Page |1

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN

LANGUAGE LEARNING STRATEGIES, GENDER AND PROFICIENCY
AMONG SECONDARY SCHOOL STUDENTS

Page |2
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

1.0 Introduction
In Malaysian educational context, English has long been recognized as the
second language that empowers needs for learners to be proficient in this
language.

Language learning strategies play an important role to drive

learners to learn the English language. At most, prominently during their

learning process and also for learners with future undertaking.

It is assumed that improved proficiency in language learning depends on how

learners enable themselves to adapt to strategies that work best for them. A
study by OMalley and Chamot (1990) suggests that effective language
learners are aware of the strategies they use and why do they use it.
Moreover, the existence of various language learning strategies to be
acknowledged by learners sometimes may result in the fact that some
strategies many not promote success for learners. This is because some
learners are unaware of the suitability of the strategy use towards their
language learning capability. Some strategies may not be responsive as
learners are unable to develop the appropriate strategies in learning.

Language learning strategies are among the main factor that helps to
determine ways learners learn a second language. Many studies have been
carried out since then, and different classifications of learning strategies have
emerged over the last 20 years. OMalley & Chamot (1990) found that

Page |3
classroom observation was inadequate for the identification of mental
strategies and they also found learners were able to relate their strategy use
to a particular task. Several studies can be seen in the field of language
learning strategies (Wenden & Rubin, 1987;Cohen, 1990; OMalley & Chamot,
1990; Oxford, 1990). Moreover, researchers have investigated variables in the
use of LLSs that affect the choices of strategies such as gender (Ehrman &
Oxford,1989; Green & Oxford, 1995), and language proficiency (Green &
Oxford, 1995; Grififths, 2003).Thus they raised the possibility of relationships
between strategy use and language learning task, and strategy use and
language proficiency or the level of the learners target language. OMalley &
Chamot classified three strategy types: cognitive, metacognitive, and
social/affective strategies. Oxford (1990) has also developed a classification
system based on her own and others research, and this system is referred to
by Ellis (1994) as perhaps the most comprehensive classification of learning
strategies to date (p. 539). Oxford classified the strategies into two broad
categories, one being direct and the other being indirect, and there are three
subcategories under each (p. 17): direct strategies: (a) memory strategies, (b)
cognitive strategies, and (c) compensation strategies; indirect strategies: (a)
metacognitive strategies, (b) affective strategies, and (c) social strategies .
Hence, the study aims to investigate the relationship between language
learning strategies, gender and proficiency among secondary school learners.

1.2 Statement of the problem

The fall in the standard of English in the public examination like UPSR (Ujian
Pencapaian Sekolah Rendah), PMR (Penilaian Menengah Rendah) and SPM

Page |4
(Sijil Pelajaran Malaysia) proofs that Malaysian learners have problems to
acquire the second language. This is happened most probably due to a pass
in English has never been made compulsory for SPM. The Deputy Prime
minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin was surprised to learn that English is not a
must pass for SPM and wants public feedback on this matter (The Star
9.6.2009). In fact the English result in major examinations hovers at a low
level of around 60% candidates achieving passes since 2000. (The Star
8.11.2000) As for the PMR examination overall more than 40% (158,530 of
392,692) students failed in 2001 (The Star 21.12.2008).The poor performance
in English marred an otherwise marginally better performance in the 2008
Ujian Pencapaian Sekolah Rendah (UPSR) examination which is the national
primary school leaving examination. (The Star, 8.11.2000).Furthermore the
percentage of passes in English among rural learners is only 49.6%
compared to urban students (72.8%).

Adding to these statistics, new graduates also face a serious problem in

English (The Star 12.7. 2000). It has been stated that 90% of Malaysians
entering local universities have insufficient English proficient for study
purposes, 44% classified as weak while 19 % are very weak in the subject
(The Straits Times 12. 9. 2000). These graduates are not conversant with
English that has become a key medium of business worldwide. Graduates will
have a much tougher time getting a job if they are not proficient in English and
will definitely lose to other applicants (The Star 11.8.2000).It was found these
graduates struggle to speak English in job interviews (The Star 10.2. 2000).
In countries using English as second or third language such as Malaysia, the

Page |5
proficiency of English language is also a crucial determinant in ones
employability. Lim and Normizan (2004) found that there is a positive impact
of English language proficiency on exit rates; however, it is limited only to preuniversity proficiency. Given the wide use of English language among private
sector companies in Malaysia, English language proficiency gives an added
advantage to job applicants.

As a result of the lack of English language proficiency, Malaysian students are

not able to find jobs that fit their professional backgrounds and work
experiences. This lack limits them to entry-level jobs that do not require
proficiency in the English language, diminishing their opportunities for career
advancement, completing further education, or obtaining access to other
social and economic opportunities in the their own country. To gain a
moderate degree of proficiency adult ELLs face a difficult task given the
length and complexity of study required. The process of language learning
can be greatly facilitated by making students aware of the range of language
learning strategies (LLS) from which they can choose during language
learning and use. If learners have a well-functioning repertoire of LLS, then
these strategies will facilitate the language learning process by promoting
successful and efficient completion of language learning tasks, as well as by
allowing the learners to develop their own individualized approaches to
learning. By selecting information, organizing the information, relating it to
existing knowledge, retaining what is considered important, retrieving it in
appropriate contexts, and reflecting on the success of their learning efforts,

Page |6
learners become conscious of their own learning and learn to evaluate their
efficiency (Shuell, 1986).
1.3 Purpose of the study
The purpose of this study is to investigate the relationship between language
learning strategies, gender and proficiency among secondary school students.
Specifically, the objectives of the study are as follows:
1. To determine the relationship between the use of language learning
strategies and gender
2. To determine the relationship between the use language learning
strategies and English language proficiency

1.4 Research questions

Based on the research discussed above, gender and language proficiency
beliefs appear to be the variables related to English language teaching (ELT)
learners language strategies. Hence, the study examined the relationship
between language learning strategies, gender and proficiency among
secondary school learners. For this purpose, the following questions were
addressed in this study:
1. Is there any significant difference between strategy use and gender?
2. Is there any significant difference between strategy use and proficiency?

