T. C.
PAMUKKALE ÜNİVERSİTESİ
EĞİTİM BİLİMLERİ ENSTİTÜSÜ
YABANCI DİLLER EĞİTİMİ ANABİLİM DALI
İNGİLİZ DİLİ EĞİTİMİ BİLİM DALI
YÜKSEK LİSANS TEZİ
A LONGITUDINAL STUDY OF LANGUAGE LEARNING
STRATEGY USE BY PREP YEAR EFL STUDENTS
Dilek ATEŞ
TR
PAMUKKALE UNIVERSITY
INSTITUTE OF EDUCATIONAL SCIENCES
DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES EDUCATION ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHING PROGRAM
MASTER’S THESIS
A LONGITUDINAL STUDY OF LANGUAGE LEARNING STRATEGY
USE BY PREP YEAR EFL STUDENTS
Dilek ATEŞ
Supervisor Prof. Dr. Demet YAYLI
v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
It would not have been possible to complete this study without the support and advice of a large number of people around me during this long process of this thesis.
First of all, I owe my deepest gratitude to my supervisor Prof. Dr. Demet YAYLI for her invaluable guidance, support and patience . Without her supervision and her faith in me, I would not have managed to complete this thesis. I would like to thank her for getting me back on my legs whenever I needed by reading every bits of it in detail and giving me her valuable suggestions and insightful comments to complete this thesis.
I would also like to express my sincere gratude to Prof. Dr. Turan PAKER, Assoc. Prof. Dr. Recep ŞAHİN and Assoc. Prof. Dr. Selami OK for accepting me as an MA student and their contrubition, guiadance and support during my master’s degree education.
I am deeply grateful to my collegue and friend Ergün Cihat ÇORBACI for his support in finding my way dealing with numbers and codes for the analysis part.
Besides I would like to express my greatest regard to Prof. Dr. Leyla HARPUTLU and Dr. Devrim HÖL for their precious contribution during my thesis defense.
I would also like to thank all those students at PAU and ADU who participated in my study both quantitavely and qualitatively. My collegues at PAU and ADU deserves a thank for their help while I collected the quantitative data. I also thank my friends who could not see me during the writing process of the thesis and still support me.
My special and sincere thanks go to my dearest grandmother Remziye ÇELİK and my sister İpek ÇELİK for their never ending support and patience. Without them, it would be hard for me to complete this study. I owe much to them.
Finally, my very special appreciation is for my beloved husband Erhan ATEŞ for his trust, support and great patiance. Without him, it would be more painful for me to write this thesis.
vi
DEDICATION
To my dearest family, and my husband, Erhan
vii
ÖZET
İngilizceyi Yabancı Dil Olarak Öğrenen Hazırlık Öğrencilerinin Dil Öğrenme Stratejilerinin Kullanımının Boylamsal Çalışması
ATEŞ, Dilek
Yüksek Lisans Tezi, İngiliz Dili Eğitimi Anabilim Dalı
Tez Danışmanı: Prof. Dr. Demet YAYLI
Haziran 2019, 158 sayfa
Bu çalışma, üniversite düzeyindeki İngilizce öğrenen öğrencilerin kullandıkları öğrenme stratejileriyle öğrenme seviyeleri ve hazırlık eğitimi gibi diğer faktörler arasında herhangi bir ilişki olup olmadığını saptamaya ve bunu saptayarak İngiliz Dili eğitimine ve müfredat geliştirilmesine katkı sağlamak amacıyla tasarlanmıştır.
Bu çalışma iki devlet üniversitesinde boylamasına bir çalışma olarak yürütülmüştür. Adnan Menderes Üniversitesi’nden 152 öğrenci (60 kız ve 92 erkek) ve Pamukkale Üniversitesi’nden 136 öğrenci (75 kız ve 61 erkek) öğrenci bu çalışmaya katılmıştır. Öğrencilere eğitim dönemlerinin başında ve sonunda olmak üzere Oxford (1990)’ın öğrenme stratejileri üzerine oluşturduğu sormaca ve sormacayla bağlantılı olan görüşme soruları sorulmuştur.
Bu çalışma iki aşamada yürütülmüştür. İlk aşamada, Cesur ve Fer (2007) tarafından güvenirliği ve geçerliliği kanıtlanmış Dil Öğrenme Stratejileri Envanteri (SILL)’nin Türkçe çevirisi, öğrencilerin dil yeterlilikleri ve hazırlık eğitimi arasındaki olası ilişkiyi irdelemek için temek ölçme aracı olarak uygulanmıştır. Çalışmada kullanılan sormaca altı alt başlıkta olmak üzere toplamda 50 maddeden oluşmaktadır. Katılımcılar bu sormacaya hem hazırlık eğitimine başlamadan hem de eğitimi tamamladıktan sonra cevap vermişlerdir. Sormacaya ek olarak, her üniversiteden farklı seviyelerdeki altı öğrenciyle bu nicel veriyi daha iyi anlamak için hem hazırlık eğitiminin başında hem de sonunda olmak üzere görüşme yapılmış ve önceden belirlenen sorular sorulmuştur. Nicel verilerin analizi için SPSS programı yardımıyla betimleyici istatistik yöntemi kullanılmış, nitel verilerin analizinde ise içerik analizi yöntemi tercih edilmiştir.
viii
Çalışmanın sonuçları, öğrencilerin dil öğrenme strateji kullanımları ve dil öğrenme seviyeleri arasında anlamlı bir ilişki olduğunu göstermiştir. Dil becerisi yüksek olan öğrencilerin strateji kullanımı da yüksektir. Ayrıca hazırlık eğitiminin olası etkisini görmek için uygulanan ön-test son test karşılaştırmasında öğrencilerin dil öğrenme stratejileri kullanımında hazırlık eğitimi sonunda olumlu yönde bir artış olduğu gözlenmiştir. Röportaj verilerinin sonuçlarıyla, dil öğrenme envanterinin sonuçları arasında paralellik vardır. Bu da, öğrencilerin genel öğrenme strateji kullanımlarıyla dil alt becerilerini öğrenirken kullandıkları stratejilerin benzerliğe sahip olduğunu göstermiştir.
Anahtar kelimeler: Dil öğrenimi, dil öğrenme stratejileri, hazırlık eğitimi, üniversite öğrencileri.
ix
ABSTRACT
A Longitudinal Study of Language Learning Strategy Use by Prep Year EFL Students
ATEŞ, Dilek
MA Thesis in English Language Teaching
Supervisor: Prof. Dr. Demet YAYLI
June 2019, 158 pages
This research has been designed with the aim of identifying any kinds of relationships between language learning strategies that EFL learners at university levels use and the other factors that effect this strategy choice such as proficiency level and prep year education and by determining this to help the quality of teaching English language improve and to contribute to the development of ELT teaching and planning of the curriculum.
