Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
A Comparative Study of Diiferences
in the Uses oi Learning Strategies
Between Effective and'Less Efiective Learners
in an EFL Cont'ext
pt.R z4 • fig
g .da
M9 g
di sut =nbC
kr = in
1 4 6 7 D
as E ;
g Jst
x
A Comparative Study of 'Differences ' ' in the Uses of Learning Strategies 'Between Effective and Less.Effective' Learners
in an EFL Context
A Thesis ' Presented to
The Facuity of the Graduate Course at
Hyogo University of Teacher Education
Of the
Zn Partial Fulfillment
Requiremehts for the Degree of
Master of Education
by
Natsumi Wakamoto ' '<Student Number: M91467D)
Deceinber 1992
Acknowledgements
Many people have helped rne and encouTaged me to complete
this thesis. First .and forernost, ! wou' ld like to thank
Assistant Professor Hideyuki Takashima, my seminar supervisor, ' ' 'for his valuable comments and insightful suggestions on the
tt 'rnanuscript at ' every page. His ideas and inspirations have 'helped rne develop thi's thesis froin.its beginning. r am certain
that without his support this thesis would never have been
comp1eted;
! would also like to express rny appreciation to Dr. Anita 'Wenden, Professor at York College, who talked to me in the JALT 'International Conference at Kobe 1991 and provided me with her
papers. She convinced rne of the importance and necessity of
learning strategy research. ' Further, I would like to thank the, teachers of Betsuin, 'Hayahoshi, Ikushin, Nanso, Seibo, Taisei and Takada Junior High ' ' 'Sehools for their cooperation in the implementation of the
descriptive study. ! would also like to thank the students who ' ' 'participated in•the descTiptive study for providing me with
valuable data.
I am also deeply grateful to the following persons: ' ' To Professor Masamichi Tanaka who constantly provided rne ' 'with invaluable advice and warm--hearted encouragernent.
To other faculty r"ember's• and rny colleagues in the
Department of English Language at Hyogo University of Teacher ' 'Education, tor their encouragement and support.
To Mr. Teruo Mori. Principal of Nanso Junior High School,
for encouragin9 me continuously to fulfill my tasks at this
course fpaitfully.
I regret to say that•l cannot acknowledge all of them ior
their support here.
1tnd last, but not least. 1 wish to acknowledge the Kyoto
Prefectural Board oE Education, for providing me wi,th the
opportunity. to study at the Hyogo IJniversity of Teacher
Education.
Contents
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i
' 'List of Table$ . . . . .,. . . . . . . .-. . . . . . . . . . v tt 'List of Figures . . . . . . . . ` . . . . . .. . , . . . . . .. v
' ' 'Chapter 1 Background of Strategy Research ' ' ' 1.Z Introauction , . . . ... . . . . ,. . . . . .,. , . .. .,. 1 ' tt ' 1.2 Definition •. .t...;.......... .. .. .,. ., 3 ' tt ' 1.3 The Rationale of LLS Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Chapter 2 Previous Studies ' ' 2.1 Research History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2..2 Classification of LLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 ' 2.3 Unanswered Questions of Previous Studies . . L . . . . 19
Chapter3 The Study 3.1 Objectives .. . . .,. ,. .. .. . ., .. . ., .. . .. .. . 23 ' ' ' ' 3.2 SuPjects .. .'. ,; .. . .' ., . .. .. ,. . .. . .' . •. . 23 ' ' 3.3 Method .. ., ,. ..,... .. .. .. .. ,. . .; ... 2'5 ' ' ' ' tt 3.3.1 Instruments . . . . . . . . . . . . .' . . . . . . . .'25 ' ' ' 3.3.2 Criteria for Dividing Levels . . . . ,. . . . ... . 28 ' ' 3.4 Results .. .. '. . . .. .. •. ,. .. .. . '. . .•. . .. 29 tt ' 3.4.1 Interaction . .. ..,. .' - . -"• - - • - •,- • • • • • • 29 ' ' 3.4.2 The Most and Least Frequently Used Strategies . . 30
3.4.3 Differences Between Grades 7 and 8 . . . . . . . . . 32
3.4.4 Sex Di fferences .. .. ; ... . .. .. . .,. . o .. 33 ' 3.4.5 DSfferences in GROUP l . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
3.4.6 Differenees in GROUP 2 .. . ... . . . . . . . . . . . 37 tt ' 3.4.7 Differences in TOTAL . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . 39
:hapter 4 Discussion
4.l Frequencies oi Strategy Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.2 Strategy Use by Grades 7 and 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.3 DiEferences Between Males and Females . . . . . . . .
4.4 Strategy Use by Type of Task . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.4.1 Effective LLS Speciiic to Listening.. •
4.4.2 Effective LLS Specific to Written Test .. •
4.5 Effective LLS Common for Every Task . . . . . . .
4.5.1 Practice Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.5.2 Further Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4!
43
44
46
47
49
51
53
56
Chapter 5 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Bibliography.........................58
6i
AppendixA..........................AppendixB..........................AppendixC..........................AppendixD.......................•.•AppendixE..........................AppendixF..........................AppendixG..........................AppendixH..........................AppendixI..........................AppendixJ.........••--•--••---••-•-AppendixK..........................AppendixL..........................AppendixM...........---•-•-•-•••---
66
68
72
73
74
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
Abstract........................... 1
rable 1
Table 2
rable 3
Table 4
Table 5
L'ist of Tables
Mean Scores . . . . . . . . . . . .
Differences in. Strategy Use . . .
Survey of Differences in Str'ategy
Distribution oi Learners in GROUP
Differences in Practicing •. . . .,
--eUse .
1 and
- - • -
28
• •• . 32 . . .. 35
2. .. 46...• . .. 54
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
Figure 8
Figure 9
Figure 10
Figure 11
Figure 12
List of Figures
Znfluences on Language Learning . . . . . . . . .
Diagrarn of tne Strategy System . . . . . . . . .
Mean Scores of Written Test in Each Grade . .
Frequency of Each Strategy U$e . . ... . . .
Frequency Of Each Strategy Use . . . . . .
Differenees Between'Grades 7 and 8 . . . . . .,
Differenees Between Male$ and Females . . . . .
Differences in GROUP 1 ... . .• . . . . . .
Differences in GROUP 2 . . . . . . . . . .
Differences in TOTAL'. . . . . . . . • .,. • ••
Comparison Between GROUP la and 2a . . .
Cornparison. Between GROUP la and 2a . . .
9
,27
29
30
31
33
34
36
37
39
48
50
Chapter 1
Background of Strategy Research
1.1 Introduction
Zn the cZassrooms of junior or senior high schools in the
circumstances of English as a Foreign Language (EFL) as well as
English as a Second LangUege (ESL), school teachers are
wondering why some learners are more successful than others.
Why the rernarkabledifferences of achievementbetween learners?
Because an increasing number ot students are dTopping out of
the lessons and losing their interests in English as the grades
go up. in spite oi teachers' endeavor to try to improve their
teaching methodologies, teachers are asking thernselves whether
it is possible to guide less effective learners into success by
English education and lessons.
On the other hand, since the early 1970s, there has been a
shift in the focus of research from teaching methods to
learners themselves. A great concern arises for how learners
actuaily go about their learning tasks in a second language or
foreign language - learner characteristiCs and their possible
influence on the process of acquiringa second ianguage. In the 'field's of second language acquisition as well, the fQcus has
been in the similarities between learners - what processes of
•learning are common or universal, as the studies of error
analysis or morpherne studies show. In recent years, however.
there also arises a concern for the differences between
2
iearners, that is. the individual differences. ' Then what factors will iniluenge the achievements of
tt ttlearning English? What are the decisive faetors which will ' tt 'separate learners inVo more effective and less ettective
ttlearners? Skehan (1989),i for exampZe, points out the 'following factors: intelligence, aptitude, motivation, learner
strategies and cognitive styles that effect second language
learning.
All these iactors are assurned to be very'important.
although it is impossible to, consider them all at once. Sp ' 'that, in this study, we wouid iike to 'cDncentrate on language 'learning strategies rather thBn invariant variables like
intelligence. We can expeat learning strategies to be rather 'easy for inodification by instruction. In other wbrds, we,. gan
t/ t 'expect that "less competent leBrners should be able to improve 'their skills in a second language through training on
strategies evidenced among more successful language1earners . ,t2
The /mai'n purpose of this paper is thus to identify the good
language learning strategies, especially those which rnore
i Peter Skehan, lndividual Differences in Second-LanguageLearnipg (New Yer,k: Edward Arnold, 1989).
ofl.eJa'r"niiCnhgaeg}tOra'"taeigiieeYs'6':heLeEafrfnet7ntgSOEfngTiriasih"i"agsina"sheecgfi3
Language," Learner Strategies in Language Leaining, eds. AnitaWenden and Joan Rubin,. (Hertfordshire: Prentice-Hall,• 1987)133.
3
effective learners are employing and 1elss effective learners
'are not employing. Our study concentrat"es in the first phase 'of study which leads to strategy training.
1.2 'Detinition
Language Learning Strategies (=ELS,) can be deiined as
fo11ows:
' ..'. Iearning strategies are specific actions taken by the learner to make learning easier, faster, more 2\gRg2g'l:6,M.Ole.S.e.i.f'.d,`,r.e.C,t,e.d.gm.greefFective,andmor,g
' ' 'But there are some criticisms to this definition of LLS.
tt ttCertainly the main criticisrn . to the LLS research has been the
'ambiguity of the term learning strategies itself. Stern ' '(1983), i tor example, describes it as follows: "The term
t tt ttlearning strategy ... has not been employed in the sarne way by
an researchers."2 There contain two Droblems in the ' 'definition of LLS. ttt ' ' The first is whether overgeneralization,. transfer,'and ' ' tt ttsiinplitication can be included in LLS category. Ellis (1985),]
' ' 'for instance. considers simplification as one of the ' typi'cal
' ' 'i Rebecca L. Oxfotd, Language Learning 'Strategies: tuhatEvery Teacher Should Know (New York: Newbury House, 1990) 8.
- '(w.i2 t.".'
sHt' ..S .t te ,r" oi.fF."."ddua.M
l.".t.a.iitCyonpc.e.p.t.s,oifgsL3a)ng4uoatseTe"ching
' ' ' ' ' i Rod Ellis, Understanding Second Language Acguisition(Oxford: Oxford University ?ress, 19B5) 17S.
4LLS. And, as Schumann (1982)! shoves, simplification is used by
the'learneT probably because they do not know it, not because
they choose to use it. Learners are not employing such
strategies intentionaily, but, they are merely using it
unconsciously. With regard to this, Wenden (1987) says that
strategie's such as simplification, overqeneralization and
transfe-r are "universal language processing strategies."2 In
other words, these strategies are common strategies whi'ch all
second language learners should employ in the developrnent of
interlanguage. They are not sources of i,ndividual differences.
[rhe main purpose oÅ} LLS research lies in strategy training.
Bialystok (1981,)3 notes that LLS can be presumabiy be taught to
'any second language learner and thus rnodify his progress
through their iacilitative efÅ}ects. Therefore it is not
appropri,ate to include Unintentional LLS in the.'definition of
LLS, which cannot be used,in strategy training. so that the
definition of LLS in thi's .study is as follows:
(1) LLS we deal with are not universal processing
strategies, which second language iearners use in the
! John H. Schumann, "Simplification, Transfer, andRelexification as Aspects,of Pidginization and Early SecondLanguage Acquisi-tion," Language Learning 32 (l982): 338.
i Anita Wenden. ."Conceptual Bac'kground and Utility,"LearnerStrategies in Language Learning. eds. Anita I-Jenden andJoan Rubin. (Hertfordshire: Prentiee-Hall International, 1987)3.
] Ellen Bialystok, "The Role of Conscious Strategies inSecond Language Proficiency," Modern Language. JournaJ 65
(1981):24
5
development•of interlanguage, but specific actions or
techni clues .
(2) LLS we considered are net unconscious strategies, but
intentional strategies..
' The second problem concerns the classification of ' 'strategies. Learner stTategies can be classified into three
main groups, that is, learning strategies (LLS), production
strategies (PS) and communication strategies (CS). According 'to'Tarone' (1980), learning strategies can be defined as "an
attempt to develop linguistic and sociolSnguistic competence
in the target language."i The main characteristic of LLS,
which distinguishes frorn PS and CS,. is t'hat "the primary ' 'purpose of LLS is not to communicate but to learn.."2 ' ' ' To put it more precisely, as Tarone (1980)3 rightly ' 'summari zes, PS are employed in order to use L2 knowledge, which
'has been already acquired, eifectively, with minimum efiort.
CS are employed when reqUisite rneaning structures do not seem
to be shared, such as using mime, language switch. On the other ' t/ 'ha'nd, LLS are emplQyed in order to acquire L2 knowledge ' 'effectiveiy. But it seefns to be aimost impossible' to
distinguish the three groups of .strategies' strictly, as Tarone
'andl<gpiaair"ei.'air.Ot".er'i5'.C,Ott,U.","F•aLt.i.O.".S.t.r.aLt.e.92.ei.'.F30or?ii'gg8g,'illE:
i Tarohe 418-
] Tarone 418.
6(1980)i herself recogni2es. The main teason is that soine ' ' 'strategies eould work both as CS and as LLS. For exarnple, 'paraphrase and circumlocution, which are usually categorized
as CS, may also facUitate learning, though theirmain purposes
'are to overcome the communieation diiEiculties and to rnaintain ' ' ' 'communication, as is the saTne with PS and LLS. Therefore in
'this research,
' . (3) LLS may overlap with CS and PS in some cases.
Thus we have noted from (1) to (3), the definition of LLS in
this study is as follow$': . ' The LLS we deal with are not. univeTsal processing
strategies but are speciiie actions or techniques taken by the
learner intentionally as they attempt to complete a learning or
communication task. which !nay overlap with CS and PS in some
cases.
i.3 The Rationale of LLS Study ' Next, let us consider why LLS research is necessary and 'important in the first place.
First, LLS can be considered to be one of the causes of
success or failure of L2 learners, as Wenden (1985) describes: ' ' ' Learner strategies are a source of insight into the difficulties of unsuccessful L2 learners. ... The'ir apparent inebility tq•learn is assumed to be due to their not having an appropriate repertoire of learning
t Tarone 421.
7 strategies.i
In a nutshell less,successful le6rners might not progress
because they are employing less effective and inappropriate
LLS.
Secondly, we cannot overlook the fundamental shift of 'research from teaching methodology to learners or how learners ' 'lgarp,, which was mentioned in the intrgduction. Tbere•are two ' ttthings related to this matter. One is that significant effects
' 'of some teaching methodology over another teaching methodology
'couid not be ' fopnd. The other. which is more important, is 'expressed best by Skehan (i991) when he says: "...it could well
be that those learners who benefit, from •a particular ' tttmethodology are cancelled out by those for whom it is ' ' . ttinappropriate."i That is, to borrow his Pbras.e, "those studies t. '1umped all learners tDgether.!'i .This gives a rationale for ' ' ' ' 'paying attention to learners themselves, especially t. 'characteristics of learners. The point is that all successful ' 'teaching depends upon both learners and learning. In addition
learners'do not, start frorn scratch,. but they have ' ' ' ' ' ' 'predispositions to learn language, or their own way of
: Anita 'wenden.(1985):7. ' ' i Peter Skehan,Learning," Studies295.
3 sk'ehan 295-
"Learner Strategies," TESOL Newsletter 19 ' .."iZnndsibVcibdn"da}aDnigfufaegre9"icegSutrs"iSteiCoOn"id3L?:lglj9?9
8
learning, through certain learning stratqgies.' Thus knowing 'about how learner" s actually iearn will help the teacher to paake
any teaching method more effective.
ThSrdly, although some school teachers believe that they
'know learners very weU, in fact theY don't' know as much as they
t/ 'think they do about learners. O'Malley and Chamot (1990)! ' ' ttinterviewed high school students and theiT teachers about LLS 'which students were ernploying. As a result, stuqents elearly ' tt ttscored 33.6 LLS in average, but there were only 25.4 LLS 'raentioned in teacherinterviews. Moreover, teaching strategies ' ' tt ' 'were included arnong those strategi'es. As a mat Fer of' iact, it
' 'is assumed that the actual number of LLS that teachers know are ' 'far smaller. As Naiman} et al. (1978)2 describes, good
ianguage teachers have an intuitive understanding of language
'learning, but they aTe lacking the systematic understanding of
'it. LLS research may have the possibility to open the avenue to
ttigCahrneSrYslteMatiC UnderStanding of language learmng and
' ' Fourth, let us consider the relationship between LLS 'and
other factors which induce individiaal differences. Jackbovits
i J. Michael O'Malley and Anna.Uhl Charnot. LearningStrategies in Second Language Acguisition (New York: CambridgeUniversity PreSs. 1990) 118.
'i N. Nairnan, M. FrOhlich, H. H. Stern.. and A. Todesco, ThesGtO.Oddi.L.aPig.UaEgde...Lte,a..r."91g(7'sO)rOpn.t.Ofs..Th.eiiO.ntaTioinstitutefor
9(1970),t for examp!e, proposes one model in which variouS
factors and their percentages accounting for the outcDrne of
achievGment are shown. In his model, aptitude accounts for
339e, intelligence 20.0o. perseVerance or motivation ' 33tOo and
others accounts for 14Yo of the outcome. While this model gives ' 'us a rough explanation Df the causes of individual differences,
it cannot explain the interactions between iactors. Skehan '(1991)2 proposes another model like Figure l.
Figure Z rnfluences on Language Learning
tt t ' Aptttvde 'L'earner ' •' OUTCOtvlE Motfvatfon Strategtes tlnguist}c Le. . • ny -proflclency xgzsona}tty Lea,r,ny",r,', n6iir?n:iiii.t,ic
(Skehan, 199Z: 277)
As Skehan shows, LLS has an intermediate position between ' 'variables such as intelligence and aptitude, on the one hand,
tt tand outcome on the other. While LLS are assumed' to be included 'in 'others' and its influencing roie will be rather small in
JakoboVits' rnodel, strategies and styles will play an important
role to mediate the inflpenee of variables like aptitude in
Skehan's model. In other words, strategies and styles will ' 'interact with the facters of the first box and be 'expected to
' ;(Ma.' ..." he.O.".tt.".: N.Jgt9?O.v.itit.s6, ,gg6sigg. Langtiage
' 2 'Skehan, "rndividual Differenees" 277.
Learning
10 'influence thein positively. For instance. when some learners
rnigbt not have good language aptitude, LLS can be considered to
cornplernent its• deficiency and to improve outcorne. Thus, LLS
promise to play' an impdrtant role as a rnedium between variables ' ' ' ' Finally, it is important to bear in mipd that LLS are 'essential to learner autonorny. Wenden (1985) describes it as
fo1.1ows: ' Learner strategies are the key to learner autonomy. •... In other words, they are the means or the tools that enable learners to take on responsibility for their own ianguage learning - t.o be autonomous.i
' 'However it should be asked whether learner autonorny is really
necessary for language learning in the first place. The
autonomous learner becornes important especiaiiy when teachers
are not around them. !n an EFL circumstance, like in Japan,
there are usually four hours of English lessons.at school in a
week. The total hours that junior high students will learn ' ' 'English at school are estirnated at most to be l44 hours in a 'year and 432 hours in three years, which turn out to be just 27
days.? On the other hand, stayii)g in an ESL circumstance like
in America and attending schools the=e, the total hours will be
1268 hours in a year and 3B04 hours in three,years, which will
'
' i Wenden, "Learner Strategi'es" 5.
i Hironori Kubo, Survival English: For Staff and Students of ltami Ci ty High Schoo2 (UnpUblished: 1990) Preface.
11be converted into 237.6 days.i It is 8.8 times as much as the
amount Qi English input in Japanese public junior high schools. 'This fact indicates that self-directed learning other than
English lessons in schbol, may be indispensable for improving ' ' 'English communicative. protieiency in an EFL context like Japan
'and, what is more important, is the kind•of LLS ernployed in 'self-directed learning. Thus learners cannot be Cornpletely ' ' ' 'spoon--fed by the teacher and need to•learn by thernselves.
So iar we have considered several rationales of ' 'investigating learning strategies. Thus learning strategies
seern to hqld much prornise for iacilitating learning English for ' ' 'both rnore effective and less effective learners. rn the nexY ' ' 'chapter we will review the main previous studSes and try tO .t ' 'identiiEy the findings and yet unanswered questions.
pro6'ra"misdeaYnUdkiMaTtaekraiahiisM7.e,' ?lgOnWdb"oOokWeonMaEkaeri"ySEen8i'Ts"h
ed. Tadahisa Goshima (Tokyo: Kyobundo, 1990) 111.
and RadioTeaching,
Chapter 2
Previous Studies
2.1 ResearchHistory
Over the past ten 'years a considerabie number of studies
have been rnade on LLS. Now we wili begin by looking back at ttseverel rnain previous studies. . One of the pioneers of LLS 'research in second language learning is Naiman, et aJ..'who ' 'made the "Good Language Learner (GLL)" study in 1970's. In the ' ' 'research, they identified iive strategies'. For instance, good
language learners actively involve themselves in the language
learning task (active task approach), or they develop and 'exPloit an awareness of language as a means ,ot eommunication 'and int'eraction.t Their research can be reward.ed with great ' ' ./success, but also it has defects and limitations. For one thing
Skehan (1989)2 criticizes' that they interyiewed onXy 'colleagues irom thE univer.sity environrnent who were assumed to
be extrernely successful learners and did not rnake a comparison ' ' -.with less s,uccessful learners. Those strategies, then, are the
strategies oi highly educated people and there is a possibility ' 'that leSs successful learners rnight not utilize those 'identified $trategies. From the less successiul learners
standpoint, their source of difficulties, what is lecking and
i Nairnan, et a2. 13.
