LANGUAGE LEARNING STRATEGIES IN GRAMMAR.

(1)

LANGUAGE LEARNING STRATEGIES

IN GRAMMAR

A THESIS

Submitted to the English Applied Linguistics Department

of the

Graduate Program

of Uial\'ersitu

Negeri Medan

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

for the degree of Master of

Humaa lora ~

By:

RAHMAH f'ITHRIANI

Registration Number : 025010064

____

...__._.. ....:...,.._ . ~

Tf11LIK

PERPUST Ak.AAN

t

UNIME O

t

E.

ENGLISH APPLIED LINGUISTICS

GRADUATE

PROGRAM

STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN

2004

(2)

'

..

THESIS

LANGUAGE LEARNING STRATEGIES

IN GRAMMAR

Rahmah Fithriani

Registration Number: 025010064

Has Been Defended Before the Thesis Examination Committee

on July 21, 2004 and Declared to Have Fulfilled the Requirements

Approved By:

Second

Consultan ~

Prof. Dr. Jawasi Naibaho, Dip.App.I..:tng.

Head of English Applied l;inguistics,

Director of Graduate Program,

(3)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Praise be to God, the "Almighty", the Merciful, and the "Most Beneficial" for

His Mercy and Beneficial without which the writer would have never been able to

complete her task in obtaining the degree of Master of Humaniora of the English

Applied Linguistics Study, State University of Medan.

This study, in its present form is not without the support and assistance of many

people. There are many to thank as no academic pursuit is solitary. Along the way,

the writer has been driven, inspired and supported by the following distinguished and

most appreciative persons.

To mention a few, she would like to express her deepest gratitude to Prof. Tina

Mariany Arifin, M.A., Ph.D., her first consultant, for the valuable time

seent

in

giving the fruitful ideas, criticisms and corrections from the very beginning up to this

special day.

Next, her appreciation goes to Prof. Dr. Jawasi Naibaho, Dip.App.Ling .• her

second consultant, for the procedures of writing and comments given in the process

of completion.

She would like to express her thankfulness to the Head, Secretary, and staff of

the Ef\ghsh Applied Linguistics Department of Graduate Program of UNIMED for

the administrative procedures and to all the lecturers and tutors for the valuable

lectures, tutorials,

and

knowledge which have been imparted during her studies.

(4)

This study is in its present form is also due to the valuable inputs given by her

reviewers, Prof. D. P. Tampubolon, Ph.D., Prof M. Butar-Butar, M.A., Ph.D., and

Dr. Berlin Sibarani M.Pd. , To them, she would like to say thank you so much.

She has to say that above all, she would like to express her deepest love and

gratitude to her father, H. Rjdwan, mother, Ora Hj. Masrah, sister, Mira Wahyuni

S.Pd., and brother, Rahn1at Diansyah, S.T., for the care, support,

prayers.

and many others that have been given to her.

May

Allah Bless Us!

Me dan,

The ~Titer ,

R

~~F-

.... h .

~aL~

It

nam

Reg. No.: 025010064

(5)

ABSTRACT

Fithriani, Rahmah. Language Learning Strategjes in Grammar. Thesis: English Applied Linguistics Graduate Program. UNIMED. 2004

The central purpose of this sudy ·was to empirically evaluate an in-depth students' learning strategies in grammar. The research was carried out with a sample of 100 students attending the English Literature program at the Islamic University of North Sumatera. To detemiine whether there is a relationship between learning strategies

applied and proficiency in grammar, a strategy called Strategy Inventory for

Language Learning (SILL (Oxford, 1990)) was used and the levels of proficiency were detennined by a grammar test taken from a TOEFL book (Pyle and Page, 1995 ).

