Language Learning Strategies and Language Proficiency: Causes

or Outcomes?

Stephen Bremner

Introduction

The idea that there may be a set of strategies used by language learners to

help them learn language has been with us for some time. From early

examples of research such as the studies carried out by Rubin (I 975) and

Stern (1975), to taxonomies of strategies like that drawn up by Oxford

(1990), to theories of language acquisition which incorporate strategies

(O'Malley & Chamot, 1990), much work has been done in attempting to

identify what might be good language learning strategies, and in trying to

establish a relationship between these and successful language learning.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the nature of the link between

language learning strategies and language proficiency. The term ‘proficiency’

here can be interpreted in its traditional sense as mentioned by Bachman

"to refer in general to knowledge, competence or ability in the use of a

language, irrespective of how, where, or under what conditions it has been

acquired” (1990, p. 16). Specifically, the paper will look at two questions:

firstly, what associations, if any, exist between the level of strategy use and

proficiency among the group of Hong Kong learners under investigation?

Secondly, to what extent can strategy use and proficiency be treated as

separate: in other words, are they interlinked features of learner

performance, or separate factors, one the cause of the other!

In order to address these questions I discuss some of the studies that have

examined the nature of language learning strategies, in particular those

which have looked at possible links between strategy use and proficiency,

and then I present the findings from a study carried out with a group of

students at the City University of Hong Kong.

Background - identifying and categorising strategies

Early research into language learning strategies was concerned with

attempting to establish what good language learning strategies might be;

while no explicit claims were made about links between strategies and

success, the titles of these early articles implied a relationship: “What the

‘Good Language Learner’ can Teach Us” (Rubin, 1975), and “What Can

We Learn From the Good Language Learner?” (Stern. 1975). Researchers

were hoping to identify strategies used by successful learners with the idea

that they might be transferred to less successful learners. As Hot-win says:

7
“The ultimate purpose of studying learner strategies is, of course, an

applied one; researchers and teachers hope to determine which strategies

are most effective and help students adopt more productive learning

procedures” (1987, p. 126). These two early studies mentioned above

were largely intuitive, but subsequent studies have been more empirical in

their approach, notable among them being Naiman, Frohlich, Stern and

Todesco's 1978 study, Rubin's (1981) study, and the work done by

O'Malley, Chamot, Stewner-Manzanares, Kupper and Russo (I 985).

There is considerable debate as to appropriate ways of defining language

learning strategies, and no strong consensus as yet (see Ellis, 1994, and Gu.

1996, for a discussion of this issue). The terms which have been used to

describe strategies (e.g. technique, behaviour, operation, action) and to

account for their purpose (to acquire knowledge, to regulate learning, to

make learning more effective) vary, but they have much in common, and

for the purpose of this paper, language learning strategies will be loosely

defined as ‘what students do to assist their learning’.

As well as the various ways of defining strategies, there are also different

ways of categorising those that have been identified. Based on research

that took place during the 1980s. O'Malley and Chamot (1990). for

example, outline a scheme which includes cognitive, metacognitive and

social/affective strategies. Oxford (1990) has also produced a classification

system which takes account of research of the preceding years, including

much of her own work.

A wide range of methods of data collection has been used: observation and

interviews (Naiman et al 1978); observations, student self-report and

diaries (Rubin. 1981); self-report through questionnaires (Politzer, 1983,

Politzer & McGroarty, 1985, Oxford, 1990), and interviews (Wenden,

1987). Each of these methods has its limitations, and Gu (1996), while

pointing out that this has been a learning period in what is a young area of

investigation, suggests that “the language learning strategies trawled up are

very likely to be biased in terms of social, educational and other

background factors of the sample selected” (1996, p. 17). He also questions

whether the methods of elicitation used actually yield up the most

important strategies used by learners.

