Student Language Learning Strategies Across Eight Disciplines
Student Language Learning Strategies Across Eight Disciplines
Student Language Learning Strategies Across Eight Disciplines
LEARNING
STRATEGIES
ACROSS
EIGHT
DISCIPLINES
INTERNATIONAL
JOURNAL
OF APPLIED
LINGUISTICS
, Vol.
13, No.
2, 2003 179
Introduction
A number of important ndings on student second language learning strategies
have been generated by studies using Oxfords (1990) Strategy Inventory for
Language Learning (SILL; see Appendix). SILL is a self-report questionnaire
that has been widely used to collect and analyse information from large numbers
of students.2 It lists 50 strategies in six categories:
Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2003,
2003 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and
350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA
180
MATTHEW PEACOCK
AND
BELINDA HO
182
MATTHEW PEACOCK
AND
BELINDA HO
Bremner (1999) explored strategy use among 149 primary education students
studying in a Hong Kong university. He found that compensation and metacognitive strategies were the most used, and affective and memory the least.
Strategy use was signicantly higher among more procient learners for 11 out
of 50 strategies (mostly cognitive).
Peacock (2001) used SILL with 140 science, maths and engineering students
in a Hong Kong university. He reports that students always or frequently used
18 of the 50 strategies, primarily cognitive and compensation. The use of nine
strategies was associated with prociency. Physics students used signicantly
fewer cognitive strategies than students from the other two disciplines did, and
maths students used signicantly fewer metacognitive strategies. He does not
report discipline differences for individual strategies. Peacocks results may be
compared to those of the two earlier studies below which did not use the standard
SILL. (See also Oxford 1989 for a useful review of previous work on the effect
of career orientation and other factors on strategy use.)
Politzer and McGroarty (1985) used the previously untried Behavior Questionnaire to survey 37 university ESL students, half engineering/science and
half social science/humanities. They report that discipline affected strategy
choice engineering/science students avoided positive (i.e. useful) strategies.
Oxford and Nyikos (1989) used an earlier 121-item version of SILL to survey
1,200 foreign language students in a US university, half from engineering/
computer science/physical sciences, 35% social science/education/humanities,
and 15% business or other subjects. They do not report results for either
individual strategies or strategy categories, but they did nd that discipline
affected strategy choice. Social science/education/humanities students used
functional practice (language practice outside the classroom) and resourceful,
independent strategies (memorising, planning, self-testing, and self-award)
signicantly more often than did students from other disciplines. They suggest
that this nding reects the fact that these students are better motivated to
learn English than the others, and thus take seriously the need to practice
outside the classroom.
Common ndings in previous research, then, are:
1) The most frequently used categories are compensation, cognitive, and
metacognitive.
2) There is often a positive association between strategy use and prociency.
3) Frequency of strategy use is often higher for females.
4) Frequency of strategy use is often higher among humanities students than
among science and engineering students.
However, research in certain areas is lacking. There appear to be almost no
studies investigating age as a factor. Also, most previous research (with the
notable exception of Green and Oxford 1995) is conned to describing the
broad categories of strategies that students use rather than individual strategies.
This is a weakness because, as Larsen-Freeman (2001: 23) points out, prociency
Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2003
Research method
SUBJECTS
A total of 1,006 Hong Kong Chinese learners in 55 City University EAP classes
took part in this study, of whom 51% were male and 49% female. Their average
age was 21, ranging from 18 to 39, and 90% were rst- or second-year students
and 10% third year. The 55 classes were selected so we could compare strategy
use across eight disciplines. Each discipline was represented by a reasonable
number of students (the smallest group was 60; see Table 1).
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
Number of students
% of total
98
340
173
79
81
68
60
107
1,006
10
34
17
8
8
7
6
10
100
184
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
MATTHEW PEACOCK
AND
BELINDA HO
DATA COLLECTION
Descriptive statistics were computed for all SILL items. Associations between
strategy use and discipline, prociency level, gender and age were checked via
multivariate analysis of variance the relationships among all variables were
checked at the same time. Signicance levels were set at p < .05. All interview
data were transcribed, tabulated and categorised. The internal consistency
reliability of SILL using Cronbach alpha was computed at .9265 based on the
entire 1,006-person sample.
