LANGUAGE LEARNING STRATEGIES: GENDER AND PROFICIENCY

LANGUAGE LEARNING STRATEGIES:GENDER AND PROFICIENCY

Idham Syahputra

[email protected]

Abstract :This study described and examined on the current English language learning strategies usedby Indonesian Students English Education Department enrolled at State Islamic University of Sultan SyarifKasimRiau in Indonesia. The subjects of the study were (99) male and female students still studying for theirUndergraduate degree in English Education Department. The study investigates the frequency of strategies useamong these students according to gender and proficiency variables. Proficiency is reflected by students’ learninglevel (i.e., sophomore, junior, senior), self-reported proficiency in English (i.e., the students’ university averagein English courses) and language self-efficacy (i.e,. how good the students perceived themselves as Englishlearners). The collecting data used Questionnaire adopted from Oxford (1990a), Mohammad Amin Embi (1996)danPolitzer (1993), interview lecturers about the language learning strategies used by students. The results ofthis study showed that State Islamic University of Sultan SyarifKasim, English Education Department usedlearning strategies with high to medium frequency, and that the highest rank (79.6%) was for Metacognitivestrategies while the lowest (63%) was for compensation strategies and the others used cognitive, memory, affectiveand social. In general, the results showed that gender and proficiency had no significant differences on the use ofstrategies. Based on these findings, the researcher recommends that more training should be given in usingCognitive, Memory, Affective, social and Compensation strategies by embedding them into regular classroomactivities or teaching and learning process.

Key Words: Language Learning Strategies, Gender, Proficiency

Abstrak: Tujuan Kajian ini adalah untuk mengenal pasti dan mendapatkan gambaran jelas tentangpenggunaan strategi pembelajaran bahasa oleh mahasiswa Indonesia di program bahasa Inggeris sebagai bahasaasing di Fakultas Tarbiyah dan Keguruan, Universitas Islam Negeri Sultan SyarifKasim Riau, Indonesia. Kajian iniberusaha untuk melihat perbedaan penggunaan strategi pembelajaran bahasa berdasarkan jenis kelamin dan pencapaianbahasa. Tujuan seterusnya pula adalah untuk mengenal pasti corak penggunaan6 strategi pembelajaran bahasatersebut berdasarkan jenis kelamin dan pencapaian bahasa. Kajian ini dijalankan menggunakan 99 Mahasiswa padaprogram bahasa Inggeris. Data dikumpulkan melalui Angket dan wawancara terhadap dosen tentang Strategipembelajaran bahasa yang digunakan mahasiswa. Inventori strategi pembelajaran bahasa yang telah di adopsi dariangket Oxford (1990a), Mohamed Amin Embi (1996) dan Politzer (1993) telah digunakan dalam kajian ini. Dapatankajian menunjukkan bahwa strategi yang lebih kerap digunakan adalah strategi metakognitif 79.6 %, dan strategikompensasi merupakan yang paling kurang digunakan 63%. Strategi yang lain yang digunakan adalah strategikognitif, memori, Afektif dan sosial. Dapatan kajian juga menunjukkan bahwa tidak terdapat perbedaan yang signifikanantara penggunaan strategi pembelajaran bahasa berdasarkan Jenis kelamin dan Pencapaian bahasa. Berdasarkankajian ini, peneliti menyarankan untuk memberikan perhatian khusus dengan memberikan latihan/pelatihanpada stategi kognitif, memori, afektif , sosial dan kompensasi di kegiatan belajar mengajar.

Kata Kunci: strategi pembelajaran bahasa, gender, keahlian

104

INTRODUCTIONEnglish instruction in Indonesian

context has been in line with theexistence of this country. In the phase of1945 until 1984 (almost forty years), themain target of learning English was tounderstand the reading passages with astrong support from vocabulary itemsand sentence structure. Grammartranslation method (GTM) hasdominated the teaching approach.Consequently, the teacher/lecturers andthe students concentrated to the patternof the sentence (sentence formula) inorder to acknowledge the existing ideasin the written text. In this era, it wasreally rare of the students to be able tospeak and to write in English.

Then, in the early of 1980’s, theEnglish instruction was totallyevaluated. Brian Tomlinsonsummarizedthe English instruction setting was thatafter six years of learning the language,most of the learners could not achieveEnglish for communication. To copethese huge permanent problems, thenational curriculum teamrecommended switching the Englishinstruction from pre-communicativeactivities to communicative activities. Inother words, the students should be ableto use what they have got in the packageof the knowledge of the language(listening, reading, structure, andvocabulary) in speaking and writing inthe classroom or wheneverpossible(Garis-GarisBesar Program

Pengajaran (GBPP)-Teaching andLearning Guideline 1984).

Under the framework of the 1984GBPP, through structured trainedteacher/lecturers on communicativeapproach, teaching and learningstrategies were introduced. One of themwas that English was gradually used asmain of medium of instruction inEnglish subject and daily languagebetween English teacher/lecturers andthe students outside the classroom. Thehighlighted learning strategy at thisperiod was to use the languageexpression, ideas, and vocabulary in thesuggested texts and authentic materialsto do speaking and writing activities.This mechanism occurred over the yearsand until the recent practice of Englishinstruction in GBPP 2006. In this context,the teacher/lecturer centered wasswitched to the students centered (a shiftof pedagogical focus from languageteacher/lecturers to language learners).Learners and their language learningprocesses have been the concern ofeducators in many parts of the world.

Several recent studies haveproved that the practices of languagelearning strategies (LLS) have madelearning language (including English)more efficient and produced a positiveeffect on learners’ language use.1 In linewith it, the right choice of LLS leadslanguage learners to improveproficiency or achievement overall or inspecific skill areas.2

Idham Syahputra: Language Learning Strategis: Gender and Proficiency

105

For example, ManumaGhanireported that he found a relationshipbetween language learning strategiesand the research subjects’ languageproficiency. Further, Oxford3 states thatLLS are tools for active, self-directedinvolvement which is essential fordeveloping communicative competence.By then, the learners have certainknowledge to carry out the communicativestrategies in promoting the target languageespecially in speaking activities. In turn,the learners can cope their learningproblems by themselves.

In a special study as-the so-calledthe contract learning strategy (CLS) isalso reported that this strategy also givesa positive effect on the achievement testfor those who are serious andcommitment to implement it( seeMashoub Abdul-SadeqAly (nd). TheCLS is intentionally to be chosen by theFaculty of Education Benha Universityof Egypt in order the research subjectsgain a positive attitude toward English.

In term of choosing the LLSformulated byOxford, Abdol MehdiRiazi and Mohammed Rahimihavemade their research findings. Theyconcluded that metacognitive strategiesshown in high frequency, followed bycognitive, compensation, and affectivestrategies in the medium level. Whilememory and social strategies are in thelowest level.

Dealing with the factors thatmight affect the choice of LLS,

motivation, gender, culturalbackground, type of task, age and L2stage, and learning styles are put intoindependent variables4Those factors areadded by Yutaka Tamadaat 1997 bylisting some other aspects; a) careerorientation, b) personality, and c)teaching methods.