2 Skehan, Jndividual Differences 80.
13
what is really necessary to do, is net tevealed from their ttresearch. What is rnore, their subjects of research were all 'adults, which suggests less implications-for school education.
The next Tesearch -to be discussed is Rubin's work. She 'Å}dentified eight strategies and even rnore noteworthy is that ' 'she proposed a classification scheme which c'ategorized ' 'strategies into "direct" and "indireet" strategy groups.!
Memorization, practice and guessing, for example, are contained ' ' 'in direct strategies. Zn indirect strategies, creating 'oppbrtunities ior practice ahd using production tricks like 'circumlocution when the precise expression is not known are
included. To gather data and to elicit LLS, she used classroorn 'observation as weil as students $elf-reports Sn which students ' ' tt 'rnade note about what they did to learn English. She says that 'ciassrporn,observation is not so productive because of the
difEiculty of discerning which LLS students are using.2 She
' 'achieved success by directed self-reports in which specific LLS
vJere focused. There is-, however, a deEect in that the rate Of ' ' ' ttt ttforge' tting rises unlesS students rnake notes immediately after / 'the events.
Thirdly, O'Malley and Chamot, made several descriptive
studies in 1980's. In one of their research studies, they tried
i Joan Rubin, "Study of CognitSve ProcessesLanguage Learning," App2ied Mnguistics 11 (1981):
i Rubin 121-
in Secondl17-31.
14
to identiÅíy the range and treguency of LLS used by ESL high
school •students who were in the beginning and intermediate
levels.i The.research revealed 638 instances of strategy use
'by retrospective inter.views, which were then classified into ' ' ''Cognitive', 'Metacognitive' and 'Socicy-afÅ}ective' strategies. ' 'Aanong the identified LLS, farniliar LLS such•as zepetitiDn (66 ' 'occurrences) and note,taking (63 occur.rences) were most ' 'irequently employed in both levels and the highest freguencies
of strategy use were reported for discrete language tasks such 'as vocabulary learning (1•7 percent) and pronunciation (14
'percent). But from this study the difierences in strategy use 'between rnore effective and less eifective learners could not be 'identified. for only the participants who were higb in academic, ' ' ' ' /abSlity were seleeted. But in anether study{2 both the more
effective and ineffective learners learning Spanish as a ' ' ' ' 'foreign language were' chosen for the participants. I' n the ' t.researeh they discovered that major differences existed in the ' ' 'range of LLS and the way LLS were employed. That is, the more ' .t t 'eifective learners employed• LLS more often and had a greater ' 'variety of repertoire of LLS than did ineffective learners.
i J. Michael O'Malley, Anna Uhl Chamot, Gloria Stewner-Manzanares, Rocco P. Russo and Lisa Kuppa, "Learning Strategyl}gP(ligCsast)i:OnsSs9!sE4n.gliSh as'a Second Language," TEsoL Quarterly
'Forgig".""Laa'n"ghuiagCehaeOnts{rtLE?'onK",?•PeFro're'1'LgenarLnain"gguaSgteraXnenggSgSS
(l989):13-24.
15
Furthermore more effective learners used LLS that were
appropriate to the task, whiZe ineffective learners used ' ' ' 'ihappropriate ones. To gather data, they used retrospective
interviews and think-aloud in which students were asked to
'think aloud while actively working on a language task. ' How we get the inforr:tation about LLS is an essential i$sue ' 'in LLS research. !n fact, .the investigation as to the
appropriateness of strategy use as stated above, would have
been impossible without •think-aZoud or retrospective 'interviews. WSth respect to the verbal report, Cohen (1987)i
ttmentions the Sollowing three types: self--report, self-
observation and sel"revelation. ' According to ,him, the first type, self--report, refers to a
description of general behaviors. !n other words, it refers to
"learner's description of what they do. characterized by
generalized statements about learning behavior."2 And it Ss 'not based on insPection of any speeific evept, but on beliefs 'or concepts that the learners have about the way of learning. 'The interviews used by Naiman, et a2. (1978)] or questionnaires
are included in this type.
Landua"g"edrLeeWarDn'in89P'ei"n'til'oUsSpi'e"cgtioen'?'naiseRceoPnOdrEaSn!leagReeSReeasreeahrcOh".
eds. Claus Feerch and Gabriele Kasper. (Clevedon: MultilingualMatters Ltd, 1987) 84-86.
i Cohen 84.
] Nairnan et al. 5-25 t
16 The second type, self-observation, reEers to an observation ' 'of specific event. That is, it is "the inspection of specific
' 'ianguage behavior, either while the information is still in 'short-term memory, i.e. introspectively, or after the event, ' ' /ti.e. retrospectively."i Rubin's directed self--report and the ' 'retrospective interviews of Chamot, et al. (1989)2 are ' tt 'contained in this type. rt must be noted, hpwever, that the ' ' 'amount of forgetting increases right after the ev' ent, so that ' 'the immediate self-observation wiil identify the mental ' ' 'processing more correctly. On the other hand, the third type, ' ' 'self-revelatio'n, consists of think-aloud which taps the
conscious mentaX process while the information is being ' ' ttattended to. Chamot used this type of think-aloud as mentioned ' 'above. However as Cohen indicates, learners are requested to
' 'use language to de certain tasks and at the sarne time are ' ' 'requested to use language to describe how they did these tasks.;
These three types of verbal report have advantages and ' ' ' ttdisadvantages. The mo$t crucial thing is to choose the method
'which is most approprSate for the objective of the research. and
to interpret the data with care. In addition we'must not forg' et ' 'what kind of steps sheuld be taken before and aiter the verbal
i cohen 84-
i Chamot, et al. 22-24.
) Cohen 89.
17 ' 'report; For exarnple, some p' retraining and specific 'instructions are necessary before 'think-aloud and deliberate ' 'assessment of LLS frorn the transcripts by more than one coder
is requested to mainta"in reliability in the case of interviews.
tt With respect to the easiness of LLS assessment, Oxford
developed a questionnaire, the Strategy Inventory for Language ' 'Learning (SILL). which contains 121-items with extremely high 'valiqity and reliabilSty.t It can be easily available to 'inspect end assess the range and freqpency of- learner!s ' 'strategy use. On its basis ,there is comprehensive ' ' 'classification of LLS. which results in six strategy groups 'such•as•memory, cognitive, compensation, rnetacognitive,
affective and social stxategSes. In the next section we will
consider the classification oi LLS.
2.2 Classiticatidn of LLS
' SAIith regard to the classiiication of LLS, four criteria,
'that is, cognitive. metacognitive, affective and ' social
strategies are generally recognized,2 though some disc' repancy
exists. Cognitive strategies can be defined as "the steps or
operations used in learning or problem-solving that require
i Oxford, Language Learning Strategtes Z5b. Contentvalidity is .96; intetnal consistency reliability is .96 for a .95 for a 483-person mili'tary1200-person university sample andsamp1e.
i Skehan, "!ndividual Differences" 287.
18
direct analysis, transformation, or synthesis ot learning
materials.": Examples of these are repetition, translation and
' 'taking notes. Oxford (1990)i further derives mernory strategies
' 'from cognitive strategies. Several exarnples are using keywords
and -grouping.
Metacognitive .strategies are "beyond-the-cognitive
strategies used to provide executive control over the learning 'process."i Wenden (1991)i refers to them as "self-management ' 'strategies." They are indirect strategies, which are used 'mainly Eor arranging, planning, monitoring and evaluating one's
'learning. O'Malley and Chamot (1990) ernphasizes.the importance
' 'of metacognitive strategies as follows: ' ' ' ' Students without metacbgnitive approaches are essentially learners without airection and ability to review their progress, aecomplishrnents, and further learning directions.5, ' ' 'In other words, rnetacognitive strategies are important ' ' ' ' 'especially for 'autonomous learners', who have responsiSility
i Joan Rubin, "Learner Strategies: Theoretical Assumptions,Research History and Typology," Learner Strategies in LanguageLearning, eds. Anita Wenden and Joan Rubin. (Hertfordshire:Prentice-Hal1, 1987) 23.
2 Oxford, Language ,Learning Strategies 37-43.
3 Rebecca Oxford and David Crookall, "Research on LanguageLearnSng Strategies: Methods, Findings, and lnstructional!ssuesf" The Modern Languqge Journal 73 (1989): 4Q4. • ,
'(H6ftfA.".i'dt.ahiW.e.",depn.6.tLfta.r-nHe.rlfSrlagtgelg)ie2Ss.:3foo{LgarnerAutonomy
' ' S O'Malley and'Charnot, Learning Strategies 99.
!9
on their own and try to learn even without teachers.
' Affdctive strategies, referring to ernQtions, attitudes, 'motivations and values are also assumed to be indirect 'strategies.' "Language• learners can gain control over those ' 'factors through affective strategies."i Exarnples of these are
' 'saying or writing positive statements to oneself for ' 'ehcouraging oneself or pushing oneseli to take risks. Lowering
' ' .anxiety is irnport ,ant and necessary for language acquisition as 'Krashen points out in affective-filter hypothesis.2 ' Finally.social strategies refer to "interacting with 'another person to assist learning,"i such as asking for 'clarification or verification and cooperating with others.
Social strategies are also indisPensable bdcause learning a ' 'language involves other people and communication between and tt ' t.among people. Comparing the two representative'schemes of ' ' 'O'Malley' and Chamot (1990) and' Oxiord (1990), the major ' ' ' ' 'difference only lies in Oxford's compensation strategies, most
of which are.assumed to be comrnunication strategies.
2.3 Unanswered Questions of Previous Studies
tt Let us turn now to unanswered questions of previous
t OxÅíord, Language Learning Strategies 140.
i Stephen D. Krashen, Principles and PracticeLanguage Acguisition (Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1982)
3 O'Malley and Chamot, Learning Strategies 139.
in Second30-32 .
20
studies. The iinal goal of the strategy research is, as 'mentioned earlier, to present' th.e effective LLS which lead to
'good achievernent with les,s eftqctive-!earners. Therefore the
initial goa .1 should be to identify the effective LLS. However,
'they have not thoroughly/identified for the present, as Skehan
(1991) indicates that "we also need to know more about the
:typical strategies used by'good language learners."S. This is 'the flrst and mo$t important unanswered question which is the
central problern of our study.
' The second issue is coneerned with strategy training which
'is the final gdal oÅí the strategy research. O'Malley, et al.
' '(1985)i conducted research to see if there was a significant
eiiect of strategy,training in voeabulary learning. Iistenipg
'cornprehension ahd speaking. They separated the subjeets into
three groups: metacognitivq group where the subjects were
taught metacognitive, cognitive and social/affective
strategies; cognitive group where the subjects received ' 'instruction on cognitive and social/affective strategies;,and ' ' ' 'a eontrol group where the subjects were asked to work on ' language learning tasks as the same way they usually do and did 'not get any special strategy instruction. As a consequenge,
statisticaily significant effects were observed only in
i Skehan. "Individual Differences" 288.
i O'Malley, et al., "Learping Strategy Applications tt s68-84.
21
speaking and a part of the listening tests. The rnetacognitive
'group scored highest and .the ctignitive group scored higher than 'the control group. That is, the.more the learner got the
strategy trBining. the rnore their achievement improved. While
' 'O'-Mall'ey and Chamot assessed these resuits very positively, 'Skehan (1989) is prudent as. can be seen in the following
quotation: "The efiects that have been iound tend to have been ' ' ' ' 'very slight, $o that one cannot really speak of the etEictency ' 'of learning being transforrned."i
' ' So far, strategy training has been controversial as the ' ' ' 'studies of strategies are in its iniancy and only few attempts
'have been made on strategy training. The time st'rategy ' ' ' 'training takes and the period it needs, as well as a selection
of LLS should be taken into account as requireshents. However 'Skehan hi rnself rernarks: "...it would be premature to discount
'the possibility oi eEfecYive training in the future."? tt Finally, let us consider sorne reldted problerns of cause--and
' '-effect (causaiity) between strategy and proficiency. ,With ' ' respect to causai relatiDnship, it is' unknown whether the use ' of LLS leads to higher proficiency (causal) or higher
proÅíiciency just permits use of a wider range of LLS (caused).
rn this• respect Skehan (1989)• statgs:
i Skehan. Individual Differenqes 139.
i Skehan, rndividual Di fferences 139.
22 'We do not know whether the strategies came first, and had brought about the Proficiency level, or that those who,are more proiicient, for whatever reason, accordingly had the potential td use strategies. 'The solution to this probiem would' be worked out only by ttstrategy training and longitudinal research. This is becau$e 'the monitoring of' changes in proficiency over tirne es a result
of strategy training will demonstrate the causal relationship
between proficiency and strategy.i ' ' Having said all 'this about unanswered questions, we will ' 'deal with the first unanswered ones in our study. Thus the
research questions would'be as follows: ' 1. What are the differences in strategy use between more
effective and less effective learners? What kinds oi LLS are ' ' 'mo'st frequently employed by Jnore effective' learners and what 'sorts of LLS are least frequently used by less effective ' ' ' ' •2. Are there any specific relationships between strategy tt 'use and language tasks? What is the most frequently used LLS in 'listening, reading and writing? ' 3. What are the differences in strategy use between se.xes ' 'or between grades? Comparing males with females, what kinds oi ' ' 'dSEferential c, haracteristics can be observed? ' . We will attempt to find answers to these questions by
conducting an empirical study in the next chapter. '
i Skehan, JndividuaZ Differences 97.
ChaPter 3
The, Study
Jn this chapter we wiJl build upon the review oi preVious
studies presented in Chapter• 2 and describe a study that we
performed, with participants whp. are learning English,in an EFL
:ontext, by using a questionnaire.
3.1 Objective$
The fTtajor purposes of this desctiptive study are: (1) to
identify the most and least frequently used LLS by junior high
school students; (2) to determine differences in strategy use
between more effective and less eifective learners, that is,
to identiiy the most typically usqd LLS by efiective learners
as w' ell as the problematic aspects of less eiiective learners'
strategy; (3) to identify the link between LLS and tasks; (4) 'to determine differences in strategy use' between rnales and
females; and (5) to determine differences in strategy use
between GTade 7 (aged,13) and Grade B (aged 14).
3.2 $ubjects
The parYicipants in this
students who took the Test
(STEP test)i on January
study were 475 junior high school
tt 'of Practical English Proficiency ' . 25, 1992. For students to
i STEP is an abbreviation of Society For TestingProEiciency.
English
24 'participate in thg test is optional.. Of ail the participeted
students, 348 students are in the 7th grade and 127 students in
the 8th and fTom five public junior high schools in Kyoto 'Prefecture, one public junior high school in Toyama Prefecture 'and one private school in Kyoto City. ' '' ' There are several reasons ior adopting testees of STEP test 'as subjects of this descriptive study. The main reason is that 'we can get a cleer and valid irnage of what the effective 'learneTs are by utilizing the SrEP test. Zn some of the ' ' ' 'previous studies, the irnage of good language learners has not
always been obvious. For instance, in the study of O'Malley,
et al. (1985),i the subjeets judged by their ESL teachers to be
high in academic ability are selected as good language
learners. However it is doubtful whether the teacher's ' ' 'judgemerit of their acedendc ability has any objectivity and ' ' ifurthermore it is questionable whether their academic ability ' ' 'is linearly related to communicative proficiency in English.'
' ' 'The STEP test, in this respect, is optimal as it is a 'standardized test in which more than two million people ' 'participate,every year in all parts of Japan and is supposed to
measure examinees' proEiciency fot communication.2
t O'Malley, et aJ, "Learning Strategy Applications" ' 2 The Society ior Testing English Proficiency, INC.Bulletin 3 (1991): 130-33.
563.
step
25
3.3 Method
3.3.1 lnstrurnents
Two instruments were used to gather data for this study: (1)
the STEP test (listening comprehension. written test and the 'total score); and (2) a questionnaire on LLS which contains 55
iterns .
- The STEP test generally has two parts: part one is listening
cornprehension test and written test; part Xwo is interview test ' ' ' 'where exaininees' speaking ability• is mainly tested. However in 'the beginning level (5th Grade and 4th Grade test), the latter 'part i's not included in the test, so that we have no definite ' ' ttinformation on learners' speaking proiiciency
In the written test, the fOllowing tasks, pronunciation, 'vocabulary, grammar, compositiDn and reading comprehension,
are included. Except for scores in the listening cornprehension
section, all the other scores in other sections (vocabulagy, 'grammar) are combined as written test scores' (see Appendix A).
To gather inforrnatibn on LLS,.we utilized Strategy
Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) developed by Oxford ' (1990)i which we translated into Jepanese and modified the ' ' 'expressions without changing any meanings so that even junior
high school students can understend easily. But we deleted 'questions about compensation strategies which are obviously
'i SILL Version for Speak,ers of Other Languages LearningEnglish and Version ior English Speakers Learning a NewLanguage: Oxford, Language Learning Strategies 277-300.
26assumed to be communication strategies.i And we added the
following two items to the original manuscripts.
' BIO. I !earn English sentences by heart. ' ' ' B12. 1 read aloud English textbooks.
All the directions and questions were given in Japanese. Part 'A corresponds to 'Mernory', Part B to 'Cognitive', Part C to
'Metacognitive', Part D to-.!Affective' and Part E to 'Social
ttstrategies'. Su,bjects responded to each on a four-point Likert ' 'sdale i'ndicating "never' true of me", "seldom true of me", '"sornewhat true of me", "a,lways true of rne". These categories, 'were assigned values of 1,2,3 and 4 respectively (see Appendix ' 'B). Thus higher scores indicated greater use of the LLS. For 'participants to be able to rate their LLS a$ honestly as ' ' ' ' ' 'possible, they were guaranteed that the SILL scores would never ' 'have, any relation to the STEP test or. periormance eveluation in 'each school, which would probably contribute to the apparent t tthonesty of the respondents. About thirty or forty minutes were ' 'needed tg answer the questionnaire. The data was analyzed by
using MANOVAi and LLS classifi' cati:on scherne developed by Oxford
was adopted except cornpensation strategies (see page 5). LLS
classification is shown in FigVre 2 on the next page.
t As we rnentioned in chapter 1, we aTe dealing viith languagelearning strategies, not with communicetion strategies, so thatwe deleted question iterns related to communication strategies.We also excluded cornpensation strategies frDrn theclassification scheme.
i The abbreviation of Mult-ivariate Analysis of Variance.
27
Figure 2 Diagram ofOIrecr STzaE51ES
the Strategy System
orea;inG,,vitel
1inkepes
L<(k Grmoing.Assecin ing lelatmretv' ,gPle:ir,o nev, ,ercis into e cDntex•t
Uorvrv s:retegiesADplving
beges stsevrc!s
"{{S,'alltt'tev.,.op..nv,
ile,ievt!n9
velta Stnctved revit-,tihg
in!o)rSngectica
stso. UsSng phrsial rtsperse er sensetionbein; "ectv,icel tedmicr,es'
imitiyestrateples
f::
t --
: ,: : :
--
;:
: :
Prectieir,g
/R
rl. ItepeetingtZ For"etlv tlreetie!no "ith soLs,c!s crtS "rititio systmSti Recoyiizing enc! tsing fec"vles encS petttrrsl". ilecorrbining ';S. ere;tieino tmttretistice!iv
Xl"ingmeulssegesXlec7•
i,va!nin alresontre
tletting tbe idee evieklyUsing reseLroes ior receiving e,c!seedbe messeges
</l'111l•ilili,il'lg.li't,l,tt'tifkli'il3-iyfbtress!eng,-,}
"'9,eer2F-ef:.Si{{ki3g'
inpat md tutput
:{e tsirgintt!lipmLlv)
Telcing netes'
Sur:erizing"iptliptting
2S Vsing limistit c!Les
l:MIrsCT STRAEG:,:.S
/2T' ll : :i:l:t;?i:1:ls titScino .,i:h elrutt
Centef'y; ,g e2S Peving ettentiettvos' !eernl;r,Ag 29. 0e!eying sbee l} pt'ecS,ctioq to ioeLs Dn l:,sti-s,in;
Sletpmitivestreteples if krrorbgipg at-cl
plorvhirp yturleerning
v30. Fir=T:,r,g our ebovt 1mppt !eernirtgLtg{: 21I:,7;•tik'inpm!s ed abjectivs
l:lr"33. Icrmtifying tEe pts cse oi e 1mp)e :es;'c
Ry,:'dempkop.for.,e-axl7?,di's,',.
Eve !tn t Lng
vou' i-;erni.,`Lg67z Self-gDnitoring
Se!i-eveltseting
te,ering'k youf orlxtctv
"`i(({l6,2M,,.re.c'..E•i•iiltLi{:.ri"'rt!-ti.•.. cSeep bi.ethLrs.
