Language Learning Strategy Use: Perceptions of ...

F O R E I G N I.ANCCJAGE A N N A L S . VOL. 40,

1 I

NO.3

433

Language Learning Strategy Use: Perceptions of Female Arab English Majors Abdolmehdi Riazi Shivaz University Abstract: This study investigated the patterns of language learning strategy use among 120 female Arabic-speaking students majoring in English at a university in Qatar Perceptions of strategy use were measured by the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL, ESUEFL Student Version). The study found that (1) this group of EFL learnersfeatured medium bordering on high strategy users with an overall mean of3.46 out of5; (2) strategy categories were used in the order ofmetacognitive, cognitive, compensation, social, memory, and affective; (3)freshmen students reported the highest rate of strategy use with a mean of 3.64; and (4) except for compensation strategies, results did not show any signijcant difference amongfour educational levels regarding the use of strategy categories. Key words: English as aforeign language, language learning strategies, perceptions of using strategies, Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) Language: Arabic

Introduction Over the last few decades, the field of applied linguistics and second language education has witnessed a shift from instructor-centered to more learner-centered approaches to language teaching and learning. Accordingly, more emphasis has been put on learners and learning which, in turn, has affected views of instructors’ roles and their teaching. One line of research in this regard has been how different language learners manage their learning using different types of language learning strategies. Successful language learners have been identified as those who make use of a wide range of effective language learning strategies in a systematic and organized way. The pedagogical implication of this development has been that less successful language learners can be helped to enhance their language learning through strategy training. The other implication of research findings in this area is related to curriculum development, particularly in materials and textbook preparation, as well as teaching dynamics. Authors of recent textbooks have attempted to include learning strategies in their books, and instructors try to set aside class time to familiarize students with language learning strategies. Studies on language learning strategies have proliferated, investigating a variety of learner groups in both English as a second language (ESL) and English as a Abdolmehdi Riazi (PhD, University of Toronto) is Associate Professor of Second Language Education at Shiraz University in Shiraz, Iran.

434

foreign language (EFL) contexts. Results of these studies have successfully contributed to our understanding of the nature, categories, and patterns of strategy use in general, as well as their use in different language skills. Despite the existence of plenty of research on language learning strategies over the last few decades, as Oxford (1994) observed, this research should be replicated and extended so more consistent information becomes available and is verified within and across groups of learners. Of particular importance is information on how students from different cultural backgrounds use language learning strategies. To this end, this study investigated the patterns of language learning strategy use among an underresearched cultural group, namely Arab female EFL learners. The findings of the study hopefully will contribute to the knowledge base of language learning strategy research. The purpose of this research was to study the pattern of language learning strategy use as perceived and reported by a specific group of Arabic-speaking female EFL learners. In particular, the study intended to answer the following research questions: 1. What is the general pattern of language learning strategy use among Arabicspeaking female EFL learners in terms of their overall strategy use and the six categories of the strategies as presented in the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL)? 2. Are there any significant differences among students of different educational levels in terms of their general strategy use and the six strategy categories? 3. What are the most frequently used and the least frequently used strategies among Arabic-speaking female EFL learners?

Background to the Study Since the late 1970s, there has been a great deal of valuable research on language learning strategies in the fields of applied linguistics, ESL, and EFL. Many studies

