• 沒有找到結果。

探究性別於語言學習策略使用之效應:一個後設分析之研究

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "探究性別於語言學習策略使用之效應:一個後設分析之研究"

Copied!
141
0
0

加載中.... (立即查看全文)

全文

(1)國立臺灣師範大學英語學系 碩士論文 Master’s Thesis Graduate Institute of English National Taiwan Normal University. 探究性別於語言學習策略使用之效應: 一個後設分析之研究. The Effects of Gender on Language Learning Strategy Use: A Meta-analysis. 指導教授: 曾文鐽. 博士. Advisor: Dr. Wen-ta Tseng 研究生: 陳嬿琦 Yen-Chi Chen. 中華民國一佰零四年七月 July 2015.

(2) 中文摘要 語言學習策略在第二外語習得領域中,自 1970 年代開始即被廣泛地討論, 進 而促成學者們致力 於語言學習策略的分 類。 SILL (Strategy Inventory for Language Learning) 是根據學者 Oxford 的六項語言學習策略分類所編製而成之 語言學習策略調查工具。緣採用 SILL 來調查語言學習策略使用之相關研究已有 相當長時間的累積,且當中又有不少研究是關於性別對語言學習策略使用的響 影;因此,後設分析研究方法能進一步統整此領域中不同的研究結果,提供目前 性別對語言學習策略影響的宏觀樣貌。 此後設分析的研究結果發現,整體而言女性使用語言學習策略的頻率比男性 高,但兩者之間的差異並不大。然而,此性別差異在某些情況之下會減弱甚至消 弭;譬如針對較成熟的、選擇英語為主修的學習者,或是學習者的母語與所學的 語言來自相同的語系。雖然男女先天的生理差異可能造成不同的學習策略使用頻 率,後天環境暨文化因素與生理差異對個體陶冶的結果,也可能讓先天生理差異 的影響趨緩。身為語言教學者應視學習者不同的特質與需求,給予適性的語言學 習策略;而語言學習者亦需培養選擇不同語言學習策略的能力,進而努力創造適 合自我特質的學習環境。. 關鍵字:語言學習策略、性別差異、後設分析.

(3) ABSTRACT In the field of second language acquisition (SLA), language learning strategies have been widely discussed since 1970s. Considerable efforts have been made to organize language learning strategy categories, resulting in canonical taxonomies that researchers frequently adopt for investigating the phenomena of language learner’s strategy use. The SILL (Strategy Inventory for Language Learning) designed according to Oxford’s six-category taxonomy is a renowned measure of learners’ self-report strategy use. Since research adopting the SILL as the main instrument have been accumulated in relation to individual differences and gender affecting language learning strategy use has often been investigated, it is beneficial to assess the cumulative findings of this mature domain by means of quantitative and secondary analyses. Therefore, meta-analysis is conducted in the present study to explore the frequency of males and females’ language learning strategy use. The major findings of the meta-analysis are that female learners use strategies more frequently than male learners in a general picture, but the gap in strategy use is minor. However, the effects of gender on language learning strategy use can be reduced or even canceled when learners are more mature, learners who major in English, and learners’ first language is a linguistic cognate with the target language. Although the biological gender may influence the use of language learning strategies fundamentally, gender differences in language learning strategy use might be minimized or even closed since the brain, the environment, and the cultural variables keep interacting in a trigonometrical relationship to cultivate an individual learner. As the potential effectiveness of strategies-based instruction has been proved to be beneficial for language learning, language teachers should provide language learning strategies more relating to individual preferences and language learners should be able to create the promising environment for themselves and be aware that they are capable of adopting useful language learning strategies according to their own propensities.. Key words: Language learning strategy use, gender differences, meta-analysis.

(4) ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The focus of this thesis is understanding male and female learners’ differences in using language learning strategies. As being an English teacher, I have contemplated the content and the way to present the teaching material according to students’ propensities and aptitude. Every student in the classroom brings a set of personality and psycho-emotive characteristics to the task of learning something. If teachers can provide appropriate teaching materials and the guidance of effective strategy use, students’ language learning will be facilitated and enhanced. Language learning strategies have always been very intriguing to me. This motivation made me devote to the study of language learning and come back to NTNU in 2012 as a student. During the time, I have had the privilege in pursuing knowledge of many specialized fields and I also have had tremendous support along the way. First and foremost, my deepest and sincerest gratitude goes to my advisor, Dr. Wen-ta Tseng, who has been generous with his time and offered helpful advice in each step to help me finish my thesis. His support, guidance, and encouragement have always inspired me. His gifts in critical thinking and expertise in quantitative science have encouraged me to challenge myself to become more a researcher of precision and accuracy. Second, a special heartfelt thanks are expressed to both committee members, Dr. Zhi-cheng Lin and Dr. Mao-neng Li, for providing jewels of words of suggestions, information and insights that have proven indispensable throughout the process. Finally, I would like to dedicate this thesis to my beloved family and particularly to my husband. He has been supporting me and inspiring me to continue with my master education. Because of sharing most of the housework, especially looking after our daughter, he procrastinated his own career of recording guitar music adapted from Bach’s cello suites and publishing his autobiography which he has already finished years ago. The next step in my foreseeable future, I will be the strength in my family to help achieve their dreams and be an insightful teacher with the knowledge I have learned from this precious journey..

(5) TABLE of CONTENTS CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION………………………………………………1 Background and Motivation………………………………………………………… 2 The Importance of Language Learning Strategy…………………………………2 The Importance of Gender Differences…………………………………………..5 The Importance of Gender differences in Language Learning Strategy Use…….7 The Purpose of the Study……………………………………………………………..9 Research Questions…………………………………………………………...10 The Significance of the Study…………………………………….………………….11 CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW……………………………………..13 Language Learning Strategies……………………………………………………....14 The Development of Language Learning Strategies…………………………...15 Oxford’s Taxonomy of Language Learning Strategies…………………………18 The Development of SILL………………………………………………...21 The Dominance of SILL…………………………………………………..23 Language Learning Strategy Use of Good Language Learners………………..27 Self-awareness in Language Learning Strategy…………………………28 Factors Influencing Language Learning Strategy Use………………………….30 Gender Differences…………………………………………………………………...32 Gender Encompasses both Biological and Psychosocial Aspects………………32 Gender Differences in the Social Domain……………………………………..36 Gender Differences in Academic Learning (Cognitive Abilities)……………....38 Gender Differences in Language Development…………………………….…..40 Gender Differences in Language Use……………………………………….….41 Gender Differences in Language Learners……………………………….…..…43 CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY........................................................46 Search and Retrieval of the Studies…………………………………………….........47 Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria…………………………………………………......48 Data Collection and Coding……………………………………………………….....51 Study Characteristics……………………………………………………………51 Gender Differences in Six-Category Strategy Use……………………………53 Subgroups Based on Moderator Variables……………………………….…….53 Extraction for Effect Sizes……………………………………………………...……56 Analysis and Interpretation of Effect Size Data……………….……………………..58 Publication Bias……………………………………………………………….59.

