Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
TITLE: Language Learning Strategies and Language Proficiency: Investigating the Relationship in Hong
Kong
SOURCE: Canadian Modern Language Review 55 no4 490-514 Je 1999
The magazine publisher is the copyright holder of this article and it is reproduced with permission. Further
reproduction of this article in violation of the copyright is prohibited.
ABSTRACT
This article reports on a survey of the language learning strategies used by a group of Hong Kong learners. The
aims of the study were to investigate levels of strategy use among the group, and to examine levels of
association between strategy use and language proficiency. The SILL questionnaire (Strategies Inventory of
Language Learning) by Oxford (1990, pp. 293-300) was used. SILL consists of six categories of strategies:
memory, cognitive, compensation, metacognitive, affective, and social. The results showed that compensation
and metacognitive strategies were the most used, while affective and memory strategies were the least used.
Previous examinations of the nature of the relationship between strategy use and proficiency, and ways of
measuring this are discussed. In this study, it was found that there was significant variation in proficiency in
relation to eleven out of a possible fifty strategies. Of these, nine were in the cognitive category, one in the
compensation category, and one in the social category. The article concludes by questioning the appropriateness
of using the SILL and proficiency measure in tandem as a way of establishing a clear relationship between
strategy use and proficiency, and suggests directions that might be pursued in language learning strategy
research. Cet article offre un compte rendu d'une ้tude portant sur les strat้gies d'apprentissage des langues
utilis้es par un groupe d'apprenants เ Hong Kong. Les buts vis้s par cette ้tude ้taient de relever le niveau
d'utilisation des strat้gies parmi les membres du groupe, et ensuite d'analyser le niveau d'association entre
l'utilisation des strat้gies et la comp้tence linguistique. On a utilis้ le questionnaire de l'inventaire des strat้gies de
l'apprentissage des langues (SILL), mis au point par Oxford (1990, pp. 293-300). Les strat้gies y sont divis้es en
six cat้gories: m้morielle, cognitive, compensatoire, m้tacognitive, affective et sociale. Les r้sultats montrent que
les strat้gies compensatoire et m้tacognitive ้taient les plus souvent utilis้es, tandis que les strat้gies affective et
m้morielle l'้taient le moins. On discute des ้tudes pr้c้dentes portant sur la nature du lien entre utilisation de
strat้gies et comp้tence linguistique, ainsi que des facons de mesurer ce lien. Dans cette ้tude, on a trouv้ qu'il
existait une variation importante du rapport entre la comp้tence et la strat้gie dans onze des cinquante strat้gies
possibles. Parmi ces onze strat้gies, neuf se situaient dans la cat้gorie cognitive, une dans la cat้gorie
compensatoire et une dans la cat้gorie sociale. L'article conclut en questionnant la pertinence de l'utilisation du
SILL conjointement avec la mesure de la comp้tence comme m้thode permettant d'้tablir un lien net entre
utilisation de strat้gie et comp้tence, proposant de nouvelles voies de recherche sur les strat้gies de
l'apprentissage des langues.
INTRODUCTION
The idea that there may be a set of strategies used by language learners to help them learn language has been
with us for some time. From early examples of research such as the studies carried out by Rubin (1975) and
Stern (1975), to taxonomies of strategies like that drawn up by Oxford (1990), to theories of language
acquisition which incorporate strategies (O'Malley & Chamot, 1990), much work has been done in attempting
to identify what might be good language learning strategies, and in trying to establish a relationship between
these and successful language learning.
This paper examines the links between language learning strategy use and L2 proficiency of a group of
learners in Hong Kong. The term 'proficiency' here can be interpreted in the sense used by Bachman to refer in
general to 'knowledge, competence or ability in the use of a language, irrespective of how, where, or under what
conditions it has been acquired' (1990, p. 16). Specifically, the paper looks at two questions:
1. What type of learning strategies do the group of Hong Kong learners under investigation report themselves
as using?
2. What associations, if any, exist between the levels of strategy use and proficiency among the group? (In
looking at the latter, I also discuss the relationship between strategy use and proficiency, and the extent to which
they can be treated as separate: in other words, are they interlinked features of learner performance, or separate
factors, one the cause of the other?)
In order to address these questions, I discuss some of the studies that have examined the nature of language
learning strategies, in particular those which have looked at possible links between strategy use and proficiency,
and then I present the findings from a study carried out with a group of students at the City University of Hong
Kong.
