Language learning strategies: students' and teachers

Language learning strategies: students’ and teachers’ perceptions Carol Griffiths

Background and rationale

Over the years a great deal of research has been carried out into learner variables which might affect language learning (such as nationality, age, gender, and motivation among many others). The variable on which the present article will focus is students’ language learning strategy use. In the years since Rubin (1975) brought the concept of language learning strategies to a wide audience, the term has been notoriously difficult to define and consensus has been elusive. (See, for instance, Do¨rnyei and Skehan 2003; Macaro 2004.) For the purposes of the present article, language learning strategies will be taken to mean ‘activities consciously chosen by learners for the purpose of regulating their own language learning’. In spite of the close attention paid to learner variables, issues related to teachers have not attracted the same degree of attention, even though teachers are ‘pivotal in the enterprise of teaching and learning’ (Freeman and Richards 1996: 1), and, as such, will inevitably have a major impact on what goes on in the classroom. Because of their pivotal role, teacher practices and perceptions are critically important since they have the potential to influence the effectiveness of the teaching/learning process. The importance of finding out more about teacher perceptions of language learning strategies is underlined by research which suggests that teachers are generally not aware of their students’ language learning strategies (O’Malley et al. 1985). E LT Journal Volume 61/2 April 2007; doi:10.1093/elt/ccm001 ª The Author 2007. Published by Oxford University Press; all rights reserved.

91

Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ at Fatih University on December 8, 2013

Although issues related to learner variables have received considerable attention over the years, issues related to teachers have not been researched as thoroughly. This study aimed to investigate the point of intersection of teachers’ and learners’ perceptions regarding language learning strategies. Using an original questionnaire developed in a classroom situation and based on student input, this study examined reported frequency of strategy use by international students and teacher perceptions regarding the importance of strategy use. Although students’ and teachers’ perceptions were not perfectly matched, results indicated that teachers regard strategy use as highly important, and there was a high level of accord (71 per cent) between strategies which students reported using highly frequently and those which teachers reported regarding as highly important, an encouraging finding somewhat at variance with the results of some previous studies. Implications of these results for the teaching/learning situation are discussed.

Indeed, teachers may hold beliefs regarding their students’ strategy usage which are quite contrary to what their students report. When the well known Strategy Inventory for Language Learning or S I LL (Oxford 1990) was used to examine students’ reported frequency of use of six types of language learning strategies (memory, cognitive, compensation, metacognitive, affective, social) as well as teachers’ perceptions of how often these six strategy groups were used by their students (Griffiths and Parr 2001), the results indicated that students’ and teachers’ perceptions did not coincide at any point. Nunan (1988) also talks of ‘clear mismatches between learners’ and teachers’ views’ (p. 93), and Willing (1989) of ‘disparate perspectives’ regarding learning strategies (p. 1). The potential for such mismatches to negatively affect what goes on in the classroom suggests a need to find out more about how teachers’ perceptions intersect with students’ perceptions in order that such findings might be used to inform classroom practice.

The school context

When the Study Skills class was set up, the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning or SILL (Oxford 1990) was used with the students to stimulate reflection and discussion. Experience with the class, however, indicated that some of the items of the SILL were not entirely suitable for the students in this setting. Very few of them reported using rhyme or flashcards, for instance, and they often found it difficult to understand what these strategies involved. Other strategies which students could be observed using frequently, such as consulting a dictionary, are not included in the SIL L. For the current study, it was therefore decided to use input by students in the Study Skills class to create a new questionnaire more reflective of actual usage in the current setting. Teachers at the school took part in regular (usually monthly) professional development sessions. During some of these sessions, questions related to language learning strategies were discussed. Teachers indicated that they found it difficult to assess their students’ frequency of strategy use (the question asked by Griffiths and Parr 2001) because it involved a very subjective judgement which they did not always feel well qualified to make. In the light of this feedback it was decided to approach the question of teachers’ perceptions of students’ language learning strategy use from a slightly different direction by asking for perceptions of the importance of specified strategy items for language learning. Teachers were also concerned at the difficulty of classifying strategies into Oxford’s (1990) memory, cognitive, compensation, metacognitive, affective, or social categories, as Griffiths and Parr’s (2001) teachers had done, since, they argued, many strategy items could be included in more