A. ENGLISH LANGUAGETEACHING AND LEARNINGin INDONESIA

The status and the needs ofEnglish imply to the teaching andlearning English in Indonesia. Its statusis still as a first foreign language amongother big languages such as Arabic,Japanese, Mandarin, German, andFrench. English is being officiallyoffered in secondary level and tertiarylevel as well. In addition, English hasalso been introduced in elementary leveland in kindergarten as an electivesubject. English is also nominated as onethe subjects to be tested in the finalnational examination for secondarylevel. Besides, English is also put intoone of the entrance subjects at tertiarylevel. Even, English proficiency (theTOEFL score) is already one of thecompulsory requirements for theuniversity graduates like University ofLampung, University of Riau, Instituteof Technology of Bandung, IndonesiaUniversity, etc.

This language –currently- hasbeen widely needed (in oral or in written

marwahmarwahmarwahmarwahmarwah, Vol. XIII No. 1 Juni Th. 2014

106

form) for academic purposes, mediumof working in certain companies andoffices, first language in famous tourismdestination, and medium of instructionin English Education Department ofFaculty of Education all over Indonesia.In addition, passive Englishis also –concentrating to the knowledge of thelanguage- basically need to comprehendthe English text in post-graduateprogrammed. In short, the passive andactive English will be more widelyneeded by various parties likeeducation, foreign companies, tourismagencies, international trades, etc.

B. LANGUAGE LEARNINGSTRATEGIES

The term language learningstrategy has been defined in variousways by many researchers. Wenden andRubin5 define learning strategies as anysets of operations, steps, plans, orroutines used by the learner to facilitatethe obtaining, retrieval, and use ofinformation. Richards and Platt statethat learning strategies are ‘intentionalbehavior and thoughts used by learnersduring learning so as to better help themunderstand, learn, or remember newinformation. Faerch Clause andCasperstress that a learning strategy isan attempt to develop linguistic andsociolinguistic competence in the targetlanguage. According to Stern, theconcept of learning strategy depends onthe assumption that learners consciously

engage in activities to achieveintentional directions and learningtechniques.

In most of the research onlanguage learning strategies, theprimary concern has been on identifyingwhat good language learners do to learna second or foreign language. Likegeneral learning strategies, Englishlanguage learning strategies includethose techniques that learners use toremember what they have learnt- theirstorage and retrieval of newinformation.6 LLSs also include receptivestrategies which deal with receiving themessage and productive strategies whichrelate to communication.7 LLSs havebeen classified into several differentways. O’Malley et al8categorizedstrategies into metacognitive, cognitiveand socio-affective. They found thatmost importance was given to themetacognitive strategies (i.e., those thathave planning, directing or monitoring).Oxford9 indicated that LLSs are stepstaken by the learners in order to improvelanguage training and develop languagecompetence. Moreover, she divided thestrategies into direct and indirectinvolving information, memorybehaviors, vocabulary knowledge,grammar rules, thought and mentalprocesses.

Research into language learningstrategies began in the 1960s.Particularly, development in cognitivepsychology influenced much of the


107

research done on language learningstrategies. In most of the research onlanguage learning strategies, theprimary concern has been on identifyingwhat good language learners report theydo to learn a second language10.Rubinclassified strategies in term of processescontributing directly or indirectly tolanguage learning. In addition,O’Malley et al., Oxford, Cohen et al., andmany others studied strategies used bylanguage learners during the process offoreign language learning.11

1. CHARACTERISTICS OFLANGUAGE LEARNINGSTRATEGIES

Much of the earlier work onstrategies - for example, Naiman etal., Rubin,and Stern - had focused onisolating and listing the learningstrategies shared by successfullanguage learners. Rubin began topursue the idea of understandinglanguage learning by studying thestrategies of successful languagelearners. In her work, Rubindelineated strategies she believedsuccessful language learners use intheir language learning process bylisting seven characteristics of the“good language learner”.

Rubin noted that first, thegood language learner is a willingand accurate guesser who has theability to gather and storebackground information and clues

efficiently. Second, this learner has astrong drive to communicate or tolearn from communication and iswilling to persevere to get themessage across. Third, he or she isoften uninhibited and is willing toappear foolish or make mistakes inorder to learn or communicate.Fourth, the good language learnerpays attention to form by looking forlinguistic patterns and by continuallyclassifying, analyzing, andsynthesizing linguistic information.Fifth, the successful language learnertakes advantage of all practiceopportunities. Sixth, this learnermonitors his or her own speech aswell as the speech of others andactively participates even if he or sheis not called on to perform. Seventh,he or she attends to meaning, and notjust to surface structure or grammar.In addition to these strategies, Sternobserves that good language learnersbenefit from an awareness of theirown learning styles and preferredlearning strategies, take responsibilityfor their own learning and try to thinkin the target language.

Mohamed Amin Embi statesthat another way of clarifying whatis meant by language learningstrategies is by describing its majorattributes. Wenden notes there areat least six criteria which characterizethe language learning behaviorswhich have been referred to as


108

learning strategies. First, learningstrategies refer to specific actions ortechniques. Second, some of thelearning strategies are observable;whereas others are not. Third, thesestrategies are problem-oriented, thatis, learners use them to respond to alearning need. A fourth criterion isthat language learning strategies cancontribute directly or indirectly tolearning. Fifth, although thesestrategies may be consciouslydeployed, they can becomeautomatized after a prolongedperiod. And lastly, learningstrategies are behaviors which areamenable to change.

2. TAXONOMIES OFLANGUAGE LEARNINGSTRATEGIES

Language learning strategieshave been classified by manyscholars (Ellis, O’Malley et al,Stern,Wendan& Rubin). However,most of these attempts to classifylanguage learning strategies reflectmore or less the same categorizationsof language learning strategieswithout any radical changes. Rubin,who pioneered much of the work inthe field of strategies, makes thedistinction between strategiescontributing directly to learning andthose contributing indirectly tolearning. According to Rubin, thereare three types of strategies used by

the learners: learning strategies,communication strategies, and socialstrategies. He further explains thatlearning strategies can divided intotwo types: cognitive learningstrategies and metacognitivestrategies. Cognitive strategies referto the steps or operations used inlearning or problem-solving andrequire direct analysis,transformation, or synthesis oflearning materials.

Rubin identified six maincognitive learning strategies:clarification or verification, guessingor inductive infferencing, deductivereasoning, practice, memorization,and monitoring. Metacognitivestrategies involve various processessuch as planning, prioritizing, settinggoals, and self-management.Communication strategies, on theother hand, focus on the process ofparticipating in a conversation andgetting meaning across or clarifyingwhat the speaker intended. Andsocial strategies are those activitieslearners engage in which afford themopportunities to be exposed to thetarget language and practice theirknowledge12.

