classroom research on language learning strategy instruction yang luxin lyang2003@gmail.com

Classroom Research on Language Learning Strategy Instruction

Yang Luxinlyang2003@gmail.com

Outline

Current research

Directions for future research

Current Research Listening comprehension strategies

studies Oral communication strategies

studies Reading comprehension strategies

studies Vocabulary strategies studies Writing strategies studies

Listening comprehension strategies studies

Limited number of studies on teaching listening strategies

Encouraging evidence: students can learn to use listening strategies; and the use of strategies can improve listening comprehension (e.g., Carrier, 2003; Ross & Rost,1991;Thompson & Rubin, 1996)

Larry Vandergrift (2003)

2 groups of university students (41) at a beginning level French as a second language course (13-week period of the course)

Task A: top-down approach (students are asked to predict about the passage)

Larry Vandergrift (2003)

Task B: working in pairs, focus on specific details (e.g., sequence of events in the story)

Self-reflection

Larry Vandergrift (2003)

Positive reaction to listening tasks and activities

Raising awareness of the process of listening

Larry Vandergrift (2003)

Benefit of prediction Usefulness of discussion

with a partner Motivational effect

(increasing confidence)

Oral communication strategies studies

A small number of studies Pairing communication strategies

with appropriate metacognitive strategy training could enhance learners’ awareness of strategy use and develop their communication skills (Cohen et al., 1998; Dörnyei, 1995; O’Malley et al., 1985)

Yasuo Nakatani 2005 To examine the effect of oral

communication strategy (OCS) training

62 female students (control group=34; training group= 28)

In a 12-week EFL classes at a private college in Japan

Yasuo Nakatani 2005 Data collection:

pre- and post-course oral communication test scores;

transcription data from the tests;

retrospective protocol data

Findings (Nakatani, 2005)

Improve their oral proficiency test scores Make longer utterances Use more achievement strategies (e.g.,

modified interaction, modified output, time-gaining, & maintenance strategies)

Become aware of oral communication strategies

Reading comprehension strategies studies

Teachers found it easier to teach strategies in the native language (Chamot & Keatley, 2003)

Have more impact on higher proficiency students (Ikeda & Takeuchi, 2003)

Task difficulty, proficiency level, and use of strategies (Oxford et al., 2004)

Ikeda & Takeuchi, 2003 210 students of English at a Japanese

university An experimental and a control group Explicit reading strategy instruction to

the experimental group (8 weeks) (e.g., making inferences, using selective attention, using imagery)

Pre- and posttests, survey

Ikeda & Takeuchi, 2003

Affect the high proficiency level group

Low proficiency students may need a focus on bottom-up processing strategies

Retain their use of reading strategies 5 months after the instruction

Vocabulary strategies studies

Many learners use more strategies for learning vocabularies than for other linguistic aspects(Schmitt,1997)

Good learners use a variety of strategies (Schmitt,1997)

Vocabulary strategies studies

‘mechanical strategies’ such as memorization, note-taking, and repetition are used more often than strategies that involve deep processing such as guessing, imagery and the keyword technique (Schmitt,1997)

Fan 2003

1067 students from 7 institutions of higher education in Hong Kong

The vocabulary test The vocabulary learning strategies

questionnaire (management, sources, guessing, dictionary, repetition, association, grouping, analysis, known words)

Fan 2003 The more proficient students reported

using more sources, guessing, dictionary and known words strategies

Less proficient students used repetition and association strategies more often

Positive relationship between learner beliefs and strategy use

Fan 2003

To conclude, the ‘secret to vocabulary learning’ may include helping students see the relevance of strategy use in learning L2 vocabulary, introducing them to the strategies used often by proficient vocabulary learners and, most important, encourage them to develop their own effective strategies for learning.

Writing strategies studies

Two research projects : He, 2002 (Taiwan) Ma (2006)

He 2002 38 Taiwanese college-level writers Two groups: mastery-orientation

(intrinsic motivation to improve writing) and performance-orientation (extrinsic motivation to be better than other writers)

The strategies used by two groups: planning, monitoring/evaluation, revising, retrieving, & compensating

He 2002 Writers in the mastery-orientation group

used monitoring/evaluation, revising, and compensating strategies more frequently.

The mastery group produced better essays.

Revising strategies and mastery orientation served as two significant predictors of successful writing.

AN EXPLORATORY STUDY OF WRITING MOTIVATION OF CHINESE EFL LEARNERS

---- Ma Huan, BFSU

Research questions 1. What motivate Chinese non-

English major college students to learn to write in English?

2. Are there any gender differences in Chinese non-English major college students’ writing motivation?

Research questions 3. What are Chinese EFL

students and TEFL instructors’ attitudes towards learning to write in English in university?

