122551885 Language Learning Strategies

http://rel.sagepub.com/RELC Journal

http://rel.sagepub.com/content/36/3/245The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/0033688205060050

2005 36: 245RELC JournalMary Siew-Lian Wong

Relationship in MalaysiaLanguage Learning Strategies and Language Self-Efficacy : Investigating the

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:RELC JournalAdditional services and information for

http://rel.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://rel.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://rel.sagepub.com/content/36/3/245.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This?

- Nov 11, 2005Version of Record >>

by guest on January 28, 2013rel.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://rel.sagepub.com/

http://rel.sagepub.com/content/36/3/245

http://www.sagepublications.com

http://rel.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://rel.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://rel.sagepub.com/content/36/3/245.refs.html

http://rel.sagepub.com/content/36/3/245.full.pdf

http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtml


Article

Language Learning Strategies and Language Self-Efficacy:

Investigating the Relationship in Malaysia*

Mary Siew-Lian Wong

Batu Lintang Teachers’ College, Malaysia [email protected]

Abstract This study explored graduate pre-service teachers’ language learning

strategies and language self-efficacy and the relationship between these two con-

structs. Seventy-four graduate English-as-a-second-language (ESL) pre-service teach-

ers (13 males, 61 females) from a teachers’ college in Kuching, Sarawak, Malaysia,

participated in this study. These pre-service teachers were in a one-year Diploma in

Education course to prepare them to teach English in school. Six categories of lan-

guage learning strategies were identified from their responses to seven hypothetical

learning contexts. Pearson correlation coefficients show that there was a significant

positive relationship between language learning strategies and language self-efficacy.

Interview findings were in agreement with the above findings. High self-efficacy pre-

service teachers reported more frequent use of more number of language learning

strategies than did low self-efficacy pre-service teachers. Implications and sugges-

tions for further research are put forward.

Introduction

Learning strategies and the factors that influence their use have received

much attention in recent years since it became widely accepted that learn-

ing is a process and the role of the teacher is to facilitate that process. In

the area of language learning, there has been much focus on these aspects

too, particularly regarding second language (L2) acquisition. Over the past

two decades, researchers (O’Malley and Chamot 1990; Oxford 1990; Stern

1992) have attempted to identify and categorize language learning strate-

gies of good language learners. Studies focused on identifying what good

language learners report they do or are observed doing when they learn a

Vol 36(3) 245-269 | DOI: 10.1177/0033688205060050 © 2005 SAGE Publications (London, Thousand Oaks CA and New Delhi) http://RELC.sagepub.com



246

Regional Language Centre Journal 36.3

second or foreign language. There has also been increased focus on the

role of affect in influencing use of learning strategies. Stevick (1980), a

strong proponent of humanism in language teaching, argued that ‘…[lan-

guage learning] success depends less on materials, techniques and linguis-

tic analyses, and more on what goes on inside and between the people in

the classroom’ (p. 4). Oxford (1994) emphasized that L2 research should

not just focus on the intellectual but also the social and affective aspects of

language learning as learners are not just cognitive or metacognitive

machines but whole persons.

Language Learning Strategies

Early research into language learning strategies was concerned with

attempting to establish what good language learning strategies might be.

Studies focused on identifying what good language learners report they

do or are observed doing when they learn a second or foreign language.

The methods of data collection used included observations, interviews,

student self-reports and diaries, and questionnaires. Rubin (1975), sug-

gested that good L2 learners (1) are willing and accurate guessers, (2) have

a strong drive to communicate, (3) are often uninhibited, (4) are willing to

practice opportunities, (5) monitor their speech as well as that of others,

and (6) pay attention to meaning.

Naiman, Frolich, Stern, and Todesco (1978) conducted interviews with

adults in a major classroom study of learners of French as a second lan-

guage and suggested that language learning strategies form only one part

of a broader picture of what constitutes a ‘good language learner’. They

argue that further research needs ‘to study critically the different invento-

ries of learning strategies and techniques and to develop an exhaustive

list, clearly related to a learning model’ (Naiman et al. 1978: 220). This

challenge was taken up by O’Malley and his colleagues (O’Malley et al.

1985a, 1985b) in their work with native speakers of Spanish. O’Malley

and Chamot (1990) established that three types of strategies, namely

metacognitive, cognitive and social/affective, were being used. Within

the metacognitive category were those strategies which involve knowing

about learning and controlling learning through plannin, monitoring and

evaluating learning activity, cognitive strategies included those strategies

involving manipulation or transformation of the material to be learned,

while social/affective strategies mainly involved the learner in commu-

nicative interaction with another person, for example, collaboration with

peers and teachers in the learning process.



247

Language Learning Strategies and Language Self-Efficacy

Oxford (1990) also developed a system of language learning strategies

that is believed (Jones 1998) to be more comprehensive and detailed than

earlier classification models. She saw the aim of language learning strate-

gies as being oriented towards the development of communicative com-

petence. Oxford (1990) divided strategies into two major classes: direct

and indirect. Direct strategies, which ‘involve direct learning and use of

the subject matter, in this case a new language’ are subdivided into three

groups: memory strategies, cognitive strategies, and compensation strate-

gies; Indirect strategies, which ‘contribute indirectly but powerfully to

learning’ (pp. 11-12) are also subdivided into three groups: metacogni-

tive strategies, affective strategies, and social strategies. According to

Oxford (1990), memory strategies such as creating mental linkages and

employing actions, aid in entering information into long-term memory

and retrieving information when needed for communication. Cognitive

strategies, such as analyzing and reasoning, are used for forming and

revising internal mental modes and receiving and producing messages in

the target language. Compensation strategies, such as guessing unknown

words while listening and reading or using circumlocution in speaking

and writing, are needed to overcome any gaps in knowledge of the lan-

guage. Metacognitive strategies help learners exercise executive control

planning, arranging, focusing, and evaluation of their own learning proc-

ess. Affective strategies enable learners to control feelings, motivation,

and attitudes related to language learning. Social strategies, such as asking

questions and cooperation with others, facilitate interaction with others,

often in a discourse situation. Logically, individuals will apply different

strategies depending on their personality, cognitive style, and the task at

hand.

