Distribution and Comparison of Language Learning Strategies Used by Language Learners and Their Status as Repeating and Non-repeating at Language Levels Hasan Savaş Gediz University, School of Foreign Languages hasansavas_@msn.com Alper Yasin Erol Sütçü İmam University, School of Foreign Languages alperyasinerol@gmail.com Abstract The significance of language learning strategies has affected many researchers in English language learning environment in recent decades. Therefore, researchers have conducted several studies on this specific field. In this study, the application of language learning strategies used by repeating and non-repeating English preparatory school students based on the language levels were examined. The strategies provided by Oxford (1990) such as memory, cognitive, compensation, meta-cognitive, affective, and social language learning strategies were taken into consideration. In order to collect data, the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL; Oxford, 1990) was administered to three different student groups as one-time repeating students at elementary level, two-and-more-times repeating students at elementary level, and non-repeating students at upper-intermediate level. One-way ANOVA was run in SPSS version 20.0 for MAC to analyze the data and to see whether there was any significant difference among language learning strategies used by repeating and non-repeating students. The findings of the study indicated that although there is not much significant difference among three students groups in terms of the usages of language learning strategies, the non-repeating students have more tendency in using the strategies than the other student groups as the onetime repeating students and the two-and-more times repeating students. There is no significant difference among student groups in terms of affective strategies (sig=.21, p<.05) and memory strategies (sig=.13, p<.05) while there are significant differences among groups in terms of the other four strategies. 1
Key Words: Language learning strategies; language learners; English language learning Dil Seviyesi Tekrarı Yapan ve Seviye Tekrarı Yapmadan Başarılı İlerleyen İngilizce Hazırlık Okulu Öğrencilerinin Dil Öğrenme Stratejileri Kullanımlarının Dağılımları ve Karşılaştırılmaları Özet Dil öğrenme stratejilerinin önemi son yıllarda İngiliz dili eğitimi alanında bir çok araştırmacıyı etkilemiştir. Bu sebeple araştırmacılar bu alanda çeşitli çalışmalar ortaya koymuşlardır. Bu çalışmada ise yabancı dil seviye tekrarı yapan ve seviye tekrarı yapmadan başarılı ilerleyen İngilizce hazırlık okulu öğrencilerinin dil öğrenme stratejilerini kullanımları incelenmiştir. Çalışmada Oxford (1990) tarafından ortaya konan; hafıza temelli, dengeleme temelli, bilişsel, üstbilişsel, duyuşsal ve sosyal dil öğrenme stratejileri baz alınmıştır. Veri toplamada; başlangıç seviyesinde bir kez tekrar eden öğrenciler, başlangıç seviyesinde iki veya daha çok kez tekrar eden öğrenciler ve ortanın üstü seviyede tekrar yapmadan başarılı ilerleyen öğrenciler olmak üzere üç farklı öğrenci grubuna Dil Öğrenimi Strateji Dökümü/Envanteri (Oxford, 1990) uygulanmıştır. Veri analizi için tek-yönlü varyans analizi (One-way ANOVA) SPSS versiyon 20.0 Mac kullanılmıştır. Üç farklı öğrenci grubu arasında dil öğrenme stratejilerini kullanma açısından manidar farklılık olup olmadığı ölçülmüştür. Çalışmanın bulguları göstermiştir ki üç öğrenci grubu arasında yüksek manidar farklılıklar olmamakla birlikte, kur tekrarı yapmadan başarılı ilerleyen öğrenci grubunun dil öğrenme stratejilerini diğer kur tekrarı yapan iki gruba nazaran daha çok kullandıkları saptanmıştır. Üç öğrenci grubu arasında duyuşsal dil öğrenme stratejileri açısından (F=.21, p<.05) ve hafıza temelli dil öğrenme stratejileri açısından (F=.13, p<.05) manidar farklılık bulunmamıştır. Fakat diğer dört dil öğrenme stratejileri açısından üç grup arasında manidar farklılıklar ortaya çıkmıştır. Anahtar Kelimeler: Dil öğrenme stratejileri, yabancı dil öğrenimi, İngiliz dili eğitimi 2
1. Introduction Recent years have witnessed a wide range of studies on the learner variables, which cover the age, gender, nationality, or motivation. In addition, the variance of strategies employed by learners has tempted more criticism or evaluation than those issues. The variance on using different strategies is providing different kinds of techniques for the learners in that they can improve the language skills in specific circumstances. This study focused on the language learning strategies used by repeating and nonrepeating English preparatory school students at a foundation university in Turkey. Students who cannot succeed in proceeding to an upper level and repeat the same level one or more times are repeating students. Accordingly, students who are successful in their level and proceed to an upper level in preparatory school are non-repeating students. The preparatory school consists of four terms in an academic year, and each term is two-month long. Students take five progress tests, one midterm