Volume 4 (2013) Issue 2
pp. 24-37
Language
Learning Strategies in Elementary School:
The
Effect of Age and Gender in an EFL Context
Katalin Doró (Szeged, Hungary) /
Anita Habók (Szeged, Hungary)
Abstract (English)
This paper seeks to
contribute to the limited research done on the language strategy use
of young learners in EFL contexts. It presents the results of an
investigation into the overall language learning strategy use of
elementary school students. Subjects for the study were fifth and
sixth graders enrolled in Hungarian public elementary schools
(n=275). The Strategy inventory for language learning (SILL) was
found to be a reliable and well-working data collection instrument
with this young age group. Six subcategories of strategies were
investigated and results showed that meta-cognitive strategies were
the most frequently used category, while compensation strategies were
the least often employed ones. Significant grade level differences in
strategy use were not found. Gender related investigations revealed
key differences in favor of girls across all six types of learning
strategies. Implications of the study are presented and discussed.
Key
words: language
learning strategies, English, EFL, strategy inventory for language
learning (SILL), age, gender, elementary school, children
Abstract (Deutsch)
Die
vorliegende Studie ist ein Beitrag zu den relativ wenigen
Untersuchungen zum Englisch als Fremdsprache, die sich mit der
Verwendung von Sprachstrategien bei jungen Sprachlernern
beschäftigen. Die Studie stellt Ergebnisse hinsichtlich der
Verwendung von Sprachstrategien durch Schüler des Sekundarbereichs
dar. Ungarische Fünft- und Sechstklässler (n=275) staatlicher
Schulen bildeten dabei die Zielgruppe. Der verwendete
SILL-Fragebogen (The
Strategy Inventory for Language Learning”
erwies sich als verlässliches und intaktes Instrument für die
Datenerhebung bei dieser Zielgruppe. Sechs Unterkategorien der
Strategien wurden untersucht. Die Ergebnisse zeigten, dass
metakognitive Strategien die am meisten verwendete Kategorie
bildeten, während Kompensationsstrategien zu den am wenigsten
verwendeten Strategien zählten. In den zwei untersuchten Jahrgängen
konnten keine signifikanten Unterschiede ausgemacht werden. Die
Untersuchung der geschlechtsspezifischen Ergebnisse zeitigten in
allen sechs Kategorien der Lernstrategien einen erheblichen Vorteil
für Mädchen. Im Artikel werden die Implikationen der Studie
präsentiert und diskutiert. Zudem werden ihre Grenzen aufgezeigt.
Stichwörter:
Sprachstrategien, Englisch, Englisch als Fremdsprache, SILL, Alter,
Geschlecht,
Grundschule,
Kinder
1 Introduction
Language learning strategies are actions and techniques that facilitate the learning process. Researchers seem to agree that effective students use a greater variety of strategies and operate with them to a better degree. According to Cohen (2005) strategy research is significant for two main reasons:
a) researchers can identify the underlying cognitive, meta-cognitive and socio-affective processes of language learning; and
b) strategies can, at least to some extent, be taught, so teachers can help less successful learners adopt better strategies and, therefore, become more effective language users.
However, Hu and Tian (2012) documented
a frequent observation according to which students and teachers often
have different beliefs about learner strategies.
Over the last 40 years, research on
language learning strategies has gained valuable knowledge on how
learners perceive their own second or foreign language learning and
what strategies they adopt in or outside the classroom. What is
clearly missing from the published literature is a more focused
attention on the foreign language learning strategies of elementary
school students. Also, as Oxford and Burry-Stock (1995) and, more
recently, Yilmaz (2010) and Jin-Suk & Tae-Young (2011) have
rightly pointed out, research on learner beliefs and strategies is
needed from a variety of cultural and linguistic backgrounds. This
study aims at contributing to this field by investigating a large
number of Hungarian EFL learners' overall language learning
strategies in grades 5 and 6 and their strategy use in relationship
with background variables, such as grade level and gender.
