THE EFFECTS OF GENDER, SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS AND ENGLISH PROFICIENCY ON
LANGUAGE LEARNING STRATEGIES
Abstract: A study was
conducted in order to investigate the effects of gender, socio-economic status, and proficiency level in English on
metacognitive, cognitive and social/affective language learning strategies.
Thirty nine students from two schools of Salamina island (Greece) were
tested. The selection of schools was based on the marked differences of the
socioeconomic status of students. Statistically significant differences were
observed on the effects of all independent variables (with the exception of
gender on cognitive strategies), suggesting that learning strategy use
determined by social and demographic factors.
Key words: Language learning strategies, social factors of
learning, Salamina-Greece
Defining language
learning strategies
Language learning strategies can be defined as mental
mechanisms which facilitate the comprehension, storage, retrieval and use of
input information, supporting, thus, and enhancing learners’ efforts while
learning the foreign language. They are used as learners’ response to the
demands of the learning and communication environment, and, as it will be
discussed later on, their formation and use are tightly dependent on
idiosyncratic and personal characteristics. Research has proved that they can
be employed by adults (Wenden, 1986), as well as by children (Wong-Fillmore,
1979), although it is not yet quite clear how early their use starts.
There
is little consensus in the literature concerning either the definition or the
identification of language learning strategies. Indeed, strategies are defined
by different researchers as methods, approaches, steps, actions, behaviours,
thoughts, processes, techniques or tactics. Furthermore, there is no complete
agreement on the conscious or the subconscious nature of strategies. Thus, it
becomes clear that the variety of theories and approaches, or, in some cases,
even the lack of a specific underlying theory, have created confusion in the
area. Some definitions of prominent researchers are presented in table 1 below.
Table 1:
Definitions of language learning strategies
|
Researchers
|
Definitions
|
|
Bialystok (1978:76)
|
Learning strategies are optimal methods for exploiting available
information to increase the proficiency of second language learning.
|
|
Dansereau (1985:210)
|
A learning strategy can be defined as a set of processes or steps that
can facilitate the acquisition, storage, and/or utilization of information
|
|
Weinstein and Mayer (1986:531)
|
Learning strategies are the behaviours and the thoughts that a learner
engages in during learning that are intended to influence the learner’s
encoding process.
|
|
Chamot (1987:71)
|
Learning strategies are techniques, approaches, or deliberate actions
that students take in order to facilitate the learning and recall of both linguistic
and content area information.
|
|
Rubin (1987:71)
|
Learning strategies are strategies which contribute to the development
of the language system which the learner constructs and affect learning
directly and indirectly.
|
|
Oxford (1990a:8)
|
Learning strategies are specific actions taken by the learner to make
learning easier, faster, more enjoyable, more self-directed, more effective,
and more transferable to new situations.
|
|
Cohen (1990:4)
|
Language learning strategies can be defined as those processes which
are consciously selected by learners and which may result in action taken to
enhance the learning or use of a second or foreign language, through storage,
retention, recall, and application of information about that language.
|
|
Williams and Burden (1997:145)
|
A learning strategy can be defined as a series of skills used with a
particular learning purpose in mind.
|
Despite the fact that the definitions presented above
highlight different aspects, characteristics or functions of strategies, they
all agree that they enhance learning and that they facilitate the assimilation
of input information. Nevertheless, it would be useful to focus on some
interesting points of the definitions, which can be further discussed.
First of all, according to Chamot (1987:71), the terms
‘strategies’ and ‘techniques’ can be used interchangeably. Stern(1983:4),
however, makes a distinction between them suggesting that “strategy is best
reserved for general tendencies or overall characteristics of the approach
employed by the language learner, leaving techniques as the term to refer to
particular forms of observable learning behaviour”. In other words, ‘strategies’ is an
“umbrella”, broad term, that includes ‘techniques’, the realization of
strategies in observable actions.
Another point that deserves our attention, too, is the
relationship between strategies and skills. According to Williams and Burden
(1997:145) “a learning strategy is a series of skills”, i.e. the terms can be
used interchangeably. For Kirby (1988:230), however, skills and strategies are
two different things that should not be confused. Thus, a distinction is made
as follows: “skills are existing cognitive routines for performing specified
tasks”, while “strategies are the means for selecting, combining or redesigning
those cognitive routines”. What is implied by this distinction is that
strategies co-ordinate and manage skills during the performance of a language
task.
The conscious and/or the subconscious nature of
learning strategies has also caused heated debates among scientists, with some,
like Chamot (1987:71), supporting only the conscious nature, characterizing
them as “deliberate actions”, and others (Weinstein & Mayer,1986;
Dansereau, 1985) believing in their dual character. These researchers claim that
a strategy may be consciously and intentionally used at the very first stages,
but, after repeated use, they can be employed automatically, i.e.
subconsciously.
Of course, there are scientists,
like Rabinowitz and Chi (1987), Cohen (1990), who believe that, if a strategy
becomes subconscious, then it is no more a strategy, but a process. Schmidt
(1994) disagrees and claims that, even in the case of an automatic or
subconscious strategy, a learner, when asked, is in the position to identify
and justify the specific strategy.
It is commonly accepted by researchers that strategies
influence learning in a positive way, supporting significantly learners’
efforts to acquire and master the foreign language. Oxford (1990a) and Rubin (1987) assert that
this impact is exercised both directly and indirectly. The fact that other
researchers do not clarify in their definitions if they accept this dual
influence, may leave the reader with questions and confusion.
