Islamic Azad University

Takestan Branch

English Language Department

Language Learning Strategy (LLS) Use Across Proficiency Levels

By: Nooshin Baharestani

Supervisor: Dr. A. Zarei

MA Thesis Proposal Submitted to the Graduate Studies Office in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Arts in Teaching English as a Foreign Language(TEFL)

December, 2013

Table of contents:

Introduction………………………………………….…....2

Statement of problems …………………………………....4

Significance of the Study ……………………………...….5

Purpose of the study ……………………………………....6

Research Questions and Hypotheses………………………6

Definition of key terms …………………………………...7

Review of related literature ……………………………….8

Definitions of LLS……………………………………….8

Previous studies………………………………………….9

Methodology ……………………………………………..12

Participants……………………………………………...12

Instruments……………………………………………...12

Procedures ……………………………………………...13

Data analysis………………………………………..…...14

Design ………………………………………………….15

Limitations and delimitations of the study………………..15

References………………………………………………...16

Introduction

One of the basic concerns in the field of second language acquisition has always been finding more efficient ways for teachers or learners to facilitate and optimize language teaching and learning, and this has resulted in a great number of studies on the nature of language teaching and learning. Until 1970s, these studies were mostly based on teacher-oriented methodologies. Then it was argued that some language learners seemed to be ‘more successful’ regardless of teaching methods and techniques (Rubin, 1975; Stern, 1975). Rubin (1975, p. 41): suggested that “if all people can learn their first language easily and well, why does this ability seem to decline for some when second language learning is the task?”. This resulted in a shift of focus from teachers and teaching methods to learners and learning process, leading to great amount of research aimed at investigating learner characteristics and behaviors. One of these behaviors and characteristics that has received remarkable attention is language learning strategies (LLSs) employed by learners in the process of learning a foreign or second language. Skehan (1989) referred to LLSs as one of the most important factors accounting for individual differences in language learning. Oxford (1990), referred to Learning Strategies, as one of the key variables affecting language learning, and defined LLSs as “specific actions taken by the leaner to make learning easier, faster, more enjoyable, more self-directed, more effective, and more transferable to new situations” (p.8). According to Oxford and Nyikos (1989, p. 291), “unlike most other characteristics of the learner such as attitude, aptitude, motivation, personality and general cognitive style, learning strategies are readily teachable”. According to the findings of studies on language learning strategies appropriate LLSs are useful in the development of communicative competence, improved proficiency and learner autonomy (Oxford & Crookall, 1988, 1989; Oxford, 1990). The relationship between LLS use and successful language learning has stimulated growing interest among many researchers and resulted in numerous studies aiming at finding characteristics of learning strategies, defining and categorizing them, exploring variables affecting the use of them and planning strategy trainings and LLS classroom instructions (e.g.,Bialystok, 1981;Chamot & Kupper, 1989; Eid Alhaisoni, 2012; El-Dib, 2004; Hong-Nam, Leavell 2006; O’Malley, Chamot, Stewner-Manzanares, Russo & Kupper, 1985; Oxford, 1990; Oxford & Nyikos, 1989; Park, 1997; Politzer, 1983;Sheorey, 1999; Wharton, 2000;Weng Pei-Shi, 2012;Ziahosseini & Salehi 2007). So alongside the increasing attention that was directed to learners in many studies, and due to the significance of LLSs in learning Foreign/second languages, the variables affecting their choice and use have received considerable attention. Oxford (1989) mentioned several factors influencing learners’ choice of LLSs including the language being learned, duration, age, sex, personality characteristics, career orientation, learning style, motivational orientation, teaching methods, and so on. Oxford (1989, p. 236) described duration as “course level, number of years of language study or proficiency level”. A number of studies have examined the relationships between EFL/ESL learners’ proficiency levels and strategy use and reported positive relationship between proficiency and learners use of LLSs (e.g., Eid Alhaisoni, 2012; El-Dib, 2004; Chamot & Kupper, 1989; Green & Oxford, 1995; Hong-Nam & Leavell 2006; O’Malley, Chamot, Stewner-Manzanares, Russo and Kupper, 1985; Oxford & Nyikos, 1989;Park, 1997; Sheorey, 1999; Weng Pei-Shi, 2012;Wharton 2000; Ziahosseini and Salehi 2007). For example, Oxford and Nyikos (1989), reported significant effect of self-ratings of language proficiency and years of study on strategy use in the large-scale investigation of 1,200 university foreign language students in the US. Oxford (1989, p. 237) suggestedthat “language students might spontaneously develop new and betterstrategies as they become more advanced”.

