Investigation of EFL Language Learners’ Strategies and Motivational Or

 

 

 

The aim of this study was to explore the relationship between English Language Learning Strategies (LLSs) and motivational orientations including Amotivation, Extrinsic orientation and Intrinsic orientation. To do so, 131 university students, studying English as a Foreign Language (EFL), by use of cluster sampling were randomly selected. To assess English Language Learning Strategies, “Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL)” and in order to estimate motivational orientation, Language Learning Orientations Scale (LLOS) were applied. Multiple Regression was used to analyze the data. The results displayed that there is a significantly negative relationship between scored obtained from LLSs and amotivtaion. Furthermore, no significant relationship has been found between Extrinsic orientation and LLSs; while there was a significantly positive relationship between Intrinsic orientation and scored obtained from LLSs.

 

Keywords: Language Learning Strategies, Motivational orientations, Language Learning orientations Scale (LLOS), Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL)

 

 

 

There is a rich literature on motivational orientations in general psychology, which has not been fully exploited in EFL/ESL contexts. The main body of work in SLA research is that associated with Gardner, Lambert and their associates. Motivation, so measured, affects the extent to which individual learners preserve in learning a language, the kinds of learning behaviors they employ ( for example, the level of participants in the classroom), and their actual achievement (Ellis, 1994).

The strength of learners’ motivation can be expressed to have a casual effect in the quantity of language learning strategy they employ. Oxford and Nikos (1989), in a study of students of foreign languages in universities in United States, found that “the degree of expressed motivation was the single most powerful influence on the choice of language learning strategies (1989:42).

 

In O’malley and Chamot’s framework (1990), three major types of strategy including “metacognitive, cognitive and social” are distinguished.

Another comprehensive classification of language learning strategy is provided by Oxford. The classification scheme she first came up with (Oxford, 1985) was used as a basis for constructing a questionnaire on language learning strategy. The Strategy Inventory for Language learning (SILL) contained items tapping 64 individual strategies divided into two main groups, primary strategies and support strategies.

In Oxford (1990), a general distinction is drawn between direct and indirect strategies. The former consists of “ strategies that directly involve the target language” in the sense that they “ require mental processing of the language” (199:37), while the latter “ provide indirect support for language learning through focusing, planning, evaluating, seeking opportunities, controlling anxiety, increasing cooperation and empathy and other means” (1990:151).

In Ellis (1994: 531), a sample of definitions of language learning strategies, taken from the recent literature is presented as follow:

 

 

 

Stern 1983        ‘In our view strategy is best reserved for general tendencies

 

Weinstein         ‘ Learning strategies are the behaviors and thoughts that a

and                     learner engages in during learning that are intended to 

Mayer 1986        influence the learner’s encoding process.’

 

Chamot 1987    ‘Learning strategies are techniques, approaches or          

Rubin 1987    ‘ Learning strategies are strategies which contribute to the

 

Oxford 1989   ‘Language learning strategies are behaviors or actions which

       It should be noted here that, according to Ellis (1994), a number of differences between the learning strategies used by learners in a classroom as opposed to those used in a more natural setting have been found. Studies of classroom learners suggest that social strategies are rare. Chamot et al. (1988), for example contended that their classroom learners mentioned social and affective strategies infrequently, the only exception being ‘questioning for clarification’. 

Moreover, Ellis added that there may also be differences in strategy use according to whether the classroom setting is a second or foreign language one. The EFL students investigated by Chamot et al. (1987) claimed to use some strategies not mentioned by O’Malley et al. (1985) ESL students (for example, rehearsal, translation, note-taking, substitution, and contextualization).  The EFL students also reported relying on cognitive strategies (in relation to metacognitive and socio-affective strategies) to a lesser extent than the ESL students (Ellis, 1994).

 

 

This study aims to investigate following questions:

1- Would Motivational orientation (amotivation, extrinsic and intrinsic) predict English Language Learning Strategies (memory, cognitive, metacognitive, affective and social)?

 

2- In comparison, what type of orientation would have a significant contribution to predict English Language Learning Strategies?

 

In the present study in order to investigate the relationship between motivational orientations as predict variables and language learning Strategy as independent variable, multiple regression was applied.

