Abstract
This study discusses the statistically significant impact of Korean students’ (from middle school, high school, and university, N=1,110) strategy awareness, English-learning self-image, and Importance of English on language learning strategy use. Students who had certain characteristics – valuing English as important (Importance of English), evaluating their own proficiency as high (English-learning self-image), and being already aware of many language learning strategies – employed learning strategies more frequently than those who did not (all significant at p<.000). As expected, strategy awareness and strategy use were related to the Korean cultural context. Cognitive and cultural interpretations of the results were presented. Implications for English language learners including Korean students were also addressed.

Keywords: English learning strategies, strategy use, strategy awareness, self-image, Importance of English

Introduction
English is one of the most important subjects in many schools around the world, including Korea. These days many countries have introduced English classes to elementary schools, and many adults study English even after graduating from universities. For example, Korean students study English for at least 10 years on the average: three years in middle school, three years in high school, and four years at the university. In spite of this enthusiasm for studying English, the profile of Korean students’ strategies for learning English is not well researched, which is similar to that of English learners’ strategies in the context of English as a foreign language (EFL). Likewise, “learning strategy” is still quite a vague concept to Korean EFL learners, although learning strategies could definitely help them learn English more efficiently if they knew and employed such strategies consciously.

Many education studies have investigated learning strategies since the 1980’s, and this has also been a trend in second and foreign language education. Researchers have discovered that successful L2 learners, compared with their less successful classmates, used more strategic mental processes (learning strategies) and employed them more frequently; this strategy use was shown to occur before, during, and after L2 tasks (Oxford, 1994; Oxford, Cho, Leung, & Kim, 2004). Oxford (1990) pointed out how important learning strategies are, both in theory and in practice, for language learners. Rubin (1994) described learning strategies as behaviors that would contribute to developing learner’s language system affecting learning directly. This information provides a background for understanding the L2 strategy research reviewed in this section.

Strategy Use
Strategy Use and Gender
Many empirical studies show women are different from men in language learning strategy use, with women generally using more strategies than men, but not in all cases (Dreyer & Oxford, 1996; Green & Oxford, 1995; Lan & Oxford, 2003; Lee & Oh, 2001; Oxford & Ehrman, 1995).

Oxford, Nyikos, and Ehrman (1988) summarized four studies concerning gender differences in language learning, confirming that females use a greater range of language learning strategies. Zimmerman and Martinez-Pons (1990) discovered that girls use metacognitive strategies, such as goal-setting, planning, keeping records, and monitoring, more than boys. According to Green and Oxford (1995), 15 out of 50 strategies on the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL; Oxford, 1990) showed differences between women and men in terms of strategy use, with women using them more frequently, while only one strategy was used more often by men than women. Oxford and Ehrman’s (1995) comprehensive study, with 520 language learners for an average of 20 weeks, also discovered that females’ use of strategies was more frequent than males’. Lan and Oxford (2003) found that with the Taiwanese Children’s SILL, significant differences in strategy use between girls and boys were present for 11 out of 50 strategies, with these differences in favor of greater strategy use by girls.

In contrast to these significant gender differences, there are also studies showing a less clear distinction in strategy use between males and females (Dadour & Robbins, 1996; Oh, 1996; Park, 1999). Kaylani (1996) found out that girls are different from boys in terms of strategy use, not because of only gender, but because of gender in relation to proficiency.

Strategy Use and Major
Similar to gender, academic majors generally affect students’ use of learning strategies. Generally speaking, students majoring in humanities used more and a wider range of strategies than those majoring in science/engineering in several studies (e.g., Lee, 1994; Park, 1999). Dreyer and Oxford (1996) and Oxford and Nyikos (1989) also showed significant influences of university majors on students’ strategy use.  

Strategy Use and Age
Many strategy studies have been conducted with college students or adults (Dadour & Robbins, 1996; Green & Oxford, 1995; Leki, 1995; Oxford & Ehrman, 1995; Phillips, 1991). Some studies have focused on younger students or have compared younger learners with college students (Dörnyei, 1995; Kaylani, 1996; Lan & Oxford, 2003; Lee, 2000; National Capital Language Resource Center [NCLRC], 1996 & 2000). Several studies showed that young learners tended to use social strategies more than other types of strategies, including discussing with and asking help from others (Lee, 2000; Wong Fillmore et al., 1985). In contrast, adult learners have shown high use of metacognitive strategies for planning, organizing, and evaluating their own L2 learning (Oh, 1992; Touba, 1992).

