SYSTEM

System 34 (2006) 399415

www.elsevier.com/locate/system

Language learning strategy use of ESL students in

an intensive English learning context
Kyungsim Hong-Nam *, Alexandra G. Leavell
Department of Teacher Education and Administration, University of North Texas, Denton, TX 76203, USA
Received 5 September 2005; received in revised form 9 February 2006; accepted 14 February 2006

Abstract
This study investigated the language learning strategy use of 55 ESL students with diering cultural and linguistic backgrounds enrolled in a college Intensive English Program (IEP). The IEP is a
language learning institute for pre-admissions university ESL students, and is an important step in
developing not only students basic Interpersonal Communications Skills (BICS), but more importantly their Cognitive Academic Language Prociency (CALP). Prociency with academic English is
a key contributor to students success in learning in their second language. Using the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL), the study examines the relationship between language learning
strategy use and second language prociency, focusing on dierences in strategy use across gender
and nationality. The study found a curvilinear relationship between strategy use and English prociency, revealing that students in the intermediate level reported more use of learning strategies than
beginning and advanced levels. More strategic language learners advance along the prociency continuum faster than less strategic ones. The study found that the students preferred to use metacognitive strategies most, whereas they showed the least use of aective and memory strategies. Females
tended to use aective and social strategies more frequently than males. Conclusions and pedagogical implications of the ndings are discussed.
2006 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Keywords: Language learning strategies; English as a second language; Intensive English learning; Measurement
of learning strategies; Strategy inventory for language learning (SILL); Cognitive academic language prociency
(CALP)

Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 940 565 3397x565 4403; fax: +1 940 565 4952.
E-mail addresses: ksh0030@unt.edu (K. Hong-Nam), leavell@unt.edu (A.G. Leavell).

0346-251X/$ - see front matter 2006 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

doi:10.1016/j.system.2006.02.002

400

K. Hong-Nam, A.G. Leavell / System 34 (2006) 399415

1. Introduction
Increased interest in student-centered learning approaches amongst language educators
has led to numerous studies investigating individual language learning strategies (LLS)
and their relationship to achievement in learning second/foreign languages. Studies have
indicated support for appropriately applied language learning strategies on second/foreign
language achievement (Bremner, 1998; Green and Oxford, 1995; Griths and Parr, 2001;
Mansanares and Russo, 1985; Oxford, 1990; Oxford and Ehrman, 1995; Oxford and Nyikos, 1989; Park, 1997; Politzer, 1983; Wharton, 2000). The consensus of the research is
that although all learners, regardless of success with language learning, consciously or
unconsciously employ a variety of learning strategies; successful language learners engage
in more purposeful language learning and use more language-learning strategies than do
less successful ones. Overall, ndings indicate that both the frequency with which learners
apply language learning strategies and the strategies they choose are distinguishing characteristics between more successful and less successful learners.
2. Review of literature
2.1. Language learning strategies
Research in the eld of learning strategies has dened language learning strategies as
. . .strategies that contribute to the development of the language system which the learner
constructs and (which) aect learning directly (Rubin, 1987, p. 23). Oxford (1990) further
described language learning strategies as steps taken to facilitate the acquisition, storage,
retrieval, and use of information. OMalley and Chamot (1990) viewed learning strategies
as the special thoughts or behaviors that individuals use to help them comprehend, learn,
or retain new information (p. 1). Holec (1981) argued that learning strategies can foster
learners autonomy in language learning. Strategies can also assist learners in promoting
their own achievement in language prociency (Bremner, 1998; Green and Oxford,
1995; OMalley et al., 1985; Oxford, 1990; Politzer, 1983). Learning strategies, therefore,
not only help learners become ecient in learning and using a language, but also contribute to increasing learners self-directed learning.
2.2. Studies on language learning strategies
Early research into language learning strategies was mostly concerned with investigating what language learning strategies learners used, without attempting to address the
links between strategy use and success (e.g., Rubin, 1987; Stern, 1975; Wenden, 1987).
Recent research has focused on determining the connections between strategy use and
language prociency (Green and Oxford, 1995; Oxford and Ehrman, 1995; Park, 1997;
Shmais, 2003). Such studies have shown that procient language learners employed more
strategies in language learning than less procient language learners. For instance, Green
and Oxford (1995) investigated the use of learning strategies of university students in
Puerto Rico and reported that the successful language learners engaged in more frequent
and higher levels of strategy use than less successful learners. A study of Korean university students (Park, 1997) revealed a positive linear relationship between strategy use and
language prociency when prociency was measured using the Test of English as a