Stern (1992: 262-66) suggested that there are five main types of lan-

guage learning strategies, namely management and planning strategies,

cognitive strategies, communicative-experiential strategies, interpersonal

strategies, and affective strategies. Management and planning strategies

are related to the learner’s intention to direct his own learning. Cognitive

strategies are steps or operations used in learning or problem solving that

require direct analysis, transformation, or synthesis of learning materials.

Communicative-experiential strategies, such as circumlocution, gesturing,

paraphrasing or asking for repetition or explanation are techniques used

by learners so as to keep a conversation going. Interpersonal strategies are

those strategies learners use to monitor their own development and evalu-

ate their own performance. Affective strategies are those strategies used to



248


overcome negative feelings, frustration, anxiety, and self-consciousness

when trying to use the language.

The above review shows that over the past two decades, researchers

have come up with L2 strategy classification systems of different typolo-

gies. As Oxford (1994) observed, the lack of a coherent, well-accepted

system for describing these learning strategies indicates that there is a

major problem in the research on classification of L2 learning strategies.

One of the main aims of this study was to identify the language learning

strategies of ESL graduate pre-service teachers using Oxford’s (1994)

system of language learning strategies as a guideline.

Self-Efficacy and Language Learning Strategies

Research has shown that performance can be facilitated by the enhance-

ment of self-efficacy, that is, ‘people’s judgments of their capabilities to

organize and execute courses of action required to attain designated types

of performances’ (Bandura 1986: 391). Perceptions of self-efficacy influ-

ence motivation; they determine the goals individuals set, the effort they

expend to achieve these goals, and their willingness to persist in the face

of failure (Bandura 1986). In the area of language acquisition, researchers

have found that many students learning ESL have a low sense of self-

efficacy and a lack of learning strategies to help them gain proficiency in

the language (Horwitz et al. 1986; Oxford and Shearin 1994). These

factors in turn undermine their motivation to learn and their performance

in English-referent academic tasks. Low self-efficacy hinders their par-

ticipation in learning activities (Bandura 1986; Schunk 1991) while lack

of learning strategies prohibits them from solving problems they encoun-

ter in language learning. There is research evidence that self-efficacy is

related to motivation to learn (Pintrich 1999; Wolters and Rosenthal

2000) and to a greater use of learning strategies (Wong and Siow 2003;

Zimmerman and Martinez-Pons 1990). This important role of affect in

learning has resonated strongly with the intuitions of many second and

foreign language teachers. However, there is need for more studies con-

ducted in the local educational and cultural context to provide insights

into students’ use of language learning strategies and how this is related

to their language self-efficacy beliefs.

The Statement of the Problem

Over the past three decades, research in second language (L2) acquisi-

tion has confirmed hypotheses that language learning is indeed enhanced



249


by attention to affect. There have been many studies on language anxi-

ety (Horwitz et al. 1986; Horwitz and Young 1991; MacIntyre and

Gardner 1989; Price 1991; Young 1990) and self-confidence (Clément

et al. 1994; Clément and Kruidenier 1985; Gardner et al. 1997) in L2

learning, but relatively few documented studies on a related aspect, that

is, task-specific language self-efficacy. Two intervention studies (Chamot

et al. 1993; Chamot, Robbins and El-Dinary 1993) examined the effects

of metacognitive, cognitive, and social strategy instruction received by

learners of Japanese, Russian and Spanish. Among other measures, stu-

dents completed learning strategy questionnaires in which they reported

their frequency of strategy use in performing specific L2 tasks, and self-

efficacy questionnaires in which they rated their perceptions of their

ability to complete those particular tasks. Positive relationships between

the frequent use of learning strategies and perceptions of self-efficacy

were found in most groups. This survey-correctional study aimed to add

to the findings of research in this area.

Meanwhile, a review of the literature revealed that there are hardly

any documented records of local studies on ESL students’ language self-

efficacy and the language learning strategies they use. Insights into these

two constructs and how they are related would enable English teachers to

be better able to help students facing problems in learning English. Fu-

rthermore, in view of the Malaysian Government’s recent move to revive

the use of English as a medium of instruction in schools, starting with

teaching and learning of Science and Mathematics in Year One, Form

One, and Lower Six in January 2003 (‘English at three levels’, 2002), this

study is a timely investigation that would contribute to efforts to meet the

urgent need for teachers of English, Science and Mathematics. This need

to gain insights into ESL learners’ language learning strategies and lan-

guage self-efficacy becomes even more compelling when they are pre-

service teachers being trained to teach ESL students in school.

Objectives of the Study

This study therefore aimed to (1) identify the self-reported graduate ESL

pre-service teachers’ language learning strategies, (2) investigate the rela-

tionship between graduate ESL pre-service teachers’ language learning

strategies and their language self-efficacy beliefs, and (3) gain insights

into how low self-efficacy and high self-efficacy graduate ESL pre-

service teachers improve their proficiency in English.



250


Research Questions

The following research questions were addressed in this study:

(i) What are the self-reported language learning strategies of gradu-

ate ESL pre-service teachers?

(ii) Is there any significant correlation between the self-reported

graduate ESL pre-service teachers’ language learning strategies

and their language self-efficacy beliefs?

(iii) How do low self-efficacy and high self-efficacy graduate ESL

pre-service teachers improve their proficiency in English?

Method

Participants

Participants were 74 (13 males, 61 females) graduate pre-service teachers

undergoing a one-year Diploma in Education course in a teachers’ college

in Kuching, the capital city of the State of Sarawak, Malaysia. They were

in four intact groups (n = 18, n = 19, n = 20, and n = 17). They were being

trained to teach English in school. The age of the participants ranged from

23 to 34 years, with a mean age of 26.11 years (SD = 2.24). They con-

sisted of 46% Malays (n = 34), 30% Chinese (n = 22), 23% Ibans (n = 17),

and 1% Indian (n = 1). All participants had studied English as a subject in

school for at least 11 years.

