5 factors affecting language learning strategies (lls)


Published on

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

5 factors affecting language learning strategies (lls)

  1. 1. 5 Factors Affecting Language Learning Strategies (LLS) By: Salma binti Abdul Razak (P71693)
  2. 2. Factors affecting LLS (variables)  There are many factors that influence the selection and usage of LLS among L2 learners (Kamarul & Amin, 2012) [cited from past related studies]. 1. Motivation 12. Status of L2 2. Gender 13. Ethnic Affiliation 3. Cultural background 14. Social-cultural environment 4. Attitudes and beliefs 15. Learners’ differences 5. Types of tasks 16. Context of language learning 6. Learning styles 17. Linguistic 7. EFL/ESL background learning 18. Age 8. Choice of career 19. Personality 9. Duration of language learning 20. Learning experience 10. Purpose of learning 21. Socio-economic status 11. Proficiency level Salma binti Abdul Razak (P71693)
  3. 3.  Khamkhien (2010) 1. Motivation 2. Learning experience 3. Gender  Rahimi, Riazi & Saif (2008) 1. Language proficiency 2. Motivation 3. Learning style 4. Gender  Tatsuya Taguchi (2002) 1. Gender 2. Educational background 3. Duration of study at language-centres 4. Motivation 5. Levels of English proficiency Salma binti Abdul Razak (P71693)
  4. 4. 1) Motivation  Students’ motivation is influenced by their learning goals, purposes or reasons of learning the L2, as well as clear application to real-life contexts (Rahimi, Riazi & Saif, 2008).  Based on the result of Khamkhien’s study, it shows that motivation can be a significant factor contributing to the LLS employed by learners but it is also influenced by their nationalities (Khamkhien, 2010).  Highly-motivated students are proven to use more strategies in learning a language compared to the students with low motivation (Oxford & Nyikos, 1989, and Okada, Oxford & Abo, 1996, as cited in Tatsuya, 2002; Oxford, 1994). Salma binti Abdul Razak (P71693)
  5. 5.  Two types of motivation – focus on Language Learning : (Gardner & Lambert, 1972, as cited in Kamarul & Amin, 2012)  Integrative/ Universal – to integrate with the language community/users  Instrumental/ Concrete – to get good grades, for career development, for leisure reading  Strong relationship between LLS and motivation; extrinsic and intrinsic (Chang & Huang, 1999, as cited in Kamarul & Amin, 2012) :  Students with intrinsic motivation opted to deploy cognitive and metacognitive strategies.  Students with extrinsic motivation preferred memory and affective strategies. Salma binti Abdul Razak (P71693)
  6. 6. 2) Gender  Female students has been reported in many studies to deploy greater overall LLS compared to males (Oxford & Nyikos, 1989; Oxford, 1994; Noor Zainab, Fauziah, Azian & Babikkoi, 2012; Farzad, Mahnaz & NedaSalahshour, 2013).  However, gender is not a factor that contributes to the different choice of language learning strategies (Chang, 1990, and Chou, 2002, as cited in Kamarul & Mohamed Amin, 2012; Khamkhien, 2008).  The result maybe affected by other variables - ethnic background, cultural background, language learning environment, and the number of participants of each gender for the current study (Khamkhien, 2008). Salma binti Abdul Razak (P71693)
  7. 7.  No significant difference in gender –  experienced and matured respondents (Wharton (2000) as cited in Kamarul & Amin, 2012).  being influenced by gender of the L2 educators (Cross (1983) as cited in Kamarul & Amin, 2012).  ability to immerse with the language community or being taught by L2 educators using similar teaching methods (Tatsuya, 2002). Salma binti Abdul Razak (P71693)
  8. 8. 3) Proficiency Level  Students’ learning experience and their awareness of the learning processes have impact on their choice of LLS > the higher the proficiency level of the students, the more aware they are of the rules and strategies of language learning (Rahimi, Riazi & Saif, 2008).  Proficient learners applied all types of strategies more frequently than the lower ones (Adel, 2011; Farzad, Mahnaz, & NedaSalahshour, 2013).  High-proficiency – meta-cognitive and social strategies  Low-proficiency – cognitive and compensation strategies (Tatsuya, 2002) * A very important implication : an increase in the years of language learning does not necessarily translate into an increase in proficiency level (Rahimi, Riazi & Saif, 2008). Salma binti Abdul Razak (P71693)
  9. 9. 4) Age  Neither the older nor the younger beginners used more LLS – quantitative research (Karim & Mohammad, 2013).  The younger beginners seemed to use slightly more LLS than the older beginners – qualitative research (Karim & Mohammad, 2013).  Adult learners - able to grasp knowledge of syntax and morphology faster than children - deploy more flexible, general and up-to-date strategies - more efficient in learning grammar anda vocabulary  Young learners - able to develop native-like pronunciation and fluency - deploy simple and easy strategies (Scarcella & Oxford (1992) and Ehrman & Oxford (1995) as cited in Kamarul & Mohamed Amin, 2012). Salma binti Abdul Razak (P71693)
  10. 10. 5) Socioeconomic Status  People with different socioeconomic statuses have different resources to support personal development (Tam, 2013).  Students from more affluent homes can afford to go to tutorial schools to strengthen their learning while poorer student cannot (Kamarul & Mohamed Amin, 2012 & Tam, 2013).  The greatest difference between different socioeconomic classes is in the use of Social Strategies – to interact with foreign maids at home (Tam, 2013).  The higher the socioeconomic status of learners, the more frequently they used Social strategies in learning English > having clear purpose of learning the L2 (i.e. for daily interaction).  Access to native speakers is essential to improve students’ English Proficiency (Tam, 2013). Salma binti Abdul Razak (P71693)
  11. 11.  Those who come from wealthier and higher status families are proven to have higher cognitive ability (IQ) (Kamarul & Mohamed Amin, 2012).  This is influenced by parents’ educational background and family income.  Students with higher educated parents generally used more LLSs and applied them outside classroom and for exams – Cognitive and Social Strategies (Nazali (1999) in Kamarul & Mohamed Amin (2012); Kamarul & Mohamed Amin, 2012).  Students from wealthier families deployed more LLSs outside classroom and for exams (Kamarul & Mohamed Amin, 2012).  Male students from wealthier families used more LLSs compared to wealthier females.  Female students from lower SES deployed more LLSs compared to males from lower SES. Salma binti Abdul Razak (P71693)
  12. 12. References Adel, A. R. 2011. Effects of L2 proficiency and gender on choice of language learning strategies by university students majoring in English. The Asian EFL Journal Quarterly. 13 (1), 114-162. From http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/PDF/March-2011.pdf#page=114 [March 25, 2014]. Farzad, S., Mahnaz, S. & NedaSalahshour. 2013. The relationship between language learning strategy use, language proficiency level and learner gender. Procedia-Social and Behavioural Sciences 70. 634-643. From http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1877042813001043 [March 25, 2014]. Kamarul Shukri Mat Teh & Mohamed Amin Embi. 2012. Variasi Penggunaan Strategi Pembelajaran Bahasa. Dlm. Strategi Pembelajaran Bahasa, hlm. 79-105. Kuala Lumpur: Penerbit Universiti Malaya. Karim Sadeghi & Mohammad Taghi Attar. 2013. The relationship between learning strategy use and starting age of learning EFL. Procedia-Social and Behavioural Sciences 70. 387- 396. From http://ac.els-cdn.com/S1877042813000773/1-s2.0-S1877042813000773- main.pdf?_tid=36c013ce-b0a5-11e3-8861- 00000aab0f6b&acdnat=1395371118_c98afd0973232170bc0f6378edcf21d0 [March 20, 2014]. Salma binti Abdul Razak (P71693)
  13. 13. Khamkhien, A. 2010. Factors affecting language learning strategy reported usage by Thai and Vietnamese EFL students. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching. 7(1), 66- 85. From http://e-flt.nus.edu.sg/v7n12010/khamkhien.pdf [March 20, 2014]. Mohammad Rahimi, Abdolmehdi Riazi & Shahrzad Saif. 2008. An investigation into the factors affecting the use of language learning strategies by Persian EFL learners. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics (CJAL). 11(2), 31-60. From http://journals.hil.unb.ca/index.php/CJAL/article/view/19915/21770 [March 20, 2014]. Noor Zainab Abdul Razak, Fauziah Ismail, Azian Abdul Aziz, Mallam, A. B. 2012. Assessing the use of English Language Learning Strategies among secondary school students in Malaysia. Procedia-Social and Behavioural Sciences 66. 240-246. From http://ac.els- cdn.com/S1877042812052512/1-s2.0-S1877042812052512- main.pdf?_tid=90bf2e6e- b0a5-11e3-a3ca- 00000aacb360&acdnat=1395371269_64ec22b74d25442184d0112a3cbcb1b8 [March 20, 2014]. Oxford, R. 1994. Language Learning Strategies: An Update. ERIC Digest. From http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED376707.pdf [March 22, 2014]. Tam, K. C. 2013. A study on Language Learning Strategies (LLSs) of university students in Hong Kong. Taiwan Journal of Linguistics, 11(2), 1-42. From http://tjl.nccu.edu.tw/volume11- 2/11.2.1.pdf [March 26, 2014]. Salma binti Abdul Razak (P71693)