The results indicate that the frequency of strategies used

by

the students was overall

moderate, with the students reporting most frequent use of Cognitive strategies (M

=

3.31) and least of Affective strategies (M = 2.52). The results also reveal that there

(6)

ABSTRAK

Fithriani, Rahmah. Strategi Belajar Bahasa dalam Grammar. Tesis: Linguistik

Terapan Bahasa Inggris Program Pasca Satjana. UNIMED. 2004

Tujuan utama dari penelitian ini adalah untuk mengevaluasi strategi belajar siswa dalam mempelajari grammar. Penelitian ini dibuat dengan menggunakan sampel sebanyak 100 siswa yang belajar di Fakultas Sastra Inggris, Universitas Islam Sumatera Utara. Untuk men_yelidiki adanya korelasi antara strategi belajar yang diterapkan dan kemahiran dalam grammar, suatu alat yang disebut Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL (Oxford, 1990)) digunakan dan tingkat kemahiran ditentukan melalui tes grammar yang disarikan dari buku TOEFL (Pyle and Page, 1995). Hasil penelitian menunjukkan fre kuensi penggunaan strategi berada ditingkat

menen ga~ dimana para siswa paling sering menggunakan strategi Cognitive (M

=

3.31 ) dan paling sedikit menggunakan strategi Affective (M =.. 2.52} Hasil penelitian

juga menunjukkan adanya hubungan positif antara penggunaan strategi belajar dengan kemahiran dalam grammar dimana frekuensi penggunaan strategi-belaj ar oleh siswa yang memiliki kemahiran grammar yang tinggi lebih besar dibandingkan siswa

yang

kemahiran grammarnya rendah, terutama diempat jenis strategi yaitu

Compensation, Memory, Cognitive, dan Affective, sedangkan penggunaan dua strategi lairmya, Metacognitive dan Social menunjukan hubungan negatif yang mengidentifikasikan frekuensi penggunaannya yang tinggi dikalangan siswa yang tingl<at kemahiran grammamya rendah. Secara keseluruhan, hasil peneliti<;m ini membuktikan bahwa semakin sering seorang siswa menggunakan strategi belajar, semakin mahir siswa tersebut dalam grammar.

z

~

m

(7)

CHAPTER THREE RESEARCH :METHOD ... ... . ,... 34

3.1 Design of the Study ... 34

3.2 Population and Sample... 34

3.2.1 Population . ... ... ... ... ... .... ... .... .. . .. .... ... 34

3.2.2 Sample ... 35

3.3 Technique of Data Collection ... ... 35

3.4 Procedure ofData Collection ... 36

3.5 Technique ofData Analysis ... 37

3.5.1 Descriptive Statistics ... ... 37

3.~ . 2 Scoring ... 37

3.5.3 Inferential Statistics ... .... ... ... ... 37

(9)

CHAFTER FOUR RESEARCH FINDIN GS AND DISC USSION ... 0 0 • • • •• • • • • • • 39

4. 1 Findings ... ... ... 39

4.1.1 Learning Strategy Frequency .... ... .... ... . 39

4.1.2 Grammar Proficiency Test ... 40

4.1.3 Language Learning Strategies in Grammar ... . 4 1 4.2 Discussion _{··· · · ··· · · ···} _{~ ···} ... ... 43

4.2.1 Learning Strategy Frequency ... .. ... ... ... ... 43

4.2.2 Language

Learning

Strategies in Grammar ... .... 45

5.1 Conclusions ... ... ... .. ... ... 51

5.1.1 Variety of Language Learning Strategies ... ... 51

5.1.2 Frequency of Language Learning Strategies .. ... 51

5. J .3 Compensation Strategies . ... ... 52

5.2 Suggestions ... oo . ... .. . ••... .... .. .. 52

REFERENCES ... 0 0 • • • . . • • • • • • •• • • • • • • • • • • • • . . • • • • • • • • • • • • • . . • • • • • • • • • •• . . • • • • • 54

APPENDICES ... .... ... ···oo .... . . .. . ... .. .... . .. . . ... .. .. ... . . .. .... ... . . .. . • 58-85

(10)

UST OF TABLES

Table Page

2.1 Features of Language Learning Strategies . . .. . . . .. . . . ... . . ... . .. . .. .. .. . . ... .. 25

4.1 Mean Scores and Standart Deviations

of

the SlLL ... 39

4.2 Levels of Grammar Proficiency ... .... ... .... ... ... 40

4.3 Mean Scores, Standart Deviations, and T-Ratio of the SILL

Categories Related to Proficiency in Grammar ... 41

4.4 Bloom's Taxonomy of Gognitive Domain... 49

z

~

m

(11)

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix Page

A Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) ···o···Ooooo···o 58

B

Grammar Test 0 0 0 . . 0 0 . . 0 • • • 0 . . . 0 0 . . . 0 . . . 0 . . 0 0 . . 0 . . . 0 . . 0 . . . 0 .

