Language Learning Strategies

RELC Journal http://rel.sagepub.
com/
Language Learning Strategies and Language Self-Efficacy : Investigating the Relationship in Malaysia
Mary Siew-Lian Wong RELC Journal 2005 36: 245 DOI: 10.1177/0033688205060050 The online version of this article can be found at: http://rel.sagepub.com/content/36/3/245
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
Additional services and information for RELC Journal can be found at: Email Alerts: http://rel.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://rel.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations: http://rel.sagepub.com/content/36/3/245.refs.html
>> Version of Record - Nov 11, 2005 What is This?
Downloaded from rel.sagepub.com by guest on January 28, 2013
Article
Language Learning Strategies and Language Self-Efficacy:

Investigating the Relationship in Malaysia*
Mary Siew-Lian Wong
Batu Lintang Teachers College, Malaysia marywsl@yahoo.com
Abstract This study explored graduate pre-service teachers language learning strategies and language self-efcacy and the relationship between these two constructs. Seventy-four graduate English-as-a-second-language (ESL) pre-service teachers (13 males, 61 females) from a teachers college in Kuching, Sarawak, Malaysia, participated in this study. These pre-service teachers were in a one-year Diploma in Education course to prepare them to teach English in school. Six categories of language learning strategies were identied from their responses to seven hypothetical learning contexts. Pearson correlation coefcients show that there was a signicant positive relationship between language learning strategies and language self-efcacy. Interview ndings were in agreement with the above ndings. High self-efcacy preservice teachers reported more frequent use of more number of language learning strategies than did low self-efcacy pre-service teachers. Implications and suggestions for further research are put forward.
Introduction Learning strategies and the factors that inuence their use have received much attention in recent years since it became widely accepted that learning is a process and the role of the teacher is to facilitate that process. In the area of language learning, there has been much focus on these aspects too, particularly regarding second language (L2) acquisition. Over the past two decades, researchers (OMalley and Chamot 1990; Oxford 1990; Stern 1992) have attempted to identify and categorize language learning strategies of good language learners. Studies focused on identifying what good language learners report they do or are observed doing when they learn a
Vol 36(3) 245-269 | DOI: 10.1177/0033688205060050 2005 SAGE Publications (London, Thousand Oaks CA and New Delhi) http://RELC.sagepub.com
246 Regional Language Centre Journal 36.3
second or foreign language. There has also been increased focus on the role of affect in inuencing use of learning strategies. Stevick (1980), a strong proponent of humanism in language teaching, argued that [language learning] success depends less on materials, techniques and linguistic analyses, and more on what goes on inside and between the people in the classroom (p. 4). Oxford (1994) emphasized that L2 research should not just focus on the intellectual but also the social and affective aspects of language learning as learners are not just cognitive or metacognitive machines but whole persons. Language Learning Strategies Early research into language learning strategies was concerned with attempting to establish what good language learning strategies might be. Studies focused on identifying what good language learners report they do or are observed doing when they learn a second or foreign language. The methods of data collection used included observations, interviews, student self-reports and diaries, and questionnaires. Rubin (1975), suggested that good L2 learners (1) are willing and accurate guessers, (2) have a strong drive to communicate, (3) are often uninhibited, (4) are willing to practice opportunities, (5) monitor their speech as well as that of others, and (6) pay attention to meaning. Naiman, Frolich, Stern, and Todesco (1978) conducted interviews with adults in a major classroom study of learners of French as a second language and suggested that language learning strategies form only one part of a broader picture of what constitutes a good language learner. They argue that further research needs to study critically the different inventories of learning strategies and techniques and to develop an exhaustive list, clearly related to a learning model (Naiman et al. 1978: 220). This challenge was taken up by OMalley and his colleagues (OMalley et al. 1985a, 1985b) in their work with native speakers of Spanish. OMalley and Chamot (1990) established that three types of strategies, namely metacognitive, cognitive and social/affective, were being used. Within the metacognitive category were those strategies which involve knowing about learning and controlling learning through plannin, monitoring and evaluating learning activity, cognitive strategies included those strategies involving manipulation or transformation of the material to be learned, while social/affective strategies mainly involved the learner in communicative interaction with another person, for example, collaboration with peers and teachers in the learning process.
