Language Learning Strategy Use and English Proficiency of

Language Learning Strategy Use and English Proficiency of University Freshmen in Taiwan YING-CHUN LAI Chung Shan Medical University Taichung, Taiwan, Republic of China This study investigated language learning strategies used by 418 EFL learners in Taiwan and looked for relationships between learning strategy use and the patterns of strategy use based on language proficiency The participants reported using compensation strategies most frequently and affective strategies least frequently The most frequently used individual strategies involved guessing intelligently and overcoming limitations in using English; the least used items involved speaking and writing to others in English The research results also showed that proficiency level has a significant effect on strategy choice and use The more proficient learners used more learning strategies They used metacognitive strategies and cognitive strategies most frequently and memory strategies least frequently The less proficient learners, on the other hand, preferred social and memory strategies to cognitive and metacognitive strategies The research also analyzed individual strategy items, finding that the strategies reported as used more frequently by the more proficient learners were arranging and planning their learning; using analytical and reasoning skills; and practicing their pronunciation and speaking L earning strategies play an important role in second/foreign language learning because they help learners develop language competence in many ways (Oxford, 1990; Rubin, 1981) In the past decade, a growing body of research has focused on language learning strategies Language learning strategies are of interest not only for revealing the ways language learners apply learning strategies, but also for demonstrating how the use of strategies is related to effective language learning The assumption behind strategy research is that learning strategies are teachable (Chamot & Kupper, 1989; O’Malley & Chamot, 1990; Oxford, 1990) It is believed that strategies used by successful learners may be learned by less successful learners, and language instructors can assist the language learning process by helping learners develop appropriate strategies TESOL QUARTERLY Vol 43, No 2, June 2009 255 LITERATURE REVIEW Theoretical Basis of Language Learning Strategies Research on language learning strategies began in the 1960s (O’Malley & Chamot, 1990; Weinstein & Mayer, 1986) It was influenced by the development of cognitive psychology (McLaughlin, 1987; O’Malley & Chamot, 1990) Until the introduction of cognitive psychology, prior research on second language learning and teaching focused mainly on methods of teaching, instead of on learner characteristics and the process of acquiring a second language (Wenden, 1987) Cognitive learning theory (McLaughlin, 1987; Anderson, 1983, 1985) and social/social cognitive models (Bandura, 1986; Vygotsky, 1978) have provided rationales for the use and development of learning strategies They are the two major theoretical frameworks from which the “classification” theories of second language learning strategies are derived Among the various proposed classification systems, the one developed Oxford (1990) is considered to be very comprehensive Synthesizing earlier classification systems, Oxford subsumed strategies that had appeared in literature over the preceding year into her taxonomy The classification discloses important factors about how learners implement learning strategies to learn and use a new language The strategy classification system showing two classes and six groups is presented in Table TABLE Oxford’s (1990) Strategy Classification System Direct strategies Memory Strategies Help learners store and retrieve new information (e.g., applying images and sounds, creating mental linkages) Cognitive Strategies Applied by learners to better understand and produce the target language (e.g., summarizing, analyzing, reasoning) Compensatory Strategies Used for overcoming deficiencies in knowledge of the target language (e.g., guessing meanings from context, using synonyms to convey meaning) Indirect strategies Metacognitive Strategies Allow learners to control their own cognition (e.g., coordinating the planning, organizing, and evaluation of the learning process) Affective Strategies Refer to the methods that help learners to regulate emotions, motivation, and attitudes (e.g., taking emotional temperature, self-encouragement) Social Strategies Include interaction with others through the target language (e.g., asking questions, cooperating with native speakers, becoming culturally aware) Note This table is adapted from material in Oxford (1990), chapters and 4, and diagrams on pp 16–21, 38–39, 136–137 256 TESOL QUARTERLY Theoretical Framework of the Study The current study follows Oxford’s (1990) strategy classification framework The Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL), a strategy survey proposed by Oxford, is used to investigate learners’ strategy use Results of learners’ strategy use are analyzed using this system The Relationship Between Language Proficiency and Strategy Use Early research on language learning strategies attempted to identify strategies used by successful learners These earlier “good language learner” studies provided lists of strategies used by successful language learners in terms of their characteristics These studies suggested that successful second language learners tend to use strategies, such as taking advantage of practice opportunities, monitoring language production, attending to meaning, practicing communication in the language, active involvement in the learning process, being specific in language tasks, and seeing and developing language as a system (Naiman, Frohlich, Stern, & Todesco, 1978; Rubin, 1975; Stern, 1975) These characteristics of successful language learners have generally been validated by follow-up “good language learner” studies as well as subsequent research that compared learners of different proficiency levels Since the initial attempts at good language learner studies, considerable research has been devoted to understanding learning strategies with the specific target of identifying the relationship between proficiency and strategies Much of the research literature has studied how successful and less successful learners use learning strategies to study foreign/second languages and what distinguishes these two groups of learners Studies have revealed that differences of strategy use between successful and less successful learners were found in number, range, frequency, and broad categories of strategy use In addition, it is suggested that awareness of task demands and metacognitive knowledge regarding strategy selection are major distinctions between successful and unsuccessful learners (Abraham & Vann, 1987; Chamot, Küpper, & Impink-Hernandez, 1988; Khaldieh, 2000; O’Malley & Chamot, 1990) Even though the findings of strategy studies are slightly inconsistent, results regarding how successful learners use and learn a second/foreign language could be generalized as follows: • Successful learners effectively use a greater number, and a higher frequency, of learning strategies (Bruen, 2001; Chamot et al., 1988; Green & Oxford, 1995; Griffiths, 2003; Kim, 2001; Park, 1997; Wharton, 2000) LEARNING STRATEGY AND ENGLISH PROFICIENCY 257 • • • • These learners are aware of strategy use (Chamot & Kupper, 1989; Khaldieh, 2000; O’Malley & Chamot, 1990) The learners use strategies in a purposeful and active manner (Bremner, 1999; Green & Oxford, 1995; O’Malley & Chamot, 1990; Wharton, 2000) Successful learners know how to choose appropriate strategies depending on the demands of the learning situations and the language tasks (Abraham & Vann, 1987; Chamot et al., 1988; Chamot & El-Dinary, 