64

C The Raw Scores of the SILL ... 71

D The Raw Scores of the SILL in Grammar Proficiency ... 75

E SPSS Computation of Descriptive Statistics .. ... . ... .... 78

F SPSS Computation oflndependent Sample T-Test ... 80

z

':)

m

(12)

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

I

r- ---

MIUK

PERPUST AKA

·- ·-·

AN

I

UNIMEO ,

- .--

... The global development towards the 2 t

s•

century which is characterized by the

advancement in science and technology with all their impacts on every walk of life ,

has made us conscious of the importance of language as a tool for global

communieation. The advancement in information technolot:,ry has caused almost all

existing phenomena in the globe to become transparen and interrelated so that

interaction among nations have become stronger and stronger. The closeness of the

interaction among nations, popularly known as "The global village",

lias

prompted

the function of a foreign language to become very significant. This fact brings the

teaching and learning of a foreign language to a very important position in the

community.

English as a language which is used internationally or globally has been taught

in almost all countries in the world. It has become the language which is most

frequently used in international trade, diplomacy and tourism and that it is studied by

more and more people than any other languages. English is also one of the most

important means for acquiring access to the world's intellectual apd technical

resources. In other words, it can be said that English is a library language, the

mediwn of science, technology and international trade, and as a contact language

among nations ana parts of nations around the world.

In Indonesia, English as a foreign language is a comeulsory subject to be taught

in all schools from lower to upper secondary schools and also universities. Even in

(13)

2

some private elementary schools, English is offered as an elective subject. However,

the proficiency in English of the Indonesian students still shows unsatisfactory

quality of the outputs. The unsatisfying quality of education in general and English in

particular in Indonesia, of course, relates to various variables. On one hand, the

variables may come from the methods that teachers use in teaching English to their

students, while on the other hand, it may come from the students themselves. In other

cases, the supporting infra an(i supra structures of an educational institution will

greatly influence the success of teaching and learning processes.

There are many factors to be considered and steps to be undertaken for the

future betterment of the teaching~leaming process and the development of the quality

of human resources. Among the many aspects of the teaching~learning process, it

might be that the strategies applied are not appropriate. The use of strategy or

strategies in learning can result a better output. One of the strategies is Language

Learning Strategies (LLSs) which has been shown in some studies as one of the

factors behind the success in learning a language (Wenden and Rubin, 1987;

O'Malley and Chamot, 1990; Oxford, 1993; Cohen, 1990). So, in this case it might be

a right solution to apply the strategy that can be used by the students.

1.1 Background ofthe Study

Learning is an on-going process in life. The sayings .. learning starts from the

cradle till it is time to die /' is true. In every wal ~ of life, learning takes place whether

it is formal, non fonnal, or informal. To be a successful person, one should learn.

(14)

3

can be said to be an individual choice. This implies that to be successful , the three

aspects should be covered. If the "what" and "why" are clear, the " how" is the most

important thing. In this respect, a Ieamer tends to apply a certain strategy in his/her

learning processes. This is especially true in the attempt to study English as an

international language. English as a means of communication in the 21 st century,

should be well-mastered by the students as well as the speakers of English.

In the mastery of the four language skills in English (listening, speaking,

reading, and writing) where grammar resides in the four, a wise student

will

certainly

apply a strategy or strategies. S/he should be able to approach the learning of English

through the application of one or two or perhaps as many strategies as appropriately

used. There are a nwnber of LLSs available and some of them are over-lapping. In

this study, some of the LLSs would be discussed and eventually one would especially

be focussed as used in this present study.