BACKGROUND -- IDENTIFYING AND CATEGORISING STRATEGIES
Early research into language learning strategies was concerned with attempting to establish what good
language learning strategies might be. While no explicit claims were made about links between strategies and
success, the titles of these early articles implied a relationship: 'What the "Good Language Learner" can Teach
Us' (Rubin, 1975), and 'What Can We Learn From the Good Language Learner?' (Stern, 1975). Researchers
were hoping to identify strategies used by successful learners with the idea that they might be transferred to less
successful learners. As Horwitz says: 'The ultimate purpose of studying learner strategies is, of course, an
applied one; researchers and teachers hope to determine which strategies are most effective and help students
adopt more productive learning procedures' (1987, p. 126). Notable studies carried out since these early two
include Naiman, Frohlich, Stern, and Todesco's (1978) study, Rubin's (1981) study, and the work done by
O'Malley, Chamot, Stewner-Manzanares, Kupper, and Russo (1985).
There is considerable debate as to appropriate ways of defining language learning strategies, and no strong
consensus as yet (see Ellis, 1994, and Gu, 1996, for a discussion of this issue). The terms which have been used
to describe strategies (e.g. technique, behaviour, operation, action) and to account for their purpose (to acquire
knowledge, to regulate learning, to make learning more effective) vary, but they have much in common. Oxford
defines strategies in general terms as 'steps taken by learners to enhance their own learning' (1990, p. 1).
As well as the various ways of defining strategies, there are also different ways of categorising those that
have been identified. Based on research that took place during the 1980s, O'Malley and Chamot (1990), for
example, outline a scheme which includes cognitive, metacognitive, and social/affective strategies. Cognitive
strategies work with information in ways that enhance learning; metacognitive strategies are described as
'higher order executive skills' that could involve the planning, monitoring, or evaluation of an activity, and
social/affective strategies entail 'interaction with another person or ideational control over affect' (1990, pp. 44-
45). Oxford (1990) has also produced a classification system which takes account of research conducted over
the preceding years, including much of her own work. This will be looked at in greater detail later.
A wide range of methods of data collection has been used: observation and interviews (Naiman et al., 1978);
observations, student self-report and diaries (Rubin, 1981); self-report through questionnaires (Politzer, 1983;
Politzer & McGroarty, 1985; Oxford, 1990); and interviews (Wenden, 1987).
Thus the situation that has evolved is one where there is no clear agreement on a definition for strategies, and
where there is a variety of classification schemes and elicitation methods. The existing schemes of classification
have areas in common, but, as is noted by Oxford and Ehrmann, 'The proliferation of strategy systems has
caused problems for those researchers who believe it is important to compare results across studies' (1995, p.
363). However, one instrument for eliciting levels of strategy use has gained currency through being
administered in a variety of learning environments: Oxford's (1990) Strategy Inventory for Language Learning
(SILL). This has been developed from Oxford's fairly exhaustive list of strategies, described by Ellis as 'perhaps
the most comprehensive classification of learning strategies to date' (1994, p. 539). According to Green and
Oxford (1995), studies using SILL have involved around 8,000 students in different parts of the world.
This research has used the SILL for the reason that it has been used extensively and thus allows for
comparisons to be made; the study which is the principal point of comparison for this paper is the research
carried out by Green and Oxford (1995), using the same instrument. In their study, the relationships between
strategy use, L2 proficiency and gender were examined using a population of students in a university in Puerto
Rico. The results and analysis procedures are discussed later in this paper. I shall also refer to a study conducted
by Goh and Kwah (1997) in which they looked at the strategy use of tertiary-level students from PRC learning
English in Singapore. This too used the SILL, again investigating relationships between strategy use, gender,
and proficiency.
SUBJECTS
The subjects (n=149, 113 female, 36 male) were all studying a language and communication skills course at
the City University of Hong Kong, part of a BA in Primary Education; as this was an in-service course, all of
them were already working as primary teachers. There was a wide divergence in age, from mid-twenties to mid-
fifties. The L1 of the group was Cantonese. While all had undergone compulsory instruction in English at
school, the ultimate length of language study varied, as did proficiency. Students were placed into classes for
logistical reasons (i.e., according to when they could attend) rather than on the basis of proficiency level. The
course lasted twenty weeks: thirty hours of instruction and forty-five hours of self-study. The syllabus for all
groups was the same.
