Towards a descriptive language learning strategy inventory – The Dellsi
Radha Nambiar*
The paper reports on the development of a descriptive and dynamic inventory called The Descriptive Language Learning Strategy Inventory (DeLLSI). This inventory was designed to identify learning strategies of Malaysian tertiary learners while reading an academic text for the purpose of summarizing the text. Two groups of proficient and less proficient ESL learners read and summarized an academic text orally before being interviewed to clarify doubts arising from their think alouds. The entire process was audio-recorded and then transcribed verbatim. The completed summaries were also examined to check for accuracy with a suggested summary. Statements indicating strategy use were identified from the transcripts and these were then matched with the appropriate strategy in the inventory. This helped ensure the inventory was easier to use and reduced the difficulty of identifying strategies thus ensuring uniformity in strategy identification and research. This inventory also provides a useful supplement to existing inventories because its dynamic nature enables a strategy researcher to adapt it to specific skills and tasks.
Learning strategies, Strategy Inventory, Classification, Strategy Identification
A review of the
literature on strategy research (Cohen 1998, Gu 1996, Bedell & Oxford 1996)
indicates a focus on identifying strategies learners report, using the
traditional general strategy questionnaire – the Strategy Inventory of Language
Learning (SILL) (Oxford (1990). This paper views the SILL as a take-off point
to help develop inventories, which are more explicit, descriptive and
task-based. To this end, this paper traces the development of various
definitions and classifications to arrive at the definition of learning
strategies used here. This is followed by the rationale for this study, the
design and methodology employed before outlining the development of the
descriptive inventory. The paper concludes by examining how the inventory can
be applied and how it is intertwined with the definition of strategies used.
Many definitions have been put forward for the term learning strategies
and most of these generally focus on the behaviours and thought processes of
successful learners. I will overview the various definitions of learning
strategies and how these were influenced by trends in learning theory.
The discussion will begin with a look at the definitions of the late
1970s and 80s, taking into account how many of these comprised terms taken from
information processing theories of the time. Rubin (1975:43) for instance,
identified learning strategies as “techniques or devices, which a learner may use
to acquire knowledge” while Rigney (1978) defines learning strategies as
operations employed by the learner to aid the acquisition, storage, retrieval
and use of information. Clearly, the learner was viewed as a piece in the
information-processing network and was capable of organizing information and
retrieving it when it was needed.
This appears to be a robotic concept of the learner and the process of
learning and because of its inflexibility could not accommodate changes in the
process of learning or the learner. In addition, these definitions could not
account for information acquisition, organization and retrieval by learners so
there was a need to look for alternatives.
The 1980s and 90s were prolific years, where definitions of learning
strategies were concerned and this can be attributed to the vast amount of
research undertaken in the area of learning strategies (Rubin 1987, Chamot
1987, Wenden 1987, Mayer 1988). The failure of information processing to
adequately explain how learning occurs, led to researchers turning to cognitive
psychology, which was forthcoming with its findings on the acquisition,
storage, retention and retrieval of information. The learner was also seen as
an important cog in the wheel of learning and mental processes were a crucial
part of this learning. Rubin (1987:
19) defines learning strategies as “any set of operations, steps, plans,
routines used by the learner to facilitate the obtaining, storage, retrieval
and use of information. Chamot (1987) in turn, calls learning strategies
“techniques, approaches, deliberate actions that students take to facilitate
the learning and recall of both linguistic and content areas of information.
In the 90s, the definitions became more focused, and instead of any set
of operations, learning strategies were seen as specific and special processes.
O’Malley et.al (1990) define learning strategies as “special thoughts or
behaviours that individuals use to help them comprehend, learn or retain new
information. Oxford (1990) talks about “specific actions taken by the learner
to make learning easier, faster, more enjoyable, more self-directed, more
effective and more transferable to new situations. Cohen (1990) identifies the
learning processes that are consciously selected by the learner.
Definitions that emerged from the mid 90s were basically ones that were
specific to a particular research or training model. More importantly, the
learner is seen as an important person in the process of language learning who
is very much in control and conscious of her abilities. In his attempt to base
learning strategies within a socio-psychological model, MacIntyre (1994: 190)
discusses “actions chosen by language students that are intended to facilitate
language acquisition and communication.
The most current definition of learning strategies is that by Cohen
(1998) who defines learning strategies as “processes which are consciously
selected by learners and which may result in action taken to enhance the
learning or use of a second or foreign language, through the storage,
retention, recall and application of information about that language” (1998:4).
Cohen’s definition is interesting because he talks about strategies as
processes that are selected consciously and because of the distinction he draws
between strategies for learning and strategies for using a language.
For this study, the
term learning strategies will be used to mean “any process that learners
consciously select to help influence their progress in reading by means of
better internalization, retention, recall and successful application of
information in an academic environment” (Nambiar 2005). The word ‘process’ as
it is used encompasses any action, behaviour, step, technique thought or
approach the learner does to help in the learning. The word ‘consciously
selects’ implies there is the element of choice on the part of the learner.