Unlike Rubin, Oxford sees theaim of language learning strategiesas being oriented towards thedevelopment of communicativecompetence. Oxford divides languagelearning strategies into two main


109

classes: direct and indirect, which arefurther subdivided into six groups.In Oxford’s system, metacognitivestrategies help learners to regulatetheir learning. Affective strategies areconcerned with the learner’semotional requirements such asconfidence, while social strategieslead to increased interaction with thetarget language. Cognitive strategiesare the mental strategies learners useto make sense of their learning,memory strategies are those used forstorage of information, andcompensation strategies helplearners to overcome knowledgegaps to continue the communication.

3. FACTORS INFLUENCINGTHE CHOICE OFLANGUAGE LEARNINNGSTRATEGIES

In recent years, research in thefield of language learning andteaching has captured the interest ofmany researchers with a greateremphasis on the learners andlearning process. Parallel to thistrend, the interest is also on howlearners process new informationand what kinds of strategies theyemploy to understand, learn orremember the information, whichhave been the main objectives ofresearchers. According to MohamedAmin Embi, the idea that effectivelearning strategies might contribute

to successful language learning isrelatively new for it had begun onlyin the mid seventies. The literatureon learning strategies resulted fromthe concern with identifying thecharacteristics of the “good languagelearner” introduced by the work ofRubin and Stern. These earlierstudies showed that good learners doemploy certain learning strategies inthe language learning process andthat these strategies can be identifiedand described Mohamed AminEmbi.

Although the review ofliterature on language learningstrategy research has focused oninvestigating what strategiessuccessful language learners use,Politzer and Oxford pointed out thatthere are other variables that need tobe taken into consideration.According to Oxford, a fewimportant factors influence learningstrategy choice such as languagebeing learned, proficiency level, sex,motivation level and national origin.

In the research by Oxford andCrookall, they pointed out thatamong the important variables thatneed further investigations aregender and ethnic differences. In arecent research by Oxford and Ellisthey examined the importance ofsocial variables such as the socio-economic group, gender andethnicity on the use of language


110

learning strategy. Researchconducted by Ehrman and Oxford,Nyikos, Oxford et al. proposed thatmore studies need to be carried outto investigate social factors such asgender, ethnicity, motivation,attitudes, anxiety and personality.These social factors have shown thetendency that they do have someinfluence on the learners employingof certain strategies. This type offactors has also been suggested byMohamed Amin Embi, in that futurestudies should also concentrate onexternal factors such as family lifestyle(parent’s educationalbackground, socio-economic statusand so on) that may be affectlearner’s strategy use.

4. IMPORTANCE OFLANGUAGE LEARNINGSTRATEGIES IN LANGUAGETEACHING AND LEARNING

In recent years, the focus ofresearch on language learningstrategies has been not only on whatoccurs in language learning, but alsoon how a language is learnt. Anumber of researchers haveidentified several factors thatcontribute to mastery of the targetlanguage. Oxford (1990) andMohamed Amin Embi pointed outthat learner’s motivation, attitude,aptitude and the learning processessuch as previous second language

experience, and length of exposureto the language (for example,Wesche, Bialystok, Ehrman andOxford) may be linked to the students’performance and achievements.Although many researchers haveidentified similarities of languagelearners, there is now a need to studyon individual learner differences.Studies on these areas are focusing onlearner’s language learning styles andstrategies.

Extensive investigationconducted by Cohen13, O’Malley,Oxford, Wenden and Rubin haveshown the importance of languagelearning strategies in makinglanguage learning more efficient andin producing a positive effect onlearners’ language use. Other studiesalso support the effectiveness ofusing L2 learning strategies and hasshown that successful languagelearners often use strategies in anorchestrated fashion14. Earlier studiesconducted by researchers such asBialystok, Naiman et al., Rubin,Stern and Wesche suggest a numberof other studies on the kinds oflearning strategies learners use intheir language learning process, howgood learners learn a language andthe characteristics of good learners.Rebecca Oxford provides tworeasons for the importance ofstrategies. First, strategies are toolsfor active, self-directed involvement


111

and are essential for developingcommunicative competence. Second,learners who have developedappropriate learning strategies havegreater self-confidence and learnmore effectively.

According to Fedderholdt,the language learner who is capableof using a wide variety of languagelearning strategies appropriately canbetter improve his / her languageskills. For instance, metacognitivestrategies improve organization oflearning time, self-monitoring, andself-evaluation. Cognitive strategiesinclude using previous knowledge tohelp solve new problems. Socio-affective strategies include askingnative speakers to correct theirpronunciation, or asking a classmateto work together on a particularlanguage problem. Developing skillsin these areas, such as metacognitive,cognitive, and socio-affective canhelp the language learner to buildlearner independence and autonomywhereby he/she can control his/herown learning.Lassard-Cloustonstates that language learningstrategies contribute to developmentof communicative competence of the

students. Being a broad concept,language learning strategies are usedto refer to all strategies foreignlanguage learners use in learning thetarget language and communicationstrategies are but one type oflanguage learning strategy.

5. A NEW SYSTEM OFLANGUAGE LEARNINGSTRATEGIES

The strategy systempresented here differs in severalways from earlier attempts toattribute or classify strategies. It ismore comprehensive, detailed andmore systematic in linkingindividual strategies as well asstrategy groups with each of the fourlanguage skills (listening, reading,speaking, and writing).

Figure 1 presents a generaloverview of the system of languagelearning strategies. Strategies hereare divided into two major classes:direct and indirect. These two classesare subdivided into a total of sixgroups (memory, cognitive, andcompensation under the direct class.Metacognitive, affective, and socialunder the indirect class).


112

C. METHODHOLOGYSubjects

The total number of the studentswho were available during thedistribution of the questionnaire was 99students.The 99 students whoparticipated in this study were allEnglish Education Department enrolledat State Islamic University of SultanSyarifKasim Riau in Indonesia. Therewere 19 males and 80 females. All thesubjects had studied English formally for5 years and were to complete 160credithours as part of their Under graduateDegree’s requirements in EnglishEducation Department. The majority ofthe subjects (47) were seniors, (27) werejuniors and (25) were sophomores. Thestudents were also asked to report on

their actual progress in English byproviding their university cumulativeaverage of the English courses they havetaken up to the point of completing thequestionnaire. The averages wereclassified as follows:

80%-89%= very good, 70%-79%=good, taking into consideration thatthe passing average is 60%. There wereno averages over 90% or below 70%.

As a measure to language selfefficacy or students’ perception ofthemselves as learners, the studentswere asked to rate themselves on a scalefrom one to three to indicate howsuccessful they thought they were atEnglish (listening, writing, speaking,reading) 1= very good, 2= good, 3= poor.Presumably, individuals who believe


113

FIGURE 1 Interrelationships Between Direct and Indirect Strategiesand among the Six Strategy Groups. Source: Oxford 1990 : 15

Cognitive SocialStrategies Strategies(Direct) (Indirect)

Compensation Affective Strategies Strategies (Direct) (Indirect)

Metacognitive Strategies(Indirect)

Memory Strategies(Direct)

that they are successful students alsobelieve that their performance is highdue to the use of good learning stylesand strategies. As a result, (41) studentsperceived themselves as very good

students, (52) as good students and (6)as poor students (Table 1).

