P a g e | 1

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN

LANGUAGE LEARNING STRATEGIES, GENDER AND PROFICIENCY

AMONG SECONDARY SCHOOL STUDENTS

P a g e | 2

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.0 Introduction

In Malaysian educational context, English has long been recognized as the

second language that empowers needs for learners to be proficient in this

language. Language learning strategies play an important role to drive

learners to learn the English language. At most, prominently during their

learning process and also for learners with future undertaking.

It is assumed that improved proficiency in language learning depends on how

learners enable themselves to adapt to strategies that work best for them. A

study by O’Malley and Chamot (1990) suggests that effective language

learners are aware of the strategies they use and why do they use it.

Moreover, the existence of various language learning strategies to be

acknowledged by learners sometimes may result in the fact that some

strategies many not promote success for learners. This is because some

learners are unaware of the suitability of the strategy use towards their

language learning capability. Some strategies may not be responsive as

learners are unable to develop the appropriate strategies in learning.

Language learning strategies are among the main factor that helps to

determine ways learners learn a second language. Many studies have been

carried out since then, and different classifications of learning strategies have

emerged over the last 20 years. O’Malley & Chamot (1990) found that

P a g e | 3

classroom observation was inadequate for the identification of mental

strategies and they also found learners were able to relate their strategy use

to a particular task. Several studies can be seen in the field of language

learning strategies (Wenden & Rubin, 1987;Cohen, 1990; O’Malley & Chamot,

1990; Oxford, 1990). Moreover, researchers have investigated variables in the

use of LLSs that affect the choices of strategies such as gender (Ehrman &

Oxford,1989; Green & Oxford, 1995), and language proficiency (Green &

Oxford, 1995; Grififths, 2003).Thus they raised the possibility of relationships

between strategy use and language learning task, and strategy use and

language proficiency or the level of the learners target language. O’Malley &

Chamot classified three strategy types: cognitive, metacognitive, and

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

system based on her own and others’ research, and this system is referred to

by Ellis (1994) as “perhaps the most comprehensive classification of learning

strategies to date” (p. 539). Oxford classified the strategies into two broad

categories, one being direct and the other being indirect, and there are three

subcategories under each (p. 17): direct strategies: (a) memory strategies, (b)

cognitive strategies, and (c) compensation strategies; indirect strategies: (a)

metacognitive strategies, (b) affective strategies, and (c) social strategies .

Hence, the study aims to investigate the relationship between language

learning strategies, gender and proficiency among secondary school learners.

1.2 Statement of the problem

The fall in the standard of English in the public examination like UPSR (Ujian

Pencapaian Sekolah Rendah), PMR (Penilaian Menengah Rendah) and SPM

P a g e | 4

(Sijil Pelajaran Malaysia) proofs that Malaysian learners have problems to

acquire the second language. This is happened most probably due to a pass

in English has never been made compulsory for SPM. The Deputy Prime

minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin was surprised to learn that English is not a

‘must pass’ for SPM and wants public feedback on this matter (The Star

9.6.2009). In fact the English result in major examinations “hovers at a low

level of around 60% candidates achieving passes since 2000. (The Star

8.11.2000) As for the PMR examination overall more than 40% (158,530 of

392,692) students failed in 2001 (The Star 21.12.2008).The poor performance

in English marred an otherwise marginally better performance in the 2008

Ujian Pencapaian Sekolah Rendah (UPSR) examination which is the national

primary school leaving examination. (The Star, 8.11.2000).Furthermore the

percentage of passes in English among rural learners is only 49.6%

compared to urban students (72.8%).

Adding to these statistics, new graduates also face a serious problem in

English (The Star 12.7. 2000). It has been stated that 90% of Malaysians

entering local universities have insufficient English proficient for study

purposes, 44% classified as weak while 19 % are very weak in the subject

(The Straits Times 12. 9. 2000). These graduates are not conversant with

English that has become a key medium of business worldwide. Graduates will

have a much tougher time getting a job if they are not proficient in English and

will definitely ‘lose to other applicants’ (The Star 11.8.2000).It was found these

graduates struggle to speak English in job interviews (The Star 10.2. 2000).

In countries using English as second or third language such as Malaysia, the

P a g e | 5

proficiency of English language is also a crucial determinant in one’s

employability. Lim and Normizan (2004) found that there is a positive impact

of English language proficiency on exit rates; however, it is limited only to pre-

university proficiency. Given the wide use of English language among private

sector companies in Malaysia, English language proficiency gives an added

advantage to job applicants.

As a result of the lack of English language proficiency, Malaysian students are

not able to find jobs that fit their professional backgrounds and work

experiences. This lack limits them to entry-level jobs that do not require

proficiency in the English language, diminishing their opportunities for career

advancement, completing further education, or obtaining access to other

social and economic opportunities in the their own country. To gain a

moderate degree of proficiency adult ELLs face a difficult task given the

length and complexity of study required. The process of language learning

can be greatly facilitated by making students aware of the range of language

learning strategies (LLS) from which they can choose during language

learning and use. If learners have a well-functioning repertoire of LLS, then

these strategies will facilitate the language learning process by promoting

successful and efficient completion of language learning tasks, as well as by

allowing the learners to develop their own individualized approaches to

learning. By selecting information, organizing the information, relating it to

existing knowledge, retaining what is considered important, retrieving it in

appropriate contexts, and reflecting on the success of their learning efforts,

P a g e | 6

learners become conscious of their own learning and learn to evaluate their

efficiency (Shuell, 1986).

1.3 Purpose of the study

The purpose of this study is to investigate the relationship between language

learning strategies, gender and proficiency among secondary school students.