1999; Khaldieh, 2000; O’Malley & Chamot, 1990) Cognitive and metacognitive strategies are critical to effective learning due to the fact that they are related to higher level of language proficiency (Abraham & Vann, 1987; Bruen, 2001; Green & Oxford, 1995; O’Malley & Chamot, 1990; Park, 1997; Peacock & Ho, 2003; Wharton, 2000); these two strategies are also often used together to support each other (O’Malley & Chamot, 1990) A considerable amount of empirical research has provided evidence that there is a positive relationship between language proficiency and the use of language learning strategies The majority of studies clearly showed that successful learners used a larger number of strategies, and used them more frequently than did less successful learners (e.g., Bruen, 2001; Chamot et al., 1988; Chen 2002; Green & Oxford, 1995; Griffiths, 2003; Wharton 2000) Some studies, however, only partially supported the claim that there is a positive association between the number of strategies used and language proficiency (e.g., Abraham & Vann, 1987; Khaldieh, 2000); some studies even indicated just the opposite (e.g., Chen, 1990; Phillips, 1991) Other researchers even found that, similar to successful learners, unsuccessful learners also actively use and apply a great number and variety of strategies, but in a different manner (Abraham & Vann, 1987; Chamot et al., 1988; Chamot & Kupper, 1989; Vandergrift, 1997; Vann & Abraham, 1990) These unsuccessful learners, however, usually fail to choose and make use of the most appropriate or efficient strategies (Abraham & Vann, 1987; Chamot et al., 1988; Chamot & El-Dinary, 1999; Vandergrift, 1997; Vann & Abraham, 1990) Several attempts were made to explain these controversial or opposing findings Oxford and Cohen (1992) speculated that less effective learners used more language strategies than did effective learners because of advanced learners’ automatization of their language learning strategies Another explanation offered by Cohen (1998) was that higher proficiency learners were able to complete language tasks by using fewer consciously selected strategies whereas lower proficiency learners kept trying different strategies, and thus ended up using more strategies These rationales may partly clarify the contradictions found in the research In general, these researchers held that the total number and frequency of strategies used are not necessarily the sole indicators of how successful learners will be at any language task 258 TESOL QUARTERLY Overall, research has validated that there is a relationship between language learning strategies and language proficiency Furthermore, considerable empirical research has provided evidence that the use of effective learning strategies is related to higher levels of language proficiency As to whether there are certain strategy patterns or specific strategy types that associate with effective learners, no common consensus has yet been reached The following assertions might provide possible explanations As Rubin (1975) stated, strategy use may vary across cultures; therefore, there might not be a certain strategy or a particular pattern that is effective for all learners, tasks, and learning situations Moreover, such factors as settings, language tasks, classification schemes, elicitation methods, and language assessing instruments that are involved in strategy studies are also various and might cause difficulties when comparing and generating findings across studies Even though research has provided evidence that more proficient language learners make better use of language learning strategies, the exact nature of the strategy cause and effect is controversial With the notion that there might be a mutual relationship between strategy use and language proficiency, some researchers (e.g., Bremner, 1999; Green & Oxford 1995; McIntyre, 1994; Rees-Miller, 1993) have stressed a need for caution when looking at the association between these two variables Rees-Miller asserted that there is no particular direction in this causal relationship Green and Oxford, as well as McIntyre, further suggested that strategies are both the cause and outcome of improved language proficiency A great deal of effort has been made to investigate learner strategies; however, the majority of past studies have been conducted among mixed groups of learners with different backgrounds and learning experiences in the United States What seems to be lacking is information regarding strategy use of English learners in other cultural and linguistic contexts Various factors are assumed to affect the choice of language learning strategies As Oxford and Nyikos (1989) pointed out, learner variables, such as cultural background, national origin, and language teaching method, have a strong influence on learners’ strategy use Generalization of the findings of strategy studies to other cultural/linguistic groups needs to be handed with caution The current study extends the work on learning strategies into the context of college freshmen in Taiwan, which has not received much attention, with a focus on examining the relationship between language proficiency and strategy choice PURPOSE OF THE STUDY This study investigates language learning strategies used by English as a Foreign Language (EFL) learners in Taiwan and looks for relationships between learning strategy use and the patterns of strategy use based on language proficiency Additionally, the study compares the learner strategy LEARNING STRATEGY AND ENGLISH PROFICIENCY 259 use with that of other studies using similar research methodology Knowing how to make use of appropriate strategies while learning a target language would help students make their learning more effective This study would provide language teachers and researchers with a greater understanding of the ways learners learn The findings could further assist language teachers in developing and implementing strategy training in second/foreign language curricula Training students in the use of learning strategies would maximize their potential and contribute to their autonomy RESEARCH QUESTIONS What language learning strategies EFL learners in Taiwan report using? What are the general trends and patterns of strategy use for the learners? Is there a relationship between language proficiency and learning strategy use? What patterns of variation in language learning strategies (overall strategy use, strategy use by SILL categories, and strategy use at the individual item level) exist, if any, between the high-, mid, and low-level learners? METHOD Participants A total of 418 students were drawn from a population of entering freshmen enrolled in the Freshman English for Non-Majors (FENM) program at Tunghai University in Taiwan Tunghai University, established in 1955, is the oldest private university in Taiwan The university contains seven colleges, with an enrollment of approximately 15,000 students The FENM course is required of most freshman students The English placement test used to place all non-English major freshmen into a freshman English course is administered at the beginning of the first semester of study Only those having scores within the top 10% on the test could choose to take either English or another foreign language course There were 106 classes with a total number of approximately 3,000 students when the study was carried out The students in the sample have been divided into five divisions (Science, Social Science, Engineering & Agriculture, Management, and Arts) based on their majors, and they have been further placed into three course levels, high-, mid, or low-level classes, based on the scores (criterion-referenced interpretation) they earned on the test There was no certain score range for each level that was applied across the five divisions The score ranges which separated the students into three proficiency