*Ir..

Using Social-psychological Variables to PredictThe Use of l^anguage Learning Strategies

futer D. MaclntyreUniuersity College of Cape Breton

Kimberly A. NoelsUniuercity of Colifornia, Santo Barbara

ABSTMCT Much of the interest in language leaming strategies stems from the findings thatsuch strategies facilitate languoge leaming and moy be teachable; houeuer, seueral authorshaue concluded that students do not use os many strategies as they could. A recent social-psy-chological model proposes that strategy use depends on hnowledge of appropiate strotegies,hauing a reason to use them, ond hauing nothing to preDent their use. The present study at-tempted to use uaiables defined by this model to predict the frequency of use for 50 languageleaming strategies. Results showed thot, on aDeroge, the model accounted for 60 percent of theoaiance in strotegy use and that all three components of the model were supported for 72 per-cent of the strategies. Further analyses reuealed that integratiue motiuation and language anx-iety play a role in ouerall strotegy use ond the use of certain types of strategies, as uell as theratings of hnowledge, effectiDeness, difficulty, and anxiety coused by strategy use.

kaming strategies are commonly defined assteps taken to facilitate the acquisition, stor-age, retrieval, and use of information (Ehrmanand Oxford 1989). Even a cursory examination0f the list of potential language leaming strategies suggests that almost any tactic or plan thata leamer believes will assist her/him in acquir-rng some part of the language, or in managingthe language leaming process, can be consid-ered a strategy (l\4aclntyre 1994). The topic oflanguage leaming strategies has received con-siderable attention in recent years. Several reviews of the literature are available forteachen and researchers (Chamot and Kupper 1989; Cohen 1990; Oxford and Crookall1989; Oxford, Lavine, and Crookall 1989) andlanguage learners (Brown 1989; Rubin and'lhompson

1982). The most enduring conclu-sion lrom these various sources is that a variety

ftter D. Maclnve (Ph.D., Westem Ontario University) is

Asislant Professor of Psycholo$/ at the Univenity College

olCape Breton, Sydney, Nova Scotia, Canada.

Knfuiy A. Ncrels (Ph.D., Univenity of Ottawa) is a Post-Doctonl Fellow at the Univenity of Califomia, SantaBarbara.

of language leaming strategies have the poten-tial to facilitate language leaming.

Language learning strategies cover a widerange of behavior. For example, the Stratery ln-ventory for language l,eaming (Oxford 1990)lists 80 items, each of which is a different strat-ery. A basic distinction can be made behveendirect and indirect strategies. Oxford (1989) defines direct strategies as "... those behaviorswhich directly involve the target language anddirectly enhance language leaming" (449).Such strategies are used to facilitate the recallof vocabulary items, the processing of lan-guage input, and preparing for language outputand allow one to "fill in the gaps" in knowl-edge. Indirect strategies are defined as "... thosebehaviors which do not directly involve the tar-get language but which are nevertheless essen-tial for effective language learning" (450).These strategies help manage the process ofleaming, control emotions, attitudes, and moti-vation, and encourage leaming with others.

A more detailed classification scheme hasbeen presented by Oxford (1989). Accordingto this scheme, direct strategies encompassmemory (e.g., rhyming, imagery), cognitive

Foreign Language Annals,29, No. 3, 1996

rcREIGN I.ANGAAGE ANNAIS-FALL 1996

(e.g., analyzing, summarizing), and compen-sation strategies (e.g., guessing meaning,using gestures). Indirect strategies are com-prised of metacognitive (e.g., planning tasks,monitoring errors), affective (e.g., anxiety reduction, self-reward), and social strategies(e.g., asking questions, increasing culturalawareness). Oxford and Burry-Stock (forth-coming) review a number of studies that haveused the SGitem ESUEFL version of the Strat-egy Inventory for Language Leaming (SILL)that will be used in the present study. Whereasthey observed variations depending on cul-ture and leaming context, overall, using thesesix groups of strategies appeam to be a usefulway of classifying strategies.

With a strong conceptual and empiricalbasis for strategy research, there appears to belittle doubt that the use of leaming strategiestends to facilitate language leaming (Oxfordand Crookall 1989). Much of the interest inthis topic stems from the possibility of traininglanguage learners to use specific strategiesthat will facilitate the language leaming. Thereis evidence that strategies can be taught andthat such teaching increases performance inthe second language process (Chamot 1990;for a review, see Domyei 1995). However, it isa truism thal strategies cannot be effectiue ifleamers do not use them. Civen this, severalauthors have reached an interesting, andsomewhat unfortunate, conclusion: typically,students are not using the full range of appropriate strategies and are not aware of the avail-able strategies that they could be using(Cohen 1990; Ehrman and Oxford 1989; Ox-ford and Crookall 1989). Therefore, one focusin the literature has been on the factors thatcontribute to, or detract from, the use of lan-guage leaming strategies.

The use of any given strategy likely dependson several factors, such as gender (Oxford,Nyikos, and Ehrman 1988), intelligence, apti-tude, and exposure to the language (Oxford1990). Chamot (1990) suggests that culturalbackground or prior educational experiencesalso may influence the use of certain strate-gies. In addition, Gardner and Maclntyre(1992) argue that "... affective attributes are

quite likely responsible for the use of both di-rect and indirect strategies" (219). Consistentwith this suggestion, Oxford and Nyikos(1989) found that motivation was the best predictor of stratery use in a largescale study ofuniversity students.