Appreciating the fact that learners are different in the way they learn and
comprehend information it is pertinent to realize that they also approach
learning differently. This is especially important if we are going to help
learners become self-directed and autonomous in their learning. Learners have
to feel comfortable enough to know they can choose how they want to learn.
The term help
influence shows that the learner has attained some understanding in that she
comprehends the text for instance, but she may not be successful in completing
the task. This is similar to the finding that learners of different proficiency
levels use the same strategies but with different outcomes (Wharton 2000;
Sheorey 1999; Park 1997; Nambiar 1996). The definition also includes how the strategy is used – by means of
better internalization, retention, recall and application of information.
Internalization and retention of information are likened to the strategies for
learning a language while recall and application of information refers to
strategies for using a language.
Internalization here
refers to the learners’ understanding of how information is processed. Here
learners are consciously using mental ability to pay attention to new ideas and
make sense of it. Retention is the ability to store information in meaningful
units. Once learners have understood the new information, they are ready to
make connections between this new information and existent schema and store it
in long-term memory for use when needed. Recall is the ability to source
information when required and this implies that learners are aware they have
the necessary information stored in long-term memory. This leads to
application, which is the ability to use information accurately in any
situation. This implies learners are now able to produce the required
information when and where it is needed. This would also imply some measure of
autonomy on the part of the learners.
Similar to the
evolving nature of definitions for learning strategies, classifications of
learning strategies themselves developed and grew with input from cognitive
psychology. Learning strategy classifications
have developed from mere dual schemes (Bialystok (1978), Rubin
(1981), Brown & Palinscar (1982))
to an extensive six-strategy group (Oxford 1990) comprising various
sub-strategies. Oxford (1990)’s system of classification meant there were 2
main categories – direct and indirect strategies. She subsumed memory,
cognitive and compensation strategies under the direct group while social,
affective and metacognitive strategies were placed under the indirect group.
This particular strategy classification was especially important in the
literature because Oxford subsumed virtually all the strategies that had been
previously identified and cited in the early studies.
This comprehensive
but overlapping classification system has provided the foundation for the
Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) that has been employed in
numerous studies across the world to validate the effectiveness of learning
strategies to language learning. It is estimated that the SILL and its
translated version have been used in major studies around the world (Kaylani
1996, Oxford 2001). The 50 item SILL comprised 6 parts; A, B, C, D, E, & F.
Part A had 9 strategy descriptions on remembering more effectively and could be
grouped under Memory Strategies. Part B had 14 statements on using all the mental
processes and came under Cognitive Strategies while Part C had 6 strategy
descriptions on compensating for missing knowledge and came under the
Compensation Strategies group. Part D had 9 statements on organizing and
evaluating learning and was the Metacognitive Strategy group while Part E
comprised 5 Affective Strategies descriptions and Part F had 6 statements on
Social Strategies.
While acknowledging
the usefulness of the SILL, it was also apparent that the inventory, though
comprehensive, could not be adopted wholesale for the respondents in this
study. This prompted the researcher to look into adapting the SILL to make it a
more viable and reliable instrument for the Malaysian learner.
The SILL is, at its best, an armchair listing of strategies that is not
theoretically grounded. In addition, this static list is not associated with
any particular language skill or task. If we consider the dynamic nature of
learning and the importance of task based learning, the SILL is again lacking.
This lack of a theoretical framework to explain strategies has been one of the
main criticisms against strategy work. Gu (1996) reminds us of the need for a
better understanding of the theoretical base of learning strategies. This
study, while attempting to make the inventory more descriptive with the
addition of statements from learners transcripts also sets a theoretical
foundation for understanding learning strategies.
The SILL was found to be an inadequate instrument to analyze the
strategy use for this particular study despite the 52 statements that describe
how language is learnt. In fact, the very number of statements was in itself a
problem because there are instances when a researcher is unsure where to place
a strategy. Although the inventory is considered exhaustive, the strategies are
not as clear-cut, owing to repetition and overlap. While acknowledging that
this listing of strategies did serve its purpose in helping researchers
understand the strategies learners use to help make learning easier, it is
timely to now look for an inventory that is easy for the researcher as well.
It is also important to point out that the SILL was developed using a
largely Western sample or at least a sample of learners studying in the West.
Hence, strategies that are commonly employed in the Western classroom (using
rhymes, using flashcards to learn new words, employing physical action and
writing down feelings in a learning diary) are not so common and prevalent in
the Malaysian classroom and even in the Asian classroom (Sheorey & Bryant
1998). As such there are strategies in the inventory that are not reflective of
the way Malaysian learners in general learn (Mah 1999, Nambiar 1996).
Oxford (1996) herself acknowledges the importance of learning environment, especially cultural background on the learner’s choice of language learning strategies. Malaysian learners tend to engage in appropriate classroom learning behaviours and naturally employ only strategies that work in their learning environment. This was another consideration in wanting to have an inventory that would cater to the Malaysian learners and the kind of educational background they are familiar and comfortable with. It was for this reason that strategies in the inventory were adapted, combined or deleted where necessary.