Strategy Use and English Proficiency (English-Learning Self-Image)
Since numerous studies about L2 learning strategies have been rooted in the distinction between good and poor learners, there are many studies about the relationship between strategy use and L2 proficiency. Some have used actual proficiency test scores (Dreyer & Oxford, 1995; Green & Oxford, 1995; Phillips, 1991), while others have used proficiency self-ratings (Wharton, 2000). Most researchers have agreed that more proficient learners employ a wider range of strategies more efficiently than less proficient learners (Green & Oxford, 1995; Kaylani, 1996; Lan & Oxford, 2003; Oxford, 1996; Oxford & Ehrman, 1995; Philips, 1991). Strategy use was significantly correlated with English proficiency scores of university students learning English as a second language (ESL) in South Africa (r=.73, p<.0001) (Dreyer & Oxford, 1996). Research in Asia, such as in Thailand (Mullins, 1992), in Japan (Watanabe, 1990), and in Korea (Kim, 2000; Lee, 2000; Lee & Oh, 2001; J. Park, 2001; Y. Park, 1999; Yoon, Won, & Kang, 2001), also showed strong, positive correlations between strategy use and EFL proficiency.

Strategy Awareness
Most investigators have agreed that awareness helps students learn a language and use strategies, at least in the earlier stages of learning (Chamot, 1998; Cohen, 1995; NCLRC, 1996; O’Malley & Chamot, 1990; Oxford, 1990; Oxford & Cohen, 1992). According to Cohen (1995), when students are no longer aware of their behaviors to learn a language, these behaviors are, by definition, no longer strategies but are instead processes; thus, he was emphasizing, through definitions, the importance of strategy awareness (a key element of consciousness) (see also, Carrell, Gajdusek, & Wise, 1998). Chamot (1998) stressed that learning strategies are teachable (see also Green & Oxford, 1995), i.e., that students can become more aware of strategies through strategy instruction. Chamot (1998) also stated that awareness of one’s own strategies is closely related to metacognition, adding that more successful learners have better and more metacognitive awareness.

Despite the importance of awareness, few studies have been done concerning students’ metacognitive awareness of L2 strategies. Carrell (1989, 1991) used a questionnaire, Metacognitive Awareness Strategies Questionnaire (MASQ, 1989), to measure metacognitive strategies. Results underscored the effects of metacognitive awareness on reading and the importance of discerning learners’ level of awareness of reading strategies. Though many researchers believe that learner awareness is a necessary feature of strategy use (e.g., Carrell, 1989; Cohen, 1995), we still can see situations like Baker and Brown (1984) pointed out: when a reader did not describe how to use a particular strategy but did in fact use it. This will become important in considering the results of the current study.

Based on the previous research, the current study aims to help to better understand Korean learners’ English learning strategies in terms of strategy awareness, English-learning self-image, and importance of English, which have been known to be related with strategy use. In this study, Oxford’s (1990) SILL is used to measure Korean English language learners’ strategy use, and a column has been added next to each strategy on the SILL to ask whether the participants are aware of each strategy 1. The Background Information Questionnaire was administered to measure other relevant variables, such as gender, major, education level, English-learning self-image, and importance of English. At the same time, the study examined the culturally-related construct validity of the SILL for Korean EFL learners.

Based on this goal, this study asks the following research questions:

(1) Are there any significant main effects or interaction effects of the following variables on strategy use: (a) gender, (b) major, (c) education level, (d) English-learning self-image, (e) importance of English, and (f) strategy awareness?
(2) Which are the best predictors of strategy use among the given variables?
(3) Are there any significant main effects or interaction effects of the given variables on strategy awareness: (a) gender, (b) major, (c) education level, (d) English-learning self-image, and (e) importance of English?
(4) Which are the best predictors of strategy awareness among the given variables?
(5) What strategies do Korean EFL students use that are not reflected in the SILL?
(6) What strategies in the SILL do students perceive as culturally relevant in the Korean EFL situation?

Methods
This study primarily used quantitative methods to gain broader perspectives on Korean EFL learners’ strategy use. However, two open-ended questions were added to the main questionnaire, the SILL, to provide in-depth, qualitative data.

Participants
More than 1,000 students, ranging from middle school to university students, participated in this study. Table 1 shows the characteristics of the participants. Data were collected from one middle school, three high schools, and two universities. Table 2 displays the locations of the schools and the socioeconomic status of the participants.

Table 1. Total Participants and Number of Participants by Gender

Table 2. Geographic Location of Each Educational Institution and General Socioeconomic Status of Students in Each Institution

Instrumentation
Version 7.0 of the SILL (Oxford, 1990) was chosen for this study but was extended in certain new ways, as described below. This version includes 50 quantitative, close-ended items 2, with each item measuring the frequency with which respondents use the particular strategy. Examples of items on Version 7.0 are: “I plan my schedule so I will have enough time to study English,” and “I use new English words in a sentence so I can remember them.” Students responded to each strategy item using a Likert scale of 1 through 5 to reveal the frequency with which they used the strategy, with 1 representing “Never or almost never true of me” (i.e., rarely or never used) and 5 representing “Always or almost always true of me” (i.e., always or almost always used).

