非英文系大學生的策略使用、學習動機和寫作困難

全文

(1)國立屏東商業技術學院應用外語系(所) 碩士論文. 非英文系大學生的策略使用、學習動機和寫作困難 Strategy Use, Learning Motivation and Writing Difficulties of Non-English Majors. 指導教授：謝春美研究生：李佳芳. 中華民國九十八年七月.

(2) Strategy Use, Learning Motivation and Writing Difficulties of Non-English Majors. Advisor： Dr. Chun-Mei Shieh By： Chia-Fang Lee. A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Program of Applied Foreign Languages In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of Master of Arts National Pingtung Institute of Commerce. Pingtung, Taiwan, R.O.C.. 2009, July.

(3) 摘要策略使用和學習動機在語言學習上扮演重要的角色。然而在台灣很少研究探討大學生的策略使用和學習動機之間的關係。因此，本文的目的在於探索技術學院大學生策略使用、學習動機和它們之間的關係。研究包含三組問卷，研究對象為二間國立科技大學和一間國立技術學院位於台灣南部共 331 位四年級就讀商學院相關科系的大學生。主要結果發現：（1）大學生在寫作學習方面最常使用的是補償策略；（2）寫作階段使用的策略顯著多於構思和訂正階段；（3）大學生的英文學習動機主要傾向於外在動機；（4）學習動機跟策略使用有顯著性的正相關；（5）很少有機會練習英文寫作是導致大學生英文寫作困難的主因。本文最後提出對英文寫作課程和未來研究之建議。. 關鍵字：學習策略、寫作策略、動機、寫作困難. i.

(4) Abstract Strategy use and learning motivation both played the important roles in language learning. However, few studies were conducted to explore the relationship between strategy use and learning motivation of college students in Taiwan (Chang & Huang, 1999). Therefore, the purpose of the present study attempted to examine how strategy use and motivation of non-English majors were related. This study contained three sets of questionnaires and the participants were 331 senior non-English majors who studied in business-related departments from two national technological universities and one national technological college in south Taiwan. Several major results were found in this study. First, compensation strategies were used most frequently in terms of English writing learning. Second, more writing strategies were significantly employed in writing stage than in planning and editing stages. Third, undergraduates favored extrinsic motivation to learn English. Fourth, learning motivation was significantly and positively correlated with learning strategies and writing strategies. Finally, few opportunities to practice English writing were most responsible for non-English majors’ writing difficulties. Pedagogical implications for English instruction and suggestions for future research were provided at the end of the study. Keywords: learning strategies, writing strategies, motivation, writing difficulties. ii.

(5) Acknowledgements In the beginning, I would like to express the deepest appreciation to my advisor, Dr. Chun-Mei Shieh (Dr. 謝春美) for her extreme patience and encouragement in inspiring me to accomplish my thesis. When I encountered the difficulties in conducting the present study, her useful suggestions let me get through the hard time. My gratitude is also extended to Dr. Hsueh-Yu Cheng (Dr. 鄭雪玉) and Dr. Li-Hung Chang (Dr. 張理宏) for their valuable recommendations to refine my thesis. Besides, I want to thank my graduate classmate, Brian Kao (高千文), very much because he generously help me solve the statistic problems and analyze the survey data. Hence, I can write my thesis efficiently. Finally, the special thank is given to my family members and my husband. Without their support, I am not confident of finishing the thesis.. iii.

(6) Table of Contents Abstract (Chinese) ........................................................................................................i Abstract (English) ........................................................................................................ii Acknowledgement .......................................................................................................iii Table of Contents .........................................................................................................iv Tables .........................................................................................................................vii CHAPTER 1 .................................................................................................................1 Introduction...........................................................................................................1 Background of the Study ..............................................................................1 Problem Statement ........................................................................................4 Purpose of the Study .....................................................................................5 Research Questions.......................................................................................6 Significance of the Study ..............................................................................6 Definitions of Terms .....................................................................................7 CHAPTER 2 ................................................................................................................10 Literature Review.................................................................................................10 Language Learning Strategies......................................................................10 Writing Strategies.........................................................................................13 Motivation and Strategy Use .......................................................................16. iv.

(7) Writing Difficulties ........................................................................................19 Successful and Unsuccessful Learners ..........................................................22 CHAPTER 3 ................................................................................................................25 Methodology ........................................................................................................25 Pilot Study....................................................................................................25 Participants...................................................................................................26 Instruments...................................................................................................27 Writing Strategy and Writing Difficulty Questionnaires .....................28 Strategy Inventory of Writing Learning...............................................30 Motivational Questionnaire .................................................................32 Procedures....................................................................................................33 Data Analysis ...............................................................................................35 CHAPTER 4 ................................................................................................................37 Results..................................................................................................................37 Validity and Reliability of the Questionnaires .............................................37 Demographic Information............................................................................39 Research Question 1 ....................................................................................44 Research Question 2 ....................................................................................49 Research Question 3 ....................................................................................51. v.

(8) Research Question 4 ....................................................................................52 Research Question 5 ....................................................................................55 Summary of the Results ...............................................................................56 CHAPTER 5 ................................................................................................................58 Conclusions..........................................................................................................58 The Discussion on Major Findings ..............................................................58 Learning Strategy Uses ........................................................................58 Writing Strategy Use............................................................................58 Motivation and Strategy Use ...............................................................59 Writing Difficulties ..............................................................................59 Pedagogical Implications .............................................................................59 Suggestions for Future Research .................................................................60 References....................................................................................................................62 Appendix A: Writing Strategy and Writing Difficulty Questionnaires (English) .......71 Appendix B: Writing Strategy and Writing Difficulty Questionnaires (Chinese).......75 Appendix C: The Criterion for the Design of Writing Strategies ................................79 Appendix D: Strategy Inventory of Writing Learning (English) .................................82 Appendix E: Strategy Inventory of Writing Learning (Chinese).................................85 Appendix F: Motivational Questionnaire (English) ....................................................88. vi.

(9) Appendix G: Motivational Questionnaire (Chinese) ...................................................89. vii.

(10) Tables Table 3.1: The Number of Participants in Each of Required and Selective Class........27. Table 3.2: Sample Questions of English Writing Strategies.........................................29 Table 3.3: Sample Questions of Writing Difficulties.....................................................30. Table 3.4: Sample Questions of Direct Categories.......................................................31 Table 3.5: Sample Questions of Indirect Categories....................................................32 Table 3.6: Sample Questions of Motivation Questionnaire...........................................33 Table 3.7: Data Collection Procedures..........................................................................34 Table 4.1: Gender and Years of English Learning of Senior non-English Majors........39 Table 4.2: Strategies of Greater Frequency by Less Proficient Learners...........................39 Table 4.3: Ways of Practice on English Writing.............................................................40 Table 4.4: Perception of English Writing........................................................................41 Table 4.5: Self-rating of the Importance of English Writing.........................................42 Table 4.6: Summary of Self-perceived English Writing Proficiency............................42 Table 4.7: Summary of English Writing Experience......................................................43 Table 4.8: Descriptive Statistics and Multiple Comparisons among Learning Strategy. Use...................................................................................................................................44 Table 4.9: Comparison between Direct and Indirect Strategies....................................45. viii.