Affectipt-
streteg:es XcEnootxngingvcot-selt
Tsking yourenDtiooel
tro.retut-e
<kll
</ai':
Mek;;t,g positiv-. stetpmtsTeScipo risks "iselvRe-erding yeurselt
Listming tp yQu,' boctvUsirg e cSeclclistWritir,g e 1ma !.;ernin; diervOisalssing vour fe.lit,pt gith scrvet,t t!se
Social
Stretegles
,,,f[iiiii] Askirv
ouesucas-` :
Coecp.re t 'i r)g
"ith others
boethiting"ith ethers
t3. AsS'cSng for tterifiat!D.t, or verSfit-'.tiena2. As:cing tor aorrec:iot,
SO. C[,ooeretipg "irh petrs` Sl. Coec-xnting "ith pteiicimt trsers . of tl-t ne-,, 1ay
-<--S2. eev-.1abiN cul!ore! u,c!trst.y.idingA53. eecsnir,g e.vere ef etFers' t:T,oum' ts ed tte!!tvs
' ' ('Adapted from Oxfordi 1990:18-21)
2B3.3.2 Criteria for Dividing Levels ' All the students were divided into three groups .according
to the' respective scores of•,listening comprehension test, ' ' 'written test and the tOtal scores which are the sum of both ' 'listening comprehension and written tests. The top group was 'assigned to the top one-third in each score and the bottom group ' 'the lowest one-third scores, disregarding the middle group, in
each grade. Next the two top groups of each grade were combined
and categorized as more eftective learners and the bottom two 'groups of each grade weTe also combined and 'categorized as less
effective learners. To sum up. we wSll analyze the following
groups :
(1) GROUP 1: rnore effective•arid less effective learners 'based on listening comprehension test.
(2),GROUP 2: more effective and less effective learners
based on written test.
(3) TOTAL: rnore effective and less effective learners based 'on the total score. • ' Table 1, Mean 'Scores
GROUP1 GROUP2 TOTAL
TOP• 17.7 24.3 '41.4
MIDDLE 15.5 19.8 349
BOTTOM 12.3 14.4 27.6
Table l shows the mean scores of more eiEective, rniddle
29gToup, and less effective learners of GROUP 1 and 2, and TOTAL. ' 'ANOVA was perforrned on the.scores.. The difEerences of mean
'scores between rnore eEfectSve and less effective learners in 'each GROUP and TPTAL were significant below..Ol level: ' 'F(2,472)=103.51 in GROUP 1; 'F,(2,472)=2B.4 in GROUP 2' .;
F(2,472)=92.97 in TOTAL (see Appendices C and D).
3.4 Result's '3.4.1 Znteraction ' To begin with, the possibility of signiÅíicant interactions 'among independent variables was exarnined:' interactions among ' ' 'levels (raore effective and less effective learners), grades '(7th and 8th) and sexes (raales and females). in each GROUP (see
Appendix E). No statistically significant interactions were ' ' ' 'observed except between grades and levels in GROUP 2 (based on
written test) (p<.Ol), as Figure 3 shows. ' ' Figue::gts) 3 Mean Scores of Written Test in Each Grade;
sa
4e
su
za
e
4s..s.......-.." l4i5 """-`'---•..". : --- - -------------- - : "'3S21.5' . 21.3
' tlor'e ef,feclive leerners tess efrecttive ;earners - Grade 7 -"' Gr ede 8 . ' i The scores of Grhde 7 were increased by 2.s times in orderto fit them to the scores of Grade 8. Full inarks of written testin Grade 7 are 20, wherees they are 50 in Grade 8.
30Therefore we must be careful in analyzing GROUP 2, as the grade
rnight interfere with the level.
3.4.2 The Most and Least Frequently Used Strategies
. Next let us identify the most and leaSt frequently used LLS
'by junior high school students.
' (x) Figure 4 Frequency of Each Strategy Use 1 Z2)
g:
g:
::
:il
i:
Figure 4
cDuld be
that the
indicates
In
of all
37.2illiiili
49. 339.8 43.8 38.Z•
ww COGNITIUE S•ETrmo(SbliTIUE AFFECTtUE •SOCIAL
' ' ' ' ' ' ' shows that the most frequently used LLS by whole
participants were cognitive strategies (49.39o). While memory
strategies look rather unpopular (37.26"). memory strategies ' ' ' included in cognitive strategies as many other 'researchers like O'Malley and Charnot classifies. Thus we see ' most unpopular LLS was social strategies as Figure 5
'. cognitive strategies, the most frequently used LLS was
repetition (83.36e) which was also the most popular-strategies ' the LLS. Among social strategies, the unpopular
strategies were 'Developing cultural understanding' (15.206)
31
and 'Cooperating with ' peers' ('17.9tO.).
(n Figure 5 Frequency of Each Strategy use 6Z
51
4g.
3e
n
le
z
The
Were
is spoken
46.6 .43.8ss.9
COGNITIU.E t•IETAC{X)NITIUE 'CtiFECTIUE SCXIAL
least frequenfly ernployed strategies of all the LLS
'Practicing naturalistically' like attending and 'participating in out-of-class activities where the new languege
' ' (5.9rg) and 'Seeking practice opportunities' like ' 'looking for people to talk to in English (7.89.). ' ' With regard to cbar.acterSsties'oÅí other categories of ' 'strategies, 'Placing new words into a context' (70.9g) was rnost
popular in memory strategies. Ilifibng rnetecognitive strategies
''Self-monitoring' was rnost popular (65.9g). .ln affective
t t/tstrategies 'Encouraging yourself.' (66.30.o) was most frequently
employed.
In the next section, we wi11 see t'he differences in strategy
use between rnore effective and less effective learners in every
GROUP and TOTAL, between raales and females and between Grades '7 and 8. To assess those differebces. MANOVA was perforrned on 'the data. Table• 2 shows the overview of those differences.
32
Table 2 Differencqs'in Strategy Use
GRbup1
(M/L)
GROUP2.<M/L)•
TOtAL
<MIL)
Sex<MlF)
6rade<7,8)
Memory N.S. N.S.- N.S. ** **
Cognitive ** ** ** **- N.S.
Metacognitiv9L N.S. ** ** ** N.S.
AffectiVe N.S. N.S.t N.S. ** N.S.
Social ** ** ** N.S.'
(** = statisticaily significant below .Oi ievel;k = below .05 ievel; N.S. = no significance; M = more effectivelearners;L=less effeetive learners) '' -
3.4.3 bifferences Between Grades 7 and B
' The effect for the. Grades was sÅ}gnificant only on memory ' 'strategies, p<.Ol: Grade 7 stu qents were empioying them rnore 'frequently than Grade B students as Figure 6 indicates. In the ' 'individual strategies, students in each grade frequently
reported uslng tami'liar strategijes like repetition. Grade 7 ' 'students, however, are characterized by using 'Placing new 'words into a context'(=A3) rnote freguentl>r than Grade 8 ' '(statistically significant: p<.05)t; 73.69o of Grade 7 .students
'reported using it. On the other hand, Gtade B students are ' ' ' .marked by more frequent use of 'Recognizing and using forrnulas
i It was the iifth popular strategy in .1-O. Oiwas the thirteenth one in Grade 8; 64it'
Grade 7, although it students were using
33and patterns'(=B18) than Grade 7 (statistically signifieant:
p<.Ol)i; 81.1-O. of Grade 8 students are using it (Appendix F).
Figure 6 Diiferences Between Grades 7 qnd 8 (n 'ea
sa
hz
3Z •
z
51.2 .48.6 h.... -- . t- . . t- -i - - . ' ' . , 39.3 "' ' t .
31.4
M
..47.1...""
`,2
,::/"'•""""""'"2'6-1[[1[ll[[lilll:[:g;:g.
MEPIOR;t' auITIUE tlETIIC(XilNIITIVE ftFFECTIUE SC)CIAL
- Grade 7'i' ""' Grade 8
3.4.4 Sex Differences'.
With respect to the differences between raaies and fernales,
we could observe the statistically significant differences in
all categories of strategies. Females were using LLS more ' 'irequently in all catego.ries of LLS than males as Figure 7
indicates. ' ' !n terins of individual' LLS, we couid observe significant i ' 'differences in 25 questionnaire items (see Appendi' x G). ' t. 'Feinales reported more frequent uses of LLS than males in all 25
ttitems. Especially, the following three items were•the notable
i It was the fifth popular strategy in Gicade 8, although it 7 students of Gradewas the eleventh one in Grade 7; 63.860reported to use it. , '
34
characteristics oi it.
Figure 7 Differences cn
ea
5Z
4Z
3Z
zx
Between Males and Females
53.2.
..".45.9.. .! 42'.6 '42.6'""""'"'" ""'"r'-•`•-...i:I:- Å~34.g/4e•2Å~xx; 41.3
35.e
tlEt'PRY mmITIUE IIETmaglTILNE ltFFECTIUE SCNinL
' ' -- MLES •-••• FEtrnLES
BII.'To practice pronouncing English words correct!y.
(P<.Ol): (LLS--12i). , • ' B12. To read aloud English textbooks (p<.Ol): (LLS-12).
B22. To write diaries. poerns or messages in English
(p<.Ol): (LLS--15). . • ' Furtherrnore in the scores of STEP test, females were 'superior to males both in listening comprehension and written 'tests and the total scores (see Appendix H). .So far we have
been looking at the difÅ}erences between Grades 7 and 8, and
between sexes.
In the next section we will tutn to the differences between
more effective and less ' effective learners in GROUP 1 and 2, and
'27.i This number corresponds to the number of Figure 2 on page
35
TOTAL. Table 3 presents survey of those differences Sn terms
of indivi'dual strategies.
Table 3 Survey of Difierences in Stretegy UseSTRATEGY GROUP1 GROUP2 TOTAt
emory 7 t * v
Bl2L
Bi3 * ** *
B14 * L
B15 ** ** ts*
B16 ** L
B17 ** L .*Cognitive B18 ** ** **B19 *
B20 l W 1B21B23 * ,v
B24 * ** ** c
B30 **-- * c
B31** ** ** c
C37 ** ** c
C38 ** ** l**
40 *
etacognitive C41C42 * W L.**C43 ** ,y, **
ffective 046 *• T
D49 * L *
E51 * *' ** c
E53 'l* T
E54 ** l** c
E55 *
Tota1 '177 1'7 718,12Sglle=i,StLat...iSdtiif'Cfa.iri.Y.cS.i'.gtth{i.Ca.'".tGbReoiuOpWi9;.iw
in GROUP 2; T = differences only in GROUPcommon to GROUP 1 and 2 and TOTAL)
level; t = below .05 = differences only 3' C = differences '
3.4.5 Differences in GROUP 1
First let us examine the differences in GROUP1, which is
II n some 'with TOTAL,written test
cases (B17, C40, C42as the total scores scores.
and C43)are the
, differences overlapsum oÅí listening and
36
based on the scores of listening comprehension test. We couZd
find'statistically significant differepces between rnore ' 'effective and less effective learners in cognitSve •(p<.Ol) and
social strategies (p<.Ol) (see Appendix !). More effective
learners were erttploying those categories of strategies more
frequently than were those in less effective learners as Figure ' tt8 indicates. ' • ' .t ' ' ' (m Figure 8 Differences in GROUP I 'ou
se
4e
sa
z'
54.5
49.1 ..•g6'2••..-... 44.7t"/II43.eXd5•6
--- -t-- --- ---- ptF--- -f--' --'39.7 ." ';•: '..--•"" "••. 37.7 "'-".
.);
, tlEMORY CCXNITIUE tlETPcoGNITIUE iFFECTIUE Soc!nL
'-- tlore e.ffect;ve''""' Less effective
' In terms of individual strategies, significant differences ' 'were seen in 17 questionnaire items (see Appendix J). Of those ' 'items, the next seven items were significant only in GROUP 1.
B14' To watch English language TV or rmovie$ spoken in
English or to listen to English language ' radio prograrns (P<.05): (LLS-15). tt B16 To try to think in English (p<.05): (LLS-l5).
B17 To attend and participate in out-of;class events ' where English is spoken (p<.Dl): (LLS-15)
37 ' ' B21 To read English books or magazines for pleasure
(P<.Ol): (LLS-15).i . ' C41 Tg look.for opportunities to listen to English as
rnuch as possible (p<.Ol): (LLS-35)..
D49 To talk to someone else about how I feel when I am ' learning English (p<.05): (LLS-47).
tt ' E55 To try to learn about the culture oi English ' • spe'akers (p<.Ol): (LLS-52).
'3.4.6, Differences in GROUP 2 ' Secondly let us raove our attention to GROUP 2, which is
based on written test scores. Differences between moTe ' 'effective and less effective Zearners were significant in
tt 'cognitive (p<.Ol), metacognitive (p<.Ol) and social strategies
'(p<.Ol)` , (n ,Figure 9 Differences in GROUP 2
6e
se
4e
3e
e
37.el.••'
!--- 36.9
`
53.2
......"-' 45.8'•-•I.....
tt ..
4q,1 • 43.74v2.x-t-::--------6
.." r. ..-t --. l-- ---- -- -- --- --- -- -- --- . 35.9
."•" 42.7"••. . . . . - ,- -- -- - F- . . ,- -----. 33.2
for
IEMORY CCX[)t,llTlva tlETACOGNITIUE AFFECTIUE ' SOCtAL
' - trlpre effective "'- Less effective
tti More than one guestionnaire items aTe presented by Oxfordthe LLS which include variations of strategies.
38 'More ef.fective learners were employing those categories oi
strategies more firequently than were those in less effective
learners as Figure 9 shows.
' With regard to 'individual strategies, significant
differences were observed in 17 questionnaire iterns (see 'i)::;nzd. ni' XGRKo)Gp 20f. thOSe iteMSt the next s,even were signiiicant
A7 To use rhythm tD remember new English words
(p<.05):-(LLS-7).
B19 To skim an English passage tirst, then go back and
read carefully (p<.Ol): (LLS-16). ' B20 To use reference materials such as dictionaries or
reference books to help me use English ' (p<.Ol): (LLS-17). ' B23 To apply general rules (grammar) to new situations
when reading and listening to English (p<.Ol): (bLS-18).
C40 To look fDr opportunities to read English as rnuch
as possible (p<.05): (LLS-35) ' ' ' ' C42 To try to notice errors of English and find out
the reasons for thei" (p<..Ol): (LLS-36). ' C43 To learn Eroni my mistakes in using English
(p<.Ol): (LLS---36).
39
3.4.7 Differences Sn TOTAL ' Thirdly we will exanine the differences in TOTAL, which is 'based on the total scores. Except for memory and affective
strategies. differences between more 'eEfective and.Iess 'effective learners were statistically significant in cognitive ' '(p<.Ol), metacognitive (p<.Ol) and social strategies (p<.Ol).
'More etfective learners wer•e employing those' categories of ' 'strategies rnore Erequently than •were those in less eifective
learners as Figure 10 shows.
co . Figure lO Ditterences in TOTALea
se
4e
3e
e
37.4
x
53,5
n6.1••
... .. 43.7
"'ss.2
/46.2f45.8 "q2.2
33.3
t•IEnORY C()Gl,"ITIUE METCiCOGFIITIUE AFFECTIUE SocIAL
--- :'bre effective ""' tess effective
' ' In terrns of individual strategies, significant differences
.twere found in IB questionnaire items (see Appendix L). Of those
' 'iterns. the following two were signSficant pnly in TOTAL. ' ' D46 To encourage myself to speak Pnglish even whep
I am afraid oE making rnistakes (p<.05): (LLS-42).
E53 To work with ianguage learners to practice, review
or share information (p<.05): (LLS-50).
40CIol:ithweofGORiguOpWiingapid02itaneMdSthWeerTeoTSAtLalisticanysignific.antin
' ' B13 To use the English woTds and ldioms in different
combinations to make new sentences(p<.05):(LLS-14).
Bi5 To talk like native English speakers (p<.Ol): •
(LLS•-l2). '. ' B18 To try to find patterns in English (p<.Olj:
.t (LLS-l3).
B24 To find the meaning of a word by dividing it into
parts which I understand(p<.Ol): (LLS-19).
B30 To make summaries of information what I've heard
- or read in English (p<.Ol): (LLS-24).
B31 To understand unfaT"iliar English words, I rnake
guesses (p<.Ol): (LLS-26).
C37 To arrange the physicai environment to prornote ,
learning; for instance, to find a guiet, comfortable
place to review (p<.Ol): (LLS-31).'
C38 To have clear goals for improving my English
skills (p<.Ol): (LLS-32).
E5i To ask the other person to slow down or say it
- again, if I do not understand soinething in English
(p<.05): (LLS-48).
E54 To ask questions in English (p<.Ol): (LL$-51).
detaiiniatnhd9bneeXctomi:arPetde.ri.tthhepSree.ri.eoSuUsitsStull:.Iis.bediscussedin
Chapter 4
Discussion
4.1 Frequencies of Strategy Uses
One of tbe important objectives of our descriptive study
was to discover what kinds of LLS were freguently used and what
'kinds of LLS were not frequently employed by EFL junior high 'school.students. vie found that about half of the students '(49.360) -ireported using cDgnitive strategies on the average.
While they used retrospective interviews as data collection.
ttO'Malley, et a2. (1985)i also found that cognitive strategies
were the most popular LLS with EFL high school and college 'students. The main reason for'this is that cognitive 'strategies are essential in learning a new langupge.2 In teFr"s
'of informatiDn processing, cognitive strategies referto rnental ' 'steps or operations, which' have iour funetions as Wenden
(1991)3 states: select input; cornprehend input; store input; 'retrieve input. In this respect lt seems reasonable to suppose tt t/ t. 'that cognitive strategies are the most directly Snvolved in the
'target language and language acguisition. ' ' ' /t For the individual strategibs, we discovered that ' repetition was rnost frequently employed, which corresponds with
i O'Malley, et al., "Learning Strategy Applications" 566. ' ' i oxford, Language Learning Strategies 43r
] Wenden. Learner Strategies for Leatner Autonomy 19-32.
42 'the results oi P'Malley, et al.i As they suggest, repetition ' 'or translation is easy to erRploy because it requires ,little 'conceptual processing.2 Our results show that translation was 'also popular in the case of reading comprehension (69.99.),
although it is not the case in listening cornprehension (55.29.).
'Turning now tO unpopular LLS, we could observe that 'Practicing
' 'naturalistically' and 'Seeking pract•ice opportunities' were ' 'least freguently employed. 'Practicing naturalistically' can
be defined as "practicing the new language in natural, 'realistic settings."J' Oxford uses the latter LLS 'Seeking
practice opportunities' in the sense of seeking out or Åëreating
opportunities'to practice the ' riew language in naturalistic
'situations.i In this respect, a distinct separetion of those
terms seerns to be unnecessary; thus we us.e 'PrecticÅ}ng 'naturalisticallY' to cover 'Seeking practice opportunities'. 'Of the ten least frequently ernployed LLS, six of thern were ' 'classified into 'Practieing naturalistically'., To sum up, ' ''Practicing naturelistically' was the most unpopular LLS with
t J. Michael O'Malley, Anna Uhl Chamot, Gloria Stewner-Manzanares, Lisa Kupper, and Rocco P.Russo, "LearningS".Eagt.e.ggi.'eLS.gY.edi.bgYSe(glignsnsi)n,g3a2n.d"in.terrnediateEsLstudents,tt
' O'Malley, et al., "Learning Strategy Applications" 566-68.
2 O'Malley and Chamot, Pearning'Strategies 121.
] Oxford, Language Learning Strategies 45.
! Oxford, Language Learning Strategies 139.
43
the EFL junior high school students. Oxfo=d, et al. (1989)!
supports our findings. They made a descriptive study with EFL
'universi.ty students and found that. the 'Practi•cing
naturalistically' was the leest frequently employed of all the ' 'strategies. This issue will be further discussed lateT. Let 'us now turn to the discussion Df the difference between the ' 'Grades.
4.2 Strategy Use by Grades 7 and 8
We could confirrn thB tact that years spent studying English
will.have an influence on the choice of LLS, as OxfoTd and 'Nyik6s point out.i Chainot, et al. (1987)3 [ci•ted by' Oxfordi
' '1989] found that the use of cognitive strategies weuld decrease ' 'and the use of rnetacognitive strategies would increase as the
'foreigp language level goes up. We eould not, however, observe 'a significant increase of metacognitive strategies' use in ' ' ' ' 'Grade 8 as Chamot, et aJ. discovered. Instead we could find 'significant differences in raeraory strategies. In terms of
ttindividual LLS as well,' we found the significantly frequent use
' '
i Rebecca Oxford' and Martha Nyikos, "Variables AffectingChoice oi Language Learning Strategies by Vniversity Students,"Modern Lenguage Journal 73 (l989.): 293. -.
