Learning Strategies by Indonesian Senior High School EFL Learners

By Junaidi Mistar

Islamic University of Malang, Indonesia

 

Abstract

The research addresses four objectives: 1) exploring the taxonomy of English learning strategies used by Indonesian senior high school students, 2) measuring the extent of use of each strategy category, 3) measuring the inter-relationship of the use of the strategy taxonomy, and 4) examining the effect of learning strategy use on English proficiency. As such, descriptive and correlation designs were used. The subjects of the study, who were selected on the basis of accessibility, were 146 third year students from three government senior high schools in East Java Indonesia. They were asked to complete a 60-item strategy questionnaire. The factor analysis with the Principal Component Analysis (PCA) method revealed the presence of eight components or factors with initial eigenvalues greater than 1.5 explaining a cumulative variance of learning strategies 50.6%. The component matrix was rotated using the Varimax with Keiser Normalisation Method and the resulting factors were then treated as posteriori strategy categories. They were named to be communicating, cognitive processing, metacognitive processing, form-focusing, memorizing, evaluating, meaning-focusing, and affective developing strategies. Moreover, it was also found that out of the eight strategy categories, six of them (communicating, cognitive processing, metacognitive processing, memorizing, and evaluating, and affective developing strategies) were used at the moderate level and two (form-focusing and meaning focusing strategies) were used at the high level. Another finding shows that the use of these eight strategy categories was inter-related. Finally, it was found that the use of learning strategies significantly affected listening and the mastery of structure and written expression, but not reading comprehension when measured by TOEFL.

 

Introduction

Second/foreign language learning strategies are defined as specific actions or techniques that learners use to assist the development of their second/foreign language skills (Oxford, 1990). Research on such matters was probably initiated by Stern (1975) who attempted to make a list of characteristics of learners who were considered to be good language learners. A similar attempt was carried out by Rubin (1975). In subsequent stages, the studies were directed at finding the effect of learning strategies on success in learning as measured by either achievement or proficiency by covering both good and less good language learners. Bialystok and Fröhlich (1978), for example, tried to correlate learning strategies and classroom achievement of 157 learners of French as a Second Language in Toronto. The study found that learning strategy use correlated significantly with three out of four measures of achievement. In this case, the students who reported using learning strategies frequently tended to have high achievement in reading, listening, and grammar, but not writing.

Politzer and McGroarty (1985), however, came up with contradictory findings. In their study, they correlated three types of learning behaviors, including individual study behaviors, classroom behaviors, and interaction behaviors with four proficiency measures. Out of the twelve correlation coefficients (3 behavior scales times 4 proficiency measures), only one – the correlation between interaction behaviors and Global Communicative Competence – was significant at .05 level, suggesting that the confidence level of the correlation was 95%. The rest were not significant. Even, both individual study behaviors and classroom behaviors were negatively correlated with gains in Comprehensive English Language Test.

The type of study, which correlated learning strategies and measures of success in language learning, became even more popular with a more sophisticated classification of learning strategies in the early 1990s. More projects in the field were set out, leading Skehan (1991) to claim that the period was characterized by “a near-explosion of activity” (p. 285). Like Politzer and McGroarty, however, Oxford and Ehrman (1995) surprisingly came up with findings different from what were expected. They asked 268 students at the Foreign Service Institute, United States to complete the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) (Oxford, 1990). One of the questions to be answered was whether the strategy use correlated significantly with proficiency ratings. The proficiency assessments of speaking and reading were conducted at the end of the training sessions that lasted 3 to 44 weeks. The analysis unexpectedly came to a conclusion that only cognitive strategies correlated significantly with both speaking and reading proficiency. Nisbet, Tindall, and Arroyo’s study (2005) with 168 Chinese university students majoring in English also came up with a finding of no significant correlation between learning strategy use, measured by Oxford’s (1990) SILL and English proficiency, measured by TOEFL. A recent study by Yabukoshi and Takeuchi (2009) also found no significant relationship between strategy use and English proficiency among Japanese lower secondary school learners of English.

Meanwhile, findings of studies with students in Korea and Taiwan suggest that learning strategies correlate with English proficiency. In a study with 332 students in two Korean universities Park (1997) collected data of learning strategies by means of the SILL and data of students’ proficiency by means of TOEFL. Using a regression analysis, an analysis to measure how well a set of variables can predict an outcome (Pallant, 2005), the study found that the linear combination of the six strategy categories of the SILL – memeory, cognitive, compensation, metacognitive, affective, and social strategies – correlated significantly with proficiency. In this case, cognitive and social strategies were the best predictors of proficiency. Likewise, in their research project involving 1,110 students from middle school, high school, and university levels in Korea, Lee and Oxford (2008) found that students who rate their English proficiency as high employed learning strategies more frequently than those who rate their English proficiency as low. The significant differences occur in the six types of strategies as measured by the SILL. This finding agrees with Yang’s (2007) study with 451 junior college students in Taiwan. The study found that more proficient students reported using strategies more often than less proficient students.