 

 Participants

 

131 university students (Female=79, Male= 52), studying English Language as a Foreign Language (EFL) at Isfahan University were selected. Their age ranged between 19-25 yours old which for the present study both gender and age variables are excluded.

By use of cluster sampling, 8 English classrooms were randomly selected. In order to assess motivational orientation, Language Learning Orientation Scale (LLOS) (Noles,et. 2000) was implemented.

This scale contains three subscales including “aorientation”, “extrinsic orientation” and “intrinsic orientation”. Amotivation subscale itself is composed of 3 questions. For instance, “ I don’t know why I should learn English Language”, or “ I can’t catch what I’m doing during studying English.”

Extrinsic orientation subscale has 9 questions. For example, “I’m learning English language to be successful in my future carrier.”

Intrinsic orientation subscale has 9 questions as well. For instance, “I’m learning English since I would be internally delighted whenever I find out new things.”

Generally, LLOS consists of 21 questions in which each question has 1-to-5 degree options. Total score obtained from each subscale indicated the type of orientation for the individual.

In order to estimate “reliability” of such scale, t-test method was used. That is, 34 participants took the exam twice within four-week period.  Reliability indices for amotivation, intrinsic and extrinsic orientation were 0.70, 0.78 and 0.79, and Cronbach coefficients were 0.86, 0.82 and 0.78, respectively.

 

 

Table1.  T-test and Cronbach coefficient of language learning strategies (LLS)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(β =-0.194, p<0.009) and memory strategy, and while intrinsic orientation had a significantly positive (β=0.250, p<0.008) relationship with memory strategy, extrinsic orientation had no significant relationship with it. In addition, there was a significantly negative

(β= -0.147, p<0.04) relationship between cognitive strategy and amotivation. Also, “intrinsic orientation” had a significantly positive relationship (β=0.255, p<0.006) with cognitive strategy. But, there was not a significant relationship between extrinsic orientation and these types of strategy (memory, cognitive).

 

Table 2. Coefficients of LLSs and Predict Variables

 

 

 

LLs: Language Learning Strategies

PV: Predict Variable

Ins: Indices

AM: Amotivation

EM: Extrinsic Motivation

IM: Intrinsic Motivation

 

    Furthermore, findings on relationship between motivational orientations and compensation strategy showed that only intrinsic orientation had a significant relationship (β=0.198, p<0.04) with compensation strategy. Also, scored obtained from amotivation and extrinsic orientation did not have a significant relationship with this strategy.

As shown in table (2), there is a negatively significant relationship between amotivation and “metacognitive strategy” (β=-0.260, p<0.0001). Intrinsic orientation had a significantly positive relationship (β=0.287, p<0.001) with this type f strategy. However; there was not a significant relationship between extrinsic orientation and metacognitive strategy.

There was a significantly positive relationship (β=0.329, p<0.0001) only between intrinsic orientation and affective strategy. In other words, increasing intrinsic orientation was concomitant with growing use of affective strategy.

Eventually, regarding the relationship between motivational orientation and social strategy, findings indicated that only intrinsic orientation had a significantly positive relationship with social strategy (β=0.302, p<0.001). Moreover, amotivation and extrinsic orientations showed no significant relationship social strategy. Thus, the answer to the research second question is “intrinsic orientation” which at most predicted all strategies.   

 

 

Results showed while there was no significant relationship among motivational orientations and use of compensation, affective and social strategies, they has a significantly negative relationship with memory, cognitive and metacognitive strategies. Thus, whenever language learners become demotivated, the use of those strategies decreased. Some English language research, for instance, Noles and et al’s work (2000) verifies findings of this study. In addition, findings clarified that there was an indirect relationship between motivation and English language learning tasks.

Third finding is concerned with lack of any significant relationship between extrinsic orientation and language learning strategies scores. This finding is congruous with previous studies. Since intrinsic orientation is highly related to external data analysis, it would not have any significant relationship with LLSs. Which are dealing with internal data analysis. Moreover, according to Noles and et al. (2000), because extrinsic orientation is repressive, there is no significant relationship between it and EFL promising activities.

Regarding the research second question, finding denoted that, in contrast to amotivation and extrinsic orientations, intrinsic motivation has predicted English language learning strategies more than others.