More importantly, a more descriptive inventory that would provide evidence in the form of statements from learners to indicate which strategy they were using was needed. This would ultimately help the identification of strategies and provide uniformity across studies working on learning strategies, thereby minimizing confusion as to which strategy the learner was using. I therefore collected evidence of strategy use from a group of learners for the task or reading to summarize and using statements reflecting strategy use from the transcripts arrived at a descriptive language learning strategy inventory or DeLLSI.
The study set out to
explore the language learning strategies used by 5 proficient and 5 less
proficient Malaysian university learners to read and summarize orally an
expository academic text. The learners were 1st year undergraduates
who volunteered to participate in the study in return for information on how to
improve their ability to read and summarize. The study depended on
audio-recorded verbal reports that were transcribed and examined for strategies
learners employed. A background
questionnaire on family and school literacy practices was examined for themes
relating to home and school literacies to provide answers to learners’ strategy
use. In addition, the learners completed summaries were recorded, transcribed
and compared with the suggested summary to check for accuracy of content.
The learners were
asked to read, comprehend and then summarize an expository academic text. While
reading the learners were asked to think-aloud and tell how they understood the
text and how they were selecting points that would go into the verbal summary
later. Then the learners were required to produce an oral summary. Once the task was completed, the learners
were interviewed using the background interview questionnaire. This process was
repeated for all the learners in the proficient and less proficient groups. The
entire process was tape-recorded and the protocols transcribed verbatim later.
It was necessary to
have a suitable instrument that could help identify the strategies learners
were using to help them make sense of an academic text. Having worked with the
SILL earlier (Nambiar, 1996) and being aware of some problems associated with
it made it necessary to have an instrument that was reliable and easy to
administer and analyze. This paper will outline the procedure employed to
arrive at a descriptive language learning strategy inventory.
This inventory was developed for use in this study using the SILL Version 7 and Oxford’s (1990) classification of learning strategies. It is important to point out that the SILL was derived from the classification, so the latter was the ideal take off point to examine if changes had to be made to the inventory. The SILL is proven to be a reliable instrument with internal consistency reliability in the .90s (Oxford & Burrystock 1995) and since the DeLLSI was adapted from the SILL there was no need to do a reliability test for the new inventory. The original categorizations of memory, cognitive, compensation, metacognitive, affective and social strategy groups were maintained but a thorough perusal of the various strategies was undertaken to see if they would be applicable to the current study, based on earlier (Nambiar 1996) work with learning strategies and also the work of other local researchers (Mah 1999, Sarjit Kaur & Salasiah Che Lah 1998).
No change was made to the compensation and metacognitive strategy groups while the memory, cognitive, affective and social groups underwent changes. In Oxford’s(1990) classification, the memory strategies were divided into 4 sets –creating mental linkages, applying images and sounds, reviewing well and employing action, which were further subdivided into specific strategies. The memory strategies of creating mental linkages included grouping, associating/elaborating and placing new words in a context. The memory strategies of applying images and sounds were using keywords, semantic mapping and using keywords.
The DeLLSI maintained the grouping and associating /elaborating strategies from the creating mental linkages group while the strategy of placing new words in a context was combined with the semantic mapping strategy from the applying images and sounds group. This was undertaken because both strategies involved relating information in a meaningful way to make it easier to remember using words and images. This resulted in a new strategy group of creating mental linkages by classifying / reclassifying language into meaningful units to make it easier to remember. Doing this helped to reduce the overlap that was evident in the SILL to help make the inventory easier to use.
Earlier work (Nambiar 1996, Mah 1999, Sarjit Kaur and Salasiah 1998) revealed that Malaysian learners did not use the memory strategy of employing physical action. To minimize the number of strategies in the inventory and make it more efficient to use this strategy was simply combined with the memory strategy of using mechanical tricks and labeled employing action using physical action or mechanical tricks. This helped minimize the number of strategies in the list and made it more efficient for use.
The cognitive strategy of practicing by repeating and formally practicing with sounds and writing systems were subsumed because both involved saying or doing something repeatedly. The new strategy was simply labeled repeating a word or sentence or reading a story repeatedly to understand it. In the original classification, the affective group had three sets of strategies and these were the lowering anxiety, encouraging yourself and taking emotional temperature strategies. The affective strategies of lowering anxiety using relaxation and music were deleted and only the affective strategy of lowering anxiety using laughter was maintained. Once again, this was because the Malaysian learner only exhibited this strategy when a difficult point was encountered in learning. The affective strategy group of encouraging yourself had three strategies in the original classification but for the DeLLSI, the strategy of rewarding yourself was eliminated while the strategies of making positive statements and taking risks wisely were maintained. This was because there was no evidence in earlier work of the use of this strategy.
The third strategy group of taking emotional temperature under the affective strategy set was deleted completely from the DeLLSI because these were not applicable to the task in the study. Finally, the social strategy group comprising strategies for asking questions, cooperating with others and empathizing with others was also changed. Only the social strategy of asking questions was included in the DeLLSI.