247 Language Learning Strategies and Language Self-Efficacy
Oxford (1990) also developed a system of language learning strategies that is believed (Jones 1998) to be more comprehensive and detailed than earlier classication models. She saw the aim of language learning strategies as being oriented towards the development of communicative competence. Oxford (1990) divided strategies into two major classes: direct and indirect. Direct strategies, which involve direct learning and use of the subject matter, in this case a new language are subdivided into three groups: memory strategies, cognitive strategies, and compensation strategies; Indirect strategies, which contribute indirectly but powerfully to learning (pp. 11-12) are also subdivided into three groups: metacognitive strategies, affective strategies, and social strategies. According to Oxford (1990), memory strategies such as creating mental linkages and employing actions, aid in entering information into long-term memory and retrieving information when needed for communication. Cognitive strategies, such as analyzing and reasoning, are used for forming and revising internal mental modes and receiving and producing messages in the target language. Compensation strategies, such as guessing unknown words while listening and reading or using circumlocution in speaking and writing, are needed to overcome any gaps in knowledge of the language. Metacognitive strategies help learners exercise executive control planning, arranging, focusing, and evaluation of their own learning process. Affective strategies enable learners to control feelings, motivation, and attitudes related to language learning. Social strategies, such as asking questions and cooperation with others, facilitate interaction with others, often in a discourse situation. Logically, individuals will apply different strategies depending on their personality, cognitive style, and the task at hand. Stern (1992: 262-66) suggested that there are ve main types of language learning strategies, namely management and planning strategies, cognitive strategies, communicative-experiential strategies, interpersonal strategies, and affective strategies. Management and planning strategies are related to the learners intention to direct his own learning. Cognitive strategies are steps or operations used in learning or problem solving that require direct analysis, transformation, or synthesis of learning materials. Communicative-experiential strategies, such as circumlocution, gesturing, paraphrasing or asking for repetition or explanation are techniques used by learners so as to keep a conversation going. Interpersonal strategies are those strategies learners use to monitor their own development and evaluate their own performance. Affective strategies are those strategies used to
overcome negative feelings, frustration, anxiety, and self-consciousness when trying to use the language. The above review shows that over the past two decades, researchers have come up with L2 strategy classication systems of different typologies. As Oxford (1994) observed, the lack of a coherent, well-accepted system for describing these learning strategies indicates that there is a major problem in the research on classication of L2 learning strategies. One of the main aims of this study was to identify the language learning strategies of ESL graduate pre-service teachers using Oxfords (1994) system of language learning strategies as a guideline. Self-Efcacy and Language Learning Strategies Research has shown that performance can be facilitated by the enhancement of self-efcacy, that is, peoples judgments of their capabilities to organize and execute courses of action required to attain designated types of performances (Bandura 1986: 391). Perceptions of self-efcacy inuence motivation; they determine the goals individuals set, the effort they expend to achieve these goals, and their willingness to persist in the face of failure (Bandura 1986). In the area of language acquisition, researchers have found that many students learning ESL have a low sense of selfefcacy and a lack of learning strategies to help them gain prociency in the language (Horwitz et al. 1986; Oxford and Shearin 1994). These factors in turn undermine their motivation to learn and their performance in English-referent academic tasks. Low self-efcacy hinders their participation in learning activities (Bandura 1986; Schunk 1991) while lack of learning strategies prohibits them from solving problems they encounter in language learning. There is research evidence that self-efcacy is related to motivation to learn (Pintrich 1999; Wolters and Rosenthal 2000) and to a greater use of learning strategies (Wong and Siow 2003; Zimmerman and Martinez-Pons 1990). This important role of affect in learning has resonated strongly with the intuitions of many second and foreign language teachers. However, there is need for more studies conducted in the local educational and cultural context to provide insights into students use of language learning strategies and how this is related to their language self-efcacy beliefs. The Statement of the Problem Over the past three decades, research in second language (L2) acquisition has conrmed hypotheses that language learning is indeed enhanced
by attention to affect. There have been many studies on language anxiety (Horwitz et al. 1986; Horwitz and Young 1991; MacIntyre and Gardner 1989; Price 1991; Young 1990) and self-condence (Clment et al. 1994; Clment and Kruidenier 1985; Gardner et al. 1997) in L2 learning, but relatively few documented studies on a related aspect, that is, task-specic language self-efcacy. Two intervention studies (Chamot et al. 1993; Chamot, Robbins and El-Dinary 1993) examined the effects of metacognitive, cognitive, and social strategy instruction received by learners of Japanese, Russian and Spanish. Among other measures, students completed learning strategy questionnaires in which they reported their frequency of strategy use in performing specic L2 tasks, and selfefcacy questionnaires in which they rated their perceptions of their ability to complete those particular tasks. Positive relationships between the frequent use of learning strategies and perceptions of self-efcacy were found in most groups. This survey-correctional study aimed to add to the ndings of research in this area. Meanwhile, a review of the literature revealed that there are hardly any documented records of local studies on ESL students language selfefcacy and the language learning strategies they use. Insights into these two constructs and how they are related would enable English teachers to be better able to help students facing problems in learning English. Furthermore, in view of the Malaysian Governments recent move to revive the use of English as a medium of instruction in schools, starting with teaching and learning of Science and Mathematics in Year One, Form One, and Lower Six in January 2003 (English at three levels, 2002), this study is a timely investigation that would contribute to efforts to meet the urgent need for teachers of English, Science and Mathematics. This need to gain insights into ESL learners language learning strategies and language self-efcacy becomes even more compelling when they are preservice teachers being trained to teach ESL students in school. Objectives of the Study This study therefore aimed to (1) identify the self-reported graduate ESL pre-service teachers language learning strategies, (2) investigate the relationship between graduate ESL pre-service teachers language learning strategies and their language self-efcacy beliefs, and (3) gain insights into how low self-efcacy and high self-efcacy graduate ESL preservice teachers improve their prociency in English.