The SILL contains six factor-analytically created strategy categories: memory-related (primarily for helping vocabulary enter long-term memory), cognitive (for processing and practicing language information), compensatory (for making up for missing knowledge, as in guessing from the context), metacognitive (for planning, organizing, and evaluating one’s own learning), affective (for managing emotion and motivation), and social strategies (for working with others or asking questions of others). The exploratory factor analysis on which the categories were initially based was conducted with 1,200 U.S. foreign language students studying a variety of languages, including French, Spanish, German, Russian, and Italian (Nyikos & Oxford, 1993; Oxford, 1996). Other studies have factor analyzed the SILL in EFL contexts (Hsiao & Oxford, 2002; Oxford, 1996; Oxford & Burry-Stock, 1995). Hsiao and Oxford (2002) reported a confirmatory factor analysis, which tested 15 potential strategy-use models with several strategy questionnaires. The SILL was the only strategy questionnaire that showed acceptable fit indices 3.

The first author translated the SILL into Korean and then compared it to three other, already published Korean translations of the SILL. We wanted to ensure that the translation used in this study was as faithful as possible to the English version. Since three versions of the translated SILL in Korean (Lee, 1994; Park, 1999; Park, Kim, & Park, 2003) were already available, the first author used an adapted Parallel Blind Technique (Behling & Law, 2000) to compare the four Korean translations, hers and the three published translations. In the Parallel Blind Technique, two or more translators independently translate the material. After the translations are complete, the works are compared for the purpose of identifying and resolving discrepancies. This study’s translation of the SILL was further checked and approved by a Korean English teacher who holds a master’s degree in English education and was in her thirteenth year of teaching English in Korea at the time of the study. This additional check was done to ensure that the wording of all items was appropriate for students from middle school through university. In this study the 50 Korean-translated strategy-use items had an overall reliability (Cronbach alpha) of .94, N=1,110. This is approximately the same level of reliability as typically found with the 50-item version of the SILL (Oxford, 1996).

For the first time, a measurement of metacognitive strategy awareness was added to the SILL. Specifically, students were asked to respond to the following question with regard to each strategy-use item: “Did you know (think about) this strategy before now?” The intention was to discover whether the respondents were aware of a given strategy prior to taking the SILL. This was important because this basic awareness should precede “metacognitve knowledge about specific strategies [the value of procedures as well as when and where to use strategies]” (Pressley, Goodchild, Fleet, Zajchowski, & Evans, 1989, p.305), which plays a very important role in adequate transfer of strategy use. This move thus added to the SILL 50 dichotomous (yes-no) strategy-awareness items, each corresponding to a given strategy. The overall reliability of these 50 strategy-awareness items was calculated with a total of 1,090 Korean students responding to these items; the Cronbach alpha reliability index was .94.

New qualitative items were also added to the SILL. The qualitative items were as follows: (a) “Can you identify any strategies you have been using but that you can’t find in this SILL? If so, please list the strategies below.” (b) “If you found any strategy on the SILL that cannot easily be employed in Korea, please write down the strategy. If you can revise it for use in the Korean situation, please do so.” These items were added for this study to discover any cultural beliefs and practices relating to strategy use, as well as to examine the culturally-related validity of the SILL in an EFL situation where English native speakers are rare.

The Background Information Questionnaire was adapted from Oxford’s (1990) Background Questionnaire (p. 282). It was originally written in English and then translated into Korean. Items concerned gender, major, current education level (middle school, high school, and university), importance of English, and English-learning self-image. The item assessing importance of English was, “How important is it for you to become proficient in English?” with the following response options: very important, important, somewhat important, not so important, and not important at all. Also, the item measuring English-learning self-image was, “How do rate your overall English proficiency as compared with the proficiency of other students in your class?” (emphasis in original). Response options in the current study included: excellent, very good, good, fair, and poor. We felt it was very important to obtain students’ metacognitive self-assessment of proficiency vis-à-vis their peers because we agree with motivational theorists like Harter (1986). They believe that “humans have complex perceptions of themselves and their competences. . . All of these self-perceptions have motivational properties, with competence on a task more directly influenced by task-limited self-perceptions than global self-esteem” (Pressley et al., 1989, p. 307). We consider that this self-perception on his/her own English proficiency will play a very important role in actual performances. In addition, one of the most important themes of this study is awareness of one’s own strategy use; therefore, we considered self-rated English proficiency to be more relevant to our study than standardized test scores 4.

Data Collection and Analysis Procedures
The questionnaires were distributed to eight teachers, who administered them to students as in-class activities. This made it possible to obtain complete responses from almost all intended participants. A very small number of students (<1%) answered all the same answers to every item in an insincere manner, so their responses were excluded from this study. The first author provided guidelines to help teachers administer the questionnaires, and the teachers explained to their students that the results would not affect their grades in any way. The students answered the questionnaires voluntarily, and those who did not wish to participate did not have to do so.

Quantitative analyses were conducted using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS 13.0). For various research questions, independent t-tests, and multiple regression analysis were employed. For the Likert-scaled strategy-use items on the SILL, the following key helped to interpret the means: 3.5 to 5.0, high use; 2.5 to 3.4, medium use; and 1.0 to 2.4, low use (Oxford, 1990). The qualitative results were summarized, categorized, and analyzed for frequency of mention. The answers to the two open-ended SILL questions were translated from Korean to English. To assess the quality of the translation, the Korean English-teacher in Korea and a Korean-English bilingual doctoral student in the U.S. were asked to compare the Korean responses to the two open-ended SILL items with the corresponding English translations. This process revealed that there were no areas of translation discrepancy.  

