookall,
1989; Oxford & Nyikos, 1989). However, this study did not discover distinct gender
differences in strategy use just as Ehrman and Oxford’ study (1990) failed to discover
any evidence of differing language learning strategy use between the genders. It might
be concluded, perhaps, that although females and males did not always demonstrate
differences in language learning strategy use, women were found to use more
language learning strategies than men.
In terms of the effect of academic level on the use of language learning
strategies, this study showed, in the use of overall language learning strategy use,
senior students were found to be using significantly more strategies than junior
students, which echoed Ehrman’s (1990) study of students in the Foreign Service
Institute where she found that students with more years of learning tended to employ
more strategies than those with fewer years of learning experience. As for the use of
the six strategy categories, it was found that senior students tended to use more
cognitive strategies than junior students. The reason for senior students using more
cognitive strategies than junior students could be the requirement of the school that
students need to achieve a specified English proficiency level before they could
14
graduate. Students need to prove their English proficiency by taking various forms of
standardized tests such as the TOEFL, TOEIC, GEPT or English tests developed and
administered by the school itself. Before taking these standardized tests, school has
set specific preparation courses to help students pass a wide range of English tests and
these students usually take these specific courses in their fourth year of study in the
applied English program. In these specific courses, students had to practice a lot of
sample exam questions as part of their preparation for a real test and hence cognitive
strategies (strategies for practicing, analyzing, and summarizing) such as repetition,
translation, and note-taking of what they heard or read in English were being
employed to enhance their learning. Consequently, these students used cognitive
strategies more often than their peers at the third year of study in the applied English
program.
Freshman students were found to be using memory and compensation strategies
more often than junior students. The possible explanation could be that when
freshman students just entered a new school, they have not adjusted themselves to the
new learning environment. These freshmen were still used to memorization, drill and
constant tests, which were the most common methods used in high school classroom
for learning academic subjects. Also, they perhaps could not fit in the classroom
where teacher lectured in English throughout the class. As a result, these students
were trying to use compensation strategies (strategies for using the language despite
gaps in knowledge) for overcoming their deficiency in English class and tended to
learn English by memorizing grammatical rules, vocabulary and idioms and neglected
to use the English they learn functionally. After passing the initial stages of
adjustment to the new learning contexts, these new students may feel at ease and use
memory and compensation strategies less frequently as they progress to higher
academic level.
Implications
Since the present research has generated findings pertaining to applied English
major students’ language learning strategies, the most important implication of this
study would be to provide students with more chances to use learning strategies more
frequently through integrating language learning strategy training into regular
classroom activities because all the strategy categories reported by the subjects fell in
the medium range.
Recent research suggested “explicit training interwoven into normal classroom
activities, spread out over a long period of time with plenty of practice and transfer
opportunities” (Yang, 1996, p.73) in both informal and formal second language
settings. Therefore, the teachers’ role in strategy training is an important one. English
teachers could design their classroom activities so that students might have
opportunities to listen, speak, read and write in English and try various learning
strategies to help students accomplish their learning tasks. Also, teachers could inform
students of the purposes and values of the strategies they already used and then
15
presented and modeled new or unfamiliar strategies for these students followed by
providing them with extensive practice to expand their repertoire of learning
strategies. In addition to providing strategy training to the students, the language
teacher should have also analyzed his/her textbook, lesson plan and teaching method
to see whether his/her teaching allows students to approach the learning tasks in
different ways or not so that the teacher could become better prepared to focus on
language learning strategies and strategy training throughout his/her teaching.
Conclusion
This study aimed at investigating the language learning strategies of applied
English major students studying at a university of technology and how factors such as
academic level and gender were associated with their language learning strategy use.
Probably owing to their educational background and English learning contexts, the
students in this study reported using learning strategies that were somewhat different
from previous studies conducted with student groups. It seemed applied English
majors preferred to use social strategies more often than other strategies. In addition,
this study did not find any significant difference in strategy use as far as the effect of
gender is concerned. However, significant differences were detected among students
at different academic levels in their use of language learning strategies. Although this
research was based on a particular student sample and the generalization of the results
from this setting to another may be limited, it is hoped that this research can serve as a
basis for future research to explore language learning strategies used by other
populations to better understand their learning strategies and help them learn language
more effectively.
16
References
Belen M, S. (1995). Gender difference, perceptions on foreign language learning and
language learning strategies. Paper presented at the twelfth conference on
English teaching and learning in the Republic of China, Fu Jen Catholic
University, Taiwan.