(11) Table 4.10: Most and Least Frequently-used Learning Strategies in Each Category of. Strategy...........................................................................................................................46 Table 4.11: Summary of Writing Strategy Use in Each Stage.......................................49 Table 4.12: Multiple Comparisons among Writing Strategy Use in Each Stage...........49 Table 4.13: Most and Least Frequently-used Writing Strategies in Each Stage...........50 Table 4.14: Comparison between IM and EM................................................................51 Table 4.15: Correlations among Learning Motivation, Learning Strategy and Writing. Strategy...........................................................................................................................52 Table 4.16: Correlations between Motivation Types and Six Types of Learning. Strategies.........................................................................................................................53 Table 4.17: Correlations between Motivation Types and Three Stages of Writing. Strategies.........................................................................................................................54 Table 4.18: Results of Writing Difficulties......................................................................55. ix.

(12) Chapter 1 Introduction. Background of the Study English is an international language used as a medium in not only knowledge transmission but also a lingua franca in the interactions and communications among non-native speakers of English with each other. With the rise of the Internet, people are able to access the latest information from worldwide as well as send and receive messages at any time. Evidently, fluently written communication in English has become a necessity. A learner may be a competent speaker, but not necessarily a competent writer (Mohan & Lo, 1985). More specifically, English writing is the most difficult task for language learners. Even “most native speakers never master” (Nunan, 2001, p.271). Brown (2001) states that writing is a thinking process. It is not easy to turn thoughts and ideas into a meaningful and readable text in L2. Therefore, there have been numerous studies dealing with the sources of writing difficulties. The literature on writing difficulties accounted for why producing a piece of writing in English might be a challenge for Chinese learners. Consequently, teachers and language researchers attributed English writing difficulties to coherence and continuity (You, 1999), cultural and linguistic differences (Yi, 2001), insufficient. 1.

(13) English competence (Chen, 2001; Wu, 2007), word usage in English (Liu, 1993) and development factors (Mohen & Lo, 1985). In order to reduce these factors obstructing the English writing, L2 teachers could teach students to handle with these difficulties and to use appropriate strategies to facilitate the composing process. English writing is the complicated mental process, so learners need to be taught how to process writing tasks efficiently and fluently. A lot of studies substantiated the effect of strategy use led to the improvement in four language skills, language proficiency, academic achievement, motivation and anxiety (Huang, 2003; Chamot & O’Malley, 1990; Oxford, 2002; Feyten, Flaitz & LaRocca, 1999). Besides, process-oriented writing instruction could not only enhance the writing performance but also cultivate writing ability of L2 learners (Kao, 1993; Chen, 1996). Research implied that composition teachers should assist EFL learners to build a repertoire of writing skills because these skills helped students become self-directedly and actively involved in learning English writing (Oxford, 1990; Brown, 2001). Much learning-strategy research mainly concentrated on general English learning (Wharton, 2000). Recently, more research linked up strategy use with listening, reading, speaking and writing skills. However, scant research has looked into learning strategy use in terms of English writing learning (Kao, 2008). Some studies have been done to explore what writing skills EFL learners employed in. 2.

(14) the composing process (Liao, 2006; Liu, 2006), yet few studies analyzed these writing strategies systematically (i.e. Wu, 2007; Petric & Czarl, 2003). In order to broaden current knowledge, this research attempts to explore the use of learning strategies and writing strategies by college students of technology in the EFL context. After speaking of strategy use, the affective aspect of L2 language was discussed the following paragraph. As far as affective factors are concerned, learning motivation, the most influential factor, has a great effect on language learning (Yang, 1994; Ellis, 2003). Learning motivation has been continually examined in the second or foreign language learning field for a long time. How learners motivated to learn language attracted dozens of research being implemented. Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation was two types of learning motivation commonly seen in the literature. Intrinsically motivated students seemed to learn English more successful than extrinsically motivated ones in the long term because intrinsic stimulus kept students to persist in English learning autonomously and actively. The two types of motivation are not mutually exclusive. Extrinsic motivation to some degree is beneficial to drive language learners to learn L2. Gan, Humphreys and Hamp-Lyons (2004) pointed out that most successful learners motivated intrinsically and extrinsically to learn English while unsuccessful learners was solely extrinsically-motivated.. 3.

(15) Further, some studies have showed that motivation was closely related to strategy use. The findings probed motivation had significant association with strategy use (Ellis, 2003; Oxford & Nyikos, 1989; Yang, 1994; Chang, 2005; Peng, 2002; Chung, 2000). Hence, this study aims to examine whether non-English majors favor intrinsic or extrinsic motivation, then ascertaining the relationship between motivation types and each group of learning strategies and each category of writing strategies.. Problem Statement Although an abundance of research has been conducted to discover learning strategy use at different educational levels (Khalil, 2004; Nisbet, Tindall & Arroyo, 2005), the emphasis was placed on general English learning. There have been very few studies which determined the applications of learning strategies to English writing (Kao, 2008). Meanwhile, little research discovered how process skills were used by EFL undergraduates and lacked systematic analyses at present. Only several studies conceptualized and analyzed process skills depending on the various writing stages (Wu, 2007; Petric & Czarl, 2003; Brown, 2001). Prior studies focused on English majors (Kao, 2008; Wu, 2007; Chang, 2005) so that the current study try to shed light on language learning process of non-English majors. Competent English writing was important in the vocational and academic fields. Hence, more research on. 4.

(16) writing learning for non-English majors deserved to be conducted and explored. Some studies have discovered the relationship between motivation and strategy use (Oxford & Nyikos, 1989; Yang, 1994), yet there has thus far been relatively little research into the relationships between motivation types and specific categories of learning strategies and three stages of writing strategies. This study makes an effort to explore the links between the two important learner variables, learning motivation and strategy use.. Purpose of the Study Strategy use and learning motivation both play the important roles in language learning (Chang & Huang, 1999). This article has five purposes: (a) to examine the use of six groups of learning strategies (memory, cognitive, compensation, metacognitive, social, and affective strategies) by non-English majors in terms of writing learning; (b) to explore the frequency of process strategies respectively in planning, writing and editing stages, and then to compare any significant differences among these stages; (c) to determine whether EFL learners motivate intrinsically or extrinsically in English learning; (d) to ascertain the relationships between strategy use and motivation types in EFL context; and (e) to discover what kinds of writing difficulties technical college students encounter.. 5.

(17) Research Questions In light of the preceding research purposes, several research questions were addressed as follows: 1. What is non-English majors’ strategy use in terms of writing learning? 2. What is non-English majors’ writing strategy use in planning, writing and editing stages? 3. What kinds of motivation do non-English majors favor in terms of English writing? 4. What are the relationships between learning motivation and strategy use? 5. What writing difficulties do non-English majors encounter?. Significance of the Study This study is significant in several respects. In the first place, the present study endeavors to provide English teachers an in-depth and detailed picture of how learning strategies and writing strategies were used by EFL learners, especially for non-English majors. These findings inform EFL teachers and researchers with useful information about what kinds of learning strategies non-English majors employed most and least to facilitate writing learning. In addition, any significant differences in strategy use are among planning, writing, and editing stages. Next, the writing. 6.

(18) difficulties non-English majors reported offer insights for future curriculum development and instruction. English instructors teach students appropriate strategies to improve English writing and assisted EFL learners to overcome the writing difficulties. L2 teachers explicitly present the specific grammatical and linguistic errors to prevent students from making the same errors in English writing. After all, the ultimate goal is that EFL learners could self-direct and finish English composition autonomously. Furthermore, motivate EFL learners to be more interested in writing as an important concern. Finally, the relationships between strategy use and learning motivation give the comprehensive understanding about learning process. On the students’ part, they are conscious awareness of writing strategy use; on the teachers’ part, they can apply the research findings to facilitate learners’ writing process and motivate learners to write effectively.. Definitions of Terms 1. Learning strategy: Language learners take specific actions and steps to process the new language items and facilitate target language learning. According to Oxford’s (1990) taxonomy, learning strategies are classified into six categories by function: memory, cognitive, compensation, metacognitive, affective, and social categories. These learning strategies could be applied to listening, speaking, reading and writing. 7.

