NOTE: To change the image on this slide, select the picture and delete it. Then click the Pictures icon in the placeholder to insert your own image. SUCCESSFUL ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNING INVENTORY (SELL-IN) Nurhuda Binti Mohamad Nazri P71706

ABSTRACT  This study assesses the language learning strategies (LLSs) used by ten “successful” English-as-a-second-language (ESL) learners in Selangor, using Oxford’s (1990) Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL). The findings show that the use of each of the six categories of strategies and individual strategies are variable. The findings have significant implications for research on LLSs, classroom instruction, materials design, and teacher preparation.

1.1 Introduction  Learning strategies have been defined as “cognitions or behaviors that a learner engages in during learning that are intended to influence the encoding process so as to facilitate the acquisition, retention, and retrieval of new knowledge” (Weinstein & Rogers, 1984, p.3).  Similarly, another definition describes learning strategies as steps taken by the learner to facilitate the acquisition, storage, retrieval, or use of information (O'Malley, Russo, & Chamot, 1983). Learning strategies can be contrasted with teaching techniques, also known as instructional strategies, which are actions taken by the teacher to structure and present information in a way that will help students learn (Stewner-Manzanares, Chamot, O'Malley, Kupper, & Russo, 1983).

1.2 Statement of the Problem  Many ESL/EFL (English as a Second or Foreign Language) teachers wonder why some learners learn faster than other learners. They also wonder why classroom tasks are much easier for some students than for others. One of the reasons is related to the strategies ESL/EFL learners employ to accomplish their needs or the tasks assigned.  Theory has shown (Cohen, 2003; Oxford, 1990) that strategy use favors effectiveness in language learning. That is, the more aware learners are on the strategies they employ, the more effective and skillful learners will be.  To justify this theory, an action research study on strategy use was conducted with ten “successful” English language learners of the Diploma and Bachelor’s Program in Health Sciences at Universiti Kuala Lumpur, a private university in Malaysia. The quest was aimed towards determining the strategies learners employed as to the ones used the most and least.

1.3Purpose of the Study The main purpose of this study is to investigate the types and the frequency of language learning strategy use among successful English learners at Universiti Kuala Lumpur Institute of Medical Science Technology, Kajang Research Objective To identify the types of language learning strategies employed by the successful language learners at Universiti Kuala Lumpur Institute of Medical Science Technology Research Question What are the types of language learning strategies used among the successful learners at Universiti Kuala Lumpur Institute of Medical Science Technology?

1.4 Significance of the Study  In her seminal article (Rubin, 1975, p.42), suggested that “if we knew more about what the ‘successful learners’ did, we might be able to teach these strategies to poorer learners to enhance their success record”. Rubin (1975) constructed a list of strategies typical of good language learners, who, according to her observations, are willing and able to use clues (for instance non-verbal indications, word association, general knowledge) in order to guess meaning, use a variety of techniques (such as circumlocution, paraphrase or gestures) in order to communicate or learn from communication, manage inhibitions (such as the fear of appearing foolish, or of making mistakes), attend to form (for instance by analyzing, categorizing and synthesizing), practice the language they are trying to learn (for instance by seeking out native speakers and initiating conversations), monitor both their own and others' speech (for instance by learning from mistakes), and attend to meaning (for instance by interpreting mood and intonation).  These strategies, as Rubin (1975) pointed out, will vary according to a number of factors including the task, the learning stage, the learner's age, the learning context, learning style, and cultural differences. Rubin concluded by suggesting that knowledge about good language learners “will lessen the difference between the good learner and the poorer one” (p.50).

1.5 Limitations of the Study  In order to yield much richer data it would have been advantageous for the researcher to conduct this research with a larger scale of respondents so that the results could be inferred to the overall population of the institution. This was not possible as the researcher was given a limited period of time to carry out the study. Apart from that, due to time constraint, the researcher was only able to employ questionnaire as her instrument to elicit data from the respondents as other instruments would require more time.

2.0 Literature Review

3.0 Methodology 3.1 Respondents Ten students were randomly selected to participate in this study. It should be noted here that the respondents were chosen as successful language learners based on their grades for their English paper in Sijil Pelajaran Malaysia (SPM) as well as their excellent language proficiency observed throughout English classes. 3.2 Instrumentation This study uses Oxford’s taxonomy to assess LLSs. The selection of this taxonomy has been made on two grounds. First, it has been used to assess strategy use by EFL/English-as-second- language (ESL) learners from a large and varied group of language and cultural backgrounds (e.g., Arabic: Touba,1992; Chinese: Chang, 1990; Hispanic: Green, 1991; Japanese: Watanabe, 1990). Second, its reliability and validity have been widely documented (Oxford, 1992). Oxford (1990) designed the SILL Version 7.0 for use with EFL/ESL learners. It consists of 50 items that represent the six categories of strategies mentioned above.

