Title Language Learning Strategies for Junior College Students in Taiwan: Investigating Ethnicity and Proficiency Author Ming-Nuan Yang Chang Gung Institute of Technology, Taiwan Biography : Ming-Nuan Yang is doing her doctoral research at the Graduate School of English, National Cheng-chi University, Taiwan. She is also teaching English at Chang Gung Institute of Technology, Taipei, Taiwan. Her research interests are: foreign language teaching, language learning strategies, and English for specific purposes. |
Abstract
The present study aimed to investigate the effects of ethnicity and language proficiency on the use of language learning strategies by junior college students. Specifically, the study aimed to find out whether the frequency of strategy use across aboriginal and non-aboriginal junior college students and across high, intermediate and low English proficiency groups varies significantly. To identify the learning strategies that different ethnic and proficiency groups use, the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) was administrated to 451 junior college students. It was found that ethnicity did play a significant role in the selection of language learning strategies. Language proficiency influenced learners’ use of language learning strategies. More proficient students reported using strategies more often than less proficient students. In addition, the most and least forward strategies of various ethnic and proficiency groups were identified. Understanding students’ strategy use may enable EFL teachers to incorporate language learning strategy training in English lessons at junior college levels and ultimately improve students’ English language skills.
The present study aimed to investigate the effects of ethnicity and language proficiency on the use of language learning strategies by junior college students. Specifically, the study aimed to find out whether the frequency of strategy use across aboriginal and non-aboriginal junior college students and across high, intermediate and low English proficiency groups varies significantly. To identify the learning strategies that different ethnic and proficiency groups use, the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) was administrated to 451 junior college students. It was found that ethnicity did play a significant role in the selection of language learning strategies. Language proficiency influenced learners’ use of language learning strategies. More proficient students reported using strategies more often than less proficient students. In addition, the most and least forward strategies of various ethnic and proficiency groups were identified. Understanding students’ strategy use may enable EFL teachers to incorporate language learning strategy training in English lessons at junior college levels and ultimately improve students’ English language skills.
Key words : language learning strategy, ethnicity, language proficiency, junior college students
1. Introduction
Language learning strategies are specific actions or techniques that learners use to assist their progress in developing second or foreign language skills (Oxford, 1990). Language learning strategies are believed to play a vital role in learning a second language, as they may assist learners in mastering the forms and functions required for reception and production in the second language and thus affect achievement (Bialystok, 1979). Many researchers have suggested that the conscious use of language learning strategies makes good language learners (Naiman, Frohlich & Todesco, 1975; Oxford, 1985; Wenden, 1985). Researchers believe that strategies of successful language learners can provide a basis for aiding language learners (Rubin, 1975; Reiss, 1983). O’Malley, Chamot, Stewner-Manzanares, Russo & Kupper (1985) asserted that the learning strategies of good language learners, once identified and successfully taught to less proficient learners could have considerable effects on facilitating the development of second language skills. Therefore, if language teachers know more about effective strategies that successful learners use, they may be able to teach these effective strategies to less proficient learners to enhance these learners’ language skills.
The types of strategies used by different learners vary due to different factors, such as degree of awareness, stage of learning, task requirements, teacher expectations, age, sex, nationality/ethnicity, general learning style, personality traits, motivation level, and purpose for learning the language (Oxford, 1990). Of all the learner factors, the relationship between the use of language learning strategies and success in mastering a second or foreign language has been the focus of considerable research over the past two decades (Oxford, 1989; Rubin, 1987).
In search of cultural and ethnic factors contributing to differences in the choice of language learning strategies, Bedell (1993) used a Chinese translation of the SILL 5.0 with 353 students taking English classes at six secondary- and tertiary-level institutions in the People’s Republic of China. The results indicated that compensation strategies are most frequently used not only by Chinese students in the study but also by Chinese students studying in the US (Chang, 1990) and in Taiwan (Yang, 1993a, 1993b). Memory strategies ranked the lowest in the study as well as among Chinese students in Yang’s study (1993a), and Korean students in Oh’s study (1992). Metacognitive strategies are often used moderately by Chinese students in Bedell’s study (1993) and other investigations (Yang, 1993a, 1993b), but not used as often among Puerto Rican, Egyptian, Indonesian and Korean subjects. Social strategies were found to be generally unpopular among Chinese and Japanese subjects. This finding suggests that cultural factors play an important role in the selection of language learning strategy. Learners often behave in certain culturally approved and socially encouraged ways as they learn.
Grainger (1997) also studied ethnic differences in language learning strategy use. Using the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL), version 5, the findings indicated that no significant differences in overall strategy use emerged among Asian, English and European background students. Within strategy categories, however, significant differences did emerge and in terms of individual strategy use major differences also emerged. Additionally, the results revealed that learners with Asian backgrounds did not follow traditional patterns of strategy use as identified in other studies of language learning strategies. However, in Grainger’s study, the number of subjects of each ethnic subgroup was not large enough. For example, there were only six subjects with European background. Large numbers of subjects were, therefore, needed to ensure the validity of the research findings.
McGroarty’s study (1987) found that Spanish learners use highly traditional strategies such as using a dictionary to learn words. Correspondingly, O’Malley and Chamot (1990) found that Asian students tend to prefer their own established rote learning strategies.
Chamot and Kupper (1989) asserted that high proficiency learners know how to use appropriate strategies to reach their learning goals, while low proficiency learners are less expert in their strategy use and choice. Oxford (1985) claimed that successful language learners use a wide range of strategies that are most appropriate for their learning tasks. MacIntyre (1994) also indicated that second language learners may use strategies that make their communication more effective, informative and persuasive when they attain certain proficiency. Yang (1994) stated that perceived proficiency levels have a significant effect on students’ use of learning strategies. The better students perceive their language proficiency, the more often they use various learning strategies to assist them in learning English. It seems that language proficiency is commonly recognized as a determinant of strategy use by more and more studies.
However, of all the variables that affect the use of language learning strategies, ethnicity is the one that has not received due attention in the literature, although there is some indication that learners with different cultural backgrounds are predisposed to use different learning strategies. Over the past two decades, ethnicity has been neglected as a variable in most research on language learning strategies. Researchers, however, have regarded ethnicity as one of the salient variables that result in differences in strategy use. If the strategies employed by students with different ethnic backgrounds could be identified, more insights will be gained into the learning process of individual learners and the characteristics of learners with different ethnic backgrounds. Hence, a study of the relationship between language learners’ ethnicity and their use of language strategies is necessary to provide more insight into this issue. In addition, since learners with different cultural backgrounds might use different learning strategies, the successful learners from different cultural background might use different effective learning strategies as well. Thus, it is also necessary to examine the relationship between language proficiency and language learning strategies. Moreover, in Taiwan, junior college students are a distinctive student population, quite different from four-year university students. Before entering the junior college, students usually had studied English for three years in junior high schools. Generally speaking, most junior college students have lower English proficiency than their university counterparts. However, few studies have been done with junior college students’ learning strategy use. Accordingly, research conducted with this group of students is imperatively needed.
Aborigines account for less than 2 percent of the entire population in Taiwan. Young aborigines, once entering academic settings, encounter many more difficulties than non-aboriginal students, since they come to school with unique cultural backgrounds. In order to help English teachers to overcome the challenge of teaching heterogeneous groups in an EFL classroom, the researcher is motivated to investigate aboriginal students’ language learning strategies. It is hoped that this study will help English teachers understand students from different cultural backgrounds better, equip them with effective learning strategies, adjust their own teaching methodology and eventually improve their English skills. Therefore the aim of this paper is to identify the language learning strategies of high-beginning EFL nursing students in Taiwan from various cultural backgrounds (aboriginal and non-aboriginal) and the effect of language proficiency on language learning strategy use. The study tried to answer the following questions:
Language learning strategies are specific actions or techniques that learners use to assist their progress in developing second or foreign language skills (Oxford, 1990). Language learning strategies are believed to play a vital role in learning a second language, as they may assist learners in mastering the forms and functions required for reception and production in the second language and thus affect achievement (Bialystok, 1979). Many researchers have suggested that the conscious use of language learning strategies makes good language learners (Naiman, Frohlich & Todesco, 1975; Oxford, 1985; Wenden, 1985). Researchers believe that strategies of successful language learners can provide a basis for aiding language learners (Rubin, 1975; Reiss, 1983). O’Malley, Chamot, Stewner-Manzanares, Russo & Kupper (1985) asserted that the learning strategies of good language learners, once identified and successfully taught to less proficient learners could have considerable effects on facilitating the development of second language skills. Therefore, if language teachers know more about effective strategies that successful learners use, they may be able to teach these effective strategies to less proficient learners to enhance these learners’ language skills.