Results
Results for our six research questions will be discussed in order. The multivariate
analysis of variance found no signicant interaction among independent
variables.
1) WHAT LANGUAGE LEARNING STRATEGIES DO
EAP
STUDENTS USE
Among all students, the most frequently used strategies were the compensation
category followed by cognitive and metacognitive, then social, memory and
affective strategies. Only two strategies were usually used by all students: To
understand unfamiliar English words, I make guesses, and If I cant think of
an English word, I use a word or phrase that means the same thing (items 24
and 29).
2) DOES STRATEGY USE DIFFER BY DISCIPLINE?
186
MATTHEW PEACOCK
AND
BELINDA HO
Building
Business
Computer studies
Engineering
English
Maths
Primary Education
Science
from other disciplines (only the 11 with much higher use for English are shown
in the table;8 those associated with higher prociency are in italics).
3) WHAT STRATEGIES ARE ASSOCIATED WITH HIGHER LEVELS OF
PROFICIENCY?
Females (N = 493) reported signicantly higher use of all six strategy categories
(memory, cognitive, compensation, metacognitive, affective, and social) than
did males. They also report a much higher use of nine individual strategies
(78% were from the memory or metacognitive categories). These nine are shown
Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2003
Use level
Strategy
Building
higher
Business
higher
Computing
lower
Engineering
higher
English
lower
much
higher
www.TopSage.com
1/2
35
20
WORD
WORD
[]
(PDF)
[]PDF
54
35
[]8000 500
[]
[][]2008
[].
1000 50
128
30
33
16
44
48
47
http://www.topsage.com
2/2
.doc
TopSage.com
[] 100 ()
+MP3
[]mp3
2009
[]
1 70
2 75
35
[]()
()
[]
[]pdg
[]
WORD
12
WORD
[] 36
[]
[] 200
300
97-07
2009 3 7 (TEM8-2009)2009
http://www.topsage.com
188
MATTHEW PEACOCK
AND
BELINDA HO
Table 3. (contd)
Discipline
Use level
Strategy
(English)
(much
higher)
Maths
lower
higher
lower
Primary
education
lower
higher
in rank order in Table 5 (seven were associated with higher prociency they
are in italics).
5) DOES STRATEGY USE DIFFER BY AGE?
Mature students (aged 23 and over; N = 112, i.e. 12% of students in our
sample) reported a signicantly higher use of four of Oxfords six strategy
Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2003
Strategy
1
2
3
4
5
6
12
50
32
11
13
36
7
8
9
10
33
16
22
31
11
12
27
15
13
14
15
16
17
49
20
17
8
29
18
19
19
20
21
21
22
45
23
24
25
26
24
30
38
28
27
Type
B
F
D
B
B
D
D
B
B
D
C
B
F
B
B
A
C
A
B
B
A
F
C
D
D
C
A
A = memory strategies
B = cognitive strategies C = compensation strategies
D = metacognitive strategies F = social strategies
190
MATTHEW PEACOCK
AND
BELINDA HO
Strategy
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Type
A
A
A
D
D
C
D
D
C
Table 6. The 7 strategies used much more frequently by mature students (N = 112)
Rank
Strategy
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Type
F
D
D
F
F
A
A
associated with higher prociency). The seven most frequently used strategies12
are listed in rank order in Table 6 (the two associated with higher prociency
are in italics).
6) WHAT ARE THE REASONS BEHIND STUDENT CHOICE AND FREQUENCY
OF USE OF STRATEGIES?
The 48 student interviews provided very useful data. Once we had identied the
27 strategies associated with higher prociency (see Table 4), we invited for interview the three students from each discipline with the lowest and the three with
Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2003
192
MATTHEW PEACOCK
AND
BELINDA HO
Discussion
While our ndings regarding overall student use of Oxfords six categories are
broadly similar to certain previous studies (Mullins 1992; Green and Oxford
1995; Bedell and Oxford 1996; Ku 1997), we have also been able to go beyond
previous research in certain areas. We have found some sharp differences
between disciplines in the use of strategy categories and also individual strategies.
