Lls by china student

Journal of Second and Multiple Language Acquisition – JSMULA Vol: 2 Issue: 1 22-35, 2014, Feb.
ISSN:2147-9747
22
Chinese Adult Second Language Learners’ Learning Strategy
and Communicative Strategy Use
Mingda Sun1
The University of Alabama
MiguelMantero2
The University of Alabama
Robert Summers3
Buffalo State
(State University of New York)
Abstract
This paper aimed to explore differences in how Chinese adult second language learners
apply communicative strategies in oral production across proficiency levels and to see if
these distinctions are related to their comprehensive language learning strategy (LLS) use.
This small-scale study involved two groups of five English learners with low and advanced
proficiency levels respectively. Background questionnaires and Oxford‘s (1990) Strategy
Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) were used to determine the participants‘ condition of
using LLSs. Both groups were given speaking tasks and their speech was digitally recorded.
Though a great number of studies have been conducted on learning strategies and
proficiency, no research relates them to a learner‘s pragmatic application into speech. The
findings highlight the positive relation between LLS and reported communicative strategy
and provide instructors information about how different proficiency classrooms incorporate
instruction that enables learners to develop an awareness of their strategy application.
Keywords: language learning strategy, communicative strategy, language proficiency,
second language acquisition, oral task.
1. Introduction
In order to attain individual learning goals and accomplish career success,
language learners apply various strategies to finish speaking, reading,
vocabulary, listening or writing tasks through the learning process.
Recognizing that there is a task to complete or a problem to solve, language
learners will use whatever metacognitive, cognitive or social/affective
strategies they possess to attend to the language-learning activity. Since
language processing without awareness could occur in every learning step,
formal instruction in how to use strategies efficiently as a way to improve
language learning and performance is needed. In recent years, researchers
have increasingly been concerned with the learning strategies, and the
present paper aims to study how the variation of learners‘ language
proficiency relates their learning strategies and reported communicative
strategy. Background questionnaire and Oxford‘s (1990) SILL are used to
explore the participants‘ different attitudes towards English learning
strategies, and the results of oral activities are coded to investigate the
1Bio: Doctoral student in the program of second language acquisition and teaching at the
University of Alabama. E-mail address: msun1@crimson.ua.edu
2
Bio: Professor of educational linguistics, director of program in second language acquisition
and teaching at the University of Alabama. E-mail address: mmantero@bamaed.ua.edu
3 Bio: Associate professor of modern and classical languages, assistant dean of international
and exchange programs at Buffalo State. E-mail address: summerrh@buffalostate.edu
Received 20.08.2013

Learning Strategy and Communicative Strategy Use Sun, Mantero, Summers
23
learners‘ communicative strategic behaviors and to conclude the effects of
the strategies.
1.1. Research on defining and classifying language learning strategies
Since 1970s, researchers and linguists had become increasingly concerned
about how learners‘ individual differences might influence their learning
outcomes, such as the effects of learning strategies in second language
acquisition(Rubin, 1975; Stern, 1975). This research trend could be traced
back to the development of cognitive psychology and the fact that foreign
language education shifted its focus from studying ―how teachers instruct‖ to
investigating ―how students learn.‖
According to O‘ Malley & Chamot (1990), learning strategies were defined as
―the special thoughts or behaviors that individuals use to help them
comprehend, learn, or retain new information‖ (p.1). From the cognitive point
of view, they explored how language learners deal with interlanguage, the
role different variables play on students‘ strategy selection, the relation
between strategy use and language task performance, and identified what
good language learners do to ensure their language learning success.
Holding the same opinion, Swain et al (2009) contended that these strategies
were ―conscious, goal-oriented thoughts and behaviors‖ learners use to
―regulate cognitive process, with the goal of improving their language use or
test performance‖ (p.11).
Oxford (1992) provided a long-standing definition that learning strategies
referred to specific steps employed by students to make their learning faster
and more effective. Learners could apply strategies as helping tools in order
to actively engage in learning. Recently, Oxford (2011) added the component
of socio-cultural interaction into the definition. ―Appropriate language
learning strategies result in improved proficiency and greater self-
confidence‖ (Oxford, 1990, p. 1). Stated another way, learning strategies are
important to explain how learners acquire second language and help to
improve learners‘ automation.
Scholars within the field of second language acquisition (SLA) have generated
different opinions to organize and categorize learning strategies over the last
twenty years. On the basis of the findings from their research, O‘ Malley &
Chamot (1990) developed a framework that included cognitive,
metacognitive, and social/affective strategies. Oxford (1990) also outlined a
classification system based on her and others‘ studies, and this system was
considered as the most comprehensive classification of learning strategies to
date. Oxford divided the strategies into two broad categories: direct strategies
and indirect strategies. Under either class there are three subcategories:
memory, cognitive, and compensation belonged to the direct class;
metacognitive, affective and social belonged to the indirect class.
Hsiao & Oxford (2002) suggested some approaches to classify strategies.
These approaches include differentiating strategies for using a language from
strategies for learning it, recognizing the importance of the learning
environment, slightly modifying the prevalent strategy classification theories
by reclassifying particular strategies, ensuring that the language skills are
obvious in each strategy item, and creating a task–based strategy inventory.

