Islamic Azad University
Takestan Branch
English Language Department
Language Learning Strategy (LLS) Use Across Proficiency Levels
By: Nooshin Baharestani
Supervisor: Dr. A. Zarei
MA Thesis Proposal Submitted to the Graduate Studies Office in
Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Arts in
Teaching English as a Foreign Language (TEFL)
December, 2013
0
Table of contents:
Introduction………………………………………….…....2
Statement of problems …………………………………....4
Significance of the Study ……………………………...….5
Purpose of the study ……………………………………....6
Research Questions and Hypotheses ………………………6
Definition of key terms …………………………………...7
Review of related literature ……………………………….8
Definitions of LLS ……………………………………….8
Previous studies ………………………………………….9
Methodology ……………………………………………..12
Participants……………………………………………...12
Instruments……………………………………………...12
Procedures ……………………………………………...13
Data analysis………………………………………..…...14
Design ………………………………………………….15
Limitations and delimitations of the study………………..15
References………………………………………………...16
1
Introduction
One of the basic concerns in the field of second language acquisition has always
been finding more efficient ways for teachers or learners to facilitate and
optimize language teaching and learning, and this has resulted in a great number
of studies on the nature of language teaching and learning. Until 1970s, these
studies were mostly based on teacher-oriented methodologies. Then it was
argued that some language learners seemed to be ‘more successful’ regardless
of teaching methods and techniques (Rubin, 1975; Stern, 1975). Rubin (1975, p.
41): suggested that “if all people can learn their first language easily and well,
why does this ability seem to decline for some when second language learning
is the task?”. This resulted in a shift of focus from teachers and teaching
methods to learners and learning process, leading to great amount of research
aimed at investigating learner characteristics and behaviors.
One of these
behaviors and characteristics that has received remarkable attention is language
learning strategies (LLSs) employed by learners in the process of learning a
foreign or second language. Skehan (1989) referred to LLSs as one of the most
important factors accounting for individual differences in language learning.
Oxford (1990), referred to Learning Strategies, as one of the key variables
affecting language learning, and defined LLSs as “specific actions taken by the
leaner to make learning easier, faster, more enjoyable, more self-directed, more
effective, and more transferable to new situations” (p.8). According to Oxford
and Nyikos (1989, p. 291), “unlike most other characteristics of the learner such
as attitude, aptitude, motivation, personality and general cognitive style,
learning strategies are readily teachable”. According to the findings of studies
on language learning strategies appropriate LLSs are useful in the development
of communicative competence, improved proficiency and learner autonomy
(Oxford & Crookall, 1988, 1989; Oxford, 1990). The relationship between LLS
use and successful language learning has stimulated growing interest among
many researchers and resulted in numerous studies aiming at finding
2
characteristics of learning strategies, defining and categorizing them, exploring
variables affecting the use of them and planning strategy trainings and LLS
classroom instructions (e.g., Bialystok, 1981; Chamot & Kupper, 1989; Eid
Alhaisoni, 2012; El-Dib, 2004; Hong-Nam, & Leavell 2006; O’Malley,
Chamot, Stewner-Manzanares, Russo & Kupper, 1985; Oxford, 1990; Oxford &
Nyikos, 1989; Park, 1997; Politzer, 1983; Sheorey, 1999; Wharton, 2000; Weng
Pei-Shi, 2012; Ziahosseini & Salehi 2007).
So alongside the increasing
attention that was directed to learners in many studies, and due to the
significance of LLSs in learning Foreign/second languages, the variables
affecting their choice and use have received considerable attention. Oxford
(1989) mentioned several factors influencing learners’ choice of LLSs including
the language being learned, duration, age, sex, personality characteristics, career
orientation, learning style, motivational orientation, teaching methods, and so
on. Oxford (1989, p. 236) described duration as “course level, number of years
of language study or proficiency level”. A number of studies have examined
the relationships between EFL/ESL learners’ proficiency levels and strategy use
and reported positive relationship between proficiency and learners use of LLSs
(e.g., Eid Alhaisoni, 2012; El-Dib, 2004; Chamot & Kupper, 1989; Green &
Oxford, 1995; Hong-Nam & Leavell 2006; O’Malley, Chamot, StewnerManzanares, Russo and Kupper, 1985; Oxford & Nyikos, 1989; Park, 1997;
Sheorey, 1999; Weng Pei-Shi, 2012; Wharton 2000; Ziahosseini and Salehi
2007). For example, Oxford and Nyikos (1989), reported significant effect of
self-ratings of language proficiency and years of study on strategy use in the
large-scale investigation of 1,200 university foreign language students in the
US.