Results
In this section, these qualitative as well as quantitative results are presented in terms of strategy use, strategy awareness, and Korean EFL learners’ English learning strategies.

Strategy Use
In contrast to preconceptions about Asians as constant memory-strategy users, compensatory strategies for making up for missing knowledge were used the most frequently (mean=3.10, SD=.83, medium use range) of the six strategy categories. The other strategy categories in order of frequency of use for the entire sample (all ages) were as follows: metacognitive (mean=2.83, SD=.81, medium use range), cognitive (mean=2.79, SD=.67, medium use range), memory (mean=2.61, SD=.71, medium use range), affective (mean=2.48, SD=.76, medium to low use range), and social strategies (mean=2.43, SD=.87, low use range).

Table 3 shows the different profile of strategy use in terms of the given variables. As shown by many previous studies, (a) women used strategies more often than men (t=3.47, df=1108, p<.01), and (b) students majoring in humanities, more often than those majoring in science/engineering (t=1.96, df=989, p<.05). In addition, (c) strategy use was higher for the following groups than for other groups: university students (F=29.74, df=2, p<.05), students who rated their proficiency as excellent (F=54.45, df=4, p<.001), students who considered English to be important (F=37.47, df=4, p<.001), and students who were typically aware of strategies (t=15.69, df=1088, p<.001).

Table 3. Strategy Use by Different Variables

Table 4 shows that the main effects of (a) strategy awareness, (b) education level, (c) English-learning self-image, and (d) importance of English on strategy use were very significant. Gender and major did not have significant main effects alone; however, gender showed significant interaction effects with other variables. Strategy awareness had a significant main effect on strategy use; the more that a student was aware of strategies, the more the student reported using strategies. Evidence from means also showed the significantly higher use of strategies by those who answered “yes” than “no” to the awareness questions. Education level also showed a significant main effect on strategy use. Specifically, university students used strategies the most frequently, followed by middle school students and high school students. Reasons for this possibly surprising finding are explored in the discussion section. Another significant main effect was found for self-image, that is, the students’ self-rating of their English proficiency. A fourth significant main effect appeared for importance of English (perceived importance of English).

Table 4. Main Effects and Interaction Effects on Strategy Use

Five interaction effects were significant. Without a significant main effect, gender played an important role in all the interaction effects: (a) gender with education level, (b) gender with major, (c) gender with self-image, (d) gender with importance of English, and (e) gender with self-image and importance of English.

According to Cohen (1988), a large effect size is .40 or over, a medium effect size is .25 to .39, and a small effect size is .10 to .24. Applying Cohen’s criteria for effect size, the overall model had a large effect size (.49). Effect sizes for the individual main effects and the interaction effects were not as impressive as the overall model’s effect size. The significant main effect for strategy awareness had a small effect size (.14). Effect sizes for other significant main effects (i.e., for education level, self-image, and importance of English) and for significant interaction effects were all very small, although they contributed to the large overall model effect size.

To discover the best predictors of overall strategy use among the given variables, a stepwise multiple linear regression was conducted. The relationship between the predictors and strategy use was R=.60, and the predictors explained 36% of the variability in strategy use (R2=.36, Adjusted R2=.36, p=.000). This is a large amount of variance explained for an educational study such as this.

Table 5. Multiple Regression Results of Strategy Use

Strategy awareness was the best predictor (Beta=.37, p=.000) of strategy use, followed by English-learning self-image (self-rated proficiency) (Beta=.25, p=.000), importance of English (Beta=.19, p=.000), and education level (Beta=.07, p=.012). Gender and major were not significant predictors of overall strategy use. One quarter of the variance in strategy use was explained by strategy awareness alone (R2=.25, Adjusted R2=.25, p=.000).

Strategy Awareness
Similarly to the results of strategy use, Korean students were aware of compensatory strategies (mean=.62, SD=.30) best, followed by metacognitive (mean=.60, SD=.30), cognitive (mean=.56, SD=.26), memory (mean=.53, SD=.28), social (mean=.49, SD=.34), and affective strategies (mean=.46, SD=.30).

Table 6 shows the different profile of strategy awareness in terms of the given variables: (a) university students were the most aware of strategies of all (F=44.30, df=2, p<.001), and (b) students who rated their English proficiency as excellent (F=2.493, df=4, p<.001) and those who considered English to be very important (F=16.62, df=4, p<.001) were more aware of strategies than other students.

Table 6. Strategy Awareness by Different Variables

Table 7 shows that the main effects of (a) education level, (b) English-learning self-image, and (c) importance of English on strategy awareness were very significant. Gender and major did not have significant main effects. The only significant interaction effect on strategy awareness was found for the combination of these variables: major, English-learning self-image, and importance of English.

Table 7. Main Effects and Interaction Effects on Strategy Awareness

The effect size of the overall strategy awareness model had a medium effect size (.34), a little lower than that of the overall strategy use model. However, the effect sizes of the variables were very small despite the significant main effects.

