Novitas-ROYAL, 2008, Vol.: 2 (2), 162-175[i].
THE EFFECT OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LEARNING
AND
TEACHING STRATEGIES ON
ACADEMIC
ACHIEVEMENT
Arif SARIÇOBAN*
Abstract:
The purpose of this study is (1)
to identify the strategies used by the students and the teachers in the School
of Foreign Languages at Erciyes University,
(2) to find out whether there is a difference between the strategies
used by the two groups, (3) to investigate the effect of the students’ gender,
age and department on their strategy preferences, (4) to see the relationship
between the language learning strategies of the learners and their academic
success, and (5) to investigate the effect of the relationship between the
language learning strategies of the students and language teaching strategies
of teachers on the academic achievement of the students. A statistically
significant difference was found among all types of strategies used by the
learners and the teachers. While the relationship between the compensation
strategy and the academic success of the students was statistically
significant, the affective strategy was found to have a negative meaningful
relation with the academic success of the students. No relationship was found between the other
strategies and the learners’ academic success. However, the mostly favoured
strategies used by both the students and the teachers were metacognitive
strategies and compensation strategies. At the end of the present study some
recommendations for foreign language teachers to use these strategies
effectively were made.
Key Words: Learning
Strategies, Foreign Language Learning Strategies, Foreign Language Teaching
Strategies, Academic Achievement
Özet: Bu çalışmanın amacı (1) Erciyes Üniversitesi Yabancı Diller
Yüksekokulu’nda öğrenim gören öğrenciler ve görev yapan okutmanların hangi
yabancı dil öğrenim ve öğretim stratejilerini kullanıldıklarını belirlemek, (2)
iki grup arasında kullanılan stratejiler açısından fark olup olmadığını
saptamak, (3) öğrencilerin kullandıkları dil öğrenme stratejileri ile yaşları,
cinsiyetleri ve bölümleri arasındaki ilişkiyi görmek, (4) öğrencilerin
kullandıkları dil öğrenme stratejileri ile başarı puanları arasındaki ilişkiyi
görmek, ve (5) yabancı dil öğrencilerinin kullandıkları dil öğrenme
stratejileri ile derslerine giren yabancı dil öğretmenlerinin kullandıkları dil
öğretme stratejileri arasındaki ilişkinin öğrencilerin akademik başarısına
etkisini araştırmaktır. Tüm strateji kullanımları için öğrenciler ve
öğretmenler arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir fark bulunmuştur. Telafi
stratejileri ile başarı arasındaki ilişki pozitif yönde anlamlı çıkarken,
duygusal stratejiler ile başarı arasında negatif yönde anlamlı bir ilişki
bulunmuş, geri kalan dört strateji ile başarı arasında önemsenecek bir ilişki
bulunmamıştır. Ancak, çalışmaya katılan öğrenciler ile öğretmenlerinin en çok
tercih edip kullandıkları stratejiler bilişüstü ve telafi stratejileri olarak
tespit edilmiştir. Çalışmanın sonunda bu stratejilerin etkin kullanımları için
bazı öneriler getirilmiştir.
Anahtar Sözcükler: Öğrenme Stratejileri, Yabancı Dil Öğrenme
Stratejileri, Yabancı Dil Eğitimi Stratejileri, Akademik Başarı
1. INTRODUCTION
Strategies are defined as the specific methods
of approaching a problem or task, the modes of operation for achieving a
particular end and the planned designs for controlling and manipulating certain
information (Brown, 2007:119).
Similarly, Chamot (2004:14) describes learning strategies as the
thoughts and actions that individuals use to accomplish a learning goal. From the definitions of learning strategies
offered by different researchers, Lessard-Clouston (1997) concluded that
learning strategies are involved in all learning, regardless of the content and
context.
Good language learners use a variety of
strategies to assist them in gaining command over new language skills
(O’Malley, Chamot, Stewner-Manzaranes, Russo and Küpper, 1985:557-558). However, Hişmanoğlu (2000) claims that there
is always the possibility that bad language learners can also use the same
language learning strategies while becoming unsuccessful. These authors
emphasize that using the same good language learning strategies does not
guarantee that bad learners will also become successful in language learning
since other factors may also play an important role in success.
In his study, Alptekin (2007) investigated the
tutored language learning of English in a formal setting and the non-tutored acquisition
of Turkish in a non-formal setting by international university students and
concluded that compensation as a direct learning strategy seems to be the one
most frequently deployed in both tutored and naturalistic learning. A similar
study conducted by Yapıcı and Bada (2004) to examine the use of individual
metacognitive, cognitive and social/affective strategies among postgraduate
students. The results of their study
indicated that regardless of their educational background, all postgraduate
students needed to be trained in the use of language learning strategies and
the educational background can be a factor affecting the preference of language
learning strategies (LLS).