ISSN:2147-9747
24
With this empirical classification, Oxford (1990) designed the Strategy
Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) that can be used as a survey
assessment tool. The SILL is currently considered as the most
comprehensive and widely used instrument for identifying strategy
preferences of language learners throughout the world (Bremmer, 1999). Due
to its reliability and validity checked by multiple studies (Oxford & Burry-
Stock, 1995), the current paper will apply the SILL to investigate the involved
participants‘ variation in learning strategy preferences.
1.2. Research with regard to LLS in SLA
Numerous studies have suggested that identified learner strategy type,
variety, and frequency are significantly associated with language
performance among learners of English as a second language worldwide
(Oxford & Burry-Stock, 1995). Meanwhile, findings from various research
involving learning strategies have shown that strategy use differs due to
various factors including gender, motivation, setting, cultural background,
and attitudes (Oxford, 2001; Oxford & Burry-Stock, 1995).
According to O‘ Malley & Chamot‘s (1990) experiment on classroom
observation, they suggested that it was quite likely for students to relate
their strategy use to language learning task and language proficiency. Park
(1997) conducted a study which examined the strategy use among 332
Korean university students, with a focus on the relationship between
participants‘ learning strategies and English proficiency, as measured by a
practice version of the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOFEL). The
results indicated that cognitive and social strategies were used most
comparing with other strategy categories. Goh and Kwah (1997) planned a
survey on the strategy use of college-level students from China learning
English as a second language in Singapore, aiming to find out how students‘
proficiency level and gender influence their application of strategies.
Metacognitive and compensation strategies were concluded to be the most
frequently used whereas memory strategies were the least used. In addition,
female students tended to use compensation and affective strategies more
often than male students. They reported that cognitive and compensation
strategies to be positively related to the variation of proficiency level. A
similar argument to Goh and Kwah‘s came from Bremmer (1999): in his
study on a group of students at the City University of Hong Kong, he
indicated a more frequent use of compensation and metacognitive strategy
categories. Similar to Goh and Kwah‘s study, the participants with higher
language proficiency level were found to select cognitive and compensation
strategies most frequently. Li (2001) developed a large-scale study on a
group of Chinese students at a university in New Zealand and examined the
association between the participants‘ strategy use and language proficiency
and gender. Overall, the results were consistent with the research findings
and further suggested that perceived areas of difficulty may cause
differences in the use of strategy categories. Oxford (2003) introduced the
important concepts found in this issue such as learning styles, learning
strategies and motivation, and explained how these concepts related to each
other.