The subjects were distributedaccording to the independent variablesas in Table (1).

Table 1 Subject distribution according to independent variables (N=99)

Gender Learning Level Self-efficacy Uni-Average

Male Female 2nd year sophomore

3rd year junior

4th year senior

V.good Good Poor Less than 80%

80% and more

19 80 27 25 47 41 52 6 63 36

InstrumentIn order to measure strategy use,

Oxford’s15 Strategy Inventory forLanguage Learning (SILL) was used inthis study.The SILL was devised byRebecca Oxford as an instrument forassessing the frequency of use oflanguage learning strategies by students.The version used for learners of Englishas a foreign language (50 items). TheSILL is one of the most useful manualsof learner strategy assessment toolcurrently available. It is estimated that70-85 major studies including ‘Skripsi’and theses, have been done employingthe SILL. The SILL appears to be the onlylanguage learning strategy instrumentthat has been checked for reliability andvalidated in multiple ways16. Manyprevious measures were not adopted formany studies because they lackedreliability and validity data. The SILLuses a 5 Likert-scale for which thelearners are asked to indicate theirresponse (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) to a strategy

description such as “I try to find patternsin English.” The researcher didn’t do anymodifications on the items of the SILL.The version of the SILL used in thisstudy is a 50 item instrument that isgrouped into two main groups, directstrategies and indirect strategies, whichare further, subdivides into 6 groups.Oxford’s (1990a) taxonomy of languagestrategies is shown in the following:

Direct strategies are classifiedinto:· Memory strategies (9 items) are used

for entering new information intomemory storage and for retrievingit when need for communication.(e.g., grouping, representing soundsin memory, structured reviewing,using physical response).

· Cognitive strategies (14 items) areused for linking new informationwith existing schemata and foranalyzing and classifying it.Cognitive strategies are responsiblefor deep processing, forming and


114

revising internal mental models andreceiving and producing messages inthe target language (e.g., repeating,getting the idea quickly, analyzingand taking notes).

· Compensation strategies (6 items)include such strategies as guessing andusing gestures. Such strategies areneeded to fill any gaps in the knowledgeof the language. (e.g., switching to themother tongue, using other clues,getting help and using a synonym).

On the other hand, indirectstrategies are divided intoMetacognitive, Affective and Social:· Metacognitive strategies (9 items) are

techniques used for organizing,planing, focusing and evaluatingone’s own learning. (e.g., linking newinformation with already knownone, seeking practice opportunities,and self-monitoring).

· Affective strategies (6 items) are usedfor handling feelings, attitudes andmotivations. (e.g., lowering anxietyby use of music, encouraging oneselfand discussing feelings with others).

· Social strategies (6 items) are used forfacilitating interaction by askingquestions, and cooperating withothers in the learning process, (eg.Asking for classification, cooperatingwith others and developing culturalunderstanding).

In addition to the strategy items

on the SILL, the researcher consultedEnglish Lecturers in the EnglishEducation Department at State IslamicUniversity of Sultan SyarifKasim Riauon strategies used by their studentswhether consciously or unconsciously.The researcher’s experience as a foreignlanguage lecturer also enabled him toidentify strategies that students werefamiliar with and could relate to. As aresult, the researcher generated a list ofstrategies and added them to the 50items of the SILL. The generated listwhich contained 10 items was added tothe SILL questionnaire under the title“Others,” to indicate that those 10 itemswere not part of the SILL.

The new 10 items which weretitled “Others” included differentstrategy items that could be fitted underMetacognitive, Social, Memory andFunctional Practice strategies. The newitems were given to two independentEnglish Lecturers to check matters likerepetition, inconsistency andcomparison. Following is a list of these10 items as numbered in thequestionnaire.51. I don’t use a dictionary to

understand unfamiliar words.52. I memorize meaning of words in a

list form (out of context).53. I respond in English if asked a

question in English.54. I memorize English grammar rules

in order to apply them.55. I give self tests to prepare for exams.


115

56. I rehearse silently in English beforespeaking in English.

57. I ask others to test me on what Imemorized in English.

58. I try to think in English.59. I memorize new English words by

grouping them.60. I repeat what I read to enhance my

comprehension.

The final version of thequestionnaire included 60 items towhich the subjects responded on a 5-point Likert scale (1= I never do this; 2=I seldom do this; 3= I sometimes do this;4= I usually do this; 5= I always dothis).The items were translated intoBahasa Indonesia by the researcher hisself and checked by two Bahasa Indonesialinguists and a translation instructortaking into consideration that the itemsretained their essential meaning and thatthe translation was easily understood. Inthis study Cronbach’s alpha forReliability was (0.83).

Procedure and Data CollectionThe questionnaires distributed by

the researcher were in two languages;English and Bahasa Indonesia. Theywere given out during students’ regularEnglish classes in the first semester, 2008.The researcher got back 99questionnaires and their responses wereanalyzed. The subjects were informedthat their participation was entirelyvoluntary. The subjects did not give their

names; only their gender, average andlevel of learning were required.

Item analysisThe ANOVA test was used to

determine significant variation in meanstrategy use by gender and proficiency.Wilks Lambda and Sidak tests wereused to determine differences across allthe strategies by gender and proficiency.

ResultsResults of the first question:What are the most frequently usedstrategies?

The results of strategy analysis onitems identified seven strategy groups.The seven groups were:1. Memory strategies (MEM);2. Cognitive strategies (COG);3. Compensation strategies (COM);4. Metacognitive strategies (MET);5. Affective strategies (AFF);6. Social strategies (SOC); and7. “Others” strategies (OTH) which

include a group of 10 differentstrategies items that the researcheradded to the above six strategygroups on Oxford’s SILL.

Table (2) presents rank orderingof the strategies according to theirfrequency of usage. The means andpercentages of table 2 show thatMetacognitive strategies have the highestmean (3.98) which indicates a high use ofMetacognitive strategies followed by

Idham Syahputra: Language Learning Strategis: Gender and Proficiencymarwahmarwahmarwahmarwahmarwah, Vol. XIII No. 1 Juni Th. 2014

116

Table 3 Results of Repeated MANOVA (Wilks Lambda)

Statistic Value F value df Error Sig.

Wilks Lambda 0.46 18.009 6 93 0.000

Affective, Others, Social, Cognitive andMemory, while Compensation strategiesranked the lowest mean (3.15). We alsonotice that one of the seven strategiesgroups (Metacognitive) falls in the highrange, while the other 6 strategy groupsfall in the medium range.

In order to determine thedifferences at (p = 0.05) among allstrategies, Wilks Lambda Test was used,Table (3). The results of Table (3) usingWilks lambda Test showed that therewere significant differences at (p = 0.05)among all strategies.