2 Literature Review
2.1 Language Learning Strategies
The term language learning strategy has been defined in a variety of ways in the last decades, giving way to criticism and lack of consensus (Dörnyei 2005, White 2008). The definitions dating back to the 1980s and 1990s are still the most frequently cited ones (Zare 2012). For example, learning strategies were understood by O’Malley & Chamot as “special thoughts or behaviors that individuals use to help them comprehend, learn, or retain new information” (O’Malley & Chamot 1990: 1). While early research treated strategies as conscious behavior, most recent definitions recognize the semi-conscious nature of certain strategy use. In line with this idea, Cohen defined language learning strategies as “the conscious or semi-conscious thoughts and behaviors used by learners with the explicit goal of improving their knowledge and understanding of a target language” (Cohen 2003: 280). For the present study the definition of Oxford (1990) will be adopted, being the most comprehensive and inclusive one. According to Oxford (1990: 8),
language learning strategies are operations employed by the learner to aid the acquisition, storage, retrieval, and use of information…; specific actions taken by the learners to make learning easier, faster, more enjoyable, more self-directed, more effective, and more transferable to new situations (Oxford 1990: 8).
Researchers
in the field have also faced the problem of classifying strategies,
with the result of various taxonomies in use. One of the early
categorizations distinguishes between direct and indirect strategies
(Rubin 1975). According to Rubin, direct strategies, such as
clarifying,
monitoring, memorizing, and guessing,
directly contribute to language learning, while students
indirectly benefit from additional strategies like finding
opportunities to practice
the target language. O’Malley et al. (1985) and O’Malley & Chamot (1990) identified three main types of strategies, namely
metacognitive (e.g. planning and self-monitoring), cognitive (e.g.
repetition, translation and decontextualisation) and socioaffective
(e.g. cooperation and questions for clarification), dedicating most
of their attention to meta-cognitive strategies. Oxford (1990, 2001)
took a step further by identifying six sub-categories, the first
three belonging to the direct, and the second three to the indirect
group of strategies. These six sub-categories are the following:
memory strategies, cognitive strategies, compensation strategies,
meta-cognitive strategies, affective strategies, and social
strategies.
Oxford's division
of strategies provided the basis for designing the Strategy Inventory
for Language Learning (SILL), also used in the present study (Oxford
1990).
Learning strategies have been observed
through a variety of self-reporting methods, including interviews,
stimulated recall interviews, questionnaires, written diaries, and
think-aloud protocols related to certain learning tasks (Chamot
2005). As the author reports,
each of these methods has limitations, but at the present time they remain the only way to generate insights into the unobservable mental learning strategies of learners (Chamot 2005: 113).
It
has been shown that language learners at all levels adopt strategies,
and strategy use can be influenced by a variety of background
variables. In recent years, some of the most widely researched of
these variables have been gender, language proficiency, educational
background, age or grade level, study goals, tasks to which strategy
use is linked, language or cultural background and the degree of
effectiveness in target language learning (e.g. Hong-Nam
& Leavell 2007; Griffiths 2003, Lan
2005, Magogwe & Oliver 2007, Chen 2009, Dhanapala 2007, Wong & Nunan 2011, Khamkhienm
2010). Cohen
rightly concluded that “no single strategy will be appropriate for
all learners or for all tasks, and invariably individual learners
will apply the very same strategies in different ways” (Cohen 2003:
282).
2.2 Strategy Studies on Young
Learners
Research on the strategy use of children has provided some evidence that children do use strategies from preschool levels onward (Rea and Mercuri 2006), although they are usually not successful in reporting on them until their upper elementary school years (Cohen 2003; Cooper and Corpus 2009). Children’s meta-cognitive development, which includes knowledge of themselves (how they perform in certain situations), and knowledge about the strategies they use to solve tasks (how they do things), greatly varies among individuals (Fisher 1998). Pinter (2006), by reviewing literature on 10- and 11-year-olds’ cognitive development, concluded that children at this stage of their life can think logically, organize their thoughts and focus on a wide range of cognitive tasks. They are also able to reflect on their thinking and learning processes, which is a prerequisite for being able to report on their strategy use. Cooper & Corpus (2009) highlighted the methodological problems of studying elementary school aged children’s strategy use, as
current approaches rely upon survey measures that are inappropriate for young children. Even the interview methods used in some studies …may be inappropriate for early elementary children who typically do not provide substantive responses to open-ended prompts (Cooper & Corpus 2009: 527).