(19) (Oxford, 2002). 2. Writing strategy: When starting to write a composition, learners use diverse writing strategies across different stages recursively. For example, Petric and Czarl (2003) group writing strategies according to three stages: pre-writing, in-writing and post-writing stages. Writing strategy classification varied based on different writing stages. 3. English as a second language (ESL): Learners learn English where the community speaks target language in the daily life, e.g., in American or British (Ellis, 2003). 4. English as a foreign language (EFL): Learners learn English where the community did not speak English for communication, e.g., in Taiwan or Indonesia (Ellis, 2003). 5. Memory strategy: Learners use learning skills such as keyword method, using imagery and placing new words into a context to memorize target language meaningfully for later retrieving information (Oxford, 1990). 6. Cognitive strategy: Learners practice target language, for example, by means of recombining, using resources for receiving and sending messages, or repeating (Oxford, 1990). 7. Compensation strategy: Learners make use of particular techniques such as using a circumlocution or synonym, to overcome imperfect performance or missing knowledge (Oxford, 1990).. 8.

(20) 8. Metacognitive strategy: Learners plan, monitor and evaluate their learning process (e.g., organizing, paying attention and setting goals and objects) (Oxford, 1990). 9. Affective strategy: Learners employ the steps to reduce negative emotions (i.e. anxiety and nerve) to encourage themselves and to control their emotional temperature (Oxford, 1990). 10. Social strategy: Learners cooperate or interact with proficient peers or native speakers to improve language learning (Oxford, 1990). 11. Correlation coefficient: This r value is used to explain the strength and direction between variables. According to Wu and Tu’s (2005) guidelines, the range, r ≥ .80 or r ≤ -.80, represents the relationship between variables as high correlation. The medium correlation falls in the range of .40 ≤ r < .80 or -.80 < r ≤ -.40. The range of r < .40 or r > -.40 is low correlation between variables.. 9.

(21) Chapter 2 Literature Review This chapter included five sections. Section 1 reviewed the previous research about learning strategies. Section 2 depicted the two writing approaches, writing process and writing strategies. Section 3 introduced the motivation as well as the relationship between motivation and strategy use. Section 4 summarized the findings of previous studies on writing difficulties. Section 5 discussed the strategy use between successful and unsuccessful learners.. Language Learning Strategies Learning strategies helped language learners process new information (Chamot & O’Malley, 1990) and “make learning easier, faster, more enjoyable, and more effective” (Oxford, 1990, p.10); that was, L2 learners benefited from making use of learning strategies to facilitate learning process. An amount of descriptive research has made efforts to discover, define, and categorize a variety of learner strategies over the past two decades. According to Weaver and Cohen (1993), they subsumed language learning strategies under four groupings: cognitive, metacognitive, social, and affective strategies. Chamot and O’Malley (1994) classified learning strategies into metacognitive strategies, cognitive. 10.

(22) strategies, and social/affective categories. The most famous and prevalent taxonomy was framed by Oxford (1990) who divided learning strategies into direct strategies and indirect strategies. The former directly assisted learners in learning target language and the latter helped learners regulate learning process. Direct strategies comprised of memory, cognitive and compensation categories, whereas indirect strategies encompassed metacognitive, affective and social categories. Learning strategies were applicable to four language skills: listening, speaking, reading, and writing. Ellis (2003) distinguished language learning strategies from skill learning strategies which “concerned with the learners’ attempts to become skilled listeners, speakers, readers, or writers” (p.530). Nonetheless, there has been no consensus in classification and description of language learning strategies because diverse research purposes, participants, contexts, and methods led to different taxonomies. Oxford (1990) developed the most widely used questionnaire, the ESL/EFL version of the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL). The SILL questionnaire is reliable and valid because the numerous SILL-based studies have been carried out to explore learners’ use of learning strategies across different ethnical groups, educational background and L2 proficiency levels. A number of SILL-based studies have ascertained the most and least frequently-used learning strategies at college level (Magogwe & Oliver, 2007; Khalil, 2005; Nisbet, Tindall & Arroyo, 2005;. 11.

(23) Wang, 2004). First, Magogwe and Oliver (2007) found that the most preferred strategies of 137 tertiary students were metacognitive strategies and the least preferred were compensation strategies in Botswana, Africa, where English is an official language. Second, 184 Palestinian university students reported that the highest frequency of strategy use was metacognitive strategies and the lowest frequency was affective strategies in Khalil’s (2005) study. Thirdly, Nisbet, Tindall and Arroyo (2005) indicated that metacognitive strategies were the most frequently-used strategies and memory strategies were the least frequently-used strategies by 168 third-grade English majors in China. Finally, in Taiwan, Wang (2004) uncovered learning strategy use by 342 sophomore students at a technological college, corroborating compensation strategies as highest use and cognitive strategies as lowest use. Students from Business School were found to use metacognitive strategies more frequently than other schools. Little work related learning strategies to writing learning (Kao, 2008). According to Kao (2008), 45 English majors ranked compensation strategies as the highest strategy use and affective strategies as the lowest strategy use, employing direct strategies significantly than indirect ones. When having the ideas of what kinds of learning strategies learners used to help English learning, next section described the writing strategies.. 12.

(24) Writing Strategies Product approach and process approach, two crucial concepts, were in the writing instruction. Product-oriented approaches to writing focus on tasks in which the learner imitates, copies, and transforms models provided by the teacher and/ or the textbook (Nunan, 2001, p.272). In the product-oriented (traditional) writing classes, instructors primarily focused on students’ final written products and ignored the complex nature of composing process (Zamel, 1982). Since the middle of the 1970s, instructors have emphasized writing process among L1 students, which was called process approach (Brown, 2001; Kao, 1993; Nunan, 2001). This approach was also feasible to L2 writing instruction. From then on, the process-oriented approach became popular in L2 writing teaching. Writing is a non-linear process but a recursive process. Seow (2002) put forward that writing process contained four basic stages: planning, drafting (writing), revising (redrafting) and editing. Moreover, he mentioned the other three additional stages: responding (sharing), evaluating and post-writing which “externally imposed on students by the teacher” (p.316). For the sake of flexibility and limited time, teachers would compress some of these stages into one or skipped some stages. In a word, writing strategies varied according to different writing stages. In more recent years, the research evidence supported the process-oriented. 13.

(25) teaching was effective to improve students’ writing (Kao, 1993; Chen, 1996; Zamel, 1983) than product approach because “an effective performance-oriented teaching program would mean that we need to systematically teach students problem-solving skills connected with the writing process that will enable them to realize specific goals at each stage of the composing process” (Seow, 2002, p.316). First, Kao (1993) provided the process-oriented composition courses with four fundamental components: idea-generating techniques, drafts, revises, and feedback for 32 college freshmen. At the end of the classes, all students completed a questionnaire and 30 college students agreed process-oriented teaching did improve their English writing. Nevertheless, she did not mention how to evaluate students’ writing. Chen (1996) carried out an experimental study to compare single-drafted (writing without revision) group with multi-drafted (writing with revision) group. The results revealed that students in multi-draft group wrote significantly better than those in single-draft group. Revision was recommended to be integrated into EFL writing curriculum because it “had a significantly better effect on writing ability development, knowledge of structures and written expressions” (Chen, 1996, p.69). Coincidentally, Zamel (1982) emphasized the importance of revision as well. Neverlethess, Brown (2001) pointes out drafting and revising are equally crucial in process writing. Some studies tried to conceptualize these process skills discretely (Torrance,. 14.