Bekleyen (2006) investigated the language
learning strategy levels of the English teacher candidates in terms of their
gender, class levels and high schools. It was concluded that female students
use more language learning strategies than male students and a statistically
significant difference was not found between the school types and the students’
use of language learning strategies.
Moreover, a significant difference was found between the strategy use of
1st grade students and the strategy use of 4th grade
students, which led to the conclusion that the use of strategy generally
improves through the 4th grade.
1.1 The classification of language learning
strategies
It is
seen that the classification of language learning strategies differs from one
researcher to the other. The
classification of O’Malley et al. (1985) includes cognitive, metacognitive and
social/affective strategies. Different
from the others, Brown (2007) divides the strategies into two groups as
learning strategies and communication strategies. While learning strategies consist of
cognitive, metacognitive and social/affective strategies, compensation and
avoidance strategies are seen in the communication strategies group.
The classification used in most of the studies
is the classification of Erhman and
·
Cognitive Strategies–skills that involve manipulation or transformation of
the language in some direct way through reasoning, analysis, note taking,
functional practice in naturalistic settings, formal practice with structures
and sounds, etc.
·
Memory Strategies–techniques to help store new information in memory
and retrieve it later
·
Compensation Strategies–behaviours used to compensate for missing knowledge of some kind such as
inferencing (guessing) while listening or reading, or using synonyms or
circumlocution while speaking or writing.
·
Metacognitive Strategies–behaviours used for centering, arranging, planning, and evaluating one’s
learning. These “beyond-the-cognitive” strategies are used to provide
“executive control” over the learning process.
·
Affective Strategies–techniques like self-reinforcement and positive self-talk which help
learners gain better control over their emotions, attitudes, and motivations
related to language learning.
·
Social Strategies–actions
involving other people in the language learning process. Examples are
questioning, cooperating with peers, and developing empathy.
2. METHOD
2.1 Research Questions
In this
study, answers to the following questions were investigated:
1.Which language learning strategies
do the students in the
2.Which language teaching strategies
do the English language instructors in the
3.Is there a significant difference
between the students and their English language instructors in terms of the
strategy use?
4.How do the students’ gender, age and
department affect their strategy preferences?
5.Is there a correlation between the
language learning strategies used by the students and their academic
achievement?
6.How does the relationship between
the strategies used by the students and the instructors affect the academic
achievement of the students?
2.2 Subjects
The subjects of this study were preparatory
class students at
There are four courses including A, B, C, and D
in the school and these courses are determined according to the academic
achievement of the students. The pilot study was conducted with 9 night D
classes since the number of students in other night courses was not enough for
the study. Therefore, 15 of 27 day classes (D courses) were chosen randomly to
participate in the study.
2.3 The Instruments
In the study, the researchers designed and
developed a questionnaire that includes 80 items related to language learning
strategies by largely benefiting from the Strategy Inventory for Language
Learning (SILL) developed by
The scale was developed into two forms; one to
be used for the instructors and the other for the students. While the scale for
the instructors was prepared in English, the language of the scale for the
students was Turkish, their native language, with the aim of increasing its
intelligibility and preventing any misunderstandings.
A pilot study using the scales prepared was
completed at both
3. DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION
In order to collect data the students and their
foreign language instructors were given language learning strategy
questionnaire mentioned above and the academic achievement of the students was
correlated with the results obtained from this questionnaire.
The students at the
The data analysis was done by using SPSS
13.0. In order to find out which
language learning strategies the students and their teachers use, the
percentages of these strategies were calculated. Whether there was a difference in the use of
the strategies between the two groups was investigated by conducting independent samples t-test due to the difference in the number
of the students (263) and the teachers (32) who participated in the study. The
correlation was examined to find out if there was a relation between the
strategies the students use and their academic achievements.
The results
of the data analysis are presented in the order of the research questions:
3.1
Which Language Learning and Teaching Strategies Do The Students and Foreign
Language Instructors in the School of Foreign Languages at
The
strategies used by the students and their teachers were examined in six
separate sections. In each section, the strategies which were used by these
subjects the most and the least were discussed.