groups were provided by the Placement Test 260 TESOL QUARTERLY The sample of this study consisted of students from the College of Management This division was chosen for two reasons First, it has a larger student population with about an equal proportion of male and female students Second, the placement test score of this group of students had a wider range of scores and normal distribution The students from the College of Management could decide voluntarily on whether they would like to participate in this study There were 505 copies of the questionnaire distributed and 433 returned, providing a response rate of 86% Incomplete questionnaires, as well as questionnaires from repeaters and foreign students were removed from the analysis, leaving a final sample size of 418 Demographic Information Regarding the Sample The participants in this study included 418 freshmen from the College of Management enrolled in the FENM program, with a total of 18 classes The subjects were 45% male and 55% female, and ranged in age from 18–22 As shown in Table 2, the low-level group consisted of 79 students with scores ranging from 19–50; the midlevel group consisted of 237 students with scores ranging from 51–74; and the high-level group consisted of 102 students with scores ranging from 75–91 Instrumentation The English Language Placement Test The English Language Placement Test has been used to measure the English proficiency of freshmen at Tunghai University since 1994 The test is designed to assess the students’ English competence in relation to other students The three sections of the test are listening, grammar, and reading The test measures students’ ability to listen and understand spoken English, read and understand English reading passages, and recognize correct English grammar usage No published validity and reliability information is available TABLE Distribution of Students by Proficiency Level Proficiency level N M SD Range of Score (%) Low Mid High 79 237 102 39.78 64.75 79.08 7.65 6.94 3.41 19–50 51–74 75–91 LEARNING STRATEGY AND ENGLISH PROFICIENCY 261 The placement test has served as an indication of students’ English proficiency for two major reasons First, the English subject test of the national college entrance exam is considered to be less comprehensive than the university’s placement test because it does not include a listening section, which is considered important for the program emphasis Second, other than the entrance exam English test scores, college applicants can provide their high school English grades and other English proficiency test scores as the proof of their English ability Without standard evaluation criteria, it is difficult to place the students into the most appropriate level in the curriculum The SILL Data of self-reported language learning strategy use were gathered using Oxford’s (1990) Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) Version 7.0 (ESL/EFL) The SILL is a Likert-scaled measurement that presents of a set of strategies for language learning across skills The 5-point scale ranges from “never or almost never” to “always or almost always.” The questionnaire has 50 strategy items: Items 1–9 are memory strategies, Items 10–23 are cognitive strategies, Items 24–29 are compensation strategies, Items 30–38 are metacognitive strategies, Items 39–44 are affective strategies, and Items 45–50 are social strategies Reliability for the SILL (Oxford, 1990) is high across many cultural groups with Cronbach’s alpha for internal consistency 0.93–0.98 (Oxford & BurryStock, 1995) In this study, the SILL was presented in Chinese to the participants to ensure that possible failure to understand the instructions or questions would not affect the responses The researcher used Liao’s (2000) Chinese version SILL, which yielded a Cronbach alpha value of 0.96 (Liao, 2000) Using the responses from the current participants, the reliability of SILL, as determined by Cronbach’s alpha, was 0.93 RESEARCH DESIGN A number of learner variables, such as language proficiency, national origin, and field of specialization, have been found to be strongly related to learning strategy choice (Oxford & Nyikos, 1989) The current study confined itself to one of the learner variables—language proficiency It examined how performance level affects the choice of language learning strategy In this survey study, language proficiency level was set as the independent variable, and learning strategy use was set as the dependent variable The dependent variable was subdivided into the following three areas: the mean score of the entire SILL, the mean 262 TESOL QUARTERLY scores of each of the six SILL strategy categories (memory, cognitive, compensation, metacognitive, affective, and social), and the mean scores of the 50 individual SILL items Data Collection Procedure In the beginning of the fall semester, the researcher explained the purpose of the study and the data collection procedures to the course instructors via e-mail and/or telephone The participants were informed by their instructors about the nature of this survey thereafter Data of self-reported language learning strategy use was collected during the first weeks of the semester The General Instructions to Administrators of the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL), which is presented in Oxford’s (1990) Language Learning Strategies: What Every Teacher Should Know, was used as the survey guidelines Prior to the administration of the survey, the researcher gave each instructor in charge of the class a copy of the guidelines Of the 18 classes, 17 course instructors administered the survey to students in their classes; the researcher administered one class with the course instructor present The survey was administered during regular class time RESULTS Research Question General Trends and Patterns for the Entire Group Mean scores of the entire SILL, the six subcategories of SILL, and the individual SILL items were calculated for the entire group as well as for each proficiency group According to Oxford (1990, p 300), mean scores that fall between 1.0 and 2.4 are defined as “low” strategy use, 2.5 and 3.4 as “medium” strategy use, and 3.5 and 5.0 as “high” strategy use These categories of ratings were theoretically and arithmetically chosen The participants reported a medium frequency for the mean strategy use on the entire SILL (M = 2.84, SD = 0.48) as well as the six categories of the SILL (see Table 3) Among the six strategy categories, the participants reported using compensation strategies most frequently and affective strategies least frequently (see Table 3) Analyzing the use of the individual strategy items for the entire group, it was found that the mostused strategies were those that involved guessing intelligently and overcoming limitations in using English, whereas the least-used items were those that involved speaking and writing to others in English LEARNING STRATEGY AND ENGLISH PROFICIENCY 263 TABLE Mean and Ranking Profile for Six SILL Categories of All Students SILL categories M SD Ranking Compensation Metacognitive Cognitive Social Memory Affective 3.09 2.88 2.83 2.82 2.74 2.73 0.62 0.68 0.55 0.68 0.53 0.61 Research Question Significant variation in mean strategy use across the entire SILL as well as in the six categories of the SILL in relation to proficiency level was determined by using ANOVA The Scheffe posthoc test was used to see where among the groups any significant differences lay χ2 tests were used to check all SILL items for significant variation by proficiency level These statistical procedures were similar to the ones used in Green and Oxford’s (1995) study This process of analysis allows for a direct comparison with data from previous SILL studies Variation in Use of the Entire SILL and the Six Strategy Categories The ANOVA tests revealed that proficiency level had a significant