(6) CHAPTER FOUR RESULT…………………………………..…………………...62 Gender Differences in LLSU Operationalized by the SILL………………………….63 The Meta-Analyses of Gender Differences in Six-Category Strategy Use……..72 Subgroups of Moderator Variables for Gender Differences in LLSU………………..74 The Meta-Analysis of Gender Differences in Six-Category Strategy Use between compulsory and tertiary education….…………………………………………..74 The Meta-Analysis of Gender Differences in Six-Category Strategy Use between English Majors and Non-English Majors……………………………………….78 The Meta-analyses of Gender Differences in Six-Category Strategy Use across Linguistic Cognates and Non-Linguistic Cognates……………………………..81 CHAPTER FIVE DISCUSSION……………………………………………...……..85 Research Question 1…………………….……………………………………………86 Research Question 2………………………………….………………………………89 Research Question 3………………………………………………………………….91 Research Question 4………………………………………………………………….95 CHAPTER SIX CONCLUSION………………………………………………… 100 Conclusions…………………………………………………………………………101 Pedagogical Implications…………………………………………………………104 Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research……………………………..……106 References……………………………...………………….………………..………108 Appendixes…………………………………………………………………..……126.

(7) CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION. This chapter contains four sections. The first states the background and motivation of this study; the second outlines the purposes; the third describes the significance of this study; and the fourth presents the structure of this study.. 1.

(8) Background and Motivation In the second language acquisition literature (SLA), language learning strategies are commonly used to refer what learners do when consciously controlling their language learning process. The definition of learning strategies is not straightforward since numerous definitions have been provided in the literature (Cohen, 1999; Oxford, 1989, 1999; Griffiths, 2008; Ellis, 2014). Considerable efforts have been made to organize language learning strategy categories, resulting in canonical taxonomies that researchers frequently adopt for investigating the phenomena of language learner’s strategy use, such as O’Malley and Chamot’s (1990) three-way distinction of cognitive strategies, metacognitive strategies and socio-affective strategies, and Oxford’s (1990) six-category taxonomy of language learning strategies. The SILL (Strategy Inventory for Language Learning) designed according to Oxford’s six-category taxonomy is a renowned measure of learners’ self-report strategy use. Studies of language learning strategy use usually take into account the factors affecting learners’ strategy choice relating to individual differences, such as age, learners’ belief, motivation, learning style, proficiency level, academic achievement and gender differences.. The Importance of Language Learning Strategies According to Oxford (1990, 1992, 1993), optimal learner training shows students how to transfer strategies to new situations, includes an explicit and clear focus on specific strategies, has frequent practice opportunities for strategies and integrates strategy training with regular classwork. The use of appropriate language learning strategies leads to improved proficiency or achievement in overall or specific language skills (Chamot & Kupper 1989; Oxford & Crookall, 1989; O’Malley & Chamot 1990). Studies have also supported the notion that the use of appropriate 2.

(9) learning strategies enables students to take responsibility for their own learning by enhancing learner autonomy, independence, and self-direction. (Oxford & Nyikos, 1989; Green & Oxford, 1995; Wharton, 2000; Lai, 2009). O’Malley, Chamot, Stewner ‐Manzanares, Russo and Küpper (1985) suggested that the learning strategies of good language learners, once identified and successfully taught to less successful learners, can have considerable potential for enhancing the development of the second language skills. According to Oxford’s classification of language learning strategies, the six categories are created as areas of strategy use to be investigated. Oxford’s classification is systematic in linking individual strategies as well as strategy groups (Green & Oxford, 1995). A factor analytic study by Hsiao and Oxford (2002) corroborated Oxford’s six-factor strategy classification by demonstrating its consistency with learner’s strategy use, and also showed the practical significance of a more diverse strategy classification scheme. For example, Oxford classified affective and social strategies as separate categories and listed more affective and social strategies than O’Malley and Chamot did. The reason was that affective and social strategies deserve significant attention as part of the “whole learner”. Rubin (1975) also emphasized the importance of affective aspects of L2 learning even though her two-classification of language learning strategies did not include affective aspects. The SILL, organized by strategy groups based on factor-analytic procedures, is the most often used instrument investigating language learning strategy use around the world and is the only one that has been extensively field-tested for reliability and validity in multiple ways (Oxford & Burry-Stock, 1995). Studies have reported reliability coefficients for the SILL ranging from .85 to .98, marking it as trusted measure for gauging students’ reported language learning strategy use (Bremner, 1999; Oxford & Burry-Stock, 1995; Park, 1997; Wharton, 2000). 3.

(10) In the SILL, using five Likert-scale responses for each strategy item ranging from 1 to 5, language learning strategies are grouped into six categories with a clear factor structure based on Oxford’s taxonomy of learning strategies: 1) Memory strategies are for storing and retrieving information. 2) Cognitive strategies are for understanding and producing the language. 3) Compensation strategies are for overcoming limitations in language learning. 4) Metacognitive strategies are for planning and monitoring learning. 5) Affective strategies are for controlling emotions and motivation. 6) Social strategies are for cooperating with others in language learning. A background questionnaire is also available to document age, sex, language experience, motivation, and other information (Oxford, 1990). In addition, the ESL/EFL SILL has been translated into the following languages: Arabic, Chinese, French, German, Japanese, Korean, Russian, Spanish, Thai, and Ukrainian (Oxford & Burry-Stock, 1995). Quite a number of studies adopting the SILL have investigated the effects of different individual variables on language learning strategy use. Some of these studies focused on the effects of language proficiency on strategy use (Watanabe, 1990; Pillips, 1991; Wen & Johnson, 1990; Mullins, 1992; Bedell & Oxford, 1996). Some considered the effects of motivation on strategy use (Oxford & Nyikos, 1989; Oxford, Park‐Oh & Sumrall, 1993; Kaylani, 2000). Some have looked at the effects of language learning styles on the selection of strategies (Ehrman & Oxford, 1989; Rossi-Le, 1989). Other studies have compared the differences between EFL and ESL students in their strategy use (Oh, 1992; Oxford, 1992). There have been also many important factors influencing language learning strategy use, such as academic major, age, socioeconomic status, educational level, and self-efficacy. It must be pointed out, however, of all the worldwide studies dealing with the SILL, probably the most tested variable is gender. Gender has been tested as the primary independent variable in a 4.