For the present
study, the SILL was adopted in light of the reviewed literature and
the personal experience of the authors with Hungarian 11- and
12-year-olds, which suggested that students of this age are able to
fill out self-reported questionnaires of this type.
To
the best knowledge of the authors, very few studies have been
published on the foreign language learning strategies of fifth and
sixth graders in or outside of Hungary. They mostly focused on
understanding the individuals in small groups and investigated
task-related strategy use employing observations or think-aloud
protocols. Due to their limited number, all of them
serve us with valuable
information. Raja (2009), for example, reported on the strategy
training and use of third, fourth and sixth grader Tamil speaking
students (n=216) in English immersion classes in the Tamil Nadu state
of India. The author found that over 80 percent of the participants
reported using all six of the Oxford (1990) strategy categories. The
study was based on classroom observation, think-aloud protocols and
teacher reports. Chamot & El-Dinary (1999) studied strategy use
in immersion class environments (French, Japanese and Spanish) in the
USA. They used a think-aloud protocol with students from kindergarten
to sixth grade, focusing on the differences between less and more
successful student groups. The implications of this study are very
limited due to the methodology
employed and
the low number of participants. Both of these studies reported
on the strategy use of English as a second
rather than a foreign language.
Although
even more limited in number, there have also been some recent studies
that analyze EFL contexts. Coyle & Valcácel (2002) used a small
number of participants (n=8, eight- and nine-year-old Spanish
students), categorized by their teachers as good language learners.
The major strength of this study is that interviews with the students
were conducted while and after carrying out certain language tasks.
Nikolov (2003 and 2006) also investigated the task-related strategy
use of sixth and seventh graders. These studies explored the
strategies students mentioned while solving reading and writing
tasks. The author pointed out a number of methodological pitfalls of
the data collection and data categorization. Cooper
& Corpus (2009) reported on the strategy development for
maintaining motivation of first, third and fifth graders in
comparison to adults. They observed that even the youngest study
group showed good understanding of concrete, behavioral strategies,
while mental or abstract strategies were used only by the fifth
graders and the adult participants.
A
comprehensive study was carried out by Lan (2005) involving over a
thousand English language elementary school learners in Taiwan. By
using the Taiwanese Children’s SILL, semi-structured interviews,
vocabulary tasks and investigating other background variables, the
author was able to provide valuable insight into this student
population’s strategy use. The study found that children employed
all the six Oxford categories of strategies and that their strategy
use correlated with background variables such as the their degree of
liking English, their gender, language proficiency, study goals,
and their father’s education.
It can be concluded that research on
language learning strategies has been carried out mainly on secondary
school and adult populations who are able to provide data through
large surveys. Studies investigating the foreign language learning
strategies of elementary school children are rather limited and
preliminary in nature, and the majority of them focus on a single
strategy type or skill, or describe strategies used by bilingual
children or children in immersion classes. Unfortunately, very little
has been published about what strategies children use while studying
and practicing a foreign language.
3 Research Questions
Based on the literature reviewed, this study seeks to find answers to the following research questions:
- Is the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) a reliable and well-working instrument in an EFL context with elementary school students in grades 5 and 6?
- What is the overall language learning strategy use of this age group?
- Are there significant differences between the two grades in their strategy use?
- Are there significant differences between young male and female students in their strategy use?
The
purpose of this research is threefold. Firstly, it aims to explore
whether the SILL is a reliable tool of investigation with fifth and
sixth graders, a young age group with whom it has not been widely
used so far. Secondly, it examines the overall language learning
strategy use of fifth and sixth graders, about which limited
published data exist. Thirdly, it investigates differences in
strategy preferences by grade level and by gender and compares the
results with those of earlier studies.