effect on frequency of strategy use across the entire SILL (p < 0.001) (see Table 4), as well as all six strategy categories (p < 0.001) (see Table 5) Such a positive variation suggested greater strategy use for a higher proficiency levels As shown in Table 5, the higher level students reported using the SILL learning strategies more frequently than the lower level students did The posthoc Scheffe test indicated that for the cognitive, compensation, metacognitive, and social strategy categories, high-level students used these strategies significantly more often than midlevel and low-level students, and midlevel students used these strategies significantly more often than low-level students (p < 0.05) As to the memory and affective strategy categories, the posthoc Scheffe test revealed that the low-level TABLE Variation in Use of the Entire SILL for Students with Different Proficiency Levels Low Dependent variable M SD Overall SILL 2.47 0.42 264 Mid M SD High M SD 2.86 0.45 3.09 0.42 F [2.371] 44.90 Significance level p < 0.001 Comments High > Mid > Low TESOL QUARTERLY (I write notes, messages, letters, or reports in English), Item 23 (I make summaries of information that I hear or read in English), Item 26 (I make up new words if I not know the right ones in English), Item 34 (I plan my schedule so I will have enough time to study English), and Item 43 (I write down my feelings in a language learning diary) These strategies were reported by the participants as of low use with mean scores lower than 2.5 There were also differences in the use of individual strategies among the three groups Item 32 (I pay attention when someone is speaking English), a popular metacognitive strategy favored by both the high-level and midlevel group with high frequency usage (M = 3.88 and 3.46, respectively), was used by the low-level group with relatively lower frequency (M = 2.84) In addition, among the 10 most popular strategies of the high-level group, there were used less frequently by the low-level group These were Item 32 (I pay attention when someone is speaking English) and Item 12 (I practice the sounds of English) Other strategies that distinguished the more and less proficient students included Item 10 (I say or write new English words several times), Item 19 (I look for words in my own language that are similar to new words in English), Item 21 (I find the meaning of an English word by dividing it into parts that I understand), Item 22 (I try not to translate word-for-word), Item 27 (I read in English without looking up every new word), and Item 33 (I try to find out how to be a better learner of English) The high-level students reported using these strategies with higher frequency (mean higher than 3.5), whereas the low-level students reported using them with relatively lower frequency (mean lower than 3.0) Of these eight strategies, five are in the cognitive strategy category and two are in the metacognitive strategy category These eight strategies contain the following three learning aspects: centering, arranging, and planning one’s learning; using analyzing and reasoning skills; and practicing the sounds and speaking skills The χ2 tests indicated that 42 of the 50 SILL items demonstrated statistically significant differences in frequency of strategy use by proficiency level The strategies which varied significantly by proficiency level are listed in Table in descending order for the observed χ2 value Of the 42 items that showed significant variation, 41 were classified as having positive variation because of their clear stair-step patterns None of the SILL items demonstrated negative variation An example of the regular (stair-step) pattern classified as positive is shown in the stacked bar graphs in Figure For each bar (proficiency level), the black areas represent the proportion of students responding (1) “never true” or (2) “generally not true” to the item, the white areas represent the proportion of students responding (3) “sometimes true” to the item, and the gray areas represent the proportion of students responding (4) “generally true” or (5) “always true” to the item With Item 12 266 TESOL QUARTERLY TABLE Item Showing Significant Positive Variation by Proficiency Level % high use (4 or 5) Item 22 COG I try not to translate word-for-word 36 MET I look for opportunities to read as much as possible in English 32 MET I pay attention when someone is speaking English MEM I review English lessons often 12 COG I practice the sounds of English 18 COG I first skim an English passage (read over the passage quickly) then go back and read carefully 31 MET I notice my English mistakes and use that information to help me better 10 MEM I say or write new English words several times 29 COM If I can’t think of an English word, I use a word or a phrase that means the same thing 49 SOC I ask questions in English 14 COG I start conversations in English 17 COG I write notes, messages, letters, or reports in English 38 MET I think about my progress in learning English 50 SOC I try to learn about the culture of English speakers 45 SOC If I not understand something in English, I ask the other person to slow down or say it again 37 MET I have clear goals for improving my English skills 35 MET I look for people I can talk to in English MEM I connect the sound of a new word and an image or picture of the word to help me remember the word 33 MET I try to find out how to be a better learner of English 11 COG I try to talk like native English speakers 16 COG I read for pleasure in English 39 AFF I try to relax whenever I feel afraid of using English 40 AFF I encourage myself to speak English even when I am afraid of making a mistake 42 AFF I notice if I am tense or nervous when I am studying or using English 24 COM To understand unfamiliar English words, I make guesses 30 MET I try to find as many ways I can use my English 27 COM I read in English without looking up every new word 23 COG I make summaries of information that I hear or read in English MEM I think of relationship between what I already know and new things I learn in English 19 COG I look for words in my own language that are similar to new words in English 47 SOC I practice English with other students 20 COG I try to find patterns in English 25 COM When I can’t think of a word during a conversation in English, I use gestures 15 COG I watch English language TV shows spoken in English or go to movies spoken in English MEM I remember a new English word by making a mental picture of a situation in which the word might be used MEM I use new English words in a sentence so I remember them High Mid Low χ2 56 24 31 19 60.22 53.73 68 31 56 50 49 22 38 44 25 14 23 51.99 48.47 39.47 32.75 46 34 17 32.16 56 86 41 71 22 57 31.82 30.68 19 18 41 43 70 14 10 24 27 62 17 17 38 30.45 26.81 26.45 26.14 24.99 24.79 45 18 48 34 30 19 15 23.84 23.80 23.64 57 44 47 45 49 27 39 35 30 17 27 19 22.24 21.94 21.57 21.47 21.04 64 50 39 21.01 74 36 58 14 62 21 46 54 18 29 20.77 18.57 18.12 17.63 44 31 29 17.58 59 48 33 17.14 10 28 49 10 21 38 11 28 16.70 15.65 15.49 54 39 34 15.17 46 31 23 14.21 11 14.01 (Continued) LEARNING STRATEGY AND ENGLISH PROFICIENCY 267 TABLE (Continued) % high use (4 or 5) Item 28 COM I try to guess what the other person will say next in English 21 COG I find the meaning of an English word by dividing it into parts that I understand 48 SOC I ask for help from English speakers 34 MET I plan my schedule so I will have enough time to study English MEM I remember new English words or phrases by remembering their location on the page, on the board, or on a street sign 13 COG I use the English words I know in different ways High Mid Low χ2 20 16 14 12.68 52 45 33 12.27 36 26 23 11.04 10.97 38 35 22 10.23 24 14 13 9.56 Note Critical Value of χ2 = 9.49 (df = 4), p < 0.05 MEM = memory strategy; COG = cognitive strategy; COM = compensation strategy; MET = metacognitive strategy; AFF = affective strategy; SOC = social strategy (see Figure and Table 7), the percentage of students reporting high strategy use increased at higher proficiency levels (low-level: 13.9%; midlevel: 38.0%; high-level: 55.9%), and the percentage of students reporting low use decreased at a higher proficiency level (low-level: 49.4%; midlevel: 27.8%; high-level: 15.7%) FIGURE Example of Regular (Stair-Step) Pattern Classified as Positive: Item 12, I practice the sound of English Note χ2 = 39.472 (df = 4), p < 0.05 268 TESOL QUARTERLY TABLE Example of Regular (Stair-Step) Pattern Classified as Positive: Item 12, I practice the sound of English High Mid Low Black areas-low use (1) “Never true” or (2) “Generally not true” White areas-mid use (3) “Sometimes true” Gray areas-high use (4) “Generally true” or (5) “Always true” N Response % Response % Response % 102 203 79 16 66 39 15.7% 27.8% 49.4% 29 81 29 28.4% 34.2% 36.7% 57 90 11 55.9% 38.0% 13.9% Note χ2 = 39.472 (df = 4), p < 0.05 Item 20 was the only item classified as having a non–stair-step positive variation (see Figure and Table 8) The percentage of students reporting high strategy use showed a clear stair-step increase at higher proficiency levels, but the percentage of students reporting low use did not follow a step-by-step decrease sequence (The black areas of the midlevel group is slightly smaller than that of the high-level group.) Even though the pattern of variation was somewhat mixed, Item 20 was classified as positive variation because the pattern showed more frequency of strategy use at higher levels For some of the strategies demonstrating strong positive variation (with high χ2 value), large proportions of the high-level students and small FIGURE Non–Stair-Step Variation Characterized as Positive: Item 20, I try to find patterns in English Note χ2 = 39.472 (df = 4), p < 0.05 LEARNING STRATEGY AND ENGLISH PROFICIENCY 269 TABLE Non–Stair-Step Variation Characterized as Positive: Item 20, I try to find patterns in English High Mid Low Black areas-low use (1) “Never true” or (2) “Generally not true” White areas-mid use (3) “Sometimes true” Gray areas-high use (4) “Generally true” or (5) “Always true” N Response % Response % Response % 102 203 79 42 96 59 41.2% 40.5% 62.0% 31 91 21 30.4% 38.4% 26.6% 29 50 28.4% 21.1% 11.4% Note χ2 = 15.648 (df = 4), p < 0.05 proportions of the low-level students reported high strategy use with responses of or (see Table 6) Many of these strategies belong to the metacognitive and cognitive categories For example, 56% of the high-level students reported high strategy use, but only 6% of the low-level students reported high strategy use for Item 22 (I try not to translate word-for-word) Item 12 (I practice the sounds of English) serves as another example With this item, 56% of the high-level students reported high strategy use, but only 14% of the low-level students reported high strategy use Some strategies that varied significantly by proficiency level were used infrequently by the entire group of students For example, less than 10% of the entire group reported using the following strategies: 4% for Item 17 (I write notes, messages, letters, or reports in English), 3% for Item 16 (I read for pleasure in English), 9% for Item 23 (I make summaries of information that I hear or read in English), 7% for Item (I use new English words in a sentence so I remember them), and 6% for Item 34 (I plan my schedule so I will have enough time to study English) The χ2 tests also revealed that eight items did not show significant variation by proficiency level (see Table 9) Adopting Green and Oxford’s (1995) method, the study used the percentage of respondents reporting high strategy use with responses of or as an indication of the popularity of a strategy According to Green and Oxford, strategies for which 50% or more of the respondents reported high strategy use are defined as “frequently used,” 20%–49% as “moderately used,” and less than 20% as “infrequently used.” The percentage of respondents reporting high strategy use and the observed χ2 for each individual strategy item are listed in Table in descending order of the percentage of respondents reporting high strategy use As seen in Table 9, none of the strategies were reported as high use by the students Item 5, 41, 6, and 46 were moderately used by respondents across proficiency levels, with 21%–36% of the students reporting high strategy use As to the infrequently used strategies, the results indicated that less than 20% of the students reported a high use of “talk to someone else about how they feel when they are learning English,” “make up new words if they 270 TESOL QUARTERLY TABLE Item Showing No Significant Variation by Proficiency Level Item I Strategies used frequently at all levels (50% or more of students reporting high use) None II Strategies used moderately at all levels (20%–49% of students reporting high use) MEM I use rhymes to remember new English words 41 AFF I give myself a reward or treat when I well in English MEM I use flashcards to remember new English words 46 SOC I ask English speakers to correct me when I talk III Strategies used infrequently at all levels (fewer than 20% of students reporting high use) 44 AFF I talk to someone else about how I feel when I am learning English 26 COM I make up new words if I not know the right ones in English MEM I physically act out new English words 43 AFF I write down my feelings in a language learning diary % high use (4 or 5) χ2 36 29 24 21 3.13 6.86 7.73 4.18 16 0.09 11 1.53 8.54 4.67 Note Critical Value of χ2 = 9.49 (df = 4), p < 0.05 MEM = memory strategy; COG = cognitive strategy; COM = compensation strategy; MET = metacognitive strategy; AFF = affective strategy; SOC = social strategy not know the right ones in English,” “physically act out new English words,” and “write down their feelings in a language learning diary.” DISCUSSION General Trends and Patterns of Strategy Use of All Participants The participants reported using the entire SILL and the six strategy categories of the SILL in the medium frequency In general, EFL learners in foreign language settings reported at the medium frequency for the overall mean strategy use on the SILL However, it was found that the overall mean strategy use of the EFL learners in this study was slightly lower than that of learners with a similar education level in other EFL settings For instance, the results of two studies surveying Chinese EFL learners from the People’s Republic of China (Nisbet, 2002) and Hong Kong (Bremner, 1999), and another study surveying Korean EFL learners in Korea (Park, 1997) indicated a higher overall mean The overall mean score of these three groups of learners were 3.45, 2.99, and 3.21, respectively, and were higher than that of the learners in this study (M = 2.84) Cultural setting and national origin can have an effect on students’ strategy choice The learner groups mentioned were from different LEARNING STRATEGY AND ENGLISH PROFICIENCY 271 regions Even though Mandarin is the official language for these three Chinese speaking groups, the mother tongues and the languages commonly used in these three territories are not the same For example, Cantonese is the dominant and one of the two official languages of Hong Kong; Taiwanese and Mandarin are two major mother tongues commonly used in Taiwan; among the various dialects spoken in the People’s Republic of China, the official language, Mandarin, is most widely used Other factors such as the English language education system, students’ awareness of their learning process, teachers’ teaching methods and curricula emphases may influence the ways students learn, including the use of learning strategies All these factors could be the possible causes of the participants’ lower strategy use There is also the possibility that the participants