As we investigated eight disciplines, our results can not be directly compared to
those of Rong (1999) and Mochizuki (1999), who only used English and science
students (except that we also found that students majoring in English used
signicantly more strategies than did science students). Our ndings are broadly
similar to those of two previous studies who used students from more disciplines
Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2003
194
MATTHEW PEACOCK
AND
BELINDA HO
and patterns in English; at thinking about their progress; and are less afraid
of making mistakes than are younger students. Our ndings on gender appear
to corroborate those from previous research (Green and Oxford 1995; Ku 1997;
Goh and Foong 1997; Mochizuki 1999). The females in our study were particularly strong in the use of the memory and metacognitive strategies of reviewing
lessons and practising English, perhaps a sign that they give L2 study a slightly
higher priority than do males.
IMPLICATIONS FOR TEACHING
EAP
The nding of this study that students in different disciplines use different
language learning strategies has clear implications for teaching EAP. We suggest
that teachers need to know the deciencies and strengths regarding strategy use
in the particular discipline that they teach and use this knowledge to train
students (if appropriate) in the importance and the use of these strategies. We
noted above that such strategies are readily teachable and that a number of
strategy training programmes have been successful. An alternative to direct
strategy training is to embed language learning strategies in teaching tasks and
materials, that is, to modify discipline-specic activities and materials to overcome learning strategy deciencies in the discipline being taught. For example,
for computer studies students, instruction in the value and the use of strategies
number 8, 12, 17, 29, 31, 33, and 36 (see Tables 3 and 4) may be very helpful
to their L2 acquisition: these are the seven strategies associated with higher
prociency for which they reported lower use. Specic strategy training may
also be particularly important for students from the other three disciplines with
lower strategy use science (compensation and social strategies), engineering,
and building.
In a more general sense, both our interview data from low-use students
and other data lead us to propose that it may be desirable for EAP teachers
to try to promote a more positive attitude and approach to English among
their students.13 It may be possible to encourage the following ideas among
students:
1) English can be an interesting subject.
2) English is an important subject for you: make it a higher priority.
3) The L2 culture can be enjoyable and is also an important part of learning
English.
4) Reading and watching L2 TV and movies will help your English.
5) More attention means more learning.
6) You need more input than you receive in the classroom.
Finally, our ndings on age are a preliminary indication that more mature
L2 students perhaps need less help from the teacher in affective and social areas,
and more work in other areas, e.g. compensation and cognitive strategies. Our
ndings on gender indicate to us that more work may be needed with male
students in memory and metacognitive areas.
Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2003
Conclusion
In this study we have been able to go beyond previous research in several areas,
particularly regarding our description of the use of strategy categories and
individual strategies across eight disciplines, where we found a number of sharp
differences. Our ndings on the association between various individual strategies
and prociency lend support to Larsen-Freemans suggestion (mentioned earlier)
that prociency varies with the use of certain strategies, not all strategies. The
interviews conducted for this study provide valuable data that help to explain
the disciplinary differences found and the variation in student motivation and
attitudes behind them. We have also been able to investigate age as a factor and
collect information on gender differences in individual strategy use. However,
we did not conduct separate interviews with mature students, and this may
provide valuable further information on age as a factor. More interviews with
students are also desirable to gain a wider sample we only interviewed six
from each discipline. Other questions for further research are: What strategies
do students use in other disciplines? Does the effectiveness of strategy training
vary by discipline?
We will close with the suggestion that perhaps it is no longer possible to treat
EAP students from all disciplines as one body regarding either strategy use or
strategy training.
Notes
1. This project was supported by Research Grant number 7001249660 from the City
University of Hong Kong.
2. Oxford and Burry-Stock (1995: 4) report that 40 to 50 studies, many unpublished,
involving more than 8,000 learners have used SILL. Also see Rubin (1987), Kern
(1989), Oxford and Crookall (1989), Vann and Abraham (1990), Chamot and Rubin
(1994), LoCastro (1994), Gu (1996), Park (1997) and Khaldieh (2000).
3. See also OMalley (1987), Kern (1989), Oxford et al. (1990), Chamot (1993), ReesMiller (1993), Dornyei (1995), and Bejarano et al. (1997). Ellis and Sinclair (1989)
give further detailed and useful suggestions for training.
4. The 17 strategies used signicantly more often were items 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17,
22, 27, 28, 29, 35, 36, 37, 40, 47 and 49; the one used signicantly less often was 42.
(See the Appendix for the full list of numbered SILL strategies.) A further nine
strategies were used frequently by students at all course levels that is, 50% or
more of students reported high use of them: items 1, 3, 4, 9, 31, 33, 38, 45 and 48.