examination, and one final examination during a term. The language program follows an integrated system, and language learning skills are taught as listening and speaking classes, reading and writing classes, contextual grammar classes, and expansive reading classes. There are four main language levels at the preparatory school, which are level A (elementary level), level B (pre-intermediate level), level C (intermediate level), level D (upper-intermediate level). Non-repeating students were at upper-intermediate level and repeating students were at elementary level. The study aimed to find out whether there was any significant difference among separate learner groups. The practical importance of the study was supposed to provide a statistical analysis about the usage of learning strategies, which are categorized in six main categories. In the study, no treatment was applied to the participants. The purpose was to help the participants of the study to be able to realize the practical reflection of these learning strategies on their self-consciousness and improvements. 2. Review of Literature In language learning and teaching environment, learning strategies have a significant importance as they provide a deep insight to the way learners gain and practice the language. Allwright (2007) draws attention to the learners and discusses their significance by expressing that treating learners as individuals will help them learn better. In some cases, 3
especially with the developing approach of constructivism, learners are considered being the practitioners in their own educational process, however they are not supported enough to find out their own learning styles. Investigations have shown that learning strategies make language learning more efficient and produce a positive effect on learners language use. Language learning strategies, for this reason, play a significant role in English language learning and teaching environment and need to be investigated. However, developments in the cognitive psychology proved that no single method could result in universal success in language teaching. Therefore, individual variations have come on stage. Several researchers have studied language-learning strategies used by language learners during their process of learning. As Oxford (1990) points out on the issue that more attention has been given to the process of language learning from products of learning in terms of second language learning. More importance has been put on learners and learning rather than teaching and teachers. Despite the fractions based on individual attitudes towards the concept of learning strategy, some of the researchers came across similar descriptions for the same phenomenon. Oxford (1990) defines language-learning strategies as approaches or techniques that learners use to enhance their progress in developing L2 skills. In her view of strategies-based instruction; students are explicitly taught how, when, and why strategies can be used to facilitate language learning and language use tasks. Griffiths (2007) discusses the learning strategies as the activities consciously chosen by learners for the purpose of regulating their own language learning. Brown (2007) defines the learning strategies as language learning strategies are any activities, steps, plans, or routines used by learners to improve language learning process. Meanwhile, Rubin and Wenden (1987) define learning strategies as any sets of operations, steps, plans, routines used by the learner to facilitate the obtaining, storage, retrieval, and use of information (p. 19). Their investigation focused on ideal representatives of successful users of learning strategies to learn a second or foreign language. In their study, it is emphasized that the primary emphasis is on identifying what good language learners report they do to learn a second or a foreign language, or learners are observed on their choice of language learning strategies. Tuncer (2009) takes the subject to the distinguishment between successful and less successful learners, and he discusses that learning how to use language strategies by learners is an effective variable (p. 852). 4
Strategies, on the other hand, may be integrated into everyday class materials, and may be explicitly or implicitly embedded into the language tasks. Learning strategies have been considered as a relatively valid and reliable measurement tool to evaluate the learners success on learning a new language. On this perspective, Chang, Liu, and Lee (2007) argue the developmental influence of the use of language learning strategies on learning progress. They state that not only teaching methods or techniques are enough for learners without implementation of language learning strategies (p. 236). While Rubin and Wenden (1987) focus on the ideal representatives of language strategy users, Çetingöz and Özkal (2009) concentrate on the role of attitudes of the students towards using the learning strategies. To them, attitude is related to social life interactions and is a kind of respond to