The present study aimed to explore the complex relationships between Taiwanese EFL learners’ cognitive and metacogntive strategy use and their performance on the GEPT test. This work has revealed a number of interesting findings, yet they should not be considered conclusive or comprehensive due to some limitations in this study.
For example, methodologically, in terms of the data collection procedures, the questionnaire was conducted in Chinese to ensure that the participants understood it. However, though the translated questionnaire was piloted and necessary adjustments were made before it was used in the study, the translated text of each strategy
Wu: Strategy Use and GEPT Test Performance
might still not have had the exact same meaning to the readers in this study as that intended in the original English version. The possible differences in meaning due to translation might have had an impact on what was reported in this study. Besides, for the sake of efficiency, the present study used a questionnaire to gather learners’ self-reports of strategy use. Basing research only on a quantitative method has its limitations in obtaining more in-depth reports on strategy use from learners. Follow-up interviews with some of the participants should be added in future studies of this kind. In regard to statistical procedures, although regression analyses were conducted to explore the relationships between strategy use and test performance, more sophisticated statistical analysis, such as structural equation modeling (Kunnan, 1998) has yet to be employed.
Despite the limitations, the findings in this study suggest a number of implications for pedagogy and future research as follows:
1. Strategy use varied due to learners’ proficiency of English. On the whole, the higher achievers in the GEPT-Intermediate performance reported more use of both cognitive and metacognitive strategies. Furthermore, the strategies reported as used more often by the higher achievers in the GEPT-Intermediate were related to inferencing, linking with prior knowledge, repeating/rehearsing, and monitoring. Therefore, learners should be made aware of the importance of the active use of such strategies. As suggested by Green and Oxford (1995), it is hoped that sharing results such as those in the study will be useful in encouraging L2 learners to use such strategies. Relating this to the Taiwanese context, as Yang (1999) noted, Taiwanese EFL learners’ self-efficacy beliefs were strongly related to their use of
learning strategies; therefore, encouraging appropriate beliefs about L2 learning should also be included in strategy training programs for learners.
2. A few strategies such as analyzing inductively and self-evaluation failed to differentiate higher and lower achievers in the listening performance as they did in the reading performance, which suggests that the use of strategy may also be related to language skills. Therefore, it is also useful for teachers to recognize that some strategies may be more suited to a particular language skill than others so that more effective strategy choices can be introduced to their students.
3. The results of regression analyses indicated that learners’ use of strategies could explain only a limited portion of the test performance. This finding tells us that there are other strategies (e.g., affect and self-efficacy) and many other variables (e.g., task types, difficulty, test delivery) to be explored to obtain a more comprehensive view of learners’ cognitive and metacogntive strategy use. It is therefore recommended that more research into the effect of these variables, alone or in combination, on learners’
strategy use should be conducted.
4. Learners’ strategy use was investigated in a testing situation in this study. However, learners’ actual strategy use in a non-testing situation is likely to be different from that in a testing situation (Phakiti, 2003). Therefore, to better understand the complexity of learners’ psychology in using learning strategies under a testing operation, a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods and more refined statistical procedures are desirable in future research.
Wu: Strategy Use and GEPT Test Performance
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This study was supported by the Language Training and Testing Center (LTTC). I would like to extend my gratitude to my colleagues on the LTTC Research Team for providing necessary assistance to this study.
REFERENCES
Bachman, L. F. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. S. (1996). Language testing in practice.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1, 1-47.
Cohen, A. D. (1998). Strategies in learning and using a second language. New York: Addison-Wesley.
Green, J. M., & Oxford, R. (1995). A closer look at learning strategies, L2 proficiency, and gender. TESOL Quarterly, 2, 261-297.
Kunnan, J. A. (1998). An introduction to structural equation modeling for language assessment research. Language Testing, 15(3), 295-332.
Kuo, G. (2005). A preliminary corpus study on EFL test takers’
writing proficiency. Paper presented at the Eighth International Conference on English Language Testing in Asia, Hong Kong.