Table 2 Means and percentages of strategy groups

Strategies Mean % Degree Rank

Metacognitive 3.98 79.6 High 1

Affective 3.36 67.2 Medium 2

"Others" 3.35 67 Medium 3

Social 3.25 65 Medium 4

Cognitive 3.24 64.8 Medium 5

Memory 3.20 64 Medium 6

Compensation 3.15 63 Medium 7

Total score 3.36 67.2 Medium

In order to determine the multipledifferences at (p =0.05) among allstrategies, Sidak Test was conducted asin Table (4). Multiple comparisonsshowed differences between:• Memory and Metacognitive in favor

of Metacognitive strategies• Cognitive and Metacognitive in

favor of Metacognitive strategies

• Compensation and Metacognitivein favor of Metacognitivestrategies

• Metacognitive and Affective in favorof Metacognitive strategies

• Metacognitive and Social in favor ofMetacognitive strategies

• “Others” and Metacognitive in favorof Metacognitive strategies


117

The results indicate that thedifferences were all in favor ofMetacognitive strategies.

Table (5) presents the items thatconstitute each strategy in addition tofrequency of usage and mean of everysingle item in descending order.

The table shows that most of the

items with the highest mean areMetacognitive Strategy items. For example:items number 33 (I try to find out how tobe a better learner of English), 38 (I thinkabout my progress in learning English), 32(I pay attention when someone is speakingEnglish) and 30 (I try to find as many waysas I can to use my English).

Table 4 Sidak results for multiple comparisons

Strategy MEM COG COM MET AFF SOC OTH

MEM -0.03 .05 * -.77 -.15 -.04 -.15

COG 9.42 * -.73 -.11 -1.01 -.11

COM *-.83 -.20 -.10 -.20

MET *.62 *-.72 *.62

AFF -10 2.25

SOC -.10

OTH

Table 5 Strategy preference of the items by their means and frequency of usage

Rank Item no. Strategy* Mean Rank Item no. Strategy* Mean

1. 33 MET 3.73 2. 15 COG 3.34

3. 59 OTH 3.69 4. 52 OTH 3.32

5. 7 MEM 3.68 6. 24 COG 3.30

7. 38 MET 3.64 8. 45 SOC 3.30

9. 32 MET 3.59 10. 3 MEM 3.29

11. 17 COG 3.59 12. 11 COG 3.29

13. 30 MET 3.56 14. 39 AFF 3.29

15. 60 OTH 3.53 16. 43 AFF 3.27

17. 8 MEM 3.53 18. 42 AFF 3.25

19. 37 MET 3.52 20. 57 OTH 3.24

21. 10 COG 3.51 22. 14 COG 3.24

23. 55 OTH 3.48 24. 23 COG 3.23

25. 34 MET 3.48 26. 27 COM 3.22


118

53. 53 OTH 3.38 54. 5 MEM 2.80

55. 58 OTH 3.37 56. 21 COG 2.79

57. 56 OTH 3.37 58. 51 OTH 2.77

59. 49 SOC 3.36 60. 6 MEM 2.25

* MEM= Memory; COG= Cognitive; COM= Compensation; MET=

Metacognitive; AFF= Affective; SOC= Social; OTH= "Others"

27. 31 MET 3.47 28. 16 COG 3.21

29. 35 MET 3.47 30. 47 SOC 3.20

31. 44 AFF 3.46 32. 13 COG 3.20

33. 41 AFF 3.15 34. 48 SOC 3.18

35. 1 MEM 3.44 36. 28 COM 3.17

37. 40 AFF 3.43 38. 29 COM 3.15

39. 18 COG 3.43 40. 22 COG 3.13

41. 12 COG 3.43 42. 19 COG 3.10

43. 54 OTH 3.43 44. 2 MEM 3.10

45. 46 SOC 3.41 46. 50 SOC 3.08

47. 36 MET 3.41 48. 26 COM 3.07

49. 9 MEM 3.39 50. 25 COM 3.00

51. 4 MEM 3.38 52. 20 COG 2.96

Table 6 Results of t-test for the differences in strategy use according to gender variable

Strategy M F T. Sig.

M Sd M Sd

Memory 3.19 .68 3.21 .57 .11 .90

Cognitive 3.34 .60 3.22 .47 .91 .36

Compensation 3.32 .78 3.11 .65 1.21 .22

Metacognitive 3.96 .73 3.98 .83 .90 .92

Results of the second question: Is therea significant difference betweenstrategy use and gender?

To answer the question on thesignificant differences at (p =.05) instrategy use due to gender, the computed

T.value of all strategies and total scorewere respectively (.11, .91, 1.21, .90, 1.20,1.04, .38, 1.08). Table 6 shows that all ofthese values are less than critical value 1.98which means that there is no main effectfor gender at (p =.05) on strategy use.


119

Affective 3.51 .66 3.32 .61 1.20 .23

Social 3.42 .84 3.21 .73 1.04 .29

"Others" 3.40 .51 3.34 .58 .38 .69

Total Score 3.44 3.34 1.08 .28

Table 7 Results of t-test for the differences in strategy use accordingto university average

Strategy 80% and above Less than 80% T. Sig.

M Sd M Sd

Memory 3.25 .613 3.17 .57 .64 .51

Cognitive 3.30 .49 3.21 .50 .81 .42

Compensation 3.11 .66 3.17 .69 -.41 .68

Metacognitive 4.11 .84 3.91 .79 1.17 .24

Affective 3.17 .63 3.47 .60 -2.33 .02

Social 3.20 .75 3.28 .76 -.48 .62

"Others" 3.21 .56 3.44 .55 -1.99 .04

Total Score 3.33 .41 3.38 .37 .53 .59

Results related to the third question:Is there any significant differencebetween strategy use and proficiency?

Language proficiency wasexamined as reflected by threeindividual variables: university average,level of learning and self-efficacy.

University averageThe students were classified into

two groups according to their Universitygeneral point averages (GPA); thosewhose averages were lower than 80%(less proficient) and those whoseaverages were higher than 80% (themore proficient).

The results of table 7 showed thatthe computed T. value on all strategies

and total score were (.51, .42, .68, .24, .02,.62, .04). All these values are less than1.98 which means that there are nosignificant differences at (p =.05) instrategy use due to the students’university average. However, thecomputed T. test value on Affective and“Others” strategies were respectively (-2.33, -1.99). These two values are morethan 1.98 which means that there aresignificant differences in favor ofaverages that are less than 80%. Such aresult indicates that less proficientstudents use more frequently Affectiveand “Others” strategies in order to lowertheir anxiety, and encourage themselvesto store and retrieve information.


120

Learning levelTo determine the effect of

learning level variable on strategy use,one way ANOVA was used.

Using of ANOVA (F) Testindicated that there were no significant

differences on Compensation,Metacognitive, and Affectivestrategies while there were significantdifferences on Memory, Cognitive;Social and “Others” strategies, as shownin table 8.