The types of strategies used by different learners vary due to different factors, such as degree of awareness, stage of learning, task requirements, teacher expectations, age, sex, nationality/ethnicity, general learning style, personality traits, motivation level, and purpose for learning the language (Oxford, 1990). Of all the learner factors, the relationship between the use of language learning strategies and success in mastering a second or foreign language has been the focus of considerable research over the past two decades (Oxford, 1989; Rubin, 1987).
In search of cultural and ethnic factors contributing to differences in the choice of language learning strategies, Bedell (1993) used a Chinese translation of the SILL 5.0 with 353 students taking English classes at six secondary- and tertiary-level institutions in the People’s Republic of China. The results indicated that compensation strategies are most frequently used not only by Chinese students in the study but also by Chinese students studying in the US (Chang, 1990) and in Taiwan (Yang, 1993a, 1993b). Memory strategies ranked the lowest in the study as well as among Chinese students in Yang’s study (1993a), and Korean students in Oh’s study (1992). Metacognitive strategies are often used moderately by Chinese students in Bedell’s study (1993) and other investigations (Yang, 1993a, 1993b), but not used as often among Puerto Rican, Egyptian, Indonesian and Korean subjects. Social strategies were found to be generally unpopular among Chinese and Japanese subjects. This finding suggests that cultural factors play an important role in the selection of language learning strategy. Learners often behave in certain culturally approved and socially encouraged ways as they learn.
Grainger (1997) also studied ethnic differences in language learning strategy use. Using the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL), version 5, the findings indicated that no significant differences in overall strategy use emerged among Asian, English and European background students. Within strategy categories, however, significant differences did emerge and in terms of individual strategy use major differences also emerged. Additionally, the results revealed that learners with Asian backgrounds did not follow traditional patterns of strategy use as identified in other studies of language learning strategies. However, in Grainger’s study, the number of subjects of each ethnic subgroup was not large enough. For example, there were only six subjects with European background. Large numbers of subjects were, therefore, needed to ensure the validity of the research findings.
McGroarty’s study (1987) found that Spanish learners use highly traditional strategies such as using a dictionary to learn words. Correspondingly, O’Malley and Chamot (1990) found that Asian students tend to prefer their own established rote learning strategies.
Chamot and Kupper (1989) asserted that high proficiency learners know how to use appropriate strategies to reach their learning goals, while low proficiency learners are less expert in their strategy use and choice. Oxford (1985) claimed that successful language learners use a wide range of strategies that are most appropriate for their learning tasks. MacIntyre (1994) also indicated that second language learners may use strategies that make their communication more effective, informative and persuasive when they attain certain proficiency. Yang (1994) stated that perceived proficiency levels have a significant effect on students’ use of learning strategies. The better students perceive their language proficiency, the more often they use various learning strategies to assist them in learning English. It seems that language proficiency is commonly recognized as a determinant of strategy use by more and more studies.
However, of all the variables that affect the use of language learning strategies, ethnicity is the one that has not received due attention in the literature, although there is some indication that learners with different cultural backgrounds are predisposed to use different learning strategies. Over the past two decades, ethnicity has been neglected as a variable in most research on language learning strategies. Researchers, however, have regarded ethnicity as one of the salient variables that result in differences in strategy use. If the strategies employed by students with different ethnic backgrounds could be identified, more insights will be gained into the learning process of individual learners and the characteristics of learners with different ethnic backgrounds. Hence, a study of the relationship between language learners’ ethnicity and their use of language strategies is necessary to provide more insight into this issue. In addition, since learners with different cultural backgrounds might use different learning strategies, the successful learners from different cultural background might use different effective learning strategies as well. Thus, it is also necessary to examine the relationship between language proficiency and language learning strategies. Moreover, in Taiwan, junior college students are a distinctive student population, quite different from four-year university students. Before entering the junior college, students usually had studied English for three years in junior high schools. Generally speaking, most junior college students have lower English proficiency than their university counterparts. However, few studies have been done with junior college students’ learning strategy use. Accordingly, research conducted with this group of students is imperatively needed.
Aborigines account for less than 2 percent of the entire population in Taiwan. Young aborigines, once entering academic settings, encounter many more difficulties than non-aboriginal students, since they come to school with unique cultural backgrounds. In order to help English teachers to overcome the challenge of teaching heterogeneous groups in an EFL classroom, the researcher is motivated to investigate aboriginal students’ language learning strategies. It is hoped that this study will help English teachers understand students from different cultural backgrounds better, equip them with effective learning strategies, adjust their own teaching methodology and eventually improve their English skills. Therefore the aim of this paper is to identify the language learning strategies of high-beginning EFL nursing students in Taiwan from various cultural backgrounds (aboriginal and non-aboriginal) and the effect of language proficiency on language learning strategy use. The study tried to answer the following questions:
- Does the overall language learning strategy use as revealed by the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) vary by ethnicity and language proficiency level of Taiwanese nursing students?
- Does the use of six types of language learning strategies (including memory, cognitive, metacognitive, compensation, affective and social strategies) on the SILL vary by ethnicity and language proficiency level of Taiwanese nursing students?
Findings of the study may help English teachers overcome the challenge of teaching heterogeneous groups in an EFL college classroom in Taiwan. Second, the learning strategies used by more proficient college learners might be instructed to less proficient college learners. By doing this, less proficient college learners may have more practical approaches to achieve successful language learning. Finally, findings of the study may help researchers gain insight into the effects of ethnicity and language proficiency.
2. Methodology
2.1 Subjects
Ten second-year classes at Chang Gung Institute of Technology were the subjects of the study. They had a total of 461 students. These subjects were female nursing majors. General English Reading and English Listening are two required courses in this five-year nursing college program. So these participants were taking General English Reading (3 hours per week) and English Listening courses (1 hour per week). Having learned English as a foreign language for about five years in school, the subjects have approximately a high-beginning level of EFL.
Among the 461 students, there were 165 aboriginal students and 296 non-aboriginal students. These young aborigines lived and received their junior high school education in mountainous areas, in remote eastern Taiwan and the offshore Orchid Island before they were admitted to the junior college. In these wild surroundings, they have developed a culture vastly different from that of non-aboriginal people, with different languages, concepts, customs, values and lifestyles. For example, the collectivist spirit and the exchange of goods for goods by barter in the aboriginal society conflict with the emphasis on private property in the non-aboriginal society (Cheng, 1995). This unique cultural system has a considerable influence on aboriginal people’s concepts of group cohesion, mutual reliance and cooperation. In aboriginal communities, many public services are undertaken cooperatively among the aboriginal people, such as road building, the maintenance and building of houses, defense, joint hunting, fishing and farming. The concept of collectivist spirit goes back to traditional fishing, hunting and farming. In those days people cooperated in these tasks, and the fruits of their efforts were shared by all those who shared the work and the danger. This traditional culture is still very common among aborigines.
While each of Taiwan’s aboriginal peoples has its own individual language, none of them has a written language. Everything has been passed down by spoken language. Aboriginal languages are still spoken by some elders, but native speakers are declining in number and youngsters are more fluent in Mandarin. As far as education is concerned, the percentage of aboriginal people with junior high school education and below is 67.5%, compared with 40.2% of the non-aboriginal population. Only 6.2% of the aboriginal people have college and above education. By contrast, the percentage of non-aboriginal population with college degree and above 26% (Council of Indigenous Peoples, 2002). Obviously, aboriginal people have lower educational attainment than non-aboriginal population. With regard to their economic backgrounds, lack of job opportunities and low pay make it hard to earn a living in their original home areas. More than 40% of young aboriginal people are leaving their traditional occupations, and are taking up jobs in the cities. Of these, most work as technical laborers, machine operators and related workers (Council of Indigenous Peoples, 2002).