Instruments

Language Self-Efficacy Scale

A Language Self-Efficacy Scale was developed to assess participants’ self-

efficacy in English. The ten items in the scale were English learning tasks

involving the use of the four basic skills namely reading, writing, speak-

ing and listening, and correct grammar. In keeping with how academic

self-efficacy is assessed (Pajares 1996; Zimmerman and Bandura 1994;

Zimmerman and Martinez-Pons 1990), the pre-service teachers were not

required to carry out the tasks. They were only required to give realistic

estimates of their confidence in carrying out the tasks correctly. The

approximate time allotted for them to attend to each item was about 30

seconds only. They were asked to rate their confidence in carrying out

each task correctly on a ten-point scale. Two experienced college English

lecturers who were currently teaching the pre-service teachers were asked



251


to comment on the suitability of the ten items. Their suggestions and

comments were taken into account in improving the scale. The resultant

scale was pilot tested on a representative sample of pre-service teachers

(N = 27) who were not involved in the actual study. The scale was found

to have high internal consistency (Alpha reliability coefficient = 0.89) as

well as test-retest (after 2 weeks) stability (Pearson r = 0.93, p < 0.01).

Item-total-correlations computed for the pilot sample showed that all ten

items correlated significantly (p < 0.001) with the total, with correlation

values ranging from 0.48 to 0.83. The Language Self-Efficacy Scale is

shown in Appendix A.

The scale was administered to intact classes by the researcher in this

study. Participants were informed verbally that they were involved in a

study to investigate language self-efficacy and how they learn English.

Before the administration of the scale, the participants were given prac-

tice with efficacy assessment by judging their certainty of being able to

jump progressively longer distances ranging from one meter to several

meters (adapted from Schunk 1983). The aim of using this concrete exam-

ple was to help them learn how to use the scale’s numerical values to

convey the strength of their perceived efficacy. Following this practice

session, the participants were presented with the ten items in the Lan-

guage Self-Efficacy Scale.

Language Learning Strategies Questionnaire

The Language Learning Strategies Questionnaire consisting of seven

English language learning contexts was developed to elicit pre-service

teachers’ self-reported language learning strategies. The researcher adopted

the format of a questionnaire developed and used in an earlier study (Wong

and Siow 2003) to investigate secondary school students’ self-reported

self-regulated learning strategies. The learning contexts in the Language

Learning Strategies Questionnaire were designed to elicit responses from

pre-service teachers about the strategies they used for improving their

command of English in various learning situations involving the use of

reading, writing, listening and speaking skills such as when (1) doing

reflections and keeping records of the learning process, (2) preparing for

an examination on the teaching of English, (3) doing practicum in school,

(4) communicating in English with peers and lecturers, (5) trying to in-

crease their vocabulary and improve their command of English grammar,

(6) writing lesson plans for teaching English, and (7) reading English

materials to improve their command of English. The language learning



252


strategies explored included the six groups of language learning strategies

in Oxford’s (1990) taxonomy of language learning strategies, namely

memory strategies, cognitive strategies, compensation strategies, meta-

cognitive strategies, affective strategies, and social strategies. Pre-service

teachers were also required to indicate how often (i.e., seldom, occasion-

ally, frequently, or most of the time) they used each strategy.

The instrument had a free-response or unstructured format where pre-

service teachers had to write down the strategies they would use for the

learning context described and the frequency of use of each strategy in

similar situations. A free-response format was chosen in preference to an

option item format such as the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning

(SILL) (Oxford 1990) in order to avoid giving cues or suggestions to

them of the strategies they should use. According to Ley and Young

(1998), the tendency to respond in the socially acceptable manner would

be more likely when the respondent is cued with possible acceptable

responses.

The two English lecturers mentioned earlier were asked to comment

on the contents of the learning situations. They found the learning situa-

tions realistic and suitable for the study. The instrument was next pilot

tested on the same representative sample of pre-service teachers who

were involved in pilot testing of the self-efficacy scale. It was found that

they were generally able to give appropriate written responses to the learn-

ing contexts presented to them. A trial coding of pre-service teachers’

responses using the system of learning strategies according to Oxford

(1990) as a guideline, revealed that all the six groups of strategies in

Oxford’s (1990: 17) taxonomy of language learning strategies could be

identified in the responses of the pre-service teachers. Immediately after

the pilot testing, the researcher took time to discuss with some of the pre-

service teachers concerning the meaning and clarity of the statements in

the learning contexts. Following that, minor adjustments were made to the

wording in some of the learning contexts.

The questionnaire was administered to participants by the researcher in

this study. They were informed that as the questionnaire was not a meas-

ure of language proficiency, they could write their responses in Bahasa

Malaysia (i.e., the national language of Malaysia and the official medium

of instruction in schools) if they had difficulty in expressing themselves in

English. No time limit was set for completion of the instrument, but most

of the participants managed to respond to the seven learning situations in

30 minutes.



253


Interviews

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with selected participants to

gain greater insights into the learning strategies that they used to learn

English. The questions focused on how they improved their reading, writ-

ing, listening and speaking skills. The interview protocol was pilot tested

on six pre-service teachers (i.e., three low self-efficacy and three high self-

efficacy ones) from the aforementioned pilot sample. While conducting

the interviews, the researcher made an effort to check on the suitability of

the interview protocol through taking note of interviewees’ perceptions of

the questions asked. Following that, weaknesses identified in the protocol

were corrected.

The interviews were conducted with selected participants to probe fur-

ther into their language acquisition strategies. Purposive sampling proce-

dure was used to select about 20% (n = 16) of the participants, that is,

eight low self-efficacy pre-service teachers who attained a score of more

than one standard deviation below the mean (i.e., less than 49.9%) and

eight high self-efficacy pre-service teachers who attained a score of more

than one standard deviation above the mean (i.e., more than 81.3%) for

the interviews. Participants were interviewed individually for about ten

minutes by the researcher in this study. They were allowed to choose to

converse in the language they felt most comfortable with, that is, Bahasa

Malaysia or English. In order to avoid bias on grounds of their percep-

tions of themselves, the interviewees were not informed as to whether

they were in the low or high self-efficacy category.