in this study were not sufficiently aware of their strategy use and thus reported lower usage of learning strategies As noted by Wharton (2000), it was found also that with learners in foreign language learning environments—such as learners in the current study and in Park’s (1997), Yang’s (1992), and Wharton’s studies— the mean of overall strategy use was in general lower than those found in studies conducted in second language settings (e.g., Phillips, 1991; Griffiths, 2003; Goh & Kwah, 1997) Wharton speculated that such mean difference could be caused by differences in “availability of authentic input, interaction opportunities and motivation” (p 229) in the different language learning environments This study appears to support these arguments In Taiwan, the languages in use include mother tongues, such as Taiwanese and Hakka; and the national language, Mandarin English, a major foreign language taught in school, however, is not used by people in society Unlike in the United States and Australia where English is the language in use, in Taiwan, authentic language input and opportunity for interaction in English is unavailable It is likely, therefore, that for this reason, the subjects responded that they had a low use of learning strategies related to using English in daily life The subjects reported using compensation strategies more frequently than other types of learning strategies The results are in agreement with the data collected by most researchers in Taiwan, who used students with different educational levels, such as Chen (2002) who used technology students, Liao (2000) who used high school students, and Yang (1992) who used college students In light of these similar results, it seems that regardless of proficiency level and learning stage, EFL learners in Taiwan rely heavily on strategies that help them to overcome deficiencies in knowledge when using English The specific techniques the subjects reported using most frequently included guessing intelligently by using linguistic or other clues and overcoming limitations in using the language by using gesture, circumlocution, or synonyms This finding also 272 TESOL QUARTERLY revealed that the strategies related to functions of the language were important in their English learning process Among all six categories of the SILL, affective strategies and memory strategies, which ranked sixth and fifth respectively, were reported as infrequently used by all students The results revealed that these students tended not to use affective strategies that helped them regulate their emotions, motivation, and attitudes while they learned and used English As in the current study, some studies (e.g., Goh & Kwah, 1997; Bremner, 1999; Phillips, 1991; Yang, 1992) that surveyed Chinese EFL learners also reported memory strategies as being used with low frequency The low usage of memory strategies, however, contradicts the popular belief that Chinese EFL learners generally rely mostly on memory-related skills in learning English Goh and Kwah (1997) argued that the low usage of memory strategies resulted from the students’ being unfamiliar with the memory skills listed in the SILL questionnaire This same phenomenon might apply to EFL learners in Taiwan as well As a former college English language instructor in Taiwan, the researcher observed that the EFL students did memorize language input, such as vocabulary and grammar rules; however, many students used rote memorizing rather than other more useful memory strategies, such as using new English words in a sentence It is also likely that some popular memory strategies the Chinese students adopt are not included in the SILL For example, the keyword method, a very popular and effective memory strategy used among Chinese students to memorize new vocabulary, is not listed in the SILL It seems that the SILL is not perfectly useful for eliciting all the strategies Chinese students use Patterns of Variation in Strategy Use by Proficiency Level Like previous SILL studies (e.g., Green & Oxford, 1995; Kim, 2001; Tuan & Hsu, 1996) the findings of this study showed that there was a significantly greater overall use of language learning strategies among higher level students As to the use of the six subcategories of learning strategies, compared with other SILL studies that used similar statistical analyses (e.g., Goh & Kwah, 1997; Bremner, 1999; Phillips, 1991; Green & Oxford, 1995; Wharton, 2000), this study is the only one that found significant positive relationships to the proficiency level for all six strategy categories Although the participants as a whole reported using all six types of strategy with quite similar frequency, when divided into three proficiency groups, differences were found The results showed more strategy use at the higher proficiency level Similarities and differences in use of the six categories of SILL were found among the three proficiency groups The results showed that all three groups used compensation strategies most LEARNING STRATEGY AND ENGLISH PROFICIENCY 273 often Important differences could be seen between the high-level and low-level group when comparisons were made The high proficiency students favored metacognitive and cognitive strategies more and used memory strategies the least Low proficiency students, on the other hand, favored social and memory strategies more and used cognitive and metacognitive strategies the least The results suggest that cognitive strategies, which help learners to understand and produce the language, and metacognitive strategies, which allow learners to control their own cognition, might be two types of strategies essential for successful language learning These findings confirm those of previous studies (e.g., Abraham & Vann, 1987; Bruen, 2001; Green & Oxford, 1995; O’Malley & Chamot, 1990; Park, 1997; Peacock & Ho, 2003; Wharton, 2000), which showed cognitive and metacognitive strategies were positively related to higher language proficiency Though evidence shows that cognitive and metacognitive strategies are related to effective learning outcomes, some caution should be taken when interpreting the results As mentioned previously, the direction in this causal relationship is still unclear There is also the possibility that the proficient learners use more cognitive and metacognitive strategies because they are more capable in making use of these strategies In looking at the individual item level, for the majority of the strategies, the percentage of respondents reporting high use of the strategies increased at the higher proficiency levels The χ2 tests revealed that 42 of the 50 strategies demonstrated both statistically significant and positive variation in strategy use by proficiency level These findings provide strong evidence for the connection between frequency of learning strategy use and language proficiency It is noted that the strong connection could be found in studies with large sample sizes and a wide range of proficiency levels, such as the current study In this study, the proportion of items that showed both significant and positive variation is much higher than that in previous SILL studies, using the same data analysis procedures (e.g., Green & Oxford, 1995; Wharton, 2000) In Green and Oxford’s (1995) study, 22 of the 50 strategies demonstrated significant positive variation by course level, as did 39 of the 80 strategies in Wharton’s (2000) study Unlike Green and Oxford’s and Wharton’s studies which suggest that the strategies that distinguish the more proficient from the less proficient students are those that involve an “active use of the target language, with a strong emphasis on the practice in natural or naturalistic situations” (Oxford, 1990, p 288), in this study, because more than four-fifths of the strategy items demonstrated both significant and positive variation, trends and patterns of