Factors Affecting LLS

UsagePREPARED FOR:

PROF. DR. MOHAMED AMIN EMBIPREPARED BY:

NUR ALYAA SYAZWANI ZAINODINP73951

Introduction Language learning strategy use is one of the most important

factors in learning a language Shen (2005) revealed that selecting appropriate strategies

could enhance learner’s performance of second language learning

Oxford (1989) suggested that the variables that seem to influence language learning strategy choice include age, sex, attitudes, motivation, language learning goals, motivational orientation, learning style, aptitude, career orientation, national origin, language teaching methods and task requirements.

1. Learner Preferences (Learning Styles) It refers to an individual’s natural, habitual, and preferred way of

absorbing, processing, and retaining new information and skills (Reid 1995).

Types of learning styles related to L2 learning: Perceptual learning styles:

visual , aural/auditory , and haptic ( kinesthetic & tactile ) Cognitive learning styles: 1) field-independence vs. field- dependence 2) reflectivity vs. impulsivity 3) right-brain dominance vs. left-brain dominance 4) tolerance of ambiguity

Perceptual learning styles: Visual learner: learns more effectively through the eyes (seeing). Auditory ( aural ) learners: learns more effectively through the

ears (hearing). Haptic learner: learns more effectively through touch and body

movement (a combination of the kinesthetic and tactile styles). Kinesthetic learner: learns more effectively through concrete body

experience (body movement). Tactile learner: learns more effectively through touch (hands-on).

Cognitive learning styles (1): Field-Independence (FI) vs. Field-Dependence (FD)

FI is related to classroom language learning that involves analysis, attention to details, and mastering of exercise, drills, and other focused activities ( CALP ).

FD is related to the communicative aspects of language learning that require social outreach, empathy, perception of other people, and communicative skills ( BICS ).

FI/FD may also prove to be a valuable tool for differentiating child and adult language acquisition due to the fact that FI increases as a child matures to adulthood .

Cognitive learning styles (2): Reflectivity vs. impulsivity

Reflective learners tend to make a slower, more calculated decision. They are usually more systematic and more cautious in learning L2.

Impulsive learners tend to make a quick or gambling guess at an answer to a problem. They are usually more intuitive and more willing to take risks in learning L2.

Cognitive learning styles (3): Right-brain vs. left-brain dominance

The right brain perceives and remembers visual, tactile, and auditory images. It is more efficient in processing holistic , integrative , and emotional information.

The left brain is associated with logical , analytical thought , with mathematical and linear processing of information.

*Note: Though we all tend to have one hemisphere that is more dominant, it is important to remember that the left and right hemispheres operate together as a “team”. Most best solutions to problems are those in which each hemisphere has participated optimally.

Cognitive learning styles (4): Ambiguity tolerance

The person who is tolerant of ambiguity is willing to accept innovative and creative possibilities and not be cognitively or affectively disturbed by ambiguity and uncertainty.

In second language learning a great amount of apparently contradictory or ambiguous information is encountered (e.g., words, grammatical rules, and cultural systems in the L2 differ from the L1). Successful language learning requires tolerance of such ambiguities, at least for interim periods.

However, too much tolerance of ambiguity can have a detrimental effect . People can become “wishy-washy” and may make many mistakes without awareness when using the second language.

Research findings and implications: Every person, student or teacher, has a learning style; therefore,

there is no particular teaching or learning method that can suit the needs of all learners.

Learning styles exist on wide continuums, although they are often described as opposites.

Learning styles are value-neutral ; that is, no one style is better than others .

Very little research has examined the interaction between different learning styles and success in L2 learning; however, students should be encouraged to “stretch” their learning styles so that they will be more empowered in a variety of leaning situations.

2. Gender

Gender is one of the factor that influences the use of language learning strategies (Khamkhien, 2010)

Hong-Nam and Leavell (2006), for example, investigated learning strategy use of 55 students learning English as a second language (ESL).

They claimed that female students engaged in strategy use more frequently than males, where these female students preferred to use Social and Metacognitive strategies the most and Memory strategies the least, while males favored the use of Metacognitive and Compensation strategies the most and Affective strategies the least.