(26) Thomas, & Robinson, 2000; Liao, 2006; Liu, 2006). Torrance, Thomas, and Robinson (2000) classified writing strategies into four categories: a minimal-drafting strategy, an outline-and-develop strategy, a detailed-planning strategy and a think-then-do strategy, but the strategy classification seemed to overlap and was difficult to apply to other research. Liao (2006) identified ten writing strategies from eight subjects: (a) the monitoring strategy, (b) the evaluating strategy, (c) the content revising strategy, (d) the translating strategy, (e) the goal setting strategy, (f) the rereading already produced texts strategy, (g) the syntactic knowledge using strategy, (h) the dictionary consulting strategy, (i) the risk-taking strategy, and (j) the avoidance strategy. The aforementioned nine similar writing strategies were appeared in Liu’s (2006) study, and the other new strategies were found: the memory retrieving strategy, the idea organizing strategy, the reviewing strategy, the diagnosing strategy, the rhetorical knowledge using strategy, and the dictioning strategy. Differing from Liao’s (2006) study, the translation strategy was divided into the L1-L2 translation strategy and L2-L1 translation strategy in the study of Liu (2006). Others analyzed writing strategies depending on specific composing stages (Petric & Czarl, 2003; Wu, 2007). Petric and Czarl (2003) examined the writing strategies in the three-stage (pre-writing, writing, post-writing) composing process. In pre-writing stage, teachers aimed to help students generate ideas; then in writing stage,. 15.

(27) students drafted, revised and redrafted compositions; in post-writing stage, students edited grammatical errors, organization, vocabulary, and so on in order to submit the final written text. Wu (2007) had undertaken a study to determine 184 English majors’ writing skills respectively in planning, writing, and editing stages. The results proved that participants utilized significantly more strategies in the writing stage than the other two stages. It was worth noticing that planning stage was the least use. Larios, Manchon, Murphy and Marin (2008) compared the time allocation to seven writing activities which were reading prompt, task interpretation, planning, formulation, evaluation, revision and metacomments in composing process, revealing formulation occupied the largest percentage of writing time.. Motivation and Strategy Use Brown (2001) defined “motivation refers to the intensity of one’s impetus to learn” (p.75). The current research paid attention to what purposes learners would like to learn English rather than the intensity of motivation. Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation was quite often seen in the literature than the other motivation types (Chang, 2005; Peng, 2002; Chang & Huang, 1999; Chung, 2000; Yu, 2006). The dichotomy of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation was similar to internal and external motivation (Brown, 2002), so these terms were used interchangeably in this study.. 16.

(28) The abundant previous studies responded how students were motivated to learn English. Yu (2006) reported that Taiwanese high school students were extrinsically motivated to learn English. Chang (2005) mentioned the highest frequency of motivation type was external motivation of English majors. Peng (2002) reported Taiwanese senior high school students were more extrinsically than intrinsically motivated. Research suggested that language teachers should promote intrinsic motivation in the classroom because successful learners persisted in learning English for their own reasons such as self-fulfillment, interests, success, etc, (Brown, 2000, 2001, 2002; Chang & Huang, 1999). Conversely, extrinsically motivated students learnt English due to school requirement, good grades, passing exam from external stimuli imposed on them. When these external variables vanished, extrinsically motivated students might stop or give up English learning. Gan, Humphreys and Hamp-Lyons (2004) reported that the majority of successful students tended to be motivated extrinsically and intrinsically in English learning while the unsuccessful students were solely extrinsically motivated to learn English for compulsory tests. More recently, a series of studies has been conducted to explore the relationship between self-perceived motivation and strategy use. For example, one of the largest studies carried out by Oxford and Nyikos (1989) argued that “the degree of expressed. 17.

(29) motivation was the single most powerful influence on the choices of language learning strategies” (p.294). Their study revealed that highly motivated undergraduates significantly used four out of five strategy groupings (e.g., formal rule-related practice strategies, functional practice strategies, general study strategies and conversational elicitation strategies) more than less motivated ones. It implied that highly strategy use maybe led to highly motivation. Similarly, Yang (1994) substantiated that self-perceived motivation had a positive effect on overall learning strategy groupings. More research has been carried out to relate motivation types to each category of strategy use. Different research instruments resulted in varied motivation types. First, Chang and Huang (1999) indicated learning motivation was associated with language learning strategies as to 46 Taiwanese students who studied at Indiana University. The results showed that intrinsic motivation was significantly correlated with cognitive (r = .48, p < .01) and metacognitive (r = .33, p < .05) strategies; extrinsic motivation had the significant association with memory (r = .29, p < .05) and affective (r = .50, p < .01) strategies. Second, Peng (2002) found that four motivation types, motivational intensity, intrinsic motivation, and extrinsic motivation, had the significant and positive correlations with overall learning strategies, whereas requirement motivation had the significant but negative correlation with all learning. 18.

(30) strategies. Specially, intrinsic motivation had the medium correlation with cognitive (r = .49, p < .01), metacognitive (r = .56, p < .01), and social strategies (r = .40, p < .01) and the low correlation with memory (r = .37, p < .01), compensation (r = .23, p < .01), and affective strategies (r = .31, p < .01); extrinsic motivation had the low association with all learning strategies. Third, Yu (2006) indicated the correlations between motivation types and learning strategies were significant and positive.. Writing Difficulties The language scholars and teachers tried to inspect the sources of writing difficulties: cultural and linguistic differences (Yi, 2001), coherence and continuity (You, 1999), word usage in English (Liu, 1993), insufficient English competence (Chen, 2001; Wu, 2007) and development factors (Mohen & Lo, 1985) hindered L2 writing performance among language learners. First, Yang (2001) considered that cultural and linguistic differences between Chinese and English as the crucial reasons. As for cultural differences, he identified the writing conventions of Chinese were distinct from that of English in (a) the presentation of ideas, (b) the use of idioms, proverbs, or citing famous people or writings, (c) the organization of exposition, and (d) different styles in writing (English as a writer-responsible style vs. Chinese as a reader-responsible style). As far as linguistic differences were concerned, he depicted. 19.

(31) four kinds of writing errors in English which extracted from a graduate student’s composition seemed to affect by Chinese grammatical structures: (a) word inflexion, (b) modifier, (c) verb and (d) comma. Second, Liu (1993) indicated freshmen had specific writing errors in three types of word usages: (a) content words, (b) idiomatic expressions and (c) transitional words. She summarized six possible reasons to explain why these errors occurred. Students “(a) did not have insufficient English proficiency and were influenced by Chinese thinking; (b) did not look up the meaning and usages of words and phrases; (c) did not prepare enough reference books; (d) were not familiar with using reference books, even did not know how to use them; (e) had no conception of fixed word and phrase usages and (f) did not really learn how to use the new lexical items exactly so as to produce written errors” (p. 86). When it came to organizational problem, prior learning experience with English composition decided to what extent learners performed L2 writing organization. Prior learning experience was what Mohan and Lo (1985) called development factors. Third, from 52 writing samples, You (1999) found that the lack of coherence and continuity as the common problems in EFL writing. Chinese students failed to compose a topic sentence efficiently and the content was not coherent with the topic sentence in the same paragraph. Fourth, Chen (2001) carried out a study to detect six English teachers and 89 freshman students with limited English proficiency at Wu. 20.

