McMullen 2009 Using Language Learning Strategies to Improve the Writing Skills of Saudi EFL Students - Will It Really Work

7/30/2019 McMullen 2009 Using Language Learning Strategies to Improve the Writing Skills of Saudi EFL Students - Will It Re

1/16

Using language learning strategies to improve the writingskills of Saudi EFL students: Will it really work?

Maram George McMullen

English Department, Yanbu University College, Yanbu Al-Sinaiyah, Saudi Arabia

Received 3 November 2008; received in revised form 19 April 2009; accepted 5 May 2009

Abstract

This study investigates the use of language learning strategies (LLSs) by Saudi EFL (English as a Foreign Language)students inside the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The study determines if gender and academic major have any effect on thatuse and reveals the potential benefits for Saudi students in the area of strategy instruction. Data was collected during theacademic year 20072008 from three sample universities in Saudi Arabia using Rebecca Oxfords Strategy Inventory forLanguage Learning (SILL), a self-report questionnaire, as the instrument. Participants in the study (N= 165) were allenrolled in similar Freshman English composition courses and totaled 71 male students and 94 female students. The resultsof ANOVA (analysis of variance) tests showed that female students used slightly more LLSs than male students, and Com-puter Science students used slightly more LLSs than Management Information Systems students. In response to these find-

ings, a program for direct strategy instruction was piloted with an English writing class at one of the sample universities.Encouraging results from this trial program suggest new avenues for approaching the teaching of writing inside theKingdom. 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Language learning strategies; Saudi Arabia; Gender; Academic major; Strategy instruction

1. Introduction

Anyone who has ever taught university-level English composition in Saudi Arabia can confirm, writing has

always represented a unique challenge for Saudi EFL students. Even Arab students themselves admit theirshortcomings when it comes to English composition (Fageeh, 2003; Khalil, 1989, p. 359). While many studiesaround the world have investigated the use of language learning strategies (LLSs) for improving languageskills, very little has been published on Saudi students and their use of strategies. Case in point, there are onlythree documented large-scale strategy studies which feature Saudi participants. One, a groundbreaking study(Al-Otaibi, 2004), examined Saudi EFL students and how they were using LLSs, but it reported on just onegeographical location inside Saudi Arabia. The subjects for the other two studies were ESL (English as a Sec-ond Language) students who were living and studying in the United States (Braik, 1986; Al-Wahibee, 2000).

0346-251X/$ - see front matter 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.system.2009.05.001

E-mail address: [email protected]

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

System 37 (2009) 418433

www.elsevier.com/locate/system
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]


2/16

This current study samples EFL students from three universities across the Kingdom and hopes to offer abroader look at how strategies are currently being used in Saudi Arabia and how they could be used moreto improve student writing.

2. Literature review

2.1. The importance of strategy use

For decades, enthusiastic supporters have hailed the importance of strategy use in and out of the classroom.Specialists in second language acquisition (SLA) have pointed out just what an important role LLSs can playin the development of second language (L2) learners. According to a renowned leader in SLA, LLSs are oneof the most important individual difference factors in L2 acquisition (Skehan 1989 cited in Green andOxford, 1995, p. 262). Ellis (1985) concurs (Green and Oxford, 1995, p. 263), stating LLSs are one of the threemain processes for developing L2 knowledge. Oxford agrees, declaring LLSs are essential for developingcommunicative competence (1990, p. 1). In fact, it has been found in study after study that more proficientlanguage learners use a wider range of LLSs than do less proficient learners (Ehrman and Oxford, 1990, p.312). This is because effective language learners tend to use more strategies and to apply them in a more

appropriate fashion than less successful learners (Nyikos 1991 cited in Oxford, 1996, p. 229).In addition to facilitating second language acquisition and improving student performance, strategy use

promotes greater learner autonomy because the use or adoption of appropriate strategies allows learnersto take more responsibility for their own learning (Dickinson, 1987). This enables students to keep on learn-ing even when they are no longer in a formal classroom setting (Oxford and Crookall 1988 cited in Oxfordand Nyikos, 1989, p. 291). With these points in mind, most researchers agree that promoting greater strategyuse can help develop the language skills of EFL/ESL students in any context.

2.2. International studies on the variables which affect strategy use

The study of language learning strategies began with the pioneering article of Joan Rubin entitled What

the good language learner can teach us

(1975, pp. 4151). It was followed by a series of articles calling foraction research in this new field (Wenden, 1986, cited in Flaitz et al., 1995; Oxford and Crookall, 1987; Oxfordet al., 1988). The publication of Oxfords What Every Teacher Should Know (1990) and OMalley and Cha-mots Learning Strategies in Second Language Acquisition (1990) ignited a series of empirical studies on LLSsin the international research community which has lasted for nearly two decades. Many of these studies haverelied on quantitative analysis and have used the SILL as the instrument for data collection.