No doubt, defining language learning strategies is not
an easy task. Although a proliferation of definitions is provided, complete
agreement and uniformity seem impossible, at least at this stage of study and
research. One alternative way to define strategies is to list some of their
characteristics, which are accepted by many researchers: They are idiosyncratic
and personal responses to the leaning needs, generated and used by children and
adults, can be both conscious and subconscious,
observable or unseen,
problem-oriented, flexible, they
promote autonomous and self-directed learners, they enhance learning and
develop linguistic and communicative competence.
A ‘successful language learner’ research was conducted
by a group of Canadian researchers (Naiman, Frohlich, Todesco and Stern, 1978),
in order to gather information about the strategies that effective learners
tend to employ. The data elicitation tool was a semi-structured interview, and
the sample was constituted by 34 very successful language learners. According
to the research results, five strategies were identified (Naiman et al., 1978
cited in Skehan, 1989:76):
1) Active task approach: Good language learners
actively involve themselves in the language learning task.
2) Realization of language as a system: Good
language learners develop or exploit an awareness of language as a system.
3) Realization of language as means of
communication and interaction: Good language learners develop and exploit
an awareness of language as a means of communication, i.e. conveying and
receiving messages, and interaction , i.e. behaving in a culturally appropriate
manner.
4) Management of affective demands: Good
language learners realize initially or with time that they must cope with
affective demands made upon them by language learning and succeed in doing so.
5) Monitoring of L2 performance: Good language
learners constantly revise their L2 systems. They monitor the language they are
acquiring by testing their inferences (guesses): by looking for needed
adjustments as they learn new material or by asking native informants when they
think corrections are needed.
A number of techniques were, also, identified by the
interviews, which contributed to successful language learning:
·
Having contact with
native speakers, as an opportunity to practise the language
·
Repeating aloud after
the native speakers or/and the teacher
·
Reading magazines,
newspapers, comics, etc., written in the target language
·
Listening to radio
and/or records and watching TV
·
Following the grammar
rules taught
·
Memorizing vocabulary
lists
This study had some interesting findings, as far as
the effective learners’ strategies and techniques are concerned. However,
Skehan (1989:76) suggests that we should be cautious with the results and
explains that “…there is always the possibility that the good learning
strategies are also used by bad language learners, but other reasons cause them
to be unsuccessful with this group”. Selinger (1983) is, also, cautious with
the results, as he does not consider the self-report data elicited by an
interview always valid. According to him, some learners become more reflective,
because of analytic capacities, better memory or articulateness. In other
words, the strategies that a learner possesses will never be uncovered through
a self-report interview, if he is not articulate enough.
Despite Skehan and Selinger’s fears and although the
research has no theoretical grounding, it cannot be denied that the concepts of
learners’ reflection and introspection, as well as some metacognitive
strategies, are present, even if they are not named.
Bialystok’s (1981) research resulted in one of the first
classifications of language learning strategies. His model is presented in
Table 3 below:
Table 2: Bialystok’s language
learning strategies
|
Formal
strategies
|
Functional
Strategies
|
|
1) Formal practising
|
1) Functional practising
|
|
2) Monitoring
|
2) Inferencing
|
Bialystok identifies two groups of strategies: the formal,
which relate to language itself, i.e. its structures and rules, and the
functional strategies, which relate to communicative situations. Formal
practising and monitoring are the strategies that fall into the first group,
whereas functional practising and inferencing belong to the second group.
This taxonomy is certainly very limited and
insufficient, as it cannot account for the huge variety of strategies that a
learner possibly possesses. Nevertheless, the research has a significant
contribution to the area, as Bialystok
proceeded to a classification of strategies, i.e. he tried to build his own
theory, at a time that language strategy research was still in its
infancy.
Rubin (1981) is another researcher who tried to provide a
classification of strategies. She concentrated on particular types of cognitive
processes that young adult learners used, and the data elicitation method was a
directed self-report. Rubin
distinguishes the identified strategies in direct and indirect, according to
the impact they have on learning. The direct
strategies are listed below:
1.
Clarification/Verification
2.
Monitoring
3.
Memorization
4.
Guessing/inductive
inferencing
5.
Deductive reasoning
6.
Practice
These cognitive strategies, contribute, according to
Rubin, to the acquisition of the target language, as they help learners to
understand, internalize, store, and retrieve input information more easily and effectively.
The indirect strategies, on the other hand,
enhance language learning by:
1. Creating opportunities for practice,
2. Devising production “tricks” that aim at overcoming
problems in communication, such as synonyms, paraphrases, gestures, etc.
Rubin’s classification is based on the impact of
strategies on learning, which means that emphasis is given on the learning
process itself. Although her taxonomy is certainly broader and more practical
than Bialystok’s,
it still does not contain a sufficient number of strategies. Moreover, we
cannot detect a theoretical foundation, and we get the impression that the
researcher, as in the case of all early researchers, tries to understand the nature and the
functions of language learning strategies rather than to classify them.
However, it is still very significant that she proceeded to a classification of
strategies, paving the way for future researchers and providing a model as a
basis to build on.
At the same time, Cohen
and Aphek (1981) investigated the correlations that learners devise and use
while studying vocabulary. These correlations are considered to be very helpful
and useful for learners, as they facilitate the integration of new vocabulary
to the already formed cognitive schemata. Ten correlations were found by the
specific research. Cohen and Aphek stress that the production of these mental
mechanisms cannot be automatic, as mental effort and consciousness are
necessary from the part of the learners. Unfortunately, their research did not
bear any other interesting findings.