an individual that has cognitive, affective, and psychomotor components. Attitudes have effects on students in terms of social life such as interactions with their friends, families, school, and lessons. For this reason, attitudes of students towards their courses have connections with their success (p. 1905). Hismanoğlu (2000) mentions another point on the issue and states that language learning strategies used non-observably or unconsciously by learners provide valuable clues to teachers about how their students assess the situations, plan, select appropriate skills so as to understand, learn, or remember new input presented in the language classroom. This paper is mainly based on the background of language learning strategies and focuses on various qualifications and taxonomies of language learning strategies. Oxford (1990) classifies language learning strategies in two sub-titles as direct strategies and indirect strategies. The strategies that are used directly in dealing with new language learning are called direct strategies. Indirect strategies are used for general management of learning. For direct strategies, Oxford discusses about memory, cognitive, and compensation strategies. On the other hand, she defines indirect strategies as metacognitive, affective, and social strategies. Briefly, memory strategies are creating mental linkages, applying images and sound which includes using keywords or representing sounds in memory, reviewing well, and employing action which stands for using physical response or sensation and using mechanical techniques. Cognitive strategies can be categorized as practicing, receiving and sending messages, analyzing and reasoning, and also creating structure for input and output. Guessing intelligently as using linguistic clues, overcoming limitations in speaking 5
and writing such as switching to the mother tongue, getting help, using mime or gesture, or selecting the topic are the sub-techniques of compensation strategies. On the other hand, metacognitive strategies, as the first indirect strategy, are seen as organizing, setting goals and objectives, and identifying the purpose of a language task. Affective strategies could be seen as lowering your anxiety, encouraging yourself, and taking your emotional temperature. Lastly, social strategies stand for asking questions, cooperating and empathizing with others. 3. Methodology The study aimed to address the following research question: Is there a significant difference between language learning strategies used by language learners and their status as repeating and non-repeating at elementary and upperintermediate level? 3.1. Participants The participants attending this study were 123 English preparatory school students at a foundation university in Turkey. All the students speak Turkish as their first language, and their ages change from 18 to 25 years old. 53 of the students were male and 70 of the students were female. Students were divided into three groups. The first group was non-repeating students at upper-intermediate level, the second group was one-time repeating students at elementary level, and the third group consisted of two-and-more-times repeating students at elementary level. The number of non-repeating students was 63 studying at upperintermediate level. The number of one-time repeating students was 10 and it was 50 for twoand-more-times repeating students studying at elementary level at prep school. All three groups were provided with the questionnaire to obtain the data. The non-repeating group was the ones who succeeded in their courses without failing and moved to an upper language level. The other two groups were the ones who failed in elementary level and could not manage to proceed to an upper language level. 6
3.2. Instrument The study used the questionnaire: The Strategy Inventory of Language Learning (SILL) by Oxford as the instrument. By using SILL questionnaire (Oxford, 1990, pp. 293-300), it was aimed to find out what language learning strategies were used by repeating and nonrepeating English prep school students. The questionnaire was translated into Turkish by the researchers of the study in an aim for students to understand the questionnaire items completely (see Appendix 4). An external researcher also rechecked the translated questionnaire to assure whether the translated items gave the correct matching with the original questionnaire items. In order to sustain the reliability of the translated questionnaire, a Cronbach s alpha was run in SPSS version 20.0 for MAC on a sample size of 46 students. From the Table 1 below, we can see that Cronbach s alpha is 0.938, which indicates a high level of internal consistency for the questionnaire with this plot study sample. Table 1. Statistical results for reliability analysis Cronbach's Alpha Cronbach's Alpha Based on N of Items Standardized Items,938,939 50 The questionnaire was a 50-item Likert-type questionnaire with five-scale responses regarding the six major strategy groups as distributed in Figure 1 below. Figure 1. Distribution of strategy items according to the six strategy types. Strategy Type Items Total Memory 1-9 9 Cognitive 10-23 14 Compensation 24-29 6 Metacognitive 30-38 9 Affective 39-44 6 Social 45-50 6 50 The items were in the form of statements and the participants graded them from 1 to 5 where: 1 means never true of me. 2 means rarely true of me. 3 means sometimes true of me. 4 means usually true of me. 5 means always true of me. 7
