Volume 10. Issue 4
Article 4

Title
Language Learning Strategies Used by Students at Different Proficiency Levels

Author
Ya-Ling Wu
National Chin-yi University of Technology, Taiwan

Bio Data:
Ya-Ling Wu is an Associate Professor in the Department of Applied English at National Chin-Yi University of Technology. Her research interests include language learning strategies, English for Specific Purposes and learning styles. She teaches classes in English composition, English conversation and ESP (English for business, English for administration and management, English for Journalism, English for Tourism).

Abstract
This study is designed to determine: (1) whether a statistically significant difference exists in the extent of language learning strategy use between higher proficiency and lower proficiency EFL students; (2) the strength of the effect of language learning strategy use on English proficiency. The study finds that higher proficiency EFL students use learning strategies more often than lower proficiency EFL students, especially cognitive, metacognigive and social strategies. On the other hand, there is no difference in the use of memory strategies between higher and lower proficiency EFL students. Regarding the relationship between language learning strategy and English proficiency, it was found that cognitive strategies had the strongest influence. Findings indicate that compensation strategies are most often used by EFL students.

Keywords: Foreign Language; Learning Strategy; Language Learning Strategy

Introduction
The purpose of this study is to probe the difference of language learning strategy use between higher and lower English proficiency level EFL students. Moreover, the relationship between language learning strategy and English proficiency is revealed. This paper includes four parts: literature review (including definition of learning strategies, classification of learning strategies, studies of language learning strategies), research questions and hypotheses, research method, results and conclusions.

Literature review
Within the area of foreign language research, a number of studies indicate that learning strategies play a significant role in successful language learning. Politzer and McGroarty (1983) claimed that learning strategies are positively associated with language acquisition. They may improve learners’ learning in the forms and functions which are required for comprehension and production (Rubin, 1981). Moreover, learners utilize learning strategies to aid the acquisition, storage, or retrieval of information (Rigney, 1978). In specific, the behaviors or actions used by learners to make language learning more successful, self-directed, and enjoyable are considered language learning strategies. Therefore, persistent the use of the strategies for language learning is a fundamental requirement. As a result, it affects achievement (Bialystok & Frohlich, 1978; Bialystok, 1979).

The definition of learning strategies

Learning strategies have been defined by several researchers (Bialystok, 1978; Chamot, 1987; O’Malley & Chamot, 1990; Oxford, 1990; Rubin, 1987). These definitions are listed chronologically below with remarks about the major points made in each work (see Table 1).

Table 1. Definition of Learning Strategies

1978	Bialystok, E.	Language learning strategies are optional means for exploiting available information to improve competence in a second language (p. 71).
1987	Rubin, J.	Learning strategies are those which contribute to the development of the language system that the learner constructs and affects learning directly (p. 23).
1987	Chamot, A.	Learning strategies are techniques, approaches, or deliberate actions that students take in order to facilitate the learning and recall of both linguistic and content area information (p. 71).
1990	O’Malley, J. & Chamot, A.	Learning strategies are the special thoughts or behaviors that individuals use to help them comprehend, learn, or retain new information (p. 1).
1990	Oxford, R.	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 situations (p. 8).
2001	Hall, J. K.	Learning strategies are goal-directed actions that are used by learners to mediate their own learning (p. 92).