participants’ strategy use were difficult to determine For all that, the findings of this study revealed that the strategies reported as frequently used by high-level learners, but not by low-level learners, were mostly metacognitive and cognitive strategies Even more details were revealed after analyzing the individual strategy items The 274 TESOL QUARTERLY strategies reported as used more frequently by more proficient students were: centering, arranging, and planning one’s learning; using analyzing and reasoning skills; and practicing sounds and speaking These strategies distinguished more proficient from less proficient students Some strategies were reported by all the participants as infrequently used Many of these least-used strategies were those that involved interacting with others using English, such as practicing English by making use of new language input as well as constant writing and speaking The causes of the low usage of these strategies may be attributed to two aspects First, the test-oriented educational system in Taiwan makes teachers and students focus mainly on preparing for standardized tests Because the tests assess mostly reading, grammar, and writing ability, students tend to neglect speaking and listening ability Second, the insufficient English language learning environment in Taiwan offers few opportunities to learn the language outside the classroom Unlike learners in second language learning environments (such as the United States), learners in Taiwan have fewer opportunities to use and practice English (except in English classrooms) Their mother tongue serves better in terms of functions of the language For this reason, strategies which have low functions in real life situations, such as practicing English; talking with others; or writing notes, messages, letters or reports in English are therefore used less frequently by EFL learners in Taiwan Nevertheless, it is noted that some of the least-used strategies were found to differentiate significantly between successful and less successful learners in other language learning settings For instance, Bremner (1999), Peacock and Ho (2003), and Green and Oxford (1995) reported that “reading for pleasure” was significantly associated with proficiency level, and Green and Oxford (1995), Peacock and Ho (2003), and Wharton (2000) found that “writing notes, messages, letters or reports in English” varied significantly among more and less proficient learners Even though these strategies did show significant variation by course level in the current study, they were used infrequently, with only 3% of the entire group reporting high use in “reading for pleasure,” and with only 4% of the entire group reporting high use in “writing notes, messages, letters or reports in English.” It is probably because of the educational emphasis, the EFL learning environment, and the learners’ lack of motivation that some strategies were used infrequently by the participants However, it is imperative to develop all four language skills and use various kinds of learning strategies EFL teachers in Taiwan should encourage unsuccessful learners to use the learning strategies that they neglected yet which are proven to be strongly related to higher levels of language proficiency Though there might not be a strategy effective for all learners (Rubin, 1975), it is likely that some students may discover new helpful strategies after trying strategies they seldom or never used before LEARNING STRATEGY AND ENGLISH PROFICIENCY 275 IMPLICATIONS Based on the findings of this study, some pedagogical implications are suggested Strong evidence indicates that more proficient learners use more strategies; therefore, the importance of making all students aware of their own learning process and teaching students all the learning strategies available to them should not be neglected Training students in using learning strategies and assisting them in developing their own unique ways of learning would make them independent and effective learners The study’s findings confirm those of previous studies (e.g., Bruen, 2001; Green & Oxford, 1995; Park, 1997; Peacock & Ho, 2003; Wharton, 2000) that cognitive and metacognitive strategies are related to higher language proficiency Helping foreign/second language learners to better understand and produce the language and assisting them to control their own cognition are thus crucial and should be the center of emphasis in strategy instruction Specific strategy items that have been found to differentiate between successful and less successful learners in this study as well as in other linguistic/cultural settings are: “reading for pleasure” (e.g., Bremner, 1999; Peacock & Ho, 2003; Green & Oxford, 1995) and “writing notes, message, letters or reports in English” (e.g., Green & Oxford, 1995; Peacock & Ho, 2003; Wharton, 2000) The findings reveal the importance of promoting free voluntary reading and encouraging authentic and meaningful use of language In addition to the effective strategies that have been generalized across diverse contexts as previously listed, EFL teachers in Taiwan should also assist the unsuccessful learners in arranging and planning learning; using analyzing and reasoning skills; and practicing English sounds and speaking skills when learning English It is also essential that students be encouraged to explore and employ the strategies that they ignore but that have proven to be beneficial for language learning For the participants in this study, these strategies include practicing English by making use of new language input as well as constantly writing and speaking the language It is also imperative that teachers enrich the learning environments in the classrooms by offering more access and chances for students to learn, use, and practice English This suggestion must be stressed in EFL learning environments because most of these settings not offer sufficient opportunities for students to learn English outside the limits of the classroom CONCLUSION The results of this study are consistent with findings from the majority of previous strategy studies (e.g., Bruen, 2001; Chamot et al., 1988; Chen, 2002; Green & Oxford, 1995; Oxford & Nyikos, 1989; Park, 1997; Wharton, 276 TESOL QUARTERLY 2000) which suggest more frequent strategy use by more proficient learners They also support the claims that metacognitive and cognitive strategies are closely related to a higher level of language proficiency (Abraham & Vann, 1987; O’Malley & Chamot, 1990; Park, 1997) Additionally, this study provides more detailed information regarding use of individual strategies and reveals new evidence regarding the difference between more proficient and less proficient learners in choosing available language learning strategies Some cautions remain with regard to the validity and generalizability of the findings in the study The sampling of the data was limited to entering freshmen in one university in Taiwan Some of the findings are, therefore, limited to this study and may not be generlizable to language learners with different native languages, cultural backgrounds, or language learning settings In the current study, the researcher used Oxford’s (1990) SILL questionnaire to identify language learning strategies and a language placement test to determine the level of language proficiency By using structured written strategy questionnaires to acquire data, the research obtained findings that were more objective and generalizable Even though the SILL is considered to be a reliable inventory, it has potential problems associated with its use of self-report techniques and questionnaires (Ellis, 1994; LoCastro, 1994; Oxford & Green, 1995) In addition, the SILL might not always be able to extract learners’ actual strategy use There remains the possibility that some strategies used by learners are not included in the inventory