(32) Feng Institute of Technology. The first five writing difficulties students ranked were: (a) insufficient vocabulary and phrases to express their ideas freely, (b) unsure of the nature of their errors, (c) unable to use the memorized vocabulary and phrases, (d) not know about how to start to write, and (e) to make local grammatical errors. Writing teachers in Chen’s (2001) study responded to experience difficulties in teaching two-year junior college students as follows: (a) The students lacked basic knowledge concerning the concepts of English sentence structures. (b) Insufficient vocabulary knowledge hindered the students’ ability to express their ideas freely. (c) Large class size did not allow sufficient individual feedback. Finally, Wu (2007) classified writing difficulties into five factors: (a) lack of English proficiency (sentence-level and organization-level), (b) lack of background knowledge, (c) lack of practice, (d) lack of motivation, and (e) type of writing tasks. The majority of 184 English majors regarded insufficient English proficiency as the main reason resulted in writing difficulties. In Chen’s (2001) study, students with limited English proficiency expected to receive more direct grammar instruction, paragraph development practices, translation practices, sentences construction and model reading in writing classes. In addition,. 21.

(33) some teaching implications were drawn from previous studies (Yang, 200; Liu, 1993). To diminish the effect of cultural differences on English writing, Yang (2001) posed that composition teachers should aid Chinese students analyze a problem from a personal viewpoint and explicitly compared the rhetoric conventions of English with that of native language. By introducing the grammatical errors in class, students became consciously aware of the linguistic difficulties. Liu (1993) indicated that it was vital for Chinese writers to develop English thinking. She recommended that L2 teachers should help students “(a) use English-English version dictionaries and reference books, (b) employ less English-Chinese version dictionaries, (c) evade creating English sentences by direct Chinese translations, (d) have the habit of keeping English journals, (e) develop the habit of reading English newspapers and magazines, and (f) recite good lexical usages” (p.87).. Successful and Unsuccessful Learners The terms, good, experienced, proficient, skilled and successful learners were used synonymously here. “The more your classroom activity can model the behavior exhibited by successful language learners, the better and more efficient your students will be, especially in developing their own autonomy as learners” (Brown, 2001, p.210).. 22.

(34) If EFL teachers have a better understanding of how skilled writers employ strategies to compose English writing better than unskilled writers, it is useful to develop future writing instruction. The behaviors of good and weak learners both offered valuable insights into L2 teaching and learning. The earlier work displayed the characteristics of good language learners through observation by Rubin (1976). Afterward a tremendous increase of studies has been conducted to identify any differences in strategy use between good and weak learners. The research on strategy use distinguished successful learners from unsuccessful learners across different levels of English proficiency (Green & Oxford, 1995; Wharton, 2000). Green and Oxford (1995) conducted a study to detect any significant difference in learning strategy use among 347 undergraduates who were placed into Prebasic-, Basic- and Intermediate-level groups depending on the scores on the English as a Second Language Achievement Test (ESLAT). Consequently, Prebasic-level students significantly employed less cognitive, compensation, metacognitive and social strategies than Basic- and Intermediate-level ones. Nonetheless, there were no significant differences in strategy choice between Basic-level and Intermediate-level students. Wharton (2000) identified that Singaporean university students with higher self-rated English proficiency employed more learning strategies. Students whose proficiency self-rating was fair employed more compensation strategies than those. 23.

(35) whose proficiency self-rating was poor. Kao (2008) recognized proficient writers employed more strategies than less proficient writers. It implied that the more strategies learners utilized, the better persuasive writing learners performed. Nevertheless, strategy choices between good writers and weak writers were alike. Liao (2006) found the evaluating strategy and the monitoring strategy were often used by good and weak writers. In Wu’s (2007) study, there were no significant differences in writing strategy use among high-, mid-, and low-achievers. In sum, the results of strategy use between successful and unsuccessful were inconsistent.. 24.

(36) Chapter 3 Methodology There were five sections in this chapter. The first section reported the results of pilot study; the second section depicted the information about participants who took part in this study; the third section introduced three structured instruments: ‘Strategy Inventory of Writing Learning’, ‘Writing Strategy and Writing Difficulty Questionnaires’, and ‘Motivational Questionnaire’; the fourth section described the data collection procedures; the fifth section explained how to analyze collected data.. Pilot Study Before starting the formal study, a pilot study was conducted to ascertain whether three sets of questionnaires were reliable. Subjects were 46 senior undergraduates selected from one business-related department at a national technological university in Kaohsiung city. All participants were asked to complete the questionnaires, but 44 copies of questionnaires were valid and two were invalid to analyze. The Cronbach alpha coefficients of ‘Writing Strategy and Writing Difficulty Questionnaires’ were: (a) .96 in overall writing strategies, more specifically, .87 in planning stage with 8 items, .97 in writing stage with 11 items, and .91 in editing stage with nine items; (b) .90 in writing difficulties. The reliability values for. 25.

(37) ‘Strategy Inventory of Writing Learning’ were memory strategies as .78, cognitive strategies as .92, compensation strategies as .83, metacognitive strategies as .92, affective strategies as .89, social strategies as .90, direct strategies as .94, indirect strategies as .95, and total strategies as .97. The reliability coefficients for ‘Motivational Questionnaire’ were .72 in intrinsic motivation (IM), .82 in extrinsic motivation (EM), and .87 in motivation in general (IM+EM). The results indicated that these structured questionnaires were moderately to highly valid and reliable.. Participants The participants contained 331 senior non-English majors, 79 males and 252 females who were from two national technological universities and one national technological college. Because of time limit, this study only investigated business-related departments and focused on national schools in south Taiwan. It seemed to guarantee the homogeneity of English proficiency and educational background among participants. Totally, three national schools have eleven business-related departments where two schools are located in Kaohsiung city, and one school is in Pingtung city. However, only nine departments were surveyed because one department did not have senior students and the other was recruited in the pilot study. In pursuing the maximum of participants, the survey was expected to be. 26.

(38) implemented in required classes as many as possible. In the end, this study has been done in five required classes and four selective classes. The number of participants in each class was elaborated in Table 3.1.. Table 3.1 The Number of Participants in Each of Required and Selective Class Required Class. Selective Class. School One. 27. (Kaohsiung). 31 28. School Two (Pingtung). 40 33 37. School Three (Kaohsiung). 49 45 41. Total. 200. 131. Instruments This study employed three structured questionnaires: ‘Writing Strategy and Writing Difficulty Questionnaires’ (Wu, 2007), ‘Strategy Inventory of Writing Learning’ (Kao, 2008), and ‘Motivational Questionnaire’ (Schmidt et al., 1996). All participants were asked to complete all questionnaires in Chinese version because avoiding misunderstanding the questions. According to the expert’s suggestions, some items respectively in the Chinese version of ‘Writing Strategy and Writing Difficulty 27.