25
Richards & Renandya (2002) put forward the point that strategy training can
help students make effective use of multiple strategies. They also concluded
the roles of each strategy. Metacognitive strategies help students keep
themselves on track; cognitive, compensation and memory strategies provide
the necessary intellectual tools; and affective and social strategies offer
continuous emotional and interpersonal support.
Based on the discussion of the studies mentioned above, it can be seen that
the studies investigating learners‘ strategy use solely examine how different
variables determine language learning strategy use. No study reported in the
literature so far has related learners‘ language learning strategies to their
practical communicative strategies used in oral task performance. This
paper aims to fill the gap and to establish if preferred learning strategy
applied throughout learning process may influence second language
learners‘ practical communicative strategies in speech.
1.3. Current study and research questions
Instead of solely concentrating on the significance of different variables for
learners‘ language learning strategy (LLS) use, the present study explored if
language learners‘ learning strategies, used across the learning process, may
cause them to utilize correlated communicative strategies in oral tasks.
Oxford‘s (1990) Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) was utilized
for this study to demonstrate the participants‘ overall learning strategy use.
In addition, a summary of communicative-strategy classification scheme
established by other researchers (Swain et al, 2009; Huang, 2006) was
employed in order to analyze the participants‘ communicative strategies used
in oral activities.
The current paper examined following research questions: (1) What is the
relationship between second language learners‘ proficiency level and their
learning strategy use? (2) What is the relationship between language
learners‘ proficiency level and the reported communicative strategy use when
performing speaking tasks? (3) Is there any association between learners‘
learning strategy use and the reported communicative strategy use?
2. Methodology
2.1. Participants
This study involved two groups of five Chinese English learners in the U.S.
Since this study was mainly conducted with qualitative methods, the
authors believed that information and insight we acquired from the ten
participants were rich enough to look for valid patterns. Ten individuals
volunteered to participate in the experiment. All the participants started to
learn English in their middle school, and by the time of this study, they had
received at least six years‘ formal English instruction in China. They all
reported to have basic knowledge of language learning strategies acquired
through their former education. Participants in both groups were graduate
students at the university.
They varied in terms with age (from 19 to 30) and gender (four males and six
females). The standards used in dividing groups were the participants‘
speaking scores at TOFEL which was taken at the time of the current study
and the length of their stay in the U.S. Advanced-level participants‘ speaking

ISSN:2147-9747
26
scores were higher than twenty in a total of thirty and they had lived in the
U.S. for more than three years. Students from the low level group had scores
lower than fifteen and the length they had stayed in the U.S. was less than
one year. In order to improve the validity of our grouping, the authors used
TOEIC speaking sample tests from the official website to reexamine the
participants‘ proficiency levels. The scores of advanced-level participants
belonged to the first and second top score classifications (international
professional proficiency and working proficiency plus); while scores of low-
level participants belonged to the last three score levels (elementary
proficiency plus, elementary proficiency, and basic proficiency).
2.2. Data collection
2.2.1.Background questionnaire
All participants were asked to complete a questionnaire (Oxford, 1990) that
assisted the authors to collect the background information including gender,
age, educational experience, language-learning experience, length of stay in
the U.S., primary languages spoken at home, work, and socially, number of
hours per day speaking English, and proficiency tests they had taken and
the scores they received (see appendix I). The questionnaire was distributed
to the participants days before they started the speaking activity. The
authors surveyed each learner separately due to scheduling constraints.
2.2.2.The strategy inventory of language learning
Research findings have demonstrated the credibility of Oxford‘s Strategy
Inventory of Language Learning (SILL) with regard to learners‘ learning
strategy use. For this study, a Chinese translation of the SILL was used (see
appendix II). The translation was chosen by the authors from a Chinese
website and based on the authors‘ English learning experience, the
translation matched the original SILL very well. All participants completed it
after they had finished the background questionnaires. The SILL was used
as a self-assessment to determine the differences between the two
proficiency levels in language learning strategy use and to measure the
frequency of each strategy category used by the learners throughout the
learning process.
2.2.3.Video-taped recordings of oral language production
After the participants completed the SILL survey, the speaking activity was
given to them. Six topics were selected from IELTS sample speaking
questions on a study guide website (see appendix III). Under each topic there
were several questions that helped the learners to develop their thoughts.
They had been prepared in an envelope first and each participant randomly
took out a piece of paper with a topic and talked about it for two to three
minutes. They had one minute to think about what they were going to say
and could make notes if they wanted. The oral production was video
recorded because such data could stimulate participants‘ memory and help
them to reflect which communicative strategies had been used in the speech.
2.2.4.Self-reported speaking strategy use

