11 SES 10 A, Teaching Strategies and Learning Quality
Multilingual EU supports language learning mainly because better language skills enable more people to improve their job prospects, enhance understanding people from different cultures (The new European programme for languages, 2014-2020). The quality of language learning, summarized in Rudzinska quality system for a study course (Rudzinska, 2011), has been discussed in several works by Khampirat and Rudzinska (Rudzinska & Khampirat, 2015; Rudzinska & Khampirat, 2016).
Present Paper deals with language learning strategies (LLS) that are key to learner autonomy, higher strategy use can be associated with higher proficiency in a second language (Ardesheva, 2011; G.Hu et al., 2009, Cohen & Macaro, 2007).
For assessing LLS currently most frequently used instrument is SLIL (Oxford, 1990). There are 6 categories: memory, cognitive, compensation, metacognitive, affective and social. Bremner (Bremner, 2000) found that students in Hong-Kong mostly use compensation and cognitive strategies, while memory strategies are reported to be used the least. Higher proficiency students use strategies, involving a lot of active practice. Murray investigation (Murray, 2010) showed that in a Korean language as a Foreign Language classroom in the USA most frequently used strategies were compensation and social strategies. Riazi (Riazi, 2007) study investigated 120 female Arabic-speaking students, finding that this group of English as Foreign language learners used strategy in the order of metacognitive, cognitive, compensation, social, memory, and affective ones, freshmen students reported the highest rate of strategy use with a mean of 3.64. Freshmen students also use more compensation strategies than other level students.
SLIL structural validity, however, is far from established, exists justified criticism and recommendations for enhancing the instrument’s validity (Hsiao & Oxford, 2002), Ardasheva (Ardasheva & Tretter, 2013) modified and validated the SILL (Oxford, 1990), developed for adults, for school-aged ELL students, developing a shorter, 28 item version. Bremner emphasizes that there is a problem in trying to establish the direction of causality in the relationship between proficiency and strategy use (Bremner, 2000). Correlations between each of the six subscales of the SILL were not so well defined, so they could not be used as predictors for achievement. In Bremner opinion more useful would be to investigate the effect of every strategy on specific aspects of proficiency, in specific contexts and over a period of time. Murray (Murray, 2010) considers that SLIL mainly deals with the frequency of strategy use, but more important consideration might be the quality of strategy use, points out that language learning strategies should be treated as only one among many variables in the language learning process, models for learning should include other student variables, such as learning styles, student affective disposition, social context and cultural differences.
Hsiao & Oxford (Hsiao & Oxford, 2002) compared classification theories of language learning strategies. Results from confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) of the data measured by the ESL/EFL version of the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning and collected from 517 college EFL learners. The findings suggest that other possible approaches to strategy classification should be considered, including among others a task–based strategy inventory.
In CARLA Center (Cohen, Oxford & Chi, 2009) has been developed Language Learning Strategy (LLS) Use Inventory, consisting of different language skill (listening, speaking, reading, writing) and vocabulary development strategy use. The purpose of the Inventory is to find out more about students as language learners and help them discover strategies that can help master a new language.
The main objective of this work was to assess the construct validity of a Language Learning Strategy Use (LLS) Inventory Instrument, when applied to Information Technology (IT) students in Thailand.
1. Ardasheva , Y., Tretter, T.R. (2013). Strategy Inventory for Language Learning–ELL Student Form: Testing for Factorial Validity, The Modern Language Journal, 97, 2. 2. Bremner S. (2000). Language Learning strategies and language proficiency: investigating the Relationship in Hong-Kong, Canadian Modern Language Review, Vol. 55, No. 4, p. 490-514. 3. Cohen, A. D., Oxford, R. L., & Chi, J. C. (2009). Language strategy use inventory. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition (CARLA). Retrieved from http://carla.umn.edu/maxsa/documents/LanguageStrategyInventory_MAXSA_IG.pdf. 4. Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16, 297–334. 5. Hair, Jr., J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis: A global perspective (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall. 6. Holmes, K. P., Rutledge, S., & Gauthier, L. R. (2009). Understanding the cultural-linguistic divide in American classrooms: Language learning strategies for a diverse student population. Reading Horizons, 49(4), 285-300. 7. Hsiao, T–Y., Oxford, R.L. (2002). Comparing Theories of Language Learning Strategies: A Confirmatory Factor Analysis, The Modern Language Journal, Volume 86, Issue 3, p. 368–383. 8. Kline, P. (1994). An easy guide to factor analysis. London: Routledge. 9. Munro, B. H. (2005). Statistical methods for health care research. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. 10. Murray, B. (2010). Students’ language learning strategy use and achievement in the Korean as a foreign language classroom, Foreign Language Annals, Volume 43, Issue 4, Winter 2010, p. 624–634. 11. Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). NY: McGraw Hill. 12. Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw Hill. 13. Oxford, R.L. (1990). Language Learning Strategies: What every teacher should know. Boston: Heinle. 14. Riazi, A. (2007). Language Learning Strategy Use: Perceptions of Female Arab English Majors, Foreign Language Annals, v40 n3 p. 433-440. 15. Rudzinska, I. & Khampirat, B. (2015). Learning Motivation Orientation And Learning Strategies In Thailand And Latvian Students, ECER 2015, Budapest. The European Conference on Educational Research „Education and Transition, Contributions from Educational Research”. 16. Rudzinska, I. & Khampirat, B. (2016). Factors Promoting and Impeding Qualitative Foreign Language Learning in Thai and Latvian HEI Students, ECER 2016, Dublin, Leading Education: The Distinct Contributions of Educational Research and Researchers. 17. Rudzinska, I. (2011). Quality Management in the Formation of Student Professional Foreign Language Competence, PhD Thesis, University of Latvia.
Search the ECER Programme
- Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
- Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
- Search for authors and in the respective field.
- For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
- If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.