(39) Questionnaires’ and ‘Motivational Questionnaire’ were revised, deleted and added in order to meet the research purposes of the current study.. Writing Strategy and Writing Difficulty Questionnaires Wu (2007) designed the English-version questionnaire and translated into Chinese based on the study of Petric and Czarl (2003). This questionnaire included three parts: ‘Background Information’, ‘Writing Strategies’, and ‘Writing Difficulties’. In order to meet the needs of the present study, some items of background information were deleted, added or revised in English version (see appendix A) and in Chinese version (see appendix B). The first part ‘Background Information’ was about participants’ demographic information; the second part ‘Writing Strategies’ (28 items) was what writing strategies learners used respectively in planning (8 items), writing (11 items), and editing (9 items) stages. The sample questions were listed in Table 3.2.. 28.

(40) Table 3.2 Sample Questions of English Writing Strategies Stages. Examples. Planning. Item 1: I think about what I want to write and have a plan in my mind. (我會思考要寫些什麼內容，並在心中擬定寫作藍圖) Item 3: I write an outline of my paper in Chinese. (我會先用中文擬定大綱). Writing. Item 4: I reread what I have written to get ideas how to continue. (我會反覆閱讀我所寫的句子，從中思考接下來要寫的內容) Item 10: If I don’t know a word in English, I stop writing and look up the word in the dictionary. (寫作時遇到不知道的英文生字，我會停下來查字典). Editing. Item 3: I go back to make changes in vocabulary. (我會回頭修改用字用辭) Item 4: I go back to make changes in sentence structures. (我會回頭修改句子結構). The third part was ‘Writing Difficulties’ (twelve items). Wu (2007) grouped twelve questions into four factors: ‘Lack of English Proficiency at Sentence-Level’ (item 1-5) ‘Lack of English Proficiency at Organization-Level’ (item 6-8), ‘Lack of Background Knowledge’ (item 9), ‘Lack of Practice’ (item 10), and ‘Lack of Motivation’ (item 11-12). According to the expert’s suggestions, the subjects in this study were non-English majors so as to delete Factor Five: ‘Types of Writing Tasks’. The sample questions were presented in Table 3.3.. 29.

(41) Table 3.3 Sample Questions of Writing Difficulties Factors Lack of English Proficiency 1. Sentence-Level Difficulties. Examples Item 3: I don’t know many words, so I cannot use appropriate words to describe what I actually mean in a sentence. (自己的單字量太少，無法用適當的單字來表達句意). 2. Organization-Level Difficulties. Item 8: I construct an English composition as the way I do in Chinese writing. My English writing is greatly affected by Chinese thinking. (常用中文思考模式來架構英文文章，即英文整篇文章結構常受中文思路影響). Lack of Background Knowledge. Item 9: I have little background knowledge of the topic. (對於所寫作文題目之背景知識了解太少). Lack of Practice. Item 10: I have few opportunities to practice English writing, so I don’t know how to get started. (平常很少練習用英文寫文章，不知如何下筆). Lack of Motivation. Item 11: The topics of composition don’t interest me. (寫到我不感興趣的作文題目) Item12: I am not interested in English writing. (對英文寫作提不起興趣). Strategy Inventory of Writing Learning Kao (2008) developed a 45-item questionnaire, ‘Strategy Inventory of Writing Learning’, in English version (see Appendix D) and in Chinese version (see Appendix 30.

(42) E). Survey items in each group of learning strategy were: ‘Memory Strategies’ (item 1~4), ‘Cognitive Strategies’ (item 5~16), ‘Compensation Strategies’ (item 17~20), ‘Metacognitive Strategies’ (item 21~30), ‘Affective Strategies’ (item 31~40), and ‘Social Strategies’ (item 41~45). According to Oxford’s (1990) standards of learning strategies in writing (see Appendix C), every item designed grounded on these standards with five-point scale from 1 to 5: 1 = Never or almost never true of me, 2 = Usually not true of me, 3 = Somewhat true of me, 4 = Usually true of me, and 5 = Always or almost always true of me. The aim of this questionnaire was to assess the frequency of strategy use in terms of writing learning. The sample questions were shown in Table 3.4 and 3.5.. Table 3.4 Sample Questions of Direct Categories Direct Categories. Examples. Memory Strategies. Item 2: I remember a new word by writing a note to explain its meanings. (我會用英文寫下單字的定義來解釋其意思。). Cognitive Strategies. Item 5: I imitate native speakers’ writing to learn English writing. (我會仿效英語人士的英文寫作方式來學習。). Compensation Strategies. Item 18: When I cannot write difficult sentences, I use simpler, less precise, or slightly different ones. (當我無法寫出艱澀的英文句子時，我會使用較簡單的句子來代替。). 31.

(43) Table 3.5 Sample Questions of Indirect Categories Indirect Categories. Examples. Metacognitive Strategies. Item 24: I utilize a notebook to write down new target language expressions or structures and organize it for the best use. (我會利用筆記本來寫下新的英文表達句並將其組織以備不時之需。). Affective Strategies. Item 35: Before, during and after writing, I make positive statement to encourage myself to be confident. (在英文寫作過程中，我會運用正面的評論來增加我的自信心。). Social Strategies. Item 43: While writing, I consult with proficient writers to enhance my writing. (英文寫作時，我會請教寫作能力較好的人來增進我的寫作能力。). Motivational Questionnaire Schmidt, Boraie, and Kassabgy (1996) created the ‘Motivational Questionnaire’ (see Appendix F). The aim of the questionnaire was to ascertain whether subjects favored intrinsic or extrinsic motivation, every question with five-point scale from 1 to 5: 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = uncertain, 4 = agree, and 5 = strongly agree. Lao (2000) translated ‘Motivational Questionnaire’ into Chinese and gained the Cronbach alpha of .80. Chinese version (Lao, 2000) in Yu’s (2006) study yielded a Cronbach alpha of .87. Based on the expert’s recommendations, several sentences in Chinese version (see Appendix G) were revised. The sample questions were listed in. 32.

(44) Table 3.6.. Table 3.6 Sample Questions of Motivational Questionnaire Motivation types. Examples. Intrinsic Motivation. Item 1: I enjoy learning English very much. (我非常喜歡學英文。) Item 5: I wish I could learn English in an easier way, without going to class. (我希望我可以用一種比較簡單輕鬆的方式學英文，而不用去上課。). Extrinsic Motivation. Item 17: The main reason I need to learn English is to pass examinations. (我需要學英文的主要理由是為了能通過考試。) Item 18: If I learn English better, I will be able to get a better job. (如果英文學得好一點，我將能夠找到比較好的工作。). Procedures The first step was to gather class schedules of nine business-related departments from the websites. The second step was to get the permission of implementing the survey from the instructors and checked the time to execute the survey research simultaneously. When conducting the survey in every class, all participants were asked to finish the questionnaire booklets containing ‘Writing Strategy and Writing Difficulty Questionnaires’, ‘Strategy Inventory of Writing Learning’, and ‘Motivational Questionnaire’, in which this study of researcher guided participants 33.

(45) how to finish the survey. The participants were informed that (a) they had to read the direction on page one before completing the questionnaires; (b) it was very important to check if there were any missing questions; and (c) if they had problems in answering questionnaire booklets, they could ask the researcher on the spot. All questionnaires were completed within a period or shorter than a period. Once subjects finished the questionnaire booklets, the data was collected right away. Table 3.7 displayed main data collection procedures. Table 3.7 Data Collection Procedures Step. Data collection. Time. 1. Nine business-related departments are chosen from three public colleges of technology in south Taiwan.. 2. Collect class schedules through the Internet and print them out.. 3 hours. 3. Contact every instructor to get the permissions of conducting the survey. Execute the survey study.. 1 month. 4. Participants complete the questionnaires.. 15 minutes~1hour. 5. Selecting the completed questionnaires is valid. Cross 1 week out the invalid questionnaires. Number these valid questionnaires.. 6. Key in the valid questionnaire data into SPSS.. 34. 1 month.