K. Hong-Nam, A.G. Leavell / System 34 (2006) 399415

401

Foreign Language (TOEFL) scores. Other ndings have exposed a relationship between
students perceptions of their language prociency and strategy use. Oxford and Nyikos
(1989) armed that greater strategy use accompanied perceptions of higher prociency,
while Wharton (2000) demonstrated a signicant correlation between the two factors,
indicating the higher a students language prociency self-rating, the more frequent strategy use was.
Studies have established a great deal of evidence of gender dierences in the use of language learning strategies. The results have usually favored females as more frequent users
of strategies (Ehrman and Oxford, 1989; Green and Oxford, 1995; Oxford, 1993). When
looking at the types of strategy use, females show more use of social learning strategies
(Politzer, 1983; Ehrman and Oxford, 1989), more frequent use of formal rule-based practice strategies, and conversational or input strategies (Oxford and Nyikos, 1989). Gender
dierences appear most evident in the use of socially based strategies such as group learning. However, gender dierence ndings in favor of greater strategy use by females may be
tempered by the context and/or culture of the language learning. For example, in a study
of adult Vietnamese refugees Tran (1988) found that males were more likely to use a variety of learning strategies than females. Refugees are a population typically characterized
by survival learning wherein men would be highly motivated to learn English for survival needs (e.g., supporting their family in the new society). Bilingual college students
in Singapore evidenced no statistically signicant gender eect in their reported strategy
use (Wharton, 2000). This may be attributable to an overall superiority in language learning ability and expertise on the part of bilingual students which may have equalized any
potential gender dierences in strategy use.
Cultural background (sometimes referred to as ethnicity or nationality) has been linked
to use and choice of language learning strategies (Bedell and Oxford, 1996; Grainger, 1997;
Oxford and Burry-Stock, 1995; Politzer, 1983; Reid, 1987; Wharton, 2000). Politzer (1983)
found that Hispanics used more social, interactive strategies, while Asian groups educated
in traditionally didactic settings chose memorization strategies. Wharton (2000) found
that bilingual Asian students learning a third language (English) favored social strategies
more than any other types. Culturally-specic strategy use may be a by-product of instructional approaches favored by specic cultural groups as opposed to inherent predispositions based on nationality or ethnicity of the individual. For instance, students educated
in the environments of lecture- and textbook-centered teaching approach(es) may use different strategies compared to students trained in student-centered contexts. Because language is so culturally situated (Garcia, 2005), it is dicult to parse out whether
dierences between groups are a result of dierences in instructional delivery, socio-cultural elements, or other culturally specic factors.
3. Purpose of the study
There is little in the extant literature which focuses specically on the language learning
strategies of students learning English in the context of Intensive English Programs (IEPs)
at the university level. The IEP course is a vital step in developing students Cognitive Academic Language Prociency (CALP) (Cummins, 1979), which is receiving increasing attention as a contributing factor to learners academic success. Therefore, this study
investigated the overall language learning strategy use of English learners enrolled in a university IEP, looked at the relationship between language learning strategy use and second

402

K. Hong-Nam, A.G. Leavell / System 34 (2006) 399415

language prociency, and assessed any dierences in strategy use by gender and
nationality.
4. Methods
4.1. Participants
Fifty-ve ESL students enrolled in an IEP at a large Southwestern university participated in this study. When ranked by class level based on tested prociency with English
there were 11 Beginning, 30 Intermediate, and 14 Advanced learners. The age of the students ranged from 18 to 40 (M = 22). The sample was fairly balanced across males
(n = 25) and females (n = 30). The participants were from various countries (Brazil,
China, Germany, Indonesia, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Taiwan, Thailand, and Togo), representing 10 dierent languages. Japanese was the largest original-language group of the
sample (40%), followed by Taiwanese (22%). The third largest language group was Korean
(20%), and the remaining groups comprised 18% of the sample (see Table 1).
The IEP is a language learning institute for pre-admissions university ESL students.
The participants reported having studied English in this IEP for total periods of time ranging from at least one month to one and a half years. The students years of formal English
instruction (i.e., English learned in any academic setting) ranged from 1 to 10. The majority of the participants were learning English to seek higher education or to earn a degree
after completion of the IEP. In the beginning of the program, a placement test was given
to all students, and they were placed in one of six English prociency levels from Level 1
Table 1
Demographic description of participants
n

English prociency
Beginning
Intermediate
Advanced

11
30
14

20.0
54.5
25.5

Gender
Male
Female

25
30

45.5
54.5

Self-rated English prociency

Beginning
Intermediate
Advanced

17
31
7

30.9
56.4
12.7

Nationality
Japan
Taiwan
Korea
China
Indonesia
German
Brazil
Malaysia
Togo
Thai

22
12
11
3
2
1
1
1
1
1

40.0
22.0
20.0
5.5
3.6
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8

K. Hong-Nam, A.G. Leavell / System 34 (2006) 399415

403

(Beginning) to Level 6 (Advanced) according to the results of the language screening

admissions testing. The test assesses listening, speaking, reading, grammar, and composition. IEP learners engage in some form of language instruction in English for 45 hours
daily in the classroom. Students may also take advantage of the language learning lab
at their convenience.
4.2. Instruments
The Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL version 7.0 for ESL/EFL learners, 50 items), a self-report questionnaire, was used to assess the frequency of use of language learning strategies (Oxford, 1990). The SILL has been employed as a key instrument
in numerous studies. Studies have reported reliability coecients for the SILL ranging
from .85 to .98 making it a trusted measure for gauging students reported language learning strategy use (Bremner, 1998; Oxford and Burry-Stock, 1995; Park, 1997; Sheorey,
1999; Wharton, 2000). A Cronbachs a calculated for this study also revealed an acceptable reliability (.67). In the SILL, language learning strategies are grouped into six categories for assessment: Memory strategies for storing and retrieving information, Cognitive
strategies for understanding and producing the language, Compensation strategies for
overcoming limitations in language learning, Metacognitive strategies for planning and
monitoring learning, Aective strategies for controlling emotions, motivation, and Social
strategies for cooperating with others in language learning.
The SILL uses ve Likert-type responses for each strategy item ranging from 1 to 5 (i.e.,
from never or almost never true of me to always true of me). In this study, learners were
asked to respond to each item based on an honest assessment of their language learning
strategy use. Once completed, the SILL data furnishes a composite score for each category
of strategy. A reporting scale can be used to tell teachers and students which groups of
strategies they use the most in learning English: (1) High Usage (3.55.0), (2) Medium
Usage (2.53.4), and (3) Low Usage (1.02.4). Scale ranges were developed by Oxford
(1990).
An Individual Background Questionnaire (IBQ) was created by the researchers and was
distributed to collect demographic information about the students. Information collected
included nationality, home language, years of English study, time in the United States, and
time in the IEP. Participants were also asked to rate their English prociency (see Appendix A for the IBQ).
4.3. Data collection and analysis
The SILL was administrated to ESL students by the classroom teacher during a regular class period. The full descriptive instructions regarding the procedures of administration were provided to and discussed with the instructor of the classes before the
administration. The students were told that there were no right or wrong answers to
any question and that their condentiality was secured and their response would be used
for research purposes only. They were also informed that while their participation would
not aect their grades, they still had the option not to participate. All students chose to
ll out the surveys.
Data analyses included the computation of descriptive statistics (means, standard deviation, and frequencies) to compile information about demographics of the participants