Thus the situation that has evolved is one where there is no clear

agreement on a definition for strategies, and where there is a variety of

classification schemes and elicitation methods. The existing schemes of

classification have areas in common, but, as is noted by Oxford and

Ehrmann, “The proliferation of strategy systems has caused problems for

those researchers who believe it is important to compare results across

studies” (1995. p.363). However, there is one instrument for eliciting levels

of strategy use which has gained currency though being administered in a

variety of learning environments: Oxford’s (1989) Strategy Inventory for

Language Learning (SILL). This has been developed from Oxford’s fairly

exhaustive list of strategies, described by Ellis as “perhaps the most

comprehensive classification of learning strategies to date” (1994, p.539).

According to Green and Oxford (I 995). studies using SILL have involved

around 8.000 students in different parts of the world.

This research has used the SILL for the reason that it has been used

extensively, and thus allows for comparisons to be made: the study which

is the point of comparison for this paper is the research carried out by

Green and Oxford (1995), using the same instrument.

10
The relationship between proficiency and strategy use

Various studies have investigated the relationship between proficiency and

strategy use. Politzer and McGroarty (1985), for example, looked at the

relationship between a range of “good learning behaviors”, measured using

a questionnaire, and gain scores on an intensive course They reported

mixed results: while the gain scores did not relate to their categories of

strategy use as a whole (classroom behaviours, individual study behaviours,

and social interaction behaviours outside the classroom), there were

certain individual items which showed significant associations. They also

found differences in reported strategy use among the two main groups,

Asians and Hispanics. In concluding, the authors offer a number of caveats

regarding the use of self-report data, and say that, "Results indicate that

caution in prescribing good learning behaviors is warranted” (1985, p. 103).

Abraham and Vann (1987, 1990). in two separate studies, looked at the

language learning strategies employed by both successful and unsuccessful

learners. They found that unsuccessful learners were using strategies

generally considered as useful, and often the same ones as those employed

by the successful learners: the difference lay in the degree of flexibility the

11
learners showed when choosing strategies, and how appropriately they

were applied to the given situation. The findings from these studies raise a

question mark over the theory that successful learners use a larger

repertoire of strategies, and use them more frequently: indeed, Gu

contends that “the two hypotheses which presume a quantitative

difference in strategy use between successful and unsuccessful language

learners are inadequate in describing the picture” (1996, p.8).

This is perhaps a gloomier picture than that painted by Green and Oxford

(1995): they say that in studies investigating the relationship between

proficiency and language learning strategy use “conducted in a wide variety

of cultural and geographical settings. students who were better in their

language performance generally reported higher levels of overall strategy

use and frequent use of a greater number of strategy categories” (1995,

p.265).

Findings such as those they mention might indicate an association between

reported strategy use and proficiency, but the exact nature of this

association, particularly the issue of causality, is a subject of some debate.

Skehan (I 989) and Rees-Miller (1993) among others have pointed out that

12
the existence of correlation between the two does not necessarily suggest

causality in a particular direction. McIntyre (I 994) has attempted to unravel

the relationship between the two variables. On the one hand he stresses a

need for caution when looking at studies which suggest that more

proficient students make better use of strategies: “This might be

interpreted to mean that either proficiency influences the choice of

strategies or that strategy choice is simply a sign of proficiency level”

(1994, p. 188). However, in answer to his own question as to whether

strategy use results from or leads to increased proficiency, he is rather less

cautious: “The answer, undoubtedly, is BOTH” (1994. p. 189) (His

emphasis). The case made for this statement is not a strong one: the idea

that strategies are both the causes and outcomes of improved language

proficiency needs much more investigation before such a confident

conclusion can be warranted.

A similar argument to McIntyre’s, although offered more tentatively, comes

from Green and Oxford (1995): in their Puerto Rico study, they found that

about a third of the individual strategies were used more frequently by the

more successful learners, almost all of them involving active use of the

target language. Although they concede that this is not sufficient evidence

13
of causality, they nevertheless suggest that a causal relationship exists here

between strategy use and proficiency level, and that “this relationship is

best visualised not as a one-way arrow leading from cause to effect, but

rather as an ascending spiral in which active use strategies help students

attain higher proficiency, which in turn makes it more likely that students

will select these active use strategies” (1995, p.288). This may be a

plausible theory, but there is no evidence for it beyond the significant levels

of variation in use of certain strategies that they found among different

groups of students. It could equally be argued that strategies do not

contribute to proficiency, but are simply features of it; in other words, only

by reaching a certain level will a student be likely to use a given strategy.