Specifically, the objectives of the study are as follows:

1. To determine the relationship between the use of language learning

strategies and gender

2. To determine the relationship between the use language learning

strategies and English language proficiency

1.4 Research questions

Based on the research discussed above, gender and language proficiency

beliefs appear to be the variables related to English language teaching (ELT)

learners language strategies. Hence, the study examined the relationship

between language learning strategies, gender and proficiency among

secondary school learners. For this purpose, the following questions were

addressed in this study:

1. Is there any significant difference between strategy use and gender?

2. Is there any significant difference between strategy use and proficiency?

P a g e | 7

1.5 Significance of the study

Learning strategies plays a major role in language learning. Gardener &

MacIntyre (1992; p.219) claimed that strategies help language learners to

retrieve and store material, and facilitate their learning by structuring its

environment. In addition, Oxford (2001; p.170) stated that strategy use

correlated with learners language proficiency and self-confidence. Thus, this

study might prove useful to both language teachers and learners because it

might raise teachers’ awareness concerning their own learning and teaching

strategies .It is known that most teachers tend to teach in the way they were

taught or in the way they preferred to learn. By helping learners improve their

language skills and learning skills equally, that enable them to ‘learn how to

for themselves what teachers typically do for them’ (Wenden, 1983; p.7).

Teachers need to be taught on the effective strategy instruction. However, it is

highly depend on teacher’s experience. The more familiar the teacher is with

strategy instruction, the more effective the teaching (Chamot, 1994;333).

Therefore, teacher has to integrate the LLSs in the classroom and expose the

learners on how to use the LLSs depending on learners; language proficiency

level. Moreover, seeing the difference between males and females in terms of

strategy use, they can develop strategy instruction accordingly and give

strategy training in order to help them learn English better.

Since the key factor in the language learning process is the learners, the

researchers should look into the learners’ language learning strategy. The

educators should comprehend the language learning strategies and identify

the various effective approaches and techniques used by the more successful

P a g e | 8

learners. The findings can help educators facilitate teaching and learning

more effectively. ESL practitioners may find this research useful for improving

curriculum design and classroom methodology related to the language learner

strategies used by participating secondary school students ELL. This study is

also significant because it supports Oxford’s (1990:17) taxonomy of language

learning strategy which constitutes an important and accurate framework to

classify learning strategies of language learners such as the secondary school

learners in this study. The rationale for learner strategy research is that if

researchers can identify a list of strategies that successful language learners

use, then less effective learners may benefit from applying the same

strategies in their own learning, making their language learning process easier

and more effective. Workplace language programs may also benefit from this

study by gaining insights on worker-centred learning that addresses the needs

of the learners to enlarge and enrich their capabilities as individuals, family

members, and citizens.

1.6 Limitation of the study

Although the research has reached its aims, there are some unavoidable

limitations.

1.6.1 The limitation of sampling

First, because of the time limit, the sampling is limited to one school from the

state of Kedah, Malaysia. Furthermore this study is limited to the Form 3 level

Malaysian secondary school learners. It is difficult for researchers to have

direct access to the participants and is restricted to choices made by their

English language teachers. If the researchers could have access to the

P a g e | 9

participants directly, the data collected would have achieved greater depth in

identifying the learners’ proficiency level. The researchers feel that unless

they can select the participants, the information gathered maybe tainted with

biases. The choices could be those participants who are proficient in English

and may not reflect their language proficiency level. The sample size prevents

large generalization of response because only one school were selected for

this study.

1.6.2 The limitation of relationship between strategy use and gender and

proficiency

The researchers limit this study in showing direction of relationship between

the learner’s strategy use and gender and also between the learner’s strategy

use and learner’s proficiency level. The study does not focus on the

relationship between gender and proficiency because the main focus is to

show the relationship of gender and proficiency in influencing learners’

preferences of the Oxford’s Language Learning Strategies (LLS) (1990a) in

their language learning. Thus, gender differences and proficiency level that

compare whether male or female are more proficient, are not further

discussed in this study.

1.7 Operational definition

1.7.1 Gender and Language Learning Strategy Use

The term ‘gender’ generally refers to a socio-cultural behaviour, while the

term, ‘sex’ implies a biological meaning (Coates, 1993). Many researchers of

P a g e | 10

first and second language learning have evidence that female learners are

superior to males in verbal abilities (Bacon &Fiemann, 1990). The congruent

findings in educational psychology showed that female students have greater

value to, more positive attitudes, and a higher degree of motivation toward

second or foreign language learning than male students (Bacon &

Finnemann, 1990; Ehrman & Oxford,1990; Gardner & Lambert, 1972; Reid,

1987; Sung & Padilla, 1998).

Over the past two decades, extensive empirical studies have been conducted

examining the relationship between gender and language learning strategies

(Bacon, 1992; Ehrman &Oxford, 1995; Green & Oxford, 1995; Lee 1994; Lee,

2001; Oh, 1996; Oxford, 1993b; Oxford & Nyikos, 1989; Peacock & Ho, 2003;

Politzer, 1983; Sy, 1994).

According to Hong-Nam and Leavell’s (2006) recent study, there is a

significant difference of strategy use between the genders. Female learners

favoured more affective and social strategies than male students. They

concluded that female learners are likely to build relationships with others

more easily and consistently than male learners.

1.7.2 Language Proficiency and Language Learning Strategy Use

Over the past three decades, qualitative and quantitative research has been

conducted investigating the relationship between language learning strategy

use and language proficiency (Bialystok, 1981; Bremner, 1999; Chamot,

1987; Green & Oxford, 1995; Oxford, 1990; Oxford & Nyikos, 1989; Politzer,

P a g e | 11

1983; Politzer & McGroarty, 1985; Rubin 1975, 1981; Stern, 1983; Su, 2005;

Wharton, 2000). In second and foreign language learning, proficiency is

regarded as a measurement of success in language learning. Therefore,

improving a learner’s proficiency, especially fluency in communication, has

been targeted.

It is fair to conclude that defining the word ‘proficiency’ has been difficult and

eludes those who seek a concrete definition. The confusion has led to

debates in defining the concept of proficiency in language learning. Farhady

(1982) referred to the vague definition behind ‘proficiency’ and stated,

“language proficiency is not a one-dimensional phenomenon and learners are

not homogenous in their proficiency in various language skills” (p. 46). Canale

and Swain (1980) attempted to interpret language proficiency by assessing

four communicative competences: grammatical competence, discourse

competence, sociolinguistic competence, and strategic competence.

Language learning strategies are closely related to proficiency due to the

success of strategy training or language learning being measured through

proficiency.