A recent model has proposed that socia!psychological variables play a key role in theuse of language leaming strategies (Maclntyre1994). The model is shown in Figure l. Ac-cording to this social-psychological model,strategy use primarily depends on three gen-eral factors: knowledge of the strategy, havinga reason to use it, and not having a reason notto use it. Knowledge refers to the obsewationthat strategies are tactics or plans that are em-ployed in an attempt to aid language leaming.Therefore it is necessary that the student beaware of the strategy and feel that s/he under-stands how to use it, before it can be used andconsidered a strategy.r Knowledge of strategies will depend on a learner's intelligence,aptitude, and language leaming experience.Hauing a reoson to use rl refers to the requirement that there must be an expectation a strat-ery will be successful in helping to leam thelanguage. A student's willingness to expendeffort to leam the language, having prior suc-cess with the stratery, and a facilitating set ofattitudes and motivations will help to createthe expectation that a strategy will be effec-tive. The final item in the model is not hauingo reason not to use 4 that is, there is nothingwhich prevents the use of the strategy. Even awell-known, effective strategy might still beneglected because it is diff icult to use, i tcauses the learner to feel uneasy or self<on-scious, or its use is actively discouraged (forexample, some language teachers ask that stu-dents infer meanings from context rather thanuse a dictionary).

The present study was designed primarilyas a test of this model. In order to operational-ize the components of the model, specific definitions were given to each of the termsshown in Figure l. For the present investiga-tion, knowledge specifically refers to the degree to which the leamers are familiar with astratery and its use. The major reason to use a

374

FOREIGN IANGAAGE ANNAI.S-FALL 1 996

FIGURE I strategy appeaF to be that it would assist lan_guage learning, that is, the strategy must beseen as effective. Thus, a rating of ,,effectiveness" was taken as the reason to use the strat-egy. It is clear that there can be severalreasons not to use a particular stratery. Twogeneral reasons were operationalized: (l) because the stratery was difficult to use and (2)because the strategy causes the leamer to feelanxiety.

In addition to this micro-level analysis. asecond purpose of this study is to examine therole of motivation and related variables in theuse of the different types of strategies (Oxfordand Burry-Stock, forthcoming). Several au_thors have concluded that motivation for lan-guage leaming plays a key role in strategy use(Oxford and Crookall 1989; Chamot ib90).Perhaps the most influential model of lan_guage leaming motivation has been proposedby Gardner and colleagues (Gardner l9g5:Gardner and Lambert l9Z2). This model hasgenerated a great deal of empirical researqhand theoretical debate, which continues atpresent (see critiques by Domyei (19g4) andOxford and Shearin (1994) and a response bvGardner and Tremblay (1994)).

The comerstone of Gardner's model is theconcept of "integrative

motivation.,' This motivation is a multifaceted construct that iscomposed of three intenelated components:Attitudes toward the Learning Situation(AI5), Integrativeness, and Motivation. Al-Srefers to the learner's evaluation of the lan_guage course and the instructor and is de_fined as the degree to which the studentpossesses a positive attitude toward both. ln_tegrativeness refers to the desire to meet andcommunicate with members of the target lan_guage community and is defined by a positiveattitude toward the group, a general interestin foreign languages, and the view that meet_ing members of the target language commu-nity is a good reason for language learning(refened to as an "integrative

orientation"). InGardner's model, Motivation refers to thedrive to leam a specific language and is de.fined by the amount of effort a student is will_ing to expend, the strength of the desire to

)

{

J / J

FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNAIS_FAIL 1996

leam the language, and a positive attitude tc

ward learning that language. ln Gardner's(1985) view, motivation is the variable that

mo6t directly affects students' achievement in

the second language, and motivation is based'

in large measure, on the positivity of the atti

tudes toward the leaming situation and the degree of integrativeness. Language anxiety, or

the apprehension experienced when leaming

or using a second language, can be considered

a fourth maior affective influence on language

leaming (Gardner and Maclntyre 1993)'Based on this model, this study will exam-

ine the specific motivational factors that cor-

relate with the use of different types of

language learning strategies' To do this, we

wili examine the links between Gardner's(1985) general motivational model and the

specific strategy use model proposed by Mac-

lntyre (1994). Specifically, the correlations be-

tween ALS, Integrativeness, and Motivationwith Knowledge, Reasons for Using, Reasons

for Not Using, and the Frequency of Strategy

Use will be computed. Such correlations may

help to illuminate specific ways in which mo

tivation affects strategY use.Thus, the present study will address two

main issues. First, as a test of the social-psy-chological model of strategy use (Maclntyre

1994), a number of strategies will be rated for

their frequency of use, knowledge, effective-

ness, anxiety, and difficulty of use. Second,we will examine the correlations between

these ratings of strategy use and the maior

components of Gardner's model of integrative

motivation.