This point is made by Skehan: "One can ...argue that learner strategies

do not determine proficiency, but are permitted by if’ (1989. p.97) (His

emphasis).

The notion that strategy use and proficiency are both causes and outcomes

of each other, locked in a mutual relationship. complicates the picture:

certainly the assumptions that a researcher makes about the direction of

causality in this relationship between proficiency and strategy use will have
implications for the way in which the study is conducted, and this issue is

discussed in the methods section of the paper.

The current study

The purpose of this particular study was to investigate the strategy use of a

group of students at the City University of Hong Kong; the author has not

come across any published studies of Hong Kong populations using the

SILL, although Ghadessy (forthcoming) has recently carried out some

research using this instrument. While other studies have looked at a range

of variables in conjunction with strategy use, such as gender (e.g. Green &

Oxford, 1995, Oxford & Ehrmann, 1995), or major subject studied at

university (Oxford & Nyikos. 1989) the current study focused on the

relationship between the subjects’ strategy use and their language

proficiency.

Subjects

The subjects (n=149, 113 female, 36 male) were all studying on a language

and communication skills course at the City University of Hong Kong, part

of a BA in Primary Education; as this was an in-service course, all of them

were already working as primary teachers. There was a wide divergence in

age, from mid-twenties to mid-fifties. The LI of the group was Cantonese;

while all had undergone compulsory instruction in English at school, the

ultimate length of language study varied. as did proficiency. Students were

placed into classes for logistical reasons (i.e. according to when they could

attend) rather than on the basis of proficiency level.

The course lasted twenty weeks: thirty hours of instruction and forty-five

hours of self-study. The syllabus for all groups was the same.

instruments

The instrument used for collecting data on strategy use was Oxford’s

(1989) Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (50-item Version 7.0 for

ESL/EFL).

The SILL is a self-scoring survey and it comes in several versions. according

to whether the group under scrutiny is learning English as a second

language, or other languages. The structure is based on Oxford’s

classification system, whereby strategies are grouped into six categories:

affective, social. metacognitive, memory-related, cognitive and

compensatory. Each item in the survey is a statement saying `I do ...’ (e.g.

I pay attention when someone is speaking) and students respond on a 5-

point Likert scale ranging from I (‘Never or almost never true of me’), to 5
(‘Always or almost always true of me’). The questionnaire was

administered roughly halfway through the course.

In order to measure proficiency level, a range of assignments was given at

regular points over the twenty week course: two spoken tasks (Weeks II

and 17). two written tasks (Weeks 8 and 16). and two discrete-item

language tests (Weeks 11 and 19), based on work done during the course.

Total scores were converted into a percentage.

Data collection and analysis procedures

As mentioned earlier, assumptions made about the direction of causality

are likely to influence the analysis procedures; the nomination of variables

is thus an interesting issue. In Green and Oxford’s study, and for this

research, analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to determine significant

variation. By setting the independent variable, which the use of ANOVA

necessitates, is one positing an implicit direction of causality? According to

Oxford and Nyikos. the answer is yes: “causality is by definition involved in

the use of the ANOVA technique; indeed, that is why researchers use it

(when possible) instead of less explanatory techniques like correlation”

(1989, p.295).
In Green and Oxford’s (1995) study, which was the original point of

comparison for the current study, the independent variables are gender

and proficiency, and the dependent variable is strategy use. Why this

configuration of dependent and independent variables? Clearly gender has

to be an independent variable, as the direction of causality in this

relationship can only be in one direction. In the case of proficiency,

however, given that the goal of learning strategy research is to establish

whether strategy use has a positive effect on the enhancement of

proficiency, it would seem to be more logical to set strategy use as an

independent variable. Thus in the current study, strategy use was

nominated as the independent variable, and proficiency as the dependent

variable.