92

Carol Griffiths


This article will report on one section of a larger study conducted at a private English language school for international students in Auckland, New Zealand. This section of the study used a real classroom situation to investigate students’ language learning strategy use. The class involved was called the Study Skills class, conducted during students’ first week at the school for the purpose of orienting new students to the school’s facilities (such as the self-study room) and to raise students’ awareness of how they might study more effectively and use their time at the school to maximum advantage.

than one group: a strategy such as looking for opportunities to converse in English, for instance, might be considered metacognitive since it involves self-management, but might also be considered social since, by its nature, it involves interaction with others. (This issue is also discussed by Ellis (1994) among others.) For this reason, strategy items for the new questionnaire were not grouped, but amalgamated to provide an overall strategy frequency rating and also looked at on an individual item basis.

The investigation Research question

For the reasons explained above, the research question for this study was: n How do teachers’ reported perceptions of the importance of language learning strategies correspond with students’ overall reported frequency of strategy use and reported frequency of use of specific strategy items? In order to construct the new questionnaire, the study skills class followed a set format over a period of one month. The concept of language learning strategies was first explained to the students, and they were then asked for their ideas regarding language learning strategies which they had found useful in their own study. These were listed on the board. Following this brainstorming stage, when students had had an opportunity to contribute their own ideas, the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL, Oxford 1990) was handed out and students were allowed time to work through it. As students completed the SIL L, they were organized into groups to exchange ideas with each other. Any additional contributions to the strategy list produced as a result of these discussions were added to the existing list already on the board. Over the month the strategy lists generated in this way were kept and, by the end of this period, a list of 32 items had emerged. Some of the items suggested by the students were very broad (for example, ‘Watching TV’), and could be broken down into much more precise and meaningful sequences of strategies. However, the practical need to restrict the length of the instrument so that it could be completed within the time available in the Study Skills class (less than two hours) drove the decision to leave further investigation into such broad items for later projects if the results of the EL LSI indicated that this might be useful. These were written into a new questionnaire (the strategy statements can be seen in Table 1) which was called the English Language Learning Strategy Inventory (E L L S I) and used in place of the S IL L with subsequent Study Skills classes. Students were asked how often they used the strategy items, using a 5-point Likert scale from 1 (never or almost never) to 5 (always or almost always). The same strategy statements were used to survey the teachers who were asked to rate the items in terms of importance from 1 (very low) to 5 (very high). In light of the uncertainty over strategy grouping explained previously, the EL LSI strategy items were not grouped.

Participants

Over a period of three months, the English Language Learning Strategy Inventory (ELLS I) was completed by 131 students. There were both male (N ¼ 55) and female (N ¼ 76) students from 14 different nations (Japan, Korea, Switzerland, Italy, Argentina, Thailand, Germany, Indonesia, Lithuania, Austria, Taiwan, Brazil, China, Hong Kong). Ages ranged from Perceptions of learning strategies

93


Instrument: English Language Learning Strategy Inventory (E L L S I )

14 to 64 and students were spread over seven course levels: elementary, mid-elementary, upper elementary, pre-intermediate, mid-intermediate, upper intermediate, advanced. Students were assigned to these levels on the basis of their score on the Oxford Placement Test (Allan 1995) and on their performance on an oral interview conducted by a member of staff. In addition to the students, 34 teachers of English to speakers of other languages (ESOL) in New Zealand, who were teaching at the language school at the time, returned the teachers’ version of the questionnaire. Over a period of three months following construction of the new questionnaire, the EL LSI was used with the Study Skills class to stimulate reflection regarding strategy use by students new to the school and collected at the end of the class. Over the same period of time, teachers at the school were given the teachers’ version of the ELLS I and asked to hand it in at their convenience. Teachers employed at the time of the start of the project were included as well as new teachers who arrived during the three-month period covered by the project.