Oxford (1989, p. 237) suggested that “language students might
spontaneously develop new and better strategies as they become more
advanced”.
3
The present study focuses on the effects of Iranian EFL learners’ proficiency
levels on their use and choice of LLSs in more details, that is, the use of each
category of LLSs across proficiency levels.
Statement of the problem
As the significance of learning strategies in learning foreign/second languages
has been discussed and highlighted by many researchers, many studies have
investigated the effects of various variables on the use and choice of LLSs.
Most of the studies on the relationship between proficiency levels and LLS use,
have reported a positive relationship.
Chammot (2004) referred to some
inconsistencies in the results of the studies on the links between learners’
characteristics and LLS use, such as contrasting results on the effects of gender
on LLS use. Chammot (2004, p.18) suggested that “the relationship between
LLS use and language proficiency is far clearer” as based on the findings of
many researchers “more proficient language learners use a greater variety and
often a greater number of learning strategies”. However since then the results
of some studies in Iran have showed some mixed results. While in great number
of studies the findings have revealed that learners at higher levels of proficiency
make more frequent use of learning strategies (e.g., Akbari and Talebinezhad,
2003; Rahimi, Riazi, & Saif, 2004; Alemi & Tajeddin, 2010; Ketabi and
Mohammadi, 2012; Gharbavi & Mousavi, 2012), the results of some studies
have demonstrated no significant difference in the use of LLSs by the learners
at different levels of proficiency.
On the other hand few studies have
investigated the LLS use of Iranian EFL learners across proficiency levels,
focusing on the use of each category of LLSs. So more studies in Iranian
context would shed some light on the patterns of language learning strategy use
across English language proficiency levels.
4
Significance of the study
Learning strategies play a very important role in language learning and there is
unanimous agreement among scholars about including these strategies in the
process of language learning. And cited in Oxford R. and Nyikos M., (1989),
“unlike most other characteristics of the learner such as attitude, aptitude,
motivation, personality and general cognitive style, learning strategies are
readily teachable”. Moreover, the theoretical and practical studies about
learning strategies have yielded very promising results and promoted the
effectiveness of language learning in many ESL and EFL contexts.
For Iranian EFL learners this may be of a greater significance, as most of them,
due to various political, social and financial reasons, lack enough exposures to
authentic English inside and outside of the classrooms. So helping students
develop effective learning strategies may improve this situation and lead them
towards being more autonomous, self-directed and successful learners.
However, when it comes to the strategy use of Iranian EFL learners and their
general language proficiencies, the findings of the studies have shown some
mixed results. So it is hoped that the findings of the present study will be
significant in shedding light on those strategies which are more frequently used
by Iranian elementary, intermediate, and advanced learners. Thus, the results of
this study may help teachers to find out those strategies which are more
effective in language learning and to include them in their classroom
instruction. They may also help syllabus designers, material developers and
schools and education authorities consider the importance of language learning
strategies and provide Iranian EFL learners with opportunities and materials that
stimulate these strategies and facilitate language learning.
5
Purpose of the Study
The current study is an attempt to investigate whether there are any significant
differences between the use of each category of LLSs by Iranian EFL learners
across English language proficiency levels, namely Elementary, Intermediate
and advance.
The study tries to answer the following questions:
Research questions:
1. Is there any significant difference in the Cognitive strategy use of Iranian
EFL learners across proficiency levels?
2. Is there any significant difference in the Metacognitive strategy use of
Iranian EFL learners across proficiency levels?
3. Is there any significant difference in the Affective strategy use of Iranian
EFL learners across proficiency levels?
4. Is there any significant difference in the Memory strategy use of Iranian
EFL learners across proficiency levels?
5. Is there any significant difference in the Compensation strategy use of
Iranian EFL learners across proficiency levels?
6. Is there any significant difference in the Social strategy use of Iranian
EFL learners across proficiency levels?
Null hypotheses:
1. There is no significant difference in the cognitive strategy use of Iranian
EFL learners across proficiency levels.
2. There is no significant difference in the Metacognitive strategy use of
Iranian EFL learners across proficiency levels.
3. There is no significant difference in the Affective strategy use of Iranian
EFL learners across proficiency levels.
6
4. There is no significant difference in the Memory strategy use of Iranian
EFL learners across proficiency levels.