27
All the participants engaged in verbal reports through stimulated recall
immediately after performing the speaking task. They were given a recall
instruction designed by Swain, et al (2009) before they started to reflect their
speech. The instruction informed the participants to speak either English or
Chinese, ―whichever came naturally when they were recalling their thoughts
about what they did before, during, and after the speaking task‖ during the
recall session (p.77). The participants were also reminded that they should
report ―what they were thinking at the time, not what they thought they
should have thought or done, or how they thought they should have
responded‖ (p.77). In terms of accuracy of reporting, think-aloud and
stimulated recall were more focused and specific than interview or
questionnaire data with respect to a specific event. The authors believed that
stimulated recall was one of the best available means to achieve the goal of
gaining greater understanding of the strategic behaviors the participants
used during a specific communication task.
2.3. Data analysis
To address the research questions set out for this study, the strategic
behaviors of both groups were compared mainly with qualitative methods.
The oral reflection data gathered from the two groups were fully transcribed
and coded. The coding scheme used in this study was established by other
researchers (Swain et al, 2009; Huang, 2006, see appendix IV). The coding
scheme consists of five main categories of strategies that correspond to
different learning theoretical perspectives concerning self-regulation:
approach, communication, cognitive, metacognitive, and affective (see
appendix IV). Within each category are individual strategies. For example,
the approach strategy category includes individual strategies such as
recalling the task type, recalling the question, generating choices, which are
coded as instances of strategies reported to approach the question. In coding
scheme, the authors took the following actions. For example:
(1) 在说这个题目的时候，我在回想我之前去过哪些地方。 Linking to prior
experience
(Translation: When I started to answer this question, I was recalling which
places I had ever been.)
Using SPSS 20.0, the means for each category of the SILL and the overall
average for the whole SILL for both groups were calculated in order to
address the first research question. With the help of the coding scheme,
percentages of coded strategies were calculated to find out if there was
relation between reported communicative strategy use and proficiency levels.
By comparing the results of the first two questions, the correlation was
examined to determine the relationship between participants‘ language
learning strategy use and learners‘ reported communicative strategy use.
3. Results
In order to answer the first research question of the relation between LLS
use and proficiency levels, the means were calculated as shown in Table 1.
The results were basically consistent with previous research findings (Goh

ISSN:2147-9747
28
and Kwah, 1997; Bremmer, 1999) that the proficiency level led to positive
influences on learners‘ language learning strategy use, i.e. the higher the
level, the higher the use of the strategies. The category of memory
represented a negative relation.
Strategy group Means for
advanced
level
Means for
low level
group
A memory 2.24 2.83
B cognitive 3.03 2.94
C compensation 4.2 3.3
D metacognitive 3.75 3.1
E affective 2.75 2.6
F social 2.91 2.08
The overall average 3.31 2.97
Table 1: Learning Strategy Table
Regarding the second research question, the frequency of the communicative
strategies reported to be used by the two groups‘ participants were analyzed
with the help of the strategy category schemes. Overall, the participants
used 33 different individual strategies across the speaking tasks. Because
none of the participants reported to use affective strategies in the current
study, the authors only examined the categories of approach,
communication, cognitive and metacognitive strategies.
Approach Communication Cognitive Metacognitive
Low level number
percentage
8 43 15 19
.47 .62 .40 .33
Advanced
Level
number
percentage
9 26 22 39
.53 .38 .60 .67
Table 2: Reported Communicative Strategy Table
As shown in table 2, in terms of percentages of strategies reported, the low-
level learners had a greater preference for the communication strategy than
advanced speakers had. On the other hand, the high-level learners reported
to apply cognitive and metacognitive strategies more often, with the
percentage of .60 and .67 respectively. It showed no big difference in the
percentage of the approach strategy usage between the groups.
To answer the final question of the relationship between LLS and learners‘
self-reported speaking strategies used in practical speech, a comparison
between the findings of the above two tables could be made. It could be
observed that both the SILL and the coding scheme have the categories of
cognitive and metacognitive strategies and their sub-categories were also the
same. In addition, under the compensation category of the SILL and the
communication category of the coding scheme, we could also find a lot of
same sub-categories. Therefore, we were able to compare LLS and reported
speaking strategy use by contrasting the results of the two classification
schemes. Table 1 showed that both groups used compensation learning