Data Analysis


The Language Self-Efficacy Scale was analyzed in the following manner:

(i) Participants’ self-efficacy scores were obtained through calcu-

lating their average score for the items in the scale.

(ii) Pearson correlations between strategy importance (SI) values for

language learning strategies and mean language self-efficacy

scores were computed.

Language Learning Strategies Questionnaire

Participants’ responses to the learning situations in the Language Learn-

ing Strategies Questionnaire were analyzed in the following manner:



254


(i) Pre-service teachers’ responses were coded into groups of

learning strategies by the researcher in this study. Examples of

language learning strategies for each group in the Strategy

Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) (Oxford 1990) were

used as guidelines in categorizing the responses. As a check

on the consistency of coding, approximately 20% of the scripts

(i.e., 15 scripts) were randomly selected and blind-coded sepa-

rately two weeks later. Cohen’s (1988) kappa statistic for cate-

gorical data was computed to determine the agreement level of

the coding. The k value obtained was 0.81, indicating a high

level of agreement between the two codings.

(ii) The coded responses were scored according to a procedure used

in Purdie and Hattie (1996). The score for consistency of strat-

egy use was obtained through weighting participants’ indicated

frequency of strategy use in the following manner: 1 = seldom,

2 = occasionally, 3 = frequently, 4 = most of the time. Through

summing the weighted responses for each strategy and dividing

by the number of times the strategy was mentioned, a measure

of the average importance a participant attached to the use of

each strategy was obtained. [For example, if a participant men-

tioned the strategy of ‘memorizing’ three times, weighting each

mention as most of the time (4), occasionally (2), and most of

the time (4), the average importance of the strategy for the par-

ticipant would be scored as 3.33] According to Purdie and Hattie

(1996), the score obtained in this way reflects the importance

the participant attaches to a particular strategy. It was therefore

referred to as the strategy importance (SI) score.

(iii) The means and standard deviations of the strategy importance

(SI) scores for each of the groups of strategies identified were

computed to investigate the level of use of each group of strat-

egy identified.

Interviews

The interview responses were content analyzed using the ‘framework’

technique of qualitative data analysis (Ritchie and Spencer 1994). This

method is systematic, thorough, and grounded in the data. This involved

(a) initially reading through all the transcripts in order to be familiar with

the data, (b) re-reading the transcripts and identifying recurring themes or



255


categories, (c) indexing or coding data into themes or categories, (d)

charting or creating a framework of categories, (e) refining and reducing

categories through grouping them where appropriate, and (f) checking

and re-coding responses using the refined framework of categories.

Findings and Discussion

Language Learning Strategies

The first aim of this study was to identify the language learning strategies

of graduate ESL pre-service teachers. Pre-service teachers’ responses to

the seven hypothetical learning contexts in the Language Learning Strate-

gies Questionnaire were coded according to the groups of language learn-

ing strategies put forward by Oxford (1990). Appendix B presents some

examples of pre-service teachers’ responses categorized into the various

groups of language learning strategies in Oxford’s (1990) taxonomy of

language learning strategies. Meanwhile, Table 1 presents the means and

standard deviations of strategy importance (SI) scores for each language

learning strategy identified. The SI values are ‘a measure of the average

or typical importance the respondent attached to the use of each strategy’

(Purdie and Hattie 1996: 853). In the right hand column, the strategies are

ranked according to the mean SI scores.

Table 1. Means and Standard Deviations of Strategy Importance

Scores of Language Learning Strategies

Strategy Importance (SI) Score (N = 74)

Strategy M SD Rank

Memory

Cognitive

Compensation

Metacognitive

Affective

Social

Overall

(six strategies)

1.60

2.71

0.85

2.38

0.65

2.50

1.78

1.43

0.68

1.07

1.05

1.31

0.79

0.58

4

1

5

3

6

2

An examination of the mean SI values in Table 1 shows that the mean SI

values for the strategies ranged from 0.65 to 2.71, indicating that pre-

service teachers’ consistency ratings for their use of learning strategies



256


were between ‘seldom’ and ‘frequently’. The mean SI value for their use

of the six language learning strategies was 1.78, indicating that overall,

pre-service teachers’ consistency ratings for their use of language learn-

ing strategies was ‘occasionally’.

Perusal of the ranking of mean SI values in Table 1 shows that pre-

service teachers mentioned the use of cognitive strategies (ranked 1) most

often. This shows that there were efforts to analyze, reason, form, and

revise internal modes while receiving and producing messages in English.

The next most frequently mentioned group of strategy was social strate-

gies. Pre-service teachers appeared to rely on the assistance and support of

others frequently in their efforts to gain proficiency in the language. The

use of metacognitive learning strategies was ranked third, indicating that

pre-service teachers do exercise executive control and plan, arrange, focus

on, as well as evaluate their own learning process. There was, however,

relatively less usage of memory strategies (ranked 4) to commit to memory

and facilitate retrieval of what they had learned. Two learning strategies

that were seldom mentioned by pre-service teachers were compensation

strategies and affective strategies. There is a possibility that pre-service

teachers felt that guessing and using circumlocution during communication

(i.e., examples of compensation strategies) are considered as a lack of

effort in mastering the language and therefore they avoided mentioning it in

their responses. The low SI value for affective strategies could mean that

pre-service teachers lacked the right attitude and determination to work at

improving their proficiency in the language since there were few reports

of efforts to control feelings, motivation and attitude related to learning

English.

