*Ir..

UsingSocial-psychologicalVariables to Predict
The Use of l^anguageLearning Strategies
futer D. Maclntyre
UniuersityCollegeof CapeBreton
KimberlyA. Noels
Uniuercityof Colifornia,SantoBarbara
ABSTMCT Much of the interest in language leaming strategies stemsfrom the findings that
suchstrategiesfacilitate languoge leaming and moy be teachable; houeuer, seueral authors
haueconcludedthat studentsdo not use os many strategiesas they could. A recent social-psy-
chologicalmodel proposes that strategy use depends on hnowledge of appropiate strotegies,
hauinga reasonto use them, ond hauing nothing to preDenttheir use. The presentstudy at-
tempted to use uaiables defined by this model to predict the frequencyof use for 50 language
leaming strategies.Resultsshowedthot, on aDeroge,the model accountedfor 60 percentof the
oaiancein strotegyuse and that all three componentsof the model were supported for 72 per-
centof the strategies.Further analysesreuealedthat integratiue motiuation and language anx-
ietyplay a role in ouerall strotegy use ond the use of certain types of strategies,as uell as the
ratingsof hnowledge, effectiDeness, difficulty, and anxiety coused by strategy use.

kamingstrategiesare commonly defined as of languageleamingstrategieshavethe poten-

stepstakento facilitate the acquisition,stor- tial to facilitatelanguageleaming.
age,retrieval,and useof information(Ehrman Languagelearningstrategiescover a wide
andOxford1989).Evena cursoryexamination rangeof behavior.Forexample,the Strateryln-
0fthelistof potentiallanguageleamingstrate ventoryfor language l,eaming (Oxford 1990)
giessuggests thatalmostany tacticor plan that lists80 items,each of which is a differentstrat-
aleamerbelieveswill assisther/him in acquir- ery. A basicdistinctioncan be made behveen
rngsomepartof the language,or in managing directand indirectstrategies. Oxford(1989)de
thelanguage leamingprocess,can be consid- finesdirect strategiesas "... thosebehaviors
ereda strategy(l\4aclntyre1994).The topic of which directlyinvolvethe targetlanguageand
language leamingstrategieshasreceivedcon- directly enhance languageleaming" (449).
siderableattentionin recentyears.Severalre Suchstrategiesare usedto facilitatethe recall
viewsof the literature are available for of vocabularyitems,the processingof lan-
teachenand researchers(Chamot and Kup guageinput,and preparingfor languageoutput
per1989; "fill
Cohen1990;Oxford and Crookall and allow one to in the gaps"in knowl-
1989;Oxford,Lavine,and Crookall 1989)and edge.Indirectstrategies "...
aredefinedas those
language learners(Brown 1989;Rubin and behaviorswhich do not directlyinvolvethe tar-
'lhompson
1982).The most enduring conclu- getlanguagebut which are nevertheless essen-
sionlromthesevarioussourcesis that a variety tial for effectivelanguagelearning" (450).
Thesestrategieshelp managethe processof
ftterD. Maclnve (Ph.D.,WestemOntario University)is leaming,control emotions,attitudes,and moti-
AsislantProfessor
of Psycholo$/at the UnivenityCollege vation,and encourageleamingwith others.
olCapeBreton,Sydney,NovaScotia,Canada. A more detailed classificationschemehas
(Ph.D.,Univenity of Ottawa) is a Post-
Knfuiy A. Ncrels been presentedby Oxford (1989).According
DoctonlFellowat the Univenity of Califomia, Santa to this scheme,direct strategiesencompass
Barbara. memory (e.g.,rhyming,imagery),cognitive

ForeignLanguageAnnals,29, No. 3, 1996

 rcREIGN I.ANGAAGE ANNAIS-FALL 1996

(e.g.,analyzing,summarizing),and compen- quite likely responsiblefor the useof both di-