Predictors of strategy awareness were also tested by a stepwise multiple linear regression. Because strategy awareness was one of the best predictors of strategy use, finding its best predictors would ultimately help teachers teach students how to promote strategy use and how to use strategies properly. However, the overall relationship between strategy awareness and its predictors was not very high (R=.35), so the proportion of the variability in strategy awareness explained by the predictors was small (R2=.12, Adjusted R2=.12, p=.000). Among the given variables, students’ self-rated English proficiency (English-learning self-image) (Beta=.24, p=.000) was the best predictor of strategy awareness, followed by rating of importance of English (Beta=.17, p=.000) and education level (Beta=.13, p=.000). Gender and major were not significant predictors.

Korean EFL Learners’ Strategies
The results of this question indicated that participants were using different kinds of memory strategies from those on the SILL. Most write-in answers to Research Question 5 were about the specific memory strategies favored by Koreans, such as repetition and dictation. Most students said, “I write a lot to memorize English words or expressions,” and “I repeat a tape a lot so that I can get used to its expressions.” Table 8 shows the top five write-in responses of this question. More specifically, Table 9 shows the different strategies used by different education levels.

Table 8. Koreans’ Strategies Not Reflected in the SILL

Middle school students especially liked writing English words or expressions several times to memorize them, or having pen pals to write English letters regularly. They also tried to write English words or sentences and post them wherever they could see them often. In addition, they recorded their reading in English to correct wrong pronunciations, or they played games to learn English.

High school students also liked writing new words or expressions several times to learn them by heart. Some high school students even kept a journal of wrong answers not to make the same mistake again, which is a test-oriented strategy. Similar to the quantitative SILL results about frequency of strategy use, high school students listed fewer strategies than those in the middle school or universities. In particular, only high school students did not write in a new strategy related to seeing movies in English, because studying for the entrance examinationhad discouraged them from seeing movies. Instead, high school students tried to come up with an motivating reason why they must study English, or associate words or sentences with what they liked, which may be related to the fact that more than half of high school students did not enjoy English.

In contrast, university students did not have to memorize English words or sentences like high school and middle school students did. Thus, they wrote that they used entertaining materials, such as English tapes, movies, the Internet, newspaper, or magazines, to make themselves get used to sounds and expressions. They usually filled in blanks or dictated whole sentences while listening to English. In addition, they imitated English speaking actors or actresses, or tried to come up with their lines in advance while watching a movie. University students were more positive about opportunities for contacting native speakers and for traveling to English-speaking countries. They also used monolingual dictionaries instead of bilingual dictionaries. 

In general, Korean students depended on mass media, such as English movies, popular songs, and books written in English, in order to compensate for the lack of native English speakers. This seemed a reason that made most students tended not to use social strategies, except for a few university students. Korean specific educational situation, where the entrance examination is the most important in students’ life, high school students used test-oriented strategies mostly unlike the others who are not immediately facing it.  

Table 9. Different Strategies by Different Education Levels

Regarding the research question 6, most strategies that students considered not feasible in the Korean EFL situation were strategies related to native speakers: “I look for people I can talk to in English”; “I ask English speakers to correct me when I talk”; and “I ask for help from English speakers.” Also, some strategies relevant to the ESL situation were mentioned as difficult to use in the Korean EFL context, such as “I remember new English words or phrases by remembering their location on the page, on the board, or on a street sign,” and “I start conversations in English.” The most reasons given by the participants were “It’s difficult to find native English speakers,” “We can’t see native English speakers, so we can’t ask help from them,” and “I’ve never talked to native English speakers.” Many middle school students reported that they had never seen native speakers, so they could not even imagine a situation where English speakers could help them. University students interpreted native speakers as peers or English teachers, who were good at English, even without such guidelines.

Again, high school students answered differently from the others because of their test-oriented attitudes due to the specific Korean educational situation. Some of them explicitly mentioned the entrance examinations, saying that the examinations had prevented them from relating English to fun and emphasizing that they never studied English for fun.

Discussion
Even though there were several strategies that Korean students considered to be impossible in the Korean EFL situation, the general profile of strategy use, drawn from the SILL in this study, was very consistent throughout the different education levels of the participants. Specifically, the order of strategy frequency was the same for all education levels: compensatory, metacognitive, cognitive, memory, social, and affective strategies. This section presents cognitive and cultural interpretations of the results in terms of (a) gender, (b) major, (c) education level, (d) English-learning self-image, and (e) importance of English. The relationship between strategy use and strategy awareness is also addressed.

Effect of Gender Differences on Strategy Use and Strategy Awareness
Different from the previous research and expectations, gender did not affect strategy use and awareness significantly. It did not have large effect sizes either. Gender played a significant role only with other variables, not by itself. More interestingly, except social strategies, females used five of the six categories significantly more often than males (p<.001). This is very interesting, considering previous studies showing that social strategies are the best-known strategies employed more by women than by men (Oxford, Nyikos, & Ehrman, 1988).