404

K. Hong-Nam, A.G. Leavell / System 34 (2006) 399415

and to calculate overall strategy use. In order to determine any variation in strategy use
relative to English prociency, gender, and nationality, an analysis of variance (ANOVA)
was conducted using these factors as independent variables and the six categories of strategies as dependent variables. The Schee post-hoc test was used to nd where any significant dierences in strategy use lay.
5. Results
5.1. Overall strategy use
A one-way analyses of variance (ANOVA) revealed statistically signicant dierences
(F = 20.79, p = 0.00) in the overall use of strategies by participants (see Table 2). Specifically, the results of the Schee post-hoc test revealed a statistically signicant dierence in
the use of memory and aective strategies compared to cognitive, compensation, metacognitive, or social strategies. These four categories ranked high in use (M = 3.45.0). The
least preferred strategies were aective (M = 3.02) and memory (M = 3.04). The most preferred group of the six strategy categories for participants was metacognitive strategies
(M = 3.66) followed by social strategies (M = 3.62), compensation strategies,
(M = 3.59), and cognitive strategies (M = 3.44).
Table 3 ranks reported strategy use by individual item mean scores on the SILL for the
entire sample; results are presented in descending order from most to least used. The most
used strategy by participants was a compensation strategy, When I cant think of a word
during a conversation in English, I use gestures (M = 4.25). The least used item for the participants (and the only one that fell within the Low usage range of 1.02.4) was aective, I
notice if I am tense or nervous when I am studying or using English (M = 1.76).
5.2. Use of the strategies by English prociency
When participant data was grouped by tested English prociency (Beginning, Intermediate, or Advanced Level) data analysis revealed statistically signicant dierences for the
use of compensation strategies. (A summary of the ANOVA results for the use of six categories of strategies by English prociency is shown in Table 4.) Compensation strategies
were used more by the Intermediate level participants than the Advanced level (F = 5.04,
p = 0.01). The most preferred strategy category for students in Beginning and IntermediTable 2
Descriptive statistics for the variables and F-tests for main dierence between the six strategy categories
Variable

Mean

SD

Minimum

Maximum

Rank

Signicance

Dierence*

Memory
Cognitive
Compensation
Metacognitive
Aective
Social
Total

3.04
3.44
3.59
3.66
3.02
3.62
3.40

0.42
0.43
0.49
0.48
0.53
0.51
0.55

2.00
2.64
2.50
2.56
1.67
2.33
1.67

4.22
4.71
4.67
4.67
4.33
5.00
5.00

5
4
3
1
6
2

20.79

0.00

Mem, A < Cog,

Com, Met, Soc

Mem (Memory strategies), Cog (Cognitive strategies), Com (Compensation strategies), Met (Metacognitive
strategies), A (Aective strategies), Soc (Social strategies).
*
p < 0.05.

K. Hong-Nam, A.G. Leavell / System 34 (2006) 399415

405

Table 3
Preference of language learning strategies by ESL students
Strategy
category

Strategy
No.

Strategy
statement

High usage (M = 3.50 or above)

Com
25
When I cannot think of a word during
a conversation in English, I use gestures
A
44
I talk to someone else about
how I feel about learning English
Met
32
I pay attention when
someone is speaking English
Com
24
To understand unfamiliar
English words, I make guesses
Met
33
I try to nd out how to be
a better learner of English
Cog
12
I practice the sounds of English
Com
29
If I cant think of an English word,
I use a word or phrase that
means the same thing
Met
38
I think about my
progress in learning English
Cog
11
I try to talk like
native English speakers
Soc
48
I ask for help from English speakers
Met
31
I notice my English mistakes and use
that information to help me do better
Cog
15
I watch TV shows spoken in English or
go to movies spoken in English
A
39
I try to relax whenever
I feel afraid of using English
Cog
20
I try to nd patterns (grammar) in English
Soc
46
I ask English speakers to correct me when I talk
Met
37
I have clear goals for improving my English skills
Cog
14
I start conversations in English
Met
35
look for people I can talk to in English
Met
30
I try to nd as many ways as
I can to use my English
Soc
49
I ask questions in English
Soc
50
I try to learn about the
culture of English speakers
Cog
17
I write notes, messages,
letters or reports in English
Mem
1
I review English lessons often
Medium Usage (M = 2.53.4)
Cog
10
I say or write new
English words several times
Soc
47
I practice English with other students
Mem
2
I use new English words in a sentence
so I can remember them
Mem
3
I connect the sound of a new
English word and an image or
picture of the word to
help me remember the word

Rank

Mean

4.25

4.16

4.13

4.05

4.02

6
7

3.98
3.95

3.89

3.84

10
11

3.84
3.82

12

3.78

13

3.78

14
15
16
17
18
19

3.67
3.67
3.64
3.60
3.60
3.58

20
21

3.56
3.56

22

3.51

23

3.50

24

3.45

25
26

3.42
3.40

27

3.40

(continued on next page)

406

K. Hong-Nam, A.G. Leavell / System 34 (2006) 399415

Table 3 (continued)
Strategy
category

Strategy
No.