(11) majority of the studies in the field of strategy research (Lan & Oxford, 2003).. The Importance of Gender Differences The dichotomous groups of human beings in the world can be conceptualized by the terms such as boys and girls, men and women, males and females, masculinity and femininity. Gender issues infiltrate our life via the mass media of advertisement, merchandising and fashion; cultural norms of appropriate career choice; and equality (or lack thereof) in employment opportunities and academic performance. The definition of sex and gender requires further discussion in order to point out the deeper understanding of gender differences. As Helgeson (2009) mentioned sex can refer to the biological categories of male and female, categories distinguished by genes, chromosomes, and hormones; gender, on the other hand, can be a much more fluid category in which cultures play a part. However, language is a living phenomenon and the meaning of words change over time. Halpern (2012) suggested that “gender” may encompass both biological and psychosocial aspects of being male or female since the term “gender” is more commonly used in studies. “Gender” is used more frequently when discussing the studies relating to these two groups. Hence, the term “gender” would be used to discuss the effects of gender on language learning strategy use concerning the biological and psychosocial aspects. Gender differences in the social, academic learning and language learning aspects are discussed in this study. In the social aspect, Helgson (2009) noted that females had more empathy than males, but men helped more than women. Bettencourt and Miller’s (1996) meta-analytic review of sex comparisons showed that men showed more aggression than women. Feingold (1994) concluded that there were no gender differences in self-esteem or locus of control. Men were more assertive than women, and women were more anxious than men. Costa, Terracciano, and 5.

(12) McCrae (2001) also pointed out that sex differences in personalities were small but consistent with the notion of men being more assertive, women being more submissive, women having more nurturance, and women having more negative affect. In the academic learning, girls are less likely to be required to repeat a grade (Koch, 2003), more likely to earn higher class ranks, and are more likely to be awarded academic honors at least through high school. Hedges and Nowell (1995) found that women outperformed men on reading comprehension, perceptual speed, and associative memory, but men outperformed in vocational aptitude domains. Chang and Yuan (2008) suggested that the gender gap among seventh and eighth graders in science achievement has closed or almost closed. In sum, males perform more irregularly and more intricately than females in academic learning, and gender differences in cognitive abilities may be narrowed by the maturation of the individual or through complementary teaching (Hedges & Nowell, 1995; Mailand, Intrieri, Schaie & Willis, 2000; Chang & Yuan, 2008). In language learning, gender could be recognized as one of many important facets of social identity (Norton & Pavlenko, 2004). The language development favors girls: Girls usually say their first words and learn to speak more complex sentences in sentences earlier than boys (Long & Larsen-Freeman, 1991). However, Bornstein, Hahn, and Haynes (2004) suggested that girls’ language development was advanced in early childhood, but that boys eventually caught up. As for differential language use in men and women, Labov (1991) found that women outperformed men in the standard of their speech and use of prestige forms because men tended to use a higher frequency of non-standard forms than women in the stable sociolinguistic stratification, but by contrast, women used a higher frequency of the incoming forms than men in the majority of linguistic changes. Ellis (2014) further suggested women might be better at L2 learning than men, and they were more likely to be open to new 6.

(13) linguistic forms in the L2 input because women tend to be in the forefront of linguistic change, and they tend to outperform males in the standardness of their speech and use of prestige forms. Therefore, differences of language learning strategy use between males and females are worth exploring since male and female learners perform differently in their language learning.. The Importance of Gender differences in Language Learning Strategy Use Every learner brings a set of personality and psycho-emotive characteristics to the task of learning something (Brown, 2007). Those characteristics have potential effects on learning, specifically how learners explicitly go about learning, as well as how quickly they learn and how far they progress in their learning (VanPatten & Benati, 2010). Factors of individual differences are comprised of aptitude, learning styles, personal styles, sensory preferences, learning strategies, motivations, age, gender, anxiety, self-esteem, tolerance of ambiguity, risk-taking, ego boundaries and the culture background (Ehrman & Oxford, 1995). Factors influencing language learning strategy use can be conceptually grouped into two types: the context-related and the learner-related variables. The context-related variables incorporate classroom-based learning such as the type, rate, quality of instruction, the appropriateness of materials to a given learning task, and the opportunity to practice (Nyikos & Oxford, 1993). The factors of learner-related variables contain age, gender, personality, motivation, learning styles, learners’ belief, and learner’s experience (years of language learning and proficiency) (O’Malley & Chamot, 1990; Erhman & Oxford, 1990). As gender is an issue with important theoretical and pedagogical implications in second language learning, it has received much attention in language learning strategy research (Oxford, 1993; Oxford, Park‐Oh, & Sumrall, 1993; Oxford, 1995; Young & 7.

(14) Oxford, 1997). These studies have found that gender can have a profound effect on strategy choice, yet there is no consensus as to the precise nature of such effects. Females used more overall strategies than males or employed strategies more effectively (Ehrman & Oxford, 1989; Oxford & Nyikos, 1989; Nyikos & Oxford, 1990). Although males were not shown to exceed females in the use of any general category of language learning strategies, males have exceeded females in use of a handful of particular strategies (Green & Oxford, 1993). Moreover, SILL-based studies tackling the gender differences in the use of language learning strategies (Green & Oxford, 1995; Oxford & Ehrman, 1995; Lan & Oxford, 2003; Liu, 2004) also reported females used strategies more frequently than males, while others showed no significant differences between males and females (Young & Oxford, 1997; Shmais, 2003; Hong-Nam & Leavell, 2006). In actuality, research even showed significant gender differences favoring males in terms of overall strategy use (Tercanlioglu, 2004). Since studies have established a greater deal of evidence of gender differences in the use of language learning strategies, the researcher further collected a number of SILL-based studies regarding gender differences in the context of learning English. Among the research articles, the researcher would classify them in terms of educational levels, educational choices, and the participants’ first language cognates, investigating the gender differences corresponding to Oxford’s six-category strategies. Research of how successful learners use and learn a second or foreign language have been discussed (Green & Oxford, 1995; Bruen, 2001; Chamot, Kupper, & Impink-Hernandez, 1988; Griffiths, 2003; Kim, 2001; Wharton, 2000; Chamot & Kupprt, 1989; Khaldieh, 2000; O’Malley & Chamot, 1990; Bremner, 1999; Abraham & Vann, 1987; Chamot & El-Dinary, 1999; Park, 1997; Peacock & Ho, 2003 ), and the cultural background (ethnicity or nationality) has been linked to the use and 8.

(15) choice of language learning strategies (Bedell & Oxford, 1996; Oxford & Burry-Stock, 1995; Wharton, 2000). Because the effects of gender on language learning strategy use remain unclear and indecisive, it is necessary to synthesize the seemingly inconsistent research findings. The researcher aims to identify patterns of differential language learning strategy use between the genders and the overall picture of how male and female learners employ strategies in different ways.. The Purpose of the Study As the SILL is adopted by a large number of studies investigating language strategy use and it has been proved to be extensively field-tested for reliability and validity in many countries (Oxford & Burry-Stock, 1995), the researcher takes it as an important criteria to select studies relating to language learning strategy use. The contexts of all the studies collected by the researcher provided the preliminary classification of the compulsory educational level and the tertiary educational level. At the tertiary educational level, the studies were further subdivided into English majors and non-English majors. Also, whether learners’ native languages in these studies belonging to the same language family of English, the Indo-European language family, could provide the influence of language distance. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to meta-analytically examine language learning strategies used by different gender groups, focusing on the involvement of moderator variables in accord with different educational levels, English majors and non-English majors as well as linguistic cognates and non-linguistic cognates (Figure 1). The aims of the research are as follows: (1) To compare the six-category strategies used by male and female English learners. (2) To investigate the six-category strategies used by male and female English learners in terms of different educational levels. 9.