29
strategies most, followed by metacognitive and cognitive strategies. The
second table indicated that the low-level group maintained the same order of
utilizing speaking strategies; while the advanced-level participants reported
to use metacognitive strategies the most, followed by communication
(compensation category in the SILL) and cognitive speaking strategies.
Though the frequency of communication category was not the highest for the
higher-level groups, it still ranked the second in the list. Therefore, it could
be assumed that language learners who use compensation, metacognitive
and cognitive learning strategies across their learning process also use them
when performing speaking tasks. There was a positive relation between LLS
and speaking strategy use.
The correlation was calculated to further support the results. As shown in
Table 3, the significant relationships were positive and occurred in three
cases: the cognitive and approach categories were positively correlated
(r=.32*), as were the cognitive and communication categories (r = .46**).
Additionally, we found that the metacognitive category was significantly
correlated with the cognitive category (r=.43**). These positive and significant
correlations indicate that participants who used more cognitive language
learning strategies tended to use more approach and communication
speaking strategies in oral tasks. Similarly, participants who used more
metacognitive learning strategies tended to use more cognitive speaking
strategies. Overall, the positive correlations demonstrate that there is a
positive relationship between learners‘ language learning strategies and their
actual speaking strategies used in oral activities.
Approach Communication Cognitive Metacognitive
Memory 1.00
Compensation .09 1.00
Cognitive .32* .46** 1.00
Metacognitive .16 .19 .43** 1.00
Note. N=10; *p < .05, **p < .01.
Table 3: Correlation Table
4. Discussion
This study has confirmed the findings illustrated by previous studies (Li,
2001, Bremmer, 1999, Goh&Kwah, 1997) that there is a positive relation
between learners‘ proficiency levels and their language learning strategies:
the means of five strategy categories for high-level group were higher than
those for lower-level group. The result showing that lower proficiency
participants used more memory learning strategies (the mean was 2.83) than
participants from advanced level group (the mean was 2.24) is explainable.
Students of lower proficiency are more likely to use memory techniques to
remember new words and sentences. Unlike the high-level learners, they do
not know specific techniques such as using rhymes or connecting the
sounds of new words to an image or picture.
In this study, the low-level participants reported to use more communication
strategies but less cognitive and metacognitive ones when performing
speaking tasks. This is because the low-level participants had very low
speaking test scores and had stayed in the U.S. for a short time; thus, their

