Running Head: DOES MODIFYING THE SILL ENHANCE RELIABILITY?
Does Modifying the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning Enhance Reliability?
Justin Cubilo
Michigan State University
May, 3, 2010
* This was a study in which a partner and I collected data together. This is my report of the
findings.
DOES MODIFYING THE SILL ENHANCE RELIABILITY?
Cubilo 2
This study examines the application of a modified version of the Strategy Inventory for
Language Learning (SILL; Oxford, 1995) and its reliability for learners of Chinese as a
foreign language (CFL). Questionnaires were collected from 42 college students in either
their first or second year of study in CFL who were both native and non-native speakers
of English. The instrument consisted of the original SILL items and those developed by
the researchers to update the scope of learning strategies. Items were randomized for
presentation. Sample size prohibited a principal component analysis to assess the
underlying psychological constructs of the modified version; however, based on existing
scales, initial calculations of Cronbach’s Alpha resulted in values ranging from .13 to .84.
Following analysis and deletion of problematic items, Cronbach’s alpha improved with
values ranging from .48 to .84.
A great number of studies have been conducted concerning second language learner
strategies. Due to the research in this area of second language research, a great deal of care has
been given to the method of collecting student strategy use data since learner strategy data have
been found to be very useful in educational settings (Tseng, 2005). It has also been incredibly
helpful in establishing a much fuller picture of how student strategy use leads to differential
success in language programs (Griffiths, 2004). Methods for collecting language learner
strategies have ranged from classroom observations to self-reporting to questionnaires. Cohen
(1984) provides a discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of verbal reports and
classroom observations stating that observations give little to no information of the internal
thought processes and strategies that the learners use. Furthermore, Seliger (1983) brought into
question the reliability of using verbal reports in order to uncover strategies due to the fact that
DOES MODIFYING THE SILL ENHANCE RELIABILITY?
Cubilo 3
the description of the processes that the students provide could be nothing more than guessing
based on the production that they make.
The questioning of the reliability of these measures created a need for developing a much
more reliable method for collecting language learning strategy data. This fostered the movement
towards using self-reporting questionnaires in order to gather large amounts of information
concerning learner strategies. As with any method of obtaining data, doubt arose concerning the
reliability and validity of self-reporting questionnaires. Dörnyei (2003) states it best when saying
that he believes that the information obtained from questionnaires can easily be unreliable
because it is so easy to produce an unreliable questionnaire. However, he follows this by later
stating how valuable the survey is for collecting data in a study provided that the questionnaire is
developed with reliability and validity.
This brings the focus to the questionnaire used in this study; the Strategy Inventory for
Language Learning (SILL) developed by Rebecca Oxford. Oxford (1995) mentions that her
questionnaire was created to encompass six sub-categories of strategies: memory strategies,
cognitive strategies, compensation strategies, metacognitive strategies, affective strategies, and
social strategies. Each subcategory consists of several statements about activities involving
strategies in these subcategories with a 5-point Likert scale located next to each one. Ellis (1994,
pg. 539) has gone as far as to say that it is “the most comprehensive classification of learning
strategies to date.”
Prior to the development of the SILL, few scales used in a similar fashion to the SILL
had published reliability and validity data (Oxford 1995). Thus, the SILL was developed to
address that and since its development, at least forty to fifty major studies have used it and have
checked its reliability and validity. For instance, Griffiths (2003) mentions that among the
DOES MODIFYING THE SILL ENHANCE RELIABILITY?
Cubilo 4
various studies using the SILL, the Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for internal reliability have
been between 0.89 and 0.98 and she also adds that this is the most reliable measuring tool to
date. In addition, studies performed by Yang (1992, 1993) and Chang (1991) investigating
relationships between strategy use and language performance have found the SILL to be a highly
valid and reliable measure of strategy use. Yang’s studies have also found no statistical evidence
that students were not providing sincere responses on the survey when it was administered. All
of this is very important evidence that the SILL as a useful measure of strategy use.
