CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW
There are four sections to the literature review. First, various definitions and classifications of learning strategies are described. The second section reviews some studies delineating language learners’ strategy use. Next, certain studies on language learning strategy instruction are examined. The final section discusses the relationship between learning motivation and language learning strategies.
2.1 Terminology
2.1.1 Definitions of Learning Strategies
The term “strategy” has been offered various definitions by ESL researchers. A widely used definition is given by Oxford (1990, p.8), who described strategies as “actions taken by the learner to make learning easier, faster, and more enjoyable, more self-directed, more effective and more transferable to new situations.” Similarly, O’Malley and Chamot (1990, p.1) defined strategies as the thoughts and behaviors that learners use to help them understand, learn, or hold information. A more complex definition is provided by Cohen (1998, p.4), who asserted that learners strategies were seen as “action take to enhance the learning or use of a second language, through the storage, retention, recall and application of information about that language.” In contrast, Brown (2000, p.122) formulated a simple definition, saying that
strategies were particular methods of attacking a problem with the aim of attaining a certain goal, and strategies can vary intraindividually and change over the course of time. The focus of the present study—listening strategies—has also been construed differently. For instance, Rost (2002, p.236) defined listening strategies as “conscious plans to manage incoming speech, particularly when the listener knows that he or she must compensate for incomplete input or partial/hazy understanding.”
A word different from, but related to strategy, is tactic, which represents a tool to achieve the success of a strategy (Oxford, 1990, p.7). The two terms share some basic attributes; both of them involve planning, conscious manipulation, and goal attainment. Some researchers regarded tactics as synonymous with strategies, but others made a distinction between the two.
Woolfolk (2001, p.302), in her book Educational Psychology, described strategies as an overall plan to attain learning goals, and interpreted tactics as “the specific techniques that make up the plan.” In other words, tactics are subsumed under strategies. Woolfolk further proposed that students should not only be exposed to strategies, but also be introduced to specific tactics.
Likewise, Goh (1998) distinguished between strategies and tactics in her study on ESL learners’ listening strategy use. She stated that tactics refer to specific activities or steps, and that strategies represent a more general approach. Cohen (1998, p.9), when tackling the controversial issue of defining terms like strategies, substrategies, techniques, and tactics, proposed a simple solution. That is to refer to them all simply as strategies but at the same time
recognize that they formulate a continuum from broad to specific levels. This perspective is shared by the present study.
2.1.2 Classifications of Strategies
Many researchers have differed on their classifications of strategies when trying to build a theoretical model for learning strategies or drawing generalizations from their experimental studies. Though many existing systems of strategies were available these days, Oxford (1990, p.16) aptly pointed out that the current understanding of the strategy classifications is only “in its infancy,” and can only be validated when subject to empirical research. For now, there is no unanimous agreement on the definition, the number, and the ways of classification of learning strategies (Oxford, 1990, p.17).
O’Malley, Chamot, Stewner-Manzanares, Küpper, and Russo (1985a) identified through group interviews the range, type, and frequency of learning strategies used by 70 beginning and intermediate level high school age ESL learners in oral language activities during and out of class. The data collection lasted for around one month. Each interview took approximately 45 minutes, and the participants were interviewed in groups of three to five. The most frequently used strategies were reported for less complex language activities such as vocabulary learning and practicing pronunciation. Eventually, the researchers derived 26 strategies and divided them into three main categories: metacognitive, cognitive, and
social-affective. Metacognitive strategies are executive thinking skills that involve the ways learners organize, monitor, and evaluate their learning. Cognitive strategies are the processes learners engage in to operate on the on-line tasks, which are related to direct manipulation of learning materials. Social-affective strategies represent the ways in which learners work with others to foster their learning or exercise control over their emotions. This classification has been generally accepted and remains the most influential framework for categorizing strategies.
Another commonly used categorization of strategies was put forth by Oxford (1990, p.14), who has made significant contributions to the field of EFL learning strategies. She classified strategies into two major types—direct and indirect. Direct strategies are described as “..those behaviors which directly involve the target language and directly enhance language learning.”
Indirect strategies are defined as “…those behaviors which do not directly involve the target language but which are nevertheless essential for effective language learning.” Direct strategies can be divided into three groups: memory, cognitive, and compensation, and indirect strategies demarcated into metacognitive, affective, and social. These subdivisions are further broken down, yielding 19 strategy sets, combined by a total of 62 strategies. This taxonomy forms the basis of the widely used comprehensive questionnaire, the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL).