Bialystok’s definition does not indicate what “optional means” are. As a result, it seems to cause misunderstanding. On the other hand, Rubin (1987) emphasizes “social strategies,” which refer to the action affecting learning indirectly. Hence, the above two researchers are not in full agreement in the elements of language learning strategies. In addition, the definition of Bialystok (1978), “to improve competence in a second language” (p. 71), focuses on how to be more proficient learners, not how to learn effectively or easily. In contrast, the definition of Rubin (1987) does not mention the purpose for which learners use learning strategies. Therefore, there is also no agreement on the purpose of using learning strategies between the two definitions. However, Chamot (1987), O’Malley and Chamot (1990), Oxford (1990) and Hall (2001) defined “element and purpose” in more detail than the previous studies did. Chamot’s (1987) definition includes the element of language learning strategies: “techniques, approaches, or deliberate actions” (p. 71). The definition from O’Malley and Chamot (1990) contains “special thoughts or behaviors” (p. 1). Oxford (1990) considers it as “specific actions” (p. 8). Hall deemed it as “goal-directed actions” (p. 92). As for the purpose of using language-learning strategies, it is to be able to “facilitate the learning” (Chamot, 1987); “help them to comprehend” (O’Malley & Chamot, 1990); “make learning easier, faster, more enjoyable, more self-directed, more effective, and more transferable” (Oxford, 1990); “mediate their own learning” (Hall, 2001). Since Oxford’s (1990) definition includes everything that second/foreign language learners need to be intelligent learners, I will use her definition of language learning strategies in this study.

Classification of learning strategies

Learning strategies are typically grouped into three categories, that is, cognitive, metacognitive and socioaffective (Chamot & Küpper, 1989; O’Malley, Chamot, & Küpper, 1989; O’Malley, Chamot, Stewner-Manzanares, Küpper, & Russo, 1985). Cognitive strategies are behaviors, techniques, or actions used by learners to facilitate the acquisition of knowledge or a skill (Derry & Murphy, 1986; Rubin, 1987). Metacognitive strategies are management techniques by which learners control their learning process via planning, monitoring, evaluating, and modifying their learning approaches (Rubin, 1990). Socioaffective strategies include asking for clarification, repeating, imitating, circumlocuting, cooperating, and engaging in private speech (Hall, 2001). This classification scheme, developed initially for ESL students (O’Malley et al., 1985), was later validated with foreign language learners, including students of Russian, Spanish, and Japanese in the United States (Barnhardt, 1992; Chamot and Kupper, 1989; Omori, 1992), English as a foreign language students in Brazil (Absy, 1992; Lott-Lage, 1993), and students of French in Canada (Vandergrift, 1992).
However, learning strategies may be grouped in other ways. According to Oxford (1990), learning strategies may be divided into two classes, direct strategies and indirect strategies, and each class contains three categories. Direct strategies help learners to learn the target language directly; indirect strategies help learners to support and manage language learning without directly involving the target language. Direct strategies are subdivided into memory, cognitive, and compensation strategies; indirect strategies are subdivided into metacognitive, affective, and social strategies. In this study, I will use Oxford’s (1990) classification as described below (Oxford, 1990, p. 8):

1. Memory strategies
Memory strategies are techniques that help learners store and retrieve new information, e.g., creating mental linkages, applying images and sounds, reviewing in a structured way, etc.
2. Cognitive strategies
Cognitive strategies are skills or steps that involve direct analysis, transformation, or synthesis of the target language, such as formal practice with sounds or structures, functional practice in natural interactions, reasoning, translating, analyzing, note-taking, etc.
3. Compensation strategies
Compensation strategies are those that enable learners to make up their missing knowledge in the process of comprehending or producing the target language, such as guessing wisely in listening and reading, using gestures, switching to the native language, and using a synonym or description in order to get the meaning across in speaking or writing.
4. Metacognitive strategies
Metacognitive strategies are steps that learners take to manage or regulate their learning, such as planning and arranging for learning tasks, setting goals and objectives, monitoring the learning process for errors, and evaluating progress.
5. Affective strategies
Affective strategies are those strategies that help learners gain control over their emotions, attitudes, and motivations related to language learning. Such strategies include encouraging oneself through positive self-talk, talking with someone about your feelings about learning the target language, etc.
6. Social strategies
Social strategies are actions that involve other people, such as asking questions, cooperating with others, and becoming aware of others’ thoughts and feelings.