1.5 Significance of the study

Page |7
Learning strategies plays a major role in language learning. Gardener &
MacIntyre (1992; p.219) claimed that strategies help language learners to
retrieve and store material, and facilitate their learning by structuring its
environment. In addition, Oxford (2001; p.170) stated that strategy use
correlated with learners language proficiency and self-confidence. Thus, this
study might prove useful to both language teachers and learners because it
might raise teachers awareness concerning their own learning and teaching
strategies .It is known that most teachers tend to teach in the way they were
taught or in the way they preferred to learn. By helping learners improve their
language skills and learning skills equally, that enable them to learn how to
for themselves what teachers typically do for them (Wenden, 1983; p.7).
Teachers need to be taught on the effective strategy instruction. However, it is
highly depend on teachers experience. The more familiar the teacher is with
strategy instruction, the more effective the teaching (Chamot, 1994;333).
Therefore, teacher has to integrate the LLSs in the classroom and expose the
learners on how to use the LLSs depending on learners; language proficiency
level. Moreover, seeing the difference between males and females in terms of
strategy use, they can develop strategy instruction accordingly and give
strategy training in order to help them learn English better.

Since the key factor in the language learning process is the learners, the
researchers should look into the learners language learning strategy. The
educators should comprehend the language learning strategies and identify
the various effective approaches and techniques used by the more successful
learners. The findings can help educators facilitate teaching and learning

Page |8
more effectively. ESL practitioners may find this research useful for improving
curriculum design and classroom methodology related to the language learner
strategies used by participating secondary school students ELL. This study is
also significant because it supports Oxfords (1990:17) taxonomy of language
learning strategy which constitutes an important and accurate framework to
classify learning strategies of language learners such as the secondary school
learners in this study. The rationale for learner strategy research is that if
researchers can identify a list of strategies that successful language learners
use, then less effective learners may benefit from applying the same
strategies in their own learning, making their language learning process easier
and more effective. Workplace language programs may also benefit from this
study by gaining insights on worker-centred learning that addresses the needs
of the learners to enlarge and enrich their capabilities as individuals, family
members, and citizens.
1.6 Limitation of the study
Although the research has reached its aims, there are some unavoidable
limitations.

1.6.1 The limitation of sampling

First, because of the time limit, the sampling is limited to one school from the
state of Kedah, Malaysia. Furthermore this study is limited to the Form 3 level
Malaysian secondary school learners. It is difficult for researchers to have
direct access to the participants and is restricted to choices made by their
English language teachers. If the researchers could have access to the
participants directly, the data collected would have achieved greater depth in

Page |9
identifying the learners proficiency level. The researchers feel that unless
they can select the participants, the information gathered maybe tainted with
biases. The choices could be those participants who are proficient in English
and may not reflect their language proficiency level. The sample size prevents
large generalization of response because only one school were selected for
this study.

1.6.2 The limitation of relationship between strategy use and gender and
proficiency
The researchers limit this study in showing direction of relationship between
the learners strategy use and gender and also between the learners strategy
use and learners proficiency level. The study does not focus on the
relationship between gender and proficiency because the main focus is to
show the relationship of gender and proficiency in influencing learners
preferences of the Oxfords Language Learning Strategies (LLS) (1990a) in
their language learning. Thus, gender differences and proficiency level that
compare whether male or female are more proficient, are not further
discussed in this study.

1.7 Operational definition

1.7.1 Gender and Language Learning Strategy Use

The term gender generally refers to a socio-cultural behaviour, while the
term, sex implies a biological meaning (Coates, 1993). Many researchers of
first and second language learning have evidence that female learners are

P a g e | 10
superior to males in verbal abilities (Bacon &Fiemann, 1990). The congruent
findings in educational psychology showed that female students have greater
value to, more positive attitudes, and a higher degree of motivation toward
second or foreign language learning than male students (Bacon &
Finnemann, 1990; Ehrman & Oxford,1990; Gardner & Lambert, 1972; Reid,
1987; Sung & Padilla, 1998).

Over the past two decades, extensive empirical studies have been conducted
examining the relationship between gender and language learning strategies
(Bacon, 1992; Ehrman &Oxford, 1995; Green & Oxford, 1995; Lee 1994; Lee,
2001; Oh, 1996; Oxford, 1993b; Oxford & Nyikos, 1989; Peacock & Ho, 2003;
Politzer, 1983; Sy, 1994).

According to Hong-Nam and Leavells (2006) recent study, there is a

significant difference of strategy use between the genders. Female learners
favoured more affective and social strategies than male students. They
concluded that female learners are likely to build relationships with others
more easily and consistently than male learners.

1.7.2 Language Proficiency and Language Learning Strategy Use

Over the past three decades, qualitative and quantitative research has been
conducted investigating the relationship between language learning strategy
use and language proficiency (Bialystok, 1981; Bremner, 1999; Chamot,
1987; Green & Oxford, 1995; Oxford, 1990; Oxford & Nyikos, 1989; Politzer,
1983; Politzer & McGroarty, 1985; Rubin 1975, 1981; Stern, 1983; Su, 2005;

P a g e | 11
Wharton, 2000). In second and foreign language learning, proficiency is
regarded as a measurement of success in language learning. Therefore,
improving a learners proficiency, especially fluency in communication, has
been targeted.

It is fair to conclude that defining the word proficiency has been difficult and
eludes those who seek a concrete definition. The confusion has led to
debates in defining the concept of proficiency in language learning. Farhady
(1982) referred to the vague definition behind proficiency and stated,
language proficiency is not a one-dimensional phenomenon and learners are
not homogenous in their proficiency in various language skills (p. 46). Canale
and Swain (1980) attempted to interpret language proficiency by assessing
four communicative competences: grammatical competence, discourse
competence,

sociolinguistic

competence,

and

strategic

competence.