Generally, the selection and deletion of strategies was very much dependent on earlier work done with learning strategies in the Malaysian context (Mah 1999, Nambiar 1996, Sarjit Kaur & Salasiah 1998). Strategies that were not used were left out and when there was overlap between strategies they were subsumed into a new strategy. Table 1 below shows the changes made to the strategies.
The strategies were then numbered beginning with the Memory Strategy 1 of Creating mental linkages by grouping and ending with the Social Strategy 47 of Asking for Correction. (The complete DeLLSI is reproduced in Appendix B).
It was now necessary to enhance the adapted inventory with evidence of
strategy use from the learner transcripts. The learners were asked to think-aloud and say how they selected main ideas to help them produce an oral summary of the text they were asked to read. This process was audio-recorded and then transcribed to help identify strategy use. The transcripts from the study were examined to identify statements that could be used as evidence of strategy use and this was then checked by an independent rater. The rater and the researcher then analyzed the lists for similarities and differences. When there was a difference of opinion on the identity of statements, a mutual agreement was arrived at, although such instances were minimal. Generally, there was almost complete agreement lending reliability to the final list.
|
Strategy |
Type of strategy (SILL) |
Action
|
Strategy |
Type of strategy (DeLLSI) |
|
Memory |
Create mental linkages – Place new words into context Apply images and sounds – semantic mapping |
Subsumed |
Memory |
Create mental linkages – classify/reclassify language into meaningful units to make it easier to remember |
|
Memory |
Employ action- use physical response and use mechanical tricks |
Combined |
Memory |
Employ action – use physical action or mechanical tricks |
|
Cognitive |
Practise – formally practicing with sounds and alphabets |
Subsumed |
Cognitive |
Repeating a word or sentence, read a story repeatedly to understand it. |
|
Affective |
Lowering anxiety- use relaxation and use music |
Deleted |
|
|
|
Affective |
Encouraging yourself– rewarding yourself |
Deleted |
|
|
|
Affective |
Taking emotional Temperature |
Deleted |
|
|
|
Social |
Cooperating with others Empathizing with others |
Deleted |
|
|
Table 1 Changes Made to Strategies in DeLLSI
The statements identifying strategy use were then compiled
and analyzed to develop the DeLLSI into a descriptive instrument. The inventory
was also used to validate the transcripts from the study, which made it a reliable
tool to identify learning strategy use. This inventory only contained the
strategies the learners reported using to complete the task of reading to
summarize. This resulted in a specific inventory of learning strategies for a
specific task – reading to summarize an expository text. (Appendix A shows the learning strategies
used by the learners and the specific statements that were used to help
identify strategy use)
Doing this enabled me to determine the strategies used and helped to narrow down strategy groups and types among the learners. What was even more important was that I now had a system of identifying strategies with actual responses from learners. This system of matching learner responses with sample responses to help identify strategy use made this system more reliable and valid. The lack of a clear and concise system of identifying strategies has caused confusion amongst researchers with the result that strategies are shifted from one type to another and sometimes even belong to more than one group. (Gu 1996, O’Malley et al 1985a; O’Malley & Chamot 1990, Rubin 1981). To quote Gu (1996):
“…..it is still very hard to sort all LLS uncovered neatly into these, as it were stores. It is thus not uncommon to see researcher shifting a strategy from store to store, only to find that it suits anywhere and thus nowhere. O’Malley et al (1985a) for example, first put ‘question for clarification’ under ‘cognitive strategies’ and in 1990, O’Malley and Chamot shifted it under the cover of ‘social/affective strategies.’ Similarly, Oxford’s (1986, 1990) two ambitious schemes betray exactly the same dilemma” (19).
Recognizing the fact that much of the literature on learning strategies draws a distinction between language learning and language use strategies (Cohen 1998) it was necessary to ground the inventory in a theoretical framework. Since the definition of learning strategies used included the terms internalization, retention, recall and application I decided to classify the strategies in the DeLLSI similarly.
Each strategy and its description was studied and matched with the description of what each of the constructs above (internalization, retention, recall and application) involved. For instance, Memory Strategy 1 of creating mental linkages by grouping – classify/reclassify language into meaningful units to make it easier to remember was seen as an internalization strategy. This was because there is a conscious use of mental ability to focus on what was important and make it meaningful for learning. Table 2 below provides a breakdown of how the different strategies in the DeLLSI was classified into the internalization, retention, recall and application groups (Refer to Appendix B for the complete breakdown)
Table 2 Classifying Strategies into groups
|
Internalization |
Application |
|
Memory – Strategies 1,4,5,6 Cognitive - Strategy 1 Metacognitve – Strategies 36-38 |
Cognitive - Strategies 7-8,10,12-17 Compensation – Strategies 21-26 Metacognitive- Strategies 33-35,39-42 |
|
Retention |
Recall |
|
Memory – Strategy 2 Cognitive – Strategy 18-20 Metacognitive - Strategy 32 |
Memory – Strategy 3 Cognitive - Strategy 9 Compensation – Strategies 27,30-31 |
A close examination of the table reveals
that each strategy group can be classified into internalization, retention,
recall or application types. Almost all the strategies in the memory group,
with the exception of two, are internalization strategies. This is to be
expected as creating mental linkages by grouping, structured reviewing,
reviewing well and employing action involve conscious use of mental ability to
commit material to memory. This use of mnemonics helps the learner to focus on
what to learn and remember and is a useful strategy that is often overlooked by
many learners. Interestingly enough, the strategy of creating mental linkages
by associating and elaborating was classified as a retention strategy because
the learner was seen to be connecting what was encountered with the knowledge
already in long-term memory. The strategy of using keywords to apply images and
sounds was seen as a recall strategy.