Research Questions The following research questions were addressed in this study: What are the self-reported language learning strategies of graduate ESL pre-service teachers? (ii) Is there any signicant correlation between the self-reported graduate ESL pre-service teachers language learning strategies and their language self-efcacy beliefs? (iii) How do low self-efcacy and high self-efcacy graduate ESL pre-service teachers improve their prociency in English? Method Participants Participants were 74 (13 males, 61 females) graduate pre-service teachers undergoing a one-year Diploma in Education course in a teachers college in Kuching, the capital city of the State of Sarawak, Malaysia. They were in four intact groups (n = 18, n = 19, n = 20, and n = 17). They were being trained to teach English in school. The age of the participants ranged from 23 to 34 years, with a mean age of 26.11 years (SD = 2.24). They consisted of 46% Malays (n = 34), 30% Chinese (n = 22), 23% Ibans (n = 17), and 1% Indian (n = 1). All participants had studied English as a subject in school for at least 11 years. Instruments Language Self-Efcacy Scale A Language Self-Efcacy Scale was developed to assess participants selfefcacy in English. The ten items in the scale were English learning tasks involving the use of the four basic skills namely reading, writing, speaking and listening, and correct grammar. In keeping with how academic self-efcacy is assessed (Pajares 1996; Zimmerman and Bandura 1994; Zimmerman and Martinez-Pons 1990), the pre-service teachers were not required to carry out the tasks. They were only required to give realistic estimates of their condence in carrying out the tasks correctly. The approximate time allotted for them to attend to each item was about 30 seconds only. They were asked to rate their condence in carrying out each task correctly on a ten-point scale. Two experienced college English lecturers who were currently teaching the pre-service teachers were asked (i)
to comment on the suitability of the ten items. Their suggestions and comments were taken into account in improving the scale. The resultant scale was pilot tested on a representative sample of pre-service teachers (N = 27) who were not involved in the actual study. The scale was found to have high internal consistency (Alpha reliability coefcient = 0.89) as well as test-retest (after 2 weeks) stability (Pearson r = 0.93, p < 0.01). Item-total-correlations computed for the pilot sample showed that all ten items correlated signicantly (p < 0.001) with the total, with correlation values ranging from 0.48 to 0.83. The Language Self-Efcacy Scale is shown in Appendix A. The scale was administered to intact classes by the researcher in this study. Participants were informed verbally that they were involved in a study to investigate language self-efcacy and how they learn English. Before the administration of the scale, the participants were given practice with efcacy assessment by judging their certainty of being able to jump progressively longer distances ranging from one meter to several meters (adapted from Schunk 1983). The aim of using this concrete example was to help them learn how to use the scales numerical values to convey the strength of their perceived efcacy. Following this practice session, the participants were presented with the ten items in the Language Self-Efcacy Scale. Language Learning Strategies Questionnaire The Language Learning Strategies Questionnaire consisting of seven English language learning contexts was developed to elicit pre-service teachers self-reported language learning strategies. The researcher adopted the format of a questionnaire developed and used in an earlier study (Wong and Siow 2003) to investigate secondary school students self-reported self-regulated learning strategies. The learning contexts in the Language Learning Strategies Questionnaire were designed to elicit responses from pre-service teachers about the strategies they used for improving their command of English in various learning situations involving the use of reading, writing, listening and speaking skills such as when (1) doing reections and keeping records of the learning process, (2) preparing for an examination on the teaching of English, (3) doing practicum in school, (4) communicating in English with peers and lecturers, (5) trying to increase their vocabulary and improve their command of English grammar, (6) writing lesson plans for teaching English, and (7) reading English materials to improve their command of English. The language learning
strategies explored included the six groups of language learning strategies in Oxfords (1990) taxonomy of language learning strategies, namely memory strategies, cognitive strategies, compensation strategies, metacognitive strategies, affective strategies, and social strategies. Pre-service teachers were also required to indicate how often (i.e., seldom, occasionally, frequently, or most of the time) they used each strategy. The instrument had a free-response or unstructured format where preservice teachers had to write down the strategies they would use for the learning context described and the frequency of use of each strategy in similar situations. A free-response format was chosen in preference to an option item format such as the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) (Oxford 1990) in order to avoid giving cues or suggestions to them of the strategies they should use. According to Ley and Young (1998), the tendency to respond in the socially acceptable manner would be more likely when the respondent is cued with possible acceptable responses. The two English lecturers mentioned earlier were asked to comment on the contents of the learning situations. They found the learning situations realistic and suitable for the study. The instrument was next pilot tested on the same representative sample of pre-service teachers who were involved in pilot testing of the self-efcacy scale. It was found that they were generally able to give appropriate written responses to the learning contexts presented to them. A trial coding of pre-service teachers responses using the system of learning strategies according to Oxford (1990) as a guideline, revealed that all the six groups of strategies in Oxfords (1990: 17) taxonomy of language learning strategies could be identied in the responses of the pre-service teachers. Immediately after the pilot testing, the researcher took time to discuss with some of the preservice teachers concerning the meaning and clarity of the statements in the learning contexts. Following that, minor adjustments were made to the wording in some of the learning contexts. The questionnaire was administered to participants by the researcher in this study. They were informed that as the questionnaire was not a measure of language prociency, they could write their responses in Bahasa Malaysia (i.e., the national language of Malaysia and the ofcial medium of instruction in schools) if they had difculty in expressing themselves in English. No time limit was set for completion of the instrument, but most of the participants managed to respond to the seven learning situations in 30 minutes.