5. There is no significant difference in the Compensation strategy use of
Iranian EFL learners across proficiency levels.
6. There is no significant difference in the Social strategy use of Iranian
EFL learners across proficiency levels.
Definition of key terms
Learning Strategies: Steps taken to facilitate acquisition, storage, retrieval,
and use of information (Ehrman & Oxford, 1989). Learning strategies in this
study include those incorporated in 50-item questionnaire designed by
Oxford (1989, 1990). According to Oxford (1989), these strategies are
divided into the following six subscales:
 Memory strategies: remembering more effectively through grouping,
making associations, using imagery, etc.
 Cognitive strategies: using mental processes through looking for
language patterns, skimming and scanning, analyzing contrastively, etc.
 Compensation strategies: compensating for missing knowledge through
guessing, switching to L1, coining words, etc.
 Metacognitive strategies: organizing and evaluating learning through
arranging to learn, finding how language learning works, evaluating
progress, etc.
 Affective strategies: managing emotions through lowering anxiety,
rewarding oneself, talking with someone about one's feeling, etc.
 Social strategies: learning with others through asking for correction,
cooperating with peers, developing cultural awareness, etc.
Review of the related literature
7
Definitions of LLSs
There have been different definitions to describe Learning Strategies since the
1980s. Oxford and Niokos (1989, p. 291) defined learning strategies as
“operations used by learners to aid the acquisition, storage, and retrieval of
information”.
According to Oxford (1990, p. 8), learning strategies are
"specific actions taken by the learner to make learning easier, faster, more
enjoyable, more self-directed, more effective, and more transferable to new
situation".
Oxford (1990) later by emphasizing on the process of learning ,
rather than the product, provided a more comprehensible definition for language
learning strategies, as specific actions, behaviors, steps, or techniques that
students use to accelerate their progress in developing L2 skills. She referred to
learning strategies as a combination of behaviors used by the learners to assist
them in learning, storing, and recovering information. Oxford (1990, p.1) also
pointed out that strategies are particularly important for language learning
"because they are tools for active, self-directed involvement, which is essential
for developing communicative competence". Oxford (2003) later described
Learning Strategies, as one of the key variables affecting language learning, she
also defined LS as the specific behaviors or thoughts that learners employ to
enhance their language learning, and it is with the teachers’ help that students
gain an awareness of these strategies and can employ a wider range of
appropriate strategies.
According to Joan Rubin (1975), by examining the
strategies employed by more successful learners, an insight is gained into what
these strategies might include, so that teachers can use a list of good learners
strategies to help the less successful learners better their performance. Rubin
(1975) defined learning strategies as “the techniques or devices which a learner
may use to acquire knowledge” (p. 43). Later, Rubin mentioned that language
learning strategies “are strategies which contribute to the development of the
language system which the learner constructs and affect learning directly”
(1987, p. 22), and She also added that language learning strategies include “any
8
set of operations, steps, plans, or routines used by the learner to facilitate the
obtaining, storage, retrieval, and use of information” (1987, p. 19). As cited in
Carol Grifiths (2004), “When O’Malley et al (1985) came to conduct their
research, they used the definition of learning strategies as being operations or
steps used by a learner that will facilitate the acquisition, storage, retrieval or
use of information” (p.23), a definition originally used by Rigney (1978). As
O’Malley and Chamot (1990) have stated one of the important aims of studies
into language learning strategies is often to determine effective ways of learning
a new language. According to Chamot, (2004, p. 14), “learning strategies are
the thoughts and actions that individuals employ to achieve a learning goal”.
Previous Studies
There has been a number of empirical studies that have investigated the
relationships between learners’ L2 proficiency and strategy use. For instance, in
a study of English learners in Puerto Rico, conducted by Green and Oxford
(1995), results showed that more successful learners used strategies more
frequently, actively, and naturalistically than the less successful learners.
Oxford and Nyikos (1989), reported significant effect of self-ratings of
language proficiency and years of study on strategy use in the large-scale
investigation of 1,200 university foreign language students in the US.
In another research undertaken in Botswana, between 2002 and 2005, by
Magogwe, and Oliver (2007), the relationship between language strategies,
proficiency, age and self-efficacy beliefs was examined. The results revealed
that there was a dynamic relationship between the use of the LLSs and
proficiency, level of schooling (representing age differences) and self-efficacy
beliefs, with no distinct preference for particular types of strategies. Hong-Nam
and Leavell (2006) investigated the relationship between the learning strategy
use of 55 ESL learners, with different cultural and linguistic backgrounds, and
language proficiency, with a focus on gender and nationality.