Another trend in the study of learning strategies is the use of experimental designs. Song (1998), for example, carried out strategy training for reading in a Korean university. The subjects consisted of 68 first year students who engaged in a 42-hour-long-training program over a period of fourteen weeks. A reading proficiency test was administered prior to the training and after the training. The results of the two administrations were compared and the gains were compared across students of low, intermediate, and high level. The findings suggest that reading strategy training significantly improved students’ reading ability. The effect was greatest among students with low initial reading ability, followed by those with moderate initial reading ability.

Despite the fact that learning strategy has been an issue investigated extensively especially in western countries since 1970s, it has not been very much studied among learners of English as a foreign language in Indonesia until the late 1990s. One of Indonesian researchers is Lengkanawati (1997), who investigated the predictability of proficiency from learning strategies of 114 students at the English Education Department, Institute of Teacher Training and Education, Bandung. The data on learning strategies were collected by means of the SILL (Oxford, 1990). The data on proficiency, on the other hand, were measured by means of TOEFL. In general, when the students’ total TOEFL scores were regressed against the six categories of learning strategies, the analysis found that the independent variable and the dependent variables shared a common variance of only 5%. Moreover, Djiwandono (1998) investigated the predictability of oral communication proficiency from learning strategies and degree of extroversion. Using 50 students at the Widya Karya University, Malang, Indonesia, as the subjects, the study found that diversity – one out of three dimensions of strategy use – and expressiveness – one out of seven indicators of extroversion – turned out to be the best predictors of oral communication proficiency. These two predictors explained 48% of the total variance of the dependent variable. While Djowandono used learning strategy as a predictor of English proficiency, Huda (1998) treated learning strategy as the dependent variable and speaking proficiency as the independent variable. The subjects consisted of 30 students of the English Education Department, Institute of Teacher Training and Education at Malang, Indonesia. He found that learners with good speaking proficiency used fewer strategies than their fellow learners with fair speaking proficiency did. This finding contradicts a claim that more proficient learners use more varieties of strategies (Oxford, 1993). Then, in a study with Indonesian learners of English at three universities in Malang, Mistar (2001) reported a finding that motivational factors influence the learners’ use of learning strategies more significantly than personality traits and language aptitude. In another study (Mistar, 2006) it was found that the use of learning strategies significantly affects the learners’ perceived proficiency attainment.

As reviewed above, although few studies failed to show the significant contribution of learning strategies, most of them revealed that learning strategies affect learning achievement or learning proficiency. Possibly, it is the inappropriate learning strategy use that stands as one of the causes of the unsuccessful English teaching in Indonesian senior high schools. Sadtono (1995) predicts, “they, learners, do not realize that learning a foreign language requires perseverance, discipline, knowledge of techniques of assimilating new habits, self-evaluation, a great deal of practice and that the whole business takes a long time” (p.25).

Based on the preceeding literature it can bee seen that studies on how Indonesian senior high school EFL learners learn English are required. In detail, the present study was carried out to find the answers to the following questions:

1. What learning strategies are used by Indonesian senior high school EFL learners?
2. To what extent do they use English learning strategies?
3. Does their use of learning strategies correlate with one another? In other words, do students who use a certain category of learning strategies intensively tend to use the other categories of learning strategies intensively too?
   1. Does their use of learning strategies affect their English proficiency attainment?

 

Research Method

Design

Referring to the four research problems above, the present study employed the quantitative method with descriptive and correlation designs. The descriptive design was used to present the profile of learning strategies that Indonesian Senior High School EFL learners employed (problems 1 and 2). Moreover, the correlation design was used to investigate the inter-relationship among the strategy types and the influence of learning strategies on proficiency attainment (problems 3 and 4).

Subjects of the Study

The study was at first participated by 150 third year students of Science department from three government senior high schools in East Java. The students were allowed to withdraw from the research by not completing the research instruments. When the students’ work was collected and analyzed, four papers were found to be not properly completed; thus they were dropped from the study, resulting in 146 subjects to be considered as the subjects of the study.

Since the data collection was carried out when the students were still in the beginning of their third year schooling in the senior high level, it can be said that they have been learning English for five years (three years at junior high and two years at senior high schools) with a frequency of four hours a week. The aim of the English teaching is to train the students to be able to communicate in English. As such, the four macro-skills of English – speaking, listening, reading, and writing – are covered equally.