The once masters of Taiwan have now become a minority group. The aborigines are labeled a minority group not only in terms of population, but also in terms of cultural heritage, economic strength, social status, language and so on; all of which drag this population far behind the non-aboriginal majority group. As our government has acknowledged the necessity of empowering Taiwanese aborigines, a series of policies or programs were lunched to respond to the needs of these minority groups. One of the important policies is to give aboriginal students who wish to pursue education an apparent advantage over other students. For example, there is a 25% lower threshold for enrollment at senior high schools, colleges and universities. Some institutes and universities of technology admit junior-high-school aboriginal graduates into the five-year program under a separate admission system to upgrade their educational level. Thus, there are as many as 33% of aboriginal students in the institute where the author is teaching.
2.1 Subjects
Ten second-year classes at Chang Gung Institute of Technology were the subjects of the study. They had a total of 461 students. These subjects were female nursing majors. General English Reading and English Listening are two required courses in this five-year nursing college program. So these participants were taking General English Reading (3 hours per week) and English Listening courses (1 hour per week). Having learned English as a foreign language for about five years in school, the subjects have approximately a high-beginning level of EFL.
Among the 461 students, there were 165 aboriginal students and 296 non-aboriginal students. These young aborigines lived and received their junior high school education in mountainous areas, in remote eastern Taiwan and the offshore Orchid Island before they were admitted to the junior college. In these wild surroundings, they have developed a culture vastly different from that of non-aboriginal people, with different languages, concepts, customs, values and lifestyles. For example, the collectivist spirit and the exchange of goods for goods by barter in the aboriginal society conflict with the emphasis on private property in the non-aboriginal society (Cheng, 1995). This unique cultural system has a considerable influence on aboriginal people’s concepts of group cohesion, mutual reliance and cooperation. In aboriginal communities, many public services are undertaken cooperatively among the aboriginal people, such as road building, the maintenance and building of houses, defense, joint hunting, fishing and farming. The concept of collectivist spirit goes back to traditional fishing, hunting and farming. In those days people cooperated in these tasks, and the fruits of their efforts were shared by all those who shared the work and the danger. This traditional culture is still very common among aborigines.
While each of Taiwan’s aboriginal peoples has its own individual language, none of them has a written language. Everything has been passed down by spoken language. Aboriginal languages are still spoken by some elders, but native speakers are declining in number and youngsters are more fluent in Mandarin. As far as education is concerned, the percentage of aboriginal people with junior high school education and below is 67.5%, compared with 40.2% of the non-aboriginal population. Only 6.2% of the aboriginal people have college and above education. By contrast, the percentage of non-aboriginal population with college degree and above 26% (Council of Indigenous Peoples, 2002). Obviously, aboriginal people have lower educational attainment than non-aboriginal population. With regard to their economic backgrounds, lack of job opportunities and low pay make it hard to earn a living in their original home areas. More than 40% of young aboriginal people are leaving their traditional occupations, and are taking up jobs in the cities. Of these, most work as technical laborers, machine operators and related workers (Council of Indigenous Peoples, 2002).
The once masters of Taiwan have now become a minority group. The aborigines are labeled a minority group not only in terms of population, but also in terms of cultural heritage, economic strength, social status, language and so on; all of which drag this population far behind the non-aboriginal majority group. As our government has acknowledged the necessity of empowering Taiwanese aborigines, a series of policies or programs were lunched to respond to the needs of these minority groups. One of the important policies is to give aboriginal students who wish to pursue education an apparent advantage over other students. For example, there is a 25% lower threshold for enrollment at senior high schools, colleges and universities. Some institutes and universities of technology admit junior-high-school aboriginal graduates into the five-year program under a separate admission system to upgrade their educational level. Thus, there are as many as 33% of aboriginal students in the institute where the author is teaching.
2.2 Instruments
2.2.1 Proficiency Test
The English reading and listening mid-term exams developed by the English teachers of Chang Gung Institute of Technology were used to evaluate the subjects’ English proficiency level in the present study. The English and listening mid-term exams are curriculum-specific achievement tests, rather than general proficiency tests. There were 40 multiple choice questions in the English mid-term test. This test contained 4 parts: (1) a vocabulary test, (2) a grammar test (3) a cloze test and (4) a reading comprehension test. There were two sections in the listening comprehension test with 40 multiple choice questions each.
2.2.1 Proficiency Test
The English reading and listening mid-term exams developed by the English teachers of Chang Gung Institute of Technology were used to evaluate the subjects’ English proficiency level in the present study. The English and listening mid-term exams are curriculum-specific achievement tests, rather than general proficiency tests. There were 40 multiple choice questions in the English mid-term test. This test contained 4 parts: (1) a vocabulary test, (2) a grammar test (3) a cloze test and (4) a reading comprehension test. There were two sections in the listening comprehension test with 40 multiple choice questions each.
2.2.2 Test Reliability and Validity
In order to estimate how reliable the use of the English and listening mid-term tests are, the internal consistency reliability was computed based on 451 cases and Cronbach alpha was .82. The reliability of the test is acceptable based on Bobko (2001), and Litwin’s (1995) criterion of 0.70 as a minimally acceptable alpha value. Thus the test is a reliable instrument to estimate students’ English proficiency. Two experts in TESOL were invited to check the content validity. First, they checked whether all of the test items matched the contents of the textbooks. Then, they made sure that items in the first section of English mid-term test were testing students’ vocabulary knowledge, items in the second section were testing grammar ability, items in the third and fourth sections were testing reading abilities and each item in the listening section was testing student’s English listening comprehension ability.
In order to estimate how reliable the use of the English and listening mid-term tests are, the internal consistency reliability was computed based on 451 cases and Cronbach alpha was .82. The reliability of the test is acceptable based on Bobko (2001), and Litwin’s (1995) criterion of 0.70 as a minimally acceptable alpha value. Thus the test is a reliable instrument to estimate students’ English proficiency. Two experts in TESOL were invited to check the content validity. First, they checked whether all of the test items matched the contents of the textbooks. Then, they made sure that items in the first section of English mid-term test were testing students’ vocabulary knowledge, items in the second section were testing grammar ability, items in the third and fourth sections were testing reading abilities and each item in the listening section was testing student’s English listening comprehension ability.
2.2.3 Questionnaire
To collect data on language learners’ learning strategies and individual background, an English learning strategy questionnaire, which was composed of Oxford’s (1990) Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) and author-designed questions were administered to the participants. Version 7.0 of the SILL is a self-report instrument that assesses the frequency with which the subjects use a variety of techniques for foreign language learning. The questionnaire was translated into Chinese and was pilot-tested with 45 students comparable to the participants of the study. Section one consisted of five questions to collect subjects’ age and English learning experiences. Section two included 48 items grouped into six categories: memory (9 items), cognitive (14 items), compensation (6 items), metacognitive (9 items), affective (6 items) and social strategies (6 items). Some items were slightly modified or deleted so that they are more compatible with the actual English learning situations in Taiwan (Appendix A).
To collect data on language learners’ learning strategies and individual background, an English learning strategy questionnaire, which was composed of Oxford’s (1990) Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) and author-designed questions were administered to the participants. Version 7.0 of the SILL is a self-report instrument that assesses the frequency with which the subjects use a variety of techniques for foreign language learning. The questionnaire was translated into Chinese and was pilot-tested with 45 students comparable to the participants of the study. Section one consisted of five questions to collect subjects’ age and English learning experiences. Section two included 48 items grouped into six categories: memory (9 items), cognitive (14 items), compensation (6 items), metacognitive (9 items), affective (6 items) and social strategies (6 items). Some items were slightly modified or deleted so that they are more compatible with the actual English learning situations in Taiwan (Appendix A).
2.2.4 Questionnaire Reliability and Validity
The ESL/EFL SILL has been used worldwide for students of second and foreign languages in settings such as university, school and government. The internal consistency reliability of the SILL is .94 based on a 505-person sample (Yang, 1992) and .92 based on a 315-person sample (Watanabe, 1990). Content validity is .99 based on independent raters (Oxford, 1986; Oxford and Burry-Stock, 1995).
Although the internal consistency of the SILL was tested worldwide, the questionnaire was tested and revised following a pilot study with 45 students comparable to the participants of the study. The Chinese SILL had a Cronbach alpha of 0.84.
2.3 Data Collection
The ESL/EFL SILL has been used worldwide for students of second and foreign languages in settings such as university, school and government. The internal consistency reliability of the SILL is .94 based on a 505-person sample (Yang, 1992) and .92 based on a 315-person sample (Watanabe, 1990). Content validity is .99 based on independent raters (Oxford, 1986; Oxford and Burry-Stock, 1995).