(16) (3) To examine the six-category strategies used by male and female English learners in terms of English majors and non-English majors. (4) To explore the six-category strategies used by male and female English learners in terms of linguistic cognates and non-linguistic cognates.. Figure1. The purpose of the study.. Research Questions Based on the purposes of the study, the following research questions are addressed: 1.. Are there overall gender differences in the use of language learning strategies operationalized by the SILL?. 2.. Are there significant gender differences among different educational levels in the use of language learning strategies operationalized by the SILL?. 3.. Are there significant gender differences between English majors and non-English majors in the use of language learning strategies operationalized by the SILL?. 4.. Are there significant gender differences across linguistic cognates and non-linguistic cognates in the use of language learning strategies operationalized by the SILL?. 10.

(17) The significance of the study This meta-analysis study aims to provide a reliable, quantitative measure of the effects of gender on language learning strategy use. It is beneficial for the field to assess the cumulative findings of mature domains, such as language learning strategy use by means of quantitative and secondary analyses (Norris & Ortega, 2006). By employing a meta-analysis to investigate language learning strategy use focusing on male and female English learners, the researcher could identify the tentative overall and integrative pictures of six-category strategy use of the respective genders, among different educational levels to obtain more clear learning characteristics of the students in the researcher’s teaching career, between English majors and non-English majors to benefit from good language learners’ learning superiority, and across linguistic cognates and non-linguistic cognates to receive the cross-linguistic influence in the aspect of different cultural backgrounds. As we seek to make the language classroom an effective milieu for learning, it has become increasingly apparent that “teaching learners how to learn” is crucial (Brown, 2007). From the perspective of the strategies-based instruction, it has been found that students will learn better if they understand the strategy itself, perceive it to be effective, and do not consider its implementation to be overly difficult (MacIntyre & Noels, 1997). The result of this meta-analysis can inform teachers whether there is any difference of language learning strategy use between male and female learners and other possible intervening effects on language learning strategy choice. It is known that each learner within the same classroom may have varied awareness of the use of strategies. The language teacher should provide a wide range of learning strategies in order to fulfill the needs and expectations of the students who possess different strategy preferences. If the meta-analytical results can offer confirmative information as to the existence of gender differences in language learning strategy use, 11.

(18) then conducive instructional interventions need to be taken in time to minimize and close this biological gap.. The Structure of the Study Chapter 1: An introduction to language learning strategy based on Oxford’s six-strategy taxonomy and the SILL in the context of learning English; the purposes and research questions are presented, laying the foundation for the significance of this study. Chapter 2: A number of studies focusing on the language learning strategies aligned with other related conception and applications are reviewed. Selected empirical research articles on the gender differences affecting the second and foreign language learning are overviewed. Chapter 3: To provide the methodology of a meta-analysis for investigating the studies concerning to the language learning strategy use adopting the instrument of the SILL and the theme of gender differences in the context of learning English. Chapter 4: To present the results of the analysis in the study. Chapter 5: To offer a further discussion of the main findings. Chapter 6: A conclusion encompassing the pedagogical implications, the limitations of the study and the suggestions for future research.. 12.

(19) CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW. This chapter reviews the theory and research into language learning strategies. At the beginning, the definitions of language learning strategies are introduced. Second, the historical development of learning strategies including learning strategy taxonomies and Strategy Inventory of Language Learning (SILL) are discussed. Third, factors influencing language learning strategy use and studies of language learning strategies are investigated. Finally, studies of gender differences and gender differences in language learning strategy use are presented.. 13.

(20) Language Learning Strategies Learning strategies relate to input, including processing, storage, and retrieval. Cohen (1999) defined language learning strategies as those 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. Oxford (1989) defined “learning strategies” as behaviors or actions which learners use to make language learning more successful, self-directed and enjoyable. Oxford (1999, p.518) further referred to learning strategies as specific actions, behaviors, steps, or techniques that students use to improve their own progress in developing skills in a second or foreign language. Griffiths (2008, p.87) gleaned from thirty years of vigorous debate and suggested a definition of language learning strategies as “activities consciously chosen by learners for the purpose of regulating their own language learning”. Ellis (2014) defined language learning strategies in terms of a set of characteristics that counted in most descriptions of them: Strategies involving linguistic and non-linguistic behavior and contributing directly or indirectly refer to both general approaches and specific actions or techniques used to learn L1 and L2. Strategies are problem-oriented because the learner deploys a strategy to overcome some particular learning or communication problem and they are generally aware of the strategies they use. Strategy use varies considerably as a result of interaction between the task the learner is engaged in and individual learner preferences. Given that knowledge of language learning strategy use has accumulated through steady research over the past three decades, the effects of strategy use should be well known. However, results are inconclusive as studies have shown variability of strategy use when intervening variables such as social and culture contexts, language achievement, language proficiency level, learning style, educational level, career 14.

(21) choice, psychological type, years of study, academic major as well as gender remain inconsistent in the results of its effects on language learning strategy use and need to be synthesized through further investigation. Therefore, studies of language learning strategy use must be aggregated in meta-analyses in order to determine the potential for true effects.. The Development of Language Learning Strategies The actions that learners perform in order to learn a language have been variously labeled as behaviors, tactics, techniques, and strategies. Larsen-Freeman and Long (1991) opted for the term “strategy” because it was used in the earliest studies in language learning and it has enjoyed the widest currency to date. Stern (1983) defined “strategies” as general and more or less deliberate “approaches” to learning and Seliger (1984) defined “strategies” as the basic abstract category of processing by which information perceived in the outside world is organized and categorized into cognitive structures as part of a conceptual network (1984). According to Ehrman, Leaver, and Oxford (2003), “strategy” remains the term of choice of both researchers and practitioners. “Strategies” are conscious mental and behavioral procedures that people engage in with the aim to complete a difficult task. When humans want to exert better control over their thoughts and actions, they strategize about their emotions as well as their cognitive and conative processes (Ortega, 2009). The first empirical studies of second language learning strategy appeared in the mid-1970s and led to the formulation of our current definitions of learning strategies. O’Malley and Chamot and their colleagues (O’Malley, Russo & Chamot, 1983; O'Malley, Chamot, Stewner‐Manzanares, Kupper & Russo, 1985a; O'Malley et. al. 1985b; O'Malley, Chamot & Walker, 1987; O'Malley, Chamot & Küpper, 1989; 15.