Regardless of gender, Korean students are not typically encouraged to talk with classmates, so it stands to reason that social strategies might not show a significant gender effect. This may also be true in such countries where teachers are authoritative figures. Another possibility is that Korean students could not use the social strategies in the SILL; half of the social strategies in the SILL involve working with or communicating with native English speakers, and since there are few such speakers available in Korea, this might have suppressed social strategy use for both males and females. All the other EFL learners will experience such difficulties as Koreans.

Surprisingly, metacognitive strategies (t=2.80, p<.005) showed significantly more awareness by males than by females. This is also very interesting because men were more aware of their metacognitive strategies than women, while using them less often than women. According to Pressley (2000), good readers use a strategy only when it is necessary to help their learning, thus, it is possible that men were better English learners than women. However, the English-learning self-image of men (mean=3.19) and that of women (mean =3.26) were almost the same (both considered their English proficiency to be good). Comparison between the self-ratings and the official scores is needed.
In sum, gender, though reaching statistical significance on some interaction effects, had effect sizes that were negligible. We think that it is still good for learners because we cannot change nor manipulate gender. The smaller the effect size of gender, the more possible it is for teachers or learners to improve learning.

Effect of Major on Strategy Use and Strategy Awareness
Students who were majoring–or want to major–in humanities had a higher overall mean (2.77, medium use range) than students majoring in science/engineering fields (2.69, medium use range), but it was not significant, p>.05. The former were also more aware of their strategies than the latter (p>.05). Metacognitive strategy use was the only category in which major had a significant difference, with humanities majors using the metacognitive category of strategies more frequently (p<.05) and being more aware (p<.05) than their science/engineering peers. This conforms to the general belief that humanities students are more reflective (metacognitive) than science/engineering students.

Except for this, major did not significantly influence strategy use or strategy awareness. Because middle school students chose as majors what they wanted to focus on in high school, they might not have known exactly what humanities and science/engineering fields were like. This might have related to non-significant influences of major on both strategy use and awareness. Based on this, it may be better to study the relationship between strategy and major of only university students who have clear ideas on their majors.

Effect of Education Level on Strategy Use and Strategy Awareness
Education levels turned out to affect both strategy use and strategy awareness very significantly. As addressed in the results section, middle school and university students were more aware of as well as employed strategies significantly more often than high school students, p<.001. Korea’s college entrance examinations seem to cause this difference between high school students and the others, probably because students in high school are discouraged from employing a wide range of strategies with great frequency, while middle school and university students are encouraged to do so. Lee (1994) found that Korean students used compensatory strategies as the most frequently used category, and this result appeared again in the present study. Since 1969, Korean students have taken multiple-choice entrance examinations, equivalent to the Scholastic Aptitude Test in the U.S., and we speculate that such examinations might promote compensatory strategies for guessing the right choice from the context, even if the details are not fully understood.

Compensatory strategies were among the two most frequently used categories for Anglophone children in Canada learning French (Gunning, Oxford, & Gatbonton, forthcoming) and for Taiwanese children learning English too (Lan & Oxford, 2003). It is possible that these children are also used to a similar type of a foreign language test—multiple choice.

Effect of English-learning Self-image on Strategy Use and Strategy Awareness
The ranges of strategy use conformed to students’ self-ratings of English proficiency (F=54.45, p<.001) and their awareness of strategies (F=24.93, p<.001), which means that the more highly they rated their English proficiency, the more they used strategies and the more they were aware of them. These results suggest that those who viewed themselves more positively than the others used strategies more often and were more of them than those who did not. Teachers should keep this result in mind so that they can help the learners promote their positive self-image, which will eventually help them learn English better.

Effect of Importance of English on Strategy Use and Strategy Awareness
The frequencies of strategy use conformed to students’ ratings of the importance of English (F=37.47, p<.001). Strategy awareness was also positively influenced by students’ attitudes toward the importance of English (F=16.62, p<.001). This is very encouraging because students’ ratings of importance of English had a positive relationship with both strategy use and strategy awareness. Some students become more nervous when they consider something very important, so they perform worse than when they consider it unimportant. Teachers should properly emphasize how important English is, and the certain amount of anxiety will help students learn English more effectively.

Effect of the Relationship between Strategy Use and Strategy Awareness
As shown earlier, strategy awareness had a significant main effect on strategy use, although the effect size was small (.14). In a different analysis, strategy awareness, among the possible predictors included in the model, had the greatest ability to predict strategy use, but even so, it only explained 25% of the variability in strategy use. These relationships were significant, but other variables beyond strategy awareness (and the others in this study) might also influence strategy use. Baker and Brown (1984) noted that there is not a perfect connection between strategy use and strategy knowledge/awareness. Moreover, the role of awareness in strategy use is very complex. A strategy might fade from awareness by becoming automatic and habitual, at which time it is called a non-strategic "process"; but it can be brought back into consciousness (as a strategy) through direct instruction, reflection, or discussion.  One thing is certain, however: As Pressley et al. (1989) noted, the learner can actively transfer a given strategy to a new learning situation only when the strategy is in awareness, i.e., when the learner has metacogntive knowledge of the strategy.  