Instruments

Two research instruments were employed to collect the required data. Data of the students’ learning strategies was measured by using a Learning Strategy Questionnaire (LSQ) developed on the basis of strategy taxonomies proposed by Oxford (1990) and O’Malley and Chamot (1990). The questionnaire originally consisted of 90 items. However, when it was tried out to 42 first-year students at English Department of the Islamic University of Malang and the construct validity of each item was analyzed, it turned out that 30 items did not significantly contribute to the measurement of learning strategies. Thus, 60 items were used in the final version of the instrument. An analysis of the reliability measure of the LSQ using Cronbach’s alpha method (Pallant, 2005) found a reliability index .943, suggesting that the data of students learning strategies were very highly reliable. Data of the students’ English proficiency, moreover, were collected by means of a paper-based TOEFL test consisting of Listening, Structure and Written Expression, and Reading Comprehension (Philips, 2001).

Data Collection and Analysis

The data collection was carried out in July and August 2009. Assisted by the local English teachers, the researcher invited the subjects to complete the Learning Strategy Questionnaire (LSQ) and to do the TOEFL test. In each school the two sets of instruments were completed in two and a half hours.

The subjects’ work was then scored so that each subject had a score for learning strategy use and TOEFL test. Data of learning strategy use were analyzed by using the posteriori classification of strategies, instead of the a priori taxonomy. This means that new classification of strategies were to be made based on the results of the analysis. Thus, the underlying factors of the 60 strategy items were firstly discerned by using the Principal Component Analysis (PCA). The component matrix was rotated using the Varimax with Keiser Normalisation Method and the resulting factors were then treated as posteriori strategy categories. Thus, prior to the factor analysis, the factorability of the data was inspected by examining three criteria. They were that (1) the correlation matrix should contain any one or more coefficient of .3 or above, (2) the Bartlett’s test of sphericity should be significant, and (3) the Kaiser-Meyer-Oklin (KMO) value should be at least .6 (Pallant, 2005). The identified factors were then named to represent strategy categories.

Next, the average score of the use of each strategy category was analyzed to find the patterns of the intensity of use. The intensity of use is interpreted as being high if the mean score of use is between 3.45 and 5.00, medium if it is between 2.45 and 3.44, and low if it is between 1.00 and 2.44 (Oxford, 1990). Then, correlation analyses were performed to investigate the inter-relationship of the use of each strategy category. Finally, the identified strategy categories were regressed against the scores of TOEFL test to investigate their predictability.  All these statistical computations were carried out using computer statistical package SPSS Version 17.

 

Results and Discussion

Results

The results are presented in the order of the questions addressed in this study. As mentioned earlier, four questions were addressed and the answers to each of them are described below.

Question One: What learning strategies are used by Indonesian senior high school EFL learners?

The Principal Component Analysis (PCA) revealed the presence of eight components or factors with an initial eigen-value greater than 1.5 explaining a cumulative variance of 50.6% (see Table 1). Out of the eight factors, five factors explain variances more than 3% and the other three factors explain less than 3%. Of the five factors in the first category, the most dominant one accounted for 25% of the total variance of learning strategies. This factor obtained high loadings (more than .3) from twelve strategy items which chiefly deal with the practice of using the language for enhancing language skills. These include strategies for searching and creating more opportunities to learn to speak, read, listen, and write in English as well as asking questions in English. Strategies of having special friends for practicing English and encouraging oneself to speak English are two other strategies in this category. Thus, this factor was described as a factor of active use of English in communication (communicating strategies). Factor 2, moreover, accounted for 5.1% of the variance. There were also twelve strategy items that provided high loadings to this factor and they mainly deal with cognitive processing of the language such as imaging words, associating words with context of use, predicting what others are to say, avoiding word-for-word translation, findings similarities in the first language, making summaries when reading, and making conclusion when reading. Thus, this factor was described as factor of cognitive processing strategies. Factor 3, which explained 4.5% of the variance in learning strategies, obtained high loadings from five strategy items. The strategies mainly deal with metacognitive processes in the forms of planning and monitoring learning plans, such as planning activities to have more time to learn English, planning English learning activities, implementing the learning plans consistently, and monitoring the effectiveness of the learning plans. Thus, this factor is named metacognitive processing strategies. Factor 4, explaining 3.6% of the learning strategy variance, is described as form-focusing strategies as this factor obtain high loadings from nine strategy items that deal with analyzing grammatical rules of English as use them in practice. Finding English rules, checking correctness of grammar when speaking and writing, and paying attention to grammatical problems of other’s speech are examples of strategies within this category. And, factor 5 explaining 3.5% of the variance obtains high loadings from eight strategy items that mainly concern with strategy to memorize the language, like associating the sound of English with the sound in the native language, repeating others’ speeches, acting out words, and practicing English sounds. Thus, this factor is described as memorizing strategies.