The present study focuses on the effects of Iranian EFL learners’ proficiency levels on their use and choice of LLSs in more details, that is, the use of each category of LLSs across proficiency levels.

Statement of the problem

As the significance of learning strategies in learning foreign/second languages has been discussed and highlighted by many researchers, many studies have investigated the effects of various variables on the use and choice of LLSs. Most of the studies on the relationship between proficiency levels and LLS use, have reported a positive relationship. Chammot (2004) referred to some inconsistencies in the results of the studies on the links between learners’ characteristics and LLS use, such as contrasting results on the effects of gender on LLS use. Chammot (2004, p.18) suggested that “the relationship between LLS use and language proficiency is far clearer” as based on the findings of many researchers “more proficient language learners use a greater variety and often a greater number of learning strategies”. However since then the results of some studies in Iran have showed some mixed results. While in great number of studies the findings have revealed that learners at higher levels of proficiency make more frequent use of learning strategies (e.g., Akbari and Talebinezhad, 2003; Rahimi, Riazi, & Saif, 2004; Alemi & Tajeddin, 2010; Ketabi and Mohammadi, 2012; GharbaviMousavi, 2012), the results of some studies have demonstrated no significant difference in the use of LLSs by the learners at different levels of proficiency. On the other hand few studies have investigated the LLS use of Iranian EFL learners across proficiency levels, focusing on the use of each category of LLSs. So more studies in Iranian context would shed some light on the patterns of language learning strategy use across English language proficiency levels.

Significance of the study

Learning strategies play a very important role in language learning and there is unanimous agreement among scholars about including these strategies in the process of language learning. And cited in Oxford R. and Nyikos M., (1989), “unlike most other characteristics of the learner such as attitude, aptitude, motivation, personality and general cognitive style, learning strategies are readily teachable”. Moreover, the theoretical and practical studies about learning strategies have yielded very promising results and promoted the effectiveness of language learning in many ESL and EFL contexts.

For Iranian EFL learners this may be of a greater significance, as most of them, due to various political, social and financial reasons, lack enough exposures to authentic English inside and outside of the classrooms. So helping students develop effective learning strategies may improve this situation and lead them towards being more autonomous, self-directed and successful learners. However, when it comes to the strategy use of Iranian EFL learners and their general language proficiencies, the findings of the studies have shown some mixed results. So it is hoped that the findings of the present study will be significant in shedding light on those strategies which are more frequently used by Iranian elementary, intermediate, and advanced learners. Thus, the results of this study may help teachers to find out those strategies which are more effective in language learning and to include them in their classroom instruction. They may also help syllabus designers, material developers and schools and education authorities consider the importance of language learning strategies and provide Iranian EFL learners with opportunities and materials that stimulate these strategies and facilitate language learning.

Purpose of the Study

The current study is an attempt to investigate whether there are any significant differences between the use of each category of LLSs by Iranian EFL learners across English language proficiency levels, namely Elementary, Intermediate and advance.

The study tries to answer the following questions:

Research questions:

  1. Is there any significant difference in the Cognitive strategy use of Iranian EFL learners across proficiency levels?
  1. Is there any significant difference in the Metacognitive strategy use of Iranian EFL learnersacross proficiency levels?
  1. Is there any significant difference in theAffectivestrategy use of Iranian EFL learnersacross proficiency levels?
  1. Is there any significant difference in theMemorystrategy use of Iranian EFL learnersacross proficiency levels?
  1. Is there any significant difference in theCompensationstrategy use of Iranian EFL learnersacross proficiency levels?
  1. Is there any significant difference in theSocialstrategy use of Iranian EFL learnersacross proficiency levels?