The second respect in which this study differed from Green and Oxford’s

research was the fact that while their subjects were placed at one of three

levels on the basis of their language proficiency, in this research each

subject had an individual score as a mieasure of their proficiency, on a scale

from 1 - 100.

18
Strategy use was divided into three categories: low, medium and high; low

consisted of responses 1 and 2 (‘never or almost never true of me’ and

‘usually not true of me'), medium was 3 (‘somewhat true of me’), and high

was responses 4 and 5 (‘usually true of me’ and ‘always or almost always

true of me’). Using this data, it was possible to investigate the relationship

between individual strategies and proficiency, with the latter as the

dependent variable. As mentioned above, significant variation in proficiency

by individual strategy use was determined using a one-way analysis of

variance (ANOVA). The Scheffe post-hoc test was used to establish where

any significant differences might lie, and to determine significance

throughout the study, a standard of p < .05 was used.

The findings

The SILL strategies are divided into two types: direct (i.e. strategies which

directly involve the target language) and indirect. These in turn are divided

into categories: memory, cognitive and compensation (direct);

metacognitive, affective and social (indirect).

Memory strategies relate to the storing and retrieval of information:

cognitive strategies are described by Oxford as being “a varied lot, ranging

19
from repeating to analysing expressions to summarising", although they are

“unified by a common function: manipulation or transformation of the

target language by the learner” (1990, p.43). As for compensation

strategies, these “enable learners to use the new language for either

comprehension or production despite limitations in knowledge” (1990,

p.47).

Metacognitive strategies “allow learners to control their own cognition”

(Oxford, 1990. p. 135); affective strategies are concerned with the

regulation of feelings and attitudes; social strategies are those which take

account of the fact that language is a form of social behaviour, involving

communication with other people.

Table I shows the mean strategy use in each of these categories for the

entire group. Although there are differences in level of use by strategy

group, all means for the six strategy categories fell within the medium

range of 2.5 to 3.4.

Table I :Mean strategy use in each of the six strategy groups

ANOVA was run for each of the individual strategies, and it was found that

there was significant variation in proficiency in relation to ten strategies.

These are listed in Table 2, and a summary of the ANOVA results for

those ten strategies is shown in Table 3.

Table 2: Strategies which showed significant association with

proficiency level

11. I try to talk like native English speakers.

12. I practise the sounds of English.

13. I use English words I know in different ways.

15. I watch English TV shows spoken in English or go to movies spoken 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.

22. I try not to translate word-for-word.

27. I read English without looking up every word.

49. I ask questions in English.

(The numbers next to each strategy are those from the questionnaire - a

full list of the fifty strategies can be found in the Appendix).

Of the strategies which showed significant association with proficiency,

eight fail into the cognitive category (11, 12, 13, 15, 17, 18, 19, 22). one

into the compensation category (27), and one into the social category (49).

Within the cognitive category, a further four sub-categories are suggested:

- practising (Items 11, 12. 13, 15, 17)

- receiving and sending messages (Items 18, 22)

- analysing and reasoning (Item 19)

- creating structure for input and output

It would seem, though, that different ways of interpreting these sub-

categories are possible, and so the exact categorisation of each strategy is

open to argument.