Table 8 Results of ANOVA (F) Test for the differences in strategyuse according to learning level

Sum of

Squares

Df Mean

Square

F Sig.

A Between Groups 3.120 2 1.560 4.708 .011

Within Groups 31.810 96 .331

Total 34.930 98

B Between Groups 1.815 2 .908 3.811 .026


Total 24.677 98

C Between Groups 1.546 2 .773 1.672 .193


Total 45.926 98

D Between Groups 3.264E-02 2 1.632E-02 .024 .976


Total 65.083 98

E Between Groups 1.169 2 .584 1.501 .228


Total 38.558 98

F Between Groups 3.588 2 1.794 3.268 .042


Total 56.293 98

G Between Groups 1.898 2 .949 3.062 .051


Total 31.658 98

Totscore Between Groups .191 2 9.571E-02 .643 .528


Total 14.473 98


121

Scheffé’s post-hoc test was usedto show comparisons between means ofstrategies according to learning level, asin tables (9), (10), (11), and (12).

The strategies that showedsignificant differences were Memorystrategies, Cognitive strategies, Socialstrategies and “Others” strategies. Theresults of Scheffé’s post-hoc testindicated that there were significantdifferences between means of Memorystrategies according to learning level in

favor of the sophomores. This indicatesthat sophomores use more Memorystrategies (Table 9).

The results also indicatedsignificant differences in means ofCognitive strategies in favor of the juniors(Table 10), and differences in Socialstrategies in favor of the sophomores andthe juniors (table11). Finally, there weresignificant differences in means of“Others” strategies in favor of thesophomores (Table 12).

Table 9 Scheffé’s Post-hoc test for Memory strategies

Learning level Mean Soph. Jun. Sen.

Soph. 3.39 0.03 .36 *

Jun. 3.36 .33

Sen. 3.02

Table 10 Scheffé’s Post-hoc test for cognitive strategies


Soph. 3.24 .21 .11

Jun. 3.46 .33 *

Sen. 3.13

Table 11 Scheffé’s Post-hoc test for Social

Table 12 Scheffé’s Post-hoc test for Other


Soph. 3.09 .32 .36 *

Jun. 3.06 .36 *

Sen. 3.45


Soph. 3.20 .44 * - .29

Jun. 3.25 .25

Sen. 3.50


122

Self efficacySelf-efficacy refers to personal

judgments of performance capabilitiesin a given domain of activities17.Schunkmaintains that people confidentlyperform activities that they judgethemselves capable of managing, butthey avoid those they believe exceedtheir ability. In addition, people whohave a stronger sense of self-efficacytend to exert greater efforts to meetchallenges and tend to make decisionson when and how to use strategies to

solve problems. Nae-Dong Yang foundthat language learners’ self-efficacybeliefs about learning English werestrongly related to their use of all typesof learning strategies.

As a measure of self-efficacy inthis study, the subjects were asked to ratehow successful they perceivedthemselves to be in English.The subjects’self efficacy was measured in threeterms: very good, good, and poor. Table13 shows the strategy means accordingto self efficacy.

Table 13 Strategy means according to self efficacy

Strategy V.good good poor

Memory 3.32 3.14 3.00

Cognitive 3.47 3.04 3.45

Compensation 3.29 3.04 3.11

Metacognitive 4.12 3.85 4.14

Affective 3.34 3.33 3.69

Social 3.26 3.25 3.25

"Others" 3.35 3.38 3.23

To determine the differencesin strategy use according to self-

efficacy, ANOVA (F.) Test was usedas in table (14).

Table 14 Anova for differences in strategy use according to self-efficacy

Domains Source of Sum of

Df Mean

Square

F Sig.

A Between Groups 1.030 2 .515 1.459 .238


Total 34.930 98

B Between Groups 4.478 2 2.239 10.642 .000


Total 24.677 98


123

C Between Groups 1.466 2 .733 1.582 .211


Total 45.926 98

D Between Groups 1.860 2 .930 1.412 .249


Total 65.083 98

E Between Groups .708 2 .354 .898 .411


Total 38.558 98

F Between Groups 8.038E-03 2 4.019E-03 .007 .993


Total 56.293 98

G Between Groups .122 2 6.092E-02 .185 .831


Total 31.658 98

Total score Between Groups .612 02 .306 2.118 .126


Total 14.473 98

The ANOVA (F) test indicatedthat there were no significant differencesfor all strategies except for Memorystrategies. To determine the significantdifferences in strategies according toself efficacy, Schefféspos-hoc test wasused.

The result of Scheffé’s post-hocshowed that there is a significant differenceat (p = 0.05) on Cognitive strategies betweenvery good and good in favor of very good.However, there is no significant differencebetween very good and poor, and goodand poor as shown in table 15.S

Table 15 Scheffé’s Post-hoc test for Cognitive strategies

Self efficacy v.good good poor

v.good .42 * .02

Good -.40

Poor


124

D. DISCUSSION ANDIMPLICATION

A close examination of the resultsof this study reveals that State IslamicUniversity of Sultan SyarifKasim Riau,English Education Departmentstudents’ learning strategy use asmeasured by the SILL, ranges from high(3.98) to medium (3.15), withMetacognitive strategies used morefrequently (3.98). Metacognitivestrategies involve exercising “executivecontrol” over one’s language learningthrough planning, monitoring, andevaluating. They are techniques that areused for organizing, planning, focusingand evaluating one’s learning. Ingeneral, these strategies help learners togain control over their emotions andmotivations related to language learningthrough self-monitoring. The high useof Metacognitive strategies amongIndonesian is similar to that observedamong students from Asian countrieslike Japan, China, Korea and Taiwan asreported in some of the studies on Asianstudent, e.g., Sheorey18,Oxford et al.

Compensation strategies, whichranked the lowest (3.15), are strategiesthat enable students to make up formissing knowledge in the process ofcomprehending or producing the targetlanguage. However, the students werereluctant to use Compensationstrategies, e.g. they did not use gestureswhen they had difficulty producing thelanguage, and they didn’t make up new

words when they did not know the rightones.

The researcher believes that theuse of some individual strategies couldbe attributed to culture and educationalsystem in Indonesia where studentshave very limited opportunities to usefunctional practice strategies especiallyin large classes. Moreover, students aremore concerned with passing exams andrespond to questions that are directlyrelated to the content in their prescribedtextbooks. Needless to say, rotememorizing is frequently used bystudents who learn the language asisolated fragments. Example of suchitems were (52) “I memorize Englishgrammar,” and (59) “I memorize newEnglish words by grouping them.”

With regards to the effects ofgender and proficiency on strategy use,the results of this study appearinconsistent with those of other studies.This study indicated no significantdifferences at (p =.05) for the twovariables gender and proficiency.However, Kaylani (1996) examined theinfluence of gender and motivation on(12th grade) high school students inJordan. She found that there was astrong relationship between gender,motivation and the strategies that thesestudents employed, and that femalesand more motivated students reportedhigh use of strategies. The differencesbetween her study and the current studymay be attributed to the differences in


125

the students’ learning level in bothstudies. Kaylani’s subjects are schoolstudents while the subjects in this studyare university English EducationDepartment who are supposed to bemore aware of the process of learningEnglish as a foreign language and of thestrategies they employ to achieve thisgoal.