4. Data Collection and Analysis The SILL questionnaire was administered to 123 students. Completion of the questionnaire by the students took approximately 30 minutes. The distribution of strategy types in the questionnaire was used to determine what language learning strategies were used by repeating and non-repeating groups. It was aimed to see whether there was any significant difference among those three groups in terms of their usage of the strategies. After the completion of the questionnaire by the students, data collection procedure was completed. In order to see the significant differences among student groups, one-way ANOVA was run in SPSS 20.0 (see Appendix 1, Appendix 2, & Appendix 3). Based on the results that were obtained, the differences among three groups and strategy distribution were analyzed. 5. Findings and Discussion By analyzing the language learning strategies in separate titles, the findings and the discussion of the study have been provided in the following sections. 5.1. Memory Strategies In terms of memory strategies that non-repeating students, one-time repeating students, and two-and-more-times repeating students use, the mean scores are 2.97 for non-repeating, 2.67 for one-time repeating, and 2.73 for two-and-more-times repeating students. It seems that there is no significant difference among three groups. When overall significance level between the groups is considered, it is sig=.13, p<.05. To specify, the significant value between the non-repeating group and the one-time repeating students shows no difference (sig=.20, p<.05) while there is again no significant difference between the non-repeating students and two-and-more-times repeating students (sig=.06, p<.05). Lastly, the difference between the one-time repeating students and the two-and-more-times repeating students has no significant indication with sig=.80, p<.05. The analyses imply that all three groups of students somehow do not use memory strategies that are creating mental linkages, applying 8
images and sound including using keywords or representing sounds in memory, reviewing well, and employing action which stands for using physical response or sensation and using mechanical techniques. 5.2. Cognitive Strategies In terms of cognitive strategies, mean score for non-repeating students is 3.25. It is 2.67 for one-time repeating students, and 2.84 for two-and-more-times repeating students. The analysis shows that there is significant difference between three groups in using the techniques of practical learnability (sig=.002, p<.05). The difference between the nonrepeating students and one-time repeating ones is significant (sig=.01, p<.05). On the other hand, the difference between the non-repeating students and the two-and-more-times repeating students seems quite significant (sig=.00, p<.05). The last comparison of cognitive strategies includes the one-time repeating students and the two-and-more-times repeating students. There is no significant difference between these groups (sig=.48, p<.05). These strategies stand for practicing, receiving and sending messages, analyzing and reasoning, and for the last thing creating structure for input and output. It may be an implication that non-repeating students pay more attention to cognitive strategies more than the other two groups. 5.3. Compensation Strategies The mean score of the compensation strategies of non-repeating students is 3.58 while onetime repeating students mean score is 2.70 and two-and-more-times repeating students mean score is 3.03. When the details from the scores are considered, the significance level among three groups is so apparent (sig=.00, p<.05). We learn from the Post-hoc analysis scores that the difference between the non-repeating students and the other two groups is highly significant (sig=.01, & sig=.00, p<.05). Nonetheless, there is no significance between the one-time repeating students and two-and-more-times repeating ones in using this strategy as the level of significance is sig=.20, p<.05. It can be inferred from the analyses that non-repeating students prefer using strategies such as guessing intelligently as using linguistic clues, overcoming limitations in speaking and writing such as switching to the 9