sation strategies(e.g., guessingmeaning, rect and indirect strategies"(219). Consistent
usinggestures).Indirectstrategiesare com- with this suggestion,Oxford and Nyikos
prisedof metacognitive(e.g.,planningtasks, (1989)found that motivationwas the bestpre
monitoring errors),affective(e.g.,anxiety re dictor of stratery use in a largescalestudyof
duction, self-reward),and social strategies universitystudents.
(e.g., asking questions,increasingcultural A recent model has proposedthat socia!
awareness).Oxford and Burry-Stock(forth- psychologicalvariablesplay a key role in the
coming) reviewa number of studiesthat have useof languageleamingstrategies(Maclntyre
used the SGitemESUEFLversionof the Strat- 1994).The model is shown in Figure l. Ac-
egy Inventoryfor LanguageLeaming (SILL) cording to this social-psychological model,
thatwill be usedin the presentstudy.Whereas strategyuseprimarilydependson threegen-
they observedvariationsdependingon cul- eral factors:knowledgeof the strategy,having
ture and leaming context,overall,usingthese a reasonto useit, and not havinga reasonnot
six groupsof strategiesappeamto be a useful to use it. Knowledgerefersto the obsewation
way of classifyingstrategies. that strategiesare tacticsor plansthat are em-
With a strong conceptual and empirical ployed in an attemptto aid languageleaming.
basisfor strategyresearch,thereappearsto be Thereforeit is necessarythat the studentbe
little doubt that the use of leaming strategies awareof the strategyand feel that s/he under-
tends to facilitate languageleaming (Oxford standshow to use it, beforeit can be usedand
and Crookall 1989).Much of the interestin considereda strategy.rKnowledgeof strate
this topic stemsfrom the possibilityof training gieswill depend on a learner'sintelligence,
languagelearnersto use specific strategies aptitude,and languageleamingexperience.
thatwill facilitatethe languageleaming.There Hauing a reoson to use rl refersto the require
is evidencethat strategiescan be taught and ment that theremustbe an expectationa strat-
that such teachingincreasesperformancein ery will be successfulin helping to leam the
the second languageprocess(Chamot 1990; language.A student'swillingnessto expend
for a review,seeDomyei 1995).However,it is effort to leam the language,having prior suc-
a truism thal strategiescannot be effectiueif cesswith the stratery,and a facilitatingsetof
leamersdo not use them. Civen this, several attitudesand motivationswill help to create
authors have reached an interesting,and the expectation that a strategywill be effec-
somewhatunfortunate,conclusion:typically, tive. The final item in the model is not hauing
studentsare not usingthe full rangeof appro o reasonnot to use 4 that is, there is nothing
priatestrategiesand are not awareof the avail- which preventsthe useof the strategy.Evena
able strategiesthat they could be using well-known,effectivestrategymight still be
(Cohen 1990;Ehrmanand Oxford 1989;Ox- neglectedbecauseit is difficult to use,it
ford and Crookall 1989).Therefore,one focus causesthe learnerto feel uneasyor self<on-
in the literaturehas been on the factorsthat scious,or its use is actively discouraged(for
contribute to, or detract from, the use of lan- example,somelanguageteachersaskthatstu-
guageleamingstrategies. dentsinfer meaningsfrom context ratherthan
The useof any givenstrategylikely depends usea dictionary).
on severalfactors,such as gender (Oxford, The presentstudy was designedprimarily
Nyikos,and Ehrman1988),intelligence,apti- as a testof this model. In order to operational-
tude, and exposureto the language(Oxford ize the componentsof the model,specificde
1990).Chamot(1990)suggeststhat cultural finitions were given to each of the terms
backgroundor prior educationalexperiences shown in Figure l. For the presentinvestiga-
also may influence the use of certain strate- tion, knowledgespecifically refersto the de
gies. In addition, Gardner and Maclntyre gree to which the leamersare familiar with a
(1992)arguethat "... affectiveattributesare strateryand its use.The major reasonto usea

374
 FOREIGN IANGAAGE ANNAI.S-FALL 1 996

FIGURE I strategyappeaF to be that it would assistlan_

guagelearning,that is, the strategymust be
seen as effective.Thus, a rating of ,,effective
ness"was taken as the reasonto usethe strat-
egy. It is clear that there can be several
reasonsnot to use a particular stratery.Two
generalreasonswere operationalized:(l) be
causethe straterywas difficult to useand (2)
becausethe strategycausesthe leamerto feel
anxiety.
In addition to this micro-levelanalysis.a
secondpurposeof thisstudyis to examinethe
role of motivationand relatedvariablesin the
useof the differenttypesof strategies(Oxford
and Burry-Stock,forthcoming).Severalau_
thorshave concluded that motivationfor lan-
guageleamingplaysa key role in strategyuse
(Oxford and Crookall 1989;Chamot ib90).
Perhapsthe most influential model of lan_
guageleamingmotivationhasbeenproposed
by Gardnerand colleagues(Gardner l9g5:
Gardnerand Lambertl9Z2).This model has
generateda great deal of empirical researqh
and theoreticaldebate,which continuesat
present(see critiquesby Domyei (19g4)and
Oxford and Shearin(1994)and a responsebv
Gardnerand Tremblay(1994)).
The comerstoneof Gardner'smodel is the
concept of "integrativemotivation.,'This mo
tivation is a multifacetedconstructthat is
composedof three intenelatedcomponents:
Attitudes toward the Learning Situation
(AI5), Integrativeness, and Motivation.Al-S
refers to the learner'sevaluation of the lan_
guagecourseand the instructorand is de_
fined as the degree to which the student
possesses a positiveattitude toward both. ln_
) tegrativeness refersto the desireto meet and
communicatewith membersof the targetlan_
guagecommunityand is defined by a positive
attitude toward the group, a general interest
in foreignlanguages,and the view that meet_
ing membersof the targetlanguagecommu-
nity is a good reasonfor languagelearning
(refenedto as an "integrativeorientation").In
Gardner'smodel, Motivation refers to the {
drive to leam a specific languageand is de.
fined by the amount of efforta studentis will_
ing to expend,the strengthof the desireto