Quite a number of these empirical studies focused on the effects of language proficiency on strategy use(Watanabe, 1990; Chang, 1991; Green, 1991; Phillips, 1991; Wen and Johnson, 1991; Mullins, 1992; Bedelland Oxford, 1996; Dreyer and Oxford, 1996; Cohen, 1998; Chamot et al., 1999; Riding, 2005). Some of theseinternational studies considered the effects of motivation on strategy use (Oxford and Nyikos, 1989; Oxfordet al., 1993; Kaylani, 1996; Salem, 2006). Some studies have looked at the effects of language learning styleson the selection of strategies (Reid, 1987; Ehrman and Oxford, 1989; Rossi-Le, 1989; Ko, 2002). In one studyconducted at a Japanese university, class size and the effects of learning environments on the use of strategies(Locastro, 1994) was examined. Other studies have compared the differences between EFL and ESL students intheir strategy use (Oh, 1992; Oxford, 1992; Kojic-Sabo and Lightbrown, 1999). Some studies have looked atdifferences between beginners and advanced language learners (Oxford and Nyikos, 1989; Green and Oxford,1995; Wharton, 2000; Griffiths, 2003). Interesting enough, only two studies have been published on academicmajor and strategy use (Politzer and McGroarty, 1985; Hashim and Sahil, 1994). More recently, manyresearchers around the world have been considering the effects of self-regulation on strategy use (Notaet al., 2004; Cleary, 2006; Tseng et al., 2006).

It must be pointed out, however of all the international studies dealing with LLSs probably the mostoften tested variable is that of gender and how it affects strategy use. In fact, gender was tested as a secondindependent variable in a majority of the studies mentioned above and has been the focus of much attention

in the field of strategy research ever since the publication of Vive la Difference? Reflections on Sex Differences

M.G. McMullen / System 37 (2009) 418433 419


3/16


4/16

Many enthusiasts of SBI have pointed out the striking benefits that strategy use holds in store for SLA(Griffiths, 2008, p. 3). SBI enables learners to find which strategies work best for them and how to use themin a variety of language learning and language use situations. In short, as Cohen so aptly states, SBI empowersthe learners in so many ways and at so many levels (1998, p. 71).

3. Research questions

This particular study involved two distinct phases. The purpose of Phase I was to find out how strategiesare currently being used in Saudi Arabia, determining if gender and academic major have any effect on the useof language learning strategies among Saudi EFL students. The purpose of Phase II was to determine if Strat-egy Based Instruction (SBI) can help Saudi EFL students improve their English writing abilities.

Three research questions were used to drive the current study:Question 1: Does gender affect the use of language learning strategies among Saudi EFL students inside the

Kingdom of Saudi Arabia?Question 2: Does academic major affect the use of language learning strategies among Saudi EFL students

inside the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia?

Question 3: Can Strategy Based Instruction (SBI) help Saudi EFL students improve their writing abilities?

4. Methodology: phase I

In order to determine if gender or academic major have any effects on how Saudi students are currentlyusing LLSs, two null hypotheses were formed stating there is no relationship between the independent vari-ables and the dependent variables. In this study, the independent variables were gender and academic major.The dependent variables were the six categories of LLSs found on the survey used to collect the data.

4.1. Participants of the study

In order to obtain samples which were representative of the whole population of Saudi EFL university stu-dents, the participants for this study (N= 165) were chosen from three universities across the Kingdom whichoffer very similar course plans. One university was chosen from the eastern province of Saudi Arabia, one fromthe west, and one was chosen from the central region of the Kingdom. All three universities offer bachelorsdegrees in Computer Science (CS) and Management Information Systems (MIS). The programs at each ofthese universities are all five years in length, featuring an introductory preparatory year program. All studentschosen for the study had already completed their preparatory year and were enrolled in very similar EnglishComposition classes at the freshman level. Although nearly two hundred students participated in the study,only 71 male surveys and 94 female surveys were clearly marked male and female and were, therefore, selectedfor data analysis.

4.2. Procedures for collecting the data: the instrument

Rebecca Oxfords Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) was chosen to collect the data from allthree samples. Most of the data was collected in November and December of 2007 with the exception of onelate sample which arrived during the first week of March 2008.

Since the SILL was first introduced in 1986, it has been used in over fifty major studies worldwide, involv-ing over 9000 language learners. Because the SILL produces numerical data, most of the researchers in thesestudies used their data as parametric (or interval) data. Various versions of the SILL are available in differentlanguages for different learners. The one used in this study is the English version and it is called the ESL/EFLSILL. All of the versions have been tested for reliability which is the degree of precision or accuracy of scoreson an instrument. Although higher reliabilities can be found when the SILL is administered in the native lan-guage of the respondents, very acceptable reliabilities (Oxford and Burry-Stock, 1995, p. 6) have been

reported for the English version. According to published reports, the SILL appears to be the only language



5/16

learning strategy instrument that has been extensively checked for reliability and validated. Its Cronbachsalpha reliability coefficients, which are a measure of internal consistency, range from 0.89 to 0.98 (Oxfordand Burry-Stock, 1995, p. 4). Validity evidence, the degree to which an instrument measures what it claimsto measure, has also been demonstrated via a wide assortment of studies (Oxford and Burry-Stock, 1995,p. 10).