Strategy
statement

Rank

Mean

Cog

19

28

3.40

Cog

18

29

3.38

Cog

21

30

3.29

Cog
Met

13
36

31
32

3.27
3.24

41

33

3.24

Mem
Com
Com

4
27
28

34
35
36

3.20
3.18
3.15

A
Soc

43
45

37
38

3.09
3.09

Met

34

39

3.04

Cog
Cog
Mem

16
22
8

40
41
42

3.02
3.02
3.00

Com

26

43

2.98

Cog

23

44

2.95

Mem

I look for words in my own language that

are similar to new words in English
I rst skim (read over the passage quickly) an
English passage then go back and read carefully
I nd the meaning of an English word by
dividing it into parts that I understand
I use the English words I know in dierent ways
I look for opportunities to read
as much as possible in English
I give myself a reward or treat
when I do well in English
I use ashcards to remember new English words
I read English without looking up every new word
I try to guess what the other
person will say next in English
I write down my feelings in a language learning diary
If I do not understand something in English,
I ask the other person to slow down or say it again
I plan my schedule so I will have
enough time to study English
I read for pleasure in English
I try not to translate word-for-word
I make connection between what
I already know and new things I learn in English
I make up new words if I do not
know the right ones in English
I make summaries of information
that I hear or read in English
I remember new English words by
remembering their location on the page,
on the board, or on a street sign
I encourage myself to speak English
even when I am afraid of making a mistake
I physically act out new English words
I use rhymes to remember new English words
I remember a new English word by imagining
(mental picture) a situation in which the word might be used

45

2.90

46

2.82

47
48
49

2.80
2.70
2.50

50

1.76

A
Mem
Mem
Mem

40
7
5
6

Low Usage (M = 2.4 or below)

A
42
I notice if I am tense or nervous
when I am studying or using English

Mem (Memory strategies), Cog (Cognitive strategies), Com (Compensation strategies), Met (Metacognitive
strategies), A (Aective strategies), Soc (Social strategies).

ate levels were metacognitive strategies (M = 3.51 and M = 3.77, respectively). The most
frequently used strategies for the Advanced group were social strategies, (M = 3.67). The
least preferred categories for Beginning and Intermediate groups were aective strategies
(M = 3.21 and M = 2.92, respectively), and for Advanced and Beginning levels were memory strategies, (M = 2.97 and M = 3.21, respectively).

K. Hong-Nam, A.G. Leavell / System 34 (2006) 399415

407

Table 4
Summary of variation in use of strategy categories by English prociency (Level)
Variables

Beginning

Intermediate

Advanced

Signicance

Dierence*

Adv < Int

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

Mem
Cog
Com
Met
A
Soc

3.21
3.41
3.40
3.51
3.21
3.39

0.40
0.42
0.49
0.45
0.58
0.59

3.01
3.49
3.76
3.77
2.92
3.69

0.39
0.48
0.50
0.38
0.53
0.46

2.97
3.37
3.37
3.55
3.07
3.67

0.48
0.33
0.30
0.65
0.46
0.54

1.22
0.43
5.04
1.79
1.32
1.44

0.31
0.66
0.01
0.18
0.28
0.25

Total

3.35

0.49

3.44

0.57

3.33

0.52

1.46

0.23

Mem (Memory strategies), Cog (Cognitive strategies), Com (Compensation strategies), Met (Metacognitive
strategies), A (Aective strategies), Soc (Social strategies), Adv = Advanced, Int = Intermediate.
*
p < 0.05.

5.3. Use of the strategies by gender

Table 5 shows results for the use of language learning strategies when participants were
grouped by gender. Although the dierence in overall strategy use between male and
female students was not statistically signicant, a statistically signicant dierence in the
use of aective strategies was found between males and females (F = 3.98, p = 0.05), with
females reporting higher use of aective strategies. Mean dierences revealed that females
(M = 3.45) engaged in strategy use more frequently than males (M = 3.34). Males favored
the use of metacognitive (M = 3.65) and compensation strategies (M = 3.62) most, and
aective strategies the least (M = 2.87). Female participants reported using social
(M = 3.70) and metacognitive strategies (M = 3.67) most and memory strategies the least
(M = 3.06).
5.4. Use of the strategies by nationality
As shown in Table 1, the majority of participants were from Japan, Taiwan, Korea, or
China (87.5%). Because some nationalities had very low representation, certain subgroups
were combined in order to evaluate statistically possible dierences in strategy use by
Table 5
Summary of variation in use of strategy categories by gender
F

Signicance

Dierence*

0.46
0.44
0.48
0.46
0.50
0.53

0.15
2.73
0.13
0.03
3.98
1.25

0.70
0.10
0.72
0.87
0.05
0.27

M<F

0.54

3.13

0.08

Variables

Male

Female

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

Mem
Cog
Com
Met
A
Soc

3.01
3.34
3.62
3.65
2.87
3.54

0.37
0.39
0.51
0.52
0.53
0.49

3.06
3.53
3.57
3.67
3.14
3.70

Total

3.34

0.55

3.45

Mem (Memory strategies), Cog (Cognitive strategies), Com (Compensation strategies), Met (Metacognitive
strategies), A (Aective strategies), Soc (Social strategies), M = male, F = female.
*
p < 0.05.