4 Methods
4.1 Participants
Students from three public elementary schools of southern Hungary serving grades 1 to 8 were invited to participate in the study. A total of 275 students were included in this investigation, 146 students from grade 5 and 129 students from grade 6. The overall participant group consisted of 148 boys and 127 girls. Consent prior to administering the questionnaire was obtained from the principals and the English teachers of the schools. All students were native speakers of Hungarian learning English as a foreign language in a formal school setting. They had an average of 3.4 years of previous English studies in grade 5 and 4.1 years in grade 6. They represent average English learners, as outstanding school results were not a prerequisite for participating in this study, unlike in a number of other studies which had focused on the strategy use of ‘good language learners’ (e.g. Rubin 1975, Morales & Smith 2008; Edwards 2008). The fifth graders, on average, had 3.8, while the sixth graders had 3.6 English marks in a five-point grading scale system, 5 being the highest mark.
4.2 Instruments
An adapted version of the SILL for learners of English as a second or foreign language (Oxford 1990) was employed in this study. Drawing on Yang (2007), it consisted of 48 statements, each related to one to the main strategy groups: memory strategies (items 1 to 8) for storing and retrieving information, cognitive strategies (items 9 to 22) for understanding and producing target language elements, compensation strategies (items 23 to 28) for helping overcome a lack of target language knowledge, meta-cognitive strategies (items 29 to 37) for coordinating the language learning process, affective strategies (items 38 to 42) in connection with emotions, motivation and attitudes and social strategies (items 43 to 48) which involve interaction with others during language learning and as a form of language practice. A Hungarian (the native language of the participants) translation of the questionnaire was used to insure clear understanding of the statements. The 48 items were evaluated on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (never or almost never true of me) to 5 (always or almost always true of me). The SILL has been translated into various languages and undergone multiple reliability and validity checks (Oxford & Burry-Stock 1995). Therefore, to date, it has been the most widely applied and reliable strategy instrument.
5 Results and
Discussion
5.1 Reliability and applicability of the SILL (Research Question 1)
The internal consistency reliability of the questionnaire was satisfactorily high at .93 on Cronbach alpha for the entire study population. Cronbach alpha was .93 for fifth graders and .94 for sixth graders. This is in line with previous research conducted using the SILL. Studies have reported reliability coefficients for the SILL ranging between .85 and .98 (Hong-Nam & Leavell 2006). Children’s version of the SILL has proved to work well with Taiwanese students (Lan 2005) and selected questions taken from the SILL were used in other studies involving children (e.g. Hong-Nam & Leavell 2006). In the present study, however, the adult version of the SILL (Oxford 1990) also proved to work well when translated to the participants' mother tongue. Fifth and sixth graders were able to understand and fill in the relatively long questionnaire. We find this a valuable piece of information for researchers who wish to study the strategy use of elementary school students.
5.2 Overall Language Learning
Strategy Use (Research Question 2)
When considered as one main group, all students reported on being actively engaged in language leaning strategies. Descriptive statistics show that the average frequency of strategy use reported for fifth and sixth graders ranked middle (M=2.6 to 3.2) according to Oxford’s (1990) scale. The least preferred strategies were compensation (M=2.6, SD=.7), while memory, cognitive, social (M=2.8, SD=.6, .7 and .9, respectively) and affective strategies (M=2.9, SD=.9) were placed slightly higher. The most preferred group of the six strategy categories was meta-cognitive strategies (M=3.2). If compared to the other large-scale study with children using SILL type questions (Lan 2005), preference to strategy use shows some similarity between the Taiwanese and the Hungarian students. In Lan (2005) meta-cognitive strategies placed only fourth with similar means (M=3.0), while memory strategies were the most frequent ones (M=3.2), .4 average lower than in the Hungarian data.
The
inconsistency in the results
of studies on language learning strategies and
the limitations of these studies have been voiced by various authors
(e.g. Gürsoy 2010, Cohen 2005, Griffiths & Parr 2001).