(22) Chamot and O’Malley, 1990; Chamot, Barnhart, El-Dinary & Robins, 1999) studied the use of strategies by learners of English as a second language (ESL) in the United States. O’Malley and Chamot’s following series of descriptive studies in the mid-1980s were the first ones to endeavor to document the use of learning strategies in both observational and behavioral ways and with reference to specific task types. The method adopted in the studies was structured interviews in small groups of three to five students who were asked to recall or imagine strategies which would be used in the milieu of hypothetical L2 tasks. In some of the studies, think-aloud verbal accounts while conducting actual L2 tasks were used. The study encompassed ESL as well as foreign language learning and the students’ proficiency level, including beginning and intermediate, enrolling in both high-school and college settings. O’Malley and Chamot’s (1990) further research was a three-year project involving three successive phases which documented the development of strategy use over a school year in samples of 13 high school students of Spanish and six college students of Russian. The research summarized the findings in the previous studies and generated an exhaustive list of learning strategies, classified into three categories of metacognitive strategies (i.e. strategies involving an attempt regulate learning through planning, monitoring, and evaluating), cognitive strategies (i.e. strategies involving analysis, transformation, or synthesis of learning materials), and socioaffective strategies (i.e. strategies concerning ways in which learners interact with other users of the L2). Traditionally, many studies have been carried out in the quest for language competence which could be classified as four skills of listening, speaking, reading, and writing. O’Malley, Chamot, and Kupper (1989) found that second language learners could obtain effective listening skills by using monitoring, elaboration, and inferencing. Also, there have been many studies proposing other taxonomies of 16.

(23) learning strategies such as Rubin’s (1981) direct strategies which include clarification/ verification, monitoring, memorizing, guessing, inductive inferencing, deductive reasoning, practice, and indirect strategies which include creating opportunities for practice and production tricks. Oxford’s (1990) prolific research on language learning strategies centers on a comprehensive inventory and an accompanying instrument, the Strategy Inventory of Language Learning (SILL), which elicits levels of reported strategy frequency via five-point Likert scales. Purpura (1999) distinguished strategies based on respective relations to comprehending processes, storing/ memory processes, or using/retrial processes according to a model of cognitive processing. Cohen and Chi’s (2001) Language Strategy Survey which contains 89 items in the questionnaire was constructed around the division between traditional skills of listening, writing, speaking and reading and two other aspects (vocabulary and translation). In the present meta-analysis, the researcher adopts Oxford’s (1990) SILL as the main framework for determining inclusion of language learning strategy studies. Further argument of this standpoint will be scrutinized in the following discussion.. Figure 2. The development of language learning strategies and the hierarchy structure of Oxford’s strategy taxonomy.. 17.

(24) Oxford’s Taxonomy of Language Learning Strategies In the arena of linguistic interaction, distinguishing between learning strategies and communication strategies is sometimes difficult. While the former deal with the receptive domain of intake, memory, storage and recall, the latter pertain to employment of verbal or non-verbal mechanisms for productive communication of information (Brown, 2007). A learning strategy cannot be either good or bad. If the strategy 1) relates well to L2 task at hand; 2) which the student employs effectively and links with other relevant ones for doing the task; and 3) coordinates the students general learning style preferences to one degree or another, it is positive for a given person (Oxford, 1990). Among divergent taxonomies of language learning strategies, Oxford (1990) proposed a comprehensive taxonomy combining both communication and learning strategies based on a long inventory. The accompanying instrument, the Strategy Inventory of Language Learning (SILL), elicits levels of reported strategy frequency via five-point Likert scales. The hierarchical structure of Oxford’s taxonomy in Table 1 contains direct and indirect strategies, each of which is subdivided into a number of subcategories. Direct strategies which in the sense require mental processing of the language are those directly involved in the target language, including memory, cognitive, and compensation strategies. Indirect strategies are those providing indirect support for language learning through focusing, planning, evaluating, seeking opportunities, controlling anxiety, increasing cooperation and empathy and other means, including metacognitive, affective and social strategies (Oxford, 1990). Oxford has also developed versions of the ESL/ EFL SILL to measure learners’ self-reported strategy use in both second and foreign language settings.. 18.

(25) Table 1. Oxford’s strategy classification system (Oxford, 1990). Direct Strategies: Memory, Cognitive, and Compensation Strategies A. Creating 1. Grouping mental 2. Associating/ elaborating linkages 3. Placing new words into a context 1. Using imagery B. Applying 2. Semantic mapping images and I. Memory 3. Using keywords sounds Strategies 4. Representing sounds in memory C. Reviewing 1. Structured viewing well D. Employing 1. Using physical response or sensation action 2. Using mechanical techniques 1. Repeating 2. Formally practicing with sounds and writing systems A. Practicing 3. Recognizing and using formals and patterns 4. Recombining 5. Practicing naturalistically B. Receiving 1. Getting the idea quickly and sending 2. Using resources for receiving and messages sending messages II. Cognitive Strategies 1. Reasoning deductively 2. Analyzing expressions C. Analyzing 3. Analyzing contrastively (across and languages) reasoning 4. Translating 5. Transferring D. Creating 1. Taking notes structure for 2. Summarizing input and 3. Highlighting output A. Guessing 1. Using linguistic clues intelligently 2. Using other clues 1. Switching to the mother tongue 2. Getting help III. Compensation B. Overcoming 3. Using mime or gesture Strategies limitations 4. Avoiding communication partially or in speaking totally and writing 5. Selecting the topic 6. Adjusting or approximating the message 7. Coining words 19.

(26) Table 1. Oxford’s strategy classification system (Oxford, 1990) (continued). Indirect Strategies: Metacognitive, Affective, and Social Strategies A. Centering your learning. IV. Metacognitive strategies. B. Arranging and planning your learning. V. Affective strategies. VI. Social strategies. 1. Overview and linking with already known material 2. Paying attention 3. Delaying speech production to focus on listening 1. 2. 3. 4.. Finding out about language learning Organizing Setting goals and objectives Identifying the purpose of a language. task (purposeful listening/ reading/ speaking/ writing) 5. Planning for a language task 6. Seeking practice opportunities. C. Evaluating your teaching. 1. Self-monitoring 2. Self-evaluating. A. Lowering your anxiety. 1. Using progressive relaxation, deep breathing, or mediation 2. Using music 3. Using laughter. B. Encouraging yourself. 1. Making positive statements 2. Taking risks wisely 3. Rewarding yourself. C. Taking your emotional temperature. 1. 2. 3. 4.. Listening to your body Using a check list Writing a language learning diary Discussing your feelings with someone else. A. Asking questions. 1. Asking for clarification or verification 2. Asking for correction. B. Cooperating with others. 1. Cooperation with others 2. Cooperation with proficient user of the new language. C. Empathizing with others. 1. Developing cultural understanding 2. Becoming aware of others’ thoughts and feelings. 20.