Wenden (1983) focused her research on adults’ self-directed
learning of a foreign language. She created a list with questions that learners
can ask themselves, in order to come to conclusions about their learning and
progress. Wenden’s questions are presented in Table 4 below:
Table 3: Wenden’s
Questions
|
Information about Learning
Question 1: How does the target language function?
Question 2: How does someone learn a foreign
language?
|
|
Planning
Question 3: What shall I learn and how?
Question 4: What should my focus be?
Question 5: How can I change my learning?
|
|
Self-evaluation
Question 6: How do I progress?
Question 7: How do the strategies I use benefit my
learning?
Question 8: Am I a responsible learner?
|
Wenden emphasized the need for self-directed learning,
which entails learners’ autonomy, and
introduced metacognition in relation to language learning strategy use.
The fact that she expanded the domain of strategy research to metacognitive
directions, makes her work quite significant.
Politzer and
McGroarty’s (1985) research
emerged another dimension in the study of language learning strategies. Using a
questionnaire, administered to 37 Hispanic and Asian students, they aimed at
investigating the relation between the strategy use and the proficiency level
of the two cultural groups. Indeed, several interactions were found between the
strategies used and the ethnic background, as the Hispanic students proved to
be much more successful learners than the Asians. Skehan (1989:86), however,
claims that the specific research was unsuccessful:
The study has to
be judged unsuccessful. The empirical data, either in terms of internal
consistency of the scales, or of their validity, is not impressive. As an
exploratory study, it is interesting and provides the basis for further
questionnaire-based studies. But for the present, such a research strategy has
not yet paid dividends.
No matter if Skehan is right with his claims, Politzer
and McGroarty’s work has contributed positively to the multidimensional study
of language learning strategies, investigating the cultural variable.
Chesterfield and
Chesterfield’s (1985) research aimed
at the encoding of young children’s -from 5 to 6 years old- learning
strategies, by means of observation and field notes. The importance of this
research lies at the study of the longitudinal development of eight
respondents’ strategies. This allows a) the examination of the variation within
the group of these children at any time and b) the variation in each of the
children separately over time. According to the findings, the strategies that
appear first are receptive and self-contained, those which permit interaction
follow, and the metacognitive are the strategies whose development comes
chronologically last. Skehan (1989) notes that the observational data were
successfully used by the researchers. Indeed, the specific study provided some
interesting findings that permit further generalizations.
Oxford (1990a) provides us with a typology, which subsumes almost
every strategy previously reported. Hence, the categorized strategies and their
subcategories are quite numerous and the classification detailed. Oxford adopted Rubin’s
distinction in direct and indirect strategies to make the primary
classification of her strategies. Thus, the former presuppose direct
manipulation of the target language, while the latter support and manage
learning without involving the target language directly.
Socio-economic
status
Studies in Greece (Giavrimis, Papanis, Rumeliotou,
2007) and abroad (Coleman, Campbell, Hobson, McPartland, Weinfeld and York,
1966; Grinion, 1999) have shown that students of a higher socio-economic status
differ from those of a lower one in the so called ‘cultural capital’, a term
introduced by Bourdieu and Passeron (1990). Socio-economically advantaged
parents often have more success in preparing their children for school, because
they have access to a wide range of resources to promote and support their
development. On the contrary, when basic necessities are lacking, parents’
major priority is survival, and usually there is no time, energy or knowledge
to foster children’s development and school readiness. In accordance to
Bernstein and Henderson (1969), Bourdieu et al. claimed that low socio-economic
status students lack the necessary cultural products that enhance learning, and
have poor metacognitive abilities, which is reflected primarily in language
learning and school adaptation.
On the other hand, the linguistic environment of
students with a higher socio-economic status is richer and leads to ‘symbolic
thinking’. Moreover, the learners who are members of large families usually
live in overcrowded housing conditions, which do not facilitate studying and
concentration. Thus, the family background is so tightly related to school
achievement and learners’ proficiency level, that its impact on strategy use is
inevitable (Datcher, 1982).
Culture
A great number of theorists and researchers have
commented on the impact of culture on learning. Hall (1973) seems to be
persuaded that how one learns is culturally determined, as is what one learns”.
The same researcher goes further saying that “culture can be likened to a
giant, extraordinarily complex, subtle computer. Its programmes guide the actions
and responses of human beings in every walk of life” (1973:3). Culture and
learning are so tightly interrelated that Singleton recognizes the existence of
a cultural theory of learning (1991:120):
There are in
every society unstated assumptions about people and how they learn, which act
as a set of self-fulfilling prophecies that invisibly guide whatever
educational processes may occur there. They act as a kind of unintentional
hidden curriculum, or what an anthropologist might call a cultural theory of learning
If culture influences in one or another way learning,
then it must, also, have an impact on the selection of language strategies.
Indeed, Oxford
and Nyikos (1989) believe that particular strategies are often chosen because
they are compatible with a student’s culturally influenced learning style. A
number of researches have reached the same conclusion. In a study conducted by
Politzer (1983), Hispanics were found to use mainly social strategies, while
Asians presented a clear preference for rote memorization, probably because of
their past school experiences. Chen (1990), investigated the strategies used by
Chinese students. According to the findings, Chinese tend to select cognitive
and, mainly, memory strategies. What is surprising, though, is that they
believed that only one correct answer exists, a belief that made them unwilling
to take risks and feel relaxed while learning. The same memorization strategies
were, also, found to be the favourite of Indian college students, in a research
conducted by Sheorey (1999). It is, thus, almost evident that “learners often
behave in certain culturally approved and socially encouraged ways as they
learn” (Bedell and Oxford, 1996:60).