Data analysis

After collection, the information from the EL LSI questionnaires was entered onto a database (S P SS) to enable data analysis to be carried out. The data obtained from the students’ EL LSI questionnaires (N ¼ 131) were analysed for reliability, and the possibility of a statistically significant relationship between course level (where 1 ¼ elementary and 7 ¼ advanced) and language learning strategy use was investigated (using a Spearman test of correlation for ordinal data). The average reported frequency of language learning strategy use across all students was calculated for each strategy item and overall, and the number of strategies used at a high rate of frequency (defined as average ¼ 3.5 or above, cf. Oxford 1990) was counted. In order to explore patterns of strategy use by higher and lower level students, the sample was divided into two groups: the lower level included elementary, mid-elementary, and upper elementary students (N ¼ 73), and the higher level included pre-intermediate, mid-intermediate, upper intermediate and advanced students (N ¼ 58). The average reported frequency of language learning strategy use for each strategy item and overall, and the number of strategies used at a high rate of frequency were also calculated for both the lower and the higher level groups. The data obtained from the teachers’ ELLSI questionnaires (n ¼ 34) were also analysed for reliability and averages were calculated in order to determine the average level of importance ascribed by teachers to each strategy item as well as to strategy use overall. The number of strategies which teachers reportedly considered highly important (using the average ¼ 3.5 or above threshold to maintain continuity with the threshold set for the students’ data) was counted. These results were then compared with results from the students’ data.

Results

The alpha co-efficient for reliability of the students’ version of the EL LSI was .87, and for the teachers’ version it was .89. The relationship between course level and overall reported frequency of language learning strategy use as measured by the ELLS I was found to be significant (r ¼ .35, p , .01, n ¼ 131). Although this is not a strong relationship, it is more than would

94

Carol Griffiths


Data collection

be expected merely by chance, and suggests the usefulness of further exploration into the relationship between course level and language learning strategy use.

No. Teachers Low level High level All students Statement (abbreviated) 1

3.3

3.7

3.9

3.8

doing homework

2

3.9

3.8

4.3

4.0

learning from the teacher

3

4.6

3.3

3.5

3.4

learning in an environment where the language is spoken

4

3.6

2.4

3.0

2.7

reading books in English

5

2.4

2.5

2.8

2.6

using a computer

6

3.2

2.8

3.5

3.1

watching TV in English

7

3.8

3.0

3.2

3.1

revising regularly

8

2.6

3.2

3.7

3.4

listening to songs in English

9

3.5

1.9

2.4

2.1

using language learning games

10

3.2

1.9

2.7

2.2

writing letters in English

11

1.8

2.3

2.2

2.2

listening to music while studying

12

4.4

3.4

3.7

3.5

talking to other students in English

13

3.1

4.2

4.1

4.2

using a dictionary

14

3.4

2.0

2.7

2.4

reading newspapers in English

15

3.7

3.3

3.6

3.4

studying English grammar

16

4.0

2.9

3.7

3.3

consciously learning new vocabulary

17

3.8

3.5

3.5

3.5

keeping a language learning notebook

18

4.8

3.2

3.6

3.4

talking to native speakers of English

19

3.9

2.7

2.9

2.8

noting language used in the environment

20

3.1

2.7

2.7

2.7

controlling schedules so that English study is done

21

3.0

2.6

2.9

2.7

pre-planning language learning encounters

22

3.7

3.2

3.1

3.2

not worrying about mistakes

Perceptions of learning strategies

95


The students who participated in this study (N ¼ 131) reported an average frequency of language learning strategy use over all E L L S I items of 3.1, with lower level students reporting a lower average frequency of language learning strategy use (average ¼ 2.9) than that reported by higher level students (average ¼ 3.3). Seven items were reportedly used at a high rate of frequency (average ¼ 3.5 or above) across all students, with lower level students reporting highly frequent use of five strategy items and higher level students reporting highly frequent use of 15 strategy items. Teachers reported ascribing a high level of importance to language learning strategies (overall average ¼ 3.6), and they reported regarding 17 of the 32 strategy items (that is, more than half) as highly important (using the same average ¼ 3.5 threshold used for the students’ data). These results are set out in Table 1.

