PEOPLE’S DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF ALGERIA

MINISTRY OF HIGHER EDUCATION AND SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH

UNIVERSITY OF TLEMCEN
FACULTY OF LETTERS AND LANGUAGES
DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH

Assessing Language Learning Strategy Use:

The Case of the 1st Year EFL Students at the University of
Mascara

Dissertation submitted to the Department of English in Candidacy for the Degree of

"Magister" in Assessment and Testing in English Language Education

Presented by: Supervised by:

Mrs. Soumia TABETI Dr. Nawal BENMOSTEFA

Jury Members:

Pr. Smail BENMOUSSAT Prof President University of Tlemcen

Dr. Nawal BENMOSTEFA M.C.A Supervisor University of Tlemcen
Pr. Hafida HAMZAOUI Prof Examiner University of Tlemcen
Pr. Radia BENYELLES Prof Examiner University of Tlemcen

Academic year: 2016-2017

I
 Declaration of Originality

I hereby certify that I am the sole author of this dissertation and that neither any
part of this dissertation nor the whole of it has been submitted for a degree to any other
University or Institution.

I certify that, to the best of my knowledge, my dissertation does not infringe upon
anyone's copyright nor violate any proprietary rights and that any ideas, techniques,
quotations, or any other material from the work of other people included in my
dissertation, published or otherwise, are fully acknowledged in accordance with the
standard referencing practices.

Signature

II
 Dedications

To my parents, the perpetual resort of care and sustenance.

To my husband for his precious support and patience .
To my kids, the light of my eyes.

III
 Acknowledgements

I would like first to express my deepest and infinite gratitude to my supervisor Dr.
Nawel BENMOSTEFA whom I respect deeply, and who has seriously directed me in
the wonderful world of research with her competence and patience. I thank her for her
understanding, encouragement, and precious advice.

My deepest gratitude go also to the honorable members of the jury for accepting
reading my dissertation and providing constructive comments .

I would like to appreciate all my teachers at Mascara and at Tlemcen Universities who
were truly so kind and helpful, and who were ready to answer my questions and give
advice each time I need it.

I wish to address my sincere thanks to the teachers and students at Mascara University
who participated in the study by filling out questionnaires or by attending interviews.

I would like to extend my deep appreciation to all the staff members of the libraries at
Mascara and at Tlemcen Universities.

I am deeply thankful to my friends and colleagues at both Tlemcen and Mascara

Universities who have made these last years a wonderful journey.

IV
 ABSTRACT

This dissertation aims to assess the students' language learning strategy (LLS) use, to
check whether there are significant differences in the students’ LLS use regarding
gender, and to investigate whether there are significant differences in the students LLS
use regarding proficiency levels. The research was conducted with first-year EFL
students at the University of Mascara. A total of 157 students have completed Oxford's
Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) which was used as the basic
instrument to identify students’ learning strategies and the frequency of use. Then,
three first -year EFL teachers and ten students were interviewed. In addition, the
grades were obtained from the English Department administration to determine the
students' proficiency level. The findings revealed that the overall use of LLS by the
students is medium where meta-cognitive strategies are the most frequently used
strategies and memory strategies are the least frequently used. Additionally, there are
statistically no significant differences between male and female students in the use of
the overall strategies and in the use of the six categories of strategies except in the use
of the affective strategies which has a significant difference in favour of female.
Furthermore, there are statistically significant and positive relationships between the
students’ academic achievement and three language learning strategies categories:
Affective strategies, Cognitive strategies and Meta-cognitive strategies. Moreover the
student’s achievement is explained by two categories of strategies namely: Cognitive
strategies and Meta-cognitive strategies. These findings lead us to conclude that the
use of language learning strategies effect positively students’ achievement.

V
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Declaration of Originality........................................................................... II
Dedication…………………………………………………………............. III

Acknowledgements ………....…………………………………… IV
Abstract……………………….........………………………… V
Table of Contents………………………………………………… VI
List of Abbreviations/ Acronyms ……………………………… IX
List of Tables…………………………………………………... X
List of Figures………………………………………………….. XI
List of Charts…………………………………………………....... XI

GENERAL INTRODUCTION.................................................................1

CHAPTER ONE: LITERATURE REVIEW

1.1. Introduction…………………………………………………… 8
1.2. Definition of Language Learning Strategies (LLSs) ……… 8
1.3. Characteristics of Language Learning Strategies………… 13
1.4. Classification Systems of Language Learning Strategies… 15
1.4.1. Rubin’s (1981) Classification of LLSs………………… 18
1.4.1.1. Direct Strategies…………………………………… 18
1.4.1.2. Indirect Strategies……………………………… 19
1.4.2. O’Malley and Chamot’s (1990) Classification of LLSs… 19
1.4.2.1. Meta-cognitive Strategies………………………… 20
1.4.2.2. Cognitive Strategies…………………………… 20
1.4.2.3. Social/Affective Strategies……………………… 20
1.4.3. Oxford’s (1990) Classification of LLSs…………………. 21
1.4.3.1. Direct Strategies for Language Learning………… 22
Memory Strategies……………………………………… 22
Cognitive Strategies…………………………………… 23
Compensation Strategies………………………………… 24
1.4.3.2. Indirect Strategies for Language Learning………… 25
Meta-cognitive Strategies……………........................... 26
Affective Strategies……………………………………… 27
Social Strategies……………………………………….. 27
1.5. Factors Affecting Learner's LLS Choice …………………… 29
1.5.1. Gender…………………………………………………….. 29
1.5.2. Motivation………………………………………………… 29
1.5.3. Type of Task………………..…………………………… 30
1.5.4. Age and L2 Stage………………………………………… 30
1.5.5. Learning Style…………………………………………… 30
1.5.6. Cultural Background………….…………..……………… 30
1.5.7. Attitudes and Beliefs……………………………………… 30
1.5.8. Tolerance of Ambiguity………………………….…… 30

VI
1.6. Previous Research into Assessment of LLS Use …………… 30
1.6.1. LLSs and Achievement in the Target Language………… 31
1.6.2. Language Learning Strategies and Gender …………… 31
1.7. Assessment Tools for Language Learning Strategy Use…… 33
1.7.1. Observation ……………………………………………… 34
1.7.2. Questionnaires …………………………………………… 35
1.7.3. Interviews ……………………………………………… 35
1.7.4. Diary Writing…………………………………………… 36
1.7.5. Think Aloud Protocols ………………………………… 36
1.8. Conclusion……………………………………………………. 37

CHAPTER TWO: TEACHING/LEARNING SITUATION AND

RESEARCH METHODOLOY
2.1.Introduction…………………………………………………… 41
2.2. The Status of English Language in Algeria………….....…… 41
2.3. The Algerian Educational System: An Overview………… 42
2.4. ELT at University ……………………………………........ 45
2.5. The English Language Department: A Brief Overview…… 47
2.5.1. The Students' Profile…………………………………… 48
2.5.2. The Curriculum………………………...………………… 48
2.6. Research Action in TEFL…………………………………… 49
2.7. Presentation of the Purpose of the Study and Hypotheses… 51
2.8. Presentation of the Research Instruments………………… 53
2.8.1. The Students' Questionnaire……………………………… 53
2.8.2. The Interviews ……………………...…………………….. 56
2.8.3. The Academic Grades…………………...………………… 57
2.8.4. Broad Categories of our Research………………………… 58
2.9. Procedures of Data collection .......................…...................... 60
2.9.1. Reliability Test…………………………………………....... 60
2.10. The Sample ………………………………………….............. 61
2.10.1. Characteristics of the Responders……………................... 62
2.11. Conclusion………………………………………………….... 63
CHAPTER THREE:
DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION
3.1. Introduction ……………………………………………… 66
3.2. The Overall Usage of Learning Strategies as Reported in SILL... 66
3.3. The Usage of the Six Scope of Learning Strategies……… 70
Memory Strategies….………………..……………………. 71
Cognitive Strategies……………………………………… 73
Compensation Strategies..………………………………..... 76

VII
 Meta-cognitive Strategies………………………………... 79
Affective Strategies……………..…………………………. 82
Social Strategies……….…………………………………. 86
3.4. Strategy Use and Students Gender………………...... 89
3.5. Strategy Use and Proficiency Level………………… 92
3.6. Conclusion……………………………………………………. 96

CHAPTER FOUR:
RECOMMENDATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
4.1. Introduction…………………………………………...………. 99
4.2. Language Learning Strategies Instruction ……… 99
4.3. Aims and Importance of LLS Instruction............................... 100
4.4. Types of Language Learning Strategies Instruction…… 102
4.4.1. Awareness Training………………………………………... 102
4.4.2. One Time Strategy Training.................................................. 102
4.4.3. Long Term Strategy Training……………………………… 102
4.5. Providing Options for LLS Instruction................................... 103
4.5.1. General Study Skills Courses……………………………… 103
4.5.2. Awareness Training……………………………………… 103
4.5.3. Strategy Workshops ……………………………………… 103
4.5.4. Peer Tutoring…………………………………………… 104
4.5.5. Strategies in Language Textbooks……………………… 104
4.5.6. Videotaped Mini-Courses ……………………………… 104
4.5.7. Strategies-Based Instruction……………………………… 105
4.6. Language Learning Strategies Instruction Models………… 106
4.6.1. O'Malley and Chamot's Model ………………………… 106
4.6.2. Oxford's Model………………………………………… 107
4.6.3. Cohen's Model…………………………………………… 108
4.6.4. Grenfell and Harris’s Model………………………….....… 109
4.7. Implementing LLS Instruction into Language Classroom… 110
4.8. Research on Language Learning Strategies Instructions… 111
4.9. Pedagogical Implications for Research and Instruction…… 112
4.9.1. Limitations of the Study…………………………………… 115
4.9.2. Suggestions for Further Research.......................................... 115
4.10. Conclusion……………………………....…………………
116
GENERAL CONCLUSION...........................................................
118
BIBLIOGRAPHY……………………………………………
121
APPENDICES…………………………………………………
127
VIII
 List of Appendix
Appendix A: Letter Seeking Permission to Carry Out Research 126
Appendix B: Letter of Approval to Conduct Research in the Department
of English Language 127
Appendix C: A Sample of the SILL Questionnaire 128
Appendix D: A Sample of the Arabic Version of the SILL
Questionnaire130
Appendix E: A Sample of the Response Sheet for the SILL
Questionnaire134
Appendix F: Students’ Interview 137
Appendix G: Teachers’ Interview 139
Appendix H: Selected Extracts of Students’ Responses Through
Interviews 140
Appendix I: Selected Extracts of Teachers’ Responses Through Interviews
142
Appendix J: The Final Academic Results of the First Year EFL Students
144

List of Abbreviations/ Acronyms

ANOVA: Analysis of variance
EFL: English as a Foreign Language
ELT: English Language Teaching
ESL: English as a Second Language
FL: Foreign Language
FL1: First Foreign Language
FLL: Foreign Language Learner
GLL: Good Language Learner
LLS: Language Learning Strategy
LMD: Licence/Master/Doctorate
LT: Language Teaching
L1: First Language (Mother tongue)
L2: Second Language
MSA: Modern Standard Arabic
PhD: Doctor of Philosophy
SA: Standard Arabic

IX
SBI: Strategy Based Instructions
SILL: Strategy Inventory for Language Learning
SNDL: System National de Documentation en Ligne
SPSS: Statistical Package for Social Sciences
TEFL: Teaching English as a Foreign Language
TESOL: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages

List of Tables
Table 1.1. Definitions of Language Learning Strategies 08
Table 1.2. Language Learning Strategy Classifications Since the 1970s 13
Table 2.1. Number of First Year LMD Students from 2013 to 2016 43
Table 2.2. Number of First Year LMD Students 44
Table 2.3. Official Curriculum of the First Year LMD Students 45
Table 2.4. Examples of Items Used in the Study 51
Table 2.5. Changes Adopted in the Arabic Translated Version of SILL 52
Table 2.6. Reliability Test 57
Table 2.7. Process of the Questionnaires Collection 58
Table 2.8. Demographic Data of Participants 59
Table 3.1. Scale Measurement of the Strategy Use Level 62
Table 3.2. Description of Overall Use of Language Learning Strategies 64
Table 3.3. Description of Top 10 Used Language Learning Strategies 65
Table 3.4. Means and Standards Deviation of the Items of Memory Strategies 66
Table 3.5. Means and Standards Deviation of the Items of Cognitive Strategies 69
Table 3.6. Means and Standards Deviation of the Items of Compensation Strategies72
Table 3.7. Means and Standards Deviation of the Items of Metacognitive Strategies76
Table 3.8. Means and Standards Deviation of the Items of Affective Strategies 79
Table 3.9. Means and Standards Deviation of the Items of Social Strategies 82
Table 3.10. T-test Results of Language Learning Strategies with Respect to Gender 85
Table 3.11. Presentation of LLS Use with respect to proficiency level 88
Table 3.12. Correlation Analysis Among the Components of Language Learning
Strategies and Students’ Achievement 89

X
Table 3.13. One way ANOVA Students’ Achievement by the Components of
Language Learning Strategies 90
List of Figures
Figure 1.1. Oxford´s Classification of Memory Strategies 20
Figure 1.2. Oxford´s Classification of Cognitive Strategies 21
Figure 1.3. Oxford´s Classification of Compensation Strategies 22
Figure 1.4. Oxford´s Classification of Metacognitive Strategies 24
Figure 1.5. Oxford´s Classification of Affective Strategies 25
Figure 1.6. Oxford´s Classification of Social Strategies 26
Figure 2.1. Parameters of research design (Adapted from Van Lier, 1988) 54
Figure 2.2. Broad categories considered in our research 55

List of Charts
Chart 3.1. The Average Extent of Using Direct and Indirect Strategies 62
Chart 3.2. The Average Extent of Using the Six Strategies 65
Chart 3.3. The Average Extent of Using the Nine Items of Memory Strategies 67
Chart 3.4. The Average Extent of Using the Fourteen Items of Cognitive Strategies 71
Chart 3.5. The Average Extent of Using the Six Items of Compensation Strategies 73
Chart 3.6. The Average Extent of Using the Nine Items of Meta-cognitive Strategies77
Chart 3.7. The Average Extent of Using the Six Items of Affective Strategies 80
Chart 3.8. The Average Extent of Using the Six Items of Social Strategies 83

XI
 GENERAL INTRODUCTION

GENERAL INTRODUCTION
Over the years, researchers in the field of language teaching have been trying to
develop theories, methods, approaches, classroom techniques and instructional
materials that help for better language learning. However, issues relating to the learner
have been neglected and much less attention has been paid to the language
development process. While it was considered that the learner is a half of the
teaching/learning partnership, it might be surprising the underestimating of the
learner’s role.

Since several decades, researchers started with the conviction that no single
teaching method can ensure success in foreign language (FL) teaching. Therefore, they
explored the possibility that success in language learning might be related to how
students go about the task. More recently, writers such as Oxford, Chamot and others
have carried out their studies on language learning strategies (LLS) suggesting that the
use of LLS might enhance the language learning. Although, there are some overlaps
between them, it is possible to divide them into three main interests; 1) a good
language learner (GLL) studies, 2) studies on defining, classifying and listing LLS,
and 3) studies about various learner’s personal factors (such as proficiency, sex,
personality, motivation etc.) that affect learners’ LLS choices.

Furthermore, a considerable number of researchers have emphasized the

importance of language learning strategy use by language learners, they have worked
on empowering language learners to become more self -directed, resourceful, flexible,
and effective in their learning ( O’Malley & Chamot, 1990).

The general concept of using strategies to enhance learning is not new. For learning
strategies, there are a vast number of strategies such as highlighting important ideas
and summarizing. These strategies are often so simple that it is easy for students to
take them for granted, but it must be remembered that the strategies themselves had to
be learnt initially before they could be used.

[1]
 GENERAL INTRODUCTION

English language learning includes those techniques that learners use to remember
what they have learnt- their storage and retrieval of new information. The language
learner is seen as “an active participant” in the learning process, using various mental
strategies in order to sort out the system of the language to be learned. This
conception, according to which the student must actively process linguistic
information, learners possess a great responsibility since they become no longer
passive receptacles for knowledge but thinking participants who can influence their
own language learning and develop it.

According to O’Malley & Chamot (1990) language learning strategies have the
potential to be “an extremely powerful learning tool”. However, as a result of their
study, they concluded that many students used language learning strategies
“inefficiently”. Although this was written nearly 30 years ago, according to Oxford
(1990), the contribution of the learner to the learning process is still underestimated.
She goes on to argue that the learner is not ‘merely a passive recipient’. She suggests
that, in order to effect change in perceptions of the learner’s role in the learning
process, we need to discover more about what learners do to learn successfully. The
desire to contribute to further knowledge and understanding in this area has been the
motivation for the current study. The main concern of the present work is to assess
language learning strategy use among first-year EFL students at the University of
Mascara, therefore the researcher tries to answer the following questions:

1. What are the language learning strategies used by first-year EFL students at the
University of Mascara as reported in the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning
(SILL)?

2. Are there differences in the students’ language learning strategy use regarding
gender?

3. Are there differences in the students’ language learning strategy use regarding their
academic achievement?

The investigation throughout this work will attempt to provide arguments for the
research hypotheses that can be roughly formulated as follows:

[2]
 GENERAL INTRODUCTION

1- First-year EFL students at the University of Mascara may use different Language
Learning Strategies as reported in the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning
(SILL).

2- There may be differences in the students' language learning strategy use regarding
gender.

3- There may be differences in the students’ language learning strategy use regarding
their proficiency level.

The present research tries to find out the validity of these hypotheses. Thus, in
order to assess first-year EFL students' LLS use, the researcher devised a questionnaire
(SILL) to first-year EFL students. Then, two interviews are administered with students
and teachers at the Department of English at the University of Mascara.

This research work consists of four chapters that are designed to enlighten the
reader about the field of research. The first chapter provides a theoretical overview of
language learning strategies. It deals with definitions, characteristics and taxonomies
of language learning strategies. Next, the chapter describes the different factors
affecting learner's LLS choice. Besides, it provides previous research into assessment
of LLS use. Then, the chapter presents the assessment tools for language learning
strategy use.

The second chapter attempts to give a clear idea about the circumstances that
shaped first-year students' LLS use. For this purpose, It starts with a general
presentation of English Language Teaching/Learning Situation in Algeria. Then, it
describes the EFL teaching/learning situation at Mascara University, explains how
English is taught there and presents the syllabus used. This chapter is also concerned
with the presentation of the research design and procedure; it presents and explains the
research methodology. Besides, it states the research questions and hypotheses before
giving the profile of students who participated in the study. The research instruments
are introduced, their choice is justified and the procedure of data analysis is explained.

[3]
 GENERAL INTRODUCTION

The third chapter is based on action research; it deals with the analysis and
interpretation of the collected data. After the analysis of the data obtained from the
various instruments, the results are interpreted via qualitative and quantitative analyses
of the collected data. Finally, the main research results are discussed by making
reference to the findings and explaining the degree of evidence of the collected data.

The fourth and last chapter provides some suggestions and recommendations
related to the Language Learning Strategy Instruction. It is concerned with what might
be beneficial as pedagogical implications. It attempts to suggest some implications for
instruction in order to make EFL learning easier and more effective by using helpful
language learning strategies.

[4]
 CHAPTER ONE: LITERATURE REVIEW

1.1. Introduction

Over the last four decades, the attention has shifted from “what to learn” to “how to
learn” within the field of language learning and teaching. Since the 1970s, researchers
have investigated on methods and learning strategies that help the learners to achieve
autonomy and to make learning easier and more effective with a great emphasis on
learners rather than teachers. At the same time, there has been a focus on how learners
treat new information and what types of strategies they employ to understand, learn or
recall the information.

Before starting the research, we have to look at many of the central issues on the
strategies of learning the language and its use assessment; however, it is necessary first
and foremost to achieve a working definition of what is the language learning strategy
(LLS). Later, a list of LLSs characteristics is discussed in order to give a background
for classification systems of learning strategies proposed by different scholars. After
that, it is essential to mention the factors affecting learner's LLS choice followed by
previous international researches on students’ LLSs. Finally, since the current study is
related to the dual concepts of language learning strategies use and its assessment,
various methods for data collection with respect to LLS are presented. These elements
that are central to the current study will be addressed in this chapter.

1.2. Definition of Language Learning Strategies

Language learning strategies have been one of the most exciting research topics in
the field of second/foreign language teaching and learning for four decades. Many
studies have contributed to our understanding of the important roles that LLSs play in
acquisition and learning of second or foreign languages. Numerous researchers and
experts have defined language learning strategies from different points of view.
However, it is useful to identify the basic term “strategy” in order to understand the
language learning strategies. This term comes from the ancient Greek word “strategia”
that has been marked on the art of war or dexterity mode. The term “strategy” is
defined by Cambridge University Dictionary Online (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/,

[8]
 CHAPTER ONE: LITERATURE REVIEW

Retrieved 8/02/16) as: “a detailed plan for achieving success in situations such as war,
politics, business, industry or sport”. The warlike meaning of “strategia” has
fortunately fallen away, but a plan of action designed to achieve a long-term or overall
aim the control and goal directedness remain in the modern version of the word
(Oxford, 2003). Therefore, goal-orientation is a key segment of any definition of
“strategy”.

Different researchers have used various terms that reflect goal-orientation in their
definitions of learning strategies, such as “goal”, “intention”, “purpose”, “conscious
action”, “awareness”, or “control”. Additionally, they all agree that learning strategies
are means for learners to achieve their learning goals. Accordingly, Lan (2005, p. 16)
states that the definition form of “learning strategy” is usually: “X [in order] to achieve
Y”.
Great attention has been given to “how to learn” not only “what to learn” in the
field of language teaching and learning, there has been also a growing awareness of
the importance of the strategies used by learners in the language learning process.
Since, students are the only ones who can actually do the learning even with the best
teachers and methods. Accordingly, Nyikos and Oxford (1993) point: “learning begins
with the learner” (cited in Griffths, 2003, p. 14). In spite of this activity, however,
defining language learning strategies remains no easy task. Skehan (1989) calls them
an “explosion of activity”, Ellis (1994) finds the concept “fuzzy”, and Cohen (1998,
p.3) talks of “conflicting views” (ibid).

The most important issue in LLS is the definition. Although LLS were defined by a
number of leading figures in foreign language field (Bialystok, 1978; Rubin, 1987;
Wenden and Rubin, 1987; Chamot, 1987; O'Malley and Chamot, 1990; Oxford, 1990;
Ellis, 1994; and Cohen, 1998). Yet, there have been no clear definition before
Chamot's (1987) research.
According to Ellis (1994, cited in Prakongchati, 2007, p. 27), the best method to
define language learning strategies is to list their main characteristics. To do so,
collecting the definitions of language learning strategies is a way to facilitate the

[9]
 CHAPTER ONE: LITERATURE REVIEW

process of defining the term of language learning strategies in this study. The
following list of definitions provides a clear vision about the subject studied.
Table 1.1. Definitions of Language Learning Strategies

Definition
Researcher
Language learning strategies have been defined as…
[M]ethods operated in the model of second language learning to
Bialystok exploit available information to increase the proficiency of second
(1978: 76) language learning.
Stern [P]articular forms of observable learning behavior, more or less
(1983: 405) consciously employed by the learner.
Weinstein [T]he behaviors and thoughts that a learner engages in during
and Mayer learning that are intended to influence the learner’s encoding
(1986: 315) process.
[S]trategies which contribute to the development of the language
Rubin
system which the learner constructs and affects learning directly.
(1987)
[T]echniques, approaches or deliberate actions that students take
Chamot in order to facilitate the learning and recall of both linguistic and
(1987: 71) content area information.
[L]anguage learning behaviors learners actually engage in to learn
Wenden and regulate the learning of a second language…what they know
(1987: 6) about the strategies they use…what they know about aspects of
their language learning other than the strategies they use.
[T]he behaviors and thought processes that learners use in the
Wenden process of learning including any sets of operations, steps, plans,
and Rubin routines used by the learner to facilitate the obtaining, storage,
(1987: 19) retrieval, and use of information.

[S]pecific actions taken by the learner to make learning easier,

Oxford faster, more enjoyable, more self-directed, more effective, and
(1990:8) more transferable to new situations.
MacIntyre [T]he techniques and tricks that learners use to make the language
(1994: 185) easier to master.
[T]he special thoughts or behaviors that individuals use to help
O’Malley
them comprehend, learn, or retain new information.
and Chamot
(1995: 1)
[L]earning processes which are consciously selected by the
learner. The element of choice is important here because this is
Cohen
what gives a strategy its special character. These are also moves
(1998: 4)
which the learner is at least partially aware of, even if full
attention is not being given to them.
[10]
 CHAPTER ONE: LITERATURE REVIEW

Brown [S]pecific attacks that are made on a given problem. They are
(2000: 122- moment-by-moment techniques employed to solve problems
127) passed by second language input and output.
Weinstein, [A]ny thoughts, behaviors, beliefs, or emotions that facilitate the
Husman, acquisition, understanding, or later transfer of new knowledge and
and skills.
Dierking
(2000: 727)
Thornbury [T]echniques or behaviours that learners consciously apply in
(2006:115) order to enhance their learning.

(Adapted from Prakongchati, 2007, p. 27 and from Tamada, 1996, p. 3)

These definitions can be divided into two parts: the elements that LLS include, and
the purpose that learners use LLS for. Tarone (1983), for instance, defines a learning
strategy as "an attempt to develop linguistic and sociolinguistic competence in the
target language ... to incorporate these into one's interlanguage competence" (cited in
Lan, 2005, p. 16).
As seen earlier, strategies consistently include goals or purposes. The goals
demonstrated by Tarone's definition are to reach different competencies in the
language: “develop linguistic and sociolinguistic competence” and “incorporate these
into one’s interlanguage competence”. This definition does not underline learner
autonomy, cultural understanding, or other elements of language learning. As to the
previous factor , for example, Bialystok (1978) , defined it as "optional means", and
Rubin (1987) as "strategies which contribute to the development of the language
system which the learner constructs and affects learning directly". From these
definitions, we can say that Bialystok's (1978) definition gives no explanation about
this "optional means". On the other hand, Rubin (1987) dealt with it only as the action
affecting learning directly. Thus, it is obvious that both researchers have no agreement
about the elements of LLS.
As to the second factor, Bialystok's (1978) definition is "to improve competence in
a second language". This definition focused on being more proficient learners, rather
than learning effectively or easily. While Rubin's (1987) definition gives no
information about this. Hence, there is also no agreement between them. However,
since Chamot's (1987) study, the definition has been changed. Chamot (1987),

[11]
 CHAPTER ONE: LITERATURE REVIEW

O'Malley and Chamot (1990), and Oxford (1990), defined both factors in more detail
than the previous studies. Furthermore, their definitions have become alike (Tamada,
1996, p. 3). For example, as to the previous factor, Chamot (1987) defined it as
"techniques, or approaches, or deliberate actions", O'Malley and Chamot (1990)
treated it as "special thoughts or behaviours", and Oxford (1990) identifies it as
"specific actions". According to O'Malley and Chamot (1990), learning strategies
remain unclear whether they are thoughts or behaviours (observable or not), or both.
However, Oxford dealt with LLS as both thoughts and behaviours although she
defined it only as "actions".
As to the second factor, the purpose of using LLS has not been mentioned as being
"proficient learners", but as being able to: "facilitate the
learning" (Chamot, 1987) , "help them comprehend" (O'Malley and Chamot, 1990),
Oxford’s (1990) definition explicit many student- aimed goals "make learning easier,
faster, more enjoyable, more self-directed, more effective, and more transferable",
hence, this definition extends O’Malley and Chamot's (1990) list of goals (cited in
Lan, 2005, p. 17).
It is remarkable that, since Chamot's (1987) study, the purpose of using LLS has
changed from becoming good or successful learners who speak a second language
fluently, to becoming intelligent learners who know very well about how to learn a
foreign language more successfully (Tamada, 1996). In particular, Oxford's definition
contains all the elements that foreign language learners need to be intelligent learners.
Therefore, Oxford's definition of LLS will be used in this study.

1.3. Characteristics of Language Learning Strategies

It is believed (according to the above discussion) that language learning strategies

differ in many ways. Different writers use different terminologies to refer to the
strategies. For example, Wenden and Rubin (1987) use the term “learner strategies”,
O’Malley and Chamot (1990) use the term “learning strategies”, and Oxford (1990)
uses the term “language learning strategies”. Even that the terminology used for
language learning strategies is not similar among the researchers in the field, there are

[12]
 CHAPTER ONE: LITERATURE REVIEW

a number of basic characteristics accepted by them. According to Blažková (2011),

Oxford (1990) describes these characteristics as features which:
1. Contribute to the main goal - communicative competence. Learning strategies
can foster particular aspects of that competence; grammatical, sociolinguistic,
discourse and strategic competence.
2. Allow learners to become more self-directed. Self-direction is so important for
language learners, since the teacher will not always be around to guide the learners as
they use the language outside the classroom. Oxford (1990) claims that "an appropriate
use of learning strategies helps learners to take control of their own learning".
3. Expand the role of teachers. Becoming facilitator after being director, manager
and leader may discomfort some teachers who feel that their position is being
challenged.
4. Are problem orientated. Learning strategies are used because there is a problem
to solve, a task to complete, or an objective to attain.
5. Are specific actions taken by learners. Learning strategies are specific behaviors
done by learners to enhance their learning, such as, taking notes, self-evaluating and
guessing the meaning of the word.
6. Include many aspects of the learner, not just the cognitive. Learning strategies
include also meta-cognitive functions like planning, evaluating; emotional, social and
other functions as well.
7. Support learning both directly and indirectly. In the subsequent section,
classification of direct and indirect strategies will be discussed in detail.
8. Are not always observable. Some learning strategies are not easily observable
to the human eye. Therefore, Oxford (1990) states that teachers find it difficult to
know about learning strategies their learners use.
9. Are often conscious. Consciousness is included in the ancient Greek definition
of the term strategy; however, some researchers in the field of language learning
debate whether consciousness is a condition for them to be considered as strategies.
Ironically, making appropriate learning strategies automatic (unconscious) is usually
recommended in strategy training.

[13]
 CHAPTER ONE: LITERATURE REVIEW

10. Can be taught. Unlike learning styles, learning strategies can be taught through
strategy training. Its goal is to explore ways that the learners can learn the target
language more effectively (Cohen, 1998). Strategy training helps learners become
more aware of the strategies they use.
11. Are flexible. Learning strategies are not always found in foreseeable modes.
Williams and Burden (1997) state that learners made choice over how to use and
combine strategies. On the other hand, Oxford (1990) notes that sometimes strategies
are combined in a predictable way.
12. Are influenced by a variety of factors. Many researchers agree that there are a
number of factors influencing strategy choice, such as task requirements, stage of
learning, degree of awareness, personality, age, sex, learning style, motivation and
purpose for learning the language. Oxford (1990) suggests that learners who are more
advanced, more aware and more motivated apparently use a wide variety of
appropriate strategies.
(Adapted from Blažková, 2011, pp. 15-17)
As a conclusion for the above description, it is obvious that some learning
strategies are behavioral and can be directly observed, others are mental and not
directly observed. Furthermore, strategies are sometimes described as belonging to
“successful” or “unsuccessful” learners. Strategies have also been classified according
to whether they affect language learning directly or indirectly. The list of learning
strategies features has provided a fundamental concept about them. This review can
provide a background to the subsequent section of the thesis that discusses language
learning strategies classification systems.

1.4. Classification Systems of Language Learning Strategies

Language learning strategies research began in the early seventies focusing on the
LLSs use of successful ESL/EFL learners (Rubin, 1975; Stern, 1975). As reported
in Table 1.2, there are many researchers who have studied and classified language
learning strategies in various ways (Lee, 2010). The following table summarizes the
main background of LLSs classifications and gives a clear description of this process.
These LLSs classifications have been proposed by ten researchers.