408

K. Hong-Nam, A.G. Leavell / System 34 (2006) 399415

Table 6
Summary of variation in use of strategy categories by nationality
Chinese
(n = 15)

Korean
(n = 11)

Signicance

Dierence*

0.43
0.40
0.69
0.59
0.48
0.56

0.42
0.91
1.50
4.35
1.87
1.22

0.74
0.44
0.23
0.01
0.15
0.31

C < J,O

0.59

1.85

0.15

Variables

Japanese
(n = 22)

Others
(n = 7)

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

Mem
Cog
Com
Met
A
Soc

3.00
3.45
3.67
3.80
2.86
3.62

0.48
0.38
0.43
0.35
0.56
0.39

3.00
3.50
3.58
3.39
3.00
3.78

0.27
0.49
0.48
0.40
0.47
0.62

3.08
3.26
3.35
3.53
3.29
3.39

0.48
0.46
0.44
0.57
0.50
0.54

3.19
3.56
3.79
4.02
3.14
3.67

Total

3.40

0.55

3.37

0.54

3.32

0.50

3.56

Mem (Memory strategies), Cog (Cognitive strategies), Com (Compensation strategies), Met (Metacognitive
strategies), A (Aective strategies), Soc (Social strategies), C = Chinese, J = Japanese, O = Others.
*
p < 0.05.

nationality. Because of the similarities between languages spoken in China and Taiwan
these groups were combined under the category Chinese. Additionally, the small
remaining number of students from other countries (n = 7), were grouped as Other.
The ultimate grouping by nationality was: Japanese (n = 22), Chinese (n = 15), Korean
(n = 11), and Other (n = 7).
As Table 6 shows, all participants engaged in active use of strategies in language learning regardless of their nationalities. ANOVA results revealed a statistically signicant difference in the use of metacognitive strategies for Japanese over Other (F = 4.35, p = 0.01)
Participants from Japan, Korea, and Other reported using use metacognitive strategies
most (M = 3.80, M = 3.53, and M = 4.02, respectively), while Chinese students preferred
to use social strategies most (M = 3.78). Aective strategies were least selected by Japanese
students (M = 2.86) and Other (M = 3.14), whereas the Korean group showed the least
use of memory strategies (M = 3.08). Chinese students reported the lowest use of both
memory and aective strategies (M = 3.00).
6. Discussion
6.1. Overall strategy use
When considered as one group, these second language learners reported using metacognitive and social strategies more frequently than any other strategy during their language
learning. ESL students in the IEP appeared familiar with the need to manage their learning
processes and indicated they were in control of planning, organizing, focusing, and evaluating their own learning, behaviors inherent in most denitions of metacognition (Borkowski et al., 1987).
The intensive learning environment of the IEP program may be a prime contributor
in several ways to the preferred use and selection of both metacognitive and social
strategies. In terms of metacognitive strategies, learners enrolled in intensive English
programs typically have a strong instrumental motivation for learning English. Unlike
learners who might enroll in a foreign language for fun or self-advancement or because

K. Hong-Nam, A.G. Leavell / System 34 (2006) 399415

409

a language course is required (what Diab (2000) refers to as integrative reasons), IEP
students are learning English to advance their academic and professional lives. The
(self-imposed) threat of failing the program is a huge motivator for taking control
of their learning. The sooner they graduate the program (which can only be accomplished by achieving adequate scores on the Test of English as a Foreign Language
(TOEFL)) the sooner they can begin taking regular university coursework. Ecient
planning and self-monitoring of ones learning progress (both metacognitive behaviors)
by the student are instrumental in achieving their goal of completion. Metacognitive
knowledge and increases in academic performance go hand in hand (Pintrich and Garcia, 1994).
The IEP may also play a role in high use of social strategies by participants, many
of whom showed a strong preference for learning with others by asking questions and
cooperating with peers. This particular IEP has a very student-oriented philosophy
underpinning its curriculum. In terms of the participants high social strategy use,
which is a departure in some ways from culturally driven learning practices that are
more independent, the environment (e.g., high availability of native-English speakers
around the students) of and instruction in the IEP strongly encourage and support
more interactive learning for the sake of developing greater linguistic uency. These
ndings are in line with those of Phillips (1991) study of Asian ESL students also
enrolled in college IEPs who used social strategies more than aective and memory
strategies.
The least favored strategies by participants in this study were aective strategies and
memory strategies. In terms of aect, these learners reported that despite eorts to relax
when they were uncertain about speaking English, their fears of making a mistake often
kept them from trying. Asian cultural mores encourage listening to others and discourage
public discussion of feelings. As the majority of the students participating in this investigation were Asian, their upbringing and previous school experiences may have impacted
their behavior in this area (Politzer, 1983; Reid, 1987).
Low use of memory strategies was initially surprising in that these are largely in keeping
with instructional delivery systems typically employed in many Asian countries which are
frequently didactic and emphasize rote memorization. However, further examination of
the literature revealed that other studies have also had contradictory ndings to this perhaps too common assumption that Asian students have strong preferences for memory
strategies rather than communicative strategies such as working with others, asking for
help, and cooperating with peers (Al-Otaibi, 2004; Bremner, 1998; Politzer and McGroarty, 1985; Wharton, 2000; Yang, 1999).
Again the impact of the IEP training might have inuenced changes in student strategy preferences. Another possibility is that memory strategies can be dened dierently
in dierent studies. Politzer and McGroarty (1985) found strong preferences for ESL
learners for using memory strategies. They dened memory strategies as rote-memorization of words, phrases, and sentences. By contrast, the least used memory strategies in
the SILL for the current study were not related whatsoever to rote memorization, rather
they were things like acting out new vocabulary, using rhymes, and creating a mental or
spatial image. It is possible these were less popular with adult learners and thus not
used as much or at all. Memory strategies that did rank higher were those such as
reviewing English lessons frequently, and using words in sentences, more traditional
study skills.