Interviews Semi-structured interviews were conducted with selected participants to gain greater insights into the learning strategies that they used to learn English. The questions focused on how they improved their reading, writing, listening and speaking skills. The interview protocol was pilot tested on six pre-service teachers (i.e., three low self-efcacy and three high selfefcacy ones) from the aforementioned pilot sample. While conducting the interviews, the researcher made an effort to check on the suitability of the interview protocol through taking note of interviewees perceptions of the questions asked. Following that, weaknesses identied in the protocol were corrected. The interviews were conducted with selected participants to probe further into their language acquisition strategies. Purposive sampling procedure was used to select about 20% (n = 16) of the participants, that is, eight low self-efcacy pre-service teachers who attained a score of more than one standard deviation below the mean (i.e., less than 49.9%) and eight high self-efcacy pre-service teachers who attained a score of more than one standard deviation above the mean (i.e., more than 81.3%) for the interviews. Participants were interviewed individually for about ten minutes by the researcher in this study. They were allowed to choose to converse in the language they felt most comfortable with, that is, Bahasa Malaysia or English. In order to avoid bias on grounds of their perceptions of themselves, the interviewees were not informed as to whether they were in the low or high self-efcacy category. Data Analysis Language Self-Efcacy Scale The Language Self-Efcacy Scale was analyzed in the following manner: Participants self-efcacy scores were obtained through calculating their average score for the items in the scale. (ii) Pearson correlations between strategy importance (SI) values for language learning strategies and mean language self-efcacy scores were computed. Language Learning Strategies Questionnaire Participants responses to the learning situations in the Language Learning Strategies Questionnaire were analyzed in the following manner: (i)
Pre-service teachers responses were coded into groups of learning strategies by the researcher in this study. Examples of language learning strategies for each group in the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) (Oxford 1990) were used as guidelines in categorizing the responses. As a check on the consistency of coding, approximately 20% of the scripts (i.e., 15 scripts) were randomly selected and blind-coded separately two weeks later. Cohens (1988) kappa statistic for categorical data was computed to determine the agreement level of the coding. The k value obtained was 0.81, indicating a high level of agreement between the two codings. (ii) The coded responses were scored according to a procedure used in Purdie and Hattie (1996). The score for consistency of strategy use was obtained through weighting participants indicated frequency of strategy use in the following manner: 1 = seldom, 2 = occasionally, 3 = frequently, 4 = most of the time. Through summing the weighted responses for each strategy and dividing by the number of times the strategy was mentioned, a measure of the average importance a participant attached to the use of each strategy was obtained. [For example, if a participant mentioned the strategy of memorizing three times, weighting each mention as most of the time (4), occasionally (2), and most of the time (4), the average importance of the strategy for the participant would be scored as 3.33] According to Purdie and Hattie (1996), the score obtained in this way reects the importance the participant attaches to a particular strategy. It was therefore referred to as the strategy importance (SI) score. (iii) The means and standard deviations of the strategy importance (SI) scores for each of the groups of strategies identied were computed to investigate the level of use of each group of strategy identied. Interviews The interview responses were content analyzed using the framework technique of qualitative data analysis (Ritchie and Spencer 1994). This method is systematic, thorough, and grounded in the data. This involved (a) initially reading through all the transcripts in order to be familiar with the data, (b) re-reading the transcripts and identifying recurring themes or
(i)
categories, (c) indexing or coding data into themes or categories, (d) charting or creating a framework of categories, (e) rening and reducing categories through grouping them where appropriate, and (f) checking and re-coding responses using the rened framework of categories. Findings and Discussion Language Learning Strategies The rst aim of this study was to identify the language learning strategies of graduate ESL pre-service teachers. Pre-service teachers responses to the seven hypothetical learning contexts in the Language Learning Strategies Questionnaire were coded according to the groups of language learning strategies put forward by Oxford (1990). Appendix B presents some examples of pre-service teachers responses categorized into the various groups of language learning strategies in Oxfords (1990) taxonomy of language learning strategies. Meanwhile, Table 1 presents the means and standard deviations of strategy importance (SI) scores for each language learning strategy identied. The SI values are a measure of the average or typical importance the respondent attached to the use of each strategy (Purdie and Hattie 1996: 853). In the right hand column, the strategies are ranked according to the mean SI scores.
Table 1. Means and Standard Deviations of Strategy Importance Scores of Language Learning Strategies Strategy Importance (SI) Score (N = 74) Strategy Memory Cognitive Compensation Metacognitive Affective Social Overall (six strategies) M 1.60 2.71 0.85 2.38 0.65 2.50 1.78 SD 1.43 0.68 1.07 1.05 1.31 0.79 0.58 Rank 4 1 5 3 6 2
An examination of the mean SI values in Table 1 shows that the mean SI values for the strategies ranged from 0.65 to 2.71, indicating that preservice teachers consistency ratings for their use of learning strategies
were between seldom and frequently. The mean SI value for their use of the six language learning strategies was 1.78, indicating that overall, pre-service teachers consistency ratings for their use of language learning strategies was occasionally. Perusal of the ranking of mean SI values in Table 1 shows that preservice teachers mentioned the use of cognitive strategies (ranked 1) most often. This shows that there were efforts to analyze, reason, form, and revise internal modes while receiving and producing messages in English. The next most frequently mentioned group of strategy was social strategies. Pre-service teachers appeared to rely on the assistance and support of others frequently in their efforts to gain prociency in the language. The use of metacognitive learning strategies was ranked third, indicating that pre-service teachers do exercise executive control and plan, arrange, focus on, as well as evaluate their own learning process. There was, however, relatively less usage of memory strategies (ranked 4) to commit to memory and facilitate retrieval of what they had learned. Two learning strategies that were seldom mentioned by pre-service teachers were compensation strategies and affective strategies. There is a possibility that pre-service teachers felt that guessing and using circumlocution during communication (i.e., examples of compensation strategies) are considered as a lack of effort in mastering the language and therefore they avoided mentioning it in their responses. The low SI value for affective strategies could mean that pre-service teachers lacked the right attitude and determination to work at improving their prociency in the language since there were few reports of efforts to control feelings, motivation and attitude related to learning English. The Relationship between Language Learning Strategies and Language Self-Efcacy A second aim of this study was to investigate the relationship between pre-service teachers perceptions of self-efcacy and their use of language learning strategies. Pearson Product-Moment correlation between pre-service teachers self-efcacy scores and total strategy importance scores (obtained through summing the SI scores for all the language learning strategies of each pre-service teacher) was 0.72, p < 0.01. This indicates that pre-service teachers language self-efcacy was moderately correlated with total language learning strategy importance scores showing that there was a signicant positive relationship between language self-efcacy and strategy use. This nding concurs with those of other