FALL 2007

have focused on the relationship between language learning strategy use tapped through SILL and other learner variables. Learner variables reported in such studies include learners’ language proficiency, gender, cultural and educational backgrounds, aptitude, learning styles, motivation and anxiety, and ego boundaries. Some of the studies have focused only on the relationship between language learning strategies and one or two of these variables. Some of these studies researched the relationship between language learning strategies and motivation (e.g., Oxford & Nyikos, 1989; Oxford, Park-Oh, Ito, Q Sumrall, 1993). Another line of research in this field has focused on the relationship between language learning strategies and proficiency (e.g., Abu Shmais, 2003; Oxford & Green, 1995; Phillips, 1991). Some studies have addressed the possible relationship between language learning strategies and learners’ age (e.g., Griffiths, 2003; Oxford Q Ehrman, 1993). The relationship between language learning strategies and gender has been addressed in other studies (e.g., Abu Shmais, 2003; Griffiths, 2003; Hashim & Syed Sahil, 1994; Oxford & Green, 1995; Politzer, 1983). But the focus of most studies addressing cultural issues has been language learning strategies and students’ nationality and/or cultural background (e.g., Griffiths, 2003; Hashim Q Syed Sahil, 1994; Lengkanawati, 2004; Politzer, 1983). Finally, use of language learning strategies in different language skills and components has been investigated (e.g., Cohen & Aphek 1980, 1981; Riazi & Alvari, 2004; Riazi & Mir, 2002). There are also a few studies that have researched the relationship between a wide range of variables and language learning strategies (e.g., Ehrman & Oxford, 1995; Oxford Q Ehrman, 1995). Despite the great number of studies on language learning strategy use, research on EFL learners from certain cultural groups is scarce. One underresearched domain among EFL learners is Arabic-speaking students. Among the few strategy research

F O K E I C N LANGUAGE A N N A L S . VOL.40, NO. 3

studies on this population is a recent study by Abu Shmais (2003). This study reported on the English language learning strategies used by 99 male and female Arabic-speaking English majors enrolled at An-Najah National University in Palestine. The study also investigated the frequency of strategy use among these students according to gender and proficiency variables. Proficiency was reflected by students’ educational levels (i.e., sophomore, junior, senior), self-reported proficiency in English (i.e., the students’ university average in English courses), and language self-efficacy (i.e., how well the students perceived themselves as English learners). The results of that study showed that An-Najah English majors used learning strategies with high to medium frequency, and that the highest rank (79.6%) was for metacognitive strategies, while the lowest (63%) was for compensation strategies. Results of the study also showed that gender and proficiency had no significant effect on the use of strategies, but level of university education seemed to affect students’ use of strategies. Given the shortage of research on Arab EFL learners’ pattern of strategy use compared to other nationalities and ethnic groups, this study aimed to contribute information about another group of Arab EFL learners in the Arabic-speaking country of Qatar.

Method Participps Participank were 120 female students who spoke Arabic as their native language and who were majoring in English language and literature at Qatar University. The reason for including only female students in the study was that according to university policy, only female students were admitted to the BA in English Language and Literature program. The participants were recruited from all the educational levels at the university Their ages ranged from 17 to 26 with an average of 21.5 years. In terms of their academic achievement, the students could be classified as average

435

achievers with a mean grade point average of 2.2 out of 4. They rated their own English proficiency as, on average, good on a four-point rating scale rating (excellent = 4, good = 3, fair = 2, poor = 1) (with a mean of 2.86 out of 4) and as fair when comparing themselves with native speakers of English. They considered learning and being proficient in English “very important” on a three-level scale (very important, important, and not so important). Based on their responses to the question of why they were learning English, they could be labeled as both intrinsically and extrinsically motivated: Not only did they indicate internal motives and interest in learning English language and culture, they also were focused on external rewards, for example, learning English as a requirement for their graduation as well as their current and future career needs.

Instmrnents Two questionnaires were used for data collection. The first was the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) (Oxford, 1990) and the second was a background questionnaire. The SILL was used to collect data on students’ perceived use of language learning strategies. The background questionnaire was used to document profile information about participants. The 50-item version of the SILL was used in the original English version; students were encouraged to ask the meaning of any words or phrases they did not understand. The questionnaire uses a choice of five Likert-scale responses with each item ranging from 1 (never or almost never true of me) to 5 (always or almost always true of me). The 50 items are categorized into six parts, each representing a subscale or category The six categories include memory (items 1 through 9), cognitive (items 10 through 23), and compensation (items 24 through 29), which Oxford (1990) classified as “direct strategies” (p. 37). The other three categories that fall under the category of indirect strategies include metacognitive (items 30 through 38), affective (items 39