3.1.1 Memory Strategies
Table
1. The Percentages of the Memory Strategies Used by Students and the Foreign
Language Instructors
|
|
Strongly Disagree |
Disagree
|
Undecided |
Agree |
Strongly Agree |
|||||||||||||||||||
|
STUDNT |
INSTR. |
STUDNT |
INSTR. |
STUDNT |
INSTR. |
STUDNT |
INSTR. |
STUDNT |
INSTR. |
|||||||||||||||
|
n |
% |
n |
% |
n |
% |
n |
% |
n |
% |
n |
% |
n |
% |
n |
% |
n |
% |
n |
% |
|||||
Q2
|
8 |
3,0 |
|
|
28 |
10,6 |
|
|
49 |
18,6 |
|
|
124 |
47,1 |
10 |
31,3 |
54 |
20,5 |
22 |
68,8 |
||||
|
Q5 |
114 |
43,3 |
|
|
85 |
32,3 |
4 |
12,5 |
28 |
10,6 |
11 |
34,4 |
24 |
9,1 |
13 |
40,6 |
12 |
4,6 |
4 |
12,5 |
||||
|
Q10 |
16 |
6,1 |
|
|
69 |
26,2 |
|
|
52 |
19,8 |
1 |
3,1 |
90 |
34,2 |
5 |
15,6 |
36 |
13,7 |
26 |
81,3 |
||||
|
Q15 |
34 |
12,9 |
|
|
63 |
24,0 |
|
|
62 |
23,6 |
|
|
72 |
27,4 |
8 |
25,0 |
32 |
12,2 |
24 |
75,0 |
||||
|
Q20 |
57 |
21,7 |
|
|
82 |
31,2 |
7 |
21,9 |
49 |
18,6 |
7 |
21,9 |
51 |
19,4 |
12 |
37,5 |
24 |
9,1 |
6 |
18,8 |
||||
|
Q25 |
27 |
10,3 |
|
|
78 |
29,7 |
6 |
18,8 |
67 |
25,5 |
3 |
9,4 |
68 |
25,9 |
16 |
50,0 |
23 |
8,7 |
7 |
21,9 |
||||
|
Q36 |
22 |
8,4 |
|
|
39 |
14,8 |
3 |
9,4 |
47 |
17,9 |
4 |
12,5 |
104 |
39,5 |
11 |
34,4 |
51 |
19,4 |
14 |
43,8 |
||||
|
Q49 |
28 |
10,6 |
|
|
51 |
19,4 |
|
|
48 |
18,3 |
6 |
18,8 |
101 |
38,4 |
15 |
46,9 |
35 |
13,3 |
11 |
34,4 |
||||
The
findings in Table 2 indicate that the memory strategy which the students use
most is the second item: “I think of relationships between what they already
know and new things they learn in English.” The other two mostly used
strategies are related to pronunciation: the 36th item “I connect
the sound of a new English word and an image or picture of the word to help
them remember the word.” and the 49th item, “I relate the sound of a
new English word to the sound of a familiar.”
About the
memory strategies which are used least by the students, the 5th and
the 20th items seem to give information as 199 students disagreed
with the 5th item and 139 students did not agree with the 20th
item. These strategies are using flashcards and rhymes to remember new English
words. However, when we look at the percentages of the teachers who use these
two memory strategies in their classes, we see that 53,1 % teachers encourage
their students to use flashcards and 56,3 % teachers make use of rhymes in
their classes to help the students remember new English words. This dissimilarity in the least used memory
strategies exists also in the most used strategies. Most of the teachers
encourage their students to use new English words in a sentence, so they can
remember them and review English lessons often.
