An Empirical Study of Learning Strategy Use by Differently Proficient Students in a Web-based Environment Wang Zhiru

I. Introduction 1.1. Rationale behind the study: Web-based teaching and learning (1) holds great promise of autonomous learning, learner training and effective use of learner-centred approaches. (2) characterized by individualization, interactions, collaboration.

(3) requires adaptability to new roles, new contexts and new curriculum. (4) requires skills of self-regulation in learning; (5) (5) Historically, the marriage of technology and education has been seemingly in harmony but actually at variance. Education technology does not necessarily ensure the expected outcome (Zhang Jianwei et al, 2003:1 Preface). “历史告诉我们，貌合神离的技术与教育之间的联姻，并不能保证获得我们所期待的结果。”（张建伟、孙燕青，2003：1 序言）

Reason for (5): not address to Ss’ needs with individual differences. Application of technology: beneficial to all learners. Suitability and adaptability to e-learning

1.2. Oxford’s framework of learning strategies Oxford’s definition and classification of learning strategies;Direct and indirect 1.2.1. Direct strategies: Directly work with the target language. Performers Memory strategies, cognitive strategies and compensation strategies. 1.2.2. Indirect strategies: indirectly involved into the process of learning by regulating the process. Internal guide. Director.

Watersheds which distinguish good learners from poor learners. (1) Metacognitive strategies: centering your learning, arranging and planning your learning, evaluating your learning Thinking about the learning process, planning for learning, monitoring the learning task, and evaluating how well one has learned. Watersheds which distinguish good learners from poor learners. The most trainable, culture, age, proficiency-sensitive.

Main mode of web-based learning Relationship between metacognitive strategies and web-based learning Main mode of web-based learning Autonomous learning self-regulation self-management planning monitoring evaluation. Metacognitive strategies supervising the processes of learning by learners themselves.

(2) Affective strategies lowering your anxiety, encouraging yourself, taking your emotional temperature (3) Social strategies asking questions, cooperating with others, empathizing with others

II The study An experimental project of Web-based teaching and learning One of the 180 universities in College English Innovation Programs. Web-based environment: New Perspective English Learning System provided by Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.

The purposes: By comparing (1) differently proficient students and (2) the results of questionnaires before and after the experiment, the study aims at presenting a picture of strategy use by different proficient groups and the impact of Web-based learning environment on their learning processes.

2. Research questions: (1) In a Web-based learning environment is there any difference in strategy use among students whose initial English proficiency is different? (2) What is the impact of Web-based learning environment on students’ learning processes? 3. Procedures: Pre- Experiment Post-test Questionnaires were administered in the classroom

4. Subjects: pretest n=515 posttest n=509 Low Intermediate High Scores Pre-/posttest Age Grade 85 56/44 18-20 1 86-120+ 191/195 120 268/270

5. Instruments 11-item Questionnaires: 5.1 Contents: Pre-test: Metacognitive Strategies: Plan, Monitor, Evaluation Cronbach Alpher: .703 Post-test: Metacognitive, Affective, Social Strategies Cronbach Alpher: .822 5.2 Form: Likert-scale ranging from “Never” to “Always” to assess the frequency of strategy use. Language: Chinese

5.3 Structure based on Oxford’s framework: 5.3.1 Metacognitive: Arranging and planning learning: Items 1, 2, 7 (2) Centering your learning: Items 3, 4, 6, 8 (3) Evaluating your learning: Items 5, 9 5.3.2 Affective strategies: Item 10 5,3.3 Social strategies: Item 11

Note: Slight difference b/w pre- (Items about self-access card and plan were canceled) and post (Items about social and affective were added to) questionnaires. P<.05 III. Results and analysis: 3.1 Results The following are a descriptive report about (1) the mean value of the responses to the questionnaire in the pre- and post-tests (2) one-way ANOVA to indicate the differences of the responses among the three groups in the pre- and post-tests

1. I have my goal of learning 1. I have my goal of learning. (Metacognitive: arrange and plan learning.) Description & comparison Participants Means S.D. ANOVA Sig. pre- test Post- High 2.61 2.98 .87 .82 .058 .528 Intermediate 2.87 3.89 .71 .84 Low 2.32 2.93 .94 .85

2. I know what to do before learning online 2.I know what to do before learning online.(Metacognitive: arrange and plan learning.) Description & comparison Participants Means S.D. ANOVA Sig. pre- test Post- High 3.03 3.80 .81 .76 .002 .000 Intermediate 2.82 3.89 .79 .73 Low 2.70 3.30 .83 .85

3. I finish my work before access to what am interested in 3. I finish my work before access to what am interested in. (Metacognitive: center learning.) Description & comparison Participants Means S.D. ANOVA Sig. pre- test Post- High 2.98 3.53 .85 .79 .006 .170 Intermediate 2.84 3.62 .78 .81 Low 2.63 3.39 .73 .87