This research was carried out as a longitudinal study in two state universities. One hundred and fifty two students from Adnan Menderes University English Preparatory School (92 male and 60 female) and 136 students from Pamukkale University English Preparatory School (61 male and 75 female) were the participants of the study. They were given the inventory which were comprised according the Oxford’s (1990) classification of language learning strategies and asked some interview questions directly related to the inventory at the very beginning and end of their prep year education.
This study was carried out in two stages: In the first stage, the Turkish translation of Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) of Oxford (1990) which was adapted by Cesur and Fer (2007) was used as the main instrument for the investigation of the possible relationship among proficiency levels, language learning strategies and prep year education. The Inventory (Oxford, 1990) used in this study consists of 50 items under six subscales. The same questionnaire was conducted both at the beginning of the fall semester and at the end of the spring semester. In addition to the Inventory, with six students at different levels from each university, interviews were carried out to better understand quantitative data both at the beginning of the fall semester and at the end of the spring semester. The quantitative data were analyzed by using descriptive statistics with the SPSS, and the qualitative data were analyzed through pattern coding for recurrent themes.
x
The results of this study revealed that there was a statistically meaningful relationship between language learning strategies and learners’ proficiency levels. More proficient learners preferred more frequent use of language learning strategies (LLS). Moreover, the results of pre-test and post-test about the possible effects of prep year education showed a significantly positive meaningful difference in learners’ use of LLS after prep year education. The findings of the interviews were consistent with the results of the SILL, which showed a similar use of strategies in the sub-skills of English.
Key words: Language learning, language learning strategy use, preparatory education, university students.
xi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
YÜKSEK LİSANS TEZİ ONAY FORMU ... iii
ETİK BEYANNAMESİ ... iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ... v
DEDICATION ... vi
ÖZET ... vii
ABSTRACT ... ix
LIST OF TABLES ... xiii
LIST OF FIGURES ... xvi
LIST OF ABBREVATIONS ... xvii
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION... 1
1.1. Background ... 1
1.2. Statement of the Problem ... 4
1.3. Purpose of the Study ... 4
1.4. Significance of the Study... 4
1.5. Research Questions ... 5
1.6. Limitations of the Study ... 6
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ... 7
2.1. Language Learning Strategies ... 7
2.1.1. Learning Strategies ... 7
2.1.2. Language Learning Strategies ... 9
2.1.3. The Features of LLS ... 11
2.1.4. The Effectiveness of Language Learning Strategies ... 11
2.1.5. Teaching Language Learning Strategies in an Educational Context ... 13
2.2. The Classification of Language Learning Strategies ... 15
2.2.1. Rubin’s Taxonomy of Language Learning Strategies ... 17
2.2.1.1. Direct language learning strategies ... 17
2.2.1.2. Indirect language learning strategies ... 18
2.2.2. O’Malley and Chamot’s Taxonomy of Language Learning Strategies ... 19
2.2.2.1. Cognitive language learning strategies ... 19
2.2.2.2. Socio-affective strategies ... 20
2.2.2.3. Metacognitive strategies ... 20
xii
2.2.3.1. Direct language learning strategies ... 22
2.2.3.2. Indirect language learning strategies ... 25
2.2.4. The Classification Choice in This Study ... 29
2.3. Factors that Influence Strategy Choice ... 29
2.3.1. Proficiency Level ... 30 2.3.2. Individual Differences ... 30 2.3.3. Gender ... 31 2.3.4. Cultural Background ... 32 2.3.5. Task ... 32 2.3.6. Motivation ... 32 2.3.7. Age ... 33
2.4. LLS Studies in Other Languages ... 34
2.5. LLS Studies in English ... 35
2.5.1. LLS Studies Conducted in ESL Context ... 36
2.5.2 LLS Studies Conducted in EFL Context ... 39
2.5.3. LLS Studies in Turkey ... 43
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY ... 48
3.1. The Rationale for the Study ... 48
3.2. The Rationale for the Mixed Method ... 49
3.3. The Design of the Study ... 50
3.4. The Setting ... 50
3.5. The Participants ... 51
3.5.1. The Analysis of the Participants who took the SILL ... 52
3.5.2. The Analysis of the Participants who took the Interview ... 55
3.6. Research Instruments ... 56
3.6.1. The Adapted Version of Oxford’s Language Learning Strategy Inventory ... 57
3.6.2. Student Interviews ... 59
3.7. Data Collection Procedure ... 60
3.8. Data Analysis Process ... 61
3.8.1. Quantitative Data Analysis ... 62
3.8.2. Qualitative Data Analysis ... 63
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND FINDINGS ... 65
xiii
4.1.1. Research Question 1 ... 65
4.1.2. Research Question 2 ... 66
4.1.3. Research Question 3 ... 68
4.1.4. Research Question 4 ... 73
4.2. Results of Qualitative Analysis of the Interviews as Pre- and Post-Tests. ... 79
4.2.1. Research Question 5 ... 80
CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION, CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS ... 108
5.1. Overview of the Study and the Discussion of Findings ... 108
5.2. Implications of the Study... 118
5.3. Suggestions for Further Studies ... 119
5.4. Limitations of the Study ... 120
REFERENCES ... 121
xiv
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 2.1. Classification of LLS by O’Malley and Chamot (1990) ... 21
Table 2.2. Oxford’s (1990) Direct Learning Strategies Classification System ... 22
Table 2.3. Oxford’s (1990) Memory Strategies Classification System ... 23
Table 2.4. Oxford’s (1990) Cognitive Strategies Classification System ... 24
Table 2.5. Oxford’s (1990) Compensation Strategies Classification System ... 25
Table 2.6. Oxford’s (1990) Indirect Learning Strategies Classification System ... 25
Table 2.7. Oxford’s (1990) Metacognitive Strategies Classification System ... 26
Table 2.8. Oxford’s (1990) Affective Strategies Classification System ... 27
Table 2.9. Oxford’s (1990) Social Strategies Classification System ... 28
Table 3.1. Distribution of Participants According to University ... 51
Table 3.2. Distribution of SILL Participants According to Gender ... 52
Table 3.3. Distribution of SILL Participants According to Grade ... 53
Table 3.4. Distribution of SILL Participants According to Age ... 53
Table 3.5. Distribution of SILL Participants According to Faculty ... 54
Table 3.6. ADU Interviewees’ Demographic Information ... 55
Table 3.7 PAU Interviewees’ Demographic Information ... 56
Table 3.8. Overview of Groups in SILL ... 58
Table 3.9. Key to Understanding Learner’s Averages ... 62
Table 3.10. The Results of Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficient (α) for the SILL Instrument ... 63
Table 4.1. Descriptive Statistics at the Beginning of the Program ... 65
Table 4.2. Descriptive Statistics at the End of the Program ... 67
Table 4. 3. The Results of T-test of the Pre-test and Post-test Scores of The SILL Scores ... 68
Table 4.4. Item Analysis Results for Memory Language Learning Strategies ... 69
Table 4.5. Item Analysis Results for Cognitive Language Learning Strategies ... 70
Table 4.6. Item Analysis Results for Compensation Language Learning Strategies ... 71
Table 4.7. Item Analysis Results for Metacognitive Language Learning Strategies ... 71
Table 4.8. Item Analysis Results for Affective Language Learning Strategies ... 72
Table 4.9. Item Analysis Results for Social Memory Language Learning Strategies ... 73
xv
Table 4.11. The Results of Scheffe Post-hoc Analysis of the SILL at the Beginning of the Fall Term
... 75
Table 4.12. The Results of One-way ANOVA of the SILL at the End of the Spring Term ... ... 77
Table 4.13. The Results of Scheffe Post-hoc Analysis of the SILL at the End of the Spring Term..78
Table 4.14. Analysis of Interview Question 4 ... 81
Table 4.15. Analysis of Interview Question 5 ... 83
Table 4.16. Analysis of Interview Question 6 ... 86
Table 4.17. Analysis of Interview Question 7 ... 89
Table 4.18. Analysis of Interview Question 8 ... 95
Table 4.19. Analysis of Interview Question 9 ... 97
