Situating strategy use: The interplay of language learning strategy use and individual learner characteristics
Alpen-Adria Universität Klagenfurt
October 17-18, 2015
Mirosław Pawlak
Anna Mystkowska-Wiertelak
Adam Mickiewicz University, Kalisz
State University of Applied Sciences, Konin

Presentation outline
 language learning strategies and learning pronunciation
 previous research into pronunciation learning strategies
 issues in classification and measurement of PLS
 proposed classification of PLS
 aims and research questions
 design of the study
 findings of the study
 conclusions and implications

Strategies and learning pronunciation
 importance of learner autonomy in teaching pronunciation
(cf. Pawlak 2006a, 2006b)
 the use of PLS as a key to autonomy in this area
 PLS can be defined as deliberate thoughts and actions, typically used in a logical sequence, that are consciously employed for learning and getting better control over various aspects of pronunciation
 it can be assumed that some learning strategies are more appropriate for learning pronunciation than others
 the role of metacognitive, social and affective strategies
 the role of cognitive, memory and compensation strategies

Previous research into PLS
 there is still a paucity of research specifically targeting
PLS (Peterson 2000; Pawlak 2009; Berkil 2009)
 the studies conducted so far have mainly focused on the identification and description of PLS
 little attention has been given to variables affecting PLS choice and use, its relationship to TL proficiency and the effects of strategies-based instruction in this area
 few specific taxonomies of PLS have been proposed
 different data collection tools used in different studies
 little research on the use of PLS in specific tasks

Previous research into PLS
 various PLS reported in the findings of good language learner studies (e.g. Rubin 1975; Naiman et al. 1978) – no classification, focus on observational data
 Petersen (2000) collected diary and interview data, and classified PLS according to Oxford's (1990) taxonomy
 Vitanova and Miller (2002) showed a positive role of metacognitive PLS training using reflection prompts
 Osborne (2003) used monitored interviews and thinkaloud protocols to explore the application of PLS by advanced learners and classified them into six broad categories (e.g. focusing on memory and imitation).

Previous research into PLS
 Eckstein (2007) established a connection between the use of some PLS and spontaneous pronunciation performance
– a questionnaire relating to the stages of input, practice, feedback/noticing, hypothesis formation and testing
 Varasarin (2007) demonstrated that PLS training leads to increased confidence and intelligibility – Oxford's (1990) classification used as a point of reference
 a positive relationship between the employment of PLS and attainment demonstrated by Berkil (2009)
 the importance of metacognitive PLS that have to be used alongside cognitive PLS stressed by Saniei (2012)

Previous research into PLS

Droździał-Szelest (1997) employed open-ended items and identified 6 cognitive and 4 metacognitive PLS
 Bukowski (2004) showed positive effects of training
 Pawlak (2006b) found predominance of traditional PLS in response to checklists included in the ELP 16+
 Wrembel (2008) investigated learners' opinions about
PLS by means of a strategic pronunciation survey
 Pawlak (2009) found that students' use of PLS reflects their teachers’ instructional practices
 the importance of PLS shown by Rokoszewska (2012)
 Szyszka (2014) investigated PLS strategy chains

Proposed classification of GLS
 the classification is general rather than language-specific
 it is based on the assumption that a taxonomy of PLS should draw upon both a general classification of LLS and an inventory of instructional techniques
 the points of reference in its construction were:
 the taxonomy of LLS proposed by Cohen and Dörnyei (2002) as well as modified items from Oxford's (1990) SILL
 options in teaching pronunciation identified in a number of publications on this subject (e.g. Kelly 2000; Goodwin 2001)
 findings of previous descriptive studies on PLS

Proposed classification of PLS
 the classification comprises four groups of strategies
◦ metacognitive PLS such as
 deciding to focus on particular pronunciation features
◦ affective PLS such as
 rewarding oneself for making progress in pronunciation learning
◦ social PLS such as
 practicing pronunciation with other students
◦ cognitive PLS such as
 using phonetic symbols or one's own codes to remember sounds
 forming and using hypotheses about pronunciation rules
 a data collection tool designed (Pawlak 2012; α = 0.69)

Aims and research questions
 the study aimed to investigate the use of PLS during the performance of two activities focused on pronunciation – a form-focused and a meaning-focused task
 the following research questions were addressed:
 What PLS do students use when preparing for, performing and after completing the two tasks?
 What is the effect of task type on the use of PLS?
 What is the impact of individual difference variables on the use of PLS in the performance of the two types of tasks?

Design of the study
 the participants were 42 advanced learners of English in an institution of higher Education (F – 28 and M – 14)
 they were English majors in year two of a BA program
 their proficiency level fluctuated around B2
 their self-evaluation on a six-point scale was as follows: overall – 4.23, pronunciation – 3.72, listening – 3.64, speaking – 3.85
 they attended extensive English classes (a separate class in pronunciation) and had received training in foreign language methodology

Design of the study
 the students were requested to perform two tasks – a form-focused and a meaning-focused one
 both of them were based on the same text
 the form-focused activity involved reading a text aloud, with the following procedure being applied:
◦ the students were given ca. 4 minutes to prepare for reading
◦ the were told they should focus on pronunciation
◦ they took turns to read the text in pairs (about 5 minutes each)
◦ several students were requested to read the text to the class
◦ no corrective feedback provided on errors in pronunciation

Design of the study
 part of the text (Pawlak 2012):
Colonel Frank Robertson was a famous explorer who had extensive knowledge of many countries in Africa, Asia and many islands in the
Mediterranean. He was a partly bald man with a beard and a moustache, he weighed over 100 kilograms and he had some problems with his right knee.
To the surprise of many people, he was stingy and usually put on old clothes, but often wore a silver necklace and some other valuable jewelry.
He was also very calm and seldom showed signs of fear or anxiety in dangerous situations or gave way to basic human instincts. He had a photographic memory which allowed him to memorize whole books and he was always able to draw appropriate conclusions. He was remembered for a conference in Geneva where he answered questions about archeology with great accuracy for entire two days.