Table 1

The Resulting Factors and Thier Variance

No.	Strategy Category	Variance
1.	Meaning-focusing Strategies	25.0%
2.	Form-focusing Strategies	5.1%
3.	Affective Developing Strategies	4.5%
4.	Evaluating Strategies	3.6%
5.	Communicating Strategies	3.5%
6.	Cognitive Processing Strategies	2.9%
7.	Memorizing Strategies	2.8%
8.	Metacognitive Processing Strategies	2.6%
	Cummulative Variance	50.6%

 

The other three factors explain less than 3% of the variance each. Factor 6, for example, explain 2.9% of learning strategy variance and it obtains high loadings from five strategy items that deal with the learners’ actions in evaluating their learning progress, such as thinking of strategies that suit best, evaluating the effectiveness of the strategies, and evaluating the achievement in learning. Thus, this factor is named evaluating strategies. Factor 7, moreover, explains 2.8% of strategy variance and it gets high loadings from meaning-focused strategy items, such as trying to get the main ideas when listening and reading, finding synonyms when having problems with English words, and directing to familiar topics when speaking. Thus, this factor is named as meaning-focusing strategies. Finally, the last factor (factor 8), which explains 2.6% of strategy variance, gets high loadings from four strategy items that mainly deal with affective aspects of learning, such as self-encouragement, self-reward, and lowering anxiety. Thus, this factor is called affective developing strategies. The complete presentation of the strategies that provide high loadings to each factor is presented in Appendix 1.

Question Two: To what extent do the learners use English learning strategies?

The data of the learners’ intensity of use of learning strategies as analyzed in terms of each strategy categories as well as overall strategies are presented in Table 2.  The table shows that the overall use of learning strategies by Indonesian senior high school learners of English was at the moderate level. As far as the strategy categories were concerned, two categories were used at the high level, while the other six categories were used at the moderate level. The strategies which were found to be used at the high level were meaning-focusing and form-focusing strategies. This suggests that in English learning the learners focus on both the meaning and the form of the language. The most intensively used strategies were meaning-focusing strategies with a mean score of use being 3.92 and the least intensively used strategies were metacognitive processing strategies with a mean score of use being 2.55.

Table 2

Intensity of Use of Learning Strategies

Strategy Category	Mean	Intensity of Use	Rank of Use
Meaning-focusing Strategies	3.92	High	1
Form-focusing Strategies	3.50	High	2
Affective Developing Strategies	3.39	Moderate	3
Evaluating Strategies	3.14	Moderate	4
Communicating Strategies	3.05	Moderate	5
Cognitive Processing Strategies	2.98	Moderate	6
Memorizing Strategies	2.81	Moderate	7
Metacognitive Processing Strategies	2.55	Moderate	8
Overall Strategies	3.17	Moderate

 

Question Three: Does the learners’ use of learning strategies correlate with one another? In other words, do students who use a certain category of learning strategeis at a high level tend to use the other categories at a high level too?

 Although learners were found to use the eight categories of learning strategies at different frequencies as reported in the earlier section, analyses of the interrelationship of the use of these strategy categories revealed that they are correlated with one another. Table 3 shows that the highest correlation coefficient is between communicating strategies (factor 1) and evaluating strategies (factor 6) (r=.673, p<.01) and the lowest is between planning strategies (factor 3) and affective developing strategies (factor 8) (r=.232, p<.01). Interpreted in terms of the strength of relationship, out of twenty eight coefficients, three coefficients were found to indicate strong correlation (.60<r<.80), seventeen coefficients indicate moderate correlation (.40<r<.60), and eight coefficients indicate weak correlation (.20<r<.40). The strong correlations were found in the pairs of categories of communicating and evaluating, metacognitive processing and evaluating, and form-focusing and evaluating strategies. The moderate correlations were found in the pairs of categories of communicating and cognitive processing, communicating and metacognitive processing, communicating and form-focusing, communicating and memorizing, communicating and meaning-focusing, communicating and affective developing, cognitive processing and metacognitive processing, cognitive processing and form-focusing, cognitive processing and memorizing, cognitive processing and evaluating, metacognitive processing and form-focusing, metacognitive processing and memorizing, memorizing and form-focusing, memorizing and evaluating, evaluating and affective developing, meaning-focusing and form-focusing, and affective developing and form-focusing strategies. Finally, the weak correlations were found in the pairs of strategy categories of cognitive processing and meaning-focusing, cognitive processing and affective developing, metacognitive processing and meaning-focusing, metacognitive processing and affective developing, memorizing and meaning-focusing, memorizing and affective developing, evaluating and meaning-focusing, and meaning focusing and affective developing strategies.

Table 3

Inter-relationship among the Eight Strategy Categories

Strategy	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
1	1.000
2	.537**	1.000
3	.549**	.458**	1.000
4	.599**	.517**	.494**	1.000
5	.600**	.535**	.549**	.520**	1.000
6	.673**	.537**	.657**	.619**	.557**	1.000
7	.421**	.381**	.341**	.516**	.360**	.392**	1.000
8	.482**	.394**	.232**	.415**	.336**	.446**	.306**	1.000

** p<.01 (two-tailed)

Note: 1 Communicating Strategies, 2 Cognitive Processing Strategies, 3 Metacognitive Processing Strategies, 4 Form-Focusing Strategies, 5 Memorizing Strategies, 6 Evaluating Strategies, 7 Meaning-Focusing Strategies, 8 Affective Developing Strategies

 

 

It should be noted here that although the correlation coefficients fell within different ranges of correlation strength, all of the coefficients indicated positive significance at .01 level (2-tailed test), suggesting 99% confidence level of correlation. This suggests that an increase in the use of a particular strategy category tends to be associated with a similar increase in the use of the other seven strategy categories.