From the cognitive strategy group 1 strategy
was seen as internalization, 9 as application, 3 as retention and 1 as recall
types. Skimming and scanning involved the learner focusing attention on what to
remember and understand and internalize. Repeating to understand a word or
sentence, recognizing and using formulas, practicing, using aids to learn,
analyzing, reasoning, using L1 to understand and produce L2, translating and
transferring were the learner’s attempt to direct the knowledge to language
learning. Taking notes, summarizing and using techniques to emphasize learning
involves the learner sorting the information into meaningful representations
for later use or retention type strategies. The only recall strategy used was
that of recombining what is known in new ways.
The compensation group was sorted into the
recall or application type with 3 of the strategies going into the former and 8
into the latter type. The strategies in the recall group were selecting topic
to suit the learner, using description or a synonym to communicate and going by
the sound of it. Application type strategies were guessing intelligently using
linguistic and non linguistic clues, switching to mother tongue, asking for
help from a fluent speaker, using physical movement to explain meaning,
avoiding communication when having difficulty, adjusting and approximating
message and making up new words.
The metacognitive group was divided between
the internalization and application types with one strategy being in the
retention type. Over viewing and linking with known material was seen as a
retention strategy because it involved the learner linking what was encountered
with what already known to make sense of it. Paying attention, arranging
learning, identifying purpose of task and planning for task were placed into
internalization type strategies because these were the learner’s way of
preparing for the task or helping to understand what had to be done. Finding
out how to become a good learner, organizing the physical setting, seeking and
creating opportunities to learn, monitoring errors, evaluating progress and
self-questioning were seen as application type strategies
Strategies in the affective and social groups were classified as
application strategies as these were only employed in the process of using
language. Using affective strategies like laughter to relax, positive
statements to feel confident and risk taking; asking questions for
clarification and for correction from the social group were put into the
application type of strategies.
The DeLLSI is an interesting inventory because it is comprehensive, unambiguous, dynamic, task specific, and specific to the Malaysian learner. The comprehensiveness of the inventory comes from the fact that care was taken to scrutinize the existing taxonomies in relation to studies done in the local context (Mah 1999, Sarjit Kaur & Salasiah Che Lah 1998, Nambiar 1996) to ensure instances of use specific to the Malaysian learner were included and likewise, instances of use not particular to the learner removed. Including evidence in the form of statements denoting strategy use from learners’ think-aloud protocols, helped to minimize uncertainty over which category to place a particular strategy in and made work with strategies less ambiguous in nature. The ‘dilemma’ of what strategy a learner is using and which category it belongs to was therefore reduced considerably. This is particularly useful for inter-rater reliability, as it will be easier to identify strategies into different groups with this inventory.
Existing inventories of learning strategies have given rise to much debate about their validity since they were not grounded in any particular learning theory and also because these lists are mainly observations and at best, a synthesis of strategies from available strategy listings. Many of these taxonomies have been viewed as being static lists of strategies that are not associated with any particular language skill or task. The DeLLSI is a dynamic listing of strategies and while it was developed for the specific task of reading to summarize an expository text, it can be applied to other tasks. More importantly, this inventory although specific to the Malaysian context may prove valuable in other Asian contexts because of similarities between language learners and learning contexts.
Bedell, D. &
Oxford, R.L. (1996). Cross cultural
comparisons of language learning strategies in the people’s republic of China
and other countries. In R.L. Oxford (eds). Language learning strategies
around the world: Cross cultural perspectives. Manoa: University of Hawaii.
Brown, A.L
& Palinscar, A. (1982). Inducing strategic learning from texts by
means of informed self-control training. Topics in learning and learning
disabilities 2:1-17
Chamot, A.U.
(1987). The learning strategies of ESL
students. In: Wenden, A. & Rubin,
J. (eds.). Learner strategies in
language learning, pp. 71-84. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
Cohen, A.D (1990). Language learning. Boston:
Heinle & Heinle.
Cohen, A.D. (1998). Strategies in learning and using
a second language. New York: Longman
Gu, P.Y. (1996). Robin Hood in SLA: what has the learner strategy research taught
us? Asian Journal of English
Language Teaching 6: 1-29.
Kaylani, C.
(1996). The influence of gender and
motivation on EFL learning: Strategy use in Jordan. In: Oxford, R.L. (ed.). Language Learning Strategies Around
the World. Cross cultural perspectives , pp. 75-88. Manao
University of Hawaii Press.
MacIntyre, P.
(1994). Towards a social psychology
model of strategy use. Foreign Language Annals 27(2): 185-194
Mah, S. F. (1999).