Table 4.20. Analysis of Interview Question 10 ... 102
Table 4.21. Analysis of Interview Question 11 ... 105
Table 4.22. Analysis of Interview Question 11 ... 107
Table 5.1. The General Interview Results at the Beginning of the Prep Year ... 117
Table 5.2. The General SILL Results at the Beginning of the Prep Year ... 116
Table 5.3. The General Interview Results at the End of the Prep Year ... 117
xvi
LIST OF FIGURES
Page Figure 2.1. Diagram of the strategy system ... 17 Figure 2.2. Correlations between direct and indirect strategies and among the six strategy groups ... 28 Figure 3.1. The research design in this study ... 50 Figure 3.2. Two concurrent data collection procedures of this study ... 60
xvii
LIST OF ABBREVATIONS
ADU : Adnan Menderes University
ANOVA : Analysis of Variance
EFL : English as a Foreign Language
ELLSI : English Language Learning Strategy Inventory
ESL : English as a Second Language
LLS : Language Learning Strategies
M : Mean
MAQ : Motivation/Attitudes Questionnaire
PAU : Pamukkale University
SI : Strategy Instruction
SPSS : The Statistical Package for the Social Science
The SILL : The Strategy Inventory for Language Learning
TEFL : Teaching English as a Foreign Language
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION
The aim of this chapter is to report on the introduction of the study. It starts with a brief background, which is followed by the statement of the problem, purpose of the study, significance of the study, research questions and the limitations.
1.1 Background
Language is the key element of life as it enables people to express their thoughts (Crystal, 2008) and thus, it helps us to differ from animals. People use language for a lot of reasons such as expressing their feelings, clarifying and defending their ideas, gathering the essential needs like finding food and sheltering. However, after the Industrial Revolution, language has gained more power than it had before as people started to do business with other countries. This change has created a need in learning other countries’ languages as the communication among people speaking different languages became more important than before. As a result of this necessity, people have begun to search ways to learn a new language.
Unlike other languages, English has gained far more importance as a consequence of developing technology. Most of the technological developments are made in the USA, which has also economic and political power upon most of other countries. As a result, it is commonly seen as a global medium of communication. Crystal (2003, p.6) suggests that nearly 1.5 billion people around the world is already fluent or competent in English with a native or non-native command. It has been seen as “the language of business, technology, science, the Internet, popular entertainment, and even sports” (Nunan, 2003, p.589). Furthermore, Swales (1987) estimated that most of the papers published every year in academic contexts use English as the medium. In addition to this, in most of the disciplines, English is accepted as to be the main language of communication (Nunan, 2003). As a consequence of these, a high demand for learning English emerged for people who are in search for a globalized communication, a better job, better education opportunities and an awareness for different cultures. (Ghasemi & Hashemi, 2011). This led language teachers to create different approaches to teach languages. The first approach used in language teaching was Grammar Translation method, which was stated by Richard and Rodgers (2001) as:
…the type of grammar-translation courses remembered with distaste by thousands of school learners, for whom foreign language learning meant a tedious experience of memorizing endless
lists of unusable grammar rules and vocabulary and attempting to produce perfect translations of stiled or literary purpose (pp.3-4).
In this method, language teaching was directly teacher-centered and the instructions were given in learners’ own language. After a while, against grammar-translation method, the Audio-Lingual method emerged during 1960s (Richards & Rodgers, 2001). In this method, speaking and listening were placed as the main focus, however learners were in a “relative neglect” (Dansereau, 1978, p.78, italics original) as they were not allowed to make mistakes (Richards & Rogers, 2001), which was accepted as unwanted in any part of language learning processes. Therefore, when looked from the learners’ point of view, little attention was given to their actual language development (Tarone & Yule, 1989). On the other hand, related to the movements in philosophy, humanism started to become in the center of the learning and teaching environments (Lightbown & Spada, 2006). Parallel to humanism, new methods emerged and they required more active learners in learning environments. One of these methods was Communicative Language Teaching movement and Hymes (1972) named language competence as ‘communicative competence’. Later it was divided into four sub-dimensions by Canale and Swain (1980) as grammatical competence, discourse
competence, sociolinguistic competence, and strategic competence. This “communicative
approach implicitly encourages learners to take greater responsibility for their own learning” (Oxford et al, 1989, p.33), however, like previous methods, the greater emphasis was still upon how teachers’ teach rather than how learners use or learn the language. Only in the latest methodologies, researchers have started to focus on learner autonomy and learning processes, the only problem is that they have all assumed that all learners learn in same way by neglecting personal differences. However, it is impossible to meet all the learners needs with only a single method (Oxford, 2011; Nunan, 1991); therefore later on, it was concluded that there is no ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ approach in language teaching (Kumarevadivelu, 1994). This thought led researchers and teachers to become more eclectic to benefit from all the potential advantages in different kinds of approaches and methods.
As a result of this eclectic approach, the contributions made by learners into learning and learning environment have been taken into account more seriously. According to Rivers (1983, p.134, Author’s italics) “any learning is an active process”, therefore an awareness in language learning has been occurred and the popularity has shifted from the product of the learning to the process of it. As a result of this change in
interest, classroom focus has been removed from teacher-oriented ones to more student-oriented ones (Rubin, 1987, Zhao, 2009). By reshaping teacher and learner roles, learners have been accepted as having the “capacity for detachment, critical reflection, decision-making, and independent action” (Little, 1991, p. 4). For this reason, teachers began to create activities and techniques in line with learner-oriented approaches in language teaching (Reiss, 1985; Wenden, 1991; Tamada, 1996) and focused more on the language processes where learning takes place than the language learning products (Oxford, 1990). Accordingly, researchers have found out that some learners have the ability to acquire the language more successfully than others do. They tried to find out the underlying reasons of these learners’ being more successful in learning than others. There has been a lot of discussion around the topic of helping students to become better and self-efficient language learners. With this purpose in mind, researchers like Gardner, Spolsky and Oller have done studies about the importance of attitudes and motivation. Gardner and Lambert (1972) have focused on two kinds of motivation known as instrumental and integrative. As for them, motivation is important and the latter is more related to the successful learner. Krashen’s focus (1981) was on the innate side of the language learning. As for Krashen (1981), there is a similarity between the second language acquisition and child’s first language acquisition, therefore he made a distinction between learning and acquiring a language. According to Krashen (1976), it is impossible to learn a language consciously; instead, it can be acquired through natural communication. Most of Krashen’s ideas have been criticized later, as he placed no room for conscious language learning.
