The Challenge of Measuring Language Learning Strategies

Abstract

Abstract: This article discusses usefulness of using generic strategy inventories to assess language learning strategies (LLSs) across contexts. A review of LLS research is presented with a critique of extant studies in relation to classification of strategies, methodological issues, and predictability of language performance. The present research project aimed to measure LLSs, provide evidence for a taxonomy of LLS, and investigate relationship between LLS and English language performance. The article concludes that studies employing LLS scales that use a standard Likert-type scale are not appropriate because of wide range of possible contextual influences, such as cultural and educational background. The article suggests a more situated approach utilizing in-depth qualitative methods would be more appropriate in assessing LLS use. Introduction Language learning strategies (LLSs) have received a great deal of attention from both researchers and language teaching professionals in past two decades. There is evidence to suggest LLSs may be categorized (Oxford, 1990; Schmidt & Watanabe, 2001) and reliably measured (Oxford, 1996; Oxford & Burry-Stock, 1995). Most importantly, there is research evidence that suggests that use of LLS is related to language performance (Dreyer & Oxford, 1996; Park, 1997) and that strategies may be taught. This paper describes trials and tribulations of selection of suitable instrumentation to measure LLSs and subsequent analysis of data. During this process several questions arose. How should strategies be categorized? Should there be six categories as proposed by Oxford (1990), or four categories as proposed by Schmidt and Watanabe (2001)? How can strategies be measured? Is it possible to expect one instrument to be generalized enough to be relevant to all students? How should data be analyzed? Is an exploratory factor analysis most suitable method to evaluate classifications made a priori? Then issue of language performance is questioned. Is all strategy use effective? Or are there some strategies that are more effective? In attempting to answer these questions, author concludes that there is an urgent need to reconceptualize LLSs in a way that can accommodate variation in language learning settings and address cross-cultural differences of students. Background Language learning strategies are defined by O'Malley & Chamot (1990) as the special thoughts or behaviors that individuals use to help them comprehend, learn or retain new information (p. 1). Oxford (1990) expanded upon this definition to refer to LLSs as specific actions taken by to make learning easier, faster, more enjoyable, more self-directed, more effective, and more transferable to new situations (p. 8). Learners' beliefs also need to be taken into account. Learners have different views as to what promotes effective language learning. Thus, LLSs may be considered as conscious attempts by to facilitate or improve learning based on personal beliefs about learning process. Interest in LLS emerged from good language learner studies (Rubin, 1975; Stern, 1975). These studies aimed to identify behaviors of successful language learners with a view to teaching others these behaviors. There are many studies that attempt to organize LLSs into different types to produce a taxonomy or classification of LLSs. According to Oxford (1990), LLSs may be classified into two main types: direct and indirect. Direct strategies comprise memory, cognitive, and compensation strategies while indirect strategies comprise metacognitive, affective, and social strategies. She proposed a sixfold classification of strategies, which has been applied in a large number of studies (see, e.g., Bedell & Oxford, f996; Oxford, 1996; Park 1997). Schmidt, Boraie, and Kassabgy (1996) also proposed a sixfold classification, comprising rehearsal and rote learning strategies, elaboration strategies, organizational strategies, inferencing strategies, metacognitive strategies, and resource management. …