researchers (Chamot et al. 1993; Chamot, Robbins and El-Dinary 1993) that attest to the fact that there is signicant positive relationship between perceptions of self-efcacy and use of language learning strategies. Language Learning Strategies of Low Self-Efcacy and High Self-Efcacy Pre-Service Teachers A third aim of this study was to obtain further insights, through interviews, into how selected low self-efcacy and high self-efcacy preservice teachers improve their prociency in English. The questions focused on the strategies they used to improve in the four basic language skills namely speaking, writing, listening, and reading. Content analysis of the interview responses showed that the groups of language learning strategies mentioned were similar to those reported in the Language Learning Strategies Questionnaire. The frequency of use of language learning strategies by low self-efcacy and high self-efcacy pre-service teachers also reects the earlier nding that there is a positive relationship between the use of language learning strategies and language selfefcacy. High self-efcacy pre-service teachers mentioned greater use of language learning strategies compared to low self-efcacy pre-service teachers. Table 2 presents a summary of the responses of the eight low self-efcacy and eight high self-efcacy pre-service teachers who were interviewed. Perusal of the ndings showed that there was a marked difference in low self-efcacy and high self-efcacy pre-service teachers efforts to converse in English. All eight low self-efcacy pre-service teachers said they seldom conversed in English or only when they had to, while high self-efcacy pre-service teachers (six out of eight) said they did so all or most of the time. These high self-efcacy pre-service teachers also took steps to improve in their speaking skill while the low self-efcacy preservice teachers (six out of eight) seldom did so or had no specic plans to do so (two out of eight). A similar pattern was noted for frequency of writing in English; seven out of the eight low self-efcacy pre-service teachers said they seldom wrote texts in English while high self-efcacy pre-service teachers did so most of the time (three out of eight) and occasionally (five out of eight). High self-efcacy pre-service teachers also appeared to try harder at improving in this skill compared to low self-efcacy pre-service teachers, with efforts to write more often (three out of eight) and read a lot or refer to examples (five out of eight).
Regarding the use of listening skill, both low self-efcacy and high selfefcacy pre-service teachers said that they used this skill a lot. However, high self-efcacy pre-service teachers responses (four out of eight) indicated that they put in more effort at understanding what they heard through being more focused while listening. All eight high self-efcacy pre-service teachers said they read a lot compared to only three low selfefcacy pre-service teachers giving that category of response. There were also more high self-efcacy pre-service teachers who tried to nd out the meaning of new words and apply them in other situations. Many of the low self-efcacy pre-service teachers (seven out of eight) appeared to make little effort to look up meanings of new words as they said they resorted to trying to understand them in context or just guess the meaning of these words.
Table 2. Summary of Responses of Pre-service Teachers Interviewed No. of Responses Low SE High SE (n = 8) (n = 8) 8 6 2 1 7 1 7 6 2 6 2 7 1 3 5 3 5 3 5 -
No. 1
Category of Responses Frequency of conversing in English: - All or most of the time - Occasionally - Seldom/only when I have to Steps taken to improve speaking skill: - Listen, observe, speak in English frequently - Try to speak English more often, but seldom do so - Dont have any specic plans to do so
Frequency of writing in English: - Most of the time - Occasionally - Seldom Type of text written: - Reections/messages/short notes/assignments - Emails/greeting cards/assignments Steps taken to improve writing skill: - Write more often - Read a lot/refer to examples - No specic plans to do so
Frequency of using listening skill: - Listen to English songs, watch English movies/ News most of the time - Seldom listen to English songs, watch English movies/TV/News Steps taken to improve listening skill: - Pay attention/be more focused - Guess the meaning in context - Check the dictionary/ask friends
7 1 5 3
8 4 2 2
Frequency of reading English materials: - Often (read newspapers/magazines/journals/ story books/comics) - Seldom read materials in English Steps taken to understand what is read: - Check out meaning of words with friends/the dictionary - Try to understand in context/guess the meaning Efforts to learn new words: - Note down in a book/small card/memorize/ apply it/revise - Dont do anything at all
3 5
8 -
1 7
5 3
1 7 4 2 2
3 5 6 2 -
The language skill they were most condent in: - Reading - Listening - None of the four skills (reading, listening, speaking, writing) Additional steps taken to improve prociency level: - Read more English materials - Do exercises/take English courses/review notes/ do self-evaluation - Dont do anything at all Most challenging thing about learning English: - Improving command of grammar and pronunciation - Expressing myself in English - Learning new vocabulary - No condence in speaking/writing
6 1 1
3 5 -
2 6
4 2 1 1
Note: SE = Self-Efcacy
Pre-service teachers interviewed were most condent in the skill of reading (ten out of eighteen), followed by listening (four out of sixteen). The skills of speaking and writing, which required construction of sentences to express ideas, were not mentioned. Judging from the additional steps that high self-efcacy pre-service teachers used to improve their prociency in English, they appeared to be more diligent compared to low self-efcacy pre-service teachers in their attempts to master the language. Responses to the question of what was most challenging about learning English revealed that many low self-efcacy pre-service teachers (six out of eight) expressed lack of condence in speaking and writing in English while the main concerns of high self-efcacy pre-service teachers were grammar, pronunciation and expressing themselves in English (seven out of eight). The above interview ndings clearly show that high self-efcacy preservice teachers not only surpassed their low self-efcacy counterparts in their use of the four language skills but also in the strategies they used to improve themselves in those skills. This nding supports the earlier nding that there is a positive relationship between use of language learning strategies and self-efcacy perceptions. Conclusion Summary The results show that the six groups of language learning strategies in Oxfords (1990) taxonomy of language learning strategies could be identied from pre-service teachers self-reports in the Language Learning Strategies Questionnaire. Pre-service teachers appeared to mention the use of cognitive strategies most often, followed by social strategies and metacognitive strategies. The use of compensation strategies and memory strategies were less often mentioned while affective strategies were least often mentioned. Pre-service teachers use of language learning strategies ranged from seldom to frequently. Investigations into the relationship between self-efcacy and language learning strategies showed that there was a signicant relationship between these two constructs in pre-service teachers learning of English. Verbal reports of strategy use obtained through interviews with low self-efcacy and high self-efcacy pre-service teachers were also in agreement with correlation results. High self-efcacy preservice teachers reported greater use of learning strategies to improve their prociency in English than did their low self-efcacy counterparts.