The language learning strategies of Malaysian undergraduates from
national primary schools and national type (Chinese) primary schools for
completing selected ESL classroom activities.
MA Thesis, University Kebangsaan Malaysia, Bangi.
Mayer, R.E. 1988.
Learning strategies: An overview.
In: Weinstein, C.E., Goetz, E.T. & Alexander, P.A. (eds..) Learning and study strategies: Issues in
assessment, instruction and evaluation, pp. 11-22. San
Diego: Academic Press.
Nambiar, R. (1996). Language
learning strategies of six Malaysian ESL learners when performing selected
language activities. MA Thesis, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Bangi.
Nambiar, R. (1998). Learning
strategies – A Malaysian perspective. Faculty Monograph Series FPB:Bangi
Nambiar, R. (2005) Language Learning and
language use strategies of tertiary learners for academic literacy: Towards a
theoretical and pedagogical model of language learning. Unpublished PhD. Thesis
Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia: Bangi
O’Malley, M &
Chamot, A.U. (1990). Learning strategies in second language
acquisition. Cambridge: CUP.
O’Malley, J. M.,
Chamot, A.U., Stewner-Manzanares, G., Kupper, L.& Russo, R.P. (1985). Learning strategies used by beginning and intermediate ESL students. Language Learning 25:21-36
Oxford, R.L. (1986).
Development of the strategy inventory for language learning.
Manuscript. Washington D.C.: Center for Applied Linguistics.
Oxford, R. L.
(1990). Language learning
strategies: what every teacher should know New York: Newbury House Harper
Collins.
Oxford, R. L. (2001). Language learning styles and strategies In Celce-Murcie, M. (ed.).
Teaching English as a second or foreign language Boston: Heinle &
Heinle.
Oxford, R.L. &
Burrystock (1995). Assessing the use of language learning strategies
worlwide with the ESL/EFL version of the Strategy Inventory for Language
Learning (SILL). System 23(1) : 1-23.
Park, G. (1997).
Language learning strategies and English proficiency in Korean
university students Foreign Language
Annals 30 (2):211-221
Rigney W. 1978.
Learning strategies: A theoretical perspective. In: H.F. O’Neill (ed.)
Learning strategies, pp. 70-75. New York:Academic Press.
Rubin, J. (1975).
What the ‘good language learner’ can teach us. TESOL Quarterly 9:41-51.
Rubin, J. (1981).
Study of cognitive processes in second language learning. Applied
Linguistics 11: 117-31.
Rubin, J. (1987).
Learner strategies: Assumptions, research history, and typology.In:
Wenden, A.L. & Rubin, J. (eds.). Learner strategies in language
learning, pp 15-30. New York: Prentice Hall
Sarjit Kaur &
Salasiah Che Lah. (1998). Language
learning strategies of Malay university students:An exploratory study. Paper presented at the 2nd
Malaysian International Conference on English Language Teaching. University
Putra Malaysia, 18-20 May.
Sheorey, R. (1999).
Learning strategies of Indian College students. Proceedings of the invited research symposium on language learning
strategies, pp. 73-75. Teachers College, Columbia University, New York.
Sheorey R. &
Bryant, N.C. (1998). Examining the
learning Strategies of Indian College Students : The development of English
Language Learning Strategies Inventory Indian Journal of Applied
Linguistics 24 (1): 39-57
Wenden, A. (1987).
Metacognition: an expanded view of the cognitive abilities of L2
learners. Language Learning 37:573-97
Wharton, G. (2000). Language learning strategy use of
bilingual foreign language learners in Singapore. Language Learning 50(2):
203-243.