mother tongue, getting help, using mime or gesture, or selecting the topic may be some subtechniques of compensation strategies. 5.4. Metacognitive Strategies The core techniques of metacognitive strategies such as organizing, setting goals and objectives, and identifying the purpose of a language task are crucial for learning process to take place. Non-repeating students have tendency in using metacognitive strategies as the mean score of those students for this strategy is 3.50. There is also difference between onetime and two-and-more-times repeating students. The former group s mean score is 2.88 and the latter one s mean score is 3.11. Based on the analysis, the difference among three groups is also significant (sig=.07, p<.05). The students from three groups may utilize the characteristics of metacognitive strategies. As can be seen from the results, the non-repeating students are acting differently from what the one-time repeating students are doing in this context, as the significance level is sig=.01, p<.05. The difference between the non-repeating students and the two-and-more-times repeating students is sig=.00, p<.05, Therefore, it is remarkably significant. The last relationship between the one-time repeating students and the two-and-more-times repeating students demonstrates no significant difference (sig=.39, p<.05). As it can be understood, non-repeating students again use this kind of strategies more than the other two groups and they make use of the indirect set of disciplines such as centering, arranging, planning, and evaluating their own learning activity. 5.5. Affective Strategies As an indirect strategy, affective strategies focus on emotion, attitude, motivation, and values influencing learning in an important way. Lowering your anxiety and controlling your emotional temperature are among the affective strategies. The mean score on the usage of this strategy for non-repeating students is 2.84. It is 3.10 for one time repeating students and is 2.67 for two-and-more-times repeating students. The difference among the three groups in terms of using this strategy provides almost no significance (sig=.21, p<.05). It can also be concluded that there is almost no significant difference between the non-repeating and the two-and-more-times repeating students (sig=.24, p<.05). The difference between the nonrepeating students and the one-time repeating students is not significant (sig=.32, p<.05). The 10
last difference between the one-time repeating students and the two-and-more-times repeating student is also not significant (sig=.10, p<.05) As a result, one time repeating students somehow seem to pay more attention to affective strategies than the other two groups. 5.6. Social Strategies Social strategies may be seen the communicative way of language learning strategies. Asking questions, cooperating with others, and empathizing with others are among this type of strategy. The tendency of non-repeating students in social strategies is higher than the other two groups. The mean score for this group is 3.37. The mean score for one-time repeating students is 2.93 and it is 2.93 for two-and-more-times repeating students. In detail, the difference in tendency adopting social strategies by non-repeating students and the one-time repeating students seems not significant (sig=.10, p<.05). On the other hand, the nonrepeating students social activations in learning process may differentiate from the two-andmore-times repeating students (sig=.00, p<.05). For that, there is a significant difference between them. In the last comparison, the one-time repeating students follow profound similar ways to the two-and-more-times repeating students as the significant difference between them is sig=.99, p<.05. The non-repeating students must be aware of the social strategies. 6. Conclusion The findings of the study indicate that the usage of language learning strategies may vary among the students based on their language levels. The students mostly seem to be dealing with grammar and vocabulary studies while they also have some characteristics of metacognitive strategies. This may provide a critical outlook for them in evaluating their progress in productive language skills and vocabulary usage. According to Nacera (2010), students with higher vocabulary size seem to use specific metacognitive strategies more than students with lower vocabulary size (p. 4025). The two-and-more-times repeating students have fewer tendencies to the usages of the strategies than the other two groups. They may need suggestions and/or guidance to turn their study methods into a behavioral interest so that they can be aware of the requirements 11