Language learning strategies are closely related to proficiency due to the

success of strategy training or language learning being measured through
proficiency.

1.7.3 EFL (English as a Foreign Language)

In Richards et al. (1992, pp.123-124), EFL refers to The role of English in
countries where it is taught as a subject in schools but not used as medium of
instruction in education nor as a language of communication (e.g.
government, business, industry) within the country. For example, English is
taught in Malaysia as a foreign language.

P a g e | 12
1.7.4 SILL (Strategy Inventory for Language Learning)
Strategy Inventory for Language Learning, a questionnaire designed by
Oxford (1990) to investigate learners' frequency of use of many language
learning strategies, clustered into six strategy categories (memory strategies,
cognitive strategies, compensation strategies, metacognitive strategies,
affective strategies, and social strategies)

1.7.5 GEPT (General English Proficiency Test)

GEPT is a test of general English proficiency which was sponsored and
developed by the Language Training and Testing Center in 1990. GEPT is
designed to test learners proficiency which includes four part of test; listening,
reading, writing and speaking.

1.7.6 ESL (English as a second language)

English language learning takes place in an English environment, requiring
communicating in English outside of the classroom.

1.8 Conclusion and Overview

In this chapter, introduction described the problem, indicated the purpose of
the study, and listed the research questions that intended to guide the
investigation. The significance of the study was also stated, followed by a list
of operational definitions that will be used in this study.

CHAPTER 2

P a g e | 13
LITERATURE REVIEW

2.0 Introduction
Language is very important in communicating or delivering the specific
meaning. All healthy, normally-developing human beings learn to use
language either in formal or informal setting. Unconsciously, children acquire
the language used around them as they receive sufficient exposure to during
their childhood. This learning process is referred to as first-language
acquisition, since unlike many other kinds of learning it requires no direct
teaching or specialized study. Learners are said to be an active participants in
learning language or languages as they decide on their learning strategies
and not the teachers or instructors because they have the exercises control
over the process (O'Malley et al. 1985a). Ellis and Sinclair (1989) suggest that
learners can achieve their goals by focusing their attention on the process (i.e.
on how to learn rather than what to learn) so that they can become more
effective learners and take on more responsibility for their own learning (Ellis
and Sinclair, 1989: 2; cf. Dickinson, 1992: 13).

This chapter focuses on definition of language learning strategies, theoretical

framework and literature review of few studies from the scholars regarding
language learning strategies. Even though it does not cover the whole study, it
helps in understanding the clear picture of the phenomenon.

2.1 Definitions of Language Learning Strategies

P a g e | 14
Several researchers have formulated their own definitions which will be
discussed in the following. Schemeck (1988) defined strategy is the
implementation of a set of procedures (tactics) for accomplishing something.
Rubin (1975) defined strategy as the techniques or devices, which a learner
may use to acquire knowledge (p.43). Meanwhile for language strategies
(LS), Rigney (1978) define LS as operations used by the learner to aid the
acquisition, storage and retrievel of information. Tarone (1983) defined LS as
"an attempt to develop linguistic and sociolinguistic competence in the target
language -- to incoporate these into one's inter language competence" (p. 67).
Rubin (1987) later wrote that LS "are strategies which contribute to the
development of the language system which the learner constructs and affect
learning directly" (p. 22). Schemeck (1988) defined LS as a sequence of
procedures for accomplishing learning (p. 5.) O'Malley and Chamot (1990)
defined LS as "the special thoughts or behaviours that individuals use to help
them comprehend, learn, or retain new information" (p. 1). Oxford (1990a: 12)
proposed that they are conscious actions, but after a time using them, they
become automatic, i.e. unconscious. Finally, building on work in her book for
teachers (Oxford, 1990a), Oxford (1992/1993) provides specific examples of
LLS (i.e., "In learning ESL, Trang watches U.S. TV soap operas, guessing the
meaning of new expressions and predicting what will come next") and this
helpful definition:

...language learning strategies -- specific actions, behaviours, steps, or

techniques that students (often intentionally) use to improve their progress in
developing L2 skills. These strategies can facilitate the internalization,

P a g e | 15
storage, retrieval, or use of the new language. Strategies are tools for the
self-directed involvement necessary for developing communicative ability.
(Oxford, 1992/1993, p. 18)

Wenden (1998: 18) added that LLS as mental steps or operations that
learner use to learn a new language and to regulate their effort to do so.
Later, Oxford (2001: 66) suggested that LLS as operations employed by the
learner to aid the acquisition, storage, retrieval and use of information; specific
actions taken by the learner to make learning easier, faster, more enjoyable,
more self-directed, more efficient, and more transferable to new situations.

2.2 Theoretical Framework

2.2.1 Learning Strategies
Oxford (1990, 1993) classifies learning strategies into two categories which
complement each other. They are the direct and indirect strategies. For
effective language learning, learners need to apply both. If teachers introduce
these strategies into language classes, they may help students to become
more efficient learners. According to Oxford (1990b, P.71), the direct language
learning strategies directly involve the subject matter. In that sense, all
direct strategies require mental processing of the language (Oxford, 1990a,
p. 37). As for the indirect language learning strategies, they do not directly
involve the subject matter itself, but are essential to language learning
nonetheless (Oxford, 1990b, P.71).

P a g e | 16
The direct strategies are further divided into three subcategories, including
memory strategies, cognitive strategies, and compensation strategies. Similar
to the direct strategies, the category of indirect strategies is also divided into
three categories, including meta-cognitive strategies, affective strategies, and
social strategies.