Null hypotheses:

  1. There is nosignificant difference in thecognitivestrategy use of Iranian EFL learnersacross proficiency levels.
  1. There is nosignificant difference in theMetacognitivestrategy use of Iranian EFL learnersacross proficiency levels.
  1. There is nosignificant difference in theAffectivestrategy use of Iranian EFL learnersacross proficiency levels.
  1. There is nosignificant difference in theMemorystrategy use of Iranian EFL learnersacross proficiency levels.
  1. There is nosignificant difference in the Compensation strategy use of Iranian EFL learnersacross proficiency levels.
  1. There is nosignificant difference in theSocialstrategy use of Iranian EFL learnersacross proficiency levels.

Definition of key terms

Learning Strategies: Steps taken to facilitate acquisition, storage, retrieval, and use of information (Ehrman & Oxford, 1989). Learning strategies in this study include those incorporated in 50-item questionnaire designed by Oxford (1989, 1990). According to Oxford (1989), these strategies are divided into the following six subscales:

  • Memory strategies: remembering more effectively through grouping, making associations, using imagery, etc.
  • Cognitive strategies: using mental processes through looking for language patterns, skimming and scanning, analyzing contrastively, etc.
  • Compensation strategies: compensating for missing knowledge through guessing, switching to L1, coining words, etc.
  • Metacognitive strategies: organizing and evaluating learning through arranging to learn, finding how language learning works, evaluating progress, etc.
  • Affective strategies: managing emotions through lowering anxiety, rewarding oneself, talking with someone about one's feeling, etc.
  • Social strategies: learning with others through asking for correction, cooperating with peers, developing cultural awareness, etc.

Review of the related literature

Definitions of LLSs

There have been different definitions to describe Learning Strategies since the 1980s. Oxford and Niokos (1989, p. 291) defined learning strategies as “operations used by learners to aid the acquisition, storage, and retrieval of information”. According to Oxford (1990, p. 8), learning strategies are "specific actions taken by the learner to make learning easier, faster, more enjoyable, more self-directed, more effective, and more transferable to new situation". Oxford (1990) later by emphasizing on the process of learning , rather than the product, provided a more comprehensible definition for language learning strategies, as specific actions, behaviors, steps, or techniques that students use to accelerate their progress in developing L2 skills. She referred to learning strategies as a combination of behaviors used by the learners to assist them in learning, storing, and recovering information. Oxford (1990, p.1) also pointed out that strategies are particularly important for language learning "because they are tools for active, self-directed involvement, which is essential for developing communicative competence". Oxford (2003) later described Learning Strategies, as one of the key variables affecting language learning, she also defined LS as the specific behaviors or thoughts that learners employ to enhance their language learning, and it is with the teachers’ help that students gain an awareness of these strategies and can employ a wider range of appropriate strategies. According to Joan Rubin (1975), by examining the strategies employed by more successful learners, an insight is gained into what these strategies might include, so that teachers can use a list of good learners strategies to help the less successful learners better their performance. Rubin (1975) defined learning strategies as “the techniques or devices which a learner may use to acquire knowledge” (p. 43). Later, Rubin mentioned that language learning strategies “are strategies which contribute to the development of the language system which the learner constructs and affect learning directly” (1987, p. 22), and She also added that language learning strategies include “any set of operations, steps, plans, or routines used by the learner to facilitate the obtaining, storage, retrieval, and use of information” (1987, p. 19). As cited in Carol Grifiths (2004), “When O’Malley et al (1985) came to conduct their research, they used the definition of learning strategies as being operations or steps used by a learner that will facilitate the acquisition, storage, retrieval or use of information” (p.23), a definition originally used by Rigney (1978). As O’Malley and Chamot (1990) have stated one of the important aims of studies into language learning strategies is often to determine effective ways of learning a new language. According to Chamot, (2004, p. 14), “learning strategies are the thoughts and actions that individuals employ to achieve a learning goal”.

Previous Studies

There has been a number of empirical studies that have investigated the relationships between learners’ L2 proficiency and strategy use. For instance, in a study of English learners in Puerto Rico, conducted by Green and Oxford (1995), results showed that more successful learners used strategies more frequently, actively, and naturalistically than the less successful learners. Oxford and Nyikos (1989), reported significant effect of self-ratings of language proficiency and years of study on strategy use in the large-scale investigation of 1,200 university foreign language students in the US.