Design of the study
 immediately after the performance of the activity, the students were asked to fill out a short questionnaire (it also included items about student profiles):
◦
What strategies did you use to prepare for reading?
◦
What strategies did you use when reading?
◦
What did you pay attention to when reading?
◦
What did you try to do when you were listening to your friends in pairs?
◦
What helped you the most when you were reading?
◦
What strategies did you use after performing the task (when others were reading to whole class)?

Design of the study
 the meaning-focused activity involved retelling the text, with the following procedure being applied:
◦ the students were given ca. 10 minutes to prepare for the task
◦ they were told they should focus on pronunciation
◦ they took turns to retell the text in pairs (about 5 minutes each)
◦ several students were requested to retell the text to the class
◦ no corrective feedback provided on errors
 immediately after the performance of the activity, the students were asked to fill out a short questionnaire

Design of the study
 the questions were as follows:
◦
What strategies did you use to prepare for the retelling task?
◦
What strategies did you use when retelling the text?
◦
What did you pay attention to when retelling the text?
◦
What did you do when you were listening to your friends?
◦
What helped you the most when you were retelling the task?
◦
What strategies did you use after performing the retelling task
(when others were telling their versions to the class)?
 qualitative analysis was performed, taking as a point of reference the classification described above
 Learning Style Survey (Cohen et al. 2002) used as well

Results of the study (form)
 preparing for reading
◦ trying to focus on the text (a metacognitive PLS)
◦ practicing sub vocally the pronunciation of some longer and more difficult words (cognitive PLS)
◦ using a dictionary to check pronunciation (cognitive PLS)
◦ some irrelevant strategies reported (e.g. predicting what would happen in the text) and some blank spaces left
 reading
◦ trying to focus on the text and stay calm (affective PLS)
◦ guessing the pronunciation of some words (cognitive PLS)
◦ some irrelevant strategies reported (e.g. creating mental images, scanning and skimming)

Results of the study (form)
 focus of attention
◦ avoiding errors in pronunciation
◦ stress and intonation
◦ specific sounds
◦ suffixes of specific words
◦ context
 listening to others
◦ making comparison with other students’ reading (cognitive PLS)
◦ focusing on difficult words (metacognitive PLS)
◦ correcting pronunciation errors – either in the course of reading of afterwards

Results of the study (form)
 most helpful aspects of reading
◦ trying not to think about the presence of the listener (affective PLS)
◦ having sufficient planning time (metacognitive PLS)
◦ getting assistance from the listener (social PLS)
◦ being the second person to read the text
◦ some irrelevant strategies reported (highlighting key information)
 after reading
◦ comparing pronunciation to that of other students (the partner or students reading to the whole class) (cognitive PLS)
◦ trying to remember the pronunciation of difficult words (cognitive
PLS)
◦ checking the pronunciation of difficult words (cognitive PLS)

Results of the study (meaning)
 preparing for the task
◦ trying to remember the main events and facts
◦ checking the pronunciation of some words (cognitive PLS)
◦ asking others for help with pronunciation (social PLS)
◦ practicing the pronunciation of difficult words (cognitive PLS)
◦ reading the text several times
 performing the task
◦ including the most important facts
◦ attending to the pronunciation of difficult words (metacognitive PLS)
◦ focusing on content
◦ using words that were easier to pronounce

Results of the study (meaning)
 focus of attention
◦ content
◦ fluency
◦ accent
◦ difficult words
◦ errors made
◦ grammar
 listening to others
◦ checking the accuracy of events and facts
◦ paying attention to the grammar and pronunciation (metacognitive)
◦ making comparisons with other versions (cognitive PLS)
◦ providing corrective feedback (cognitive PLS)

Results of the study (meaning)
 most helpful aspects
◦ having sufficient planning time (metacognitive PLS)
◦ taking notes when preparing for the task
◦ monitoring the pronunciation of difficult words (metacognitive PLS)
◦ talking to a familiar person and positive attitude (affective, social PLS)
◦ assistance on the part of the listener (social PLS)
 after performing the task
◦ comparing pronunciation to that of other students (the partner or students reading to the whole class) (cognitive PLS)
◦ checking the pronunciation of difficult words (cognitive PLS)
◦ reading the text once again

Results of the study
 individual differences seemed to be of lesser relevance than the type of task performed
 females turned out to apply PLS more often than males
 they seemed to be more concerned with accuracy and the need to avoid errors in both of the tasks
 no differences were observed with respect to proficiency
 the students who were field-independent more likely to focus on accuracy, pay attention to form and practice
 similar patterns manifested by analytic students
 interplay of various factors evident

Conclusions and implications
 the range of strategies the students reported was narrow
 predominance of metacognitive and cognitive PLS
 clearly different foci of attention visible (content and fluency vs. form and accuracy)
 most similarities detected in strategies used after the task
 interaction of contextual and individual factors visible
 a simultaneous focus on form and meaning feasible
 students’ beliefs and priorities may play a crucial role
 other data collection tools should be used
 reconciling the macro- and micro-perspective