' 2 Rebecca L. Oxford, "Use of Language Learning Strategies:AT.i,•Y."it.hg99,igy.Otf..9;"(dligesSg)Vi2t3h6-3i7mpiications for strategy
' ' ' ' .3 Anna Uhl Charnot, O'Malley, J. Michael, Lisa Kupper andM.V. Impink--Hernandesm, A Study of Learning Strategies in
(Ross1yn,,F.O,' .e l.g.n.L.a,".g.U.a.g.e.i.'n.S.t.irXg.t.io.?.a,gi.' fs,tgge7a){Report vA:
44
of 'Placing new words-into a cQntext' (memory strategies) by
'Grade 7 sttidents. On the other hand, Grade 8 students were
marked by 'Recognizing and using forpaulas and patterns'. It ' ' 'seems reasonable to suppose that learners, Tely too much on ' tt 'memory in the beginning phase of learning English. As for Grade '8 students, Anderson (1985) [cited by O'Malley and Chamot, '1990] acutely'suggests that "experts learn to perceive ' .t ..recurFing patterns in a problem and to link their solution to
their patterns."i In other words, we may say that students are
rather easily able to detect the patterns and utilize them as
they come to know the nature,of learning English and get
accustomed to English.
'4.3, Differences Between Males a,nd FerEiales , ' Sex differences in strdtegy use were far greater than'first
' ' 'thought. Compared with males, females showed significantly
more frequent use of strategies in all categories of LLS as well 'as all 25 questionnaire items which were found to be
significantly different. Oxford and Nyikos (1989)i discovered
females' frequent use of social strategies like 'Asking for
clarification or verification' or 'Asking for correction' by tt ' using former versions of SILL. In another study, Ehrman and
i John R. Anderson, Cognitive Psychology and its implications 2nd ed. (New York: Freeman, 1985).
i oxford and Nyikos 291-300-
45.1
Oxiord (1988)i also 'found that the fernales were ernploying LLS
'rnore ,frequently in 'Practicing naturalistically' and
Metacognitive strategies than males. Interestingly, females ' 'have consistently showed greater use of LLS than males in every tt ' 'study, including oursL
Oxford, et a2. (1988)2 suggests wornen's social orientation
'may be resposible for this phenomenon, which means that wornen 'are by natu;e rnore directed toward interper$onal relationships
'and more cooperative than men. In our s,tudy the most remarkable
characteristics were observed in 'writing diaries, poetus or
messages in English' (=B22) (Practicing naturalistically)t /t ttwhich inight not be welcoTned by majority of males, especially in ' ' ' 'junior high schoo! level. We rnay assurne that females have some
'special preferences to LLS or langUage' behavior. However i't '•leaves much roorn,ior a variety of explanations, as only little 'research exists.
Let us turn now to the discussion of effective strategiesspecific to tesks like listening, which is also one of our' mejor
research questions.
Difier"eandceeisi'inecaigerMra8hoai"c.de,ReabnedCCpasy9fig9orgdic51EfTiyepCetSonOfAdg?tX
Language Learning Strategies," The Modezn Language Journal 72(1988):253-65. 'i.' 6,R,e,b.e.c.c.a.gljfo.r.d,•,g.a,rlg.a.N\.j.kos,•..and.,pa,a,d.e.i.i'.n.e.E.hr,m•.anti.".Vig?
RBgg9?e32Lle-a2rgT}ing Strategiesr" 'Foreign Laeguage Annajs 21
464.4 Strategy Use by TYpe of Task
ln chapter 3. we Dbserved various differences of strategy
use between mo=e effective and less effective learners in 'GROUP 1• and 2. Aithough they revealed effective strategies
relating' to listening and written tests, it is sti11 obscure 'whether they are detinitely associated with tasks like
listening comprehension.
Let us now look more earefully into the distribution of more 'eftective and less eifective learners in GROUP 1 and 2. / ' ' Table '4 Distr.ibution of Learners in GROUP 1 and 2
GROUPI
Level Top(M> Midc{le Tota1
Top(M)/k//rx•,•ii•//ts'i,11it3iti,I-•eell•i.
52
-- -- -- -r -- -I -i -t -l -l -i -- -I -j -- -- ---- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -t -- -- -' -- -- ---- -- -- -- -+ -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- :-----i-i,i{li{:•,1:.lllt"I:•'i:ii":i.:.i{Il:.lI:f:i:i:i:i:I:i::.:I::,:I:I:[:i:i;I: (158)'IL
Middle .4267 50 (159)
Bottbm(L)
:;::::::::::::::::::::::::::."--i---+-!-----------------
:llllll.{I'IE2'•.41':i•I'}III.ll---.1-:--------------l+----l---.i------.----------4i----------t---
40
,ee,s."..u•i,:;.za..i.g'•ge.•ww.it/ij..i:,v,trtf•g:I.:'t7.'/t•i
l•sr•i-",'.g'l?L•ge,2,S,'#.g•.•r`/'ieit/.'",..ii':•#. (15B)
Total (158) (159)<158) (475)
(M = more effective learners; L = !e$s effective 1earners)
As Table 4 indicates, the number of more efiective learners in '
Group 1, for example, is 158. 0f them riinety-two learners a.r,e
' 'Bt the sarne time more effective learners in GROU? 2, which
ttt 'occupies 58.29e (921158) of thern. The sarne is true with less ' '6fiective lea]rners. That is, 59.40-o (941158) of less gffective
learners in GROUP 1 are also the less effective learners in
47 ' 'GROUP 2. These facts suggest the possibility that the 'effective strategies identified to be specific to listening and
written tests rnight be coruraon to "both GRqUP 1 and 2.
We will corttpare the following two groups in order to 'dete.rmine LLS which are more specific to tasks, in addition to
the results obtained in Chapter 3: ' tt (1) GROUP la (24 subjects): learners who were judged as more
:i.fi:tCt.il"te..i'tn (iG"RSotuep"1?7 (GROUP i)t though, iess effectivg,in
' tt (2) GROUP 2a (14 subjects): learners who were judged as mo're
'efiective in written tests (GROUP 2), though less effective in
1istening (GROUP 1).
In the next section we will diseuss the differences between ' 'GROUP la and 2a as well as the results identified in Chapter 3.
' ' '4.4.1 Effective LLS Specific to Listening ' ' In terrns of listening specific strategies, we could observe
'signiÅíicant differences in seven questionnaire iteras in Chapter
' '3. wd can elassify thertt into the Å}onowing three learning
' 'strategy clusters: • ' ' (1) Practicing naturalistically (LLS-15): B14, B16, B17,
B21, C41. ' (2) Discussipg your feelings with sorueone else (LLS-47):
' ' D49. ' ' ' (3) Developing cultural understanding (LLS-52): E55.
48 'On the other hand, Figure !2 indicates difterences betWeen
GROUP la and 2a. Signifieant differences were seen only in B14 'as a Tesult oi MANOVA (below .Ol level) (see Appendix M).
As Figure ll reveals, the learners,who reported using Bl4 'in GROUP la was 66.79o, whereas. the number was only 7.I60 i.n GROUP
2a.
' co Figure il Comparison Between GROUP la and 2a1ez
su
ez
7Z
6?.
sa
4e
su
2e
IZ e'
os.7
.1
t:"x:
54.2
21.4X':•S.•"si
't":?'
XLtkISpu..3e
41.7
14.3
33.3
.1
S.lil')
42,9 :.:: :k:ge.ijl,u,"';•i'i/i
ast"'mp"`
Lg#•i•
#tf'i"i'
S.e;•u
7ttt`
..c.' ?.:
itsiet:
16.7 16.7'
.1 titrtl;li} X•t..s,{. I't-'ll"n';l ti14 B12 C41 B16 D49 B21 E55- B17
' n GROUP la tw GRCX.P 2a
' The.sarne thing can be said in C41 and B16: 41.79o in GROUP
tt t tt ''la, 14.36" in GROUP 2a (C41); 33.3tOo in GROUP la, 7.ItOe i'n GROUP 2a ' ' '(B16), altho.ugh we could iind no statistical significanee. tt ttTaking the results oÅí Chapter 3 into account, these faets meke
'it clear that the first cluster 'Practicing naturalisticaliy'
like B14 (possibly with C41 and B16 as well), are the crucial
LLS for listening cornprehension. rn other words, it is ' ' ' 'especially essential to increase the opportunities andquantities to liSten to English thrOugh English language radio
.1 a.2.t{.lsl'i, e.q
-49 'or TV programs (cf. Krashen (1982)t). Besides we iTtu'st not
ttoverlook the fact that these GROUP la learners reported to ' ' 'employ these LLS outside fthe English lessotis at school. From
the GROUP 2a learners' polnt oi view, it seenis reasonable to
tt 'suppose that their poor performapce enly in listening ' 'comprehension test is due to the fact that they have too limited
'pTactice to listen to English. ' With respect to other clusters (2) and (3), it is unsure ' 'whether they are really speeific LLS to listening; diÅíferences ' 'between GROUP la and 2a are small, and some are converse,i and
'nohe of thern are statisticany signiiicant.
' On the other hand, B12 ('Reading alou,a') wa's not observed
'to bq signiiicant LLS in Chapter 3. although here half of the ' ' ttGROUP la learners employed it and the difference between GROUP ' 'la and 2a was appealingly big (32.7-Oo). Thus 'Reading aloud' is ' 'a very familiBr strategy in junior high school students and ' 'assumed to be helpful, although we eannot conclude it to be ' ' 'specially useful in listening. This issud needs .further
descriptive research and consideration.
' ' 4.4.2 Effective LLS Specific to Written Test , ' ln termS of specific LLS to written test, sevep ' t/ ' questionnaire items were observed to be slgnifieant in chapter
i Krashen 20-30•
se ' '3. .Of the sev'en it gms, only one was also statistically ' 'signiEicant (below .e5 level) by the comparison betvleen GROUP
t/ 'la and 2a: To try to notice language errors and to find out the
' 'reasons for thern (C42: Self-monitoring) (see Appendix M). ttt ' <x) Figure 12 Comparison Between GROUP la and 2a
IZZ se,.9'-' sa.9--sa.9 . '9Z
se
7e 1.
,6e '
5Z
4Z
ea
nIZ
z
62.
es'et',rj•i•;.
2II;Y-,i•.
C42 -B18 B19 B23' ' ' n GRoLp la
'The b' 6rcentage of iearnets who in GRotip 2a ' ' ''
was 92.90.o, whereas the number was ,. .,Figure l2 ' ttshows those ditferences.'
' Bialystok (1981)i found that 'Monitoring' had a significant ' ttefiect on aurel grammar ta$k which needS attention to forin, and
that listening tasks were not greatly affected by Jnonitoring.
'our written test also includes tasks Telated to grammar which
.t 'have same Eeatures of requiring attention to forrn. Fur ,therTnore
'written tests allew more sufficient tirne than aural or orql
45.Cab,;e
37ls•
14.3 si. r•i:l:I 7.\.i'n.'l{
tw GROLP tc
;eported using C42
62.50t. in GROUP la
t Bialystok 34•
51 'task, as Krashen (1982)L.suggests''that time is another
'condition for monitoring work. Observation in these facts will ' 'show that self-nionitoring is exactly the specific LLS to
written test. ' tt t ' With respect to other'six items identified in Chapter 3, ' ' 'they have not achieved statistical significance i.n the ' ' ' 'covaparison betWeen Group la and 2a. rnterestingly, ttt t tneverthelessi 'Reasoning deductively' (B23; LLS-l9) and ' ' ' ' t.tt t'Getting the idea quickly' (B19; LLS-16) were fiound to be used
' 'by an extremely high proportion of GROUP 2a learnerS: 92.9g in
' .tB19)' 85.70-o jn B23. 'Recognizing and using forrnulas and
t .t 'patterns' (B18; LLS-13) also had noticeablely high use (92.9-O.).
tt .ttalthough it was c ,ommonly significan V in every GROUP and TOTAL ' ' 'in the analyses in Chapter 3,. We rnay assume that these three ' ttLLS are also rather specific for tasks included in written
test.
' ln the next section we will' discuss• our last research ' ' ' 'question, that is, differences in the strategy use between more
tt ' t.effective and less effective learners, which are common to
every task•.
' '4.5 Effective LLS Common to Every Task ' First let us look at the strategies which were identified
i Krashen 15-20-
52•to be statistically significant only in [VOTAL (based Dn the
total 'scores) in Chapter 3. We could observe two LLS:
(1) Taking risks wisely (D46: afiective strategies)
' (2) Cooperating with others (E53: social strategies) ,
With regard to the first strategy, Rubin (1975)i indicates
that the good language leamer• is willing to make mistakes in
order to communicate and to learn.•NaiTnan, et al. (1978)i also
-states that the good lartguage learner will ov,eTcome inhibition ' 'to speak and be able to laugh at their own mistakes. We may say 'that this afÅíective strategy is important especially for
practicing for communication, although the influenc,e might be 'indirect. The second strategy has importance as well for ' t/ ' .t t ttt 'practieing for communication, as cooperating with others such tt 'as pair wDrks or group activities are indispenseble for 'cornmunicatiori .
' , Now let us turn to the ten LL$ which achieved significant
differences common to GROUP 1 and 2, and TOTAL in Chapter 3.
Here, however', we shall confine our attention to strategies ' 'which relate to pracVcing, as "strategies for practicing are 'among the most irnportant cognitive strategies"] and cognitive
strategies are assumed to be post directly involved ,in language
' ' ' ' ' tt t Joan Rubin, "What the Good Language Learner Can Teach Us," TESOL OuarterJy 9' (l975): 47.
i Naivaan, et al. 14.
3 oxford, Language Learning Strategies 43.
53
1earning.
Practicing strategies can be subdivided into five LLS. 'according tD Oxford (1990)i: (1) Repeating. (2) Forraally 'practieing with sounds and writing systerns. (3) Recognizing and 'using formulas and patterns, (4) Recombining and (5) Practicing
naturalistically. Bialystok (1981)i also argues about
t lt 'practicing and divides it into two types: iorrnal practice and
functional praetice. Formal practice focusds on "the language 'code for the sake of rnastering the rule systern." Functional
pract,ice "occurs when the language learner increases his ' 'opportunity to use the.language for communication such as going
to movies. reading books or talking to 'native speakers."] ' Oxford's strategies (1),(2) and (3) are included in forrpal
'practice and (5) is contained in functional practice. ttt 'Remaining (4) is supposed to take an interrnediate' position
between two strategies, as they are concerned with language
iorms as well as the content or rneaning.
4.5.1 Practice Strategies
Table 5 (see next page) indicates how more effective and
less effective learners in each GROUP and TOTAL are emp!oying
i Oxford, Language Learning Strategies 43-47.
i Bial' ystbk 25-2B-
3 Bialystok 25'-
54practice strategies. ' ' We will see that'less effective learners in each GROUP and ' 'TOTAL are employing sorne famUiar practice strategies like
repetiti gn. Nevertheless. they stick to.ernploying usual LLS
and dare not to step forward using other LLS which are eTnployed
by rnore effectiVe learners. We may say that this is exactly the
'reason why less effe.ctive learners remain inefiective despite ' 'the fact that they' themselves believe they are studying hard"
' ' Table 5 Differences in Precticing -
BialystckiForrnalPrecticeIInte'rtt,ediatelFLnctionalPractieetlt-F------------t--------------t---.--------------ip------------2--------------:----------------------------lttttt'tttet---,Oxford:1.Repet,ition:2.Forma!IY:3.Pattern.:4.Recmhine:5.daturalistieally'e-ttt-.-----.-------a-------.------"-----------e--j-------------"---------p----S-----------------"----------i-tt--e'tttttQ.Itens:8910:1112:15:18:13':14161721224041t---t--llt,--
l:•Il':il:.Ill-l':l•ll.:lllllli.III•Il:il•1•liE}l•
l'll•ii:l•li•Il•i•lii•i•I:•lli'i.lllllLil[L•l'llL'i;•il.Ill•'il.-,.,i' ,'
l.wh•ee.lge,..."`"vs'ttt,.ee/g'.l.Xssrit•-Stigi;•.l/1wwtLg.tk'l ,.ww' i-g,•ewsget..\),,tla.•'/S.l2'tY,•
GROUP1(yo
-------------
GROUP2CND
------.-------
TOTAL(ro
t- -- -- -- "-----t----------"--------=----- -- -i -- -- -- -- -- -- -- l- -' -' -l t- -- -- -- t-
-J -- -- --L-t-.P------.+---'---nyl----i-:.l,i.l';':.1,ll':.'I,ll':.l.1.l;illl.,i':.ll':•l,Ll';':.li:,ll::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
ii+:'l'l,,t,,li3tt'-ffii."•,-xt,•as,-'/Åë,\s.,//f,"g",k,r'wai,,•,.#'ntN•a"ks,t'ulvE-'.""t.,v"'.'etg"$ =.-:-:. l'
.:-:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:-:.:-:.:-:.:.:.:-:.:.:::.:.I:.i:{:illl:ii:ilil•i::•i:.i:.:•il:'::•::.Iiii:.:.:.:.:.:-::.:-:.:.:.:-:.:.:.:.::.:.
iiil•:•I:•1•llil:•:iil•l:•iJ•l•l•ll•IIIII:•il•l:•II:•li
:---' ii,,,,,,g/..•g,l"t•//•,..-,Ntk'l"/'3?X-$'/k,,//"-.g,F•k•.tlli.l/g.,./twy,/gitts/2k-.,'i'111-lk•it:•st
iil'Si-l,illli.lil,lilSIIi•lll1:i::,:I:l:E:I:'::I:I::•E-:.::..:.:.:.:.:J:-:.:.:.'.:.:-'
---
At-e-
A;A:t--b'-tt'--'t-'-t
AIAl-t-i--;-.-ÅÄ...ÅÄ-1
A::--tt-•.-.s.-.a...t.-.t--i
AIAI--t-
A---A.---AA
GROUPl(L)
---------.-----
GROUP2(O-------------TOTAL(L)
;I:.1•,':•,::l-,:II:ll:.ll-,ElllE',lll',li:.III:1':
lil;i'i711.ll.l';i•'iiilili':iil,iii'i•llll.lilll,llll
':'t:':':':':':"'1':':""---t-"----i----+-t-----+
ll':lil'{•lll•:l':l:,1:l:•il:l:11:':;I•::.;:.:I:::l;:,•:::i,:::',
--- l-------------tt-----.--------;---"-------
...j.-......;....l......-......Sliiliiliiiiillliliiiil.lillllliillilllillll'll.llllllll"-- :-:-:.-:-----::. .::----
(MFtnore effective learfters. L= lte,ss e'ffective learners: •:E'1•ilil'il'l.:lll•1:i = no significance: both M & L eploy 'frequenÅíly; //-r'II'.aik['.:.:.'//• = sig'tificently eriployevd;
[' ::r::11 = significently umoloyed: As = non-singinificantly unerp!oyecS: both M & t ertpley int'reqL,ent!y >
' t. So far as strategies are concerned, their Poor performanee
can be attributed not so much to how long they are learning as
to what kind of strategies they ernploy. .. ' On the other hand, more eifective learners in each GRQUP and
55
TOTAL are commonly ernploying the iollowing three LLS in 'addition to familiar LLS like repetition.
tt ' (1) To talk like native English speakers (B15): This LLS
tt 'refers to phonetic practice beyond the"individual word level.
'For exarnple, learners "record thernselves so they hear and ' 'compare their own voices with native speaker's voice."•i ' 'Although learners do not create any sentences by thernselves, ' 'this LLS is indispensable for real communication. And we ' 'should notice that even less effective learners are also doing
practice at the word l,evel.
(2) Recognizing patterns (B18): This LLS referg to beirig 'aware of unenalyzed patterns like "!t's time to ...."i It is ' ' ' ' 'convenient for cornprehension and production. ' ' ' ' (3) Recombining (B13): 'Recombining'. can be detined as '"constructing rneaningful sentences or longer expressions by ' ' ' 'putting together known elements in new ways."] Learners start
' 'expressing themselves by filling the blanks of patterns ' ' (underlined part) with alternative words like "!t's time to gt
to bed." Thus its role is 'to step forward for communication
ttusing patterns or formulas as an underpinning. In this sense,
t. ' ' 'ReEombining' and 'Recognizing patterns' should be used in
i Oxford, Language Learning Strategies 72.
'2 Oxford, Language Learning Strategies 45. ' '] Oxford, Language Learning Strategies 74.
56combination.
It follows Erom what has been said that the difference 'between more effective and iess effective learners in strategy
use is that more effective learners aye doing pTactice for 'communication in addition to familiar formal practice. Ip
other words, they are preparing or prepared for communication
using formal practice or intermediate strategies like ''RecornbSning'•
4.5.2 Further Discussion ' Finally, let us look at practicing strategies troin another ' 'perspective. Wenden (1991)i argues that the major purpose of
ernploying practice strategies is to facilitate the development
of autornatic and appropriate retTieval of informBtion, which is 'evidence of acquisition. By using forrnal practice, leerners
will become able to retrieve specific words, patterns, formulas ' tt tt 'or grammatical items separately. On the other•hand, learners 'will become able to recail thein quickly and automatically in 'accordance with the conditions ,of communication by employing ''functional practice. Therefore we may say that functional
practice is absolutely necessary for communication and that ' formal practice should be regarded as a basis ior iunctional
pracV ce .
i wenden . Learner Strategies for Learner Autonomy 21-23.
57 In the descriptive study for ESL high school students in 'Canada, Bialystok (1981)i found that the functional practice
'had a crucial role in language learning. Huang and Van Naerssen
(1987)2 also supports her findings in an EFL context in China.