Although the internal consistency of the SILL was tested worldwide, the questionnaire was tested and revised following a pilot study with 45 students comparable to the participants of the study. The Chinese SILL had a Cronbach alpha of 0.84.
2.3 Data Collection
2.3.1 Administering the Test
The subjects were given the listening comprehension test first. One week before the mid-term exam week in November 2004, the ten classes took the listening test in language laboratories of the school during their regular class sessions. In the beginning, the English teachers gave the students a Chinese explanation of the purposes of the test, reminding them that they should write down their answers on the answer sheet. The audiotape of the listening test was 40 minutes long. The listening test took about 50 minutes for each class. Later, during the mid-term exam week, the subjects completed the reading test under the subjects’ teachers’ supervision. The reading test took approximately 50 minutes for each class.
The subjects were given the listening comprehension test first. One week before the mid-term exam week in November 2004, the ten classes took the listening test in language laboratories of the school during their regular class sessions. In the beginning, the English teachers gave the students a Chinese explanation of the purposes of the test, reminding them that they should write down their answers on the answer sheet. The audiotape of the listening test was 40 minutes long. The listening test took about 50 minutes for each class. Later, during the mid-term exam week, the subjects completed the reading test under the subjects’ teachers’ supervision. The reading test took approximately 50 minutes for each class.
2.3.2 Administering the SILL
The data on the language learning strategy questionnaire were collected after the mid-term week of fall 2004. A brief explanation of the purpose of the study was given. The questionnaire was administered to all subjects by the English teachers during the English class. The students were informed that their responses to the questionnaires would be kept confidential and would have no effect on their course grades. The completed questionnaires were collected right after the subjects completed them.
Of the 461 completed questionnaires, ten were discarded: six had no corresponding scores on the English mid-term exam and four were incomplete. As a result, only 451 questionnaires were subjected to statistical analysis. Among the subjects, 165 (36.6%) were aboriginal students and 286 (63.4%) weree non-aboriginal students
The data on the language learning strategy questionnaire were collected after the mid-term week of fall 2004. A brief explanation of the purpose of the study was given. The questionnaire was administered to all subjects by the English teachers during the English class. The students were informed that their responses to the questionnaires would be kept confidential and would have no effect on their course grades. The completed questionnaires were collected right after the subjects completed them.
Of the 461 completed questionnaires, ten were discarded: six had no corresponding scores on the English mid-term exam and four were incomplete. As a result, only 451 questionnaires were subjected to statistical analysis. Among the subjects, 165 (36.6%) were aboriginal students and 286 (63.4%) weree non-aboriginal students
2.4 Data Analysis
The data gathered from the English proficiency test was analyzed. Each subject’s responses to the test sentences were given scores. A correct response was given 2.5 points and an incorrect response was given no points. The total possible score was 200. On the basis of teaching objectives of the General English Reading and English Listening courses, these three groups stand for different levels of English achievement. Those students who scored higher than 160 had adequate vocabulary size, and syntactic knowledge to understand simple reading paragraphs, and were able to understand simple questions, answers, simple conversations. Those who scored from 120 to 160 were able to understand simple reading paragraphs, questions, answers, simple conversations, yet some misunderstandings still arose due to limited vocabulary size and syntactic knowledge. Those who scored lower than 120 did not have adequate vocabulary size and syntactic knowledge to understand simple reading paragraphs, and could not understand simple questions, answers, and simple conversations. Based on the scores of the subjects’ English mid-term exam, they were divided into three proficiency groups. The high proficiency group refers to subjects who scored higher than 160, and the low proficiency group refers to those who scored lower than 120. Those who scored from 120 to 160 belonged to the intermediate proficiency group. Moreover, descriptive statistics including means and standard deviations were computed to summarize the students’ responses to the English proficiency test.
Table 1 shows the distribution of the aboriginal and non-aboriginal students at each proficiency level.
The data gathered from the English proficiency test was analyzed. Each subject’s responses to the test sentences were given scores. A correct response was given 2.5 points and an incorrect response was given no points. The total possible score was 200. On the basis of teaching objectives of the General English Reading and English Listening courses, these three groups stand for different levels of English achievement. Those students who scored higher than 160 had adequate vocabulary size, and syntactic knowledge to understand simple reading paragraphs, and were able to understand simple questions, answers, simple conversations. Those who scored from 120 to 160 were able to understand simple reading paragraphs, questions, answers, simple conversations, yet some misunderstandings still arose due to limited vocabulary size and syntactic knowledge. Those who scored lower than 120 did not have adequate vocabulary size and syntactic knowledge to understand simple reading paragraphs, and could not understand simple questions, answers, and simple conversations. Based on the scores of the subjects’ English mid-term exam, they were divided into three proficiency groups. The high proficiency group refers to subjects who scored higher than 160, and the low proficiency group refers to those who scored lower than 120. Those who scored from 120 to 160 belonged to the intermediate proficiency group. Moreover, descriptive statistics including means and standard deviations were computed to summarize the students’ responses to the English proficiency test.
Table 1 shows the distribution of the aboriginal and non-aboriginal students at each proficiency level.
Table 1. See PDF File
Subjects’ responses to the items on the SILL were given scores on the basis of five-point Likert scale. Subjects who chose “never true of me” gained 1, “usually not” gained 2, “somewhat” gained 3, “usually” gained 4, “always” gained 5. Then the total scores for each student were calculated. Means and standard deviations were computed to determine the students’ overall strategy use. Then, a two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was computed to find out whether there were significant differences in the means of strategy use across the entire SILL by (the dependent variable) ethnicity and proficiency (the independent variables). Likewise, a two-way ANOVA was used to find out whether there were significant differences in means of strategy use in the six SILL categories by ethnicity and proficiency. Then, Scheffe test, a post hoc comparison procedure, was used to determine where the specific significant differences exist (for example, between which of the three proficiency levels). The probability level of significance for ANOVA was set at.05.
Results
Results
3.1 Relationship between Language Learning Strategy Use and Ethnicity and Proficiency
Table 2: Means, Standard Deviations and Range of Test Scores for the 2 Ethnic Groups and 3 Proficiency Levels
Table 2: Means, Standard Deviations and Range of Test Scores for the 2 Ethnic Groups and 3 Proficiency Levels
Table 2 See PDF File
The test scores for the different groups of students are shown in Table 2. Table 2 average score of the aboriginal students is 129 out of 200, the SD is 23.8 and the range is 72.5 to 182.5. The average score of the non-aboriginal students is 153.9 out of 200, the SD is 21.24 and the range is 97.5 to 195. The mean of the high proficiency group was 177.2 out of 200, the SD is 9.37 and the range is 162.5 to 195. The mean of the intermediate proficiency group was 141.4 out of 200, and the SD is 9.68 and the range is 120 to 160. The mean of low proficiency group was 101.4 out of, and the SD is 11.39 and the range is 72.5 to 117.5. The standard deviation of the aboriginal students was 23.8; the standard deviation of the non-aboriginal students was 21.24. The scores for aboriginal students were more spread than those for non-aboriginal students.
Moreover, the means and standard deviations of overall strategy use are presented in Table 3. Table 3 shows that Non-aborigines employ overall language learning strategies more often than aborigines (means = 2.98 & 2.85 respectively). In each proficiency group, the means for non-aborigines in overall strategy use are consistently higher than those for aborigines. Moreover, the means of strategy use increase according to proficiency levels (means = 2.68, 2.89 and 3.18 respectively). In each ethnic group, the means of strategy use also increase according to the proficiency level. Although the results in Table 3 show a variation in strategy use by ethnicity and proficiency in favor of non-aborigines and high-proficiency level, all means fall between 2.5 and 3.4, the range which Oxford (1990) defines as medium use. Thus, strategies are “sometimes used” by all the subjects.