[14]
 CHAPTER ONE: LITERATURE REVIEW

Table 1.2. Language Learning Strategy Classifications Since the 1970s

Language learning strategies classification Researcher(s) and

Year
1. Planning strategy
2. Active strategy
3. Empathetic strategy
4. Experimental strategy
5. Formal strategy Stern (1975)
6. Semantic strategy
7. Practice strategy
8. Communication strategy
9. Monitoring strategy
10. Internalization strategy
1. Active task approach
2. Realization of language as a system
3.Realisation of language as a means of Naiman et al. (1978)
communication and interaction
4. Management of affective demands
5. Monitoring L2 performance
1. Strategies that directly affect learning
Clarification/verification
Monitoring
Memorisation
Guessing/inductive inferencing Rubin (1981)
Deductive reasoning
Practice
2. Processes that contribute indirectly to learning
Creates opportunities for practice
Production tricks

1. Cognitive strategies Brown & Palinscar

2. Meta-cognitive strategies
(1982)
3. Social-affective strategies

1. Strategies for coping with target language rules Carver (1984)

2. Strategies for receiving performance
3. Strategies for producing performance
4. Strategies for organizing learning
1. Meta-cognitive strategies Ellis and Sinclair
2. Cognitive strategies
3. Social strategies (1989)
4. Communication strategies

[15]
 CHAPTER ONE: LITERATURE REVIEW

1. Cognitive strategies O’Malley and Chamot

2. Meta-cognitive strategies
(1990)
3. Social-affective strategies

Direct strategies:
1. Memory strategies
2. Cognitive strategies
3. Compensation strategies Oxford (1990)
Indirect strategies:
1. Meta-cognitive strategies
2. Affective strategies
3.Social strategies
A. Related to the taught program Coleman (1991)
B. Extra to the class
C. Bucking the system
1. Management and planning strategies
2. Cognitive strategies
3. Communicative-experiential strategies Stern (1992)
4. Interpersonal strategies
5. Affective strategies
I. Language learning strategies in the classroom-
related category(CRP):
1. To be well-prepared for the lessons
2. To keep up with the teacher while studying in
the classroom
3. To get the teacher’s attention in the classroom
4. To learn new vocabulary in the classroom
lessons Intaraprasert
5. To avoid being distracted while studying
6. To solve the problems encountered in the (2000)
classroom lessons
7. To pass the English examinations
II. Strategies in the classroom independent category
(CIP):
1. To expand their knowledge of English
vocabulary and expressions
2. To improve one’s listening skill
3. To improve one’s speaking skill
4. To improve one’s writing skill
5. To acquire general knowledge in English

(Adapted from Lee, 2010, p. 139)

[16]
 CHAPTER ONE: LITERATURE REVIEW

It is clear that defining language learning strategies is not the only component that
remains questioned in the field of LLS, but classifying them is also unanswered,
according to Oxford (1990):
“[T]here is no complete agreements on exactly what strategies are; how
many strategies exist; how they should be defined, demarcated, and
categorized; and whether it is - or ever will be - possible to create a real,
scientifically validated hierarchy of strategies…Classification conflicts are
inevitable.”
(Quoted in Prakongchati, 2007, p. 36)
The fact of using different criteria and systems in defining and classifying language
learning strategies causes contradictions and inadequacy across taxonomies. Language
learning strategy has been classified differently according to researchers’ own
experiences. In other words, researchers have their own classification systems of
language learning strategies, which are derived from their direct experiences, i.e., their
personal experiences (Stern, 1983), the understanding discovered from their own
language learning strategy investigations (Oxford, 1990), or their indirect experiences,
i.e., their knowledge and understanding expanded from reviewing other researchers’
works and theories (Ellis and Sinclair, 1989) (cited in Prakongchati, 2007). Next, three
LLS classification systems (Rubin, 1975; O’Malley and Chamot, 1990; and Oxford,
1990) will be presented, and discussed in more detail.
1.4.1. Rubin’s (1981) Classification of Language Learning Strategies
Under her definition of language learning strategies; the techniques or devices
which a learner may use, Rubin (1981, cited in Prakongchati, 2007) conducts
interviews with second language students, then, she classifies language learning
strategies into two main general categories according to strategy functions: direct
strategies – direct contribution of process to learning; and indirect strategies – indirect
contribution of process to learning. Rubin’s two-part classification of language
learning strategies comprises six general strategies which may contribute directly to
the language learning process, and two strategies which may contribute indirectly to
the language learning process.

[17]
 CHAPTER ONE: LITERATURE REVIEW

1.4.1.1. Direct Strategies

Clarification/verification e.g. asking for an example of how to use a particular
word or expression.
Guessing/inductive inferencing e.g. using clues from other items in the
sentence/phrase, or key words in a sentence to guess.
Deductive reasoning e.g. inferring grammatical rules by analogy, or grouping
words according to similarity of endings.
Practice e.g. experimenting with new words in isolation and in context, or
using mirror for practice.
Memorization e.g. taking notes of new items with or without texts and
definitions.
Monitoring e.g. correcting error in own/other’s pronunciation, vocabulary,
spelling, grammar, and style.
(Rubin, 1981, cited in Prakongchati, 2007, p. 40)
1.4.1.2. Indirect Strategies
Create opportunities for practice e.g. initiating conversation with fellow
student/teacher/native speaker, or creating situation with natives in order to
verify/test/practice.
Production tricks (related to communication focus/drive,
motivation/opportunity for exposure), e.g. using circumlocution and paraphrase
to get message across, or repeating sentence or further understanding (ibid).
It can be noticed from this two-part classification, that most of the strategies tend
to comprise communication strategies rather than focus only on either formal language
learning (inside the classroom) or informal language learning (outside the classroom).
This inclusion caused a controversy since some scholars see language learning
strategies as two separate appearances of language learner behaviour. For instance,
Brown (1980) makes a distinction between language learning strategies and
communication strategies arguing that “communication is the output modality and
learning is the input modality” (cited in Prakongchaty, 2007, p. 41). In addition, Ellis
(1994) agrees with Brown’s (1980) idea that there is “no easy way of telling whether a
strategy is motivated by a desire to learn or a desire to communicate” (cited in

[18]
 CHAPTER ONE: LITERATURE REVIEW

Prakongchaty, 2007, p. 41). The uncertainty to distinguish between communication

and language learning strategies caused a difficulty in deciding what to include in
learning strategy taxonomies.
1.4.2. O’Malley and Chamot’s (1990) Classification of LLS
With a different point of view, O’Malley and Chamot (1990) concentrate on theory
development in second language acquisition that arises from cognitive psychology.
This theory is based on the information-processing model of learning. O’Malley and
Chamot (1990) base their language learning strategy research on a cognitive
psychological framework. Although, linguistic theories of foreign language acquisition
maintain that language is learned separately from cognitive skills and operated
according to different principles from most learned behaviours, O’Malley and Chamot
(1990) note that this view is not exactly precise and it should be completed with a view
that contains both cognitive and meta-cognitive levels in second language learning
(ibid).
According to Griffiths (2003), the meta-cognitive and cognitive categories
correspond approximately to Rubin’s indirect and direct strategies. O’Malley and his
colleagues developed a taxonomy of their own, in which they identify three categories
divided into 26 strategies.
1.4.2.1. Meta-cognitive Strategies are an operational function and planning for
monitoring and evaluating the success of a learning task, e.g. self-management (being
mindful of the requirements that enhance learning and trying to create those
requirements), self-monitoring (involving verifying or adjusting one’s comprehension
or production), self-evaluation (assessing one’s linguistic and communicative
competence) of learning after completing the task (O’Malley and Chamot, 1990, cited
in Lan, 2005, p. 21).
1.4.2.2. Cognitive Strategies are mental manipulation or conversion of materials or
tasks to promote comprehension, acquisition, or retention, e.g. repetition (imitating a
language model aloud or silently), key word (recall an aimed item by choosing an L1
word which is similar to the new word acoustically and making mental images linking
with the new word), inferencing (employ all existing sources of information to guess
the meaning of unrecognized items and fill in missing parts) (ibid).

[19]
 CHAPTER ONE: LITERATURE REVIEW

1.4.2.3. Social/Affective Strategies are social interaction operated to support in the

comprehension or retention of information, as well as mental control over personal
factors interfering with learning, e.g. cooperation (collaborate with colleagues to
compare notes, solve a language problem or get feedback on a task), questioning for
clarification (asking the teacher or a native speaker for repetition, explanation and/or
examples), self-talk (encouraging oneself about one’s ability to complete a task by
making positive statements) (ibid).
1.4.3. Oxford’s (1990) Classification of Language Learning Strategies
From an extensive review of the literature, Oxford gathered a large number of
language learning strategies and, similarly to Rubin (1981), divided them on the basis
of strategy functions into two main categories: direct strategies (directly involve the
target language) and indirect strategies (supporting direct strategies with internal guide
– self-directed learning). (See 1.4.1)
Oxford´s strategy system varies in several aspects. It is more detailed and
comprehensive. She proposes the categorized language learning strategies by
questionnaire data, which divided language learning strategies into six groups:
memory strategies (those used for storage information), cognitive strategies (the
mental strategies learners use to make sense of their learning), compensation strategies
(help learners to overcome knowledge gaps to continue the communication), meta-
cognitive strategies (help learners to manage their learning), affective strategies (are
concerned with the learner’s feelings such as confidence), and social strategies(involve
learning by interaction with others) (cited in Prakongchaty, 2007, p. 45).
In addition, the direct and the indirect strategies support mutually each other and
each strategy group can be connected with and assist every other strategy group,
accordingly Ellis (1994) states that Oxford’s taxonomy is “perhaps the most
comprehensive classification of learning strategies to date” (ibid).
Oxford's language learning strategies classification underlies the Strategy Inventory
for Language Learning (SILL), which has been used by Oxford and others for a great
deal of research in the learning strategy field (Grifiths, 2003) (Issues relating to the
items and categories of the SILL will be dealt with in Chapter Two). All the items in
the SILL depict some of the subgroups and particular techniques. That is the reason

[20]
 CHAPTER ONE: LITERATURE REVIEW

why all these groups and subgroups of language learning strategies will be described
in detail in the following part.
1.4.3.1. Direct Strategies for Language Learning
Direct strategies with its three groups (memory, cognitive and compensation)
require mental processing of the language, but each group does this processing in a
different way and for various purposes (Oxford, 1990, cited in Blažková, 2011, p. 21).
We should mention that direct strategies are aimed at helping learners to identify what
is important and uneasy for them in the process of learning.
Memory Strategies: (also called mnemonics) are important in the process of
learning f foreign language since a lot of information (such as vocabulary) is necessary
to remember. According to Oxford (1990), there are a number of principles reflected
by memory strategies, such as arranging things in order, making associations and
reviewing. Since a meaning is included there all these principles must be meaningful
to a learner. Memory strategies help language learners transfer information from the
basic fact level to the skill level, where knowledge is more automatic. Moreover, it is
more easily restored and less possibly that the knowledge will be lost after a period of
time when it is not used (Oxford, 1990, cited in Blažková, 2011, p. 22).
Memory strategies frequently imply different types of material. That is, to create
visual images of words and phrases, to give verbal labels to pictures. Memory
strategies are divided into four groups: Creating Mental Linkages, Applying Images
and Sounds, Reviewing Well, and Employing Actions. The first letter of each of these
strategy group spell CARE, an acronym that itself can be considered as a memory aid:
“Take CARE of your memory and your memory will take CARE of you.” (ibid).
Oxford (1990) gives a classification of memory strategies in detail as shown in the
figure below.

[21]
 CHAPTER ONE: LITERATURE REVIEW

Figure 1.1. Oxford´s Classification of Memory Strategies

(Oxford, 1990, cited in Blažková, 2011, p. 91)

Cognitive Strategies: Cognitive strategies play a crucial role in the process of

learning a foreign language. According to Blažková (2011, p. 23), Williams and
Burden (1997) define cognitive strategies as: "mental processes directly concerned
with the processing of information". Oxford divides this group into four groups of
strategies: Practicing, Receiving and sending messages, Analyzing and reasoning, and
Creating structure for input and output. The initial letters of each strategy sets can be
combined to create the acronym PRAC, because “Cognitive strategies are practical for
language learning” (ibid).
Practicing strategies are to the most considerable cognitive strategies, although,
learners are not all the time conscious of it. Strategies for receiving and sending
messages are essential instruments because it can help learners to identify the main
idea through skimming or scanning. Using resources assist learners to take advantage
of a group of resources. Learners tend to “reason out” the new language by developing
a formal model based on analysis and comparison. They tend to create new rules and
review them when new information is available. Even if this process helps them in
many situations, the learners sometimes unreasonably transfer rules or expressions

[22]
 CHAPTER ONE: LITERATURE REVIEW

from the mother tongue directly to the new language. Although, it is regarded to be a
normal phase of language learning, sometimes language learners get stuck in this
phase (ibid). Oxford´s (1990) classification of cognitive strategies is presented in the
following figure.
Figure 1.2. Oxford´s Classification of Cognitive Strategies

(Oxford, 1990, cited in Blažková, 2011, p. 92)

Compensation Strategies: Compensation strategies are used by learners to
overcome difficulties caused by limitations in the field of knowledge. Learners can use
the new language for understanding or production with the help of these strategies.
According to Oxford (1990) compensation strategies are expected to compensate for
the learners' deficit in grammar and vocabulary. As shown in the figure (1.3) below,

[23]
 CHAPTER ONE: LITERATURE REVIEW

there are two types of compensation strategies: Guessing intelligently in listening and
reading, and overcoming the limitations in speaking and writing.
Guessing intelligently comprises using a variety of linguistic or non-linguistic
clues in order to enable the learners to guess the meaning when they do not know all
the words. Concerning guessing strategy, Oxford (1990) says: "Advanced learners and
even native speakers use guessing when they have not heard something well enough,
when they don't know a new word, or when the meaning is hidden between the lines"
(Oxford, 1990, cited in Blažková, 2011, p. 24).
The compensation occurs not only when we want to understand the new language,
but also in its production. In this regard, compensation strategies for the production
can help learners to use the language, so that they get more practice. Using
compensation strategies make learners fluent in what they already know. Additionally,
asking for help may provide learners with the missing information in the target
language (ibid). A system of Oxford's (1990) compensation strategies is demonstrated
in the following figure:
Figure 1.3. Oxford´s Classification of Compensation Strategies

(Oxford, 1990, cited in Blažková, 2011, p. 92)

[24]
 CHAPTER ONE: LITERATURE REVIEW

1.4.3.2. Indirect Strategies for Language Learning

Indirect strategies (meta-cognitive, affective and social), as already explained in
this work, support language learning indirectly, that is, without the including of target
language. Oxford (1990) states that indirect strategies are interrelated with direct
strategies and they are their exact opposite. She adds that indirect strategies are helpful
in all language situations and they are established in the four language skills: listening,
speaking, reading and writing. Indirect strategies focus on comfortable psychological
climate that gives the learners appropriate environment for language learning and
makes it easier (Blažková, 2011, p. 25).
In the following part, the three groups (meta-cognitive, affective and social strategies)
of the indirect strategies will be discussed.
Meta-cognitive Strategies: According to Williams and Burden (1997), meta-
cognitive strategies involve an awareness of what one is doing and the strategies one is
employing, as well as knowledge about the process of learning. Oxford (1990) states
that language learners are often confused by grammatical rules, unfamiliar vocabulary,
different writing systems, and different styles of teaching. It is proposed that to get
back learner´s focus, conscious use of meta-cognitive strategies, namely paying
attention and over viewing / linking with already known material, is necessary. In
general, meta-cognitive strategies help learners to arrange and plan their language
learning in an effective way, notice and learn from errors and evaluate their overall
progress (ibid). Oxford's (1990) classification of the meta-cognitive strategies is shown
in the figure below:

[25]
 CHAPTER ONE: LITERATURE REVIEW

Figure 1.4. Oxford´s Classification of Meta-cognitive Strategies

(Oxford, 1990, cited in Blažková, 2011, p. 93)

Affective Strategies: The affective side of the learner influences certainly
language learning success or failure, for instance, positive feelings and emotions can
make language learning more enjoyable while negative feelings can hinder
development. Regarding positive and negative emotions, the teacher can have a huge
impact on the classroom atmosphere.
Not only teachers´ beliefs and attitudes can influence language learning process but
they can also affect it by changing the social structure of the classroom to give
students more responsibility, and by providing increased amounts of naturalistic
communication (Blažková, 2011, p.26). Oxford´s (1990) classification of affective
strategies is shown in the following figure:

[26]
 CHAPTER ONE: LITERATURE REVIEW

Figure 1.5: Oxford´s Classification of Affective Strategies

(Oxford, 1990, cited in Blažková, 2011, p. 94)

Social Strategies: Language is a means of communication among people; it is
considered a social behaviour. Asking questions is one of the important social
interactions; it gets learners closer to the meaning and supports their understanding.
Asking questions also indicates interest and involvement, furthermore, the response of
the conversation partner refers whether the question was understood and provides an
indirect feedback about the learner´s productive skills. In addition to asking questions,
cooperating especially with more proficient users of the target language is important
for language learners. Moreover, cooperation requires a group spirit so that the process
of language learning can become more enjoyable and achievable (ibid, p. 27).

[27]
 CHAPTER ONE: LITERATURE REVIEW

Figure 1.6. Oxford´s Classification of Social Strategies

(Oxford, 1990, cited in Blažková, 2011, p. 94)

This section dealt with classifications of language learning strategies. Among the
ten classifications mentioned above, the most evident differences appear in the main
categories of language learning strategies. It can be noticed that the process of
introducing classification systems for language learning strategies is far from clearness
due to interfering and contradictory opinions.
Scholars have different ways of classifying language learning strategies. This
depends on their own experiences, their investigation, and their literature review. With
respect to earlier research into language learning strategies, Oxford’s (1990)
classification of LLS is more comprehensive and detailed concerning the division of
learning strategies into groups and subgroups. Based on her list of strategies, Oxford
(1990) developed the SILL, which is a beneficial instrument developed to test
ESL/EFL learners’ strategy use. This will be valuable in the practical part.

Recent studies (Ehrman & Oxford, 1989; Oxford & Nyikos, 1989; Phillips, 1991)
implementing the SILL affirmed that using language learning strategies would have
valuable influence on language proficiency. Therefore, the researcher in the current
study adopted Oxford´s classification using the SILL inventory to assess students'

[28]
 CHAPTER ONE: LITERATURE REVIEW

language learning strategy use. As a result, researchers have been investigating on the
factors that affect language learning strategy use.

1.5. Factors Affecting Learner's LLS Choice

According to Tamada (1996), Oxford (1990) has synthesized existing research on

how the following factors influence the choice of strategies used among students
learning a foreign language.
1.5.1. Gender: Females reported higher overall strategy use than males in many
studies (although sometimes males exceeded females in the use of a certain strategy).
So many researches about the affect of gender on LLS choice has been carried out.
However, some researchers have pointed out the significant relationship between them
even in such limited studies. For example, Politzer (1983) studied learning strategies
of 90 university students in the United States, and found that female students used
social strategies significantly more than male students. Oxford and Nyikos (1989)
investigated 1200 university students and showed that female students used four out of
five strategies more often than male students. Ehrman and Oxford (1989) examined 78
university students and found that female students used four out often strategies more
often than male students.
1.5.2. Motivation: More motivated students tended to use more strategies than less
motivated students, and the private reason for studying the language was important in
the choice of strategies. In the 1980s, researchers began to study the relationship
between motivation and LLS choice. For example, Oxford and Nyikos (1989) reported
the relationship between them as : "The degree of expressed motivation to learn the
language was the most powerful influence on strategy choice....The more motivated
students used learning strategies of all these kinds more often than did the less
motivated students" (Quoted in Tamada, 1996, p. 7). However, it is not clear how
motivation affects LLS choice. Further research will be required.
1.5.3. Type of Task: The nature of the task assisted identify the strategies employed
to carry out the task.

[29]
 CHAPTER ONE: LITERATURE REVIEW

1.5.4. Age and L2 Stage: Students of different ages and stages of L2 learning used
different strategies, with certain strategies often being employed by older or more
advanced students.
1.5.5. Learning Style: Learning style usually select the choice of L2 learning
strategies. For example, analytic-style students preferred strategies such as contrastive
analysis, rule-learning, and dissecting words and phrases, while global students used
strategies to find meaning (guessing, scanning, predicting) and to converse without
knowing all the words (paraphrasing, gesturing).
1.5.6. Cultural Background: Rote memorization and other forms of memorization
were more dominant among some Asian students than among students from other
cultural backgrounds. Certain other cultures also appeared to encourage this strategy
among learners.
1.5.7. Attitudes and Beliefs: These were reported to have a profound effect on the
strategies learners choose, with negative attitudes and beliefs often causing poor
strategy use or lack of orchestration of strategies.
1.5.8. Tolerance of Ambiguity: Students who were more tolerant of ambiguity used
significantly different learning strategies in some instances than the students who were
less tolerant of ambiguity.

1.6. Previous Research into Assessment of Language Learning Strategy Use

Numerous research studies have been done about dependency of “gender”,

“academic achievement” and “Language Learning Strategies” by foreign language
learners (FLL). Next, some significant ones will be mentioned due to their close
relationship with the current study.
1.6.1. LLS and Achievement in the Target Language
Research studies relating the subject shows that the conscious use of such strategies
has a positive correlation with language achievement and proficiency Studies
conducted around the world, showed that students who were successful in their
language learning usually reported higher levels of overall strategy use.
Besides, those learners combined many strategy categories together. Chamot and
Kupper (1989), for instance, point out that successful language learners select

[30]
 CHAPTER ONE: LITERATURE REVIEW

strategies which are consistent with one another and with the requirements of the
language task. Those learners can identify the strategies they use and state the reason
why they use them (O'Malley & Chamot, 1990, cited in Aslan, 2009, p. 52).
Language performance of the learners was tested in many different ways in relation
to strategy use in several studies as language proficiency and achievement tests
(Phillips, 1990), entrance and placement examinations (Mullins, 1992), self-ratings of
proficiency (Oxford & Nyikos, 1989), language course grades (Mullins, 1992), and
years of language study (Watanabe, 1990). Using such a wide variety of means,
researchers pursuit the link between success in target language and strategy use (cited
in ibid).
O'Malley et al (1985) found that learners at all levels reported the use of a great
variety of learning strategies. High-achieving students reported greater use of meta-
cognitive strategies. They concluded that the more successful students are probably
able to use greater meta-cognitive control over their learning (ibid).
Ehrman and Oxford (1995) indicated that successful students preferred to use
cognitive strategies more frequently in their study (ibid). Green and Oxford (1995)
discovered that high-achieving students used all kinds of language learning strategies
more frequently than low-achieving students (ibid).
1.6.2. Language Learning Strategies and Gender
The first study which will be mentioned in this section was done by Green and
Oxford (1995), which is a large scale study including 374 participants conducted to
find out language learning strategy use by students at three different course levels at
the University of Puerto Rico. It relates strategy use to gender as well as to second
language proficiency level and includes analysis of variation in the use of individual
strategies on the SILL. They found greater use of learning strategies among more
successful learners and that females used much more strategies than men. What they
also found was that with both proficiency level and gender, only some items showed
significant variation and significant variation by proficiency level did not invariably
mean more frequent strategy use by more successful students. The strategies used
frequently or moderately frequently by successful and unsuccessful learners alike are
not necessarily unproductive. According to the authors, a more likely interpretation is

[31]
 CHAPTER ONE: LITERATURE REVIEW

that these are “bedrock strategies”, which contribute significantly to the learning
process of the more successful students, although not being in themselves sufficient to
move the less successful students to higher proficiency levels (O'Malley & Chamot,
1990, cited in Aslan, 2009, p. 55).
Another study by Kaylani (1996), conducted in Jordan, investigated the influence
of gender and motivation on EFL learning strategy use. Kaylani's starting point was
that there is evidence from a number of studies conducted across different cultures
around the world that there are differences between male and female students of
foreign and second languages as regards what strategies they use and how they use
them when engaging in language learning tasks. What she wanted to know was why
these differences existed, what their effect on teaching is, and what similarities exist
between successful male and female students. She was also interested in the
relationship between motivation and strategy use, and as regards gender, what social
factors affecting motivation exist which are distinct to male and female students. A
sample of 255 students from two boys' and two girls' secondary schools were
administered a version of Oxford's (1990) SILL translated into Arabic. A statistical
analysis of questionnaire data revealed, among other things, that although there was a
higher incidence of memory, cognitive, compensation and affective strategies among
female students, the relatively proficient/relatively non-proficient and
successful/unsuccessful distinctions correlated more to strategy use than the
male/female distinction (ibid, p. 54).
In another study, Sy (1994) discovered that students of English in the Republic of
China showed significant gender differences on the SILL. In that study, females
significantly surpassed males in their use of cognitive, compensation, meta-cognitive,
and social strategies (ibid, p. 56).
Even though most of the studies in this area reported a greater use of language
learning strategies by women, Tran (1988) found that Vietnamese women use much
fewer language learning strategies (ibid).
In conclusion, the results reached from the previous studies are still not definitive.
Because gender depends on many variables such as biological factors, cultural and
social elements etc. Besides, along with gender, there are various other factors that

[32]
 CHAPTER ONE: LITERATURE REVIEW

also affect the process of language acquisition; namely, motivation, attitude,

nationality (see 1.5). In this study, it is intended to detect the cohesion of gender,
language learning strategies and achievement in foreign language learning.

1.7. Assessment Tools for Language Learning Strategy Use

Over the past four decades, researchers on the field of language learning strategies
have used a number of methods for assessing learning strategies use among language
learners. These methods varies from questionnaires to computer tracking. The reason
behind employing different data collection techniques is that the identification of each
type of strategy requires a different assessment technique. Therefore, researchers must
pay attention while designing the data collection methodology of their studies (Jhaish,
2009, p. 64).
As discussed earlier (see 1.2), the most of learning strategies are unobservable;
however, some of them may be related to an observable behavior. In almost all
learning contexts, the only way to figure out whether students are using learning
strategies while involved in a language task (mental processing) is to ask them; in fact,
verbal report may be inaccurate if the learner does not report truthfully. In the same
line of thought Grenfell and Harris (1999) state: "[…] it is not easy to get inside the
‘black box’ of the human brain and find out what is going on there. We work with
what we can get, which, despite the limitations, provides food for thought […]" ( cited
in Jhaish, 2009, p. 64).
In addition, self-report data are used to identify language learning strategies use
because observation does not pickup mental processes. Researchers have asked
language learners to describe their learning processes and strategies through
interviews, questionnaires, written diaries and journals, and think-aloud protocols.
Each of these methods has limitations, but each provides important insights into
unobservable mental learning strategies (Cohen, 1998).

[33]
 CHAPTER ONE: LITERATURE REVIEW

1.7.1. Observation
Planning an observational study is a very important process, and the teachers need
to consider a variety of factors. These include, for instance, learning strategies the
teacher wants to focus on, the number of the learners they want to observe, the length
of observations, and the way to collect and analyze the obtained data. According to
Cohen (1998), a major challenge for teachers in attempting to apply observational
techniques to language learners is that many of the learning strategies cannot be
observed by the teacher. These strategies are mentalistic and not behavioristic (e.g.,
associating /elaborating, using imaginary, guessing intelligently) (Cohen, 1998, pp. 30-
31). On the other hand, learning strategies like asking for clarification or verification,
and overcoming limitations in speaking through gestures, e.g., are directly observable,
so that the teachers can collect information about how learners go about language
learning without any troubles.
Oxford (1990) suggests that there is a possibility to use either published and readily
available observation forms or self-made forms that the teacher creates by making a
list of the strategies they think are important to observe. On this observation form the
strategies can be recorded in the following way: by taking notes, by checking off the
strategies the teacher sees in a certain period of time or by combining these two
approaches. In addition, Oxford (1990) and Cohen (1998) find videotaped and audio
taped data regarding observation valuable, since they provide a permanent record of
what happened and they can also see some moments that might have not been noticed
on the first sight (cited in Blazkova, 2011, p. 28).
1.7.2. Questionnaires
Questionnaires are another widely used research method that provides a systematic
way of collecting information on the learning strategies use. When using a
questionnaire as a means of assessment instrument, the learners have enough time to
assess the information and they can reflect on what they usually do in a given
situation.
According to Chamot et al. (1999), questionnaire items can be open-ended and
closed. Open-ended questionnaires allow learners a broader response range. Cohen
(1998) states that unstructured questions simply ask the learners to express their

[34]
 CHAPTER ONE: LITERATURE REVIEW

opinion in a certain area of interest. It is only up to learner´s discretion what extent and
depth of answers will be used. Thus, the learners have the possibility to response with
only a minimal guidance from the teacher. In semi-structured questionnaires there is
most likely a prompt which requests certain information, but the exact shape of this
information is not given. It is mainly up to learners to give any description they wish
(cited in Blazkova, 2011, p. 30).
On the other hand, as Chamot et al.(1999) state that closed questionnaires provide
learners with a response range in the form of a scale (e. g., never, sometimes, always;
1, 2, 3; useful, not useful) or ask for yes-no type responses. This type of questionnaire
is used if specific information is to be collected. Cohen (1998) adds that in highly
structured questionnaires, the researcher has a specific set of questions that are to be
answered by the learner in a set order. In this case, the teacher has a complete control
over the questioning. Written questionnaires are usually administered to large groups
of learners (cited in ibid).
1.7.3. Interviews
A third way of collecting data regarding learning strategies is interviews. Their
types range from unstructured to structured interviews. Since there is no particular
questioning technique in unstructured interviews the data obtained from such an
interview is difficult to interpret and categorize. Whereas the data gathered from a
structured interview are “uniformly organized for all respondents and lend themselves
to statistical analysis” (Cohen and Scott, 1996). O’Malley, Chamot and their
colleagues (1985), have developed a Student Interview Guide, which asks learners to
think about what they generally do when faced with a similar language task. Students
are not required to do the task during the interview but they are asked to think about
how they typically handle or do the task (O’Malley et al, 1985). Oxford (1990) also
adds that “such interviews work well in small groups or with individuals” (cited in
Jhaish, 2009, p. 67).
1.7.4. Diary Writing
Another way of collecting data concerning learning strategies is diary writing. It is
a way of reporting the thoughts, feelings, achievements, and problems the learners
report as well as their notions of teachers, friends or native speakers. Diaries are self-

[35]
 CHAPTER ONE: LITERATURE REVIEW

reports that are usually subjective. Oxford (1990) asserts that sometimes diary writing
may require some training on the part of the learners since they may not know what to
report, how to report it, and to what extent to report it. If a researcher is planning to
read students’ diaries s/he should inform learners in advance since they are mostly
considered private. Some teachers have used diaries as a stimulus to class discussions
of strategy use (jhaish, 2009).
1.7.5. Think Aloud Protocols
Think aloud protocols are obtained by having participants report verbally what their
thoughts are while performing a task. However, they are not expected to analyze their
behavior as in introspection (Cohen, 1987). Pressley and Afflerbach (1995) refer to the
think aloud protocols as “a maturing methodology with much interesting work already
accomplished and considerable work to be done” (cited in Cohen, 1996, p. 1), which
implies that they have been used in many recent studies and they will be used in
studies that will be carried out in the future.
As the other data collection methods, the think aloud protocols have their potential
strengths and weaknesses as well, for obtaining data about the otherwise unseen,
unobservable processes, such as inferencing or the use of prior knowledge.
Another strength of the method is that it is the closest way to get to the cognitive
processes of learners. Nevertheless, only the conscious processes are available for
verbalization, the rest of the unconscious thoughts flowing in the mind might remain
hidden. Another weakness of the method is that the “respondents may differ with
respect to their verbal skills” (Cohen and Scott, 1996, p. 97). Some might be more
competent than the others at contributing the appropriate amount of data at the
appropriate level of explicitness. When all the points regarding think aloud protocols
are taken into consideration, it can be stated that they require careful setting up and
preparation on the part of the researcher. An important issue that needs to be taken into
account is training participants with respect to the purpose of the study.