9
This study
revealed that the learners at the intermediate level used more overall strategies
than the beginners or advanced language learners. According to the authors,
these results were in accordance with a study by Phillips (1991). And also
metacognitive strategies were reported to be used the most and affective and
memory strategies the least, but females employed affective and social
strategies more than males. Ouyang Ou-chun (2011) examined the effects of
proficiency on 188 postgraduate students’ strategy use and reported significant
correlation between overall strategy, memory, cognitive, compensation, and
social strategy categories and proficiency levels.
A significant difference
between the high and the low language proficiency levels in their use of LLSs
was reported by Weng Pei-Shi (2012) in a research on a group of 71 nonEnglish majors in New Taipei City, and the results showed greater number of
LLSs used by the learners of high proficiency levels than the low language
proficiency learners.
In Iran, Rahimi, Riazi, & Saif (2004) studied the use of language learning
strategies by 196 post-secondary level Persian EFL learners, at low ,mid-, and
high proficiency levels, focusing on the variables affecting learners’ choice of
strategies, and the relationship between these variables and learners’ patterns of
strategy use. The results showed motivation and proficiency level as main
predictors of LLSs use of the learners. Ghavamnia, Kassaian, and Dabaghi
(2011) conducted a research in Isfahan on the relationship between strategy use
and three other variables (motivation, proficiency, and learners’ beliefs) with 80
undergraduate students, and reported a positive relationship between the
students’ English language proficiency and their use of language learning
strategies, i.e., more overall use of language learning strategies by more
proficient learners. In this group of learners, cognitive strategies were reported
to have the highest frequency and metacognitive strategies were the second
most frequently used strategy. However, the percentage of cognitive strategies
10
in another study conducted by Gharbavi and Mousavi (2012) was reported to be
zero, and compensation and metacognitive strategies were the most frequently
used strategies by the participants. In another study, Gharbavi and Mousavi
(2012) reported a positive relationship between proficiency levels of the
learners and their use of LLS, with metacognitive and compensation strategies
as the most frequently used strategies by advanced learners.
However, Ziahosseini and Salehi’s (2007) findings are not in accordance with
the above mentioned results, regarding the effects of proficiency on learners’
use and choice of LLS. In a study on the relationship between the use of LLSs
and variables such as motivation, sex and the level of proficiency. Ziahosseini
and Salehi (2007) reported that extrinsic motivation did not correlate
meaningfully with the choice of LLSs, but the correlation with intrinsic
motivation was meaningful. The results also showed no gender differences in
the use and choice of LLSs. Moreover, their results revealed that proficiency
levels did not make any difference in the use and choice of LLS, which is in
contrast with the findings of many previous studies in this regard. Tajeddin and
Alemi (2010) compared less proficient and more proficient L2 learners’
preferences for L1-based, L2-based, and non-linguistic compensation strategies
of a group of 229 Iranian EFL learners. The results did not show a significant
difference between the high and low proficient learners in their overall use of
compensation strategies; however, the effect of proficiency on individual
strategies led to more L2-based strategies used by high proficient learners in
contrast with avoidance or L1-based strategies used by low proficient learners.
In another study, selecting 100 Iranian EFL learners at elementary and
intermediate proficiency levels, Khosravi (2012) investigated the effect of
learners’ proficiency level on language learning strategies, and the results didn’t
show significant differences in the frequency of general LLSs use between the
higher and lower levels. She related this to a lack of enough proficiency gap
11
between elementary and intermediate levels and suggested that a comparison
between elementary and advanced levels be made in further studies. The most
frequently used strategies in this study were compensation strategies by both
elementary and intermediate levels, which is rather in contrast with the results
of some other studies in this field. The findings of this study also revealed that
the use of the cognitive strategies showed the strongest relation to English
proficiency.
Methodology
1. Participants
The participants will be 180 language learners who have been studying English
for at least 2 semesters, and are divided to 3 different groups according to their
proficiency levels. The groups will consist of 60 students at Elementary level,
60 students at Intermediate and 60 students at Upper-Intermediate and
Advanced level.