Table 3 - Means and Standard Deviations of Overall Strategy Use for the 2 Ethnic Groups and 3 Proficiency Levels
Moreover, the means and standard deviations of overall strategy use are presented in Table 3. Table 3 shows that Non-aborigines employ overall language learning strategies more often than aborigines (means = 2.98 & 2.85 respectively). In each proficiency group, the means for non-aborigines in overall strategy use are consistently higher than those for aborigines. Moreover, the means of strategy use increase according to proficiency levels (means = 2.68, 2.89 and 3.18 respectively). In each ethnic group, the means of strategy use also increase according to the proficiency level. Although the results in Table 3 show a variation in strategy use by ethnicity and proficiency in favor of non-aborigines and high-proficiency level, all means fall between 2.5 and 3.4, the range which Oxford (1990) defines as medium use. Thus, strategies are “sometimes used” by all the subjects.
Table 3 - Means and Standard Deviations of Overall Strategy Use for the 2 Ethnic Groups and 3 Proficiency Levels
Table 3 See PDF File
The two-way ANOVA results in Table 4 show that the strategy use on the entire SILL varies significantly between aboriginal students and non-aboriginal students (F = 6, p＜.05). ANOVA also shows that there are significant differences among students with different proficiency levels (F = 8.98, p＜.05). The post-hoc Scheffe test indicates no significant difference for overall strategy use between intermediate and low proficiency levels (means = 2.89 and 2.68 respectively), but significant differences do occur between each of those levels and the high proficiency level (mean = 3.18). As to interaction of the two independent variables (ethnicity and proficiency level), there is no significant difference (F = 0.26, p＞.05). Thus language proficiency and ethnicity have effects on strategy use by the subjects in this study.
Table 4: A Two-way ANOVA of Overall Strategy Use by the 2 Ethnic Groups and 3 Proficiency Levels
Table 4: A Two-way ANOVA of Overall Strategy Use by the 2 Ethnic Groups and 3 Proficiency Levels
Table 4 See PDF File
3.2 Use of Six Language Learning Strategy Categories
An analysis of use of the six strategy categories was further conducted. As shown in Table 5, the means of strategy use for non-aborigines were higher than those for aborigines in all of the six categories. Non-aborigines tend to use these six strategy categories better than aborigines. In terms of proficiency level, the means of strategy use for higher proficiency students are higher than those for lower proficiency students in all of the six categories. On the whole, non-aborigines and high proficiency student tend to use these six categories of strategies more often than aborigines and low proficiency students.
ANOVA results in Table 6 also show that of all the six strategy categories, cognitive, compensation, and social categories show significant difference in the strategies used by students of different ethnic backgrounds (F = 4.77, 7.68 & 4.85 respectively, p＜.05 ) and of different proficiency levels (F = 13.15, 8.57 & 3.33, p＜.05). However, there is no interaction between ethnicity and proficiency levels. In memory strategies, differences in strategy use by ethnicity (means = 2.58 and 2.78 respectively) do show significant differences between aboriginal and non-aboriginal students (F = 5.75, p＜.05). In metacognitive strategies, there are significant differences in strategy use by the different proficiency levels (F = 8.51, p＜.05). The Scheffe post hoc procedure shows that there are significant differences between high and intermediate groups (means = 3.15 & 2.78 respectively) and high and low groups (means = 3.15 & 2.67 respectively). Similarly, the Scheffe post hoc test also reveals significant differences between high and intermediate groups and high and low groups in cognitive (means = 3.19, 2.87 and 2.64), compensation (means = 3.51, 3.18 and 2.99), and social categories (means = 3.15, 2.88 and 2.77).
Table 5: Means and Standard Deviations of the Six Strategy Categories As Used by the Two Ethnic Groups and Three Proficiency Levels
An analysis of use of the six strategy categories was further conducted. As shown in Table 5, the means of strategy use for non-aborigines were higher than those for aborigines in all of the six categories. Non-aborigines tend to use these six strategy categories better than aborigines. In terms of proficiency level, the means of strategy use for higher proficiency students are higher than those for lower proficiency students in all of the six categories. On the whole, non-aborigines and high proficiency student tend to use these six categories of strategies more often than aborigines and low proficiency students.
ANOVA results in Table 6 also show that of all the six strategy categories, cognitive, compensation, and social categories show significant difference in the strategies used by students of different ethnic backgrounds (F = 4.77, 7.68 & 4.85 respectively, p＜.05 ) and of different proficiency levels (F = 13.15, 8.57 & 3.33, p＜.05). However, there is no interaction between ethnicity and proficiency levels. In memory strategies, differences in strategy use by ethnicity (means = 2.58 and 2.78 respectively) do show significant differences between aboriginal and non-aboriginal students (F = 5.75, p＜.05). In metacognitive strategies, there are significant differences in strategy use by the different proficiency levels (F = 8.51, p＜.05). The Scheffe post hoc procedure shows that there are significant differences between high and intermediate groups (means = 3.15 & 2.78 respectively) and high and low groups (means = 3.15 & 2.67 respectively). Similarly, the Scheffe post hoc test also reveals significant differences between high and intermediate groups and high and low groups in cognitive (means = 3.19, 2.87 and 2.64), compensation (means = 3.51, 3.18 and 2.99), and social categories (means = 3.15, 2.88 and 2.77).
Table 5: Means and Standard Deviations of the Six Strategy Categories As Used by the Two Ethnic Groups and Three Proficiency Levels
Table 5 See PDF File
Table 6 See PDF File
Table 6 shows that the preferred strategy category by both aboriginal and non-aboriginal students was compensation, followed by the social then cognitive category. The least preferred category was memory. In terms of proficiency level, there are not too many variations among the ranks of these categories. The most preferred strategy category for all three proficiency groups was the compensation category and the least preferred category was the memory category. The difference lies in the rank order of cognitive, metacognitive, affective and social category by three proficiency levels. For example, the cognitive category, which was ranked second by high proficiency group, was rated third by intermediate group and fifth by low proficiency group. The social category, which was rated third by high proficiency group, was ranked second by the intermediate and low proficiency groups.
The main difference lies in the frequency of using these six categories. The means show that there are not too many variations among the ranks of these six categories for aboriginal and non-aboriginal subjects and for different proficiency groups. Non-aboriginal students employed strategies with greater frequency than did aboriginal students. Successful language learners employed strategies with greater frequency than less successful language learners.
The main difference lies in the frequency of using these six categories. The means show that there are not too many variations among the ranks of these six categories for aboriginal and non-aboriginal subjects and for different proficiency groups. Non-aboriginal students employed strategies with greater frequency than did aboriginal students. Successful language learners employed strategies with greater frequency than less successful language learners.
Table 7: The Rank of the Six Categories of Strategies by Ethnicity and Proficiency Level
Table 7 See PDF File
3.3 Discussion
Subjects of non-aboriginal background did employ overall language learning strategies more often than those of aboriginal background. The effects of ethnicity in the present study seem to support the findings in previous studies. Research has shown that ethnicity has a strong influence on the kinds of strategies used by learners of all languages (Ehrman and Oxford, 1995; Bedell, 1993; Grainger, 1997). The results confirmed the findings of two other studies (Bedell, 1993; Grainger, 1997), which showed that students with different ethnic backgrounds or cultural backgrounds employed strategies differently. It might be attributed to the following factors. First, aboriginal languages and culture are different from those of non-aboriginal students. Competition is the main focus of learning in non-aboriginal learning environment. Owing to the highly competitive high school and college entrance exams in Taiwan, classmates are usually regarded as competitors rather than cooperators. Teachers prefer to assess students’ performance on the basis of individual work instead of teamwork. In order to get good grades, non-aborigines are eager to use study strategies or techniques that would help them acquire new things effectively. In the traditional Taiwanese aboriginal community, cooperation is one of the main characteristics of their lifestyle. As a result, Taiwanese aborigines may not exert more efforts to employ learning strategies to compete with their non-aboriginal peers.
Second, aboriginal students in Taiwan lack appropriate training in using language learning strategies because they do not have the same educational background as their non-aboriginal peers. Since the academic knowledge they acquire in school is out of touch with their actual lives in mountainous areas and offshore islands, they may take little interest in school education. In addition, there are problems with the quality and quantity of teachers available in mountainous areas. Most non-aboriginal teachers work in temporary positions and apply for transfer to schools on the plains after the first year. They are not able to understand these students’ learning problems, such as, their English pronunciation problems, and help them acquire effective learning strategies in a short time. Moreover, their efforts are often wasted because these non-aboriginal teachers lack specialist knowledge of or training in the aboriginal culture (Cheng, 1995).