The SILL divides LLSs into six categories: memory, cognitive, compensation, metacognitive, affective, andsocial. The SILL uses a choice of five Likert-scale responses for (1) never or almost never true of me, (2) usu-ally not true of me, (3) somewhat true of me, (4) usually true of me, (5) always or almost always true of me (Oxford, 1990, p. 293). Learners are asked to self-report the frequency of their strategy use for fifty items, suchas:

I use flashcards to remember new English words (memory); I make summaries of information that I hear or read in English (cognitive); If I cant think of an English word, I use a word or phrase that means the same thing (compensation); I plan my schedule (metacognitive); I encourage myself (affective); and I practice English with other students (social) (Oxford, 1990, pp. 293296).

4.3. Procedures for analyzing the data: ANOVA testing

ANOVA is an acronym for analysis of variance and it refers to procedures followed to test the statisticaldifferences among two or more groups. Procedures include a comparison of the mean scores and the standarddeviations of the groups. In this study, a two-way ANOVA was performed. In other words, observations weretaken from two samples. First, differences between male and female samples were analyzed, and then differ-ences between Computer Science (CS) and Management Information Systems (MIS) students were consid-ered. T-tests and F-tests were then performed using Microsofts Excel program to determine if there wereany significant differences between the samples. Results were found for each individual university and for

the Kingdom as a whole. To determine significance throughout the study, the standard of p < .05 was used.

5. Results from phase I

5.1. Gender comparison by university

Although no statistically significant differences were found, female Saudi EFL students reported using lan-guage learning strategies more frequently than male students at all three universities polled in Saudi Arabia.These universities ranked strategy use in the following order (see Tables 13):

Males in Saudi Arabia Females in Saudi Arabia

Univ. A mean: 3.25 Univ. B mean: 3.64Univ. C mean: 3.24 Univ. C mean: 3.52Univ. B mean: 3.23 Univ. A mean: 3.28

Table 1Gender comparison, University A.

Univ. A F[1, 71] Male Female

M SD M SD

Avg. 3.25 .66 3.28 .42

422 M.G. McMullen / System 37 (2009) 418433


6/16

5.2. Academic major comparison by university

Just as no statistically significant differences were found for gender, no statistically significant differenceswere found for academic major. Saudi Computer Science (CS) students reported using language learning strat-egies more frequently than Management Information Systems (MIS) students at Universities A and B. MISstudents outscored CS students at University C. These universities ranked strategy use in the following order(see Tables 46):

CS majors in Saudi Arabia MIS majors in Saudi Arabia

Univ. B mean: 3.56 Univ. C mean: 3.48Univ. C mean: 3.35 Univ. B mean: 3.34Univ. A mean: 3.30 Univ. A mean: 3.25

Table 2Gender comparison, University B.

Univ. B F[1, 41] Male Female

M SD M SD

Avg. 3.23 .43 3.64 .67

Table 3Gender comparison, University C.

Univ. C F[1, 47] Male Female

M SD M SD

Avg. 3.24 .50 3.52 .52

Table 4Academic major comparison, Univ. A.

Univ. A F[1, 71] CS MIS

M SD M SD

Avg. 3.30 .51 3.25 .55

Table 5Academic Major Comparison, Univ. B.

Univ. B F[1, 41] CS MIS

M SD M SD

Avg. 3.56 .62 3.34 .56

Table 6Academic major comparison, Univ. C.

Univ. C F[1, 47] CS MIS

M SD M SD

Avg. 3.35 .46 3.48 .57



7/16

6. Kingdom wide results

6.1. Gender

Looking at the nationwide results for gender, the female students reported higher strategy use than the

males across the Kingdom. The male students and the female students ranked the top four strategy categoriesidentically in the following order: social, metacognitive, compensation, and cognitive. Use of affective strate-gies came in fifth for the male students and use of memory strategies came in last. Saudi female students, how-ever, ranked the use of affective strategies last with memory strategies coming in fifth (see Table 7 and Fig. 1).

As for the percentages of high and low responses, Figs. 2 and 3 indicate that Saudi females across the King-dom reported much more frequent strategy use with answers to 84% of their SILL questions receiving a highscore (4 or 5 on the Likert scale), 2% scoring medium (3 on the Likert scale), and only 14% scoring low (1 or 2on the Likert scale). Saudi males, on the other hand, reported much lower strategy use with only 66% of theirresponses scoring high, 2% scoring medium, and 32% scoring low. Notice the percentage of low responsesfrom the male students (32%) is more than twice the percentage from the females (14%).

Table 7Independent variable: gender, KSA

Kingdom of S.A. dependent variable (SILL category) Male Female F[1, 163] Critical value = 3.993

M SD M SD

Memory 2.88 .64 3.28 .67 n.s.Cognitive 3.35 .69 3.48 .65 n.s.Compensation 3.41 .74 3.54 .72 n.s.Metacognitive 3.43 .79 3.56 .77 n.s.Affective 2.89 .68 3.18 .72 n.s.Social 3.46 .75 3.62 .78 n.s.

Overall average 3.24 .55 3.44 .53 n.s.

Fig. 1. Gender comparison, kingdom of Saudi Arabia.