In another research undertaken in Botswana, between 2002 and 2005, by Magogwe, andOliver (2007), the relationship between language strategies, proficiency, age and self-efficacy beliefs was examined. The results revealed that there was a dynamic relationship between the use of the LLSs and proficiency, level of schooling (representing age differences) and self-efficacy beliefs, with no distinct preference for particular types of strategies. Hong-Nam and Leavell(2006) investigated the relationship between the learning strategy use of 55 ESL learners, with different cultural and linguistic backgrounds, and language proficiency, with a focus on gender and nationality. This study revealed that the learners at the intermediate level used more overall strategies than the beginners or advanced language learners. According to the authors, these results were in accordance with a study by Phillips (1991). And also metacognitive strategies were reported to be used the most and affective and memory strategies the least, but females employed affective and social strategies more than males. Ouyang Ou-chun (2011) examined the effects of proficiency on 188 postgraduate students’ strategy use and reported significant correlation between overall strategy, memory, cognitive, compensation, and social strategy categories and proficiency levels. A significant difference between the high and the low language proficiency levels in their use of LLSs was reported by Weng Pei-Shi (2012) in a research on a group of 71 non-English majors in New Taipei City, and the results showed greater number of LLSs used by the learners of high proficiency levels than the low language proficiency learners.

In Iran, Rahimi, Riazi, & Saif (2004) studied the use of language learning strategies by 196 post-secondary level Persian EFL learners, at low ,mid-, and high proficiency levels, focusing on the variables affecting learners’ choice of strategies, and the relationship between these variables and learners’ patterns of strategy use. The results showed motivation and proficiency level as main predictors of LLSs use of the learners.Ghavamnia, Kassaian, and Dabaghi (2011) conducted a research in Isfahan on the relationship between strategy use and three other variables (motivation, proficiency, and learners’ beliefs) with 80 undergraduate students, and reported a positive relationship between the students’ English language proficiency and their use of language learning strategies, i.e., more overall use of language learning strategies by more proficient learners. In this group of learners, cognitive strategies were reported to have the highest frequency and metacognitive strategies were the second most frequently used strategy. However, the percentage of cognitive strategies in another study conducted by Gharbavi and Mousavi (2012) was reported to be zero, and compensation and metacognitive strategies were the most frequently used strategies by the participants. In another study, Gharbavi and Mousavi (2012) reported a positive relationship between proficiency levels of the learners and their use of LLS, with metacognitive and compensation strategies as the most frequently used strategies by advanced learners.

However, Ziahosseini and Salehi’s (2007) findings are not in accordance with the above mentioned results, regarding the effects of proficiency on learners’ use and choice of LLS. In a study on the relationship between the use of LLSs and variables such as motivation, sex and the level of proficiency. Ziahosseini and Salehi (2007) reported that extrinsic motivation did not correlate meaningfully with the choice of LLSs, but the correlation with intrinsic motivation was meaningful. The results also showed no gender differences in the use and choice of LLSs. Moreover, their results revealed that proficiency levels did not make any difference in the use and choice of LLS, which is in contrast with the findings of many previous studies in this regard. Tajeddin andAlemi (2010) comparedless proficient and more proficient L2 learners’ preferences for L1-based, L2-based, and non-linguistic compensation strategies of a group of 229 Iranian EFL learners. The results did not show a significant difference between the high and low proficient learners in their overall use of compensation strategies; however, the effect of proficiency on individual strategies led to more L2-based strategies used by high proficient learners in contrast with avoidance or L1-based strategies used by low proficient learners. In another study, selecting 100 Iranian EFL learners at elementary and intermediate proficiency levels, Khosravi (2012)investigated the effect of learners’ proficiency level on language learning strategies, and the results didn’t show significant differences in the frequency of general LLSs use between the higher and lower levels. She related this to a lack of enough proficiency gap between elementary and intermediate levels and suggested that a comparison between elementary and advanced levels be made in further studies. The most frequently used strategies in this study were compensation strategies by both elementary and intermediate levels, which is rather in contrast with the results of some other studies in this field. The findings of this study also revealed that the use of the cognitive strategies showed the strongest relation to English proficiency.