of the learning process. There is no significant difference among student groups in terms of affective strategies (sig=.21, p<.05) and memory strategies (sig=.13, p<.05) while there are significant differences among the groups in terms of the other four strategies. The one-time repeating students and the two-and-more-times repeating students seem to be ignoring making associations and reviewing. These two repeating groups also lack self-motivation, which may mainly stem from anxiety. That may indicate that they do not pay much attention to affective strategies. Another finding may be that the one-time repeating students has more inquisitive qualities than the non-repeating group, and so that one-time repeating group may not be seen as unsuccessful in searching for new strategies, at all. Following the low differences among the groups in using strategies, showing a slight interest in applying a wide range of strategies in learning contexts may be so crucial. Yılmaz (2010) suggests, strategies can be incorporated into the curriculum and the students can be explicitly taught how to make use of the strategies for meeting their individual language needs (687). In that way, the students can have the opportunity to realize the nature of learning and to overcome the challenging sides of language learning. 7. Suggestions for Further Studies It can be suggested that teachers make their students recognize especially compensation and metacognitive strategies if procedural learning and improvements in ESL classes are the core points. Students who need particular success may use the effect of learning, which is more task-based, as it is stated in compensation and metacognitive strategies. Another perspective may be that the students mostly search for the ways of direct ways of learning. Teachers play great role in engaging the repeating students into special strategies, which enhance awareness and learnability. Nunan (1998) draws attention to the fact that students who are taught with strategies can have great potential to be motivated and improved. As asserted in metacognitive strategies, students could be given an outlook in learning that will call for self-evaluation, organization, and monitoring their own errors and/or mistakes. This tendency may help them become more conscious learners. Furthermore, the practitioners of language programs may consider placing the curricular studies about making students be aware of acquiring the different kinds of strategies. The researchers may examine the sub-categories of the strategies that can be able to 12
save students from failing and repeating. The vicious barriers to learning within individual metacognitive techniques and their social reflections can be eliminated. Therefore, a new study on learning strategies, which are supported with the individual features of the learners, may be conducted. In that way, the relationship between the learning strategies and learnerautonomy can be revealed. 8. Limitations of the study One limitation of the study was the number of one-time repeating students as they were 10 students. The reason was that there was only one class of those students in prep school. Another limitation may be that only the students from English prep school were taken into consideration. Students who study and take elective English classes at faculties or students at ELT department could have been included in the study, so that students from different faculties could have been examined in terms of the usage distribution and comparison of language learning strategies. References Allwright, D. (2007). The developing language learner: An introduction to exploratory practice. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Brown, H.D. (2007). Principles of language learning and teaching (5th edit). New York: Longman. Çetingöz, D., & Özkal, N. (2009). Learning strategies used by unsuccessful students according to their attitudes towards social studies courses. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1(1), 1905-1913. Chang, C. Y., Liu, S. C., & Lee, Y. N. (2007). A study of language learning strategies used by college EFL learners in Taiwan. Language Learning, 3, 235-262. Gerami, M.H., & Baighlou, S.M.G. (2011). Language learning strategies used by successful and unsuccessful Iranian EFL students. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 29, 1567-1576. Griffiths, C. (2007). Languge Learning Strategies: Students and teachers perceptions. ELT Journal, 61(2), 91-99. Hismanoglu, M. (2000). Language learning strategies in foreign language learning and teaching. The Internet TESL Journal, 6(8), 12-12. 13
Lavasani, M. G., & Faryadres, F. (2011). Language learning strategies and suggested model in adults processes of learning second language. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 15, 191-197. Nacera, A. (2010). Language learning strategies and the vocabulary size. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 4021-4025. Nunan, D. (1998). Language Teaching Methodology. London: International Books Distributors Ltd. Oxford, R. (1990). Language Learning Strategies: What Every Teacher Should Know. New York: Newbury House Publishers. Tuncer, U. (2009). How do monolingual and bilingual language learners differ in use of learning strategies while learning a foreign language? Evidences from Mersin University. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1, 852-856. Wenden, A., & Rubin, J. (1987). Learner strategies in language learning. New Jersey: Practice Hall. Yılmaz, C. (2010). The relationship between language learning strategies, gender, proficiency and self- efficacy beliefs: a study of ELT learners in Turkey. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 682-687. 14