Table 1: Oxfords LLS Taxonomy (1990a)

1. Direct Strategies
I. Memory Strategies

II. Cognitive Strategies

III. Compensation Strategies

A. Creating mental linkages

B. Applying images
C. Reviewing well
D. Employing action
A. Creating mental linkages
B. Receiving and sending messages
C. Analyzing and reasoning
D. Creating structure for input and output
A. Guessing Intelligently
B. Overcoming limitations in speaking and
writing

2. Indirect Strategies
IV. Metacognitive Strategies
V. Affective Strategies
VI. Social Strategies

1) Direct Strategies
Memory Related Strategies

A. Creating your learning

B. Arranging and planning your learning
C. Evaluating your learning
A. Lowering your anxiety
B. Encouraging yourself
C. Taking your emotional temperature
A. Asking questions
B. Cooperating with others
C. Empathizing with others

P a g e | 17
According to Oxford (1990, 1993), these strategies make learners easy to
store and retrieve information in an orderly string (e.g., acronym), while other
techniques create learning and retrieval via images, sounds, a combination of
sounds and images, mechanical means, body movement or location.

Compensation Strategies
These strategies help learners to comprehend the target language when they
have insufficient knowledge of it. Students need to make up for missing
knowledge and deficiency in grammar and vocabulary. They involve guessing
from the context without looking up every word, guessing what people will say
next and replacing words with synonyms or descriptions.

Cognitive Strategies
These strategies are used to manipulate the language material in direct ways
through analysis, reasoning, note-taking, synthesizing, summarizing, outlining,
recognizing information to develop stronger schemas, and practicing
structures and sounds formally. Learners use these strategies by practicing
and repeating new words, deductive reasoning, translating, taking notes,
analyzing;

highlighting,

summarizing,

starting

conversations in

language, practicing sounds, and imitating native speakers.

2) Indirect Strategies
Metacognitive Strategies

target

P a g e | 18
These strategies help learners coordinate their learning plan language
learning in an efficient way especially when learners are confused with new
vocabulary, rules and writing system. Metacognitive strategies help in different
ways such as identifying ones own learning style preferences and needs,
gathering and organizing materials, setting goals and objectives, arranging a
study space, planning for a second language task, looking for people who talk
the target language, monitoring mistakes, evaluating task success and any
type of learning strategies.

Affective Strategies
These strategies help in lowering anxiety, encouraging oneself, and taking
ones own emotional temperature. The affective factors such as emotion,
attitude and motivation influence learning. Learners would use affective
strategies by using music or laughter as part of the learning process, trying to
relax whenever afraid of using the target language, discussing feelings,
encouraging oneself to speak the target language even when being afraid of
making mistakes, making positive statements about ones own progress,
writing down feelings in a language learning diary, and talking to someone
else about how one feels when learning a target language.

Social Strategies
Social strategies are the activities and opportunities that enable the learners
to be exposed to and practice their knowledge. According to Wenden & Rubin
(1989) these strategies do not lead directly to the obtaining, storing, retrieving,
and using of language but contribute indirectly to learning. These strategies

P a g e | 19
would

be

used

by

seeking

correction,

asking

for

clarification,

working/practicing with peers, exploring cultural and social norms, talking to a

native-speaker and developing cultural understanding to become aware of
thoughts and feelings of others.

2.2.2 Language Proficiency

Language proficiency is composed of oral (listening and speaking) and written
(reading and writing) components as well as academic and non-academic
language (Hargett, 1998). There are different theories of what constitutes
proficiency and English proficiency tests. If an English proficiency test plays
any role in determining how students participate in large-scale assessments, it
is important to know what theory of proficiency the test is based on. Jim
Cummins (1984) developed Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency that
requires the language ability for academic achievement in a context-reduced
environment such as classroom lectures and textbook reading assignments.
(Baker, 2000). CALP is usually required on large-scale tests. Part of a theory
of

language

proficiency

developed

by

Jim

Cummins,(1984),

which

distinguishes Basic Interpersonal Communicative Skills (BICS) from CALP.

BICS is often referred to as playground English or survival English. It is
the basic language ability required for face-to-face communication where
linguistic interactions are embedded in a situational context. This language
often accompanied by gestures, and is relatively undemanding cognitively and
relies on the context to aid understanding. BICS is much more easily and
quickly acquired than CALP but is not sufficient to meet the cognitive and
linguistic demands of an academic classroom (Cummins, 1984; Baker and

P a g e | 20
Jones, 1998). Large-scale assessments typically do not often involve the use
of BICS but many English proficiency tests measure BICS.

2.2.3 Gender
Block (2002) proposed three models of language and gender; the deficit
model, the cultural difference model and the dominance model. In the deficit
model, Block claimed that females are seen as the disadvantaged speakers
and communicators, particularly in the professional world due to their
upbringing and socialization. Meanwhile in dominance model, women are
perceived to perform their woman-ness in an ethno methodological frame as
they continually negotiate their position of relative powerlessness vis a vis
men (p.53). The deficit model was more conservative; nevertheless,
dominance model was rather radical. According to the cultural difference
model, men and women belong to separate but equal cultures which predate
the development of individuals who are socialized into them (Block, 2002).
That is, girls and boys are socialized into different ways of relating to one
another in their predominately same-sex interactions and, thus, acquire
different communicative styles within the community they live (Davis &
Skilton-Sylvester, 2004). Block added that men and women are different but
equal: women's speech and communication styles are not inferior to mens;
rather the relationships between the two are problematic at least in part
because of culture clash.

2.3 Studies

P a g e | 21
There are growing literatures on the relationship between proficiency and
strategy use. Researchers have found that conscious use of appropriate
learning strategies typifies good language learners (Stern. 1975; Rubin, 1975;
Wenden, 1985;Bialystok , 1981;Oxford &Ehrman,1995). Researchers also
found that quality and appropriate of strategy use are associated with
successful of language tasks and with higher overall language achievement
and proficiency (OMalley et al., 1985; Chamot & Kupper, 1989; Green &
Oxford, 1995; Dreyer & Oxford, 1996; Chamot et al., 1999; Oxford, 2001; Lan
& Oxford, 2003)

Heather (2005) conducted a study to examine the language learning

strategies employed by advanced EFL learners in Taiwan. The results
revealed that the most frequently used strategies, also used ranked in the
high use categories were metacognitive strategies and followed by cognitive
strategies. In order to examine the gender differences in relation to the use of
LLSs, the results showed that no significant difference between male and
female participants in their overall LLS use.