INSTRUMENTS
The instrument used for collecting data on strategy use was Oxford's (1990, pp. 293-300) Strategy Inventory
for Language Learning (50-item Version 7.0 for ESL/EFL). The SILL is a self-scoring survey and the structure
is based on Oxford's classification system, whereby strategies are grouped into two types: direct (i.e., strategies
which directly involve the target language) and indirect. These in turn are divided into categories: memory,
cognitive, and compensation (direct); metacognitive, affective, and social (indirect).
Memory strategies relate to the storing and retrieval of information (e.g., 'I use new English words in a
sentence so I can remember them'); cognitive strategies, although varied, are described by Oxford as being
'unified by a common function: manipulation or transformation of the target language by the learner' (1990, p.
43) (e.g., 'I use the English words I know in different ways'). Meanwhile compensation strategies 'enable
learners to use the new language for either comprehension or production despite limitations in knowledge' (p.
47) (e.g., 'To understand unfamiliar English words I make guesses'). As for the indirect group, metacognitive
strategies 'allow learners to control their own cognition' (p. 135) (e.g., 'I look for people to talk to in English'),
affective strategies are concerned with the regulation of feelings and attitudes (e.g., 'I try to relax whenever I
feel afraid of using English'), and social strategies are those which take account of the fact that language is a
form of social behaviour, involving communication with other people (e.g., 'I practise English with other
students').
Each item in the survey is a statement saying 'I do ...' (e.g., 'I pay attention when someone is speaking') and
students respond on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 ('Never or almost never true of me') to 5 ('Always or
almost always true of me'). An English version of the questionnaire was administered roughly halfway through
the course. Green and Oxford quote reliability of various forms of SILL, using Cronbach's alpha for internal
consistency, as .93-.98 (1995, p. 264). Reliability of SILL for this population, again using Cronbach's alpha, was
.92.
In order to determine the students' proficiency in relation to each other, the following tasks were administered
in the first and second half of the twenty-week course: two spoken tasks, two written tasks, and two discrete-
item language tests. Scores from these were totalled and converted into a percentage. The breakdown of
assignments is as follows:
Scoring for the written and spoken tasks was subjective, based on criteria agreed by the two instructors when
the tasks were set; scoring for the discrete-item language tests was mostly objective. While an objective test of
overall proficiency might have been preferable, the assessment procedures for the course were already in place,
and it was felt that the range of tasks set for students was sufficiently comprehensive. A statistical check for
reliability using Cronbach's alpha was run, calculating the intercorrelations between the tasks set in the first half
and those set in the second half, with the result r = .9005. For the different sections -- speaking, writing and
discrete item tests -- the results were .8543, .7339, and .8305 respectively. This meets Skehan's requirements for
test reliability: he says that a reliability coefficient of 0.7 or above is acceptably high (1989, p. 12).
Differences in mean strategy use in the six SILL categories (the dependent variables) in relation to
proficiency by group (the independent variable) were determined using a one-way analysis of variance
(ANOVA). The Scheffe post-hoc test was used to see where any significant differences lay. To determine
significance throughout the study, a standard of p < .05 was used.
THE FINDINGS
Table 1 shows the mean strategy use in each of these categories for the entire group. Although there are
differences in level of use by strategy group, all means for the six strategy categories fell within the range of 2.5
to 3.4, which is defined by Oxford (1990) as medium use. The compensation category had the highest mean,
followed by metacognitive, cognitive, social, memory and affective.
A summary of the ANOVA results for the six categories of strategy, where proficiency is the independent
variable, is shown in Table 2.
These results show significant relationships with proficiency for three categories of strategy, with two
(cognitive and compensation) representing positive variation, i.e., more use by students with higher proficiency,
and one (affective) representing negative variation.
ANOVA was run for each of the individual strategies, and it was found that there was significant positive
variation in proficiency in relation to eleven strategies, and mixed variation in relation to five strategies. The
strategies are listed in Table 3, and a summary of the ANOVA results for the strategies is shown in Table 4.
Of the strategies which showed significant association with proficiency, nine fall into the cognitive category
(11, 12, 13, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22), one into the compensation category (27), and one into the social category
(49).
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
In terms of frequency of use of different categories of strategy, this study has shown results similar to other
studies conducted among Chinese-speaking students in different parts of the region - the PRC, Taiwan, and
Singapore - in that compensation and cognitive strategies are reported as being used the most frequently, while
memory strategies (as represented in the SILL) are among the least frequently used. Further studies would be
necessary to establish how widespread a phenomenon this is among Chinese speakers, and how different their
patterns of strategy use are from those of other groups in other cultures.