, Method

ParticipantsA total of 138 students agreed to be tested'

The age of the participants ranged from 17 to

52 years, with a mean age of 222 years' The

sample was comprised of 101 females and 34

males; hvo students did not indicate their gen-

der. All participants were drawn from first'year

coumes in Spanish or ltalian in the Modern

Languages Department at a large university'

On average, students indicated a moderate

level of fluency in the language they were

studying. Students were asked to rate their

ability to use the second language on a scale

from one ("not at all able") to seven ("flu-

ently") in four areas: understanding (mean =

4.41.1, reading (mean = 4.2), writing (mean =

3.87), and speaking (mean = 3.72).

MoterialsThe major set of materials for the present

study was adapted from Oxford's (1990) 5C

item version of the SILL designed for LSL stu-

dents. This measure was chosen instead of the

SGitem version because of time constraintsduring testing. The SILL was modified so that

all items refened to "the second language thatyou are studying in this course." The following

six responses were requested for each strat-

egy. It should be noted that all of the items

refer to the respondent's personal evaluationof each strategy, rather than a rating of the

stratery for students in general. Ratings were

made on a seven-point Likert scale with the

anchors indicated below:

L Frequency of use. Respondents indicatedhow often theY used each item on the

SILL, using anchors "Never use it" and"Use it very often." Higher scores indi-cate more frequent use'

2. Knowledge. Awareness of each item wasprovided using the anchors "Don't knowit at all" and "Know it very well." Higherscores indicate increased knowledge of

the stratery.3. Effectiveness. The rating of stratery effective

ness was given between the anchon"Consider it completely ineffective" and"Consider it very effective." Higher scotesindicate greater perceived effectivenes

4. Anxiety. The degree to which using each

strategy made the student feel nervouswas rated, using the anchors "Not anxiousabout using it" and "Feel very anxiousabout using it." Higher scores indicate in'

creased anxietY arousal.5. Difficulff. The degree of difficulty in imple

menting each item was rated using the

anchors "Very easy for me to use" and

J / O

FOREIGN LANGAAGE ANNAI.S_FALL 1996

'Very dilficult for me to use'" Higherscores indicate that the strategy is con-sidered more difficult to use.

An example item (*50) is:

"l try to leam about the culture of the people

uho speah the second language'

Dc,n't knou it at all I-2-3'4-5--E-7 Knou it Dery uell

lhuer use ir 1-2-34-5-6-7 Us it uery o[ten

?3[i13{"ii ^"*,* t - 2-3-4-s-6-, S?ir"!f!,!L"!,!!6n1io"on'' t-2-3-4-s-6-, !ffl;iP"*""Ven difficult to use I-2-3'4-5--4-7 Vety easy to use"

A brief version of Gardner's Attitudes and

Motivation Test Battery (AMTB) was also in-

cluded (Gardner and Maclntyre 1993). This'Guilf ord-style" instrument measured the l0

maior variables in Gardner's Attitude/Motiva-tion Test Battery using singleitem indicators'Gardner and Maclntyre (1993) have shownthat, despite the potential problems with single

item measures, this instrument has acceptableconcunent and predictive validity. The items

were used to form the following variables:6. Attitudes toward the Leaming Situation

(two items). This refers to the students' evalu-ation of the teacher and the language coune'An example item is:

"lf I were to rate my attitude toward nry sec-

ond languoge course, I would say thot it is:IJ nfouorable -: -: -: -: -- -: -Fauora b le "

llj Z. Motivation (three items). Motivationrefe6 to the desire to learn the new languageand the amount of effort invested in learningit. An examPle item is:

"lf I were to rate hou hard I worh at leamingmy second longuage, I would charocterize it as:

Very Little --: -: -: -: -: -: -Very Much "

8. lntegrativeness (three items). lntegrativeness refers to the desire to meet and commu-nicate with members of the target languagecommunity. An examPle item is:

"lf I were to rate my attitude toward mem-

bers of the second language community, I

would say thot it is:IJ nfau orable -: -: -: -: --: -: --Fauomble"

9. Language Anxiety (two items). languageAnxiety refers to the apprehension experi-enced when using the second language eitherinside or outside the classroom. An exampleitem is:

' . r , J . . ]

"lf I uere to rate my onxiety in my secondIanguage class, I would rate nryself as:Very Calm -.'-.'-.'-.- : -: -Very Neruous"

hocedurelnstructors of ltalian and Spanish courses

were contacted and given information about

the study. Testing required approximately 20

minutes and was conducted either at the beginning or at the end of a regularly scheduledlanguage class, depending on the preference

of the course instructor. The study was de-

scribed to the students by the researcher in

both a written "consent form" and a brief oralpresentation to the class. Approximately 80percent of students present on the day of test-

ing participated. Students who agreed to par-

ticipate completed the questionnaire in the

classroom, working individually. The strategyitems were presented in the same order as in

the SILL (Oxford 1990).

Data Analysis'. The procedure used to test

the model involved computing a series of

stepwise multiple regressions. Multiple regrcesion is a statistical procedure in which scores

on a set of variables (the "predictors") are

used to predict the scores on another variable(the "criterion"), based on their intercorrela-tions. In this case, ratings of knowledge, effec-

tiveness, difficulty, and anxiety will be used topredict the frequency of strategy use' There

are several methods of deciding which pre

dictor variables to use in the regression equa-

tion. The present study employs a "stepwise"

procedure which requires that each of thepredicton make a significant contribution topredicting scores on the criterion, indepen-dent of the contribution being made by other

2'7'7

FOREIGN IA,NGAAGE ANNAI.S4ALL 1 996

variables in the equation. This may result in adifferent subset of predictors for each of the50 ratings of stratery use, depending on whichratings correlate best with the use of each ofthe strategies.

The stepwise regression procedure waschosen in order to achieve the most parsimonious prediction equation for each strategy,with the intention of examining the trends inthe equations and not the results of any oneequation. With multiple regression, it is oftentempting to interpret the regression coeffi-cients in order to judge the relative impor-tance of the predictor variables. In stepwisemultiple regression, however, this proves tobe problematic because the beta weighS depend, in large part, on the presence of othervariables in the equation. Each variable en-tered into the regression changes the betas forall other variables because variables presentin the equation are made statistically inde.pendent of each other. For this reason, we willnot attempt to interpret the individual regression coefficients, but rather will examine thepattem of predicton as a group.

A relatively large number (50) of regres-sions were computed because the social-psy-chological model of strategy use (Maclntyre1994) is intended to predict the use of specificstrategies, rather than groups of strategies oroverall strategy use. The large number of testsleads to concem about the Type I error rate. Inthis case, the most serious Type I enor wouldoccur when a multiple regression is declaredsignificant when, in fact, no prediction exists.For this reason, a Bonfenoni adjustment wasmade to our conservative overall alpha levelof .01, making the nominal alpha level equalto .0002 (.01/50 = .0002) for each test of i?.Thus, before examining the predictors in-volved in the regression, the multiple conela-tion had to be declared significant at the .0002level. With this provision, the analysis pro-ceeded on an itemiy-item basis, and the re.gression coefficient (B) for each predictorwithin a significant regression was evaluatedat the standard .05 alpha level.

The full model will be considered sup-ported when knowledge, effectiveness, and

either difficulty or anxiety enter the predictionequation. This pattern provides support foreach element of the social-psychologicalmodel (knowledge, reason to use, and no rea-son not to use a strategy). The model will beconsidered partially supported when a subsetof these variables are significant predicton.

The second set of analyses will examine thecorrelations between the maior elements ofGardner's (1985) socioeducational model(AlS, Integrativeness, Language Anxiety, andMotivation) and the factors contributing tostrate$/ use. For this analysis, the scores willbe aggregated for all 50 strategies to producea single total score for Knowledge, Effectiveness, Difficulty, Anxiety, and Frequency ofUse. To maintain our focus on predicting strat-ery use, conelations between Gardner s vari-ables and the frequency of use in each of thesix categories of strategies also will be exam.ined. Because the elements of Gardner'smodel are being aqsessed with single.item in-dicators, the variability of these variables willbe somewhat attenuated. Therefore, each cor-relation will be evaluated at the .05 alohalevel.

ResultsThe results will be addressed in three

stages. First, the mean ratings of knowledge,effectiveness, difficulty, anxiety, and use givento each of the strategies will be reported. Sec-ond, the social-psychological model will beexamined on a strategy-by-strategy basis. Fi-nally, the conelations of attitudes, motivation,and anxiety with aggregated ratings of thestrategies and frequency of use of the six categories of strategies will be examined.

Ratings of the StrategiesTable I (on next page) presents the avenge

(mean) ratings given to each of the strategies.It can be noted that the three most frequentlyused strategies are "pay attention to L2 speak-ers," "look for similar words in Ll," and "use

synonyms." These three strategies also receiveamong the highest ratings for knowledge andeffectiveness, and among the lowest ratings ofdifficulty to use. The three least frequently

378

FIOREIGN I.A,NGUAGE ANNAI.S_FALL 1 996

TABLE I ) : ; ! 1 ' , r '

Mean Radngs of Elenents of the Sociat_poychological Morlel for Each of he

questions inleam about

' i :

50 Srahgles

relate old and new

up every unknown word

vg.

379

ront IG N ne,wc aAcE ANNet-S-FAtz I 996

used strategies include "write feelings in adiary," "give self rewards," and 'physically actout words." Two of these strategies (write feel-ings in a diary and give self-rewards) receiveamong the lowest ratings of knowledge, effec-tiveness, and anxiety, which is somewhat sur-prising. Two of these (write feelings in a diaryand act out words) are also among the mostdifficult to use.

Test of the ModelIn order to test the social-psychological

model, 50 stepwise multiple regressions wereperformed. In each, the use of the strategy waspredicted by the ratings of knowledge, useful-ness, difficulty, and anxiety. The major resultsof the regression analyses are presented inTable 2 (on next page). A significant regres-sion equation (p < .0002) was obtained foreach of the 50 strategies. Thus, in all cases, themodel is at least partially supported. Theamount of variance accounted for ranged between 36 percent and 82 percent, with a meanof 60 percent. This indicates that a substantialamount of the variability in strategy use is ac-counted for by these few variables.

Table 2 presents the standardized regres-sion coefficients obtained for each of the regression equations. The pattem of regressioncoefficients can be examined to gauge support for components of the model., Overall, in36 out of 50 cases (72 percent), the full modelwas supported. That is, the use of approxi-mately three out of four strategies is predictedby a combination of knowledge, effectiveness,and either difficulty or anxiety. The use of stepwise regression procedures indicates that allthree of these ratings make significant, independent contributions to the prediction equa-tion for the majority of individual strategies.

Directing attention to the 14 cases wherethe full model was not supported, we observethat effectiveness failed to enter in nine of the14 equations. Five equations showed no sig-nificant contribution from either difficulty oranxiety. Considered separately, diffi culty wasa significant predictor in 4l cases, and anxietyentered only 11 of the equations. Thus, of thetwo reasons not to use a strategy, it would ap

pear that difficulty of use is the more impor-tant consideration among the 50 strategiesstudied here. In only two cases did knowledgefail to enter the equation, indicating that it isnecessary to know a strategy before it can beused. Because the ratings were made on aseven-point scale, these results further indi-cate that the better a student knows the strat-egy, the more frequently it can be used.

The model indicates that a strategy will beused if it is well known, there is a reason to useit, and nothing to prevent its use. These datasupport that generalization. However, the original model may imply that a reason to use thestratery is a necessary condition before a rea-son not to use the strateS/ is considered. Basedon the present results, a modified version ofthe model would show that the two decisionshappen independently, rather than one preceding the other. In cases where both deci-sions favor the use of a strate$/, it will be usedvery frequently. If only one condition is met,strategy use likely will be much less frequent.

Strotegies and Gardner's ModelNext, we examine the influence of Al5, Inte

grativeness, Language Anxiety, and Motivationon strate$/ use and the factors influencing it. Inthis case, we are interested in general tenden-cies in the use and ratings of strategies. Beforeproceeding, average ratings of use, knowledge,effectiveness, aniety, and difficulty were com-puted. The correlations between these fiveoverall ratings and the AMTB measures are ptesented in Table 3 (on page 382).

Knowledge of strategies was positively cor-related with both motivation and integrativeness. The perceived effectiveness of strategieswas correlated with motivation, integrativeness, and AtS. Difficulty of strategy use wascorrelated negatively with motivation, integra-tiveness, and AIS and was positively related tolanguage anxiety. The anxiety aroused bystrategies was positively correlated with lan-guage anxiety. Finally, the overall frequencyof strategy use was correlated significantlywith all four of Gardner's variables.

To examine the frequency of strategy usemore closely, a set of conelations involving the

380

St ltegl Knowledgeof Strat.

Strategl/Eflective

Difficultto use

Anxietyover us€

% of oarianceaccounted for

relate old and new language .464 .296 -.205 .108 66.0

us€ words in sentences .293 .409 -.221 52.7relate sound and mental Dicture . ) l o . Z J J -.245 7t.2make mental picture .580 .296 . 1 5 7 74.3use rh),rnes .314 .545 .t24 57.2use flashcards .432 -.313 47.2

act out words .404 .438 .120 62.2review lessons often .242 -.90 . l 3 l 48.2

remember location ol new worG on page .500 .477 81.8

say or write words often .340 .274 -.29i 61.3

try lo talk like native .435 .257 -.28i 69,4practice sounds of language .428 .423 59.4use words differently . t a o .300 64.4

start L2 conveBations .350 .167 -.374 -.t44 48.6

watch 12 media (eg.TV) .416 -.465 50.3read for pleasure in L2 .256 -.82 49.4

write 12 noteylette6 .u5 -.559 55.0skim reading, go back .309 .422 -.t45 l 5 68.7

look for similar words in Ll .604 .180 .135 .098 7l . l

find pattems in L2 .515 .448 78.4

divide up [2 words .4t7 .345 .1tr 68.5

not try to translate word-for-word .295 .261 -329 .175 53.9make summaries .383 .308 -.274 54.8

make guesses .261 .536 .t72 65.4

use gestures .u6 .310 - .317 62.5make up words .269 .470 -.260 68.4read w/o looking up every unknown word .2n .450 -.244 67,5guess what will say next .4V .4M . l 8 l 74.7

use synonyms .488 .285 .183 70.9find ways to use [2 .u4 -.472 57.9note my mistakes .287 .276 -.370 53.2attention to 12 speakers .392 .412 . t7 i 64.56nd wals to improve language leaming .627 .2t3 -. l iJ4 74.1plan study time .280 .200 -.496 45.2look for conversations -.82 43.1

look for 12 readings .208 -.ti '14

have clear goals for skill .324 .422 -.231 60.5think about progress .496 .286 . 1 4 6 69.0

try to relax .472 .227 -.248 55.4encourage myself to speak when afraid .319 .222 -.4U 60.7give self rewarG .7W 50.3note when nervous/tense .474 .210 274 52.3wite feelings in a diary .496 .174 .199 :t6.0talk about feelings .438 .348 -.245 67.0ask other to slow down .2U .253 -.505 62.6ask native to conect me .409 .z.ttt -.349 66.9

practice with othe6 .277 . 155 -.458 44.9

ask for native's help .358 -.358 50.7ask questions in [2 .201 .218 -.468 46.5

leam about 12 culture .292 .304 -.357 67. rAW. 6f/"

FOREIGN I.ANGUAGE ANNAIS-FALL I 996

TABI"E 2

Reerltr of Regresdon Analysec Predlcdng Snategy Uce Based on the Sodal-pcychologtcal Model

381

FIONNGN TANGUAGE AMVATS-FI,TI 19g6

TABLE 3

Correladons Between Elements of Gardnet't Model and Radngs of Str:ategter

Gardnerts Consfruct

Strategy Model ElementKnowledgeEffectivenessDifficultyAnxietyOverall Frequency of Use

Frequenq of Use for fuch Type of StrategrMemoryCognitiveCompensationMetacognitiveAlfectiveSocial

Note:All tests are twotailed (#-.05, " -.01, ** -.001).The Ns differ for each test because of missing values for some of the items.

I-egend:Integ.-lntegrativenessA[S-Attitudes toward the Leaming SihrationIanganx-lan guage AnxietyMotiv.-Motivation

Motiv. Integ..34** .36* *.47** .36* "

-.47** -.39* *.08 -.05.49* * .34**

.33** .09

.45* * .27*

.2W .12

.57* * .39* *

. l l . 1 0

.37** .40* *

Langanx N-.16 tt2-.06 t02.M** 92.2y 99

-.28" I 13

-.10 128-.24* 125--06 r32-.2W t25-.02 125-.40** l2g

AIS. 1 5.24#

-.32*.06. tw

. t2

. lg#

.03

.21#

.00

. lv

six types of strategies (Oxford and Burry-Stock,forthcoming) along with the four Gardner vari-ables were computed (see Table 3). In thiscase, two general pattems can be observed.First, motivation correlates signifi cantly with6ve of the six classes of strategies (excludingaffective ones). Second, integrativeness, AlS,language anxiety, and motivation correlatewith the use of three types of strategies: cogni-tive, metacognitive, and social. lt would ap-pear that affective variables primarily affect theuse of these three types of sbategies.

DlccuEdonThe present study demonstrates that it is

possible to account for much of the variance,60 percent on average, in individual strategyuse with three basic ratings of strategies:

knowledge, effectiveness, and difficulty ofusing them. Each of these influences con-tribute significantly and independently to theprediction of stratery use for approximately 75percent of the specific strategies. Thus, there isstrong support for the model shown in FigureL Students with greater knowledge of a stnt-ery, who consider it effective and who do notperceive it to be difficult to use, will likely usethe strategy frequently. lt would appear thatthe rating of anxiety created by using the strat-e$/ is not consistently related to the frequencyof its use.

The present results also show that studentswho are more highly motivated use strategiesmore often, a finding that replicates previousstudies (Oxford and Nyikos 1989). Other cor-relations presented here might help to explain

382

FOnnGN tAtttGUAGE tttN.AtSlltt 1 9gO

this finding. lt is interesting that more highlyrnotivated students also report knowing morestrategies, find them easier to use, and con-sider them to be more effective than studentswho are less motivated. This relation holds forboth integrativeness (the desire to meet mem-bers of the target language community) andfor motivation to leam the specific languageas well. Examined more closely, we see thatmotivation to leam the language is associatedwith increased use of memory, cognitive'compensation, metacognitive, and socialstrategies.

Although causal statements cannot bemade on the basis of the present correlationaldata, hvo possible links between strategies andmotivation rnay be offered as explanations forthese findings. First, based on Gardner andMaclntyre (1992), it is possible to argue thatstudents who feel more highly motivated willbe more likely to expend the effort needed toengage in stratery use. Stmtegies are, by defin-ition, effortful behaviors. According to Gard-ner (1985), motivation stems from the desire tomeet and communicate with members of thetarget language group and positive attitudes tcward the leaming situation (AIS). The influ-ence of integrativeness was observed,especially for social and metacognitive stmtegies, supporting the important role that the tar-get language group has in generatingmotivation for language leaming. AIS also cor-related with the use of these types of strategies,but not as strongly as did integrativeness. Theintegrative motive is clearly associated with awillingness to use language leaming strategies.

A second causal path might also be sug-gested. Students who are more fully aware ofstmtegies, consider them to be more effective,and experience less difficulty in their use,might become more highly motivated to leamthe language. Clearly, this sequence of eventswould require an initial reason for engaging inlanguage leaming in the first place, such asthe integrative motive postulated by Gardner(1985). Strategies, viewed in this light, primar-ily contribute to a sense of mastery over thelearning process that would reduce uncer-tainty and anxiety, and maintain or improve

both attitudes and motivation. Both of theseinterpretations support Gardner's (1985) suggestion that motivation leads to an increase ineffort expended on language leaming.

ln general, language anxiety appeam tohave less of an impact on language leamingstrategies than did the other variables, butsome interesting findings were obtained. Mod-erately strong conelations were observed between language anxiety and the ratings ofoverall strategy difficulty and the use of socialstrategies. The conelation between languageanxiety and the perceived difficulty in usingstrategies is understandable because anxietyhas been shown to consume cognitive resources (Eysenck 1979) required for languagelearning (Maclntyre and Gardner 1994a,1994b), and this would certainly make strategies more difficult to use. The conelation between language anxiety and use of the socialstrategies can be explained by noting that lan-guage anxiety is a form of social arxiety (seeteary 1991) that appears to be strongly basedon the fear of poor communication and nega-tive social evaluation (Horwitz, Horuitz, andCope 1986). Both of these explanations aresupported by previous research (Maclntyreand Gardner l99l). Perhaps the most surprising result was the relatively low correlationbetween language anxiety and the anxietycreated by stratery use. To explain this, wemight suggest that communicative demandsof the second language create the highest lev-els of language anxiety. Whereas most of thestrategies studied here do not induce a com-municative demand, the ones that do ("startL2 conversations," 'look for L2 conversa-tions," and "encourage myself to speak whenafraid") are the three most anxiety-provokingstrategies.

The results of this study suggest that, ideally'training in the use of language leaming strategies should instill in the student the perception that s/he knows the strategy well, that itwill be effective, and that it is not difficult touse. Training that simply demonstrates a par-ticular strategy without showing uhen it willbe most effective is less likely to produce highrates of use than training that also shows when

383

I

FOREIGN LANGAAG E ANNAI.S_FALL I 996

to use the strategy. Further, training aimed atreducing the difficulty of using a given strat-egy is likely to improve its use as well. Evenwith this shift in training emphasis, the stu-dents' level of motivation, their attitudes to-ward the language community and thelanguage course, and their level of languageanxiety should also be considered. This con-stellation of affective variables appears to predispose some students to using strategies, andlanguage teachers and researchers can takethis into account when implementing or eval-uating strategy training.

The stratery that may benefit most from suchattention is the use of a language learningdiary. Brown (1989) is a strong supporter of theeffectiveness of such diaries in managing theaffective reaction to language learning. Stu-dents in this sample, however, consider a lan-guage leaming diary to be very difficult to use(average rating 5.01 out of 7) and among theleast effective strategies (mean rating 3.07 outof 7). Perhaps this is because they report verylittle knowledge about how to use the diary(average rating 1.85 out of 7), giving it by farthelowest rating on knowledge. If Brown (1989) iscorrect, and the use of a language learningdiary has as much value as he suggests, thenstudents should be told not only how to useone but also persuaded of its effectiveness.Based on these data, anxiety does not appearto be a problem because writing a diary is oneof the least anxiety-provoking strategies.

Similarly, the training of other strategies canmake use of the information provided in thisstudy. As an example, physically acting outwords is not a well-used strategy, and anxietyappears to play a role (see Table l). If an en-tire class was encouraged to act out words, asin a game of charades, then anxiety may bebetter managed because every student isdoing the same activity. lt should be notedthat Foss and Reitzel (1988) report that somestudents find charades to be anxiety-provok-ing but a similar percentage of students (approximately 25 percent) report that it makesthem feel confident. This can be taken into ac-count by allowing students to choose theirroles in the game and allowing highly reticent

students to withdraw if they wish.A final suggestion arising from this study is

that individualized stratery training programsmight be more effective than those aimed at ageneral audience. Using an initial screeningprocess, an individual student's attitudes, mctivation, language anxiety, and responses to aset of strategies can be assessed along thelines suggested by the social-psychologicalmodel. Individualized programs could thenbe designed to take advantage of a specificstudent's source of motivation for languageleaming, his/her positive attitudes, and opin-ions about specific strategies. Future research,and training studies in particular, are likely torefine our knowledge about language leam-ing strategies and how to encourage studentsto make the most of them.

Concluslonln general, the data strongly support the

ability of the social-psychological model topredict strategy use (Maclntyre 1994). Thismodel indicates that knowing a strategy well,perceiving it as effective, and not consideringit to be difficult to use predict the majority olthe variance in strategy use. Strategy trainingthat addresses only one variable (e.g., in-creasing knowledge) may be ineffective if itdoes not also increase the perception of ef-fectiveness and ease of use. The data alsoshow the important role that social-psycho-logical variables in general, and integrativeness and motivation in particular, play in theuse of language leaming strategies. What nowis required is more research into the trainingof strategy use and the factors that increase itsefficacy. Knowing the factors that facilitate orhinder strategy use may be an important firststep toward more effective strategy training.

NOTEThis research was supported by a postdoctoral

fellowship from the Social Science and HumanitiesResearch Council of Canada to the first author. Theauthors would like to thank the faculty and stu-dents of the Modem languages Department at theUnivercity of Oftawa for their invaluable assistance inconducting this research. Address conespondence

384

?iI

IItI

fII

to Peter Maclntyre, Department of psycholory, Uni-versity College of Cape Breton, Sydney N.S., CanadaBIP 612. E-mail: pmacinty@parc. uccb.ns.ca.

' As noted above, it has been argued by somethat students may not be aware of the strategiesthat are being used; however, it seems that the keylo tne strategy concept is to view it as a deliberate,keely chosen plan designed to facilitate languageleaming (Maclntyre 1994). For this reason, knowl_edge is considered a prerequisite for languageleamlng strategy use.

I The standardized regression coefficients pre-sented in Table I range from -l to +l and can be in_terpreted in much the same way as conelations.that is, values close to zero indicate a relative lackofprediction and values close to one indicate nearperfect prediction.

RT:IFERENCEIBrown, H. D. 1989. e Proctical Guide to ktnguage

Izaming: A Fifteen-Week program of Strategiesfor Succers. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Chamot, A. U. 1990. "Cognitive Instruction in theSecond Language Classroom: The Role of Leam-ing Strategies." In Georgetown University RoundTable on Language and Linguistics, edited byJ.E. Alatis. Washington, DC: Georgetown Univer-sity Press.

Chamot, A. U., and L. Kupper. 1g89. "Learning

Strategies in Foreign Instruction." Foreign Inn-guoge Annals 22: 12-24

Cohen, A. D. 1990. Languoge Leaming: Insights forkamers, Teachers, and Researcfters. Boston:Heinle and Heinle.

D6rnyei, Z. 1994. "Motivation and Motivating in theForeign Language Classroom." Modern Lon-guage Joumal TS: 27I2U.

Ddmyei, Z. 1995. "On the Teachability of Commu-nication Strategies." TESOL euarterly 2g: S*gS.

lhrman, M., and R. Oxford. 1g89. "Effects of SexDifferences, Career Choice, and psychologicalType on Adult Language Learning Strategies."Modem Language Joumat 73: l-13.

lysenck, M. W. 1979. "Anxiety, Leaming and Mem-ory: A Reconceptualization. " Journal of Re_worch in Personality 13: 36&385.

Fm, K. A., and A. C. Reitzel. 1988. "A RelationalModel for Managing Second Language Anxi-ety.' TESOL Quarterty 20: 559562.

FOREIGN Il4,NcaAcE ATNALS-FALL I 996

Gardner, R. C. 1985. Social psychotogy ond SecondLanguage Leorning: The Role of Attitudes andMotiDotion. London: Edward Amold.

Gardner, R. C., and W. E. Lambert. lg72. Attitudesand Motiuation in Second Longuage Learning.Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Gardner, R. C., and P. D. Maclntyre. 1992. "A Stu-dent's Contribution to Second language [,eam-ing: Part I, CognitiveFactors." Longuage Teaching25:211-220.

-. 1993. "On the Measurement of AffectiveVariables in Second language Leaming." Lan_guoge lcaming 43: 152-194.

Gardner, R. C., and P. F. Tremblay. 1994. "On Motivation, Research Agendas, and Theoretical Frameworls;' Mdem Language Joumot Tg: B19.3ffi.

Horwitz, E. K., M. B. Horwitz, and J. Cope. 19g6."Foreign Language Classroom Anxiely." ModemInnguoge Jo u mo I 7 0: l25-l32.

Leary, M. R. (1991). "Anxiety, Cognition, and Be-havior: In Search of A Broader perspective," 3g44, in M. Booth-Butterfield , ed., Communicotion.Cognition, and Anxiety. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Maclntyre, P. D. 1994. "Toward a Social psycho_logical Model of Strategy tJse." Foreign Lan_guage Annals 27: 18$195.

Maclntyre, P.D., and R. C. Gardner. 1991. .Methods

and Results in the Study of Anxiety in Languagel,earning: A Review of the Litenture.,' LanguageLeaming 41: 8*117.

-. 1994a. "The Effects of Induced Anxiety onCognitive Processing in Second LanguageLeaming." Studies in Second Language Acquisi-tion 16: l-17 .

-. 1994b. "The Subtle Effects of LanguageAnxiety on Cognitive processing in the Second[^anguage." Language Leaming 44: 2g]305-

Oxford, R. 1989. "'The Best and the Worst': An Ex-ercise to Tap Perceptions of LanguageleamingExperiences and Strategies." Foreign LanguageAnnols 22: 447454.

-. 1990. lttnguage Leaming Strategies: WotEuery Teacher Should Know. New york: New-bury House.

Oxford, R., and J. A. Burry-Stock. Forthcoming. "As

sessing the Use of language l,eaming StrategiesWorldwide With the ESU EFL Version of theStratery Inventory for language Leaming (SILL)."System.

385

FOREIGN IA,NGUAGE ANNAI.S-FAIL 1996

Oxlord. R.. and D. Crookall. 1989. "Research onl-anguage Leaming Strategies: Methods, Find-ings, and Instructional lssues-" Modem Lan-guage Joumal TS: 40M19.

Oxford, R., and M. Nyikos. 1989. "Variables Affect-ing Choice of language L,eaming Strategies byUnivenity Students." Modem Longuoge Joumal75:.292-300.

Oxford, R., and J. Shearin. 1994. "language LeamingMotivation: Expanding the Theoretical Frame-work" M&m Innguage Joumal TS: 12-26.

Oxford, R., R. Z. tavine, and D. Crookall. 1989."language Leaming Strategies, the Communicative Approach, and their Classroom lmplica-tions." Foreign ktnguoge Annals 22: 2939.

Oxford, R., M. Nyikos, and M. Ehrman. 1988. "Vive

La Diff6rence? Reflections on Sex Differences inUse of language l€aming Strategies." ForergnLangua ge An na I s 21 : 321 -329.

Rubin, J., and l. Thompson. 1982. Hou to k A MoreSuccessful lttnguage lcomer. Boston: Heinleand Heinle.