Zare (2010) investigated the relationship between language learning

strategies use and genders among Iranian undergraduate language learners.
This study conducted to determine how the use of language learning
strategies varies according to gender. 148 learners were selected through
cluster random sampling. The findings of the study reveal that Iranian
undergraduate EFL learners can be categorized as medium strategy users.

P a g e | 22
Moreover the findings also shows that the overall use of language learning
strategies significantly varied according to gender.

Al-Natour (2012) investigated the most frequently language learning

strategies used by Jordanian University students at Yarmouk university that
affect EFL learning. The sample consisted of 195 male and female who were
studying LC 99 and LC 111 in the first semester of the academic year 20112012 .The result showed that Jordanian students use indirect strategies
(metacognitive , affective and social strategies more that direct ones (memory
strategies , cognitive strategies and compensation strategies ).The sample
consisted of 195 male and female who were studying LC 99 and LC 111 in
the first semester of the academic year 2011-2012 . Moreover, the results
showed there are differences between male and females in their use of
language learning strategies. In addition, there are statistically significant
differences in students use of learning strategies attributed to academic level
in favour to the fourth year students.

Park (2010) investigated learning strategies used by effective and less

effective EFL learners in Korea. This study aimed to explore whether the
effective learner use quantitatively more learning strategies than less effective
learners in learning English. This study was conducted on 164 tertiary level
students in Korea. The students consisted of 64 juniors and 100 seniors, with
87 male students and 77 female learners. There were three different
instruments that had been use which were The Strategy Inventory for
Language Learning (SILL), Test of English International Communication

P a g e | 23
(TOEIC) and SPSS for data analysis. According to Park (2010), the
correlation of students use of English learning strategies to English
proficiency was statistically significant but low. This low correlation can be
attributed to five points. First, there were lots of variables, which account for
L2 acquisition, other than learning strategies such as linguistic knowledge,
background knowledge, motivation, and acculturation (Ellis,1994; Horwits,
2008; Park, 2004). Second, the observed scores measured by SILL and
TOEIC might not be consistent and trustworthy (Oxford & Burry-Stock, 1995;
The Chauncey Group International, 2002). Third, the learning strategies were
highly depended on the task either in achieving the goals or solving the
problems. Fourth, effective learners automaticity of learning strategies and
failure to report the strategies they used subconsciously (Cohen & Macaro,
2007; Faerch & Kasper, 1983). The fifth reason is the use of English learning
strategies in quantity alone could not account for English proficiency because
effective learners might use learning strategies differently from less effective
learners in quality (Vendergrift, 1999; Vann & Abraham, 1990).

Radwan,(2000) conducted a study on the effect of language proficiency and

gender on choice of language learning strategies by university students
majoring in English. This study was conducted on 128 students of Sultan
Qaboos

University

(SQU).

These

students

consisted

of

freshman,

sophomores, juniors and seniors where 39 of the students were males and
the 89 were females. The aim of the study was to investigate the relationship
between the use of language learning strategies and gender and English
proficiency as measured by students GPA, duration of the study and self-

P a g e | 24
rating on reported strategies used. Using Oxford (1990) Strategy Inventory for
Language Learners (SILL) questionnaire and analysis of variance (ANNOVA),
first, the result showed that metacognitive was preferred by the students more
than any other category of strategies, with memory strategies ranking last on
students' preference scale. Second, there were no significant differences
between males and females in the overall use of strategies. Third, the more
proficient students differed from the less proficient learners in several ways:
(1) they used more overall strategies; (2) they used more cognitive,
metacognitive, and affective strategies than the less proficient learners.
Fourth, freshmen in general used more strategies followed by juniors, seniors,
and sophomores. Fifth, self-rating was evidently the strongest factor
distinguishing between students. Results demonstrated that students who
perceived themselves as proficient users of the language (the Good group)
used significantly more strategies than the other group.

2.4 Summary
This chapter provides an insight of previous studies regarding language
learning strategies and other variables; gender and proficiency. The success
of second language acquisition is highly depended on the different strategies
use. The pedagogical implications of these studies suggest that a variety of
meaningful language learning strategies will likely benefit the learners. In
addition, language instructor or teacher can utilize an understanding of
individual language learning strategy preferences by different gender and
level of proficiency. Thus, types of strategies, gender differences and learners

P a g e | 25
proficiency must be taken into account since it is highly affected the language
learning process.

.
.

P a g e | 26
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY

3.0 Introduction
The methods and procedures used in the study will be identified in this
chapter. It describes in detail the methodology for the design, development
and evaluation. The characteristics of a quantitative research study, the
designs, population and sample for this study, data analysis procedures, the
data collection method and legal considerations will be explained in detail.

3.1 Research Design

The finding of this descriptive study described the different English learning
strategies from two categories of information; by self-assessed language
proficiency and gender. Thus, the data was described in manageable form
which is descriptive statistics. This study consisted of three measurements:
students background information ,the questionnaire was comprised of closeended question items which asked about each participants age, gender and
current English class (see Appendix A) , Oxfords (1990) Strategy Inventory
for Language Learning (version 7.0) (see Appendix B),and General English
Proficiency Test.

The current study confined itself to one of the learner variables-language

proficiency. It examined how proficiency level affects the choice of language
learning strategy. In this survey study, language proficiency level was set as
the independent variable, and learning strategy use was set as the dependent

P a g e | 27
variable. The dependent variable was sub divided into the following three
areas: the mean score of the entire SILL, the mean scores of each of the six
SILL strategy categories (memory, cognitive, compensation, metacognitive,
affective, and social), and the mean scores of the 50 individual SILL items.