436

FALL 2007

through 44), and social (items 45 through 50). Students’ total average score on the SILL can range from 1 to 5. Oxford (1990) suggested the following range for the analysis of students’ rates of strategy use: 3.5 to 5 High strategy users 2.5 to 3.4 Medium strategy users 1 to 2.4 Low strategy users Regarding reliability of the SILL, Oxford and Burry-Stock (1995) and Oxford (1996) reported high indexes of Cronbach alpha reliability (mostly 0.91 to 0.94) for the ESY EFL version of the SILL across many cultural groups. For this study, the Cronbach alpha reliability obtained on the SILL was 0.84. With regard to validity, concurrent and predictive validity have been found when relating the SILL results to measures of proficiency, motivation, learning styles, and other factors (see Oxford Q BurryStock, 1995, and Oxford, 1996, for details). Moreover, two strategy experts are reported to have matched the SILL items with agreement at 0.99 against entries in a comprehensive strategy taxonomy of language learning constructed from a detailed list of a range of more than 200 possible strategy types (Oxford, 1986). All these elements have made the SILL one of most prominent instruments in studies of language learning strategies.

Results Results of the study are presented in the following four parts.

Students’ Perceptions of Their Generul Strategy Use Table 1 presents the means and standard deviations of students’ perceptions of strategy use for each year and for the whole sample. As indicated in Table 1, this group of Arabic-speaking female EFL students can be categorized as medium, bordering on high (mean = 3.46) strategy users based on their perception and performance on the strategy questionnaire. The table also shows that freshmen rated themselves as high

(mean = 3.64) strategy users compared to other students, while senior students also edged toward high strategy users. A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) showed that the difference among the means for subgroups was significant ( F = 3.58, p = ,016). To find out exactly where this difference lies, a posthoc Scheffee test was run; it indicated that the mean differences between freshmen and sophomore students and between freshmen and junior students were significant (p < .05). The freshmen students showed more tendencies toward language learning strategy use than did the sophomore and junior students.

Students’ Perceptions of Their Use of Strutegy Cutegories Table 2 presents the descriptive statistics for the strategy category use in descending order by frequency of mention. As can be seen in Table 2, three strategy categories-namely, metacognitive (mean = 3.87), cognitive (mean = 3.62), and compensation (mean = 3.56)-were reported by the students with a mean of high frequency of use. Three other categories-i.e., social (mean = 3.32), memory (mean = 3.17), and affective (mean = 3.05)-were reported with a mean of medium frequency of use. To find out if the mean differences among the strategy categories were statistically significant, a repeated measures test was run. A significant difference appeared among

-

FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNA1,S . VOI,. 40, NO.3

437

‘ Reported Uses of I

Descriptive Statistics f Strategy Category

Minimum

Metacognitive

1.78

0 60

Cognitive

2.5

0 45

Compensation

2.17

Social

1.67

5.00

Memory

1.22

4.44

Affective

1.67

the means (F = 37.96, p < . O l > . A posthoc Scheffee test also indicated that the mean differences among the six categories were significant.

The Mean o j Individual Strategy Use for the Whole Sample To find out which strategies were used most frequently and which ones were used least frequently, the mean use for each strategy was calculated. The most frequently used strategy with a mean of 4.44 belonged to the compensation category, which was translated on the questionnaire as ‘‘If I cannot think of an English word, I use a word or phrase that means the same thing.” The least frequently used strategy (with a mean of 2.02) belonged to the affective category, translated as “I write down my feelings in a language learning diary.” Arab students may not be as s$lf-expressive of their feelings and emotions as students of other cultural groups, which can be considered a cultural variable in this study. While keeping diaries is very common in Western countries, it is rarely done in Arab countries, especially with regard to feelings and emotions and when expressed to an instructor. Table 3 summarizes the percentages of the general rate of the strategy use for this group of students. According to Table 3, only 6% (3 items: 6 , 7 , and 43) of the strategies were used with low frequency. Even the mean for strategy 7 edges toward the lower bound of medium

SD

0.59 0.70

3.17

0 56

0.65

,

frequency. Therefore, it is plausible to say that only two strategies (items 6 and 43) were reported as having a low frequency of use. One of these two strategies (item 6) belongs to the memory category and the other belongs to the affective category. Overall, 94% of the strategies were said to be used with a high to medium frequency, pointing to the fact that language learning strategies are an integral part of these students’ experience of language learning.