(27) The Development of SILL The structure of the SILL is based on Oxford’s (1990) system for classifying strategies into six groups. The six-category strategies were created as areas of strategy use to be investigated, partially reflecting earlier factor analyses of a longer version of the SILL designed for native English speakers learning foreign languages (Ehrman & Oxford, 1989). Green and Oxford (1995) suggested that many previous inventories of strategies included a limited number of items reflecting affective and social strategies and contained a relative overabundance of cognitive and metacognitive strategies. Hsiao and Oxford (2002) further mentioned Oxford listed more affective and social strategies than did O’Malley and Chamot, and Rubin’s (1975) direct and indirect strategies didn’t include affective strategies. Although the six categories of the SILL were not intended to reflect a perfect theoretical construct of language learning strategies, they were designed to expand the frequently restricted conception of the previous strategy inventories which emphasized information-processing and executive management aspects of the learner, and which did not grasp the essence of the whole learner (Green & Oxford, 1995). The SILL was normally validated by using a statistical procedure called factor analysis. Factor analysis is allowed to subdivide an instrument into dimensions as subscales or factors. Each subscale of the SILL was developed based on Oxford’s six-part taxonomy of language learning strategies and included a number of items to facilitate more in-depth research and understanding of learning strategies for ESL/EFL (Oxford and Burry-Stock, 1995). The largest group of items is the cognitive strategies. Oxford and Ehrman (1995) suggested that cognitive strategies possessed the greatest variety, covering strategies in relation to practice and to the all-important “deep processing” processes when learners analyze, synthesize, and transform new information. 21.

(28) There are two revised versions of the SILL; one containing 80 items is for foreign language learners whose native language is English and the other containing 50 items is for learners of English as a second or foreign language. The SILL uses a five-point Likert-scale for each strategy category: never or almost never true of me, generally not true of me, somewhat true of me, generally true of me, and always true of me. Learners are asked to indicate their response (1,2,3,4, or 5) to a strategy description. A SILL package includes: a short set of directions to the student with a sample item, the 50-item or 80-item instrument, a scoring worksheet on which students record their answers and calculate their averages for each strategy subscale and their overall average, a summary profile that shows students’ results and provides examples for student self-interpretation, and a strategy graph that allows each learner to graph from the SILL. A background questionnaire is also available to document age, sex, language experience, motivation, and other information (Oxford, 1990).. Figure 3. The structure of the SILL. 22.

(29) The Dominance of SILL With the evolvement of the language learning theories in recent years, questions have arisen with regard to the psychometric properties of the SILL. These studies (Nyikos & Oxford, 1993; Oxford & Burry-Stock, 1995; Hsiao & Oxford, 2002) focused on: a) the adequacy of categorizing strategies into six divisions; b) the psychological assumptions underlying the suggestion of strategic paradigms; c) the relationship of strategy research among the current language teaching paradigms; d) the relationships between the identified strategies and intercorrelations among these identified strategies; e) the adequacy of various measurements of strategy use and awareness (Brown, 2007). Oxford and Burry-Stock (1995) examined the reliability and validity of the ESL/EFL version of SILL as well as its confirmed relationship to sensory preferences. Their study included an estimated 40-50 major studies, including a dozen dissertations and theses which used the SILL, involving 8000-8500 language learners. The psychometric qualities of the SILL can be summarized in the follow aspects of utility, reliability, validity. In the aspect of utility, many researchers around the world have employed the SILL as an instrument to discover the relationship between strategy use and language performance in the classroom. The most important purpose of this goal is that if there is a strong relationship between these two variables, language performance might be improved by enhancing strategy use. Other uses of the SILL have included assessing strategy use at a given point, to be compared with strategy use later; comparing the learning strategy use of men and women, making the linkage between strategy use and underlying learning styles conceptually, and based on the strategy use of different students, providing individualized classroom instruction. The SILL is very useful in real-world settings for making decisions relevant to people’s lives. 23.

(30) In the aspect of reliability, the Cronbach alpha reliability coefficient is used on continuous data such as the Likert-type in the SILL. The reliabilities of the ESL/ EFL SILL have been high across many culture groups, such as 0.94 of Yang (1992), using the Chinese translation in Taiwan; 0.92 of Watanabe (1990), using the Japanese translation; 0.91 of Oh (1992), using the Korean translation; 0.93 of Park (1994), using the Korean translation and 0.91 of Oxford and Green, using Puerto Rican Spanish translation. Although some reliabilities became lower when the study was conducted in English instead of learners’ native language in the ESL/EFL settings, they were still very acceptable. In the aspect of validity, both content-validity and criterion-related validity resting on the predictive and correlative links with language performance (course grades, standardized test scores, ratings of proficiency) in a number of studies (Rossi-Le, 1989; Phillips, 1990, 1991; Chang, 1991; Wen and Johnson, 1991; Green & Oxford, 1993; Park, 1994; Mullins, 1991; Oxford et. al., 1993; Oxford and Nyikos, 1989; Watanabe, 1990) showed the strongest support demonstrations of the SILL. For example, Rossi-Le (1989) found that language proficiency level could predict strategy use in multiple regression analysis. More proficient ESL students used self-management strategies like planning and evaluation (p < .006) and formal practice (p < .02) significantly more frequently than less proficient ESL students. Although doubts still exist such as Robson and Midorakawa’s (2001) study, questioning the reliability of the SILL in their research that showed a low level of test-retest reliability when the SILL was conducted twice to the same Japanese learners of English, Hsiao and Oxford (2002) compared classification theories of language learning strategies by using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) of the data collected from 517 college EFL learners to measure ESL/EFL version of the SILL. In their study, fifteen rival models were compared, and seven research hypotheses were 24.

(31) derived and tested. They first compared Rubin’s (1981) dichotomous direct and indirect classification of language learning strategies with Oxford’s and found some major differences (Table 2). While Rubin classified clarification/ verification and monitoring as direct strategies, Oxford classified their counterparts as indirect strategies (asking question for clarification/ verification = social strategy; monitoring = metacognitive strategy). Production tricks which were classified as Rubin’s indirect strategies corresponded to a subcategory of Oxford’s compensation strategies.. Table 2. The differences between Rubin’s taxonomy and Oxford’s taxonomy of language learning strategies.. strategies. Rubin’s Taxonomy. Oxford’s Taxonomy. clarification/ verification monitoring production tricks. direct direct indirect. indirect→ social indirect→ metacognitive direct→compensation. Furthermore, Hsiao and Oxford (2002) pointed out the differences between O’Malley and Chamot’s (1990) system and Oxford’s system (Table 3): a) O’Malley Chamot’s system categorized inferencing in cognitive strategies whereas Oxford listed it as a compensation strategy to make up for missing knowledge; b) Oxford separated memory strategy from the category of cognitive strategies unlike O’Malley and Chamot who put both together in cognitive strategies; c) Communication strategies were not specifically included in the O’Malley and Chamot system; d) O’Malley and Chamot grouped affective and social strategies together to form a small category called socioaffective strategies, but, by contrast, Oxford classified both as separate categories.. 25.