410

K. Hong-Nam, A.G. Leavell / System 34 (2006) 399415

6.2. Strategy use by English prociency

While prociency level does not necessarily equate with amount of language learning
(i.e., number of years), more experienced language learners have been shown to use more
strategies (Bremner, 1998; Green and Oxford, 1995; Oxford and Burry-Stock, 1995; Park,
1997; Sheorey, 1999; Wharton, 2000). Research examining strategy use and English prociency of ESL students has shown a positive linear relationship between the two factors
(Bremner, 1998; Green and Oxford, 1995; Oxford and Nyikos, 1989; Wharton, 2000).
However, the current study found that when students were grouped by both tested and
self-rated English prociency, the students at the intermediate level reported using more
overall strategies than beginners or advanced language learners. Only one other study (Phillips, 1991) also showed this curvilinear relationship between strategy use and language
prociency.
In order to shed light on this unexpected nding, we turned to the extant literature on
how strategic learning abilities develop along the continuum from novice learner to expert.
In their classic work on strategic reading, Paris et al. (1994) identied three kinds of
knowledge acquired as learners progress from novice to expert: declarative knowledge,
procedural knowledge and conditional knowledge. Declarative knowledge is described
as knowledge about learning tasks (i.e., I know that speaking English and writing English
require dierent types of grammar) and personal abilities (i.e., I am good at speaking English). Procedural knowledge is knowledge about how to learn. Knowing how to scan text
for answers to objective questions, knowing how to make inferences from text, and knowing how to summarize are examples of procedural knowledge. While both of these types of
knowledge are necessary to move a learner along the continuum from novice to expert,
they alone are not enough. A third type of knowledge, conditional knowledge, completes
the triarchy of strategic learning by allowing the reader or learner to orchestrate his or her
learning by choosing the correct strategy for the correct task.
Using our understanding of these three types of strategic knowledge as a window
through which to view the ndings regarding prociency and strategy use, the following
explanation seems plausible. Beginning L2 learners may possess little in the way of declarative knowledge regarding their second language learning, much less conditional knowledge about how to eectively apply learning strategies (Phillips, 1991). However,
intermediate level learners have reached a point in their learning where they have gained
enough vocabulary and competence with the L2, along with some procedural knowledge
to be able to step back and reect on how eectively their learning process is working. Such
reection is a primary characteristic of learners who are able to move beyond the basic levels of memorizing vocabulary and grammar structures. As learners engage in more active
management of their language learning strategy choices and out the ways of learning that
are best for them, their heightened level of awareness means they are very conscious of how
they are learning. It would follow that they would report more strategy use.
For the advanced learners, the results indicate that once language learners reach this
high level of language prociency, their need to consciously administer and deliberate
about their learning choices becomes less necessary. Their learning process becomes more
intrinsic and is so well established they need only be conscious of their process if they are
confronted with a very dicult or novel learning task. Carl Bereiter (1995) describes this
internalization as resulting from the deepest and most thorough understanding (p. 23),
whereby the process becomes so incorporated into the way we perceive the world and

K. Hong-Nam, A.G. Leavell / System 34 (2006) 399415

411

comprehend communications . . . [we] should not have to remember to transfer the learning, but experience it automatically (p. 24). Advanced learners habitual and successful
application of language strategies may be so internalized that they do not report what has
become for them an automated process, thus their strategy use appears to be lower than
that of the intermediate group.
It was interesting to note that students in advanced levels used social strategies more
than any other levels. With increased prociency came increased condence, allowing
the learners to interact with others by practicing their language knowledge to promote
communicative skills. The high sense of condence in learning English is likely to encourage students to use various strategies with more emphasis on the use of social and functional practice strategies (Horwitz, 1987; Siebert, 2003; Yang, 1999).
6.3. Strategy use by gender
Much research has shown that females tend to use more learning strategies than males
(Ehrman and Oxford, 1989; Oxford, 1990; Oxford and Ehrman, 1995; Politzer, 1983;
Oxford and Nyikos, 1989; Green and Oxford, 1995). The ndings of this study bear this
out. There was a statistically signicant dierence in aective strategy use by females.
(Women also used social strategies more according to mean dierences; however, there
was no statistical signicance). Women tend to build relationships and use social networks
with greater consistency than men. Thus, this use of emotional and social support systems
in the context of language learning is not unexpected.
6.4. Strategy use by nationality
Several studies have found that cultural background is related to language strategy use
(Bedell and Oxford, 1996; Grainger, 1997; Oxford and Burry-Stock, 1995; Politzer, 1983;
Reid, 1987; Wharton, 2000). However, culture as a construct is incredibly complex. As
Oxford (1990) has stressed, it would be impossible (and undesirable) to try to attribute
one particular language learning approach to a specic cultural group. The only statistically
signicant dierence was in the use of metacognitive strategies by Japanese and Others.
Mean dierences did indicate certain preferences by nationality groups, i.e., Chinese students favored social strategies while all others favored metacognitive. Since over 87% of this
studys sample is Asian, it is tempting to want to embrace a popular belief about frequent use
of strategies like rote-memorization by Asian students. Nevertheless, ndings of this study
and others reject this assumption (Phillips, 1991; Sheorey, 1999; Yang, 1999; Wharton,
2000). Educators should be mindful that there are individual dierences among students
regardless of socio-cultural, educational, and other aspects of individual backgrounds.
7. Conclusion and implications
This study showed that English language learners enrolled in an intensive English program were clearly aware that learning strategies were a part of their language learning process. Strategy use reported by these learners indicated a high preference for metacognitive
strategies which helped them in directing, organizing, and planning their language learning
(metacognitive strategies). The teacher of these students can facilitate learning by addressing both content and process. For example, instead of handing out a simple list of 40