LLSs have received much attention since the late 1970s. Reiss (1985) reports

that during the past decade, the emphasis on foreign language research had shifted

from the teacher to the learner and educational research had identified a number of

factors that account for some of the differences in how students learn. However,

Harlow (1988) insists that although the instructional process involves both teacher

and learner, the b ul~of research efforts throughout the history of education have

centred upon teaching techniques, while neglecting the importance of the learner

himself As Rubin (1975) argues, many foreign language teachers are so concerned

with finding the best method or with getting the correct answer that they fail to attend

(15)

4

sucessfulleamers. The learners themselves must also take the ir part in order to get

satisfying results in their learning. One of the steps learners can take to improve their

learning perfonnance

is

by acknowledging their own strategies in the learning

process.

The investigation of LLSs has advanced the understanding of the processes

learners use to develop their skills in a second or foreign language. There are four

main skills in language learning, namely: listening, speaking, reading, and writing.

Beyond the four language skills, there is another skill which is quite crucial in

learni ng language, that is grammar as Brown (l994) argues that grammar is one of

the aspects which operates language. Oxford ( 1990) asserts that grammar is .-also a

language skiJI and it intersects and overlaps with the four other language ski lls in

particular ways. In Indonesian schools, the term 'Structure' is sometimes of mostly

used to replace 'Grammar' as the previous focuses on sentence meaning and parts of

the sentence as a preparation for the communication while the latter does not concern

with meaning at all. In other words, grammar is external to meaning (Ricoeur, 1974}.

As language is a means of communication and meaning (Semantics) is one

-of

the

aspects of language, Structure is a more appropriate term to use.

LLSs are proved as one of the factors behind the success in learning a l an~ e .

Shmaish (2002) shows that more proficient students use strategies more frequently

than

the

less proficient

ones.

Though there is no investigation on the relationship of

LLSs and

grammar

proficiency yet, it

can be

assumed that LLSs may affect

the

learners' performance in each language skill. Extensive investigation has shown the

(16)

5

producing a positive effect on learners' lanbl'lJage use (Wenden and Rubin, 1987;

O'Malley and Chamot, 1990; Oxford, 1996, Cohen, 1990). The most general findings

among the investigations of LLSs was the use of appropriate LLSs leads to improved

proficiency or overall achievement or in specific skill areas (Wenden and Rubin,

1987; Chamot and Kupper, 1989; Oxford and Crookall, 1989; Cohen, 1990 ~ O'Malley

and Chamot, 1990; Oxford, 1993~ Oxford ,Park-Oh. Jto, and Sumrall , 1993). These

studies also supported the notion that the use of appropriate Jearning strategies

enables students to take responsibilities for their own learning by enhancing learner

autonomy, independence, and self-direction.

Thus, this study was conducted to help the English learners in Indonesia to

identify their learning strategies and to show teachers as well as lecturers of a second

or a foreign language that it is important to identify and comprehend how the

strategies of their students are applied in varied language activities so that they can

play an active and supportive roles, which can enhance the duties of language

teachers or lecturers. Furthermore, it is also necessary to ask the ~ 1ude nts

systematically to describe in details how they proceed in performing their learning

strategies. This is suggested by O'Malley, Chamot, Stewner, Kupper and Russo

(1985: 557) saying that the learning strategies of good language learners, once

i&ntified and successfully taught to less competent learners, could have considerable

potential for enhancing the development of second

or

foreign language skills.

The matters mentioned earlier and others need to be taken. into account by the

Indonesian teachers (and/or lecturers)

because

their

students need to keep on learning

(17)

6

students and teachers are well aware of the importance of studying English for

gaining admission of future job vacancies as English has become one of the inclusive

requirements. It can be clearly seen in job vacancy advertisements that one of the

requirements to be ful fi lled is proficiency in spoken and wrinen English besides the

computer literacy. And it is known for sure that apan from other factors, the reality

which is faced by some if not most learners is the poor mastery of English. On the

teachers' part, if they include by stressing learning strategies as part of their

instruction, they can play an active role in helping their students to become successful

learners of the target language. Thus, research on the LLSs of the Indonesian students

should not only sensitize the students and teachers to the use of these strategies but

also encourage them to develop their own profiles of the learning strategies at work in

their classrooms.