Similarities in and differences between the various data sets may,
most probably, be due to different selection criteria, data
collection methodology, age, language backgrounds and strategy
trainings.
5.3 Strategy Use according to
Grade Level (Research question 3)
When participant data were grouped by grade level (grade 5 and grade 6), data analysis revealed no significant differences for the use of the six main strategy subscales (Table 1).
- Strategy subscalesGrade 5n=146Grade 6n=129
pmeanSDmeanSDMemory2.8.62.8.7n.sCognitive2.8.72.8.6n.sCompensation2.7.72.6.7n.sMeta-cognitive3.1.83.2.8n.sAffective2.9.92.9.9n.sSocial2.81.02.8.9n.s
Table
1:
Summary
of language learning strategy use in the two grade levels
The
average frequency of strategy use ranged
between 2.6 and 3.2. Meta-cognitive strategies were
placed the highest, while
compensation strategies
were the lowest for both groups. A more detailed item analysis was
also
carried out to see if grade differences existed.
Statistically
significant differences between the two grade levels were found for
three statements only. Among
the cognitive strategies sixth graders reported that they repeat new
vocabulary items more frequently in order to memorize them (MG5=3.4,
MG6=3.8,
p<0 .01="" and="" like="" more="" native-like="" sound="" span="" students="" than="" that="" the="" they="" to="" would="" younger="">G5=3.2,
MG6=3.6,
p<0 .05="" a="" affective="" as="" claimed="" do="" english="" fifth="" for="" give="" graders="" in="" more="" often="" or="" reward="" span="" sub-scale="" the="" themselves="" they="" to="" treat="" well="" when="">G5=2.9,
MG6=2.5,
p<0 .05="" nbsp="" span="">
The
small differences in the strategy use of the two grade levels are not
surprising. Overall means mask individual differences, and students
of both groups had had similar former language learning experiences,
attended the same or similar schools, and were at a similar cognitive
and literacy developmental level. Chen (2009), who studied students
in grades 7, 8 and 9 in Taiwan, showed a significant shift in
strategy preference across the grades. This result was explained by
the author as a clear indication of the fact that students at this
age undergo a shift in their learning style which
brings with itself the employment
of different strategies. Cooper & Corpus (2009) were also able to
report on a significant increase in strategy knowledge between grades
1, 3 and 5. However, a 5-year-span in students’ cognitive, literacy
and foreign language skills is definitely large enough to show clear
developments, while a 1-year-span in the mid-elementary school years
(as in our study) is less significant on the group level, but rather
involves individual differences.
5.4 Strategy Use according to
Gender (Research question 4)
Table 2 shows results for the frequency of strategy use reported by the two genders.
- Strategy subscalesBoysn=148Girlsn=127
pmeanSDmeanSDMemory2.6.73.0.6< 0.01Cognitive2.7.73.0.6< 0.01Compensation2.5.72.8.7< 0.05Metacognitive2.9.83.5.7< 0.01Affective2.7.93.1.9< 0.01Social2.61.03.1.8< 0.01
Table
2:
Summary
of language learning strategy use by gender
In all aspects of the data, statistically significant differences were found in favor of girls. Mean differences revealed that, in all six sub-scales, females engaged in strategy use more frequently than males, the largest difference being found in meta-cognitive strategy use (Mmales=2.9, Mfemales=3.5).
T-tests
pointed to a number of conclusions suggesting a more active
involvement of young female students in their foreign language
learning. Girls indicated that during vocabulary learning, they use
new English words in sentences more frequently, employ rhymes and
repeat words to remember them. They also frequently act out
situations or use mental images that help them memorize vocabulary.
They are more likely to connect the phonetic forms with these mental
images and translate the vocabulary items to their native language.
If vocabulary access from their mental lexicon is unsuccessful, they
rely on words with a similar meaning to express their thoughts. Girls
take
more notes, write messages, letters, reports and read in English more
often than do boys.
They also
indicated that they prefer skim-reading a text before reading it with
care. Finally, they review their class notes more often than boys.