Table 3: Summary of variation in proficiency

Proficiency (as percentage) by strategy use (low use, medium use, high use)

Low (Cl) Medium (G2) High (G3)

SILL M SD M SD M SD f Significance Comments

ratio level
ire
m
II 71.!8 9.91 74.73 8.84 77.79 8.24 6.27 p < .0024 G3=-G 1
12 68.62 10.58 73.69 8. I7 77.65 9.07 9.12 p < .0002 G3>G I
13 71.07 9.86 74.66 8.12 78.70 IO.17 6.29 p < .0024 G3>G I
15 71.58 9.74 74.62 8.79 76.87 9.43 3.55 p < .0312 G3>G I
17 72. IO 9.35 74.36 8.20 82.81 8.64 10.64 p < .OOOO G3>G2
G3>G I
18 69.90 9.61 73.22 9.61 76.53 8.63 5.89 p < .0035 G3>G I
19 70.60 10.62 73.49 8.21 76.73 9.36 4.75 p < .OlOO G3>G I
22 69.56 9.80 73.95 9.25 78.04 7.86 8.56 p < .0003 G3>G I
27 70.4 I 8.01 72.85 9.09 77.83 9.41 8.75 p < .0003 G3>G2
G3>G I
49 71.73 9.53 74.05 8.89 79.64 8.42 7.19 p < ,001 I G3>G2
G3>G I

Discussion

In this study, then, there were ten strategies which showed significant

association with proficiency level; this compares with seventeen in the

Green and Oxford study. Eight of the ten are among their seventeen (only
items 18 and 19 did not appear on their list). While the data analysis

procedures in this study differed from theirs, as discussed above, it is

nevertheless interesting to note that these eight were seen as showing

significant association in both studies. For their own findings, Green and

Oxford observe that the majority of the strategies used more frequently by

more successful learners involved active use of the target language, and go

on to suggest that “A crucial role in L2 learning appears to be played by

strategies involving active use of the target language” (1995. p.291).

This claim, which could equally be extrapolated from the findings among

the Hong Kong learners in this research, needs to be examined in the light

of two issues: the caution with which data from self-report questionnaires

must be treated, and the as yet unresolved question of causality in relation

to the two variables of strategy use and proficiency.

The caution with which we must approach self-report data is necessitated

by three considerations:

1. the possible range of interpretation of the questionnaire items

2. the cultural context in which the questionnaire has been administered

3. the fallibility of the learners themselves.

24
I. The statements that constitute the different items students respond to

may be vague and open to a range of interpretations. For example ‘I pay

attention when someone is speaking’. Who is the someone? A teacher in a

strict classroom environment? A friend with whom you have to speak

English as your only common means of communication? A fellow student in

a group activity? Very often the SILL is translated into the L I of the

respondents, but it is difficult to see how such potential ambiguity or

vagueness could be avoided in any language. Respondents in LoCastro's

(1994 ) study were cited as criticising “the lack of contextualisation of

some items Overwhelmingly, they suggested it depends on the situation

and the people” (1994, p.412).

2. Strategies which may be beneficial in one cultural context may be

considered to have a different effect in another. Take the item ‘I ask

questions in English’, for example; in many learning contexts it is seen as a

positive form of participation. But this depends on one’s view of what

constitutes participation: in one environment it might mean offering ideas

and asking questions, but in another, such as the People’s Republic of

China, it might mean not asking questions; questions might be construed as

being disruptive, disrespectful, and not in the interests of the group. As

Rees-Miller says: ‘Can it be said that a student who does not ask questions

in class or correct his peers is inactive?’ (1993, p.684). The learners’

understanding of what each item means, as well as the type student

behaviour that might have a positive effect on learning outcomes, is likely

to vary according to the cultural context.

3. Learners may not be aware of what strategies they use, or might not

reflect sufficiently to identify them or the frequency with which they use

them. Another possibility is that students may not always give an honest

account of their strategy use. Although the preface to the SILL is quite

clear about what it wants in terms of responses, i.e. what the learners do,

rather than what they think they should be doing, or what they think the

teacher wants to see, there is always a strong possibility that this will be

read and ignored, or even never read. Politzer and McGroarty advise

caution for researchers using self-report data concerning learning

behaviours, saying that they can “reflect general intelligence, a desire to

give the ‘right’ answer or to please the teacher and so on.” (1985. p. 118)

See also Cohen (I 987) for a general discussion of using verbal reports in

research.

26
There is a range of factors, then, which can affect the picture of strategy

use that emerges from elicitation instruments such as the SILL.