8/16

6.2. Academic major

As for academic major comparisons across the Kingdom, the Computer Science (CS) students reportedhigher strategy use than the Management Information Systems (MIS) students at two out of the three univer-sities, with the CS students scoring a higher overall score. Kingdom wide results for academic major were iden-tical for CS students and MIS students for the fourth, fifth, and sixth ranking strategies: cognitive, memory,and affective. However, the Kingdoms CS students ranked metacognitive, social, and compensation strategiesas the first, second, and third highest used categories. The Kingdoms MIS students ranked social, compen-sation, and metacognitive strategies as their first, second, and third highest used categories (see Table 8 andFig. 4).

Fig. 2. Male high/low response across the kingdom.

Fig. 3. Female high/low response across the kingdom.

Table 8Independent variable: academic major, KSA.

Kingdom of S.A. dependent variable (SILL category) CS MIS F[1, 163] Critical value = 3.993

M SD M SD

Memory 3.14 .64 3.08 .72 n.s.Cognitive 3.44 .65 3.41 .69 n.s.Compensation 3.48 .73 3.48 .73 n.s.Metacognitive 3.55 .77 3.47 .79 n.s.Affective 3.12 .69 3.01 .73 n.s.Social 3.54 .73 3.55 .80 n.s.

Overall average 3.39 .53 3.34 .56 n.s.



9/16

As for the percentages of high and low responses, Figs. 5 and 6 indicate that Saudi CS students across theKingdom reported much more frequent strategy use with answers to 80% of their SILL questions receiving ahigh score (4 or 5 on the Likert scale), 6% scoring medium (3 on the Likert scale), and only 14% scoring low (1or 2 on the Likert scale). Saudi MIS students, on the other hand, reported lower strategy use with only 72% oftheir responses scoring high, 2% scoring medium, and 26% scoring low.

6.3. Discussion of phase I results

Having analyzed the data, one major task was remaining: to consider the reliability and validity of the data

collected from the questionnaires. As is the case with any quantitative analysis research project, considerable

Fig. 4. Academic major comparison, kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

Fig. 5. CS high/low response across the kingdom.

426 M.G. McMullen/ System 37 (2009) 418433


10/16

reflection was needed to determine if the numbers could be trusted. It is well known that one central issue inconsidering the reliability and validity of questionnaire surveys is that of sampling. An unrepresentative,skewed sample, one that is too small or too large, can easily distort the data (Cohen et al., 2003, p. 129).Because observations for this study were taken from three different universities across the Kingdom andbecause the sample was neither too large nor too small (N= 165), sampling issues were not a problem asso-

ciated with this study.Establishing reliability also involves other considerations. Internal reliability involves asking questions

such as: Were the methods for collecting, analyzing, and interpreting the data consistent? Would the sameresults be obtained by other researchers using the same analysis? External reliability, on the other hand, raisesthe following question: Could an independent researcher reproduce the study and obtain results similar to theoriginal study? (Burns, 1999, p. 21). Because the methods for collecting, analyzing, and interpreting the datafor this study were all meticulously consistent, other researchers would surely produce the same results if thesame study was conducted either in the same locations or elsewhere in Saudi Arabia. Hence, the current studycan be deemed highly reliable.

As for the validity of the SILL, it has been measured and verified in many countries throughout the world(Oxford and Burry-Stock, 1995, p. 6); however Saudi Arabia is not one of them. Measuring the validity of the

SILL in Saudi Arabia is a somewhat complicated proposition and one which, I believe, requires locally-basedresearch. Validity. . . can be seen from two viewpoints. . ..First, whether the respondents who complete thequestionnaires do so accurately, honestly and correctly; and second, whether those who fail to return theirquestionnaires would have given the same distribution of answers as did the returnees (Cohen et al., 2003,p. 128). From the second viewpoint, the researcher in this study is extremely confident that those who didnot participate would have responded in much the same way as those who did. However, trying to ascertainif the respondents actually understood every question on the SILL and answered each question honestly andwithout exaggeration is much more difficult. Because there was so much consistency in the answers, I am quiteconfident that the data represents a valid picture of what it intends to represent. Nevertheless, it is entirelypossible that the questionnaire respondents might have exaggerated their answers in similar ways creating afalse sense of consistency and accuracy. The best way to determine how valid the SILL is when used withSaudi EFL students would be to conduct another study in the future which combines both quantitativeand qualitative analysis. For example, small-scale studies could be conducted at each of the three universitieswhich include either a follow-up interview after the respondents complete the SILL or the use of think-aloudprotocols while administering the questionnaire to better ascertain the accuracy of student responses.

With these limitations in mind, the results for Phase I of this study were nonetheless conclusive. TheANOVA clearly indicated that in response to Research Questions One and Two, gender and academic majordo not have a statistically significant effect on the use of LLSs among Saudi EFL students even though thefemales in the study did score slightly higher than the male students and the Computer Science (CS) studentsscored slightly higher than the Management Information Systems (MIS) students. The results clearly showedthat Saudi EFL students as a whole have been favoring three strategy categories (social, metacognitive, andcompensation) while neglecting three others (cognitive, memory, and affective). The implications for teachersacting alone, or ideally with the support of course designers, are to think of new ways of teaching all of these

strategies to their students. Perhaps by offering the students who have been neglecting strategy use new ways of

Fig. 6. MIS high/low response across the kingdom.