As suggested by Cohen and Scott (1996), some aspects should be taken into
consideration while selecting the data collection method(s). According to them in
order to identify the most appropriate data collection method, a researcher should

[36]
 CHAPTER ONE: LITERATURE REVIEW

respect subjects such as “the purpose of the study, the number of learners and
researchers, the resources available, the strategies to be studied, the types of the
language tasks for which the strategies are used, and the context in which the language
learning takes place” (cited in Jhaish, 2009, p.69).

1.8. Conclusion

The theoretical part of this dissertation is created to provide the base for our
research dealing with the issue of language learning strategies in the process of
English language learning. Despite, the process of establishing definitions for language
learning strategies remains no consensus; in this study, LLS are considered as
conscious behaviours or thought processes used in performing learning actions,
whether observable (behaviors or techniques) or unobservable (thoughts or mental
processes), or both. Concerning language learning strategy classification systems, they
are also variedly suggested. This is because of the classification standards which are
derived from researchers’ individual differences; i.e., their personal experiences, their
own investigations, or their reviews of other researchers’ theories. Regarding our
research, Oxford’s classifications is crucial.

In the review of related literature and research on language learning strategies,

researchers investigated differences in language learning strategies depending on 1)
demographic factors addressing different settings and target populations; 2) methods
of data collection; and 3) other related variables such as gender, motivation,
proficiency/ achievement, learners’ beliefs, career interests, different teaching and
learning conditions/atmospheres and previous language learning experiences. Most of
the Literature review pointed out that investigations with language learners frequently
indicated that the most successful students tend to use learning strategies that are
suitable to the task , material and needs.

It is clear, from reviewing the literature, that the most often tested variable is
gender and how it affects strategy use. Actually, gender was tested as a second
independent variable in most of the studies mentioned in the literature and has so much
attention in the field of strategy research. As mentioned in the literature review, there

[37]
 CHAPTER ONE: LITERATURE REVIEW

were few research done to assess language learning strategies use, and to investigate
the relationship between LLS use, gender, and the academic achievement of the Arab
EFL learners. Although, there was a consensus among the studies reviewed in this
chapter, it is agreed that LLS use have a positive effect on academic achievement.

[38]
 CHAPTER TWO: TEACHING/LEARNING SITUATION AND RESEARCH
METHODOLOY

2.1. Introduction

This research work aims at assessing the language learning strategy use among
first-year EFL students at the University of Mascara. For this purpose, it is useful to
present the educational context in which our targeted students develop starting from a
general overview of ELT in the Algerian educational system to a more specific one
dealing with the instruction received by our learners at the university.
Besides, the purpose of this chapter is to deal with the implementation of the research
project. It is aimed to present the research design and data collection procedures. First,
it highlights the research questions, describes the instruments used and gives the
profile of the subjects in question.
The research questions have been translated into two different analytical tools: the
first one is a questionnaire addressed to first-year EFL university students and the
second one interviews addressed to both university teachers and first-year EFL
students. The methodology of each is described in the present chapter. Then, the data
had been collected by questionnaires distribution and conducting interviews. After that
it comes the phase of coding the questionnaires. Results of the investigative study
would serve as groundwork for alternative remedies that will be dealt with in the last
chapter.

2.2. Status of English Language in Algeria

Before exposing different issues about the English language in Algeria, we should
first analyze the sociolinguistic situation in the country in order to understand the
status of the English language in that social environment. Since the current research
work is concerned with learning English as a foreign language, the researcher attempts
to investigate how and at which level English is taught in Algeria. The sociolinguistic
situation in Algeria is very rich and complex too because there are different languages
used in the Algerian society. First of all, Modern Standard Arabic (MSA) is the
official language of Algeria. It is a standard language with its grammar rules and
dictionary. It is perceived as the language used in administrative papers and it is

[41]
 CHAPTER TWO: TEACHING/LEARNING SITUATION AND RESEARCH
METHODOLOY
considered as a medium of instruction at the institutional education (especially the first
stages).

Then, the Algerian Arabic which refers to the dialects used for daily
communication. It is a non-standard language since it has no written form, no
grammatical rules, no dictionary, and it is not official. Furthermore, we find the
Tamazight (a language used by a group of people called the "Amazigh") which started
to be taught at schools, and it has a national status. In addition, French is considered as
a second language, which is actually taught at the 3rd year primary school and it
influenced the Algerians daily communication because of colonial reasons. However,
English is considered as a foreign language as stated by Al-Khatib (2008):
"The status of English in Algeria is almost the same as that in the other
countries of the world where English is regarded as a foreign language. Also,
it is worth noting that despite the hegemonic and imperialistic nature of
English worldwide, it is still badly needed in Algeria for the purposes of
communicating with the outside world, education, acquisition of knowledge,
and development at large"
(Al-Khatib, 2008, cited in Benmostefa, 2013, p. 104)
Therefore, there was an attempt to teach English as a first foreign language (FL1) in
the fourth year of the primary school in place of French. However, this attempt ended
in failure because neither the sociolinguistic background, nor the human or material
resources were available for the success of this. English was taught at the 2nd year
middle school (after seven years of schooling). Hence, it is not taught at the primary
level, but it starts to be taught at the 1st year middle school (after five years of
schooling).

2.3. The Algerian Educational System: An Overview

After the independency, the principal concern of the national development was
education. The Algerian pre-university educational system consisted of two levels:
primary and secondary schools. At that time, French dominated as the language of
instruction (colonialism's educational heritage) while English was taught in the third
year of secondary school.
[42]
 CHAPTER TWO: TEACHING/LEARNING SITUATION AND RESEARCH
METHODOLOY
In the 1970's, the government started the fundamental school which insured the
standard norm of nine year schooling (six years in primary school and three years in
middle school). The objective of the fundamental school was to promote the spiritual
elements of socialism by teaching the child economics and social sciences based on
Arab-Islamic sources and values (Bouyakoub, 2011). However, the extremely large
quantity of knowledge given and the study of empirical sciences goes beyond the
child's abilities who rather needs at this stage to acquire the basic skills of a language.
This system is more probably to hinder the child's normal learning process.
Since then, the Algerian school went through a number of reforms. In the early
seventies, the authorities committed in the process of “Arabization”. The purpose of
this process was to increase the use of Standard Arabic (SA) replacing French.
In the same vain Al-Khatib states:
"At present, however, the case has been changed, as the French language is
now replaced by Arabic in all public schools and indigenous history and
culture are excluded from the curricula. Arabization continues its spread into
society at large."

(Al-Khatib,2008, p. 2)
The “Arabization” reform started in the lower levels of education to be lengthened,
later in the eighties, to higher education. Yet, it should be mentioned that this process
was introduced without effective preparation: lack of teacher training, lack of teaching
materials and resources for learners (Bouyakoub, 2011).
Furthermore, the supremacy of instruction through MSA and the limited teaching
time allocated to French and English language teaching led the younger generations to
encounter serious learning problems in both foreign languages. The thing that we can
clearly notice at the university level, where a remarkable number of bachelors exhibit
insufficiencies in both speaking and writing.
Algeria has carried on and reinforced the teaching of foreign languages. As
mentioned earlier, French was still taught as a second language and used in daily life
communication. While Spanish, German and English were taught as foreign languages
with no difference in status. However, English has become an international language,
and the most studied language in the world. Nowadays, English is one of the most
[43]
 CHAPTER TWO: TEACHING/LEARNING SITUATION AND RESEARCH
METHODOLOY
important languages of communication; it provides information in different fields, i.e.,
business and technology. In this sense Al-khatib (2008, p. 2) argues: "Moreover, a
competition between English and French in these countries began to take place in a
later stage".
In the light of the globalization process, students who become fluent in English are
believed to be able to contribute to the development of their country. For such reasons,
the Algerian authorities have proceeded to reform the existing educational policies to
cope with the new world requirements. Therefore, much importance has been given to
the teaching of EFL, and thus English has become a compulsory subject matter in the
curriculum all over the country. In fact Benmostefa states that:
"This explicit recognition of English as global language has led key
stakeholders including policy-makers, textbook writers and teachers to
reconsider the teaching of English at the different levels of education,
middle, secondary and tertiary. Needless to recall, English is undisputedly
the first genuinely global language of world communication. It is the main
language of the world of diplomacy and business negotiations. It is the
language of scientific and technological literature. Knowing English makes
such access possible."

(Benmostefa, 2013, pp. 101-102)

As a conclusion, Arabic has been established since the 1970s, while French has
been ranked at the second position as a first foreign language; regardless its wide use
in everyday life and in higher education. As a consequence, English has been
considered as a second foreign language. It is taught along the four years of Middle
school and in the three years of the secondary school. Thus, by the end of secondary
education, the learners will have accumulated seven years of experience in EFL.

2.4. ELT at University

Concerning English language teaching at university, the learning conditions offered

to EFL students do not aim at promoting any achievement in language learning
because of the lack of appropriate equipment. Large classes with mixed abilities is

[44]
 CHAPTER TWO: TEACHING/LEARNING SITUATION AND RESEARCH
METHODOLOY
another problem in our universities, students have small opportunities for self-
expression or individual help on the part of the teacher.

Another important aspect is that students' contact with the English language is
limited in time and it is not used outside the language classroom, regarding the
teacher as the only source of instruction in the target language. Outside the classroom,
English is a foreign language with no use in the community, unlike French. Therefore,
students seem to have negative attitudes towards this language as they are unconscious
of its importance for their future studies. As a result, these students have a low
proficiency level in English language.

At their entrance to university, students will have accumulated an English learning

experience of seven years, during which they have been exposed to a rich program.
Unfortunately, most Algerian learners show little competence in English compared to
the amount of instruction they have had. They are mainly weak at productive skills.
These students perceive English to be a difficult subject-matter. An alarming situation
appeals for careful thinking and investigation about the source of the low achievement
problem so as to arrive at satisfactory solutions.

As in most countries of the world, Algeria launched reforms of its system of

higher education in order to meet new requirements imposed by globalization and by
American educational standards. The passage from the old (classic) system; e.g. four-
years degree, magister of two-years and four-years PhD; to the new system is a
necessity because the old system "has failed to the challenges imposed by the
evolution of the economics, political and social situation (Sarnou et al., 2012). In fact,
the evolution of the situation of the economic and political life of the country has led
policymakers to rethink about the educational system of the country who seek to
follow the development of the labour market. Now, the LMD system is designed to
ensure easy mobility of students. The LMD system is also part of a logic of
competition between institutions of higher education, especially in the developed
countries.

[45]
 CHAPTER TWO: TEACHING/LEARNING SITUATION AND RESEARCH
METHODOLOY
The implementation of this reform in Algeria seeks, essentially, to create
competitive institutions that are measured to cope with the needs required by the
labour market and also offer adequate skills adapted to changes in the national and
international environment. Thus, it was generally agreed among educators that "there
was a serious disagreement between social requirements, to the demands of the labour
market and skills which produces the University" (Sarnou et al, 2012).

Indeed, the Ministry of higher education and scientific research in Algeria is trying
to deepen the LMD reforms, particularly by greater involvement of the administration
and teachers and rehabilitation programs. For instance, by new guidelines on PhD
training and an important material and intangible investment. It is to recalled the large
number of educational structure completed in recent years, the hardware currently
available to universities as well as the documentary set in service of students and
teachers. Without forgetting the data base online SNDL. Unfortunately, the major
drawback to the success of the reform is the big number of students. The LMD system
is suitable for special education and little to mass education.

The present reform hopes to achieve the following objectives: (1) the improvement
of university education, (2) the adequacy between education and the needs of the
labour market and (3) the development of the academic training, professional
(Megnounif, 2008).

2.5. The English Language Department: A Brief Overview

The present investigation has been carried out at the Department of English
Language at the University of Mascara. At the department, the first two academic
years are basically devoted to grammar, written expression, and oral expression ; the
program also offers courses in linguistics, literature and civilization. In addition,
research methodology course is offered and devoted to research techniques for the
sake of preparing students for empirical research. However, it should also be noted
that the number of students at the English department is witnessing a continuous rise.
The table below serves a best illustration of this phenomenon.

[46]
 CHAPTER TWO: TEACHING/LEARNING SITUATION AND RESEARCH
METHODOLOY
Table 2.1. Number of First-Year LMD Students from 2014 to 2017

Accademic Year 2014-2015 2015-2016 2016-2017

Number of Students 349 418 555

Department of English, the University of Mascara.

The noticeable rise in the number of the students choosing English language
studies, especially at the undergraduate level, largely explains the popularity of
English language among today's generation.

2.5.1. First-Year LMD Students

Since the current study has involved a sample population from the first year LMD
students. It is necessary to provide the total number of students at this level. Like many
other Foreign languages Departments in Algeria, the total number of female students
out numbers than of male students. The table below gives the total number of students
and shows the proportion of both male and female students:

Table 2.2. Number of First-Year LMD Students

Gender Number
Male 127
Female 291
Total 418
Department of English, Mascara University.

2.5.2. The Curriculum

The curriculum at university level is more flexible, it provides only general

guidelines for each modular course and it is up to teachers to collectively or
individually design the content of the course. In fact, it is worth noting that at
university settings there is a shift from the communicative language teaching approach
to what is so called “the heuristic approach”. This implies that both material selection
and skilled teaching are of paramount importance for a successful and fruitful

[47]
 CHAPTER TWO: TEACHING/LEARNING SITUATION AND RESEARCH
METHODOLOY
literature instruction. The table below shows the different modular courses offered by
the English Language Department for the first year LMD students.

Table 2.3. Official Curriculum of the First-Year LMD Students

Modules Teaching Time per Week

Grammar 3hrs
Phonetics 1h30
Introduction to Linguistics 1h30
Reading Comprehension & Written
4hs30
Expression
Research Methodology 1h30
Arabic Language 1h30
Introduction to the English & Culture
1h30
Civilization
Introduction to the Literary Texts 1h30
Listening Comprehension &Oral
3hs
Expression
Social Sciences & Humanities 1h30
Total 21hs

Department of English, the University of Mascara.

2.6. Action Research in TEFL

An action research is a reflective process that leads the researcher to discover

solutions to a problem or to conduct exploration to a given situation. In other words,
Brown and Rodgers (2004) define research as an exploration of experience of one kind
or another, sometimes formal and technical, but not necessarily so. They add that the
good way of understanding the nature of research is to first experience it by doing it,
initially in a simple and elementary way. Accordingly, Ourghi (2002) states that: “an
excellent reflective means of investigating a specific aspect of the teaching process and
learning outcome” (cited in Djebbari, 2009). In the same sense McNiff and Whitehead

[48]
 CHAPTER TWO: TEACHING/LEARNING SITUATION AND RESEARCH
METHODOLOY
(2002) consider action research as common-sense approach to personal and
professional development that enables practitioners everywhere to investigate and
evaluate their work, and to create their own theories of practice (cited in Djebbari,
2009).

As reported in Brown (1992, cited in Brown and Rodgers, 2004), during 1991, the
TESOL research Task Force formed by the executive board of TESOL (an ESL/EFL
teacher organization called Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages) sent
out a questionnaire to 1000 TESOL members randomly selected from the General
Membership of TESOL, and 200 each from four interest sections: Applied Linguistics,
Higher Education, Research, and Teacher Education. One question on the
questionnaire was: How would you define research?. We wrote in bold the definitions
that seem to us more related with the case of this dissertation.

Some of respondents defined research as follows:

Finding the source or cause of something.

It is peeling away the layers of onion so as to see how and why something
works or doesn’t work or where it fits in the grander scheme with
increased understanding.
Investigation into how and why things work or don’t work.
Finding answers to questions.
Exploring the mundane to find new depths and connections.
Discovery of new knowledge.
Controlled investigation of a theory.
Careful, thorough study.
Rigorous inquiry into theoretical or practical issues.
The necessary underpinnings to advancement of the profession--without it, you
are in danger of uttering unsubstantiated jabberwocky and not doing our
students justice.
The search of the truth.
Use of scientific method to test a theory.

[49]
 CHAPTER TWO: TEACHING/LEARNING SITUATION AND RESEARCH
METHODOLOY
Working consciously and critically (but not necessarily objectively) at
important problems in human endeavor.

2.7. Presentation of the Purpose of the Study and Hypotheses

In experimental research, you can use research questions and/or research

hypotheses. In other words, the central issues of your research can be posited as
RESEARCH QUESTIONS, which are questions that you will try to answer in the
study, or the issues can be posited as RESEARCH HYPOTHESES, which are claims
that you believe the experimental study might support (or perhaps disprove) (Brown
and Rodgers, 2004, p. 215).

As mentioned in the first chapter, it is significant that LLS help students to become
more effective and autonomous. Considering the research as an investigating of
specific aspect of students' learning process and refer to the results of the survey
mentioned above; we can determine the main objective of our research as follows:
know what language learning strategies do the first year EFL students use in their
learning and how frequently do they use it. The research tries to answer the following
questions:

1. What are the language-learning strategies used by the first year EFL students at the
University of Mascara as reported in the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning
(SILL)?

2. Is there a difference in the students’ language learning strategy use regarding

gender?

3. Is there a difference in the students’ language learning strategy use regarding their
academic achievement?

The purpose of this study is to assess the language learning strategies that learners
use, and to reveal whether there is a relationship among language learning strategies
and the academic achievement among the first year EFL students at the University of
Mascara. In addition, this study aims at finding out whether there are significant
differences in the language learning strategy use regarding students’ gender.

[50]
 CHAPTER TWO: TEACHING/LEARNING SITUATION AND RESEARCH
METHODOLOY
The research was conducted in the English Department of the Faculty of letters and
languages at the University of Mascara. The choice of this Department was motivated
by the fact that the researcher completed her graduation studies there. She has not
encountered any problems in getting permission to distribute the questionnaires and
doing the interviews. First-year EFL students constitute our case study. We remind
that from methodological perspective, the case study is used in several disciplines such
as medicine, sociology, economics, management, and, indeed, linguistics. From
Etymological point of view, the word `case` is related to the word `chance` (Brown
and Rodgers, 2004). In this sense, chance is involved in what we will find and what
the relevance of the findings might be. In this perspective we have developed the
following hypothesis that we have tried to check throughout the chapter three.

Use of Language Learning Strategies

H10: First-year EFL students at the University of Mascara do not use Language
Learning Strategies as reported in SILL.

H11: First-year EFL students at the University of Mascara use different Language
Learning Strategies as reported in SILL.

Differences in Language Learning Strategies Use and Students Gender

H20: There are no differences in the use of LLS between male and female of first-year
EFL students at the University of Mascara.

H21: There are differences in the use of LLS between male and female of first-year
EFL students at the University of Mascara.

Differences in Language Learning Strategies Use and Students Academic

Achievement

H30: there are no differences in the use of LLS at the three levels of academic
achievement of first-year EFL students at the University of Mascara.

H31: there are differences in the use of LLS at the three levels of academic
achievement of first-year EFL students at the University of Mascara.

[51]
 CHAPTER TWO: TEACHING/LEARNING SITUATION AND RESEARCH
METHODOLOY
2.8. Presentation of the Research Instruments

When we use the term evaluation we are not referring exclusively to testing but
also we are referring to assessing. More specifically, we mean "the systematic
collection and analysis of all relevant information necessary to promote the
improvement of a curriculum and assess its effectiveness and efficiency as well as the
participants’ attitudes within the context of the particular institutions involved"
(Brown, 1989, p. 223). According to Brown (1997), surveys –including interviews and
questionnaires are most often used in Language education for research. In this present
research, we chose three instruments for data collection: (1) questionnaire
administered to students, (2) interviews with teachers and students, and (3) academic
results provided by the administration.

2.8.1. The Strategy Inventory for Language Learning

In general, to find out what learning strategies students use to learn English, the
researcher has several possibilities. He can choose an appropriate assessment method,
as shown in the first chapter. In such research, the number of students who were to be
the subject of study must be significant. It is for this reason that we considered that the
most appropriate assessment instrument is the questionnaire. So we will focus on a
questionnaire designed to assess the students' use of language learning strategies.

The difficult task that remains is to make the design of the questionnaire and what
questions should be included. We decided after consultation of the literature that it is
preferable to use a scale developed by other researchers. Indeed, the questionnaire
designed by Oxford (1990), called Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL,
Version 7.0) (Appendix C), form a measurement scale adapted to the objective of our
research. This questionnaire is well structured and developed a number of items that
facilitate the assessment of learning strategies used by the students.

The SILL will allow us to control the investigation. The language used in the SILL
is very simplified, and take about 35 minutes to respond it. The SILL is highlighted
here because it is the most widely used language learning strategy assessment
instrument. This questionnaire is currently used in at least 17 languages and in more

[52]
 CHAPTER TWO: TEACHING/LEARNING SITUATION AND RESEARCH
METHODOLOY
than 15 studies involving EFL/ESL learners from many countries and cultural
backgrounds, such as Hispanic, Egyptian, Jordanian, Chinese, Japanese, Indonesian
and Korean (Oxford, 1996), and its reliability and validity have been widely
documented (Oxford, 1992).

Furthermore, the SILL has been administered to between 9,000 and 10,000 students
worldwide; it has resulted in more than 40 dissertations, theses, and other major
studies; and it is the basis of dozens of research articles published in refereed journals.
The SILL has two forms: a 50-item questionnaire for people learning English as a
second or foreign language and an 80-item questionnaire for native English speakers
learning other languages (Oxford, 1999).

An Arabic translation version of Oxford’s (1990) SILL (Version 7.0 for ESL/EFL
students) was used to assess strategy use (Ahmed Ismail & Al Khatib, 2013)
(Appendix D). This 50-item taxonomy covers six broad categories, each represented
by a number of individual strategies (items): Memory strategies (items 1–9), Cognitive
strategies (items 10–23), Compensatory strategies (items 24–29), Meta-cognitive
strategies (items 30–38) and Affective strategies (items 39–44), Social strategies
(items 45–50).

Likert scales are generally useful for getting at respondents views, judgments, or
opinions about almost any aspect of language learning (Brown and Rodgers, 2004, p.
120). The SILL is organized on a 1 to 5 scale, from Never or almost never true of me
to Always or almost always true of me.

For the statistical analysis of the data the raw scores were entered into IBM
Statistical Package for the Social Sciences Programs (SPSS) for Windows version 22,
(Tabeti, Benmoustefa, 2016). Then, the data were analyzed by using several statistics
tools - frequencies, means, standard deviations, Cronbach alpha, Pearson correlation,
independent samples of t-test and One-way ANOVA.

In this way, descriptive statistics are used to characterize or describe a set of

numbers in terms of central tendency and to show how the numbers disperse, or vary,
around the center (Brown and Rodgers, 2004, p. 122). The table below shows some
items from the SILL:

[53]
 CHAPTER TWO: TEACHING/LEARNING SITUATION AND RESEARCH
METHODOLOY
Table 2.4. Examples of Items Used in the Study

Categories of strategies Examples of items

- I remember new English words or

phrases by remembering their
Memory strategies
location on the page, on the board,
or on a street sign.
- I watch English language TV shows
Cognitive strategies
or go to movies spoken in English
- If I can’t think of an English word, I
Compensation strategies use a word or phrase that means the
same
Meta-cognitive - I pay attention when someone is
strategies speaking English.
- I encourage myself to speak English
Affective strategies even when I am afraid of making
mistakes.
- I practice English with other
Social strategies
students

To ensure that first-year students won’t find difficulties in understanding the SILL
items, we adopted a better translation for seven items. The table below shows the
original items and the changes made on each item:

[54]
 ‫‪CHAPTER TWO: TEACHING/LEARNING SITUATION AND RESEARCH‬‬
‫‪METHODOLOY‬‬
‫‪Table 2.5. Changes Adopted in the Arabic Translated Version of the SILL‬‬

‫‪New Item‬‬ ‫‪Original Item‬‬

‫أرﺑﻂ ﺑﯿﻦ ﻣﺎ أﻋﺮﻓﮫ و ﺑﯿﻦ اﻟﻤﻌﻠﻮﻣﺎت اﻟﺠﺪﯾﺪة اﻟﺘﻲ‬ ‫‪.1‬أﻓﻜﺮ ﻓﻲ اﻟﻌﻼﻗﺎت ﺑﯿﻦ ﻣﺎ أﻋﺮﻓﮫ أﺻﻼ و اﻷﻣﻮر‬
‫أﺗﻌﻠﻤﮭﺎ ﻓﻲ اﻹﻧﺠﻠﯿﺰﯾﺔ‪.‬‬ ‫اﻟﺠﺪﯾﺪة اﻟﺘﻲ أﺗﻌﻠﻤﮭﺎ ﻓﻲ اﻻﻧﺠﻠﯿﺰﯾﺔ‬

‫أﺳﺘﺨﺪم اﻹﯾﻘﺎع ﻟﺘﺬﻛﺮ اﻟﻜﻠﻤﺎت اﻹﻧﺠﻠﯿﺰﯾﺔ اﻟﺠﺪﯾﺪة‪.‬‬ ‫‪.5‬أﺳﺘﺨﺪم اﻟﻮﻗﻊ اﻟﻤﻮﺳﯿﻘﻲ ﻟﺘﺬﻛﺮ اﻟﻜﻠﻤﺎت اﻹﻧﺠﻠﯿﺰﯾﺔ‬
‫اﻟﺠﺪﯾﺪة‪.‬‬

‫أﺣﺮص ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺸﺎھﺪة اﻟﺒﺮاﻣﺞ اﻟﺘﻠﻔﺰﯾﻮﻧﯿﺔ و اﻷﻓﻼم‬ ‫‪.15‬أﺷﺎھﺪ اﻟﺒﺮاﻣﺞ اﻟﺘﻠﻔﺰﯾﻮﻧﯿﺔ أو أذھﺐ ﻟﻤﺸﺎھﺪة‬
‫اﻟﺴﯿﻨﻤﺎﺋﯿﺔ اﻟﻨﺎطﻘﺔ ﺑﺎﻹﻧﺠﻠﯿﺰﯾﺔ‪.‬‬ ‫اﻷﻓﻼم اﻟﺴﯿﻨﻤﺎﺋﯿﺔ اﻟﻨﺎطﻘﺔ ﺑﺎﻹﻧﺠﻠﯿﺰﯾﺔ‬

‫أﺣﺎول ﻓﮭﻢ اﻟﻜﻠﻤﺎت اﻹﻧﺠﻠﯿﺰﯾﺔ اﻟﺘﻲ ﻻ أﻋﺮﻓﮭﺎ ﻋﻦ طﺮﯾﻖ‬ ‫‪.24‬أﺣﺎول ﻓﮭﻢ اﻟﻜﻠﻤﺎت اﻹﻧﺠﻠﯿﺰﯾﺔ اﻟﺘﻲ ﻻ أﻋﺮﻓﮭﺎ ﻋﻦ‬
‫ﺗﻮﻗﻊ ﻣﻌﺎﻧﯿﮭﺎ‪.‬‬ ‫طﺮﯾﻖ ﺗﺨﻤﯿﻦ ﻣﻌﺎﻧﯿﮭﺎ‪.‬‬

‫ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻻ أﺟﺪ اﻟﻜﻠﻤﺎت اﻟﻤﻨﺎﺳﺒﺔ أﺛﻨﺎء اﻟﺘﺤﺪث ﺑﺎﻟﻠﻐﺔ‬ ‫‪.25‬ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻻ أﺟﺪ اﻟﻜﻠﻤﺎت اﻟﻤﻨﺎﺳﺒﺔ أﺛﻨﺎء اﻟﺘﺤﺪث ﺑﺎﻟﻠﻐﺔ‬
‫اﻹﻧﺠﻠﯿﺰﯾﺔ أﻋﺒﺮ ﻋﻨﮭﺎ ﺑﺎﻹﺷﺎرة‪.‬‬ ‫اﻹﻧﺠﻠﯿﺰﯾﺔ أﺳﺘﻌﯿﺾ ﻋﻨﮭﺎ ﺑﺎﻹﺷﺎرة‪.‬‬

‫أﺳﺘﻄﯿﻊ ﻣﻼﺣﻈﺔ اﻟﺘﻮﺗﺮ اﻟﺬي ﯾﺼﯿﺒﻨﻲ أﺛﻨﺎء دراﺳﺘﻲ و‬ ‫‪.42‬أدرك إن أﺻﺎﺑﻨﻲ اﻟﺘﻮﺗﺮ ﺧﻼل دراﺳﺘﻲ أو‬
‫اﺳﺘﺨﺪاﻣﻲ ﻟﻠﻐﺔ اﻹﻧﺠﻠﯿﺰﯾﺔ‪.‬‬ ‫اﺳﺘﺨﺪاﻣﻲ ﻟﻠﻐﺔ اﻹﻧﺠﻠﯿﺰﯾﺔ‪.‬‬

‫أﻣﺎرس اﻟﻠﻐﺔ اﻹﻧﺠﻠﯿﺰﯾﺔ ﻣﻊ اﻟﻄﻼب اﻵﺧﺮﯾﻦ‪.‬‬ ‫‪.47‬أﻣﺎرس اﻟﻠﻐﺔ اﻹﻧﺠﻠﯿﺰﯾﺔ ﻣﻊ طﻼب اﻵﺧﺮﯾﻦ‪.‬‬

‫أﺣﺎول أن أﺗﻌﻠﻢ ﻋﻦ ﺛﻘﺎﻓﺔ اﻟﻨﺎطﻘﯿﻦ اﻷﺻﻠﯿﯿﻦ ﺑﺎﻟﻠﻐﺔ‬ ‫‪.50‬أﺣﺎول أن أﺗﻌﻠﻢ ﻋﻦ ﺛﻘﺎﻓﺔ اﻟﻨﺎطﻘﯿﻦ اﻷﺻﻠﯿﯿﻦ ﺑﺎﻟﻠﻐﺔ‬
‫اﻹﻧﺠﻠﯿﺰﯾﺔ ‪(Native speakers culture).‬‬ ‫اﻹﻧﺠﻠﯿﺰﯾﺔ‪.‬‬

‫‪2.8.2. The Interviews‬‬

‫‪Interviews are typically made up of fairly open-ended questions or planned in what‬‬

‫‪is called an interview schedule. Interviews are most useful for discovering what the‬‬
‫‪issues are in a particular survey project or even for finding out which questions should‬‬
‫‪be asked (Brown and Rodgers, 2004, p. 142).‬‬

‫‪The interview is the second instrument of data collection that was used. Therefore,‬‬
‫‪two semi-structured interviews were designed, one intended to the students and the‬‬
‫‪other for the first-year EFL teachers. The interview addressed to students is mainly‬‬
‫‪based on (SILL). Now, we want to know what are the obstacles of learning that‬‬
‫‪students face? As such, students are requested to answer 10 open-ended questions.‬‬

‫]‪[55‬‬
 CHAPTER TWO: TEACHING/LEARNING SITUATION AND RESEARCH
METHODOLOY
On its part, the interview reserved for teachers seeks to discover problems that
students encounter when they learn English. Indeed, the opinion of teachers is crucial,
because it is based on their own observation and interaction with the students.
Teachers are able also to tell us about the progress in learning of students and their
preferences in matters of learning strategies.