Bobko, P. (2001). Correlation and regression (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, California:
Sage Publications.
Brown, H. (1994). Principles of language learning teaching (3rd ed.). Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents.
Chamot, A. U., & Kupper, L. (1989). Learning strategies in foreign language
instruction. Foreign Language Annals, 22, 13-24.
Chen, J. Y. (2000). Junior high school students' English learning strategies. Paper
presented at the ninth international symposium on English teaching, Taipei.
Chiang, M., & Liao, P. (2002). The study of learning strategies used by applied
English majors in junior college. The Journal of Chungchou, 16, 309-325.
Chung, Y. T. (2000). The motivation and language learning strategies of students in
high school: A site study. Paper presented at the ninth international symposium
on English teaching, Taipei.
Ehrman, M. E. (1989). Effects of sex differences, career choice, and psychological
type on adult language learning strategies. The Modern Language Journal, 73(1),
1-13.
Ehrman, M. E. (1990). The role of personality type in adult language learning: An
ongoing investigation. In S. T. Parry & C. W. Standfield (Eds.), Language
aptitude reconsidered (pp. 126-178). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Ehrman, M. E., & Oxford, L. R. (1990). Adult language learning styles and strategies
in an intensive training setting. The Modern Language Journal, 74(3), 311-327.
Green, J. M., & Oxford, L. R. (1995). A closer look at learning strategies, L2
proficiency, and gender. TESOL Quarterly, 29(2), 261-297.
Ku, P. Y. (1995). Strategies associated with proficiency and predictors of strategy
choice: A study on language learning strategies of EFL students at three
educational level in Taiwan. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of
Indiana, Bloomington.
Litwin, M. S. (1995). How to Measure Survey Reliability and Validity. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications.
Naiman, N., Frohlich, M., Stern, H. H., & Todesco, A. (1978). The good language
learner. Toronto: The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.
Nunally, J. C. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
17
O' Malley, J. M., & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning Strategies in Second Language
Acquisition. New York: Cambridge University Press.
O' Malley, J. M., Chamot, A. U., Stewner-Manzanares, G., Russo, R. P., & Kupper, L.
(1985). Learning strategy applications with students of English as a second
language. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 557-584.
Oxford, L. R. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know.
New York: Newbury House/Harper Collins.
Oxford, L. R. (1993a). Instructional implications of gender differences in language
learning styles and strategies. Applied Language Learning, 4, 65-94.
Oxford, L. R. (1993b). Research on second language learning strategies. Annual
Review of Applied Linguistics, 13, 175-187.
Oxford, L. R. (1996). Employing a questionnaire to assess the use of language
learning strategies. Applied Language Learning, 7, 25-45.
Oxford, L. R., & Burry-Stock, J. A. (1995). Assessing the use of language learning
strategies worldwide with the ESL/EFL version of the strategy inventory for
language learning (SILL). System, 23(2), 153-175.
Oxford, L. R., Lavine, R. Z., & Crookall, D. (1989). Language learning strategies, the
communicative approach, and their classroom implications. Foreign Language
Annals, 22, 29-39.
Oxford, L. R., & Nyikos, M. (1989). Variables affecting choice of language learning
strategies by university students. Modern Language Journal, 73, 291-300.
Pallant, J. (2001). SPSS survival manual : A step-by-step guide to data analysis using
SPSS for Windows (Version 10) (1st ed.). Crows Nest, N.S.W.: Open University
Press.
Politzer, R. L., & McGroarty, M. (1985). An exploratory study of learning behaviors
and their relationship to gains in linguistic and communicative competence.
TESOL Quarterly, 19, 103-123.
Rubin, J. (1975). What the good language learner can teach us. TESOL Quarterly, 9,
41-51.
Rubin, J. (1987). Learner strategies: Theoretical assumptions, research history and
typology. EngleWood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Rubin, J., & I., T. (1994). How to be a more successful language learner (2nd ed.).
Boston: Heinel&Heinel.
Sheorey, R. (1998). The state of English and English language teaching in India.
TESOL Matters, 8(4), 1-19.
Stern, H. H. (1975). What can we learn from the good language learner? Canadian
Modern Language Review, 31, 304-318.
18
Yang, N. D. (1992). Second language learners' beliefs about language learning and
their use of learning strategies: A study of college students of English in Taiwan.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Texas at Austin, Austin.
Yang, N. D. (1996). A study of factors affecting college EFL students' use of learning
strategies. Paper presented at the eleventh conference on English teaching and
learning, Fu Jen Catholic University, Taiwan.
19