In particular, these four items showed non-significant impact of strategy awareness on strategy use: “6: I use flashcards to remember new English words (p=.197)”; “14: I start conversations in English (p=.164)”; “27: I read English without looking up every new words (p=.147)”; and “42: I notice if I am tense or nervous when I am studying or using English (p=.054).” The possible reason why several items showed the non-significant correlations between strategy use and strategy awareness is that, for example, students decided not to use flashcards even though they knew what the flashcards were, and they also decided to look up many words even though they knew it was not an effective strategy. Thus, it is necessary to practice strategies properly so that students can employ effective strategies and avoid ineffective behaviors.

Among different categories of strategies, the correlation between metacognitive strategy use and awareness was the highest (r=.43, p<.001). Metacognitive strategies involve awareness of cognitive processes, so this strongest relationship was not surprising at all. It suggests that teachers or learners should start from metacognitve strategies to promote their overall strategies. In addition, there are many ways for students to become aware of their strategies. For example, students might observe that they are using certain strategies. They might observe their friends’ or siblings’ strategy use. Their teachers could teach specific strategies. Uncovering the precise mechanism of strategy awareness might be somewhat difficult.  

Construct Validity of the SILL in Korea
At first it might have been surprising that the SILL category of memory strategies was not more frequently employed by Korean students. We have to look into the strategy items in the SILL more carefully. The memory strategies in the SILL are mostly related to vocabulary. Also, it does not include any rote memory and repetition items, which are the basis of much of the successful memorizing by Asian students. The SILL memory category was structured to include a range of memory strategies based on visual, auditory, and kinesthetic modalities, and the Korean memory strategies might not have fitted that overall profile.

Regarding the strategies that the Korean participants considered difficult to employ in Korea, they were mostly the items related to native English speakers. It is not so easy to find native English speakers in Korea as in other ESL countries. However, those items can be easily adaptable when the items are revised to mean English teachers or better English learners, instead of native English speakers. Some students actually mentioned that they asked help from English teachers because they can’t from native English speakers.

Despite some memory strategies not reflected in the SILL and some other social strategies not easy to employ in Korea, the strategies in the SILL were usable and actually used in Korea. With minor revisions, the SILL can get the higher construct validity in the Korean EFL situation than as it is, resulting in helping both teachers and students in EFL countries like Korea.

Conclusions
This study has focused on the influences of rarely-considered but very important variables, in addition to other variables, on EFL students’ strategy use: (a) strategy awareness, (b) English-learning self-image, and (c) importance of English. Focusing on Korean EFL students, this study showed that except for major and gender, all the other variables had significant influences on strategy use and strategy awareness. Gender and major were expected to be helpful indicators of successful learning, but they turned out not to affect strategy use and awareness alone. However, when gender and major are combined with other variables, they interactively affected strategy use and awareness. Therefore, teachers should not emphasize stereotypical strategy use based on gender or majors.

This study also found that their strategy use was closely tied to strategy awareness and English-learning self-image. Both strategy awareness and English-learning self-images can be considered as metacognition about their English learning. Thus, the significant influences of strategy awareness and English-learning self-image on strategy use imply how to teach English effectively: teachers should promote positive self-image and strategy awareness when they teach learning strategies more effectively and efficiently.

In Korea, the entrance examinations’ impact on students’ learning proved to be very important, especially for high school students, according to the write-in data for the two qualitative questions and the quantitative findings. High school students used test-related strategies, but they did not use other strategies as often as students in middle school and universities. Moreover, high school students were less aware of these strategies than were students in the other education levels. In addition, the entrance examinations are multiple-choice standardized tests, which makes it unnecessary to understand the specific content correctly; this might have caused compensatory strategies to be the most frequently used strategies. Teachers in other countries where an entrance examination is seriously important, as well as in Korea, should encourage students to understand the details on standardized tests, not just the guessable outlines, so that students will not limit themselves to using compensatory strategies the most frequently.  

Lastly, to teach English in the EFL settings more effectively, several items in the SILL can be added or revised, according to Korean EFL students’ suggestions in the open-ended questions. Teaching appropriate learning strategies is very important because learning strategies can enable students to become more independent, autonomous, lifelong learners (Allwright, 1990; Little, 1991).

Notes

1. Strategy awareness is analyzed both as a dependent variable and as an independent variable.
2. SILL Version 7.0, designed for speakers of other languages learning English, was selected for this study. Another version of the SILL (Version 5.1) contains 80 items and was originally designed for native English speakers learning other languages, although it has also been extensively used in translation in a variety of settings.
3. For the current Korean translation of Version 7.0, we conducted a new exploratory factor analysis to determine whether the underlying factor structure was similar to that found for the SILL in earlier studies. We found that the factor structure was very close to the SILL factors reported elsewhere. For a summary of such studies, see Oxford (1996).
4. Just as in most countries, it was not possible to obtain a standardized external criterion measure of English achievement or proficiency for Korean students across all educational levels: middle school, high school, and university. Existing English assessments were not comparable across levels, and statistically creating standard scores for comparison would not begin to address that issue.