3.2

2.4

2.2

2.3

using a self-study centre

24

4.2

3.0

3.4

3.2

trying to think in English

25

4.4

3.5

4.1

3.8

listening to native speakers of English

26

4.4

3.4

3.9

3.6

learning from mistakes

27

3.2

3.2

3.5

3.3

spending time studying English

28

4.2

2.5

3.2

2.8

making friends with native speakers

29

3.2

2.9

3.6

3.2

watching movies in English

30

3.3

2.6

3.2

2.8

learning about the culture of English speakers

31

3.4

2.5

3.1

2.8

listening to the radio in English

32

3.7

1.9

1.9

1.9

writing a diary in English

3.6

2.9

3.3

3.1

overall average level of importance/frequency

17

5

15

7

number of high importance/frequency items

table 1

Average levels of importance ascribed to language learning strategies by teachers and average reported frequency of strategy use by lower level, higher level, and, across all students with number of high importance/frequency items. Averages of 3.5 or higher are set in bold for emphasis

Discussion and amplification of results

The results of the reliability analyses are well above the standard reliability threshold of .70, indicating that the EL LSI was a reliable instrument for the purposes of surveying reported frequency of language learning strategy use and reported perceptions of importance in this setting. The finding of a significant positive correlation between course level and reported frequency of language learning strategy use supports findings from other studies (for instance Green and Oxford 1995; Griffiths 2003). Furthermore, many more strategies were reportedly used highly frequently by higher level students than by lower level students. In other words, the results indicate that, in general, higher level students reported using a larger repertoire of strategies more frequently than lower level students.

Agreement between teachers and students

The 17 language learning strategies which teachers report regarding as highly important (see Table 1 for statements) include all but two of the strategies which students reported using highly frequently across all students. Put another way, teachers regard as highly important 5 out of 7, or 71 per cent, of the strategies which students across all levels report using highly frequently. This result would seem to imply that teachers and students are generally ‘on the same wavelength’ when it comes to reported student practices and teacher perceptions of importance regarding language learning strategy use, which is an encouraging discovery because of its implications of a good accord between students and teachers in this area and the potentially positive consequences in terms of classroom dynamics. Perhaps unexpectedly, Item 1 (‘doing homework’) is not included among the 17 strategies which teachers report regarding as highly important, although it is reportedly used highly frequently across all students. Interestingly, though, teachers report regarding ‘revising regularly’ (Item 7) as highly

96

Carol Griffiths


23

important, whereas students do not report using this strategy highly frequently. What, one wonders, is the perceived difference between homework and revision? Perhaps homework is set by the teacher, whereas revision is more likely to be self-directed? Perhaps, then, students are indicating a preference for teacher-directed study whereas teachers are expecting students to take more responsibility for their own learning, which, in turn, may reflect the different educational traditions of teacher and student and suggests a lack of accord between student and teacher expectations of learner independence in the language classroom, an area worthy of further research to investigate how such divergent expectations might be reconciled.

Areas of disagreement

A possible area of concern may be the twelve strategies which teachers report regarding as highly important but which students across all levels do not report using highly frequently (Items 3, 4, 7, 9, 15, 16, 18, 19, 22, 24, 28, 32). This gap in student/teacher perceptions is most salient in the case of the two strategies which students overall report using least frequently, that is Item 32—‘writing a diary’ (student average ¼ 1.9)—and Item 9— ‘using language learning games’ (student average ¼ 2.1). Teachers, on the contrary, report considering these two strategies as highly important, indicating another perceptual gap awaiting further research to clarify whether they are important for language learning or not, and whether or not students should be using them more frequently than they currently report. Another area where students’ and teachers’ perceptions regarding language learning strategy use seem to be somewhat divergent is the group of five strategies (Items 6, 8, 9, 27, 29) which high level students report using highly frequently although teachers do not appear to regard them as highly important ones for their students. Since three of these strategies (using TV, songs, movies) relate to the use of resources which are readily accessible to students, research might help to establish the usefulness or otherwise of these strategies which are such an easy, obvious, and inexpensive way for students to increase their exposure to the target language.