To enhance autonomous learners and to create a learning atmosphere enabling student-centeredness, one of the variables, which gained increased popularity among researchers and teachers, is language learning strategies (LLS) (e.g., Brown, 2007; Cohen, 2011; O’Malley & Chamot, 1990; Oxford, 2011; Shi, 2017; Wenden and Rubin, 1987). LLS have been accepted as “an extremely powerful learning tool” (O’Malley, Chamot, Stewner-Manzares, Kupper & Russo, 1985, p.43). Notwithstanding the importance of using LLS in foreign language learning, numerous studies, which have focused on the effects of certain types of language education provided at universities upon using LLS, is still insufficient.
1.2. Statement of the Problem
Recently, within the context of learning a foreign language, the studies focusing on learning strategies have been at the center of attraction. Therefore, the focus of this research is to examine how prep year education affects LLS used by adult Turkish EFL students in higher education. By investigating the possible effects of prep year language education upon the use of LLS, this study aims to contribute to the quality of syllabus programming in prep classes
1.3. The Purpose of the Study
English learning is a very important issue in Turkey, and although researchers like Aslan (2009), Cesur (2008), Çetinkaya (2017), Demirel (2012), Gürsoy (2010), Karatay (2006), Sarıgül (2000), Şen (2009), Yalçın (2006), conducted several research studies on LLSs, there is still little research with the use of LLS among university students as its focus.
As the researcher of the current study, I have been working as an instructor in one of the universities chosen as the research area. Therefore, it has been easy for me to observe the background and progress of the students. It can be stated that the profile of students is very similar every year. Therefore, this study can give an insight about how learners having a similar background make use of these strategies. Furthermore, the other selected university has similar students and similar education program, which enabled me to compare the use of strategies at the beginning and at the end of the program.
The main aim of this study was to examine the LLS use and possible changes in the use of LLS by learners who were given a one-year English education at two state universities and to find out whether strategy uses were directly related to being successful in language learning. It also aimed at discovering what strategies the students mostly preferred and whether there were any changes in strategy choices at the end of the learning program.
1.4. The Significance of the Study
The focus upon LLS used by EFL learners is not a new subject in language teaching environments and there have been a lot of studies carried out to find out the strategies preferred by learners while learning English at both private and state universities. Since a large portion of time at university is spent (one year in Turkey) learning and using English efficiently and since there is a great deal of material to be
covered in a short period of time, it is essential that university students’ learning process should be practical and useful in terms of using the language and learning to improve it. After having studied English, at least for eight years before entering the university, most EFL students still have problems deciding which kinds of learning strategies are useful for them and how they should practice them in their learning process.
In this point, it is necessary to determine the effectiveness of prep year education that may have an impact on the strategy preferences of the learners and their awareness of strategies. To determine the effectiveness, this study was based on Rebecca Oxford (1990)’s taxonomy of LLS which has two orientations (direct and indirect) and six sub-categories (cognitive, memory, compensation, metacognitive, social and affective). The present study also employed the questionnaire of SILL (Oxford, 1990), which depends on this taxonomy of categories. To validate the quantitative data, interview questions were also used in relation to the questionnaire items. In sum, the researcher believes that studies focusing on a comparison of strategy use of EFL learners at the beginning and at the end of a prep year education at university level are nonexistent. This study will give a pathway for further studies to determine the most important factors that have an influence upon EFL students’ development of strategy uses during their prep year education.
1.5. Research Questions
The present study aimed to examine the LLS employed by Turkish state university preparation class students. Therefore, a questionnaire based on Oxford’s (1990) categorization about language learning strategies and initial and final interviews with some volunteering students were used as data collection tools.
This research aimed to find out whether there were any effects of the education given by state university preparatory year on the LLS use of the students, who learn EFL in Turkey.
The following research questions were addressed in this present study:
1) What language learning strategies (LLS) do the students of English at the Preparatory School of Adnan Menderes University and Pamukkale University state that they make use of at the beginning of the program?
2) What LLS do the students of English at the Preparatory School of Adnan Menderes University and Pamukkale University state that they make use of at the end of the program?
3) What are the possible effects of prep year education on differences upon the students’ initial and final choices of the LLS?
4) Is there a difference between the students’ use of LLS and their proficiency levels?
5) What additional insights about the use of LLS in four skills of English and their sub-skills can be gained from students’ own statements?
In the shed of these questions, both literature review and the methodology of the study were shaped.
1.6. The Limitations of the Study
a) The research included only the students of prep programs at two state universities: Adnan Menderes University and Pamukkale University. This group of participants may not form a perfect representation for the whole Turkish university student population. Furthermore, it is not possible to extend these results to private university preparatory students.
b) The data collection instrument of survey of language learning strategies (LLS) was long for some of the participants (It comprises 50 items) and this might have negatively influenced the reliability of their answers.
c) In this study, some of the learners were asked to answer some interview questions verbally both at the beginning and at the end of their prep year education. It may have been hard for some of them to recall their learning processes in detail and therefore their answers might not have been pertinent enough.
CHAPTER II
LITERATURE REVIEW
Language learning strategies (LLS) have a lot of important issues to be predicated, and therefore the aim of this chapter is to provide explanation of these issues based on the literature and to revise previous research, forming the background against which this thesis is addressed.
This research set out to investigate the LLS that EFL students in Turkey use when they learn English. It also aimed to extend our current knowledge by exploring the relationship between the use of strategies and the possible effects of the education given at a state university.
The research themes as the focus of this chapter are learning strategy concepts, relevant studies and classification of this field by various researchers, Rebecca Oxford (1990) in specific, and her Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) as it is the most preferred strategy scale in the area of language learning which “lays out the most exhaustive hierarchy of learning strategies to date” (Rivera-Mills & Plonsky, 2007, p.2) and is also one of the main instruments in this study.
2.1. Language Learning Strategies
In order to grasp a better understanding of LLS, it would be worthwhile to dwell on a rationale upon learning strategies and LLS.