As for the second issue, that of the direction of causality, this has been

partially discussed: no definitive answers have been found. In the case of

the present study, the implication is that higher use of the ten strategies

listed in Table I is associated with higher levels of proficiency. The implicit

direction involved in using ANOVA suggests that use of these strategies is

a cause rather than an outcome. But this is not strong evidence: the

argument that higher use of these strategies is the outcome of increased

proficiency cannot be ruled out. Intuitively it IS plausible that students with

higher levels of proficiency are quite likely to use words in more ways, to

watch more films in English, to write more notes, to ask more questions,

and that their higher level of proficiency actually enables them to do these

more readily. Certainly on the basis of the findings in this study, there is no

clear suggestion that one is the cause of the other, simply that there are

significant associations between proficiency level and use of certain

strategies.
If we accept the view of McIntyre (1994) or Green and Oxford (1995). as

outlined earlier, that the relationship between the two is mutual, that

causality is bi-directional, then what can be said about the strategies found

to show significant association in this study? What do these strategies

represent for the teacher who wishes to pass them on to the learner? Do

they represent behaviours that can be translated into teachable techniques,

or simply exhortations to practise more? For these “active” strategies are

little more than this. Given the vague, decontextualised nature of the

strategies and the problems of interpretation that this might cause, as

outlined above, we are left only with a set of broad practice behaviours to

offer to students wishing to take more active role in the learning process.

Oxford and Green (I 995) discuss what the SILL is appropriate for, and

point out that no single data generating technique can serve every purpose.

The SILL, they say, provides “a good general picture of strategy use” (1995.

p. 167). Similarly, the range of testing instruments used in this research

provides a broad picture of students’ proficiency levels. Perhaps it is not

surprising that analysis of the relationship between the two as measured

provides us with a similarly general picture. It may be that the relationship

between strategy use and proficiency needs to be examined in more

specific contexts.

Conclusion

Within the context of this study, it appears that there is a significant

association between levels of use of certain strategies and proficiency level;

however, the strategies that are significant in this respect are largely active

practice strategies, and as such do not represent specific techniques that

could be passed on in the classroom; this it must be remembered should

be the ultimate goal of any research trying to establish connections

between strategy use and learning success.

Moreover, these findings must be placed in a wider context. There is no

strong evidence for causality in either direction either for strategy use or

proficiency on the basis of these. If strategies are not causes but features of

proficiency, then they are not worth investigating - they are simply

outcomes of increased proficiency, an increase that has to be accounted

for in other ways.

29
If, however, they are contributory factors towards increased proficiency,

then given their nature as outlined above, it is not a great advance to

suggest that practice helps. We perhaps need to redefine what we mean by

strategy, and investigate the effect of very specific strategies on localised

aspects of proficiency, in specific contexts. The use of questionnaires such

as this can give a broad cross-sectional picture, but the study of the

relationship between proficiency and strategy use requires a different

approach, which attempts to investigate the relationship between specific

behaviours and specific outcomes over a period of time.

Acknowledgement - this research was supported by the Educational

Discourse/TESL Research Group, Department of English, City University of
Hong Kong.

References

Abraham, R.G., & Vann, R.J. (1987). Strategies of two language learners: A
case study. In A. Wenden & J. Rubin (Eds.), Learner strategies in
language /earning (pp. 8.5 102), Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bachman, L. (1990). fundamental considerations in language testing

Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Cohen, A.D. (1987) Using verbal reports in research on language learning.

IN C. Faerch & G. Kasper (Eds.), Introspection in second language
research (pp. 82-95). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.

30
Ellis, R. (I 994) The study of second language acquisition. London: Oxford
University Press.

Green, J.M. & Oxford, R.L. (I 995). A closer look at learning strategies, L2
proficiency, and gender. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 261-297.