'With respect tQ the role of formal practice, Bialystok states
that "addit.icnal formal practice atter a particular point no 'longer facilitates performance."3 This is just what we have
discovered as to less eifective learners. Less effective
learners in every GROUP and TOTAL continued to employ forma1 ' 'practice in greater amounts without this additional effort 'impreving performance. To surn up, formal practiqe is ' ' 'necessary, but it has limitations as to Sts usefulness, so that 'after somd formal practice, functional practice should be
employed or encouraged.
It follQws that less effective learnerS should shift their
tt 'use of practicing strategy to a functional direction like
'Recombining'.
' Bialystok 24-35- ' i xiao-Hua Huang and MargaretStrategies for Oral Communication(1987):287-307.
i Bialystok 33.
,Y,anA..NJa,e-.r.sse.n,.•.h',L..e,ai.n.ing
Chapter 5
Conclusion
In this paper we have discussed various differences in ' 'using learning strategies. Especially -10cating differences 'between effective and iess etfective learners has been our rnost ' 'central and biggest research questions. We can conclude, frora ' ' ' ' 'what has been discussed in previous' chapters, that more ' ' 'effective learners are employing a wider variety of LLS in
combihation. Furtherrnore, they are practieing for ' tt 'communication using Å}unctional practices. On the other hand, ' 'repertoires of less effeetive learners are sraaller and limi Ved 'to famiUar strategies of forrnal practice. They continue''.to tt 'use them and do nDt try to step forward to other strategies. 'This is the decisive d'ttference between more effective and less ' t/eÅífective learners. We can assume that the poor perforrnances 'of less etfective learners might be due to their not having and
using an appropriate repertoire of LLS in a more functional
way-
However we do not yet know why less effective learners do
'not use effective strategies like 'Recombining', which has been 'identified ip this study. We can imagine two possibilities:
one is that they just don''t know the efficiency of such ' 'strategies; the other is•that they cannot use it although they
are trying to do so. These are, however, the questions to be
solved by subseguent research, that is, strategy training
59studies fo!lowing-after our descriptive study.
The iinplications of our strategy research ior English
'education will, of course, lie in strategy training in which
successful LLS will be taught for less effective learners to
help thern learn English more efficiently. Furthermore, we can
take an innovative view oi learnin' g and teaching English in an ' ' ' 'EFL context. 'For teachers as well as learners the source of t 'difficulties oi learning English seems very complicated as ' 'there seem to be too many problems to be solved; most of the
tea'chers are trying to get over them-by improving their ' 'teaching rnethods looking at the reactions of the students. We ' ' 'believe their attitude is fundarnentally right. But what is
leamt by"the learner may not be the same as what is taught b' y
the. teacher.i By grasping LLS which learners are actually ' 'engaged, teachers can tap what is going on and what is not
hap'pening on the learners' side. Thus, teachers can look at 'the source of difÅ}iculties from the view of LLS which are 'actually engaged by the learners. And teachers can make use of
'LLS as teaching strategies. That is, strategy training can be
integrated into usual English classes and effective strategies
will be presented with the students intentionally by their 'teachers. Thus, teachers "will be able to in' corporate learning
i Rod Ellis, Second Language Acguisition & ll8.Pedagogy (Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 1991)
Language
60strategies into teaching methodologies."! And by assessing 'the
'students' eurrent LLS using SILL, for instance, it would be 'ppssible to instruct LLS in accordance with individual
t.Iearners' use of LL$. This may be a more efiective way of ' 'improving their teaching'methodologies. ' As we mentioned in Chapter 1, we can observe a growing number
of students who have despaired and are dropping out of the 'English class. And'everyone is at a loss where to start and how
to break the deadlock. However all learners still have hopes
and dreams of being able to speak English to communicate with
ioreigners. It might be that learners just do not know how to 'learn English, or how tQ be rnore effective learners.
tt The rnost important thing is not to embarrass learners by
giving them a" whole set of strategies, but to lead thern forward,
step by step, by giving appropriate and effective LLS according
to individual differences. ' ' ' LLS can give us insight into the possibility of 'how to be ' ttefficient in learning and also teaching English. LLS can give
us a starting point and we, teachers and learners, can start ' 'from language learning strategies to be more effective learners
and more effective teachers. Thus in this sense we teachers may
have to be more effective learners first.
i Rubin, "What the Good Language Learner" 50.
BSbliDgraphy
Anderson, John R. Cognitive Psycho2ogy and its impZications
2nd ed. New York: Freernan, l985.
Bialystok, El!en. "The Role of Conscious Strategies in Second
Language Proficiency." Modern Language Learning 65
(1981). 24-35.
Chamot. Anna Uhl, Michael J. O'Malley, Lisa Kupper and M•V.
Impink-Hernandesrn. A Study of Learning Strategies in ' Foreign Language Jnstruction: First Year Repor't. Rosslyn,
VA: InterAmerice Research Associates. 1987.
Chamot, Anna Uhl and Lisa Kupper. "Learning Strategies in
Foreign Language InStruction." Foreign Language Annals 22
(19B9). 13-24.
Cohen, Andrew D. "Using Verbal Reports in Research on Language
Ldarning." lntirospection in Second Language Research-
Eds. Claus Farch and Gabriele Kasper. Clevedon: ' Multilingual MatterF, 1987. 82-95.
Ehrman, Madeline and Rebecca Oxford. "Effects of Sex
Differences, Career Choice, and Psychological Type on Aduit Langliage Learning Strategies." The Modern Language JournaJ
72 (1988): 253-65.
Ellis, Rod. Understanding Second Language Acguisition.
Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1985.
Ellis, Rod. Second Language Acguisition & Language Pedagogy.
62 Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 1991.
Huang, Xiao-Hua and Margaret Van Naerssen. "Learning
Strategies for Oral CoinrRunication." App2ied Linguistics
8 (1987): 2B7-307.
Jakobovits, Leon A. Foreign Language Learning. Massachusetts:
Newbury House, 1970.
Krashen, Stephen D. Principles and Practice in Second Language ' Acguisition. Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1982. 'Kubo, Hironori. Surviva2 Eng2ish: For Staff and Students of ' ' itami City High School. Unpublished, 1990. '
'Naiinan, N., M. FrC5hlich,, H. H. SteTn and A.Todesco. TJ]e Good
Language Learper.• Toronto: The Qntario Institute for
Studies' in Educa'tion, 1978.
'O'Maliey, J. Michael, Anna Uhl Chamot, Gloria Stewner- ' Manzanares,' Roccp P. Russo and Lisa Kuppa. "Learning ' Strategies Used bY Beginning and .Intermediate ESL
•Students." Language Leazrning 35 (1985); 21-46. ' tt 'O'MaUey, J. Michael, Anna Uhl CharRot, Gloria Stewner- ' ' Manzanares, Roccp P. Russo and Lisa Kuppa. "Learning
tt Strategy Applications of English as a Second Language." ' ' TESOL euartex'ly 19 (1985): 557-84. 'O'Malley, J. Michael. "The Effects of Training in the Use of
tt ' ' Learning Strategies on Learning English as a Seconq ' Language." Learner Strategies in Language Learning. Eds.
Anita Wenden and Joan Rubin. Hertfordshire: Prentice-Hall,
63 1987.'133-44.
O'Malley, J. Michael and Anna Uhl Charnot. Learning Strategies
in Second Language Acguisition. New York: Cambridge
University Press. 1990.
Oxford, Rebecca, MaTtha Nyikos and MadeliAe Ehrmen "Vive ' ' la Difference? Reflections on Sex Differences in Use of
Language Leerning Str-ategies." Foreign Language Annals 21
(1988): 321-329. 'Oxford, Rebecca L. "Use of Language Learning St;ategies: A ' Synthesis ofStudies with Implications for Strategy
Training." System 17 (1989): 235-47.
Oxiord, Rebecca and Martha Nyikos. "Variables Affecting ' Choice of Language Learning Strategies by University
Students." Modern Language Journal 73 (1989): 291-300.
Oxiord, Rebecca and David Crookall. "Research on Language
Learning Strategies: Methods, Findings, and Instructional ' Issues." The Modern Language Journal 73 (l989): 404-19.
OxÅíord. Rebecca L. •Language Learning Strategies: What Every ' Teacher ShouZd Know. New York: Newbury House, 1990.
Rtibin, Joan. "What the Good Language Learner Can Teach Us."
TESOL quarte'rly 9 (l975): 41-51.
Rubin, Joan. "Study of Cognitive Processes in Second Language ' Learning." Applied Linguistics 11 (1981): l17-131.
Rubin, Joan. "Learner Strategies: Theoreticel Assimptions,
Research History and TypDlogy." Learner Strategies in
64
Langua.ge Learning. Eds. Anita Wenden an,d Joan Rubin.
Hertfordshire: Prentice-Hall International, 19B7. 15-40. tt tSchumann, John H. "Simplifiaation, Transfer, and
Relexification as Aspects of Pidginization and Farly Second
Language Acquisition." Language Learning 32 (1982): 337-
66.
'Skehan. Peter. Individua] Differences in Second-Language
'. Leazning. New York:Edward Arnold, 1989. • 'Skehan, Peter. "Ipdividual Differences in Second Language ' Learningr" Studies in Second Language Acgui,sition 13
(199l): 275•-98.
Stern, H. H. Fundamental Concepts of Language Teach.ing. ' Walton Street: Oxford University Press, 1983.
Takashima, Hideyuki. "How Do We Make Use of TV and Radio
Prograrns and Materials?" Handbook on Ear2y English
Teaching: Ed. Tadahisa Goshima. Tokyo: Kyobundo, 1990.
' 111. 'Tarone, Elaine. "Communication Strategies, FQreigner Talk, and
Repair in !nterlanguage." Language Learning 30 (1980):
417•-31. ' ' ' The Society for Testing English Proficiency, INC. Step
BuJletin 3. Tokyo, 1991. , ' Wenden, Anita. "Learner Strategies." TESOL Nepvsletter l9
(1985): 1-7.
Wenden. Anita: "Conceptual Background and Utility." Learner
Strategies in Language Learning. Eds. Anita ' Jban Rubin. Hertfordshire: Prent•ice-Hali,. 1987
Wenden, Anita. Learner Strategies fo'r Learner
Hertfordshire: Prentice"Hall, 1991.
65
Wenden and
. 3--13.
Auton omy.
E
APPENDIX ttExcerpts<vtritten
Afrom the STEP test (Grade 7; 5th Grade 'test>
test).
z ttop {1) b,S tS} t':• LO { ):7. it 6'DL' ntJiOt: t. op!
X;(. ?op=gop?-eutethttostLri.ct..
{1) lain( )TV. I looking 2 reading 3 watching
<2) ( )t;me do you gtt vp gvery morning?
I When 2 HQw 3 Whose ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '(3} ( )is lhc seeond month of the year. ' 1•january 2 Febrvary 3 Ma{cb ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' t tt ' tt{4) M.)' mother isadoctor. She "i)rks atR( ' ).
1 hespita1 •2 staiion 3 musetipt '(5) I:(To th,)pa.r,ek.S.'.b" go;ng?"
I NVhat I Who 3 Where
<iistening comprehension teSt>
. 1.Z3.A .O"t.6-7f)
4 doing
4 "'hat
4 Aprit
d post pffiee
4 Why
=tl) aoSEIf E. ;. r. • TttD m t tr} nr".•: ,:: r, t' eet t Lt E- t. -s' -i; :- y op e.
v7"t,e-7r7g:,. -:e.geeT-fortnv7.P'Lrtc't}.
Tbr,toke
tVnn.e.vL'
7dattko:'
,Nlanc}':
-rcitoko
IVQncJ`:
rO,"ok•a
' Nancit:
'Tbtnoko:.tVcnc.r:
Twho:
L::
:romoko : Ittts Nancy
Oh. hi. Yt 'ancpt. How are )Tu?
F{nc. Ihznk you. And ),.ov! Fing too. thantc' x)u. Ahd hog"s yolir sisttt lvnko?
Shc's fine. She is }iving s'n sYe"' YotX' now. She is s:ud.,ing EngJis:
lherg Oh. thzt's Tny hemetowh. ts she a colltge studen'tl
Yc!s, shc is She likes Engiish and siud;es it sTery hmrd cver)r day.
De }ou likc English. Ioo? Ycs. bur 1 like history be"tr. Ren11y•1 l litce it, ioo. Lct's talk ebovt hisioT)r somFFim=
That's i good ;dica.
O) Wherc is junko living no"'1
t- 1 She is s:vd)ing Englisb. 2 She is •lisin! in 1 ew Ypfla 3 She is .toing 'to colle!t 4 Shc is lising in Tomoko's homcto-'n. '
tt tt ' ' ' ' ' '{2) ls Junko siud)'lm.g Engtish or h{story in Nt"` Yotk?
i .She is sTud)in.ft hlstory th, e;L '
2 Yes. sht is. 3 ts'a. she isn'L 4 She is'stvd)'ing English tht:c.
<rg.. 3l S> (,S- lt -:.- lsJ
t1) .ctbtX:'tlf'eh8. t2) ÅÄopF.7"EE.TettJi<RL=t,6tst, S,:X4op"t.--=X;;
(SJig 3>
tt.-.-
t--1'
3....l)t,XXIil/...!.-4
•-• =-Zz.z,ll"xxNX'S'
lcdi
'
Qves'tien Ne. Il
1 srl' 2 3 -ut-' 4'
d.: •d-.
--" -=.
-•
Tg;;ytL,,-•Q -tt•••-taasi .rt2Ept.•Cag
=:3tc.'>tFl!sGr.
G)rxrS:-'--S•.fE}e
pt. .-z.-- --••• t:N -=o.. .izs'-` -. L--t
"`-•- Lr: . -"•-Errlr-':.{7Ei
N v' .
. (a 4 as> ,{,sm ls - ,y"s)
ti) le=7,,kv7sret:se. ÅÄn?r=s:rv:"tss}lte. cl} eofirs:o;LtLt,fig•XP.',t;Iooe. t.v.aoIn,ts--71'vX.x.
tt/ttt t t t ' '
sT•
)iil- "z "Jt t
.
. - "..L
:r"'-.l.
s ..". tk
t'i' .
tK
t''
,
t;N
l tJ
z ';• A,
=t'i-/
'"• -..x !z.i .ta''v.-.,.x:-
--
l "
i
X,1'?<t
-zntKri";f'{'-
.:;'-"'s.
"--
e'i.-.. , ;=/i .;ei;.&!ltr:'
-. .. .-." - . """-.----- •-
' 1.
<ll
A
Ji
. 'zl ..
.(""-rU'i
c'IsiblI}i {ill)1!{ "
l[ ii."
(lirva1 :
} 'e' =. '--'
Er' EEijIllpt
= g=slzsig:-Z"s tZ
H
-s""-..lg. -t-.-
-"- .N --- :-- t: "' -- ,
z.
---et --J--!
'i-
-:t
.-
e;•
-
v
otmu..fi.
- -:--- '..-':t':'a. :s.:.:'.:s;s.1
.iEe...
t 't
e. --
Qvtst;Qn No; 12
1
'kvt4e's 6P.-,.t".
.-'qX,t-
.;.Stii!?iir
vt
.2 .-- .Kt,X "tN
ili.li!s.ligc-`-'2.iN?,;i
---- v';f X.M
3' va '2P?i X2.2S'f'
-E#iikf;
. t.-
4 (}iNE
ke-•N
,AM.vak.. y ,;;-:,
t""; ----- ---. x1,:2QRZ"• I
xrNN. Ig'tit
Qvtstion Ne. 16
1 ln ttie tivFr.
2 On tht'brid-sc. 3. Vndtr a ttt:. " Ncar ihc housc.
Qtitst;on Ne. 17
l' Threc. Z Fotir. 3 Fivt. " S{x.
Qutstion Ne. IS
1 Yes. shc 'is.
1 Shc is Tvnnin.t. .3 ND. she is.nl. 4 Shc ;s looking ,at the biids.
Excerpts<written
fromtest>
the STEP test (Grade 8; 4th Grade test).
pt(1'}
(2)
(3)
(A}
(s)
eNop o) t.ÅÄ (s) g'eg) ( ' )=Aftso=fitJsmr;sope. {zltoeb.s-')-f'-gvC. {q.`.gop?- 2qeth t)o."Lrte' Ls.
tt 'iNty mother is cooking sorritthing in-'ttie ( ) now. ' ' tt tt'1' bathreom .2 kitche.n 3 bedroom 4 liyingroom ttt t ' ' ' tt ' ' )has scven days. 'A(I mon!h •2 year • 3 wtek .' 4 minute ' ' t tt tt 'lfr. Brown has two ( ). One is a girl ahd. the o;her a boy. '1 .sons .' ,.2 brothers '3'daughters. 4 childrcn ' .- . ' ' tt tt ' ' / tt1was vtry( ' ), selwtnt le bcd early., '• . ' ''• tt1 strong 2 tlred. 3 big '4 prttty ' tt ' ' ' ' tt ' ' ttSam can buy a`ntw computer becavse ht has{ 1. ) mone)'.
1 lois of 2 jirr!t 3 aftw ' 4 no ' '
'[l]i.o.,.;e;,-:rT:s}s1-7.e.S.Z.O.-r-l:•k',iZ.it';.I...,le.';'-L..:.:.";ZE,;iL`:,
' t.. r riL. C .' } o"r: tsa=<6.{tEsijv"-t"..':iitL:hoaT. '
{;) =VffiE". )=:,:rS. {1 dO 2 many 3 'diedonar;ts 4 ho"')youhave?
.C2} bLkLSe7e7SOITb,.. . . NVhat (1 seing '2 to 3 yov 4 are)dgtornorTow'?
{3) "D:s. S.f.'eeB,gtv;,!tigu-.'"tLlt. I(1 praetieing 2 ,vas 3 vieiin 4 the)everyday ai that t;rrt
(4) FA:tt.t.s. glssswrtt!tLti. , . • ' ' Tofn Sl ihe toorp 2'of '.3 ovt a wilked)jilst now. tt tt ' (5) fLS-:::'. E:':'.L'St.L'6"t!Crtet,t-Lti. ' Chsrlcachcr gave Cl'books 2 'mteTesting 3 us -4 somt}.
[ll] avo {1) ths {s} t"ea c' ) mXn6DxfibEmt.-sope.)grJ, ÅÄosgo?-7ueeev73:Lrxsts.
(1) Look at the cars in this picture. ( ' ' I Tbat ' 2 1t • 3 ' ' ' ' tt '(Z) Masao prac(ites karate a tpt. but Ken (
tt 1 docs tt tt-(3} Bob 2nd Heltn ( ' 1 "'as '' . tt '.(4) 'NVhit tirne (.
! "'tre(5) This lctlcr is (
1 g'rote
2
2
2
2
1.;3.4op"bS-Or
) are beautirul. .Thcy, 4 Thtir )- . ' ' ' 'doesn't' '' 3 is' ' 4 is"'t ' tt ' ' ' ' ) on the sarne team last year. 'aTe' 3 is,' .4' werc' ' ' ' ' ' )')'ou eat breakras,t this moming? tt 'did .'' 3 arc ' 4 does tt ' .. ' ) in English. '
to w;'ite 3' ucritten 4 writin-g
[sl] aM"F.:ee.k?• , 'TfED (t) b," (s} tTott',LsL-"7 "ek LrE t:gk7tt Stzvo"t,e-7r7Nr.t. eo•:ge'7-7"ehtJ7s:Ltta.. - '
Dear Betty.April 28. IS
Thenk you very mueh tor your letter end plctures.• ll's spring here ;n Jepan ncrw. tt'S werm end ev-.tything.looks green. }vvent to the oeeen three ders ege. My mother usuelly gets up et sir ;htMmOt;nei: ;ibAUtf:lhlei,sst T6M;"g She got'up one hgvr Farl;er. My mother a.r,fi sis .
Vle drovt tb the oceen. There wtre menr other gts on th! retd. sofe'.her had lo drive very sltrwly., VVhen we got to the oeepn. we were vo..ry tir
But wq Wetaed tlong tbe oeeen artd ptayed voUe)rbalL We hed a goed tithere. On our way fotne, v,e ete d;nner et ,a restaurent neet our house.
errhred bon,eet e;ghHn the evening . . ' Ibo"ght a small present tDr yov atestore neer the oceen. I-1: send lt to:
tater. ' '• ' ' ' lhope to hear trom yop sootL ' Yovr triend.
0fu1ne
<liste'ning 'comprehensiop ' '
test>
-t
2
)
4
4rat7V?, 7'fX}=?V( ;o"x Fu. few.".TftlenErfibntt. tt M t E t: 'e. S-• ,Nl.S) tN2E (":. G.-- r.ta. 101 DÅÄtt?nOtX FOptL', evngbMESeh.. t.
uvv[..)"Stt"1o-Or'S-.' '' ., ' ' 'tt) :ffr t.nyss'ett1fl. pt2sree") tvaen. ÅÄopB4=7v,tosr.Ittdien•6. t tt tt ' tt tt :op3ert"r",='so-aofieh6. •• • .' • '..(2) e .7fir te)skt Lrfi shmr; iJ"e. Lp,t op"b,s-- )rropt'J. to:eop'?-gmen
'II7vT. ''' ' tt tt tt b'pt "oohttstefstsw.nToagbtbettDr. fiseteA!ert,r(ri'cs.. r.t.li. stetsi ' ' tt ttggo`' rmttJ orae.eeettrltxe4tLr=v,rcr. 'ts.. . .• •.
l
t
ttt(1) IVhen di6 Chieko go to the oeean "-itb her family?