3.2 Sampling
According to Leedy and Ormrod,(2000), there are certain guidelines in
selecting a sample size in quantitative sampling ,For small population (N<
100), there is little point in sampling. Thus, it is suggested to survey entire
population.The student population will be drawn from public secondary level
school. Due to time, cost and accessibility constraint, population for this study
will be drawn from the Form 3 learners from Sekolah Menengah Kebangsan
Darulaman, Alor Setar

Kedah. Participants were chosen from age of 15

years old .This study of the 100 students was surveyed. The participants were
chosen from lower and higher proficiency level recommended by the form
teachers. All participants were enrolled in an English language program in the
school. All the participants of this research are non-native speakers of English
or ESL speakers.

3.3 Data Collection

The SILL ,background questionnaires and GEPT were distributed to the all
the classes of form 3 from different level. The class instructors, in our case is
the teachers who were informed about the nature of the questionnaire and its
administration

procedure,

supervised

the

distribution

process.

Both

questionnaires took an average of 40 minutes to finish under complete

conditions of anonymity and confidentiality.

P a g e | 28

3.3.1 Instruments
3.3.2 SILL (Strategy Inventory for Language Learning)
The basic instrument for this study is Strategy Inventory for Language
Learning (SILL). This instrument is used to examine the language learning
strategy use by the learners which they are asked to respond on a 5-point
Likert Scale ranging from 1 (never, or almost never) to 5 (always, or almost
always). SILL questionnaire ESL/EFL Version 7.0 (Oxford, 1989) measures
the six strategy groups; memory, cognitive, compensation, metacognitive,
affective and social strategies and frequency of strategy use. The instrument
consists of 50 statements. The statements are divided into the following five
items: items 1-9 relate on how learners remember language (memory
strategies); items 10-23 represent on how learners think about their learning
(cognitive strategies); items 24-29 concern on how learners make up their
missing knowledge (compensation strategies); items 30-38 deal on how
learners manage their own learning (metacognitive strategies); items 39-44
focus on emotion management or learners feeling (affective strategies); and
items 45-50 involve learning by interaction with others (social strategies).

3.3.3 GEPT (General English Proficiency Test)

GEPT is employed to determine participants English proficiency. GEPT is
developed by the Language Training and Testing Centre in 1990 and it
includes four tests to measure learners proficiency in listening, reading,
writing and speaking.

The test is divided into five levels: elementary,

intermediate, high intermediate, advanced and superior. Listening test

P a g e | 29
consists of three sections: 10 questions on picture description, 10 questions
on question-response and 10 questions on short conversation. Meanwhile,
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. Only the scores on listening, reading and writing were used to analyze
the relationship between language learning strategy use and English
proficiency.

3..3.4 Pilot Study

The overall purpose of pilot study is to assess the feasibility of conducting a
large study to determine whether there are significant differences between
strategy use and gender and also proficiency. According to Leedy & Ormrod
(2001), pilot study was used to make an assumption whether real responses
will be sufficient in answering the research questions. Therefore, to test the
feasibility, validity and reliability of the instruments, and to see whether those
who are involve in this study have difficulties understanding any items of the
instruments, the researchers will conduct a pilot study on a group of 10
students from Form 3 students of SM Kebangsaan Darulaman, Alor Setar,
Kedah.This group consists two categories of student; higher proficiency
students and lower proficiency students that were recommended by their
From Teacher.

P a g e | 30
In order to obtain an accurate data, this research was conducted separately
for both level of proficiency. For the first phase, all participants have to answer
the questionnaire on their background information. For the second phase,
they will be given a brief explanation of the six language learning strategies.
Then, they were asked to answer the SILL questionnaire. For the third phase,
the participants will sit for GEPT. They have to sit for the listening, reading and
writing test. The speaking test is not conducted because it is difficult to
examine the strategies use from speaking capability. By the end of this pilot
study, if the participants do not encounter any difficulties in comprehend and
answering the items in the questionnaire, the real study can be conducted and
proceeded as what has been planned.

3.3.5 Data Analysis

In this study, independent variables were proficiency level and gender
whereas the dependent variables were the mean scores of the entire SILL
item and the mean scores of the following six categories strategies.

In this study, the statistical tool SPSS (Statistical Package for Social Science)
14 for Windows will be applied to analyze the data obtained from the SILL and
GEPT. Responses will be encoded into the system, using numbers to
represent actual data collected. This will help to analyze the data efficiently.
Data will be entered directly into SPSS by using data entry interface.
Descriptive analysis will be used to analyze the demographic information of
respondents. This research used two types of analysis:

P a g e | 31
(1) Independent samples t-test
(2) Multiple regression analysis

(1) Independent samples t-test

Independent sample t-test was used to evaluate the relationship between
language learning strategy use and proficiency. This independent t-test data
was utilized to compare the difference mean language learning strategy
average sub scores for each type of strategy use by the different English
proficiency level; higher and lower proficiency ESL students.

(2) Multiple regression analysis

In order to model the relationship between strategy use and English
proficiency, a multiple regression was used. The regression analysis reveals
how a change in one variable (X) relates to a change in other variables (Y).
Variable X related to the scores on six types of the strategies use respectively
and variable Y is the scores on English proficiency test. In specific, the
stronger the correlation between X and Y, the more accurately Y (dependent
variable) can be predicted form X (independent variable), and vice versa. This
analysis will be used to reveals the significant differences between the
strategy use and these following data:
(a) GEPT total scores
(b) GEPT listening scores
(c) GEPT reading scores
(d) GEPT writing scores

P a g e | 32
3.3.6 Validity and Reliability
Messick (1989: 13) noted validity as an integrated evaluative judgement of the
degree to which empirical evidence and theoretical rationales support the
adequacy and appropriateness of inferences and action based on test scores
or other modes of assessment. Thus, in validation, it is very important to
justify on how the data are interpreted and drawn from the result. Messick
(1989:13) also stressed that validity is a unitary concept, and that it is a
matter of degree, not of all or none. Furthermore, over time, the existing
validity evidence becomes enhanced by new findings. Meanwhile, reliability
refers to the degree of precision or accuracy of scores on an instrument.