J/J
 FOREIGNLANGUAGE ANNAIS_FAIL 1996

languagethey were
leam the language,and a positiveattitudetc level of fluency in the
studying. Students were asked to rate their
ward learning that language.ln Gardner's
that ability to use the second language on a scale
(1985)view, motivationis the variable
in from one ("not at all able") to seven ("flu-
mo6tdirectlyaffectsstudents'achievement
(mean =
the secondlanguage,and motivationis based' ently") in four areas:understanding
in largemeasure,on the positivityof the atti 4.41.1, reading(mean= 4.2),writing (mean=
(mean= 3.72).
tudestowardthe leamingsituationand the de 3.87),and speaking
gree of integrativeness. Languageanxiety, or
the apprehensionexperiencedwhen leaming Moterials
or usinga secondlanguage,can be considered The major set of materialsfor the present
a fourthmaior affectiveinfluenceon language study was adaptedfrom Oxford's(1990)5C
leaming(Gardnerand Maclntyre1993)' item version of the SILLdesignedfor LSLstu-
Basedon this model, this study will exam- dents. This measure was choseninsteadof the
SGitem version because of time constraints
ine the specific motivationalfactorsthat cor-
during testing. The SILL was modified so that
relate with the use of different types of "the secondlanguagethat
languagelearningstrategies'To do this, we all items refened to
The following
wili examine the links between Gardner's you arestudyingin this course."
six responses were requested for each strat-
(1985)generalmotivationalmodel and the
egy. It should be noted that all of the items
specificstrategyuse model proposedby Mac-
refer to the respondent's personal evaluation
lntyre (1994).Specifically,the correlationsbe-
tween ALS,Integrativeness, and Motivation of each strategy,rather than a rating of the
general.Ratingswere
with Knowledge,Reasonsfor Using,Reasons stratery for studentsin
made on a seven-point Likert scale with the
for Not Using,and the Frequencyof Strategy
Usewill be computed.Suchcorrelationsmay anchors indicated below:
help to illuminatespecificways in which mo
tivation affectsstrategYuse. L Frequencyof use. Respondentsindicated
Thus, the presentstudy will addresstwo how often theYusedeach item on the
"Neveruse it" and
main issues.First,as a test of the social-psy- SILL, usinganchors
"Useit very often." Higherscoresindi-
chological model of strategyuse (Maclntyre
1994),a number of strategieswill be rated for cate more frequentuse'
their frequencyof use, knowledge,effective- 2. Knowledge. Awarenessof each item was
"Don'tknow
ness,anxiety,and difficulty of use.Second, provided using the anchors
"Knowit verywell."Higher
we will examine the correlationsbetween it at all" and
theseratingsof strategyuse and the maior scores indicate increasedknowledgeof
componentsof Gardner'smodel of integrative the stratery.
motivation. 3. Effectiveness. The ratingof strateryeffective
ness was given between the anchon
"Considerit completelyineffective"and
, Method "Considerit veryeffective."Higherscotes

Participants indicategreaterperceivedeffectivenes
A total of 138studentsagreedto be tested' 4. Anxiety. The degreeto which usingeach
The age of the participantsrangedfrom 17to strategy made the student feel nervous
"Notanxious
52 years,with a mean ageof 222 years'The was rated, usingtheanchors
"Feelvery anxious
samplewas comprisedof 101femalesand 34 about usingit" and
males;hvostudentsdid not indicatetheir gen- about usingit." Higherscoresindicatein'
der.All participantswere drawn from first'year creasedanxietYarousal.
coumesin Spanishor ltalian in the Modern 5. Difficulff. The degreeof difficulty in imple
LanguagesDepartmentat a large university' menting each item was rated usingthe
"Veryeasyfor me to use"and
On average,studentsindicateda moderate anchors

J/O
 FOREIGN LANGAAGE ANNAI.S_FALL 1996

'Very dilficult for me to use'" Higher bers of the second language community, I
scoresindicate that the strategyis con- would say thot it is:
sideredmore difficult to use. IJnfauorable-: -: -: -: --: -: --Fauomble"

Anexampleitem (*50) is: 9. LanguageAnxiety (two items).language

Anxiety refersto the apprehensionexperi-
"l try to leam about the culture of the people encedwhen usingthesecondlanguageeither
uho speahthe second language' inside or outsidethe classroom.An example
item is:
knou it at all
Dc,n't I-2-3'4-5--E-7 Knou it Deryuell ' . r , J . . ]

lhuer useir 1-2-34-5-6-7 Us it ueryo[ten "lf I uere to rate my onxiety in my second

^"*,* t- 2-3-4-s-6-, S?ir"!f!,!L"
?3[i13{"ii Ianguage class,I would rate nryselfas:
!ffl;iP"*"" VeryCalm -.'-.'-.'-.- :-: -Very Neruous"
!,!!6n1io"on'' t-2-3-4-s-6-,
Ven difficultto use I-2-3'4-5--4-7 Vetyeasyto use"
hocedure
A brief version of Gardner'sAttitudes and lnstructorsof ltalian and Spanishcourses
MotivationTest Battery (AMTB) was also in- were contactedand given information about
cluded(Gardnerand Maclntyre1993).This the study. Testingrequired approximately20
'Guilford-style"instrumentmeasuredthe l0 minutesand was conducted either at the be
maiorvariablesin Gardner'sAttitude/Motiva- ginning or at the end of a regularlyscheduled
tionTestBatteryusing singleitem indicators' languageclass,dependingon the preference
Gardnerand Maclntyre(1993) have shown of the course instructor.The study was de-
that,despitethe potentialproblemswith single scribedto the studentsby the researcherin
"consentform" and a brief oral
itemmeasures, this instrumenthasacceptable both a written
concunent and predictivevalidity. The items presentationto the class.Approximately80
wereusedto form the followingvariables: percentof studentspresenton the day of test-
6. Attitudestoward the Leaming Situation ing participated.Studentswho agreedto par-
(twoitems).This refersto the students'evalu- ticipatecompletedthe questionnairein the
ationof the teacherand the languagecoune' classroom,working individually.The strategy
An exampleitem is: itemswere presentedin the sameorder as in
the SILL(Oxford 1990).
"lf I were to rate my attitude toward nry sec-
ondlanguogecourse,I would say thot it is: " Data Analysis'. The procedure used to test
IJnfouorable -: -: -: -: -- -: -Fauora ble the model involved computing a seriesof
stepwisemultiple regressions. Multiple regrce
ll
j Z. Motivation(three items). Motivation sion is a statistical procedure in which scores
(the "predictors")are
refe6to the desireto learn the new language on a set of variables
to predict the scoreson anothervariable
andthe amount of effort investedin learning used"criterion"),
it.An examPleitem is: (the based on their intercorrela-
tions.In this case,ratingsof knowledge,effec-
"lf I were to rate hou hard I worh at leaming tiveness,difficulty,and anxietywill be usedto
mysecondlonguage,I would charocterizeit as: predict the frequency of strategyuse' There
" are severalmethodsof decidingwhich pre
VeryLittle --: -: -: -: -: -: -Very Much
dictor variablesto use in the regression equa-
"stepwise"
(three items).lntegrative tion. The present study employs a
8. lntegrativeness
ness refersto the desire to meet and commu- procedurewhich requiresthat each of the
to
nicatewith membersof the targetlanguage predicton make a significantcontribution
An examPleitem is: predictingscores on the criterion,indepen-
community.
"lf I were to rate my attitude toward mem- dent of the contribution being made by other

2'7'7
 FOREIGN IA,NGAAGE ANNAI.S4ALL 1 996

variablesin the equation.This may resultin a eitherdifficulty or anxietyenterthe prediction

different subsetof predictors for each of the equation.This pattern providessupportfor
50 ratingsof strateryuse,dependingon which each element of the social-psychological
ratingscorrelatebest with the use of each of model (knowledge,reasonto use,and no rea-
the strategies. son not to use a strategy).The model will be
The stepwise regression procedure was consideredpartiallysupportedwhen a subset
chosenin order to achievethe most parsimo of thesevariablesare significantpredicton.
nious prediction equation for each strategy, The secondsetof analyseswill examinethe
with the intention of examiningthe trendsin correlationsbetweenthe maior elementsof
the equationsand not the resultsof any one Gardner's(1985) socioeducationalmodel
equation.With multiple regression,it is often (AlS, Integrativeness, LanguageAnxiety,and
tempting to interpret the regressioncoeffi- Motivation) and the factorscontributingto
cients in order to judge the relativeimpor- strate$/ use. For this analysis,the scoreswill
tance of the predictorvariables.In stepwise be aggregatedfor all 50 strategiesto produce
multiple regression,however, this proves to a single total score for Knowledge,Effective
be problematicbecausethe beta weighS de ness,Difficulty,Anxiety, and Frequencyof
pend, in large part, on the presenceof other Use.To maintainour focuson predictingstrat-
variables in the equation. Each variable en- ery use, conelationsbetweenGardners vari-
teredinto the regressionchangesthe betasfor ablesand the frequencyof use in each of the
all other variablesbecausevariablespresent six categoriesof strategiesalso will be exam.
in the equation are made statisticallyinde. ined. Becausethe elements of Gardner's
pendentof eachother.For this reason,we will model are being aqsessed with single.itemin-
not attemptto interpretthe individual regres dicators,the variabilityof thesevariableswill
sion coefficients,but ratherwill examine the be somewhatattenuated.Therefore,eachcor-
pattem of predicton as a group. relation will be evaluatedat the .05 aloha
A relativelylarge number (50) of regres- level.
sionswere computed becausethe social-psy-
chological model of strategyuse (Maclntyre Results
1994)is intendedto predict the useof specific The results will be addressed in three
strategies,rather than groupsof strategiesor stages.First,the mean ratingsof knowledge,
overallstrategyuse.The largenumber of tests effectiveness, difficulty,anxiety,and usegiven
leadsto concem about the TypeI error rate.In to each of the strategieswill be reported.Sec-
this case,the mostseriousType I enor would ond, the social-psychological model will be
occur when a multiple regressionis declared examined on a strategy-by-strategy basis.Fi-
significantwhen, in fact, no prediction exists. nally,the conelationsof attitudes,motivation,
For this reason,a Bonfenoni adjustmentwas and anxiety with aggregatedratingsof the
made to our conservativeoverall alpha level strategiesand frequencyof useof the six cate
of .01,makingthe nominalalpha levelequal goriesof strategieswill be examined.
to .0002(.01/50= .0002)for each testof i?.
Thus, before examining the predictors in- Ratingsof the Strategies
volved in the regression,the multiple conela- Table I (on next page)presentsthe avenge
tion had to be declaredsignificantat the .0002 (mean) ratingsgivento each of the strategies.
level. With this provision,the analysispro- It can be noted that the three most frequently
ceeded on an itemiy-item basis,and the re. usedstrategiesare "pay attentionto L2 speak-
gressioncoefficient (B) for each predictor ers,""look for similarwords in Ll," and "use
within a significant regressionwas evaluated synonyms."Thesethreestrategiesalsoreceive
at the standard.05alphalevel. among the highestratingsfor knowledgeand
The full model will be consideredsup- effectiveness, and amongthe lowestratingsof
ported when knowledge,effectiveness, and difficulty to use. The three least frequently

378
 FIOREIGNI.A,NGUAGE ANNAI.S_FALL
1 996

TABLE I ):;!1',r' '

i :

Mean Radngs of Elenents of the Sociat_poychological

Morlel for Each of he 50 Srahgles

relateold and new

up every unknown word

questionsin
leamabout
vg.

379
 ront IGN ne,wcaAcE ANNet-S-FAtzI 996

used strategiesinclude "write feelingsin a pear that difficulty of use is the more impor-
diary," "giveself rewards,"and 'physicallyact tant considerationamong the 50 strategies
out words."Two of thesestrategies(write feel- studiedhere.In only two casesdid knowledge
ings in a diary and give self-rewards)receive fail to enter the equation,indicating that it is
amongthe lowestratingsof knowledge,effec- necessaryto know a strategybefore it can be
tiveness,and anxiety,which is somewhatsur- used. Becausethe ratingswere made on a
prising.Two of these(write feelingsin a diary seven-pointscale,theseresultsfurther indi-
and act out words) are also among the most cate that the better a student knows the strat-
difficult to use. egy,the more frequentlyit can be used.
The model indicatesthat a strategywill be
Testof the Model usedif it is well known,thereis a reasonto use
In order to test the social-psychological it, and nothing to prevent its use.Thesedata
model, 50 stepwisemultiple regressions were supportthat generalization.However,the orig
performed.In each,the useof the strategywas inal model may imply that a reasonto usethe
predictedby the ratingsof knowledge,useful- strateryis a necessarycondition beforea rea-
ness,difficulty, and anxiety.The major results son not to usethe strateS/is considered.Based
of the regressionanalysesare presentedin on the presentresults,a modified versionof
Table 2 (on next page). A significant regres- the model would show that the two decisions
sion equation (p < .0002)was obtained for happen independently,ratherthan one pre
eachof the 50strategies. Thus,in all cases,the ceding the other. In caseswhere both deci-
model is at least partially supported.The sionsfavorthe useof a strate$/,it will be used
amount of varianceaccountedfor rangedbe very frequently.If only one condition is met,
tween36 percentand 82 percent,with a mean strategyuselikely will be much lessfrequent.
of 60 percent.This indicatesthat a substantial
amount of the variability in strategyuse is ac- Strotegiesand Gardner'sModel
counted for by thesefew variables. Next,we examinethe influenceof Al5, Inte
Table 2 presentsthe standardizedregres- grativeness, LanguageAnxiety,and Motivation
sion coefficientsobtained for each of the re on strate$/useand the factorsinfluencingit. In
gressionequations.The pattem of regression this case,we are interestedin generaltenden-
coefficientscan be examinedto gaugesup cies in the useand ratingsof strategies. Before
port for componentsof the model.,Overall,in proceeding,averageratingsof use,knowledge,
36 out of 50 cases(72 percent),the full model effectiveness, aniety, and difficultywerecom-
was supported.That is, the use of approxi- puted. The correlationsbetweenthesefive
matelythreeout of four strategiesis predicted overallratingsand the AMTBmeasuresarepte
by a combinationof knowledge,effectiveness, sentedin Table3 (on page382).
and eitherdifficultyor anxiety.The useof step Knowledgeof strategieswas positivelycor-
wise regressionproceduresindicatesthat all relatedwith both motivation and integrative
threeof theseratingsmake significant,inde ness.The perceivedeffectiveness of strategies
pendentcontributionsto the predictionequa- was correlatedwith motivation,integrative
tion for the majorityof individualstrategies. ness,and AtS. Difficulty of strategyuse was
Directingattentionto the 14 caseswhere correlatednegativelywith motivation,integra-
the full model was not supported,we observe tiveness,and AIS and was positivelyrelatedto
that effectiveness failed to enterin nine of the languageanxiety. The anxiety arousedby
14 equations.Five equationsshowed no sig- strategieswas positively correlatedwith lan-
nificant contribution from either difficulty or guageanxiety.Finally,the overallfrequency
anxiety.Consideredseparately,difficulty was of strategyuse was correlatedsignificantly
a significantpredictorin 4l cases,and anxiety with all four of Gardner's variables.
enteredonly 11of the equations. Thus,of the To examine the frequency of strategyuse
two reasonsnot to usea strategy,it would ap moreclosely,a setof conelationsinvolvingthe

380
 FOREIGN I.ANGUAGE ANNAIS-FALL I 996

TABI"E2
Reerltr of Regresdon Analysec Predlcdng Snategy Uce Based on the Sodal-pcychologtcal Model

St ltegl Knowledge Strategl/ Difficult Anxiety % of oariance

of Strat. Eflective to use over us€ accounted for
relateold and new language .464 .296 -.205 .108 66.0
us€wordsin sentences .293 .409 -.221 52.7
relatesoundand mentalDicture .) lo .ZJJ
-.245 7t.2
makemental picture .580 .296 .157 74.3
userh),rnes .314 .545 .t24 57.2
useflashcards .432 -.313 47.2
actout words .404 .438 .120 62.2
reviewlessonsoften .242 -.90 .l 3 l 48.2
remember locationol new worG on page .500 .477 81.8
sayor write words often .340 .274 -.29i 61.3
trylo talk like native .435 .257 -.28i 69,4
practicesoundsof language .428 .423 59.4
usewordsdifferently .tao .300 64.4
startL2 conveBations .350 .167 -.374 -.t44 48.6
watch12 media (eg.TV) .416 -.465 50.3
readfor pleasurein L2 .256 -.82 49.4
write12 noteylette6 .u5 -.559 55.0
skimreading,go back .309 .422 -.t45 l5 68.7
lookfor similarwords in Ll .604 .180 .135 .098 7l.l
findpattemsin L2 .515 .448 78.4
divideup [2 words .4t7 .345 .1tr 68.5
nottry to translateword-for-word .295 .261 -329 .175 53.9
makesummaries .383 .308 -.274 54.8
makeguesses .261 .536 .t72 65.4
usegestures .u6 .310 -.317 62.5
makeup words .269 .470 -.260 68.4
readw/o looking up everyunknown word .2n .450 -.244 67,5
guess what will saynext .4V .4M .l8l 74.7
usesynonyms .488 .285 .183 70.9
find waysto use [2 .u4 -.472 57.9
notemy mistakes .287 .276 -.370 53.2
attentionto 12 speakers .392 .412 .t7i 64.5
6ndwals to improvelanguageleaming .627 .2t3 -.liJ4 74.1
planstudytime .280 .200 -.496 45.2
lookfor conversations -.82 43.1
lookfor 12 readings .208 -.ti'14
havecleargoalsfor skill .324 .422 -.231 60.5
thinkabout progress .496 .286 .146 69.0
try to relax .472 .227 -.248 55.4
encouragemyselfto speakwhen afraid .319 .222 -.4U 60.7
giveselfrewarG .7W 50.3
notewhen nervous/tense .474 .210 274 52.3
wite feelingsin a diary .496 .174 .199 :t6.0
talkaboutfeelings .438 .348 -.245 67.0
askother to slow down .2U .253 -.505 62.6
asknative to conect me .409 .z.ttt -.349 66.9
practicewith othe6 .277 . 155 -.458 44.9
askfor native'shelp .358 -.358 50.7
askquestionsin [2 .201 .218 -.468 46.5
leamabout 12 culture .292 .304 -.357 67.r
AW. 6f/"

381
 FIONNGN TANGUAGE AMVATS-FI,TI 19g6

TABLE3
Correladons Between Elements of Gardnet't Model and Radngs of Str:ategter

Gardnerts Consfruct

StrategyModel Element Motiv. Integ. AIS Langanx N

Knowledge .34** .36** .15 -.16 tt2
Effectiveness .47** .36*" .24# -.06 t02
Difficulty -.47** -.39** -.32* .M** 92
Anxiety .08 -.05 .06 .2y 99
OverallFrequencyof Use .49** .34** . t w -.28" I 13

Frequenq of Usefor fuch Typeof Strategr

Memory .33** .09 .t2 -.10 128
Cognitive .45** .27* .lg# -.24* 125
Compensation .2W .12 .03 --06 r32
Metacognitive .57** .39** .21# -.2W t25
Alfective .ll .10 .00 -.02 125
Social .37** .40** .lv -.40** l2g
Note:
All testsare twotailed(#-.05, " -.01, ** -.001).
The Ns differ for each testbecauseof missingvaluesfor some of the items.

I-egend:
Integ.-lntegrativeness
A[S-Attitudes toward the LeamingSihration
Ianganx-lan guageAnxiety
Motiv.-Motivation

six typesof strategies(Oxford and Burry-Stock,

knowledge,effectiveness,and difficulty of
forthcoming) along with the four Gardnervari-using them. Each of these influencescon-
ableswere computed (seeTable 3). In this tribute significantlyand independentlyto the
case,two general pattems can be observed. predictionof strateryusefor approximately75
First,motivation correlatessignificantly withpercentof the specificstrategies. Thus,thereis
6ve of the six classesof strategies(excludingstrongsupport for the model shown in Figure
affectiveones). Second,integrativeness, AlS,
L Studentswith greaterknowledgeof a stnt-
language anxiety, and motivation correlate ery, who considerit effectiveand who do not
with the use of three types of strategies:cogni-
perceiveit to be difficult to use,will likely use
tive, metacognitive,and social. lt would ap- the strategyfrequently.lt would appear that
pear that affectivevariablesprimarily affect the
the ratingof anxietycreatedby usingthe strat-
use of thesethree typesof sbategies. e$/ is not consistentlyrelatedto the frequency
of its use.
DlccuEdon The presentresultsalso show that students
The present study demonstratesthat it is who are more highly motivateduse strategies
possibleto account for much of the variance, more often, a finding that replicatesprevious
60 percent on average,in individual strategy studies(Oxford and Nyikos 1989).Other cor-
use with three basic ratings of strategies: relationspresentedhere might help to explain

382
 FOnnGN tAtttGUAGEtttN.AtSlltt 19gO

thisfinding.lt is interestingthat more highly both attitudesand motivation. Both of these

rnotivated studentsalso report knowing more interpretationssupport Gardner's(1985)sug
strategies, find them easier to use, and con- gestion that motivation leadsto an increasein
siderthemto be more effectivethan students effort expendedon languageleaming.
whoarelessmotivated.This relationholds for ln general,languageanxiety appeamto
bothintegrativeness (the desire to meet mem- have lessof an impact on languageleaming
bersof the target language community) and strategies than did the other variables,but
formotivation to leam the specific language some interesting findingswere obtained.Mod-
aswell. Examined more closely, we see that erately strong conelations were observedbe
motivation to leam the language is associated tween language anxiety and the ratingsof
with increased use of memory, cognitive' overall strategy difficulty and the useof social
compensation, metacognitive, and social strategies. The conelation between language
strategies. anxiety and the perceived difficulty in using
Although causal statements cannot be strategies is understandable because anxiety
madeon the basis of the present correlational has been shown to consume cognitive re
data,hvo possible links between strategies and sources (Eysenck 1979) required for language
motivationrnay be offered as explanations for learning (Maclntyre and Gardner 1994a,
thesefindings. First, based on Gardner and 1994b),and this would certainly make strate
Maclntyre(1992),it is possibleto argue that gies more difficult to use.The conelation be
students who feel more highly motivatedwill tween languageanxietyand use of the social
bemorelikely to expend the effort needed to strategiescan be explainedby noting that lan-
engagein stratery use.Stmtegiesare, by defin- guage anxiety is a form of social arxiety (see
ition,effortful behaviors.According to Gard- teary 1991)that appearsto be stronglybased
ner(1985),motivationstemsfrom the desireto on the fearof poor communicationand nega-
meetand communicatewith membersof the tive social evaluation(Horwitz, Horuitz, and
targetlanguagegroup and positive attitudestc Cope 1986).Both of these explanations are
wardthe leaming situation (AIS). The influ- supported by previous research (Maclntyre
ence of integrativeness was observed, and Gardnerl99l). Perhapsthe most surpris
especiallyfor social and metacognitivestmte ing result was the relatively low correlation
gies,supportingthe importantrole that the tar- between languageanxiety and the anxiety
get language group has in generating created by stratery use. To explain this, we
motivationfor languageleaming. AIS also cor- might suggestthat communicative demands
relatedwith the useof thesetypesof strategies, of the secondlanguagecreatethe highestlev-
but not as strongly as did integrativeness.The els of languageanxiety.Whereasmost of the
integrativemotive is clearly associatedwith a strategiesstudied here do not induce a com-
willingness to uselanguageleamingstrategies. municativedemand,'look the ones that do ("start
A secondcausal path might also be sug- L2 conversations," for L2 conversa-
"encouragemyselfto speakwhen
gested. Students who are more fully aware of tions," and
stmtegies, considerthem to be more effective, afraid") are the three most anxiety-provoking
andexperienceless difficulty in their use, strategies.
mightbecomemore highly motivatedto leam The resultsof this study suggestthat, ideally'
thelanguage.Clearly, this sequence of events training in the useof languageleamingstrate
wouldrequirean initial reason for engaging in gies should instill in the student the percep
languageleaming in the first place, such as tion that s/he knows the strategywell, that it
theintegrative motive postulated by Gardner will be effective, and that it is not difficult to
(1985).Strategies, viewed in this light, primar- use. Training that simply demonstratesa par-
ily contributeto a sense of mastery over the ticular strategy without showing uhen it will
learning process that would reduce uncer- be most effective is less likely to producehigh
taintyand anxiety, and maintain or improve rates of use than training that also showswhen

383
I

FOREIGN LANGAAG E ANNAI.S_FALL I 996

to use the strategy.Further,training aimed at studentsto withdraw if they wish.

reducing the difficulty of using a given strat- A final suggestionarisingfrom this studyis
egy is likely to improve its use as well. Even that individualizedstratery training programs
with this shift in training emphasis,the stu- might be more effectivethan thoseaimed at a
dents'level of motivation,their attitudesto- generalaudience.Usingan initial screening
ward the language community and the process,an individual student'sattitudes,mc
languagecourse,and their level of language tivation,languageanxiety,and responsesto a
anxietyshould also be considered.This con- set of strategiescan be assessedalong the
stellationof affectivevariablesappearsto pre lines suggestedby the social-psychologica
disposesomestudentsto usingstrategies,and model. Individualizedprogramscould then
languageteachersand researcherscan take be designedto take advantageof a specific
this into accountwhen implementingor eval- student'ssourceof motivationfor language
uatingstrategytraining. leaming,his/herpositiveattitudes,and opin-
Thestraterythat maybenefitmostfromsuch ions aboutspecificstrategies. Futureresearch,
attentionis the use of a languagelearning and trainingstudiesin particular,are likely to
diary.Brown (1989)is a strongsupporterof the refine our knowledgeabout languageleam-
effectivenessof such diariesin managingthe ing strategiesand how to encouragestudents
affectivereactionto languagelearning.Stu- to makethe mostof them.
dentsin this sample,however,considera lan-
guageleamingdiary to be very difficult to use Concluslon
(averagerating 5.01out of 7) and among the ln general,the data stronglysupport the
leasteffectivestrategies(mean rating3.07out ability of the social-psychological model to
of 7). Perhapsthis is becausethey reportvery predict strategyuse (Maclntyre 1994).This
little knowledgeabout how to use the diary model indicatesthat knowing a strategywell,
(averagerating1.85out of 7), givingit by farthe perceivingit as effective,and not considering
lowestratingon knowledge.If Brown (1989)is it to be difficult to use predict the majorityol
correct,and the use of a languagelearning the variance in strategyuse.Strategytraining
diary has as much value as he suggests,then that addressesonly one variable (e.g., in-
studentsshouldbe told not only how to use creasingknowledge) may be ineffectiveif it
one but also persuadedof its effectiveness. does not also increasethe perceptionof ef-
Basedon thesedata,anxietydoes not appear fectivenessand easeof use. The data also
to be a problembecausewriting a diary is one show the important role that social-psycho-
of the leastanxiety-provoking strategies. logicalvariablesin general,and integrative
Similarly,the trainingof otherstrategiescan nessand motivation in particular,play in the
make use of the information provided in this useof languageleamingstrategies.What now
study.As an example,physicallyacting out is required is more researchinto the training
words is not a well-usedstrategy,and anxiety of strategyuseand the factorsthat increaseits
appearsto play a role (seeTable l). If an en- efficacy.Knowingthe factorsthat facilitateor
tire classwas encouragedto act out words,as hinder strategyuse may be an important first
in a gameof charades,then anxietymay be steptoward more effectivestrategytraining.
better managed because every student is
doing the sameactivity.lt should be noted NOTE
that Fossand Reitzel(1988)report that some This researchwassupportedby a postdoctoral
studentsfind charadesto be anxiety-provok- fellowship fromtheSocialScience andHumanities
ing but a similarpercentageof students(ap Research Councilof Canada to thefirstauthor.The
proximately25 percent) report that it makes authorswouldlike to thankthe facultyandstu-
them feelconfident.Thiscan be takeninto ac- dentsof the Modemlanguages Department at the
count by allowing studentsto choosetheir Univercity of Oftawafortheirinvaluableassistancein
rolesin the gameand allowing highly reticent conducting thisresearch.Address conespondence

384
 FOREIGN Il4,NcaAcE ATNALS-FALL I 996

to PeterMaclntyre,Departmentof psycholory,Uni- Gardner,R. C. 1985.Socialpsychotogyond Second

versityCollegeof CapeBreton,SydneyN.S.,Canada Language Leorning: The Role of Attitudes and
BIP612.E-mail:[email protected]. MotiDotion.London: EdwardAmold.
' As noted above, it
has been argued by some Gardner,R. C.,and W. E. Lambert.lg72. Attitudes
thatstudentsmay not be aware of the strategies and Motiuation in Second Longuage Learning.
thatarebeing used;however,it seemsthat the key Rowley,MA: NewburyHouse.
lo tnestrategyconcept is to view it as a deliberate, Gardner,R. C., and P. D. Maclntyre.1992."A Stu-
keelychosenplan designedto facilitatelanguage dent's Contributionto Secondlanguage [,eam-
leaming(Maclntyre1994).For this reason,knowl_ ing:PartI, CognitiveFactors."
LonguageTeaching
edgeis considereda prerequisitefor language 25:211-220.
leamlng strategyuse. -. 1993."On the Measurementof Affective
I Thestandardizedregression
coefficientspre- Variablesin Second language Leaming."Lan_
sented in Table I rangefrom -l to +l and can be in_ guogelcaming 43: 152-194.
terpreted in much the sameway as conelations. Gardner,R.C.,and P. F.Tremblay.1994."On Motiva
thatis,valuescloseto zero indicatea relativelack tion, ResearchAgendas,and TheoreticalFrame
ofprediction and valuescloseto one indicatenear worls;' Mdem LanguageJoumot Tg:B19.3ffi.
perfectprediction. Horwitz,E. K., M. B. Horwitz,and J. Cope. 19g6.
"Foreign
LanguageClassroomAnxiely."Modem
RT:IFERENCEI Innguoge JoumoI 70: l25-l32.
Brown,H. D. 1989.e Proctical Guide to ktnguage Leary,M. R. (1991)."Anxiety,Cognition,and Be-
Izaming: A Fifteen-Weekprogram of Strategies havior: In Searchof A Broaderperspective,"3g
forSuccers. New York: McGraw-Hill. 44, in M. Booth-Butterfield
, ed.,Communicotion.
Chamot, A. U. 1990."CognitiveInstructionin the Cognition,and Anxiety.BeverlyHills, CA: Sage.

?
Second LanguageClassroom:The Roleof Leam- Maclntyre, P. D. 1994."Toward a Social psycho_
ingStrategies."In GeorgetownUniversityRound logical Model of StrategytJse."Foreign Lan_
Tableon Languageand Linguistics,edited by guageAnnals27: 18$195.
i J.E.Alatis.Washington,DC:GeorgetownUniver- Maclntyre,P.D.,and R.C.Gardner.1991..Methods
I sityPress. and Resultsin the Studyof Anxiety in Language
Chamot, A. U., and L. Kupper. 1g89."Learning l,earning:A Reviewof the Litenture.,'Language
Strategiesin Foreign Instruction."ForeignInn-

I
Leaming41:8*117.
guoge Annals22: 12-24 -. 1994a."The Effectsof InducedAnxiety on
Cohen, A. D. 1990.LanguogeLeaming: Insightsfor Cognitive Processingin Second Language

I kamers, Teachers,and Researcfters.Boston:

Heinle
D6rnyei,
andHeinle.
Z. 1994."Motivationand Motivatingin the -.
Leaming."Studiesin SecondLanguageAcquisi-
tion 16: l-17.
1994b."The Subtle Effectsof Language

t ForeignLanguageClassroom." Modern Lon-

guageJoumal TS:27I2U.
Ddmyei, Z. 1995."On the Teachabilityof Commu-
nicationStrategies."TESOLeuarterly2g: S*gS.
Anxiety on Cognitiveprocessingin the Second
[^anguage." LanguageLeaming 44:2g]305-
Oxford, R. 1989."'The Bestand the Worst':An Ex-
erciseto Tap Perceptionsof Languageleaming
I lhrman, M.,and R. Oxford. 1g89."Effectsof Sex Experiencesand Strategies."ForeignLanguage
Differences,CareerChoice, and psychological

f
Annols22: 447454.
Typeon Adult LanguageLearning Strategies." -. 1990.lttnguage Leaming Strategies:Wot
Modem LanguageJoumat 73: l-13. Euery TeacherShould Know. New york: New-
lysenck,M.W. 1979."Anxiety,Leamingand Mem- bury House.
ory:A Reconceptualization. "
Journal of Re_ Forthcoming."As

I
Oxford,R.,and J. A. Burry-Stock.
worchin Personality13:36&385. sessingthe Useof language l,eamingStrategies
Fm,K.A.,and A. C. Reitzel.1988."A Relational Worldwide With the ESU EFL Versionof the
Modelfor ManagingSecond LanguageAnxi- StrateryInventoryfor languageLeaming(SILL)."
ety.'TESOL Quarterty20: 559562. System.

385
 FOREIGN IA,NGUAGE ANNAI.S-FAIL 1996

"Research
Oxlord. R.. and D. Crookall. 1989. on Oxford, R., R. Z. tavine, and D. Crookall. 1989.
"languageLeamingStrategies,
l-anguageLeaming Strategies:Methods, Find- the Communica
ings, and Instructional lssues-"Modem Lan- tive Approach, and their Classroomlmplica-
guage Joumal TS:40M19. tions." Foreign ktnguoge Annals 22: 2939.
"VariablesAffect- Oxford, R., M. Nyikos,and M. Ehrman.1988."Vive
Oxford, R., and M. Nyikos.1989.
ing Choice of language L,eamingStrategiesby La Diff6rence?Reflectionson SexDifferencesin
Univenity Students."Modem LonguogeJoumal Use of language l€aming Strategies."Forergn
75:.292-300. Language AnnaIs 21: 321-329.
"language Leaming Rubin,J.,and l. Thompson.1982.Hou to k A More
Oxford,R.,andJ.Shearin.1994.
Motivation: Expanding the Theoretical Frame- Successfullttnguage lcomer. Boston: Heinle
work" M&m Innguage Joumal TS:12-26. and Heinle.