Variables Affecting Choice of Language Learning Strategies by University Students

Rebecca Oxford; Martha Nyikos

The Modern Language Journal, Vol. 73, No. 3. (Autumn, 1989), pp. 291-300.

Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0026-7902%28198923%2973%3A3%3C291%3AVACOLL%3E2.0.CO%3B2-O

The Modern Language Journal is currently published by National Federation of Modern Language Teachers Associations.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/about/terms.html. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained
prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in
the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/journals/nfmlta.html.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is an independent not-for-profit organization dedicated to and preserving a digital archive of scholarly journals. For
more information regarding JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

http://www.jstor.org
Wed Apr 4 10:41:54 2007
Variables Affecting Choice of Language

Learning Strategies by University Students

REBECCA O X F O R D and MARTHA NYIKOS

University of Alabama Indiana University

I N THIS ARTICLE WE DISCUSS VARIABLES ing and writing) for overcoming deficiencies in
affecting choice of learning strategies used by knowledge of the language.5 Appropriate learn-
1,200 foreign language students in a conven- ing strategies help explain the performance of
tional academic setting, a major university in good language learners; similarly, inappropri-
the midwestern USA. In terms of the number ate learning strategies aid in understanding the
of subjects involved, this investigation is prob- frequent failures of poor language learn-
ably one of the largest learning studies to date ers - and even the occasional weaknesses of
in any instructional field, and is almost certainly good ones.6
the largest completed study of language learn- Use of appropriate learning strategies
ing strategies. ' enables students to take responsibility for their
own learning by enhancing learner autonomy,
RESEARCH BACKGROUND independence, and self-direction. These
Learning strategies are operations used by factors are important because learners need to
learners to aid the acquisition, storage, and re- keep on learning even when they are no longer
trieval of information (52). Outside of the lan- in a formal classroom setting (42). Moreover,
guage learning field, research comparing cognitive psychology shows that learning strate-
experts to novices indicates that experts use gies help learners to assimilate new informa-
more systematic and useful problem-solving tion into their own existing mental structures
and native-language reading comprehension or schemata, thus creating increasingly rich and
strategies. A similar finding occurs with more complex s ~ h e m a t aAs
. ~ they move toward lan-
successful language learners as compared to less guage proficiency, language learners develop
successful ones.3 Better language learners their own understandings or models of the
generally use strategies appropriate to their own second or foreign language and its surround-
stage of learning, personality, age, purpose for ing culture. Unlike most other characteristics
learning the language, and type of language.4 of the learner, such as aptitude, attitude, moti-
Good language learners use a variety of learn- vation, personality, and general cognitive style,
ing strategies, including cognitive strategies for learning strategies are readily teachable.9
associating new information with existing in- Various researchers have studied factors
related to choice of language learning strate-
.
formation in long-term memory and for firm-
gies, as shown in a review by Oxford (40).
ing and revising internal mental models; meta-
cognitive strategies for exercising "executive con- These factors include: 1) language being
trol" through planning, arranging, focusing, learned; 2) level of language learning, profi-
and evaluating their own learning process; social ciency, or course; 3) degree of metacognitive
strategies for interacting with others and man- awareness; 4) sex; 5) affective variables such
aging discourse; a f f t i v e strategies for directing as attitudes, motivation, and language learn-
feelings, motivations, and attitudes related to ing goals; 6) specific personality traits; 7) over-
learning; and compensation strategies (such as all personality type; 8) learning style; 9) career
guessing unknown meanings while listening orientation or field of specialization; 10)
and reading, or using circumlocution in speak- national origin; 11) aptitude; 12) language
teaching methods; 13) task requirements; and,
if relevant, 14) type of strategy training. Many
The Modern Language Journal, 73, iii (1989) of these factors, such as language learning level,
0026-7902/8910003/291 $1.5010
"1989 The Modern Language Journal
national origin, field of specialization, and lan-
guage teaching methods, have been definitively
 Rebecca Oxford & Martha Nyikos
shown to be strongly related to language learn- out native speakers of the target language as
ers' choice of strategies; but others, such as conversation partners. Respondents are asked
motivation and sex, have until now not re- to answer in terms of the language they are cur-
ceived sufficient research attention to allow firm rently learning.
conclusions to be reached. For detailed, com- The SILL has been used around the world
prehensive research reviews on language learn- for students of second and foreign languages
ing strategies, see Oxford (40, 41). The study in universities, schools, and government agen-
reported in the current article investigated a cies. Strategy descriptions on the SILL were
number of the factors listed above, including drawn from a comprehensive taxonomy (35) of
some which have been frequently studied and language learning strategies that systematically
others which have been inadequately examined covers the four language skill areas of listen-
in the past. ing, reading, speaking, and writing. The taxon-
omy was based on an extensive research review
(36, 38). Internal consistency reliability using
METHODS
Cronbach's alpha is .96 based on a 1,200-
Sample. Slightly more than 1,200 students, person university sample (in the current study)
including approximately equal proportions of and .95 based on a 483-person Defense Lan-
men and women, participated in the study. guage Institute (DLI) field test sample (37).
They were almost all (97 % ) undergraduates, Content validity is .95 using classificatory
and were studying a total of five different for- agreement between two independent raters who
eign languages: French (40% of the sample), blindly matched each of the SILL items with
Spanish (28 %), German (27 %), Russian (2 %), strategies in the comprehensive taxonomy cited
and Italian (2%).1° Almost all (95%) were above (37). Concurrent, and to some extent