However, even with its reliability and validity already having been established, there
have been some criticisms of the SILL. One of those criticisms is discussed by both Sung (2009)
and Griffiths (2003) who believe that the survey is a bit outdated and lacks certain strategies. The
survey was originally created in 1989 when no internet resources existed and electronic
resources as a whole were lacking. With the growing dominance of social networking websites
such as Facebook and language software such as Rosetta Stone, new strategies are inevitably
being used by language learners of which the current SILL does not take account.
A recent in-house administration of the SILL and statistical analysis of the internal
reliability coefficients have also brought into question some of the features of the questionnaire.
In this analysis, the survey was found to provide reliable results for second-language (L2)
learners of English while first-language (L1) speakers of English who had learned a foreign
language produced less reliable results although these were interpreted with caution as the
sample size was small. Sung (2009) could help shed some light on this since she states that the
SILL was developed primarily for use with students of English as a second language (ESL) or
foreign language (EFL) and that its reliability when being used with L1 English learners of a
foreign language is uncertain although a version of the SILL for this population is included in an
DOES MODIFYING THE SILL ENHANCE RELIABILITY?
Cubilo 5
appendix of Oxford’s 1990 book. Sung also found some discrepancies between the SILL and
interviews for Chinese heritage language learners showing that there may be limitations on what
groups of people the SILL can be used with. However, both Sung (2009) and Fu (2005) have
found sufficient internal reliability reports for L1 English (non-heritage) learners of Chinese
using the SILL.
The goal of the current study is to examine the reliability of the SILL as a measurement
of language learners’ strategies for learning Chinese as their L2. The research questions being
investigated in this study are:
RQ1: Is the SILL a reliable measurement for L2 Chinese learners?
RQ2: Are the underlying scales found in the original SILL reliable for this population?
RQ3: What items reduce the reliability of the present scales for this study’s population?
RQ4: Does the addition of more updated strategies (i.e. technology use) provide greater
reliability?
As noted, part of the reliability issue for the in-house survey could be the fact that the L1 English
speakers were reflecting on different foreign languages they had learned, and were not currently
engaged in the language learning process. We anticipate that our reliability will be higher since
all the participants are currently studying the same language. We also expect our more-up-to date
strategies (technology) will allow for more accurate strategy assessment, and that the
randomization of statements found in the SILL will provide a higher reliability. Finally, we
predict that the underlying scales found in the original SILL will be reliable measures for the
population being examined.
Method
Participants
The participants (n=42) consisted of 29 native speakers of English and 13 non-native
speakers of English at Michigan State University (see Table 1) with a variety of L1 backgrounds:
DOES MODIFYING THE SILL ENHANCE RELIABILITY?
Cubilo 6
Table 1.
Student Population Demographic
Chinese Class
First-Year Students
Second-Year Students
Total
English L1
Non-English L1
21
11
8
2
29
13
Italian (1), Korean (3), Japanese (3), Chinese (1), Cantonese (2), Turkish (1), Malaysian (1), and
Vietnamese (1). There were 20 females and 22 males. Most participants had previously studied a
variety of other languages with the majority having studied French, German, or Spanish. There
were several students studying Japanese concurrently with Chinese. The participants were all
undergraduate students at Michigan State University enrolled in either first- or second-year
Chinese language courses. Participants enrolled in the first-year Chinese course (n= 32) were in
their second semester studying Chinese, while participants enrolled in the second-year Chinese
course (n= 10) were in their fourth semester studying Chinese. While it had been hoped to collect
surveys only from the first-year students and native speakers (NSs) of English, the lack of
sufficient responses made it necessary for the inclusion of second-year students and those whose
L1 was not English.
Materials
The measure used in this study was a modified 63-item version of the Strategy Inventory
for Language Learning (SILL) (Oxford, 1995) (see Appendix). The SILL is a self-scoring, paperand-pencil questionnaire that contains statements such as, “I use flashcards to remember new
words in Chinese.” Participants used a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (never or almost never
true of me) to 5 (always or almost always true of me) to respond to the truthfulness of these
DOES MODIFYING THE SILL ENHANCE RELIABILITY?
