The document discusses various factors affecting language learning strategies (LLS), including motivation, gender, age, socioeconomic status, and proficiency level. Motivation is identified as the most significant factor influencing the choice of LLS, with gender differences noted in strategy usage, while socioeconomic status impacts access to learning resources. Proficient learners tend to employ a wider range of strategies compared to less proficient learners, highlighting the role of individual background in language acquisition.

1. FACTORS THAT
AFFECT
LANGUAGE
LEARNING
STRATEGIES

2. FACTOR
S THAT
AFFECT
LLS
MOTIVATION
GENDER
AGE
SOCIO
ECONOMIC
STATUS
LEVEL OF
PROFICIENCY

4. 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)
Strategy use was affected by motivational level instead of a particular motivational
orientation (instrumental or integrative)
(MacLeod 2002)
Motivation most significant factor (followed by experience studying English and
gender) affecting choice of LLS
(Khamkhien 2010)

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

6. GENDER

7. Females reported more frequent strategy use than males of formal practice
strategies, general study strategies and conversational input elicitation strategies
(e.g. asking to speak slowly, requesting pronunciation correction, and guessing what
the speaker will say).
Oxford and Nyikos (1989)
Examined ninety undergraduate foreign language learners, found a “relatively
minor” difference between male and female learners with females making a greater
use of social interaction strategies.
Politzer (1983)

8. Females use significantly more learning strategies than males
(Green & Oxford 1995; Gu 2002; Razak et al. 2012)
Females used Social and Metacognitive strategies most, Memory the least; Males
used Metacognitive and Compensation most, Affective least
(Hong-Nam & Leavell 2006)
In contrast, some studies found males to use learning strategies more than females•
Males were more likely to use a variety of learning strategies than females in a study
of adult Vietnamese refugees
(Tran 1988)

9. `
AGE

10. 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)
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)

11. Most primary school children learn English by using metacognitive strategies and
social strategies ranked next in importance.
Purdie and Oliver (1999)
Secondary school student were generally use cognitive strategies and that
metacognitive strategies were reported by some more advanced learners.
Omally et al (1985a, 1985b)

12. SOSIOECONO
MIC
STATUS

13. 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)

14. 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).
Those who come from wealthier and higher status families are proven to have higher
cognitive ability (IQ)
(Kamarul & Mohamed Amin, 2012)

15. LEVEL
OF
PROFICIENC

16. Proficient learners applied all types of strategies more frequently than the lower
ones.
(Adel, 2011; Farzad, Mahnaz, & NedaSalahshour, 2013).
High-proficiency – metacognitive and social strategies.
Low-proficiency – cognitive and compensation strategies
(Tatsuya, 2002)
Proficient students used more overall strategies, but significantly more cognitive,
metacognitive and affective strategies than less-proficient ones.
(Radwan 2011)

17. High-proficiency students used compensation strategies more frequently than
others while low-proficiency ones used social strategies most
(Paul 2011)
High-level English proficiency students used more strategies more frequently
(Rao 2012)

18. 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]
Hong-Nam, K. & Leavell, A.G. 2006. Language learning strategy use of ESL students in an intensive Eng-
lish learning context. System 34: 399–415
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]

19. 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]
MacLeod, P. 2002. Take two language learners: A case study of the learning strategies of two successful learners of
English as a second language with instrumental motivation. Journal of Language and Linguistics 1: 1–13
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]
O’Malley, J.M., Chamot, A.U., Stewner-Manzanares Küpper G.L., & Russo, R.P. 1985. Learning strategies used by beginning and intermediate
ESL students. Language Learning 35: 21–46
Oxford, R. 1994. Language Learning Strategies: An Update. ERIC Digest. From
http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED376707.pdf [March 22, 2014]
Paul, P. 2011. Use of language learning strategies: an investigation of the use pattern of language learning strategies of
Bangladeshi learners and its correlation with the proficiency level. Thesis submitted to the Department of English
and Humanities of BRAC University In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in
Applied Linguistics and ELT
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]