Question Four: Does the learners’ use of learning strategies affect their English proficiency attainment?

To assess the effect of learning strategies on proficiency attainment, a standard regression analysis was performed. The results of the analysis as summarized in Table 4 show that the combination of the eight identified factors of learning strategies was found to affect Section 1 of the TOEFL test (Listening) with an F-value 2.556 (p<.013) and Section 2 (Structure and Written Expression) with an F-value 2.473 (p<.016). However, the factors did not affect Section 3 (Reading Comprehension) significantly as the F-value is only .642 (p<.742). The total variance of the proficiency measures predicted by the eight strategy factors were 13% and 12.6% for Listening and Structure and Written Expression sections respectively. Meanwhile, only 3.4% variance of the Reading section was explained by the eight categories of learning strategies.

Table 4

Regression Analysis of the Predictability of English Proficiency from Learning Strategies

Dependent Variable: Listening
Multiple R	.360	Analysis of Variance
R Square	.130		d.f.	Sum of Squares	Mean Square
Adjusted R Square	.079	Regression	8	672.560	84.070
Standard Error	5.735	Residual	137	4505.693	32.888
		Total	145	5178.253
		F = 2.556         Significance F = .013
Dependent Variable: Structure and Written Expression
Multiple R	.355	Analysis of Variance
R Square	.126		d.f.	Sum of Squares	Mean Square
Adjusted R Square	.075	Regression	8	555.337	69.417
Standard Error	5.298	Residual	137	3845.786	28.071
		Total	145	4401.123
		F = 2.473        Significance F = .016
Dependent Variable: Reading
Multiple R	.190	Analysis of Variance
R Square	.036		d.f.	Sum of Squares	Mean Square
Adjusted R Square	-.020	Regression	8	222.864	27.858
Standard Error	6.589	Residual	137	5947.471	43.412
		Total	145	6170.336
		F = .642         Significance F = .742

 

Discussion

The discussion explores the position of the present findings relative to the findings of previous studies as well as their possible implications. The discussion is presented in line with the problems addressed in the study.

Posteriori Taxonomy of Learning Strategies by Indonesian Senior High School EFL Learners

The factor analysis employed in the present study revealed the presence of eight factors (strategy categories), which together explain 50.5% cumulative variance of learning strategies. This finding suggests that about a half of the learners’ total learning strategy use is assessed in this study.

Out of the eight underlying factors of learning strategies, the most important factor is strategies for communication, which by itself explains 25.4% of the variance. This suggests that in their learning process the students tend to favor strategies that require them to use the language actively. Thus, using words in different ways, looking for people to talk to, and practicing English with other students are used extensively by the learners. As such, their ultimate goal of language learning focuses more on the attainment of proficiency in using the language for both spoken and written communication than merely on getting good grades. Nyikos and Oxford (1993) assert that learners in communicative competence oriented context prefer strategies that involve active use of the target language, while learners in grade oriented context exhibit more strategies that deal with formal, rule-related processing strategies. In the present study, the latter strategies are manifested in form-focusing strategies (factor 4), which explains 3.6% of strategy variance.

Senior high school students in Indonesia also prefer cognitive processing strategies (factor 2) and metacognitive processing strategies (factor 3) as these two factors explain 9.5% of the variance. This suggests that the students to an extent seem to have been aware of the importance of processing the target language as well as of coordinating their learning process, such as by making learning plans and evaluation their progress. Stern (1975) mentions that good language learners are critical of the progress they make in learning a new language.

 Intensity of Use of Learning Strategies

The study found learners of English as a foreign language in Indonesian senior high schools are moderate users of the identified learning strategies. This finding complements the similar findings of several studies on learning strategies carried out around the world. LoCastro (1994) found an average use of learning strategies of 2.94, suggesting a medium level of use, by Japanese learners of English with means of the six strategy categories ranging from 2.55 to 3.27. Park (1997) also reported a medium frequency level of use with means between 2.91 and 3.50 by Korean university students learning English. Lee and Oxford (2008) also reported a medium frequency of use of learning strategies by students of middle school, high school, and university in Korea. Indian college students in Singapore were also found to use English learning strategies with high to moderate frequency (Sheorey, 1999). A high frequency of use was found from students at Adult Migrant Education Service (AMES), Australia, who learn English as a second language, with social strategies being the highest (mean=3.82) and memory strategies being the lowest (mean=3.12) (Lunt, 2000). In a context of learning a foreign language other than English, Oxford, Park-Oh, Ito and Sumrall (1993) found that the use of learning strategies by American students learning Japanese through satellite programs was at the moderate level. In this study the frequencies of use were found to range between 2.54 for memory strategies and 3.02 for cognitive strategies. Learners of Japanese and French in a Singaporean university were also found to use strategies at the moderate frequency range with a mean of 2.93 (Wharton, 2000).