4. I remind myself of the goal of learning without being led astray by something else. (Metacognitive: center learning.) Description & comparison Participants Means S.D. ANOVA Sig. pre- test Post- High 2.77 3.41 .81 .79 .034 .779 Intermediate 2.64 3.46 .85 Low 2.48 3.39 .87

5. I reflect on my way of learning online and try to improve it 5. I reflect on my way of learning online and try to improve it. (Metacognitive: evaluating learning) Description & comparison Participants Means S.D. ANOVA Sig. pre- test Post- High 2.31 3.20 .65 .90 .156 .154 Intermediate 2.38 3.05 .73 .84 Low 2.18 3.07 .66 .81

6. I avoid being drowned by a large quantity of information online 6. I avoid being drowned by a large quantity of information online. (Metacognitive: center learning.) Description & comparison Participants Means S.D. ANOVA Sig. pre- test Post- High 3.18 3.26 .66 .98 .005 .927 Intermediate 2.99 3.24 .77 .94 Low 2.95 3.20 .70 .89

7. I avoid wondering about among the web pages without any purpose 7. I avoid wondering about among the web pages without any purpose. (Metacognitive: arrange and plan learning.) Description & comparison Participants Means S.D. ANOVA Sig. pre- test Post- High 3.29 3.50 .75 .90 .007 .050 Intermediate 3.13 3.53 .77 .91 Low 3.02 3.16 .66 1.08

8. I avoid cursory glances at the hypertexts with pages turned up and down quickly and impatiently (Metacognitive: center learning). Description & comparison Participants Means S.D. ANOVA Sig. pre- test Post- High 3.06 3.67 .63 .79 .351 .000 Intermediate 2.98 3.62 .72 .81 Low 2.95 3.14 .70 1.00

9. I compare the outcome of Web-based learning with the goal I set previously. (Metacognitive: evaluate learning) Description & comparison Participants Means S.D. ANOVA Sig. pre- test Post- High 2.37 3.47 .95 .79 .262 .376 Intermediate 2.24 3.55 .89 .90 Low 2.27 3.36 .70 .94

10.When I failed to reach a correct path and get the information I need, I told myself to calm down and not to be anxious (Affective: lower anxiety). Description & comparison Participants Means S.D. ANOVA Sig. pre- test Post- High 3.43 .90 .899 Intermediate 3.41 1.05 Low 3.48 .79

11. I participate in discussion in BBS 11. I participate in discussion in BBS. (Social: cooperating with others). Description & comparison Participants Means S.D. ANOVA Sig. pre- test Post- High 2.59 1.00 .001 Intermediate 2.89 .86 Low 2.64 .89

Overall Mean Value of the Responses to the Ques. 3.2 Analysis 3.2.1 Description Overall Mean Value of the Responses to the Ques. Students pre-test post-test High 2.84 3.42 Intermediate 2.77 3.53 Low 2.21 3.21 Total 2.74 3.39 (1) Overall, increase in strategy use from mean value of the three groups 2.74 to 3.39. A positive impact of the Web-based learning environment on students. Helps learner training.

(2) Among the three groups of students, Intermediate proficient student benefit most: Highest frequency Increase most among 3 groups by 0.76 while the high proficient group increase by 0.58 and low group ranking second by 0.60. Correlation of proficiency of language and frequency of strategy use has changed.

3.2.2 Comparison among the three groups Significant differences: Both pre- and posttests: Item 2, 7 arrang+plan Posttest: Item 8 (center learning), 11(social) (2) The differences between pre-and posttest have been narrowed. Statistically significant differences: Pretest: 5 items Posttest: 3 items

(3) Inconsistency between proficiency and frequency, which changes the pattern Pretest: Consistency between LP and SUFin all the Sig. dif. Items among the 3 groups. Posttest: Not follow the pattern. (4) Sig. dif. In social strategies with the intermediate students use most.

IV. Discussion and conclusion 4.1 Web-based learning environment helps improving strategy use. -Increase in the frequency of strategy use. -Less differentiated among 3 groups in strategy use with fewer items and dimensions significantly different. 4.2 More intervention is needed into the Web-based learning environment for low proficient students who use least indirect strategies revealed from both pre- and posttests despite the progress they made. So need for learner training for initially low level students.

4.3. We can not draw any conclusion on the cause-effect relationship between language proficiency and strategy use. Any meaningful interpretation of cause-effect relationship need more evidence. V. Limitations 5.1 Lack of variables in strategies, small coverage with only 11 items. 5.2 Lack of diversity of instruments for data collection. 5.3 Sample subjects are not representative.

Thank You Very Much!