Methodology
The research questions can be summarized as follows:
a) What metacognitive, cognitive, and social/affective
language learning strategies do the specific learners employ and how
frequently?
b) Does students’ gender influence the
frequency and the selection of strategies? In other words, do the girls prefer
to use some specific strategies, while the boys consider others as more
appropriate and useful?
c) Are the
frequency and the selection of strategies influenced by students’ proficiency
level in English? Do the more effective learners use a larger number of
them in comparison to the less successful/competent ones?
d) Is the use of strategies influenced by the socio-economic
status of students’ background?
The decision to study language learning strategies was
challenged by the remarkable difference in level between the 6th
grade EFL pupils of the two schools. In the first one, the 5th
primary school, most of the pupils-of a quite prosperous and small family
background- can be characterized as quite successful learners, while the pupils
in the primary school
of Vassilika, who are
members of large families and of a lower socio-economic status, are much less
competent and successful learners. The decision to examine gender as one of the
research variables was taken because the researchers wished to ascertain
whether the superiority of females in strategy use, confirmed by many
researchers (Ehrman and Oxford, 1989; Oxford and Nyikos, 1989; Zoubir-Shaw and
Oxford, 1994; Politzer, 1983; Kaylani, 1996), is valid.
Proficiency level in English was selected as another
variable to be examined in the research. If learners’ strategy use is related
to competence in the target language, then the students from the 5th
Primary School will be proved to possess a richer strategy repertoire. If this
is the case, then the teacher should adapt her teaching methodology, in order
to enhance the strategy use by the less competent learners.
Finally, the relation between learners’ socio-economic
status and strategy employment was examined, in order to find out whether
learners’ poor strategy repertoire is due to the disadvantaged financial,
social, and educational background of their families. If this interrelation is
proved to be true, then the students from the school in Vassilika, who are of a
lower socio-economic status, will be found to possess fewer strategies than the
learners from the 5th Primary School. In this case, as well,
remedial actions must be taken by the teacher towards the development and the
enrichment of their language learning strategies.
‘Grade 6’
class of the 5th Primary School
of Salamina is consisted
of 25 students -12 boys and 13 girls. The pupils at the same grade in the Primary School of Vassilika are 14 -10 boys and 4 girls.
They are all 12 years old and Greeks; thus, they are native speakers of Greek
and this is the language they speak at home with their families. They are
taught English as a foreign language since Grade 3. All students from the 5th
Primary school of
Salamina attend English
classes in private schools, too. However, 9 learners from the Primary School in
Vassilika do not attend such classes, since their families cannot afford the
fees. The majority of students’ parents speak English, but only half of them
help their children at home. All learners study another foreign language, too,
which is German for most of the students, and French for some of them-German
and French, apart from English, are taught in state primary schools. The students of the 5th Primary School of Salamina are much more competent in
English than the learners from the School in Vassilika, who appear to have
weaknesses, not only in English, but in their overall academic performance, as
well. However, they are more extroverted in comparison to the students of the
other school, and they perform better whenever they are involved in group-work.
They are members of large families and of a lower socio-economic status, while
the learners from the 5th Primary School are of a quite prosperous
and small family background.
Results
The mean score of female students in metacognitive
strategies is greater than the mean score of males (females’ mean score: 42.94,
standard deviation: 7.96, males’ mean score: 36.68, standard deviation: 9.04).
The t-value is -2.257, with 37 degrees of freedom. The significance is 0.03,
which is lower than the 0.05 criterion.
Table 4:
Metacognitive Strategies by gender
|
|
Number of research subjects
|
Mean score
|
Standard deviation
|
|
Males
|
22
|
36.68
|
9.04
|
|
Females
|
17
|
42.94
|
7.96
|
|
|
39
|
|
|
t-value= -2.257 37 degrees of
freedom p=0.03<0.05
The mean score of female students in cognitive
strategies is greater than the mean score of males (females’ mean score: 36.76,
standard deviation: 8.05, males’ mean score: 33.64, standard deviation: 6.85).
The t-value is -1.31, with 37 degrees of freedom. However, the significance is
0.198, which is greater than the 0.05 criterion. Therefore, we accept the null
research hypothesis (H02) as true. In other words, we cannot claim that gender
influences the specific learners’ use of cognitive strategies/
Table 5:
Cognitive Strategies by gender
|
|
Number of research subjects
|
Mean score
|
Standard deviation
|
|
Males
|
22
|
33.64
|
6.85
|
|
Females
|
17
|
36.76
|
8.05
|
|
|
39
|
|
|
t-value= -1.31 37 degrees of
freedom p=0.198>0.05
The mean score of female students in social/affective
strategies is greater than the mean score of males (females’ mean score: 39.88,
standard deviation: 6.26, males’ mean score: 36.05, standard deviation: 5.51).
The t-value is -2.032, with 37 degrees of freedom. The significance is 0.049,
which is lower than the 0.05 criterion.
Table 6: Social/affective
Strategies by gender
|
|
Number of research subjects
|
Mean score
|
Standard deviation
|
|
Males
|
22
|
36.05
|
5.51
|
|
Females
|
17
|
39.88
|
6.26
|
|
|
39
|
|
|
t-value=-2.032 37 degrees of
freedom
p=0.049<0.05
The mean score of high socio-economic status students
in metacognitive strategies is greater than the mean score of low
socio-economic status students (mean scores: 43.32 and 32.43, respectively,
standard deviations: 8.05 and 6.12, respectively). The t-value is -4.393, with
37 degrees of freedom. The significance is 0, which is lower than the 0.05
criterion.