412

K. Hong-Nam, A.G. Leavell / System 34 (2006) 399415

vocabulary words, the teacher can organize the terms in groups based on a unifying concept for each group. The teacher should also take a few minutes to tell students how and
why the terms are organized as they are and how the graphic organization of the terms can
have a positive impact on their understanding. This explicit attention to building strategic
awareness in learners has been shown to be quite successful in enhancing their skills as
learners (Keene and Zimmermann, 1997).
Diculty in dealing with anxiety related to language learning was reported by most
participants. The women in the current study appeared to utilize their social networks
as a means of support. While male participants apparently did not prefer to talk to their
peers about their feelings, students might benet from an opportunity to journal for a few
minutes at the end of each learning session as to how they felt about class and their performance on that day. This may help students express feelings in a more private way, and
recognize how those feelings may have impacted the days learning. In addition, as trust is
built between teacher and student, the instructor may request access to journal entries
which would provide an additional source of information useful in mediating students
progress.
Last, the nding that learners at the intermediate level report more strategy use than
beginners or advanced students indicates that learners at dierent levels have dierent
needs in terms of teacher intervention in the learning process. For beginning learners,
the teacher needs to be explicit in developing declarative and procedural knowledge that
helps heighten understanding of the what and how of successful language learning. This
metacognitive awareness of how students can control and positively impact their language
learning must be supported until the crucial element of conditional knowledge is in place;
only then can learners reach independence in their language learning.
Relating daily learning tasks to students prior knowledge of how they learn best is very
important. Beginning language learners tend to be more passive due to shyness or lack of
vocabulary. In terms of content, the teachers role would be to increase vocabulary and
perhaps to introduce simple conversation opportunities as early as possible to build condence and uency. Eective teachers should consider each learning task from a novices
perspective and scaold the learning process through purposeful strategy choices. He or
she can use the strategy as an instructional technique and be sure to discuss with students
why one particular approach may be a better way to learn. For example, in introducing a
verb or group of verbs that involves actions, (to talk, to sit, to run) the teacher might demonstrate the actions (Total Physical Response) during the lesson and then talk to students
about the value of acting out (or at least visualizing) the action of the verb.
For intermediate students, the teachers role changes with the understanding that these
students have a growing body of strategic knowledge, along with a fair amount of content
(i.e., vocabulary, grammar, etc.). The task these learners face is how to select the right
strategies for specic learning tasks and for themselves as individuals. The teacher must
be cautious about imposing his or her own learning style upon the students; thus, the conversation around the learning should include questions like, What might be some dierent ways to approach this task, and which of those would work best for you? Selfreection is crucial here. The teacher should be prepared to give suggestions, but must also
allow students to make their own choices.
This is even truer for the advanced learners. The teacher must realize that they are
becoming autonomous in their ability to guide their learning and the teachers role shifts
from mediator to facilitator. If the teacher sees the student struggling, then he or she

K. Hong-Nam, A.G. Leavell / System 34 (2006) 399415

413

should intervene with assistance. At this advanced level, the teacher should step back and
let the student lead the way in terms of how he or she approaches the language learning
task. The teacher should consider the learning task in terms of what the student will be
able to accomplish independently before needing the teachers assistance. For example,
can students work in pairs or a small group to create a dialogue using the vocabulary
and grammar for the day? Then the teacher monitors their progress. The groups subsequently share their dialogue and the class assists in any changes or corrections. If the teacher is careful about ensuring students are prepared for such tasks, the activities can build
condence and greater independence for all language learners.
Appendix A. Individual background questionnaire
Please choose (only one) or write the most appropriate answer to you after reading each
statement.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

Age _____________________
Sex: Male _______ Female _______
Nationality _____________________________________________________
Level of your communication class 1 2 3 4 5 6
Language(s) you usually speak at home ________________________________
Language(s) you usually speak with your friends _____________________________
How long have you been studying English as second/foreign language in a formal
setting (school)? ____________________________________________
8. How long have you been in the Unites States? _______________________________
9. How long have you been studying English at IELI? ___________________________
10. What do you think is your level of English prociency?
Beginning

Intermediate

Advanced

References
Al-Otaibi, G.N., 2004. Language learning strategy use among Saudi EFL students and its relationship to
language prociency level, gender and motivation. Doctoral Dissertation, Indiana University of Pennsylvania,
Indiana, PA.
Bedell, D., Oxford, R.L., 1996. Cross-cultural comparisons of language strategies in the Peoples Republic of
China and other countries. In: Oxford, R. (Ed.), Language Learning Strategies around the World: CrossCultural Perspectives. University of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI, pp. 4760.
Bereiter, C., 1995. A dispositional view of transfer. In: McKeough, A., Lupart, J., Marini, A. (Eds.), Teaching for
Transfer: Fostering Generalization in Learning. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 2134.
Borkowski, J.G., Carr, M., Pressley, M., 1987. Spontaneous strategy use: Perspectives from metacognitive theory.
Intelligence 11, 6167.
Bremner, S., 1998. Language learning strategies and language prociency: Investigating the relationship in Hong
Kong. Asian Pacic Journal of Language in Education 1 (2), 490514.
Cummins, J., 1979. Cognitive/academic language prociency, linguistic interdependence, the optimum age
question and some other matters. Working Papers on Bilingualism 19, 121129.
Diab, R.L., 2000. Political and socio-cultural factors in foreign language education: the case of Lebanon. Texas
papers in Foreign Language education 5, 177187.
Ehrman, M., Oxford, R.L., 1989. Eects of sex dierences, career choice, and psychological type on adult
language learning strategies. Modern Language Journal 73, 113.