Results
also support the notion that girls have better verbal skills. They
initiate conversations more frequently, and they monitor their
partners’ speech more closely. While they strive to sound more
native-like than boys and practice English sounds, they also like to
talk to their peers. When the message is unclear, they are more
likely to ask their interlocutor to slow down or to provide
clarification, and they also ask for correction.
Girls
reflect on their study progress more frequently than boys. Moreover,
they seek opportunities more frequently to improve their target
language skills. They are less afraid of making mistakes and try to
relax,
reward themselves, or reflect on their errors. What is more, they
make deliberate efforts to
spend more time studying English and to learn about the culture of
English speaking countries. In conclusion, girls in this study showed
more dedication
to learning the target language and
a higher frequency of strategy use than boys.
A
number of recent studies on learning strategies have also addressed
the gender differences in their data, either finding no significant
differences in the overall strategy use between the two genders (e.g.
Radwan 2011, Bonyadi et al. 2012), reporting on higher scores for
females than males across all age levels (e.g. Yilmay 2010, Teh et
al. 2009),
or reporting mixed results for specific
strategies (Radwan 2011, Hong-Nam & Leavel 2006). Hong-Nam & Leavel (2006), for example, reported on mixed gender-related results
in their US study in which males indicated to use meta-cognitive,
compensation and affective strategies
the least frequently, while females used meta-cognitive and memory
strategies the least frequently. As was
discussed in the case of age related differences, non-conclusive
results for gender differences across studies can be due to methods,
choice of study populations or other background variables. The
combination of age, language background and methodology chosen for
this study has not been investigated earlier. Therefore, results
provide new insight into early strategy use of young foreign language
learners.
6 Implications and
Limitations
As Wong & Nunan (2011) concluded, more successful learners are able to develop effective learning strategies by themselves, while less successful learners need assistance. The knowledge of strategy use gained in this study should be extended to students with the goal in mind that they could become more productive language learners in and outside the classroom when pointed to new strategies or strategies they use less frequently. An outcome of this research could be more direct research-based EFL teaching and the results should be used in pre-service and in-service teacher training. Similar research could assist teachers in their curriculum design and in helping students to better understand the importance of strategy use.
Overgeneralization of the results
should be avoided. It is important to point out that the results do
not necessarily reflect the strategy use related to certain task
types used in the classroom. The SILL chosen for this study is a
quick inventory for possible strategy preference of elementary school
EFL students; however, it is not task-based. While this may seem to
be a shortcoming of this research, using the SILL indeed proved to be
a major strength by showing that students as young as eleven can
engage in self-reporting through this questionnaire that had mainly
been considered adequate for older study populations. Interview and
observation-based studies with small groups of learners should be
viewed together with larger-scale investigations like the present
one. As a future direction of research, it would be interesting to
see how other background variables, such as school grades, language
proficiency, study goals, or the amount of time spent with the target
language reflect upon the strategy preference of young students.
Another area of investigation suggested by these results is an
examination of how strategy preferences change over time and across
languages, cultures and school curricula.
All participants of the experiment
were young native speakers of Hungarian learning English as a foreign
language in a formal school setting. Therefore, the results of the
experiment are only valid for this specific student population.
Students' homogeneous educational background means another
limitation, as they come from similar public elementary schools of
the same region. Although the sample size was much larger than the
ones used in the majority of previous strategy studies carried out
with elementary school students, a larger and more diverse subject
pool would have been required to generate more robust statistical
evidence. Further research is needed among seventh and eighth graders
to see whether grade differences become more visible as students
progress through elementary school education.
7 Conclusion
The present study represents another step in the process of understanding the overall foreign language learning strategy use of elementary school students. The purpose of this research was threefold. Firstly, it set out to explore whether the SILL is a reliable tool of investigation with a young age group with whom it has not been widely used. Secondly, it examined the overall language learning strategy use of fifth and sixth graders. Thirdly, it explored differences in strategy preferences by grade level and by gender.