The results of this study,however, showed that there is a positiverelationship between strategy use andlanguage proficiency as reflected byaverage, learning level and self efficacy.It can be noticed that the students withhigh proficiency (i.e., those whoseaverages were more than 80%, thejuniors and those whose self efficacy wasvery good) used more Cognitivestrategies than less proficient students(i.e., those whose averages were lessthan 80%, the sophomores and thosewhose self efficacy was poor). Suchresults indicate that more proficientstudents are aware of their needs andlook for more opportunities to practicethe language. The use of more Cognitivestrategies by more proficient studentscan be attributed to these students’ needto process and revise internal models inorder to receive and produce thelanguage. These students depend onrepeating, analyzing and getting theidea. Such strategies are necessary forEnglish Education Department.

It is worth mentioning that the listof 10 items that was generated by the

researcher and appeared under“Others” ranked number threeaccording to their mean (3.35) as shownin Table 2. This mixture of strategies wasused more by males (3.40), seniors (3.50),those whose averages were less than80% (3.44), and by good students (3.38).The adoption of “Others” strategiesindicates that the students were activelyinvolved in adopting a number ofstrategies that enhanced their learning.Moreover, the adoption of the somememory strategies shows the students’awareness and need to entering, storingand retrieving information. Suchstrategies are direct and vital for learninga foreign language.

The most important implicationof this study is the need to providestudents with further opportunities touse LLSs more frequently since theoverall strategy use by the subjectsunder study falls in the medium range.The less frequent strategies in this study(Cognitive, Memory and Compensation)can form the core of a program ofclassroom strategy instruction. O’Malleyand Chamot introduce the followingsteps to strategy instruction:

. . . theteacher/lecturer firstidentifies or shows students for theircurrent language strategies, explains therationale and application for usingadditional learning strategies, providesopportunities and materials for practice,and evaluate or assist students toevaluate their degree of success with


126

new learning strategies.The teacher’s role in strategy

training is an important one. Theteacher/lecturer should learn about thestudents, their interest, motivations, andlearning styles. The teacher/lecturer canlearn what language learning strategieshis/her students appear to be using byobserving their behavior in class: Dothey cooperate with their peers or seemto have much contact outside of classwith proficient foreign language users?Do they ask for clarification, verificationor correction? Besides observing theirbehavior in class, the teacher/lecturercan have adequate knowledge about thestudents, their goals, motivations,language learning strategies, and theirunderstanding of the course to betaught. It is a fact that each learner withinthe same classroom may have differentlearning styles and varied awareness ofthe use of strategies. The languageteacher/lecturer should provide a widerange of learning strategies in order tofulfill different learning styles that meetthe needs and expectations of hisstudents who possessing differentlearning styles, motivations, strategypreferences, etc.

In addition to the students, thelanguage teacher/lecturer should alsoanalyze his textbook to find out whetherthe textbook already includes languagelearning strategies or language learningstrategies training. The languageteacher/lecturer should look for new

texts or other teaching materials iflanguage learning strategies are notalready included within his materials.

The language teacher/lecturershould also study his own teachingmethod and overall classroom style.Analyzing his lesson plans, the languageteacher/lecturer can determine whetherhis lesson plans give learners chance touse a variety of learning styles andstrategies or not. The teacher/lecturercan see whether his teaching allowslearners to approach the task at hand indifferent ways or not. The languageteacher/lecturer can also be aware ofwhether his strategy training is implicit,explicit, or both. It should beemphasized that questioning himselfabout what he plans to do before eachlesson and evaluating his lesson planafter the lesson in terms of strategytraining, the teacher/lecturer canbecome better prepared to focus onlanguage learning strategies andstrategy training during the process ofhis teaching.

E. CONCLUSION ANDRECOMMENDATION

This study aimed at examiningthe language learning strategies of agroup of Indonesian English EducationDepartment students studying at StateIslamic University of Sultan SyarifKasimRiau. The results showed that thesestudents were high to medium users ofstrategies. Furthermore, Matacognitive


127

strategies marked the highest usagewhich indicated that such strategiescould be related to cultural andeducational background differences.The tests showed no significantdifference for gender and proficiency onoverall strategy use.

It is obvious that languagelearning strategies facilitate the learningof the target language by the languagelearner. Language learners in generaluse language learning strategies in thelearning process. Since the factors likeage, gender, personality, motivation,self-concept, life-experience, learningstyle, etc. affect the way in whichlanguage learners learn the targetlanguage, it is not reasonable to assumethat all language learners use the samegood language learning strategies orshould be trained in using anddeveloping the same strategies tobecome successful learners.

Both learners and teacher/lecturers need to become aware of thelearning styles and strategies throughstrategy instruction. Attempts to teachstudents to use learning strategies (calledstrategy training or learner training)have produced good results by Rubin& Thompson19. The main objective ofsuch attempts is to allow students tobecome more aware of their preferredlearning strategies and to help thembecome more responsible for meetingtheir own objectives. Such objectives canbe only achieved when students are

trained in strategy use so that theybecome more independent and effective.

However, before teachingstudents how to use strategieseffectively, teacher/lecturers should betrained in strategy instruction andassessment. They should also be trainedhow to implement strategy instructioninside their classrooms. The strategies-Based Instruction (SBI) approachadopted by Cohen, Weaver, & Liemphasized the role of SBI in the foreignlanguage classroom. In addition, Cohenand Li advise teacher/lecturers tosystematically introduce and reinforcelearning strategies that help students usethe target language more effectively andthus improve their performance. Oxfordsuggests that strategy training can beachieved after familiarizing the studentswith the LLSs and providing them withopportunities for practicing thesestrategies through integrating them intothe classroom instructional plan andembedding them into regular classactivities.

Thus there is a need for morecomprehensive research on a wide rangeof variables affecting LLSs employed byEnglish learners such as culturalbackground, beliefs, learning style,motivation, attitude, etc. Moreover,research on the frequency of use of thesocial and affective strategies and choiceof given strategies is recommended sinceit is helpful for both learners andteacher/lecturers.


128

In conclusion, strategy instructionresearch is important in assessinglearner’s strategies, therefore, there is aneed for conducting research that willpave the way for building the theory thatseems necessary for more languagelearning strategies work to be relevantto current foreign language teachingpractice.

Endnotes:

1 See Rubin, J. (1987). Learner strategies: TheoreticalAssumptions, Research History and Typology.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.;O’Malley, J.M., &Chamot, A. (1990). Learning Strategies inSecond Language Acquisition. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.;

2 See O’Malley, J. M., &Chamot, A. (1990).LearningStrategies in Second Language Acquisition.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.;Rubin,J. (1987). Learner strategies: Theoretical Assumptions,Research History and Typology. Englewood Cliffs,NJ: Prentice Hall.