1.2 Problems of the Study

With reference to the background of the study, there are two questions to be

posed in this research, namely;

l. What Language Learning Strategies are the most frequently used?

Z:

Is

there any significant difference between Language Learning Slrategies used

by the high and the low scoring students in grammar pro ficiency?

(18)

7

t

.3 Objectives of the Study

The primary objective of this study is to answer the questions as stated in the

research problems. Thus, the aim of this study is to investigate the strategies used by

the students and to focus on the differences between Language Learning Strategies

used by high and low scoring students due to grammar proticiency.

1.4 Scope of the Study

This study is focused on the third year students of the Faculty of English

Literature, Islamic University of North Sumatera with regard to the Language.

Learning Strategies (LLSs) use under the categories proposed by Oxford ( l990). The

LLSs are divided into two main classes, namely direct and indirect strategies Which

are further subdivided into 6 groups which include Memory, Cognitive,

Co mpensation, Metacognitive, Affective and Social. This study will investigate

which strategies among the six are most frequently used by students in class,

especially in studying grammar.

1.5 Significance of the Study

In general, a study on LLSs is always very exciting and interesting to be

conducted. The findings of this study are expected to be useful in terms of helping the

students in realizing the needs of understanding their O"<fl learning strategies in

general and to choose appropriate strategies in particular, which are suitable for them.

The information and knowledge of the various LLSs will certainly proYide a better

(19)

8

the best strategies to discover the best outcomes of the teaching and learning

processes.

This study is hoped to be useful as a valuable input for teachers as well as

lecturers in understanding the different LLSs used by their students. In addition, it

may also provide a finding leading to further in-depth studies, which anempt to

analyze the correlation between the language learning and other aspects of th~

learning itself.

z

(20)

.---~- - --.

CHAPTER FIVE

MlliK PERPUST

AKA

AN I

UNIMEn ,

CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS

5.1 Conclusions

This study was conducted as an attempt to discover the LLSs used by the

students in studying the English Grammar. The research which involved 100

students, showed that the students were medium users of strategies. Several important

findings were revealed. The conclusions which

are

presented based on the major

findings are as follows:

5.1.1 Variety of Language Learning Strategies

The students consciously employed a variety of language learning strategies

with moderate frequency. They chose Cognitive strategies as the most frequently

used, whereas, they possibly avoided, or were unaware of how to apply, Affective

strategies.

5.1.2 Frequency of Language Learning Strategies

The findings of this study showed that the frequency of the strategy use varied

according to the grammar proficiency as measured by a grammar test. The high level

proficiency students used Compensation, Memory, Cognitive, and, Affective

strategies significantly greater than the low level proficiency students. While the. low

level proficiency students used Metacognitive strategies significaJltiY greater than the

high level proficiency students.

(21)

52

5.1.3 Compensation Strategy

The use of Compensation strategies had the strongest relation to grammar

proficiency tested by the grammar test, followed by Memory and Cognitive

strategies.

Overall, the high level proficiency students showed greater use of strategies

than the low level proficiency ones. This finding supports what Green and Oxford

(1995) assert that the relationship between proficiency and the use of language

learning strategy shows that students who are better in their language performance

generally use higher levels of overall strategy and greater number of strategy

categories.

5.2 Suggestions

There are many classifications of LLSs proposed by the experts. However most

of these attempts to classify LLSs reflect more or less the same categorizations of

LLSs without many changes. {t is obvious that LLSs facilitate the learning of the

target language by the language learner. Language learners in general use LLSs in the

learning process. Thus, both learners and teachers need to become aware of the

learning strategies as the use of learning strategies brings good effects to the students'

language performance.

Jt is suggested that teachers and lecturers should systematically introduce and

reinforce learning strategies that help students usc the target language more

effectively and thus..improve their perfonnance. Oxford (1990) suggests that strategy

(22)

53

them with opportunities for practicing these strategies through integrating them into

the classroom instructional plan and embedding them into regular class activities.