3.1.2 Compensation Strategies
Table
2. The Percentages of the Compensation Strategies Used by Students and the
Foreign Language Instructors
|
|
Strongly Disagree |
Disagree
|
Undecided |
Agree |
Strongly Agree |
|||||||||||||||||
|
STUDNT |
INSTR. |
STUDNT |
INSTR. |
STUDNT |
INSTR. |
STUDNT |
INSTR. |
STUDNT |
INSTR. |
|||||||||||||
|
n |
% |
n |
% |
n |
% |
n |
% |
n |
% |
n |
% |
n |
% |
n |
% |
n |
% |
n |
% |
|||
|
Q3 |
28 |
10,6 |
1 |
3,1 |
59 |
22,4 |
7 |
21,9 |
68 |
25,9 |
5 |
15,6 |
82 |
31,2 |
10 |
31,3 |
26 |
9,9 |
9 |
28,1 |
||
|
Q7 |
39 |
14,8 |
|
|
60 |
22,8 |
2 |
6,3 |
86 |
32,7 |
7 |
21,9 |
68 |
25,9 |
15 |
46,9 |
10 |
3,8 |
8 |
25,0 |
||
|
Q14 |
12 |
4,6 |
|
|
25 |
9,5 |
|
|
37 |
14,1 |
|
|
130 |
49,4 |
5 |
15,6 |
59 |
22,4 |
27 |
84,4 |
||
|
Q19 |
2 |
0,8 |
|
|
12 |
4,6 |
|
|
27 |
10,3 |
|
|
150 |
57,0 |
9 |
28,1 |
72 |
27,4 |
23 |
71,9 |
||
|
Q29 |
18 |
6,8 |
|
|
44 |
16,7 |
|
|
54 |
20,5 |
7 |
21,9 |
98 |
37,3 |
20 |
62,5 |
49 |
18,6 |
5 |
15,6 |
||
|
Q34 |
14 |
5,3 |
|
|
35 |
13,3 |
|
|
39 |
14,8 |
|
|
111 |
42,2 |
8 |
25,0 |
64 |
24,3 |
24 |
75,0 |
||
Table 2 points out a
similarity between the students and their teachers since the 19th,
14th and 34th items are the strategies used by both most
of the students (Q19; n=222, 84,4 %, Q14; n= 189, 72,3 %, and Q34; n=175, 66,5
%) and all of the teachers. These
compensation strategies are making guesses to understand unfamiliar English
words, using a word or phrase that means the same thing when they can’t think
of an English word and not trying to understand every single word, but trying
to guess the meaning. As to the analysis of Table 2, it can be said that the
students do not try to guess what the other person will say next in English
(Q7; n=99, 37,6 %).
3.1.3 Cognitive Strategies
Table 3. The Percentages of the
Cognitive Strategies Used by Students and the Foreign Language Instructors
|
|
Strongly Disagree |
Disagree
|
Undecided |
Agree |
Strongly Agree |
|||||||||||||||||
|
STUDNT |
INSTR. |
STUDNT |
INSTR. |
STUDNT |
INSTR. |
STUDNT |
INSTR. |
STUDNT |
INSTR. |
|||||||||||||
|
n |
% |
n |
% |
n |
% |
n |
% |
n |
% |
n |
% |
n |
% |
n |
% |
n |
% |
n |
% |
|||
Q4
|
30 |
11,4 |
1 |
3,1 |
67 |
25,5 |
3 |
9,4 |
35 |
13,3 |
3 |
9,4 |
95 |
36,1 |
15 |
46,9 |
36 |
13,7 |
10 |
31,3 |
||
|
Q11 |
17 |
6,5 |
|
|
44 |
16,7 |
|
|
34 |
12,9 |
2 |
6,3 |
88 |
33,5 |
6 |
18,8 |
80 |
30,4 |
24 |
75,0 |
||
|
Q17 |
13 |
4,9 |
|
|
13 |
4,9 |
|
|
20 |
7,6 |
2 |
6,3 |
81 |
30,8 |
9 |
28,1 |
136 |
51,7 |
21 |
65,6 |
||
|
Q22 |
27 |
10,3 |
|
|
59 |
22,4 |
|
|
41 |
15,6 |
2 |
6,3 |
98 |
37,3 |
15 |
46,9 |
38 |
14,4 |
15 |
46,9 |
||
|
Q26 |
20 |
7,6 |
|
|
62 |
23,6 |
1 |
3,1 |
51 |
19,4 |
1 |
3,1 |
99 |
37,6 |
16 |
50,0 |
31 |
11,8 |
14 |
43,8 |
||
|
Q30 |
17 |
6,5 |
|
|
39 |
14,8 |
1 |
3,1 |
54 |
20,5 |
5 |
15,6 |
114 |
43,3 |
16 |
50,0 |
39 |
14,8 |
10 |
31,3 |
||
|
Q32 |
58 |
22,1 |
|
|
90 |
34,2 |
|
|
45 |
17,1 |
6 |
18,8 |
46 |
17,5 |
8 |
25,0 |
24 |
9,1 |
18 |
56,3 |
||
|
Q33 |
36 |
13,7 |
|
|
66 |
25,1 |
1 |
3,1 |
56 |
21,3 |
|
|
81 |
30,8 |
13 |
40,6 |
24 |
9,1 |
18 |
56,3 |
||
|
Q39 |
108 |
41,1 |
|
|