According to Brown (2000, pp.122-123), the field of SLA often distinguishes between
learning strategies and communication strategies. The former are devoted to input—processing, storing, and retrieving information, and the latter cope with output—productively communicating messages in any possible form. But he admitted that it was not always easy to draw a clear-cut distinction between the two. The metacognitve and cognitive strategies originated from O’Malley, et al. (1985a), Brown stated, are considered learning strategies, while a few socio-affective strategies, along with some other strategies, are categorized as the so-called communication strategies (Dörnyei, 1995, p.58). Communication strategies are made up of avoidance strategies and compensatory strategies. Examples of the most common communication strategies include prefabricated patterns, code switching, and direct appeal for help.
Cohen (1998, p.4) differentiated between language learning strategies and language use strategies, and asserted that both of them comprise language learner strategies. Under each of the two types of strategies, there are particular strategies included. Besides, language learning and language use strategies can be further distinguished according to whether they are metacognitive, cognitive, social, or affective.
2.2 Learning Strategies in Second Language Acquisition
The earliest research in language learning strategies could be traced back to the early seventies when individual variation in language learning was first noticed. In the subsequent
decades, a stockpile of research ensued (Rubin & Thompson, 1982). Characteristics of successful language learners became an appealing research topic at that time. So far, there has been ample research into the types of strategies used and the frequency with which those strategies were used by second language learners (Goh, 1997; O’Malley et al., 1985a; Ross &
Rost, 1991). Of particular interest was the difference in strategy use between skillful and unskillful learners (Goh, 1998; O’Malley, Chamot, & Küpper, 1989; Vandergrift, 2003).
Studies in this area have also dealt with other factors considered relevant to strategy use, such as learners’ age, gender, learning styles, beliefs, attitudes, motivation, personality traits, and types of tasks involved (MacIntyre & Noels, 1996).
2.2.1 Descriptive Studies of Strategy Use
The common methods used to investigate strategy use include oral interviews, questionnaire surveys, diaries and journals, verbal reports, and observation. Each has its own strengths and weaknesses (Cohen, 1998, pp.24-43). As mentioned above, O’Malley et al.
(1985a) explored the range, style, and frequency of learning strategies used by beginning and intermediate level high school ESL students in a number of language tasks. Twenty-six strategies were identified altogether; and were classified into three divisions: metacognitive, cognitive, and social-affective. Ross and Rost (1991) investigated Japanese college students’
interaction strategies in a one-on-one story-telling task with a native speaker. Of the eight
strategies observed in the analysis of the interactions, four kinds of clarification questions served to discriminate between the more proficient learners and the less proficient ones—global reprise, local reprise, forward inferencing, and continuation signals.
Goh (1997) conducted a diary study to investigate the metacognitive knowledge in listening of college learners from China attending an intensive English program in Singapore.
The participants kept learning diaries about their listening activities every week. They were required to reflect on some occasions in which they listened to English, report what they did in order to understand better, think about how they learned to listen, and describe how they practiced listening after class. The diary entries disclosed detailed strategy use processes—what they learned about their reactions to listening tasks, their experiences and beliefs about the importance of various features of listening tasks and the usefulness of different kinds of input, the choices they made for directing their attention during the tasks, and the strategies that worked or did not work for them. The results implied that diary-keeping could raise learners’ awareness of what they do in learning tasks.
In Taiwan, Yang (1992) was among the first to investigate Taiwanese college students’
learning strategies. She administered an adapted Chinese version of Oxford’s SILL to over 500 college students at different proficiency levels from different universities in Taiwan. The results showed that these EFL learners used formal oral-practice strategies and compensation strategies more frequently, and cognitive-memory strategies lest frequently. According to Yang,
the college students’ frequent use of formal oral-practice strategies—such as saying words repeatedly and practicing English sounds—had to do with their belief that the ability to speak good English was a straightforward manifestation of a high level of English proficiency.
Klassen (1994) adopted the same Chinese version of SILL to examine the strategy use of 228 freshman college students at a private university in Taiwan. It turned out that the participants scored much lower in comparison to the learners in Yang’s (1992) study, which experimented with a greater variety of college students. But by and large, the results followed the same trend as that indicated by Yang’s (1992) research.
Focusing on metacognitiion, Chan and Teng (2005) investigated the metacognitive strategies used by eight Taiwanese college students in the EFL listening process. The study also attempted to discover what metacognitive strategies they employed when listening to unfamiliar passages, examine the difference between proficient and less proficient learners’
uses of metacognitive strategies, and ascertain the relationship between the learners’
metacognitive strategies and their listening performance. At first, the learners were divided into two proficiency groups based on their scores in a GEPT High-Intermediate Level listening test.
For data analysis, written recall was utilized to evaluate the learners’ listening comprehension, and their use of metacognitive strategies was assessed through retrospective verbalization.
Overall, the identified metacognitive strategies were categorized into planning, monitoring, evaluation, and problem identification types. The results indicated that while the proficient
learners most frequently used the strategies of “strategy evaluation” and “problem identification,” the less proficient learners tended to use “selective attention” and “directed direction.” In addition, the proficient learners were more aware of the difficulties they encountered when listening to unfamiliar passages than were the less proficient learners.
2.2.2 Comparison of Strategy Use by Effective and Ineffective Learners
Findings from previous studies generally suggested that successful learners use a greater variety of learning strategies than less successful learners do. Through retrospective verbal reports and listening diaries, Goh (1998) identified Chinese ESL learners’ cognitive and metacognitive strategies and tactics. In the interviews, the participants were read a short English passage by the researcher and then had to describe how they tried to understand what was heard. Apart from that, they kept a weekly account of the listening activities they engaged in for eight weeks in a row. They were asked to record how they tried to understand what they heard immediately after every listening task, what their perceptions and beliefs related to listening to English were, and how they fostered their listening skills outside of class. Goh found that the high-ability learners utilized more listening strategies and tactics than the low-ability ones. They also engaged in much top-down processing, as could be illustrated by the presence of some strategies they employed—inferencing, elaboration, prediction, contextualization, and reconstruction. Besides, the more proficient learners were also able to
use a wide range of metacognitive strategies to manage their learning, deal with difficulties encountered in the process of listening, and vary their application of tactics within each strategy.
Vandergrift (2003) studied the types of strategies used and the difference in strategy use by skilled and less skilled Canadian junior high school students learning French through think-aloud procedures. Quantitative analysis of the think-aloud method data revealed that the participants used more cognitive strategies, followed by metacognitive strategies, which in turn outnumbered social-affective strategies. Vandergrift also discovered that the more skilled listeners employed metacognitive strategies more frequently to monitor their listening comprehension. Also, the more skilled listeners engaged in more questioning elaboration and less direct translation than did the less skilled learners. In addition, more successful listeners tended to employ an effective combination of top-down and bottom-up processing, which left them extra attention for metacognition, while less skilled listeners were prone to use a bottom-up approach to comprehension. A study undertaken by O’Malley, Chamot, and Küpper (1989) also used think-aloud protocols to compare the strategies utilized by effective and ineffective ESL listeners during different phases of listening to oral texts. It turned out that the three strategies of self-monitoring, elaboration, and inferencing differentiated the effective from ineffective learners. Overall, the expert learners adopted both top-down and bottom-up processing, whereas the less adept listeners relied principally on the bottom-up model.
As can be seen in the studies reviewed, proficient and less proficient learners differ in their use of learning strategies. Thus proficiency was likely a confounding factor in strategy training. So the present study took into consideration the differences among the learners’
proficiency level.
2.3 Language Learning Strategy Instruction
The need for teaching learning strategies has been noted for a long time According to different researchers, strategy instruction achieves several purposes. And the goals specified by various researchers are actually more or less the same. Oxford (1990, p.201) maintained that the general goals of strategy instruction were to make language learning more meaningful, to promote a collaborative relationship between learners and teacher, to learn about language learning options, and to learn strategies that lead to self-reliance. According to Cohen (1998, p.70), the ultimate goal of strategy instruction is to “empower students by allowing them to take control of the language learning process.”
An obvious reason why strategy training is called for has to do with students’ inadequate knowledge of the available sources to help them learn, namely learning strategies. As Scarcella and Oxford (1992, p.64) remarked, “students are not always aware of the power of consciously using language learning strategies for making learning quicker, easier, more effective, and even more fun.” They further pointed out that expert teachers normally assist their students in
developing an awareness of learning strategies and equip them to use a whole host of appropriate strategies.
2.3.1 Explicit Strategy Instruction
Some researchers have brought to attention the notion of “explicit strategy instruction.”
O’Malley and Chamot (1990, p.153) contrasted embedded strategy instruction with direct strategy instruction. In embedded strategy instruction, learners are guided through activities that practice specific strategies, but are not informed of the strategies. Nevertheless, in explicit instruction, learners are apprised of the purpose and value of using certain strategies and then coached on how to use the strategies. Chamot et al. (1999, p.47) also stated that explicit strategy instruction helps students think about their strategies in order for them to develop conscious control of their language learning. What can be inferred is that explicit strategy instruction entails meatacognitive knowledge about what strategies are and what they do, bringing about the maintenance and transfer of strategies to other contexts and tasks. Following the same vein, Carrier (2003) and Cohen (1998, p.93) both asserted that strategy training which provides learners with no metacognitive knowledge about the use and effectiveness would be
‘blind’ at best. Similarly, MacIntyre and Noels (1996) claimed that learners would only profit from strategy-based instruction (1) when they understand the strategy; (2) perceive it to be effective, and (3) do not see its implementation as too difficult. By the same token, Rost (2002,
p.157) argued that it is insufficient to present the strategies alone in strategy training. In his opinion, in order for learners to take advantage of strategy instruction, they need to have awareness of the strategies, gain opportunities to see them demonstrated, get a sense of their chief advantages, and obtain practice in using the strategy. In a way, explicit strategy instruction is equivalent to what Oxford (1990, p.207) called “completely informed training,”
which encourages teachers to inform learners as completely as possible about the effectiveness and application of learning strategies.
Carrier (2003) investigated the effect of explicit strategy instruction on seven high school ESL students’ academic listening ability, as measured by two types of tests, one assessing discrete or bottom-up listening skills, the other testing video listening or top-down listening skills. Fifteen class sessions of explicit listening strategy instruction were conducted over a six-week period, and each was around 20-30 minutes long and held in regular ESL classes. The materials for instruction came from several different listening instructional texts, and were focused on strategies developing discrete listening skills, video listening skills, and note-taking skills. A comparison of the participants’ pretest and posttest scores showed that explicit listening strategy instruction helped the participants bolster their discrete listening ability and their video listening as well as note-taking skills. This study suggested great potential of explicit strategy instruction in improving high school learners’ academic listening ability.
Tutunis (2001) gave formal strategy training with authentic materials in order to facilitate
Turkish college students’ listening performance in a mock CAE (Cambridge Advanced English) test. Participants in the experimental group received explicit instruction, lasting for one academic year, in some cognitive and metacognitive strategies regarded as necessary for carrying out the listening tasks in CAE. The strategies they were coached in included metacognitive, cognitive, and social-affective ones. The paired t-test results suggested that the experimental group exhibited improvements in their listening performance. Another study on explicit strategy training was conducted by Viswat and Jackson (1994) with Japanese university students. Participants in the experimental group underwent nine-week explicit instruction in the strategies of predicting, self-monitoring, and listening for key words. Various activities were implemented in class and extensive practice opportunities were offered. Finally, the effect of the nine-week strategy training was measured by the participants’ performance in a listening cloze test. The results supported the claim that strategy training bettered the learners’ listening performance. Also, some of the participants reported in the learning journals to have gained a better insight into their own learning, considering the strategies helpful.
2.3.2 Previous Studies on Learning Strategy Instruction
As mentioned above, a sound reason why strategy instruction has been strongly advocated is that some EFL researchers attributed learners’ learning difficulties to their superficial knowledge and inadequate use of strategies (Willing, 1987). Up to now, some attempts have
been made to teach less successful students the strategies looked upon as effective in order to facilitate their learning (O’Malley et al., 1985b; Ross & Rost, 1991). So far, there has only been limited literature on the impact of strategy training on high school age students.
In the follow-up study to their research on describing learner strategy use, O’Malley et al.
(1985b) divided the 75 beginning and intermediate level high school ESL students into three groups—a cognitive group, a metacognitive group, and a control group. The two experimental groups were given listening strategy training in 50-minute class sessions for 8 days over a two-week period. The language learning activities used in class were about vocabulary, listening, and speaking. Learners in the cognitive group were taught to use note-taking (cognitive) and cooperation (socio-affective), and the metacognitive group received instruction in selective attention (metacognitive), note-taking, and cooperation. The control group underwent no strategy training at all. The pretest and posttest measures were five-minute videos similar to what learners encountered in their academic content class. The findings showed that the two experimental groups did not differ much from the control group in the posttest scores. O’Malley et al. concluded that although the posttest results did not reach significance, the daily test results suggested that the experimental groups performed better than the control group, which implied that the strategy training was successful.
In the same study mentioned above (see 2.2.1 Descriptive Studies of Strategy Use), Ross and Rost (1991) provided the less successful learners with training on the clarification
strategies used by the more proficient learners. The students had to practice asking those same questions in a narration comprehension task. The findings suggested that the instruction was effective both in improving questioning behavior in interaction and in improving text comprehension. In similar fashion, Dörnyei (1995) explored the teachability of communication strategies through explicit, focused instruction. Although the results were somewhat mixed, they somehow indicated that it was possible to teach students to make use of some communication strategies effectively. After the instruction, the learners’ fluency also improved.
Yang (1995) investigated the effect of informal strategy training through group interviews on Taiwanese university students’ use of learning strategies in the aspects of vocabulary learning, listening, reading, writing, and speaking. The participants were 68 freshman college students—English majors and Sociology majors—from two universities in Taiwan. Before the training, an English Learning Questionnaire—adapted from Oxford’s SILL—was administered to probe the students’ strategy use. After the interviews which were meant to both explore the learners’ strategy use and raise their awareness of various possible ways to employ learning strategies, the interviewees were asked to fill out the same questionnaire again. The comparison between pretest and posttest questionnaire results indicated that the students’ use of learning strategies increased in both frequency and variety. In other words, college students could improve their strategy use simply through awareness-raising alone. According to the researcher, the participants benefited from such in-depth interviews in which they got to reflect
on their own learning while engaging in experience sharing with fellow students; meanwhile, the teacher-researcher gained an opportunity to convince students of the value of some strategies and encouraged active use of them. The interviews were conducted in the learners’
native language, Chinese, to prevent the learners with limited English oral proficiency from not participating. The overall results regarding college students’ frequently used strategies were parallel to those of Yang (1992) and Klassen’s (1994).
Rubin and Thompson (1992) studied the impact of a three-year strategy training program on American students’ Russian listening comprehension. Authentic video clips taken from television programs and movies were used as materials, which included three kinds of texts—drama, news, and interviews. Both the experimental and control groups met three times a week in 50-minute classes and used the same instructional materials. But the lesson plans for the experimental group focused on developing different listening strategies, while those for the control group were meant as a basis for some speaking and writing activities. The metacognitive and cognitive strategies taught to participants in the experimental group were planning, defining goals, monitoring, evaluating, predicting, listening to the known, listening for redundancies, listening to tone of voice and intonation, resourcing, and so on. The study focused on both top-down and bottom-up processing, trained the students to adopt different listening strategies depending on genres. Two different pretests and posttests—video and audio—were employed. It turned out that the experimental group showed significant
improvement on the video comprehension posttest as opposed to the group that was not given listening strategy instruction. Thus the effectiveness of strategy instruction was confirmed. But there was no difference between the two groups on the audio test. Regarding the difference between the participants’ performances in the video and audio tests, the researchers commented that the audio test did not match the instruction given in the course and that the high scores achieved by some learners in the audio pretest left little room for improvement.
In the same manner, Bissonnette (2007) conducted research on the effects of explicit teaching on ESL learners’ listening comprehension. The instruction was carried out in eight interventions over a period of 11 weeks using audiotapes. It turned out that no significant difference was found between the experimental group and the control group on discrete listening skills, but a significant difference was found on the part testing global listening in the posttest. This suggested that explicit strategy instruction mainly improves global listening.
As far as strategy training studies conducted with Taiwanese students are concerned, most of them have proved to be successful. Cheng’s (2002) research was one early successful attempt to give strategy instruction to junior high school students. The reason why junior high school students were targeted in strategy instruction courses had to do with the scarce information at hand regarding their susceptibility to strategy instruction. This one-semester study explored the young learners’ listening performance, strategy use, and their feelings toward the instruction. During the period of time, the experimental group and the control group
practiced the same listening tasks; while the experimental group received listening strategy instruction, the control group obtained no such training. A background questionnaire, a pretest based on a textbook lesson, listening practices done in class, reflection questionnaires, listening exercises included in monthly exams, a posttest based on a textbook lesson, and interviews were used to collect research data. The findings revealed that instruction in listening strategies significantly improved the students’ listening performances, hence could hold some promise for beginning EFL learners. Moreover, the learners reported positive attitudes and increased confidence toward the overall strategy instruction course in the reflection questionnaires and interviews. The study proved that listening strategy instruction could be effectively implemented in junior high schools.
As with Cheng’s (2002) study, Huang (2002) also performed an experiment with junior high school students in Taiwan, instructing them to use four cognitive listening strategies:
skimming, scanning, linguistic inferencing, and note-taking. These strategies, as Huang reported, were considered useful in facilitating listening comprehension and necessary for carrying out the tasks in the pretest and posttest—GEPT Elementary Level listening tests. The experimental and control groups each consisted of 28 learners and were comparable in proficiency. They used the same instructional material—Tactics for Listening Basic Level, but only the experimental group received listening strategy instruction. The results showed that the experimental group’s overall listening performance improved in the posttest, but the control
group did not. By analyzing the test items and learner performances, Huang found that learners in the experimental group performed best on the items testing scanning, next on items measuring skimming, note-taking, and finally linguistic inferencing in the pretest. However, in the posttest, the strategies that the experimental group seemed to be adept at using were scanning, linguistic inferencing, skimming, and note-taking, in descending order.
Experimenting with senior high school students in Taiwan, Lin (2006) undertook a study to investigate the effects of listening strategy instruction on the learners’ listening comprehension. The instruction comprised 16 class sessions, spanning over eight weeks. In the study, second-year senior high school students were given strategy instruction on the four metacognitive strategies of selective attention, listening for main ideas, self-monitoring and questioning for clarification and the four cognitive strategies of prediction, linguistic inferencing, note-taking, and repetition and then tested on their listening comprehension. The listening comprehension pretest and posttest were adapted from the GEPT Intermediate Level listening test. Other instruments included a background questionnaire, a strategy use questionnaire adapted from Cheng (2002), and choral interviews. The results suggested that the experimental group, as opposed to the control group, improved their listening comprehension and strategy use.
Chien (2005) studied the listening comprehension of 40 Taiwanese industrial vocational high school students, inspecting the effects of one-semester listening strategy instruction. As
many as 14 listening strategies were under instruction: advance organization, directed attention, selective attention, monitoring, self-evaluation, resourcing, grouping, making inferences, repeating mentally, note-taking, imagery, summarizing, lowering anxiety, and self-encouragement; metacognitive, cognitive, and socio-affective strategies were all included.
Instrumentation encompassed GEPT Elementary listening practice tests, a listening comprehension strategy questionnaire, and an interview guide. First, a GEPT Elementary Level listening test used as the pretest was administered to all participants. Then, they were required to complete a 41-item Listening Comprehension Strategy Questionnaire, based on Wang (2002), Cheng (2002), and Cheng (2004). In every class session, the learners completed a reflection questionnaire containing five open-ended questions about their strategy use and learning difficulties. Chien (2005) also conducted interviews with six participants of three different proficiency levels to elicit their opinions regarding the strategy instruction, the questions in which were based on Cheng (2002). During the experimental period, the control group practiced the same listening materials and tasks as did the experimental group—but with no instruction. The experimental group underwent one session of explicit training in listening strategies—50 minutes—a week. The instructional steps involved included naming strategies, discussing their importance, and demonstrating how and when to use them. The t-test results suggested that the experimental group improved their listening comprehension and increased their strategy use, but the control group made no gain in either aspect.
2.3.3 Principles for Giving Explicit Strategy Instruction
O’Malley and Chamot (1990, pp.201-204) presented useful advice on how strategy instruction can be implemented in the classroom. The instructional guidelines they offered came from the Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach (CALLA) designed by themselves, an instructional model designed to foster academic achievements for English language learning students. The underlying theory of CALLA takes into account learners’ prior knowledge, the importance of collaborative learning, and the development of metacognitve awareness and self-reflection. In the CALLA model, there are five recursive phases in which teachers put strategy instruction into effect, and during instruction teachers are free to move between phases as needed:
(1) Preparation: The teacher finds out students’ prior experience with the topics to be taught, students’ level of language proficiency, and students’ current knowledge of learning strategies.
(2) Presentation: The teacher uses a variety of techniques such as demonstrations, modeling, and visual support to make new information and skills accessible and comprehensible to students.
(3) Practice: Students use the new skills or strategies in activities that involve collaboration, problem-solving, inquiry, and hands-on experiences.
(4) Evaluation: Students self-evaluate their learning through individual, cooperative, or teacher-directed activities.
(5) Expansion: Students think about what they learned, which they apply to new learning tasks, new situations, and other facets of the real life, including other classes at school.
The CALLA model emphasizes “explicitness, metacognitive knowledge, and scaffolded support,” which corresponded to the spirit of the present study (Chamot et al., 1999, p.44).
Hence, the principles for implementing of the strategy training of the present study were drawn from the CALLA, and were described in sufficient detail below (see 3.4 Data collection Procedure below).
In addition, Oxford (1990, pp.203-208) put forth an eight-step model best suited to long-time strategy training, and can also be adapted for one-time strategy training (see Conclusion below):
(1) Consider Learners’ Needs: Cogitate about learners’ needs and ascertain the time available for training. Check the strategies that have been used by learners through observations, interviews, questionnaires, diaries, or think-aloud procedures. Assess learners’ attitudes about learning.
(2) Select Strategies: Based on the needs and characteristics of learners, select strategies to
teach. Choose more than one kind of strategy to teach and include both easy and challenging strategies.
(3) Consider Integration of Strategy Training: Integrate strategy instruction with the tasks, objectives, and materials used in the regular language training program. Make the learning context meaningful. Also, show learners how to transfer the learned strategies to new tasks.
(4) Consider Motivational Issues: Decide on the type of motivation to incorporate in strategy training, may it be intrinsic, extrinsic, or a combination of both. It is assumed that if learners are told of the benefits of learning strategies, their interest in receiving strategy training will be heightened.
(5) Prepare Materials and Activities: Choose materials and activities that might be likely to be interesting to learners.
(6) Conduct “Completely Informed Training”: Inform learners of the importance of the strategies and explain how they can be used in new contexts. Provide opportunities for learners to practice using the strategies and evaluate the success with their strategy
learning.
(7) Evaluate the Strategy Training: Both learners’ own comments and the teacher’s observations are useful for evaluating the success of strategy instruction. Criteria for evaluating training include skill improvement, maintenance as well as transfer of strategies to other settings, and change in learner attitudes.
(8) Revise the Strategy Training: Based on the evaluation from both learners and the teacher’s own observations, the teacher makes revisions for the strategy instruction program as needed.
2.4 Learning Motivation and Language Learning Strategies
Motivation has long been known as a key to all types of human learning (Dörnyei, 1998), including language learning. Both empirical and anecdotal evidence have demonstrated that motivation is a fairly accurate indicator of success in learning a foreign language. As a complicated construct, motivation contains a plethora of factors like how much students value a learning task, how much they expect to succeed, whether they believe they have all the trappings of success, and what they perceive to be responsible for their success or failure (Chamot et al., 1999, p.176). Therefore, motivation deserves consideration in language
instruction.
2.4.1 The Relationship between Motivation and Learning Strategies
When it comes to language learning, Gardner (1985) asserted that motivation strongly influences the extent to which learners seize opportunities to use the language. Motivation can encourage learners’ overall effort, and so typically results in higher language proficiency (Scarcella & Oxford, 1992, p.54). Because motivation is considered essential to all learning behavior, it naturally influences learners’ tendency to apply learning strategies, the ultimate goal of which is to improve learning consequences. Also, based on Oxford and Nyikos’ (1989) study, motivation proved to be the most powerful influence on how and when students employ language learning strategies.
In the first few decades of research on motivation and L2 learning, motivation was viewed as a relatively stable learner trait. But in the 1990s, there was a shift towards regarding motivation as more dynamic and more cognitive in nature (Vandergrift, 2005). Dörnyei and Skehan (2003) argued that a dynamic perspective on motivation lends itself to the possibility that effective use of learning strategies could sustain motivational levels within the learning situation as it may encourage learners and provide benchmarks for evaluation and progress. In other words, while motivation can affect students’ willingness to put efforts into learning, including students’ inclination to employ learning strategies, effective use of strategies can, in
return, increase students’ motivation for language learning tasks (Chamot et al., 1999, p.176;
Dörnyei & Skehan, 2003). Oxford (1990, p.203) also claimed that raising awareness on strategy use can enhance learners’ attitudes, motivation, and beliefs about language learning. In brief, motivation and learning consequences are interrelated.
In a large-scale study of heritage language learners, Schmidt and Watanabe (2001) concluded that if learners believed in the value of learning a language, may the motivation be instrumental or integrative, they can be expected to apply various cognitive and metacognitive strategies to reach their goal. Put differently, motivated learners learn more because they pay more attention to the target language input and actively process it—they use learning strategies whenever possible. Similarly, MacIntyre and Noels (1996), when trying to predict the frequency of learners’ strategy use, ascertained a significant relationship among different types of strategies and social-psychological variables such as motivation, anxiety, integrativeness, and attitudes toward the learning situation. As the association between strategy and motivation was further substantiated, so was the link between strategy use and other affective constructs, or motivational factors, such as learning attitudes, confidence and interest in learning, for they are intimately connected with motivation. In the study, knowledge of strategies proved to have a positive correlation with motivation, integrativeness, and ALS (Attitudes toward the Learning Situation).
2.4.2 Previous Studies on Language Learning Strategies and Motivation
The claim that motivation has a huge effect on learning behavior, inclusive of the use of learning strategies, was supported in numerous studies. Oxford and Nyikos (1989) found that motivation was the best predictor of university students’ strategy use. In their study, the more motivated learners used learning strategies more often than did the less motivated students.
Vandergrift (2005) examined the relationships among Grade 8 ESL students’ motivation, metacognition, and proficiency in listening comprehension. Student responses to a motivation questionnaire, Language Learning Orientations Scale, which was previously validated by Noel et al. (2000), were correlated both with their responses to a metacognitive awareness questionnaire, Metacognitive Awareness Listening Questionnaire, and their listening proficiency. The outcome signified that listening level correlated negatively with amotivation.
In addition, the learners reporting a greater use of metacognitive strategies also exhibited higher motivational intensity. In noting the limitations of the study, Vandergrift proposed that these 13-14 year-old students were not able to make fine distinctions in motivational intensity that tertiary-level students could make. In response to the Language Learning Orientations Scale (Noels, Pelletier, Clement, & Vallerand, 2000) assessing amotivation (AM), extrinsic motivation (EM), and intrinsic motivation (IM), the learners could distinguish among the broad categories of IM, EM, and AM, but not so much among the six subscales of EM and IM. This implied that when measuring young learners’ motivational strength, complicated measures
might not be appropriate.
Many of the strategy instruction studies to date have tackled the effect that strategy training had on learning motivation. Huang (2001) evaluated the impacts of one-semester-long English learning strategy training on college students’ learning achievements, attitudes, anxiety, and proficiency. The measures used to investigate the variables under study were the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL), the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (Oxford, 1990), the Motivational Intensity Questionnaire (Gardner, 1985), and the Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale (Horwitz, Horwitz, & Cope, 1986). The results revealed that language learning strategy instruction helped the participants make significant improvements in proficiency and learning motivation. Also, participants in the experimental group increased their strategy use and reduced their English learning anxiety level.
The above–mentioned studies on the relationship between motivation and strategy use all produced affirmative results. One possibility was that those students who were identified as highly motivated were very likely to be willing, high-achieving learners in the first place.
Because motivated and unmotivated learners differ to a great extent in their willingness to learn, the effect of learner strategy instruction would be susceptible to interfering factors if caution was not exercised. In order to give a fair evaluation of the effect of a strategy training course similar to the kind in the present study, the influence of learning motivation should not be taken into account at the very beginning. At the same time, as strategy instruction supposedly raises
learners’ confidence and arouses their interest in learning after they experience great satisfaction from the use of strategies, it is assumed that students will harbor more positive attitudes towards language learning after a period of strategy training. After all, motivation is based on positive attitudes (Scarcella & Oxford, 1992, p.53). Conceivably, learners would have positive perceptions of strategy instruction after experiencing success brought about by such training.
As was found by many previous studies, motivation influences the way learners employ strategies. So motivation, like proficiency, could be a confounding factor in strategy instruction.
Hence, the present study removed the confounding effects that motivation had on learners’
strategy use.