11/16

learning, teachers and administrators can work in tandem to address language learning problems which arecommon to learners across the kingdom. Simply put, measures should be taken nationwide to introduce a pro-gram of strategy instruction for all.

7. Methodology: phase II

In this phase of the study, a custom-made Strategy Based Instruction (SBI) Program was designed andpiloted at one of the universities which participated in the earlier questionnaire study. In particular, it setout to answer Research Question 3:

Can Strategy Based Instruction help Saudi EFL students improve their writing abilities?

The longitudinal results of this SBI pilot program compare the final marks of a freshman English compo-sition class before SBI training and the final marks of the same class after SBI training. These results are pre-sented along with an evaluation of program success.

7.1. Designing an SBI training program

Using a framework developed by Cohen (Cohen and Weaver, 2006, pp. 45), the following procedures werefollowed:

1. Strategy Preparation2. Strategy Awareness-Raising3. Strategy Instruction4. Strategy Practice5. Personalization of Strategies

First, students were given a brief introduction to strategy use and were asked to talk about some of thestrategies they were already using. The next stage of the strategy training program involved raising student

awareness about the different kinds of strategies and their potential benefits. At this point, copies of the SILLwere passed out to raise self-awareness about strategy use. Later, a multi-media PowerPoint presentation wasprepared and shown depicting how specific strategies listed on the SILL could be used with course content forthe freshman English composition class the students were currently taking (see Appendix). As the slide showwas presented, specific strategies were modeled by the teacher. An SBI handout listing over two dozen strat-egies which could be used with the current writing course was also prepared and distributed on the same day asthe PowerPoint show. The fourth stage of this pilot program strategy practice was the most difficult tosustain, but perhaps the most crucial to the success of the program. The researcher determined that it wasnot enough to lecture students on strategy instruction or even to dazzle them with a flashy multi-media show.Students needed to be given the opportunity to experiment with strategies throughout the semester and to dis-cover for themselves that strategy use really works and can help improve their efforts in class. To ensure theseopportunities, strategy use training was integrated with course materials by the teacher and used continuouslythroughout the semester. The last stage of the training process, personalization of strategies, involved askingstudents to fill out a very short questionnaire indicating their favorite language learning/use strategies and per-ceptions of their effectiveness.

7.2. The results from phase II

As described above, during the spring semester of the academic year 20072008, a trial Strategy BasedInstruction program was set up and piloted with sixteen Saudi English composition students. Pre-SBI markswere compared with Post-SBI marks. Marks distribution of all students was identical: 15% for writing assign-ments, 15% for quizzes, 25% for midterm exam, and 45% for final exam. An identical rating scale was used byone teacher/marker for assessment in all cases, awarding marks for content, coherence, and mechanics thus

ensuring intra-rater consistency and reliability. Content was assessed on organization, thesis statement, topic



12/16

sentences, and conclusion. Coherence was assessed on the mostly subjective opinion of the marker, ascertain-ing if the writing was clear and easily understood. The use of any irrelevant sentences which did not supportthe topic sentence of each paragraph also fell under coherence and was marked accordingly. Mechanicsincluded spelling, grammar, and punctuation with equal marks allocated for each. By comparing first semesterPre-SBI marks with second semester Post-SBI marks, it was found that 15 out of 16 or 93.75% earned

higher marks the second semester after having been exposed to SBI training. The grade point average ofthe sixteen passing students went from an overall average of 73.40 the first semester to 78.68 the second semes-ter. Considering the struggles that Saudi EFL students typically have with this course, the numbers were quiteencouraging.

Naturally, there are many factors which can explain why student marks might increase or decrease. In thiscase, there were strong indications that the end of the year marks saw a dramatic increase due to great stridesmade in the use of language learning strategies by student writers great strides witnessed by the teacher/researcher and which seemed to be a direct result of the pilot SBI program. For example, the teacher/markernoticed that, after SBI, students began to use the margins of their test papers to organize before they write astrategy emphasized repeatedly throughout the research semester. By doing so, students were able to commu-nicate their ideas much more clearly on paper and avoid irrelevant sentences which had been hindering coher-ence. Greatest gains in student marks, however, were made in the area of mechanics. Because departmental

policy in the researchers context forbids the use of dictionaries on English exams, many students had beenlosing valuable marks in spelling during the pre-SBI semester. After SBI training, the same students learnedto compensate for lack of spelling knowledge by using only words which they knew for sure how to spell cor-rectly. For example, if they were not sure how to spell beautiful, they crossed it out and substituted withpretty. If they had doubts about the spelling for intelligent, they substituted with smart. This was acompensation strategy practiced in the class and observed by the researcher at marking time. Using strategies,students learned how to improve the organization, coherence, and mechanics of their writing and ultimatelyachieve better results. Therefore, in response to Research Question 3, the empirical evidence presented in thisstudy demonstrates that SBI can help improve the writing abilities of Saudi students in an EFL setting. Inother words, Strategy Based Instruction really will work in practice as well as in theory.