Third, the learning style of the aborigines in Taiwan may be different from non-aborigines, which may influence the employment of language learning strategies (Ehrman & Oxford, 1995; Zhang, 1990). Finally, aborigines might have different motivation and attitudes from non-aborigines. Gardner (1985) claimed that the primary determining factor in language learning success is motivation because motivation, along with attitude, determines the extent of active personal engagement in language learning.
A second finding of this study was that junior college students in Taiwan who have high English proficiency levels did employ overall language learning strategies more often than those who have low English proficiency levels. This finding is also consistent with the evidence of other studies. Many researchers have found that that proficiency level had a strong effect on overall strategy use (Chen, 2001; Ehrman & Oxford, 1995; Luo, 1998; Oxford & Ehrman 1995; Park, 1997; Tsao, 2002; Wang, 2002; Yang, 1994).
Students in the present study were found to employ compensation strategies most often, followed by social, cognitive, metacognitive, affective and least frequently, memory strategies. The result that junior college students, no matter what ethnic background they belong to, employed compensation strategies most often is consistent with the findings of studies performed by Chang (1990), Yang (1993a), and Watanabe (1990) which showed that the compensation category was the highest ranking category. It is natural for students to make greater use of compensation strategies as these can allow them to guess the meaning of what they have heard or read or to remain in the conversation despite their limited grammatical and vocabulary knowledge. Some studies have found social strategies to be generally unpopular among Chinese and Japanese students (Noguchi, 1991; Politzer & McGroarty, 1985). This does not hold true in this study. English learners in Taiwan learn English in an environment where English is not used for communicative needs in their social and economic daily lives. Consequently, EFL learners are typically situated in what Kouraogo (1993) called an “input-poor” English learning environment, and are exposed to meager target language input. Moreover, in EFL contexts in Taiwan, English teaching focuses on rote memorization, translation of texts and recognition of correct grammatical forms in reading. Students are not encouraged to ask questions (Chang, 1990). Thus the less frequent use of social strategies in the study is expected. Contrary to our expectations, social strategies are the second most-preferred strategies by the subjects in this study. The high usage of social strategies could be attributed to the development of computer, multimedia and networking technologies, which has increased students’ exposure to foreign cultures and more English input. Further research should be conducted to find out whether this is the real cause of strategy preference.
Memory and affective strategies were found to be the least used categories by students in the current study. This was often the case in other studies among Chinese students in Yang’s study (1993a) and Koreans in Oh’s study (1992). The possible explanation is that Chinese students almost depend on rote learning, therefore, they know little about using visual imagery or linking verbal material with motion. Affective strategies are techniques that help learners control their emotions and attitudes towards language learning. All affective categories deal with how to combat fear or anxiety when speaking English. However, in traditional English classrooms in Taiwan where English teachers usually function as an information giver, students do not have many chances to speak English not to mention the chance to speak with native speakers. This shows why affective strategies ranked as the second least employed strategy category in the present study.
3.4 Conclusion
Subjects of non-aboriginal background did employ overall language learning strategies more often than those of aboriginal background. The effects of ethnicity in the present study seem to support the findings in previous studies. Research has shown that ethnicity has a strong influence on the kinds of strategies used by learners of all languages (Ehrman and Oxford, 1995; Bedell, 1993; Grainger, 1997). The results confirmed the findings of two other studies (Bedell, 1993; Grainger, 1997), which showed that students with different ethnic backgrounds or cultural backgrounds employed strategies differently. It might be attributed to the following factors. First, aboriginal languages and culture are different from those of non-aboriginal students. Competition is the main focus of learning in non-aboriginal learning environment. Owing to the highly competitive high school and college entrance exams in Taiwan, classmates are usually regarded as competitors rather than cooperators. Teachers prefer to assess students’ performance on the basis of individual work instead of teamwork. In order to get good grades, non-aborigines are eager to use study strategies or techniques that would help them acquire new things effectively. In the traditional Taiwanese aboriginal community, cooperation is one of the main characteristics of their lifestyle. As a result, Taiwanese aborigines may not exert more efforts to employ learning strategies to compete with their non-aboriginal peers.
Second, aboriginal students in Taiwan lack appropriate training in using language learning strategies because they do not have the same educational background as their non-aboriginal peers. Since the academic knowledge they acquire in school is out of touch with their actual lives in mountainous areas and offshore islands, they may take little interest in school education. In addition, there are problems with the quality and quantity of teachers available in mountainous areas. Most non-aboriginal teachers work in temporary positions and apply for transfer to schools on the plains after the first year. They are not able to understand these students’ learning problems, such as, their English pronunciation problems, and help them acquire effective learning strategies in a short time. Moreover, their efforts are often wasted because these non-aboriginal teachers lack specialist knowledge of or training in the aboriginal culture (Cheng, 1995).
Third, the learning style of the aborigines in Taiwan may be different from non-aborigines, which may influence the employment of language learning strategies (Ehrman & Oxford, 1995; Zhang, 1990). Finally, aborigines might have different motivation and attitudes from non-aborigines. Gardner (1985) claimed that the primary determining factor in language learning success is motivation because motivation, along with attitude, determines the extent of active personal engagement in language learning.
A second finding of this study was that junior college students in Taiwan who have high English proficiency levels did employ overall language learning strategies more often than those who have low English proficiency levels. This finding is also consistent with the evidence of other studies. Many researchers have found that that proficiency level had a strong effect on overall strategy use (Chen, 2001; Ehrman & Oxford, 1995; Luo, 1998; Oxford & Ehrman 1995; Park, 1997; Tsao, 2002; Wang, 2002; Yang, 1994).
Students in the present study were found to employ compensation strategies most often, followed by social, cognitive, metacognitive, affective and least frequently, memory strategies. The result that junior college students, no matter what ethnic background they belong to, employed compensation strategies most often is consistent with the findings of studies performed by Chang (1990), Yang (1993a), and Watanabe (1990) which showed that the compensation category was the highest ranking category. It is natural for students to make greater use of compensation strategies as these can allow them to guess the meaning of what they have heard or read or to remain in the conversation despite their limited grammatical and vocabulary knowledge. Some studies have found social strategies to be generally unpopular among Chinese and Japanese students (Noguchi, 1991; Politzer & McGroarty, 1985). This does not hold true in this study. English learners in Taiwan learn English in an environment where English is not used for communicative needs in their social and economic daily lives. Consequently, EFL learners are typically situated in what Kouraogo (1993) called an “input-poor” English learning environment, and are exposed to meager target language input. Moreover, in EFL contexts in Taiwan, English teaching focuses on rote memorization, translation of texts and recognition of correct grammatical forms in reading. Students are not encouraged to ask questions (Chang, 1990). Thus the less frequent use of social strategies in the study is expected. Contrary to our expectations, social strategies are the second most-preferred strategies by the subjects in this study. The high usage of social strategies could be attributed to the development of computer, multimedia and networking technologies, which has increased students’ exposure to foreign cultures and more English input. Further research should be conducted to find out whether this is the real cause of strategy preference.
Memory and affective strategies were found to be the least used categories by students in the current study. This was often the case in other studies among Chinese students in Yang’s study (1993a) and Koreans in Oh’s study (1992). The possible explanation is that Chinese students almost depend on rote learning, therefore, they know little about using visual imagery or linking verbal material with motion. Affective strategies are techniques that help learners control their emotions and attitudes towards language learning. All affective categories deal with how to combat fear or anxiety when speaking English. However, in traditional English classrooms in Taiwan where English teachers usually function as an information giver, students do not have many chances to speak English not to mention the chance to speak with native speakers. This shows why affective strategies ranked as the second least employed strategy category in the present study.
3.4 Conclusion
This study sought to provide some evidence on the language learning strategy use by junior college students in northern Taiwan, and to explore the kinds of relationship that exist between strategy use and ethnicity and proficiency levels. Significant differences were found in overall strategy use between aborigines and non-aborigines and among different proficiency groups. Significant differences were also found between the subjects of different ethnic backgrounds in four of the six strategy categories (memory, cognitive, compensation, and social). Students of different proficiency levels differed significantly in the use of cognitive, compensation, metacognitive and social learning strategies.
Teachers will not be able to teach all the language skills that students will need in the future. Consequently, it is important for English teachers to believe that effective strategy use can determine student success. As Weden (1985) pointed out, learner strategies are the key element to learner autonomy, and thus one of the most teaching goals is to facilitate autonomous learning. Besides, it has been found that students can benefit from the strategies-based instruction (MacIntyre & Noels 1996). To facilitate autonomous learning, training in learning strategies could, therefore, be one of the teaching goals in an English classroom in Taiwan.