1.7.3 EFL (English as a Foreign Language)

In Richards et al. (1992, pp.123-124), EFL refers to “The role of English in

countries where it is taught as a subject in schools but not used as medium of

instruction in education nor as a language of communication (e.g.

government, business, industry) within the country.” For example, English is

taught in Malaysia as a foreign language.

P a g e | 12

1.7.4 SILL (Strategy Inventory for Language Learning)

Strategy Inventory for Language Learning, a questionnaire designed by

Oxford (1990) to investigate learners' frequency of use of many language

learning strategies, clustered into six strategy categories (memory strategies,

cognitive strategies, compensation strategies, metacognitive strategies,

affective strategies, and social strategies)

1.7.5 GEPT (General English Proficiency Test)

GEPT is a test of general English proficiency which was sponsored and

developed by the Language Training and Testing Center in 1990. GEPT is

designed to test learners’ proficiency which includes four part of test; listening,

reading, writing and speaking.

1.7.6 ESL (English as a second language)

English language learning takes place in an English environment, requiring

communicating in English outside of the classroom.

1.8 Conclusion and Overview

In this chapter, introduction described the problem, indicated the purpose of

the study, and listed the research questions that intended to guide the

investigation. The significance of the study was also stated, followed by a list

of operational definitions that will be used in this study.

P a g e | 13

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.0 Introduction

Language is very important in communicating or delivering the specific

meaning. All healthy, normally-developing human beings learn to use

language either in formal or informal setting. Unconsciously, children acquire

the language used around them as they receive sufficient exposure to during

their childhood. This learning process is referred to as first-language

acquisition, since unlike many other kinds of learning it requires no direct

teaching or specialized study. Learners are said to be an active participants in

learning language or languages as they decide on their learning strategies

and not the teachers or instructors because they have the exercises control

over the process (O'Malley et al. 1985a). Ellis and Sinclair (1989) suggest that

learners can achieve their goals by focusing their attention on the process (i.e.

on how to learn rather than what to learn) so that they can become more

effective learners and take on more responsibility for their own learning (Ellis

and Sinclair, 1989: 2; cf. Dickinson, 1992: 13).

This chapter focuses on definition of language learning strategies, theoretical

framework and literature review of few studies from the scholars regarding

language learning strategies. Even though it does not cover the whole study,

it helps in understanding the clear picture of the phenomenon.

P a g e | 14

2.1 Definitions of Language Learning Strategies

Several researchers have formulated their own definitions which will be

discussed in the following. Schemeck (1988) defined strategy is “the

implementation of a set of procedures (tactics) for accomplishing something.

Rubin (1975) defined strategy as “the techniques or devices, which a learner

may use to acquire knowledge” (p.43). Meanwhile for language strategies

(LS), Rigney (1978) define LS as “operations used by the learner to aid the

acquisition, storage and retrievel of information. Tarone (1983) defined LS as

"an attempt to develop linguistic and sociolinguistic competence in the target

language -- to incoporate these into one's inter language competence" (p. 67).

Rubin (1987) later wrote that LS "are strategies which contribute to the

development of the language system which the learner constructs and affect

learning directly" (p. 22). Schemeck (1988) defined LS as “a sequence of

procedures for accomplishing learning” (p. 5.) O'Malley and Chamot (1990)

defined LS as "the special thoughts or behaviours that individuals use to help

them comprehend, learn, or retain new information" (p. 1). Oxford (1990a: 12)

proposed that they are conscious actions, but after a time using them, they

become automatic, i.e. unconscious. Finally, building on work in her book for

teachers (Oxford, 1990a), Oxford (1992/1993) provides specific examples of

LLS (i.e., "In learning ESL, Trang watches U.S. TV soap operas, guessing the

meaning of new expressions and predicting what will come next") and this

helpful definition:

P a g e | 15

“...language learning strategies -- specific actions, behaviours, steps, or

techniques that students (often intentionally) use to improve their progress in

developing L2 skills. These strategies can facilitate the internalization,

storage, retrieval, or use of the new language. Strategies are tools for the self-

directed involvement necessary for developing communicative ability.”

(Oxford, 1992/1993, p. 18)

Wenden (1998: 18) added that LLS as “mental steps or operations that

learner use to learn a new language and to regulate their effort to do so”.

Later, Oxford (2001: 66) suggested that LLS as “operations employed by the

learner to aid the acquisition, storage, retrieval and use of information; specific

actions taken by the learner to make learning easier, faster, more enjoyable,

more self-directed, more efficient, and more transferable to new situations”.

2.2 Theoretical Framework

2.2.1 Learning Strategies

Oxford (1990, 1993) classifies learning strategies into two categories which

complement each other. They are the direct and indirect strategies. For

effective language learning, learners need to apply both. If teachers introduce

these strategies into language classes, they may help students to become

more efficient learners. According to Oxford (1990b, P.71), the direct

language learning strategies “directly involve the subject matter”. In that

sense, “all direct strategies require mental processing of the language”

(Oxford, 1990a, p. 37). As for the indirect language learning strategies, they

P a g e | 16

“do not directly involve the subject matter itself, but are essential to language

learning nonetheless” (Oxford, 1990b, P.71).

The direct strategies are further divided into three subcategories, including

memory strategies, cognitive strategies, and compensation strategies. Similar

to the direct strategies, the category of indirect strategies is also divided into

three categories, including meta-cognitive strategies, affective strategies, and

social strategies.

Table 1: Oxford’s LLS Taxonomy (1990a)

1. Direct Strategies

I. Memory Strategies

A. Creating mental linkagesB. Applying imagesC. Reviewing wellD. Employing action

II. Cognitive Strategies

A. Creating mental linkagesB. Receiving and sending messagesC. Analyzing and reasoningD. Creating structure for input and output

III. Compensation StrategiesA.Guessing IntelligentlyB.Overcoming limitations in speaking and

writing2. Indirect Strategies

IV. Metacognitive StrategiesA. Creating your learningB. Arranging and planning your learningC. Evaluating your learning

V. Affective StrategiesA. Lowering your anxietyB. Encouraging yourselfC. Taking your emotional temperature

VI. Social StrategiesA. Asking questionsB. Cooperating with othersC. Empathizing with others

P a g e | 17

1) Direct Strategies

Memory Related Strategies

According to Oxford (1990, 1993), these strategies make learners easy to

store and retrieve information in an orderly string (e.g., acronym), while other

techniques create learning and retrieval via images, sounds, a combination of

sounds and images, mechanical means, body movement or location.