There is a need for more comprehensive research on a wide range of variables

affecting LLSs employed by the learners and on strategy instruction which is

important in assessing learners strategies to pave the way for building the theory that

seems necessary for more language learning strategies work to be relevant to the

current practice of foreign language teaching.

An indepth study related to other language skills is suggested to be conducted in

order to discover the LLSs used and to enable to conduct a comparative study in the

four language skills and finally teachers as well as lecturers will try to match their

approaches and methods of teaching to the students' learning strategies.

z

?

(23)

REFERENCES

Abraham, R. G. and Vann, R. J. 1987. Strategies of Two Language Learners: A Case

Study. In Wenden, A. L. and Rubin, J (Eds. ), Learner Strategies in Language

Learning, 1: 85·-l 02 . Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Ary, D. et. al. 1979. introduction tu R e. ~tearch in Education (2'"1 Ed.). New York:

Holt, Rinehart and Winston Inc.

Bloom, B. S. 1956. Taxonomy uf Educational Objectives: The Classification of

Educational Goals. Handbook I : Cognitive Domain. New York: Longmans,

Green.

Brown, H. D. 1987. Principles of Language Learning and Teaching . Englewood

Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Brown, H. D. 1994. Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language

Pedagogy. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Chamot, A. U. and Kupper, L. 1989. Learning Strategies in Language Learning.

Foreign !.anguuge Annals, 22 (I), 13--24.

Chen, S. 1990. A Study of Communications Strategies in Interlanguage Production

by Chinese EFL Learners. Language Learning, 26(2), 12--18.

Cohen, A. 1990. Language Learning: Insights for Learners, Teachers, and

Researchers. New York: Newbury House.

Dansereau, D. F. 1985. Learning Strategy Research. In Judith W. S. et. al (Eds.),

11linking and {,earning Skills: Relating Learning to Basic Research, I, 20--40.

Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum.

Du Toit, A. and Orr, M. 1987. Achiever's Handbook. Johannesburg: Southern Book

Publishers.

Ertmer, P. A. and Newby, T. J. 1993. Behaviorism, Cognitivism, Constructivism:

Comparing Critical Features from an Instructional Design Perspective.

Performance Improvement Quarterly, 6 (4), 50--70.

Faerch, C. and Kasper, G. 1983. S trategie.-, in lmerlanguage Communication.

London: Longman.

Good, T. L. and Brophy, J. E. 1990 . .t:ducati(-mal Psychology: A Realistic Approach.

(4thed.). New York: Longman.

(24)

55

Green, J. M. and Oxford, R. 1995. A Closer Look at Learning Strategies, L2

Proficiency, and Gender. TESOL Quarterly, 29 (2), 261--297.

Harlow, L. L. 1988. The Effects of the Yellow Highlighter-Second-Language Learner

Strategies and Their Effectiveness: a Research Update. The Canadian Modern

Language Review 45: 91--102.

Hornby, A. S. 1995. Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary. (5th Ed.). Oxford:

Oxford University

Press.

Rosenfield, C. 1976. Learning about Learning: Discovering our Students' Strategies.

Foreign Language Annals. 9, 11 7-129.

Hutchinson, T and Waters, A. 1986. English for .\'pecific Purposes: A

Learning-Centred Apprpach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hyltenstam, K. and Pienemann, M. 1985. Modelling and Assessing

Secona

Language

Acquisition. New York: Longman ..

Jeffery, C. D. 1990. The Case for Grammar: Opening It Wider. South African .Journal

of Higher Education (SAJHE), Special Edition: 12--130.

Krashen, S. D. 1982. Prindp/es and Practice in Second Language Acquisition.

Oxford: Pergamon.

Lee, H. W. 1994. Investigating the Factors Affecting the Use of Foreil:,l11 Language

Learning Strategies and Comparing the Strategy Use of EFL and ESL Students. Hnglish Teaching, 48, 51--99.

Mcintyre, P. D. 1994. Toward a Social Psychological Model of Strategy Use.