(46) Data Analysis All quantitative data were keyed in, saved and analyzed through Statistical Packages for the Social Science (SPSS) software. The frequency, mean, and standard deviation of descriptive statistics were performed to partly examine the first three research questions. The first research question was: What is non-English majors’ strategy use in terms of writing learning? Paired-samples t-test was employed to ascertain whether there was a significant difference between direct strategies and indirect strategies. The second research question was: What is non-English majors’ writing strategy use in planning, writing and editing stages? One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and the follow-up Tukey post-hoc procedure were the methods of data analysis for determining if there were significant strategy use differences in three writing stages. The third research question was: What types of motivation (intrinsic and extrinsic) do non-English majors favor? Paired-samples t-test was used to inspect if there was a significant mean difference between the two motivation types. The fourth research question was: What are the relationships between learning motivation and strategy use? Pearson product-moment correlations were performed to determine the relationships between motivation types (intrinsic and extrinsic) in relation to six-group learning strategy. Again, the same statistic procedure was computed to. 35.

(47) analyze the relationships between motivation types and three writing-stage (planning, writing, and editing) strategies. The fifth research question was: What writing difficulties do non-English majors encounter? Descriptive statistics such as frequency, means, and standard deviations were calculated to display the top five writing difficulties non-English majors considered.. 36.

(48) Chapter 4 Results This chapter contained three sections. Section 1 dealt with the validity and reliability of three structured questionnaires. Section 2 introduced the background information of subjects. Section 3 presented the results for five research questions.. Validity and Reliability of the Questionnaires The Cronbach alpha procedure was computed to ascertain the reliabilities of all questionnaires. The Cronbach alpha coefficients between .70 and .98 are regarded as good reliability, while coefficients below .35 are viewed as low reliability and should be rejected (Lin, 2006; Wu & Tu, 2005). The results for the pilot study have been reported in chapter three. The reliability values in the previous and in the current studies were summarized below. First, the Cronbach alpha values of ‘Writing Strategy and Writing Difficulty Questionnaires’ in the study of Wu (2007) were .87 in total writing strategies, more specifically, .67 in planning stage with eight items, .78 in writing stage with eleven items, and .79 in editing stage with nine items. The reliability coefficient of writing difficulties was .88. In this study, overall writing strategies had a reliability value as .94, the planning-stage strategies as .80, the writing-stage strategies as .91, the editing-stage strategies as .85, and the writing. 37.

(49) difficulties as .93. Second, in Kao’s (2008) study, the reliability values for ‘Strategy Inventory of Writing Learning’ used were: memory (.59), cognitive (.81), compensation (.56), metacognitive (.78), affective (.66), social (.45), direct (.86), indirect (.83), and total (.90) strategies. The reliability coefficients in the current study were: memory (.73), cognitive (.90), compensation (.81), metacognitive (.92), affective (.89), social (.88), direct (.93), indirect (.95), and total (.97) strategies. According to Yu (2006), the Cronbach alpha coefficients of intrinsic motivation (IM), extrinsic motivation (EM), and motivation in general (IM+EM) were respectively .68, .87 and .87. In the present study, the Cronbach alpha coefficient for ‘Motivational Questionnaire’ was .84; the reliability values for IM and EM were .30 and .85, respectively. However, because the overall Cronbach alpha of IM was too low (.30), the researcher decided to remove item 4, which coefficient became .67, in order to ensure subsequent analyses with intrinsic motivation were reliable and valid. The aforementioned figures suggested that these instruments were moderately to highly valid and reliable.. 38.

(50) Demographic Information. Table 4.1 Gender and Years of English Learning of Senior non-English Majors Gender. Number. Percentage. Male. 79. 23.9%. Female Total. 252 331. 76.1% 100%. Number. Percentage. 2 4 15 6 41 66 130 20 21 10 5 5 1 1 1 3 331. 0.6% 1.2% 4.5% 1.8% 12.4% 19.9% 39.3% 6.0% 6.3% 3.0% 1.5% 1.5% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.9% 100%. Years of English Learning 3 years 5 years 6 years 7 years 8 years 9 years 10 years 11 years 12 years 13 years 14 years 15 years 16 years 17 years 18 years Missing Total. Table 4.2 The Summary of Years of English Learning. Years of English learning. Min.. Max.. Mean. SD. 3. 18. 9.69. 1.94. 39.

(51) The gender and years of English learning among subjects were presented through the frequency in Table 4.1. Besides, Table 4.2 showed the minimum, maximum, mean and standard deviation of years of English learning. The total of participants was 331 senior non-English majors. They consisted of 79 males and 252 females. The average of English learning years was 9.69. Most of the subjects had 10 years (39.3%) of English learning experience, second followed by 9 years (19.9%), and third followed by 8 years (12.4%). Three subjects did not respond the question as missing values. The considerable variation in years of English learning was seen from the minimum (N=3) to the maximum (N=18).. Table 4.3 Ways of Practice on English Writing Types E-mail Research Paper Article Letter Note Journal Diary Others Total. Number. Percentage. Rank. 40 49 55 45 122 4 32 88 435. 9.2% 11.3% 12.6% 10.3% 28% 0.9% 7.4% 20.2% 100%. 6 4 3 5 1 8 7 2. 40.

(52) Table 4.3 showed the frequency of diverse ways of practice in English writing among participants. The first three types of writing tasks non-English majors often did were: note (28%), others (20.2%), and article (12.6%). Non-English majors gave additional responses as “none”, “English tests”, “assignments”, “autobiography” and “keep accounts” in others. Conversely, the last three writing tasks were done: e-mails (9.2%), diary (7.4%), and journal (0.9%).. Table 4.4 Perception of English Writing Degree Very much Much So-so Little Very little Total. Number. Percentage. 5 32 198 77 19 331. 1.5% 9.7% 59.8% 23.3% 5.7% 100%. According to Table 4.4, more than half of the participants (59.8%) were not very interested in English writing. 11.2% of them liked English writing, but 29% of them disliked it.. 41.

(53) Table 4.5 Self-rating of the Importance of English Writing Degree Very important Important So-so Unimportant Of no importance Total. Number. Percentage. 68 203 55 5 0 331. 20.5% 61.3% 16.6% 1.5% 0% 100%. Table 4.5 depicted how these students valued English writing learning. The majority of subjects (81.8%) felt English writing learning was important, yet the minority of them (1.5%) regarded it as unimportant. Some subjects (16.6%) held neutral opinion.. Table 4.6 Summary of Self-perceived English Writing Proficiency Degree Very good Good So-so Poor Very poor Total. Number. Percentage. 0 6 93 149 83 331. 0% 1.8% 28.1% 45% 25.1% 100%. As reported in Table 4.6, most of the subjects (70.1%) perceived English. 42.

(54) writing proficiency as poor, only 1.8% of them as good, and 28.1% of them as so-so.. Table 4.7 Summary of English Writing Experience Response Yes No Total. Number. Percentage. 199 132 331. 60.1% 39.9% 100%. Non-English majors (60.1%) responded that they did not have English writing experience, whereas 39.9% of them had English writing experience, shown in Table 4.7.. 43.