Future research could consider employing multiple data collection procedures by combining the use of SILL questionnaires with other research methods, such as interviews and classroom observation, to yield further and perhaps more trustworthy findings A weakness of the proficiency measurement used in this study lies in its not including a communicative component To more precisely measure learners’ language proficiency, it is recommended that proficiency tests be used that assess all four language skills and that are recognized worldwide More research is needed to better understand learner strategy use and the connection between strategy use and language proficiency Such studies need to be completed with different groups of language learners, with an emphasis on analyzing learners’ use of individual learning strategies ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank Dr David B Yaden, Jr for his valuable comments and suggestions on an earlier draft of this article Appreciation is extended to the instructors who assisted me with the data collection and the students who participated in the study LEARNING STRATEGY AND ENGLISH PROFICIENCY 277 THE AUTHOR Ying-Chun Lai is an assistant professor in the School of Applied Foreign Languages at Chung Shan Medical University in Taichung, Taiwan, ROC REFERENCES Abraham, R G., & Vann, R J (1987) Strategies of two language learners: A case study In A Wenden & J Rubin (Eds.), Learner strategies in language learning (pp 85–102) Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Anderson, J R (1983) The architecture of cognition Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press Anderson, J R (1985) Cognitive psychology and its implication New York: Freeman Bandura, A (1986) Social functions of thought and action: A social cognitive theory Englewood Cliffs, NI: Prentice-Hall Bremner, S (1999) Language learning strategies and language proficiency: Investigating the relationship in Hong Kong Canadian Modern Language Review, 55, 490–514 Bruen, J (2001) Strategies for Success: Profiling the effective learner of German Foreign Language Annals, 34, 216–225 Chamot, A U., & El-Dinary, P B (1999) Children’s learning strategies in immersion classrooms Modern Language Journal, 83, 319–338 Chamot, A U., & Küpper, L (1989) Learning strategies in foreign language instruction Foreign Language Annals, 22, 13–24 Chamot, A U., Küpper, L., & Impink-Hernandez, M (1988) A study of learning strategies in foreign language instruction: Findings of the longitudinal study McLean, VA: Interstate Research Associates Chen, I J (2002) Language learning strategies used by high and low English proficiency students in a technology college Unpublished master’s thesis, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan Chen, S Q (1990) A study of communication strategies in interlanguage production by Chinese EFL learners Language Learning, 40, 155–187 Cohen, A D (1998) Strategies in learning and using a second language London: Longman Ellis, R (1994) The study of second language acquisition Oxford: Oxford University Press Goh, C., & Kwah, P F (1997) Chinese ESL students’ learning strategies: A look at frequency, proficiency and gender Hong Kong Journal of Applied Linguistics, 2, 39–53 Green, J M., & Oxford, R L (1995) A closer look at learning strategies, L2 proficiency, and gender TESOL Quarterly, 29, 261–297 Griffiths, C (2003) Patterns of language learning strategy use System, 31, 367–383 Khaldieh, A S (2000) Learning strategies and writing processes of proficient vs lessproficient learners of Arabic Foreign Language Annals, 33, 522–534 Kim, K H (2001) Language learning strategies, learning styles, and beliefs about language learning of Korean university students Journal of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics, 5, 31–46 Liao, Y F (2000) A study of Taiwanese junior high school students’ EFL learning motivation and learning strategies Unpublished master’s thesis, National Changhua University of Education, Changhua, Taiwan 278 TESOL QUARTERLY LoCastro, V (1994) Learner strategies and learning environment TESOL Quarterly, 28, 409–414 McIntyre, P D (1994) Toward a social psychological model of strategy use Foreign Language Annuals, 27, 185–195 McLaughlin, B (1987) Theories of second language learning London: Arnold Naiman, N., Frohlich, M., Stern, H H., & Todesco, A (1978) The good language learner Research in Education Series, No Toronto: Ontario Institution for Studies in Education Nisbet, D L (2002) Language learning strategies and English proficiency of Chinese university students (Doctoral dissertation, Regent University, 2002) Dissertation Abstracts International, 63 (10), 3500A O’Malley, J M., & Chamot, A U (1990) Learning strategies in second language acquisition Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press Oxford, R L (1990) Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Newbury House Oxford, R L., & Burry-Stock, J A (1995) Assessing the use of language learning strategies worldwide with ESL/EFL version of the Strategies Inventory for Language Learning System, 23, 153–175 Oxford, R L., & Cohen, A (1992) Language learning strategies: Crucial issues of concept and classification Applied Language Learning, 3, 1–35 Oxford, R L., & Green, J M (1995) Making sense of learning strategy assessment: Toward a higher standard of research accuracy (Comments on Virginia LoCastro’s “Learning strategies and learning environments”) TESOL Quarterly, 29, 166–174 Oxford, R L., & Nyikos, M (1989) Variables affecting choice of language learning strategies by university students Modern Language Journal, 73, 291–300 Park, G (1997) Language learning strategies and English proficiency in Korean University students Foreign Language Annuals, 30, 211–221 Peacock, M., & Ho, B (2003) Student language learning strategies across eight disciplines International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 13, 179–200 Phillips, V (1991) A look at learner strategy use and ESL proficiency The CATESOL Journal, 4, 57–67 Rees-Miller, J (1993) A critical appraisal of leaner training: Theoretical based and teaching implications TESOL Quarterly, 27, 679–689 Rubin, J (1975) What the “good language learner” can teach us TESOL Quarterly, 9, 41–51 Rubin, J (1981) Study of cognitive processes in second language learning Applied Linguistics, 2, 117–131 Stern, H H (1975) What can we learn from the good language learner Canadian Modern Language Review, 31, 304–318 Tuan, H T., & Hsu, C F (1996) Language proficiency as a variable influencing language learning strategy choice The proceedings of the fifth international symposium on English teaching (pp 91–107) Taipei, Taiwan: The Crane Publishing Company Ltd Vandergrift, L (1997) The comprehension strategies of second language (French) listeners: A descriptive study Foreign Language Annals, 30, 387–409 Vann, R J., & Abraham, R G (1990) Strategies of unsuccessful language learners TESOL Quarterly, 24, 177–198 Vygotsky, L S (1978) Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press Wenden, A (1987) Conceptual background and utility In A Wenden & J Rubin (Eds.), Learner strategies in language learning (pp 3–14) Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall LEARNING STRATEGY AND ENGLISH PROFICIENCY 279 Weinstein, C E., & Mayer, R E (1986) The teaching of learning strategies In M C Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp 315–327) New York: Macmillan Wharton, G (2000) Language learning strategy use of bilingual foreign language learners in Singapore Language Learning, 50, 203–243 Yang, N D (1992) Second language learners’ beliefs about language learning and their use of language learning strategies: A study of college students of English in Taiwan (Doctoral dissertation, University of Texas at Austin, Texas, 1992) Dissertation Abstracts International, 53(8), 2722A 280 TESOL QUARTERLY