In order to ensure our data is valid and reliable, we use SILL questionnaire to
gain the self-report data. Questionnaires are one of the most efficient and
comprehensive ways to assess frequency of LLS use. Validity of the SILL
links with language performances such as course grades, standardized test
scores, rating proficiency and as well as its relationship to LLS. Meanwhile,
reliability of the SILL is high across many cultural groups. Oxford (1996)
claimed that 40 to 50 major studies, including a dozen dissertations and
theses, have been done using the SILL. These studies have, by late 1995,
involved approximately 10,000 language learners. According to research
reports and articles published in the English language within the last ten to
fifteen years, the SILL appears to be the only language learning strategy
questionnaire that has been extensively checked for reliability and validated in
multiple ways. The Cronbach alpha reliability coefficient is used on continuous
data such as the Likert-type scale in the SILL. In general, the ESL/EFL SILL

P a g e | 33
reliabilities have been high. The internal consistency reliability Cronbachs
alpha is .96 for a 1200-person university sample and .95 for a 483-person
military sample. Content validity is .95 (Oxford, 1990)

Furthermore, for the construct validity for SILL in the relationship between
strategy use and gender, Bedell (1993) and Watanabe (1990) found that
females have a distinctly different pattern of strategy use from males. Some
studies, noted by Bedell and by Green and Oxford, have shown that males
surpassed females on a certain number of separate strategies but not on
whole clusters or groups of strategies. Then, regarding the construct validity
of the SILL based on relationships with language performance, many studies
(Corrales & Call, 1989; Huang, 1984; Oxford & Nyikos, 1989; OMalley &
Chamot, 1990). Reported that SILL strategy use is related, as expected, to
language performance since it showed linear relationship that more advanced
or more proficient students use strategies more frequently. So, the validity and
reliability of this study could not be questioned since the researchers have
employed the valid and reliable instrument to be used in pilot study and the
whole research.

3.3.7 Ethical and legal considerations

Prior to the implementation of the study, permission will be obtained from a
number of different parties for conducting the pilot study. Approval for the
research was sought and obtained from the Universiti Utara Malaysia (UUM)
and the approval from the Principal of

Sekolah Menengah Kebangsaan

Darulaman, Alor Setar for data gathering . Before conducting the research,

P a g e | 34
consent forms will be distributed to the school headmaster, class teachers,
and students. The consent forms explain how the research will be conducted.
The students will be informed that the survey would be kept as confidential.
Moreover verbal explanation will be carried out so that the respondents will
have a better understanding about the research.

3.3.8 Summary
This chapter elaborates on the methodology of this particular study. This study
employs a quantitative method in getting the self-report data from SILL and
GEPT instrument and to be described further using the descriptive data. Prior
to these, a pilot study will be executed in order to check the feasibility, validity
and reliability. A sample of 10 Form 3 learners will be chosen randomly to
answer the questionnaire and sit for the test. The data from the study will be
analysed using SPSS which involves two types of analysis; independent
sample t-test and multiple regression. Finally, the ethical and legal
considerations are also one of the aspects that to be considered in this study.

Appendix A

P a g e | 35
Strategies questionnaire (Oxford,1989)
Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL)
Please read each statement. On the separate Worksheet, write the response
(1,2,3,4, or 5) that tells how true of you the statement is .
1-Never or almost never true of me
2-Usually not true of me
3-Somewhat true of me
4-Usually true of me
5-Always or almost always true of me
Part A
1. I think of relationships between what I already know and new things I learn
in English.
2. I use new English words in a sentence so I can remember them.
3. I connect the sound of a new English word and an image or picture of the
word to help me remember the word.
4. I remember a new English word by making a mental picture of a situation in
which the word might be used.
5. I use rhymes to remember new English words.
6. I use flashcards to remember new English words.
7. I physically act out new English words.
8. I review English lessons often.
9. I remember new English words or phrases by remembering their location
on the page, on the board, or on a street sign.

Part B

P a g e | 36
10. I say or write new English words several times.
11. I try to talk like native English speakers.
12. I practice the sounds of English.
13. I use the English words I know in different ways.
14. I start conversations in English.
15. I watch English language TV shows spoken in English or go to movies
spoken in English.
16. I read for pleasure in English.
17. I write notes, messages, letters or reports in English.
18. I first skim an English passage (read over the passage quickly) then go
back and read carefully.
19. I look for words in my own language that are similar to new words in
English.
20. I try to find patterns in English.
21. I find the meaning of an English word by dividing it into parts that I
understand.
22. I try not to translate word-for-word.
23. I make summaries of information that I hear or read in English.

Part C
24. To understand unfamiliar English words, I make guesses.
25. When I cant think of a word during a conversation in English, I use
gestures.
26. I make up new words if I do not know the right ones in English.
27. I read English without looking up every new word.

P a g e | 37
28. I try to guess what the other person will say next in English.
29. If I cant think of an English word, I use a word or phrase that means the
same thing.
Part D
30. I try to find 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 find 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.
Part E
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.
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.

P a g e | 38
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.

Appendices

P a g e | 39
Language Learning Strategies Questionnaire

Students background information

Dear students,
We are conducting a research survey for our masters at the University Utara
Malaysia (UUM), in Kedah. This questionnaire is an attempt to explore the
language learning strategies used by the secondary school students.We are
conducting research on The relationship between language learning
strategies, gender and proficiency among secondary school students. Your
participation in this study and honest responses to the questionnaire items are
highly appreciated .To help us, please answer the questionnaire based on
your own experience. It should take no more than 40 minutes to complete. All
information will be anonymous and treated in the strictest confidence. Thank
you very much.
PART ONE : Please make a check mark () one appropriate answer .
1. Your gender :

( ) Female

( ) Male

2. Form of study

: ( ) form 3A

( ) form 3D

( ) form 3B

( ) from 3E

( ) form 3C

( ) from 3F

3. How do you rate your proficiency in English ?

( ) Excellent
( ) Good
( ) Fair
( ) Poor

PART TWO :