ISSN:2147-9747
30
speech was not fluent or coherent. They reported that they were unable to
recall exact English words to express their thoughts, and they had to
simplify the message, avoid what they really planned to express, use
Chinese, guess, repeat, slow their speech, and elaborate to fill time when
speaking. These strategies are communication category. Meanwhile, they
would not set goals, identify the purpose of the task, plan or anticipate the
content and structure of their speaking a lot in advance, which are cognitive
strategies. Additionally, the result that both groups reported to use the
similar number of approach strategies may be because of the speaking tasks
they were given. The speaking task included one topic and sub-questions. In
order to answer the question, they need to use approach strategies such as
generating choices, making choices and developing reasons in order to
discuss the topic and complete the sub-questions.
Last but not the least, there is a positive relationship between participants‘
language learning strategy use and reported communicative strategies used
in speech. Both groups of participants were adult language learners who had
acquired their first language before. During the experience of first language
acquisition, they have already known how to transfer learning strategies into
communicative strategies required in a given oral task. Though dealing with
different languages, they still have sufficient cognitive and metacognitive
abilities to define the goal of speaking tasks, deal with the language in
unfamiliar contexts, and overcome imperfect knowledge of rules and gaps in
their knowledge. Therefore, it could be argued that the frequent use of
learning strategies could contribute to the improvement of communicative
strategy use, and finally reach the advancement of communicative
proficiency. Effective methods of teaching learning strategies are needed to
raise students‘ awareness and increase existing knowledge of language
learning strategy. The finding also provides impetus for teachers to create
appropriate activities that help learners transfer learning strategies into
communicative strategies in the target language.
5. Pedagogical implications
In second language learning contexts, language production skills are
particularly important because students‘ acquisition of speaking and writing
competence is crucial for their success in academic settings. Since learners
would apply their learning strategies into practical speech, it is important to
integrate learning strategy instruction into classroom teaching. As Oxford
(1990) states, to help students learn better, teaching agendas would have to
focus systematically on raising students awareness of language learning
strategies, to highlight the relationship between strategy use and language
learning tasks, and to methodically increase students‘ existing repertoire of
language learning strategies.
O‘Malley & Chamot (1990) outlines a basic structure for teachers to
introduce learning strategies. (1) Preview teaching material and activities to
identify strategies for instruction, (2) present strategy by naming it and
explaining when and why to use it, (3) model the strategy; provide
opportunities to practice the strategy with various activities/tasks, and (4)
develop students‘ ability to evaluate strategy use. As teachers, we first need
to know well how the given techniques can be used in learning process, as a

31
consequence, how they can be transferred to practical production. The
importance lies on our explanation of the strategies‘ roles in language
learning and performance. We need to design authentic and real-life
activities for students to use the learned strategies and make them aware
that how the strategies help them complete the tasks.
With regard to learners of different language proficiencies, instructors should
consider an appropriate time that the instruction of learning strategies can
most effectively be initiated by their students. In a mother tongue setting,
learning strategy instruction can be given from the beginning. As discussed
above, both high and low level learners have already been equipped with
sufficient knowledge concerning their first language and they have the
cognitive and metacognitive abilities to understand the instruction provided.
In a second language setting, such as Chinese learners in the U.S., students
at the initial level of language proficiency may not be able to understand the
language associated with learning strategy instruction. Instructors could
consider delaying the instruction until students have developed sufficient
proficiency to understand the talk about learning strategies. While for
advanced level learners, instructors not only provide introduction of learning
strategies, they create opportunities for learners to apply techniques so as to
link the provided strategies to actual practice.
6. Conclusion
The findings of this study offer practical contributions to understand the
relation between overall L2 language learning strategies and the variation of
language proficiency through analyzing the results from the SILL. The study
also compares learners‘ LLS and their reported communicative strategy use
through reflection after performing identical speaking tasks. The insights
gained from the respondents‘ perspectives provide important information
concerning both the learning strategy and reported speaking strategy used in
oral production for both low and advanced level students. With the help of
the results, Chinese learners of English can evolve a general situation of
their own learning strategy use and come to be aware of the strategies that
they need to conquer or develop in the future in order to fulfill the needs of
speaking tasks. In addition, teachers of English as a second language will
find it useful to understand the process of having students engage in
different types of tasks that facilitate the development of awareness about
the knowledge of learning strategies. They are supposed to integrate
language learning strategy instruction into regular language lessons so as to
help learners to apply learning strategies appropriately. Because of time
constraints and limited number of participants, longitudinal research
involving more participants is needed for the future investigation. What is
more, the participants in this study did not report to use affective or social
communicative strategies; therefore, future studies concerning these two
strategy categories are necessary. Finally, besides the variation of language
proficiency, the impacts of other variables, such as gender, on the relation
between language learning strategy and communicative strategy use are also
worth exploring in the future.