7.3. Discussion: implications for pedagogical practice

Rather than leaving students to grasp at straws on their own when it comes to strategy use, educatorsacross the world can systematically integrate strategy instruction with course content enabling students todevelop and refine their English writing skills. Anyone interested in setting up their own strategy instructionprogram can follow Cohens easy-to-follow plan (2003, p. 1) for training:

1. Determine learners needs and the resources available for training.2. Select the strategies to be taught.3. Consider the benefits of integrated strategy training.4. Consider motivational issues.5. Prepare the materials and activities.6. Conduct explicit strategy training.7. Evaluate and revise the strategy training.

As one leading researcher in the field of LLSs has noted, The possibility that effective use of language learn-ing strategies might contribute to successful language learning is exciting (Griffiths, 2003, p. 381). Just considerthe enormous impact SBI could have in EFL writing classes in your context. Also consider this: as we move intothe 21st century, we can see the world changing into a global community. As this shift takes place, the status ofwriting in language teaching is also changing. As students enter the global community from all corners of theworld, English is emerging as the international language of choice. EFL students everywhere, now more thanever, need to improve their writing skills in order to participate and compete in the global market. Educatorsand curriculum planners across the globe need to ask what more can be done to produce good English writers.

SBI offers promise to educators who are interested in trying a new technique to achieve an old goal.



13/16

8. Conclusions: recommendations for future research in Saudi Arabia

Nearly twenty years ago, two leading researchers in the field of LLSs (Oxford and Crookall, 1987, p.415) called for not only more research in the field, but more collaboration on joint research projects. Thatcall for research came over two decades ago and the international research community has produced innu-

merable research studies on the use of LLSs since then. I humbly ask,Where is the LLS research from

Saudi Arabia? While the rest of the world has heeded the call for strategy-specific research, the EFLresearch community in general remains in the infancy stage in Saudi Arabia. This is not only my obser-vation, but also the observations of my peers and leading educators in the Gulf as well ( Syed, 2003, p.340). I highly recommend that administrators across the Kingdom do more to encourage their facultyto get involved in action research. Rather than standing on the sidelines and reading research articles deal-ing with students in other countries, it is time for the TESOL practitioners in Saudi Arabia to stand upand investigate what is going on inside their own classrooms. It is time to discover how Saudi EFL stu-dents are different from EFL students in other international studies, and to discover how they are similarto other language learners across the world.

All in all, the results of this study have been far reaching. Not only has this study provided empirical datasuggesting how Saudi EFL students are currently using LLSs, it has showed how they can be taught to take

hold of the power of strategies and use them to improve their writing skills skills which can last a lifetime.More than anything, I hope this study will serve as a wakeup call to the TESOL community in Saudi Arabia.It is time for EFL teachers in Saudi Arabia to get more involved in action research. It is time to collaboratewith others inside the Kingdom and share results with the outside world. It is time for my fellow researchers inSaudi Arabia to join me and those who have gone before me taking our place in the international TESOLcommunity.

Acknowledgment

The author would like to thank Dr. Farhat Nasar for explanations and advice relating to the quantitativeanalysis of the data generated in this study. (Note: portions of the above article appeared in the McMullens

unpublished MA dissertation).

Appendix

What is a language strategy?

Language Learning

Strategies

selected while learning

Language Use

Strategies

selected while using

the language

while listening

while speaking

while reading

while writing

a tool which enhances the storage, retention,

recall, and application of information

Complete SBI Training presentation can be viewed at http://marammcmullen.weebly.com/.

http://marammcmullen.weebly.com/http://marammcmullen.weebly.com/


14/16

References

Al-Otaibi, G., 2004. Language Learning Strategy Use among Saudi ESL Students and its Relationship to Language Proficiency Level,Gender and Motivation. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Indiana University of Pennsylvania.

Al-Wahibee, K., 2000. The Relationship between Language Learning Strategies and the English Language Oral Proficiency of SaudiUniversity-Level ESL Students. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Kansas.

Bedell, D., Oxford, R., 1996. Cross-cultural comparisons of language learning strategies in the Peoples Republic of China and othercountries. In: Oxford, R. (Ed.), Language Learning Strategies around the World: Cross-Cultural Perspectives (Tech. Rep. No. 13).University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu, HI, pp. 4760.

Braik, M., 1986. Investigation of the Successful Attributes of English as a Second Language of Saudi Arabian Students Studying in theUnited States of America. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Pennsylvania State University.

Burns, A., 1999. Collaborative Action Research for English Language Teachers. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Chamot, A., OMalley, J., 1994. The CALLA handbook: implementing the cognitive academic language learning approach. In: Cohen, A.

(Ed.), Strategy Training for Second Language Learners. Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition, University ofMinnesota, Minneapolis, MN (ERIC Documentation Reproduction Services No. EDO-FL-03-02), Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA,pp. 12.

Chamot, A., Barnhart, S., El-Dinary, P., Robbins, J., 1999. The Learning Strategies Handbook. Addison Wesley Longman, White Plains,NY.

Chang, S., 1991. A Study of Language Learning Behaviors of Chinese Students at the University of Georgia and the Relation of thoseBehaviors to Oral Proficiency and Other Factors. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Georgia, Athens, GA.

Cleary, T., 2006. The development and validation of the self-regulation strategy inventory self-report. Journal of Social Psychology 44,307322.