As for the relationship between levels of strategy use and proficiency, the study indicates significant levels of
association for eleven strategies, nine of which are from the cognitive category, and as in Green and Oxford's
(1995) study, many of these are seen to involve active practice.
However, the study does raise questions about the effectiveness of this method of investigating the
relationship between strategy use and proficiency level: firstly, there is the problem of attempting to establish a
direction of causality within the relationship; analysing this relationship using the SILL and proficiency scores
alone does not provide enough information in this respect, because it does not measure the effect of one factor
on the other over a period of time. Secondly, strategy use as reported by the SILL alone does not give a full
picture of what these strategies represent for students, with the resulting problem that teachers cannot easily
translate them into teachable strategies for use in the learning process.
The ultimate goal of any research trying to establish connections between strategy use and learning success
should be to establish the extent to which strategy use contributes to the learning process. Research which looks
at the effect of proficiency on strategy use seems to be going down a different track. If strategies are not causes
but features of proficiency, then they are not worth investigating - they are simply outcomes of increased
proficiency, an increase that has to be accounted for in other ways. If, on the other hand, they are contributory
factors towards increased proficiency, then they do warrant further investigation. However, in their general,
decontextualised form as items on a questionnaire, those that showed significant association in this study do not
represent much more than an encouragement to practise more, and it is hardly a great advance to suggest that
practice helps.
While the SILL can provide a broad idea of overall strategy use, the study of the effect of strategy use on
proficiency perhaps does not require an instrument as comprehensive in its scope as this: what would be more
appropriate is an approach which investigates the effect of very specific strategies on localised aspects of
proficiency, in specific contexts, over a period of time.
ADDED MATERIAL
Stephen Bremner has been working in the Department of English at the City University of Hong Kong since
1996. He has taught in the Middle East, Eastern Europe, and the People's Republic of China. His current
research interests are ESP, in particular workplace writing, and learner strategies.
This research was supported by the Educational Discourse/TESL Research Group, Department of English,
City University of Hong Kong. Thanks also to Dr Matt Peacock for his help with statistical analysis, and to the
three anonymous reviewers for some helpful comments on an earlier version of the paper.
TABLE 1 Mean strategy use in each of the six strategy groups
Positive variation
11. I try to talk like native English speakers.
12. I practise the sounds of English.
13. I use English words I know in different ways.
15. I watch English TV shows spoken in English or go to movies spoken in
English.
17. I write notes, messages, letters or reports in English.
18. I first skim an English passage (read over the passage quickly) then go
back and read carefully.
19. I look for words in my own language that are similar to new words in
English.
20. I try to find patterns in English.
22. I try not to translate word-for-word.
27. I read English without looking up every word.
49. I ask questions in English.
Mixed variation
23. I make summaries of information that I hear or read in English.
24. To understand unfamiliar words in English, I make guesses.
26. I make up new words if I do not know the right ones in English.
38. I think about my progress in learning English
44. I talk to someone else about how I feel when I am learning English.
Note: (The numbers next to each strategy are those from the questionnaire--a full list of the fifty strategies
can be found in Appendix 1).
TABLE 4 Summary of variation in proficiency
Positive variation
Proficiency score (as percentage) by strategy use (low use, medium use, high use)
SILL Low (G1) Medium (G2) High (G3) F Significance
Item M SD M SD M SD ratio level Comments
11 71.18 9.9 74.73 8.84 77.79 8.2 6.3 p < .0024 G3>G1
12 68.62 10.58 73.69 8.17 77.65 9.1 9.1 p < .0002 G3>G1
13 71.07 9.9 74.66 8.12 78.70 10.17 6.3 p < .0024 G3>G1
15 71.58 9.7 74.62 8.79 76.87 9.4 3.6 p < .0312 G3>G1
17 72.10 9.4 74.36 8.20 82.81 8.6 10.64 p < .0000 G3>G2 G3>G1
18 69.90 9.6 73.22 9.61 76.53 8.6 5.9 p < .0035 G3>G1
19 70.60 10.62 73.49 8.21 76.73 9.4 4.8 p < .0100 G3>G1
20 71.06 10.05 73.08 8.49 76.81 9.6 4.3 p < .0156 G3>G1
22 69.56 9.8 73.95 9.25 78.04 7.9 8.6 p < .0003 G3>G1
27 70.41 8.0 72.85 9.09 77.83 9.4 8.8 p < .0003 G3>G2 G3>G1
49 71.73 9.5 74.05 8.89 79.64 8.4 7.2 p < .0011 G3>G2 G3>G1
Mixed variation
Proficiency score (as percentage) by strategy use (low use, medium use, high use)
SILL Low (G1) Medium (G2) High (G3) F Significance
Item M SD M SD M SD ratio level Comments
23 73.89 10.08 72.01 8.47 77.5 8.80 3.9 p < .0226 G3>G2
24 75.00 9.00 71.04 9.06 75.49 9.43 3.4 p < .0345 G3>G2
26 74.72 10.02 71.97 9.56 77.72 6.56 4 p < .0200 G3>G2
38 74.22 9.9 72.27 8.94 78.05 8.92 5 p < .0079 G3>G2
44 77.23 8.9 68.87 7.92 71.74 9.33 12.87 p < .0000 G1>G2 G1>G3
REFERENCES
Abraham, R.G., & Vann, R.J. (1987). Strategies of two language learners: A case study. In A.Wenden & J.