Usage of these did not vary by prociency. Five were used infrequently (i.e. fewer
than 20% of students reported high use) items 5, 6, 7, 34 and 43.
5. There have been many calls for more research into the use of individual strategies,
e.g. Green and Oxford (1995: 267): Few largescale SILL studies . . . have looked at
variation in the level of use of individual items.
6. This is not surprising because, as Chamot (2001: 40) points out, behavioral observation is not an effective way to identify internal mental processes.
7. One student chose to use English in the interview.
8. The other 15 strategies were items 2, 10, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 27, 29, 31,
32 and 35 (see Appendix).
Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2003
196
MATTHEW PEACOCK
AND
BELINDA HO
9. This means that the students who used these strategies more frequently were signicantly more procient than those who used them less.
10. There was a positive association between ve strategy categories (memory,
cognitive, compensation, metacognitive, and social) and prociency. However, we
consider this result to be less useful than the results for individual strategies.
11. For this further analysis only, students were divided into three groups (high-,
mid- and low-prociency).
12. The other 13 strategies were items 1, 6, 10, 16, 26, 32, 33, 35, 37, 38, 40, 44 and
47.
13. This may be especially true with computer studies, science, engineering, and building
students.
References
Bedell, D.A. and R.L. Oxford (1996) Cross-cultural comparisons of language
learning strategies in the Peoples Republic of China and other countries.
In R. Oxford, Language learning strategies around the world: crosscultural perspectives. University of Hawaii at Manoa: Second Language
Teaching and Curriculum Center. 4760.
Bejarano, Y., T. Levine, E. Olshtain and J. Steiner (1997) The skilled use
of interaction strategies: creating a framework for improved small-group
communicative interaction in the language classroom. System 25.2: 203
14.
Bremner, S. (1999) Language learning strategies and language prociency:
investigating the relationship in Hong Kong. Canadian Modern Language
Review 55.4: 490514.
Chamot, A.U. (1993) Student responses to learning strategy instruction in the
foreign language classroom. Foreign Language Annals 26.3: 30821.
(2001) The role of learning strategies in second language acquisition.
In M.P. Breen, Learner contributions to language learning. Harlow,
England: Longman. 2543.
and J. Rubin (1994) Comments on Janie Rees-Millers A critical appraisal
of learner training theoretical bases and teaching implications. TESOL
Quarterly 28.4: 77181.
Cohen, A.D. (1998) Strategies in learning and using a second language. London:
Longman.
Cook, V.J. (2001) Second language learning and language teaching (3rd edition).
London: Arnold.
Dornyei, Z. (1995) On the teachability of communication strategies. TESOL
Quarterly 29.1: 5585.
(2001) Motivational strategies in the language classroom. Cambridge
University Press.
Ehrman, M.E. and R.L. Oxford (1995) Cognition plus: correlates of language
learning success. Modern Language Journal 79.1: 6789.
Ellis, G. and B. Sinclair (1989) Learning to learn English. Cambridge University
Press.
Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2003
198
MATTHEW PEACOCK
AND
BELINDA HO
200
MATTHEW PEACOCK
AND
BELINDA HO
Metacognitive strategies
30. I try to nd as many ways as I can to use my English.
31. I notice my English mistakes and use that information to help me do better.
32. I pay attention when someone is speaking English.
33. I try to nd out how to be a better learner of English.
34. I plan my schedule so I will have enough time to study English.
35. I look for people I can talk to in English.
36. I look for opportunities to read as much as possible in English.
37. I have clear goals for improving my English skills.
38. I think about my progress in learning English.
Affective strategies
39. I try to relax whenever I feel afraid of using English.
40. I encourage myself to speak English even when I am afraid of making a
mistake.
41. I give myself a reward or treat when I do well in English.
42. I notice if I am tense or nervous when I am studying or using English.
43. I write down my feelings in a language learning diary.
44. I talk to someone else about how I feel when I am learning English.
Social strategies
45. If I do not understand something in English, I ask the other person to slow
down or say it again.
46. I ask English speakers to correct me when I talk.
47. I practice English with other students.
48. I ask for help from English speakers.
49. I ask questions in English.
50. I try to learn about the culture of English speakers.