Cubilo 7
statements in terms of themselves. The SILL was chosen for this study because it has been
widely used and is very comprehensive (Ellis, 1994, p. 539). Being used so widely, it seemed
important that the SILL be updated to reflect more of the current strategies used by language
learners.
Since the original version of the SILL was used to measure the frequency of language
learning strategies in learners of English as a second language, the statements in it were adapted
for use with learners of Chinese as a foreign language. Furthermore, given the outdated nature of
the original version of the SILL, this version also included an additional section containing 10
statements in order to include language-learning strategies facilitated by the use of technology.
Additionally, it was decided to randomize statements for administration to see if its reliability
would be affected. Four open-ended questions were added which asked about particular
strategies and methods the participants used when learning another language. Finally, there were
also four questions about each participant’s individual background information including:
gender, L1 background, other languages studied, and why s/he chose to study Chinese.
Procedure
SILL questionnaires were collected from five sections of first-year Chinese and two
sections of second-year Chinese learners. Participants were instructed to read and answer each
question carefully and honestly. Students were told that there was no right or wrong answer to
any question and that their confidentiality was protected, and their responses were for research
purposes only. The anonymous surveys were given as homework with the option not to
participate. Students that chose to participate returned the questionnaires within a two-week
span.
DOES MODIFYING THE SILL ENHANCE RELIABILITY?
Cubilo 8
Results and Discussion
Analyses of reliability were conducted by calculating Cronbach’s alpha values for the
survey as a whole and for each individual subcategory. In order to see whether including data
from participants with L1s other than English and learners of a higher proficiency level would
substantially affect the study’s results, reliability analyses were also conducted by both removing
non-English L1 participants from the data and again by removing all second-year Chinese
students from the data. Table 2 shows the results of this analysis. The data reveal that the
inclusion of the higher proficiency learners in the analyses only slightly reduced the reliability of
the SILL data; therefore, it was decided to include both the first- and second- year students of
Chinese as a Foreign Language in our analysis. In addition, after examining the alpha value for
the survey results of native English speakers alone and a comparison of means between NNSs
and NSs in each part of the survey (see Figure 1), it was found that the reliability of the survey
was actually lower if NNSs were excluded and that the means of each part of the survey for both
groups were relatively similar. Therefore, it was also decided to include the data collected from
students with L1s other than English in our analyses.
Table 2.
Cronbach’s Alpha Based on Survey Population
Population
Total Participants (N)
Cronbach’s Alpha
Overall
42
.891
Native English Speakers Only
29
.865
Chinese 101 Students Only
32
.895
DOES MODIFYING THE SILL ENHANCE RELIABILITY?
Cubilo 9
Figure 1. Comparison of native English speakers’ and non-native English speakers’
mean ratings per part of SILL.
In order to address the question of whether the SILL is a reliable measure for students of
Chinese as a foreign language, a reliability analysis was run for the survey as a whole. The
results of this analysis indicated an alpha value of .89, indicating a high reliability for the survey
overall. Mean values calculated for all parts of the survey and all participant answers were M =
2.78 (SD = 1.51). An analysis of each subscale of the survey was also calculated. The results of
this indicated alpha values for most scales ranging between .55 and .70 with one value lower
than this at  =.13 and one higher than this at  =.84.
For research question 2, addressing what underlying scales were present in the survey, an
analysis of the alpha values for each of the parts found in the original SILL was done. Alpha
values from .58 to .70 were produced with the exception of parts D (Organizing and Evaluating
One’s Learning) and E (Managing Your Emotions). Part D was found to have a reliability of .84
and part E was found to have a reliability of .13. Therefore, alpha values indicated that the
previously determined scales were at least moderately reliable with the exception of part E, with
DOES MODIFYING THE SILL ENHANCE RELIABILITY?
Cubilo 10
its low reliability of  = .13. In terms of descriptive statistics, part E also has the most
noteworthy departure from the other parts of the survey. Its standard deviation (2.15) was larger
than the figure for the other parts as can be seen in Table 3.