Results
revealed a high reliability coefficient for the Hungarian SILL
indicating that the instrument is reliable and works well with fifth
and sixth graders if the statements are translated to the native
language of the learners. Meta-cognitive strategies were found to be
employed
the most frequently by
this age group, while compensation strategies were the least popular
ones. There were only three statements that showed grade level shift;
overall, no significant differences were found in the use of the six
subgroups of strategies between younger and older students. As for
gender differences, young females
showed a higher
frequency of strategy use across all strategy types. As data were
based on self-report and language learning as a whole, the study
extended our
understanding of the way young learners view and facilitate their
foreign language learning process.
References
Bonyadi, Alireza, Nikou, Farahnaz Rimani & Shahbaz, Sima (2012). The relationship between EFL learners' self-efficacy beliefs and their language learning strategy Use. English Language Teaching 5 (8), 113–121.
Chamot,
Anna Uhl & El-Dinary,
Pamela Beard (1999). Children's learning strategies in language
immersion classrooms. Modern
Language Journal 83
(3), 319−338.
Chamot,
Anna Uhl (2005). Language learning strategy instruction: Current
issues and research. Annual
Review of Applied Linguistics
25,
112−130.
Chen,
Mei-Ling (2009). Influence of grade level on perceptual learning
style preferences and language learning strategies of Taiwanese
English as a foreign language learners. Learning
and Individual Differences 19
(2), 304−308.
Cohen,
Andrew D. (2003). The learner’s side of foreign language learning:
where do styles, strategies, and tasks meet? International
Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching
41 (4), 279–291.
Cohen,
Andrew D. (2005). Language learning strategy instruction: current
issues and research. Annual
Review of Applied Linguistics
25, 112−130.
Cooper,
Cyntia A. & Corpus, Jennifer Henderlong (2009). Learners'
developing knowledge of strategies for regulating motivation. Journal
of Applied Developmental Psychology
30 (4), 525−536.
Dhanapala,
Kusumi Vasatha (2007).
Focusing on language learning strategies of advanced learners
in
Japan and Sri Lanka. Journal
of International Development and Cooperation
13 (1),
153−164.
Dörnyei,
Zoltán (2005). The
psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second
language acquisition.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Edwards,
Melinda (2004). A sikeres közösségi nyelvtanuló [The successful
community language learner]. In Kontráné H.E. & Kormos, J.
(Eds.). A
nyelvtanuló. Sikerek–módszerek–stratégiák [The language
learner. Success–methods–strategies].
Budapest: OKKER: 65–82.
Fisher,
Robert (1998). Thinking about thinking: developing metacognition in
children. Early
Child Development and Care
141,
1−15.
Griffiths,
Carol (2003). Patterns of language learning strategy use. System
31 (3), 367−383.
Griffiths,
Carol & Parr,
Judy M. (2001).
Language
learning strategies: theory and Research. ELT
Journal
55 (3), 247−254.
Gürsoy,
Esim (2010). Investigating language learning strategies of EFL
children for the development of a taxonomy. English
Language Teaching
3 (3), 164−175.
Hong-Nam,
Kyundsim & Leavell. Alexandra G. (2006). Language learning
strategy use of ESL students in an intensive English learning
context. System
34 (3), 399−415.
Hong-Nam,
Kyungsim & Leavell. Alexandra G. (2007).
A
Comparative study of language learning strategy use in an EFL
context: Monolingual Korean and bilingual Korean-Chinese university
students. Asia
Pacific Education Review
8 (1), 71−88.
Hu,
Bo & Tian, Lili (2012). Do teachers and students share similar
beliefs about teaching and learning strategies? System
40,
237−254.
Jin-Suk,
Yang & Tae-Young Kim (2011). Sociocultural analysis of second
language learner beliefs: A qualitative case study of two
study-abroad ESL learners. System
39,
325−334.
Khamkhien,
Attapol (2010). Factors affecting language learning strategy
reported usage by Thai and Vietnamese EFL learners. Electronic
Journal of Foreign Language Teaching
7(1), 66−85.