Table 7:
Metacognitive Strategies by socio-economic status
|
|
Number of research subjects
|
Mean score
|
Standard deviation
|
|
High
socio-economical status
|
25
|
43.32
|
8.05
|
|
Low
socio-economical status
|
14
|
32.43
|
6.12
|
|
|
39
|
|
|
t-value=-4.393
37 degrees
of freedom p=0<0.05
The mean score of high socio-economic status students
in cognitive strategies is greater than the mean score of low socio-economic
status students (mean scores: 38.72 and 28.36, respectively, standard
deviations: 5.43 and 5.85, respectively). The t-value is -5.56, with 37 degrees
of freedom. The significance is 0, which is lower than the 0.05 criterion.
Therefore, we accept the research hypothesis (H5) as true.
Table 8:
Cognitive Strategies by socio-economic status
|
|
Number of research subjects
|
Mean score
|
Standard deviation
|
|
High
socio-economical status
|
25
|
38.72
|
5.43
|
|
Low
socio-economical status
|
14
|
28.36
|
5.85
|
|
|
39
|
|
|
t-value=-5.56 37 degrees of
freedom p=0<0.05
The mean score of high socio-economic status students
in social/affective strategies is greater than the mean score of low
socio-economic status students (mean scores: 39.68 and 34.21, respectively,
standard deviations: 6.41 and 3.42, respectively). The t-value is -2.953, with
37 degrees of freedom. The significance is 0.005, which is lower than the 0.05
criterion. Therefore, we accept the research hypothesis (H6) as true.
Table 9:
Social/affective Strategies by socio-economic status
|
|
Number of research subjects
|
Mean score
|
Standard deviation
|
|
High
socio-economical status
|
25
|
39.68
|
6.41
|
|
Low socio-economical
status
|
14
|
34.21
|
3.42
|
|
|
39
|
|
|
t-value=-2.953 37 degrees of
freedom p=0.005<0.05
As far as the relation between strategy use and grade
in English, i.e. proficiency level in the target language, high correlations
were found, as shown in the table below:
Table 10: Pearson
Correlation between school grades in English and strategies
|
Pearson Correlation (r)
|
School grade in English
|
|
Metacognitive strategies
|
r = 0.9
|
|
Cognitive strategies
|
r = 0.898
|
|
Social/affective strategies
|
r = 0.696
|
Learners of the 5th primary school have a
rich repertoire of metacognitive strategies; they use social/affective
strategies quite frequently, while their cognitive strategies are the least
being used by them. On the other hand, the most preferred strategies for
students from the primary school
of Vassilika are the
social/affective ones, the metacognitive strategies come second, and the
cognitive strategies are, once again, the least being employed. It becomes
quite clear from table below, that the
strategy use by the learners of the 5th primary school is much
greater in all three categories of strategies than that employed by the
students of the school in Vassilika.
Table 13:
Hierarchy of strategies used in each school
|
5th
Primary School
|
Primary School of Vassilika
|
|
1st) Metacognitive strategies : 43,32 (mean score)
|
1st) Social/affective strategies : 34.21 (mean score)
|
|
2nd) Social/affective strategies : 39.68 (mean score)
|
2nd) Metacognitive strategies : 32.43 (mean score)
|
|
3rd) Cognitive strategies : 38.72 (mean score)
|
3rd) Cognitive strategies : 28.36 (mean score)
|
To sum up, according to the research results, the
extracted conclusions that are of interest to us, are the following:
ü
The girls possess and
employ more frequently than the boys metacognitive and social/affective
strategies
ü
The use of cognitive
strategies is not influenced by learners’ gender
ü
Students of a higher
socio-economic status employ more metacognitive, cognitive, and
social/affective strategies than their peers of a lower socio-economic status
ü
The learners of a higher
proficiency level in English, and, hence, with higher grades, resort more
frequently to their repertoire of metacognitive, cognitive, and
social/affective strategies.
Discussion
As previously discussed a considerable number of
researchers abroad (Ehrman and Oxford, 1989; Oxford and Nyikos, 1989; Zoubir-Shaw
and Oxford, 1994; Politzer, 1983; Kaylani, 1996) have recognized females’
superiority in the employment of the whole range of language learning
strategies. They attributed this superiority to females’ inclination, towards
socialization patterns, to their conformity to the linguistic rules, and to
their innate or acquired ability for self-management and concentration during
the learning process. In our study, however, even if it was proved that the
girls possess a richer metacognitive and social-affective repertoire, no
statistical differences were found in the use of cognitive strategies between
females and males. This means that both the selection and the frequency of the
cognitive strategies have not accepted any influence by the specific pupils’
gender.
As far as the effect of learners’ socio-economic
status on strategy use is concerned, it was confirmed that, indeed, this
influences considerably the employment of metacognitive, cognitive, and
social/affective strategies. Thus, our research findings on the issue are in
accordance to the claims of an important number of researchers (Giavrimis,
Papanis, Rumeliotou, 2007; Coleman, Campbell, Hobson, McPartland, Weinfeld and
York, 1966; Grinion, 1999; Bourdieu and Passeron, 1990; Bernstein and Henderson,
1969), who supported that the socio-economically disadvantaged students are
less strategic and effective learners, because they lack the cultural products
and the necessary resources that promote an individual’s self-development and
progress. Obviously, the students from the Primary School in Vassilika, who
come from rather poor and large families, need special instruction towards the
enhancement of their strategy use, and encouragement by the teacher, in order
to overcome their learning deficiencies.