Nonetheless, other studies pointed out that gender might not be one of key variables affecting the choices of language learning strategies (Khamkhien, 2010)

For example, Griffiths (2003) investigated the relationship between course level and frequency of language learning strategies used by 114 male students and 234 females. Employing the 50-item SILL, a significant relationship between strategy use and course level was found, while there was no statistically significant differences according to either gender or age with strategy use.

Congruent with Griffiths’ findings, Ma (1999) revealing that gender had no significant effect on the choices of such strategies as Memory, Metacognitive and Affective strategies. However, a significant difference was found in strategy choice by students of different majors.

In this regard, it can be said that the relationship between gender and learning strategies are not explicit due to conflicting results generated by previous studies.

3. Experiences in studying a language Experience in studying language is also regarded one of the factors that it

is claimed may affect the choices of language learning strategies. A small number of studies have been carried out investigating the

relationship between the experience of English study and language strategy use.

Purdie and Oliver (1999) reported the language learning strategies used by bilingual school-aged children coming from three main cultural groups: Asian (predominantly Vietnamese or Chinese dialect speakers), European (children who spoke Greek and those who identified them-selves as speakers of Macedonian), and speakers of Arabic. The results showed students who had been in Australia for a longer period of time (3 or less years and 4 or more) obtained significantly higher mean scores for Cognitive strategies and for Memory strategies.

These findings, thus, can serve as the insight that experience in studying a language can affect the language learning strategy choices.

4. Motivation Motivation and attitudes are the primary sources contributing to individual

language learning (Gardner, 1985) According to Gardner, the phenomenon of motivation consists of four components:

a goal, effort, want and attitudes toward the learning activity (Khamkhien, 2010). The concept of motivation can be classified into two orientations of reasons:

Instrumental integrative.

The former refers to the individual’s willingness and interest in having social interaction with members of the L2 (second language) group. This orientation occurs when students wish to truly become part of the culture of the language being learned.

An instrumental orientation is more self-oriented, described as when students have utilitarian reasons such as they want to pass an exam or they want to get a job.

This statement was supported by Gardner and MacIntyre (1993), concluding that both instrumental and integrative orientations lead to more proficiency, but integrative orientation motivated students to learn more.

A comprehensive study conducted by Pintrich and Schunk (2002) pointed out that motivation involves all activities in the classroom, affecting learning of new behaviors and the performance of earlier learned behaviors.

Mochizuki’s (1999) study, for example, indicated that, after being assured by the Second Grade Test of the Society of Testing English Proficiency (STEP) and the 80-item SILL, 44 second-year and 113 first-year Japanese students used Compensation strategies the most often and Affective ones the least.

Yang (1999) found that there are positive correlation between motivation level and use of LLS.

More motivated learners used more learning strategies, and more frequently (McIntyre & Noels 1996)

Number of learning strategies associated with motivation level (Chang & Huang 1999)

Study by Tamada (1996) found that instrumental and integrative motivation had significant effect on choice of LLS among Japanese students in England.

5. Proficiency Level High level of proficiency is associated with increased use of both direct and

indirect strategies (Green & Oxford 1995; Park 1997; Chen 2002) In Park (1997) and Peacock and Ho’s (2003) studies, a linear correlation and

significant correlations between strategy use and proficiency level were found among Korean EFL learners and university students in Hong Kong respectively

There are high correlation between the use of Cognitive and metacognitive strategies with high language proficiency levels (Peacock & Ho 2003)

Differences in levels of proficiency gave rise to different frequencies of strategy use: Intermediate students used metacognitive strategies more than beginners,

while the latter used more translation strategies (O’Malley et al. 1985) Low-proficiency students used more communication strategies than high-

proficiency ones (Chen 1990) Low-proficiency students outperformed the high-proficiency ones in their use of

compensation strategies (Chen 2002)

Proficient students used more overall strategies, but significantly more cognitive, metacognitive and affective strategies than less-proficient ones (Radwan 2011)

High-proficiency students used compensation strategies more frequently than others while low-proficiency ones used social strategies most (Paul 2011)

Students with high-level of English proficiency used more strategies more frequently (Rao 2012)

That’s all.