Studies of language learning strategies
In the 1970s, the significance of individual variations in language learning was first noticed by researchers. Various researchers have studied factors related to choice of language learning strategies (Oxford and Nyikos, 1989; Ehrman and Oxford, 1989). These factors include degree of metacognitive awareness, gender, level of language learning, language being learned, affective variables (e.g., attitudes, motivation and language learning goals), personality type, learning style, career choice, aptitude, number of years of language study, and language teaching methods. In most previous strategy research, gender difference in strategy use was neglected. Additionally, according to Gardner (1985), attitudes and motivation are the primary determining factors to individual language learning. The learners with high motivation to learn a language will likely use a variety of strategies (Oxford & Nyikos, 1989).
Some researchers tend to distinguish successful learners from less successful learners based on the use of metacognitive strategies (Oxford, 1993). In a relational study which involved sixty Taiwanese graduate and undergraduate students at Indiana University, Chang and Huang (1999) found that memory strategies are related to extrinsic but not intrinsic motivation. Furthermore, studies of the listening strategies of successful language learners show that cognitive and metacoganitive strategies are used by L2/FL listeners (DeFillipis, 1980; Laviosa, 1991a, 1991b; Murphy, 1985; O’Malley, Chamot, & Kupper, 1989; Rost & Ross, 1991; Vandergrift, 1992).
The factor, proficiency level, was addressed in studies related to language learning strategy by some researchers. In a study of 70 high-school age students enrolled in ESL classes from three high schools in an Eastern metropolitan area in the United States, the authors (O’Malley et al., 1985) revealed that intermediate level students tended to use proportionally more metacognitive strategies than students with beginning level proficiency. Chamot, O’Malley, Küpper and Impink-Hernandez (1987) found that cognitive strategy use decreased and metacognitive strategy use rose as the foreign language course level increased, but social affective strategy use remained very low across all course levels. In addition, according to some research, proficiency level and gender affect the choice of language learning strategies (Politzer, 1983; Oxford and Nyikos, 1989; Ehrman and Oxford, 1989; Oxford, 1993; O’Malley et al., 1985; Chamot, O’Malley, Küpper and Impink-Hernandez, 1987).

Research questions and hypotheses
According to the previous review, proficiency level is one of the factors to affect the choice of language learning strategies. The purpose of this study is to investigate the difference in the extent and types of language learning strategy use between higher and lower proficiency EFL students. This study was designed to determine: (1) whether a statistically significant difference exists in the extent of language learning strategy use between higher and lower proficiency EFL students; (2) the strength of the effect of language learning strategy use on English proficiency. The research questions and null hypotheses are stated as follows:
(1) Is there any difference in the extent of language learning strategy use between higher and lower proficiency EFL students?

H01: There is no significant difference in mean language learning strategy average total score of higher proficiency EFL students and lower proficiency EFL students.
H02: There is no significant difference in mean language learning strategy average subscores of higher proficiency EFL students and lower proficiency EFL students.

(2) Does the reported use of language learning strategies significantly relate to English proficiency?

H03: There is no significant relationship between the use of the six types of language learning strategies and the scores on English proficiency test among EFL students

Method
Subjects
Participants were recruited from a population of students at the National Chin-Yi University of Technology in Taiwan. The participants were divided into two groups according to the scores on the entrance exam. The first group included 49 sophomores majoring in English. They were considered as higher proficiency EFL learners. The second group included 88 freshmen who were not majored in English. Their English proficiency levels are generally considered low compared to the sophomores majoring in English. Table 2 summarizes the profile of participants.