3 Oxford, R. L. (1990a). Language Learning Strategies:What Every Teacher/lecturer Should Know. Boston,MA: Heinle&Heinle.

4 Russo and Stewner –Manzanares inOxford, R. L.(1993).Instructional implications of genderdifferences in language learning styles andstrategies.Applied Language Learning, 4, 65-94.

5 See Rubin, J. (1987). Learner strategies: TheoreticalAssumptions, Research History and Typology.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

6 Rubin, J. (1987). Learner strategies: TheoreticalAssumptions, Research History and Typology.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall., p.19

7Brown, H. (1994). Principles of Language LearningTeaching (3rd ed). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall Regents.;Chamot, A. U. &Kupper, L. (1989).Learning strategies in foreign languageinstruction.Foreign Language Annals, 22, 13-24.

8 O’Malley, J. M., Chamot, A. U., Stewner-Manzanares, G., Russo, R., &Küpper, L.(1985).Learning strategy applications withstudents of English as a second language.TESOLQuarterly, 19, 557-584.


10 Rubin, J. (1987). Learner strategies: TheoreticalAssumptions, Research History and Typology.

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.11 O’Malley, J. M., Chamot, A. U., Stewner-

Manzanares, G., Russo, R., &Küpper, L.(1985).Learning strategy applications withstudents of English as a second language.TESOLQuarterly, 19, 557-584.; Oxford, R. L.(1990a).Language Learning Strategies: What EveryTeacher/lecturer Should Know. Boston, MA:Heinle&Heinle.; Cohen, A. D. (1987) Studyinglearner strategies. How we get the information.In A. L. Wenden, and J. Rubin (Eds); LearnerStrategies in Language Learning pp. 31-42.

12 Rubin, J. (1987). Learner strategies: TheoreticalAssumptions, Research History and Typology.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall., p. 23-27)

13 Cohen, A. D., Weaver, S.J., & Li, T. (1996).Theimpact of strategies-based instruction on speakinga foreign language. University of Minnesota,Minneapolis: CARLA Working Paper Series #4.(ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. ED394322).

14 Like Chamot&Kupper; O’Malley &Chamot;Oxford; Thompson & Rubin


16Oxford, R. L., & Burry-Stock, Judith A.(1995).Assessing the use of language learningstrategies worldwide with the ESL/EFL version of thestrategy inventory for language learning(SILL).University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL,USA.

17 Schunk, D. J., 1985. Self-efficacy and classroomlearning.Psychology in the Schools, 22, 2p. 208).

18 Sheorey, R., (1998). The state of English andEnglish language teaching in India.TESOLMatters, 8 (4), 1, 19.

19 Rubin, J. &1 Thompsons I. (1994) How to be a moresuccessful language learner (2nd ed.). Boston:Heinle&Heinle.

REFERENCES

Brown, H. (1994). Principles of LanguageLearning Teaching (3rd ed).Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall Regents.

Chamot, A. U. &Kupper, L. (1989).Learning strategies in foreignlanguage instruction. ForeignLanguage Annals, 22, 13-24.


129

Cohen, A. D. (1987) Studying learnerstrategies. How we get theinformation. In A. L. Wenden,and J. Rubin (Eds); LearnerStrategies in Language Learning(pp. 31-42). Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice- Hall.

Cohen, A. D., Weaver, S.J., & Li, T.(1996).The impact of strategies-based instruction on speaking aforeign language. University ofMinnesota, Minneapolis: CARLAWorking Paper Series #4. (ERICDocument ReproductionServices No. ED 394322).

Green, J.M. (1992). Additional analyses ofPuerto Rican Strategy data.Unpublished manuscript,University of Puerto Rico atMayaguez.

Green, J., Oxford, R. (1993). A closer lookat learning strategies, L2Proficiency, and gender.TESOLQuarterly, 29, 261-297.

Kaylani, C. (1996). The Influence ofGender and Motivation on EFLlearning Strategy Use in Jordan.In R. L. Oxford (Ed.), Languagelearning strategies around the world:Cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 75-88). Honolulu: Second LanguageTeaching & Curriculum Center,University of Hawaii.

Noguchi, T. (1991).Questionnaire forlearners.Tottori University,Tottori, Japan.

Nunan, D. (1988). The Learner- CenteredCurriculum. Cambridge: UniversityPress.

O’Malley, J. M., Chamot, A. U., Stewner-Manzanares, G., Russo, R.,&Küpper, L. (1985).Learningstrategy applications withstudents of English as a secondlanguage.TESOL Quarterly, 19,557-584.

O’Malley, J. M., &Chamot, A.(1990).Learning Strategies in SecondLanguage Acquisition. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Oxford, R. L. (1990a). Language LearningStrategies: What Every Teacher/lecturer Should Know. Boston, MA:Heinle&Heinle.

Oxford, R.L. (1990b). Language learningstrategies and beyond: A look atstrategies in the context of styles.In Magnan, S.S. (Ed.), Shifting theInstructional Focus to the Learner(pp. 35-55). Middlebury, VT:Northeast Conference on theTeaching of Foreign Languages.

Oxford, R. L. (1993). Instructionalimplications of gender differences


130

in language learning styles andstrategies.Applied LanguageLearning, 4, 65-94.

Oxford, R., L., Eherman, M. E. &Lavine,R. Z. (1991).Style wars: Teacher/lecturer-student style conflicts in thelanguage classroom. In S.S. Magnan(Ed). Challenges in the 1990s forCollege Foreign LanguagePrograms (pp. 1-25). Boston:Heinle &Heinle.

Oxford, R. L., & Burry-Stock, Judith A.(1995).Assessing the use of languagelearning strategies worldwide withthe ESL/EFL version of the strategyinventory for language learning(SILL).University of Alabama,Tuscaloosa, AL, USA.

Rossi- Le, L. (1989) Perceptual learningstyle preferences and their relationshipto language learning strategies inadult students of English as a secondlanguage. Unpublished doctoral

dissertation, Drake University,Des Moines, IA.

Rubin, J. (1987). Learner strategies:Theoretical Assumptions, ResearchHistory and Typology. EnglewoodCliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Rubin, J. &1 Thompsons I. (1994) How tobe a more successful language learner(2nd ed.). Boston: Heinle&Heinle.

Schunk, D. J., 1985. Self-efficacy andclassroom learning. Psychology inthe Schools, 22, 208-223.

Sheorey, R., (1998). The state of Englishand English language teaching inIndia.TESOL Matters, 8 (4), 1, 19.

Yang, Nae-Dong (1999).The relationshipbetween EFL learners’ beliefs andlearning strategy use.Departmentof foreign languages andliterature, National TaiwanUniversity, Taipei, Taiwan, ROC.


131

Documents

LANGUAGE LEARNING STRATEGIES: GENDER AND PROFICIENCY