Proficiency level in the target language was, also,
proved to be interrelated with strategy use. Thus, the learners from the school
in Vassilika resort to the employment of metacognitive, cognitive, and
social/affective strategies less frequently than the pupils from the 5th
primary school. Our findings are again in accordance to the claims of other
researchers (Huang, 1984; Huang and Naerseen, 1987; Watanabe, 1990; Phillips,
1990; Chang, 1990; Mullins, 1992; Green, 1991; Green and Oxford, 1993; Sheorey,
1999; Oxford and Nyikos, 1989), who investigated the issue. O’Malley and Chamot
(1985a) supported that the weaker learners are not very strategic, and
moreover, that, even when they use some strategies, they do it in a random,
uncontrolled and unconnected manner, while the effective learners employ quite
frequently carefully orchestrated strategies.
References:
1) Anderson, J. R. (1976) Language,
memory, and thought. Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum
2) Anderson, J. R. (1983) The architecture of cognition. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard
University Press
3) Anderson, J. R. (1985) Cognitive
psychology and its implications (2nd ed.). New York: W. H. Freeman
4) Baddeley, A. (1986) Your memory: A user’s guide. Harmondsworth: Penguin
5) Bayley, K. M. (1990) ‘The use of diary studies in
teacher education programs’ in Richards, J. C. & D. Numan (eds.
1990:215-226) Second Language Teacher Education. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
6) Bedell , D. A and OXFORD,
R. L (1996) Cross-cultural comparisons of language learning strategies in the
People’s Republic of China
and other countries. In Oxford,
R. L. (ed) Language learning strategies
around the world: cross-cultural perspectives (Technical Report 13). Second Language
Teaching & Curriculum Center, University
of Hawaii, Honolulu, pp 47-60
7) Bernstein, B., Henderson, D. (1969) Social class
differences in the relevance of language to socialization. Sociology Journal 1:1-20
8) Bialystok, E. (1978) A theoretical model of second language
learning. Language Learning, 28, 69-83
9) Bialystok, E. (1981) The role of conscious strategies in second
language proficiency. Modern Language
Journal, 65, 24-35
10) Bialystok, E. (1983) Some factors in the selection and
implementation of communicative strategies. In C. Faerch & G. Kasper
(Eds.), Strategies in interlanguage communication
(pp.100-118). London:
Longman
11) Biggs, J. B. (1993) What do inventories of students’
learning processes really measure? A theoretical review and clarification. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 63, 3-19
12) Bourdieu, P., Passeron, J.C. (1990) Reproduction in Education, Society and Culture. London: Sage Publications
13) Brown, A. L.,
Bransford, J. D., Ferrara,
R., & Campione, J. C. (1983) Learning, remembering and understanding. In J.
N. Flavell & E. M. Markham (Eds.), Carmichael’s manual of child psychology (Vol.1). New York: Wiley
14) Brown, H. D. (1987) Principles of language learning and teaching (2nd ed.) Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall
15) Chamot, A. U.
(1987) The effects of training in the use of learning strategies on learning
English as a second language. In Wenden, A. and Rubin, J. (eds.) Learner strategies in language learning.
Englewood
Cliffs: Prentice/Hall
16) Chang, S. J.
(1990) A study of language learning
behaviours of Chinese students at the University of Georgia and the relation of
those behaviours to oral proficiency and other factors. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, University
of Illinois
17) Chen, S. Q (1990) A study of communication strategies
in interlanguage production by Chinese EFL learners. Language Learning 40(2): 155-87
18) Chesterfield, R., and Chesterfield, K. B. (1985) Natural order in
children’s use of second language learning strategies. Applied Linguistics 6(1):45:49
19) Cohen, A. D.
(1990) Language Learning: insights for
learners, teachers, and researchers. Newbury
House/ Harper & Row, New York
20) Cohen, A. D.
(1998) Strategies in Learning and Using a
second Language. New York:
Addison Wesley Longman
21) Cohen, A. D., and Aphek, E. (1981) Easifying second
language learning. Studies in second
language acquisition 3:221-36
22) Cohen, A. D., and Scott, K. (1996) A synthesis of
approaches to assessing language learning strategies. In Oxford, R. L. (Ed.) Language Learning Strategies
Around the World: Cross-Cultural Perspectives. (Technical Report 13),
Second Language Teaching and Curriculum
Center. University of Hawaii,
Honolulu
23) Coleman, J.S., Campbell,
E.Q., Hobson, C.J., McPartland, J., Weinfeld, F.D., and York,
R.C. (1966) Equality of Educational Opportunity. Washington
DC: US Government Printing Office
24) Craik, F. I. M and Lockhart, R. S. (1972) Levels of
processing: a framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour 11:671-84
25) Cummins, J. (1981) Empirical and theoretical
underpinnings of bilingual education. Journal
of education 163:16-29
26) Γιαβρίμης,
Π., Παπάνης, Ε.,
Ρουμελιώτου, Μ.
(2007) Θέματα
Κοινωνιολογίας
της
Εκπαίδευσης. Μυτιλήνη:
Δούκας ΑΒΕΕ
27) Dadour, S. and Robbins, J. (1996) University-level
studies using strategy instruction to improve speaking ability in Egypt and Japan. In Oxford, R. L. (ed.) Language learning strategies around
the world: cross-cultural perspectives (Technical Report 13). Second Language
Teaching & Curriculum Center, University
of Hawaii, Honolulu, pp 157-66
28) Danserreau, D.