Table 2. Profile of Participants

Group	Number	Percent
Higher proficiency	49	36%
Lower proficiency	88	64%

Instruments
1. SILL (Strategy Inventory for Language Learning)
Language learning strategy use was examined in terms of memory, cognitive, compensation, metacognitive, affective, and social strategies. The instrument used in this study was Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL). SILL questionnaire ESL/EFL Version 7.0 (Oxford, 1989) measures the type (memory, cognitive, compensation, metacognitive, affective, and social) and frequency of strategy use. The instrument consists of 50 statements. Items #1-9 concern the effectiveness of memory (memory strategies); items #10-23 represent the use of mental processes (cognitive strategies); items #24-29 are the compensation for missing knowledge (compensation strategies); item #30-38 deal with the organization and evaluation of learning (metacognitive strategies); items #39-44 concern emotion management (affective strategies); items #45-50 concern learning with others (social strategies). Students answered each item statement using a 5-point Likert-scale that ranged from 1 (Never or almost never true of me) through 5 (Always or almost always true of me). The internal consistency reliability Cronbach’s alpha is .96 for a 1200-person university sample and .95 for a 483-person military sample. Content validity is .95 (Oxford, 1990).

2. GEPT (General English Proficiency Test)
English proficiency was measured by GEPT. GEPT is a test of general English proficiency, which was sponsored by Ministry of Education and developed by the Language Training and Testing Center in 1990. The test includes four parts: listening, reading, writing and speaking. GEPT is divided into five levels: elementary, intermediate, high intermediate, advanced and superior. In listening test, it contains three sections: 10 questions on picture description, 10 questions on question-response and 10 questions on short conversation. The reading test includes three sections: 15 questions on incomplete sentence, 10 questions on cloze and 10 questions on reading comprehension. The writing test consists of 5 questions on sentence rewriting according to the required direction, 5 questions on sentence combining, 5 questions on rearranging given words into a sentence and paragraph writing based on the given picture. The scores on listening, reading and writing were used to analyze the relationship between language learning strategy use and English proficiency.

Data analysis
In this study, to test Hypothesis One and Hypothesis Two, an independent samples t-test was used to evaluate the differences in language learning strategy use between higher and lower proficiency EFL students. Furthermore, to test Hypothesis Three, a multiple regression was used to evaluate the effect of language learning strategy use on English proficiency.

Results
This study examined three hypotheses which relate to the extent and types of language learning strategies used by higher and lower proficiency EFL students and their English proficiency. The report of the results consists of two parts:

Independent samples t-test
Multiple regression analysis

The data in this study obtained from the SILL and the GEPT test were tabulated and analyzed using Statistical Package SAS for Windows.

(1) Independent samples t-test
Independent samples t-test was used to evaluate the differences in language learning strategy use between higher and lower proficiency EFL students. To test Hypothesis One, an independent samples t-test was used to determine the significance of differences, if any, between means of average total scores of SILL by higher and lower proficiency EFL students. Similarly, to test Hypothesis Two, the independent samples t-test was utilized to compare the difference mean language learning strategy average subscores for each type of strategy between higher and lower proficiency EFL students.
Table 3 relates to English proficiency level and presents data related to the overall SILL mean score as well as the mean scores on the six types of strategies for higher and lower proficiency EFL students. In addition, it reveals the result of the independent samples t-test.

Table 3. Independent Samples t-test on proficiency level

Strategies	Group	Mean	SD	t value	p value
Memory	Higher proficiency	3.0884	.4938	.95	.3439
	Lower proficiency	3.0013	.5262
Cognitive	Higher proficiency	3.4329	.5197	3.94	.0001**
	Lower proficiency	3.0586	.5436
Compensation	Higher proficiency	3.6701	.5778	2.44	.0161*
	Lower proficiency	3.4261	.5524
Metacognitive	Higher proficiency	3.4830	.4494	4.12	.0001**
	Lower proficiency	3.0871	.5822
Affective	Higher proficiency	3.0782	.6162	1.99	.0481*
	Lower proficiency	2.8580	.6213
Social	Higher proficiency	3.4184	.5933	3.43	.0008**
	Lower proficiency	2.9943	.7421
TOTAL	Higher proficiency	3.3618	.4110	3.50	.0006**
	Lower proficiency	3.0706	.4959