Compensation Strategies

These strategies help learners to comprehend the target language when they

have insufficient knowledge of it. Students need to make up for missing

knowledge and deficiency in grammar and vocabulary. They involve guessing

from the context without looking up every word, guessing what people will say

next and replacing words with synonyms or descriptions.

Cognitive Strategies

These strategies are used to manipulate the language material in direct ways

through analysis, reasoning, note-taking, synthesizing, summarizing, outlining,

recognizing information to develop stronger schemas, and practicing

structures and sounds formally. Learners use these strategies by practicing

and repeating new words, deductive reasoning, translating, taking notes,

analyzing; highlighting, summarizing, starting conversations in target

language, practicing sounds, and imitating native speakers.

P a g e | 18

2) Indirect Strategies

Metacognitive Strategies

These strategies help learners coordinate their learning plan language

learning in an efficient way especially when learners are confused with new

vocabulary, rules and writing system. Metacognitive strategies help in different

ways such as identifying one’s own learning style preferences and needs,

gathering and organizing materials, setting goals and objectives, arranging a

study space, planning for a second language task, looking for people who talk

the target language, monitoring mistakes, evaluating task success and any

type of learning strategies.

Affective Strategies

These strategies help in lowering anxiety, encouraging oneself, and taking

one’s own emotional temperature. The affective factors such as emotion,

attitude and motivation influence learning. Learners would use affective

strategies by using music or laughter as part of the learning process, trying to

relax whenever afraid of using the target language, discussing feelings,

encouraging oneself to speak the target language even when being afraid of

making mistakes, making positive statements about one’s own progress,

writing down feelings in a language learning diary, and talking to someone

else about how one feels when learning a target language.

Social Strategies

Social strategies are the activities and opportunities that enable the learners

to be exposed to and practice their knowledge. According to Wenden & Rubin

P a g e | 19

(1989) these strategies do not lead directly to the obtaining, storing, retrieving,

and using of language but contribute indirectly to learning. These strategies

would be used by seeking correction, asking for clarification,

working/practicing with peers, exploring cultural and social norms, talking to a

native-speaker and developing cultural understanding to become aware of

thoughts and feelings of others.

2.2.2 Language Proficiency

Language proficiency is composed of oral (listening and speaking) and written

(reading and writing) components as well as academic and non-academic

language (Hargett, 1998). There are different theories of what constitutes

proficiency and English proficiency tests. If an English proficiency test plays

any role in determining how students participate in large-scale assessments, it

is important to know what theory of proficiency the test is based on. Jim

Cummins (1984) developed Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency that

requires the language ability for academic achievement in a context-reduced

environment such as classroom lectures and textbook reading assignments.

(Baker, 2000). CALP is usually required on large-scale tests. Part of a theory

of language proficiency developed by Jim Cummins,(1984), which

distinguishes Basic Interpersonal Communicative Skills (BICS) from CALP.

BICS is often referred to as “playground English” or “survival English”. It is

the basic language ability required for face-to-face communication where

linguistic interactions are embedded in a situational context. This language

often accompanied by gestures, and is relatively undemanding cognitively and

relies on the context to aid understanding. BICS is much more easily and

P a g e | 20

quickly acquired than CALP but is not sufficient to meet the cognitive and

linguistic demands of an academic classroom (Cummins, 1984; Baker and

Jones, 1998). Large-scale assessments typically do not often involve the use

of BICS but many English proficiency tests measure BICS.

2.2.3 Gender

Block (2002) proposed three models of language and gender; the deficit

model, the cultural difference model and the dominance model. In the deficit

model, Block claimed that females are seen as the disadvantaged speakers

and communicators, particularly in the professional world due to their

upbringing and socialization. Meanwhile in dominance model, women are

perceived to perform their ‘woman-ness’ in an ethno methodological frame as

they continually negotiate their position of relative powerlessness vis a vis

men” (p.53). The deficit model was more conservative; nevertheless,

dominance model was rather radical. According to the cultural difference

model, men and women belong to separate but equal cultures which predate

the development of individuals who are socialized into them (Block, 2002).

That is, girls and boys are socialized into different ways of relating to one

another in their predominately same-sex interactions and, thus, acquire

different communicative styles within the community they live (Davis &

Skilton-Sylvester, 2004). Block added that men and women are different but

equal: women's speech and communication styles are not inferior to men’s;

rather the relationships between the two are problematic at least in part

because of culture clash.

P a g e | 21

2.3 Studies

There are growing literatures on the relationship between proficiency and

strategy use. Researchers have found that conscious use of appropriate

learning strategies typifies good language learners (Stern. 1975; Rubin, 1975;

Wenden, 1985;Bialystok , 1981;Oxford &Ehrman,1995). Researchers also

found that quality and appropriate of strategy use are associated with

successful of language tasks and with higher overall language achievement

and proficiency (O’Malley et al., 1985; Chamot & Kupper, 1989; Green &

Oxford, 1995; Dreyer & Oxford, 1996; Chamot et al., 1999; Oxford, 2001; Lan

& Oxford, 2003)

Heather (2005) conducted a study to examine the language learning

strategies employed by advanced EFL learners in Taiwan. The results

revealed that the most frequently used strategies, also used ranked in the

high use categories were metacognitive strategies and followed by cognitive

strategies. In order to examine the gender differences in relation to the use of

LLSs, the results showed that no significant difference between male and

female participants in their overall LLS use.

Zare (2010) investigated the relationship between language learning

strategies use and genders among Iranian undergraduate language learners.

This study conducted to determine how the use of language learning

strategies varies according to gender. 148 learners were selected through

cluster random sampling. The findings of the study reveal that Iranian

undergraduate EFL learners can be categorized as medium strategy users.

P a g e | 22

Moreover the findings also shows that the overall use of language learning

strategies significantly varied according to gender.

Al-Natour (2012) investigated the most frequently language learning

strategies used by Jordanian University students at Yarmouk university that

affect EFL learning. The sample consisted of 195 male and female who were

studying LC 99 and LC 111 in the first semester of the academic year 2011-

2012 .The result showed that Jordanian students use indirect strategies

(metacognitive , affective and social strategies more that direct ones (memory

strategies , cognitive strategies and compensation strategies ).The sample

consisted of 195 male and female who were studying LC 99 and LC 111 in

the first semester of the academic year 2011-2012 . Moreover, the results

showed there are differences between male and females in their use of

language learning strategies. In addition, there are statistically significant

differences in student’s use of learning strategies attributed to academic level

in favour to the fourth year students.

Park (2010) investigated learning strategies used by effective and less

effective EFL learners in Korea. This study aimed to explore whether the

effective learner use quantitatively more learning strategies than less effective

learners in learning English. This study was conducted on 164 tertiary level

students in Korea. The students consisted of 64 juniors and 100 seniors, with

87 male students and 77 female learners. There were three different

instruments that had been use which were The Strategy Inventory for

Language Learning (SILL), Test of English International Communication

P a g e | 23

(TOEIC) and SPSS for data analysis. According to Park (2010), the

correlation of students’ use of English learning strategies to English

proficiency was statistically significant but low. This low correlation can be

attributed to five points. First, there were lots of variables, which account for

L2 acquisition, other than learning strategies such as linguistic knowledge,

background knowledge, motivation, and acculturation (Ellis,1994; Horwits,

2008; Park, 2004). Second, the observed scores measured by SILL and

TOEIC might not be consistent and trustworthy (Oxford & Burry-Stock, 1995;

The Chauncey Group International, 2002). Third, the learning strategies were

highly depended on the task either in achieving the goals or solving the

problems. Fourth, effective learners’ automaticity of learning strategies and

failure to report the strategies they used subconsciously (Cohen & Macaro,

2007; Faerch & Kasper, 1983). The fifth reason is the use of English learning

strategies in quantity alone could not account for English proficiency because

effective learners might use learning strategies differently from less effective

learners in quality (Vendergrift, 1999; Vann & Abraham, 1990).

Radwan,(2000) conducted a study on the effect of language proficiency and

gender on choice of language learning strategies by university students

majoring in English. This study was conducted on 128 students of Sultan

Qaboos University (SQU). These students consisted of freshman,

sophomores, juniors and seniors where 39 of the students were males and

the 89 were females. The aim of the study was to investigate the relationship

between the use of language learning strategies and gender and English

proficiency as measured by students’ GPA, duration of the study and self-

P a g e | 24

rating on reported strategies used. Using Oxford (1990) Strategy Inventory for

Language Learners (SILL) questionnaire and analysis of variance (ANNOVA),

first, the result showed that metacognitive was preferred by the students more

than any other category of strategies, with memory strategies ranking last on

students' preference scale. Second, there were no significant differences

between males and females in the overall use of strategies. Third, the more

proficient students differed from the less proficient learners in several ways:

(1) they used more overall strategies; (2) they used more cognitive,

metacognitive, and affective strategies than the less proficient learners.

Fourth, freshmen in general used more strategies followed by juniors, seniors,

and sophomores. Fifth, self-rating was evidently the strongest factor

distinguishing between students. Results demonstrated that students who

perceived themselves as proficient users of the language (the “Good” group)

used significantly more strategies than the other group.

2.4 Summary

This chapter provides an insight of previous studies regarding language

learning strategies and other variables; gender and proficiency. The success

of second language acquisition is highly depended on the different strategies

use. The pedagogical implications of these studies suggest that a variety of

meaningful language learning strategies will likely benefit the learners. In

addition, language instructor or teacher can utilize an understanding of

individual language learning strategy preferences by different gender and

level of proficiency. Thus, types of strategies, gender differences and learners’

P a g e | 25

proficiency must be taken into account since it is highly affected the language

learning process.

.

.

P a g e | 26

CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY

3.0 Introduction

The methods and procedures used in the study will be identified in this

chapter. It describes in detail the methodology for the design, development

and evaluation. The characteristics of a quantitative research study, the

designs, population and sample for this study, data analysis procedures, the

data collection method and legal considerations will be explained in detail.

3.1 Research Design

The finding of this descriptive study described the different English learning

strategies from two categories of information; by self-assessed language

proficiency and gender. Thus, the data was described in manageable form

which is descriptive statistics. This study consisted of three measurements:

students background information ,the questionnaire was comprised of close-

ended question items which asked about each participant’s age, gender and

current English class (see Appendix A) , Oxford’s (1990) Strategy Inventory

for Language Learning (version 7.0) (see Appendix B),and General English

Proficiency Test.

The current study confined itself to one of the learner variables-language

proficiency. It examined how proficiency level affects the choice of language

learning strategy. In this survey study, language proficiency level was set as

the independent variable, and learning strategy use was set as the dependent

P a g e | 27

variable. The dependent variable was sub divided into the following three

areas: the mean score of the entire SILL, the mean scores of each of the six

SILL strategy categories (memory, cognitive, compensation, metacognitive,

affective, and social), and the mean scores of the 50 individual SILL items.

3.2 Sampling

According to Leedy and Ormrod,(2000), there are certain guidelines in

selecting a sample size in quantitative sampling ,For small population (N<

100), there is little point in sampling. Thus, it is suggested to survey entire

population.The student population will be drawn from public secondary level

school. Due to time, cost and accessibility constraint, population for this study

will be drawn from the Form 3 learners from Sekolah Menengah Kebangsan

Darulaman, Alor Setar Kedah. Participants were chosen from age of 15

years old .This study of the 100 students was surveyed. The participants were

chosen from lower and higher proficiency level recommended by the form

teachers. All participants were enrolled in an English language program in the

school. All the participants of this research are non-native speakers of English

or ESL speakers.

3.3 Data Collection

The SILL ,background questionnaires and GEPT were distributed to the all

the classes of form 3 from different level. The class instructors, in our case is

the teachers who were informed about the nature of the questionnaire and its

administration procedure, supervised the distribution process. Both

questionnaires took an average of 40 minutes to finish under complete

conditions of anonymity and confidentiality.

P a g e | 28

3.3.1 Instruments

3.3.2 SILL (Strategy Inventory for Language Learning)

The basic instrument for this study is Strategy Inventory for Language

Learning (SILL). This instrument is used to examine the language learning

strategy use by the learners which they are asked to respond on a 5-point

Likert Scale ranging from 1 (never, or almost never) to 5 (always, or almost

always). SILL questionnaire ESL/EFL Version 7.0 (Oxford, 1989) measures

the six strategy groups; memory, cognitive, compensation, metacognitive,

affective and social strategies and frequency of strategy use. The instrument

consists of 50 statements. The statements are divided into the following five

items: items 1-9 relate on how learners remember language (memory

strategies); items 10-23 represent on how learners think about their learning

(cognitive strategies); items 24-29 concern on how learners make up their

missing knowledge (compensation strategies); items 30-38 deal on how

learners manage their own learning (metacognitive strategies); items 39-44

focus on emotion management or learners’ feeling (affective strategies); and

items 45-50 involve learning by interaction with others (social strategies).

3.3.3 GEPT (General English Proficiency Test)

GEPT is employed to determine participants’ English proficiency. GEPT is

developed by the Language Training and Testing Centre in 1990 and it

includes four tests to measure learners’ proficiency in listening, reading,

writing and speaking. The test is divided into five levels: elementary,

intermediate, high intermediate, advanced and superior. Listening test

P a g e | 29

consists of three sections: 10 questions on picture description, 10 questions

on question-response and 10 questions on short conversation. Meanwhile,

reading test includes three sections; 15 questions on incomplete sentence, 10

questions on cloze and 10 questions on reading comprehension. The writing

test consists of 5 questions on sentence rewriting according to the required

direction, 5 questions on sentence combining, 5 questions on rearranging

given words into a sentence and paragraph writing based on the given

picture. Only the scores on listening, reading and writing were used to analyze

the relationship between language learning strategy use and English

proficiency.

3..3.4 Pilot Study

The overall purpose of pilot study is to assess the feasibility of conducting a

large study to determine whether there are significant differences between

strategy use and gender and also proficiency. According to Leedy & Ormrod

(2001), pilot study was used to make an assumption whether “real” responses

will be sufficient in answering the research questions. Therefore, to test the

feasibility, validity and reliability of the instruments, and to see whether those

who are involve in this study have difficulties understanding any items of the

instruments, the researchers will conduct a pilot study on a group of 10

students from Form 3 students of SM Kebangsaan Darulaman, Alor Setar,

Kedah.This group consists two categories of student; higher proficiency

students and lower proficiency students that were recommended by their

From Teacher.

P a g e | 30

In order to obtain an accurate data, this research was conducted separately

for both level of proficiency. For the first phase, all participants have to answer

the questionnaire on their background information. For the second phase,

they will be given a brief explanation of the six language learning strategies.

Then, they were asked to answer the SILL questionnaire. For the third phase,

the participants will sit for GEPT. They have to sit for the listening, reading

and writing test. The speaking test is not conducted because it is difficult to

examine the strategies use from speaking capability. By the end of this pilot

study, if the participants do not encounter any difficulties in comprehend and

answering the items in the questionnaire, the real study can be conducted and

proceeded as what has been planned.

3.3.5 Data Analysis

In this study, independent variables were proficiency level and gender

whereas the dependent variables were the mean scores of the entire SILL

item and the mean scores of the following six categories strategies.

In this study, the statistical tool SPSS (Statistical Package for Social Science)

14 for Windows will be applied to analyze the data obtained from the SILL and

GEPT. Responses will be encoded into the system, using numbers to

represent actual data collected. This will help to analyze the data efficiently.

Data will be entered directly into SPSS by using data entry interface.

Descriptive analysis will be used to analyze the demographic information of

respondents. This research used two types of analysis:

P a g e | 31

(1) Independent samples t-test

(2) Multiple regression analysis

(1) Independent samples t-test

Independent sample t-test was used to evaluate the relationship between

language learning strategy use and proficiency. This independent t-test data

was utilized to compare the difference mean language learning strategy

average sub scores for each type of strategy use by the different English

proficiency level; higher and lower proficiency ESL students.

(2) Multiple regression analysis

In order to model the relationship between strategy use and English

proficiency, a multiple regression was used. The regression analysis reveals

how a change in one variable (X) relates to a change in other variables (Y).

Variable X related to the scores on six types of the strategies use respectively

and variable Y is the scores on English proficiency test. In specific, the

stronger the correlation between X and Y, the more accurately Y (dependent

variable) can be predicted form X (independent variable), and vice versa. This

analysis will be used to reveals the significant differences between the

strategy use and these following data:

(a) GEPT total scores

(b) GEPT listening scores

(c) GEPT reading scores

(d) GEPT writing scores

P a g e | 32

3.3.6 Validity and Reliability

Messick (1989: 13) noted validity as an integrated evaluative judgement of the

degree to which empirical evidence and theoretical rationales support the

adequacy and appropriateness of inferences and action based on test scores

or other modes of assessment. Thus, in validation, it is very important to

justify on how the data are interpreted and drawn from the result. Messick

(1989:13) also stressed that validity is a “unitary concept,” and that it is a

matter of degree, not of all or none. Furthermore, over time, the existing

validity evidence becomes enhanced by new findings. Meanwhile, reliability

refers to the degree of precision or accuracy of scores on an instrument.

In order to ensure our data is valid and reliable, we use SILL questionnaire to

gain the self-report data. Questionnaires are one of the most efficient and

comprehensive ways to assess frequency of LLS use. Validity of the SILL

links with language performances such as course grades, standardized test

scores, rating proficiency and as well as its relationship to LLS. Meanwhile,

reliability of the SILL is high across many cultural groups. Oxford (1996)

claimed that 40 to 50 major studies, including a dozen dissertations and

theses, have been done using the SILL. These studies have, by late 1995,

involved approximately 10,000 language learners. According to research

reports and articles published in the English language within the last ten to

fifteen years, the SILL appears to be the only language learning strategy

questionnaire that has been extensively checked for reliability and validated in

multiple ways. The Cronbach alpha reliability coefficient is used on continuous

data such as the Likert-type scale in the SILL. In general, the ESL/EFL SILL

P a g e | 33

reliabilities have been high. The internal consistency reliability Cronbach’s

alpha is .96 for a 1200-person university sample and .95 for a 483-person

military sample. Content validity is .95 (Oxford, 1990)

Furthermore, for the construct validity for SILL in the relationship between

strategy use and gender, Bedell (1993) and Watanabe (1990) found that

females have a distinctly different pattern of strategy use from males. Some

studies, noted by Bedell and by Green and Oxford, have shown that males

surpassed females on a certain number of separate strategies but not on

whole clusters or groups of strategies. Then, regarding the construct validity

of the SILL based on relationships with language performance, many studies

(Corrales & Call, 1989; Huang, 1984; Oxford & Nyikos, 1989; O’Malley &

Chamot, 1990). Reported that SILL strategy use is related, as expected, to

language performance since it showed linear relationship that more advanced

or more proficient students use strategies more frequently. So, the validity and

reliability of this study could not be questioned since the researchers have

employed the valid and reliable instrument to be used in pilot study and the

whole research.

3.3.7 Ethical and legal considerations

Prior to the implementation of the study, permission will be obtained from a

number of different parties for conducting the pilot study. Approval for the

research was sought and obtained from the Universiti Utara Malaysia (UUM)

and the approval from the Principal of Sekolah Menengah Kebangsaan

Darulaman, Alor Setar for data gathering . Before conducting the research,

P a g e | 34

consent forms will be distributed to the school headmaster, class teachers,

and students. The consent forms explain how the research will be conducted.

The students will be informed that the survey would be kept as confidential.

Moreover verbal explanation will be carried out so that the respondents will

have a better understanding about the research.

3.3.8 Summary

This chapter elaborates on the methodology of this particular study. This

study employs a quantitative method in getting the self-report data from SILL

and GEPT instrument and to be described further using the descriptive data.

Prior to these, a pilot study will be executed in order to check the feasibility,

validity and reliability. A sample of 10 Form 3 learners will be chosen

randomly to answer the questionnaire and sit for the test. The data from the

study will be analysed using SPSS which involves two types of analysis;

independent sample t-test and multiple regression. Finally, the ethical and

legal considerations are also one of the aspects that to be considered in this

study.

P a g e | 35

Appendix A

Strategies questionnaire (Oxford,1989)

Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL)

Please read each statement. On the separate Worksheet, write the response (1,2,3,4, or 5) that tells how true of you the statement is .

1-Never or almost never true of me

2-Usually not true of me

3-Somewhat true of me

4-Usually true of me

5-Always or almost always true of me

Part A

1. I think of relationships between what I already know and new things I learn

in English.

2. I use new English words in a sentence so I can remember them.

3. I connect the sound of a new English word and an image or picture of the

word to help me remember the word.

4. I remember a new English word by making a mental picture of a situation in

which the word might be used.

5. I use rhymes to remember new English words.

6. I use flashcards to remember new English words.

7. I physically act out new English words.

8. I review English lessons often.

9. I remember new English words or phrases by remembering their location

on the page, on the board, or on a street sign.

P a g e | 36

Part B

10. I say or write new English words several times.

11. I try to talk like native English speakers.

12. I practice the sounds of English.

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

14. I start conversations in English.

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

spoken in English.

16. I read for pleasure in English.

17. I write notes, messages, letters or reports in English.

18. I first skim an English passage (read over the passage quickly) then go

back and read carefully.

19. I look for words in my own language that are similar to new words in

English.

20. I try to find patterns in English.

21. I find the meaning of an English word by dividing it into parts that I

understand.

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

23. I make summaries of information that I hear or read in English.

Part C

24. To understand unfamiliar English words, I make guesses.

25. When I can’t think of a word during a conversation in English, I use

gestures.

26. I make up new words if I do not know the right ones in English.

P a g e | 37

27. I read English without looking up every new word.

28. I try to guess what the other person will say next in English.

29. If I can’t think of an English word, I use a word or phrase that means the

same thing.

Part D

30. I try to find as many ways as I can to use my English.

31. I notice my English mistakes and use that information to help me do

better.

32. I pay attention when someone is speaking English.

33. I try to find out how to be a better learner of English.

34. I plan my schedule so I will have enough time to study English.

35. I look for people I can talk to in English.

36. I look for opportunities to read as much as possible in English.

37. I have clear goals for improving my English skills.

38. I think about my progress in learning English.

Part E

39. I try to relax whenever I feel afraid of using English.

40. I encourage myself to speak English even when I am afraid of making a

mistake.

41. I give myself a reward or treat when I do well in English.

42. I notice if I am tense or nervous when I am studying or using English.

43. I write down my feelings in a language-learning diary.

44. I talk to someone else about how I feel when I am learning English.

45.If I do not understand something in English, I ask the other person to slow

down or say it again.

P a g e | 38

46. I ask English speakers to correct me when I talk.

47. I practice English with other students.

48. I ask for help from English speakers.

49. I ask questions in English.

50. I try to learn about the culture of English speakers.

P a g e | 39

Appendices

Language Learning Strategies Questionnaire

Students’ background information

Dear students,

We are conducting a research survey for our masters’ at the University Utara Malaysia (UUM), in Kedah. This questionnaire is an attempt to explore the language learning strategies used by the secondary school students.We are conducting research on ‘The relationship between language learning strategies, gender and proficiency among secondary school students’. Your participation in this study and honest responses to the questionnaire items are highly appreciated .To help us, please answer the questionnaire based on your own experience. It should take no more than 40 minutes to complete. All information will be anonymous and treated in the strictest confidence. Thank you very much.

PART ONE : Please make a check mark () one appropriate answer .

1. Your gender : ( ) Female ( ) Male

2. Form of study : ( ) form 3A ( ) form 3D

( ) form 3B ( ) from 3E ( ) form 3C ( ) from 3F

3. How do you rate your proficiency in English ?

( ) Excellent

( ) Good

( ) Fair

( ) Poor

P a g e | 40

PART TWO : This form of the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) is for students of English as a second language. You will find statements about learning English. Please read each statement carefully. Then, next to each statement, circle your answer.

NO STATEMENTS SCALEPART A 1 2 3 4 5

1. I think of relationships between what I already know and new things I learn in English.

1 2 3 4 5

2 I use new English words in a sentence so I can remember them

1 2 3 4 5

3 I connect the sound of a new English word and an image or picture of the word to help me remember the word.

1 2 3 4 5

4 I remember a new English word by making a mental picture of a situation in which the word might be used

1 2 3 4 5

5 I use rhymes to remember new English words. 1 2 3 4 56 I use flashcards to remember new English words 1 2 3 4 57 I physically act out new English words. 1 2 3 4 58 I review English lessons often. 1 2 3 4 59 I remember new English words or phrase by

remembering their location on the page, on the board, or on a screen sign.

1 2 3 4 5

PART B 10 I say or write new English words several times. 1 2 3 4 511 I try to talk like native English speakers. 1 2 3 4 512 I practice the sounds of English 1 2 3 4 513 I use the English words I know in different ways. 1 2 3 4 514 I start conversations in English. 1 2 3 4 515 I watch English language TV shows spoken in

English or to go to movies spoken in English.1 2 3 4 5

16 I read for pleasure in English. 1 2 3 4 517 I write notes, messages, letters, or reports in English 1 2 3 4 518 I first skim an English passage (read over the

passage quickly) then go back and read carefully1 2 3 4 5

19 I look for words in my own language that are similar to new words in English.

1 2 3 4 5

20 I try to find patterns in English. 1 2 3 4 521 I find the meaning of an English word by dividing it

into parts that I understand.1 2 3 4 5

22 I try not to translate word-for-word. 1 2 3 4 523 I make summaries of information that I hear or read

in English.1 2 3 4 5

PART C 24 To understand unfamiliar English words, I make

guesses.1 2 3 4 5

25 When I can’t think of a word during a conversation in 1 2 3 4 5

P a g e | 41

English, I use gestures26 I make up new words if I do not know the right ones

in English.1 2 3 4 5

27 I read English without looking up every new word. 1 2 3 4 528 I try to guess what the other person will say next in

English.1 2 3 4 5

29 If I can’t think of an English word, I use a word or phrase that means the same thing.

1 2 3 4 5

PART D30 Try to find as many ways as I can to use my English. 1 2 3 4 531 I notice my English mistakes and use that

information to help me do better.1 2 3 4 5

32 I pay attention when someone is speaking English 1 2 3 4 533 I try to find out how to be a better learner of English. 1 2 3 4 534 I plan my schedule so I will have enough time to

study English.1 2 3 4 5

35 I look for people I can talk to in English 1 2 3 4 536 I look for opportunities to read as much as possible

in English.1 2 3 4 5

37 I have clear goals for improving my English skills. 1 2 3 4 538 I think about my progress in learning English. 1 2 3 4 5

PART E39 I try to relax whenever I fell afraid of using English. 1 2 3 4 540 I encourage myself to speak English even when I am

afraid of making a mistake.1 2 3 4 5

41 I give myself a reward or treat when I do well in English.

1 2 3 4 5

42 I notice if I am tense or nervous when I am studying or using English.

1 2 3 4 5

43 I write own my feelings in a language learning diary 1 2 3 4 544 I talk to someone else about how I feel when I am

learning English.1 2 3 4 5

PART F45 If I do not understand something in English, I ask the

other person to slow down or say it again1 2 3 4 5

46 I ask English speakers to correct me when I talk. 1 2 3 4 547 I practice English with other students. 1 2 3 4 548 I ask for help from English speakers 1 2 3 4 549 I ask questions in English. 1 2 3 4 550 I try to learn about the culture of English speakers. 1 2 3 4 5

P a g e | 42

References

O’ Malley,J.M., & Chamot, A.U.(1990). Learning strategies in second language acquisition. Cambridge :Cambridge University Press.

Park (1997) Park,G.P.(1997). Language learning strategies and English proficiency in Korean University. Foreign Languge Annals,30 (2), 211-221.

Oxford,R.L., (1990) .Language learning strategies :What every teacher should know. New York: Newbury House/Harper and Row.

Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies. New York: Newbury.

Chang, S. F., & Huang, S. C. (1999). Language learning motivation and language learning strategies of Taiwanese EFL students. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED 428 561)

Amal,A.L.,(2012) .The most frequently language learning strategies used by Jordanian university students at Yarmouk university that affect EFL learning. European Journal of Social Sciences, 29(4): 528-536.

Pezhman ,Z.,(2010) . An investigation into language learning strategy use and gender among Iranian undergraduate language learners . World applied sciences journal, 11(10):1238-1247.

Sara ,K.N., (2011) .Malaysian ESL learners’ use of language learning vfgstrategies. International conferences of humanities, society and culture . 20.

Park, G.P. (2010). Investigation into learning strategies used by effective and less effective strategies. Asian Social Science, 6(8), 3-13.

Cabaysa, C.C. (2010). Language learning strategies of students at different levels of speaking profiency. Education Quarterly, 68(1), 16-35.

Wu, Y.L. (2008). Language learning strategies used by students at different proficiency levels. Asian EFL Journal:Conference Proceedings, 10(4), 75-95.

Griffiths, C., Parr, J.M. (2001). Language learning strategies: Theory and perception. EFL Journal, 55(3), 247-254.

Oxford, R.L. (1996). Employing a questionnaire to assess the use of language learning strategies. Applied Language Learning, 7(1&2), 25-45

Ler, E.C. (2010). Cultural factors affecting english proficiency in rural areas: A case study. International Journal of Arts and Sciences, 3(10), 26-55

P a g e | 43

Lim, H.E. (2011). The determinants of individual unemployment duration: The case of Malaysian graduates. 2nd international conference on business and economic research proceeding, 2619-2639

Manfred, W.M.F. (2007). The relationship between the use of metacognitive langauge learning strategies and langauge learning motivation among Chinese speaking ESL learners at a Vocational Education Institute in Hong Kong. Asian EFL Journal, 9(3), 93-117