F. (1985) Learning strategy research. In Segal, J. W. et al. (eds.) Thinking and
learning skills: relating learning to basic research. Lawrence
Erlbaum, Hillsdale NJ, pp 209-40
29) Datcher, L. (1982) Effects of community and family
background on achievement. The Review of
Economics and Statistics, 64, 32-41
30) Dickinson, L. (1987) Self-instruction in language learning. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press
31) Dorney, Z. (1995) On the teachability of communication
strategies. TESOL Quarterly 29(1): 55-85
32) Dreyer, C. and Oxford,
R. L. (1996) Learning strategies and other predictors of ESL proficiency among
African speakers in South
Africa. In Oxford, R. L. (ed.) Language learning strategies around
the world: cross-cultural perspectives (Technical Report 13). Second Language
Teaching & Curriculum Center, University
of Hawaii, Honolulu, pp 61-74
33) Ehrman, M.,
& Oxford,
R. (1989) Effects of sex differences, career choice, and psychological type on
adult language learning strategies. Modern
Language Journal, 73(1), 1-13
34) Ehrman, M. (1990) The role of personality type in
adult language learning: an ongoing investigation. In Parry, T., and
Stansfield, C. (Eds.) Language Aptitude Reconsidered. Center for
Applied Linguistics. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall
35) Ehrman, M. (1996) Understanding
Second Language Learning Difficulties. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications
36) Ellis, R. (1986) Understanding
second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press
37) Ellis, R. (1994) The
Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press
38) Franham-Digorry, S. (1977) The Cognitive point of
view. In D. J. Treffinger, Davis, J. K., and Ripple, R.E. (Eds) Handbook of teaching Educational Psychology. New York: Academic Press
39) Flavel, J. H. (1979) Metacognition and cognitive
monitoring. A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34, 906-911
40) Gardner, R. C. and Lambert, W.E. (1959) Motivational
variables in second language acquisition. Canadian
Journal of Psychology, 13, 266-272
41) Gardner, R. C.
and Lambert, W.E. (1972) Attitudes and
Motivation in second Language
Learning. Rowley, MA: Newbury House
42) Green, J.M (1991) Language Learning Strategies of
Puerto Rican University students. Paper presented in the annual meeting of
Puerto Rico Teaches of English to Speakers of Other Languages, San Juan, GA
43) Green, J.M and
Oxford, R.L. (1993) Learning strategies:
patterns of use by gender and
proficiency. Paper presented in the annual meeting of International
Teachers of English of Speakers of Other Languages, Atlanta, GA
44) Grinion, P. (1982) Academic
achievement and poverty: Closing the achievement gap between rich and poor high
school students. Spalding University. Dissertation Abstracts International,
60(02), 386
45) Halbach, A.
(2000) Finding out about students’ learning strategies by looking at their
diaries: A case study. System, 23,
85-96
46) Hall, R. J. (1973) New
ways to learn a foreign language. Ithaca, NY: Spoken Language Services
47) Huang, X. H. (1984) An investigation of learning strategies in oral communication that
Chinese EFL learners in China employ. Unpublished master’s dissertation ,
Chinese University of Hong Kong
48) Huang, X. H. and Naerssen, M. (1987) Learning
strategies for oral communication. Applied
Linguistics, 8, 287-307
49) Kaylani, C. (1996) The influence of gender and
motivation on EFL learning strategy use in Jordan. In Oxford, R. L. (ed.) Language learning strategies around the world: cross-cultural
perspectives (Technical Report 13). Second Language Teaching &
Curriculum Center, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, pp 75-88
50) Keefe, J.W.
(1979) Learning style: An overview. In Keefe, J.W (Ed.) Student learning styles:
Diagnosing and Prescribing Programs. Reston, VA: National Association of
secondary School Principals
51) Kirby, J.R (1988) Style, strategy and skill in
reading. In Schmeck, R.R (Ed.) Learning Strategies and Learning Styles. New
York: Plenum Press
52) Leino, A. (1982) Learning
Process in Terms of Styles and Strategies. Research Bulletin No 59.
Helsinki, Finlan
53) Lessard-Clouston, M.(1997) ‘Language Learning
Strategies: an Overview for L2 teachers’ on the Internet TESOL journaL
54) Mullins, P. (1992) Successful
English language learning strategies of students enrolled in the Faculty of Arts, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok,
Thailand. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, United States International
University, San Diego, CA
55) Nainman, N., Frohlich. M., Stern. H.H., & Todesco,
A. (1978) The good language learner. Research in Education
Series, 7. Toronto” Ontario Institute for studies in Education
56) Nisbet, J. and
Shucksmith, J. (1991) Learning Strategies.
New York: Routledge
57) Numan, D. (1992) Research
Methods in Language Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
58) Okada, M., Oxford, R.L., Abo, S. (1996) Not all alike:
motivation and learning strategies among students of Japanese and Spanish in an
exploratory study. In Oxford, R. L. (ed.) Language
learning strategies around the world:
cross-cultural perspectives (Technical Report 13). Second Language Teaching
& Curriculum Center, University of Hawaii, Honolulu
59) O’ Malley, J.M., Chamot. A.U., Stewner-Manzanares, G.,
Kupper, L., and Russo, R. (1985a) Learning Strategies used by beginning and
intermediate ESL students. Language
Learning 35:21-46
60) O’ Malley, J.M., Chamot. A.U., Stewner-Manzanares, G.,
Kupper,L., and Russo, R. (1985a) Learning strategy applications with students
of English as a second language. TESOL
Quarterly 19:285-96
61) O’ Malley,
J.M., Chamot. A.U., and Walker, C. (1987) Some applications of cognitive theory
to second language acquisition. Studies
in second language acquisition
9:287-306
62) O’ Malley,
J.M., Chamot. A.U. (1990) Learning Strategies in Second Language Acquisition.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
63) Oxford, R.L. (1986) Development and Psychometric
Testing of the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning ARI Technical Report
728. Alexandria, VA: US Army Research Institute for Behavioural and Social
Sciences
64) Oxford, R.L.