2.8.3. Grades Provided by the Administration

The assessment of strategies used for the learning of English as a foreign language
is not useful if it is not connected to the students’ proficiency level. According to the
literature it is possible to determine students’ proficiency in two main ways: the use of
tests or the use of marks obtained by the students during the academic year. This
second technique is rather objective because it is based on the objective evaluation of
teachers throughout the academic year. The first technique is also objective but it
needs a lot of investment in time and more availability of both administration and
students, thing which is difficult to obtain in the end of the academic year. The
statistical analysis of our study uses the students’ grades which are provided by the
administration of the English Department.

The choice of these three instruments of analysis was justified from methodological
point of view in order to be able to respond to the three questions raised earlier in this
chapter. These instruments can be reconciled with the taxonomy of educational
research design types proposed by (Van Lier, 1988, cited in Brown and Rodgers, 2004,
pp. 49-50) in order to determine our methodological positioning. This taxonomy is
built around the two axes of intervention and selectivity. According to Van Lier
(1988), research can vary along the axis of intervention from formal laboratory
experimentation (high intervention) to informal classroom observation (non-
intervention). Also, researchers can be selective in the types of data they want to focus
on, or very non-selective, for instance all behavior observed of all participants (ibid).

In the end, we will have four territories of research. For instance, the researcher is
in the territory of the Watching when his intervention and selectivity are low. However
he is under the measuring when he is very selective and his intervention is low. The

[56]
 CHAPTER TWO: TEACHING/LEARNING SITUATION AND RESEARCH
METHODOLOY
instruments adopted in this dissertation can be classified in the territories of the
measuring and asking/doing, because grades obtained from administration of the
English Department form a very reliable and credible measurement of students`
proficiency level and the questionnaires and the interviews enters the territory of
Asking/ Doing, since our intervention is important and the sample is random. The
following figure shows clearly the positioning of our research instruments.

Figure 2.1. Parameters of Research Design (Adapted from Van Lier, 1988, cited in
Brown and Rodgers, 2004, pp. 49-50)

2.8.4. Major Categories of the Target Research

As a synthesis of the main categories of this research, we adopt the classical

classification generally referred by language researchers who are the primary research
and secondary research (Brown, 2001). Secondary research are constituted by
[57]
 CHAPTER TWO: TEACHING/LEARNING SITUATION AND RESEARCH
METHODOLOY
information resources regarded as original, such as articles, books, theses, dissertation,
reports and all professional or academic scientific production. We used this type of
documents, first of all, in the first chapter to develop our literature review, then in the
second chapter to put into context our research problem, namely the teaching of
English in Algeria and to argue in favor of our methodological choices. These sources
are also used to discuss the results obtained in the third chapter, including comparing
the results that we have achieved through statistical analysis with other results
obtained by other researchers.

Primary research comprises mainly the original data created by the researchers by
using different instruments of research, such as achievement tests, classroom
observations, questionnaire responses, but also by other original data, like reports and
documents of an institution or a company. In this case, primary data are collected by
the questionnaire, the interview and the documents granted by the administration of
the Department of English. These data types are used and combined in the third
chapter. This synthesis is presented in the following figure:

Figure 2.2. Broad Categories Considered in Our Research (Adapted from Brown,
2001)

RESEARCH

Secondary Primary

Quantitative
Qualitative

Research Research
Questionnaire
Descriptive

Survey
Interviews
Literature
Reviews
Research

Library

2.9. Procedures of Data Collection

[58]
 CHAPTER TWO: TEACHING/LEARNING SITUATION AND RESEARCH
METHODOLOY
The SILL is accompanied by a list of instructions for its good use. An inventory
of strategies used to learn English is designed to assess how students learn English.
The results can help them learn more about themselves as learners. In addition, the
results provide their teachers with information how to encourage their students to
achieve better results in the learning of English. Basis on this, teachers may decide to
plan any training strategy (Oxford, 1990).
We proceed to the distribution of the questionnaires and the realization of
interviews with students during one week. This time was needed because the first- year
EFL students are divided into 08 groups. We remained that we don’t need a pre-test
for this questionnaire because it is a measurement scale of high reliability and used in
several research as we showed above.

We gave a copy of the questionnaire to each student registered in the official list of
the groups, which the administration has given us. We also proceed to the explanation
of the purpose of the study and of the questionnaire and the time required for the
response. It is noted that students were very motivated to complete the survey, because
they consider that the topic interest them.

We asked students to respond to the items of the SILL by a five-level Likert type
scale, as follows: (1) Never or almost never true of me, (2) Usually not true of me, (3)
Somewhat true of me, (4) Usually true of me and (5) Always or almost always true of
me. The students were reminded that they were to answer in terms of how well the
statements describe them and that there were no right or wrong answers to these
statements.

2.9.1. Reliability Test

The reliability can be defined as: “the degree to which the results of a study are
consistent” (Brown and Rodgers, 2004, p. 241). The reliability test inform us about the
degree to which we can expect consistent results if the data for the study were re-
analyzed by another researcher and even if the study was replicated (Brown and
Rodgers, 2004). To test the SILL’s reliability of the Arabic translation version, we
used Cronbach-alpha which was found .904. The following table shows the level of

[59]
 CHAPTER TWO: TEACHING/LEARNING SITUATION AND RESEARCH
METHODOLOY
reliability of each type of strategy. All scores are higher than 60% which shows the
internal consistency of the items.

Table 2.6. Reliability Test

Reliability Measure Number of items Cronbach-alpha

Memory strategies From 1 to 9 (9) .611

Cognitive strategies From 10 to 23 (14) .739

Compensation strategies From 24 to 29 (6) .620

Meta-cognitive strategies From 30 to 38 (9) .838

Affective strategies From 39 to 44 (6) .610

Social strategies From 45 to 50 (6) .723

Overall 50 .904

2.10. The Sample

We distributed 190 questionnaires on all the students present in 6 of the 8 groups

during the last week of April 2016. We want to ensure that the students have
completed the program. This is our only guarantee that the grades of the year-end
reflect not only their proficiency level but also the program of the first year. It is
reported that the groups were chosen randomly.

We have recovered 186 questionnaires of which 10 were not completely filled.

After the revision of the grades provided by the administration of the Department, we
noticed that 18 respondents are repeaters. These students are automatically excluded
from the investigation because they have not the same conditions of English learning
of other students. The process of data collection is shown in the table below.

[60]
 CHAPTER TWO: TEACHING/LEARNING SITUATION AND RESEARCH
METHODOLOY

Table 2.7. Process of the Questionnaires Collection

Process of the questionnaires collection Number of questionnaires

Questionnaires distributed 190

Questionnaires recovered 186

Questionnaires rejected
10
(not totally fulfilled)

Questionnaires rejected
18
(repeaters students)

Questionnaires considered in the study n=158

2.10.1. Characteristics of the Responders

The study was conducted with 158 first year EFL students (77.8% female and
22.2% male). Almost 94.3 % of the total numbers of participants were between 17 and
20 years old. 82.9 % of students stated that they enjoy when they learn English, 4.4 %
don’t enjoy and 12.7% are neutral. The characteristics of our sample are presented in
the Table below.

[61]
 CHAPTER TWO: TEACHING/LEARNING SITUATION AND RESEARCH
METHODOLOY
Table 2.8. Demographic Data of Participants

Demographic Data Frequency Percent

18 years 44 27,8
19 years 68 43,0
Age
20 years 37 23,4
More than 20 years 9 5,7
Sex Male 35 22,2
Female 123 77,8
Branch Littérature 116 73,4
Scientific 42 26,6
Yes 131 82.9
Enjoyment while learning English No 7 4.4
Neutre 20 12.7
Poor 53 33,5
Academic achievement1 Medium 90 57,0
Good 15 9,5

All the subjects had studied English formally for 8 years.

Participants completed the SILL in class in 30 minutes under our supervision and
under conditions of anonymity and confidentiality. The participants also provided
information about their age and gender.

2.11. Conclusion

The awareness of the English language importance has largely favored the
promotion of ELT in Algeria. This chapter has tried to provide a description and
analysis of the teaching/learning situation in Algeria. This description has embraced
the early EFL school years of the learner till his admission to university to shed light
on his educational background.

Since this research work aims at assessing the language learning strategy use
among first year EFL university students, the research design and data collection
procedures are presented along with the research questions, the research instruments
and the profile of the subjects in question. The next chapter will deal with the results
of this investigative study.

1
The academic achievement is represented by the students’ final marks provided by the administration.

[62]
 CHAPTER THREE: DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

3.1. Introduction

In this chapter we will report on the results of our practical study that we have
achieved in the English Department at the University of Mascara. This chapter is based
on action research; it deals with the analysis and interpretation of the collected data.
After the analysis of the data collected from the questionnaire through SPSS 22, along
with analysis of interviews conducted with students and teachers by the manual
classification of responses according to the strategies adopted in this study. The results
are interpreted via qualitative and quantitative analyses of the gathered information.
Finally, the main research results are discussed by making reference to the findings
and explaining the degree of evidence of the collected data.

3.2. The Overall Use of Learning Strategies as Reported in SILL

In order to test the validity of the null and alternate following hypotheses:

H10: First-year EFL students at the University of Mascara do not use Language
Learning Strategies as reported in SILL.

H11: First-year EFL students at the University of Mascara use different

Language Learning Strategies as reported in SILL.

The data from the returned questionnaire in the part of SILL of each student was
analyzed based on the six direct and indirect learning strategy types by using
descriptive statistics: means and standard deviation. Arithmetic mean in English
language learning strategy use was divided into three levels according to Oxford
(1990): (1) High (3.5-5.0), (2) Medium (2.5-3.4), and (3) Low (1.0-2.4), as shown in
the table below:

[65]
 CHAPTER THREE: DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

Table 3.1. Scale Measurement of the Strategy Use Level

Frequency Average

Always or almost always used 4.5 to 5.0

High
Usually used 3.5 to 4.4

Medium Sometimes used 2.5 to 3.4

Generally not used 1.5 to 2.4

Low
Never or almost never Used 1.0 to 1.4

It is necessary to mention that the SILL consists of fifty items divided into two
main categories and six subcategories. As mentioned in the theoretical part, direct
strategies subdivided into memory, cognitive and compensation categories directly
involve the target language and require mental processes when learning a new
language. Indirect strategies, including meta-cognitive, effective and social categories
influence the language learning indirectly.

Chart 3.1. The Average Extent of Using Direct and Indirect Strategies

[66]
 CHAPTER THREE: DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

After analyzing the data collected via the SILL and making the averages of two
primary classes of Oxford´s classification, it is obvious that there is a difference
between using direct and indirect strategies. Although the frequency of using direct
strategies is medium (3.04) according to the chart 3.1. On the contrary, the frequency
of indirect strategies usage is high; the average frequency is (3.42) as shown in the
chart 3.1. More precisely, the analysis showed that the first year students used indirect
strategies which are based on social and affective interaction, more than the direct
strategies.

The finding stands in contrast with the finding of the previous studies by
Khamkhien (2000) cited in Kunasaraphan (2015), who reported that Thai students
used direct strategies more than indirect strategies in learning English. Unlike to the
results found by Anugkakul & Yordchim (2014) cited in Kunasaraphan (2015), who
reported that students at international college, Suan Suanandha Rajabhat University
used indirect strategies more than direct strategies in learning English, which is
consistent with the results that we have found in our research.

In the following part, graphical presentation of the resulting figures of the

individual items of the SILL will be realized. The SILL is divided into six parts (1 – 6)
which represent six groups of language learning strategies (memory, cognitive,
compensation, meta-cognitive, affective and social). Each of these groups will be
graphically presented in the above stated order. The overall use of language learning
strategies by the students is shown in Table 3.2 .

[67]
 CHAPTER THREE: DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

Table 3.2. Description of Overall Use of Language Learning Strategies

standard Rank
Mean deviations Level of in the
Strategies Use frequency
(M) strategy use
(S-D) scope

Memory strategies 2.79 .620 Medium Sometimes used 6

Cognitive strategies 3.00 .561 Medium Sometimes used 5

Compensation strategies 3.34 .672 Medium Sometimes used 3

Meta-cognitive
3.72 .715 High Usually used 1
strategies

Affective strategies 3.15 .789 Medium Sometimes used 4

Social strategies 3.40 .837 Medium Sometimes used 2

Overall strategies 3.23 .698 Medium Sometimes used

This table presents the mean and standard deviation of strategy use among all the
subjects. The overall use of LLS by the students was found medium, while the overall
mean for the sample was 3.23. These results confirm the validity of the alternate
hypothesis with demonstrate the use of LLS (as reported in the SILL) by the first year
EFL students.

The average for groups strategy use ranged from a high 3.72 to a low of 2.79. As
for strategy categories, meta-cognitive strategies was the most frequently used strategy
(M=3.72) and memory strategy was the least frequently used (M=2.79), while between
the two in descending order were social strategies (M=3.40), compensation strategies
(M= 3.34), affective strategies (M=3.15), and cognitive strategies (M=3.00). This
result differs from the results found in other countries. For example, Politzer (1983),
cited in Hashemi & Hadavi (2015), has argued that Hispanics use more social
strategies while Asians choose memorization strategies. The six strategies are showed
in the chart below.

[68]
 CHAPTER THREE: DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

Chart 3.2. The Average Extent of Using the Six Strategies

After having presented and analyzed above importance granted to each strategy
according to the perception of the students. We will now present the items dealing
with the ten most used strategies by the first year EFL students to achieve their
proficiency in language learning.

Table 3.3. Description of Top 10 Used Language Learning Strategies

Rank standard
Strategie Mean Level of Use Strategy
in deviations
s (Items) (M) strategy use frequency Type
LLS (S-D)
1 Item 32 4.37 .794 High Usually used Metacognitive
2 Item 15 4.32 1.023 High Usually used Cognitive
3 Item 33 4.16 .970 High Usually used Metacognitive
4 Item 31 4.06 .935 High Usually used Metacognitive
5 Item 11 4.00 1.016 High Usually used Cognitive
6 Item 29 4.00 .931 High Usually used Compensation
7 Item 30 3.88 1.024 High Usually used Metacognitive
8 Item 12 3.78 1.013 High Usually used Cognitive
9 Item 50 3.78 1.254 High Usually used Social
10 Item 38 3.77 1.113 High Usually used Affective

[69]
 CHAPTER THREE: DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

From the first reading of table 3.3, we note that Metacognitive strategies are
represented by four strategies in the top 10 of strategies used by first year EFL
students. The second group of strategy which is most represented in the top 10 is the
cognitive strategies with three items, two of them are in the top 5. The other three
strategies that remain are according to the descending order of importance:
compensation strategy (6th position), social strategy (9th position) and emotional
strategy (10th position).

3.3. The Use of the Six Scope of Learning Strategies

In order to identify whether language learning strategies are commonly used by

first year EFL students including the six learning strategy types, the data obtained from
the questionnaire was analyzed based on each strategy group separately by using
descriptive statistics: means and standard deviation.

Memory Strategies

Before the chart presentation of items in memory strategies, we will first present
the items with the cores of means and standards deviation in the following table. The
items are represented in accordance with the order of the SILL.

Table 3.4. Means and Standards Deviation of the Items of Memory Strategies

Level of Rank
Items Mean S-D strategy in the
use Scope

1. I think of relationships between what I

already know and new things I learn in 3.35 1.022 Medium 1
English.

2. I use new English words in a sentence so I

3.04 1.238 Medium 4
can remember them.

3. I connect the sound of a new English

word and an image or picture of the word to 2.57 1.365 Medium 7
help me remember the word.

4. I remember a new English word by 3.14 1.309 Medium 3

making a mental picture of a situation in

[70]
 CHAPTER THREE: DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

which the word might be used.

5. I use rhymes to remember new English

2.75 1.514 Medium 5
words.

6. I use flashcards to remember new English

2.06 1.275 Low 9
words.

7. I physically act out new English words. 2.26 1.195 Low 8

8. I review English lessons often. 2.68 1.066 Medium 6

9. I remember new English words or phrases

by remembering their location on the page, 3.28 1.272 Medium 2
on the board, or on a street sign.

After looking at the Table above, the difference in using individual language learning
strategies is significant. It should be recalled that this strategy is the least used
according to students interviewed in the survey. As we notice that items 1 and 9
registered the highest scores, respectively 3.35 and 3.28. Unlike the items 6 and 7 that
have low scores.

Chart 3.3. The Average Extent of Using the Nine Items of Memory Strategies

[71]
 CHAPTER THREE: DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

As seen in the chart 3.3 , The first item: "I think of relationships between what I
already know and new things I learn in English", has been identified as the most
widely used strategy by students. Accordingly; the interviewed teacher 'A' stated that:

"I see more and more students who create bridges between what they are
learning in class and their old vocabulary. This observation is more about
grammar".

While, teacher 'B' told us that:

"very limited number of students who make the effort to connect the new
concepts and rules learned with old knowledge, unfortunately many
students are lazy."

The ninth item got the second best score: "I remember new English words or
phrases by remembering their location on the page, on the board, or on a street sign".
In other words, students often use this technique to strengthen their memory. Teacher
'B' explained that:

"this strategy is used by students who have a Visual learning style".

The fourth item: "I remember a new English word by making a mental picture of a
situation in which the word might be used" is ranked in third position. However, this
item is very close to the ninth item, because it is based on the visual memory of the
student. The teacher 'B' confirms the importance of visual memory in the learning of
English.

The fourth most used strategy by students is the use of new English words in a
sentence to remember them (item2). Teacher 'C ' says that: "It is noted that this
strategy requires a lot of investment by the students, because it requires a lot of time to
put new vocabulary in sentences".

Item 6 and 7 are the least used by students, among memory strategies. That is what
student B. R. and student C. Z. confirmed in their statement:

"I have no idea about flash card", "I never use flash card because teachers
never explain to us how to use it".

[72]
 CHAPTER THREE: DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

To conclude, although memory strategies can help students to learn English

language, (to cope with difficulties caused mostly by a need to remember the
vocabulary), the results in the chart above shows that the frequency of using these
strategies is medium. However, it is the least used strategies by students. Hence, all the
strategies are used with a medium level except Item 6 and Item 7 which have a low
usage. The result is in accordance with Oxford´s (1990) notion who states that: "even
though memory strategies can be useful to enhance English learning, the students
simply do not use memory strategies” (p. 40).

Cognitive Strategies

We have seen in the first chapter that cognitive strategies help students to develop:
practicing language, receiving and sending messages, analyzing and reasoning and
creating structure for input and output. Therefore, it is important to assess the way in
which the students use these strategies. Before the chart presentation of cognitive
strategies items, we will first present the items with the scores of means and standards
deviation in the following table. The fourteen items that evaluate cognitive strategies
are represented in accordance with the order of the SILL. When looking at the Table
3.5, the difference in using individual language learning strategies is significant.

Table 3.5. Means and Standards Deviation of the Items of Cognitive Strategies

Level of Rank in
Items Mean S-D the
strategy
use Scope

10. I say or write new English words several times. 3.16 1.271 Medium 7

11. I try to talk like native English speakers. 4.00 1..16 High 2

12. I practice the sounds of English. 3.78 1.013 High 3

13. I use the English words I know in different ways. 3.34 1.250 Medium 6

14.. I start conversations in English. 3.74 1.188 High 4

15.. I watch English language TV shows spoken in English

4.32 1.023 High 1
or go to movies spoken in English

[73]
 CHAPTER THREE: DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

16.. I read for pleasure in English. 2.78 1.255 Medium 10

17. I write notes, messages, letters, or reports in English. 2.83 1.429 Medium 9

18. I first skim an English passage (read over the passage

3.37 1.284 Medium 5
quickly) then go back and read carefully.

19. I look for words in my own language that are similar to

3.37 1.254 Medium 5
new words in English.

20. I try to recognize and use patterns in English. 2.83 1.190 Medium 9

21. I find the meaning of an English word by dividing it into

2.38 1.121 Low 12
parts that I understand.

22. I try not to translate word-for-word. 2.99 1.323 Medium 8

23. I make summaries of information that I hear or read in

2.70 1.310 Medium 11
English.

From the first reading of the table above, we find that the items of this strategy have
achieved good scores, even high scores. We recorded four items with a high usage,
nine items with medium usage and only one item with low usage. Item 15 registered
the highest score (M = 4.32) and the item 21 obtained the lowest score (M = 2.38). All
the items of the cognitive strategies are presented in the following chart.

[74]
 CHAPTER THREE: DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

Chart 3.4. The Average Extent of Using the Fourteen Items of Cognitive Strategies

First, we begin the analysis by items that have achieved high scores. Item 15: "I
watch English language TV shows spoken in English or go to movies spoken in
English" recorded the highest mean. This is consistent with the comments of the three
interviewed teachers. These teachers emphasized the importance of watching TV
channels that broadcast programs in English. Teacher 'B' revealed to us that:

"I Advice students to follow the TV channels in English, such as BBC".

The statement of student C. R. confirmed this observation:

"Since the beginning of the academic year I have not stopped watching TV
channels in English, especially BBC, CNN and MBC 2".

In the same line of thoughts, the student B. H. told us that:

"English movies motivate me a lot, because it greatly improves my

phonetics and enrich my vocabulary".

Item 11 "I try to talk like native English speakers" is connected to the previous
analyzed one. Indeed, student B. H. made us the following statement:

"I do my best to talk like native English speakers, by imitating the movies
actors".

[75]
 CHAPTER THREE: DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

We can realize that the investment of the students in watching English TV channels is
related to the effort to speak like a native English language speakers.

Compensation Strategies

As mentioned in the first chapter, compensation strategies are used by learners to

defeat the difficulties caused by limitations in the field of knowledge by guessing
intelligently in listening and reading, and overcoming the limitations in speaking and
writing.

Table 3.6. Means and Standards Deviation of the Items of Compensation Strategies

Level Rank
of in the
Items S-D
Mean strategy Scope
use
24. To understand unfamiliar English words, I
3.58 1.011 High 2
make guesses.
25. When I can´t think of a word during a
3.29 1.361 Medium 4
conversation in English, I use gestures.
26. I make up new words if I do not know the
3.42 1.142 High 3
right ones in English.
27. I read English without looking up every
2.61 1.225 Medium 6
new word.
28. I try to guess what the other person will
3.15 1.146 Medium 5
say next in English.
29. If I can´t think of an English word, I use a
4.00 .931 High 1
word or phrase that means the same
Compensation strategies form the last group of direct strategies. There are two
types of compensation strategies: Guessing intelligently in listening and reading, and
overcoming the limitations in speaking and writing.

According to the SILL they are assessed by six items, from 24 to 29. It is recalled
that these strategies have obtained the third position in the general ranking of the
SILL, after meta-cognitive strategies and social strategies (See table 3.2). As presented
in the table 3.6, three items have achieved high scores and the other three have
achieved average scores. Item 29 registered the highest score (M = 4.32) and the item

[76]
 CHAPTER THREE: DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

27 obtained the lowest score (M = 2.61). According to the same table, the differences
in using individual language learning strategies are significant.

Chart 3.5. The Average Extent of Using the Six Items of Compensation Strategies

Guessing intelligently is the first type of compensation strategies; it is evaluated by

the items 24, 27 and 28. In the Chart above we see that the item 24: “To understand
unfamiliar English words, I make guesses”, recorded the highest score. To deal with
vocabulary disabilities, students guess the meaning of the words they read or hear in
the class. This strategy is commonly used and it is not reserved only to beginners, it is
also used by advanced language learners. Teacher 'B' stated that:

“This strategy is very effective, but it requires a good level in French

language, because there are a lot of bridges between the English and the
French language, one thing that is not given to the 1st year EFL students”.

This statement is supported by the testimony of the teacher 'C ':

"In my experience of teaching English for several years, I can confirm that
those students who have a good level of French guess quickly and easily the
vocabulary in English. These students improve rapidly the learning of
English in comparison to others. The only problem they have is the
difficulty of linking the ideas and sentences".

For the item 27: "I read English without looking up every new word", we obtain a
medium score (M=2.61). The fact that this item has obtained an average score, we can

[77]
 CHAPTER THREE: DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

say that 1st year EFL students give importance to new words when they read a text in
English. Indeed, deficits in vocabulary motivate them to pay attention to new words.
For them, each reading is an opportunity of enrichment of vocabulary.

The item 28 "I try to guess what the other person will say next in English." obtain a
medium score (M=3.15). Students do not have to guess what the others will say,
because their focus is rather on what others are saying. Comprehension may be
difficult to the point that it is not easy to guess what will be said.

However, the strategies used for overcoming limitations in speaking and writing
are evaluated by items 25, 26 and 29. Item 25: "When I can´t think of a word during a
conversation in English, I use gestures." obtained a medium score (M=3.29). We
noticed that this strategy is not much used by students, despite the fact that this
strategy overcoming the limitations in speaking. Student K. D. told us that:

"I intend to use gestures to deal with my lack of vocabulary, but

unfortunately I can't find the gestures which correspondents at best. For me
the gestures are appropriate with common words such as: large, small,
yesterday, tomorrow, all. But it is difficult to find the gesture for
complicated words".

It is apparent from the chart 3.5 that the item 29: "If I can´t think of an English
word, I use a word or phrase that means the same" registered the highest score in the
scope (M=4.00). As such student D.C. said that:

"Our teacher of the oral module encourages us to use phrases instead of the
words which we do not know. According to our teacher it is important to
convey the idea in a way or another, but to do so he advised us to not feel
embarrassed".

In general, the medium scores of using guessing strategies (24, 27, 28), which
compensate for a limited language repertoire in listening or reading shows that the
students can be perceived as quite positive. Although the resulting averages
concerning the strategies used for overcoming limitations in speaking and writing (25,

[78]
 CHAPTER THREE: DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

26, 29) are so high comparing to the previous named (M=3.57), a student’s effort to
overcome difficulties is present.

We found that strategy 29 was provided with highest score of usage until now
assessed. When the teachers were asked to comment on student’s usage of guessing
strategies in general, they admitted that they are sure that their guesses are based on
French language. That goes with the theory which States that guessing is based on
either linguistic or non-linguistic clues. In other words, on previous knowledge of
vocabulary, grammar or context.

Metacognitive Strategies

Metacognitive strategies are considered to be the most important strategies for

successful learning of English. This is what is confirmed by O´Malley et al. (1985):
"students without metacognitive approaches are essentially learners without direction
and ability to review their progress, accomplishments, and future learning directions"
(cited in Blažková, 2011, p. 67).

Before the chart presentation of metacognitive strategies items, we will first present
the items with the scores of means and standards deviation in the following table. The
items are represented in accordance with the order of the SILL. When looking at the
Table, the difference in using individual language learning strategies is significant. It
should be recalled that this strategy is the first used according to students interviewed
in the survey (M=3.72), as usually used by students. This group of strategies contains
nine items (item 30 to item 38).

[79]
 CHAPTER THREE: DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

Table 3.7. Means and Standards Deviation of the Items of Metacognitive Strategies

Level of Rank in
Items Mean S-D the
strategy
use Scope

30. I try to find as many ways as I can to use

3.88 1.024 High 4
my English.

31. I notice my English mistakes and I use

4.06 .935 High 3
that information to help me do better.

32. I pay attention when someone is speaking

4.37 .794 High 1
English.

33. I try to find out how to be a better learner

4.16 .970 High 2
of English.

34. I plan my schedule so I will have enough

2.80 1.261 Medium 9
time to study English.

35. I look for people I can talk to in English. 3.71 1.217 High 6

36. I look for opportunities to read as much

3.28 1.210 Medium 8
as possible in English.

37. I have clear goals for improving my

3.41 1.146 High 7
English skills.

38. I think about my progress in learning

3.77 1.113 High 5
English.

From the first reading of the table above, we find that these strategies have
achieved high scores. We recorded seven strategies with a high usage and only two
with medium usage. Item 32 registered the highest score (M = 4.37) and item 34
obtained the lowest score (M = 2.80). All the items of the metacognitive strategies are
presented in the following chart.

[80]
 CHAPTER THREE: DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

Chart 3.6. The Average Extent of Using the Nine Items of Metacognitive Strategies

With regard to item 30, "I try to find as many ways as I can to use my English", it is
associated with a high level of strategy usage. We have seen that 82.9 % of students
stated that they enjoy when they learn English. Pleasure of learning English reflects
the great motivation of the students. Also, item 32: "I pay attention when someone is
speaking English", shows clearly that students pay attention to specific aspect of the
language. The student C. F. told us the following:

"I try to carefully follow the oral teacher Madam D.R, She speaks like a
native speaker. The movements of her mouth as well as here gestures,
motivates me to follow her speech."

This motivation in learning English is associated with a constant effort provided by

students to plan and organize their learning. The analyses of items 34, 35 and 36
clearly demonstrates that students cannot succeed alone, without help and support of
their teachers. This observation is raised by teacher B who confirmed that:

[81]
 CHAPTER THREE: DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

"I talk with my students about organizing and planning their time, setting
goals, evaluating progress, seeking chances to practice the English
language".

Items 36 and 37 results do not differ from the results obtained with other items. As
it is represented in the chart 3.6, students give importance to setting goal in learning, as
well as to the continuous evaluation of English learning progress.

We feel, after analyzing these items, that the high scores recorded by these
strategies are partly due to the LMD reform. The LMD system is based on the
autonomy that can develop the student in his learning process. So we can conclude that
motivation, self monitoring and self evaluating are important for the students' success.

Affective Strategies

The affective aspect of the learner is one of the strangest stimulates the language
learning success or failure. Indeed, as developed in chapter one, affective variables
such as motivation, attitudes, and tolerance for ambiguity can significantly influence
language learning. Affective strategies can make the process of learning easier and
more effective. Indeed, the emotional aspects form the support of the English learning
process. Negative prejudices against teachers, negative thinking and pessimism are
dangerous factors that can completely stop the process of learning. It is affirmed by
Oxford (1990) that few studies have examined the frequency of using of affective
strategies, but those who have done so revealed that these strategies are woefully
underused.

[82]
 CHAPTER THREE: DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

Table 3.8. Means and Standards Deviation of the Items of Affective Strategies

Level of Rank in
Items Mean S-D the
strategy
use Scope

39. I try to relax whenever I feel afraid of using

3,58 1,322 High 3
English.

40. I encourage myself to speak English even

3,74 1,185 High 1
when I am afraid of making a mistake.

41. I give myself a reward or treat when I do

2,82 1,400 Medium 4
well in English.

42. I notice if I am tense or nervous when I am

3,73 1,310 High 2
studying or using English.

43. I write down my feelings in a language

2,20 1,474 Low 5
learning diary.

44. I talk to someone else about how I feel when

2,82 1,422 Medium 4
I am learning English.

Affective strategies is the second group of indirect strategies. According to the SILL
they are assessed by six items, from 39 to 44. Item 39 concerns students lowering
anxiety; the 40 and 41 items evaluate the use of strategies that dealt with encouraging
oneself and items (42, 43, 44) take the students emotional temperature. It is recalled
that these strategies have obtained the fourth position in the general ranking of the
SILL, after meta-cognitive strategies, social strategies and compensation strategies
(See table 3.2). As presented in the table 3.8, three strategies have achieved high
scores, two are associated with a medium scores and one strategy has achieved low
score. Item 40 registered the highest score (M = 3.74) and item 43 obtained the lowest
score (M = 2.20). According to the same table, the differences in using individual
language learning strategies are significant.

[83]
 CHAPTER THREE: DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

Chart 3.7. The Average Extent of Using the Six Items of Affective Strategies

Item 39: "I try to relax whenever I feel afraid of using English." obtained a high
score (M=3.58). Now, students feel the need to relax in order to overcome anxiety
during the learning of English. Since learning is a very complex process that creates
pressure and anxiety. This requires a strategy for adaptation on the part of students to
deal with this emotional pressure. This was confirmed by student K.D. when he said
the following:

"To overcome the anxiety in the class, I often think about my colleagues
who have a less English level than me".

Another student B.R. made us the following statement:

"Anxiety in learning English, yes I feel it especially when I have to

expressed in front of my colleagues in the classroom."