414

K. Hong-Nam, A.G. Leavell / System 34 (2006) 399415

Garcia, E.E., 2005. Teaching and Learning in Two Languages: Bilingualism and Schooling in the United States.
Teachers College Press, New York.
Grainger, P.R., 1997. Language-learning strategies for learners of Japanese: Investigating ethnicity. Foreign
Language Annals 30 (3), 378385.
Green, J., Oxford, R.L., 1995. A closer look at learning strategies, L2 prociency, and gender. TESOL Quarterly
29 (2), 261297.
Griths, C., Parr, J.M., 2001. Language-learning strategies: Theory and perception. ELT Journal 53 (3), 247
254.
Holec, H., 1981. Autonomy and Foreign Language Learning. Pergamon Press, Oxford.
Horwitz, E.K., 1987. Surveying student beliefs about language learning. In: Wenden, A., Rubin, J. (Eds.),
Learner Strategies in Language Learning. Prentice/Hall International, Englewood Clis, NJ, pp. 119129.
Keene, E.O., Zimmermann, S., 1997. Mosaic of Thought. Heinemann, Portmouth, NH.
Mansanares, L.K., Russo, R.P., 1985. Language learning: Learning strategies used by beginning and intermediate
ESL students. Language Learning 35 (1), 2142.
OMalley, J., Chamot, A., 1990. Learning Strategies in Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge.
OMalley, J.M., Chamot, A.U., Stewner-Manzanares, G., Russo, R.P., Kupper, L., 1985. Learning strategy
application with students of English as a second language. TESOL Quarterly 19 (3), 557584.
Oxford, R.L., 1990. Language Learning Strategies: What Every Teacher Should Know. Heinle and Heinle,
Boston, MA.
Oxford, R.L., 1993. Instructional implications of gender dierence in language learning styles and strategies.
Applied Language Learning 4, 6594.
Oxford, R.L., Burry-Stock, J., 1995. Assessing the use of language learning strategies worldwide with the ESL/
EFL version of the strategy inventory of language learning (SILL). System 23 (1), 123.
Oxford, R.L., Ehrman, M., 1995. Adults language learning strategies in an intensive foreign language program in
the United States. System 23 (3), 359386.
Oxford, R.L., Nyikos, M., 1989. Variables aecting choice of language learning strategies by university students.
The Modern Language Journal 73 (3), 291300.
Paris, S., Lipson, M., Wixson, K., 1994. Becoming a strategic reader. In: Ruddell, R., Ruddell, M., Singer, H.
(Eds.), Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading, fourth ed. International Reading Association, Chicago,
pp. 788810.
Park, G.P., 1997. Language learning strategies and English prociency in Korean University. Foreign Language
Annals 30 (2), 211221.
Phillips, V., 1991. A look at learner strategy use and ESL prociency. CATESOL Journal (Nov), 5767.
Pintrich, P.R., Garcia, T., 1994. Self-regulated learning in college students: Knowledge, strategies, and
motivation. [On line]. Available from: http://ccwf.cc.utaxas.edu/~tgarcia/p&gpub94pl.html.
Politzer, R., 1983. An exploratory study of self-reported language learning behaviors and their relation to
achievement. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 6, 5465.
Politzer, R., McGroarty, M., 1985. An exploratory study of learning behaviors and their relationship to gains in
linguistic and communicative competence. TESOL Quarterly 19, 103124.
Reid, J.M., 1987. The learning style preferences of ESL students. TESOL Quarterly 21, 87111.
Rubin, J., 1987. Learner strategies: Theoretical assumptions, research history and typology. In: Wenden, A.,
Rubin, J. (Eds.), Learner Strategies in Language Learning. Prentice/Hall International, Englewood Clis, NJ,
pp. 1530.
Sheorey, R., 1999. An examination of language learning strategy use in the setting of an indigenized variety of
English. System 27, 173190.
Shmais, W.A., 2003. Language learning strategy use in Palestine. TESL-EJ 7 (2), 117.
Siebert, L., 2003. Student and teacher beliefs about language learning. The ORTESOL Journal 21, 739.
Stern, H.H., 1975. What can we learn from the good language learner? Canadian Modern Language Review 31,
304318.
Tran, T.V., 1988. Sex dierences in English language acculturation and learning strategies among Vietnamese
adults aged 40 and over in the United States. Sex Roles 19, 747758.
Wenden, A., 1987. How to be a successful language learner: Insights and prescriptions from L2 learners. In:
Wenden, A., Rubin, J. (Eds.), Learner Strategies in Language Learning. Prentice/Hall International,
Englewood Clis, NJ, pp. 103118.

K. Hong-Nam, A.G. Leavell / System 34 (2006) 399415

415

Wharton, G., 2000. Language learning strategy use of bilingual foreign language learners in Singapore. Language
Learning 50 (2), 203243.
Yang, N.D., 1999. The relationship between EFL learners beliefs and learning strategy use. System 27, 515535.