(1990a) Language Learning Strategies:
What every teacher should know.
Rowley, MA: Newbury House
65) Oxford R.L.
(1990b) Styles, strategies and aptitude: connections for language learning. In
T.S. Parry and C.W. Stansfield (Eds.) Language Aptitude Reconsidered. Center
for Applied Linguistics. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall
66) Oxford, R.L.
(1992) Language Learning Strategies in a nutshell: Research update and ESL
classroom applications. TESOL Journal,
1, Cover, 18-22
67) Oxford, R.L.
(2002) Learning strategies, language proficiency, and self-regulation. Proceedings of the 29th JACET
Summer Seminar, 3-19. Tokyo: JACET (ISSN1347-3964)
68) Oxford, R.L,
and Ehrman, M.E.(1995) Adults’ language learning strategies in an intensive
language program in the United States. System,23,
359-386
69) Oxford, R.L.,
and Lavine, R.Z. (1991) Teacher-student style wars in the language classroom:
research insights and suggestions. Bulletin
of the Association of Departments of
Foreign Languages, 23, 38-45
70) Oxford, R.L.,
and Nyikos, M. (1989) Variables affecting choice of language learning
strategies by University students. The
Modern Language Journal, 73, 291-300
71) Park, G.P
(1997) Language learning strategies and English proficiency in Korean
University students. Foreign Language
Annals, 30:2, 211-221
72) Phillips, V.
(1990) English as a second language
learner strategies of adult Asian students using the Strategy Inventory for
Language Learning. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of San
Francisco, CA
73) Pimsleur, P.
and Qinn, T. (1971) The psychology of
second language learning.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
74) Politzer, R.L.
(1983) An exploratory study of self-reported language learning behaviours and
their relation to achievement. Studies in
Second Language Acquisition, 6,
54-68
75) Politzer, R.L.
and McGroarty, M. (1985) An exploratory study of learning behaviours and their
relationship to gains in linguistic and communicative competence. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 103-123
76) Porter, P.A.,
Goldstein. L.M., Leatherman, J., Conrad, S. (1990) The ongoing dialogue:
learning logs for teacher preparation. Second
Language Teacher Education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
77) Posner, M.I.,
and Snyder, C.R. (1975) Attention and Cognitive control. In Soslo, R.L. (Ed.) Information processing and cognition.
Hillsdale, N.J. : Erlbaum
78) Rabinovitz, M., and Chi, M. T. (1987) An interactive
model of strategic processing. In Ceci, S.J. (Ed.), Handbook of cognitive, social, and neuropsychological aspects of
learning disabilities (pp 83-102). Hillsdale, N.J. : Erlbaum
79) Reid, J.M.
(1995) Learning Styles in the ESL/EFL
Language Classroom. Boston: Heinle & Heinle
80) Riding, S., and Rayner, S. (1998) Cognitive Styles and Learning Strategies. London: David Foulton
Publishers
81) Rossi-Le, L. (1995) Learning Styles and Strategies in
Adult Immigrant ESL Students. In Reid, J. (Ed.) Learning Styles in the ESL/EFL classroom. Boston: Heinle &
Heinle
82) Rubin, J.
(1981) Study of cognitive process in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 2, 117-131
83) Rubin, J.
(1987) Learner strategies: theoretical assumptions research history and
typology. In Wenden, A. and Rubin, J. (Eds.) 1987. Learner strategies in Language
Learning. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall
84) Schmidt, R.
(1994) Deconstructing consciousness in search of useful definitions for applied
linguistics. AILA Review, 11, 11-16
85) Selinger, H. W.
(1983) The language learner as linguist: Of metaphors and realities. Applied Linguistics, 4, 179-191
86) Sheory, R.
(1999) An examination of language learning strategy use in the setting of an
indigenized variety of English. System,
27, 173-190
87) Simon, S. A.
(1996) Observations on the sciences of
sciences learning. Paper prepared for the Committee on Developments in the
Science of Learning for the Sciences of Science Learning: An Interdisciplinary
Discussion. Department of Psychology, Carnegie Mellon University
88) Singleton, J.
(1991) The spirit of gamburu. In Finkelstein, A.E, and Imamura, A.E., and
Tobin, J.J (Eds.) transcending stereotypes: Discovering
Japanese Culture and Education.
Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press
89) Skehan, P.
(1989) Individual Differences in Second
Language Learning. London: Edward Arnold
90) Skehan, P. (1991)
Individual differences in second language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13, 275-298
91) Skehan, P.
(1998) A Cognitive Approach to Language
Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press
92) Skinner, B. F. (1938) The Behaviour of Organisms: An Experimental Analysis. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc
93) Stern, H. W.
(1983) Fundamental concepts in language
learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press
94) Tudor, I.
(1996) Learner-centredness as Language
Education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
95) Wajnryb, R. (1992) Classroom Observation Tasks
Cambridge : Cambridge University Press
96) Weinestein, C. E., and Mayer, R.E. (1986) The Teaching
of Learning Strategies. In Wittrock, M.C. (Ed.) Handbook of Research in Teaching (3rd ed.). New York:
Macmillan
97) Wenden, A.
(1983) Literature review: The process of intervention. Language Learning, 33:1, 103-121
98) Wenden, A.
(1986) What do second-language learners know about their language learning? A
second look at Retrospective Accounts. Applied
Linguistics, 7, 186-201
99) Williams, M.,
and Burden, R.L. (1997) Psychology for
Language Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