Rubin (Eds.), Learner strategies in language learning (pp. 85-102), Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bachman, L. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Brown, J.D. (1988). Understanding research in second language learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Cohen, A.D. (1987). Using verbal reports in research on language learning. In C. Faerch & G. Kasper (Eds.),
Introspection in second language research (pp. 82-95). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. London: Oxford University Press.
Goh, C., & Kwah, P.F. (1997). Chinese ESL students' learning strategies: A look at frequency, proficiency and
gender. Hong Kong Journal of Applied Linguistics, 2, 39-53.
Green, J.M., & Oxford, R.L. (1995). A closer look at learning strategies, L2 proficiency, and gender. TESOL
Quarterly, 29, 261-297.
Gu, P.Y. (1996). Robin Hood in SLA: What has the learning strategy researcher taught us? Asian Journal of
English Language Teaching, 6, 1-29.
Horwitz, E.K. (1987). Surveying student beliefs about language learning. In A. Wenden & J. Rubin (Eds.),
Learner strategies in language learning (pp. 119-129). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Klassen, J. (1994) The language learning strategies of freshman English students in Taiwan: a case study.
Unpublished master's thesis, California State University at Chico.
LoCastro, V. (1994). Learning strategies and learning environments. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 409-414.
McIntyre, P.D. (1994). Toward a social psychological model of strategy use. Foreign Language Annals, 27,
185-195.
Naiman, N., Fr ๖ hlich, M., Stern, H.H., & Todesco, A. (1978). The good language learner. Toronto: Ontario
Institute for Studies in Education.
O'Malley, J.M., & Chamot, A.U. (1990). Learning strategies in second language acquisition. Cambridge,
England: Cambridge University Press.
O'Malley, J.M., Chamot, A.U., Stewner-Manzanares, G., Kupper, L., & Russo, R.P. (1985). Learning
strategies used by beginning and intermediate ESL students. Language Learning, 35, 21-46.
Oxford, R.L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. Boston: Heinle &
Heinle.
Oxford, R.L., & Burry-Stock, J. (1995). Assessing the use of language learning strategies worldwide with the
ESL/EFL version with the strategy inventory of language learning (SILL). System, 23, 1-23.
Oxford, R.L., & Ehrman, M.E. (1995). Adults' language learning strategies in an intensive foreign language
program in the United States. System, 23, 359-386
Oxford, R.L., & Green, J.M. (1995). Making sense of learning strategy assessment: toward a higher standard
of research accuracy (Comments on Virginia LoCastro's 'Learning strategies and learning environments').
TESOL Quarterly, 29, 166-174.
Oxford, R. L., & Nyikos, M. (1989). Variables affecting choice of language learning strategies by university
students. Modern Language Journal, 73, 291-300.
Politzer, R.L., (1983). An exploratory study of self-reported language learning behaviors and their relation to
achievement. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 6, 54-65.
Politzer, R.L., & McGroarty, M. (1985). An exploratory study of learning behaviors and their relationship to
gains in linguistic and communicative competence. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 103-123.
Rees-Miller, J. (1993). A critical appraisal of learner training: Theoretical bases and teaching implications.
TESOL Quarterly, 27, 679-689.
Rubin, J. (1975). What the 'good language learner' can teach us. TESOL Quarterly, 9, 41-51.
Rubin, J. (1981). Study of cognitive processes in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 2, 117-131.