96 |
36,5 |
2 |
6,3 |
31 |
11,8 |
5 |
15,6 |
24 |
9,1 |
15 |
46,9 |
4 |
1,5 |
10 |
31,3 |
||
|
Q40 |
32 |
12,2 |
|
|
44 |
16,7 |
|
|
46 |
17,5 |
11 |
34,4 |
99 |
37,6 |
12 |
37,5 |
42 |
16,0 |
9 |
28,1 |
||
|
Q41 |
23 |
8,7 |
1 |
3,1 |
37 |
14,1 |
4 |
12,5 |
45 |
17,1 |
7 |
21,9 |
94 |
35,7 |
11 |
34,4 |
64 |
24,3 |
9 |
28,1 |
||
|
Q42 |
10 |
3,8 |
|
|
6 |
2,3 |
|
|
21 |
8,0 |
|
|
86 |
32,7 |
8 |
25,0 |
140 |
53,2 |
24 |
75,0 |
||
|
Q43 |
41 |
15,6 |
|
|
58 |
22,1 |
|
|
58 |
22,1 |
2 |
6,3 |
75 |
38,5 |
5 |
15,6 |
31 |
11,8 |
25 |
78,1 |
||
|
Q45 |
31 |
11,8 |
|
|
54 |
20,5 |
|
|
41 |
15,6 |
3 |
9,4 |
83 |
31,6 |
8 |
25,0 |
54 |
20,5 |
21 |
65,6 |
||
|
Q47 |
50 |
19,0 |
1 |
3,1 |
65 |
24,7 |
8 |
25,0 |
45 |
17,1 |
7 |
21,9 |
74 |
28,1 |
10 |
31,3 |
29 |
11,0 |
6 |
18,8 |
||
|
Q48 |
39 |
14,8 |
1 |
3,1 |
82 |
31,2 |
|
|
76 |
28,9 |
7 |
21,9 |
44 |
16,7 |
14 |
43,8 |
22 |
8,4 |
10 |
31,3 |
||
With
their high percentages, 42nd, 17th, 30th, 40th
and 26th items give us the information that most of the students use
these cognitive strategies. This means
that, the majority of the students to use a dictionary or other reference
books while studying English (Q42; n=226, 85,9 %), write down the important
points after the teacher presents the information (Q17; n=217, 82,5 %), look
for words in their own language that are similar to new words in English (Q30; n=153, 58,1 %), study the information
the teacher presents by grouping (Q40; n=141, 53,6 %) and find the meaning of
an English word by dividing it into parts that they understand (Q26; n=130,
49,4 %).
A
parallellism is noticed between the students and their teachers for the
cognitive strategies used by most of the students. While writing down the
important points (Q17; n=30, 93,7 %) and using a dictionary or other reference
books while studying English (Q42; n=32, 100 %) are encouraged by nearly all of
the teachers, this strong similarity cannot be seen for the strategies that the
students least benefit. The students
generally disagree with the 32nd and 39th items; that is,
they neither make summaries of information that they hear or read in English
nor write letters or reports in English.
Nevertheless, 81,3 % teachers expressed in their scales that they
benefit from these two strategies in their lessons.
3.1.4 Metacognitive Strategies
Table
4. The Percentages of the Metacognitive Strategies Used by Students and the
Foreign Language Instructors
|
|
Strongly Disagree |
Disagree
|
Undecided |
Agree |
Strongly Agree |
|||||||||||||||||
|
STUDNT |
INSTR. |
STUDNT |
INSTR. |
STUDNT |
INSTR. |
STUDNT |
INSTR. |
STUDNT |
INSTR. |
|||||||||||||
|
n |
% |
n |
% |
n |
% |
n |
% |
n |
% |
n |
% |
n |
% |
n |
% |
n |
% |
n |
% |
|||
|
Q8 |
34 |
12,9 |
|
|
59 |
22,4 |
1 |
3,1 |
57 |
21,7 |
4 |
12,5 |
82 |
31,2 |
9 |
28,1 |
31 |
11,8 |
18 |
56,3 |
||
|
Q18 |
6 |
2,3 |
|
|
8 |
3,0 |
|
|
23 |
8,7 |
2 |
6,3 |
137 |
52,1 |
11 |
34,4 |
89 |
33,8 |
19 |
59,4 |
||
|
Q24 |
12 |
4,6 |
|
|
19 |
7,2 |
|
|
47 |
17,9 |
3 |
9,4 |
130 |
49,4 |
9 |
28,1 |
55 |
20,9 |
20 |
62,5 |
||
|
Q28 |
11 |
4,2 |
|
|
9 |
3,4 |
|
|
18 |
6,8 |
3 | |||||||||||