The Relationship between Language Learning Strategies and Language

Self-Efficacy

A second aim of this study was to investigate the relationship between

pre-service teachers’ perceptions of self-efficacy and their use of lan-

guage learning strategies. Pearson Product-Moment correlation between

pre-service teachers’ self-efficacy scores and total strategy importance

scores (obtained through summing the SI scores for all the language learn-

ing strategies of each pre-service teacher) was 0.72, p < 0.01. This indi-

cates that pre-service teachers’ language self-efficacy was moderately

correlated with total language learning strategy importance scores show-

ing that there was a significant positive relationship between language

self-efficacy and strategy use. This finding concurs with those of other



257


researchers (Chamot et al. 1993; Chamot, Robbins and El-Dinary 1993)

that attest to the fact that there is significant positive relationship between

perceptions of self-efficacy and use of language learning strategies.

Language Learning Strategies of Low Self-Efficacy and High Self-Efficacy

Pre-Service Teachers

A third aim of this study was to obtain further insights, through inter-

views, into how selected low self-efficacy and high self-efficacy pre-

service teachers improve their proficiency in English. The questions

focused on the strategies they used to improve in the four basic language

skills namely speaking, writing, listening, and reading. Content analysis

of the interview responses showed that the groups of language learning

strategies mentioned were similar to those reported in the Language

Learning Strategies Questionnaire. The frequency of use of language

learning strategies by low self-efficacy and high self-efficacy pre-service

teachers also reflects the earlier finding that there is a positive relation-

ship between the use of language learning strategies and language self-

efficacy. High self-efficacy pre-service teachers mentioned greater use

of language learning strategies compared to low self-efficacy pre-service

teachers. Table 2 presents a summary of the responses of the eight low

self-efficacy and eight high self-efficacy pre-service teachers who were

interviewed.

Perusal of the findings showed that there was a marked difference in

low self-efficacy and high self-efficacy pre-service teachers’ efforts to

converse in English. All eight low self-efficacy pre-service teachers said

they seldom conversed in English or only when they had to, while high

self-efficacy pre-service teachers (six out of eight) said they did so all or

most of the time. These high self-efficacy pre-service teachers also took

steps to improve in their speaking skill while the low self-efficacy pre-

service teachers (six out of eight) seldom did so or had no specific plans

to do so (two out of eight). A similar pattern was noted for frequency of

writing in English; seven out of the eight low self-efficacy pre-service

teachers said they seldom wrote texts in English while high self-efficacy

pre-service teachers did so most of the time (three out of eight) and

occasionally (five out of eight). High self-efficacy pre-service teachers

also appeared to try harder at improving in this skill compared to low

self-efficacy pre-service teachers, with efforts to write more often (three

out of eight) and read a lot or refer to examples (five out of eight).



258


Regarding the use of listening skill, both low self-efficacy and high self-

efficacy pre-service teachers said that they used this skill a lot. However,

high self-efficacy pre-service teachers’ responses (four out of eight)

indicated that they put in more effort at understanding what they heard

through being more focused while listening. All eight high self-efficacy

pre-service teachers said they read a lot compared to only three low self-

efficacy pre-service teachers giving that category of response. There were

also more high self-efficacy pre-service teachers who tried to find out the

meaning of new words and apply them in other situations. Many of the

low self-efficacy pre-service teachers (seven out of eight) appeared to

make little effort to look up meanings of new words as they said they

resorted to trying to understand them in context or just guess the meaning

of these words.

Table 2. Summary of Responses of Pre-service Teachers Interviewed

No. of Responses

No. Category of Responses Low SE

(n = 8)

High SE

(n = 8)

Frequency of conversing in English:

- All or most of the time

- Occasionally

- Seldom/only when I have to

-

-

8

6

2

-

1

Steps taken to improve speaking skill:

- Listen, observe, speak in English frequently

- Try to speak English more often, but seldom do

so

- Don’t have any specific plans to do so

-

6

2

7

1

-

Frequency of writing in English:

- Most of the time

- Occasionally

- Seldom

-

1

7

3

5

-

Type of text written:

- Reflections/messages/short notes/assignments

- Emails/greeting cards/assignments

1

7

3

5

2

Steps taken to improve writing skill:

- Write more often

- Read a lot/refer to examples

- No specific plans to do so

-

6

2

3

5

-



259


Frequency of using listening skill:

- Listen to English songs, watch English movies/

News most of the time

- Seldom listen to English songs, watch English

movies/TV/News

7

1

8

-

3

Steps taken to improve listening skill:

- Pay attention/be more focused

- Guess the meaning in context

- Check the dictionary/ask friends

-

5

3

4

2

2

Frequency of reading English materials:

- Often (read newspapers/magazines/journals/

story books/comics)

- Seldom read materials in English

3

5

8

-

Steps taken to understand what is read:

- Check out meaning of words with friends/the

dictionary

- Try to understand in context/guess the meaning

1

7

5

3

4

Efforts to learn new words:

- Note down in a book/small card/memorize/

apply it/revise

- Don’t do anything at all 1

7

3

5

5 The language skill they were most confident in:

- Reading

- Listening

- None of the four skills (reading, listening, speak-

ing, writing)

4

2

2

6

2

-

6 Additional steps taken to improve proficiency

level:

- Read more English materials

- Do exercises/take English courses/review notes/

do self-evaluation

- Don’t do anything at all

6

1

1

3

5

-

7 Most challenging thing about learning English:

- Improving command of grammar and pronun-

ciation

- Expressing myself in English

- Learning new vocabulary

- No confidence in speaking/writing

2

-

-

6

4

2

1

1

Note: SE = Self-Efficacy



260


Pre-service teachers interviewed were most confident in the skill of read-

ing (ten out of eighteen), followed by listening (four out of sixteen). The

skills of speaking and writing, which required construction of sentences to

express ideas, were not mentioned. Judging from the additional steps

that high self-efficacy pre-service teachers used to improve their profi-

ciency in English, they appeared to be more diligent compared to low

self-efficacy pre-service teachers in their attempts to master the language.

Responses to the question of what was most challenging about learning

English revealed that many low self-efficacy pre-service teachers (six out

of eight) expressed lack of confidence in speaking and writing in English

while the main concerns of high self-efficacy pre-service teachers were

grammar, pronunciation and expressing themselves in English (seven out

of eight).

