Language Learning Strategies and English Proficiency of Chinese University Students

Abstract

This study investigated the relationship between language learning strategy (LLS) preferences and English proficiency among Chinese university students. Oxford's (1990) Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) and an institutional version (ITP) of the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL) were administered to 168 third‐year English majors. Multiple regression analysis revealed that SILL strategies accounted for only 4% of the variation in ITP‐TOEFL score. Results of a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) indicated no significant differences between males and females on eight measures of learning strategy preferences and proficiency. Findings suggest a need for further research examining other factors that may account for variation in proficiency among Chinese learners. The authors recommend a closer examination of the relationship between learning strategies and proficiency, and the possible interplay of learner autonomy, across diverse cultural settings.

Investigation into Learning Strategies Used by Effective and Less Effective EFL Learners in Korea

“…In quantitative studies, the studies to date have shown generally statistically significant but low correlations between strategy use and L2 proficiency (Griffiths, 2003;Nisbet et al, 2005;Phakiti, 2003). In qualitative studies, effective learners have not always used different learning strategies than less effective learners, depending on different learners in different learning contexts (Gan et al, 2004;O'Malley et al, 1989;Vandergrift, 1997).…”

“…Since the 'good language learner' studies (Rubin, 1975;Naiman et al, 1978), many studies have been conducted to investigate the behaviors and thought processes of language learners (Cohen & Macaro, 2007;Griffiths, 2003;MacIntyre, 1994;Magogwe & Oliver, 2007;Nisbet et al, 2005;Nyikos & Oxford, 1993;Oxford & Ehrman, 1995;Thompson & Rubin, 1996;Vandergrift, 1999;Wharton, 2000). The proliferation of learning strategy research is mainly due to the assumption that strategy use affects L2 acquisition.…”

“…However, in spite of this assumption that effective language learners use quantitatively more learning strategies than less effective language learners, the relation of strategy use to L2 proficiency has been in general low with the correlation range from .01 to .47 (Griffiths, 2003;Mullins, 1992;Nisbet et al, 2005;Phakiti, 2003;Park, 1997;Politzer & McGroarty, 1985). For instance, Politzer and McGroarty (1985) investigated the correlations of different behaviors to proficiency gains and found that the correlations between behaviors and proficiency gains were ranged from .10 to .37.…”

Variations of Language Learning Strategy Use among Three Colleges at a Private Four-year Technology University in Taiwan

“…Oxford (1996) reported the Chronbach's alpha of SILL is 0.93 to 0.98 as the SILL given in learner's language or in L2. Numerous studies have reported the high validity of SILL as a significant index to language learning performance (Landau and Everitt, 2004;Mango, 2010;Nisbet, Tindall, & Arroyo, 2005;Oxford, 1990b;Park, 2011).…”

“…8, No. 11;2015 strategies used and L2 proficiency, the factors relating to learners' choice of adopting different strategies, and language training curriculum (Green & Oxford, 1995;Griffiths, 2003;Hong-Nam & Leavell, 2006;McMullen, 2009;Nisbet et al, 2005;Nyikos and Oxford, 1993;Park, 1977Park, , 2011Riazi and Rahimi, 2005;Wharton, 2000;Yang, 1999). SILL was being examined and proved its fair reliability with an acceptable alpha value of .60 and .70 in most of the previous research (Hair et al, 1998;Landau & Everitt, 2004;Park 2011).…”