Lan,
Rae L. (2006). Language
learning strategies profiles of EFL elementary school students in
Taiwan.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Maryland.
Magogwe,
Joel Mokuedi & Oliver, Rhonda (2007).The relationship between
language learning strategies, proficiency, age and self-efficacy
beliefs: A study of language learners in Botswana. System
35(3), 338−352.
Morales,
Morales & Smith, Daniel J. (2008). Spanish learning strategies of
some good language learners. Porta
Linguarum
9, 167−177.
Nikolov,
Marianne (2003). Hatodikosok stratégiahasználata olvasott szöveg
értését és íráskészséget mérő feladatokon angol nyelvből
[The strategy use of sixth graders during reading comprehension and
writing tasks in English]. Magyar
Pedagógia
103 (1), 5−34.
Nikolov,
Marianne (2006). Test-taking strategies of 12- and 13-year-old
Hungarian
learners of EFL: Why whales have migraines. Language
Learning
56 (1), 1–51.
O’Malley,
Michael J. & Chamot, Anna Uhl (1990). Learning
strategies in second language acquisition.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
O’Malley,
Michael J., Chamot, Anna Uhl, Stewner-Manzanares, Gloria, Russo,
Rocco P. & Küpper, Lisa (1985). Learning strategy applications
with students of English as a second language.
TESOL
Quarterly
19, 557−584.
Oxford,
Rebecca L. & Burry-Stock, Judith A. (1995). Assessing the use of
language learning strategies worldwide with the ESL/EFL version of
the strategy inventory for language learning (SILL). System
23,
1−23.
Oxford,
Rebecca L. (1990). Language
learning strategies: What every teacher should know.
New York: Newbury House/Harper & Row.
Radwan,
Adel Abu (2011). Effects of L2 proficiency and gender on choice of
language learning strategies by university students majoring in
English. Asian
EFL Journal
13(1), 114−162.
Raja, Lalitha R. (2009).
Efficiency of language learning strategies in school children. MJAL 1
(6), 392−412.
Rubin,
Joan (1975). What can we learn from the good language learner?
Canadian
Modern Journal Review
31,
304−318.
Rubin,
Joan (1975). What the "good language learner" can teach us.
TESOL
Quarterly
9
(1), 41−51.
Teh,
Kamarul
Shukri Mat,
Embi, Mohamed
Amin,
Yusoff,
Nik Mohd Rahimi Nik
& Mahamod,
Zamri (2009). A
closer look at gender and Arabic language learning strategies use.
European
Journal of Social Sciences
9 (3), 399−407.
White,
Cynthia (2008). Language learning strategies in independent language
learning: An overview. In Lewis, T., Hurd S. (Eds.). Language
learning in independent settings.
Bristol: Multilingual Matters. pp. 3–24.
Wong,
Lilian L. C. & Nunan, David (2011).The learning styles and
strategies of effective language learners. System
39, 144−163.
Yang,
Ming-Nuan (2007). Language learning strategies for junior college
students in Taiwan: investigating
ethnicity
and proficiency. The
Asian EFL Journal
9 (2), 35–57.
Yilmaz,
Cevdet (2010). The relationship between language learning strategies,
gender, proficiency and self-efficacy beliefs: a study of ELT
learners in Turkey. Procedia.
Social and Behavioral Sciences
2, 262−267.
Zare,
Pezhman (2012). Language learning
strategies among
EFL/ESL
learners:
a review of literature.
International
Journal of Humanities and Social Science
2,
162−169.
Authors:
Katalin
Doró, Ph.D.
University
of Szeged
Department
of English Language Teacher Education and Applied Linguistics
Egyetem
u. 2.
6722
Szeged
Hungary
E-mail:
dorokati@lit.u-szeged.hu
Anita
Habók, Ph.D.
University
of Szeged
Institute
of Education
MTA-SZTE Research Group on the Development of Competencies
Petőfi
sgt. 30-34.
6722
Szeged
Hungary
E-mail:
habok@edpsy.u-szeged.hu