As stated previously, items 40 and 41 evaluated the degree of encouragement that

student give for himself. We find that the item 40: "I encourage myself to speak
English even when I am afraid of making a mistake" is associated with a high score
(M=3.74), which confirms the result of item 39. Indeed, the encouragement and
motivation are two elements that 1st year EFL students use to overcome the fear of
making mistakes in speaking English. On the other hand, the item 41: "I give myself a
reward or treat when I do well in English." is associated with an average score
[84]
 CHAPTER THREE: DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

(M=2.82), which proves that students have not developed tricks to motivate
themselves. Teacher 'A' talked to us about this aspect during his interview. As such, he
has advanced the following:

"I advice my students to find tips to get motivated, even if these tips appear
simple such as saying: if I finish reading this book I will have the right to
play soccer, or if I do my homework I have the right to follow the movie
that I like."

The last three items of this group of strategies concern the assessment that the
student can make of his level of motivation. Item 42: "I notice if I am tense or nervous
when I am studying or using English." got a high score (M = 3.73). Learning English is
a source of stress, nervousness and anxiety for the1st year EFL students to the point
that they are able to feel and evaluate their tension and their nervousness.
Administration and teachers are invited to develop methods to relax students and help
them overcome this pressure. Extra-pedagogic activities such as exercising fun
activities can serve students in this case.

Items 43 and 44 have achieved modest scores. In fact the item 43: "I write down my
feelings in a language learning diary." have the lowest score of this group of strategies
(M = 2.20). It seems that students were not used to write their feelings in a language
learning diary; this is a somehow strange tradition of our culture. In some countries
like Western countries, children are encouraged to have their own diary from the early
age, things that we do not find in Algeria.

Concerning item 44: "I talk to someone else about how I feel when I am learning
English." the score is higher comparing to item 43 (M = 2.84). This gives us an idea on
oral preference compared to writing when it comes to assessing his motivation,
because Algerian society has a speaking culture more than writing culture. We can
hold two important findings from the analysis of items 42, 43 and 44. The first is that
students are not highly motivated to express their motivation or to declare it to
colleagues. The second is the preference of oral expression compared to the written
expression. A number of researchers including ( O’Malley & Chamot, 1990 and

[85]
 CHAPTER THREE: DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

Cohen, 1996) have argued that learning strategies are culture specific (Cited in
Hashemi & Hadavi, 2015).

Social Strategies

Knowledge acquisition and language learning are also a social process. For this,
interaction and cooperation between learners are essential for a good achievement.
Indeed, English learning is not only the mater of the learner but also of his social
environment, including his colleagues. For this reason researchers emphasize the
importance of creating a social environment that is conducive to learn English. The
social strategies help students to develop their ability in asking questions and in
cooperating and empathizing with others.

Table 3.9. Means and Standards Deviation of the Items of Social Strategies

Level Rank
of in the
Items Mean S-D
strategy Scope
use
45. If I do not understand something in
English, I ask the other person to slow down or 3,28 1,335 Medium 4
say it again.
46. I ask English speakers to correct me
3,01 1,378 Medium 5
when I talk.
47. I practice English with other students. 3,28 1,317 Medium 4

48. I ask for help from English speakers. 3,48 1,214 High 3

49. I ask questions in English. 3,55 1,239 High 2

50. I try to learn about the culture of
3,78 1,259 High 1
English speakers.

According to the SILL; social strategies are assessed by six items (45 to 50). Items
45 and 46 are concerned with asking questions; items 47 and 48 evaluate the degree of
cooperation with others; while items 49 and 50 assess the empathizing with others. It
is recalled that these strategies have obtained the second position (M=3.40) in the
general ranking of the SILL, after meta-cognitive strategies (See table 3.2). As
presented in the table 3.9, three strategies have achieved high scores and three others
are associated with medium scores. Item 50 registered the highest score (M = 3.78)

[86]
 CHAPTER THREE: DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

and the item 46 obtained the lowest score (M = 3.01). According to the same table, the
differences in using individual language learning strategies are significant.

Chart 3.8. The Average Extent of Using the Six Items of Social Strategies

The two items (45 and 46) assessed students’ ability to ask questions when they do
not understand what the others say or when they are afraid of making mistakes in the
practice of English. These two items have achieved average scores. It seems that the
students are reluctant to ask speakers to repeat if they do not understand. This is due
,may be, to a lack of social interaction between who speaks and who hears. It is
recalled that the student's self-confidence is important, as well as encouragement that
the teacher is supposed to give for students. In this vein the student Q.C. confirmed
that:

"Oral teacher often insists on the importance of asking questions and

interrupting him if someone did not understand something."

The same student told us the following about the correction of the errors:

"I think I'm not supposed to ask my teacher to correct me when I'm talking,
because it's part of his role as a teacher. When it comes to the colleagues in
the class, I think it's difficult to ask someone who has same level as you to
correct you! "

[87]
 CHAPTER THREE: DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

Unlike the ability to ask questions, the ability to cooperate and to empathize with
others have achieved high scores. Indeed, students ask for help from English speakers
as they make effort to ask questions in English. The item 50: "I try to learn about the
culture of English speakers", earned the best score of the social strategies. This gives
us a strong idea on the state of mind of students, seeking by all means to understand
the English culture they consider this as an imperative acceleration of English
learning.

Regarding the aspect of cooperation, teacher 'C 'stated that:

"I have seen that students are generally organized in small groups of three
to five people in order to cooperate all the year. They share digital
documents, they are part of the same group of the social media, and even in
the class they sit near to each other."

We have seen in the first chapter and in the above analysis that social strategies help
learners to learn how to cooperate with others to become more effective learners. They
also increase learners´ language performance. Oxford (1990) states that when learners
in a cooperative group are of different ability levels, they help each other more than
learners whose ability levels are the same. The words of Oxford are consistent with the
results obtained in the analysis of social strategies. Indeed, the results obtained by
students during the academic year 2015/2016 shows clearly that they have different
levels. This difference in levels, according to Oxford, is a source of social interaction.

3.4. Strategy Use and Students Gender

The purpose of this section is to assess the effect of gender on reported strategy use.
Gender has been shown to have some effect in the use of learning strategies. Some
studies have reported a significant difference between how male and female students
employ strategies (Marttinen 2008, and Seddigh & Shokrpour 2012, cited by Hashemi
& Hadavi, 2015). For instance, El-Dib (2004) reported that in Kuwait, culture dictated
the use of different strategies by male and female students.

In another study Hakan, Aydina & Bulenta, (2015) indicated differences according
to gender in only compensation strategies in favor of male in Yildiz Technical

[88]
 CHAPTER THREE: DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

University, Istanbul, Turkey. Since there are two groups (Male and Female) and the
use of Language learning strategies measured on an interval scale, a t-test is
appropriate to test the null and alternate following hypotheses (Sekaran, 2003, p.316).

H20: There are no differences in the perceived use of LLS between male and
female of first-year EFL students at the University of Mascara.

H21: There are differences in the perceived use of LLS between male and female
of first-year EFL students at the University of Mascara.

The t-TEST is the most frequently used measure in second language research when
comparing mean scores for two groups (Brown and Rodgers, 2004, p. 205).
The analysis of independent samples of t-TEST will indicate if the perceived
differences are significantly different for male than for female students of 1st year EFL
at Mascara University at the significance level 0.05 as demonstrated in Table 3.10. If
the results have a significance level less than 0.05, this means that the null hypothesis
(H20) is rejected and the alternative hypothesis (H21) is accepted (Brown and Rodgers,
2004, p.189).
Table 3.10. T-test Results of Language Learning Strategies with Respect to Gender

Males (n=35) Females (n=123) Sig (2-

tailed)

Strategies Ran confidence

M S-D Rank M S-D interval
k
95%

Memory strategies 2.74 .583 6 2.81 .629 6 .569

Cognitive strategies 3.02 .570 4 2.99 .661 5 .775

Compensation strategies 3.44 .672 3 3.31 .678 3 .320

Meta-cognitive strategies 3.59 .657 1 3.75 .705 1 .232

Affective strategies 2.85 .616 5 3.23 .753 4 .011

Social strategies 3.50 .790 2 3.37 .858 2 .419

Overall strategies 3.15 .648 3.25 .714

[89]
 CHAPTER THREE: DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

Results related to the second research question (Is there a difference in students’
language learning strategy use regarding gender?) reveal an overall medium range of
strategy use (male: M = 3.15 and female: M = 3.25) as mentioned in the chart below.
The differences between the mean scores of male and female students in regard to the
overall strategy use were very small, we notice that female have used a little higher the
overall strategy compared to male. Findings also indicate that both male and female
students use meta-cognitive strategies (male: 3.59 and Female: 3.75) in the first
position, social strategies (Male: 3.50 and Female: 3.37) in the second position and
compensation strategies (Male: 3.44 and Female: 3.31) in the third position, while
memory strategies were at the last position.

The only difference between male and female is in the ranking of the cognitive
strategies and affective strategies. Indeed, cognitive strategies are classified in the
fourth position for male and in the fifth position for female however affective
strategies are classified in the fourth position for female and in the fifth position for
male.

In the same table we found that there is no significant differences between male and
female students in the use of the overall strategies except a significant difference in the
usage of the affective strategies (Sig=0.011) in favor of female. Also, there were no
significant differences between male and female students in the use of the five others
strategies from the six categories developed by Oxford. So, the hypothesis H21 is
partially accepted.

3.5. Strategy Use and Proficiency Level

The purpose now is to assess the effect of LLSs use on the academic achievement
because some studies have reported a significant differences between how students
employ LLS and their academic achievement. Within the field of foreign and second
language learning, authors (Cohen, 1990; Oxford, 1990) have identified numerous
links between the use of language learning strategies and achievement in the target
language.

[90]
 CHAPTER THREE: DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

In studies by Rubin et al (1975), successful language learners used different types

of learning strategies, such as guessing from context. In other studies, successful
learners used a wider range of strategies, employed them more effectively and
understood the task better than did unsuccessful language learners. In an investigation
by Nunan (1991), effective learners differed from ineffective learners in their greater
ability to reflect on their own language learning processes (Green and Oxford, 1995,
cited in Oxford, 1999).

Since there are more than two groups (three different achievement levels) and the
usage of Language learning strategies measured on an interval scale, ANOVA is
appropriate to test the null and alternate following hypotheses (Sekaran, 2003, p. 318).

H30: there are no differences in the use of LLS at the three levels of academic
achievement of first-year EFL students at Mascara University.

H31: there are differences in the use of LLS at the three levels of academic
achievement of first-year EFL of Mascara University.

A One-Way ANOVA (F-TEST) was used to investigate and compare the language
learning strategies used by the first year EFL students with different levels of English
achievement at the significance level 0.05. If the results have a significance level less
than 0.05, this means that the null hypothesis (H30) is rejected and the alternative
hypothesis (H31) is accepted (Brown and Rodgers, 2004, p. 189).

To examine the use of language learning strategies in each category of students

with different levels of achievement, we have compared each category with the
different levels. From the table below we note that students with a high level use
strategies more than those with medium level and those with a medium level use
strategies more than those with a low level. Consequently, this means that whenever
the students use English language learning strategies frequently their level of
achievement is higher. Comparing the use of each language learning strategy category,
students with high and medium levels of achievement tended to use Meta-cognitive,
Social and Compensation strategies more frequently than other strategies. Students
with deferent levels of achievement use Meta-cognitive strategies the most and use
Memory strategies the least.

[91]
 CHAPTER THREE: DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

Table 3.11. Presentation of LLS Use with respect to proficiency level

To examine the use of language learning strategies in each category of students

with different levels of achievement, we had compared each category with the
different levels. From the table below we note that students with a high level use
strategies more than those with medium level and those with a medium level use
strategies more than those with a low level. Consequently, this means that whenever
the students use English language learning strategies frequently their level of
achievement is higher. Comparing the use of each language learning strategy category,
students with high and medium levels of achievement tended to use Meta-cognitive,
Social and Compensation strategies more frequently than other strategies. Students
with deferent levels of achievement use Meta-cognitive strategies the most and use
Memory strategies the least.

Before presenting the results of the ANOVA analysis, we will present the matrix of
Pearson correlation to find out the nature of the relationship that exists, on one hand
between the six types of language learning strategies and in another hand between
these strategies and the students’ achievement. As seen in the Table 3.12, as a result of
correlation analysis there have been found significant strong and positive correlations
among the components of language learning strategies. For instance, it was found
significant strong and positive correlations between Meta-cognitive strategy and
Memory strategy (r=0.512, p <0.01); between Meta-cognitive and Cognitive
(r=0.679, p <0.01); between Meta-cognitive and Affective (r=0.555, p <0.01);

[92]
 CHAPTER THREE: DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

between Meta-cognitive and Social (r=0.608, p <0.01) and a good correlation between
Meta-cognitive and Compensation (r=0.306, p <0.01). It can be said that all the
components of language learning strategies are related to each other.

From the same Table we found a significant positive relationship between the
students’ academic achievement and three of language learning strategies, i.e., greater
strategy use frequency → greater achievement). More precisely, annual students
grades were related at a moderate level with Affective strategies (r=0.065, p <0.05),
Cognitive strategies (r=0.118, p <0.05) and Metacognitive strategies (r=0.208,
p <0.01).

Table 3.12. Correlation Analysis Among the Components of Language Learning

Strategies and Students’ Achievement

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Pearson
1. Memory strategy 1
Correlation
Pearson
2. Cognitive strategy .574** 1
Correlation
Pearson
3. Compensation strategy .321** .251** 1
Correlation
Pearson
4. Metacognitive strategy .512** .679** .306** 1
Correlation
Pearson
5. Affective strategy .503** .533** .314** .551** 1
Correlation
Pearson
6. Social strategy .402** .480** .222** .608** .404** 1
Correlation
Pearson
7. Achievement .080 .188* .034 .208** .065* .174 1
Correlation
**. Correlation significant at 0.01 Level (2 tailed).
*. Correlation significant at 0.05 Level (2 tailed).

Results presented and discussed above encourage us to conduct the ANOVA

analysis to see if the language learning strategies explains the First year EFL student’s
achievement. It is clear from the table below that student’s achievement is explained
by two categories of strategies, namely: Cognitive strategies (F=3.605, p=0.029) and
Meta-cognitive strategies (F=4.167, p=0.017). What drives us to say that more
students in 1st year EFL use the Meta-cognitive and Cognitive strategies more their
achievement is high. We can conclude that the variation in the achievement level of
the first year EFL students in Mascara University is explained by these two strategies,
so these strategies predicted positively students’ achievement.

[93]
 CHAPTER THREE: DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

Table 3.13. One way ANOVA Students’ Achievement by the Components of

Language Learning Strategies

ANOVA
Sums of Mean
Df F Sig.
Squares Square
Between
.435 2 .218 .562 .571
Memory strategy Groups
Within Groups 60.012 155 .387
Total 60.447 157
Between
2.193 2 1.096 3.605 .029
Groups
Cognitive strategy
Within Groups 47.132 155 .304
Total 49.324 157
Between
.444 2 .222 .489 .614
Compensation Groups
strategy Within Groups 70.403 155 .454
Total 70.847 157
Between
4.097 2 2.049 4.167 .017
Meta-cognitive Groups
strategy Within Groups 76.210 155 .492
Total 80.307 157
Between
.410 2 .205 .326 .722
Groups
Affective strategy
Within Groups 97.277 155 .628
Total 97.687 157
Between
3.972 2 1.986 2.907 .058
Groups
Social strategy
Within Groups 105.907 155 .683 .562
Total 109.880 157

The results founded here are congruent with a number of the previous LLSs studies
conducted in many countries, such as the U.S., Europe, and Asia (Anderson, 2005;
Olah, 2006; Huang & Chen, 2009; Cited in Kumasaraphan, 2015). More importantly,
the findings are consistent with the findings of many studies in that students with high
English proficiency level employed a greater diversity and more frequency of English
learning strategies that did students with low English proficiency level
(Kumasaraphan, 2015; Hashemi & Hadavi, 2015).

[94]
 CHAPTER THREE: DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

3.6. Conclusion

The findings reported above show that the overall use of LLS by the students was
found medium and that students gender have statistically a significant effect on
frequency of overall strategy use. With regard to its effect on the use of each of the six
categories of strategies, gender has a main effect on only one category (affective
strategies) in favor of females.

The findings reported also that students with a high level use strategies more than
those with medium level and those with a medium level use strategies more than those
with a low level. Consequently, this means that whenever the students use English
language learning strategies frequently their level of achievement is higher. The results
of this research will help students to raise awareness in the use of LLSs. Thus, an
important usage of LLSs will help students to improve their level. In the other hand,
teachers should take into account students’ differences in their teaching.

[95]
 CHAPTER FOUR: RECOMMENDATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS

4.1. Introduction

Language learning strategies are used to complete listening, speaking, reading, and
writing tasks. Learners will use their metacognitive, cognitive or social/affective
strategies in various language learning tasks (Oxford, 1990). Furthermore, O'Malley &
Chamot (1995) have stated that successful learners can solve language learning
problems in an efficient way and they are favorable in choosing appropriate strategies,
while less experienced ones may be less systematic at using strategies. However, all
the learners need instructions to use strategies easily to promote their performance.
Hence, to reach the effective use of learning strategies, Language Learning Strategy
Instruction (LLSI) have to be implemented into regular language lessons (Kinoshita,
2003).

Therefore, this chapter provides an overview of language learning strategies

instruction and discusses the definitions, importance, types of language learning
strategies instructions, options for providing LLSI, models of LLSI, implementing
LLSI into language classroom, past and recent research. By the end of this chapter,
pedagogical implications, limitations of the study, and recommendation for further
research are presented in turn.

4.2. Language Learning Strategies Instruction

Authors have used different terms for language learning strategies instruction, some
of them (e.g., Oxford, 1990) use the term of ´strategy training´, and others (e.g.,
Chamot 2004) prefer the term of ´strategy instruction´ (kozmonova, 2008). Ellis uses
the term "strategy training" and states that it “[...] provides a way of helping learners
to become autonomous” (Ellis, 1997, cited in ibid, p. 45). Cohen (2002), in his
tern, uses the term of "strategy training" and provides many approaches to strategy
training, Strategies-based instruction (SBI) is one of his most as the most
comprehensive way of implementing strategy training (kozmonova, 2008).

In the other hand, Chamot (2004) uses the term of ´strategy instruction´, and she
recommended for strategy instruction to be integrated into regular lessons.

[98]
 CHAPTER FOUR: RECOMMENDATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS

Furthermore, she proposes many models for language learning strategy instruction and
discusses their positives and negatives (ibid).

Accordingly, Logan & Moore (2003) suggest that LLSI can help learners to be
more autonomous in their learning, and that LLSI should involve two valuable steps
which are increasing learner awareness and supporting them with the skills they need.
In the same line, Chamot (2005) agrees that LLSI are actions that simplify a learning
task, and supports language learners with a vast list of strategies for the purpose of
learning language more effectively (kozmonova, 2008).

4.3. Aims and Importance of LLSI

During the process of strategy training language learners are taught series of helpful
strategies (kozmonova, 2008). Research in this field demonstrates that learners who
get strategy training are better learners than those who do not, and that some methods
for such training are more helpful than others (Oxford, 1990).

Other research indicates that language learner can learn autonomously. In Lee (1995)
study, the findings presented that students achieved better final exam grades than mid-
term exam grades, and proved the precedent studies by O'Malley et al (1985). Lee
results affirmed also that strategy training for second language learner is an effective
way for assisting college students at the beginning level.

Grenfell & Harris (1999) propose that by analyzing the strategies used by learners
during the second language learning process, we acquire understanding into the meta-
cognitive, cognitive, social, and affective methods implicated in language learning.
Therefore, less successful language learners can become better language learners if
they are taught new strategies.

There have been many published researches regarding strategy training. Parrot
introduces various features of a ´good´ learner, among others: “The ´good´ learner is
one who takes decisions with regard to strategies to apply in learning” (Parrot, 1993,
quoted in kozmonova, 2008, p. 46). Moon states that “one of the ideas behind learning
to learn is that pupils need awareness of how they carry out learning tasks (of the

[99]
 CHAPTER FOUR: RECOMMENDATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS

strategies they use) in order to improve and develop more flexible ways of working”
(Moon, 2000, quoted in kozmonova, 2008, p. 46). All these confirm the fact that
strategy training is important in language learning and thus it should be integrated in
teaching process (kozmonova, 2008).

For Cohen (2000), implying language learning strategies instruction help students
learn to promote, control and assess their performance in a second language, and
become more conscious about their learning (cited in Cohen, 2003). He also declares
that strategy training focuses on supporting learners with the means to do the
following:

Self-diagnose their strengths and weaknesses in language learning.

Become aware of what helps them to learn the target language most efficiently.

Develop a broad range of problem-solving skills.

Experiment with familiar and unfamiliar learning strategies.

Make decisions about how to approach a language task.

Monitor and self-evaluate their performance.

Transfer successful strategies to new learning contexts.

(adopted from Cohen, 2003, p. 1)

4.4. Types of Language Learning Strategies Instruction

Language learning strategies instructions can be instructed in at least three various

ways namely awareness training, one time strategy training and long term strategy
training (Oxford, 1990).

[100]
 CHAPTER FOUR: RECOMMENDATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS

4.4.1. Awareness Training

Awareness training is also called as conscious raising or familiarization training. In

this type of training, learners become conscious of the language learning strategies
effectiveness. This type of training is amusing and inspiring, it also makes the learners
develop their information of strategies (ibid).

4.4.2. One Time Strategy Training

One time strategy training includes exercising some strategies with learning
activities. This type of training provides the learners with information of the strategy,
when we can use it, how to use it and how to assess the progress of the language
strategy. This training is recommended for learners who need a specific strategy which
can be instructed in one or a more sessions. Generally, this training type is not as
beneficial as long-term training (ibid).

4.4.3. Long Term Strategy Training

Long term strategy training includes exercising strategies with language activities.
Second language learners recognize the importance of strategies, when and how to use
it, how to control and assess their own progress. Long term training is more extended
and covers a bigger number of strategies. This strategy training type is more sufficient
than one time training (ibid).

4.5. Providing Language Learning Strategies Instruction

Many models for foreign language strategy training have been developed and
implemented in different educational settings. As described below, Cohen (2003)
develops seven options for providing LLSI:

4.5.1. General Study Skills Courses:

These courses are designed for students with academic difficulties but can also be
for successful students. General academic skills can be transmitted to the process of
learning a foreign language, such as using flash cards and overcoming anxiety. These

[101]
 CHAPTER FOUR: RECOMMENDATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS

courses focus on how learning a foreign language may be different from learning other
academic subjects. Foreign language students can be motivated in order to develop
learning strategies (Cohen, 2003).

4.5.2. Awareness Training (Lectures and Discussion):

Also known as consciousness-raising, it consists of separated lectures and

discussions and is always isolated from regular classroom instruction. This model
gives students a general introduction to learning strategy. Oxford (1990) describes
awareness training as courses in which learners become conscious with the language
learning strategies (Cohen, 2003).

4.5.3. Strategy Workshops:

Short workshops are another model to develop learner consciousness of strategies

through awareness-raising and strategy-assessment activities. They can help to develop
specific language skills. These workshops can be integrated as non-credit courses or
as part of academic skills course. They often present lectures and discussions about the
strategy use effectiveness (Cohen, 2003).

4.5.4. Peer Tutoring:

In the 1970s, "Tandem" or peer tutoring programs began in Europe and are used in
many universities in the United States. Holec (1988) describes this program as a
system that pairs students of different language backgrounds into teaching sessions.
Requirements of the teaching sessions are that students have to meet regularly,
practice each language separately, and spend the same amounts of time with each
language. Students are encouraged to organize study groups. Those who have
completed the language course may also be invited to these meetings. In this way, less
proficient students can benefit from more proficient students (Cohen, 2003).

[102]
 CHAPTER FOUR: RECOMMENDATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS

4.5.5. Strategies in Language Textbooks:

Language Learning Strategies have been adopted by many foreign language

textbooks into their curricula. However, students may not be conscious that they are
using strategies at all, unless the strategies are presented by the classroom teacher.
Some language textbooks propose strategy activities and explicit explanations of the
benefits of the strategies they present. The advantage of using this type of textbooks is
that students do not need extracurricular training; the textbooks develop strategy use
both in tasks and skills (Cohen, 2003).

4.5.6. Videotaped Mini-Courses:

Aiming at increasing students' awareness of learning strategies, Rubin (1996)

created an interactive videodisc program and an instructional guide, to make students
know how to transfer strategies to new tasks and to help them be responsible of their
own learning of the language. The instructional program consists of 20 foreign
languages and provides students with the opportunity to select the language, topic, and
difficulty level, all that using authentic language situations. Materials are designed to
face students to different strategies for use in different contexts (Cohen, 2003).

4.5.7. Strategies-Based Instruction (SBI):

SBI is a learner-centered approach to teaching that include both implicit and

explicit integration of strategies into the course. Students experience the advantages of
integrating the strategies to the learning. In addition, students have many chances to
share their own strategies with other students and to develop their strategy use in the
typical language tasks. Teachers can individualize strategy training and reinforce
strategies while presenting the regular course content (Cohen, 2003).

According to Cohen, in a typical SBI classroom teachers do the following:

Describe, model, and give examples of potentially useful strategies.

Elicit additional examples from students, based on students' own learning

experiences.

[103]
 CHAPTER FOUR: RECOMMENDATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS

Lead small-group and whole-class discussions about strategies.

Encourage students to experiment with a broad range of strategies.

Integrate strategies into everyday class materials, explicitly and implicitly

embedding them into the language tasks to provide strategy practice.

(Adopted from Cohen, 2003, p.2).

Teachers may implement SBI by designing course materials, then decide which
strategies to integrate and where; beginning with a list of strategies they want to
concentrate on and establish activities around them; or establishing strategies directly
into the lessons (ibid).

The approaches presented before give options for establishing strategy training with
learners. Based on the needs and the time available to an institution, the next step is to
plan the instruction students will receive.

4.6. Language Learning Strategies Instruction Models

O’Malley et al. (1994) declares that if learning strategies are favorably taught to
less proficient learners, it could increase the improvement of second language skills;
and that second language instructors could show a valuable character by teaching
students how to employ learning strategies to various language tasks, thus, researchers
have investigated and proved different models for strategy training (Liu, 2010). Even
though no practical proof has been supported to discover a best way for administering
strategy training, at least three teaching plans have been recognized. Each plan has
been outlined to increase student knowledge of the reason of strategy use, supply
students with favorable circumstances to use the strategies in new learning contexts
(ibid).

[104]
 CHAPTER FOUR: RECOMMENDATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS

4.6.1. O'Malley and Chamot's Model

O'Malley and Chamot (1990) Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach

(CALLA) is designed to improve the academic language skills of less proficient
English language learners in upper elementary and secondary schools. The CALLA is
established on a theoretical model on which it proposes that language is a mixed
cognitive skill. It needs expanded exercising in order to perform at an autonomous
way(ibid).

Strategy training is integrated into the CALLA lesson plan, along with language
advancement tasks, in addition, new learning strategies are instructed and trained.
CALLA lessons have three main goals, namely, content objectives, language
objectives, and learning strategy objectives; they involve both the teacher and the
learner (O'Malley & Chamot, 1990, cited in Liu, 2010). Each CALLA lesson is
divided into six steps namely:

(1) Preparation: The teacher describes students’ learning strategies for usual activities,
such as remembering their knowledge, previewing the key vocabulary and ideas to be
presented to the lesson;
(2) Presentation: The teacher forms, names, describes new strategy; asks students if
and how they have used it, such as discriminating concentration, self-controlling,
interpretation, illustration, and note-taking strategies;
(3) Practice: The students experience new strategy; the teacher inspire autonomous
strategy use and establish an oral or written record or categorize ideas;
(4) Evaluation: The students assess their own strategy use right after exercise, deciding
the influence of their own learning by giving a sum up or a self-talk, either collectively
or individually;
(5) Expansion activities: The students transmit the strategies to new activities,
incorporate strategies into groups, expand collection of favorable strategies and
combine them into their actual education foundation.
(6) Assessment: The teacher evaluates the students’ use of strategies and effect on
efficiency.

[105]
 CHAPTER FOUR: RECOMMENDATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS

(Adopted from Liu, 2010, p. 103)

In this model teachers and learners often have the choice of visiting again the
instructional stages as wanted for language learners of various levels, which has been
treated as a pilot for integrating a whole-language method to instruction, and it has
been used in the EFL classroom program (Chamot, 2005).

4.6.2. Oxford's Model

Oxford's strategy training model targeted the learning strategies' teaching, it is

beneficial for long term strategy training. Oxford’s Model (1990) consists of eight
steps, they are stated step by step in the following procedure:

Learners are asked to immerse into an authentic language task without

instructional cues;
Suggest and demonstrate other helpful strategies, mentioning the need for
greater self-direction and expected benefits, and making sure that the students
are aware of the rationale for strategy use;
Allow learners plenty of time to practice the new strategies with language tasks
and show how the strategies can be transferred to other tasks;
Provide practice using the techniques with new tasks and allow learners to
make choices about the strategies they will use to complete the language
learning tasks;
Help students understand how to evaluate the success of their strategy use and
to gauge their progress as more responsible and self-directed learners.
(adopted from Liu, 2010, pp. 102-103)
This model is adaptable and each phase can be readjusted for the needs in various
orders. However, the disadvantage of this model is that it is difficult to be adopted into
a usual classroom program (Liu, 2010). Oxford (1990) proposes in her model an
effective method for the presentation of strategies that express explicit strategy
awareness, analysis of the advantages of strategy use, self-assessment of language
performance (ibid).

[106]
 CHAPTER FOUR: RECOMMENDATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS

4.6.3. Cohen's Model

Cohen's (1998) Strategies-Based Instruction (SBI) Model is an approach that focus

on learners in the first place, it contains both explicit and implicit involvement of
strategies into the sessions. In a SSBI Model, the teachers do the following roles:

Teacher as diagnostician: The teacher assists the students identify current

strategies
Teacher as language learner: The teacher exchanges his own learning
experiences and thinking processes.
Teacher as learner trainer: The teacher shows the students how to use learning
strategies.
Teacher as coordinator: The teacher controls students’ study plans and
facilitates difficulties
Teacher as coach: The teacher gives guidance on students’ progress.

(adapted from Cohen, 1998, cited in Liu, 2010, p. 103).

Cohen's model explains the work of a teacher in a daily EFL classroom. It present
more adaptability for instructors to incorporate the language strategies training
explicitly and implicitly into daily classroom sessions. Many strategies training studies
on cognitive and meta-cognitive strategies training embrace this model ( Liu, 2010).

4.6.4. Grenfell and Harris’s Model

Grenfell and Harris (1999) established a model of language learning strategies

instruction as follows:

Awareness raising: The students complete a task, and then identify the
strategies they used.
Modeling: The teacher models, discusses the value of new strategy, makes
checklist of strategies for later use.
General practice: The students practice new strategies with different tasks.

[107]
 CHAPTER FOUR: RECOMMENDATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS

Action planning: The students set goals and choose strategies to attain those
goals.
Focused practice: The students carry out action plan using selected strategies;
the teacher fades prompts so that students use strategies automatically.
Evaluation: The teacher and students evaluate success of action plan; set new
goals; cycle begins again.

(Adopted from Grenfell and Harris, 1999, cited in Liu, 2010, pp. 103-104).