4. What are Chinese EFL students and TEFL instructors’ attitudes towards current English writing instruction in university?

Methodology

Participants Instruments Data collection Data analysis

Participants

Age Gender Family background Starting age of

English learning

＜ 19 19-21 ＞21

Male Female Country town city 9-12 13-15 ＞15

cases 1 52 4 35 22 32 16 9 20 34 3

% 2% 91% 7% 61% 39% 56% 28% 16% 35% 60% 5%

Interviewees:Student Gender Family

backgroundAge

Starting age of English learning

Writing achievement

Zhu male town 20 9-12 “good writer”

Li male country 20 13-15 “good writer”

Zhang male country 20 9-12 “weak writer”

Wang female country 20 13-15 “weak writer”

Instruments A questionnaire: * modified from Language Learning Orientations Scale –

Intrinsic Motivation, Extrinsic Motivation, and Amotivation Subscales (Noels, et al., 2000)

* measured by a 7-point Likert scale (1= I strongly disagree; 7= I strongly agree)

Two semi-structured interviews * one for students * one for instructors

Data collection

Pilot study: to test the reliability of the questionnaire (R= .77 )

Study: * questionnaires: valid return rate:

91.9% * interview: four students

two instructors

Data analysis

SPSS 11.0- to explore writing motivational orientations

ANOVA *to test whether demographic features

(gender differences) had significant effects on various types of motivation

Qualitative analysis

Interview transcripts and students’ answers to the open question in questionnaires

Two perspectives (i.e., students and instructors)

Findings Chinese EFL students had clear

motivation to learn English writing. Furthermore, the participants learned to write in English with a stronger extrinsic motivation. (Identification was the first strongest motivation. )

Mean

Amotivation 2.439

Extrinsic motivation

External regulation 4.211

Introjected Regulation 4.719

Identified Regulation 5.746

Intrinsic motivation

Accomplishment 4.711

Knowledge 5.702

Stimulation 3.965

Amotivation

Extrinsic motivation Intrinsic motivation

Item Q1 Q2 Q3 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14

Sig. .687 .306 .031 .877 .256 .170 .024 .256 .083 .178 .389 .514

Note:

Q3: In order to get a better job later on, I learn to write in English.

Q8: I learn to write in English, because I choose to be the kind of person

who can write in a second language.

Findings

Gender differences in writing motivation were rendered nonsignificant except on external regulation and identified regulation.

Findings

Instructors did not know their students very well. There was a gap between what the instructors’ belief of their students’ writing motivation and students’ expectation toward learning English writing.

Instructors’ belief: for exam only

“The students’ motivation is to pass the exam.” (Yang)

“They (students) just want to write which is similar with the composition in CET 4.” (Yang)

Instructors’ belief: for exam only

“The teaching of English writing is a waste of time.” (Yang)

“The students just write for assignments. They learn to write just for passing the exam.” (Wan)

Students’ motive: intrinsic motivation

“To write something in English is good. Sort of enjoy.” (Wang)

“It (to express my ideas in English) makes you feel more comfortable.” (Wang)

-- Learn to write in English was necessary for a qualified graduate. (Zhu)

Students’ motive: intrinsic motivation

-- “to write in English was enjoyable and could learn something. “ (Zhu)

-- “I had learned English for so many years, then I should know how to write in English.” (Zhang)

What instructors provide “The writing requirements and topics

are similar to the writing section in CET 4 (College English Test Band 4) exam. As for other kinds of writing, they have no such ability to express what they want to write.” (Wan)

What instructors provide

“Students might not have much interest in this kind of writing (i.e., writing exercise in textbooks). But, as for other kinds of writing exercises, the students can not find any materials, therefore, they have nothing to write. (Yang)

What students want -- “I preferred challenging

writing task.” (Zhu) -- “I felt that the topics (given by the

instructor) were not related to our life. It was not authentic in real life.” (Li)

What students want -- practical writing (i.e., note, fax, etc.)

-- “to learn something which was related to our life and could be used in our future life or work.” (the answers to the open question in questionnaire)

A Case Study of the Learning Strategy of Chinese College EFL Students Using SILL

By Wang Ying BFSU

Research Questions

What is the pattern of language learning strategy use of Chinese college students learning English as a foreign language?

What is the relationship between the use of language learning strategies and English language proficiency?

Research Questions

What is the relation between the conception of strategy the students use and the actual strategy used by the students?

How do the students think of strategy training?

Methodology

Participants Instruments Data collection Data analysis

Profile of the Participants

Sophomore students of arts from one key university in Beijing

Gender Female Male percentage

21 (70%) 9 (30%)

Groups divided by CET4 scorewith reference to CET6 and CEEE score

Group 1 126 －－ 146 (successful ）

Group 2 115 －－ 125 （ medium ）

Group 3 Lower than 110 （ unsuccessful ）

Instruments SILL (Strategy Inventory of Language

Learning):the reliability reported is .93-.98;

Open Questionnaire and six Semi-structured Interviews

CEEE(college entrance exam of English ) /CET4/CET6: CET4 is the measure but CEEE and CET6 are referred to to guarantee the reliability of the proficiency division.

Two phases of data collectionPhase 1 Phase 2

Qualitative Data Collection

Questionnaire (close and open questions)

Quantitative Data Collection

Interviews

Data Integration

Data Analysis SPSS 11.0 （ One-Way ANOVA ） to study the pattern & frequency of

language strategy use and its correlation with language proficiency

Qualitative analysis interview transcripts and answers to

open questions

Finding 1

Meta-cognitive strategy is the most frequently used strategy followed by cognitive and compensation strategy. Affective strategy and mother-tongue using strategy are the least frequently used strategy among Chinese EFL students in college.

The overall strategy use by Chinese students

Variant Mean scoreMeta-cognitive strategy

2.94

Cognitive strategy 2.86Compensation strategy

2.83

Memory strategy 2.47Social strategy 2.46Affective strategy 2.42Mother-tongue using strategy

2.34

Finding 2

Overall strategy use is in linear relation with language proficiency.

Multiple comparison Group Group Mean

difference

Sig.

Group 1

Group 2

.0250 .888

Group 3

.5446* .005

Group 2

Group 1

-.0250 .888

Group 3

.5196 .007

Group 3

Group 1

-.5446 .005

Group 2

-.5196 .007

The mean difference is significant at the .05 level

Finding 3

The successful students think of strategy use differently from the unsuccessful students.

Students’ conception of strategy use

The successful students think that only the proper ones can lead to success in learning.

Students’ conception of strategy use

But the unsuccessful students are not aware of the many varieties of learning strategies, they do not use them. So they feel that if they can use as many strategies as possible, they can learn English better.

Finding 4

The students think differently about strategy training.

Students from Group 1 (the successful group) refused to have any strategy training, thinking that every one has to find what works the best for oneself, what works successfully with one person may not work for others.

However, the less successful students think that strategy training will help them greatly. But they need training on different aspects of learning strategies, mostly on the strategies to enlarge vocabulary.

Finding 5

There is a gap between what the students think of strategies and how they use them

The students say that social strategies are the most important ones, but they do not use them frequently.

The students think that memory strategies are the ones that they use the most but SILL data shows that they use meta-cognitive strategies the most frequently.

Directions for future research

Learning strategy instruction and student achievements

Language learning strategies and learning styles

Strategy use in second language learning contexts vs foreign language learning contexts

The role of computers in L2 strategy research

References CarrierK. A. 2003. Improving high

school English language learners' second language listening through strategy instruction. Bilingual Research Journal 27, 383– 408.

Chamot, A. U., & Keatley, C. W. 2003. Learning strategies of adolescent low-literacy Hispanic ESL students. Paper presented at the 2003 Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.

Fan, M. Y. 2003. Frequency of use, perceived usefulness, and actual usefulness of second language vocabulary strategies: A study of Hong Kong learners. n Language Journal 87, (2), 222– 241.

He, T. H. 2002. Goal orientations, writing strategies, and written outcomes: An experimental study. In J. E. Katchen (Ed.), Selected papers from the 11th International Symposium on English Teaching/Fourth Pan Asian Conference. Taipei, Taiwan, November 8-10, 2002, pp. 198-207.

Ikeda, M., & Takeuchi, O. 2003. Can strategy instruction help EFL learners to improve their reading ability?: An empirical study. JACET Bulletin, 37, 49– 60.

Ma, H. (2006). An exploratory study of writing motivation of Chinese EFL learners. Unpublished MA thesis, Beijing Foreign Studies University.

Oxford, R., Cho, Y., Leung, S., & Kim H-J. 2004. Effect of the presence and difficulty of task on strategy use: An exploratory study. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language teaching, 42, 1– 47.

• Riley, L. D., & Harsch, K. (1999). Enhancing the learning experience with strategy journals: Supporting the diverse learning styles of ESL/EFL students. Proceedings of the HERDSA Annual International conference, Melbourne, Australia. http:/herdsa.org.au/vic/cornerstones/pdf/Rikley.PDF

• Thompson, I., & Rubin, J. 1996. Can strategy instruction improve listening comprehension? Foreign Language Annals, 29 (3), 331– 342.

Wang, Y. (.2006). A Case Study of the Learning Strategy of Chinese College EFL Students Using SILL. Unpublished MA thesis, Beijing Foreign Studies University.