Implications Some important practical implications can be drawn from the ndings in this study. The results show that pre-service teachers do put in effort at the use of cognitive strategies, that is, receiving and producing messages in English, through reading and writing texts in English, watching TV, movies, news in English, listening to English songs, and communicating with others in English. This practice is benecial and should be encouraged further. Another learning behavior that should be encouraged further is the use of social strategies in their efforts to master the language. Pre-service teachers should be encouraged to optimize various sources of social assistance such as lecturers, classmates, family members and friends, as the use of language is a form of social behavior involving communication with others. In addition, pre-service teachers could be given more opportunities to work cooperatively in groups at English tasks. This would give them the chance to communicate in English besides working together to complete the task. It is heartening to note that some pre-service teachers do employ metacognitive strategies to control their own cognition in the learning of English. Instruction and support in the use of metacognitive strategies such as executive control, focusing, planning, and self-evaluation may be benecial to pre-service teachers who are not yet employing these strategies. There appears to be little effort by pre-service teachers to commit to memory the meaning of new words and language rules they have learned. Pre-service teachers should be encouraged to be more diligent in improving storage and retrieval of information during the learning process. They should be encouraged to nd out the meaning of new words, make an effort to remember them, and apply and revise what they have learned. Both questionnaire and interview ndings indicate that there is a lack of the use of affective strategies by pre-service teachers to regulate feelings and attitudes. The responses of low self-efcacy pre-service teachers interviewed generally reected negative attitude towards learning of English while six out of eight interviewed expressed lack of condence in their ability to communicate in English. There is need for English lecturers to address this problem, perhaps through affective strategy instruction, so that there will be greater motivation, more courage to try and communicate in English, and a change of attitude towards learning of English. Previous research (Cohen, Weaver and Li 1998; Moskowitz 1981, 1999)
shows that affective strategy instruction enhanced performance and improved attitudes toward L2 classes. The ndings also indicate that overall, pre-service teachers use of language learning strategies ranged from seldom to frequently. This suggests that there is a need to encourage pre-service teachers to use language learning strategies more often, particularly the less often mentioned strategies, namely memory strategies and affective strategies. Lecturers may wish to promote the use of these strategies through providing instruction, modeling, and more opportunities to practise the use of these strategies. Finally, the ndings show that there was a positive relationship between language self-efcacy and use of language learning strategies. Although the correlational data cannot address causality, it appears that pre-service teachers who perceived of themselves as more efcacious in English also reported a greater use of language learning strategies. In view of this relation, English lecturers might want to promote low self-efcacy preservice teachers use of learning strategies through raising their perceptions of self-efcacy. English lecturers may wish to use instructional and assessment procedures that focus on task mastery rather than social comparison to foster high perceptions of self-efcacy in pre-service teachers. According to Bandura (1993), enactive mastery experiences strengthen self-percepts of efcacy and enhance performance attainments. Higher attainments in English would in turn raise self-efcacy perceptions further and encourage greater use of language learning strategies. The use of positive verbal persuasions or appraisals to encourage and empower preservice teachers to persevere in their efforts to master the language should also be increased. There is evidence (Bandura 1997) that evaluative feedback highlighting personal capabilities raises efcacy beliefs, and feedback that children have improved through effort enhances perceived efcacy. Suggestions for Further Research This study documented the language learning strategies of graduate ESL pre-service teachers and investigated their language self-efcacy and the relationship between these two constructs. A replication of this study involving pre-service teachers in other teachers colleges in Malaysia would provide further support for the generalizability of the ndings. Low self-efcacy pre-service teachers negative responses to questions as to what steps they were taking to improve their prociency in English
(refer to Table 2) are rather alarming, especially as they are being trained to be future English teachers. Further investigation should be carried out to identify the reasons for their lack of enthusiasm and diligence in improving their command of English. REFERENCES
Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall). 1993 Perceived Self-Efcacy in Cognitive Development and Functioning, Educational Psychologist 28: 117-48. 1997 Self-Efcacy: The Exercise of Control (New York: Freeman). Chamot, A.U., J. Robbins and P.B. El-Dinary 1993 Learning Strategies in Japanese Foreign Language Instruction (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED370346). Chamot, A.U., S. Barnhardt, P.B. El-Dinary, G. Carbonaro and J. Robbins 1993 Methods for Teaching Learning Strategies in the Foreign Language Classroom and Assessment of Language Skills for Instruction (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED365157). Clment, R., and B.G. Kruidenier 1985 Aptitude, Attitude and Motivation in Second Language Prociency: A Test of Clments Model, Journal of Language and Social Psychology 11: 20332. Clment, R., Z. Drnyei and K. Noels 1994 Motivation, Self-Condence and Group Cohesion in the Foreign Language Classroom, Language Learning 44: 417-48. Cohen, A. 1990 Language Learning: Insights for Learners, Teachers, and Researchers (New York: Newbury House). Cohen, A.D., S.J. Weaver and T.-Y. Li 1998 The Impact of Strategies-Based Instruction on Speaking a Foreign Language, in A.D. Cohen, Strategies in Learning and Using a Second Language (New York: Longman): 107-156. English at three levels next year (July 21, 2002), New Straits Times, Malaysia: 1. Gardner, R.C., P.F. Tremblay and A.-M. Masgoret 1997 Towards a Full Model of Second Language Learning: An Empirical Investigation, Modern Language Journal 81: 344-62. Horwitz, E.K., M.C. Horwitz and J. Cope 1986 Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety, Modern Language Journal 70: 125-32. Horwitz, E.K., and D.J. Young 1991 Language Anxiety: From Theory and Research to Classroom Implications (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall). Bandura, A. 1986

Jones, S. 1998 Learning Styles and Learning Strategies: Towards Learner Independence, Forum for Modern Language Studies 34: 115-129. Ley, K., and D.B. Young 1998 Self-Regulation Behaviors in Underprepared (Developmental) and Regular Admission College Students, Contemporary Educational Psychology 23: 42-64. MacIntyre, P.D., and R.C. Gardner 1989 Anxiety and Second-Language Learning: Toward a Theoretical Clarication, Language Learning 39: 251-75. McLaughlin, B. 1987 Theories of Second Language Learning (London: Edward Arnold). Moskowitz, G. 1981 Effects of Humanistic Techniques on Attitude, Cohesiveness, and SelfConcept of Foreign Language Students, Modern Language Journal 65: 149-57. 1999 Enhancing Personal Development: Humanistic Activities at Work, in J. Arnold (ed.), Affect in Language Learning (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press): 177-93. Naiman, N., M. Frohlich, H. Stern and A. Todesco 1978 The Good Language Learner (Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education). OMalley, J.M., and A.U. Chamot 1990 Learning Strategies in Second Language Acquisition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). OMalley, J.M., A.U. Chamot, G. Stewner-Manzanares, L.J. Kupper and R.P. Russo 1985a Learning Strategies Used by Beginning and Intermediate ESL Students, Language Learning 35: 21-36. 1985b Learning Strategy Applications with Students of English as a Second Language, TESOL Quarterly 19: 557-84. Oxford, R.L. 1990 Language Learning Strategies: What Every Teacher Should Know (New York: Newbury House/Harper & Row). 1994 Language Learning Strategies: An Update, Eric Clearinghouse on Languages and Linguistics Digest, Washington, DC (ED376707). Oxford, R.L., and J. Shearin 1994 Language Learning Motivation: Expanding the Theoretical Framework, Modern Language Journal 78: 12-28. Pajares, F. 1996 Self-Efcacy Beliefs in Academic Settings, Review of Educational Research 66: 543-78. Pintrich, P.R. 1999 The Role of Motivation in Promoting and Sustaining Self-Regulated Learning, International Journal of Educational Research 31: 459-70. Price, M.L. 1991 The Subjective Experience of Foreign Language Anxiety: Interviews with Highly Anxious Students, in E.K. Horwitz and D.J. Young (eds.), Language

Anxiety: From Theory and Research to Classroom Implications (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall): 101-108. Purdie, N., and J. Hattie 1996 Cultural Differences in the Use of Strategies for Self-Regulated Learning, American Educational Research Journal 33: 845-71. Ritchie, J., and L. Spencer 1994 Qualitative Data Analysis for Applied Policy Research, in A. Bryman and R. Burgess (eds.), Analyzing Qualitative Data (London: Routledge): 17393. Rubin, J. 1975 What the Good Language Learner Can Teach Us, TESOL Quarterly 9 (March): 41-51. Schunk, D.H. 1983 Developing Childrens Self-Efcacy and Skills: The Roles of Social Comparative Information and Goal Setting, Contemporary Educational Psychology 8: 76-86. 1991 Self-Efcacy and Academic Motivation, Educational Psychologist 26: 207231. Stern, H.H. 1992 Issues and Options in Language Teaching (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Stevick, E.W. 1980 Teaching Languages: A Way and Ways (Rowley, MA: Newbury House). Wolters, C., and H. Rosenthal 2000 The Relation between Students Motivational Beliefs and their Use of Motivational Regulation Strategies, International Journal of Educational Psychology 33: 801-820. Wong, M.S.L., and H.L. Siow 2003 Secondary School Students Science Self-Efcacy and its Relation to their Use of Self-Regulated Learning Strategies in Learning Science, Proceedings of the ICASE World Conference on Science and Technology in Education, April, 2003, Penang, Malaysia: 232-40. Young, D.J. 1990 An Investigation of Students Perspectives on Anxiety and Speaking, Foreign Language Annals 23: 539-53. Zimmerman, B.J. 1989 Models of Self-Regulated Learning and Academic Achievement, in B.J. Zimmerman and D.H. Schunk (eds.), Self-regulated Learning and Academic Achievement: Theory, Research, and Practice (New York: SpringerVerlag): 1-25. Zimmerman, B.J., and A. Bandura 1994 Impact of Self-Regulatory Inuences on Writing Course Attainment, American Educational Research Journal 31: 845-62. Zimmerman, B.J., and M. Martinez-Pons 1990 Student Differences in Self-Regulated Learning: Relating Grade, Sex, and Giftedness to Self-Efcacy and Strategy Use, Journal of Educational Psychology 82: 51-59.