Language Testing and Training Center [LTTC]. (2003). Concurrent validity
studies of the GEPT intermediate level, GEPT high-intermediate level, CBT TOEFL, CET-6, and the English Testing of the R.O.C. College Entrance Examination. Retrieved November 17, 2007, from http://www.lttc.ntu.edu.tw/academics/testmain.htm
Language Testing and Training Center [LTTC]. (2005). Mapping the GEPT to the common English yardstick for English education in Taiwan (CEY). Taipei: Language Training and Testing Center.
Language Testing and Training Center [LTTC]. (2007). General English Proficiency Test. [Brochure]. Retrieved November 17, 2007, from http://www.lttc.ntu.edu.tw/E_LTTC/gept_eng_main.htm
Language Testing and Training Center [LTTC]. (2008). GEPT score data report. Retrieved December 10, 2008, from
http://www.lttc.ntu.edu.tw/academics/testmain.htm
McNamara, T. F. (1996). Measuring second language performance.
London and New York: Longman.
O’Malley, J. M., & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning strategies in second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
O’Malley, J. M., Chamot, A.U., Stewner-Manzanares, G., Kupper, L.,
& Russo, R. (1985). Learning strategies used by beginning and intermediate ESL students. Language Learning, 35, 21-46.
Oxford, R. (1986). Development of the strategy inventory for language learning. Paper presented at the Language Testing Research Colloquium. Monterey, CA.
Oxford, R. (1990). Language learning strategies: what every teacher should know. Boston: Heinle and Heinle.
Paris, S. G. (2002). When is metacognition helpful, debilitating, or
Wu: Strategy Use and GEPT Test Performance
benign? In P. Chambres, M. Izaute, & P. Marescaux (Eds.), Metacognition: Process, function, and use (pp. 105-120).
Norwell, MA: Kluwer.
Phakiti, A. (2003). A closer look at the relationship of cognitive and metacognitive strategy use to EFL reading achievement test performance. Language Testing, 20, 26-56.
Politzer, R. L., & McGroarty, M. (1985). An exploratory study of learning behaviors and their relationship to gain in linguistic and communicative competence. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 103-123.
Purpura, J. E. (1997). An analysis of the relationships between test-takers’ cognitive and metacogntive strategy use and second language test performance. Language Learning, 47, 289-325.
Purpura, J. E. (1998). Investigating the effects of strategy use and second language test performance with high- and low-ability test-takers: a structural equation modeling approach. Language Testing, 15, 333-379.
Purpura, J. E. (1999). Learner strategy use and performance on language tests: a structural equation modeling approach.
Cambridge: University of Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicate and Cambridge University Press.
Rubin, J. (1975). What the “good” language learner can teach us?
TESOL Quarterly, 9, 41-51.
SPSS (2006). SPSS Version 15.0 (Computer software). Chicago, IL:
SPSS.
Song, X., & Cheng, L. (2006). Language learner strategy use and test performance of Chinese learners of English. Language Assessment Quarterly, 3, 244-266.
Weir, C. J., & Wu, J. (2002). Parallel-Form reliability - A case study
of the GEPT spoken performance test. Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on English Language Testing in Asia, Tokyo, Japan.
Weir, C. J., & Wu, J. (2006). Establishing test form and individual task comparability: a case study of a semi-direct speaking test.
Language Testing, 23(2), 167-197.
Wu, J. (2008). Views of Taiwanese students and teachers on English language testing. Research Notes, 34, 6-9.
Wu, J., & Wu, R. Y. (2007). Using the CEFR in Taiwan: the perspective of a local examination board. Paper presented at The Fourth Annual EALTA Conference, Sitges, Spain.
Wu, R. Y., & Chin, J. S. (2006). An impact study of the intermediate level GEPT. Paper presented at the Ninth International Conference on English Testing in Asia, Taipei. Taiwan.
Yang, N. D. (1999). The relationship between EFL learners’ beliefs and learning strategy use. System, 4, 515-536.