For the third research question, addressing whether any of the items were reducing the
reliability of the predetermined scales for the population taking the survey, an analysis of the
reliability of each subscale of the survey was conducted in which the reliability of the scale with
each individual item deleted was calculated in order to see the contribution of each item towards
Table 3.
Cronbach’s Alpha Based on Survey Section
Number of
Items
Mean
SD
Cronbach’s
Alpha
Cronbach’s
Alpha with
Problematic
Item Omitted
Part A. Remembering
Effectively
10
2.73
1.44
.577
.659
Part B. Using Mental
Processes
14
3.00
1.38
.691
.707
Part C. Compensating for
Missing Knowledge
6
2.84
1.31
.600
--
Part D. Organizing and
Evaluating One’s
Learning
9
3.28
1.25
.836
--
Part E. Managing Your
Emotions
6
2.71
2.15
.126
.480
Part F. Learning with
Others
7
2.92
1.55
.671
.765
Part G. Using Technology
11
2.04
1.32
.682
.705
Survey Section
DOES MODIFYING THE SILL ENHANCE RELIABILITY?
Cubilo 11
that scale’s reliability. The results of this analysis can be seen in Table 3. Overall, the items
found in the survey were not problematic. However, there were a few instances where the
reliability of the scale was substantially affected by a specific item that was placed within that
scale. The most notable of these items can be found in Parts A, E, and F. The reliability for Part
A (Remembering Effectively) rose from .58 to .66 when item 39 (“I use flashcards to remember
new Chinese words”) was removed from the subscale. The reliability of Part E (Managing Your
Emotions) rose from .13 to .48 when item 58 (“I talk to someone else about how I feel when I am
learning Chinese”) was removed from the subscale. Finally, the reliability of Part F (Learning
with Others) also showed a marked increase in reliability from .67 to .77 when item 59 (“I
enjoyed living in the Chinese culture”) was removed. This signifies that these items were having
a particularly negative effect on the subscales’ reliability. These effects will be discussed in more
detail below.
For the fourth research question, addressing whether the technology scale is reliable and
adds to the reliability of the survey, an analysis of the alpha values was run for participant
answers to those questions as well. A value of  = .68 was found for this scale with a mean of
2.04 (SD = 1.32).
The L2 Chinese learners in this study reported using the strategies found in part D of the
SILL (Organizing and Evaluating One’s Knowledge) more frequently than any other strategy
during their language learning. The strategies found in the part of the survey are metacognitive.
For example strategies such as paying attention, consciously searching for practice opportunities,
planning for language tasks, self-evaluating one’s progress and monitoring errors can be found
here (Oxford, 1995). Statements with which students tended to have the highest agreement in
terms of studying Chinese were: “I notice my mistakes in Chinese and try to learn from them”, “I
DOES MODIFYING THE SILL ENHANCE RELIABILITY?
Cubilo 12
try to find out how to be a better learner of Chinese”, “I look for people I can talk to in Chinese”,
and “I have clear goals for improving my Chinese skills.” These results are similar to the
findings of Hong-Nam and Leavell (2006) in which they also found that metacognitive, as well
as social strategies were most frequently used suggesting that these strategies are, perhaps,
generally used more heavily than others.
The open-ended responses may suggest why these particular metacognitive strategies are
preferred. Many of the students wrote specific strategies they have found to improve their
Chinese indicating that they placed value on how to be better learners and speakers of the
language. One student wrote in response to one of the open-ended question, “I just make sure
that I incorporate the language in my daily life.” Another student wrote, “Having conversation
with Chinese friends and reviewing grammar patterns with them is useful.” Additionally, another
student wrote, “Listening to native speakers helps with grammar and listening.” Therefore, this
group of learners used strategies such as paying attention to native speaker grammar and
pronunciation, as well as seeking out opportunities to use and practice the language with native
speakers. This indicates they were in control of planning and evaluating their language learning
process which supports the finding that Organizing and Evaluating One’s Knowledge is the most
widely used strategy for this group of participants. Furthermore, all but two of the participants
wrote in the background questionnaire that they were learning Chinese in order to aid them in
their career or because they had a strong interest in the language and culture and hoped to live or
visit the country eventually. This might be another reason why the students were highly
motivated to use planning strategies as it was important for their future career or plans to be in
China and use the language.