Cohen, A., 1998. Strategies in Learning and Using a Second Language. Addison Wesley Longman, New York.Cohen, A., Weaver, S., 1998. Strategies-based instruction for second language learners. In: Renandya, W.A., Jacobs, G.M. (Eds.),

Learners and Language Learning, Anthology Series 39. SAMEO Regional Language Centre, Singapore, pp. 125.Cohen, A., 2003. Strategy Training for Second Language Learners. Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition, University

of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN (ERIC Documentation Reproduction Services No. EDO-FL-03-02), pp. 12.Cohen, A., Weaver, S., 2006. Styles- and Strategies-Based Instruction: A teachers guide. Center for Advanced Research on Language

Acquisition. University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN.Cohen, L., Manion, L., Morrison, K., 2003. Research methods in education, fifth ed. Routeledge Falmer, London.Dickinson, L., 1987. Self-instruction in Language Learning. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Dreyer, C., Oxford, R., 1996. Prediction of ESL proficiency among Afrikaans-speakers in South Africa. In: Oxford, R. (Ed.), Language

Learning Strategies around the World: Cross-cultural Perspectives. Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center, University ofHawaii, Honolulu.

Ehrman, M., Oxford, R., 1989. Effects of sex differences, career choice, and psychological type on adult language learning strategies.Modern Language Journal 73, 113.

Ehrman, M., Oxford, R., 1990. Adult language learning styles and strategies in an intensive training setting. Modern Language Journal 74,311327.

Ellis, R., 1985. Understanding Second Language Acquisition. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Fageeh, A., 2003. Saudi College Students Beliefs Regarding their English Writing Difficulties. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation,

Indiana University of Pennsylvania.Flaitz, J., Feyten, C., Fox, S., Mukherjee, K., 1995. Raising general awareness of language learning strategies: a little bit goes a long way.

Hispania 78 (2), 337348.Green, J., 1991. Language learning strategies of Puerto Rican university students. Paper presented at the annual meeting of Puerto Rico

Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, San Juan, PR. In: Oxford, R., Burry-Stock J. (Eds.), Assessing the Use ofLanguage Learning Strategies Worldwide with the ESL/EFL Version of the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) System23(1), 123.

Green, J., Oxford, R., 1995. A closer look at learning strategies, L2 proficiency, and gender. TESOL Quarterly 29 (2), 261297.Grenfell, M., Harris, V., 1999. Modern languages and learning strategies: In theory and practice. Routledge, London. In: Griffiths, C.

(Ed.), Lessons from Good Language Learners. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Griffiths, C., 2003. Patterns of language learning strategy use. System 31, 367383.Griffiths, C., 2008. Lessons from Good Language Learners. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Hashim, R., Sahil, S., 1994. Examining learners language learning strategies. RELC Journal 25 (2), 120.Kaylani, C., 1996. The influence of gender and motivation on EFL learning strategy use in Jordan. In: Oxford, R. (Ed.), Language

Learning Strategies around the World: Cross-cultural Perspectives. Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center, University ofHawaii, Honolulu.

Khalil, A., 1989. A study of cohesion and coherence in Arab EFL college students writing. System 17 (3), 359371.Klee, C. (Ed.), 1994. Faces in the Crowd: Individual Differences in the Language Classroom. Heinle & Heinle Publishers, Boston.Ko, Y., 2002. Perceptual Style Preferences and their Relationship to English Achievement and Learning Strategies of Junior High EFL

Learners in Taiwan. Unpublished Masters Thesis, National Gau-Shung University of Education.Kojic-Sabo, I., Lightbrown, P., 1999. Students approaches to vocabulary learning and their relationship to success. Modern Language

Journal 83, 176192.



15/16

Locastro, V., 1994. Learning strategies and learning environments. TESOL Quarterly 28 (2), 409414.Luo, Y., 1998. English language learning strategies of junior college students in Taiwan. Studies in English Language and Literature 3, 43

60.McMullen, M., 2008. Gender, Academic Major, Language Learning Strategies, and the Potential for Strategy Instruction in Saudi Arabia.

Unpublished Masters Dissertation, University of Manchester, England.Mullins, P., 1992. Successful English Language Learning Strategies of Students Enrolled in the Faculty of Arts, Chulalongkorn University,

Bankok, Thailand. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, United States International University, San Diego, CA.Nota, L., Soresi, S., Zimmerman, B., 2004. Self-regulation and academic achievement and resilience: a longitudinal study. International

Journal of Educational Research 41, 198215.Nyikos, M., 1991. Prioritizing student learning: a guide for teachers. In: Strasheim, L. (Ed.), Focus on the Foreign Language Learner:

Priorities and Strategies. National Textbook, Lincolnwood, IL.Oh, J., 1992. Learning strategies used by university EFL students in Korea. Language Teaching 1, 353.OMalley, J., Chamot, A., 1990. Learning Strategies in Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Oxford, R., Crookall, D., 1987. Research on language learning strategies: methods, findings, and instructional issues. The Modern