APPENDIX A:
Learning
Strategies used by Learners for Reading an Expository Text |
||
|
MEMORY STRATEGY Strategy 4: Structured Reviewing Description of Strategy: To read a paragraph or passage again so as
to understand it Statements
- I have to read again - I need to reread the sentence again - When I read and don’t understand I read
again - I have to read again then I can tell you
what I understand - Read first then again to see I understand - Read through first and read again
properly COGNITIVE
STRATEGY
Strategy 11: Skimming and scanning Description of Strategy: To read through a text first, identify
difficult word and then read again for meaning Statements
- When I cannot understand I skim slowly - Skim to look for unfamiliar words Strategy 12: Use dictionary, reference books and
visuals to help in learning Description of Strategy: To use the dictionary or reference material
to understand difficult words. Statements
- Let me check the dictionary - Find the meaning in the dictionary - If I find it difficult to see word in
context I use the dictionary - If no dictionary only I guess Strategy 14: Analyze expressions Description of
Strategy: To understand
words or phrases by breaking up into smaller, manageable units. Statements
- Inter is
between, right like intercultural – one culture to another - Gradually is
slowly day by day Strategy 16: Translate Description of
strategy: Convert a target
language expression to the native language or vice versa Statements
- I take a look at
the title, what is the ‘kehendak’ - I know the word
impersonation in Mandarin Strategy 17: Transfer- Use Bahasa Melayu to produce English Description of
Strategy: To read in Malay
but to try and understand it in English Statements
- When I read in
Malay I try to make sense of it in English Strategy 18: Take notes Description of
Strategy: To write down main
ideas, specific details and unfamiliar terms to help in summary
writing. Statements
- Write down
phrases on paper to make summary - Write down unfamiliar terms Strategy 20: Use a variety of emphasis techniques Description of Strategy: To underline
important information or write meanings of words to help in summary
writing. Statements
- I underline the
main points - I underline what
I don’t understand - I write meanings
of words on top here. COMPENSATION STRATEGY
Strategy 21: Guessing intelligently using linguistic
clues Description of
Strategy: To guess meanings
of unfamiliar words using content, situation or even text structure. Statements
- I read again and
come back and guess the meaning Strategy 22: Guessing using non linguistic clues Description of
strategy: Guess meaning of
unfamiliar words using knowledge of content, situation, text
structure, world knowledge. Statements
-I am guessing,
rote learning is like taking something they have learned. Strategy 26: Avoid communication when difficulties are
encountered or anticipated. Description of
Strategy: To skip sentences
or paragraphs which are difficult to understand. Statements
- Don’t know just
skip - Just ignore what
I don’t know - So complicated
ignore first - I don’t understand
this coz I don’t know French Strategy 28: Adjust and approximate message to make it
simple Description of
strategy: Alter what is said
because of a lack of suitable expression. To simplify understanding. Statements
- That’s all for
this section - That’s all METACOGNITIVE STRATEGY
Strategy 32: Overview and Link with known material Description of
Strategy: To make
connections between what was read in earlier and what is read now. Statements
- I know about it
because I have seen it. - This passage is
familiar coz I studied about it in TESL - I read about
this in my Terjemahan class. - I have come
across the word in an article before Strategy 33: Make a deliberate attempt to pay attention
to specific aspects
and ignore distractions. Description of Strategy: To consciously pay attention to specific
aspects like italics and words in bold and ignore unimportant aspects like
examples. Statements
- Words in italics are important - Words in bold show something important. - Take note of important elements - Just read the explanations - I don’t know this word but it is
unnecessary. - There is no good point here. - Leave out words with for instance, for
example. - If the word is not important I don’t look
it up. Strategy 38: Plan for the task by understanding what it
involves. Description of Strategy: To prepare for the task by considering the
length of the text, the title and what it means, and guiding questions. Statements
- Before I read I look at the text, how
long it is then I try to read. - I look at the topic first then I try to
guess what it is about - I read the title of the text and try to
understand the text. - I observe how many pages if there are
questions at back I look at them. - Look at main ideas, check for key points.
If I know what the key points are I
go through it. - First time I read to understand the passage and then I read to see if I can pick out what the important points are. Strategy 41: Evaluate progress in the activity Description of Strategy: To constantly comment on the inability to
progress with task because of a number of reasons. Statements
- I have not come across this yet. - Don’t understand this. - Don’t’ get this part - I am not sure why it is incorrect - It is a difficult passage - I take a long time to read - It doesn’t make sense - I can understand but I cannot explain. - I think it is incorrect. - I am poor in grammar so this is tough - I am not good at this. - It is hard to say in my own words. - I don’t know…just read Strategy 42: Self Questioning Description of Strategy: To ask rhetorical questions as a form of
check for correctness. Statements
- What’s that? - Is it true? AFFECTIVE STRATEGY
Strategy 44: Saying or writing positive statements to
feel more confident. Description of
Strategy: To encourage oneself
to continue with task despite difficulty in understanding. Statements
- I think so - I don’t know how
to relate this but I understand. - Not sure of the
point but it is somewhere. - I know what this
means - Not too hard for
me to understand. - Words are familiar
to me - I agree with this. SOCIAL STRATEGY
Strategy 46: Asking questions for clarification or
verification Description of
Strategy: To check with
someone to see if something is correct. Statements
- What does this
mean? - Is this okay? - Is it this or that? |
||
APPENDIX B: Descriptive Language Learning Strategy Inventory (DeLLSI) |
|
|
MEMORY STRATEGY
Strategy 1: Create
mental linkages by grouping - Classify/reclassify language into meaningful
units to make it easier to remember Description of strategy: Place a new word with other similar words
in one group Place new words in an arrangement –
semantic mapping Strategy 2: Create
mental linkages by associating / elaborating Make meaningful associations between new language and language in
store Description of strategy: Link new language with what is already