All the models mentioned previously have a common typical value of learning
strategies. The strategies became internalized and then used to solve new tasks, while
exercising and assessing,

4.7. Implementing LLSI into Language Classroom

Cohen and many authors agreed that strategy training should be integrated into the
language lessons. For instance, Oxford (1994) gives some steps for implementing
strategy training, e.g., “training should, if possible, be integrated into regular L2
activities over a long period of time rather than taught as a separate, short
intervention" (kozmonova, 2008, p.48). Chamot (2004) also supports implementing
strategy training into language lessons: “[...] teachers should certainly opt for explicit
instruction and should probably integrate the instruction into their regular course
work, rather than providing a separate learning strategies course” (ibid).
Additionally, Chamot highlights on the importance of strategy training for all students
with different proficiency levels: “Learning strategy instruction should not be
postponed until intermediate or advanced level courses because beginners also need
strategies that can make their learning more successful and increase their motivation
for further study” (ibid). According to Clouston (1997), there are three steps for
implementing LLSI in the classroom:

[108]
 CHAPTER FOUR: RECOMMENDATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS

Step 1: Study Your Teaching Context

After the observation of students' behavior in class, teachers will know what LLS
they are using. Talking to students or interviewing them can also provide a lot of
information about students, their goals, motivations, and the LLS they use. Teachers
should study their teaching methods and their classroom style. To do so they should
look at their lesson plans and identify if they have integrated various ways in which
students can learn the language.

Step 2: Focus on LLS in Your Teaching

Teachers should take into account their learners needs and the type of materials
they use while selecting the LLS in teaching. They should also encourage their
students to use their LLS in the class activities and supply them with favorable
circumstances to use their LLS.

Step 3: Reflect and Encourage Learner Reflection

In the third basic level of implementing LLSI into Language Classroom, teachers
has to reflect on their own experiences in language learning and on the effectiveness of
LLS within the lesson. It is important in this step to encourage learner reflection.
(Clouston, 1997, cited in kozmonova, 2008).

It is recommended to well prepare for strategy training and then integrate it into
language lessons so that learners can use LLS on different tasks. In the end teachers
are recommended to evaluate the strategy training program effectiveness.

4.8. Research on Learning Strategies Instructions

Language learning strategy instruction researches has been focusing on verifying its
effectiveness. Researchers have developed a way to improve language performance by
encouraging language learners to use specific learning strategies (Kinoshita, 2003).

In Weinstein (1978) study, students in the ninth grade were trained to use different
strategies and establish them to reading comprehension and memory tasks. The results
were positive and they revealed that students trained on using strategies performed
significantly better than the students who were not trained (ibid).

[109]
 CHAPTER FOUR: RECOMMENDATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS

Wenden (1987) describes that giving students a list of self-evaluation strategies

showed a good use of this strategy. This investigation and others proof for us that
language learning strategies can be taught and training learners to use specific
learning strategies can effects positively on the performance in the language learning
process (ibid).

Strategy instruction research has investigated the instructional phases used by

language teachers to involve strategy instruction into foreign language lessons.
Chamot et al. (1988) research has focused on discovering how strategy instruction can
be integrated into Spanish and Russian foreign language class activities by three
regular classroom teachers. The results revealed that even if each teacher had his own
way of integrating learning strategy instruction, all of them used direct instruction
(presenting the purpose and value of strategies for students) and then continue with a
structured phase of introducing, practicing, reinforcing and evaluating strategy use
after each language activity (ibid).

Robbins (1996) renders a description of the phases used to integrate strategy

instruction at two universities in Kyoto, Japan. Students were trained to use these
instructions to plan, lead, use and check strategies while they are in a language
learning tasks. The success of these phases depends on the lesson are modeling,
explanation, encouragement, and increasing the use of strategies. In fact, research by
Robbins (1996) provides insights into instructional sequences and teaching approaches
(ibid).

4.9. Pedagogical Implications for Research and Instruction

According to her LLS research findings, Oxford dedicated a set of suggestions for
exploration and instruction:

Language researchers must form a concept of language learning strategies in a

way that involves the social and affective sides of learning.

[110]
 CHAPTER FOUR: RECOMMENDATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS

Through strategy assessment, teachers can help their students identify the
ability of using language learning strategies for creating faster, easier and more
efficient learning.
On the base of the strategy assessment' information, teachers can incorporate
strategy instruction into daily classroom program in a relaxing, but specific
way (e.g., Oxford 1990; O'Malley & Chamot 1990). Teachers must also regard
dissimilarities in gender, and other factors that affect learning strategy use.
Teachers need to be skillful in their selection of strategies to use in training.
Using various evaluation modes with the same group of students during the
strategy assessments could be cross-related. This would be partly responsible
for the validity of different assessment techniques.
Studies need to be reflected so the more rational information becomes ready for
use within and across populations.

(Adapted from Oxford, 1996)

Accordingly, Dickinson (1992) developed an "IDEAL" process for learners to

choose and control their use of learning strategies (Identify, Define, Explore, Act,
Look), which is reflected in Williams & Burden's (1997) principle questions for
learners

What do I want to accomplish? (Identify)

Do I know specifically what I am doing? (Define)
Why am I doing it? (Explore)
How will it be valuable to me? (Explore)
Which strategies shall I use to reach my aim best? (Act).
How do I tell when I have succeeded? (Look).

(Adopted from Williams & Burden, 1997)

The research results compiled earlier in response to the research questions (see
chapter three) illustrate that there is a relationship between students' gender, academic
achievement level, and students’ use of language learning strategies. Following are

[111]
 CHAPTER FOUR: RECOMMENDATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS

some instructions which try to advance the learners use of LLSs and (as a result) the
academic achievement.

1) Although students may be dissimilar in their knowledge of strategies, understanding

about assignments for successful strategy use should be submitted to direct them to
become more determined learners of the target language. For that reason, teachers
may present the learning strategies and explain how to take suitable strategies to fit
students’ needs in various learning tasks. Additionally, many applications would help
students well know the different learning strategies, then they grown-up using those
numerous strategies spontaneously. This implication would be connected to the idea of
autonomous learning concentrating on personal needs and goals.

2) Teachers and students should raise their knowledge of these different strategies
through suitable training for both groups. Better student awareness about strategies can
guide them to be certain, self-reliant, and successful language learners (Abu-Radwan,
2011). Successful language learners have the capacity to connect specific categories of
language learning strategies in practical manner according to their own learning needs.

3) Teachers can take direct actions in language classrooms in terms of combining

explicit and implicit strategy instructions into the daily lessons (Cohen, 2003).

4) Explicit training in strategy use is fundamental, because it permits students with

different competence levels to exercise a long list of these strategies.

5) The findings revealed that high proficient students recorded more strategy use than
low-proficient students. This signify that learners at different levels have different
needs. The teacher have to be explicit in promoting knowledge for low-proficiency
learners, this will be useful to enhance understanding of the what and how of
successful language learning.

6) Researchers have supported that strategy training should be combined into language
curriculum (e.g., Khalil, 2005; Abu-Radwan, 2011). Therefore, teachers should
include different tasks and activities that target strategies which are basic for success
in learning a second language. The fact that students with various proficiency levels

[112]
 CHAPTER FOUR: RECOMMENDATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS

make use of different learning strategies should lead the improvement of instructional
materials (Chamot & O’Malley, 1995).

7) Materials such as textbooks should be evaluated by the teachers in order to see

whether they already include language learning strategies or language learning strategy
training.

4.9.1. Limitations of the Study

It is hoped that the current study has presented valuable information to the study of
assessing LLS use by the 1st year EFL students at Mascara University. As with any
other study there are some limitations, but none of them is a risk to the validity of the
research. Though, these limitations may give suggestions for future researchers on
how the use of LLSs might be further investigated. The limitations of this study were
as follows:

1) Since the questionnaire was the main instrument in this study, its data is based on
self-report, so it is possible in the questionnaire that the students overestimated or
underestimated how frequently they use certain strategies.

2) The participants in this study were limited to the 1st year EFL students at the
department of English language at the University of Mascara. This excludes graduate
and post graduate English language students in different years and at different
departments .

3) The study aims at assessing the use of LLSs by 1st year EFL students; and the
relationship between the students' language learning strategies, gender and academic
achievement. This is not to refuse the fact that factors other than gender may also
influence the use of LLSs. However, the present study is not concerned of all the
possible factors.

[113]
 CHAPTER FOUR: RECOMMENDATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS

4.9.2. Suggestions for Further Research

1) The literature review presented in this study revealed that, in the area of Arab EFL
in general and Algerian EFL in particular, LLSs have not been investigated enough.
Therefore, further researchers are highly recommended to conduct experimental, and
cross-sectional studies on Arab EFL learners in general and Algerian EFL students in
particular. These types of studies can provide a better understanding of Arab and
Algerian EFL learners' LLS use.

2) Other studies should investigate the LLS use of EFL learners at different ages and
different educational levels, i.e. middle school, secondary school.

3) More research on the factors that affect strategy choice would be valuable. Learning
style is a crucial factor, along with age, nationality, beliefs, and previous educational
and cultural experiences.

4) Future researchers may use multiple-method approaches such as observation, think-

aloud, and diaries.

5) Investigating the effect of training on LLS use, including the success of use, is a
vital issue to take into consideration in further research.

4.10. Conclusion

At the end of this chapter it is necessary that learning strategies research continues,
for a better understanding of the learning and teaching process. Language learning
strategy instruction can take part in the improvement of learner autonomy and increase
teacher competence, still, research in particular language learning framework is
essential to understand it and to improve second language acquisition.

Learning strategies are instruments that learners use to raise their language
learning. They are one of the flexible element that make distinction between successful
and less successful language learners. The researches of learning strategies can be
done in different ways according to the researcher approach. This studies attempt to
determine and examine how language is learned. The findings aid to inform language

[114]
 CHAPTER FOUR: RECOMMENDATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS

teachers how to prepare less proficient learners to become more proficient in language
learning. As a consequence of that, there have been different language learning
strategies instruction plans, i.e. awareness training, and strategies-based instruction.

All kinds of strategies training include the improvement of the learners' LLSs.
The instructions for realizing strategy training programs present a collection of
alternatives in order to make the training fit all the students. The crucial concerns in
planning a strategy training program are the students' needs, the accessible resources
(e.g., time, money, materials), and the usefulness of administering this type of
instruction. Yet, it is so substantial (When integrating LLSI in a second language
curriculum) to pick out an instructional model that presents the strategies to the
students and increases recognition of their learning alternatives; teaches them to
recognize, apply, assess, and transmit strategies to new learning status; and encourages
learner autonomy.

[115]
 GENERAL CONCLUSION

GENERAL CONCLUSION

Many studies have proved that foreign language achievement is related to language
learning strategies (e.g. Intaraprasert, 2000; Oxford, 1989). Hence, to promote the
learners’ efficient language learning, language learning strategies is an essential point
to pay attention to. One way to help students improve learning outcomes is to identify
the language learning strategy they use. Added to that, there is sufficient evidence that
language learning strategy use benefit many students not only high achieving students,
but also underachieving ones (Chamot, 1996; Cohen, 1998). This benefit could
empower students to be more successful in their language learning.

This dissertation was a descriptive study based on a survey research. It is divided

into four parts. The first chapter provides the base for the research as it tries to cover
the field of language learning strategy. The second chapter tries to provide a
description and analysis of the teaching/learning situation in Algeria in order to shed
light on the students' educational background. The research design and data collection
procedures are presented along with the research questions, the research instruments
and the profile of the subjects in question.

As for the third chapter, the relevant data obtained were presented in order to
answer three research questions: the first question "What are the language learning
strategies used by the first year EFL students at the University of Mascara as reported
in the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL)?", the second question "Are
there differences in the students’ language learning strategy use regarding gender?",
and the third question "Are there differences in the students’ language learning
strategy use regarding their academic achievement?". Consequently, The findings
revealed that the overall use of LLS by the students is medium (M=3.23). The average
of six groups' strategy use ranged from 3.72 to 2.79. As for strategy categories, meta-
cognitive strategies was the most frequently used strategy (M=3.72) and memory

[117]
 GENERAL CONCLUSION

strategy was the least frequently used (M=2.79). The interviews analyze support these
findings.

Furthermore, there are statistically no significant differences between male and

female students in the use of the overall strategies and in the use of the six categories
of strategies except in the use of the affective strategies which has a significant
difference in favor of female (Sig=0.011). From the analysis of the correlation between
the academic achievement results and the students' learning strategy use , it was shown
that there are statistically a significant and positive relationship between the students’
academic achievement and three of language learning strategies (Affective strategies
(r=0.065, p <0.05), Cognitive strategies (r=0.118, p <0.05) and Meta-cognitive
strategies (r=0.208, p <0.01). Moreover the student’s achievement is explained by two
categories of strategies, namely: Cognitive strategies (F=3.605, p=0.029) and Meta-
cognitive strategies (F=4.167, p=0.017). So these strategies effect positively students’
achievement. The findings reported above confirm totally the first hypotheses and it
support partially the second and the third hypotheses.

Since language learners use language learning strategies to complete a language

learning task or to solve a problem, Thus, for guiding learners towards the effective
use of learning strategies, many researchers suggests to integrate Language Learning
Strategy Instruction (LLSI) into daily language lessons. Therefore, this chapter
provides an overview of language learning strategies instruction and discusses the
definitions, importance, types of language learning strategies instructions, options for
providing LLSI, and models of LLSI, implementing LLSI into language classroom. By
the end of this chapter, pedagogical implications, limitations of the study, and
recommendation for further research are presented in turn.

Finally, we may conclude that the attention is no more paid to “what to learn”, but
points out the significance of “how to learn”. With respect to this, a role of teachers
and learners has changed as well. Teachers no more provide learners only with
knowledge but with the methods, ways and strategies that enable the pupils to become
more effective on their pathways to success. In other words, they help learners to reach
the competence to learn.

[118]
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ahmed Ismail, S. A., & Al Khatib, A.Z. (2013). Investigating the Language Learning
Strategies of Students in the Foundation Program of United Arab Emirates University.
International Education Studies; Vol. 6, No. 9; 2013. Published by Canadian Center of
Science and Education. http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ies.v6n9p135.

Al khatib, M. (2008). Innovative Second and Foreign Language Education in the

Middle East and North Africa. In HORNBERGER, N.H (Ed.) Encyclopedia of
Language and Education, 2nd Edition Springer.

Anderson, N. (2005). L2 learning strategies. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research

in second language teaching and learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.

Anugkakul, G., & Yordchim, S. (2014). Language learning strategies of Chinese

students at Suan Sunandha Rajabhat University in Thailand. Language acquisition,
1(2).

Benmostefa, N. (2013). Reflections upon the Baccalaureate EFL Tests as a Source of

and a Means for Innovation and Change in ELT in Algeria (Doctorate Thesis).

Bialystok, E. (1978) "A theoretical model of second language learning", Language

Learning, Vol.28, No.1, 69-83

Blazkova, M. (2011) Language Learning Strategies in Learning English as a Foreign

Language. University of Pardubice Faculty of Arts and Philosophy
(Doctorate Thesis).

Bouyakoub, N. (2011). Exploring Writing in an Academic Context: The Case of First-

Year University Students (Doctorate Thesis).

Brown, J.D. (1989). Language program evaluation: a synthesis of existing possibilities

in K.Johnson (ed.): The Second Language Curriculum. Cambridge University Press.

Brown, J.D. (1997). Designing surveys for language programs in D. Nunan and D.
Griffee (eds.): Classroom Teachers and Classroom research. Tokyo: Japan Association
for Language Teaching. Pp.55-70.

Brown, J.D. (2001). Using surveys in Language Programs. Cambridge University

Press.

Brown, J. D. and Rodgers, T. S. (2004). Doing Second Language Research. Oxford

Handbooks for Language Teachers.

[120]
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Chamot, A. U., & O'Malley, J. M. (1994). "The CALLA handbook: Implementing the
cognitive academic language learning approach." Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
White Plains, NY: Addison Wesley Longman.

Chamot et al (1999). Children's learning strategies in immersion classrooms. The

Modern Language Journal, 83(3), 319-341.

Cohen, A. (1996). A synthesis of approaches to assessing language learning

strategies. In R. Oxford (Ed.), Language learning strategies around the world: Cross
cultural perspective. Hawaii: University of Hawaii Press.

Cohen, A. (1998). "Strategies in learning and using a second language." New York:
Longman.

Cohen, A. (2003). Strategy Training for Second Language Learners. ERIC

Clearinghouse on Languages and Linguistics

Djebbari , Z. (2009). Pronunciation training to EFL learners’ self-confidence: An

action research on first year EFL students at Abou Bakr Belkaid University, Tlemcen.
Unpublished Magister Dissertation. Faculty of Arts, Human and Social Sciences,
Department of Foreign Languages, Section of English.

Griffths, C. (2003) Language learning strategy use and proficiency. Doctor of

Philosophy, Department of Education, University of Auckland.

Hakan, K., & Aydina, B. (2015). An Investigation Of Undergraduates’ Language

Learning Strategies. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 197 ( 2015 ) 1348 –
1354.

Haoyang Cheng, H., Wu, G., Gao, L., Zhu, J. & Liu, D. (2014). Research on Status
and Characteristics of the Mastery of Students' Mathematical Learning Strategies in
Chinese Junior High Schools. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 116 ( 2014
) 3218 – 3225. 5th World Conference on Educational Sciences - WCES 2013.

Hashemi, Z., & Hadavi, M. (2015). Investigation Of Vocabulary Learning Strategies

Among EFL Iranian Medical Sciences Students. Procedia - Social and Behavioral
Sciences. 192 (2015). 629 – 637. 2nd global conference on linguistics and foreign
language teaching, linelt-2014, Dubai – United Arab Emirates, December 11 – 13,
2014

Holec, H. (1988). "Autonomy and self-directed learning: Present fields of application.

Project no. 12: Learning and teaching modern languages for communication."
Strasbourg, France: Council for Cultural Co-operation.

Huang, S., & Chen, I. (2009). A study of language learning strategies used by applied
English major students in University of Technology. http://eshare.stut.edu.tw/ir

[121]
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Jhaish, M. A. (2010). The Relationship among Learning Styles, Language Learning

Strategies, and the Academic Achievement among the English Majors at Al-Aqsa
University, Master dissertation, Palestine, 2009-2010.

Khamkhien, A. (2010). Factors affecting language learning strategy reported usage

by Thai and Vietnamese EFL learners. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language
Teaching, 7(1), 66-85.

Kinoshita, C. (2003) Integrating Language Learning Strategy Instruction into

ESL/EFL Lessons. The Internet TESL Journal, Vol. IX, No. 4, April 2003

Kozmonova, M. (2008) Language Learning Strategies and Their Training in a

Primary English Class. Diploma Thesis MASARYK University Faculty of Education

Kunasaraphan, K. (2015). English Learning Strategy and Proficiency Level of the First
Year Students. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 197 ( 2015 ) 1853 – 1858.
7th World Conference on Educational Sciences, (WCES-2015), 05-07 February 2015,
Athens, Greece.

Lan, R. L. (2005). Language Learning Strategies Profiles of EFL Elementary School

Students in Taiwan. Doctor of Philosophy., Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of
Maryland, College Park,

Lee, C. K. (2010). An Overview of Language Learning Strategies ARECLS, 2010,

Vol.7, 132-152.

Liu , J. (2010) Language Learning Strategies and Its Training Model. International
Education Studies Vol. 3, No. 3; August 2010

Marttinen, M. (2008). Vocabulary Learning Strategies Used by Upper Secondary

School Students Studying English as a Second Language. University of Jyvaskyla,
Finland.

Olah, B. (2006). ESL learning strategies, motivation, and proficiency: A comparative

study of university and high school students in Japan. Journal of ESL, 8(1), 189-205.

O' Malley, J. M., & Chamopt, A. U. (1990). Learning strategies in second language
acquisition. (1990). learning strategies in second language acquisition. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.

Oxford, Rebecca L. (1990) Language learning strategies: What every teacher

shouldknow. New York: Newbury House

Oxford, R. (1999), Relationships between second language learning strategies and

language proficiency in the context of learner autonomy and self- regulation, Rebecca
L. Oxford, University of Alabama. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses, No. 38,
1999, págs. 109-126.

[122]
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Oxford, R. L. (2003). Relationships between second language learning strategies and

proficiency in the context of learner autonomy and self-regulation. Revista Canaria de
Estudios Ingleses (Canarian Journal of English Studies), 38, 109-126.

Oxford, R. & Nyikos, M. (1989). Variables affecting choices of language learning

strategies by university students. Modern Language Journal, 73, 291-300.

Oxford, R. L., Crookall, D., Cohen, A., Lavine, R., Nyikos, M., & Sutter, W. (1990).
Strategy training for language learners: Six situational case studies and a training
model. "Foreign Language Annals, 22," 197-216.

Oxford et al (1995). Assessing the use of language learning

strategies worldwide with the ESL/EFL version of the Strategy Inventory for language
Learning (SILL). System, 23, 153-175.

Pearson, P. D., & Dole, J. A. (1987). Explicit comprehension instruction: A review of

research and a new conceptualization of learning. "Elementary School Journal, 88,"
151-65. Pintrich, P. R., & De Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated
learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 82(1), 33-40.

Politzer, R. (1983). An exploratory study of self reported language learning

behaviours and their relationship to gains in linguistic and communicative
competence. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 103-124.

Prakongchati N (2007) Factors Related to the use of language learning strategies by

thai public University Freshmen; Doctor Thesis Suranaree University of Technology.

Rubin, J. (1996). Using multimedia for learner strategy instruction. In Oxford, R.L.
(Ed.), "Language learning strategies around the world: Cross-cultural perspectives"
(pp. 151-56). Honolulu: University of Hawaii, Second Language Teaching &
Curriculum Center.

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

Seddigh, F. S., N. (2012). . , 5(2), . (2012). Vocabulary learning strategies of medical

students at Shiraz University of Medical Sciences. English Language Teaching, 5(2),
160-173.

Tabeti, S., Benmostefa, N., & Benabou, D. (2016). The relationship between language
learning strategy use, language proficiency and learner gender :Case study of 1st year
EFL students at Mascara University. Paper presented at the 1st National Conference :
Ingénierie de la formation en langue dans les universités algériennes : Etat des lieux et
perspectives de recherche. Mascara University (Algeria), 1 & 2 June 2016.

[123]
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Tamada, Y., (1996) Japanese Learners' Language Learning Strategies: The

Relationship between Learners' Personal Factors andTheir Choices of Language
Learning Strategies. Master's Thesis, Lancaster University, England.

Williams, M. & Burden, R.L. (1997). Psychology for Language Teachers: A Social
Constructivist Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

[124]
 APPENDICES

Appendix A : Letter Seeking Permission to Carry Out Research

Appendix B : Letter of Approval to Conduct Research in the Department of English

Language.

Appendix C : A Sample of the SILL Questionnaire

Appendix D : A Sample of the Arabic version of the SILL Questionnaire

Appendix E : A Sample of the Response Sheet for the SILL Questionnaire

Appendix F : Students’ Interview

Appendix G : Teachers’ Interview

Appendix H : Selected Extracts of Students’ Responses Through Interview

Appendix I : Selected Extracts of Teachers’ Responses Through Interview

Appendix J : The Final Academic Results of the First Year EFL Students

[125]
 Appendix A: Letter Seeking Permission to Carry Out Research

In the Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful

Dear sir: Head of English Language Department

Peace be upon you,

Subject: Request for conducting the research tools at the English language
department.

First of all, I highly appreciate being a post-graduate student who used to be

your student at the graduate level. Referring to the above subject, I am doing an
investigation through a magister degree thesis entitled:

Assessing Language Learning Strategy Use:

st
The Case of 1 Year EFL Students at the University of Mascara.

For conducting my research, I adopted the oxford's (1990) Strategy Inventory

for Language Learning (SILL) questionnaire and the oxford placement test as
well as a students’ interview.

I would be very grateful if you would referee my research tools to be conducted

at the department of foreign languages section of English with the 1 st year EFL
students.

Kind regards.

Researcher: Tabeti Soumia

[126]
Appendix B: Letter of Approval to Conduct Research in the
Department of English Language.

[127]
 Appendix C: A Sample of the SILL Questionnaire
Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) Version 7.0 (ESL/EFL)

Source: Oxford (1990)

Directions
This form of the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) is for students of
English as a second or foreign language.
You will find statements about learning English. Please read each statement. On the
separate worksheet, write the response (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) that tells how true of you the
statement is.
1. Never or almost never true of me
2. Usually not true of me
3. Somewhat true of me
4. Usually true of me
5. Always or almost always true of me

Part A
1. I think of relationships between what I already know and new things I learn in
English.
2. I use new English words in a sentence so I can remember them.
3. I connect the sound of a new English word and an image or picture of the word to
help me remember the word.
4. I remember a new English word by making a mental picture of a situation in which
the word might be used.
5. I use rhymes to remember new English words.
6. I use flashcards to remember new English words.
7. I physically act out new English words.
8. I review English lessons often.
9. I remember new English words or phrases by remembering their location on the
page, on the board, or on a street sign.

Part B
10. I say or write new English words several times.
11. I try to talk like native English speakers.
12. I practice the sounds of English.
13. I use the English words I know in different ways.
14. I start conversations in English.
15. I watch English language TV shows spoken in English or go to movies spoken in
English.
16. I read for pleasure in English.
17. I write notes, messages, letters, or reports in English.
18. I first skim an English passage (read over the passage quickly) then go back and
read carefully.
19. I look for words in my own language that are similar to new words in English.
[128]
20. I try to find patterns in English.
21. I find the meaning of an English word by dividing it into parts that I understand.
22. I try not to translate word-for-word.
23. I make summaries of information that I hear or read in English.
Part C
24. To understand unfamiliar words, I make guesses.
25. When I can’t think of a word during a conversation in English, I use gestures.
26. I make up new words if I don’t know the right ones in English.
27. I read English without looking up every new word.
28. I try to guess what the other person will say next in English.
29. If I can’t think of an English word, I use a word or phrase that means the same
thing.

Part D
30. I try to find as many ways as I can to use my English.
31. I notice my English mistakes and use that information to help me do better.
32. I pay attention when someone is speaking English.
33. I try to find out how to be a better learner of English.
34. I plan my schedule so I will have enough time to study English.
35. I look for people I can talk to in English.
36. I look for opportunities to read as much as possible in English.
37. I have clear goals for improving my English skills.
38. I think about my progress in learning English.

Part E
39. I try to relax whenever I feel afraid of using English.
40. I encourage myself to speak English even when I am afraid of making mistakes.
41. I give myself a reward or treat when I do well in English.
42. I notice if I am tense or nervous when I am studying or using English.
43. I write down my feelings in a language learning diary.
44. I talk to someone else about how I feel when I am learning English.

Part F
45. If I don’t understand something in English, I ask the other person to slow down or
say it again.
46. I ask English speakers to correct me when I talk.
47. I practice English with other students.
48. I ask for help from English speakers.
49. I ask questions in English.
50. I try to learn about the culture of English speakers

[129]
 ‫‪Appendix D: A Sample of the Arabic version of the SILL‬‬
‫‪Questionnaire‬‬

‫اﺳﺘﺒﯿﺎن ﺣﻮل اﺳﺘﺮاﺗﯿﺠﯿﺎت ﺗﻌﻠﻢ اﻟﻠﻐﺔ‬

‫)‪Arabic Version of Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL‬‬

‫)‪Version 7.0 (ESL/EFL‬‬

‫‪© R. Oxford, 1989‬‬

‫ﻧﻤﻮذج ﺧﺎص ﻟﺪارﺳﻲ اﻟﻠﻐﺔ اﻹﻧﺠﻠﯿﺰﯾﺔ ﻣﻦ اﻟﻨﺎطﻘﯿﻦ ﺑﺎﻟﻠﻐﺎت اﻷﺧﺮى‬

‫اﻟﺘﻌﻠﯿﻤﺎت‬
‫ھﺬا اﻟﻨﻤﻮذج ُﻣﺨﺼﺺ ﻟﺪارﺳﻲ اﻟﻠﻐ ِﺔ اﻹﻧﺠﻠﯿﺰﯾ ِﺔ ﻛﻠُﻐ ٍﺔ ﺛﺎﻧﯿ ٍﺔ أو أﺟﻨﺒﯿ ْﺔ‪ .‬ﺳﺘُﻌﺮضُ ﻋﻠﯿﻚَ ِﻋﺒﺎرات‬
‫ﯾﺘﻌﯿﻦ ﻋﻠﯿﻚ ﻗﺮاءﺗِﮭﺎ‪ .‬ﺿﻊ ﻋﻼﻣﺔ ‪ X‬ﻓﻲ اﻟﺨﺎﻧﺔ اﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﻌﺒﱢﺮ ﻋﻦ‬ ‫ُ‬ ‫ﺗﺘﻌﻠ ُ‬
‫ﻖ ﺑﺘﻌﻠﻢ اﻟﻠﻐﺔ اﻹﻧﺠﻠﯿﺰﯾﺔ‬
‫ﻣﺪى ﺗﻄﺎﺑﻖ ھﺬه اﻟﻌﺒﺎرة ﻋﻠﻰ ﺣﺎﻟﺘﻚ‪.‬‬

‫‪ .1‬ﻻ ﺗﻨﻄﺒﻖ‪ٔ ،‬و ِدر ﺪاً ﻣﺎ ﺗﻨﻄﺒﻖ ﲆ ﺎﻟﱵ‪.‬‬

‫‪ٔ .2‬ﺣ ﺎ ً‪ ،‬ﺗﻨﻄﺒﻖ ﲆ ﺎﻟﱵ ) ٔﻗﻞ ﻣﻦ ﻧﺼﻒ ا ٔوﻗﺎت(‪.‬‬

‫ﻄﺒﻖ ﲆ ﺎﻟَﱵ) ﺗﻘﺮﯾﺒﺎ ﻧﺼﻒ ا ٔوﻗﺎت(‪.‬‬

‫‪ .3‬إﱃ ٍﺪ ﻣﺎ‪ ،‬ﺗ ْﻨ ُ‬

‫‪ .4‬ﺎﻟﺒ ًﺎ‪ ،‬ﺗﻨﻄﺒﻖ ﲆ ﺎﻟﱵ ) ٔ ٓ ﺮ ﻣﻦ ﻧﺼﻒ ا ٔوﻗﺎت(‪.‬‬

‫‪ .5‬داﲚ ًﺎ ﻣﺎ ﺗﻨﻄﺒﻖ ﲆ ﺎﻟﱵ‬

‫أﺟﺐ إﻟﻰ أي ﻣﺪى ﺗﻨﻄﺒﻖ ھﺬه اﻟﻌﺒﺎرات ﻋﻠﻰ ﺣﺎﻟﺘﻚ‪ .‬ﺗﺬﻛﺮ أﻧﮫ ﻻ ﺗﻮﺟﺪ ھﻨﺎك إﺟﺎﺑﺔ ﺻﺤﯿﺤﺔ‬
‫أو ﺧﺎطﺌﺔ ﺑﯿﻦ ھﺬه اﻟﻌﺒﺎرات‪،‬‬
‫ﻓﻠﺬﻟﻚ ﻻ ﺗﻘﻢ ﺑﺎﺧﺘﯿﺎر إﺟﺎﺑﺔ ﺗﻌﺘﻘﺪ ﺑﺄﻧﮭﺎ ھﻲ اﻹﺟﺎﺑﺔ اﻟﻤﺜﺎﻟﯿﺔ‪ ،‬وﻻ ﺗﺨﺘﺮ إﺟﺎﺑﺔ ﺗﻌﻜﺲ ﻣﺎ ﯾﻔﻌﻠﮫ‬
‫زﻣﻼﺋﻚ ﻓﻲ اﻟﻘﺴﻢ‪ .‬ﺣﺎول اﻹﺟﺎﺑﺔ ﺑﺴﺮﻋﺔ وﺑﻌﻨﺎﯾﺔ‪ ،‬ﺣﯿﺚ ﯾﺴﺘﻐﺮق إﻛﻤﺎل اﻻﺳﺘﺒﯿﺎن ﻋﺎدةً ﻣﺎ‬
‫ﺑﯿﻦ ‪ 7‬دﻗﺎﺋﻖ و ‪ 10‬دﻗﺎﺋﻖ ‪ .‬ﺷﻜﺮا ﻣﺴﺒﻘﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﺘﻌﺎون‪.‬‬