ISSN:2147-9747
32
References
Bremmer, S. (1999). Language learning strategies and language proficiency:
Investigating the relationship in Hong Kong. Canadian Modern Language
Review, 55 (4), 490-514.
Goh, C., & Kwah, P.F. (1997). Chinese ESL students‘ learning strategies: a
look at frequency, proficiency and gender. Hong Kong Journal of Applied
Linguistics, 2, 39-53.
Hsiao, T. Y. & Oxford, R. L. (2002).Comparing theories of language learning
strategies: a confirmatory factor analysis.The Modern Language Journal,
86 (3), 368-383.
Huang, A. C. (2006). An investigation of communication strategy use in
Intercultural videoconferencing: a case study of Tamkang University
English majors. (Unpublished master‘s dissertation). Tamkang
University,Taipei.
Li, A. (2001). A look at Chinese ESL students‘ use of learning strategies in
relation to their language proficiency, gender and perceived language
difficulties—a quantitative study. Retrieved from
http://independentlearning.org/ILA/ila05/LI05051.pdf
O‘Malley, M. J., & Chamot, A. U. (1990).Learning strategies in second
language acquisition. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should
know. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Oxford, R. L. (1992). Language learning strategies in a nutshell: update and
ESL suggestions. TESOL Journal, 2 (2), 18-22.
Oxford, R. L., & Burry-Stock, J. (1995).Assessing the use of language
learning strategies worldwide with the ESL/EFL version with the strategy
inventory of language learning (SILL). System, 23, 11-23.
Oxford, R. L. (2001). Language learning strategies, proficiency, and
autonomy: What they mean in the new millennium. Symposium
conducted at the meeting of the Desert Language and Linguistics Society,
Provo, Utah.
Oxford, R. L. (2003). Language learning styles and strategies: concepts and
relationships. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language
Teaching,41 (4), 271–278.
Oxford, R. L. (2011). Teaching and researching language learning strategies.
Longman: Pearson Education ESL.
Park, G. P. (1997). Language learning strategies and English proficiency in
Korean university students. Foreign Language Annals, 30 (2), 211-221.
Richards, J. C. & Renandya, W. A. (2002).Methodology in language teaching.
An anthology of current practice. New York, NY: Cambridge University
Press.
Rubin, J. (1975). What the ‗good language learner‘ can teach us. TESOL
Quarterly, 9, 41-51.
Stern, H. H. (1975). What can we learn from the good language learner?.
Canadian Modern Language Review, 34, 304-318.
Swain, M., Huang, L. S., Barkaoui, K., Brooks., &Lapkin, S. (2009). The
speaking section of the TOEFL®iBT™ (SSTiBT): test-takers‘ strategic
behaviors.Retrieved from
http://www.ets.org/Media/Research/pdf/RR-09-30.pdf

33
Appendices
Appendix I
Background questionnaire
Appendix I
Background questionnaire
年龄________ 性别__________
教育程度_______本科生__________研究生___________博士生______
你接受正规的英语教育多久了___________________
你来到美国多长时间了______________
平时在家使用哪（几）种语言？_________________
平时工作使用哪（几）种语言？________________-
平时与朋友交谈使用哪（几）种语言？______________-
每天平均说多久英语？_________-
你参加过的英语水平考试及得分_____________________
Appendix II
Chinesetranslation of the SILL
英语学习策略问卷请按照您对每一问题的看法或对该题的同意程度，在您选择的数字
上面打“√”。“1”代表非常不同意；“2”代表不同意；“3”代表没有明确态度；
“4”代表同意；“5”代表非常同意。
Part A
1. 我会思考在英语中学到的新知识与我已有的知识之间的关系。 1 2 3 4 5
2. 为了记忆生词，我尽量使用生词造句。 1 2 3 4 5
3. 我尽量将单词的音、形、义结合起来记忆单词。 1 2 3 4 5
4. 为了记住单词，我经常想象在什么情景下这个单词有可能被用到。1 2 3 4 5
5. 我用英语的节奏来记生词。 1 2 3 4 5
6. 我将生词写在卡片上以便更好地记忆单词。 1 2 3 4 5
7. 我借助肢体语言表演的方式记忆生词。 1 2 3 4 5
8. 我经常复习英语课文。 1 2 3 4 5
9. 我通过记忆单词在书页，广告牌或路标上的位置来记忆生词。 1 2 3 4 5
Part B
10. 我通过重复读写来记忆单词。 1 2 3 4 5
11. 我尝试像以英语为母语的人一样说英语。 1 2 3 4 5