DOES MODIFYING THE SILL ENHANCE RELIABILITY?
Cubilo 13
The least favored strategy by participants in this study was Managing Emotions (part E).
These are affective strategies which include anxiety reduction, self-encouragement and selfreward (Oxford, 1995). It was interesting to find that the least used strategy from the survey was
actually the strategy of talking to someone else about how one feels when learning Chinese. The
reason this is interesting is that, while students found it helpful to talk with native speakers about
aspects of the language, they did not believe it was helpful to talk about the feelings they had
while studying the language. This is also interesting given the fact that this item was responsible
for significantly lowering the reliability of part E for this population.
Again, the open-ended question responses may shed some light on why these students
did not use strategies for Managing Emotions. Many students said that group study was the least
helpful strategy they had used indicating that they did not place as much value on peer support.
Also, although somewhat humorous, one student wrote that the least effective strategy she had
used was “crying.” Due to the fact that these students were highly career motivated, they might
have placed less value on immediate reward and satisfaction and placed more value on achieving
their future goals.
Students also used Remembering Effectively (part A) and Compensating for Missing
Knowledge (part C) rather infrequently. Thirteen of the students wrote in their open-ended
response that the least effective strategies they had used were “rote memorization” and “simply
writing the characters over and over without knowing what it means.” Since the writing systems
of English and other Romance languages and that of Chinese are so different, this result would
almost be expected. Many of the languages previously studied by students taking this survey had
a Romanized alphabet. They also had many cognates in English that made it simpler to guess
their meaning and being able to spell out a word the way it sounds in these languages would
DOES MODIFYING THE SILL ENHANCE RELIABILITY?
Cubilo 14
most likely be an aid as well. This would most likely negate the necessity to do as much rote
memorization or writing words over and over again. However, in Chinese, students do not have
these options. While sound particles are sometimes present within some of the characters, the
precise sound is not known exactly and the tonal quality of the character is never indicated by
these. Furthermore, there is no precise way to learn how to “spell” a character and this
necessitates more memorization in order to remember the character as a whole. Therefore,
switching to Chinese from a language with characteristics such as an alphabet and a more
obvious phonetic system connected to that language’s alphabet would no doubt cause students to
believe that such methods as rote memorization or writing characters over and over again would
not be terribly helpful.
General Discussion
Regarding, the first research question asking if the SILL is a reliable measure of strategy
use overall, the overall Cronbach’s alpha of the combined strategies indicates that it is a highly
reliable measure. Therefore, when we consider the SILL as a whole instrument with all the parts
combined, it is a reliable measurement. This finding is supported by Sung (2009) and Fu (2005)
who also found sufficient internal reliabilities for L1 English (non-heritage) learners of Chinese
using the SILL.
As for the second research question, asking what underlying constructs are present within
the SILL, the items do not necessarily relate to the scales that Rebecca Oxford established. For
this group of students, with the exception of part D, the scales are not sufficiently reliable as they
exist. However, our sample size is not large enough to conduct an exploratory principal
component analysis to determine the underlying constructs. We anticipate that with a larger
DOES MODIFYING THE SILL ENHANCE RELIABILITY?
Cubilo 15
population, the results would most likely suggest different item groupings. A larger population
could also serve to make the current scales more reliable.