‫]‪[130‬‬
 ‫داﺋﻤﺎ‬ ‫ﻏﺎﻟﺒﺎ‬ ‫إﻟﻰ ﺣﺪ ﻣﺎ‬ ‫أﺣﯿﺎﻧﺎ‬ ‫ﻻ‬
‫ﺗﻘﺮﯾﺒﺎ‬ ‫أﻛﺜﺮ ﻣﻦ‬ ‫ﺗﻘﺮﯾﺒﺎ‬ ‫اﻗﻞ ﻣﻦ‬ ‫ﺗﻨﻄﺒﻖ‬ ‫اﻹﺳﺘﺮاﺗﯿﺠﯿﺎت‬
‫‪%100‬‬ ‫‪%75‬‬ ‫‪%50‬‬ ‫‪%25‬‬ ‫أو‬
‫ﻧﺎدرا‬
‫ﺗﻘﺮﯾﺒﺎ‬
‫‪%0‬‬
‫أرﺑﻂ ﺑﯿﻦ ﻣﺎ أﻋﺮﻓﮫ و ﺑﯿﻦ اﻟﻤﻌﻠﻮﻣﺎت اﻟﺠﺪﯾﺪة اﻟﺘﻲ أﺗﻌﻠﻤﮭﺎ ﻓﻲ اﻹﻧﺠﻠﯿﺰﯾﺔ‪.‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬

‫أﺳﺘﻌ ِﻤ ُﻞ اﻟﻜﻠﻤﺎت اﻹﻧﺠﻠﯿﺰﯾﺔ اﻟﺠﺪﯾﺪة ﻓﻲ ﺟﻤﻠﺔ ﻛﻲ أﺗﺬﻛﺮھﺎ‪.‬‬ ‫‪2‬‬

‫أرﺑُﻂ ﻣﺎ ﺑﯿﻦ ﺻﻮت اﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ اﻹﻧﺠﻠﯿﺰﯾﺔ اﻟﺠﺪﯾﺪة ﻣﻊ ﺻﻮرة أو رﺳﻢ ﻟﻠﻜﻠﻤﺔ ﻟﺘﺴﺎﻋﺪﻧﻲ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺗﺬﻛﺮھﺎ‪.‬‬ ‫‪3‬‬

‫أﺗﺬﻛ ُﺮ اﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ اﻹﻧﺠﻠﯿﺰﯾﺔ اﻟﺠﺪﯾﺪة ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼل ﺻﻨﻊ ﺻﻮرة ذھﻨﯿﺔ ﻟﻤﻮﻗﻒ ﻗﺪ ﺗﺴﺘﺨﺪم ﻓﯿﮫ ھﺬه اﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ‪.‬‬ ‫‪4‬‬

‫أﺳﺘﺨﺪم اﻹﻗﺎع اﻟﻤﻮﺳﯿﻘﻲ ﻟﺘﺬﻛﺮ اﻟﻜﻠﻤﺎت اﻹﻧﺠﻠﯿﺰﯾﺔ اﻟﺠﺪﯾﺪة‪.‬‬ ‫‪5‬‬

‫أﺳﺘﺨﺪ ُم ﺑﻄﺎﻗﺎت ﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ اﻟﻤﻔﺮدات اﻟﺠﺪﯾﺪة ﻛﻲ أﺗﺬﻛﺮ اﻟﻜﻠﻤﺎت اﻹﻧﺠﻠﯿﺰﯾﺔ اﻟﺠﺪﯾﺪة‪.‬‬ ‫‪6‬‬

‫أﻗﻮم ﺑﺘﻤﺜﯿﻞ اﻟﻜﻠﻤﺎت اﻹﻧﺠﻠﯿﺰﯾﺔ اﻟﺠﺪﯾﺪة ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﺣﺮﻛﻲ‪.‬‬ ‫‪7‬‬

‫أُراﺟﻊ دروس اﻟﻠﻐﺔ اﻹﻧﺠﻠﯿﺰﯾﺔ ﺑﻜﺜﺮة‪.‬‬ ‫‪8‬‬

‫‪ 9‬أﺗﺬﻛﺮ اﻟﻜﻠﻤﺎت أو اﻟﻌﺒﺎرات اﻹﻧﺠﻠﯿﺰﯾﺔ اﻟﺠﺪﯾﺪة ﻋﻦ طﺮﯾﻖ ﺗﺬﻛﺮ ﻣﻮﻗﻌﮭﺎ ﻓﻲ اﻟﺼﻔﺤﺔ أو ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫اﻟﺴﺒﻮرة أو ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﻼﻓﺘﺎت ﻓﻲ اﻟﺸﺎرع‪.‬‬
‫‪ 10‬أﻗﻮم ﺑﺘﺮدﯾﺪ أو ﻛﺘﺎﺑﺔ اﻟﻜﻠﻤﺎت اﻹﻧﺠﻠﯿﺰﯾﺔ اﻟﺠﺪﯾﺪة ﻋﺪة ﻣﺮات‪.‬‬

‫‪ 11‬أﺣﺎول اﻟﺘﺤﺪث ﻣﺜﻞ اﻟﻨﺎطﻘﯿﻦ ﺑﺎﻟﻠﻐﺔ اﻹﻧﺠﻠﯿﺰﯾﺔ‪.‬‬

‫‪ 12‬أﺗﻤﺮنُ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻧﻄﻖ أﺻﻮات اﻟﻠﻐﺔ اﻹﻧﺠﻠﯿﺰﯾﺔ‪.‬‬

‫‪ 13‬أﺳﺘﺨﺪم اﻟﻜﻠﻤﺎت اﻹﻧﺠﻠﯿﺰﯾﺔ اﻟﺘﻲ أﻋﺮﻓﮭﺎ ﺑﻄﺮق ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ‪.‬‬

‫‪ 14‬أﺑﺎدر ﺑﺈﺟﺮاء ﻣﺤﺎدﺛﺎت ﺑﺎﻟﻠﻐﺔ اﻹﻧﺠﻠﯿﺰﯾﺔ‪.‬‬

‫‪ 15‬أﺣﺮص ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺸﺎھﺪة اﻟﺒﺮاﻣﺞ اﻟﺘﻠﻔﺰﯾﻮﻧﯿﺔ و اﻷﻓﻼم اﻟﺴﯿﻨﻤﺎﺋﯿﺔ اﻟﻨﺎطﻘﺔ ﺑﺎﻹﻧﺠﻠﯿﺰﯾﺔ‪.‬‬

‫‪ 16‬أﻗﺮأ ُ اﻟﻜﺘﺐ اﻹﻧﺠﻠﯿﺰﯾﺔ ﻣﻦ أﺟﻞ اﻟﺘﺴﻠﯿﺔ واﻟﺘﺮﻓﯿﮫ‪.‬‬

‫‪ 17‬أﺳﺘﺨﺪم اﻟﻠﻐﺔ اﻹﻧﺠﻠﯿﺰﯾﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻛﺘﺎﺑﺔ اﻟﻤﻼﺣﻈﺎت واﻟﺮﺳﺎﺋﻞ واﻟﻤﺮاﺳﻼت واﻟﺘﻘﺎرﯾﺮ‪.‬‬

‫‪ 18‬ﻋﻨﺪ ﻗﺮاءﺗﻲ ﻟﻨﺺ ﺑﺎﻟﻠﻐﺔ اﻹﻧﺠﻠﯿﺰﯾﺔ‪ ،‬أﻗﺮأه ﻟﻠﻤﺮة اﻷوﻟﻰ ﺑﺴﺮﻋﺔ‪ ،‬واﻟﺜﺎﻧﯿﺔ ﺑﺘﻤﮭﻞ وﻋﻨﺎﯾﺔ‪.‬‬

‫‪ 19‬أﺑﺤﺚ ﻋﻦ ﻛﻠﻤﺎت ﻓﻲ اﻟﻠﻐﺔ اﻟﻌﺮﺑﯿﺔ ﻣﻤﺎﺛﻠﺔ ﻟﺘﻠﻚ اﻟﻜﻠﻤﺎت اﻟﺠﺪﯾﺪة اﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﻌﻠﻤﺘﮭﺎ ﻓﻲ اﻟﻠﻐﺔ‬
‫اﻹﻧﺠﻠﯿﺰﯾﺔ‪.‬‬
‫‪ 20‬أﺣﺎول اﻟﺒﺤﺚ ﻋﻦ أﻧﻤﺎط )ﻗﻮاﻋﺪ( ﻓﻲ اﻟﻠﻐﺔ اﻹﻧﺠﻠﯿﺰﯾﺔ‪.‬‬

‫ﻲ ﻓﮭﻤﮭﺎ‪.‬‬
‫‪ 21‬أﺟﺪ ﻣﻌﻨﻰ اﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ اﻹﻧﺠﻠﯿﺰﯾﺔ ﻋﻦ طﺮﯾﻖ ﺗﻘﺴﯿﻤﮭﺎ إﻟﻰ ﻣﻘﺎطﻊ ﯾﺴﮭﻞ ﻋﻠ ﱠ‬
‫‪ 22‬أﺣﺎول ﺗﺠﻨﺐ اﻟﺘﺮﺟﻤﺔ اﻟﺤﺮﻓﯿﺔ‪.‬‬

‫‪ 23‬أﻗﻮم ﺑﺈﻋﺪاد ﻣﻠﺨﺼﺎت ﻟﻠﻤﻌﻠﻮﻣﺎت اﻟﺠﺪﯾﺪة اﻟﺘﻲ أﺳﻤﻌﮭﺎ أو أﻗﺮأھﺎ ﺑﺎﻟﻠﻐﺔ اﻹﻧﺠﻠﯿﺰﯾﺔ‬

‫‪ 24‬أﺣﺎول ﻓﮭﻢ اﻟﻜﻠﻤﺎت اﻹﻧﺠﻠﯿﺰﯾﺔ اﻟﺘﻲ ﻻ أﻋﺮﻓﮭﺎ ﻋﻦ طﺮﯾﻖ ﺗﻮﻗﻊ ﻣﻌﺎﻧﯿﮭﺎ‪.‬‬

‫‪ 25‬ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻻ أﺟﺪ اﻟﻜﻠﻤﺎت اﻟﻤﻨﺎﺳﺒﺔ أﺛﻨﺎء اﻟﺘﺤﺪث ﺑﺎﻟﻠﻐﺔ اﻹﻧﺠﻠﯿﺰﯾﺔ أﻋﺒﺮ ﻋﻨﮭﺎ ﺑﺎﻹﺷﺎرة‪.‬‬

‫]‪[131‬‬
‫‪ 26‬أﻗﻮم ﺑﺎﺳﺘﺨﺪام ﻛﻠﻤﺎت ﺟﺪﯾﺪة ﺗﻌﺒﺮ ﻋﻦ اﻟﻤﻌﻨﻰ اﻟﻤﺮاد إن ﻛﻨﺖ ﻻ أﻋﺮف اﻟﻜﻠﻤﺎت اﻟﺼﺤﯿﺤﺔ ﻟﺬﻟﻚ‬
‫ﻓﻲ اﻟﻠﻐﺔ اﻹﻧﺠﻠﯿﺰﯾﺔ‬
‫‪ 27‬أﻗﻮم ﺑﺎﻟﻘﺮاءة ﺑﺎﻟﻠﻐﺔ اﻹﻧﺠﻠﯿﺰﯾﺔ دون اﻟﺒﺤﺚ ﻋﻦ ﻣﻌﺎﻧﻲ ﺟﻤﯿﻊ اﻟﻜﻠﻤﺎت اﻟﺠﺪﯾﺪة‪.‬‬

‫‪ 28‬أﺛﻨﺎء اﻟﺘﺤﺪث ﺑﺎﻟﻠﻐﺔ اﻹﻧﺠﻠﯿﺰﯾﺔ‪ ،‬أﺣﺎول اﻟﺘﻨﺒﺆ ﺑﻤﺎ ﺳﯿﺘﺤﺪث ﺑﮫ اﻟﻄﺮف اﻵﺧﺮ‪.‬‬

‫‪ 29‬إذا ﻟﻢ اﺳﺘﻄﻊ ﺗﺬﻛﺮ ﻛﻠﻤﺔ إﻧﺠﻠﯿﺰﯾﺔ ﻣﺎ‪ ،‬أﺣﺎول اﺳﺘﺨﺪام ﻛﻠﻤﺔ أو ﻋﺒﺎرة ﻗﺮﯾﺒﺔ ﻟﮭﺎ ﻓﻲ اﻟﻤﻌﻨﻰ‪.‬‬

‫‪ 30‬أﺣﺎول ﻗﺪر اﻹﻣﻜﺎن إﯾﺠﺎد طﺮق ﻋﺪة ﻻﺳﺘﺨﺪام ﻟﻐﺘﻲ اﻹﻧﺠﻠﯿﺰﯾﺔ‪.‬‬

‫‪ 31‬أﺣﺎول إدراك أﺧﻄﺎﺋﻲ ﻓﻲ اﻟﻠﻐﺔ اﻹﻧﺠﻠﯿﺰﯾﺔ‪ ،‬ﻛﻲ أﺗﺪارﻛﮭﺎ‪ ،‬وأﺣﺴﱢﻦَ ﻣﻦ ﻣﺴﺘﻮاي‪.‬‬

‫‪ 32‬أﺻﻐﻲ ﺑﺎﻧﺘﺒﺎه ﻟﻤﻦ ﯾﺘﺤﺪث ﺑﺎﻟﻠﻐﺔ اﻹﻧﺠﻠﯿﺰﯾﺔ‪.‬‬

‫‪ 33‬أﺣﺎول أن أﺟﺪ ﻣﺎ ﯾﺠﻌﻠﻨﻲ ﻣﺘﻌﻠﻤﺎ ً أﻓﻀﻞ ﻟﻠﻐﺔ اﻹﻧﺠﻠﯿﺰﯾﺔ‪.‬‬

‫‪ 34‬أﻋﺪ ﺑﺮﻧﺎﻣﺠﻲ اﻟﺪراﺳﻲ ﺑﺤﯿﺚ ﯾﺘﻮﻓﺮ ﻟﺪي اﻟﻮﻗﺖ اﻟﻼزم ﻟﺪراﺳﺔ اﻟﻠﻐﺔ اﻹﻧﺠﻠﯿﺰﯾﺔ‪.‬‬

‫‪ 35‬أﺑﺤﺚ ﻋﻦ أﺷﺨﺎص ﯾﻤﻜﻨﻨﻲ اﻟﺘﺤﺪث إﻟﯿﮭﻢ ﺑﺎﻟﻠﻐﺔ اﻹﻧﺠﻠﯿﺰﯾﺔ‪.‬‬

‫‪ 36‬أﺑﺤﺚ ﻋﻦ ﻓﺮص ﻟﻠﻘﺮاءة ﺑﺎﻟﻠﻐﺔ اﻹﻧﺠﻠﯿﺰﯾﺔ ﻗﺪر اﻹﻣﻜﺎن‪.‬‬

‫‪ 37‬ﻟﺪي أھﺪاف واﺿﺤﺔ ﻟﺘﺤﺴﯿﻦ ﻣﮭﺎراﺗﻲ ﻓﻲ اﻟﻠﻐﺔ اﻹﻧﺠﻠﯿﺰﯾﺔ‪.‬‬

‫‪ 38‬أﻓﻜﺮ ﺑﺎﻟﺘﻘﺪم اﻟﺬي أﺣﺮزه ﻓﻲ ﺗﻌﻠﻢ اﻟﻠﻐﺔ اﻹﻧﺠﻠﯿﺰﯾﺔ‪.‬‬

‫‪ 39‬أﺣﺎول ﺗﮭﺪﺋﺔ ﻧﻔﺴﻲ ﻛﻠﻤﺎ ﺷﻌﺮت ﺑﺎﻟﺨﻮف ﻣﻦ اﺳﺘﺨﺪام اﻟﻠﻐﺔ اﻹﻧﺠﻠﯿﺰﯾﺔ‪.‬‬

‫‪ 40‬أﺷﺠﻊ ﻧﻔﺴﻲ ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﺘﺤﺪث ﺑﺎﻹﻧﺠﻠﯿﺰﯾﺔ ﺣﺘﻰ ﻟﻮ ﻛﻨﺖ ﺧﺎﺋﻔﺎ ً ﻣﻦ أن أﺧﻄﺊ‪.‬‬

‫‪ 41‬أﻛﺎﻓﺊ ﻧﻔﺴﻲ ﻛﻠﻤﺎ أﺻﺒﺤﺖ أﻓﻀﻞ ﻓﻲ اﻟﻠﻐﺔ اﻹﻧﺠﻠﯿﺰﯾﺔ‪.‬‬

‫‪ 42‬أﺳﺘﻄﯿﻊ ﻣﻼﺣﻈﺔ اﻟﺘﻮﺗﺮ اﻟﺬي ﯾﺼﯿﺒﻨﻲ أﺛﻨﺎء دراﺳﺘﻲ و اﺳﺘﺨﺪاﻣﻲ ﻟﻠﻐﺔ اﻷﻧﺠﻠﯿﺰﯾﺔ‪.‬‬

‫‪ 43‬أدون ﻣﺸﺎﻋﺮي ﻓﻲ ﻣﻔﻜﺮة ﺧﺎﺻﺔ ﺑﺘﻌﻠﻢ اﻟﻠﻐﺔ اﻹﻧﺠﻠﯿﺰﯾﺔ‪.‬‬

‫‪ 44‬أﺗﺤﺪث إﻟﻰ ﺷﺨﺺ آﺧﺮ ﻋﻦ ﺷﻌﻮري ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ أﺗﻌﻠﻢ اﻟﻠﻐﺔ اﻹﻧﺠﻠﯿﺰﯾﺔ‪.‬‬

‫‪ 45‬إذا ﻟﻢ أﻓﮭﻢ ﺑﻌﺾ ﻣﺎ ﯾُﻘﺎل ﺑﺎﻟﻠﻐﺔ اﻹﻧﺠﻠﯿﺰﯾﺔ‪ ،‬أطﻠﺐ ﻣﻦ اﻟﻤﺘﺤﺪث أن ﯾﺒﻄﺊ ﻓﻲ اﻟﺤﺪﯾﺚ أو أن ﯾﻌﯿﺪ‬
‫ﺛﺎﻧﯿﺔً‪.‬‬
‫‪ 46‬أطﻠﺐ ﻣﻦ اﻟﻨﺎطﻘﯿﻦ ﺑﺎﻟﻠﻐﺔ اﻹﻧﺠﻠﯿﺰﯾﺔ ﺗﺼﺤﯿﺤﻲ ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ أﺗﺤﺪث‪.‬‬

‫‪ 47‬أﻣﺎرس اﻟﻠﻐﺔ اﻹﻧﺠﻠﯿﺰﯾﺔ ﻣﻊ اﻟﻄﻼب اﻵﺧﺮﯾﻦ‪.‬‬

‫‪ 48‬أطﻠﺐ اﻟﻤﺴﺎﻋﺪة ﻣﻦ اﻟﻨﺎطﻘﯿﻦ ﺑﺎﻟﻠﻐﺔ اﻹﻧﺠﻠﯿﺰﯾﺔ‪.‬‬

‫‪ 49‬أطﺮح اﻷﺳﺌﻠﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﻠﻐﺔ اﻹﻧﺠﻠﯿﺰﯾﺔ‪.‬‬

‫‪ 50‬أﺣﺎول أن أﺗﻌﻠﻢ ﻋﻦ ﺛﻘﺎﻓﺔ اﻟﻨﺎطﻘﯿﻦ اﻷﺻﻠﯿﯿﻦ ﺑﺎﻟﻠﻐﺔ اﻹﻧﺠﻠﯿﺰﯾﺔ ‪(Native speakers‬‬

‫‪culture).‬‬

‫]‪[132‬‬
 ‫اﻟﻤﻌﻠﻮﻣﺎت اﻟﺸﺨﺼﯿﺔ‬

‫أﻧﺜﻰ‬ ‫اﻟﺠﻨﺲ‪ :‬ذﻛﺮ‬ ‫‪-‬‬

‫أﻛﺜﺮ‬ ‫‪ 20‬ﺳﻨﺔ‬ ‫‪ 19‬ﺳﻨﺔ‬ ‫‪ 18‬ﺳﻨﺔ‬ ‫اﻟﻌﻤﺮ‪ 17 :‬ﺳﻨﺔ‬ ‫‪-‬‬
‫ﻣﻦ ‪ 20‬ﺳﻨﺔ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻤﻲ‬ ‫ﺗﺨﺼﺼﻚ ﻓﻲ اﻟﺜﺎﻧﻮﯾﺔ ‪ :‬أدﺑﻲ‬ ‫‪-‬‬
‫ﻛﯿﻒ ﺗﻘﯿﻢ ﻣﺴﺘﻮاك اﻟﻌﺎم ﻓﻲ اﻟﻠﻐﺔ اﻻﻧﺠﻠﯿﺰﯾﺔ ﻣﻘﺎرﻧﺔ ﺑﺰﻣﻼﺋﻚ ﻓﻲ اﻟﺴﻨﺔ اﻷوﻟﻰ؟‬ ‫‪-‬‬
‫ﺿﻌﯿﻒ‬ ‫ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻂ‬ ‫ﺟﯿﺪ‬ ‫ﻣﻤﺘﺎز‬
‫ﻣﺤﺎﯾﺪ‬ ‫ﻻ‬ ‫ھﻞ ﺗﺴﺘﻤﺘﻊ ﺑﺘﻌﻠﻢ اﻟﻠﻐﺔ اﻻﻧﺠﻠﯿﺰﯾﺔ؟ ﻧﻌﻢ‬ ‫‪-‬‬

‫ﺷﻜﺮا ﻣﺮة أﺧﺮى ﻋﻠﻰ ﺗﻌﺎوﻧﻜﻢ ﻣﻌﻨﺎ‪.‬‬

‫]‪[133‬‬
Appendix E: A Sample of the Response Sheet for the SILL
Questionnaire

[134]
[135]
[136]
 Appendix F: Students’ Interview

Dear Students,

The present interview is an attempt to collect data which will help us to learn more
about you and your needs as a language student. In order to help us gain a more
accurate picture of learning strategy use among our students, you are requested to
answer the following questions and reflect your personal opinions.

Interview guide

Name: Sex: Age:

1) How long have you been leaning English? (Including study at school)

2) Why do you want to learn English? (eg: job, immigration, further education)

3) Which learning strategies do you use most? Why?

4) Which learning strategies do you use least? Why?

5) Which language learning strategies do you find most useful for learning English?
(for yourself)Why?

6) Do you think learning strategies can help you to learn English more effectively?
How?

7) Are there any other learning strategies you have found to be effective? Which ones?

[137]
8) Do you think the strategies you use have been affected by your

(b) gender

(c) age

(d) other factors

If so, what effect have these factors had?

9) (a) What do you find most difficult about learning English?

(b) Which strategies have you used to help overcome these difficulties?

10) What could your school or your teachers do to help you use learning strategies
more effectively?

Thank you

[138]
 Appendix G: Teachers’ Interview

Dear Teachers,

The present interview is an attempt to collect data which will help us gain a more
accurate picture of learning strategy use among our students. You are requested to
answer the following questions and reflect your personal opinions.

Interview guide

1) How long have you been teaching English?

2) Which learning strategies do your students use most? Why (in your opinion) ?

3) Which learning strategies do your students use least? Why (in your opinion)?

4) Which language learning strategies do you find most useful for learning English?
Why?

5) Do you think learning strategies can help the students to learn English more
effectively? How?

6) Are there any other learning strategies you have found to be effective? Which ones?

7) Do you think the strategies used by the students have been affected by their

(b) gender

(c) age

(d) other factors

Thank you

[139]
 Appendix H: Selected Extracts of Students’ Responses Through
Interview

student B. R. and C. Z. confirmed in their statement:

"I have no idea about flash card", "I never use flash card because
teachers never explain to us how to use it".

student C. R. confirmed this observation:

"Since the beginning of the academic year I have not stopped

watching TV channels in English, especially BBC, CNN and MBC 2".

student B. H. told us that:

"English movies motivate me a lot, because it greatly improves my

phonetics and enrich my vocabulary".

student B. H. made us the following statement:

"I do my best to talk like native English speakers, by imitating the

movies actors".

Student K. D. told us that:

"I intend to use gestures to deal with my lack of vocabulary, but

unfortunately I can't find the gestures which correspondents at best. For me
the gestures are appropriate with common words such as: large, small,
yesterday, tomorrow, all. But it is difficult to find the gesture for
complicated words".

student D.C. said that:

"Our teacher of the oral module encourages us to use phrases

instead of the words which we do not know. According to our teacher it is

[140]
 important to convey the idea in a way or another, but to do so he advised us
to not feel embarrassed".

The student C. F. told us the following:

"I try to carefully follow the oral teacher Madam D.R, She has a
phonetic us a native speaker. The movements of her mouth as well as here
gestures, motivates me to follow his speech."

. One thing that we confirmed a student when he said the following:

"To overcome the anxiety in the class, I often think about my

colleagues who have a less English level than me".

student made us the following statement:

"Anxiety in learning English, yes I feel it especially when I have to

expressed in front of my colleagues in the classroom."

student Q.C. confirmed that:

"Oral teacher almost insists in each course on the importance of

asking questions and interrupted him if someone did not understand
something."

student told us the following:

"I think I'm not supposed to ask my teacher to correct me when I'm
talking, because it's part of his role as a teacher. When it comes to the
colleagues in the class, I think it's difficult to ask someone who has same
level as you to correct you! "

[141]
 Appendix I: Selected Extracts of Teachers’ Responses Through
Interview

Statements of teacher ‘A’:

"I see more and more students who create bridges between what
they are learning in class and their old vocabulary. This observation is
more about grammar".

"I advice my students to find tips for get motivated, even if these tips
appear simple such as saying: if I finish reading this book I will have
the right to play soccer, or if I do my homework I have the right to
follow the movie that I like."

Statements of teacher ‘B’:

"very limited number of students who make the effort to connect the
new concepts and rules learned with old knowledge, unfortunately many
students are lazy."

"this strategy is used by students who have a Visual learning style".

"Advice students to follow the TV channels in English, such as BBC,

for example".

“This strategy is very effective, but it requires a good level in

French language, because there are a lot of bridges between the English
and the French language, one thing that is not given to the 1st year EFL
students”.

"he talks with his students about the things such as, for example,
organizing and planning their time and activities, setting goals, evaluating
progress, seeking chances to practice the English language".

[142]
Statements of teacher ‘B’:

"In my experience of teaching English for several years, I can

confirm that those students who have a good level of French guess quickly
and easily the vocabulary in English. These students improve rapidly the
learning of English in comparison to others. The only problem they have is
the difficulty of linking the ideas and sentences".

"I have seen since I became a teacher that students are generally
organized in small groups of three to five people in order to cooperate all
the year. They share digital documents, they are part of the same group of
the social media, and even in the class they sit near to the other."

[143]
Appendix J: The Final Academic Results of the First Year EFL
Students

[144]
[145]
[146]
[147]
[148]
[149]
[150]
[151]
[152]
[153]
[154]
[155]
 : ‫ﻣﻠﺨﺺ‬

‫ﺗﻢ إﻋﺪاد ھﺬه اﻟﻤﺬﻛﺮة ﺑﮭﺪف ﺗﻘﯿﯿﻢ إﺳﺘﺨﺪام إﺳﺘﺮاﺗﯿﺠﯿﺎت ﺗﻌﻠﻢ اﻟﻠﻐﺔ اﻹﻧﺠﻠﯿﺰﯾﺔ و ﻣﻌﺮﻓﺔ ﻣﺎ إذا ﻛﺎن ھﻨﺎك إﺧﺘﻼﻓﺎت ﺑﯿﻦ اﻟﻄﻠﺒﺔ ﻓﻲ إﺳﺘﺨﺪام‬
‫ أﺟﺮﯾﺖ اﻟﺪراﺳﺔ اﻟﻤﯿﺪاﻧﯿﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺴﺘﻮى ﻗﺴﻢ اﻟﻠﻐﺔ اﻻﻧﺠﻠﯿﺰﯾﺔ ﺑﺠﺎﻣﻌﺔ‬.‫ھﺬه اﻹﺳﺘﺮاﺗﯿﺠﯿﺎت ﯾﻤﻜﻦ إﯾﻌﺎزھﺎ ﻟﻤﺘﻐﯿﺮي ﺟﻨﺲ و ﻣﺴﺘﻮى اﻟﻄﻠﺒﺔ‬
‫ ﻛﻤﺎ أﺟﺮﯾﻨﺎ ﻣﻘﺎﺑﻼت ﻣﻊ‬.‫ طﺎﻟﺐ و طﺎﻟﺒﺔ أﻛﻤﻠﻮا ﻛﻠﮭﻢ اﺳﺘﺒﯿﺎن أﻛﺴﻔﻮرد‬157 ‫ﻣﻌﺴﻜﺮ ﻋﻠﻰ طﻠﺒﺔ اﻟﺴﻨﺔ اﻷوﻟﻰ ﺣﯿﺚ ﺗﻜﻮﻧﺖ اﻟﻌﯿﻨﺔ ﻣﻦ‬
.‫ اﺳﺘﺨﺪﻣﺖ ﻣﻌﺪﻻت ﻧﮭﺎﯾﺔ اﻟﺴﻨﺔ ﻟﻠﻄﻠﺒﺔ ﺑﮭﺪف ﺗﺤﺪﯾﺪ اﻟﻤﺴﺘﻮى‬.‫ﺛﻼث ﻣﺪرﺳﯿﻦ ﻟﻠﺴﻨﺔ اﻷوﻟﻰ و ﻋﺸﺮة طﻠﺒﺔ‬

.‫أظﮭﺮت اﻟﻨﺘﺎﺋﺞ أن ھﻨﺎك إﺳﺘﺨﺪام ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻂ ﻹﺳﺘﺮاﺗﯿﺠﯿﺎت اﻟﺘﻌﻠﻢ ﻣﻦ طﺮف اﻟﻄﻠﺒﺔ ﺣﯿﺚ أن اﻹﺳﺘﺮاﺗﯿﺠﯿﺎت اﻹدراﻛﯿﺔ ھﻲ اﻷﻛﺜﺮ إﺳﺘﺨﺪاﻣﺎ‬
‫ زﯾﺎدة‬،‫ﻛﻤﺎ ﺑﯿﻨﺖ اﻟﺪراﺳﺔ أﯾﻀﺎ أن ھﻨﺎك ﻓﺮوﻗﺎت ذات دﻻﻟﺔ إﺣﺼﺎﺋﯿﺔ ﺑﯿﻦ اﻟﻄﻠﺒﺔ ﻟﺼﺎﻟﺢ اﻹﻧﺎث ﻓﻲ إﺳﺘﻌﻤﺎل اﻹﺳﺘﺮاﺗﯿﺠﯿﺎت اﻟﻌﺎطﻔﯿﺔ‬
.‫ﻋﻠﻰ ذﻟﻚ ﻓﺈن ﻣﺴﺘﻮى اﻟﻄﻠﺒﺔ ﯾﻔﺴﺮ ﺑﺈﺳﺘﻌﻤﺎل اﻹﺳﺘﺮاﺗﯿﺠﯿﺎت اﻟﻤﻌﺮﻓﯿﺔ و ﻛﺬﻟﻚ ﺑﺈﺳﺘﻌﻤﺎل اﻹﺳﺘﺮاﺗﯿﺠﯿﺎت اﻹدراﻛﯿﺔ‬

.‫ ﻧﻤﻮذج أﻛﺴﻔﻮرد‬،‫ ﺟﺎﻣﻌﺔ ﻣﻌﺴﻜﺮ‬,‫ طﻠﺒﺔ‬,‫ ﺗﻘﯿﯿﻢ‬,‫ اﺳﺘﺮاﺗﯿﺠﯿﺎت ﺗﻌﻠﻢ اﻟﻠﻐﺔ‬:‫اﻟﻜﻠﻤﺎت اﻟﺮﺋﯿﺴﯿﺔ‬

RESUME

Ce mémoire a pour objectif d'évaluer l'utilisation des stratégies d'apprentissage de la langue et de

vérifier s'il y a des différences significatives entre les étudiants dans l'utilisation de ces stratégies et
cela par rapport au genre et au niveau. La recherche a été menée auprès des étudiants de la première
année EFL à l' Université de Mascara, dont l'échantillon est composé de 157 étudiants. Nous avons
aussi, effectué trois enseignants de la première année ainsi que dix étudiants ont été interrogés. En
outre, nous avons exploité les moyennes de la fin d'année des étudiants afin de déterminer leur niveau.
Les résultats ont révélé que l'utilisation globale de LLS par les étudiants est moyenne où les stratégies
métacognitives sont les stratégies les plus fréquemment utilisées. Par ailleurs, il y a des différences
statistiquement significatives entre les étudiants dans l'utilisation des stratégies affectives en faveur des
étudiantes. En plus, le niveau des étudiants est expliqué par deux catégories de stratégies à savoir: les
stratégies cognitives et les stratégies métacognitives.
Mots clés: Stratégie d'apprentissage de la langue, l'évaluation, SILL, étudiants, université de Mascara.