Second, teachers can provide strategy instruction by offering examples of how they have used strategies for similar language tasks. After explaining a strategy, the teacher can then explain the purpose and importance of the strategy. They may explicitly discuss why a strategy works and when it might be used. Explicit instruction in strategies can make students use the learned strategy more frequently and more effectively, help them become better language learners, help them add strategies to their repertoire of learning tools, make them more aware of the strategies available to them and encourage them to decide which strategies are most effective for particular tasks (Chamot, Barnhardt, El-Dinary & Robbins, 1999).
Third, once a few strategies have been introduced, instruction should emphasize the coordination of strategies. The teacher can explain the importance of having a repertoire of strategies for language learning. Students can be reminded that different strategies can work for the same task and that good learners plan, monitor, problem-solve and evaluate recursively during a given task (Chamot, Barnhardt, El-Dinary & Robbins, 1999).
Fourth, encouraging students to talk about their thought processes helps make them more aware of the strategies they are already using. This awareness is important because it enables them to call on those strategies whenever they face challenging tasks. Finally, these learning strategies should be practiced in different learning tasks. Only through practice will students become more familiar with these learning strategies.
In conclusion, only the effects of ethnicity on learning strategy use were examined in this study. To view the whole picture of the language learning strategy of aboriginal students in Taiwan, it is suggested that the effects of learning style on other affective factors such as anxiety, motivation, attitude and learners’ beliefs about language learning be explored by future studies. Future studies may be conducted with male students to obtain a comprehensive view of language learning strategy preferences by Taiwanese college students. Many researchers believed that sex makes a difference in strategy use (Politzer, 1983; Ehrman & Oxford, 1989; Oxford & Nyikos, 1989; Oxford & Ehrman, 1995; Oh, 1996). Moreover, interviews can be used to obtain more in-depth information about the use of strategies with individual tasks.
Teachers will not be able to teach all the language skills that students will need in the future. Consequently, it is important for English teachers to believe that effective strategy use can determine student success. As Weden (1985) pointed out, learner strategies are the key element to learner autonomy, and thus one of the most teaching goals is to facilitate autonomous learning. Besides, it has been found that students can benefit from the strategies-based instruction (MacIntyre & Noels 1996). To facilitate autonomous learning, training in learning strategies could, therefore, be one of the teaching goals in an English classroom in Taiwan.
Second, teachers can provide strategy instruction by offering examples of how they have used strategies for similar language tasks. After explaining a strategy, the teacher can then explain the purpose and importance of the strategy. They may explicitly discuss why a strategy works and when it might be used. Explicit instruction in strategies can make students use the learned strategy more frequently and more effectively, help them become better language learners, help them add strategies to their repertoire of learning tools, make them more aware of the strategies available to them and encourage them to decide which strategies are most effective for particular tasks (Chamot, Barnhardt, El-Dinary & Robbins, 1999).
Third, once a few strategies have been introduced, instruction should emphasize the coordination of strategies. The teacher can explain the importance of having a repertoire of strategies for language learning. Students can be reminded that different strategies can work for the same task and that good learners plan, monitor, problem-solve and evaluate recursively during a given task (Chamot, Barnhardt, El-Dinary & Robbins, 1999).
Fourth, encouraging students to talk about their thought processes helps make them more aware of the strategies they are already using. This awareness is important because it enables them to call on those strategies whenever they face challenging tasks. Finally, these learning strategies should be practiced in different learning tasks. Only through practice will students become more familiar with these learning strategies.
In conclusion, only the effects of ethnicity on learning strategy use were examined in this study. To view the whole picture of the language learning strategy of aboriginal students in Taiwan, it is suggested that the effects of learning style on other affective factors such as anxiety, motivation, attitude and learners’ beliefs about language learning be explored by future studies. Future studies may be conducted with male students to obtain a comprehensive view of language learning strategy preferences by Taiwanese college students. Many researchers believed that sex makes a difference in strategy use (Politzer, 1983; Ehrman & Oxford, 1989; Oxford & Nyikos, 1989; Oxford & Ehrman, 1995; Oh, 1996). Moreover, interviews can be used to obtain more in-depth information about the use of strategies with individual tasks.
References
Bedell, D.A. (1993). Crosscultural variation in the choice of language learning strategies: A mainland Chinese investigation with comparison to previous studies. Unpublished master’s thesis. University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL.
Bialystok, E. (1979). The role of conscious strategies in second language proficiency. Canadian Modern Language Review, 35, 372-394.
Bobko, P. (2001). Correlation and regressions (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.
Chamot, A. U. & Kupper, L. (1989). Learning strategies in foreign language instruction. Foreign Language Annals, 22(1), 13-24.
Chamot, A. U., Barnhardt, S., El-Dinary, P. B. & Robbins, J. (1999). The learning strategies handbook. New York: Addison Wesley Longman.
Chang, S. J. (1990). A study of the language learning behaviors of Chinese students at the University of Georgia and the relation of those behaviors to oral proficiency and other factors. Dissertation Abstracts International, 52, 450A.
Chen, I. Ju (2001). Language learning strategies used by high and low English proficiency students in a technology college. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, National Changhua University of Education, Taiwan.
Cheng, Y. C. (1995). The struggle for renaissance: Taiwan’s indigenous culture. Taipei: Sinorama Magazine.
Council of Indigenous Peoples, Executive Yuan (2002). Statistical yearbook of Taiwan indigenous peoples. Taipei: Author.
Ehrman, M. E. & Oxford, R. L. (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. & Oxford, R. (1995). Cognition plus: Correlates of language learning success. The Modern Language Journal, 79(1), 67-89.
Gardner, R.C. (1985). Social psychology and second language learning: The role of attitudes and motivation. London, Ontario: Edward Arnold.
Grainger, P.R.(1997). Language-learning strategies for learners of Japanese: investigating ethnicity. Foreign Language Annals, 30(3), 378-385.
Green, J.M. & Oxford, R.L. (1995). A closer look at learning strategies, L2 proficiency, and gender. TESOL Quarterly, 29(2), 261-97.
Kouraogo, P. (1993). Language learning strategies in input-poor environments. System, 21(2), 165-173.
Litwin, M. S. (1995). How to measure survey reliability and validity. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Luo, Yu-Ping (1998). English language learning strategies of junior college students in Taiwan. Studies in English Language and Literature, 3, 43-60.
MacIntyre, P. D. (1994). Toward a social psychological model of strategy use. Foreign Language Annals, 27(2), 185-195.
MacIntyre, P. D. & Noels, K. A. (1996). Using social-psychological variables to predict the use of language learning strategies. Foreign Language Annals 29(3), 373-386.
McGroarty, M. (1987). Patterns of university foreign language learning: elementary Spanish and Japanese. Research Report, Center for Language Education and Research, University of California at Los Angeles.
Naiman, N. & Frohlich, M & Todesco, A. (1975). The good second language learners. TESL Talk, 6, 58-75.
Noguchi, T. (1991). Review of language learning strategy research and its implications. Unpublished bachelor’s thesis, Tottori University, Tottori, Japan.
Oh, J. (1992). Learning strategies used by university EFL students in Korea. Language Teaching, 1, 3-53.
Oh, J. (1996). The effects of attitude and sex on use of EFL learner strategies. English Teaching, 51(2), 35-53.
O’Malley, J. M., Chamot, A. U., Stewner-Manzanares, G., Russo, R. P. and Kupper, L. J. (1985). Learning strategy applications with students of English as a second language. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 557-584.
O’Malley, J. M., & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning Strategies in Second Language Acquisition. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Oxford, R.L. (1985). A new taxonomy for second language learning strategies. Washington, DC.: ERIC Clearinghouse on Language and Linguistics.
Oxford, R. L.(1986). Second language learning strategies: Current research and implication for practice. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 278273.
Oxford, R. L. (1989). Use of language learning strategies: a synthesis of students with implications for strategy training. System, 17(2), 235-247.
Oxford, R.L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Oxford, R. L. & 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, R. L. & Ehrman, M. (1995). Adults’ language learning strategies in an intensive foreign language program in the United States. System, 23(3), 359-386.