Additionally, for the third research question, asking what items were reducing the
reliability for the subscales for this population, we can conclude that the subscales A, E, and F
had their reliability markedly reduced by three items: numbers 39, 58, and 59. There are several
reasons that these times could have had such a negative influence on the respective subscales’
reliability coefficients. In terms of item 39, from the survey results it was apparent that a
majority of students marked either a 4 or a 5 to indicate that they frequently used flashcards in
order to study. The fact that there was little variation in this item could have brought down its
reliability. It may also be possible that item 39 is not internally consistent with the rest of the
items in subscale A, meaning that it may not be placed in the correct subscale. Item 58 showed
one of the largest increases in reliability when it was deleted. Several reasons may have caused
this. For example, this may be an item that students do not consider useful and therefore does not
actually have a place within scale E. Overall, this item tended to score very low and for this
group of students talking with someone about how they felt when learning Chinese may not have
actually belonged to the subscale of managing one’s emotions.
The main reason that item 59 caused the reliability of Part F to increase when it was
removed became rather obvious upon examination of the item. This item was to be answered
only by those who had actually been to China. Therefore, since the majority of students in first
and second-year Chinese courses at Michigan State University have not yet studied abroad in
China, the majority of students were not able to answer this question. Out of all of the
participants, only 14 were able to submit an answer to this question and over half of these
participants were students with L1s other than English. Therefore, it may be that this question
DOES MODIFYING THE SILL ENHANCE RELIABILITY?
Cubilo 16
can actually be reliable, but only when all participants are able to answer it. Another study would
have to be done in order to investigate this.
Finally, concerning the fourth research question investigating whether the addition of
more updated strategies (i.e. technology use) provides greater reliability, the results indicate that
there may be a trend toward using more technology for language learning purposes. Even though
this subscale had the lowest mean scores in terms of the use of these strategies, the reliability of
the scale was good and the responses showed the fact that students were indicating that they do
use technology at least to some degree. While the current study does not have a large enough
population to draw any certain conclusions about technology strategies, it does demonstrate a
need to incorporate updated strategies into the SILL. These findings support the claims by Sung
(2009) and Griffiths (2003) that the SILL is somewhat outdated and lacking in certain strategies.
Although the current study provides interesting results, it is difficult to make any
generalizations due to the small sample size. Furthermore, the participants were difficult to
control for as they were all from language classrooms in an academic setting with a variety of
L1s, previously studied languages, and language learning experiences and goals. However,
although the current findings are difficult to generalize, it does shed light on potential trends in
technology strategy use, as well as a need to investigate further the strategy scales originally
developed by Oxford.
Future studies of the SILL involving different populations with larger samples in a
variety of L2 classrooms would allow for factors such as L1, instructional context, and language
goals to be controlled and for findings to be generalized. Additional research incorporating
technology use as a language strategy is also necessary in order to find to what extent learners
use and incorporate technology into their language learning.
DOES MODIFYING THE SILL ENHANCE RELIABILITY?
Cubilo 17
Conclusion
The results of this study indicated that while the SILL is a reliable measure of strategy
use, it might not have accurate scales to determine the underlying psychological constructs
present within all language learners. Furthermore, the SILL has not been updated to include new
technologies available for learning language, and therefore it is unable to give a complete picture
of what strategies learners are using. Preliminary results indicate that for learners of L2 Chinese,
strategies involving the Organization and Evaluation of One’s Knowledge are most useful, while
strategies to Manage One’s Emotions are least effective. It would be interesting to further
examine the emotional scale in the future in order to see whether or not a greater sample size and
different languages of study would have an effect on the reliability of these subscales. Results of
the current study also indicate a potential trend toward strategy use of technology, but future
research involving larger sample sizes should be done in order to generalize results.
Since language learning strategies have been found to be very useful in the classroom
(Tseng, 2005) and lead to differential success in language programs (Griffiths, 2004), language
teachers may find it very useful to incorporate strategy assessment into their classrooms. The
potential benefit for learners when made aware of their individual learning strategies can be vast
and lead to greater success in language acquisition.
DOES MODIFYING THE SILL ENHANCE RELIABILITY?
Cubilo 18
References
Ellis, R. (1994). Understanding second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fu, I. P. (2005). Student approaches to learning Chinese vocabulary. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA.
Griffiths, C. (2003). Patterns of language learning strategy use. System, 31, 367-383.
Griffiths, C. (2004). Language learning strategies: Theory and research. Retrieved March 9,
2010, from Auckland Institute of Studies St. Helens, Centre for Research in International
Education Web site: http://www.crie.org.nz/research_paper/c_griffiths_op1.pdf
Hong-Nam, K. & Leavell, A. G. (2006). Language learning strategy use of ESL students in an
intensive English learning context. System, 34, 399-415.
McMullen, M. G. (2008). Using language learning strategies to improve writing skills of Saudi
EFL students: Will it really work? System, 27, 418-433.
Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. New
York: Newbury.
Oxford, R. & Burry-Stock, J. (1995). Assessing the use of language learning strategies
worldwide with the ESL/EFL version of the strategy inventory for language learning
(SILL). System, 23, 1-23.
Sung, K. (2009). Language learning strategy use and language achievement for American
college learners of Chinese as a foreign language (Doctoral Dissertation, The University
of Texas at San Antonio, 2009). Dissertation Abstracts International, 70.
Tseng, S. F. (2005). Language learning strategies in foreign language education. WHAMPOA –
An Interdisciplinary Journal, 49, 321-328.
Running Head: DOES MODIFYING THE SILL ENHANCE RELIABILITY?
Appendix
SILL Questionnaire
You indicate your voluntary agreement to participate by completing and returning this survey.
Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL)
This form of the strategy inventory for language learning (SILL) is for students of a second language (SL). Please read each statement
and fill in the bubble of the response (1, 2, 3, 4, or 5) that tells HOW TRUE THE STATEMENT IS.
1 = NEVER OR ALMOST NEVER TRUE OF ME means that the statement is very rarely true of you.
2 = USUALLY NOT TRUE OF ME means that the statement is true less than half of the time.
3 = SOMEWHAT TRUE OF ME means that the statement is true of you about half the time.
4 = USUALLY TRUE OF ME means that the statement is true more than half of the time.
5 = ALWAYS OR ALMOST ALWAYS TRUE OF ME means that the statement is true of you almost always.
Answer in terms of how well the statement describes you. Do not answer how you think you should be, or what other people do.
There are no right or wrong answers to these statements.
Part A
1. If I do not understand something in Chinese, I ask the other person to slow down
or say it again.
1
2
3
4
5
2. I listen to the radio or music in Chinese
1
2
3
4
5
3. I try to relax whenever I feel afraid of using Chinese.
1
2
3
4
5
4. I read in Chinese without looking up every new word.
1
2
3
4
5
5. I first skim a Chinese passage (read over the passage quickly) then go back
and read carefully.
1
2
3
4
5
DOES MODIFYING THE SILL ENHANCE RELIABILITY?
Cubilo 20
6. I ask native Chinese speakers to correct me when I talk.
1
2
3
4
5
7. I attend Chinese conversation hours on campus
1
2
3
4
5
8. I encourage myself to speak Chinese even when I am afraid of making a mistake.
1
2
3
4
5
9. I ask questions in Chinese.
1
2
3
4
5
10. If I can't think of a Chinese word, I use a word or phrase that means the same thing.
1
2
3
4
5
11. I think of relationships between what I already know and new things I learn in Chinese.
1
2
3
4
5
12. I listen to podcasts or other audio in Chinese.
1
2
3
4
5
13. I look for words in my own language that are similar to new words in Chinese.
1
2
3
4
5
14. I give myself a reward or treat when I do well in Chinese.
1
2
3
4
5
15. I practice Chinese with other students.
1
2
3
4
5
16. I try to guess what the other person will say next in Chinese.
1
2
3
4
5
17. I say or write new Chinese words several times.
1
2
3
4
5
18. I ask for help from native Chinese speakers.
1
2
3
4
5
19. I use a language or computer lab to study or practice Chinese
1
2
3
4
5
20. I try to find ways to use my Chinese.
1
2
3
4
5
21. I use new Chinese words in a sentence so I can remember them.
1
2
3
4
5
22. I try to talk like native Chinese speakers.
1
2
3
4
5
23. I notice my mistakes in Chinese and use try to learn from them.
1
2
3
4
5
24. I try to find patterns in Chinese.
1
2
3
4
5
25. I connect the sound of a new Chinese word and an image or picture of the word to help
me remember the word.
1
2
3
4
5
26. I notice if I am tense or nervous when I am studying or using Chinese.
1
2
3
4
5
27. I pay attention when someone is speaking Chinese.
1
2
3
4
5
DOES MODIFYING THE SILL ENHANCE RELIABILITY?
Cubilo 21
28. I use online communities such as Facebook in Chinese
1
2
3
4
5
29. I practice the sounds of Chinese.
1
2
3
4
5
30. I remember a new Chinese word by making a mental picture of a situation in which the
word might be used.
1
2
3
4
5
31. I find the meaning of a Chinese word by dividing it into parts that I understand.
1
2
3
4
5
32. I read Chinese newspapers or magazines online
1
2
3
4
5
33. I make summaries of information that I hear or read in Chinese.
1
2
3
4
5
34. I try to find out how to be a better learner of Chinese.
1
2
3
4
5
35. I try to learn about the culture of Chinese speakers.
1
2
3
4
5
36. I use rhymes to remember new Chinese words.
1
2
3
4
5
37. I use the Chinese words I know in different ways.
1
2
3
4
5
38. I try not to translate word for word when I read Chinese.
1
2
3
4
5
39. I use flashcards to remember new Chinese words.
1
2
3
4
5
40. I plan my schedule so I will have enough time to study Chinese.
1
2
3
4
5
41. I start conversations in Chinese.
1
2
3
4
5
42. I physically act out new Chinese words.
1
2
3
4
5
43. I watch Chinese language TV shows spoken in Chinese or go to movies spoken
in Chinese.
1
2
3
4
5
44. I look for people I can talk to in Chinese.
1
2
3
4
5
45. I write down my feelings in a language learning dairy.
1
2
3
4
5
46. I use my web browser and search engine for Chinese vocabulary/grammar
learning and review.
47. To understand unfamiliar Chinese words, I make guesses.
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
48. I look for opportunities to read as much as possible in Chinese.
1
2
3
4
5
DOES MODIFYING THE SILL ENHANCE RELIABILITY?
Cubilo 22
49. I review words and phrases in Chinese often.
1
2
3
4
5
50. I attend and/or participate in Chinese club
1
2
3
4
5
51. I remember new Chinese words or phrases by remembering their location on the page,
on the board, or on a street sign.
1
2
3
4
5
52. I read for pleasure in Chinese.
1
2
3
4
5
53. I seek out opportunities to use Chinese when I chat online
1
2
3
4
5
54. When I can't think of a word during a conversation in Chinese,
I use gestures.
1
2
3
4
5
55. I use music to remember words or phrases in Chinese.
1
2
3
4
5
56. I write notes, messages, letters, or reports in the Chinese.
1
2
3
4
5
57. I have clear goals for improving my Chinese skills.
1
2
3
4
5
58. I talk to someone else about how I feel when I am learning Chinese.
1
2
3
4
5
59. I enjoyed living in the Chinese culture. RESPOND ONLY IF THIS APPLIES.
1
2
3
4
5
60. I read others or write my own blog or wiki in Chinese
1
2
3
4
5
61. I make up new words if I do not know the right ones in Chinese.
1
2
3
4
5
62. I think about my progress in learning Chinese.
1
2
3
4
5
63. I use software to learn Chinese such as Rosetta Stone
1
2
3
4
5
Part B:
1. Have you developed any language study habits (gimmicks, tricks, ways, techniques) that you find useful in learning a new
language?
2. What methods/strategies have you found to be least effective in your study of Chinese?
DOES MODIFYING THE SILL ENHANCE RELIABILITY?
Cubilo 23
3. What kind of activities do you enjoy most in the classroom and why?
4. What kind of activities do you enjoy least in the classroom and why?
Part C:
What is your first language? ____________________________________________________________________________________
Have you studied any languages other than Chinese? How long?
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Why did you choose to study Chinese?
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________