(55) The Results of Research Questions Research Question 1: What is non-English majors’ strategy use in terms of writing learning?. Table 4.8 Descriptive Statistics and Multiple Comparisons among Learning Strategy Use Categories. Mean. SD. Rank. Memory Cognitive Compensation Metacognitive Affective Social Overall learning strategy use. 3.16 2.92 3.35 2.64 2.58 2.65 2.88. .73 .72 .83 .77 .73 .88 .83. 2 3 1 5 6 4. Multiple Comparisons Memory. Cognitive. Compensation. Metacognitive Affective. Cognitive Compensation Metacognitive Affective Social Compensation Metacognitive Affective Social Metacognitive Affective Social Affective Social Social. t. Sig.. .24** -.19* .52** .59** .51** -.43** .28** .35** .28** .71** .77** .70** .07 -.004 -.07. .00 .03 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .99 1.00 .99. Note. ** p < .01 & * p < .05, two-tailed. The descriptive statistics for six-group learning strategy and overall learning. 44.

(56) strategy were presented in Table 4.8. The mean of each learning strategy from the most to the least were: compensation strategies (M=3.35), memory strategies (M=3.16), cognitive strategies (M=2.92), social strategies (M=2.65), metacognitive strategies (M=2.64), and affective strategies (M=2.58). Post-hoc comparisons using the Tukey HSD tests indicated that the mean score for compensation strategies was significantly different from that of the other five strategies. Namely, the compensation strategies were the most frequently used strategies. Table 4.9 Comparison between Direct and Indirect Strategies Categories. Mean. SD. Direct Strategies Indirect Strategies Direct vs. Indirect. 3.15 2.62. 0.67 0.72. t. Sig.. 18.87**. .00. Note. ** p < .01, two-tailed. The mean of direct strategies (M=3.15) was higher than that of indirect strategies (M=2.62). Paired-samples t-test was calculated to ascertain whether there was a significant difference between direct and indirect learning strategies. Table 4.9 revealed non-English majors employed significantly more direct strategies than indirect ones (t =18.87, p < .01). In detail, the most and least frequently-used strategies based on means in each of six types of learning strategies were listed in Table 4.10 below. 45.

(57) Table 4.10 Most and Least Frequently-used Learning Strategies in Each Category of Strategy Item Description Memory Strategy 01. While writing, I use words I recently learn in my writing. 02. I remember a new word by writing a note to explain its meanings. 03. After writing, I review my writing at regular intervals. 04. While learning writing, I use some reference materials to help my learning. Cognitive Strategy 05. I imitate native speakers’ writing to learn English writing. 06. I learn English writing by thinking in English. 07. While writing, I use phrase pattern in my writing. 08. I string together two or more known expressions into writing. 09. I practice writing by writing in a real situation (ex: writing a letter in English to friends). 10. I use resources (e.g., dictionary, grammar book or something related to the topic I will write) to write. 11. While learning writing, I analyze elements in an article (ex: indicating topic sentence). 12. I use translation skills to help me produce my writing. 13. I apply previous knowledge or experience to produce my writing. 14. In class, I use note-taking techniques to practice writing. 15. I write a summary for a longer passage to practice writing. 16. In class, I highlight different types of information. (ex: vocabulary, grammar points, cultural concepts, etc.) Compensation Strategy 17. While writing, I select the topic I can handle well to write. 18. When I cannot write difficult sentences, I use simpler, less precise, or slightly different ones. 19. When I encounter a word I do not know how to express in my writing, I make up my own word to gain the meaning. 20. While writing, I use a synonym to convey the intended meaning. 46. Mean. SD. 3.58** 2.89. .89 .97. 2.88* 3.29. 1.04 1.01. 2.85 2.64 2.98 3.31** 2.47. 1.03 .99 1.06 1.00 1.09. 3.47**. 1.11. 2.66. .99. 3.39** 3.21. 1.01 1.05. 2.77 2.45* 2.87. 1.04 1.06 1.11. 3.32 3.69**. 1.03 1.00. 3.00*. 1.09. 3.40. 1.00.

(58) Metacognitive Strategy 21. I brainstorm to generate ideas for writing to bring out my own existing ideas and start expanding them as preparation for the future writing task. 22. While writing, I decide in advance which aspects of the writing (ex: grammar, vocabulary, sentence structure) to focus on at given time. 23. After writing, I talk about my writing problems, ask questions and share ideas with each other about effective strategies I have tried. 24. I utilize a notebook to write down new target language expressions or structures and organize it for the best use. 25. While writing, I set a deadline and expect to reach some writing achievement in the period of time. 26. While writing, I take the type of written format and the needs of the potential audience into consideration. 27. Before writing, I plan my writing steps to gain information I need. 28. I seek opportunities to practice writing (ex: chatting with friends on MSN by typing English.) 29. After writing, I reread my writing to find out whether there is an inappropriate construction or vocabulary and revise it. 30. I review samples of my writing, note the style and content and assess progress over time. Affective Strategy 31. I use progressive relaxation, deep breathing or meditation to help me complete my writing. 32. Before writing, I use music to make me relax. 33. Before writing, I use laughter to decrease my pressure. 34. I am not afraid of making mistakes during my writing. 35. Before, during and after writing, I make positive statement to encourage myself to be confident. 36. I reward myself after completing a writing task. 37. Before writing, if I feel nervous, I try to do something to reduce my tension. 38. In order to make my writing better, I use checklists to monitor my writing.. 47. 2.62. .96. 2.71**. 1.05. 2.64. 1.00. 2.66. .99. 2.46*. .98. 2.46*. .99. 2.48. 1.01. 2.65. 1.14. 3.04**. 1.04. 2.72**. 1.01. 2.71**. 1.06. 2.71** 2.32 2.96** 2.88**. 1.16 1.00 1.05 .98. 2.57 2.65. 1.06 1.09. 2.33. .99.

(59) Affective Strategy (Continued) 39. I write language learning diaries to understand and to keep track of my thoughts, attitudes, and language learning strategies. 40. I discuss my feelings about writing with someone else. Social Strategy 41. To improve my writing, I ask my teacher to mark my most serious difficulties and correct them on my own. 42. I share my writing with my classmates, who respond with comments. 43. While writing, I consult with proficient writers to enhance my writing. 44. Before writing, I search for some information to gain the background knowledge or cultural background in advance. 45. I am aware of my readers’ thoughts and feeling while writing.. 2.29*. .97. 2.36. 1.02. 2.72. 1.08. 2.44*. 1.04. 2.87**. 1.14. 2.69. 1.07. 2.53. 1.05. Note. **represents the most frequently-used strategy & *the least frequently-used strategy. 48.

(60) Research Question 2: What is non-English majors’ writing strategy use in planning, writing and editing stages?. Table 4.11 Summary of Writing Strategy Use in Each Stage Stage. Mean. SD. Planning Writing Editing Overall writing strategy use. 2.86 3.21 2.84 2.97. .57 .81 .70 .72. Table 4.12 Multiple Comparisons among Writing Strategy Use in Each Stage. Planning vs. Writing Planning vs. Editing Writing vs. Editing. t. Sig.. -.35** .02 .37**. .00 .96 .00. Note. ** p < .01, two-tailed. As shown in Table 4.11, the average of overall writing strategy use was 2.97, which suggested non-English majors moderately used writing strategies. The average of strategy use in writing stage (M=3.21) was higher than that in planning stage (M=2.86) or that in editing stage (M=2.84). The Tukey post-hoc test was calculated to find out where the statistical significance of differences among three stages in Table 4. 12. The results identified non-English majors employed significantly more strategies in writing stage than in planning stage (writing vs. planning, t =.35, p < .01) and in 49.