2. Instrumentation
SILL
In the present study, the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL),
which is a likert-type measure, will be used to elicit information from
participants. This questionnaire, developed by Oxford (1989, 1990, 1995), has
two versions: an 80-item version for English speakers learning a foreign
language, and a 50-item version for learners of English as a second or foreign
language. The SILL's reliability, as reported by Oxford & Ehrman (1995), is
ordinarily in the range of 0.90s. The 50-item version has strong predictive and
concurrent validity as related to language performance and sensory
performance.
This self-report survey asks students to react to a series of
12
strategy descriptions in terms of how often they use the strategies (always or
almost always, generally, sometimes, generally not, never or almost never).
The 50-item version of SILL which will be used in this study, comprises six
parts as below:
- Part A: Memory strategies (9 items)
- Part B: Cognitive strategies (14 items)
- Part C: Compensation strategies (6 items)
- Part D: Metacognitive strategies (9 items)
- Part E: Affective strategies (6 items)
- Part F: Social strategies (6 items)
A Persian translation of SILL will be used in this study. The researcher will use
the translated version of SILL for two reasons. First, answering a 50-item
questionnaire in English may be time-consuming, and using the translated
version may put the respondents at ease and facilitate data collection. Second,
many of the possible ambiguities can be eliminated especially for less proficient
respondents.
3. Procedure
As mentioned earlier, the participants in this study are all EFL learners in
different branches of Kish Language Institute in Tehran. They are classified into
three groups of 60 according to their English proficiency levels. The
classification will be based on their course levels.
In Kish Institute the
curriculum includes 6 English proficiency levels each of them having
subdivisions as follows:
1. Starter (S): S1-S2
2. Elementary (E):E1-E4, (KET exam at the end of this level)
3. Pre-Intermediate (PI): PI1-PI4, (PET exam at the end of this level)
4. Intermediate (I): I1-I5
13
5. Upper-Intermediate (UI): UI1-UI5
6. Advanced (A): A1-A7
The subjects with elementary proficiency level will be selected from E1 to E3
classes, to make sure they have enough learning experiences for the purpose of
this study. For Intermediate level, the subjects will be selected from I1 to I3
classes, as they have already passed PET to be qualified to enroll in
intermediate classes, and to make sure there is a proficiency gap between this
group and the Elementary or advanced group. And for the advanced level,
participants will be from A1 and above.
Then they will fill out Oxford's (1989, 1990) Strategy Inventory for Language
Learning (SILL) along with a background questionnaire concerning their sex,
linguistic background, age, major, the language usually used at home, and the
language usually used with friends. This background questionnaire helps us to
have a better picture of participants.
The SILL itself provides us with ordinal data, because the choices available to
the respondents are always or almost always, generally, sometimes, generally
not, never or almost never. The participants will be asked to mark one of these
choices showing the frequency with which they used each strategy, and in this
way revealing how they learned the English language practically.
4. Data analysis
In order to answer the question number one and two, a Kruskall-wallis test will
be used to check if there is any significant difference between English language
proficiency levels and the use of language learning strategies. To find the
answer for question number three, descriptive analysis and the total scores for
each part of the SILL questionnaire will be analyzed and the most and the least
frequently used categories of the strategies will be detected.
5. Design
14
There will be three experimental groups in the study and the students will
be randomly selected and assigned to the three groups. Also the current study
will use the LLS questionnaire. Therefore the design of the study is:
Groups
Level
Number
Questionnaire
Random Sampling Group A
Elementary Level
60
LLS Q
Random Sampling Group B
Intermediate Level
60
LLS Q
Random Sampling Group C
Advanced Level
60
LLS Q
Limitations and Delimitations
The present study has the following limitations:
1. The present study hasn't controlled the gender of the participants to see
whether gender has any role in the language learning strategies of Iranian
EFL learners.
2. The participants of the study will be restricted to Iranian EFL learners of
some language institutes in Tehran. So, care has to be exercised in
generalizing the findings of the study to other populations.
3. The participants of the study have a wide age range of 13 to 49. So the
results of this study may be affected by some other variables, such as age,
personality, social factors and so on. Further research is needed to resolve
such issues
4. Administration of a proficiency test will be difficult due to the reluctance
of the institute administrators, and the researcher may force to rely on the
course levels and the achievement tests conducted in the institutes as the
measurement of proficiency.
References
15
Cohen, A. (1998). Strategies in learning and using a second language.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dolati, R., and Seliman, S. (2011). An investigation of Iranian students’
weaknesses in spoken English. Journal of Edupres, 1, 94-99. Retrieved from
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0346-251X(03)00048-4, on 10 16/2013.
Eid Alhaisoni, (2012). Language Learning Strategy Use of Saudi EFL Students
in an Intensive English Learning Context. Asian Social Science; Vol. 8, No. 13,
p. 2.
Ehrman, M. (1990). The role of personality type in adult language learning: An
ongoing investigation. In T. Parry and C. Stanfield (Eds.). Language aptitude
reconsidered (pp. 112-130). New York: Prentice-Hall Regents.
Ehrman, M. and Oxford, R. (1989). Effects of sex differences, career choice, and
psychological type on adult language learning strategies. Modern Language
Journal, 73 (i), 1-13.
Ehrman, M. and Oxford, R. (1990). Adult language learning styles and strategies
in An intensive training setting. Modern language Journal, 74(3), 311-327.
Gharbavi, A., and Mousavi, A., (2012). Do Language Proficiency Levels
Correspond to Language Learning Strategy Adoption? www.ccsenet.org/eltt
English Language Teaching, Vol. 5, No. 7.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/elt.v5n7p110. Retrieved from the internet on
10/17/2013.
Ghavamnia, M., Kassaian, Z., and Dabaghi, A. (2011). The relationship
between language learning strategies, language learning beliefs, motivation, and
proficiency: A study of EFL learners in Iran. Journal of Language Teaching
and Research, Vol. 2, Issue 5, p. 1156-1161.
Griffiths, C. (2003). Patterns of language learning strategy use. System, 31, 367383.
Griffiths, C. (2004). Language learning strategies: Theory and research.
Occasional, 1, 1-35.
Griffiths, C. (2007). Language learning strategies: Student's and teacher's
perceptions. ELT Journal 61(2), 91-99.
16
Hong-Nam, K., and Leavell, A. G. (2006). Language learning strategy use of
ESL students in an intensive English learning context. System 34 399–415.
Khosravi, M. (2012). A Study of Language Learning Strategies Used by EFL
Learners in Iran: Exploring Proficiency Effect on English Language Learning
Strategies. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, Vol. 2, No. 10, pp. 21222132, October 2012.
Magogwe, J. M. and Oliver, R. (2007). The relationship between language
learning strategies, proficiency, age and self-efficacy beliefs: A study of
language learners in Botswana. System 35 (2007) 338–352.
O' Malley, J.M. Chamot, A.U., Stewner – Manzares, G., Russo, R.P. and
Kupper, L. (1985b). Learning strategy application with students of English as a
second language. TESOL Quarterly, 19 (3), 557-584.
Ouyang Ou-chun, (2011). Influence of English Proficiency on Postgraduate
Students’ Use of Language Learning Strategies. Sino-US English Teaching,
December 2011, Vol. 8, No. 12, 766-772.
Oxford, R. (1989). Use of language learning strategies: A synthesis of studies
with implications for teacher training. System, 17, 235-247.
Oxford, R. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should
know. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.
Oxford, R. L. (2001). Language learning strategies. In R. Carter, and D.
Nunan, (Eds). The Cambridge guide to speakers of other languages (pp. 6672). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Oxford, R. and Crookall, D. (1989). Research on language learning strategies:
Methods, findings, and instructional issues. Modern Language Journal,73(3)
404-419.
Oxford, R. and Lambert, W. (1962). The relation of bilingualism to intelligence.
Psychological Monographs,73, 1-23.
Oxford, R. and Nyikos, M. (1989). Variables affecting choice of language
learning strategies by university students. Modern Language Journal, 73, 291300.
17
Rahimi, M., Riazi, A., and Saif, S., (2008). An investigation into the factors
affecting the use of language learning strategies by Persian EFL learners.
Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, (CJAL), Vol. 11, No. 2.
Rubin, J. (1981). Study of cognitive processes in second language learning.
Applied Linguistics, 11, 117-131.
Rubin, J. (1987). Learner strategies: Theoretical assupmptions, research history
and typology. In A. wenden, & J. Rubin, (eds.). Learner strategies in language
learning. Prentice Hall: New Jersey.
Wenden, A. (1987). How to be a successful learner: Insights and perspectives
from L2 learners. In A.Wenden, & J. Rubin, (eds.). Learner strategies in
language learning. Prentice Hall: New Jersey.
Wenden, A, and Rubin, J. (1987). Learner strategies in language learning.
Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall.
Weng Pei-Shi, (2012). The Effect of Learning Styles on Learning Strategy Use
by EFL Learners. Journal of Social Sciences 8 (2): 230-234.
18