Investigating the Language Learning Strategies Used by Iranian Monolingual (Persian) and Bilingual (Persian_Turkish)Speakers as EFL Learners

Qasimnejad, Ali; Hemmati, Fatemeh

doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.05.281

Cited by 7 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This implies that there is no significant statistical difference between the mean of the two groups of the sample. This surprising result is inconsistent with the study of Qasimnejad & Hemmati (2014), in which there is a clear significant difference between Persian bilinguals (speaking Persian and Turkish) and monolinguals (speaking Persian) in favour of bilinguals. It is also different from the results of McLaughlin & Nayak (1989) and Nayak et al (1990).…”

Section: Resultscontrasting

confidence: 99%

“…However, as stated in the above table there is no difference in the sequence of any of the six strategies for both groups which is also considered to be an unanticipated result as the researcher, in light of some previous studies e.g. (AlHaisoni, 2012;Qasimnejad and Hemmati, 2014), expected to have some differences in the sequence of the six strategies when comparing monolingual and bilingual LLS to each other.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 50%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Examining Language Learning Strategies Used By Kurdish Monolingual (Kurdish) And Bilingual (Kurdish-Arabic) Speakers As Efl Learners

Othman¹

2017

HJUOZ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT:This study investigates the difference between monolingual (Kurdish) and bilingual (Kurdish-Arabic) speakers as EFL (English as a Foreign Language) learners with regard to the use of Language Learning Strategies (LLS). It aims to identify the differences found between the two samples in terms of using the (LLS). A total number of 100 EFL students at Zakho University as Bilinguals and Duhok University as Monolinguals of English Departments of both universities participated in the study. All the participants were third and fourth year undergraduate students from both universities. They were asked to answer a questionnaire on Rebecca Oxford's Strategy Inventory for Language Learning known as SILL. The strategies followed in this paper are the direct ones (memory, cognitive, compensation) and the indirect ones (meta-cognitive, affective, and social) which are highlighted in Oxford (1990). These strategies are chosen for this paper because they are considered to be the most agreed upon ones by many writers in the area of English as a Foreign Language (EFL). The valid and reliable statistical 'independent t-test' of SPSS is used to analyze the data. It is hypothesized that the results will show significant differences between the two groups (monolinguals and bilinguals) in their strategies in favour of bilinguals. The results of the research reveal that all strategies are clearly and soundly used by both groups, and surprisingly there is no significant difference between bilinguals and monolinguals with regard to the use of the six strategies. It was also found that there is no significant difference between third and fourth year levels concerning the use of the mentioned strategies, as well as there are two identical favourite lists of LLS for both groups.

show abstract

Section: Resultscontrasting

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 50%

Examining Language Learning Strategies Used By Kurdish Monolingual (Kurdish) And Bilingual (Kurdish-Arabic) Speakers As Efl Learners

Othman¹

2017

HJUOZ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The current study has also revealed that monolingual students make more use of cognitive strategies compared to bilinguals. This finding is not also in line with findings of some previous studies (Tuncer, 2009); (Qasimnejad and Hemmati, 2014) and Hong-Nam and Leavell (2006). Furthermore, bilingual undergraduates majoring in the English language, have some linguistic skill obtained in using their native language and therefore are more prone to use a variety of language learning strategies.…”

Section: Appendixcontrasting

confidence: 43%

Insights Into Monolingual Malaysian and Bilingual Indonesian Undergraduates Majoring in English

Maniam

Ramanlingam²

2020

International Journal of Asian Social Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, as stated in the above table there is no difference in the sequence of any of the six strategies for both groups which is also considered to be an unanticipated result as the researcher, in light of some previous studies e.g. (Al-Haisoni, 2012;Qasimnejad and Hemmati, 2014), expected to have some differences in the sequence of the six strategies when comparing monolingual and bilingual LLS to each other.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 60%

In The Collection And Study Skills Kwlh After Use Of Self-Table Strategy Article Teaching Methods At Colleges Of Education Students

Farman¹

2013

HJUOZ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study investigates the difference between monolingual (Kurdish) and bilingual (Kurdish-Arabic) speakers as EFL (English as a Foreign Language) learners with regard to the use of Language Learning Strategies (LLS). It aims to identify the differences found between the two samples in terms of using the (LLS). A total number of 100 EFL students at Zakho University as Bilinguals and Duhok University as Monolinguals of English Departments of both universities participated in the study. All the participants were third and fourth year undergraduate students from both universities. They were asked to answer a questionnaire on Rebecca Oxford's Strategy Inventory for Language Learning known as SILL. The strategies followed in this paper are the direct ones (memory, cognitive, compensation) and the indirect ones (meta-cognitive, affective, and social) which are highlighted in Oxford (1990). These strategies are chosen for this paper because they are considered to be the most agreed upon ones by many writers in the area of English as a Foreign Language (EFL). The valid and reliable statistical 'independent t-test' of SPSS is used to analyze the data. It is hypothesized that the results will show significant differences between the two groups (monolinguals and bilinguals) in their strategies in favour of bilinguals. The results of the research reveal that all strategies are clearly and soundly used by both groups, and surprisingly there is no significant difference between bilinguals and monolinguals with regard to the use of the six strategies. It was also found that there is no significant difference between third and fourth year levels concerning the use of the mentioned strategies, as well as there are two identical favourite lists of LLS for both groups.

show abstract

Investigating the Language Learning Strategies Used by Iranian Monolingual (Persian) and Bilingual (Persian_Turkish)Speakers as EFL Learners

Cited by 7 publications

References 7 publications

Examining Language Learning Strategies Used By Kurdish Monolingual (Kurdish) And Bilingual (Kurdish-Arabic) Speakers As Efl Learners

Examining Language Learning Strategies Used By Kurdish Monolingual (Kurdish) And Bilingual (Kurdish-Arabic) Speakers As Efl Learners

Insights Into Monolingual Malaysian and Bilingual Indonesian Undergraduates Majoring in English

In The Collection And Study Skills Kwlh After Use Of Self-Table Strategy Article Teaching Methods At Colleges Of Education Students

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About