learnt using sounds, content, imagery Strategy 3: Using keywords to apply images and sounds Description of strategy: Remember new language by using sounds or
imagery Strategy 4:
Structured reviewing Description of strategy: Return to learned material at intervals to remember it. Strategy 5:
Reviewing Well Description of strategy: Reading to commit to memory Strategy 6:
Employing action Description of strategy: Using physical action or mechanical techniques. COGNITIVE STRATEGY
Strategy 7:
Repeating a word, sentence or read a story repeatedly to understand it. Description of strategy: Practice saying or reading a word, expression or story to understand
it. Strategy 8:
Recognizing and using formulas and patterns Description of strategy: Using knowledge of formula and patterns to complete task. Strategy 9:
Recombining what is known in new ways Description of strategy: Use familiar words in different ways |
Internalization Retention Recall Internalization Internalization Internalization Application Application Recall |
|
|
Strategy 10:
Practice naturalistically Description of strategy: Practise language by reading, writing, speaking or listening. Strategy 11:
Skimming and scanning Description of strategy: Read a text by skimming before going back for details. Strategy 12: Use
dictionary, reference books, and visuals to help in learning Description of strategy: Use reference materials, glossaries, and dictionaries to learn
new language Strategy 13:
Reasoning deductively - from the general to the specific. Description of strategy: Apply general rules to new situations when learning language Strategy 14: Analyze expressions Description of strategy: Understand expressions by breaking up into smaller units easier to
understand. Strategy 15: Contrastive Analysis Description of strategy: Applying L1 (BM) to understand new words in L2 (English.) Strategy 16:
Translating Description of strategy: Convert a target language expression to the native language or vice
versa. Strategy 17:
Transferring -Use the L1 to produce
the L2 Description of strategy: Apply knowledge of words, concepts or structures from one language to
another to understand or produce an expression in the new language Strategy 18: Take
notes Description of strategy: Write down the main idea or specific points Strategy 19:
Summarize Description of strategy: Summarize a long passage to help understand better Strategy 20: Use a
variety of emphasis techniques Description of strategy: Underline, use brackets, arrows, circling words to focus on important information. |
Application Internalization Application Application Application Application Application Application Retention Retention Retention |
|
COMPENSATION STRATEGY
Strategy 21:
Guessing intelligently using linguistic clues Description of strategy: Guess general meaning of unfamiliar words using clues from the target
language. Strategy 22:
Guessing using non-linguistic clues Description of strategy: Guess meaning of unfamiliar words using knowledge of content,
situation, text structure, world knowledge Strategy 23: Switching
to mother tongue when having difficultyexpressing meaning Description of strategy: Use L1 to substitute a word that is unfamiliar. Strategy 24: Ask
for help from a fluent speaker of the target language Description of strategy: Asking another person for the right word to use Strategy 25: Use a
physical movement to indicate meaning of an unknown expression Description of strategy: Using movements to explain what is meant by difficult words. Strategy 26: Avoid
communication when difficulties are encountered or anticipated Description of strategy: Avoid communication when topic is too difficult or less familiar Strategy 27:
Selecting topic to meet vocabulary and grammatical availability of learner Description of strategy: Direct the conversation to a topic which learner knows words Strategy 28:
Adjust and approximate message to make it simple Description of strategy: Alter what is said because of a lack of suitable expression. Strategy 29: Coin
new words to communicate an idea Description of strategy: Make up new words to get a message across. Strategy 30: Describe a concept or use a synonym to communicate meaning. Description of strategy: Using a different way or a synonym to express an idea. Strategy 31: Going by the
sound of it Description of strategy: If something sounds right it must be right |
Application Application Application Application Application Application Recall Application Application Recall Recall |
|
METACOGNITIVE STRATEGY
Strategy 32:
Overview and Link with known material Description of strategy: Preview a lesson to get an idea of what it is about, how it is
organized and how it relates to what I know. Strategy 33: Make
a deliberate attempt to pay attention to specific aspects and ignore
distractions Description of strategy: Concentrate on what is learnt and ignore unrelated topics. Strategy 34:
Finding out about language learning Description of strategy: Find out how to become a better language learner Strategy 35: Organizing
the physical setting to optimize learning Description of strategy: Using the physical environment to help me understand my learning. Strategy 36: Arrange learning around particular goals
and targets Description of strategy: Plan what I am going to accomplish for my learning. Strategy 37: Identify
purpose of a task Description of strategy: Identify what I have to do i.e. the purpose of the task |
Retention Application Application Application Internalization Internalization |
|
|
Strategy 38: Plan
for the task by understanding what it involves Description of strategy: Prepare for task by considering what’s to be done and what I know Strategy 39: Seek
and create opportunities to practise language in naturalistic settings Description of strategy: Look for ways to practise the new language Strategy 40:
Monitor errors and try to eliminate them Description of strategy: Know what errors I make and why. Strategy 41:
Evaluating progress in the language activity Description of strategy: Evaluate my general progress during the activity. Strategy 42: Self
questioning Description of strategy: Questioning oneself as a way to evaluate answers AFFECTIVE
STRATEGIES
Strategy 43: Use
laughter to relax Description of strategy: Using laugher when having a difficult or unsure time in learning. Strategy 44: Saying or writing positive statements to feel confident Description of strategy: Encouraging oneself with positive statements to boost confidence. Strategy 45:
Pushing oneself to take risks Description of strategy: Allowing oneself to take risks despite fear of failure SOCIAL STRATEGIES
Strategy 46:
Asking Questions for clarification or verification Description of strategy: Check when in doubt or to see if something is correct Strategy 47:
Asking for Correction Description of strategy: Asking someone if what is said is
correct. |
Internalization Application Application Application Application Application Application Application Application Application |
|