References
Allwright, D. (1990). Autonomy in language pedagogy. CRILE Working Paper 6. Centre for Research in Education, University of Lancaster, U.K.

Baker, L., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Metacognitive skills and reading. In P.D. Pearson, R. Barr, M. Kamil, & P. Mosenthal (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 353-394). New York: Longman.

Behling, O., & Law, K. S. (2000). Translating questionnaires and other research instruments: Problems and solutions. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Carrell, P. L. (1989). Metacognitive awareness and second language reading. Modern Language Journal, 73, 121-133.

Carrell, P. L. (1991). Second language reading: Reading ability or language proficiency? Applied Linguistics, 12, 159-179.

Carrell, P. L., Gajdusek, L., & Wise, T. (1998). Metacognition and ESL/EFL reading. Instructional Science, 26, 97-112.

Chamot, A. U. (1998). Teaching learning language strategies to language students. (Report No. EDO-FL-025-976). ERIC Clearinghouse on Language and Linguistics: Washington, D.C. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED433719).

Chamot, A. U., & El-Dinary, P. B. (1999). Children’s learning strategies in immersion classrooms. Modern Language Journal, 83(3), 319-341.

Cohen, A. D. (1995). Second language learning and use strategies: Clarifying the issues. (Report No. EDO-FL-023-639). ERIC Clearinghouse on Language and Linguistics: Washington, D.C. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED393307).

Cohen, A. D. (1998). Strategies in learning and using a second language. Essex, U.K.: Longman.

Cohen, A. D., & Hosenfeld, C. (1981). Some uses of mentalistic data in second language research. Language Learning, 31, 285-313.

Dadour, E. S., & Robbins, J. (1996). University-level studies using strategy instruction to improve speaking ability in Egypt and Japan. In Oxford, R. L. (Ed.), Language learning strategies around the world: Cross-cultural perspectives (pp.157-166). Manoa: University of Hawaii Press.

Dörnyei, Z. (1995). On the teachability of communication strategies. TESOL Quarterly, 29(1), 55-85.

Dreyer, C., & Oxford, R. L. (1996). Learning strategies and other predictors of ESL proficiency among Afrikaans-speakers in South Africa. In Oxford, R. L. (Ed.), Language learning strategies around the world: Cross-cultural perspectives (pp.61-74). Manoa: University of Hawaii Press.

Green, J., & Oxford, R. L. (1995). A closer look at learner strategies, L2 proficiency, and gender. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 261-297.

Hsiao, T-Y., & Oxford, R. L. (2002). Comparing theories of language learning strategies: A confirmatory factor analysis. Modern Language Journal, 86(3), 368-383.

Kaylani, C. (1996). The influence of gender and motivation on EFL learning strategy use in Jordan. In Oxford, R. L. (Ed.), Language learning strategies around the world: Cross-cultural perspectives (pp.75-88). Manoa: University of Hawaii Press.

Kim, H. (2000). Learner variables and their relationships to English achievement of Korean high school students. Foreign Language Education, 7(2), 233-258.

Lan R., & Oxford, R. L. (2003). Language learning strategy profiles of elementary school students in Taiwan. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 41, 339-379.

Lee, H. (1994). Investigating the factors affecting the use of foreign language learning strategies and comparing the strategy use of EFL students. English Teaching, 48, 51-99.

Lee, H. (2000). A relationship between English language learning strategies and cloze test. Journal of English Language Teaching, 12(1), 247-270.

Lee, H., & Oh, J. (2001). The relationship between attitudes and proficiency in learning English. English Teaching, 55(4), 389-409.

Leki, I. (1995). Coping strategies of ESL students in writing tasks across the curriculum. TESOL Quarterly, 29(2), 235-260.

Little, D. (1991). Learner autonomy 1: Definitions, issues, and problems. Dublin: Authentik.

Mullins, P. (1992). Successful English language learning strategies of students enrolled in the Faculty of Arts, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, United States International University, San Diego, CA.

National Capital Language Resource Center (1996). Language learning strategies use by secondary foreign language students (EDO-FL-026-393). Washington, D.C.: Department of Education.

National Capital Language Resource Center (2000). High school foreign language students’ perception of language learning strategies use and self-efficacy (EDO-FL-026-388). Washington, D.C.: Department of Education.

Nyikos, M. & Oxford, R. L. (1993). A factor-analytic study of language-learning strategy use: Interpretations from information processing and social psychology. Modern Language Journal, 77, 11-22.

Oh, J. (1992). Learning strategies used by university EFL students in Korea. Language Teaching, 1, 23-53.

Oh, J. (1996). The effects of attitude and sex on use of EFL learner strategies. English Teaching, 51(2), 35-53.

O’Malley, J. M., & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning strategies in second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.

Oxford, R. L. (1994). Language learning strategies: An update. ERIC Digest. (Report No. EDO-FL-95-02). ERIC Clearinghouse on Language and Linguistics: Washington, D.C. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED376707).

Oxford, R. L. (1996). Employing a questionnaire to assess the use of language learning strategies.