1 On Apri1 25. '. . '' 2. 0n Apri1 26. '3 0n Apri1 27. 4 0n Apti1 23.(2) Whut time does hcr moibcr usually gct up in the meming?
I At rour. - 2 At five..3 At si= . A, At stvtn.(3) SStho made tupch for Cb;tkb? ' I Ch;ckti's parents did. 2 Ch;ckb's falhtr and sister 3 Chicko's mbther and s;stcrdid. 4 Ch;cke and htt sisicr did
{4) Why d;d Chieke's fathtr drive so slowly? 1 Becausc thcre were many othtr cars on the ro'ad. 2 Bccause hc had to buy Bct"' a prestnt.• 3' Betause ht wanted to pliy vollFybaTl. 4 B6eausc he wunted le' set to the'oeean soon.
'{S) "'herc d;d Ch;eL'o and her ramily eat d;nntr? I At heme. ' 2 Atarestavrant near thtit 3 Ntar thc octnn. 4 Atas:o, rc mcar their hou
(enth 1> 1
2 3 :
<S 1 ss>Japan.Nc"' Yerk.FvkllDka city.Ty`o years age.
tN'o.1 1
! 3 4
No.2 1
2
3
4
Thc basketball ltam.The samc school. -Thty are both mcmbtrs.Thcy go tg thc samc school.
Hireshirna Stat{on.
Tokye Stat;on:Last'Friday.
Their lrip to Hirosh irna.
<SJM 2>
.
(ig 2 ge>1 Yes. hF is.
2 Nq, he deesn'l.] Y'es.he•does.4 No, hc isn'L
No. 6
tNo. 7
1 TwQ.7 ThTtc.3 Four.4 Five.
1 To thc right.2 To the coTner.3 Te the lcft.'4 To the hospiial.
6APPENDIX B The questionnaire presented for the stuclents was given only in JapaneJse. Eng!ish 'trans!atSon
is adcled'for the appendix.
:.,.:{r.e,,::f•glcfpLN'('ot;
to-fazl-(a, .;;gfiofikk,fit(arsca.Mukvh. ;:igEs(gftat < usst'g-6tctoo=ttsr--g".re.p tcLtVa)gE '(LNipLNt[. ?(Z)SXgA it'lr-F"LN. E5(D"iiEflt. -"i{f7nS(CSt t. '( ;hALCZ)i.i.;i7i'(-
1 --4OE- nT. Epa.MwtCCasklrTgLN.
1 =2<\'((ag5td"Vo (Never trve of me.)2=8S5hNUNZ(g. th'T(ag5tsLN. (Sel,dorn true of me)3= t'S5hNtLNZIg. YTIasu6. <SomaNhat true of me)4==.k<!"((Etg6. (Always true of me)
l
rtens 'eta. I;gg;ltcttEtttÅë)6fitr,llc. 2•oti{tkegEL-(ri!sgL"s. dig 1 . s->< ;!{a . tEFgri. ffil 2. tilEtA . tsE aYh< < .
*td'asN. SIIIht. 1 D. 1 oilflpStt'.-J:S,k'Z'< li""ge'Y-hx5. g5}-(ijecE]EtcSt,Nisltg-tdsLNdi5r=ftt
'(T(sLN. -(r-{zk. t;I (;&E)g'g'.,,
PART A1. \EUL va•iE ;lis{g';-;'c6va([. ex•EE P'JEi•-7'tc5}t t'(';Ist:k6. i rceX{ztr. ;l5?M(lCfS'g-6re•g (father, mother, brother, sister,..'.) "CDÅíiliza)atfillf,el'g'{5n' :•E- i/
(eye, nose, mouth, head, hair, hand....) Oat5ICIigiESIUr. I place the new words in a group with,other vvords that ar"e' similar in sone vray.2. ;fiLLNlj7EE;Iis(x'7-c5valc. -g"(lCg•,'(. ;i[i-)'(LN6eei(! ?Ii{iUt{rt(t'(';Iis(a';-c6. f, c! ;'<..(-.L'.
wornan (ISz(D.X.) (! LN5xx'ift"L:ZZt- 6<Z)l[. man (SCD.N) a LN5X'EtkipkCF')lt-(6!X'Z6. I create associations between new materials and what I already know.3. MULNva=i-}tp7-FG'E (a lot of tv, get uptsE') (;t. SC(! %(Ctst#';'c' 6o
I vse nevv words in a, sentence so 1 can reff}ember then.4. whÅ} uLiu•stes{atk6eelc. e t+st.gtrsie*i.urolf6oz-ts< . n•E.ft?o4x-tr')"rc. 'IiEflsltt*imli(f{`t(td(iES(X'7-t6.
' 1 connect the sound of 'a new ,English word and an irnage..or picture o'f the vtord to he!p fi
refnernber the word. ' •• , ,s . g- ) ket:•E. (;I . 3 Blft . 4 BIE' t! LN5t3N5 l[ {fiIR t) < V hNX LMg L-(' ;Is X' 7-t 6.
I schedule my revievving so that the revievv sessions are initially close together in t and. gradually becocTie more widely spread apart.6. \fiULNlj :•gEtsl:'7'c".6Bi;(C. ee:•gh-FEbe•)-(iESIIZ6. I use flashcards to' ranerTiber new Engl'ish words.7. \iiULNN=i-EE;kSl;ft6BlilC. riDon, noon, soon;iunch, benGh, French (7).k5(:LJ (N:"JV(; '2IS'X'X-1.6o 'I use rhytlm to reneriber nety English words.
PART B 8 . \EUCptY:•gP7E:•Ee6fg'k6tg . {ElfixSXLN-6tgk6. I virite nevy English words and idicrns several times. g . ;Ifi uL ptet•Eac);ts.:•g {l xs e'7't 6 tt g , ]$lcti s Lr '<` es(g' K" is .
I say neN English words and idiorns several times.1o. Ivzla. Bn.g (ssl3'z- 6) -s6&s{curLN6. I mmrize the English sentences." . xrEthe (g-.-,a(a•. a) Et<) e])[p-u. IEu<;gg-(-,:.y6.ks([, lj:•EcD\.ge:gen.mT" -s2.K.
6 I praetice pronouncing English words correctly1 2. sallmp- ($(a. o?<) otpz assi?ase{fiIffxs. gi.Å}--. (:paetceeu-(gmeg6$e) tr6.
Iread aloucl English textbooks. '1 3. SEjl!t,?FE?l (pt"-Ia. OE<) Otp-(". gottgih='"Dpt,.esT-ne{F7nv . :olc LJ'tr6.
I use English words and idioms in different combinations to make new senter')ces.1 4. ;(!/4.(-:i"n65Ytf. .J.V'ty(D{}th (7VifjPY.rt(1)i'";`ItsX.fi'gEllE6,3N<Åë) P, Eptli/esjveR6.
I watch Ertglish langNage TV or movies spQken in English or listen to English langJage radj
prograrL1 5. f-k"-"fiS.ElrNigtitUTLN6A '(rctklg. 7Å~ i]hA. (\VX.X.) O-$U"ftgta6S51[U- L'N6o I try to tBlk like native En91ish speakers.1 6. Hf;g!EIE)'Sa)cl -zf. ;El/pa.-(f2:Z6.k5(cU'(tx6.
I try to think in English.1 7. tew;M•'(7. ,-R"-"E,!i.hes6*t6.k5td-lig"C)l;Est (ESSt7EiJi. ;EfA2t-Et8!;tEx"ts& N(ae)?<)
I attelricS ancS participate in out-of-class events where English is spoken.1 8 . ,'g"'1.ag <1) i ,'(i . Thp,. re is a •v= tvhg EI6 6 . Hovv rnanyN = tvL N < ') . O) ck 51Ziill ge D 77E i,ti;51En fi E fi' )('S
6S 5(cU'('LN6. '1 try to find patterns in Ertglish.1 '9 . ];SrgosZhi.te-iS,Cst g . fiW](cilgo ti-,}V'(f7, <{zts{5IhNSCN(as6hxohN/L,'(! . ixiciEIEje..lj/BR < t7:',v-" .
I skisn an English passage first, then go baCk and read carefully.2o. Si21SZ)Pikagt eXEro;Ef5.oS=iLagOpt-k5ab5([U-LN6. I use referenc}e materSals sych as dictionaries or reference books to help rre use English,2 •1 . fi5I}La]>i:;'!ItUg'i$""Dtilll;;ilE(7 )ITc &I)tC:-pt-={i6E.(7[)Ag ""DI*VtESiE; EE $-f::c(; .
I read Engiish books or magazines for pleaSUre.2 2 . f-"; l.iT•. E:•,e)"Dk. X •y t-- .Y eS < o I write diaries, pocrns or tnessagds in English.23. :-g"'-1'ge.eS'•-E•IVtit)fafiLirctJ'tr6tWe{a. Dcrv?tihX6fiflaSS( (1tEPtii) . Ken is taller than
Taro. tihN5ttXX& ( 2aE!l!) teLN trJ2iiptDJV--JLE itM L'(pt((D#gkEjgfiSg3-6 .k 5 (C U-(Ls6 . I apply general rules (gramr) to nevv situations when reading and listening' to Englis}'L24. ' classroom' =' class"+' room' rshN6 ri;!S(glj . (Dat5tctt-geDiEEiliEillllfiIF'g'6cDlc. 'g-'(flcfE"o
1CN6CN<OhNOeshNCCSCt'(XZ6. • '. ' • i I find the meaning of a vyord by dividing the word'into parts Which I understand.2s. ' i-"sisgerAsLNfcvE.Å}zhtivy6tg{c. HzisGgtex'rLN6 (gtc(a. Hztsgg(cts7aN6) gtg.g J2iiJM'!S'6. tctJZ{lf. cake (b'4'9) '-+'17-- F. rK)tebook (7 r) Ftlv' 7) --+1- Md`t'.
I look for words in Japanese, that are siJnilar to new words in English.2 6 . S(ol? V P;thS]oSauVitd" t". j;ES,E t B zts.-E.<z)EL x)C) . "X'(Lx6iiff(cfift7(t6 di 5{c U(L N6 .
I 1ook for similarities and contrasts between English and Japanese.2 7 . sc (si(S) 2k:•;.iCbe'L(II . -'p-'pCDee•EErlStg.gicHZs:gl:suU'('pasifi;IP'S6.k5lcL-('LNEi).
I try to understand when 1 read without translating it word-for--word into Japanese.2s. ( (Scs) erfis<wsfa. -orooee•fi.e"te\(ceztsigtcFscu-(ee'g'6ss{cu'(Li6. I try to urrclerstand what I have heard withdut translating it word-for-vvord into JapaneL('29. tt,grePnfi<tg. )< EEew6.k5lc (.'(LN6. I take notes when l listen to English.3 O . ;(!7,lj--Pg5LxkV=iA,A,fi L) Ltcpa'l'!i`"Nla. ,Ktst'A,td'gitr}ftt. o'(LNtchNftsik9g6 (Seto6) "5
tCU'(-LN6o I Tnake swnries of information that 1 heard or reacS in English.3 1 . E\lhttd-tNeg{c. fa6td-LNg aj' :•ghS-(r•rgfe6. At,)lfXOrsg{$.td5e'hN6 eOE..Iijk,ettePJi'l6,
To understar}cl unfaniiliar English words, ! make guesses.
PART C.32. 3(.S:,gePEfiLN-(LN6tg. fiag-;ts'p- tU-LX60hNi[$.rpU. F.-.or$.Ot6'LNte6(a. zatr,?F.V6. When scmeorte is speaking English, I try to concentrate on what the person is saying ar unrelated topics out of iny mind.33. e'iUtc5b.ttt-ght-(Fg6S5(:ts6hN. SLtt-EOt}Eti/tsiliglfERLS5t. z+.N:Pl?tl-:i.?'" R.kLJ , "zs-aiE'`t'CDSAe!I!2 iTSL,7:i t)-g-6.
I try to find out im to be a better learner of English.3 4 . j-"R'=:.EfuhM;g'6+fitdL"Bill7BBhC2 Jt16S 5(cxb't77a-IVft*fiC.
I plar} my scheclule so I will have enovgh time to stedy Eriglisi"L3s. patt([. grcloB(ceeg'(f(att-ioivffeusst. gfuEftszr6. I plan what I am going, to accomplish in learning English each day or36. 7x Fjfi5tr(f] •ta<tS. s-"e-:5.optasetfibljso(c#6S5(cUux6. I arrange fiTy schedule to stucty and practice English consistently, not the pressure of a test.3 7 . fig$S < ivbX'(•g 6Å}ij/i/ff:(fE;ll.ie:N] ;g"g-6S5 (C UTti6 .
each wep..k.'
just vihen there is
7
l arrange my physical envirortnent, to prornote 1earning; for instance, I find a quiet,.
comfortable place to revievv. '3 8 . {filcotcto{Cs-"k'lii.efuhlil'g-6Ohx. (ao 3 V t UkgimS66 .
I have clear goals for inproving sTry English skills. .39. gli'.g'(fkUhWiki6K (keZ(a. AEToit!E. iEt<tc{lk(-tN65maoX. 7Å~,U"tdi't'hx 5CDERi>kEi#) E1 U'(-I;il!i!uiE:'trck51[U-Z-LN6e ' ' I 1ook for people 1 can talk to in Eng!Ssh.4O. g\ E\vrgfitdi't'. re.dae:.inÅ}to6">tt, -•g6ti{dl<OwaftF*rY'"5(eUTLN6. I 1ook for oPportunities to read English as na.,ch as possiblq. •4 1 . g"e!'--lts<{ohtv Yst'. ;I7{eeelt6at5Cc. -(r•g6ra(t:sY <owaft}2VS5tcUTLN6. I look for opportunSties to iisten to English as rnuch as possible.4 2 . . g15iic)i'"5 -=5tsfY.ioge. tJ (cfiteLeo CS . ta'-t!rPBEliSk tcc7)hNj211k 6 S 5 tc U'( L N6 .
I try to notice my language errors and find out the reasons for them.'43. iEl-.h<kli{cts"5{c. GS(7);(kO$..UhN6\U. ?ne!EhN3S5{tU(LN6. I learn frorTi ray mistakes in,using English.4 4 • ];:F,EOhhN"{epUtchxt'i hNji;k6 .
I think about my progress in 1earning English.
PART D4 5 . Ii;Elig EE di'g' ,! g . iJ J •;, t 7X'g'6 .k 5tC U'('LN6.
I try to relax vve-,enever I feel afraid of using Englis}-L4 6 . ge.lj lttr6hNts UkigLN(tht'. re•,L•Nuao(];S.ifikre:XY&5tCeSgNreimgV. I amurage myself to speak English even vvhen I an afraid of making mistakes.47. j;IS,g-(-5g<LN7kes (5g<-SStÅ}kag. fX ts-(fRLN.di,,es(hNllS(ntctg. ;l}fitCgiesLfct8 tdit E') {Ctlt . ES eE fttb(D P'(FIa6b6 .k 5 lC U'(' Li6 . I give Jnyself a rt)ward or treat when I do well in English.48. tt-ift-diUtc tJ fBS" LVc t) U'(L}6t3. ehRfihS-pt.KLkVN< td-o1LNtd-NhNfieo(t6. .I notice if I am tense or nervous when 1 an studying or using English.4 g . tt-greeL]t=5"e" uuN6escc5nU < pt..Ult$)tNDo5 < pt..Ck$2. E#hNIC;.G'g-.
1 talk to someone else about hovy I fee1 vihen I em learning English.
PART Es o . pt.Ege.ojge k)pesz-+"tot.=tr6rp-(•at(< 6fiFmw..Ac)shNstd"LNte6{a. eogg{cutsLN-(• . ms)<DfliEIEt c k'g`' tQr geiR3 6 S 5 {c U -( L N 6 '6
I ask other people to cierify what 1 could not understcxxS or verify what I have unders'5 1 . ttEhSpshlgep'(!g-- td'Dx.kt3. Do < LJ=- o-(S5orcV. b5-ff.=- o'(S55 di5(cf.g.Åë. If I do not vnderstand sornething in English, 1 esk the other person to slow dov,n or sa
again.5 2 . i;EStist';=k.Mi LJ:•SU'(LN6tg. #gtd-tt'O$. tJ ftgLU(S65. I -ask other people to correct my pronunciation.5 3 . t'S2 2{rp'(r-ts{*bei;fieS--bLxLNhx' .' maÅ}it'5 U"<t). 0'JV--7'-"-A"'=,fgofuhrmfttr6.
I work with language learners to practice, review or shere information.5 4 . A E T'PptEaxOill!diigg(c . pt:.E.('ewo62V6 . I ,ask questions in English.5 5 . tt-gft:rS-'l;-.kt7O) S(kigtl;tla'p'- tU'(LN6.
I try to learn about the culture of English speakers.
@igrafff
-stig- Part A Part B Part C Part. D
tijiJ1. L 8. 2G. 32. 45.
{Yij2, 2. 9. 21. 33. 46.
3. 1O. 22. 34. 47.
4. 11. 23. 36. 48.
5. '12. 24. 37. 49.
6. 13. 25. 38.
7. 14. 26. 39. Part E
15. 27. 40. 50,
16. 28. 41. 51.
IZ 29. . 42. 52.
18. 30. 43. 53.
19. 3L 44. 54.
55.
"" l' ts"hh to V hstt 5 =6 L Ng Lk--
APPENDIX C
- *** AN,ALYSIS OF VARIAGRoup i (based on scores of iisten gnLmg coE;mPreheniOR.IERFt)
. • Source..•• .D.F. Squares Squaresi.:•itaf.GP[i/l6XP..'--.•.12'l2i•,13,iii,1-,;,g4ig,.''iiiglg;,OI'
-- ---..-- .-.-.---.- ----- - .------ .- "---- .. -- -; ••,- •---,•Multiple %nge Test • .•. .. ttLSD Procedure Rangqs for the .Ol level - 3.66 3.66Ihe. 2r,ige.,s.zbo,[::Åírg. {'Igb}e.rl:,ue,, im(,)-M,.Am ig..' /'''
/ 2. 3429 * Range * Sqrt (1•/N (I) + 1/N (J)) '•'• • ' •(*) Denotes pairs of groups sigrtificantly different at the
•GGG
N'CE *** tt ' ' ' ' ' F F• , datio Prob:1o3. sl12, ,oooo
' ' ' tt ' ' ' ' ' ' '
Mean12. 329115. 4717
17. 6646
rrr ppp
''• • Group .• . 321/gF,P; [//',:•,ss',,g'gff6:6iyeiqgrr•e.rs> ,..
' Grp -1 (=More effective learhers) **
.Ol level
GROUP 2 (based
• • SourceBetv"een GroupsWithin GroupsTot'al '-.- -------.;...- .-.
'g7 sco[{ls gi,r'ri'.`li•ti,Iiiii\'
i • ,'• •' 2, 17897.•.4980 ' ••' ' ,472 65613.2094 '. • .•' ' . 474 73510. 7074 ;----.-'------r------L------"--
Mean$quares3948. 7490
139. 0"O
' ' ' •, •" ''.• r ttThe vaiug. ,ac3;tia,iiRy.;igd:p2,r8,9,\lll]N!IIItii'P) , ,(Jli-ISIi(iJ)")(i) iS' '
(*) imtes pairs of groups significantly differdnt at the .
FF Flatio Prob.28. 4060 ..OOOO
Mean • tt 14. 3608 19. 7610 • ' 24. 3481 '
----- -- --- - - -
GGG rrr pppGGrrgyg . (Lte6g effective iearners> '' '' 9 •2. i.
. (=Micklle group) ,• . •. * .Grp 2Grp 1• C=More effective learners) . * * ' ' - --- ; -v- --p ---- '---.- --- -- ' -- --L-----"----
Ol level
.-- -.----.L• ..-- ' ' ttToTAL (based on totai scoreS) ,s;., .f'. ''M..A' .e F''.'
.•'Source 'D.F.' Squares . Squares Ratio Prob.Between Groups ' 2 •15,209. 0680 ' 7604. 5340 92. 9552 ..OOOO\sth,lnGroups 27,i,. g8,gO,g:g,i?l.-' ei-7998
tt tt t tt t -----.---------------" ' - ' • .- ---h----E-.-;--------p - -- . ---P--------'--------------The yaiug :,g.ggali}{,xs[."pergg,,\'liP,'ll9,9nfJli-ISfl(S;)`i' iS'T .. ..
(*) Denotes pairs of groups significantly different at the GGG rrr ppp ' Mpvan ' Group ' •. ' ..•321 gZ:,51gg1 g,rg3, I;-ue.,s,s,gfgfg,tgye iearners). ,.