Percentages of the Rate of Strategy Use Among the Students

I

Rate

Use of Strategy Categories by Students of D$ferent Years Table 4 presents descriptive statistics for the students at the four educational levels related to their use of the strategy categories. A series of one-way ANOVAs showed that none of the strategy categories except compensation was significantly different across the four levels of education. The oneway ANOVA on the compensation category

438

for differen; years yielded significant results (F = 3.52, p < .05>.A posthoc Scheffee test showed that only the difference between freshmen (mean = 3.83) and sophomore (mean = 3.35) students’ use of this category was statistically significant, indicating that freshmen students were more willing than the other groups to use this strategy category. This trend may be related to the freshmen students’ level of proficiency and knowledge of language, which was lower than the sophomore students, perhaps leading them to use more compensation strategies to counter this deficiency.

Discussion This study had some limitations that should be taken into consideration when interpreting the results. First, all the participants of the study were female students. Second, as one of the reviewers of the article correctly remarked, the data were collected through a self-report instrument that may reflect personal perceptions rather than students’ actual uses of learning strategies. Future research on language learning strategies may well benefit from other data collection procedures, including verbal protocols and observation, in addition to self-report questionnaires. Also, it would have been better if the SILL questionnaire had been translated into Arabic to avoid any language barriers on the part of the students.

FALL, 2007

3.41

.78

3 13

.89

Apart from the limitations, the overall findings of this study are congruent with studies carried out in other contexts showing that students tend to stick to language learning strategies in the process of their language learning during university programs. Therefore, it is plausible to think of language learning strategies as a salient learner variable to be considered both theoretically and pedagogically. The first finding of this study may reflect the fact that learning strategies are conscious behaviors on the part of learners, and freshmen students may approach language learning more consciously than more experienced students of higher years. Students marked their level of education on the demographic questionnaire and were grouped precisely as freshmen, sophomore, junior, or senior students in terms of their level of education. This was done to rule out the possibility of confounding students’ level of education with their level of English proficiency. Nevertheless, we did not administer a standardized English language proficiency test to the students, so there is a possibility that part of the variance in students’ preferences for language learning strategy use could be attributed to their level of proficiency. In this regard, upper-level college students may have internalized language learning strategies and use them automatically without consciously attending to them. Another possibility is

FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS . VOI,. 40, N O . 3

that the nature of language learning strategies used by language learners at higher levels is totally different from that of learners at lower levels, and so should be tapped through other instruments. Concerning strategy categories, the metacognitive category received the highest rank of use among this group. This might seem contrary to previous studies involving EFL students in general. Asian students, in particular, have reported using memory strategies with high frequency and metacognitive strategies with low frequency. However, recently instructors and students in non-Western countries have been departing from rote learning requiring memorization of factual knowledge and moving more toward deep approaches to learning requiring higher levels of learning such as analysis, synthesis, and evaluation of the instructional materials.

Conclusion In conclusion, the findings of this study can be summarized in the following way: 1. Language learning strategies seem to be part of female Arab university students’ language learning experiences. Participants in this study were not much different from language learners of other cultural groups in terms of their overall use of language learning strategies. Therefore, foreign language instructors should foster this aspect of language learning in their classes. 2. Freshmen students reported using language learning strategies more frequently than students at other levels. Freshmen students seem to approach language learning more consciously and strategically than other students. This certainly does not mean that higher-level students use fewer strategies; rather, it may indicate that higher-level students have internalized these strategies and use them more automatically and faster, and therefore tend not to report them. Freshmen students also showed a statistically significant difference in using compensation strategies,

439

compared to older students. Because freshmen students’ level of English proficiency is lower than those of students at other levels, they may have to resort to compensation strategies more than students at higher levels. 3. Participants in this study reported more tendencies to use metacognitive, cognitive, and compensation strategies than social, affective, and memory strategies. Since each category of strategies has its own function, it may be reasonable to help students in classrooms appreciate the uses of each set of strategies when they need them. This is especially true in regard to social strategies, given the emphasis on social interactions in the process of second language learning. Language learning strategies may be incorporated into both instructional materials and classroom teaching and learning activities in the immediate context of this study, as well as in similar ESLIEFL contexts. Students should be provided with more opportunities to learn about and use language learning strategies. Exposing students to these strategies systematically may enable them to use the strategies more efficiently in the process of their language learning. The instructor’s role in helping students become familiar with and use language learning strategies is important. This requires some kind of strategy training that may be tailored to the practiced syllabus. Participants in this study reported that they used metacognitive, cognitive, and compensation strategies more than social, affective, and memory strategies. Since each set of the strategies has certain functions in different situations, students reasonably might become acquainted with different categories of strategies and their functions and when and how they may use them to facilitate their language learning. Language instructors may allocate class time to the explanation and discussion of strategies. Students should take an active role in sharing their experiences of language learning strategy use with other students, mak-