NOTES
An earlier version of this article was presented at the National Educational * Research Seminar, Teacher Education Division, Ministry of Education, in Langkawi, Malaysia, in September 2004.
APPENDIX A Language Self-Efcacy Scale ___________________________________________________________ Name: ____________________ Group: __________________
Instructions: Suppose that you are asked to perform the following tasks in English. Please indicate how condent you are that you can perform each task correctly. You have 30 seconds only to attend to each task (You dont have to carry out the tasks.) It is important that you do not guess but give a realistic estimate of whether you can perform the task correctly. Please use the scale below: If you are not condent at all that you can do it correctly, mark (/) 1 If you are completely condent that you can do it correctly, mark (/) 10 If the estimate of your condence is between 1 and 10, mark the appropriate number from 2 to 9. Please mark one number only for each task. Thank You!
No. 1 2 3 4
Task Write an essay of about 400 words in length on what you did during the recent holidays. Explain to a visitor the structure of the Diploma in Education Course you are in now. Write a lesson plan for a topic such as Tell stories based on pictures. Give instructions to your pupils on how they should organize themselves for group activity.
Condence Scale 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
5 6 7 8 9 10
Share with a friend what happened during the most memorable day in your life. Make a complete sentence using the following simile: as cool as a cucumber. Take down notes as you listen to a cassette recording on Malaysian Handicraft. Explain the function of an adjective in a sentence. Present an assignment on Questioning Techniques in front of your class. Read the following passage out loud to your classmates: Discover Sabah Awaken the competitive spirit or indulge in relaxing pursuits. This is one destination where you can do it all! Climb the summit of Borneo. Go white water rafting. Ride a steam locomotive past rustic scenery. Cruise down the Kinabatangan river. Re-track ancient headhunter trails. Dive in the worlds top dive sites (Sabah Tourism Promotion Corporation, September 2002).
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
APPENDIX B Summary of Language Learning Strategies Direct Strategies Memory Strategies Strategies involving creating mental linkages and employing actions to aid in entering information into LTM and retrieving information when needed for communication. Examples: I do a lot of exercises on English grammar so that Ill remember. I try to memorize the meaning of the words and try to use them. I write down the new words on a small card and memorize them. I write down the new vocabulary in a notebook and refer to it often,
Cognitive Strategies Strategies for analyzing and reasoning, used for forming and revising internal mental modes and receiving and producing messages in the target language. Examples: I write emails or letters in English twice a week. I read English materials such as magazines and newspapers to improve my English. I practice communicating in English frequently with my friends and family members. I listen to English songs, watch English movies and the news on TV. I read the Education section on English in the newspaper. I try to converse in English as much as possible with my friends. I practice writing lesson plans in English.
Compensation Strategies Strategies that include guessing unknown words while listening or reading, or circumlocution in speaking and writing to overcome any gaps in knowledge of the language. Examples: I try to guess the meaning of words I dont know. I try to understand the meaning through looking at the word in context. I guess the meaning of some words by reading the whole passage. I try to look for cues or non-verbal signs so that the communication is more effective.
Indirect Strategies Metacognitive Strategies Strategies that learners use to exercise executive control, planning, arranging, focusing, and evaluation of their own learning process. Examples: I observe how the English lecturer speaks English. I look for opportunities to read as much as possible in English.
I practice speaking in English in front of the mirror. I check the dictionary to nd out whether my pronunciation is correct. I try to improve my command of English through attending English courses, doing crossword puzzles, and playing games like scrabble. I take note of how other people communicate in English.
Affective Strategies Strategies that enable learners to control feelings, motivation, and attitudes related to language learning. Examples: I encourage myself to speak English even when I am afraid of making a mistake. I remind myself that I am going to be an English teacher. I tell myself to be condent and not be afraid to make mistakes. I continue to speak in English with my classmates even though there are errors in our conversation. I speak English with my friends and family members as often as possible so that Ill be more condent.
Social Strategies Strategies that involve asking questions, cooperating with others, and facilitating interaction with others, often in a discourse situation. Examples: I ask my friends to correct my mistakes when I talk in English. I discuss the usage of certain English words with my friends. I ask my friends and lecturer to check my grammar and sentence patterns. I have group discussion with my classmates on how to complete English assignments. I ask my spouse to check on my English.
Adapted with permission from Oxford, Language Learning Strategies: What Every Teacher Should Know (New York: Newbury House/Harper & Row, 1990): 17.

Language Learning Strategies

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Language Learning Strategies

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

RELC Journal http://rel.sagepub.

>> Version of Record - Nov 11, 2005 What is This?

Downloaded from rel.sagepub.com by guest on January 28, 2013