This finding contended that intrinsic orientation was developed as an alternative to goal-directed theories of motivation that emphasizes the role of extrinsic rewards and punishments. It should be noted here that one way in which intrinsic orientation in second or foreign language learning might be achieved is only by providing EFL/ESL students to communicate while employing ELLSs.

 

 

 

 

 

Aiken,L.S., & West,S.G.(1991). Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions. Newbury Park,CA: Sage.

Bialystok,E. (1982).  On the relationship between knowing and using forms. Applied linguistics 3: 181-206.

Chamot, A., J.O’Malley, L. Kupper, & M. Impink- Hernandez. (1987). A Study of Learning Strategies in Foreign language Institution: First Year Report. Rosslyn, Va.: Interstate Research Associates.

Chamot,A. (1978). ‘ The learning strategies of ESL student’s in WENDEN and Rubin (Eds) (1987).

Cole, R. A., & Williams, D.M. (1973). Pupil responses to teacher questions: Cognitive level, length and syntax. Educational Leadership, 31 : 142-145.

Davis, O. L., & Tinsley, D.C. (1967). Cognitive objectives revealed by classroom questions asked by social studies teachers. Peabody Journal of Education, 45: 21-26.

Ellis, R. (1994). The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford. Oxford University Press.

Færch, C. (1985). Meta talk in FL classroom discourse. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 7: 184-99.

Mangubhi, F. (1991). The processing behavior of adult second language learners and their relationship to second language proficiency. Applied linguistics 12: 268-98.

Freed, B.F. (1978). Foreigner talk: A study of speech adjustments made by native speakers of English in conversation with non-native speakers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Galassi, J. P., Gall, M. D., Dunning, B., & Banks, H. (1974). The use of written versus videotape instruction to train teachers in questioning skills. Journal of Experimental Education, 43: 16-23.

Long, M.H. (1982). Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation in the second language classroom. In M.A. Clarke & J. Handscombe (Eds.), On TESOL ’82 (pp. 207-225). Washington, DC: TESOL.

Long, M.H. (1983). Linguistic and conversational adjustments to nonnative speakers. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 5, 177-193.

Long, M. H., & Sato, C.J. (1983). Classroom foreigner talk discourse: Forms and functions of teachers’ questions. In H.W. Seliger & M.H.

Long (Eds.), Classroom oriented research in second language acquisition (pp. 268-285). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Noels, K.; Pelletier, L.G.; & Vallerand, R.J. (2000). Why are you learning a second Language? Motivational orientations and self-determination theory. Language Learning. 50(1), 57-85.

O’Malley, J., A.Chamot, G.Stewner-Manzanaraes, L.Kupper, and R. Russo. (1985). Learning strategies used by beginning and intermediate ESL students. Language Learning 35: 21-46.

O’Malley, J. & A. Chamot. (1990). Learning Strategies in second Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Oxford, R. (1989). Use of language learners strategies: a synthesis of studies with implications for teachers training. System 17: 235-47.

Oxford, R. (1990). Language Learning Strategies. What Every Teacher Should Know. Rowley, Mass: Newbury House.

Oxford, R. & M. Nyikos. (1989). Variables affecting choice of language learning strategies by university students. Modern Language Journal 73: 291-300.

Rubin, J. (1987). Learner strategies: theoretical assumptions, research history and typology in Wenden and Rubin (Eds.). (1987).

Stern, H. (1983). Fundamental Concepts of Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Stevens,J. (1996). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences (3rd edition). Mahway, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Van Dijk, T. (1977a). Text and context: Explorations in the semantics and pragmatics of discourse. New York: Longman.

Weinstein, C. & R. Mayer. (1986). The teaching of learning strategies. In Wittrock (Eds.) (1986).

Wittrock, M (Eds.) (1986). Handbook of Research on Teaching. (3rd ed). New York: Macmillan.

Wenden, a. & J. Rubin (eds.) (1987). Learner Strategies in Language Learning. Englewood Cliifs, N. J.: Prentice Hall.

White, J., & Lightbown, P.M. (1984). Asking and answering in ESL classes. Canadian Modern Language Review. 40, 228-244.