Foreign Language Annals, 27 (2), 18··195.

Mubibinsyah. 2002. Psikologi Pendidikan dengun Pendekatan Baru. Bandung:

Remaja Rosdakarya.

0' Maller,

J.

M. et. a!. 1985. Learning Strategy Applications with Students of

English as a Second Language. TESOL Quarterly, 19,557--584.

O'Malley, J. M. and Ghamot, A U. 1990. Learning Strategies in Second Language

Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Oxford, R.

L.

and Crookall, D. 1989. Research on Language Learning Strategies in

an Intensive Foreign language Program in the United States.

System,

23 (3),

(25)

56

Oxford, R. L. and Nyikos, M. 1989. Variables Affecting the Choice of Language

Learning Strategies by University Students. The Modern Language Journal,

73,291--300.

Oxford, R. L. 1990. Lang uage Learning Strategies: What Every Teacher should

Know. New York: Newbury House Publishers.

Oxford, R. L. 1993. Research on Second Language Learning Strategies. Annual

Review(~( Applied linguistics, 13, 175--187.

Oxford, R. L. and Burry-Stock, J. A. 1995. A sse ~ ·sing the Use of LtJnguageLearning

Strategies World wide with the ESU £FL Ver.'iion of the Stratew.,Inventory for

Language Learning (SILL). Tuscaloosa, Alabama: University of Alabama.

Oxford, R. L. et. al. 1993. Japanese by Satellite: Effects of Motivation, Language

Learning Styles and Strategies, Gender. Course Level, and Previous Language

Learning Experience on Japanese Language Achievement. Foreign lAnguage

Annals, 21, 321-29.

Politzer, R. L. and McGroarty, M. 1985. An Exploratory Study of .Learning

Behaviors and Their Relationship to Gains in Linguistic and Communicative

Competence. 1'/.iSOL Quarterly, 19, 103--123.

Popham, W. J. 1985. Educational Statistics. New York: Harper and Row Publisher.

Pyle, M.A. and Page, M. E. M. 1995. TOELF Preparation Guide. Lincoln Nebras'ka:

Cliffs Notes.

Rees-Miller, J. 1993.

A

Critical Appraisal of Learner Training: Theoretical Bases

and

Teaching Implications. TESOL Quarterly, 27, 679--689.

Reiss, M. A. 1985: The Good Language Leamer: Another Look. Canadian

Modern

/,an&7Uage Review 41 , 511-5 23.

Richards, J. and Platt, J. 1992. Longman Dictionary of Language Teachmg and

Applied Linguistfcs. Essex: Longman.

Ricoeur, P. 1974. Structure, Word, Event in the Conflict of Interpretations. Evanston,

Illinois: North Western University Press.

Rubin, J. 1975. What the 'Good Language Learner' Can Teach Us. TESOL Quarterly,

(26)

57

Rubin, J. 1987. Learner Strategies. Theoretical Assumptions, Research, llistory and

Typology. in Wenden, A L. and Rubin, J. (Eds.) Leurner Strategies in

Langua ~e Learning, 1, 15--30. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Shrnais, W. A 2002. http://www-writing.berkeley.edu!TES"L-EJ/ej26ia3.html (23/3/03).

Skehan, P. 1989. Individual Differences in Second-Language Learning. London: Edward Arnold.

Stern ,

H H

1992. Issues and Options in Language Teaching.

Oxford: OUP.

Vann,

R.

J.

and

Abraham, R.

G.

1990. Strategies of Unsuccessful

Learners. TESOL

Quarterly, 24, 177--198

Vollmer, H. J. 1983. The Structure of Foreign Language Competence. New York: Newbury House.

Weinstein, C. and Mayer, R 1986. The Teaching of Learning Strategies. In Wittrock, M. (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Teaching. 315-327.

Wenden, A. L. and Rubin, J. 1987. Learner Strategies in Language Learning. New

Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Wilson, B. G. 1997. Thoughts on Theory in Educational Teclmology. Educational

LANGUAGE LEARNING STRATEGIES IN GRAMMAR.