Skehan, P. (1989). Individual differences in second-language learning. London: Edward Arnold.
Stern, H.H. (1975). What can we learn from the good language learner? The Canadian Modern Language
Review, 31, 304-318.
Vann, R.J., & Abraham, R.G. (1990). Strategies of unsuccessful learners. TESOL Quarterly, 24, 177-198.
Wenden, A.L. (1987) How to be a successful language learner: Insights and prescriptions from L2 learners. In
A. Wenden & J. Rubin (Eds.), Learner strategies in language learning (pp. 103-117). Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Yang, N.D. (1994). An investigation of Taiwanese college students' use of English learning strategies.
Research report, National Taiwan University, Taiwan.
APPENDIX 1
Strategies questionnaire (Oxford, 1989)
Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL)
This form of the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) is for students of English as a second or
foreign language. You will find statements about learning English. Please read each one and write the response
(1, 2, 3, 4 or 5) that tells HOW TRUE OF YOU THE STATEMENT IS in the space next to the statement.
1. Never or almost never true of me.
2. Usually not true of me.
3. Somewhat true of me.
4. Usually true of me.
5. Always or almost always true of me.
NEVER OR ALMOST NEVER TRUE OF ME means that the statement is very rarely true of you.
USUALLY NOT TRUE OF ME means that the statement is true less than half the time.
SOMEWHAT TRUE OF ME means that the statement is true of you about half the time.
USUALLY TRUE OF ME means that the statement is true more than half the time.
ALWAYS OR ALMOST ALWAYS TRUE OF ME means that the statement is true of you almost always.
Answer in terms of how well the statement describes you. Do not answer how you think you should be, or
what other people do. There are no right or wrong answers to these statements. Work as quickly as you can
without being careless. This usually takes about 20-30 minutes to complete. If you have any questions, let the
teacher know immediately.
PART A
1. I think of relationships between what I already know and new things I learn in English.
2. I use new English words in a sentence so I can remember them.
3. I connect the sound of a new English word and an image or picture of the word to help me remember the
word.
4. I remember a new English word by making a mental picture of a situation in which the word might be
used.
5. I use rhymes to remember new English words.
6. I use flashcards to remember new English words.
7. I physically act out new English words.
8. I review English lessons often.
9. I remember new English words or phrases by remembering their location on the page, on the board, or on a
street sign.
PART B
10. I say or write new English words several times.
11. I try to talk like native English speakers.
12. I practise the sounds of English.
13. I use the English words I know in different ways.
14. I start conversations in English.
15. I watch English language TV shows spoken in English or go to movies spoken in English.
16. I read for pleasure in English.
17. I write notes, messages, letters or reports in English.
18. I first skim an English passage (read over the passage quickly) then go back and read carefully.
19. I look for words in my own language that are similar to new words in English.
20. I try to find patterns in English.
21. I find the meaning of an English word by dividing it into parts that I understand.
22. I try not to translate word-for-word.
23. I make summaries of information that I hear or read in English.
PART C
24. To understand unfamiliar English words, I make guesses.
25. When I can't think of a word during a conversation in English, I use gestures.
26. I make up new words if I do not know the right ones in English.
27. I read English without looking up every new word.
28. I try to guess what the other person will say next in English.
29. If I can't think of an English word, I use a word or phrase that means the same thing.
PART D
30. I try to find as many ways as I can to use my English.
31. I notice my English mistakes and use that information to help me do better.
32. I pay attention when someone is speaking English.
33. I try to find out how to be a better learner of English.
34. I plan my schedule so I will have enough time to study English.
35. I look for people I can talk to in English.
36. I look for opportunities to read as much as possible in English.
37. I have clear goals for improving my English skills.
38. I think about my progress in learning English.
PART E
39. I try to relax whenever I feel afraid of using English.
40. I encourage myself to speak English even when I am afraid of making a mistake.
41. I give myself a reward or treat when I do well in English.
42. I notice if I am tense or nervous when I am studying or using English.
43. I write down my feelings in a language learning diary.
44. I talk to someone else about how I feel when I am learning English.
PART F
45. If I do not understand something in English, I ask the other person to slow down or say it again.
46. I ask English speakers to correct me when I talk.
47. I practise English with other students.
48. I ask for help from English speakers.
49. I ask questions in English.
50. I try to learn about the culture of English speakers.
APPENDIX 2
Summary of variation in proficiency for all strategies
Proficiency score (as percentage) by strategy use (low use, medium use, high use)