Gu, P.Y. (1996). Robin Hood in SLA: What has the learning strategy
researcher taught us? Asian Journal of English Language Teaching, 6,
1-29

Hot-win, E.K. (1987) Surveying student beliefs about language learning. In

A. Wenden & J. Rubin (Eds.), Learner strategies in language learning
(pp. 119-129). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

LoCastro, V. (1994). Learning strategies and learning environments. TESOL

Quarter/y, 28, 409-414.

McIntyre, P.D. (1994). Toward a social psychological model of strategy use.

foreign Language Annals, 27, 185-195.

Naiman, N., Frohlich, M.. Stern, H.H., & Todesco, A. (1978). The good
language /earner. Toronto, Ontario: Institute for Studies in
Education.

O'Malley, J. M. & Chamot, A. U. (I 990). Learning Strategies in Second

Language Acquisition. Cambridge. England: Cambridge University
Press.

O'Malley, J.M., Chamot, A. U., Stewner-Manzanares, G., Kupper, L., &

Russo, R.P. (1985). Learning strategies used by beginning and
intermediate ESL students. Language Learning, 35, 21-46.

Oxford, R.L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every reacher

should know. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.

Oxford, R. L., & Nyikos, M. (I 989). Variables affecting choice of language

learning strategies by university students. Modern Language Journal.
13, 291-300.
Oxford, R.L. & Green, J.M. (1995). Making sense of learning strategy
assessment: toward a higher standard of research accuracy.
(Comments on Virginia LoCastro's "Learning strategies and learning
environments"). TESOL Quarterly, 29, 166 - 174.

Politzer, R.L. (1983). An exploratory study of self-reported language

learning behaviors and their relation to achievement. Studies in
Second Language Acquisition. 6, 54-65.

Politzer, R. L., & McGroat-ty, M. (I 985). An exploratory study of learning

behaviors and their relationship to gains in linguistic and
communicative competence. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 103-123.

Rees-Miller, J. (1993). A critical appraisal of learnertraining: Theoretical

bases and teaching implications. TESOL Quarterly, 27, 679-689.

Rubin, J. (1975). What the “good language learner “ can teach us. TESOL
Quarrerly, 9. 41-51.

Rubin, J. (1981). Study of cognitive processes in second language learning,

Applied Linguistics, 2, 117- 131.

Skehan, P. (1989). Individual differences in second-language learning.

London. Edward Arnold.

Stern, H.H. (1975). What can we learn from the good language learner!
Canadian Modern language Review, 31, 304-318

Vann, R.J. & Abraham, R.G. (1990). Strategies of unsuccessful learners.

TESOL Quarterly, 24, 177-198.

Wenden, A.L. (1987) How to be a successful language learner: Insights and

prescriptions from L2 learners. In A. Wenden & J. Rubin (Eds.),
Learner strategies in language learning (pp. 103-117). Englewood
Cliffs, NJ; Prentice Hall.

32
 Appendix - strategies questionnaire (Oxford, 1989)

Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL)

This form of the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) is for
students of English as a second or foreign language. You will find
statements about learning English. Please read each one and write the
response (1,2,3,4 or 5) that tells HOW TRUE OF YOU THE STATEMENT
IS in the space next to the statement.

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.

NEVER OR ALMOST NEVER TRUE OF ME means that the statement is

very rarely true of you.

USUALLY NOT TRUE OF ME means that the statement is true less than
half the time.

SOMEWHAT TRUE OF ME means that the statement is true of you about

half the time.

USUALLY TRUE OF ME means that the statement is true more than half
the time.

ALWAYS OR ALMOST ALWAYS TRUE OF ME means that the statement

is true of you almost always.

Answer in terms of how well the statement describes you. Do not answer
how you think you should be, or what & people do. There are no right
or wrong answers to these statements. Work as quickly as you can
without being careless. This usually takes about 20-30 minutes to
complete. If you have any questions, let the teacher know immediately.

33
 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
10. I say or write new English words several times.
11. I try to talk like native English speakers.
12. I practise 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 can’t 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.
28. I try to guess what the other person will say next in English.
29. lf I can’t 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.

Part F
45. lf 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 practise 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.