Oxford, R. L. & Nyikos, M. (1989). Variables affecting choices of language learning strategies by university students. The Modern Language Journal, 73(2), 291-300.
Park, Gypo (1997). Language learning strategies and English proficiency in Korean university students. Foreign Language Annals, 30(2), 212-221.
Politzer, R. L. (1983). An exploratory study of self-reported language learning behaviors and their relation to achievement. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 6(1), 54-65.
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(1), 103-123.
Reiss, M. (1983). Helping the unsuccessful language learner. Forum, 21(2), 1-8.
Rubin, J. (1975). What the ‘Good Language Learner’ can teach us. TESOL Quarterly, 9(1), 41-51.
Rubin, J. (1987). Learner strategies: Theoretical assumptions, research history and typology. In A. L. Wenden & J. Rubin (Eds.) Learner strategies in language learning (pp. 15-30). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Tsao, Tai-lin (2002). Perceptual learning style preference and learning strategy use among Taiwanese senior high school EFL learners. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Taiwan Normal University, Taiwan.
Wang, Wen-Yin (2002). Effects of gender and proficiency on listening comprehension strategy use by Taiwanese EFL senior high school students: A case from Changhua, Taiwan. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Changhua University of Education, Taiwan.
Watanabe, Y. (1990). External variables affecting language learning strategies of Japanese EFL learners: Effects of entrance examination, years spent at college/university, and staying overseas. Unpublished master’s thesis, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK.
Wenden, A. (1985). Learner Strategies. TESOL Newsletter, 19(5), 1-7.
Yang, N. D. (1992). Second language learners’ beliefs about language learning and their role of learning strategies: a study of college students of English in Taiwan. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin, Texas.
Yang, N. D. (1993a). Understanding Chinese students’ language beliefs and learning strategy use. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
Yang, N. D. (1993b). Beliefs about language learning and learning strategy use: A study of college students of English in Taiwan. Paper presented at the Tenth National Conference on TESOL, Taipei, Taiwan.
Yang, N. D. (1994). Study of factors affecting EFL learners’ use of learning strategies: an investigating of Taiwanese college students. Paper presented at the Eleventh National Conference on TESOL, Taipei, Taiwan.
Bialystok, E. (1979). The role of conscious strategies in second language proficiency. Canadian Modern Language Review, 35, 372-394.
Bobko, P. (2001). Correlation and regressions (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.
Chamot, A. U. & Kupper, L. (1989). Learning strategies in foreign language instruction. Foreign Language Annals, 22(1), 13-24.
Chamot, A. U., Barnhardt, S., El-Dinary, P. B. & Robbins, J. (1999). The learning strategies handbook. New York: Addison Wesley Longman.
Chang, S. J. (1990). A study of the language learning behaviors of Chinese students at the University of Georgia and the relation of those behaviors to oral proficiency and other factors. Dissertation Abstracts International, 52, 450A.
Chen, I. Ju (2001). Language learning strategies used by high and low English proficiency students in a technology college. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, National Changhua University of Education, Taiwan.
Cheng, Y. C. (1995). The struggle for renaissance: Taiwan’s indigenous culture. Taipei: Sinorama Magazine.
Council of Indigenous Peoples, Executive Yuan (2002). Statistical yearbook of Taiwan indigenous peoples. Taipei: Author.
Ehrman, M. E. & Oxford, R. L. (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. & Oxford, R. (1995). Cognition plus: Correlates of language learning success. The Modern Language Journal, 79(1), 67-89.
Gardner, R.C. (1985). Social psychology and second language learning: The role of attitudes and motivation. London, Ontario: Edward Arnold.
Grainger, P.R.(1997). Language-learning strategies for learners of Japanese: investigating ethnicity. Foreign Language Annals, 30(3), 378-385.
Green, J.M. & Oxford, R.L. (1995). A closer look at learning strategies, L2 proficiency, and gender. TESOL Quarterly, 29(2), 261-97.
Kouraogo, P. (1993). Language learning strategies in input-poor environments. System, 21(2), 165-173.
Litwin, M. S. (1995). How to measure survey reliability and validity. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Luo, Yu-Ping (1998). English language learning strategies of junior college students in Taiwan. Studies in English Language and Literature, 3, 43-60.
MacIntyre, P. D. (1994). Toward a social psychological model of strategy use. Foreign Language Annals, 27(2), 185-195.
MacIntyre, P. D. & Noels, K. A. (1996). Using social-psychological variables to predict the use of language learning strategies. Foreign Language Annals 29(3), 373-386.
McGroarty, M. (1987). Patterns of university foreign language learning: elementary Spanish and Japanese. Research Report, Center for Language Education and Research, University of California at Los Angeles.
Naiman, N. & Frohlich, M & Todesco, A. (1975). The good second language learners. TESL Talk, 6, 58-75.
Noguchi, T. (1991). Review of language learning strategy research and its implications. Unpublished bachelor’s thesis, Tottori University, Tottori, Japan.
Oh, J. (1992). Learning strategies used by university EFL students in Korea. Language Teaching, 1, 3-53.
Oh, J. (1996). The effects of attitude and sex on use of EFL learner strategies. English Teaching, 51(2), 35-53.
O’Malley, J. M., Chamot, A. U., Stewner-Manzanares, G., Russo, R. P. and Kupper, L. J. (1985). Learning strategy applications with students of English as a second language. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 557-584.
O’Malley, J. M., & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning Strategies in Second Language Acquisition. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Oxford, R.L. (1985). A new taxonomy for second language learning strategies. Washington, DC.: ERIC Clearinghouse on Language and Linguistics.
Oxford, R. L.(1986). Second language learning strategies: Current research and implication for practice. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 278273.
Oxford, R. L. (1989). Use of language learning strategies: a synthesis of students with implications for strategy training. System, 17(2), 235-247.
Oxford, R.L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Oxford, R. L. & 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, R. L. & Ehrman, M. (1995). Adults’ language learning strategies in an intensive foreign language program in the United States. System, 23(3), 359-386.
Oxford, R. L. & Nyikos, M. (1989). Variables affecting choices of language learning strategies by university students. The Modern Language Journal, 73(2), 291-300.
Park, Gypo (1997). Language learning strategies and English proficiency in Korean university students. Foreign Language Annals, 30(2), 212-221.
Politzer, R. L. (1983). An exploratory study of self-reported language learning behaviors and their relation to achievement. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 6(1), 54-65.
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(1), 103-123.
Reiss, M. (1983). Helping the unsuccessful language learner. Forum, 21(2), 1-8.
Rubin, J. (1975). What the ‘Good Language Learner’ can teach us. TESOL Quarterly, 9(1), 41-51.
Rubin, J. (1987). Learner strategies: Theoretical assumptions, research history and typology. In A. L. Wenden & J. Rubin (Eds.) Learner strategies in language learning (pp. 15-30). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Tsao, Tai-lin (2002). Perceptual learning style preference and learning strategy use among Taiwanese senior high school EFL learners. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Taiwan Normal University, Taiwan.
Wang, Wen-Yin (2002). Effects of gender and proficiency on listening comprehension strategy use by Taiwanese EFL senior high school students: A case from Changhua, Taiwan. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Changhua University of Education, Taiwan.
Watanabe, Y. (1990). External variables affecting language learning strategies of Japanese EFL learners: Effects of entrance examination, years spent at college/university, and staying overseas. Unpublished master’s thesis, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK.
Wenden, A. (1985). Learner Strategies. TESOL Newsletter, 19(5), 1-7.
Yang, N. D. (1992). Second language learners’ beliefs about language learning and their role of learning strategies: a study of college students of English in Taiwan. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin, Texas.
Yang, N. D. (1993a). Understanding Chinese students’ language beliefs and learning strategy use. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
Yang, N. D. (1993b). Beliefs about language learning and learning strategy use: A study of college students of English in Taiwan. Paper presented at the Tenth National Conference on TESOL, Taipei, Taiwan.
Yang, N. D. (1994). Study of factors affecting EFL learners’ use of learning strategies: an investigating of Taiwanese college students. Paper presented at the Eleventh National Conference on TESOL, Taipei, Taiwan.
Zhang, K. X. (1990). A study on aboriginal students’ and non-aboriginal students’ learning styles and English learning behavior. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Kaohsiung Normal University, Taiwan.
Appendix A
See PDF File
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar