Learners’ identification of language learning strategies

Riley & Harsch (2003) 1

Learners’ identification of language learning strategies through reflective practice: A comparative ESL/EFL study

Lesley D. Riley, Kanazawa Institute of Technology

Kenton Harsch, University of Hawai`i at Manoa Abstract

This paper presents the second section of a study that compared Japanese learners of English in two different learning environments – an English as a foreign language (EFL) environment in Japan and an English as a second language environment (ESL) in the United States. An earlier paper (Riley & Harsch, 1999) explored the extent to which learners of English were aware of, developed and used language-learning strategies (LLS) and briefly discussed the pedagogical values of using guided LLS journals to help enhance learning experiences. Two instruments were used to examine ways in which the two groups differed: 1) a Strategy Inventory Survey (SIS) asking learners the degree to which they use LLS and consider them useful, and 2) guided journals to facilitate and encourage reflection on LLS. The earlier paper reported on the pre-post results of the SIS and although there was initially a significant difference between the ESL and EFL groups (on the pre-treatment survey), all groups, including the control group, showed significant gains on post-treatment measures for use and usefulness, with no significant effect for treatment1. This subsequent study focuses on the qualitative results of the guided journals reported for Use, discusses the nature and saliency of LLS used by both ESL and EFL learners, and provides samples from student journals to illustrate similarities and differences between the two environments. Results from journal data and survey rankings of sub-parts of the SIS for use showed some interesting differences between EFL and ESL learners, most of which confirm teachers’ intuitions about opportunities available in EFL vs. ESL environments. However, there were a surprising number of similarities in terms of strategy categories favored by all subjects regardless of environment. The study will discuss how introducing learners to guided reflection of LLS in ESL and EFL environments can have beneficial implications not only for learners’ development but also for teachers’ professional practice.

Introduction Over the last few decades in language learning classrooms and research arenas, the changing focus on learners and learning rather than teachers and teaching, highlights an increasingly prominent trend in educational contexts. Throughout this period, particularly in the area of English language teaching, both ESL and EFL, the majority of research has shifted from a focus on language or teaching to learners, learner differences, and learning styles. For instance, Griffee (1997) reports that, within the EFL teaching community, there is 84% agreement that the focus has shifted to learners as individuals. Research connected to learner-centered curricula (Spada, 1990, Nunan, 1998), learner-centered instruction (Matsumoto, 1996; Nunan, 1999) and learner-autonomy (Holec, 1981; Benson & Voller, 1997; Lee, 1998; Little & Dam, 1998) bear testimony to the significance of this trend.


Stemming from the recognition of this shift is the further recognition of the need to help students develop autonomy. Learners need to be encouraged, but often also taught, to take increasing responsibility for their learning e.g. Little and Dam, 1998; Lee, 1998). Many learners need to be taught how to make informed choices about their learning (Holec, 1981). One important part of helping learners become autonomous is to help them become more familiar with, and develop a thorough repertoire of language-learning strategies (LLS). The area of LLS is an area of interest for an ever-increasing number of both teachers and researchers, and a tremendous wealth of research already exists in this area (e.g., Rubin, 1975; Stern, 1975; Naiman et al, 1978; O’Malley & Chamot, 1990; Oxford, 1990; Lessard-Clouston, 1997; Cohen, 1998). One concern about LLS is that one cannot assume that exposure to, or use of, LLS will automatically lead to success in learning a language (Skehan, 1989). Vann & Abraham (1990) suggest that this is particularly true if the learners do not make metacognitive connections between their language use and their choice of strategies. One possible solution to this problem is to have students reflect on their choice of LLS related to experiences in the course of using the target language. This paper reports on a study in which we used a strategy-inventory survey and guided journals to examine the degree to which learners reported using LLS and considered LLS to be useful. The aim of our study was to explore and compare the extent to which Japanese learners in EFL and ESL environments are aware of, develop, and use LLS, and to explore the effect of guiding student reflection on LLS through journals. The following research questions were posed: (1) Do participants in an EFL environment differ from participants in an ESL environment in (a) their

reported use of LLS, and (b) the degree to which they perceive LLS to be useful? (2) Are there any salient strategies which learners identify using more frequently? How does this vary

between ESL and EFL? (3) Are there any salient strategies which learners consider more useful? How does this vary between

ESL and EFL? (4) Is there any evidence that metacognitive reflection on strategies leads to greater use or an increased

perceived usefulness of LLS?

For this paper, we will first summarize results of research questions 1 and 4 (reported in more detail in Riley & Harsch, 1999) and then focus on research questions 2 and 3, which look at whether any strategies are identified as more frequently-used or considered more useful, and whether there is a difference between ESL and EFL groups. We feel it is important to note that changing definitions and differing criteria of LLS terminology reflect and confirm a change over time from a product to process oriented perspective, yet, despite varying opinions and perspectives (see Oxford and Cohen, 1992, Cohen, 1998, and Nambiar, 1998 for commentary on the variety of definitions in existence), serve to emphasize how LLS are necessary tools to help learners develop communicative ability. Within the realm of definitions, the term LLS appears to be used more generally to encompass all strategies that


learners use in learning a target language, regardless of any subsections of classification of types of strategies, such as Oxford’s (1990) complex SILL taxonomy. For the purpose of helping our subjects understand what we were seeking (particularly lower-level subjects), we defined “language learning strategies” in a more encompassing way, as “Things you can do to make learning or using English easier, faster or more fun.”

Rationale In the past, numerous studies have examined various and significant issues related to and within the realm of LLS. These have included many factors that influence use of LLS, such as motivation, environment, learning styles, gender, age and culture. Other studies have examined learners' awareness of LLS, what kinds of LLS are in their repertoires, learners' reasons for using LLS and the effects of exposure to or instruction of LLS. One area, however, that, for the most part, seems to be missing in the LLS research literature is the area of comparative studies, and in particular, comparisons of LLS used by similar learners in ESL and EFL environments2. Our study was undertaken to help address this gap, by comparing strategy use, and perceived usefulness, for Japanese learners of English in ESL and EFL settings. In addition, this paper will examine, from a pedagogical viewpoint, the potential benefits of strategy awareness and guided reflection for enhancing the learning process and helping learners develop greater autonomy. Cohen (1998) suggests that while it is necessary to identify observable strategies that are likely to be appropriate for learners in specific contexts, it is also advisable to attempt to identify non-observable strategies. Although currently, no single assessment method to do this prevails in the field (Cohen, 1998, p.13), the use of guided journals in this study attempts to contribute further insight and is based on our belief that students’ reflection on how they learn and use a second language leads to more control over their own learning.

Subjects The subjects for this pilot study were all Japanese learners of English, with at least 6 years of prior English study, and all were in the mid-beginner to low-intermediate range of ability. Similarities in mean ages, years of education and years of English indicated that similar groups were being compared. The ESL treatment group comprised 28 Japanese students attending two language programs in Hawaii. The EFL treatment group also comprised 28 Japanese students attending a university in Japan, with another 26 EFL university students in Japan serving as a control group. One unavoidable difference between the two groups was the hours of English classes they were taking, with the students in Hawaii attending 16-20 hours of classes in English per week for a 10-week term, and the students in Japan attending between 90 minutes and 6 hours of classes in English per week for a 14-week term. Design and Data Collection Two instruments were used for this study, a Strategy Inventory Survey (SIS) and a Strategy Journal. The SIS was a modified version of Oxford’s Strategy Inventory of Language Learning, or SILL (Oxford, 1990, pp. 293-300) which examined not only the degree to which learners


thought they used LLS, but also the degree to which they considered LLS to be useful. Two modifications were made to Oxford’s SILL. First, we changed the scale learners use to answer each item, from a 1-5 range to a 1-4 range, because we wanted to avoid having a “neutral” option (3 in a 1-5 range). Second, we added a second column for “Usefulness” (Oxford’s SILL only looks at use of LLS, but we also wanted to know learners’ perceptions of the usefulness of each LLS). See Appendix A for a sample section of the SIS. The second instrument, the Strategy Journal, was a guided journal with questions to focus learners’ reflection on LLS and their experiences learning and using the target language. The journals main aim was to help learners make connections between LLS and target-language needs.

The strategy journal questions, which this paper focuses on, were:

1. During this past week, what strategies did you use? Put a * next to ones that you feel are very useful.

2. Write about your experience learning or using English this week (either in class or outside). Here are some questions to help you. You don’t have to answer all the questions – just choose one or two. Write in the box below (continue on the back of this paper if you want to write more).

3. Write about a difficult experience learning or using English that you had this week. What strategies could you use to improve in this area?

4. Write about a successful experience learning or using English that you had this week. What strategies did you use that helped you succeed? If you did it again, would you do it differently?

5. Did any of your classmates use strategies for learning or using English that you would like to try? What strategies did they use?

This exploratory and descriptive research used students from naturally existing classes for data collection. In a pre-treatment briefing session, the researchers provided an overview. The control group’s briefing session involved only the SIS. The treatment groups, however, were asked to try and complete 10 strategy journals, and the researchers reviewed a sample strategy journal to help clarify for the learners the types of entries sought. The researchers collected the treatment groups’ strategy journals on a regular basis, wrote feedback, and returned the journals to the learners the following class session. Treatment and control groups were all given a post-treatment SIS. For the journal analyses we eliminated all non-Japanese subjects and of these, those who wrote less than 7 entries, leaving 15 subjects in each environment. The researchers then analyzed and reviewed each journal entry for the 30 subjects, and the LLS that the learners reported having used were coded using Oxford & Lavine’s 138-Item Taxonomy of Strategies (1990). Both researchers separately coded all journal entries, and then discussed all differences until agreement was reached. In the process, the researchers added an additional ten items taxonomy, making the total 148 instead of 138. See Appendix B for the 148-item taxonomy. Results and Discussion: Summary of Previous Results Research question 1 asked whether learners in different environments (ESL and EFL) varied in their reported use of LLS and their perception of the usefulness of LLS. The earlier paper (Riley & Harsch, 1999) presented pre-test data showing that ESL learners reported a statistically higher


use of LLS than EFL learners, indicating that a significant difference between groups (already) existed at the outset. Conceivable reasons for this were attributed to higher motivation for ESL learners and therefore increased action in their learning, more opportunities to use English outside the classroom, and that these interactions, plus the effect of length of stay in an ESL environment, made learners more aware of strategy use. On the Useful scale, results showed no significant difference between ESL and EFL groups suggesting that regardless of environment, learners have existing ideas, perceptions, knowledge and experience of LLS with regard to what they perceive to be useful LLS. Additionally, pre-test results for perceived usefulness of LLS were not affected by treatment. However, the post treatment scores showed no significant differences across groups. When looking at the journals in relation to research question #1, we found ESL learners used more strategies, averaged more strategies per entry, and used a broader number of different strategies than EFL learners. However, differences were not considerable; both EFL and ESL clearly used and perceived usefulness in a number of LLS. Results and Discussion: Use Research question #2 looks at whether any strategies are identified as more frequently used and whether there is a difference between ESL and EFL groups. In this section we will discuss this research question in terms of (a) overall frequency of use of LLS categories and sub-categories, as reported in learners’ strategy journals, (b) a closer look at EFL and ESL learners’ ten most frequently used strategies, as reported in strategy journals, and (c) a comparison of the results from the two instruments (SIS and strategy journals). Table 1A presents learners’ frequencies of LLS use, as reported in their strategy journals, using sub-categories from Oxford & Lavine’s taxonomy (1990). Additionally, to further help identify similarities and differences between the two environments, we have summarized the data from Table 1A by major category from Oxford & Lavine’s taxonomy. This summary data is in Table 1B, below.


Table 1A. USE: Reported Journal Frequencies by Taxonomy Sub-Category**

Categories Sub-categories EFL % of total strategies

ESL % of total strategies

MEMORY STRATEGIES

Creating mental linkages (associating/ elaborating), 101-105

12 9

Applying image and sounds (106-111) 0 0 Reviewing well (112-114) 3 8 Employing action (115-124) 2 17* Total Memory 17 1.89% 34 2.67% COGNITIVE STRATEGIES

Practicing (201-212) 284 394*

Receiving and sending messages (213-217) 85 103* Analyzing and reasoning (218-228) 17 21 Creating structure for input or output (229-

239) 7 9

Total Cognitive 393 43.62% 527 41.43% COMPENSATION STRATEGIES

Guessing Intelligently (301-306) 6 3

Overcoming limitations in speaking and writing (307-317)

14 9

Total Compensation 20 2.22% 12 0.94% METACOGNITIVE STRATEGIES

Centering or focusing (401-409) 114 65

Arranging, organizing, and planning the learning (410-420)

106 204*

Evaluating the factors that influence learning (421-433)

117 151

Total Metacognitive 337 37.40% 420 33.02% AFFECTIVE STRATEGIES

Emotional self-assessment (501-505) 20 18

Lowering anxiety (506-512) 1 2 Encouraging yourself (513-517) 55 103* Total Affective 76 8.44% 123 9.67% SOCIAL STRATEGIES

Asking questions (601-603) 8 25

Asking for help (604-605) 3 20 Cooperating (606-607) 29 26 Integration and empathy (608-614) 18 85* Total Social 58 6.44% 156 12.26% TOTAL STRATEGIES 901 1272

* = salient items within sub-categories ** taken from Oxford & Lavine, 1990 revised taxonomy


Table 1B. USE: Summary of Reported Journal Frequencies by Taxonomy Category** Rank EFL ESL Percent of total 1st Cognitive (same) Cognitive 2nd Metacognitive (same) Metacognitive

74-81% of total

3rd Affective (reversed) Social 4th Social (reversed) Affective

15-22% of total

5th Compensation (reversed) Memory 6th Memory (reversed) Compensation

3.5-4% of total

** taken from Oxford & Lavine, 1990 revised taxonomy

Similarities among EFL and ESL learners. Tables 1A and 1B show a number of similarities among the two groups. First, at the level of major categories, there were clear distinctions between the top two, middle two, and bottom two categories, and these distinctions were very similar for both groups. For both EFL and ESL, then, clearly the most salient strategies were Cognitive and Metacognitive, and clearly the least salient were Compensation and Memory. Next, at the sub-category level, there was a high incidence of sub-category “Practicing” (201-212, Cognitive) - the most salient subcategory for both ESL & EFL. This suggests that Japanese learners, regardless of environment, seem to consider naturalistic practicing of any skills as important LLS. Other similarities have to do with omission of strategies. Both groups omitted sub-category “Applying image and sounds” (106-111, Memory). Both groups had almost no instances of the sub-category “Lowering anxiety” (506-512, Affective). Other sub-categories of strategies that were used only 3 or fewer times as follows:

• Memory/Reviewing well (112-114) -- only 3 used by EFL • Memory/Employing action (115-124) -- only 2 used by EFL • Compensation/Guessing intelligently (301-306) -- only 3 used by ESL • Affective/Lowering anxiety (506-512) -- only 1 by EFL, only 2 by ESL • Social/Asking for help (604-605) -- only 3 by EFL

A further notable omission, not on Tables 1A & 1B, has to do with individual strategies omitted. Of the strategies that were never used, 48 were the same items for both EFL and ESL. This suggests that Japanese learners have a number of similarities, not just in strategies they preferred, but also in strategies they chose not to use. These omissions suggest both EFL and ESL learners either do not know about, or maybe know but don’t use or need all strategies available to them. It is also worth considering whether these strategies, if used by learners in either environment, are ones that occur in language-learning or use that students do not consider important when writing their strategy journal -- e.g., a number of review strategies may come into play when they are studying on their own at home, but perhaps they didn't feel these were worth writing about in their strategy journals. It is also possible that the instrument itself is not conducive to drawing out these kinds of LLS. For


example, although learners rarely reported using any LLS from the category of “Memory Strategies,” it is quite possible that some memory strategies are used at a less conscious level, or that these LLS seem to be so obviously part of language learning that learners don’t consider them to be “strategies” per se. This could certainly be a fruitful area for future research. Differences between EFL and ESL learners. Tables 1A and 1B also highlight a number of interesting differences between the two groups of learners. ESL learners used almost twice the percentage of Social strategies, indicating (not surprisingly) that ESL learners are making good use of the opportunities available in their environment. EFL learners use over twice the percentage of Compensation strategies, although, for both groups, these percentages are quite low. Here are some example journal-entry items:

• In other English class, I had a chance to read an American magazine “Newsweek”. I didn’t know all English words (specially technical terms) in the magazine, so I guessed meanings of infamiliar words in it without dictionary. Finally, I could understand the news by myself. 306 (General guessing)

• My friend tried to make herself understood in English when explaining something to an American

teacher. But she couldn’t again and again, so she gestured with her hand very hard. And teacher understood her. 309 (using mime or gesture)

Also, it should be noted that the 138-item taxonomy has no set of compensation strategies for overcoming problems in listening and reading -- only for overcoming problems in speaking or writing -- thus, when students asked for clarification, or used other negotiation of meaning strategies that may have been compensatory, they had to be coded elsewhere. Differences in top sub-categories of Memory, Metacognitive, and Social strategies indicate that EFL learners' most used Metacognitive subcategory was "Evaluating factors that influence learning" (421-433), whereas for ESL, it was "Arranging, organizing, and planning the learning" (410-420). This highlights an interesting possible difference in preference: ESL subjects tend to focus more on organizing, where EFL subjects take a more evaluating stance. (This could have useful pedagogical implications, which will be raised later in the paper.) Examples of journal-entry items that reflected this are:

EFL: “Evaluating the factors that influence learning” • This Monday, I was asked where Kanazawa station is from an English man. I tried to speak

fluently English, but I couldn't. I found myself to use wrong English after I told him. It was, "Go to strait and turn right." 423 (Self-monitoring of errors), 426 (Evaluating the difficulty of a task, a set of words, etc.)


EFL: “Evaluating the factors that influence learning” (continued) • I watched a TV program in English. It was easy to understand what they say. But it is very

difficult to express myself. First of all I have to remember the simple expressions. 421 (Self-evaluating of overall progress in a skill or task), 426 (Evaluating the difficulty of a task, a set of words, etc.), 428 (Evaluating the need for a learning strategy)

ESL: "Arranging, organizing, and planning the learning" • John suggested that I listened to NPR. I listened to the news, it was harder than TV news to

understand. If I’ll keep on listening every day, maybe it will get easier to understand. 410b (Trying out a strategy), 416 (Determining goals/objectives), 419 (Seeking practice opportunities)

• When I talk to native speaker, still I sometimes confuse what words should I use. But having a time to talk to them, I could know conversation skills. So now I’m enjoying to talk them. 418 (Determining personal needs or requirements for general learning or a learning task), 419 (Seeking practice opportunities)

ESL learners use both the Affective sub-category, ‘encouraging yourself’(513-517), and the Social sub-category, ‘integration and empathy’ (608-614) twice as much as EFL learners, suggesting that the use of these sub-categories may be motivated by the opportunities presented in an English-speaking environment and a desire to integrate into the culture. Examples include:

• If I saw old people on the bus, I try to give my seat and talk to them. This is useful to opportunity for talking with local people sometimes. 606 (Cooperating or working together for general purposes), 609 (Becoming aware of others' thoughts and feelings), 611 (Getting to know individual native speakers on one's own)

• I talked about our grandparents with interchanger on Monday. I hesitated to ask whether they

alive or not. Today Danielle showed us her parents’ old photos which were taken in Paris. I was impressed with sepia color photos. I said “Are they still alive?” naturally. Did I use wrong sentence or was it impolite one? 602 (Asking questions for verification), 604 (Asking another for general help or information), 609 (Becoming aware of others' thoughts and feelings), 610 (Getting to know individual native speakers as a class requirement)

It is also interesting to note that Table 1A can be interpreted differently when the total numbers of strategies are considered compared to the percentages of total strategies used. For metacognitive strategies, it appears ESL used them a lot more (420 vs. 337), but EFL's use of metacognitive strategies was actually a higher percentage of their total strategies (37.40%) than ESL's (33.02%).


Table 2. Top Ten Journal Items by Taxonomy Item Item# EFL Item# ESL 209 Practicing naturalistically in

listening 110 209 Practicing naturalistically in

listening 172

217 Using other resources 64 419 Seeking practice opportunities 127 210 Practicing naturalistically in

speaking 62 210 Practicing naturalistically in

speaking 112

426 Evaluating the difficulty of a task, set of words etc.

59 217 Using other resources 71

403 Making a conscious effort to concentrate on any learning task

55 611* Consciously trying to integrate into the target culture

69

410b Trying out a strategy

44 426 Evaluating the difficulty of a task, set of words etc.

64

406* Focusing on a specific skill

42 513 Making positive statements 55

419 Seeking practice opportunities 37 517 General self-encouragement 44 212* General practicing 34 403 Making a conscious effort to

concentrate on a learning task 42

513 Making positive statements 33 208* Practicing naturalistically in reading

39

Strategy Type: Level 2 = Cognitive; Level 4 = Metacognitive; Level 5 = Affective, Level 6 = Social.

Continuing our attempt to answer research question #2, next we look at some salient individual items. Table 2, above, shows the “top 10” taxonomy items favored in journals by each group of learners. Similarities among EFL and ESL learners. Perhaps the most striking similarity shown in Table 2 is that seven of the Top Ten items are the same for EFL and ESL (209, 210, 217, 403, 419, 426, and 513). This is quite remarkable, considering that this is based on 148 possible items, and 7 out of those 148 were in each group's top ten. The most frequently used strategy for both groups, is 209 ("Practicing naturalistically in listening"), and note that 210 ("Practicing naturalistically in speaking") is third for both groups. This suggests that both groups value interaction, and consider making opportunities for interaction as important strategies. We looked at journal entries involving both 209 and 210 (that is, in situations where there was interaction) and found that for EFL, these interactions frequently occurred in their English classes, emphasizing the role of teachers in helping create opportunities for naturalistic practice. For example:

• Last week in this class, we students explained a movie. In my group, a student talked a movie. The students didn’t know words so much, so couldn’t make a sentence well. But because of every words that he said, we could guess the movie.

• Last week, I talked with my new pertner, Soichiro. I know he came from Nara city, etc. It is interesting to talk with new friends. It’s good strategy.

• I could talk to many new girls in English in my classes. They are successful experiences for me. I’m always looking forward to studying in English classes.


Of course, this doesn't mean that the classroom was the only place EFL learners could use English. A number of these students also wrote about using the target language outside of class, such as the following:

• Last Sunday I traveled to Wakayama Prefecture. In a Youth Hostel, I met a person from abroad and talked with him.

Likewise, ESL students occasionally wrote about classroom activities. However, mention of outside interaction was, by far, more prevalent in ESL students' journals:

• I went church and played with kids. They talked to me so fast. I was a little depressed because even kid speak English well. But I enjoyed singing songs with sign language (like hula).

• Maybe I’m going to go to the beach with my local friend every weekend. I don’t like to sit at my desk every day. That’s so stiff, that’s meaningless. I can study hard in Japan, that’s why. Do as I like. Come in contact with local people is the best way to improve my English.

• I had lunch with Mr. and Mrs. Talmadge, their daughter, granddaughter, and their friend. they have lived in Hawaii since 1978. I could hear English for 8 hours, and I sometimes spoke English.

Although it does not show up in Table 2, three of the different Top Ten items are in the other group’s Top 13 (410b, which was 6th for EFL, was 11th for ESL; 208 and 517, which were 10th and 8th for ESL, were both in the Top 13 for EFL). For 410b, when coding, we differentiated between trying out a specific, maybe new LLS and trying (i.e., making an specific effort) to do something (e.g. “When I was on the bus, I tried to get near people and listen to what they were saying”, vs. “I’ll try hard to practice speaking more”). In general we coded for the former situation and not the latter (general self encouragement). Interestingly, both ESL and EFL groups used no Memory and Compensation strategies in their top ten.

Differences between EFL and ESL learners. While the similarities of Top Ten items are particularly striking, there are some relevant differences, as well. Two items in EFL’s Top Ten are distant in ESL’s rankings - 212 (General practicing) and 406 – (Focusing on a specific skill). Here is an example:

• I watched a video last weekend. Have you seen “FACE OFF”? It is an exciting one. I watched it without subtitles as possible as I can. But I don’t have the capacity to listen to English, I had to listen it again and again. Do you know Nicolas Cage? He is a very cool, very cool. Thanks to him, I could enjoy listening English.


One item in ESL’s Top Ten is distant in EFL’s rankings - 611 (Consciously trying to integrate into the target culture). Examples of this strategy include:

• When I got in an elevator in our building a woman began to talk to me. “This building is good.” I agreed and tried to continue our conversation. “Yes. My place has a nice view,” I said. Also the woman continued to talk. I could keep conversation with her until she got out the elevator.

• I went my friend’s birthday party. There were many loco [local] people. It was hard to speak them, but it had nice time

Finally, as mentioned earlier, a greater number of the EFL group’s entries for 209 (Practicing naturalistically in listening) and 210 (Practicing naturalistically in speaking) resulted from classroom interaction than in ESL. Sample journal entries with multiple Top-Ten items. Below, we present samples of how student journal entries resulted in multiple codes (coded strategies are listed in italics below the full entry). This was actually somewhat typical -- it was rare when a journal entry contained only 1 or 2 strategy codes. Also of interest is that the entry for EFL includes 8 of their Top 10 items and the entry for ESL contains 9 of their Top 10 items. EFL Student K3-02

(1) I tried to listen to English every day. I tried to talk like native English speakers. I watched a video without subtitles.

(2) I watched a video last weekend. Have you seen “FACE OFF”? It is an exciting one. I watched it without subtitles as possible as I can. But I don’t have the capacity to listen to English, I had to listen it again and again. Do you know Nicolas Cage? He is a very cool, very cool. Thanks to him, I could enjoy listening English.

(1) 209, 210, 217, 403, 406, 410b, 419, 612 (2) 201, 209, 217, 406, 410b, 419, 426, 611

ESL Student N105-09

(1) John suggested that I listened to NPR. I listened to the news, it was harder than TV news to understand. If I’ll keep on listening every day, maybe it will get easier to understand.

(2) I talked with an American about Japanese gardens. I explained about the Shishiodoshi (bamboo water faucet), it’s sound scares the deer away. He already knew about it, but it was interesting conversation.

(1) 209, 217, 403, 410b, 416, 419, 426, 429 (2) 209, 210, 513, 517, 608, 611

Comparing the two instruments for Use While examining the data in order to try and find an answer to research question #2, we found it interesting to compare the two instruments. That is, we compared Use reported in the Strategy Inventory Survey (SIS) with Use reported in journals.


How the Taxonomy and SIS grouping correlates according to Oxford (1990): Part 1. Memory Strategies = Part A: Remembering more effectively Part 2. Cognitive Strategies = Part B: Using all your mental processes Part 3. Compensation Strategies = Part C: Compensating for missing knowledge Part 4. Metacognitive Strategies = Part D: Organizing and evaluating your learning Part 5. Affective Strategies = Part E: Managing your emotions Part 6. Social Strategies = Part F: Learning with others

Table 3A. Use: SIS Sub-Parts – Pre and Post Survey Means Sub-part** All Learners EFL ESL

Part C = Compensating for missing knowledge 2.93 2.87 3.04* Part D = Organizing and evaluating your learning 2.88 2.76 3.08* Part F = Learning with others 2.85 2.73 3.05* Part B = Using all your mental processes 2.68 2.54 2.92 Part A = Remembering more effectively 2.55 2.50 2.62 Part E = Managing your emotions 2.48 2.34 2.71

*=order different for EFL/ESL ** taken from Oxford, 1990

Table 3B. Use: Taxonomy of Strategies – Raw Journal Scores General category** General category**

EFL ESL Part 2 = Cognitive Strategies 393 Part 2 = Cognitive Strategies 527 Part 4 = Metacognitive Strategies 337 Part 4 = Metacognitive Strategies 420 Part 5 = Affective Strategies 76 Part 6 = Social Strategies 156 Part 6 = Social Strategies 58 Part 5 = Affective Strategies 123 Part 3 = Compensation Strategies 20 Part 1 = Memory Strategies 34 Part 1 = Memory Strategies 17 Part 3 = Compensation Strategies 12

Within the SIS results and within the taxonomy results, EFL and ESL rank categories similarly, with similar clear divisions between the top and bottom categories. However, comparison of the two different instruments indicates major differences between SIS and taxonomy rankings (for both EFL and ESL) of Cognitive strategies (4th in SIS and 1st in journal taxonomy rankings) and Compensation strategies (1st in SIS, 5th or 6th in journal rankings). Additionally, minor differences exist between SIS and taxonomy rankings (for both groups) of Affective strategies (5th or 6th in SIS, 3rd or 4th in journal rankings). Possible Effect of Strategy Journals. While it is beyond the scope of this study to do a thorough analysis of data for evidence that metacognitive reflection, in the form of strategy journals, did or did not lead to great use or increased perceived usefulness of LLS, it is possible to look at some general trends based on number of journal entries students completed. The researchers were unable to ensure that all treatment learners did the requested number of journal entries (10 entries). At one extreme, a few students did more than ten, and at the other extreme, a few students completed three or less entries. As a result, we do not have conclusive statistical data about changes in Use and perceived Usefulness of LLS for the treatment and control group. However, Tables 4A and 4B look at Use and Usefulness for treatment-group learners who


completed more than 7 entries or three or less entries, as well as the control group.

Table 4A: Changes in Reported Use on SILL (students with 7 or more journal entries, 3 or fewer journal entries, and control group)

Pre Post Change Range No. w/ gains

% w/ gains

7 or more entries 2.72 2.93 +0.21 -0.18 to +0.64 17/24 71% 3 or fewer entries 2.91 2.68 -0.23 -1.14 to +0.22 5/10 50% Control (0 entries) 2.56 2.65 +0.09 -0.09 to +0.12 14/26 54%

Table 4B: Changes in Reported Usefulness on SILL (students with 7 or more journal

entries, 3 or fewer journal entries, and control group)

Pre Post Change Range No. w/ gains

% w/ gains

7 or more entries 3.31 3.43 +0.13 -0.56 to + 0.24 17/24 71% 3 or fewer entries 3.15 3.09 -0.06 -0.73 to +0.24 6/10 60% Control (0 entries) 3.17 3.22 +0.05 -0.08 to +0.12 12/26 46%

These results show greater and clearer differences between learners who completed 7 or more entries and those who completed 3 or fewer entries, suggesting a possibility that guided reflection helps learners to make connections between language needs and LLS. Again, however, because of the inconsistent completion rate of journals, this information can only be seen as tentative. More research is clearly called for, with a larger n size and better control over learners completion of journals Constraints There were a number of constraints related to this study, which should be considered for any future research studies comparing LLS of ESL and EFL learners. First of all, a number of constraints were related to the subjects of the study (for a full discussion of these constraints, see Riley & Harsch, 1999). First, the reduced n-size in our study limits the generalizability of results. Second, the students in Hawai`i had more hours of exposure to English in the classroom (however, when dealing with naturally existing classroom situations, this is a particularly difficult constraint to overcome). Third, students were not tested to ensure a similar range of proficiency. Fourth, we were not able to set up a control group in the ESL environment, and to have a better balanced study, this would have been preferable. Another constraint, related to the instruments used, is that it is extremely difficult to accurately determine “awareness” of LLS. (e.g., it is quite possible that a learner could be aware of a strategy but neither use it nor consider it useful). Additionally, as mentioned earlier, the slipperiness of defining “strategies” can interfere with accurate coding from journal entries, and can also confuse learners when taking a survey such as the SIS or SILL.


Finally, we were not able to ensure an equal number of journals written by learners. Although we sought ten journal entries per learner in the treatment groups, there was a range from 2-13 entries actually submitted. Initial analysis of pre- and post-treatment Strategy Inventory Surveys suggests that those who completed more journal entries had a greater increase in reported use and perceived usefulness of LLS, but no definite generalizations can be made in this area. Pedagogical Implications Focusing on learners, not teachers, in two different environments has helped identify some central pedagogical issues and, importantly, what we see as benefits to both learners and teachers. Benefits to learners Self-report. Over time, learners may benefit by using forms of self-report such as strategy journals, which encourage them to reflect on strategies they have used. As a result, learners are more likely to become aware of how they are learning and strategies they are using to do so. Strategy journals also provide opportunities for repeated use or application and offer diverse benefits across various learning contexts. Awareness of LLS. The strategy journals in this study used specific questions designed to introduce the concept of LLS, provide examples of LLS available to learners as well as aiming to facilitate learners’ reflection (Bray and Harsch, 1996; Nunan, 1996; Matsumoto, 1996). At the outset, many students were unaware of the terminology and breadth of LLS; however, both the SIS and journal data indicate not only an increased awareness of LLS, but also evidence of use. Building on existing knowledge. By encouraging learners to think about which kinds of strategies they already use and to perhaps reflect on adding new strategies to their repertoires helps them increase and expand on other ways to learn (Oxford 1990). Note: We compiled a newsletter listing a range of journal examples so students could learn about and share the LLS of their peers. In this study, intermediate level students were aware of and able to use a wide range of LLS they reported learning from their peers. Teacher feedback. The teacher/researcher role of providing constructive written responses to journals encouraged learners to further reflect on their learning and continue exploring useful ways to learn English. The benefits of such one-on-one communication adds support to one way that students can receive tangible pedagogical support for diverse learning styles. Examples from journal-entries include: S: I tried to listen to the conversation in the bus on the way to UH R: Good! Maybe try to remember a few words or phrases (and then try to use them) each day or every

few days. S: I try to read newspaper twice or third times a week, and I watch TV news in English and Japanese. I

don’t have much time to summarize.


R: Why don’t you combine these? Watch the TV news, and listen to (or record) a few stories, then look specifically for those stories in the next day’s newspaper.

S: I talked about our grandparents with interchanger on Monday. I hesitated to ask whether they alive or

not. Today Danielle showed us her parents’ old photos which were taken in Paris. I was impressed with sepia color photos. I said “Are they still alive?” naturally. Did I use wrong sentence or was it impolite one?

R: It’s probably better to be indirect. You could ask something like, “Where do they live now?” or “Do they live in Paris?” and then she will tell you where they live, or if they are no longer alive. It’s difficult to know these things, though, so I’m glad you asked.

S: “precisely” was new word for me. I often listened this word in TV. When I went to camera shop to

see the telescope, a retailer use this word explaining telescope. I got how to use this word. R: Good! it’s interesting how often we suddenly hear or read words when we finally notice them. Have

you tried using “precisely” yet

S = Student’s entry, R=Researcher’s response Improvement in journals. Guided journals are one way to help learners reach one level higher than they currently are in terms of the depth and how to use and/or fine-tune a strategy. We observed greater and clearer differences between learners who completed 7 or more entries and those who completed 3 or fewer entries, suggesting a possibility that guided reflection helps learners to make improved connections between language needs and LLS. Benefits to teachers Learner differences. Different learners have differing preferences and differing exposure to diverse learning traditions and learning styles. Having access to normally hidden information about their students knowledge and use of LLS (or lack thereof) may help teachers become aware of the diverse learning strategies and styles that exist within ESL and EFL classrooms. This in turn, may help confirm for teachers that no one teaching formula will work, and therefore prompt them to change or modify the way they plan, teach and interact with students in order to address these learner differences. ‘In-out’ concept. Being aware of the benefit of creating classroom activities in and out of the classroom that provide learners opportunities for naturalistic practice, particularly in EFL environments, is essential in terms of utilizing LLS. We explain this ‘in-out’ concept as follows:

• For EFL – Results of journal data highlight the need for teachers to create naturalistic practice opportunities in the classroom and to encourage students to go outside the classroom more for extra resources, as well as raise their awareness of the opportunities that do exist outside the classroom.

• For ESL – Journal data show many opportunities already exist and are made use of outside the classroom, so perhaps more time should be spent in class, analyzing what students did -- what worked and what didn't, and why.


A learner-centered approach. Proponents of a learner-centered approach to teaching endorse LLS as necessary tools for facilitating learner autonomy (see also Nambiar, 1998; Nunan and Lamb, 1996; Benson and Voller, 1997). Helping learners become more aware of LLS and develop a thorough repertoire of these strategies helps them to become more autonomous learners. Additionally, finding ways to make such strategies and learner-centered activities work in classrooms is achieved by substantial amounts of reflection on the part of teachers. Two-way learning. Learning should be two-way. At the micro level of classroom learning EFL and ESL learners demonstrate considerable variation in their use and perceived usefulness of LLS. Teachers can learn from their students in order to promote and support LLS as well as realize that no (one) group of strategies fits every learner.

Reflection for both learners and teachers. The point of providing guided journals is to help students reflect on their strategy use and the resultant changes in attitude, learning, and performance leading to more control over their learning. In particular, the use of guided journals focusing on the use of LLS helped highlight aspects of this study where both learners and teachers gained (respectively) from reflecting on their own learning and teaching. When teachers travel on a path of action research by examining their own practice, in order to build up an improved understanding of themselves, their learners and the learning process, they in turn reflect the core of reflective teaching. Future Research The earlier paper for this study reported that although there were common strategies across ESL/EFL environments, there were also strategies that were favored by learners in one environment or the other. The study raised the question: “Why is it that, given far fewer opportunities to use English in an EFL environment, the two EFL groups improved in strategy use?” (Riley & Harsch, 1999, p.12). Environment does seem to have some effect; thus, further research on learning environment is clearly warranted. We continue to uphold that comparative studies conducted in different environments merit further investigation. Conclusion Approximately two decades ago marked the beginning of a significant trend in second language research where the focus shifted from teachers and teaching to learners and learning. Prompted by the belief that, by using LLS, students are learning how to learn, this study attempted to compare the kinds of strategies that are used and considered useful by similar-level Japanese learners in ESL and EFL environments. Guided strategy journals, a form of self-report, helped provide access to the often hidden processes that ESL and EFL learners use to accomplish their goals. Oxford (2001) states that “Learning strategies are teachable…” (Oxford, 2001, p.170) and in a variety of investigations, strategy instruction has resulted in positive effects and improved efficiency in learning. But first, learners need to be made aware of LLS available to them. We believe providing opportunities, such as the guided journals in this ESL/EFL study, will help language learners become more aware of the importance of LLS as well as assess their own strategy use, regardless of environment. We also believe that studies like this one can help teachers become more aware of aspects of teaching and learning that fit better with either an FL


or SL environment. The authors hope that this study will encourage teachers to implement strategy journals in all language learning environments as a means of encouraging reflection. NOTES 1 However, we want to emphasize that this was a pilot study, with a number of constraints that may have affected results. A full study, which deals with most of the constraints, would need to be done to produce generalizable results. 2 See Hyland, (1994) and Yamashita & Miller, (1994) for comparative analyses of preferred learning styles as opposed to learning strategies of ESL and EFL students. References Benson, P. & Voller, P. (1997). Autonomy & Independence in Language Learning. Addison

Wesley Longman: New York. Bray, E. & Harsch, K. (1996). Using reflection/review journals in Japanese classrooms. The

Language Teacher, 20(12), 12-17. Cohen, Andrew (1998). Strategies in learning and using a second language. Harlow, England:

Longman. Griffee, Dale. T. (1997). Validating a questionnaire on confidence in speaking English as a

second language. JALT Journal, 19(2), 177-197. Holec, H. (1981). Autonomy and foreign language learning. Oxford; Pergamon. Lee, I. (1998). Supporting greater autonomy in language learning. ELT Journal, 52 (4), 282-289. Lessard-Clouston, M. (1997). Language learning strategies: An overview for L2 teachers. The

Internet TESL Journal, Vol. III, No. 12. http://iteslj.org/Articles/Lessard-Clouston-Strategy.html (February 20, 2003).

Little, D. & L. Dam (1998). Learner autonomy: What and why? The Language Teacher, 22 (10), 7-8,15.

Matsumoto, K. (1996). Helping L2 learners reflect on classroom learning. ELT Journal, 50 (2), 143-149.

Naiman, N., Frohlich, M., Stern, H., & Todesco, A. (1978). The good language learner. Research in Education Series 7. Toronto: OISE Press.

Nambiar, R. (1998). Learning Strategies. Publications Committee, International Conference Voice Asia 98, Faculty of Language Studies, UKM.

Nunan, D. (1996). Learner Strategy training in the classroom: An action research study. TESOL Journal, 6(1), 35-41.

Nunan, D. (1998). The Learner-centred curriculum. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press. Nunan, D. (1999). Second language teaching & learning. Heinle & Heinle Publishers, Boston,

Massachusetts. O'Malley, J. M. & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning strategies in second language acquisition.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. New

York: Newbury House Publishers. Oxford, R. L. (2001). Language learning strategies. In Carter, Ronald & Nunan, David (Eds.)


The cambridge guide to teaching English to speakers of other languages. Ch.24, (166-172).

Oxford, R. L., & Cohen, Andrew D. (1992). Language learning strategies: Crucial issues of concept and classification. Applied Language Learning, 3(1-2), 1-35.

Oxford, R. & Lavine, R. (1990). 138-Item Taxonomy of Strategies. Unpublished document. Riley, L. D., & Harsch, K. (1999). Enhancing the learning experience with strategy journals:

Supporting the diverse learning styles of ESL/EFL students. Proceedings of the HERDSA Annual International Conference, Melbourne, Australia. http://herdsa.org.au/vic/cornerstones/pdf/Riley.PDF

Rubin, J. (1975). What the "good language learner" can teach us. TESOL Quarterly, 9 (1), 45-51. Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics,

11, 129-158. Skehan, P. (1989). Individual differences in second-language learning (pp.73-99). London:

Edward Arnold. Spada, N. (1990). Second Language Teacher Education. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press. Stern, H.H. (1975). What can we learn from the good language learner? Canadian Modern

Language Review, 31, 304-318. Vann, R. and Abraham, R. (1990). Strategies of unsuccessful language learners. TESOL

Quarterly, 24(2), 177-198.


Appendix A: Sample Section from Strategy Inventory Survey (SIS)

STRATEGY INVENTORY ANSWER SHEET For each strategy, circle the number that best fits you for “Do you use this strategy?” and “How useful is this strategy?” Answer what is really true for you -- not how you think you should be, or what other people do. There are no right or wrong answers. Please answer as quickly as you can. If you have any questions, or if there is anything you do not understand, please ask a teacher. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Do you use this strategy? How useful is this strategy? 1 = Never true of me 1 = Not at all useful 2 = Usually not true of me 2 = Not very useful 3 = Usually true of me 3 = Somewhat useful 4 = Always true of me 4 = Very useful ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Do you use this strategy? How useful is this strategy? Part A 1) 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 2) 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 3) 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 4) 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5) 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

Part B 10) 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 11) 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 Part A 1) I think of connections between what I already know and new things I learn in English. 2) I use new English words in a sentence so I can remember them. 3) I connect the sound of a new English word and an image or picture of the word to help me remember the word. 4) I remember a new English word by making a mental picture of a situation in which the word might be used. 5) I use rhymes to remember new English words. Part B 10) I say or write new English words several times. 11) I try to talk like native English speakers.

Appendix B: 138-Item Taxonomy of Strategies* by Rebecca Oxford and Roberta Lavine (1990)

(* Shaded items are additional strategies added by Riley & Harsch)

MEMORY STRATEGIES - 1 Creating mental linkages (associating/elaborating) (101-105)

101 Noting context as a specific aid for memory 102 Grouping 103 Labeling 104 Rote memory 105 General use of mental linkages

(associating/elaborating) Applying images and sounds (106-111)

106 Using color coding 107 Using images 108 Semantic mapping (webbing) 109 Using the keyboard technique 110 Representing sounds in memory (by rhyme,

or by another sound-based technique) 111 General application of images/sounds

Reviewing well (112-114) 112 Doing a sequential review or following a

sequential "game plan" 113 Doing a time-and/or content-structured

review (e.g., X amount of time on this kind of content; pacing and spacing)

114 General reviewing Employing action (115-124)

115 Using TPR 116 Using flashcards 117 Covering words 118 Using sensation (e.g., hot/cold,

rough/smooth) as a memory aid 119 Writing down (copying) as a physical act

(includes writing in lists or columns) 120 Moving pages 121 Reading aloud as a physical act 122 Folding paper, flipping cards, or other

physical action as a memory aid 123 Using a verb wheel 124 General action

COGNITIVE STRATEGIES - 2 Practicing (201-212)

201 Repeating 202 Formally practicing with rules, sounds,

vocabulary and writing systems (in homework, workbook, independent study, etc)

203 Recognizing and using formulas and patterns 204 Recombining 205 Using words in sentences but not in

connected discourse 206 Using language lab or tapes for practice 207 Reading aloud for pronunciation practice 208 Practicing naturalistically (at discourse level)

in reading 209 Practicing naturalistically in listening 210b Singing as a naturalistic form of "spoken"

practice 210 Practicing naturalistically in speaking 211 Practicing naturalistically in writing 212 General practicing (or other kinds of

practicing) Receiving and sending messages (213-217)

213 To seek the main idea or gist in listening and reading (called skimming in reading)

214 To seek specific details of interest while listening or reading (called scanning in reading)

215 Seeking global, nonanalytic comprehension 216 Using dictionaries, thesauruses, and other

resource books 216b Avoiding or postponing using a dictionary on

purpose 217 Using other resources

Analyzing and reasoning (218-228) 218 Reasoning inductively, including searching

for patterns, rules, and language structures 219 Reasoning deductively, including applying

rules

220 Analyzing expressions 221 Searching for and using cognates to

understand meanings 222 Noticing instances where cognates do not

exist 223 Focusing on a particular rule 223b Paying attention to appropriacy 224 Transferring information from L1 to L2 225 Translating L1 to L2 226 Translating L2 to L1 226b Translating from one L2 to another L2 226c Comparing L1 and L2 versions 226d Comparing multiple sources 227 Avoiding translation 228 Noting examples in context

Creating structure for input or output (229-235) 229 Taking unsystematic notes 230 Taking notes on main ideas 231 Taking notes on specific details of interest 232 General note taking 233 Paraphrasing 234 Summarizing 235 Highlighting 237 Codeswitching with L2 when using L1



COMPENSATION STRATEGIES-3 Guessing intelligently (301-306)

301 Searching for and using clues from L1 to guess

302 Searching for and using clues from L2 to guess

303 Searching for and using other linguistic clues to guess

304 Searching for and using clues from background knowledge to guess

305 Searching for main words (cue, important, key words) as clues for guessing or synthesizing information from main words to guess

306 Searching for and using combined clues from multiple sources to guess, or general guessing

Overcoming limitations in speaking and writing (307-315)

307 Switching to L1 308 Getting help 309 Using mime or gesture 310 Avoiding communication partially or totally 311 Selecting the topic 312 Adjusting or approximating the message 313 Coining words 314 Using circumlocution 315 Using a synonym 316 Using visual aids to help understand or

reinforce speaking or writing 317 Giving up

METACOGNITIVE STRATEGIES-4 Centering or focusing (401-409)

401 Using advance organizers 402 Previewing 403 Making a conscious effort to concentrate on

any learning task (e.g., pay attention to details, selective listening/reading, seeking the gist)

404 (missing in original) 405 Delaying speech production to focus on

listening (silent period) 406 Focusing on a specific skill (other than

delayed speech) 407 Purposefully creating an L2 framework, or

trying to think in the L2 408 Observing the professor as a centering device

409 General centering Arranging, organizing, and planning the learning (410-420)

410 Finding out about the language learning (possible techniques, language learning demands, etc.)

410b Trying out a strategy (using the word "try" or "attempt")

411 Scheduling study 412 Doing assignments on time 413 Designing a step-by-step sequential game

plan or sequential process for learning 414 Organizing the environment (temperature,

space, noise) 415 Organizing the notebook 415b Organizing grammatical material (rules,

exceptions, materials) 416 Determining goals/objectives 417 Identifying the purpose of a language task 418 Determining personal needs or requirements

for general learning or for a learning task 419 Seeking practice opportunities

420 General arranging, organizing, or planning (e.g., general game plan)

Evaluating the factors that influence learning (421-433)

421 Self-evaluating of overall progress in a skill or task

422 Self-evaluating of overall progress in learning the L2

423 Self-monitoring of errors 424 Self-testing of specific vocabulary, etc. 425 Creating a testing relationship 426 Evaluating the difficulty of a task, a set of

words, etc. 427 Evaluating the success of a learning strategy 428 Evaluating the need for a learning strategy 429 Comparatively evaluating two or more

learning strategies 430 Evaluating by "what sounds right" 431 Evaluating the utility of a teaching strategy in

regard to how it helps learning 432 Evaluating the absence of a strategy 433 Noting the absence of all strategies



AFFECTIVE STRATEGIES-5 Emotional self-assessment (501-505)

501 Noting physical signs 502 Using an emotional checklist 503 Writing a learning diary (journal) 504 Discussing feelings with someone else (see

also social) 505 General emotional self-assessment

Lowering anxiety (506-512) 506 Using progressive relaxation 507 Using music 508 Using deep breathing 509 Using meditation 510 Using laughter 511 Making a game of learning 512 General anxiety reduction

Encouraging yourself (513-517) 513 Making positive statements 514 Avoiding negative statements 515 Assessing risks and taking risks wisely 516 Rewarding oneself 517 General self-encouragement

SOCIAL STRATEGIES-6 Asking questions (601-603)

601 Asking questions for clarifications 602 Asking questions for verification 603 General question asking-asking for

correction? Asking for help (604-605)

604 Asking another (relative, friend, classmate, teacher, native speaker) for general help or for general information*

605 Asking another for specific help Cooperating (606-607)

606 Cooperating or working together for general purposes (with peers, proficient users of a new language, etc.)

607 Cooperating or working together for specific purposes or on a particular task

Integration and empathy (608-614) 608 Developing cultural understanding 609 Becoming aware of others’ thoughts and

feelings 610 Getting to know individual native speakers as

a class requirement 611 Getting to know individual native speakers on

one’s own 612 Consciously becoming more like native

speakers, or more like a particular native speaker

613 Consciously trying to integrate into the target culture

614 General integration and empathy

* italicized words in Item 604 added by Riley & Harsch

Documents

Learners’ identification of language learning strategies