native English speakers, and the same propor- construct, validity can be assumed based on the
tion (95%) was in the age range seventeen to demonstration of strong relationships between
twenty-three. Half of the students were major- SILL factors and self-ratings of language pro-
ing in technical fields, such as engineering, ficiency and language motivation, as reported
computer science, or physical sciences; thirty- in this article. Additional evidence supporting
five percent were majoring in social sciences, validity is found in a different study by Ehrman
education, or humanities, while the rest (15 %) & Oxford (16), in which more highly trained
majored in business and other subjects. linguists, in contrast to less highly trained
The sample consisted of relatively inexperi- linguists, predictably reported significantly
enced language learners. Two-thirds (66%) had more frequent and more wide-ranging use of
studied no foreign languages other than the one strategies on the SILL.
they were currently learning at the university, Questions about respondents' truthfulness
while the balance (34%) had previously studied sometimes arise with self-report instruments
at least one other foreign language. The like the SILL. To check for truthfulness, the
majority (72%) were in their first or second developer of the SILL compared its results with
semester of university language study, while informal interview data gleaned from the 483-
twenty-three percent were in their third or person field test and earlier clinical trials.
fourth semester, and the rest ( 5 % ) were Interview data and SILL data tended to be
enrolled in higher level courses. Seven out of mutually supportive, thus lending credibility
every ten were taking the foreign language as (and further evidence of validity) to the SILL.
a graduation requirement, while thirty percent In addition, the SILL findings themselves,
chose language study as an elective. taken from several samples, were carefully
Instrumentation. The main instrument used in scrutinized to determine whether any bias ap-
this study is the Strategy Inventory for Lan- peared, i.e., whether respondents systemati-
guage Learning, or SILL (37). This 121-item cally offered "socially desirable" answers. No
instrument asks learners to report the frequency such bias was evident. In fact, respondents
with which they use certain language learning seemed determined to rate their strategies
strategies. A typical SILL item asks the re- as honestly as possible, even if these strategies
spondent to indicate, in a multiple-choice were not optimal. The guarantee of anonymity,
fashion, the frequency of use (almost always to and the fact that the SILL scores were not to
almost never, on a five-point scale) of a given be used for performance evaluation (grading),
strategy, such as breaking down an expression probably contributed to the apparent honesty
into parts in order to understand it, or seeking of the respondents.
Language Learning Strategie~
In addition to the SILL. we also adminis- Factor One, formal rule-relatedpractice strategies,
tered a background questionnaire covering sex, received a high level of usage and contained
years of foreign language study, elective vs. re- strategies such as using structural knowledge,
quired course status, self-perceptions of profi- finding similarities between languages, generat-
ciency and motivation, and other topics. ing and revising rules, and analyzing words.
Research Questions. Two key research questions Factor Two, functional practice strategies, included
were addressed in the study. First, what kind the least frequently used of all the strategies,
of strategies do university foreign language stu- such as attending foreign language films, seek-
dents report using? Second, what variables ing native speakers for conversation, imitating
(sex, course status, motivation level, and so on) native speakers, initiating foreign language
influence the use of these strategies? This article conversations, and reading authentic material
summarizes results relating to the first question in the new language - all strategies requiring
but goes into detail concerning the second language practice in natural settings outside of
one. 12 the classroom. Factor Three, resourceful, inde-
Data Collection and Analysis. Data collection pendent strategies, comprised relatively low-usage
was conducted by the second author, with the strategies involving: 1) independent manipula-
cooperation of dther language teachers and tion of foreign language material in order to
teaching assistants. Respondents received uni- embed it in memory (listing related words,
form instructions to fill out the SILL and the making up sentences and exercises, using mne-
background questionnaire, and every effort was monics, elaborating sentences, using a tape re-
made to cause minimal classroom disruption. corder); and 2) independent use of certain
To understand the data we: 1) calculated de- metacognitive actions (planning, self-testing,
scriptive statistics such as frequencies to deter- self-reward). Strategies in Factor Four, general
mine overall patterns; 2) discerned the underly- study strategies, were reported to be used at
ing factors on the SILL through factor analy- moderate to high frequency levels. Factor Four
sis; 3), determined the variables which had the
,
strategies included such all-purpose techniques
greatest influence on the choice of learning as studying hard, ignoring distractions, being
strategies through analysis of variance prepared, organizing, and using time well.
(ANOVA) on SILL factor scores; and 4) when Factor Five, conversational input elicitation strate-
necessary, conducted post-hoc tests to deter- gies, included strategies such as the following,
mine the precise contrasts in which the ob- reported as used moderately often: requesting
served significance occurred. l 3 slower speech, asking for pronunciation correc-
tion, and guessing what the speaker will say. l4
RESULTS In brief, these findings indicate that the uni-
versity students frequently reported employing
Answers to Research Question One. To answer the strategies (e. g., formal rule-related practice
first research question, i.e., which kinds of strategies and general study strategies) likely
strategies are used by university students to to be useful in a traditional, structure-oriented,
learn a new language, we turn to the SILL fac- discrete-point foreign language instructional
tor analytic findings, summarized very briefly environment geared toward tests and assign-
here. Five main factors emerged from the ments. Strategies which involved a concerted,
analysis. In addition to identifying the factors, extracurricular effort to communicate in the
we examined the frequency with which strate- new language (functional practice strategies) or
gies in each factor were reported to be used (see required working independently on mnemonic
Table I). or metacognitive aspects (resourceful, inde-
TABLE I
Factors and Frequencies

Factor Average Frequency of Use of Rank Order

Number Factor Name Strategies in This Factor of Usaee
1 Formal rule-related practice strategies Medium to High
2 Functional practice strategies Low to Medium
3 Resourceful, independent strategies Low to Medium
4 General study strategies Medium to High
5 Conversational input elicitation strategies Medium to Hieh
294 Rebecca Oxford & Martha Nyikos
pendent strategies) were mostly shunned by the probabilities smaller than .0001 were common,
students in this sample. In general, the only indicating an extremely low likelihood that the
communicative involvement shown with at results could have occurred by chance.15 We
least moderate frequency was in conversational will examine each of the significant variables
input elicitation strategies, which did not neces- in turn (see Table I1 for details).
sarily demand any outside-of-class involvement Motivation. The degree of expressed motiva-
with native speakers of the foreign language tion to learn the language was the most power-
and which were used occasionally. For a much ful influence on strategy choice. Motivation had
more intensive discussion of these factor ana- extremely significant effects on scores for four
lytic results, including their interpretation and (1,2,4,5) of the five factors and a nearly sig-
a comparison with a SILL factor analysis on nificant effect on Factor Three. The more moti-
a very different group of subjects, see Nyikos vated students used learning strategies of all
and Oxford (30). these kinds more often than did the less moti-
Answers to Research Question Two. In answer- vated students. l 6
ing the second research question, i.e., which Proficien~yRatings. Language proficiency self-
variables affect choice of language learning ratings in speaking, reading, and listening also
strategies, we examined the influence of self- strongly affected strategy choice. For instance,
perceptions of motivation and proficiency and speaking proficiency ratings were highly influ-
the effects of course status (required vs. elec- ential for Factors Two, Three, Four, and Five
tive), years of study, sex, and major. These and had a nearly significant effect on Factor
variables were taken from the background One. Reading proficiency ratings had very
questionnaire. Results indicated that the degree highly significant effects on Factors One, Two,
of expressed motivation was the single most Four, and Five. Listening proficiency ratings
powerful influence on the choice of language powerfully influenced learners' choice of strate-
learning strategies, that sex had a profound gies in two factors (3 & 4). The higher the stu-
effect on strategy choice, and that all the other dent's self-perceived proficiency in each of these
variables listed - and some interactions among three skills, the more frequently the student
these variables - had significant effects on the chose to use learning strategies in the factors
reported use of strategies. In this investigation, named here. Greater strategy use accompanied

TABLE I1
Significant Effects of Background Variables on Factor Scores

Factors*
Variables 1 2 3 4 5
Sex
,002 - - .0001 ,002
Major
- .02 .01 - -
Years of Study
- .0001 - - ,002
Course Status (Elective vs. Required)
- ,002 - .04 -
Speaking [I]
- ,0001 .02 ,0002 ,001
Listening [I]
- - ,0009 ,004 -
Speaking & Listening [ I , 21
- .04 - - -
Reading [I]
,0001 ,002 - ,0001 ,008
Motivation [1]
,0001 ,0001 - ,0001 .0001
Course Status & Years of Study [2]
- .01 - - -
Major & Motivation [2]
- ,005 - - -
Major & Course Status [2]
- - - ,007 -
Course Status & Motivation (21
.01 - - - -
Major, Course Status & Motivation [2]
- .02 - - -
Sex & Motivation [2]
.01 - - - -
Notes: Significant levels (probabilities) below .05 are shown in this table.
[I] SeEf-rating of the skill proficiency (e.g., reading), or of the variable (e.g., motivation)
[2] Interaction between the two variables
*I = formal rule-related practice strategies; 2 = functional practice strategies; 3 = resourceful, independent strategies;
4 = general study strategies; 5 = conversational input elicitation strategies
Language Learning Strategies
perceptions of higher proficiency, and a causal interacted for Factor Two (Interaction 6). Not
relationship actually existed between profi- very surprisingly, speaking and listening profi-
ciency self-ratings and strategy use. l 7 ciency self-ratings interacted for Factor Two
Elective vs. Required Status. Clear differences (Interaction 7). l 8
were found for elective vs, required course
status for Factors Two and Four. For both, stu- DISCUSSION
dents who elected to learn the language rather
than taking it as a graduation requirement used This discussion explores the reasons behind
these kinds of strategies more often. the cause-and-effect relationships just de-
Ears of Study. Years spent studying the for- scribed. Note that causality is by definition
eign language had a very highly significant involved in the use of the ANOVA technique;
effect on two communicatively-oriented factors indeed, that is why researchers use it (when
(2, 5). In general terms, students who had been possible) instead of less explanatory techniques
studying the language for at least four or five like correlation. However, we feel that the rela-
years used strategies here far more often than tionships demonstrated here are only part of a
did less experienced language learners. More complex picture, which needs to be fully de-
precisely, students studying the language at scribed in subsequent research. We start our
least five years used Factor Two strategies more discussion with motivation, which exerted the
often than did students with less study, and strongest influence on strategy choice.
learners studying the language at least four Effects ofMotivation. In this study, motivation
-
years used Factor Five strategies more often had a pervasive influence on the reported use of
specific kinds ofstrategies, as well as on the degree
than did learners with less longevity.
Sex. Profoundly significant sex differences in of active involvement in language learning as
stratew choice were also evident for Factors
"2

reflected in the overall frequency of strateQ use in

One, Four, and Five. Females reported more general. Our findings about motivation support
frequent strategy use than males in these three Gardner's (20) statement: "Attitudes and moti-
factors, while males reported no more frequent vation are important because they determine
strategy use than females on any factors. the extent to which the individuals will actively
Major. University major made a highly sig- involve themselves in learning the lan-
nificant difference for Factor Three with guage. . . . The prime determining factor is
humanitieslsocial scienceleducation majors motivation" (p. 56).
using them more often than the other two broad At first the relationship between motivation
categories of majors examined. Humanities1 and strategy use appears simple: learners who
social scienceled~cationmajors used strategies are highly motivated to learn a language are
in Factor Two significantly more often than did likely to use a variety of strategies. But the
technical majors, but not significantly more motivation issue quickly becomes highly com-
often than did their business counterparts. plex. Not only does high motivation lead to sig-
Interactions between Motivation and Other Vari- nificant use of language learning strategies (as
ables. Motivation significantly interacted with we found in this study), but high strategy use
several variables, often in complex ways, probably leads to high motivation as well!
to influence choice of strategies. For instance, Based on research findings on skill development
in a significant effect on Factor One, motiva- and self-esteem, we would expect that use of
tion interacted with sex (Interaction 1). appropriate strategies leads to enhanced actual
Another significant interaction affecting Fac- and perceived proficiency, which in turn creates
tor One was between motivation and elective high self-esteem, which leads to strong moti-
vs. required course status (Interaction 2). In vation, spiralling to still more use of strategies,
a significant interaction affecting Factor Two, great actual and perceived proficiency, high
motivation interacted with university major self-esteem, improved motivation, and so on.19
(Interaction 3). In addition, motivation inter- When viewed in light of this chain of variables,
acted with both course status and major self-perceptions of language proficiency can be
together to affect Factor Two (Interaction 4). either effects or causes of strategy use (depend-
Other Interactions. A significant interaction ing on which part of the chain is examined),
between university major and elective vs. and they are intimately related to motivation
required course status appeared for Factor Four and self-esteem.Z0
(Interaction 5). Years of study and course status Our results show how strategy choice is
 Rebecca Oxford @ Martha Nyikos
affected by two variables we would expect to students thus seemed to take seriously the need
be related to motivation: 1) number of years to find extracurricular, communicatively-
of language study; 2) elective vs. required oriented practice opportunities in natural set-
course status. T h e students who studied the tings and to guide their own language study in
same language for a minimum of five years (a an autonomous, independent way, reflecting an
tiny percentage of the sample), and the students awareness of metacognitive strategies. Cer-
who were taking the language electively (also tainly such findings display the language learn-
a minority) used significantly more functional ing goal of developing communicative compe-
practice strategies (Factor Two) than did the tence. Goals reflect motivational orientation,
rest of the students. Moreover, the students a recurring theme in this study.
who studied the language for at least four years Sex Dzfferences. Sex differences in strategy use,
used more Factor Five strategies than did stu- despite their neglect in most previous strategy
dents with less years of study. Perhaps students research, had a profound influence here.22 For
who made less use of such communicatively example, compared with males, females re-
oriented learning strategies would not be likely ported significantly more frequent use of con-
to perform well and would drop out of language versational input elicitation strategies, reflect-
study upon completing the language require- ing social interaction. This result coincides with
ment. O n the other hand, those who employed previous research on sex differences in women's
communicatively oriented strategies may have and men's speech in their native language. I n
recognized their value only in advanced classes, our culture the two sexes actually use their own
resulting in continued study. native language differently, with greater direct-
T h e pervasiveness and complexity of moti- ness, aggression, input discouragement, power,
vational influences are further emphasized by self-assuredness, and dominance-seeking dis-
the interactions of motivation with other vari- played in men's speech, and with greater
ables, such as elective vs. required course indirectness, politeness, input elicitation,
status, university major, and sex. These sig- questioning, uncertainty, and harmony-seeking
nificant interactions affected several groups of reflected in that of women.23O n e explanation
strategies. for these differences is known as the "strategy
Motivation is not just an internal, private model," which suggests that because of the un-
phenomenon generated by the individual stu- equal division of labor and power in American
dent. A student's motivation is affected by society, men and women use different speech
external variables (teaching and testing prac- strategies to influence people and events. Men's
tices, peer interaction, overall task require- influence is in the public sphere, and women's
ments, and the institutional environment). I n is in the private; the former sphere is considered
this study, students' language learning goals more important. I n the two spheres, speech is
(embodied in the popularity of formal different, with differences reflecting dominant
rule-learning strategies) mirrored the messages and subordinate positions: public speech is
of their instructional setting, which focused assertive and direct; private speech is nurturing
mainly on developing analytic language skills and indirect.Z4 Of course, this model describes
and learning discrete language elements to strategies for native language use, but such
attain success on tests. strategies would be reflected in the way women
Career Orientation. Like other studies, this one and men transfer unconscious discourse strate-
showed that career orientation, reflected here gies to a new language. O u r results suggest this
in university major, has a strong effect on selec- to be the case.
tion of language learning s t r a t e g i e ~ People
.~~ In our study women used two additional
with different career interests seemed to choose types of strategies - general study strategies and
different strategies. In this study, students formal rule-related practice strategies - signifi-
majoring in humanitieslsocial scienceleduca- cantly more often than men. This fact could
tion used two kinds of strategies- interestingly, be related to women's desire for good grades
the least popular kinds, functional practice and may reflect a need for social approval.25
strategies (Factor Two) and resourceful, inde- Women's greater use of these two kinds of
pendent strategies (Factor Three) - signifi- strategies might also echo their verbal supe-
cantly more often than did students with other riority.26 Another possible explanation is
majors. Humanities/social scienceleducation women's greater willingness than men to con-
Language Learning Strategies
form to conventional norms.27 oriented s t r a t e g i e ~ Students
.~~ should be en-
Women's stronger, or at least different, social couraged to experiment with a great variety of
orientation might have led us to expect that strategies and to apply them to tasks which pro-
they would choose functional practice (authen- mote creative, communicative learning.
tic language use) strategies significantly more Coupled with such an agenda must be a lan-
often than men.Z8 However, in this sample, guage program which takes into account learn-
everyone's use of such strategies appeared to ers' needs, including the need to gain self-
be suppressed by the traditional, academic control and autonomy through strategy use.
environment of the classroom - a setting which Subsequent research should explore all these
promotes and rewards performance on discrete issues further.
tasks rather than interactive, communicative Such research can contribute to an impor-
efforts.Z9 tant and necessary transformation: changing
language learning classrooms into stimulating
places where use of communicatively-oriented
CONCLUSION
strategies - for both learning and teaching - will
This study provides many insights about be commonplace. The change may lie not so
variables influencing the choice of learning much in the application of a given method or
strategies by foreign language students in a con- approach, or in the use of a given textbook, but
ventional classroom setting. We have demon- in promoting a conscious awareness and use of
strated the powerful effects of motivation, sex, workable strategies within the confines of the
years of study, and other variables on choice foreign language classroom. This change will
of language learning strategies. We have also not be easy; it will involve modifying attitudes
suggested how the expectations imposed by the and behaviors of learners and teachers alike.
standard academic approaches to teaching and Nevertheless, this transformation is essential if
testing limit the motivation of most language students are to obtain the greatest possible
learners to try new, creative, communicatively benefit from language i n ~ t r u c t i o n . ~ ~

'Dickinson (15), Holec (22).

NOTES 8Anderson (1, 2), Bates (4), Carrel1 (lo, 1I), and Slobin

(58) provide background on development of mental struc-

tures or schemata.
lAlthough Reid's (49) study of the language learning style 9Dansereau (12, 13), Derry & Murphy (14), O'Malley
preferences of ESL students contained a slightly greater and colleagues (31, 32, 33), Oxford (39), Russo & Stewner-
number of subjects than ours (approximately 1,400 vs. Manzanares (56). The teaching of learning strategies is
1,ZOO), nevertheless our study appears to be the largest com- sometimes known as "learner training," "strategy training,"
pleted investigation of language learning strategies as of or "learning-to-learn training," and it-along with the iden-
spring 1988. Learning styles, as compared with learning tification and diagnosis of learning strategies- changes and
strategies, are much more global and more difficult to expands the teacher's role; see Wenden (63), Oxford (38,
change. Style dimensions include (among many others) 39).
reflective vs, impulsive; aural, visual, kinesthetic vs. tac- 1°These figures do not reflect the actual enrollment by
tile; leveling vs. sharpening; thinking vs. feeling; field de- language at the university. The sample was drawn from
pendence vs. field independence. See Shipman & Shipman classes of teachers who volunteered to have their students
(57) for style dimensions. surveyed.
2For example, see (1, 2), Brown, Campione & Day (7), lLTheSILL was originally developed for the Army Re-
Brown & Palinscar (8), O'Neil (34), Weinstein, Goetz & search Institute and the Defense Language Institute for the
Alexander (61). Language Skill Change Project, which studies variables
3Bialystok (5, 6), Naiman, Frohlich & Todesco (29), affecting change (improvement, maintenance, or loss) of
Oxford (35, 36, 38, 39, 40), Reiss (51), Rubin (53, 54), language skills during and after language training. A
Rubin & Thompson (55), Wenden (62), Wenden & Rubin number of different forms of the SILL (other than the one
(64). described in this article) have since been developed for
4Politzer (45, 46, 47), Politzer & McGroarty (48), Oxford specific populations and uses, including both foreign lan-
(40). guages and ESLIEFL. The SILL is now being translated
50xford (39), Rubin (53, 54), Wenden & Rubin (64). into Spanish and Chinese.
'jHosenfeld (23, 24), Reiss (50). '2As noted, the main focus of this article is on the second
 Rebecca Oxford &Martha Nyikos
question, which concerns influences on strategy use. Com- opment, self-esteem, and motivation, see McCombs (28).
plete details regarding the first question, including an in- 201nthis study we looked at proficiency self-perceptions
depth discussion of the factor analytic results, are found as independent (or causal) variables, but it is also certainly
in Nyikos & Oxford (30). possible to examine such perceptions as dependent variables
l3SILL factor analysis involved Promax (oblique) rota- (effects of strategy use).
tion with the maximum number of allowable factors set at 21Politzer (45), Ehrman & Oxford (16).
10 and the minimum eigenvalue set at 1. This procedure 22See Oxford, Nyikos & Ehrman (44) for a review of
was the same used by Oxford (37) in the original SILL field studies of sex differences in language learning strategy use.
test study at the Defense Language Institute; thus it is pos- 23Fishman (17, 18), Kramarae (25), Lakoff (26), and
sible to compare factors across studies (see Nyikos & Tannen (59) all discuss sex differences in native language
Oxford). The general linear model (GLM) program was use.
used for conducting analyses of variance (ANOVA) on 24Thestrategy model, developed by British and Ameri-
factor scores (i.e., the scores assigned to individuals on each can anthropologists, is summarized by Kramarae (25).
of the five strongest SILL factors found in the current 25The theme of sex differences in social approval is elo-
study). The independent variables in the analyses of vari- quently explored by Bardwick (3).
ance were sex, elective vs, required course status, motiva- 26See, for example, Maccoby & Jacklin (27), Gage &
tion and proficiency self-ratings, university major, and other Berliner (19), Tyler (60) for information on sex differences
background variables, while the dependent variables were in verbal ability.
the factor scores. As noted earlier, the use of ANOVA allows 27Bardwick(3) discusses the controversial topic in some
directional statements about causality. detail.
14Fora SILL factor analysis with a large military sample, 28Maccoby & Jacklin (27) suggest that females are very
see Oxford (37), and Nyikos & Oxford (30). different from males in many social skills, with females
I5This level, p < .0001, means that probability of such showing greater gentleness, cooperation, and nurturance
results occurring by random error is less than one in 10,000. in social relationships and men displaying greater aggres-
The standard p-value indicating significance is usually sion, competition, and dominance in social relationships.
p < .05, the accepted level for this study. These social aspects are reflected in speech. Other infor-
16The motivation question resulted in a somewhat mation on sex differences in social orientation is found in
"flattened outn normal curve, with thirty-one percent of the Bardwick (3), Gilligan (21), and Tyler (60).
students expressing low motivation, forty-one percent 29Throughoutthis article the descriptions "conventional"
moderate motivation, and twenty-eight percent high moti- and "traditional" are used to describe programs (such as
vation. The vast majority (82%) also indicated they used the one under study) where teaching tends to be eclectic
the language less than ten percent of the time, reflecting and textbook-driven, with emphasis on covering practice
absence of strong motivation (and perhaps of opportunity) exercises and lessons. Consequently, relatively little time
among the majority of subjects is spent on promoting communicative skills. Such situations
171ngeneral, students rated themselves as more proficient are often prevalent where close adherence to the textbook
in reading and writing and less proficient in speaking and is used to ensure uniformity of content across classes at a
listening, as might be expected in a traditional, academic given level. O u r results can be generalized to similar uni-
language situation. Positive (excellent or good) proficiency versity language programs to the degree that such an orien-
self-ratings were given by forty-one percent of the students tation underlies classroom instruction
in listening, sixty percent of the students in writing, thirty- The designation of "conventional" in the sense described
one percent in speaking, and forty-four percent in writing. above is based on the second author's familiarity with the
Looking at it the other way around, negative (fair or poor) teaching and testing techniques at several large universi-
proficiency self-ratings were given by fifty-nine percent of ties, including the one in this study, as well as at her present
the students in listening, forty percent in reading, sixty- institution. Conventional language programs are typified
nine percent in speaking, and fifty-six percent in writing. by much individual variation in the degree of communica-
Only two to eight percent of the students, depending on tive teaching practices employed.
the skill, described themselves as excellent in any of the 3QYet, paradoxically, even academic programs that
four language skills. Learners rated their proficiency com- promote high functional language use tend to revert to
pared with that of other university foreign language stu- discrete-point tests which, students realize, set the real cri-
dents. Obviously, much lower proficiency self-ratings would teria forjudging their academic success. Such testing prac-
be expected if learners compared themselves with native tices undermine the potential use and transfer of interactive,
users of the foreign languages. communicative strategies to realistic, functional settings
18See Oxford, Nyikos & Crookall (43) for details and a beyond the classroom.
complete interpretation of the interactions, 3'0riginally a paper presented at the Modern Language
19111this case, we are talking about situational self-esteem, JournalIOhio State University Symposium on Research Per-
which is not the same as global self-esteem; see Brown (9). spectives in Adult Second Language Learning and Acqui-
For further information about linkages among skill devel- sition, Columbus, 22 October 1988.
Language Learning Strategies 299
21. Gilligan, Carol. In a D i f f e n t Voice: Psychological Theory
BIBLIOGRAPHY and Women's Development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
Univ. Press, 1982.
22. Holec, Henri. Autonomy and Foreign Language Learning.
1. Anderson, J . R . C ognitive Psychology and Its Implications. Oxford: Pergamon, 1981.
San Francisco: Freeman, 1980. 23. Hosenfeld, Carol. "Cindy: A Learner in Today's For-
2. - , Cognitive Skills and Their Acquisition. Hillsdale, eign Language Classroom. The Foreign Language
NJ: Erlbaum, 1981. Learner in Today's Classroom Environment. Ed. Warren
3. Bardwick, Judith M . Psychology of Women: A Study ofBio- Born. Middlebury, VT: Northeast Conference,
cultural Conflicts. New York: Harper & Row, 1971. 1979.
4. Bates, Elizabeth. Language and Context. New York: Aca- 24. - , "A Learning-Teaching View of Second Lan-

demic, 1972. guage Instruction." Foreign Language Annals 12(1979):

5. Bialystok, Ellen. "The Role of Conscious Strategies in 51-57.
Second Language Proficiency." Modern Language 25. Kramarae, Cheris. Women and Men Speaking. Rowley,
Journal, 65 (1981): 24-35. MA: Newbury House, 1981.
6. -& Maria Frohlich. "Variables of Classroom 26. Lakoff, Robin. Languageand Woman's Place. New York:
Achievement in Second Language Learning." Harper & Row, 1975.
Modern Language Journal 62 (1978): 327-66. 27. Maccoby, Eleanor E. & Carol Jacklin. The Psychology
7. Brown, A. L . , J . C . Campione & J . D. Day. "Learning of Sex Differences. Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ.
to Learn: O n Training Students to Learn from Press, 1974.
Tests." Unpubl. Paper, AERA Annual Meeting, 28. McCombs, Barbara L. "The Role of Affective Variables
Boston, 1980. in Autonomous Learning." Unpubl. Paper, AERA
8. -& A. S. Palinscar. "Inducing Strategic Learn- Annual Meeting, New Orleans, 1984.
ing from Texts by Means of Informed Self-Control 29. Naiman, Neil, Maria Frohlich & Angie Todesco. "The
Training." Topics in Learning and Learning Disabili- Good Second Language Learner." T E S L Talk
ties 2 (1982): 1-17. 5(1975): 58-75.
9. Brown, H . Douglas. Principles of Language Learning and 30. Nyikos, Martha & Rebecca Oxford. "Language Learn-
Teaching. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1987. ing Strategy Use: Factor Analytic Comparisons of
10. Carrell, Patricia. "Evidence of a Formal Schema in Sec- Military and University Samples." Unpubl. (1988).
ond Language Comprehension." Language Learning 31. O'Malley, J. Michael, Rocco P. Russo & Anna U .
34(1984): 87-112. Chamot. A Review ofthe Literature on Learning Strate-
11. - . "Schema Theory and ESL Reading: Classroom gies in the Acquisition of English as a Second Language:
Implications and Applications." Modern Language The Potentialfor Research Applications. Rosslyn, VA:
Journal 68(1984): 332-43. InterAmerica Research Associates, 1983.
12. Dansereau, Donald F. "The Development of a Learn- 32. - , Gloria Stewner-Manzanares & Lisa Kupper.
ing Strategies Curriculum." Learning Strategies. Ed. Learning Strategies Used by High School Students in Learn-
H . F. O'Neil, Jr. New York: Academic, 1978: 1-29. ing English as a Second Language. Rosslyn, VA: Inter-
13. - . "Learning Strategy Research." Thinking and America Research Associates, 1983.
Learning Skills: Relating Learning to Basic Research. Ed. 33. - , Rocco P. Russo, Anna Chamot, Gloria
J . W . Segal, Susan F. Chipman & Robert Glaser. Stewner-Manzanares & Lisa Kupper. "Learning
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1985: 209-40. Strategy Applications of Students of English as a
14. Derry, Sharon J . &Debra A. Murphy. "Designing Sys- Second Language." T E S O L QarterIy 19(1985):
tems that Train Learning Ability: From Theory to 557-84.
Practice." Review of Educational Research 43(1986): 34. O'Neil, Harold F., Jr., Ed. Learning Strakgies. New York:
455-67. Academic, 1978.
15. Dickinson, Leslie. Self-Instruction in Language Learning. 35. Oxford, Rebecca. A New Taxonomy of Second Language
Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1987. Learning Strategies. Washington: ERIC, 1985.
16. Ehrman, Madeline E. & Rebecca L. Oxford. "Effects 36. - . "Second Language Learning Strategies: What
of Sex Differences, Career Choice, and Psychologi- the Research has to Say." E R I C / C L L New Bulletin
cal Type on Adults' Language Learning Strategies." 9(1985): 1, 3-5.
Modern Language Journal 73(1989): 1- 13. 37. - . Development and Psychometric Testing ofthe Strategy
17. Fishman, P. M . "Interactional Shitwork." Heresies: A Inventoryfor Language Learning. Army Research Insti-
Feminist Publication on A d and Politics 2(1977): 99-101. tute Technical Report 728. Alexandria, VA: US
18. -"Interaction: The Work Women Do." Social Army Research Institute for Behavioral & Social Sci-
Problems 25(1978): 397-406. ences, 1986.
19. Gage, N. L. & David C . Berliner. Educational Psychol- 38. - . Second Language Learning Strategies: Current Re-
ogy. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1975. search and Implicationsfor Practice. Los Angeles: Center
20. Gardner, Robert C . Social Psycholoy~and Second Language for Language Education and Research, Univ. of
Learning: The Role ofAttitudes and Motivation. London: California, 1986.
Arnold, 1985. 39. - . Language Learning Strategies: What Every Teacher
 Rebecca Oxford €9 Martha Nyikos
Should Know. New York: Newbury HouseIHarper 52. Rigney, J . W. "Learning Strategies: A Theoretical Per-
& Row, forthcoming. spective." Learning Strategies. Ed. Harold F. O'Neil,
40. - . "Use of Language Learning Strategies: A Syn- Jr. New York: Academic, 1978: 165-205.
thesis of Studies with Implications for Strategy 53. Rubin, Joan. "What the 'Good Language Learner' Can
Training." System 17 (1989): 1-13. Teach Us." T E S O L Qarterly 9 (1975): 41-45.
41.- . "Lessons from Research on Language Learn- 54. - . "Learner Strategies: Theoretical Assumptions,
ing Strategies." (Submitted.) Research, History, and Typology." Learner Strategies
42. -& David Crookall. "Learning Strategies." You in Language Learning. Ed. Anita Wenden & Joan
Can Take it With You: Helping Students Maintain Sec- Rubin. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1987:
ond Language Skills. Ed. Jean Berko-Gleason. Engle- 15-30.
wood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1988. 55. -& Irene Thompson. H o w to be a More Successful
43. - , Martha Nyikos & David Crookall. "Learning Language Learner. Boston: Heinle & Heinle, 1982.
Strategies of University Foreign Language Students: 56. Russo, Rocco P. & Gloria Stewner-Manzanares. "The
A Large-Scale Study." Unpubl. Paper, TESOL Training and Use of Learning Strategies for English
Annual Meeting, Miami, 1987. as a Second Language in a Military Context."
44. - , Martha Nyikos &Madeline E. Ehrman. "Vive Unpubl. Paper, AERA Annual Meeting, Chicago,
la Diffkrence? Reflections on Sex Differences in Use 1985.
of Language Learning Strategies." Foreign Language 57. Shipman, Stephanie & Virginia C . Shipman. "Cogni-
Annals Zl(1988): 321-29. tive Styles: Some Conceptual, Methodological, and
45. Politzer, Robert L. "Research Notes: An Exploratory Applied Issues." Reuiew ofResearch in Education. Ed.
Study of Self-Reported Language Learning Be- E. Gordon. Washington: AERA, 1985.
haviors and Their Relation to Achievement." Studies 58. Slobin, Dan I. "Developmental Psycholinguistics." A
in Second Language Acquisition 6 (1983): 54-68. Survey of Linguistic Science. Ed. W. 0 . Dingwall.
46. - . "Linguistic and Communicative Competence College Park, Md.: Univ. of Maryland Linguistics
Achieved in Relation to Reported Motivation and Program, 1971.
Learning Behaviors in an Intensive ESL Course." 59. Tannen, Deborah. That's Not M a t IMeant! New York:
Unpubl. Paper, Stanford Univ. (undated). Morrow, 1986.
47. - , "Motivation, Learning Behavior, and Achieve- 60. Tyler, Leona. The Psychology o f H u m a n Differences. New
ment in an Intensive ESL Course." Unpubl. Paper, York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1965
Stanford Univ. (undated). 61. Weinstein, C . E., E. T . Goetz & P. A. Alexander, Eds.
48. -& Mary McGroarty. "An Exploratory Study Learning and Study Strategies: Issues in Assessment,
of Learning Behaviors and Their Relation to Gains Instruction, and Eualuation. New York: Academic,
in Linguistic and Communicative Competence." 1988.
Unpubl. Paper, Stanford Univ., 1983. 62. Wenden, Anita. "Learner Strategies." T E S O L News-
49. Reid, Joy M . "The Learning Style Preferences of ESL letter 19 (1985): 1-7.
Students." T E S O L Quarterly 21 (1987): 87-1 11. 63. - . "Incorporating Learner Training in the Class-
50. Reiss, Mary-Ann. "Helping the Unsuccessful Language room." System 14 (1986): 315-25.
Learner." Forum 21, ii (1983): 2-24. 64. -&Joan Rubin, Eds. Learner Strategies in Language
51. - . "The Good Language Learner: Another Look." Learning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1987.
Canadian Modem Language Reuiew 41 (1985): 51 1-23.

-- -
Research Perspectives in

oIl10
j p ~ ~ Adult Language Learning and Acquisition
c\ I 'RC

- - \

November 3-4, 1989, Columbus, Ohio

Keynote addresses by:

Vicki Galloway, Editor, Foreign Language A n n a l s ( A C T F L )

Earl Stevick, U . S . Foreign Service Institute (ret.)

Renate Schulz, University of Arizona

This annual conference is organized by the Foreign Language Center of The Ohio State University,
and is co-sponsored by The Modern Language Journal and the OSU College of Humanities.
Preregistration desirable. Contact the OSU Foreign Language Center for details.
RP-ALLA '89

OSU Foreign Language Center

155 Cunz Hall, 1841 Millikin Road

Columbus, OH 43210-1215