ISSN:2147-9747
34
12. 我经常练习英语的发音。 1 2 3 4 5
13. 我通过多种方式来运用已经掌握的英语单词。 1 2 3 4 5
14. 我尝试用英语交谈。 1 2 3 4 5
15. 我经常看一些英语电视节目或电影。 1 2 3 4 5
16. 用英语阅读对我来说是一种享受。 1 2 3 4 5
17. 我用英语记笔记，写便条，信件或报告等。 1 2 3 4 5
18. 我通常先快速地浏览一下英语短文，然后再从头仔细地阅读。 1 2 3 4 5
19. 遇到新词时，我通常回想一下它与汉语中哪些单词相对应。 1 2 3 4 5
20. 我注意总结英语句型。 1 2 3 4 5
21. 如果知道单词各部分的含义，我就能知道整个单词的意思。 1 2 3 4 5
22. 我尽量不字对字地翻译。 1 2 3 4 5
23. 对于听到或读到的英语内容，我都要作一下总结。 1 2 3 4 5
Part C
24. 碰到不太熟悉的单词我就猜它的意思。 1 2 3 4 5
25. 用英语交谈时，如果遇到想不起来的单词，我就借助手势来表达。1 2 3 4 5
26. 当不知道应该用哪个单词时，我就用知道的单词造词。 1 2 3 4 5
27. 在阅读英语文章时，我不会去查每个生词的意思。 1 2 3 4 5
28. 我尽量预测讲话者将要说什么。 1 2 3 4 5
29. 如果想不起用准确的单词来表达，我就用与之意义最相近的单词或短语来代替。
1 2 3 4 5
Part D
30. 我通过一切途径来练习英语。 1 2 3 4 5
31. 我通过意识到自己的错误，来提高自己的英语水平。 1 2 3 4 5
32. 有人讲英语时，我的注意力非常集中。 1 2 3 4 5
33. 我试着找出如何学好英语的办法。 1 2 3 4 5
34. 我制定时间表，以便有足够的时间来学习英语。 1 2 3 4 5
35. 我注意寻找那些能够和我用英语交谈的人。 1 2 3 4 5

35
36. 我寻找一切机会尽可能多的用英语进行阅读。 1 2 3 4 5
37. 对于如何提高自己的英语技能，我有明确的目标。 1 2 3 4 5
38. 我经常回想自己在英语学习中的进步。 1 2 3 4 5
Part E
39. 每当感到害怕使用英语时，我便努力放松自己。 1 2 3 4 5
40. 尽管我害怕出错，但我还是鼓励自己去讲英语。 1 2 3 4 5
41. 每当在英语学习中取得进步时，我就奖励自己。 1 2 3 4 5
42. 我尽力去注意在学习或运用英语时自己是否情绪紧张。 1 2 3 4 5
43. 我在日记中写下自己学习英语的感受。 1 2 3 4 5
44. 我与他人交流学习英语的心得体会。 1 2 3 4 5
Part F
45. 如果我听不懂，我会请求讲话者放慢速度或重复。 1 2 3 4 5
46. 当我讲英语时，我请别人改正我的错误。 1 2 3 4 5
47. 我与其他同学一起练习英语。 1 2 3 4 5
48. 我经常从英语老师那里寻求帮助。 1 2 3 4 5
49. 我用英语来提问题。 1 2 3 4 5
50. 我努力学习英语国家的文化。 1 2 3 4 5

Lls by china student

More Related Content

What's hot (15)

Similar to Lls by china student (20)

More from Hamizah Osman (13)

Lls by china student