When viewed in terms of intensity of use of each strategy category, the study found that meaning-focusing strategies were used the most intensively, while metacognitive processing strategies were used the least intensively. This suggests that when the learners are learning and communicating in English they focus their attention more on the meaning than on any other aspects, such as accuracy of grammar or pronunciation. Moreover, it also indicates that trainings on how to plan and monitor learning activities are required since the learners were found to employ such strategies at the lowest intensity.

Inter-correlation of Strategy Categories

The study found that the use of the eight categories of learning strategies significantly correlated with one another, suggesting that a change in the intensity of use of one type of strategy carries a change in the intensity of use of the other types of learning strategies. Oxford and Ehrman (1995), Park (1997) and Mistar (2001) also reported a similar result. This finding has an important implication for strategy training. The program administrators may expect that a training program focusing on a particular type of learning strategy may also result in an increase in the use of the other strategy types. Ultimately, if learners are able to execute all learning strategy types effectively, they will become autonomous learners, i.e. those who can take charge of their own learning (Holec, 1981).

The close relation between learning strategies and learner autonomy has been emphasized by Wenden and Rubin (1987), who state that one of the goals of the research on foreign language learning strategies is to promote learner autonomy. Little (1997) as cited by Harris (1997, p. 9) also stresses the relationship between learning strategies and learning autonomy as he says, “If the pursuit of learner autonomy requires that we focus explicitly on the strategic component of language learning and language use, the reverse should also be the case: focus on strategies should lead us to learner autonomy.”

The Effect of Learning Strategies on English Proficiency Attainment

With regard to the impact of strategies on proficiency attainment, broadly speaking the finding supports the generally accepted notion that the learners’ choice of learning strategies both in type and quantity determines learning outcomes, which may be measured in terms of learning rate, levels of achievement or proficiency (Ellis, 1994). In this study the combination of the eight factors of learning strategies accounted for 13% and 12.6% of the variance in Listening and Structure and Written Expression. This finding is also in line with the findings of the majority of studies correlating learning strategies and proficiency. In addition to studies already reviewed in the previous section, Green and Oxford (1995), for example, found a significant relationship between overall strategy use and proficiency. Wharton (2000) in a study with Singaporean learners of Japanese and French came up with a similar finding that learning strategy use tends to go with higher proficiency. In a study with 194 high school students and 184 university students in Palestine, Khalil (2005) found that learners’ proficiency level has a major effect on overall strategy use. Moreover, Wu (2008) also found differences in the use of learning strategies by high proficiency and low proficiency learners in Taiwan. The finding of the present study as well as those cited above imply that in order that the students attain high proficiency in English, it is justifiable that they have to employ learning strategies intensively.      

 

Conclusion and Recommendation

Conclusion

This study examined the factors that underlie the sixty strategy items, which were found to be eight factors (strategy categories) that accounted for 50.6% of strategy variance. These factors include meaning-focusing strategies, form-focusing strategies, affective developing strategies, evaluating strategies, communicating strategies, cognitive processing strategies, memorizing strategies, and metacognitive processing strategies, with communicating strategies being the most explaining factor (25.4%) and metacognitive processing strategies being the least (2.6%). In general these strategy categories were used at the moderate level since only two learning categories, meaning-focusing strategies and form-focusing strategies, are used at the high level. Moreover, the use of these types of learning strategies is found to be inter-correlated, suggesting that an increase in the use of one strategy type tends to be followed by a similar increase in the use of the other types of learning strategies. Finally, it is found that the use of learning strategies significantly affects the attainment of proficiencies in listening and structure and written expression, but not in reading comprehension.

Recommendations

The findings of the present study carry on at least two implications to be suggested to classroom teachers. One is that ample opportunities to practice using English in real communicative interactions should be provided both inside and outside the classroom. This is so because the students have turned out to be in favor of such strategies that require active use of English. Thus, consistent use of English during the teaching-learning process is essential. Moreover, such teaching activities that promote high use of English as group work, information gaps, and games are highly recommended to be applied in the classrooms. Then, establishing conversation groups, reading groups, discussion groups and the like are a few examples of forums to be created for out of classroom activities. Demanding the students to use English when communicating with the teachers outside the classrooms is also a way of providing wider opportunities for them to improve their English.

The other one is that the students should be made aware of the necessity of employing a wide range of strategies in their learning because the strategies have been found to significantly influence their proficiency attainment. The more strategies they use, the better their English proficiency will be. Thus, strategies that might not be familiar to the students need to be introduced and instruction in the use of appropriate strategies is needed. Integrated strategy training is perhaps the best approach to strategy instruction, in which explicit instruction in the use of the intended strategies is deliberately integrated into regular classroom activities.