Conclusion

Overall, it is encouraging to discover that a learner variable (language learning strategies) which was found to be significantly correlated with course level was found to be considered highly important by teachers, given Perceptions of learning strategies

97


Item 13 (‘using a dictionary’) is also not reported as being considered highly important by teachers, although it is reported to be used highly frequently across all students. Since lower level students reported using a dictionary more frequently (average ¼ 4.2) than higher level students (average ¼ 4.1), perhaps the low level of importance ascribed to this strategy by teachers reflects their experience of strategy progression in their classrooms. This, in turn, raises a question regarding teaching practice: since higher level students report using dictionaries less often than lower level students, should dictionary use in classrooms be discouraged, or even banned, or should dictionaries be accepted as a necessary support without which lower level students would struggle to cope with the demands of learning a new language? This is another area where further research would be useful to inform classroom practice.

the assumption that teachers might therefore be expected to promote language learning strategy use by their students. Further research aimed at investigating these relationships and providing triangulation (for instance by means of interviews) would be very useful, as would further exploration to find out more about how some of the broad strategy items of the EL LSI (for instance ‘doing homework’, ‘using a dictionary’) are used by students.

It is now more than a quarter of a century since Rubin’s (1975) groundbreaking article in the language learning strategy field sowed the seeds of debates which are unresolved to this day, and there is still much work to be done to find effective ways to use what has been discovered about good language learners and their strategies in the language teaching/learning situation. Nevertheless, despite some need to re-assess teacher perceptions regarding the strategies which are important for their students, it is reassuring that this study has discovered so much common ground at the point of intersection between students’ and teachers’ perceptions regarding language learning strategies. Revised version received April 2005 References Allan, D. 1995. Oxford Placement Test. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Do¨rnyei, Z. and P. Skehan. 2003. ‘Individual differences in second language learning’ in C. Doughty and M. Long (eds.). Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Blackwell, 589–630. Ellis, R. 1994. Understanding Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Freeman, D. and J. Richards (eds.). 1996. Teacher Learning in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Green, J. and R. Oxford. 1995. ‘A closer look at learning strategies, L2 proficiency and sex’. TE S O L Quarterly 29/2: 261–97. Griffiths, C. 2003. ‘Language learning strategy use and proficiency’. http://80-wwwlib.umi.com. ezproxy.auckland.ac.nz/dissertations/gateway. Griffiths, C. and J. Parr. 2001. ‘Language-learning strategies: theory and perception’. ELT Journal 55/3: 247–54.

98

Carol Griffiths

Macaro, E. 2004. ‘Fourteen features of a language learner strategy’. Working Paper Series 4. http:// www.crie.org.nz. Nunan, D. 1988. The Learner-Centred Curriculum. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. O’Malley, J. M., A. Chamot, G. Stewner-Manzanares, L. Kupper, and R. Russo. 1985. ‘Learning strategies used by beginning and intermediate ES L students’. Language Learning 35/1: 21–46. Oxford, R. 1990. Language Learning Strategies: What Every Teacher Should Know. New York: Newbury House. Rubin, J. 1975. ‘What the ‘‘good language learner’’ can teach us’. T E S OL Quarterly 9/1: 41–51. Willing, K. 1989. Teaching How to Learn: Learning Strategies in E SL. Sydney: National Centre for English Language Teaching and Research. The author Carol Griffiths has specialized as an ES OL teacher and manager for many years. She graduated with


Although, as might be expected, there are some strategies where teacher perceptions of importance and student reported frequency of use are mismatched, it is encouraging in terms of implications for the efficacy of what goes on in the classroom to have discovered that teachers report a strong awareness of the importance of language learning strategies, and that so many (71 per cent) of the strategies which students report using highly frequently are regarded as important by teachers. This finding, which runs somewhat contrary to the findings of some previous studies (for instance Griffiths and Parr 2001), may, perhaps, reflect a growing awareness of the importance of language learning strategies in the language teaching and learning area generally.

a PhD from the University of Auckland after completing a thesis reporting research into language learning strategy use by E SO L students. She has presented papers at a number of conferences and has

had a number of articles published. Carol currently works for AIS St Helens, a tertiary institution for international students in Auckland, New Zealand. Email: [email protected]


Perceptions of learning strategies

99