Appendices Appendix 1. Table 2: Distribution of Descriptive Statistics for Language Learning Strategies Used by Student Groups Memory Str Cognitive Str Compansation Str MetaCognitive Str Affective Str Social Str N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Minimum Maximum.00 63 2.9700.62765.07908 1.89 4.56 10 2.6778.76165.24085 1.11 3.89 50 2.7356.70269.09938 4.00 Total 123 2.8509.67569.06092 4.56.00 63 3.2551.57297.07219 1.71 4.64 10 2.6714.80686.25515 3.93 50 2.8414.80545.11391 5.00 Total 123 3.0395.72568.06543 5.00.00 63 3.5820.68905.08681 2.33 5.00 10 2.7000.86353.27307 4.17 50 3.0300.77860.11011 4.50 Total 123 3.2859.80002.07214 5.00.00 63 3.5009.68286.08603 1.33 5.00 10 2.8889 1.10368.34901 1.44 4.56 50 3.1156.77305.10933 5.00 Total 123 3.2945.78451.07074 5.00.00 63 2.8439.65506.08253 4.17 10 3.1000.96289.30449 1.67 4.33 50 2.6767.82986.11736 4.50 Total 123 2.7967.76004.06853 4.50.00 63 3.3730.68700.08655 1.67 4.83 10 2.9333.79037.24994 1.67 4.50 50 2.9300.91355.12920 4.83 Total 123 3.1572.81881.07383 4.83.00 indicates non-repeating students indicates one-time repeating students indicates two and more times repeating students 15
Appendix 2. Table 3: Summary of One-way ANOVA for Language Learning Strategies Used by Student Groups MemoryStr CognitiveStr Compansatio nstr MetaCognitiv estr AffectiveStr SocialStr Between Groups Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. 1.859 2.929 2.071.130 Within Groups 53.841 120.449 Total 55.699 122 Between Groups 6.245 2 3.122 6.460.002 Within Groups 58.002 120.483 Total 64.247 122 Between Groups 12.231 2 6.115 11.144.000 Within Groups 65.854 120.549 Total 78.084 122 Between Groups 5.930 2 2.965 5.145.007 Within Groups 69.156 120.576 Total 75.086 122 Between Groups 1.781 2.890 1.555.215 Within Groups 68.694 120.572 Total 70.474 122 Between Groups 6.016 2 3.008 4.764.010 Within Groups 75.778 120.631 Total 81.794 122 *. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level. 16
Appendix 3. Table 4: Descriptive Statistics for Post-Hoc Tests Dependent Variable (I) RepeatTime (J) RepeatTime Mean Difference (I- J) Memory Str Cognitive Str Compansation Str MetaCognitive Str Scheffe LSD Scheffe LSD Scheffe LSD.00.00.00.00.00.00 Scheffe.00 Std. Error Sig..29224.22801.442.23446.12687.186.00 -.29224.22801.442 -.05778.23204.969.00 -.23446.12687.186.05778.23204.969.29224.22801.202.23446.12687.067.00 -.29224.22801.202 -.05778.23204.804.00 -.23446.12687.067.05778.23204.804.58367.23666.051.41367 *.13168.009.00 -.58367.23666.051 -.17000.24084.780.00 -.41367 *.13168.009.17000.24084.780.58367 *.23666.015.41367 *.13168.002.00 -.58367 *.23666.015 -.17000.24084.482.00 -.41367 *.13168.002.17000.24084.482.88201 *.25217.003.55201 *.14031.001.00 -.88201 *.25217.003 -.33000.25662.440.00 -.55201 *.14031.001.33000.25662.440.88201 *.25217.001.55201 *.14031.000.00 -.88201 *.25217.001 -.33000.25662.201.00 -.55201 *.14031.000.33000.25662.201.61199.25841.065.38533 *.14378.031 17
AffectiveStr SocialStr LSD Scheffe LSD Scheffe LSD.00.00.00.00.00.00 -.61199.25841.065 -.22667.26298.691.00 -.38533 *.14378.031.22667.26298.691.61199 *.25841.019.38533 *.14378.008.00 -.61199 *.25841.019 -.22667.26298.390.00 -.38533 *.14378.008.22667.26298.390 -.25608.25755.611.16725.14330.508.00.25608.25755.611.42333.26209.275.00 -.16725.14330.508 -.42333.26209.275 -.25608.25755.322.16725.14330.245.00.25608.25755.322.42333.26209.109.00 -.16725.14330.245 -.42333.26209.109.43968.27050.271.44302 *.15051.015.00 -.43968.27050.271.00333.27528 0.00 -.44302 *.15051.015 -.00333.27528 0.43968.27050.107.44302 *.15051.004.00 -.43968.27050.107.00333.27528.990.00 -.44302 *.15051.004 -.00333.27528.990 *. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level. 18
Appendix 4. Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) Dil Öğrenimi Strateji Dökümü / Göstergesi / Envanteri Versiyon 7.0 (ESL/EFL) R. Oxford, 1989 Yönergeler Bu Dil Öğrenimi Strateji Dökümü / Göstergesi / Envanteri formu İngilizce yi ikinci dil veya yabancı dil olarak öğrenen öğrenciler için hazırlanmıştır. Bir sonraki sayfada maddelerin SİZE GÖRE NE KADAR DOĞRU (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) olduklarını işaretleyerek belirtiniz. 1. Benim için hiç veya hemen hemen hiç doğru değildir 2. Benim için genellikle doğru değildir 3. Benim için kısmen doğrudur 4. Benim için genellikle doğrudur 5. Benim için her zaman veya hemen hemen her zaman doğrudur Benim için hiç veya hemen hemen hiç doğru değildir maddesi durumun sizin için çok nadir doğru olduğunu gösterir. Benim için genellikle doğru değildir maddesi durumun sizin için normal zamanlardan daha az sıklıkla doğru olduğunu gösterir. Benim çin kısmen doğrudur maddesi durumun sizin için normal zamanlarda doğru olduğunu gösterir. Benim için genellikle doğrudur maddesi durumun sizin için normal zamanlardan daha fazla sıklıkla doğru olduğunu gösterir. Benim için her zaman veya hemen hemen her zaman doğrudur maddesi durumun sizin için hemen hemen her zaman doğru olduğunu gösterir. Cevaplamaya başladığınızda maddenin sizi ne kadar tanımladığını dikkate alınız; nasıl olmanız gerektiğini düşündüğünüz ya da insanların ne yaptıkları üzere değil. Ankettteki maddelerin doğruluk ya da yanlışlık değerleri yoktur. Cevaplarınızı ilgili kutucuklara X ile işaretleyiniz. Dikkatinizi kaybetmeden olabildiğince hızlı şekilde cevaplandırmaya çalışınız. Anketin tamamlanması genellikle 20 30 dakika almaktadır. Herhangi bir sorunuz varsa, öğretmeninize danışınız. Örnek İşaretleme İngilizce de hali hazırda bildiklerim ve yeni öğrendiklerim arasındaki ilişkileri düşünürüm. 1 2 3χ 4 5 19
Dil Öğrenimi Strateji Dökümü / Göstergesi / Envanteri Versiyon 7.0 (ESL/EFL) R. Oxford, 1989 1. Benim için hiç veya hemen hemen hiç doğru değildir. 2. Benim için genellikle doğru değildir. 3. Benim için kısmen doğrudur. 4. Benim için genellikle doğrudur. 5. Benim için her zaman veya hemen hemen her zaman doğrudur. 1 İngilizce de hali hazırda bildiklerim ve yeni öğrendiklerim arasındaki ilişkileri düşünürüm. 2 Yeni öğrendiğim İngilizce keşimeleri cümlede kullanırım ve bu şekilde onları hatırlarım. 3 Yeni bir İngilizce kelimeyi hatırlamak için, o kelimenin okunuşu ile o kelimenin resmini veya fotoğrafını bağdaştırırım. 4 Yeni bir İngilizce kelimeyi, o kelimenin kullanılabileceği bir durumun zihinsel şemasını çizerek hatırlarım. 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 5 Yeni İngilizce kelimeleri hatırlamak için kafiyeler kullanırım. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Yeni İngilizce kelimeleri hatırlamak için resimli kelime kartları 1 2 3 4 5 kullanırım. 7 Yeni İngilizce kelimeleri fiziksel olarak canlandırırım. 1 2 3 4 5 8 İngilizce derslerini sık sık tekrar ederim. 1 2 3 4 5 9 Yeni İngilizce kelimelerin veya cümle yapılarını sokak işaretleri 1 2 3 4 5 üzerindeki, sınıf tahtası üzerindeki veya sayfa üzerindeki yerlerini anımsayarak hatırlarım. 10 Yeni İngilizce kelimeleri bir kaç kere yazar veya sesli söylerim. 1 2 3 4 5 11 Anadili İngilizce olan insanlar gibi konuşmaya çalışırım. 1 2 3 4 5 12 İngilizce sesleri pratik yaparım. 1 2 3 4 5 13 Bildiğim İngilizce kelimeleri farklı şekillerde kullanırım. 1 2 3 4 5 14 İngilizce diyaloglar başlatırım. 1 2 3 4 5 15 İngilizce konuşulan televizyon programları izlerim ya da 1 2 3 4 5 İngilizce konuşulan filimlere giderim. 16 Zevk için İngilizce materyaller okurum. 1 2 3 4 5 17 İngilizce notlar, mesajlar, mektuplar veya raporlar yazarım. 1 2 3 4 5 20
18 İngilizce bir parçayı önce hızlı bir şekilde ana fikrini anlamak için okurum, sonra geri döner ve dikkatlice okurum. 1 2 3 4 5 19 Ana dilimde, İngilizce deki yeni kelimelere benzeyen kelimeler 1 2 3 4 5 ararım. 20 İngilizce de eşanlamlı kelimeler bulmaya çalışırım. 1 2 3 4 5 21 İngilizce bir kelimenin anlamını, onu kendi anladığım şekilde 1 2 3 4 5 parçalara bölerek bulurum. 22 Kelime kelime çeviri yapmamaya çalışırım. 1 2 3 4 5 23 İngilizce duyduğum veya okuduğum bilgilerin özetini çıkarırım. 1 2 3 4 5 24 Aşina olmadığım İngilizce kelimeleri anlamak için tahminler 1 2 3 4 5 yaparım. 25 İngilizce bir diyalog esnasında bir kelimeyi hatırlayamazsam, 1 2 3 4 5 mimik ve jestlere başvururum. 26 İngilizce deki karşılığını bilmediğim kelimeler için yeni kelimeler 1 2 3 4 5 uydururum. 27 Her kelimenin anlamına bakmadan İngilizce okuma yaparım. 1 2 3 4 5 28 İngilizce konuşurken karşımdakinin ne söyleyeceğini tahmin etmeye çalışırım. 29 İngilizce bir kelimeyi hatırlayamazsam, o kelime ile aynı anlama gelen başka bir kelime ya da yapı kullanırım. 30 İngilizcemi kullanmak için mümkün olduğunca çok yol bulmaya çalışırım. 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 31 İngilizce hatalarımı fark eder ve bunları daha iyi olmak için 1 2 3 4 5 kullanırım. 32 Biri İngilizce konuşurken dikkatimi veririm. 1 2 3 4 5 33 Nasıl daha iyi bir İngilizce öğrencisi olacağımı öğrenmeye 1 2 3 4 5 çalışırım. 34 Programımı planlarım böylece İngilizce çalışmak için yeterli 1 2 3 4 5 zamanım olur. 35 İngilizce konuşabileceğim insanlar ararım. 1 2 3 4 5 36 Mümkün olduğunca çok İngilizce okumak için fırsatlar ararım. 1 2 3 4 5 37 İngilizce becerilerimi geliştirmek için belli hedeflerim vardır. 1 2 3 4 5 38 İngilizce öğrenimindeki gelişimim hakkında düşünürüm. 1 2 3 4 5 21
39 İngilizceyi kullanmaktan korkutuğum zamanlar rahatlamaya 1 2 3 4 5 çalışırım. 40 Hata yapmaktan korktuğum zaman bile kendimi İngilizce 1 2 3 4 5 konuşmaya cesaretlendiririm. 41 İngilizce de başarılı olduğum zaman kendime ödül veririm. 1 2 3 4 5 42 İngilizce çalışırken veya İngilizceyi kullanırken gergin veya 1 2 3 4 5 sinirli olup olmadığımı fark ederim. 43 Duygularımı dil öğrenme günlüğüne yazarım. 1 2 3 4 5 44 İngilizce öğrenirken nasıl hissettiğim hakkında birileri ile 1 2 3 4 5 konuşurum. 45 Eğer İngilizce söylenen bir şeyi anlamazsam, karşı taraftan daha 1 2 3 4 5 yavaş konuşmasını ya da tekrar söylemesini isterim. 46 Ana dili İngilizce olan insanlardan konuşma esnasında İngilizce 1 2 3 4 5 hatalarımı düzeltmelerini isterim. 47 Diğer öğrencilerle İngilizce pratik yaparım. 1 2 3 4 5 48 Ana dili İngilizce olan insanlardan yardım isterim. 1 2 3 4 5 49 Sorularımı İngilizce sorarım. 1 2 3 4 5 50 Ana dili İngilizce olan insanların kültürleri hakkında bilgi sahibi olmaya çalışırım. 1 2 3 4 5 22