3.3 Data Collection Respondents completed the SILL in class in about 25 minutes under the supervision of the researcher under conditions of anonymity and confidentiality. The participants also provided information about their age and gender. 3.4 Data Analysis To determine the frequency of language learning strategies used, an interpretation mean score was employed. Green and Oxford (1995) suggest that the variation of an individual item that varied significantly by a variable in question can be described as positive, negative or mixed by examining the percentage of respondents at each level and reporting their usage (high, medium, low) of the strategy. Mohamed Amin et al. (2001) used a similar approach by Green and Oxford (1995). The rating of frequency of used adapted from Oxford combined responses obtained from the five point Likert scale employed in the SILL into three categories of use 1 and 2 (Mean= ) into low strategy use, 4 and 5 (Mean= ) into high strategy use, and 3 (Mean= ) as medium strategy use).

4.0 Findings 4.1 Overall strategy use

4.2 Overall Individual Strategy Use Memory strategies Table 4.2 shows the percentages of responses, mean scores, and level of frequency of individual items under memory strategies. The mean scores indicated that four items are at high scale of frequency with mean scores ranging from 3.60 to The item that shows the highest mean score is ― I use new English words in a sentence so I can remember them. Meanwhile, the item that has the lowest mean score is ―I use flashcards to remember new English words.

4.2.2 Cognitive strategies  Table 4.3 demonstrates the percentages of responses, mean scores, and level of frequency of individual items under cognitive strategies. The mean scores indicated that 11 items are at high scale of frequency with mean scores ranging from 3.50 to The item that shows the highest mean score is ― I watch English language TV shows or go to movies spoken in English. Meanwhile, the item that has the lowest mean score is ―I try to find patterns in English.

4.2.3 Compensatory strategies  Table 4.4 indicates the percentages of responses, mean scores, and level of frequency of individual items under compensatory strategies. The mean scores indicated that four items are at high scale of frequency with mean scores ranging from 3.50 to The item that shows the highest mean score is ― If I can’t think of an English word, I use a word or phrase that means the same thing. Meanwhile, the item that has the lowest mean score is ―I make up new words if I do not know the right ones in English.

4.2.4 Metacognitive strategies  Table 4.5 illustrates the percentages of responses, mean scores, and level of frequency of individual items under metacognitive strategies. The mean scores indicated that eight items are at high scale of frequency with mean scores ranging from 3.80 to The items that show the highest mean scores are ― I notice my English mistakes and use that information to help me do better and ―I pay attention when someone is speaking English. Meanwhile, the item that has the lowest mean score is ―I plan my schedule so I will have enough time to study English.

4.2.5 Affective strategies  Table 4.6 displays the percentages of responses, mean scores, and level of frequency of individual items under affective strategies. The mean scores indicated that two items are at high scale of frequency with mean scores ranging from 3.80 to The item that shows the highest mean score is ― I encourage myself to speak English even when I am afraid of making a mistake. Meanwhile, the item that has the lowest mean score is ―I talk to someone else about how I feel when I am learning English.

4.2.6 Social strategies Table 4.7 reveals the percentages of responses, mean scores, and level of frequency of individual items under social strategies. The mean scores indicated that four items are at high scale of frequency with mean scores ranging from 3.70 to The item that shows the highest mean score is ― If I do not understand something in English, I ask the other person to slow down or to say it again. Meanwhile, the item that has the lowest mean score is ―I ask English speakers to correct me when I talk.

5.0 Discussion and findings  Overall, the findings of the study revealed that successful language learners are high frequency users of language learning strategies.  The total mean of each category showed that metacognitive strategies (Mean=3.964) are among the most frequently used strategies, followed respectively by compensatory (Mean=3.814), cognitive (Mean=3.812), social (Mean=3.700), memory (Mean=3.100) and the affective strategies (Mean=2.890) found as the least used strategies among successful language learners at Universiti Kuala Lumpur Institute of Medical Science Technology (UniKL MESTECH). The findings also showed that the mean for each of the six categories fell within the high range of use by the students. Furthermore, they are reported to possess a high frequency of use of metacognitive strategies. This shows that as students get older and their language proficiency advances, their use of metacognitive strategies, which relate to planning, organization, and evaluation of learning, increases. In other words, they develop better learning skills. This high range of strategy use reflects a desire on the part of these students to manage their learning in a metacognitive way. Moreover, the fact that none of the six categories showed a low range of strategy use is encouraging in the sense that providing strategy-training activities for UniKL MESTECH students would help them develop a wide range of strategies and encourage them to transfer their use to new learning tasks and situations.  As for the use of individual strategies, “I watch English language TV shows or go to movies spoken in English” under cognitive strategies showed the highest mean score (Mean=5.00) and as for lowest mean score (Mean= 1.60) falls under item in memory strategy which is “I use flashcards to remember new English words”.

6.0 Implications  The findings of the present study have implications for research on strategies, classroom instruction, material design, and teacher preparation.  Future research should try to both complement self-report data with data collected by interviews, think-aloud protocols, diaries, and dialog journals (Cohen, 1996), and assess strategies in actual language use situations (McDonough, 2002).

THAN K YOU