ABSTRACT

This dissertation aims to assess the students' language learning strategy (LLS) use, to check
whether there are significant differences in the students' LLS use regarding gender, and regarding
proficiency level. The research was conducted with the first year EFL students at the university of
Mascara. A total of 157 students have completed Oxford's Strategy Inventory for Language Learning
(SILL). Three first year EFL teachers and ten students were interviewed. In addition, the final grades
were obtained from the English department administration to determine the students' proficiency level.
The findings revealed that the students' overall use of LLSs is medium where metacognitive strategies
are the most frequently used strategies. Additionally, there are statistically significant differences
between male and female students in the use of affective strategies which has a significant difference
in favor of female. Moreover, the students achievement is explained by two categories of strategies
namely: Cognitive strategies and Metacognitive strategies.

Key words: Language learning strategy, assessment, students, University of Mascara.

 PEOPLE’S DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF ALGERIA
MINISTRY OF HIGHER EDUCATION AND SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH
UNIVERSITY OF TLEMCEN
FACULTY OF LETTERS AND LANGUAGES
DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH

Abstract of the dissertation entitled:

Assessing Language Learning Strategy Use:

The Case of the 1st Year EFL Students at the University of
Mascara

Dissertation submitted to the Department of English in Candidacy for the Degree of

"Magister" in Assessment and Testing in English Language Education

Presented by: Supervised by:

Mrs. Soumia TABETI Dr. Nawal BENMOSTEFA

Academic year: 2016-2017

1
 GENERAL INTRODUCTION

Teachers and educators of second language (L2) usually complain about non-
satisfactory language performance of L2 learners. This topic complaints prompted
researchers in the field of learning and teaching L2 in an attempt to find the reasons
behind this problem and propose solutions. Until the 1970s, researchers focused on
evaluating the methods and materials of L2 teaching. However, since the beginning of
1970s, the focus was on investigating the social, psychological and affective variables
that promote or hinder the L2 success and achievement. Among these variables are:
motivation, attitudes, learning styles, and learning strategies. Research has presented
evidence that these variables correlate with success in L2 learning.
The early research about the differences in learning among L2 learners have
motivated second language acquisition researchers to explore the basis of these
differences with the goal of providing instruction in order to facilitate learning.
Researchers have tried to determine the characteristics of "good language learner".
Rubin (1975), and Chamot (1987) identified strategies used by successful language
learners in order to facilitate second language learning. As Oxford (1994) stated that
early researchers tended to make lists of strategies presumed to be essential for all
"good L2 learners.
The purpose of the present study is to assess LLS use of the 1st year EFL students at
the University of Mascara as reported in Oxford's Strategy Inventory of Language
Learning (SILL) and to explore the effect of proficiency level and gender on reported
strategy use. The present study differs from other SILL studies in that the majority of
LLS studies have been conducted on learners of English in an L2 setting and the
present study explores the effect of two variables (proficiency level and gender) on
the frequency of strategy use in an EFL setting. More specifically, the purpose of the
present study is twofold: (a) to assess 1st year EFL learners’ use of LLSs on two SILL
levels: overall use and use of each of the six categories of strategies; and (b) to explore
the effect of strategy use on language proficiency. Thus, three questions of the study
may be addressed as the following:
1. What are the LLS used by the first year EFL students at the University of Mascara
as reported in the (SILL)?
2. Are there differences in the students’ language learning strategy use regarding
gender?
3. Are there differences in the students’ LLS use regarding their academic
achievement?

2
1. LITERATURE REVIEW
1.1. Introduction
The researcher have to look at many of the central issues on the strategies of learning
the language and its use assessment; however, it is necessary first and foremost to
achieve a working definition of what is the language learning strategy (LLS). Later, a
list of LLSs characteristics is discussed, this latest gives a background for
classification systems of learning strategies proposed by different scholars. After that,
it is essential to mention the factors affecting learner's LLS choice followed by a
detailed review of previous international researches on students’ LLSs. Finally, since
the current study related to the dual concepts of language learning strategies use and its
assessment, various methods for data collection with respect to LLS are presented.
1.2. Definition of Language Learning Strategies (LLSs)
Rigney (1978), and Rubin (1987), define language learning strategies as behaviors,
steps, or techniques that language learners apply to facilitate language learning. While,
O'Malley et al (1985) based their definition on Rigney’s (1978) definition of learning
strategies as procedures which facilitate acquisition, retention, retrieval and
performance. O'Malley & Chamot (1990) define learning strategies as “the special
thoughts or behaviors that individuals use to help them comprehend, learn, or retain
new information” (p. 1). While Rubin (1987) stated that learning strategies “are
strategies which contribute to the development of the language system which the
learner constructs and affect learning directly” (p. 22).
Oxford, the author of many publications and articles concerning this issue, expands
the definition of language learning strategies as “[...] specific actions taken by the
learner to make learning easier, faster, more enjoyable, more self-directed, more
effective, and more transferable to new situations” (1990: 8). Cohen (2007) agrees
with Oxford’s point of view and adds that the purpose of language learner strategies is
to enhance learning, to perform specific tasks, to solve specific problems, to make
learning easier, faster, and more enjoyable and to compensate for a deficit in learning.
1.3. Characteristics of Language Learning Strategies
Even though the definitions used for language learning strategies are not uniform
among the scholars in the field, there are a number of basic characteristics accepted by
them.
Oxford (1990) summarizes her view of LLS by listing twelve key features below as
they:
Contribute to the main goal, communicative competence.
Allow learners to become more self-directed.
Expand the role of teachers.
Are problem oriented.
Are specific actions taken by the learner.
Involve many aspects of the learner, not just the cognitive.

3
 Support learning both directly and indirectly.
Are not always observable.
Are often conscious.
Can be taught.
Are flexible.
Are influenced by a variety of factors.
(Oxford, 1990, cited in Jhaish, 2009, p. 32)
1.4. Classification Systems of Language Learning Strategies
In an attempt to produce a classification scheme with mutually exclusive categories,
Rubin (1981) divided LLS into two main groups of strategies (direct and indirect),
then, he distinguishes further between eight subgroups of strategies:
1)Clarification/verification, 2) monitoring, 3) memorization, 4) guessing/inductive
inferencing, 5) deductive reasoning, 6) practice, 7) Creating opportunities for practice,
8)production tricks. While O’Malley and his colleagues developed taxonomy of their
own, identifying 26 strategies which they divided into three categories: metacognitive,
cognitive and social. The metacognitive and cognitive categories correspond
approximately to Rubin’s indirect and direct strategies. However, the addition of the
social mediation category was an important step in the direction of acknowledging the
importance of interactional strategies in language learning.
From an extensive review of the literature, Oxford gathered a large number of
language learning strategies and, on the basis of factor analyses, divided them into six
groups:
Direct strategies
1. Memory strategies (which relate to how students remember language)
2. Cognitive strategies (which relate to how students acquire knowledge about
language)
3. Compensation strategies (which enable students to make up for limited knowledge)
Indirect strategies
4. Meta-cognitive strategies (relating to how students manage the learning process)
5. Affective strategies (relating to students' feelings)
6. Social strategies (which involve learning by interaction with others).
These six categories underlie the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL)
used by Oxford and others for a great deal of research in the learning strategy field.

1.5. Factors Affecting Learner's LLS Choice

Oxford (1990) synthesized existing research on how the following factors influence
the choice of strategies used among students learning a second language.
Gender Females reported greater overall strategy use than males in many studies
(although sometimes males surpassed females in the use of a particular strategy).

4
Motivation More motivated students tended to use more strategies than less motivated
ones, and the particular reason for studying the language was important in the choice
of strategies.
Type of task The nature of the task helped determine the strategies naturally
employed to carry out the task.
Age and L2 stage Students of different ages and stages of L2 learning used different
strategies, with certain strategies often being employed by older or more advanced
students.
Learning style Learning style often determined the choice of L2 learning strategies.
Analytic-style students preferred strategies such as contrastive analysis, and dissecting
words, while global students used strategies to find meaning without knowing all the
words.
Cultural background Rote memorization and other forms of memorization were
more prevalent among some Asian students than among students from other cultural
backgrounds. Certain other cultures also appeared to encourage this strategy among
learners.
Attitudes and beliefs These were reported to have a profound effect on the strategies
learners choose, with negative attitudes and beliefs often causing poor strategy use.
Tolerance of ambiguity Students who were more tolerant of ambiguity used different
LLS in some instances more than did students who were less tolerant of ambiguity.
(Adapted from Oxford, 1994)
1.6. Previous Research into Assessment of LLS Use
Since the present study focuses on the effect of proficiency and gender, this review
of the literature will be limited to studies that investigated these two variables. A
number of studies have investigated the relationship between language proficiency
level and strategy use. Overall, these studies reported that more proficient learners
reported higher frequency of strategy use than did less proficient peers. For instance,
O'Malley et al (1985) found that learners at all levels reported the use of a great
variety of learning strategies. High-achieving students reported greater use of meta-
cognitive strategies. They concluded that the more successful students are probably
able to use greater meta-cognitive control over their learning. While, Ehrman and
Oxford (1995) indicated that successful students preferred to use cognitive strategies
more frequently in their study. Green and Oxford (1995) discovered that high-
achieving students used all kinds of LLS more frequently than low-achieving students.
On the other hand, Kaylani (1996) used an Arabic version of the SILL to assess
strategy use by a sample of 255 high school seniors (12th graders) in Jordan. She
studied the effect of gender on strategy use. She found that “female students used
significantly more memory, cognitive, compensatory and affective strategies than male
students.” (p. 84). Studies which have examined the relationship between sex and
strategy use have come to mixed conclusions. It might be concluded that although men

5
and women do not always demonstrate differences in language learning strategy use,
where differences are found women tend to use more language learning strategies than
men.
1.7. Assessment Tools for Language Learning Strategy Use
Over the past four decades, researchers on the field of LLS have used a number of
methods for assessing LLS use among language learners. The reason behind
employing different data collection techniques is that the identification of each type of
strategy requires a different assessment technique. Therefore, researchers must pay
attention while designing the data collection methodology of their studies (Jhaish,
2009, p. 64).Since the most of learning strategies are unobservable, the only way to
figure out whether students are using learning strategies is to ask them. In addition,
self-report data are used to identify LLS use because observation does not pickup
mental processes. Researchers have asked language learners to describe their learning
processes and strategies through interviews, questionnaires, written diaries and
journals, and think-aloud protocols. Each of these methods has limitations, but each
provides important insights into unobservable mental learning strategies (Cohen,
1998).
1.8. Conclusion
In the literature review on LLS, researchers investigated differences in LLS
depending on: 1) demographic factors addressing different target populations; 2)
methods of data collection; and 3) other related variables such as gender, motivation,
proficiency/ achievement. Most of the Literature review pointed out that investigations
with language learners indicated that the most successful students tend to use learning
strategies that are suitable to the task , material and needs. It is also clear that the most
often tested variable is gender and how it affects strategy use. Actually, gender was
tested as a second independent variable in most of the studies mentioned in the
literature and has so much attention in the field of strategy research.

2. TEACHING/LEARNING SITUATION AND RESEARCH METHODOLOY

2.1. Introduction
This research work aims at assessing the LLS use among first year EFL university
students. For this purpose, it is useful to present the educational context in which our
targeted students develop starting from a general overview of ELT in the Algerian
educational system to a more specific one dealing with the instruction received by our
learners at the university. Besides, the research design and data collection procedures
are presented in this chapter. First, it highlights the research questions, describes the
instruments used and gives the profile of the subjects in question. The research
questions have been translated into two different analytical tools: the first one is a

6
questionnaire addressed to first-year EFL university students and the second one
interviews addressed to both university teachers and first-year EFL students.
2.2. The Status of English Language in Algeria
The English language status in Algeria exposes different issues, analyzing the
sociolinguistic situation should be the first step to do in order to understand the status
of English language in that social environment. The researcher attempts to investigate
how and at which level English is taught in Algeria. The sociolinguistic situation in
Algeria is very rich and complex too because there are different languages used in the
Algerian society. First of all, the Modern Standard Arabic is the official language of
Algeria. It is a standard language with its grammar rules and dictionary. Then, the
Algerian Arabic which refers to the dialects used for daily communication. It is a non-
standard language since it has no written form, no grammatical rules, no dictionary,
and it is not official. Furthermore, we find the Tamazight which started to be taught at
schools, and it has a national status. In addition, French is considered as a second
language, which is actually taught at the 3rd year primary school and it influenced the
Algerians daily communication because of colonial reasons. However, English is
considered as a foreign language.
2.3. The Algerian Educational System: An Overview
After the independency, French dominated as the language of instruction while
English was taught in the third year of secondary school. In the 1970's, the government
started the fundamental school which insured the standard norm of nine year
schooling. The objective of the fundamental school was to promote the spiritual
elements of socialism by teaching the child economics and social sciences based on
Arab-Islamic sources and values. However, the extremely large quantity of knowledge
given and the study of empirical sciences goes beyond the child's abilities who rather
needs at this stage to acquire the basic skills of a language.
Since then, the Algerian school went through a number of reforms. In the early
seventies, the authorities committed in the process of “Arabization”. The purpose of
this process was to increase the use of Standard Arabic replacing French. The
“Arabization” reform started in the lower levels of education to be lengthened, later in
the eighties, to higher education. Yet, it should be mentioned that this process was
introduced without effective preparation. Furthermore, the supremacy of instruction
through MSA and the limited teaching time allocated to French and English language
teaching led the younger generations to encounter serious learning problems in both
foreign languages.
2.4. ELT at University
Concerning English language teaching at university, the learning conditions offered
to EFL students do not aim at promoting any achievement in language learning
because of the lack of appropriate equipment. Large classes with mixed abilities is
another problem in our universities, students have small opportunities for self-

7
expression. Another important aspect is that students' contact with the English
language is limited in time and it is not used outside the language classroom. As a
result, these students have a low proficiency level in English.
At their entrance to university, students will have accumulated an English learning
experience of seven years, during which they have been exposed to a rich program.
Unfortunately, most Algerian learners show little competence in English compared to
the amount of instruction they have had. An alarming situation appeals for careful
thinking and investigation about the source of the low achievement problem.
Therefore, the passage from the old (classic) system to the new system is a necessity
because the old system "has failed to the challenges imposed by the evolution of the
economics, political and social situation. The LMD system is designed to ensure easy
mobility of students. Unfortunately, the major drawback to the success of the reform is
the big number of students.
2.5. The English Language Department: A Brief Overview
The present investigation has been carried out at the Department of English
Language at the University of Mascara. In the department, a group of courses on the
English language studies are offered to EFL students. These courses aims at
reinforcing language awareness of the new baccalaureate holders, the first two
academic years are basically devoted to core subjects, namely grammar, phonetics ,
written expression, oral expression ; the program also offers courses in linguistics,
literature and civilization. In addition, research methodology course is offered and
devoted to research techniques for the sake of preparing students for empirical
research. However, it should also be noted that the number of students enrolled in the
English department is witnessing a continuous rise. The noticeable rise in the number
of the students choosing English language studies, largely explains the popularity of
English language among today's generation. Like many other Foreign languages
Departments in Algeria, the total number of female students out numbers than of male
students. The curriculum at university level is more flexible, it provides only general
guidelines for each modular course and it is up to teachers to collectively or
individually design the content of the course.
2.6. Research Action in TEFL
An action research is a reflective process that leads the researcher to discover
solutions to a problem or to conduct exploration to a given situation. In other words,
Brown and Rodgers (2004) define research as an exploration of experience of one kind
or another, sometimes formal and technical, but not necessarily so. They add that the
good way of understanding the nature of research is to first experience it by doing it,
initially in a simple and elementary way. Accordingly, Ourghi (2002) states that: “an
excellent reflective means of investigating a specific aspect of the teaching process and
learning outcome” (cited in Djebbari, 2009). In the same sense McNiff and Whitehead
(2002) consider action research as common-sense approach to personal and

8
professional development that enables practitioners everywhere to investigate and
evaluate their work, and to create their own theories of practice (cited in ibid).

2.7. Presentation of the Purpose of the Study and Hypotheses

The purpose of this study is to assess the language learning strategies that learners
use, and to reveal whether there is a relationship among language learning strategies
and the academic achievement among the first year EFL students at the University of
Mascara. In addition, this study aims at finding out whether there are significant
differences in the language learning strategy use regarding students’ gender. The
research tries to answer the following questions:
1. What are the LLS used by the first year EFL students at the University of Mascara
as reported in the (SILL)?
2. Is there a difference in the students’ language learning strategy use regarding
gender?
3. Is there a difference in the students’ LLS use regarding their academic achievement?
In this perspective we have developed the following hypothesis that we have tried to
check throughout the chapter three.
H1: 1st year EFL students at the University of Mascara use different Language
Learning Strategies
H2: There are differences in the usage of LLS between male and female of 1st year
EFL students at the University of Mascara.
H3: There are differences in the use of LLSs at the three levels of academic
achievement of 1rt year EFL of Mascara University.
2.8. Presentation of the Research Instruments
In order to measure strategy use, Oxford's (1990) Strategy Inventory for Language
Learning (SILL) for ESL/EFL learners (Version 7.0) was used. The items were given
scores on the basis of a five point Likert scale. A background questionnaire was used
to collect information about the language learners. The selection of this taxonomy has
been made on two grounds. First, it has been used to assess strategy use in more than
15 studies involving EFL/ESL learners from many countries and cultural backgrounds.
Second, its reliability and validity have been widely documented. An Arabic
translation version of the SILL was used to measure strategy use. This 50-item
taxonomy covers six broad categories. For the statistical analysis of the data the raw
scores were entered into Statistical Package for the Social Sciences Programs, version
22.
The interview is the second instrument of data collection that was used. Therefore,
two semi-structured interviews were designed, one intended to the students and the
other for the 1st year EFL teachers. The interview addressed to students is mainly
based on (SILL). Students are requested to answer 10 open-ended questions. On its
part, the interview reserved for teachers seeks to discover problems that students

9
encounter when they learn English. Indeed, the opinion of teachers is crucial, because
it is based on their own observations and interactions with the students. Teachers are
able also to tell us about the progress in learning of students and their preferences in
matters of learning strategies.
The assessment of strategies used for the learning of English as a foreign language is
not useful if it is not connected to the students’ proficiency level. According to the
literature it is possible to determine students’ proficiency in two main ways: the use of
tests or the use of marks obtained by the students during the academic year. This
second technique is rather objective because it is based on the objective evaluation of
teachers throughout the academic year. The statistical analysis of our study uses the
students’ grades which are provided by the administration of the English Department.
2.9. Procedures of Data Collection
After the researcher's explanation of the purpose of the study and of the
questionnaire and the time required for the response. Participants completed the SILL
in class in 20 minutes under the supervision of the regular class instructors under
conditions of anonymity and confidentiality. The students were reminded that they
were to answer in terms of how well the statements describe them and that there were
no right or wrong answers to these statements.
The participants also provided information about their age and gender. It is noted that
students were very motivated to complete the survey, because they consider that the
topic interest them. A two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) test was used to
determine variation in the means of reported strategy use (dependent variable) across
the entire SILL as well as that of each of the six categories of strategies by language
proficiency level and gender (independent variables). To test the SILL’s reliability of
the Arabic translation version, the researcher also used Cronbach-alpha which was
found to be .902. All scores are higher than 60% which shows the internal consistency
of the items. We remained that we don’t need a pre-test for this questionnaire because
it is a measurement scale of high reliability and used in several research as we showed
above.
2.10. The Sample
This study was conducted with 176 first year EFL students (76.7% female and
23.3% male). Almost 90.9% of participants were between 17 and 20 years old. 27.3%
surveyed students believe that they have a good level in English, 61.9% have a
medium level and 10.8% that they have a low level. 61.9% of learners stated that they
enjoy when they learn English, 4.5% don’t enjoy and 12.5% are neutral. All the
subjects had studied English formally for 8 years.
2.11. Conclusion
The awareness of the English language importance has largely favored the
promotion of ELT in Algeria. This chapter has tried to provide a description and
analysis of the teaching/learning situation in Algeria. This description has embraced

10
the early EFL school years of the learner till his admission to university to shed light
on his educational background. Since this research work aims at assessing the
language learning strategy use among first year EFL university students, the research
design and data collection procedures are presented along with the research questions,
the research instruments and the profile of the subjects in question. The next chapter
will deal with the results of this investigative study.

3. DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

3.1. Introduction
We will now report on the results of our practical study that we have achieved in the
English Department at the University of Mascara. The research was conducted
according to several steps. First, the research objective was developed. Then, the
contact with the English Language Department at the University of Mascara to prepare
for the conduction of the study. After that, the preparation of the data collection
instruments and information sources (questionnaires and interviews for students,
interviews with teachers, deliberation of the 1st year EFL students). Later, collection
of data by questionnaires distribution and conducting interviews. After that it comes
the phase of coding the questionnaires and analyzing the data collected through SPSS
22, along with analysis of interviews conducted with students and teachers by the
manual classification of responses according to the strategies adopted in this study.
Finally, Interpretation and commentary on the results achieved.
3.2. The Overall Usage of Learning Strategies
The overall use of language learning strategies by the subjects has been presented by
the mean and standard deviation of strategy use among all the subjects. For this
purpose, Oxford (1990) developed a scale, which reflects the level of strategy usage:
(1) High (3.5-5.0), (2) Medium (2.5-3.4), and (3) Low (1.0-2.4).The average of
strategy use ranged from a high 3.72 to a low of 2.79, while the overall mean for the
sample was 3.22. As for strategy categories, meta-cognitive strategies were the most
frequently used strategies (M=3.72) and memory strategies were the least frequently
used (M=2.79), while between the two in descending order were social strategies
(M=3.39), compensation strategies (M= 3.36), affective strategies (M=3.12), and
cognitive strategies (M=2.99).

3.3. Strategy Use and Students Gender

Results related to the third research questions (What is the relationship between male
and female students’ use of English language learning strategies?) reveal an overall
medium range of strategy use (males: M = 3.15 and females: M = 3.25). The
differences between the mean scores of male and female students in regard to the
overall strategy use were very small. Findings also indicate that both male and female
learners use meta-cognitive strategies (1st Rank) and social strategies (2nd Rank) the

11
most and memory strategies the least. It is found also that there is no significant
differences between male and female learners in the use of the overall strategies except
a significant difference in the usage of the affective strategies (Sig=0.008). Also, there
were no significant differences between male and female students in the use of the five
from six strategies developed by Oxford.
3.4. Strategy Use and Proficiency Level
It is clear after the analysis that student’s achievement is explained by two categories
of strategies, namely: Cognitive strategies (F=3.605, p=0.029) and Meta-cognitive
strategies (F=4.167, p=0.017). What drives us to say that more students in 1st year
EFL use the Meta-cognitive and Cognitive strategies more their achievement is high.
We can conclude that the variation in the achievement level of the first year EFL
students in Mascara University is explained by these two strategies, so these strategies
predicted positively students’ achievement. The results founded here are congruent
with a number of the previous LLSs studies conducted in many countries, such as the
U.S., and Asia (Anderson, 2005; Huang & Chen, 2009). More importantly, the
findings are consistent with the findings of many studies in that students with high
English proficiency level employed a greater diversity and more frequency of English
learning strategies that did students with low English proficiency level.
3.5. Conclusion
The findings reported above show that the overall use of LLS by the students was
found medium and that students gender have statistically a significant effect on
frequency of overall strategy use. With regard to its effect on the use of each of the six
categories of strategies, gender has a main effect on only one category (affective
strategies) in favor of females. The findings reported also that students with a high
level use strategies more than those with medium level and those with a medium level
use strategies more than those with a low level. Consequently, this means that
whenever the students use English language learning strategies frequently their level
of achievement is higher.

4. RECOMMENDATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS

The research results compiled earlier in response to the research questions illustrate
that there is a relationship between students’ use of LLS, students' gender and
academic achievement level. Following are some recommendations to advance the
learners' use of LLSs and (as a result) the academic achievement.
1) Although students may be dissimilar in their knowledge of strategies, understanding
about assignments for successful strategy use should be submitted to direct them to
become more determined learners of the target language. Teachers may present the
LLS and explain how to take suitable strategies to fit students’ needs in various
learning tasks. Additionally, many applications would help students well know the
different learning strategies, then they grown-up using those numerous strategies

12
spontaneously. This implication would be connected to the idea of autonomous
learning concentrating on personal needs and goals.
2) Teachers and students should raise their knowledge of these different strategies
through suitable training for both groups. Better student awareness about strategies can
guide them to be certain, self-reliant, and successful language learners (Abu-Radwan,
2011). Successful language learners have the capacity to connect specific categories of
LLS in practical manner according to their own learning needs.
3) Teachers can take direct actions in language classrooms in terms of combining
explicit and implicit strategy instructions into the daily lessons (Cohen, 2003).
4) Explicit training in strategy use is fundamental, because it permits students with
different competence levels to exercise a long list of these strategies.
5) The findings revealed that high proficient students recorded more strategy use than
low-proficient students. This signify that learners at different levels have different
needs. The teacher have to be explicit in promoting knowledge for low-proficiency
learners, this will be useful to enhance understanding of the what and how of
successful language learning.
6) Researchers have supported that strategy training should be combined into language
curriculum (e.g., Khalil, 2005; Abu-Radwan, 2011). Therefore, teachers should
include different tasks that target strategies which are basic for success in learning a
second language. The fact that students with various proficiency levels make use of
different learning strategies should lead the improvement of instructional materials
(Chamot & O’Malley, 1995).
7) Materials such as textbooks should be evaluated by the teachers in order to see
whether they already include language learning strategies or language learning strategy
training.
After presenting the recommendations here are some suggestions for further
researches:
1) The literature review presented in this study revealed that, in the area of Arab EFL
in general and Algerian EFL in particular, LLSs have not been investigated enough.
Therefore, further researchers are highly recommended to conduct experimental, and
cross-sectional studies on Arab EFL learners in general and Algerian EFL students in
particular. These types of studies can provide a better understanding of Arab and
Algerian EFL learners' LLS use.
2) Other studies should investigate the LLS use of EFL learners at different ages and
different educational levels, i.e. middle school, secondary school.
3) More research on the factors that affect strategy choice would be valuable. Learning
style is a crucial factor, along with age, nationality, beliefs, and previous educational
and cultural experiences.
4) Future researchers may use multiple-method approaches such as observation, think-
aloud, and diaries.

13
5) Investigating the effect of training on LLS use, including the success of use, is a
vital issue to take into consideration in further research.
At the end of this chapter it is necessary that learning strategies research continue,
for a better understanding of the learning and teaching process. Language learning
strategy instruction can take part in the improvement of learner autonomy and increase
teacher competence, still, research in particular language learning framework is
essential to understand it and to improve second language acquisition. LLS are
instruments that learners use to raise their language learning. They are one of the
flexible element that make distinction between successful and less successful language
learners. The researches on learning strategies can be done in different ways
according to the researcher approach. This studies attempt to determine and examine
how language is learned. The findings aid to inform language teachers how to prepare
less proficient learners to become more proficient in language learning. As a
consequence of that, there have been different language learning strategies instruction
plans, i.e. awareness training, and strategies-based instruction.
The instructions for realizing strategy training programs present a collection of
alternatives in order to make the training fit all the students. The crucial concerns in
planning a strategy training program are the students' needs, the accessible resources
(e.g., time, money, materials), and the usefulness of administering this type of
instruction. Yet, it is so substantial to pick out an instructional model that presents the
strategies to the students and increases recognition of their learning alternatives;
teaches them to recognize, apply, assess, and transmit strategies to new learning status;
and encourages learner autonomy.

GENERAL CONCLUSION

Many studies have proved that second language proficiency/achievement is related

to language learning strategies (e.g. Intaraprasert, 2000; Oxford, 1989). Hence, to
promote the learners’ efficient language learning, language learning strategies is an
essential point to pay attention to. One way to help students improve learning
outcomes is to identify the language learning strategy they use. Added to that, there is
sufficient evidence that language learning strategy use benefit many students not only
high achieving students, but also underachieving ones (Chamot, 1996; Cohen, 1998).
This benefit could empower students to be more successful in their language learning.

This dissertation was a descriptive study based on a survey research. It is divided

into four parts. The first chapter provides the base for the research as it tries to cover
the field of language learning strategy. The second chapter tries to provide a
description and analysis of the teaching/learning situation in Algeria in order to shed
light on the students' educational background. The research design and data collection

14
procedures are presented along with the research questions, the research instruments
and the profile of the subjects in question.
As for the third chapter, the relevant data obtained were presented in order to answer
three research questions. Consequently, The findings revealed that the overall use of
LLS by the students is medium. As for strategy categories, meta-cognitive strategies
was the most frequently used strategy (M=3.72) and memory strategy was the least
frequently used (M=2.79). The interviews analyze support these findings.
Furthermore, there are statistically no significant differences between male and female
students in the use of the overall strategies and in the use of the six categories of
strategies except in the use of the affective strategies which has a significant difference
in favor of female (Sig=0.011). From the analysis of the correlation between the
academic achievement results and the students' learning strategy use , it was shown
that there are statistically a significant and positive relationship between the students’
academic achievement and three of language learning strategies (Affective strategies,
Cognitive strategies and Meta-cognitive strategies. Moreover the student’s
achievement is explained by two categories of strategies, namely: Cognitive strategies
and Meta-cognitive strategies. So these strategies effect positively students’
achievement. The findings reported above confirm totally the first hypotheses and it
support partially the second and the third hypotheses.
Since language learners use language learning strategies to complete a language
learning task or to solve a problem, Thus, for guiding learners towards the effective
use of learning strategies, many researchers suggests to integrate Language Learning
Strategy Instruction (LLSI) into daily language lessons. Therefore, the last chapter
provides an overview of language learning strategies instruction and discusses the
definitions, importance, types of language learning strategies instructions, options for
providing LLSI, and models of LLSI, implementing LLSI into language classroom. By
the end of this chapter, pedagogical implications, and recommendation for further
research are presented in turn.

15