(32) Table 3. The differences between O’Malley & Chamot’s taxonomy and Oxford’s taxonomy of language learning strategies.. strategies. O’Malley & Chamot’s. Oxford’s. inferencing memory communication affective social. cognitive cognitive not included socioaffective socioaffective. compensation memory included affective social. To test viability of the factorial structure underlying different strategy classification schemes proposed in the literature, Hsiao and Oxford (2002) undertook a series of confirmatory factor analysis to compare Oxford’s six-factor solution against Rubin’s (1975) two-factor classification and three variants (three-factor, four-factor, and five-factor solutions) of O’Malley and Chamot’s (1990) strategy classification (four factors by subdividing socio-affective strategies into social and affective strategies; five factors: by subdividing cognitive strategies into memory, cognitive and compensation strategies). The results of Hsiao and Oxford’s studies suggested that Oxford’s (1990) classification of strategies into six broad dimensions accords with the learner’s use of strategies and constitutes a valid categorization scheme. In addition, the 50-item version of SILL, designed to measure learners’ use of L2 or foreign learning strategies, has a clear factor structure based on Oxford’s six-taxonomy learning strategies (Green & Oxford, 1995). According to the present researcher’s review of studies of language learning strategies, the SILL appears to be the most frequently used instrument. The popularity may be explained by the specificity and convenience of a questionnaire with good psychometric properties that make it easy for researchers to adopt the framework. Griffiths and Oxford (2014) suggested the instrument, SILL, tailored to the needs and characteristics of the group would measure students’ actual strategy use more reliably.. 26.

(33) Thus, in the present research, the most important criteria for a study to be subsumed in the meta-analysis is adopting the SILL as the main instrument to investigate learners’ language learning strategy use. Even though a study adapted the SILL according to the needs of the particular learners, situations, goals and research purpose, it would be considered as a SILL-based study.. Language Learning Strategy Use of Good Language Learners In the brief history review of language learning strategies, teachers and researchers reached a consensus that no single research finding and no single method of language teaching would assist in an era of universal success in language teaching (Brown, 2007). Most researchers (Cohen, 1999; O’Malley & Chamot, 1990; Oxford, 1990) underscored that language learning strategy use must involve some degree of consciousness, awareness, and intentionality. The first generation findings of good learners relating to strategic behavior is Rubin’s (1975) collecting which effectively shifted the focus of language learning from teachers and researchers to the learners. Rubin adopted the observation to gather the information from learners of mixed ages in classroom settings, concluding the characteristics of good language learners as: a) they are good guessers; b) they pay analytical attention to form but also attend to meaning; c) they try out their new knowledge; d) they monitor their production and that of others; e) they constantly practice; f) they cope well with feelings of vulnerability for the sake of putting themselves in situations where they communicate and learn. Earlier research on language learning strategies attempted to identify strategies used by successful learners, and provided lists of strategies used by successful language learners in terms of their characteristics. These studies proposed that good language learners used strategies more frequently such as taking advantage of practice 27.

(34) opportunities, monitoring language production, attending to meaning, practicing communication in the language, active involvement in the learning process, being specific in language tasks and seeing and developing language as a system (Naiman, Frohlich, Stern, & Todesco, 1978; Rubin, 1975). Naiman et. al. (1978) presented the well-known and frequently cited monograph to understand any possible factors that might help explain why some people are particularly successful in their quest to master an L2, whereas many are not. They found that successful learners utilized a mixture of analytic strategies when attending to form and experiential strategies for understanding language as a means of communication. Abraham and Vann’s (1987) two separate studies found that although successful and unsuccessful learners often used the same strategies, successful learners could choose strategies more appropriately according to the situation. The difference laid in the degree of flexibility of choosing strategies. Oxford and Nyikos’ (1989) survey on 1200 students studying various languages in a Mid-western American university affirmed that greater strategies usage accompanied perceptions of higher proficiency. Green and Oxford (1995) investigated the learning strategies used by students of university in Puerto Rico and suggested that successful learners employed more strategies involving active and naturalistic practice than less successful learners. The same result was obtained in Wharton’s (2000) study investigating bilingual Singapore university students learning Japanese and French as foreign languages. The findings showed that students with good and fair proficiency used strategies more often than those of poor proficiency.. Self-awareness in Language Learning Strategy Use Much of the researchers literature has studied how successful and less successful learners use learning strategies to study a foreign or second language and in what way 28.

(35) to distinguish these two groups. Differences of strategy use between successful and less successful learners were discovered in number, range, frequency, and broad categories in many studies. Vann and Abraham (1990) discovered that even unsuccessful language learners appeared to be active strategy users, they failed to apply strategies appropriately to the tasks at hand. Awareness of task demands and metacognitive knowledge regarding strategy selection were considered to be the major distinction (Abraham & Vann, 1990; Chamot, Kupper, & Impink-Hernandez, 1988; Khaldieh, 2000; O’Malley & Chamot, 1990). Nyikos and Oxford (1993) found second and foreign language students were typically not fully aware of their own language learning strategies and were even less aware of highly successful learner’s wide range of alternative learning strategies. Successful applications of learning strategies can be dependent on learners’ current strategy use, the wide range of alternative strategies that might be helpful, and the situations in which a given strategy can most effectively be applied. Ellis (2014) summarized various research investigating the difference between successful and less successful learners (Rubin, 1975; Naiman et. al., 1978; Rubin, 1981; Lennon, 1989) and suggested that there are five possible major aspects of successful learning, (1) a concern for language form, (2) a concern for communication (functional practice), (3) an active task approach, (4) an awareness of the learning process, and (5) a capacity to use strategies flexibly in accordance with the requirement. Appropriate strategy use could benefit language learners to perform better. Less successful students often use as many strategies as successful learners, just not in the manner that could be considered as sophisticated or appropriate to the tasks and goals at hand (Vann & Abraham, 1990). The better the strategy awareness of learners, the more possible they will be to use learning strategies appropriately according the task. In sum, good language learners have a range of strategies at their 29.

(36) disposal and select which strategies to use on the basis of their long-term goal of language learning and the particular task they deal with.. Factors Influencing Language Learning Strategy Use In the extensive literature on language learning strategy use, it has been shown that learners vary in the particular types of strategies they use and in the overall frequency with which they employ strategies (O’Malley et. al., 1985a; Chamot, O’Malley, Kupper & Impink-Hernandez 1987; Chamot et. al., 1988; Ehrman, 1990), and, hence, a range of factors affecting the choice of learners’ language strategies have been uncovered. These factors can be categorized into two types. The first type is characterized by context-related variables, including classroom-based learning such as the type, rate, quality of instruction, the appropriateness of materials to a given learning task, and the opportunity to practice (Nyikos & Oxford, 1993). Chamot et. al. (1988) mentioned that classroom learners rarely used social and affective strategies, the only exception being “questioning for clarification”. They further suggested that the task type influenced learners’ choice of both cognitive and metacognitive strategies markedly. Wharton (2000) suggested that the frequency of the classroom learners’ strategy use was lower than that in second language learning situations and affective strategies were in particular less preferred. The second type is characterized by learner-related variables, including age, gender, motivation, personality, learning styles, learner’s belief and learner’s experience (years of language learning and proficiency level) (Nyikos & Oxford, 1989). Age appeared to be a clear factor affecting the way strategies were used. Young children tended to adopt strategies in a task-specific manner, while older children and adults employed generalized strategies more flexibly. (O’Malley & Chamot, 1990). Ehrman and Oxford (1990) also found adults used more sophisticated strategies. 30.