440

ing them more responsible for their language learning. Compared to other levels of university education, freshmen students reported they used more compensation strategies. This seems natural in the sense that freshmen students’ level of proficiency and knowledge of language is lower than higher-level students and therefore, they resort more to compensation strategies. This tendency could be incorporated into freshmen students’ classroom activities so they learn how to compensate for the deficiency in their second language proficiency to avoid breakdowns in communication.

Acknowledgments I thank Shiraz University for supporting my sabbatical leave for six months at Qatar University from September 2002 to March 2003. I also wish to thank Dr. Haifa Albouainain in the Department of English and Modern Languages of Qatar University for her help in data collection.

FALL 2007

Report 728, Appendices as ARI Research Note 86-92). Alexandria, VA: Army Research Institute. Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strutegies: What every teacher should know. Boston: Heinle & Heinle. Oxford, R. L. (1994). Language learning strategies: An update. ERIC Digest. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED376707) Oxford, R. L. (1996). Employing a questionnaire to assess the use of language learning strategies. Applied Language Learning, 7, 25-45. Oxford, R. L., & Burry-Stock, J. A. (199s). Assessing the use of language learning strategies worldwide with the ESLEFL version of the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning. System, 23(1), 1-23. Oxford, R. L., & Ehrman, M. E. (1993). Second language research on individual differences. In W. Grabe (Ed.), Annual review of applied linguistics (pp. 188-205). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

References

Oxford, R. L., & Ehrman, M. E. (1995). Adults’ language learning strategies in an intensive foreign language program in the United States. System, 23(3), 359-386.

Abu Shmais, W. (2003). Language learning strategy use in Palestine. TESL-EJ, 7(2), 20-33.

Oxford, R. L., & Green, J. M. (199s). A closer look at learning strategies, L2 proficiency, and gender. TESOL Quarterly, 29(2), 261-297.

Cohen, A. D., & Aphek, E. (1980). Retention of second-language vocabulary over time: Investigating the role of mnemonic associations. System, 8, 221-23s.

Oxford, R. L., & Nyikos, M. (1989). Variables affecting choice of language learning strategies by university students. Modem Language Journal, 73(2), 291-300.

Cohen, A. D., & Aphek, E. (1981). Easifying second language learning. Studies in Second Lunguage Acquisition, 3, 221-236.

Oxford, R. L., Park-Oh, Y., Ito, S., & Sumrall, M. (1993). Learning Japanese by satellite: What influences student achievement? System, 21, 31-48.

Ehrman, M. E., & Oxford, R. L. (199s). Cognition plus: Correlates of language learni n g success. Modem Language Jou&al, 79, 67-89. Griffiths, C. (2003). Patterns of language learning strategy use. System, 31, 367-383. Hashim, R. A,,& Syed Sahil, S. A. (1994). Examining learners’ language learning strategies. RELCJournal, 25(2), 1-20. Lengkanawati, N . S. (2004). How learners from different cultural backgrounds learn a foreign language. Retrieved March 1, 2005, from http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/04nsl.htm1 Oxford, R. L. (1986). Development and psychometric testing of the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) (ARI Technical

Phillips, V. (1991). A look at learner strategy use and ESL proficiency. CATESOL Journal, 4(1), 57--67. Politzer, R. (1983). An exploratory study of self-reported language learning behaviors and their relation to achievement. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 6, 54-65, Riazi, A. M., & Alvari, A. (2004). Strategy activation in learning English words. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 8(2), 199-203. Riazi, A. M., & Mir, E (2002). Sentence combining plus: Its effect on students’ writing quality and strategy use. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 6(1), 231-237.