The above interview findings clearly show that high self-efficacy pre-

service teachers not only surpassed their low self-efficacy counterparts in

their use of the four language skills but also in the strategies they used to

improve themselves in those skills. This finding supports the earlier

finding that there is a positive relationship between use of language learn-

ing strategies and self-efficacy perceptions.

Conclusion

Summary

The results show that the six groups of language learning strategies in

Oxford’s (1990) taxonomy of language learning strategies could be iden-

tified from pre-service teachers’ self-reports in the Language Learning

Strategies Questionnaire. Pre-service teachers appeared to mention the use

of cognitive strategies most often, followed by social strategies and meta-

cognitive strategies. The use of compensation strategies and memory strate-

gies were less often mentioned while affective strategies were least often

mentioned. Pre-service teachers’ use of language learning strategies ranged

from ‘seldom’ to ‘frequently’. Investigations into the relationship between

self-efficacy and language learning strategies showed that there was a sig-

nificant relationship between these two constructs in pre-service teachers’

learning of English. Verbal reports of strategy use obtained through inter-

views with low self-efficacy and high self-efficacy pre-service teachers

were also in agreement with correlation results. High self-efficacy pre-

service teachers reported greater use of learning strategies to improve their

proficiency in English than did their low self-efficacy counterparts.



261


Implications

Some important practical implications can be drawn from the findings in

this study. The results show that pre-service teachers do put in effort at

the use of cognitive strategies, that is, receiving and producing messages

in English, through reading and writing texts in English, watching TV,

movies, news in English, listening to English songs, and communicating

with others in English. This practice is beneficial and should be encour-

aged further.

Another learning behavior that should be encouraged further is the use

of social strategies in their efforts to master the language. Pre-service

teachers should be encouraged to optimize various sources of social

assistance such as lecturers, classmates, family members and friends, as

the use of language is a form of social behavior involving communication

with others. In addition, pre-service teachers could be given more oppor-

tunities to work cooperatively in groups at English tasks. This would give

them the chance to communicate in English besides working together to

complete the task.

It is heartening to note that some pre-service teachers do employ meta-

cognitive strategies to control their own cognition in the learning of

English. Instruction and support in the use of metacognitive strategies

such as executive control, focusing, planning, and self-evaluation may

be beneficial to pre-service teachers who are not yet employing these

strategies.

There appears to be little effort by pre-service teachers to commit to

memory the meaning of new words and language rules they have learned.

Pre-service teachers should be encouraged to be more diligent in improv-

ing storage and retrieval of information during the learning process. They

should be encouraged to find out the meaning of new words, make an

effort to remember them, and apply and revise what they have learned.

Both questionnaire and interview findings indicate that there is a lack

of the use of affective strategies by pre-service teachers to regulate feel-

ings and attitudes. The responses of low self-efficacy pre-service teachers

interviewed generally reflected negative attitude towards learning of

English while six out of eight interviewed expressed lack of confidence in

their ability to communicate in English. There is need for English lectur-

ers to address this problem, perhaps through affective strategy instruction,

so that there will be greater motivation, more courage to try and commu-

nicate in English, and a change of attitude towards learning of English.

Previous research (Cohen, Weaver and Li 1998; Moskowitz 1981, 1999)



262


shows that affective strategy instruction enhanced performance and im-

proved attitudes toward L2 classes.

The findings also indicate that overall, pre-service teachers’ use of

language learning strategies ranged from ‘seldom’ to ‘frequently’. This

suggests that there is a need to encourage pre-service teachers to use

language learning strategies more often, particularly the less often men-

tioned strategies, namely memory strategies and affective strategies. Lec-

turers may wish to promote the use of these strategies through providing

instruction, modeling, and more opportunities to practise the use of these

strategies.

Finally, the findings show that there was a positive relationship between

language self-efficacy and use of language learning strategies. Although

the correlational data cannot address causality, it appears that pre-service

teachers who perceived of themselves as more efficacious in English also

reported a greater use of language learning strategies. In view of this

relation, English lecturers might want to promote low self-efficacy pre-

service teachers’ use of learning strategies through raising their percep-

tions of self-efficacy. English lecturers may wish to use instructional and

assessment procedures that focus on task mastery rather than social com-

parison to foster high perceptions of self-efficacy in pre-service teachers.

According to Bandura (1993), enactive mastery experiences strengthen

self-percepts of efficacy and enhance performance attainments. Higher

attainments in English would in turn raise self-efficacy perceptions further

and encourage greater use of language learning strategies. The use of

positive verbal persuasions or appraisals to encourage and empower pre-

service teachers to persevere in their efforts to master the language should

also be increased. There is evidence (Bandura 1997) that evaluative feed-

back highlighting personal capabilities raises efficacy beliefs, and feed-

back that children have improved through effort enhances perceived

efficacy.

Suggestions for Further Research

This study documented the language learning strategies of graduate ESL

pre-service teachers and investigated their language self-efficacy and the

relationship between these two constructs. A replication of this study in-

volving pre-service teachers in other teachers’ colleges in Malaysia would

provide further support for the generalizability of the findings.

Low self-efficacy pre-service teachers’ negative responses to questions

as to what steps they were taking to improve their proficiency in English



263


(refer to Table 2) are rather alarming, especially as they are being trained

to be future English teachers. Further investigation should be carried out

to identify the reasons for their lack of enthusiasm and diligence in

improving their command of English.

REFERENCES

Bandura, A.

1986 Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory

(Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall).

1993 ‘Perceived Self-Efficacy in Cognitive Development and Functioning’,

Educational Psychologist 28: 117-48.

1997 Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control (New York: Freeman).

Chamot, A.U., J. Robbins and P.B. El-Dinary

1993 Learning Strategies in Japanese Foreign Language Instruction (ERIC Docu-

ment Reproduction Service No. ED370346).