(37) Learner’s beliefs about their own language learning have been linked to motivation, general learning style and academic demands (Horwitz, 1985; Oxford & Nyikos, 1989). Wenden’s (1987) study demonstrated that learners who thought highly of the importance of learning tended to use cognitive strategies to understand and remember specific items of language, but learners who emphasized the importance of using language depended on communication strategies. Littlemore (2001) reported that learners who had a holistic cognitive style were more likely to utilize holistic communication strategies than analytic strategies, and the reverse was true for those learners with an analytic style. There is also substantial evidence to support a relationship between learners’ experience and language learning strategy use. Ehrman (1990) found that language learners with higher proficiency reported using a wider range of strategies more frequently than less proficient language learners, and students with more than five years of study reported utilizing more functional practice strategies than students with four years or fewer. Also, motivation emerges as a key determinant of the frequency and type of strategy use from a social psychology perspective. Oxford and Nyikos (1989, p.294) found that “the degree of expressed motivation was the single most powerful influence on the choice of language learning strategies”. Highly motivated learners used more strategies relating to formal practice, functional practice, general study and conversation/input elicitation than poorly motivated learners. Finally, Oxford and Nyikos (1989) claimed that gender had a profound effect on the strategy choice. Females used more overall strategies than males in the study of university students learning foreign languages. Many other studies have also echoed Oxford and Nyikos’s finding (Ehrman, 1990; Peacock & Ho, 2003, Green & Oxford, 1995; Oxford & Ehrman, 1995). However, other studies showed no significant differences between males and females (Liu, 2004; Young & Oxford, 1997). The 31.

(38) study of gender and its significance in language learning has focused on differences for a long time. Instead of seeing gender as an individual variable, gender could be recognized as one of many important facets of social identity interacting with race, ethnicity, class, sexuality, (dis)ability, age and social status in framing students’ language learning experience, trajectories, and outcomes (Norton & Pavlenko, 2004).. Gender Differences The issues of gender infiltrate our life through the mass media of advertisement, the merchandising and the fashion industry, our cultural perceptions of appropriate career choice and employment, and even academic performances. Investigators have emphasized differences and also the essential similarity between men and women. With the evolution of the society, the expectations and traits of male and female change over time and the gender roles are multifaceted. Typically, we expect women to be caring, emotionally expressive, polite and helpful. By contrast, we expect men to be strong, independent, competitive, and to keep their emotions hidden. Although there are so-called transgendered individuals who have a gender identity problem or a cross-sex-typed person such as a man acting feminine and a woman acting masculine, and even androgyny who incorporates both masculine and feminine qualities, our society possesses typical stereotypes toward males and females. Nevertheless, the application of stereotypical images of men and women is not universal because they are complicated by the kaleidoscopic nature of people’s lives. (Spade & Valentine, 2008).. Gender Encompasses both Biological and Psychosocial Aspects Terms such as boys and girls, men and women, males and females, masculinity and femininity present plausible categories meaning the dichotomous groups of. 32.

(39) human beings in the world. Some psychologists prefer to use the term “sex” only when they are referring to biological distinctions between males and females, while reserving the term “gender” to refer to the psychological features or attributes connected with the biological categories (Deaux, 1985; Unger, 1979, 1989). Levy (1989) articulated this distinction as follows: “The term sex is used to refer to the grouping of people into the two distinct biologically defined groups of female and male. Gender, in turn, refers to the social categorizing of individual based on social standards and ascriptions” (p.306). Therefore, sex refers to the biological categories of male and female distinguished by genes, chromosomes, and hormones. “Culture has no influence on one’s sex. Gender, by contrast, is a much more fluid category. It refers to the social categories of male and female” (Helgeson, 2009, p.3). However, according to Halpern (2012), “gender” was originally a grammar term used in languages that make a distinction between feminine and masculine nouns. It’s not associated with maleness or femaleness. She further suggested that “gender” may encompass both biological and psychosocial aspects of being male or female since the term “gender” is more commonly used in studies. Language is a living phenomenon and the meaning of words change over time. As a way of presenting the literature as precisely as possible with the language of the researchers, “gender” is used more frequently when discussing the studies relating to these two groups. Hence, in the following part of the present study, the term “gender” would be used to discuss the effects of gender on language learning strategy use concerning the biological and psychosocial aspects. In biological hypotheses, at around the same time of Oxford’s early language learning strategy studies, Geschwind-Galaburda’s theory of prenatal hormones effects about the relationship between hormone levels and cognition provided the possible explanation or answers to questions about why verbal abilities may be dependent on 33.

(40) sex hormones (Geschwind,1983, 1984; Geschwind & Galaburda, 1987). This theory posits that the prenatal sex hormones that both direct and reflect the sexual differentiation of the fetus also exert powerful influences on the central nervous system of developing organisms. Proponents of this theory assert that high levels of testosterone slow the growth of neurons in the left hemisphere, so the results would be right hemisphere dominance which means that the right hemisphere has greater control than the left hemisphere for many. cognitive. and. motor. functions. and. manifested. in. left-handedness. (Papadatou-Pastou, Martin, Munafo, & Jones, 2008). Geschwind and Behan mentioned (1982, 1984) an important corollary of the sex hormone hypothesis is that other susceptible organs in the developing fetus are also affected by high testosterone level, such as thymus gland, which is an essential component of the developing immune system. According to Geschwind-Galaburda’s theory, Halpern (2012, p.187) suggests that there are at least two possibilities: 1. Overall poorer performance by males on cognitive tasks that are usually associated with the left hemisphere, which generally includes verbal tasks and/or 2. Overall higher performance by males on cognitive tasks that are believed to be primarily under right hemisphere control, which generally includes visuospatial tasks. In psychosocial hypotheses, the syntheses and conclusions of biological differences contributing to societal expectations and the societal expectations creating and increasing biological differences are mainly concerned. Differing life experiences for males and females could be used to explain the nurture side that individuals develop in a societal context that shapes and interprets thoughts and actions in stereotypical ways. In the model of nature and nurture interaction, “nature” and “nurture” are assumed as independent variables which combine each other in ways 34.

參考文獻

相關文件

• e-Learning Series: Effective Use of Multimodal Materials in Language Arts to Enhance the Learning and Teaching of English at the Junior Secondary Level. Language across

Building on the strengths of students and considering their future learning needs, plan for a Junior Secondary English Language curriculum to gear students towards the learning

• e‐Learning Series: Effective Use of Multimodal Materials in Language Arts to Enhance the Learning and Teaching of English at the Junior Secondary Level. Language across

Objectives  To introduce the Learning Progression Framework LPF for English Language as a reference tool to identify students’ strengths and weaknesses, and give constructive

• Assessment Literacy Series: Effective Use of the Learning Progression Framework to Enhance English Language Learning, Teaching and Assessment in Writing at Primary Level. •

• Assessment Literacy Series - Effective Use of the Learning Progression Framework to Enhance English Language Learning, Teaching and Assessment in Writing at Primary Level.

To provide suggestions on the learning and teaching activities, strategies and resources for incorporating the major updates in the school English language

Building on the strengths of students and considering their future learning needs, plan for a Junior Secondary English Language curriculum to gear students towards the