Language Journal 73 (4), 404419.Oxford, R., Crookall, D., 1988. Learning strategies: You can take it with you. In: Oxford, R., Nyikos, M. (Eds.), Variables affecting choice

of language learning strategies by university students. The Modern Language Journal 73 (3), 291300.Oxford, R., Nyikos, M., Ehrman, M., 1988. Vive la difference? Reflections on sex differences in use of language learning strategies. Foreign

language Annals 21 (4), 321329.Oxford, R., Nyikos, M., 1989. Variables affecting choice of language learning strategies by university students. The Modern Language

Journal 73 (3), 291300.Oxford, R., 1990. Language Learning Strategies: What Every Teacher should Know. Heinle & Heinle Publishers, Boston.Oxford, R., 1992. Language learning strategies in a nutshell. TESOL Quarterly, 2, 1822. In: Green, J., Oxford, R. (Eds.), A closer look at

learning strategies, L2 proficiency, and gender. TESOL Quarterly 29 (2), 261297.Oxford, R., Park-Oh, Y., Ito, S., Sumrall, M., 1993. Learning a language by satellite television: what influences student achievement?

System 21, 3148.Oxford, R., Burry-Stock, J., 1995. Assessing the use of language learning strategies worldwide with the ESL/EFL version of the Strategy

Inventory for Language Learning (SILL). System 23 (1), 123.Oxford, R. (Ed.), 1996. Language Learning Strategies around the World: Cross-cultural Perspectives. Second Language Teaching &

Curriculum Center, University of Hawaii, Honolulu.Pearson, P., Dole, A., 1987. Explicit comprehension instruction: a review of research and a new conceptualization of learning. Elementary

School Journal 88, 151165.Peng, I., 2001. EFL Motivation and Strategy use among Taiwanese Senior High School Learners. Unpublished Masters Thesis. National

Taiwan Normal University.

Phakiti, A., 2003. A closer look at gender and strategy use in L2 reading. Language Learning 53, 649702.Phillips, V., 1991. A look at learner strategy use and ESL proficiency. CATESOL Journal 56, 67.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., 1987. The learning style preferences of ESL students. TESOL Quarterly 21 (1), 87111.Renandya, W., Jacobs, G. (Eds.), 1998. Learners and Language Learning. Anthology Series 39, SEAMEO Regional Language Centre,

Singapore, pp. 125.Riding, R., 2005. Individual differences and educational performance. Educational Psychology 25, 659672.Rossi-Le, L., 1989. Perceptual Learning Style Preferences and their Relationship to Language Learning Strategies in Adult Students of

English as a Second Language. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Drake University, Des Moines, IA.Rubin, J., 1975. What the good language learner can teach us. TESOL Quarterly 9 (1), 4151.Salem, N., 2006. The Role of Motivation, Gender, and Language Learning Strategies in EFL Proficiency. Unpublished Masters Thesis,

American University of Beirut.Shmais, W., 2003. Language learning strategy use in Palestine. TESL-EJ 7 (2).Skehan, P., 1989. Individual differences in second-language learning. In: Green, J., Oxford, R. (Eds.), A closer look at learning strategies,

L2 proficiency, and gender. TESOL Quarterly 29 (2), 261297.Sy, B., 1994. Sex differences and language learning strategies. In: Green, J., Oxford, R. (Eds.), A closer look at learning strategies, L2

proficiency, and gender. TESOL Quarterly 29 (2), 261297.Syed, Z., 2003. TESOL in the gulf: the sociocultural context of English language teaching in the gulf. TESOL Quarterly 37 (2), 337

341.Tercanlioglu, L., 2004. Exploring gender effect on adult foreign language learning strategies. Issues in Educational Research 14(2), 183

193. Retrieved September 15, 2007 from: http://www.iier.org.au/iier14/tercanlioglu.html.Tseng, W., Dornyei, Z., Schmitt, N., 2006. A new approach to assessing strategic learning: the case of self-regulation in vocabulary

acquisition. Applied Linguistics 27, 78102.Wang, W., 2002. Effects of Gender and Proficiency on Listening Comprehension Strategy Use by Taiwanese EFL Senior High School

Students. Unpublished Masters Thesis, National Changhua University of Education, Changhua, Taiwan.Watanabe, Y., 1990. External variables affecting language learning strategies of Japanese EFL learners. In: Green, J., Oxford, R., A closer

look at learning strategies, L2 proficiency, and gender. TESOL Quarterly 29 (2), 261297.

http://www.iier.org.au/iier14/tercanlioglu.htmlhttp://www.iier.org.au/iier14/tercanlioglu.html


16/16

Wharton, G., 2000. Language learning strategy use of bilingual foreign language learners in Singapore. Language Learning 50 (2), 203243.

Wen, Q., Johnson, R., 1991. Language learning approaches and outcomes: A study of tertiary English majors in China. Paper presented atthe Sixth International Conference of the Institute of Language in Education, Hong Kong, China.

Wenden, A., 1986. Incorporating learner training in the classroom. System 14, 315325.Zoubir-Shaw, S., Oxford, R., 1995. Gender differences in language learning strategy use in university-level introductory French classes: a

pilot study employing a strategy questionnaire. In: Klee, C. (Ed.), Faces in the crowd: individual differences in the language classroom.Heinle & Heinle Publishers, Boston.


Documents

McMullen 2009 Using Language Learning Strategies to Improve the Writing Skills of Saudi EFL Students - Will It Really Work