Chamot, A.U., S. Barnhardt, P.B. El-Dinary, G. Carbonaro and J. Robbins

1993 Methods for Teaching Learning Strategies in the Foreign Language Class-

room and Assessment of Language Skills for Instruction (ERIC Document

Reproduction Service No. ED365157).

Clément, R., and B.G. Kruidenier

1985 ‘Aptitude, Attitude and Motivation in Second Language Proficiency: A Test

of Clément’s Model’, Journal of Language and Social Psychology 11: 203-

32.

Clément, R., Z. Dörnyei and K. Noels

1994 ‘Motivation, Self-Confidence and Group Cohesion in the Foreign Language

Classroom’, Language Learning 44: 417-48.

Cohen, A.

1990 Language Learning: Insights for Learners, Teachers, and Researchers (New

York: Newbury House).

Cohen, A.D., S.J. Weaver and T.-Y. Li

1998 ‘The Impact of Strategies-Based Instruction on Speaking a Foreign Lan-

guage’, in A.D. Cohen, Strategies in Learning and Using a Second Language

(New York: Longman): 107-156. English at three levels next year (July 21,

2002), New Straits Times, Malaysia: 1.

Gardner, R.C., P.F. Tremblay and A.-M. Masgoret

1997 ‘Towards a Full Model of Second Language Learning: An Empirical Inves-

tigation’, Modern Language Journal 81: 344-62.

Horwitz, E.K., M.C. Horwitz and J. Cope

1986 ‘Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety’, Modern Language Journal 70:

125-32.

Horwitz, E.K., and D.J. Young

1991 Language Anxiety: From Theory and Research to Classroom Implications

(Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall).



264


Jones, S.

1998 ‘Learning Styles and Learning Strategies: Towards Learner Independence’,

Forum for Modern Language Studies 34: 115-129.

Ley, K., and D.B. Young

1998 ‘Self-Regulation Behaviors in Underprepared (Developmental) and Regular

Admission College Students’, Contemporary Educational Psychology 23:

42-64.

MacIntyre, P.D., and R.C. Gardner

1989 ‘Anxiety and Second-Language Learning: Toward a Theoretical Clari-

fication’, Language Learning 39: 251-75.

McLaughlin, B.

1987 Theories of Second Language Learning (London: Edward Arnold).

Moskowitz, G.

1981 ‘Effects of Humanistic Techniques on Attitude, Cohesiveness, and Self-

Concept of Foreign Language Students’, Modern Language Journal 65:

149-57.

1999 ‘Enhancing Personal Development: Humanistic Activities at Work’, in

J. Arnold (ed.), Affect in Language Learning (Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-

versity Press): 177-93.

Naiman, N., M. Frohlich, H. Stern and A. Todesco

1978 The Good Language Learner (Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studies in

Education).

O’Malley, J.M., and A.U. Chamot

1990 Learning Strategies in Second Language Acquisition (Cambridge: Cam-

bridge University Press).

O’Malley, J.M., A.U. Chamot, G. Stewner-Manzanares, L.J. Kupper and R.P. Russo

1985a ‘Learning Strategies Used by Beginning and Intermediate ESL Students’,

Language Learning 35: 21-36.

1985b ‘Learning Strategy Applications with Students of English as a Second Lan-

guage’, TESOL Quarterly 19: 557-84.

Oxford, R.L.

1990 Language Learning Strategies: What Every Teacher Should Know (New

York: Newbury House/Harper & Row).

1994 ‘Language Learning Strategies: An Update’, Eric Clearinghouse on Lan-

guages and Linguistics Digest, Washington, DC (ED376707).

Oxford, R.L., and J. Shearin

1994 ‘Language Learning Motivation: Expanding the Theoretical Framework’,

Modern Language Journal 78: 12-28.

Pajares, F.

1996 ‘Self-Efficacy Beliefs in Academic Settings’, Review of Educational Research

66: 543-78.

Pintrich, P.R.

1999 ‘The Role of Motivation in Promoting and Sustaining Self-Regulated

Learning’, International Journal of Educational Research 31: 459-70.

Price, M.L.

1991 ‘The Subjective Experience of Foreign Language Anxiety: Interviews with

Highly Anxious Students’, in E.K. Horwitz and D.J. Young (eds.), Language



265


Anxiety: From Theory and Research to Classroom Implications (Englewood

Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall): 101-108.

Purdie, N., and J. Hattie

1996 ‘Cultural Differences in the Use of Strategies for Self-Regulated Learning’,

American Educational Research Journal 33: 845-71.

Ritchie, J., and L. Spencer

1994 ‘Qualitative Data Analysis for Applied Policy Research’, in A. Bryman and

R. Burgess (eds.), Analyzing Qualitative Data (London: Routledge): 173-

93.

Rubin, J.

1975 ‘What the “Good Language Learner” Can Teach Us’, TESOL Quarterly 9

(March): 41-51.

Schunk, D.H.

1983 ‘Developing Children’s Self-Efficacy and Skills: The Roles of Social Com-

parative Information and Goal Setting’, Contemporary Educational Psychol-

ogy 8: 76-86.

1991 ‘Self-Efficacy and Academic Motivation’, Educational Psychologist 26: 207-

231.

Stern, H.H.

1992 Issues and Options in Language Teaching (Oxford: Oxford University Press).

Stevick, E.W.

1980 Teaching Languages: A Way and Ways (Rowley, MA: Newbury House).

Wolters, C., and H. Rosenthal

2000 ‘The Relation between Students’ Motivational Beliefs and their Use of

Motivational Regulation Strategies’, International Journal of Educational

Psychology 33: 801-820.

Wong, M.S.L., and H.L. Siow

2003 ‘Secondary School Students’ Science Self-Efficacy and its Relation to their

Use of Self-Regulated Learning Strategies in Learning Science’, Proceedings

of the ICASE World Conference on Science and Technology in Education,

April, 2003, Penang, Malaysia: 232-40.

Young, D.J.

1990 ‘An Investigation of Students’ Perspectives on Anxiety and Speaking’,

Foreign Language Annals 23: 539-53.