References

Bialystok, E., & Fröhlich, M. (1978). Variables of classroom achievement in second language learning. The Modern Language Journal, 62(7), 327-336.

Djiwandono,  P. I. (1998). The Relationship between EFL Learning Strategies, Degree of Extroversion, and Oral Communication Proficiency: A Study of Second Year Secretarial Students at Widya Karya University. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, IKIP MALANG, Indonesia.

Ellis, R. (1994). The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Green, J. M., & Oxford, R. (1995) A closer look at learning strategies, L2 proficiency, and gender. TESOL Quarterly 29(2), 261-297.

Harris, V. (1997). Teaching Learners How to Learn: strategy training in the ML classroom. London: Centre for Information on Language Teaching and Research.

Holec, H. (1981). Autonomy and Foreign Language Learning. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.

Huda, N. (1998). Speaking proficiency, reflectivity-impulsivity, and L2 learning strategies. In W. A. Renandya & G. M. Jacobs (Eds.). Learners and Language Learning: RELC Anthology Series 39 (pp. 40-55). Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre.

Khalil, A. (2005). Assessment of language learning strategies used by Palestinian EFL learners. Foreign Language Annals, 30(1), 108-119.

Lee, K. R., & Oxford, R. (2008). Understanding EFL learners’ strategy use and awareness. Asian EFL Journal, 10(1), 7-32.

Lengkanawati, N. S. (1997). Kontribusi Strategi Belajar Bahasa terhadap Kemahiran Berbahasa (Contribution of Language Learning Strategies on Language Proficiency), Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, IKIP BANDUNG, Indonesia.

LoCastro, V. (1994). Learning strategies and learning environments. TESOL Quarterly, 28(2), 409-414.

Lunt, E. H. (2000). The Learning Strategies of Adult Immigrant Learners of English: quantitative and qualitative perspectives. Unpublished Doctoral Thesis, The University of Melbourne, Australia.

Mistar, J. (2001). English learning strategies of Indonesian university students across individual differences. Asian Journal of English Language Teaching, 11, 19-44.

Mistar, J. (2006). The effect of learning strategies on perceived English proficiency. Jurnal Pendidikan dan Pembelajaran Fakultas Keguruan dan Ilmu Pendidikan Universitas Lampung, 4(1), 25-36.

Nisbet, D. L., Tindall, E. R., & Arroyo, A. A. (2005). Language learning strategies and English proficiency of Chinese university students. Foreign Language Annals, 38(1), 100-107.

Nyikos, M., & Oxford, R. (1993). A factor analytic study of language learning strategy use: Interpretations from information-processing theory and social psychology. The Modern Language Journal, 77(i), 11-22.

O’Malley, J. M., & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning Strategies in Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language Learning Strategies: What every teacher should know. New York: Newbury House Publishers.

Oxford, R. L. (1993). Research on second language learning strategies. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 13, 175-187.

Oxford, R., Park-Oh, Y., Ito, S. & Sumrall, M. (1993). Japanese by satellite: Effects of motivation, language learning styles and strategies, gender, course level, and previous language learning experience on Japanese language achievement. Foreign Language Annals, 26(3), 359-371.

Oxford, R. L., & Ehrman, M. E. (1995). Adults’ language learning strategies in an intensive foreign language program in the United States. System, 23(3), 359-386.

Pallant, J. F. (2005). SPSS Survival Manual: A step-by-step guide to data analysis using SPSS. Crows Nest, NSW: Allen & Unwin.

Park, G. (1997). Language learning strategies and English proficiency in Korean university students. Foreign Language Annals, 30(2), 211-221.

Philips, D. (2001). Longman Complete Course for the TOEFL Test: Preparation for the computer and paper tests. White Plains, New York: Addison-Wesley Longman.

Politzer, R. L., & McGroarty, M. (1985). An exploratory study of learning behaviors and their relationship to gains in linguistic and communicative competence. TESOL Quarterly, 19(1), 103-124.

Rubin, J. (1975). What the “good language learner” can teach us. TESOL Quarterly, 9(1), 41-51.

Rubin, J., & Thomson, I. (1982). How to be a More Successful Language Learner.  Boston: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.

Sadtono, E. (1995). Perspektif Pengajaran Bahasa Inggris di Indonesia [Perspectives of English Teaching in Indonesia]. Malang, Indonesia: FPBS IKIP MALANG.

Sheorey, R. (1999). An examination of language learning strategy use in the setting of an indigenized variety of English. System, 27(2), 173-190.

Skehan, P. (1991). Individual differences in second-language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13: 275-298.

Song, M. (1998). Teaching reading strategies in an ongoing EFL university reading classroom. Asian Journal of English Language Teaching, 8: 41-54.