41.'4430 Grp 1 (=More effective'learners) **
.Ol level
72
7,'
APPENDIX D
Mean scoresand the tptal1. Gr-ade 7
of Grecles 7 and 8-
score.
students in listening comprei"}ension, 'wrltten tests
/
Top Micldle ibttom
Listening 19.3 l7.4 1-4.3
Vlrittentest 16.6 12.5 8.5
Total 35.3 29.8• 23.5
Full fiiarks
also 20 inare -20 'wr1tten
in listenir,gtest; 40 in
.oornpre}'iension
total.test;
2. Grade 8
' top Micldle Bottorn
Listening 13.3 10.2 6.9
Writtentest 45.8 39.3
Total 58.5 48.7 38.8•
Full marks are50 in written
15 intE:St;
listening CorTtprehension65 in tota!.
test;
APPENDIX E
1. <GROUP 1 (listening eornprehesionEFFECT ..,GRADE BY $EX BY GRPI Muitivariate Tests of Sigeificance
Test Neme ValUe Approx. F
Pillais .O0979 .60122 Hotellings .O0989 .6C122 Wilks .'99021 • .60122 Roys .O0979
test> >
(S = 1, M=1Hypoth. DF
5. 00 5. 00 5. 00
112, N =Error DF
304. 00 304. 00
304. 00
151
sigL
)of F
. 699
. 699
.699
EFFECT .. SEX BY Gew1Multivariate Tests of Significance
Test Neme Value Approx. F
Piilais .O1881 1.i6560Hotellings .O1917, 1.16560 .98119 1.i6560Wilks 'Roys • ,.O1881 ,
(S = 1. M
Hypoth DF
5. 00 5. 00 5. 00
1 112, N= Error •DF
304. 00 304. 00 304. 00
151 )
Sig' of F•
.326
.326
.326
EFFECT " GRADE BYK•fultivariate Tests
Test Nme
Pillais .Hotellings .Wilks • .Roys .
.Gmp1 of Significance
Value Approx. F
O1379 . .85023O1398 '. 8502398621 .g5023O1379
(S = 1, MHypott'L DF
5. 00 5. 00 5. 00
-"'t-" ""-
1 112. N Error DF
3o4. oe 304. 00 304 OO
= 151 )
Sig of F
.515
.515'
.515
EFFECT .. GRADE BY SEX"vhJltivariate Tests of SSgnificance
Test Nafne •Value ApprDx. F
Pillais .O1656 L02382Hotellings .O1684 1.02382 . 98344 1. 02382Wilks ' • .O1656 ,Roys
(S = 1, MHypofh DF
5. 00 5. 00 5. 00
1 ll2, N= 151 Error DF Sig
304. 00 304. 00 304. 00
> of F
.404 .404
.. 404
2. <GROVP 2 (written test)> EFFECT .. GRADE BY SEX BY GRP2 Nlultivariate Tests of Significance Test Name Value •Approx. F
Pillais .O0405 .247/28 Hotellings .O0407 .24728 'IIilks .99595 .24728 Roys . O0405
EFFECT .. SEX BY GRP2 Multivariate Tests ,of Sigo, ificance
Test Nane Value Approx. F ' ' Pillais .O0310 .18882 Hotellings ' .O0311 .18882 Wilks •. 99690 .18882 Roys .O0310
(S = 1, M=1Hypdth. DF
5. Q9 5. 00 5. 00
(S = 1, MHypDth. DF
5. 0D
5. 00 5. 00
ll2, N= 151 ) Error DF Sig. of F
' 304. 00 L941 304. 0e . 941 304. 00 .941
=l 1!2, N = '1 51 )
Error DF Sig of F
304. 00 " .967 304. 00 . 967 304. 00 .967
7t
EFFECT .: GRADE .BYlve.}ltivariate Tests
1"est NaFne
PillaisHotel1ingsYIilks
Poys
GRP2 of SignificapceVal'ue Approx. F
0458504B059541504585
2.,921382. 92138•
2. 92138
(S = 1.
HypothM=1DF
5. 0Q
5. 00
5. 00
J 12.
ErrotN=DF
304. 00
304. 00
304. 00
151 )
Sig of F
.
O14
Ol4O14
***
7E
EFFECT..- GRADE BYMultivariate TestsTest Nane
PillaisHotellingsVlilks
Roys
SEX • of Significance (S = 1, M=1Value Approx. F Hypoth. DF 't-'
O1 530 .94444 5. 00O1 553 .94444 5. 0098470 .94444 5. 00O1 530
112,
ErrorN=DF
304. 00
304. 00
304. 00
151 )
Sig. of F
.452452452
3. <TOTAL (total score)> EFFECT .. GRADE BY SEX BY .TOTAL ly{ultivariate Tests of Significance
Test Nane ValOe Approx. F
-PillaisHotellingsielilks
Roys
,O0844 O0851 99156 O0844
.51742.
.51742
.51742
(S = 1,
Hypoth.MDF
5. 00
5. 00
5. 00
= 1 1!2, Error
NDF
304. 00304. 00
304. 00
= 151 ) Sig of F
.
763763763
EFFECT .. SEXKfoltivariate
Test Nane
PillaisHotellingsWilksRoys '
BY TOTALTests of Significance Value Approx. F
.O0707 ,. 43284 .O0712 ,43284 .g9293 .43284 .O0707
(S = 1, M=1Hypoth. DF
5. 00 5. 00 5. 00
1!2,.
ErrorN=DF
304. DO
304. 00
304. 00
151 )
Sig of F
826826826
EFFECT .. GRADE BY TOTAtMultivariate Tests of Significance (S = 1, M = 1 1/2, N = 151 )
Test Narae Value Appr,ox. FHypoth.•DF Error DF Sig. ofF
Pillais .o3123 1. 96o21 5. oo 3o4. oo .os4 Hotellings .03224 1. 96021 5. 00 304. 00 .084 Vlilks .96877 1. 96021 5. 00 304. 00 .084 Roys .03123,**ANALYSIS OF VARIAN'CE -- DESIGN 1** EFFECT .. GRADE BY SEX Ntultivariate Tests of Significance (S = 1, M = 1 1/2, N = 151 )
Test Naa}e Value Approx. FHypoth. DF Error DF Sig. of F
Pillais .03026' 1.89721 5.00 304.00 .095 Hotellings .03120 1. 89721' ' 5. 00 304. 00 .095 Wilks --.96974 '1.89721 . 5.00 304.00 .095 Roys .03026
* = statistiaclly significant below .05 level
APPENDIX F<GRADE> Univariate Variable Al
A2 A3 A4A5A6
A7 B8 B9 BlOBI1
B12 B13B14
Bl5B16
B17 B18 Bl9 B20 B21
B22 B23 B24 B25 B26 e27 B28 B29 B30B31
C32 C33 C34 C35 C36 C 37
C38 C39 C40pa1
C42 C43 C44 D45 D46 D47.
D48 D49 E50 E51
E52 E53 E54 E55** =
F--tests with
Hypoth SS' .40403 .36456 1. 25342
1. 40583
1. 19026
.241631.32Bl8 .05699 .94538 .36"3 . 48354
1. 26655. 22267
.O0463 .O0260 .56300 O04042. 94778
.57218 . 62269 . '93408
. 02416
1. 12936
. 21062
. 07169
. 08811
.29216 . O0697
1. 42643
. 58617
.580321. 45.007
.15070 . O0904
.38336 . O0931
.60815 . 06323
.12918 .O0236 . OB653
1. 56900
. 04264
.15172 d, OOOOO
.ooooo .73809 .35788 .05217 .O1346 .84157 . 68119
.OOO02 .10126 .07856
statistically
(1, 471)
Error SS 80. 71260116. 291.79
94. 20764107. 59773
95. 16756
g6. 46063
90. 21498
64. 25323
94. 26622
1".91891 92. 03072
D. F.
Hypoth.
112. 09415
84. 67624115. 88921•
107. 63767
66. 72341
25. 84247
97. 49729 6B. 32034 79. 297t2
57. 14421
73. 19474 95. 01392113. 08879 96. 56062114. 61567 97. 64620
1
1
16.
95.
13.
78.
117.
94. 74. 98. 109. 107. 1l6. 33. 64. 107. S03. 115. 116. 117. 116. 103. 108.
9Z 9I. 113, 113. 69.
88. 59.
significant
8295807557540276770015559625875300641881
3376064B46651048534616785504119327722162102D2715542473454882289709895542407203524488728244B979274827
belcrN
MS .40403 .364561. 25342
1. 405B3
1. 19026
.241631.3281B .05699 . 9453B
.36113 . 4B354
l. 26655
. 22267 . O0463 .. O0260
.563eO . O04042. 94n8 . 57218 . 62269
. 93408
.024161. 1 2•936
.21062 . 07169 . 08811
.29216 .OD6971.42643 .58617 .580321. 45007
.1507G . O0904 . 38336
.O0931 .60815 e06323 .12918 .O0236 .OB6531. 56900
. 04254
.15172 :ooooo . ooooo . 73809 .35788 .052l7 .O1346 . 84157
. 68119
.OOO02 . 10126
. 07856
. Ol ievel;
Error tms
. 17136
. 24690
. 20002
. 22845
.20205 . 2048G
.19154 . 13642
.20014 . 23762
.19539 . 23799
.17978 .24605 . 22B53 . 14166
.05487 .20700 .14505 .16836' .12133 .I554G• . 20173 . 24DlO . 20501 . 24335 . 20732 . 24805 .20186 . 24106 .16704 . 24874 .20090 .15824 .20896 . 23214 .22855 . 24767
.-07188 .13624 .22825 .22066 .24463 .24650 .. 24993
.24681
.21985 . 22991 .19743 .19411 . 24035
.24087 . 14710
.18874 .12685*= below
F 2. 35774 1. 47654 6. 26657 6. 15389 5. 89080 1. 17983 6. 93425
.41778 4. 7236G 1. 51977
Z 47468 5. 32181 1. 23B56 . O1883 . Ol136 3. 97421 . 0736714. 24046 3. 94461
3. 69859 7. 69899
.15546 5. 59843 . 87720 . 34969 . 36208 1. 40925
.028iO 7. 06648 2. 43159 3. 474D7 5. 82969
.75009 .05714 1. B3466
.04012 2. 660B7 . 25532 1. 79721
.O1736 .37911 7. 11034
.17430 . 61551
.OOOOI . ooooo 3. 35726 1. 55•656
.26423 . 06932•
3. 50147 2. 82806
.OOO13 . 53648
.61928.05 level
sig of F .125 .225 .O13 .*
.O13 * .O16 * . 278
.- O09 **
.518 .030 * .218.116
.021 *. 266
.89t.915
.047 * .786 .ooo ** .048 * . 055
.O06 ** .694 .O18 * .349 .555 .548. 236
. 867
.O08 **.120
. 063
.O16 * .387.811. 176
. 841
.104
.614
.IBI . 895 i 538
.O08 ** . 677
. 433
.99B1. 000
.068. 2I3
.607 .792 .062 . 093
. 991
.464. 432
7
APPENDIX G<SEX> Univeriate Variable Al
A2
A3 A4 A5
A6A7
B8 B9
BlOBI1
Bl2Bl3B14Bl5B16
Bl7B18
B19 B20B21
B22 B23 B24 B25 B26 B27•B28
B29B30B31
C32 C33C34
C35 C36 C37 C38 C39 C4O C41
C42 C43 C44 D45 046 D47 D48 D49 E50
E51
E52 E53 E54 E55** =
F-tests withHypoth. SS .OI048 .63213 2. 76iOO
.29540 .17769 .41288 .22774 .138951. 42221
3. 040162. 89785
4. 03746
.987211. 37886
1. 52121
.4B6B4 .1348g .70682 .89997 .52333 .599455. 154061. 73391'
.04679. 13205
1. 36466
.86099 .Ie6344. B3135
1. 91777
. 48859
.OO1241. 92932
.I8945 .10784 .918512. 22835
1. 43793
.Oi991 .328533. 28253
. 17307
.55295 . ooooi
.10424 .467641. 23918
.O02752. 33093
1. 6084 4
. 05585
1. 68912
. 48847
.O1845 .25442
statistically
(1, 471)
Error SS 80. 71260
116. 29179
94. 207641,07. 59773
95. 16756
96, 46e63
90. 21498
64. 25323
94..26622
111.91891 92. 03072
112. 09415
84. 67624
"5. 88921107. 63767
66. 72341
25. 84247 97. 49729
68. 3203479. 29712
57. 14421
73. 19474 95. 01392
113. 08879
96. 560621 ' 1 4. 61 567
97. 64620
116. 8295B
95. 07557113. 54027
78. 67700117. 15559
94. 625B7 74. 53006
98. 41881
109. 33760
107. 64846
116. 65104
33. 85346 64. 16785107. 50411
103. 93277
115. 22162116. 10202
117. 71554116. 24734
103. 5q882108. 28970
;
1
92. 9895591. 42407
13. 20352
•1 3. 44887
69. 28244
B8. 89792
59. 74827
slgnificant
D. F.
Hypoth.
be1ow
MS .O1048 . 632132. 761OO
. 2954G
.17769 ..41288
. 22774 -'13895-
1. 42221
3. 04016
2. 89785
4. 03746
.987211. 37886
1. 52121
. 48684
. 13489 . 70682 . 89997
.52333 .599455. 154061. 73391
.04679 . 132051. 36466
. 86099
.106344. 831351. 9177•7
.48859 . OO1241. 92932
.18945 .Ie784 . 91851
2. 228351. 43793
. O1991
.328533. 28253
.17307 .55295 .OOOOI .10424 .46764t. 239l8
-. O0275
2. 330931. 80844
.055851. 6B912
.48847 .O1845 . 25442. Ol level;
Error MS . 17136.
.24690 . 20002
.22eq5 . 20295
.20480 .19154 .13642 .20014 . 23762
.19539 . 23799
.17978 . 24605
. 22853
.14166 .05487 . 2070G
.145D5 .16836 .I2133 .15540 .20173 .2401O .20501 . 24335 .20732 . 24805
.20186 .24106 .16704 .24874 .20090 .15824 .20896 .23214 . 22855 . 24767
. 07188
.13624 .22825 .22066 . 2A463
.24650 .24993 .24681 .21985 .22991 .19743 .19411 .24035 .24087 .14710 .18874 .12685
*= belov"
F. . 06118'2. 56021•
13. 80390
1, 2931O . 87943 Z O1 601
1: 18898 1. 0'1 857
7. 1060412. 79421
14. 83076
16. 96469 5. 49121
5. 60400
6. 65650 3. 43659
2. 45843 3. 4l458 6. 20436 3. 10844 4. 9408333. 16581
8. 59527 .19489 . 64411 5. 60793.
4. 15301
. 4287323. 93430 7. 95551
2. 92496 . O0499 9. 60318 1. 19725
.51609 3,. 9567 1
9. 74983 5. 80589
. 27695 2. 4114814. 38152
. 78432
2. 26033 . OOO03
.41710 I. B9473
5. 63652
•.Oll951l;80638 9. 31674 , .23237 7. 01262 3..32076
.09774 2. 00560
.05 level
Sig. of F. S05
.110
.ooo **
. 256
• 349
.156
. 276
.313
.O08 **
.oeo **
.ooo **
.ooo **
.020 *
.O18 *
.OIO *
.064
.118
. 065
•. O13• *
. 079
.027 *
.ooo **
.O04 **
. 659
. 423
.O18 *'
.042 *
.513
.ooo .**
.O05 **'. 088
. 944
.O02 **
. 274
. 473
.047 *
.O02 **
.O16 *
.599
. 121
.OQO **
.376
.133
.996
. 519
.169
.OIB *
.913
.OOI **
.O02 **
.630
.O08 **
.069
. 755
. 157
7
78APPENDIX H
Oifferences'-between ffiales and femalesthe total' score.
in listening and writ'ten tests, and
tisteningtestscoke
Writtentest
score
Tota!
spore
Grade7 27.8Male------, dp----F r-
Female
16.2
.-.-..... .-.-.--.-17.5'
11.6.-• ...;.#.-...--
13.0 30.5
Grade8 9.5'
----------------1O.5
Male
.---..-.-..- •.-
Female
38.0.-p-t---------------
38.8 49.3
(marks)
APPENDIX I
<GROUP 1 (listening cctnprehesion test)> EFFECT .. Gge1 (CONT.) Uniyariate F'tes-ts with (1,308) D. F.
Hypoth. SS Error ss Hypoth. MS Variable ' MemORY .64901 592.88622 - .64901 132.14782 3704 66358 132.Ia782 COGNITIVE ME'TACOG. 31.65655 27Sl.63581 3i.65655 AFFECTIVE 4. 46957 • 677. 24345 4. 46957 SocIAL 14.22427 586.4B744 14.22427
Error MS F Sig. 1. 92496 . 3371512.02813 10.98657 8. 96635 3. 53060 2. 19884 2. 03269 1. 90418 7. 47003
of F
. 562
.OOI**
. 061
.155
. O07**
<GROUP 2 (written test)>'EXf,56'Iihl,Glll-)Z6s(?9.N'w'Rh (i,3os)
' Variable Hypoth. SS Error SS ' ' MEMORY .O0623 632.69669 COGNII[IVE 240.79145 3573.10045 METACOG. 107. 06290 2523.' 50861
AFFECTIVE 5.10011 733.20633 SOCIAL 29.24515 647.10551
D. F.
Hypoth ms
. O0623 240. 79145 107. 06290 5. 1OOI 1.
291 24515
Error MS F Z 05421 . .O0303 20. 7561411. 60098
8.19321 13.,06727 2. 38054 2. 14242 2. 10099 13. 91969
$ig. of F
.956
. oeo**
. ooo**
.144 .
. ooo**
<TOTAL (total score)> EFFECT .. TOTAL (CONT.) Univariate F-tests with (1,308) D. F.
' Variable H"pot}"L SS Error.SS HypDth. MS
tt MEMORY .05183 654.6D533 .05183 COGNITIVE 183.94198 3732.91988 183.94198 METACOG. 100. 74474 2715. 98689 10D. 74474 AFFECTIVE 7.46264 713.91767 7.46264 SOCIAL 34.52125 617.42064 34.52125
Error MS
2. 12534•
12. 11987 8. 8181-4
2. 3l791
2. e0461
F
.02439i-5. 17689
11. 42472 3. 2195517. 22091
Sig. of F
.876
.ooo**
.OO1**
.074
. ooo**
** = statistically signYicant below .Ol level; * = below .05 level
79
APPENDIX J<GROUPI Qistening Univariate F-tests VariableAl
A2
A3A4A5A6'
A7B8
B9
BIOBI1
Bl2B13B14B15B16B17
B18Bl9
B20B21
B22B23
B24B25B26B27'B28
B29 B30B31
C32
C33 . C34C35
C36ce7.C38
C39 C40 C41
C42C43
C44 D45 D46 D47 D48 o4g E50
E51
E52 E53 E54 E55
** =
comprchensionwith {1,314)
Hypotl-L . SS
. 05063 . 53481
.Ol266 .BIO13 .53481 .Ol266 .31646 .O0316 . ooooo
.81Ol3 . 05063
.25633 1.. 14241
1. 67405 3. 87658 1. 67405 .62025 2. 30696
.el266 .38291 1. 02532 . 53481
.15506 1. 26582 .07911 .38291 . D5063 .05063 .38291 3. 87658
2. 481O1
.O1266 .71203 .O1266 .O0316 .07911 1.97785 2. 30696 .02848 . 25633 1. 97785 . 62025
.45570 .20253 .45570 .91456 .11392 .05063 1. 39557 .20253 1. 14241
.45570 .25633 2.8481O 1. 14241
st at ist ica1ly
Error SS50. 98734.
78. 46203
67. 59494
72. e6329
68. 18354
66. 0253260. 4P50642. 76582
59. 746ec75. 7088670. 39241
78. 58861
58. 1075977. 3227870. 7911442. 4367118. 11392
.G4. 91772
46. 0632951. 24684
39. 6835449. 9050665. 4746874. 07595
67. 90506
76. 31O1365. 98734.