Zimmerman, B.J.

1989 ‘Models of Self-Regulated Learning and Academic Achievement’, in B.J.

Zimmerman and D.H. Schunk (eds.), Self-regulated Learning and Aca-

demic Achievement: Theory, Research, and Practice (New York: Springer-

Verlag): 1-25.

Zimmerman, B.J., and A. Bandura

1994 ‘Impact of Self-Regulatory Influences on Writing Course Attainment’,

American Educational Research Journal 31: 845-62.

Zimmerman, B.J., and M. Martinez-Pons

1990 ‘Student Differences in Self-Regulated Learning: Relating Grade, Sex, and

Giftedness to Self-Efficacy and Strategy Use’, Journal of Educational

Psychology 82: 51-59.



266


NOTES

* An earlier version of this article was presented at the National Educational

Research Seminar, Teacher Education Division, Ministry of Education, in Langkawi,

Malaysia, in September 2004.

APPENDIX A


___________________________________________________________

Name: ____________________ Group: __________________

Instructions:

Suppose that you are asked to perform the following tasks in English.

Please indicate how confident you are that you can perform each task

correctly. You have 30 seconds only to attend to each task (You don’t

have to carry out the tasks.)

It is important that you do not guess but give a realistic estimate of

whether you can perform the task correctly. Please use the scale below:

If you are not confident at all that you can do it correctly, mark (/) 1

If you are completely confident that you can do it correctly, mark (/) 10

If the estimate of your confidence is between 1 and 10, mark the appro-

priate number from 2 to 9.

Please mark one number only for each task. Thank You!

No. Task Confidence Scale

1 Write an essay of about 400 words in length on

what you did during the recent holidays.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

2 Explain to a visitor the structure of the Diploma

in Education Course you are in now.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

3 Write a lesson plan for a topic such as ‘Tell

stories based on pictures’.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

4 Give instructions to your pupils on how they

should organize themselves for group activity.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10



267


5 Share with a friend what happened during the

most memorable day in your life.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

6 Make a complete sentence using the following

simile: ‘as cool as a cucumber’.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

7 Take down notes as you listen to a cassette

recording on ‘Malaysian Handicraft’.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

8 Explain the function of an adjective in a sentence. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

9 Present an assignment on ‘Questioning

Techniques’ in front of your class.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

10 Read the following passage out loud to your

classmates: Discover Sabah… Awaken the

competitive spirit or indulge in relaxing pursuits.

This is one destination where you can do it all!

Climb the summit of Borneo. Go white water

rafting. Ride a steam locomotive past rustic

scenery. Cruise down the Kinabatangan river.

Re-track ancient headhunter trails. Dive in the

world’s top dive sites…

(Sabah Tourism Promotion Corporation,

September 2002).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

APPENDIX B

Summary of Language Learning Strategies

Direct Strategies

Memory Strategies

Strategies involving creating mental linkages and employing actions to

aid in entering information into LTM and retrieving information when

needed for communication.

Examples:

- ‘I do a lot of exercises on English grammar so that I’ll remember.’

- ‘I try to memorize the meaning of the words and try to use them.’

- ‘I write down the new words on a small card and memorize them.’

- ‘I write down the new vocabulary in a notebook and refer to it

often,’



268


Cognitive Strategies

Strategies for analyzing and reasoning, used for forming and revising

internal mental modes and receiving and producing messages in the target

language.

Examples:

- ‘I write emails or letters in English twice a week.’

- ‘I read English materials such as magazines and newspapers to

improve my English.’

- ‘I practice communicating in English frequently with my friends

and family members.’

- ‘I listen to English songs, watch English movies and the news on

TV.’

- ‘I read the Education section on English in the newspaper.’

- ‘I try to converse in English as much as possible with my friends.’

- ‘I practice writing lesson plans in English.’

Compensation Strategies

Strategies that include guessing unknown words while listening or read-

ing, or circumlocution in speaking and writing to overcome any gaps in

knowledge of the language.

Examples:

- ‘I try to guess the meaning of words I don’t know.’

- ‘I try to understand the meaning through looking at the word in

context.’

- ‘I guess the meaning of some words by reading the whole passage.’

- ‘I try to look for cues or non-verbal signs so that the communica-

tion is more effective.’

Indirect Strategies

Metacognitive Strategies

Strategies that learners use to exercise executive control, planning, arrang-

ing, focusing, and evaluation of their own learning process.

Examples:

- ‘I observe how the English lecturer speaks English.’

- ‘I look for opportunities to read as much as possible in English.’



269


- ‘I practice speaking in English in front of the mirror.’

- ‘I check the dictionary to find out whether my pronunciation is

correct.’

- ‘I try to improve my command of English through attending English

courses, doing crossword puzzles, and playing games like scrabble.’

- ‘I take note of how other people communicate in English.’

Affective Strategies

Strategies that enable learners to control feelings, motivation, and atti-

tudes related to language learning.

Examples:

- ‘I encourage myself to speak English even when I am afraid of

making a mistake.’

- ‘I remind myself that I am going to be an English teacher.’

- ‘I tell myself to be confident and not be afraid to make mistakes.’

- ‘I continue to speak in English with my classmates even though

there are errors in our conversation.’

- ‘I speak English with my friends and family members as often as

possible so that I’ll be more confident.’

Social Strategies

Strategies that involve asking questions, cooperating with others, and

facilitating interaction with others, often in a discourse situation.

Examples:

- ‘I ask my friends to correct my mistakes when I talk in English.’

- ‘I discuss the usage of certain English words with my friends.’

- ‘I ask my friends and lecturer to check my grammar and sentence

patterns.’

- ‘I have group discussion with my classmates on how to complete

English assignments.’

- ‘I ask my spouse to check on my English.’

Adapted with permission from Oxford, Language Learning Strategies:

What Every Teacher Should Know (New York: Newbury House/Harper

& Row, 1990): 17.



Documents

122551885 Language Learning Strategies