Stern, H. H. (1975). What can we learn from the good language learner?. Canadian Modern Language Review, 31(3), 304-318.

Wenden, A., & Rubin, J. (Eds.) (1987). Learner Strategies in Language Learning. London: Prentice-Hall International.

Wharton, G. (2000). Language learning strategy use of bilingual foreign language learners in Singapore. Language Learning, 50(2), 203-243.

Wu, Y. (2008). Language learning strategies used by students at different proficiency levels. Asian EFL Journal, 10(4), 75-91. Retrieved February 25, 2009, from http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/December_08_ylw.php

Yang, M. 2007. Language learning strategies for junior college students in Taiwan: Investigating ethnicity and proficiency. Asian EFL Journal 9.2: 35-57. Retrieved February 25, 2009, from http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/June_07_mny.php

Yabukoshi, T., & Takeushi, O. (2009). Language learning strategies used by lower secondary school learners in Japanese EFL context. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 19(2), 136-172.

Appendix 1: Classification of Learning Strategies based on Factor Analysis

Factor 1: Communicating Strategies

1. I watch TV shows and listen to radio broadcasts in English.
2. I learn from others’ mistakes in speaking and writing English.
3. I set up my target in learning English.
4. I look for as much opportunities as possible to invite others to speak English.
5. I look for as much opportunities as possible to read texts in English.
6. I look for as much opportunities as possible to listen to English.
7. I look for as much opportunities as possible to write in English.
8. I evaluate my progress in learning English.
9. I encourage myself to speak English even though I am afraid of making mistakes.
10. I have special friends to practice English.
11. In English forums, I ask questions to be active in them.
12. I try to learn the culture of English native speakers.

 

Factor 2: Cognitive Processing Strategies

1. I associate the sound of English words with images or pictures so that I can remember them.
2. I combine sounds and pictures to remember English words.
3. I memorize new English words by thinking of where they may be used.
4. I look for words in Indonesian or my local language that are similar with English words.
5. When I do not understand an English word that I read or listen, I try to predict based on available clues.
6. When talking in English, I guess what others say based what they say before.
7. I use gestures to overcome my vocabulary problems when I am conversing in English.
8. I look for similarities and differences between English words and Indonesian words.
9. I try not to translate word-for-word from Indonesian into English or vice versa.
10. I make summaries of what I have read or listened in English.
11. I construct my own conclusion of English grammatical patterns, even though sometimes not quite correct.
12. I create my own words when I do not know in English.

 

Factor 3: Metacognitive-Processing Strategies

1. I write notes, messages, letters, and reports in English.
2. I plan my activities, so that I have more time to learn English.
3. I make plans of my English learning.
4. I apply my English learning plans consistently.
5. I monitor the effectiveness of my English learning plans.

 

Factor 4: Form-focusing Strategies

1. I revise what I write in English to improve my writing skill.
2. I use English words that I already know to make new sentences.
3. I look for patterns of English.
4. I apply the patterns of English to understand spoken and written texts.
5. I apply the patterns of English in new situations.
6. I write my notes of English lessons to identify important points.
7. When speaking or writing, I check whether my English is correct or not.
8. I pay attention to my mistakes in using English and think of why they are wrong.
9. I learn my mistakes in using English.

 

Factor 5: Memorizing Strategies

1. I use my new English words in sentences so that I can remember them.
2. I associate the sounds of new English words with the sound of English words I already know.
3. I act out my new English words.
4. I imitate the way native speakers of English speak.
5. I practice the sounds of English.
6. I try to think in English.
7. I attend to outside classroom activities where English is used.
8. I read English texts in my leisure time.

 

Factor 6: Evaluating Strategies

1. I scan my English lessons to know the coverage and arrangement of them.
2. I try to find learning strategies that suit me best.
3. I evaluate the effectiveness of the strategies that I use.
4. I arrange my learning environment so that I can learn English well.
5. I assess the attainment of learning target that I set up beforehand.

 

Factor 7: Meaning-Focusing Strategies

1. When listening to a conversation or news in English, I try to get the meaning, even though I do not know every word.
2. When I do not know a word in English, I use synonyms.
3. When involved in a conversation, I direct the topic to which I already know the words.
4. When someone speaks English with me, I deliberately pay attention to what he/she says.
5. When I find someone talk in English, I pay attention to him/her.

 

Factor 8: Affective Developing Strategies

1. I read stories or dialogues several times till I understand the content.
2. I praise myself in learning English so that I keep being highly motivated to learn.
3. I give myself a reward when I do well in English learning.
4. I reduce my learning anxiety by self-talk in English.

 

Junaidi Mistar is a senior lecturer at the English Education Department, Islamic University of Malang, East Java, Indonesia. He earned his Ph.D degree from Monash University, Australia. His research mainly deals with learning strategies, psychological factors in foreign language learning, as well as assessment in foreign language learning.