78. 63291
67. 60127
73. 14557
52. 01266
78. 93671
66. 51266
52. 2025370. 10759
75. 0443072. 20886
76. 6139227. 93038
42. 5126674. 71519
69. 15i90
75. 69620
76. 31646
78. 49367
77. 37342
69. 65823
75. 2911465. 0443059. 5443D
73. 52532
7B. 08B61
46. 46203
54. 87342
45. 57595
slgn if lcant
test) >
D. F,
Hypoth.
below
ms r 05063 . 53481
.Ol266 .81013 . 53481
.O1266 .31646 . O0316
.OOOOQ .81013 .05063
. 256331. 14241
1. 67405
3. 876581. 67405
.620252. 30696
.O1266 .382911.02532 . 53481
.155051. 26582 . 07911
. 38291
. 05063
. 05063 . 38291
3. 876582. 4BIOI
.O1266 .71203 .Ol256 .O0316 . 07911
1. 97785
2. 30696
. 02848 . 256331. 97785
. 62025
.45570 .2D253 . 45570
.91456 .11392 .050631.39557 .202531. 14241
..45570
. 25633
2. 8481O1. 14241
. Ol leve1:
Error MS .16238 . 24g88
.21527 L22950 .21715 .21027 .19237 .13620 .19028 .24111 .22418 .25028 .18506 .24625 . 22545
.13515 . 05769 .20674 .14670 .16321 .12638 .15893 . 20852 . 23591
.21626 . 24303
.21015 . 25042 .21529 .23295 .16565 .25l39 .21182 .16625 .22327 . 23899
.22996 . 24399
. 08895 .13539 .23795 .22023 .24i07 .24305 . 24998
.24641 .22184 .23978 .20715 ,18963 .23416 .24869 .14797 .17476 .14515 * = below
F .31182 2. 14028
. 05880
3. 52995 2. 46292
.06020 1.' 64501
. 02324
. ooooo 3. 35997 . 22586
1. 02416 6. 17329 6.'79815
17. 1949012. 38673
1O. 75192
11. 15B53 . 08629
Z 34618 8. 11292 3. 3650e . 74364 5. 36569 . 36583 1. 57560 .24094 .20219 1. 77858
16. 64143
14. 97785
. e5035 3. 36i40
.076i4 . O1417
.33103 8. 60067 9. 45502 .32019 1.89326 8. 31216
2. 8l640 1. 89030 . 83331
1. 82293 3. 71149 . 51354
.21116 6. 737e8 1. 06803 4. 87880
1. 83239 1. 73233
16. 29758
7. 87071
.05 level
Sig. of F,. 577
.144
. 809
. 061
.118 . 806
.201 . 879
1. 000
. 068
.635.312.O13 *.OIO *
.ooo **.ooo **.oot **
.OOI **.769.127.O05 **. 068
.389
.021 *
. 546
.21Q
. 624
.653.183
.ooo **.ooo **
. 823
.068
. 783
. 905
. 555
.O04 ** .O02 **.572.170.O04 **. 094
. 170
. 362
. 178
. 055
.474
.646
.OIO * .302.b2s *. 177
. 189
.ooo **
.O05 *,*
80
APPENDIX K<GROUP 2(written test)>. Univariate F-test$ withVariab!eAl
'A2
A3A4A5A6A7B8B9BIOBI1,Bl2B13Bl4Bl5Bl6B17B18Bl9B20B21
B22B23B24B25B26B27B28B29
B30B31C32C33C34C35ca6
C37C38
C39 C4O C41
C42 C43 C44 D45 D46 D47 D48 D49 E50 E51 E52 E53 E54 E55** =
Hypoth. SS .O1266 .3B291 .02848 . 05063 . 02848
.05063 .81013 .O0316 .O1266 .712D3 . 20253 .Ol266 2. 66139
.20253 3. 2405i
.O1266 .20'253 2. 13924 .81O13' .81013 .31546 .20253 1. 39557 1. 67405
.O1266 .53481 .31646 . 45570 , 38291
3. ,04114 3. 65823
. 07911 .71203 .02848 .31646 .05e63 1•. 67405
1. 82278 . 02848 .62025 .53481 3. 04114
1. 67405 .07911 .O0316 .53481 .15506 .g2848 .15506 .71203 l. 39557,
.71203 .45570 2. 13924
.31646statistically
(1,314)
Error SS51. 02532
78. 58861
66. 41139
73. 88608
63. 90506
63. 44304
59. 9113945. 42405
65. 20253
76. 31013
67. 40506
78. 53165
54. 53797
78. 7B48170. 6' 962049. 8227816. 77215
64. 69620
46. 54430
-55. 86076
38. 9873453. 16456
65. 82911
74. 28os1
66. 02532
75. 803BO65. 72152
77. 9240569. 72785
74 81 646
54. 0632978. 66456
65. 72785
46. 68987
64. 8987372. 82278
72.'99367,
77.1772222. 993674' 1 . 46835
72. 6139268. 9683575. 34BlO
78. 20886
78. 46203
77. 0696272. 43671
71. 98iOl
63. 77848
64. 0822874. 1582376.• 61392
44. 31646
55. 58228
40. 39241
significant
D. F.
Hypoth
belovt
MS .O1266 . 38291
. D2848 .05063 . 02848
. Q5063
.81013 .Oe316 .O1266 .71203 . 20253
. O1266
2. 66139
. 202533. 24051
. O1266 . 20253Z 13924 .81013 .81013 . 31 646
. 202531. 39557
1.67405 .e1266 .53481 .31646,. 45570
. 38291
3. 041143. 65823 . 07911
.71203 . 02848
.31646 . 050631 .. 67405
1. 82278
.02848 . 62025
.53481,3. 041141. 67405
. 07911
.O0316 . 53481
.15506 .02848 .15506 .7l203I. 39557
.71203 . 455702. 13924
.31646. Ol level:
Error MS .1625e . 25028 . 21150 . 23531
. 20352
. 20205
.19080 .14466 .2Q765 . 24303
.21467 .2501O .17369 -. 25091
.•22515 - 15B67 L 05341
. 20604
.14823 .17790• .12416 .16931 .20965 . 23658
.21027 . 24141
. 20930
. 24817 . 22206 .23827, .17218 . 25052
. 20932 . 14869
.20668 . 23192
. 23246
.24579 . 07323
.13206 .. 23125
.21964 .23996 . 24907
i 24988 . 24544•
. 23069
.22924 .20312 .20408 .23617 .24399 .14114 .17701 .12864
*= below
F .07790 1. 52992
.13466 .21518 .13994 . 25060 •4. 24593
. 02188
,. 06096
Z 92983 . 94347 .05061'
1 5. 3,2285
. 80720t4. 39284
. 0797B3..79170
1G. 38270
5. 46532
4. 55382 2. 54870
•1 . 19619
6. 65676 7. 07617 . 06020'2. 21533
1. 51194 i. 83626
l. 724341 Z 76347
21.24701 . 3157'9
3. 40154
.19154 1. 53111
.21832 7. 20134 7. 41611
.38B93 4; 69658 2. 312651 3. 84574
6. 97631
.31763 . Ol. 266
2. 17894 . 67217
.12424 .76342 3. 48889 5. 90911
2. 91822 3. 22879
12. 08517
2. 46004
.05 level
Sigi of F. 780
.217
.714
. 643
.709
.617
.040 *
. 883
.805
. OB8
.332
.822
.ooo **
.370
.ooo **
.778
. 052
.OOI **
.020,*
.034 *
.111
.275'
.OIO *
.G08 **
. 806
.138
. 220
.176
.190
.ooo **
.ooo **
. 575
.066
.662
. 217
. 64, 1
.O08 **,O07 **. 533
.031 *
.129
.ooo **
.O09 **
.573
.910
.141
.413'
.725
. 383
. 063
.O16 *
.089
.073.
.OOi.**
.118
8
APPENDIX L<TOTAL (total score)> Univariate F'-tests with VariableAl
A2A3A4A5A6A7
B8 B9
BIOBI1
Bl2B13B14B15
B16B17
B18B19
B20B21
B22 B23 B24 B25 B26 B27 B28 B29 B30B31
C32 C33 C34 C35 C36 C37 C3B C39 C4O
C41
cq2 C43 C44 D45 D46 D47 D48 D4g E50 E51 E52 E53 E54.E55
** =
Hypoth SS .15506 .15506 .O1266 . 05063 .,11392 .O0316 .45570 . 05063 .O1266 .71203 .31646 .O0316 2. 481Ol
.02en8 3. 44620 .07911 .25633 3. 04114 .38291 .31646 .38291 .-11392 .53481 2. 6S139 .11392 .71203 .20253 .31646 .31646 2. EUIBIO 3. 65823 .15506 .62025 .Ol266 .05063 .O1266 1. 82278
3. 04114 .O0316 .71203 .81Ol3 3. 04114 Z 66139 .e5e63 . O031 6 1. 02532
L O0316 .07911 .91456 .62025 2. 30696 .81013 .71203 3. 04l1Zl .'71203
stat ist ically
(1.314)
Error SS5Z 6392A78. 81646
65. 20253
71. 65823
.65. 92405
67. 22152
60. 26582
42. 0379752. 58228
75. 981Ol
•68. 75949
78. 9683555. 24051
78. 96835
69. 1455749. I455717. 60127
66. 3860846. 33544.
•54. 17722
39. 6265853.. 25316
65. 90506
•7Z 8924165. 92405
75. 6265B65. 01 266
7B. 22785
69. 4557075. 341 77
53. Dl26678. 76582
64. 59494
49. 8227865. 98734
74. 88608
71. 5949475. 9303B23. 01.899
42. 0569674 e886 1
7Q. 1075974. 031' 6577. 4l772
78. 46203
76. 70B8670. 7658274. 10759 .
62. 13291
6Z 873427Z 8164677. 37975 .
47. 2T215
54. 15823,
43. 39873
significant
D. F:
Hypoth.
below
MS 15506 1550G ,O1266 05063 11392 O03,1 6.
45570 05063 . 01266 .71203-
.31646 .O03162. 48101
. 02848.3. 44620
.07911 .256333. 04114 . 38291
.31646 . 38291
.11392 . 534812. 66139
.11392 .71203 .20253 .31646 .316462. 8481O3.. 65823 1 .15506 :62025 .Ol266 . 05e63
.O1266i. 82278
3: 04114 . O03 16
. 71 203
.810133. 04114f
2, 66139 . 05063
.O03161.e2532 . O0316 .07911. . 9 1•456
.620252. 30696
.8{O13 .712033. 04114
.71203. Ol level:
Error• MS
.16764, . 25101
. 20765
. 22821
.20995 .21408, .19193 .13388 .19931 .24198 . 21898
.25149 .175g3 .25149 .22021 . i5651
. 05605
. 21142 .14757 . 17254
. 12620 .16960 . 20989 .23214 .20995 . 24085 . 20705
.24913 .22120 . 23994
.16ee3 . 25085
.20572 .15867 .21015 . 23849
. 2280t
. 2zl182
. 07331 .13394 . 23595
. 22327
.23577 . 24655
. 24988
.24430 .22537 . 23601 . 19788 ,20023 . 23190
.24643 . 15e55 . 17248 . 13821
*= belovt
F .- 92497 .
.61776 . 06096
.22187 . 54263
Q1478 2. 37429 . 37820
06351 2. 94252 1. 44514
O125814.10266 1132515. 64970
50547 4. 57282
14. 38431 2. 594B6 1. 83411 3. 03418 67174 2. 548b6
l1. 46453 54263 2. 95631
.97819 1. 27023 1. 4306511. 8699621. 668lO 61816 3. 01509 . 0797B . 24094
05308 7. 9943412. 57623
D4317 5. 31603 3. 4334513. 620751 1. 2B8 1•1
.20536 O1266 4. 197e3
.O1404 33521 4. 62188 3. Q9764 9. 9A811
3. 28742 4. 7•2955
17. 63200
5. 15167
.05 level
Sig. of F. 337
.432
. 805
. 638
. 462
. 903
,124. 539
.801
. 087
. 230
.911
. ooo.**
. 737
.ooo **
.47B
.- 033 *
.ooo **
.108
.1rr
.083
.413
.111
.OOI **
. 462
. OB7
. 323
.261'
. 233
..OOI '**
.oOQ **
.432
. 083
. 778
. 624
.818
.O05 **
.ooo **
. 836
'. 022 *
. 065
.ooo **
.' OOI **
. 651
. 910
.041 *
. 906•
. 563
.e32'*
. 079
.ooi **
. 071
.030 *
.ooo **,
.' 024 •*
82
APPewDIX M<GROUP 16 vs Univatiate Variable
Al
A2
A3A4A5
A6
A7B8B9BIOBI1
Bl2Bl3B14B15B16B17B18B19B20B21
B22B23B24B25B26B27B28B29
B30B31
C32
C33C34C35C36C37
C38C39
gtso
•C41
C42 C43 C44 D45 D46 D47 D48 D49 E50 E5l
E52 E53 E54 E55
** =
GROUP 2a>F'-tests
Hypot}`t' SS
.05294 .63440 . OO031
.09054 .26347 .32080 .81485 . 08020 . O0501 .15163 .10150 .94768 . 19580 3. 13283 .02538 . 60652 .O1535 .60652 . OB020 .OO031 . 08020• . OO03i .32080 . 22B38 . 19580, .45238 . 22838 .50125 .32080 .O0282 .tO150 .06140 .OOI25 . 42888 .11310 .18045 .55263 .O0783 .O0501 .03133 .66291 .81485 .O1535 .11310 . D2538 .03133 . O0783 .02005 . 16573 .1Ol50 .30107 .15573 .OO031 .28195 . 08020
statistica11y
with (1,36) D.
Errbr SS 6. 81548
8. 83929
7. 81548
9. 17262
8. 81 548
6. 54762
6. 55357
4. 26190
8. 54762
B. 69048
6. 21429
8. 31548
7. 17262 6. 261 90
9. 05357
6. 26190
. 95833 6: 26190
4 26190 6. 31548
4.261906. 31548
7. 047627. 98214
6. 67262
9. 04762
7. 98214
8. 76190
6. 54762
8. 83929
6. 21429
9. 33333
9. 26190
5. 8869e
9. 38690
9. 21429
8. 00000
9. 38690 5. 04762'
3. 54762
7. 54762
6. 55357
9. 45833
9. 38690
9. 05357
9. 04762
9. 38690
8. 19048
8. 38690
6. 21429
9. 17262
8. 38690
e. 31548
5. 42857
4. 26190
F.
Hypoth
significant below
MS . 05294
.63440 . OO031'
.09054 . 26347
L32080 .81485 . eBo2o
.O0501 .15163 . 1.0l50
. 94768
.195803. 13283
. 02538.. 60652
.O1535 . 60652
. 08020
. OO031
. 08020 . OO031,
. 32080 . 22838
.19580 . 45238
.22B38 .50125 .32080 . O0282
.1Ol50 .06140 .OOI25 .428B8 .11310 .I8045 . 55'263
.O0783 .O0501 . 03133
:66291 .81485 .O1535 .11310 .02538 . 03133
. O0783
.02005 .16573 .10150 .30107 .16573 . OO031
. 28195
.08020.Ol level:
Error MS .18932 .24554 .21710 . 25479
. 24487
.18188 .IB204 ."839 . 23743
.24140 .17262 . 23099
.19924 .17394 . 25149
.17394 . 02662
.17394- .11839 . 1.7543
. " 839 . 17543 .19577 . 22173 .IB535 .25132 . 22173 .24339 .18188 .24554 .17262 .25926 .25728 .16353 .. 26075
.25595 .22222 .26075 .14021 . 09854
. 20966
AB204 . 26273
.26075' . 25149
v25132 .26075 .22751 . 23297
.17262 .25479 . 23297
.17543 . 15079 . 1'1839
* = belosv
F 27966 2. 58373
.OO144 35534 1. 07594 1. 76383.
4. 47612 . 67745
.02111 .62812 588e2 4. 10278
9827518. 01081
1O090 3. 4B689 57666 3. 48689
.67745 .OO179 .67745 OO179 1. 63869 1. 03002 1. 05639 1. 80000 1. 03002 2. osg5o
1. 763B3 .Ol148• . 58802
.23684 O0487 2. 62274 . 43373 70502 2. 48684 . 03004 .03575 31791 3.16188 4. 47612 . 05843
.43373 .10090 .12465 .03004 . 08813 .71137 .58802 1. 18160 .71137 .OO179 1. 86981
67745.05 level
Sig Df F.. 600
.117
.970
. 555
. 307
.193
.041' *
.416
. 885
.433
.448
. 050
.328
.ooe **
.75•3
.070
.453
.070
.416
. 9G7
•. 4i6
. 967
.209
.317
.311
.1B8
.317
.I60
.193
.915
. 448
. 629
.945
.114
. 514
. 407
.124
.863
. 851
.576
. 084
.041 *
.810
.514
. 753
.726
. 863
.768
.405
.448
. 284
.405
.967
. 180
.416
83
Abstract
Individual differences are one of our major concerns in the ' 'fields of second language acguisition as well as elassroorns at
ttsch.ool. There realiy exist a wide variety of factors related ' ttt tto Bchievement in leerning English as a second language. ' ' ' t ttSkehan (l991),' for example, proposes a inodel in which
t/ t/ tt ' t.e . 'intelligence.. Ianguage aptitude, motivation, leatning ' 'strategies, and learner styles etc. wili influence the outcome. ' tt ttArnong those factors, our study concentrates on the language ' ' 'learning st i,Fategies (=LLS) as less effective learners are 'supposed to be able to improve their skills through strategy
' t/ t ttt ' In Chapter 1, first we examine the definition of LLS as
there dre some critieisms for the ambiguity of tije term itself.
-1!n our research we deiine LLS as follows: L' LS we deal with are ' ' ' ttnot universal language processing strategies but are specific
'actsohs or technigues taken by the learner intentionally as
' t.they atternpt to completeta learning or corn!!iunication task,
/t 'which rnay overlap with communication strategies and produetion
'strategies in some cases. Next we consider why LLS research is ' ' ' 'necessary and important. Of the five rationales, the major 'reason is that LLS can be considered to be one of the causes of
t.sucdess or failure of LZ learners. That is, the poor ' 'performanee of less effective learners is assumed t6 be due tc
' ' ' ' ttttheir not having an appropriate repertoire of LLS. ..
' ' In Chapt>er 2, we survey major previous studies oi LLS. We
2examinq Naiman, et al., who made the "Good Language Learner
(GLL)" study in 197D's, Rubin who categorized strategies into
"direct" and "indirect" strategy groups. and O'Malley and
' 'Chamot who made several descriptive studies and training ' 'studies in 1980's. In these previous studies, the way of data 'elicitation turned out to be highly important. Cohen (1987)
'points out three' kinds of verbal reports: self-report like ' 'questionnaire, self--ob$ervatiOn like.introspecti've and /t ' ' ' 'retrospective interviews, and self--revelation like thin.k- ' ' 'aloud. These three types have both advantages'and ' ' tttdisadvant' ages. The crucial thing is to choose the method which ' 'is most aPpropriate tor t•he objective,of thd research and to
' ' 'interpret the data with care. With respect to the easinesS of ' ' ' 'assessrnent of LLS, Strategy lnventory for Language Learning
(SILL) developed by Oxford (1990) is assumed to be appropriate
for its high validity and reliabjlity. As for the ' 'classificBtion of LLS, four,Criterion, that is, cognitive, ' 'metecognitive, affective and soci•al stratqgies are generally ' ' ' ' recognized though sorue discrepancy exists.
Several unanswered questions could be found through
previous studies. One of the central and biggest one is that we ' ' have not yet known about the typical LLS used by good language
learners and the difference in strategy u$e between more ' effective and le$s effective learners.,' ' ' ' In Chapter 3, we exarnine a descriptive study which was
3imp1'emented on JBnuary 25, 1992'for the purpose of finding a
'solution to the Unanswered guesti'ons mentioned in Chapter 2.
The subjects were exarninees of the STEP test, who wer'e learning ' ' ' 'English in juniOr higb schools of Japan in an EFL context. To
' 'gather information on students' uses of strategies, SILL was
used.
Fizst we examined the most and least frequentl>r used LLS by ' ' ' 'whole partlcipants. As a result, cognitive strategies were ' 'most and social strategies were least frequently emploYed.
WSth respect to sex difference Sn strategy use, ternales showed
.significently more freguent use in all categories Df LLS. As
'for the difference between Grades. Grade 7 students showed
significantly more freguent use in inemory strategies. and Grade
8 students shbwed frequent use in 'Recognizing and using ' 'formulas and patterns'.
In ChapteT 4, we discuss the result of the descriptive study
in Chapter 3. Especially with respect to LLS which are specific
' to tasks, 'Practicing naturalistically' like listening to ' ' 'Epg)ishlanguage radio prograrn was most specih'c to listening, ' ' aAd 'Self-s"onitDrSng' ISke trying to notice errQrs of EnglÅ}sh
' was most specific LLS to written test of the STEP test.
DiÅíferences between raore effective and less effective ' ' learners could be observed in 10 questionnaire items common to
every task. Of them, we especially concentrate on practicing
' strategies. Less efEective learner$ were Eound to be mainly
4employing farRiliar formal practice strategies like repetition
and dare not to utilize other LLS. On the other hand, snore
t. ' ' ' 'eifective leamers ,are ernploying functional practice ' /tstrategies like 'To talk like native speekers', 'Recggnizlng
' ' tttpatterns' and''Recembining', which are supposed to be. ' ' 'practicing for communication, in addition'to familiar t/ ' ' 'strategies like repetition. We concXuded that the reason less
' .t.effective learners remain inefiectiv' e, despite their efforts
' ' 'to learn English, is due to their limited use of LLS. Bialystok ' '(l981), Huang and Naerssen (1987) also found that practice for
' 'communication had a crucial role in language learning and ' ' ' ' 'repeated formal practice no longer facilitated perforrnance.
Therefore, we may say that less effective learners should ' ' ' t tt 'extend their repertoire of PLS for functidnal practSce.. ' Finally, in Chapter 5, we talk about the i;mplications of our
tt/ .research for English education. One implication is strategy ' ' ' 'training in which successfu) LLS will be presented with less 'effective learners-to help them learn. Furthermore, we can
tt 'thus take an innovative view of learning and teaching English
' ' 'by grasping these LLS. Teachers can tap what is going on and ' ' ' 'what is not happening on the learners side. Strategy training ' can be integrated into the usual English cia$ses.