P a g e | 40
This form of the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) is for
students of English as a second language. You will find statements about
learning English. Please read each statement carefully. Then, next to each
statement, circle your answer.
NO STATEMENTS
PART A
1.
I think of relationships between what I already know
and new things I learn in English.
2
I use new English words in a sentence so I can
remember them
3
I connect the sound of a new English word and an
image or picture of the word to help me remember
the word.
4
I remember a new English word by making a mental
picture of a situation in which the word might be used
5
I use rhymes to remember new English words.
6
I use flashcards to remember new English words
7
I physically act out new English words.
8
I review English lessons often.
9
I remember new English words or phrase by
remembering their location on the page, on the
board, or on a screen sign.
PART B
10 I say or write new English words several times.
11 I try to talk like native English speakers.
12 I practice the sounds of English
13 I use the English words I know in different ways.
14 I start conversations in English.
15 I watch English language TV shows spoken in
English or to go to movies spoken in English.
16 I read for pleasure in English.
17 I write notes, messages, letters, or reports in English
18 I first skim an English passage (read over the
passage quickly) then go back and read carefully
19 I look for words in my own language that are similar
to new words in English.
20 I try to find patterns in English.
21 I find the meaning of an English word by dividing it
into parts that I understand.
22 I try not to translate word-for-word.
23 I make summaries of information that I hear or read
in English.
PART C
24 To understand unfamiliar English words, I make
guesses.
25 When I cant think of a word during a conversation in
English, I use gestures

1
1

SCALE
2 3 4
2 3 4

5
5

3 4

3 4

3 4

1
1
1
1
1

2
2
2
2
2

3
3
3
3
3

4
4
4
4
4

5
5
5
5
5

1
1
1
1
1
1

2
2
2
2
2
2

3
3
3
3
3
3

4
4
4
4
4
4

5
5
5
5
5
5

1
1
1

2
2
2

3 4
3 4
3 4

5
5
5

3 4

1
1

2
2

3 4
3 4

5
5

1
1

2
2

3 4
3 4

5
5

3 4

3 4

P a g e | 41
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50

I make up new words if I do not know the right ones

in English.
I read English without looking up every new word.
I try to guess what the other person will say next in
English.
If I cant think of an English word, I use a word or
phrase that means the same thing.
PART D
Try to find as many ways as I can to use my English.
I notice my English mistakes and use that
information to help me do better.
I pay attention when someone is speaking English
I try to find out how to be a better learner of English.
I plan my schedule so I will have enough time to
study English.
I look for people I can talk to in English
I look for opportunities to read as much as possible
in English.
I have clear goals for improving my English skills.
I think about my progress in learning English.
PART E
I try to relax whenever I fell afraid of using English.
I encourage myself to speak English even when I am
afraid of making a mistake.
I give myself a reward or treat when I do well in
English.
I notice if I am tense or nervous when I am studying
or using English.
I write own my feelings in a language learning diary
I talk to someone else about how I feel when I am
learning English.
PART F
If I do not understand something in English, I ask the
other person to slow down or say it again
I ask English speakers to correct me when I talk.
I practice English with other students.
I ask for help from English speakers
I ask questions in English.
I try to learn about the culture of English speakers.

References

3 4

1
1

2
2

3 4
3 4

5
5

3 4

1
1

2
2

3 4
3 4

5
5

1
1
1

2
2
2

3 4
3 4
3 4

5
5
5

1
1

2
2

3 4
3 4

5
5

1
1

2
2

3 4
3 4

5
5

1
1

2
2

3 4
3 4

5
5

3 4

3 4

1
1

2
2

3 4
3 4

5
5

3 4

1
1
1
1
1

2
2
2
2
2

3
3
3
3
3

5
5
5
5
5

4
4
4
4
4

P a g e | 42

O Malley,J.M., & Chamot, A.U.(1990). Learning strategies in second

language acquisition. Cambridge :Cambridge University Press.
Park (1997) Park,G.P.(1997). Language learning strategies and English
proficiency in Korean University. Foreign Languge Annals,30 (2), 211-221.
Oxford,R.L., (1990) .Language learning strategies :What every teacher should
know. New York: Newbury House/Harper and Row.
Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies. New York: Newbury.
Chang, S. F., & Huang, S. C. (1999). Language learning motivation and
language learning strategies of Taiwanese EFL students. Retrieved from ERIC
database. (ED 428 561)
Amal,A.L.,(2012) .The most frequently language learning strategies used by
Jordanian university students at Yarmouk university that affect EFL learning.
European Journal of Social Sciences, 29(4): 528-536.
Pezhman ,Z.,(2010) . An investigation into language learning strategy use and
gender among Iranian undergraduate language learners . World applied
sciences journal, 11(10):1238-1247.
Sara ,K.N., (2011) .Malaysian ESL learners use of language learning
vfgstrategies. International conferences of humanities, society and culture .
20.
Park, G.P. (2010). Investigation into learning strategies used by effective and
less effective strategies. Asian Social Science, 6(8), 3-13.
Cabaysa, C.C. (2010). Language learning strategies of students at different
levels of speaking profiency. Education Quarterly, 68(1), 16-35.
Wu, Y.L. (2008). Language learning strategies used by students at different
proficiency levels. Asian EFL Journal:Conference Proceedings, 10(4),
75-95.
Griffiths, C., Parr, J.M. (2001). Language learning strategies: Theory and
perception. EFL Journal, 55(3), 247-254.
Oxford, R.L. (1996). Employing a questionnaire to assess the use of language
learning strategies. Applied Language Learning, 7(1&2), 25-45
Ler, E.C. (2010). Cultural factors affecting english proficiency in rural areas: A
case study. International Journal of Arts and Sciences, 3(10), 26-55

P a g e | 43
Lim, H.E. (2011). The determinants of individual unemployment duration: The
case of Malaysian graduates. 2nd international conference on
business and economic research proceeding, 2619-2639
Manfred, W.M.F. (2007). The relationship between the use of metacognitive
langauge learning strategies and langauge learning motivation among
Chinese speaking ESL learners at a Vocational Education Institute in
Hong Kong. Asian EFL Journal, 9(3), 93-117