2.1.1. Learning Strategies
It is impossible to be equipped with the whole information as soon as we were born and therefore we have to learn things continuously from the time of birth. Learning is a continuous process and as stated by Nyikos and Oxford (1993, p.11), “the starting point is the learner themselves”. Learners should be seen as people with some needs and rights, who can take the responsibility for their learning. At this point, strategies, accepted as “thoughts and behaviors that learners use to help them comprehend, learn, or retain information” (O’Malley & Chamot, 1990, p.43), should be seen as important tools if students are to learn effectively. This effective learning requires learners to “approach new and difficult tasks, guide thoughts and actions, complete tasks in a timely and successful manner and think strategically” (Berry, Hall, & Gildroy, 2004 p.261). Similarly, Lee (2010, p.132) underlines that the aim of learning strategies is “to help learners learn more successfully and develop their learning autonomy”. Therefore,
researchers have searched ways to determine the basic features of a good and successful learner (Wong & Nunan, 2011; Oxford, 2016). By discovering the strategies used by a successful learner, it has been aimed to help low achieving learners. For this reason, in the last few decades successful learners’ characteristics have been observed and questioned, and strategies preferred by successful learners in the learning process have been identified (Cohen, 2011; Naiman et. all. 1996; Oxford, 2016; O’Malley & Chamot, 1990; Wong & Nunan, 2011). These good learners have been found out that they employ strategies like monitoring one’s performance and using an active task approach (Naiman et al., 1996; Rubin, 1975; Oxford, 2011). O’Malley and Chamot (1990) have also underlined that a variety of numerous strategies and techniques have been preferred by successful language learners aiming at finding out solutions to different problems that they face during language learning and at the production phase. Moreover, these learners are also more aware of the strategies they prefer and the reasons why they select them (O’Malley & Chamot, 1990).
For all these reasons above, learning strategies have started to be a major focus recently (Chamot, 2004; Griffiths, 2015; Griffiths & Oxford, 2014; Oxford, 2016) as they are seen as useful vehicles to have an effective knowledge acquisition (Schmeck, 1988; Weinstein & Mayer, 1986). However, when it comes to the definition and classification of these strategies; most of the researchers find it hard to agree on a certain ground to define these strategies (Dörnyei, 2005; Griffiths, 2008, 2018; Oxford, 2011, 2016). As Ellis (2008) said, learning strategies remain “fuzzy” (p.529), researchers find it hard to have a consensus upon the topic, therefore, on account of understanding learning strategies well; it would be useful to look at definitions made by different researchers as there are many definitions of what a strategy is.
To have a rough understanding, it can be defined as a cognitive process which aims to facilitate learning process, and it is sometimes possible to observe it as an activity (Chamot & El-Dinary, 1999). As for Rubin (1975, p. 43), strategies are “the techniques or devices which a learner may use to acquire knowledge”. She also added that strategies are “the behaviors and thought process that learners use in the process of learning”. As for Ghani (2003), learning strategies have the role of facilitator in learning environment, as they are preferred by learners to make their learning process as successful as possible. Mayer (1988) has also seen learning strategies as “behaviors aiming at manipulating learners’ cognitive processes throughout learning process” (p. 22), meaning that learners intend to use the strategies to process the information effectively. Schumaker and Deshler
(2006, p. 22), also suggest a definition of learning strategies as “an individual’s approach to a task. It includes how a person thinks and acts when planning, executing, and evaluating performance on a task and its outcomes.” Schmeck (1988, p. 171), on the other hand, defines them as “a higher level cluster of learning tactics that work together to produce a unified learning outcome”. Wenden and Rubin (1987) report learning strategies as “specific actions or techniques used by the learner, to make the learning process more effective” (p.7). They are mostly “problem oriented”, they are “behaviors that contribute directly to learning”, they could be “consciously deployed.... and can become automatized and remain below consciousness” (p.8). According to them, learning strategies comprise actions that could be observable and unobservable such as making a mental comparison. Scarcella and Oxford (1992) defined them as a “learning process which is consciously selected by the learner... to enhance the learning” (p.63). To them, the strategies are moves “which learner is at least partially aware of even if full attention is not being given to them” (p.4). O’Malley and Chamot (1990) defined them as “the special thoughts or behaviors that individuals use to help them comprehend, learn or retain new information” (p.1) According to Zimmerman and Pons (1990), learners who are using learning strategies a lot have a rather high self-efficacy level, which means they see themselves as effective learners. Likewise Lee (2010, p. 134-135) states, “When learners start to learn something, they have the ability to respond to the particular learning situation and to manage their learning in an appropriate way. Learners use learning strategies in order to learn something more successfully”. All in all, the one common thing in these explanations is that learning strategies are preferred by successful learners in order to learn things more effectively and faster.
2.1.2. Language Learning Strategies
There is an old proverb reminded by Wenden (1985) which says “Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Teach him how to fish and he eats for a lifetime”. When we apply such a proverb in the language learning process, it can be claimed that it is not enough to teach the language itself but we also ought to help students find the ways or the strategies that they can benefit during the regulation of their own learning .
When looked at the research areas in ESL and EFL, some observations about some language learners acquiring or learning the language better and faster than others have been made; (Brown, 2007; Cohen, 2000; Dörnyei, 2005; O’Malley et al, 1985, 1990; Oxford, 1990, 2016; McDonough, 1995; Wenden, 1991; Wong & Nunan, 2011). Rubin
(1975) suggests that, if it were possible to have a further and a detailed knowledge about the things that the successful learners applied, it would also be possible to increase less successful learners’ success in language learning by teaching them the strategies that are used by successful ones.
However, like learning strategies, it is hard to find out a consensus upon the definition of LLS among researchers (Chamot, 1987; Cohen, 2011; Ellis, 2004, 2008; O’Malley et al, 1985a, 1985b; Oxford, 1990; Rubin, 1975; Wenden & Rubin, 1987). First of all, Rubin (1975), being among the very first researchers in field, described LLS as “the techniques or devices which a learner may use to acquire knowledge (p. 43)”. This explanation does not provide a clear and exact meaning of LLS; therefore, many other researchers have tried to explain LLS further. Griffiths (2003, 2008, 2015, 2018), for example, defined LLS as “actions chosen by learners (either deliberately or automatically) for the purpose of learning or regulating the learning of language” (2008, p. 87; 2015, p.426; 2018, p.36). This definition matches with Scarcella and Oxford’s definition (1992) as they also define LLS as “specific actions, behaviors, steps, or techniques such as seeking out conversation partners, or giving oneself encouragement to tackle a difficult language task -- used by students to enhance their own learning” (p. 62). Both of these definitions underpin the active nature of LLS as they are selected by learners with the aim of achieving goals about learning a language, and these LLS help enabling more autonomous and independent learners (Allwright, 1990; Lee, 2010; Little, 1991). Oxford (1990) defines LLS as:
...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 (p.8). Similar to Oxford (1990), according to O’Malley and Chamot (1990) LLS are preferred by students consciously to have better development in the language learning processes like acquisition, storage, retain, recall. Wenden (1991, 1998, p.18) looks LLS from a different view and relates them with brain by defining them as “mental steps or operations that learners use to learn a new language and to regulate their efforts to do so”. Purpura (1997, p.293) defines them as “conscious or unconscious mental or behavioral activities that relate directly or indirectly to specific stages in the process of second language acquisition”. Phakiti (2003), on the other hand, suggests two roles of LLS: (i) they either reinforce learners’ learning and acquisition process, or (ii) strengthen their performance while accomplishing a task in the target language, to interact with others; in
conclusion, independently of its purpose, using strategy by the learners has been made consciously.
In short, researchers like O’Malley et. al., (1985) see LLS as “an extremely powerful learning tool” (p.43), “which results in better proficiency and better self-confidence” (Oxford, 1990, p.9). In a broader term, LLS can be defined as attempts made deliberately aiming at reaching the goals and controlling second or foreign language learning process (Oxford, 2011).
2.1.3. The Features of LLS
When looked deeply into literature, it can be easily seen that there have been numerous definitions of LLS. Although this may create ambiguity in understanding the concept itself, LLS also have a number of basic common features within. Based on the information in the literature:
LLS are produced by learners, they are the things they do (Cohen, 2011; Rubin, 1975).
They are consciously chosen and used by learners (Cohen, 2011; Griffiths, 2007; Shi, 2017). “Strategy training helps learners to become more aware of the strategies they use; and to distinguish between appropriate and inappropriate ones” (Williams & Burden, 1997, p.151).
They “focus on the problem and are preferred to solve a few of the learning problems” (Ellis, 2008, p.533). “In other words, they are used in response to a particular problem” (Williams & Burden, 1997, p. 151) via thoughts, mental processes.
They have contributions to the learning process both directly (i.e., guessing from the context, summarizing a reading or indirectly (i.e., using compensation strategies to communicate with a limited language knowledge) (Oxford, 1990; Wenden, 1987)
It is possible to help poor learners to gain these strategies (Oxford & Crookball 1989; Oxford, 2011; Macaro, 2001; Martínez, 1995).
2.1.4. The Effectiveness of Language Learning Strategies
The only man who is educated is the man who has learned how to learn; the man who has learned how to adapt and change; the man who has realized that no knowledge is secure, that only the process of seeking knowledge gives a basis for security (Rogers, 1969, p.104) .
In an educational environment, learners are faced with necessity of comprehending the information as efficiently and fast as possible, as there is limited time for learning. Therefore, in language learning environment, LLS are accepted to have a significant role to learn effectively by most of the researchers (Cohen, 2011; Green & Oxford, 1995; Hsia & Oxford, 2002; O’Malley & Chamot, 1990; Pfenninger & Singleton, 2017; Wu, 2008), as LLS are accepted as “making learning easier, faster, more enjoyable, more self-directed, more effective, and more transferable to new situations” (Oxford, 1990, p. 8). Nyikos and Oxford (1993) propose that LLS can be useful for the students “transform comprehensible input (what the teacher provides) into comprehensible intake (what the student actually takes in and stores in a manner that allows for retrieval of the learned information in future situations)” (p.12). It has also been proposed that effective language learners apply strategies more in most of the learning process compared to weaker or less proficient ones (Ehrman & Oxford, 1990; Gan, 2011; Gerami & Baighlou, 2011; Green & Oxford, 1995; Griffiths, 2008; Hismanoğlu, 2000). Similarly, Demirel (2012, p.142) ascertains that learners who employ certain strategies while selecting, encoding and remembering information are those who have the ability to learn and use the language “at a very good level”.
MacIntyre and Gardner (1991) observed in their study that employing certain affective learning strategies, whether emotional or motivational, help reduce the level of language anxiety, and as a result this leads freeing up mental resources, which enables a better learning environment. They emphasize that effective language learners in general select and use better strategies to learn, to be aware of the way they ought to learn, to observe their success of learning, to use their time and effort effectively, and they are more able to find support when they need compared to poor learners. Furthermore, learners who are described as autonomous and independent prefer to use LLS (Allwright, 1990; Lee, 2010; Lee & Heinz, 2016; Little, 1991).
Chamot and Kupper (1989, p. 17) noted that the learners accepted as more successful than others, prefer strategies “more often, more appropriately and in ways that help them complete the task more successfully”. Green and Oxford (1995) reached a very similar conclusion that when compared to the ones having a lower level language use, those learners having a higher proficiency level in language use all kinds of strategies far more frequently than those having a lower level in language use. In a study by Dreyer and Oxford (1996), a positive relationship between using LLS and high score of TOEFL exam was also found. Gan (2011) reached a similar conclusion in his study as the more
successful learners chose to use all kinds of LLS while learning, whereas less successful ones reported only a few certain LLS. In Wong and Nunan’s study (2011, p. 148), the aim was to “investigate how the contextualized learner learning attitudes, strategies, and motivation might differentiate successful and unsuccessful learners” and according to results a significantly meaningful difference in the selection of LLS of more effective learners compared to the less effective ones was discovered. The study showed that successful learners were eager to continue to learn the language more proficiently, whereas unsuccessful ones had no willingness to continue their learning process. In another study which was conducted by Kamran (2013) in Iran, a significant relationship between learner’s overall use of reading strategies and their reading exam results was also found. Likewise, Gan (2011) reported that, successful learners preferred to use LLS covering all the language skills, whereas less successful counterparts selected fewer LLS. Therefore, it is possible to say that there is a positive correlation between using of strategies frequently and having a high achievement in the language (Gan, 2011; Green & Oxford, 1995; Oxford & Burry- Stock, 1995; Wong & Nunan, 2011). As for Gage and Berliner (1992, p. 302), one reason why LLS are so effective may be the requirement of the LLS to be “more active cognitively” while performing a task compared to the ones who do not prefer using strategies. The aim of LLS can be to organize the way that the learner “selects, acquires, organizes, integrates” (Weinstein & Mayer, 1986, p. 315) new information or to increase learners’ motivation. According to Oxford (2003), the LLS can be useful in language learning environment if these three featured are supported:
… (a) It relates well to the L2 task,
(b) the strategy fits the particular student’s learning style preferences to one degree or another,
(c) the student employs the strategy effectively and links it with other relevant strategies. (p.8)
Overall, these researches have shown a significant correlation between learning a language successfully and the use of LLS in a positive way (Chamot, 1993; Chamot, Barnhardt, El-Dinary, Carbonaro & Robbins 1993; Cohen, 1990; Gan, 2011; Wong & Nunan, 2011). Therefore, the importance of promoting LLS use in the language learning environment is inevitably necessary.
2.1.5. Teaching Language Learning Strategies in Educational Contexts
As seen in the literature, LLS are important in learning process, and learners are expected to employ these strategies actively during their learning processes. Therefore, these strategies are of interest for enabling effective language learning, by assuming that we can teach LLS (Chamot & Kupper, 1989; O’Malley & Chamot, 1990; Oxford, 1990;
2011). At this point, learning and teaching these strategies can be helpful for lower level learners so that they cope with the difficulties while learning a language. There have been numerous studies upon the effect of strategy training on learners’ performances (Brown et al., 1983; Chamot & Kupper 1989; O’Malley et al., 1985; Oxford 1990, 2001, 2011; Oxford et al., 1990; Weinstein & Mayer, 1986). Rubin (1975, p. 43), for example, discussed that discovering what effective learners do while learning a language is important, as it may be possible to find out ways to teach these strategies to learners who are having problems during learning a language. Ellis (1985) also proposes that learners prefer the same strategy types in ESL and EFL context as the ones they use in their mother tongue; however, learners sometimes cannot realize the importance of using LLS consciously (Nyikos & Oxford, 1993). Moreover, if the teacher does not encourage or force the learner to select and use different kinds of strategies, learners generally prefer LLS in line with their learning styles (Ehrman & Oxford, 1989; Oxford 1996). Therefore, it can be useful to help the learners remember and apply new strategies in ESL or EFL contexts via strategy instruction (SI).The main aim of SI is to help learners have a higher level of awareness in learning environment and enable them to manage their learning in any context. There are also researchers (e.g., Chamot, 2004; Ellis & Sinclair, 1989; O’Malley et. al., 1985b; Oxford & Nyikos, 1989) supporting that SI should be a vital part of the language teachers’ role. Studies have also shown a significantly positive effect of SI on learners’ oral production (Cohen, 2011; O’Malley & Chamot, 1990). In this point, Rubin (1987) proposes that increasing the awareness of language learning strategy options that students can use in order to help the learners select strategies according to their needs is an important element of SI. Unlike Rubin (1987), Oxford (1989) focuses on the importance of practice in SI because as for her, new strategies that learners encounter can be used automatically via practice. LLS, which have been taught explicitly in a formal learning environment, help learners to understand and produce language spontaneously (Bialystok, 1981).
According to Oxford (1990):
…many language students (even adults)…like to be told what to do and they only do what is clearly essential to get a good grade – even if they fail to develop useful skills in the process. Attitudes and behavior like these make learning more difficult and must be changed, or else any effort to train learners to rely more on themselves and use better strategies is bound to fail. (p.10)
Green and Oxford (1995, p.264), argued that LLS help learners acquire a considerable responsibility for their own learning, and it is not impossible to teach
effective strategy use. Likewise Brown (2007) implies that it is still highly uncertain that what the most effective ways of such SI are.
At this point, Chamot and Rubin (1994) have stated in their study that discovering previously used strategies, presenting and modeling new strategies explicitly and explaining the reasons and places of these strategies and finally providing an extensive amount of practice are important components of SI. Similarly, Nunan (1988, 1996, 2003) stated that in the language environment the focus should be on both teaching the language itself and on explicit teaching of LLS. Chen (2007) shows that SI strengthens learners and enables them to take charge of their own learning processes, which later enriches the outcomes of language learning.
In conclusion, as Nyikos and Oxfords (1993) mentions, learners cannot always know how to use LLS consciously to make learning faster and useful. Researchers have emphasized that LLS are teachable in both high school and university level (Chamot 1993; Chamot & Kupper, 1989; O’Malley & Chamot, 1990). Therefore, the concern of experienced teachers should not only be “finding the best method or with getting the correct answer” (Rubin 1975, p.45), but should be showing the learners the ways to help them develop strategy use awareness and help them to apply different kinds of suitable strategies according to their needs and task demands.
2.2. The Classification of Language Learning Strategies
In terms of the categorization of LLS, a number of different models have been developed by the researchers (Cohen & Dörnyei, 2002; Ellis, 2008; O’Malley & Chamot, 1990; Oxford, 1990; Oxford & Cohen, 1992; Rubin, 1981) depending on: (a) having a direct impact upon learning (Rubin, 1987) or indirect impact( Ellis, 2008); (b) LLS as being behavioristic (i.e. Oxford, 1989; Stern, 1983) or mental, or both behavioral and mental (i.e. Cohen, 2011; O’Malley & Chamot, 1990); (c) being able to use LLS consciously (i.e. Chamot, 1987; O’Malley & Chamot, 1990; Oxford, 1990). Conscious use of LLS is highly important and emphasized in the literature.
Oxford (1990) put this situation in this way:
...there is no complete agreement on exactly what strategies are; how many strategies exist; how they should be defined, demarcated, and categorized; and whether it is – or ever will be possible to create a real, scientifically validated hierarchy of strategies…. Classification conflicts are inevitable (p.17).
Although determining a common terminology for definition and classification is hard to achieve due to the lack of consensus, which is a really serious problem, it is still
useful to take into consideration the classifications made by researchers to understand and design a study based on LLS. These classifications are made through researchers’ observations of learners, and their use of different survey tools, questionnaires, studies from first language environments, the think-aloud data of interviews, and learner diaries (Chamot, 2004).
While classifying the strategies into categories, the importance of socio-cultural interactions started to be taken into consideration by emphasizing the idea of learning via the interaction with more knowledgeable others instead of gathering information in a vacuum. A tripartite model was suggested by McKeachie et. al.(1987), as cognitive strategies are used to learn and understand information, like rehearsing, summarizing, paraphrasing or elaborating, meta-cognitive strategies including planning, regulating their own learning, monitoring and modifying the learning process and resource management strategies which learners employ to control resources like time, effort, affect and support. Pintrich and Garcia (1991) also identified three similar main categories of learning as cognitive, meta-cognitive, and resource management strategies.
Wenden and Rubin (1987), on the other hand, preferred a bilateral classification system, which they named as cognitive strategies and self- management strategies. Cognitive strategies are defined as the steps used by learners to understand linguistic and socio-linguistic contents. Self-management strategies are used for planning, monitoring and evaluating of the learning process. Stern (1992) made a classification of LLS under five broad categories, which are management and planning, cognitive, communicative and experiential, interpersonal and finally as affective strategies. Naiman et al. (1996), opted for a complex classification system, which adolescent effective language learners prefer, by categorizing them under five categories: 1) active task approach, 2) realization
of language as a system, 3) realization of language as a means of communication and interaction, 4) management of affective demands, and 5) monitoring.
Macaro (2001, 2006) claimed an overlap between cognitive and meta-cognitive strategies and suggested a system of LLS, which is a continuum of cognitive strategies and meta-cognitive/social/affective strategies. According to this scheme, cognitive strategies, which include connecting words or thoughts with visual images, are applied directly, subconsciously, and they are natural, non-evaluative, and difficult to articulate. On the other hand, metacognitive/affective/social strategies, involving asking questions for clarification, or asking teacher for repetition, are used by learners consciously, indirectly, controlled by the learner and also they are easier to teach and evaluate.
In the following section, three different classifications, which have been preferred by different researchers, as they are seen comprehensive, detailed and useful, will be shortly categorized.
2.2.1. Rubin’s Taxonomy of LLS
Rubin (1981, 1987), who has been seen as the pioneer in the field, constructed a category by presenting a very broad LLS taxonomy by labeling strategies as “direct” and “indirect” based on their contributions into learning. Direct strategies are the ones that have a direct contribution to learning whereas indirect strategies contribute to this learning process indirectly and can be sub-categorized under two headlines: finding opportunities for practice and creating tricks for sustaining communication. For example, creating situations in which talking to a native speaker or watching or listening in the target language requires using indirect strategies, as they can practice the knowledge in the language better. As for Rubin, these direct and indirect strategies have two sub-categories. These are:
I. Cognitive Learning Strategies Direct Strategies
II. Metacognitive Learning Strategies
I. Communication Strategies Indirect Strategies
II. Social Strategies
Figure 2.1. Diagram of the strategy system (taken from Rubin, 1981, 1987)
2.2.1.1. Direct language learning strategies
Rubin divided these LLS into two sub-categories, which are cognitive learning strategies and meta-cognitive ones. Learners construct these strategies aiming at promoting the improvement of the target language directly.
a) Cognitive learning strategies
These strategies mainly require direct analysis, transformation, or synthesis of learning materials, and learners use them when learning or when they face a problem. There are six main strategies identified by Rubin:
Clarification / Verification: This strategy is about asking for an example to understand the use of word or expression or repeating it in order to check the understanding.
Guessing / Inductive Inferencing: Learners who use this strategy prefer key words, pictures, context or structures to understand the meaning.
Deductive Reasoning: Learners compare their own language with the target one to find the similarities and differences.
Practice: It includes imitation or practicing new sentence structures until they become natural for the learner. In other words, with this strategy learners focus on “accuracy of usage” (Rubin, 1987, p. 24, emphasis original).
Memorization: This strategy is linked to taking notes, writing new words repeatedly or pronouncing new items repeatedly. Learners also use mnemonic strategies like association or grouping.
Monitoring: A learner using this strategy “notices errors (either linguistic or communicative), observes how a message is received and interpreted by the addressee, and then decides what to do about it” (Rubin, 1987, p. 25).
b) Metacognitive learning strategies
The aim of these strategies is to oversee, regulate or self-direct language learning. Planning, prioritizing, setting goals and self-management are included in the sub-category of metacognitive strategies.
2.2.1.2. Indirect language learning strategies
According to Rubin, indirect strategies have two subcategories, mainly communication and social strategies. These strategies have no direct implication upon the learners’ learning process but indirectly help them.
a) Communication strategies
These strategies affect language learning indirectly as the main focus is to participate in a conversation, to convey the message and to clarify what the speaker intended. Learners use these strategies when they face difficulties in communication because of their lack of knowledge or when a misunderstanding in the conversation arises.
b) Social strategies
These strategies are also not related to language learning directly, but they help students join the activities and also enable the learners with different opportunities where they can use their knowledge. With the help of these strategies learners are exposed to the language, but they are not directly involved in gathering, preserving and using the language (Wenden & Rubin, 1987).
2.2.2. O’Malley and Chamot’s Taxonomy of Language Learning Strategies
O’Malley et. al. (1985a, p. 582-584) and O’Malley & Chamot (1990, p.99) preferred a trilateral classification system by dividing them as “cognitive (direct)” like repeating, translating, and grouping, “socio-affective” which includes interaction with others like cooperating with peers, and “meta-cognitive”, which is used to manage or regulate the learning process. This classification is a result of a two-phase study (O’Malley et.al. 1985a, 1985b). The participants of the study were 70 secondary school learners and their 22 teachers. The researchers observed and interviewed with both the learners and teachers about learning strategies, and as a result of the study, this categorization was done. These three categories include 26 strategies in total, and their meta-cognitive and cognitive strategies are nearly consistent with Rubin’s classification, namely direct and indirect.
2.2.2.1. Cognitive strategies
O’Malley and Chamot (1990) examined these strategies closely in their study and proposed repetition, resourcing, translation, grouping, note-taking, deduction, recombination, imagery, auditory representation, key word, contextualization, elaboration, transfer, and inferencing as cognitive strategies, which is very similar to Rubin’s (1987) “direct strategies”. These strategies are used in specific tasks and directly manipulate the learning task itself. A very clear-cut distinction between cognitive strategies and metacognitive ones has been done. A cognitive strategy only deals with the performance of the task whereas metacognitive ones consider the actions before, during, and after the performance. In other words, “cognitive strategies operate directly on incoming information, manipulating it in ways that enhance learning” (O’Malley & Chamot, 1990, p. 44)
2.2.2.2. Socio-affective strategies
Another strategy group in this classification is socio-affective strategies which are about “either interaction with another person or ideational control over affect” (O’Malley & Chamot, 1990, p. 45). They are related with social-mediating activity and transacting with others. Although O’Malley and Chamot (1990) proposed this category, cognitive and metacognitive strategies were focused more, as these strategies contribute to learning indirectly by creating an opportunity for the learners to practice the language in a rather positive atmosphere ( Rubin, 1987; Wenden, 1987). These strategies include interaction with others (cooperation), or controlling the effect of the information (questioning for clarification) and self-talk (O’Malley & Chamot, 1990).
2.2.2.3. Meta-cognitive strategies
In O’Malley et. al.’s classification the biggest importance was given to the meta-cognitive strategies which Wenden (1991) also called as self-management strategies. These strategies involve “higher order executive skills that may entail planning for, monitoring or evaluating the success of a learning activity” (O’Malley & Chamot, 1990, p. 44). As for Chamot, Kupper, and Impink-Hernandez (1988, p.17) these strategies include “thinking about the learning process, planning for learning, monitoring the learning task, and evaluating how well one has learned”. These strategies are used as self-reflection of their learning process; they analyze the material, determine what they already know and what they need to know with the help of these strategies.
These strategies have some sub-strategies like planning, directing and monitoring and evaluating as they accepted “students without meta-cognitive approaches are essentially learners without direction” (O’Malley. et. al., 1985, p. 561). Planning is a useful strategy as it helps learners organize themselves by letting them see both the part and the whole of the task. With the help of self-organization, learners can overcome the challenges embedded in a given task by using their prior knowledge. Monitoring strategies include activities like “checking, verifying or correcting one’s comprehension or performance in the course of a language task” (Chamot. et al., 1993, p. 7). These strategies enable learners to observe themselves during a given task and to find out their own mistakes and missing parts. After learners observe themselves like a mirror, they use another kind of metacognitive strategies, which are about self-evaluation. This strategy includes “checking the outcomes of one’s own language performance against an internal
