cultural variation in the use of language learning ... · a number of researchers have attempted to...

439

Konin Language StudiesFaculty of Philology, State University of Applied Sciences in Konin, Poland

KSJ 4 (4). 2016. 439-461http://ksj.pwsz.konin.edu.pldoi: 10.30438/ksj.2016.4.4.4

Cultural variation in the useof language learning strategies: A comparative study

Jakub PrzybyłAdam Mickiewicz University, Poznań, Poland

[email protected]

AbstractNo instructional approach can guarantee a full accomplishment of learners’ goals,such as, for example, becoming a global citizen by knowing the language, under-standing culture, making friends, getting a better feel for their culture, or communi-cating for world peace (Oxford, 2013). What facilitates the accomplishment of thesegoals is the use of language learning strategies. Not only does the Strategy Inventoryfor Language Learning (SILL) (Oxford, 1990) continue to be a valid tool in studies ofsecond language learning, but it also has a great potential in investigating culturaldifferences among learners. In order to compare Polish and Italian language learners’use of strategies, the present author conducted a quantitative study of 72 Italian stu-dents, 80 lower secondary, and 80 upper secondary school students from Poland.Participants completed adaptations of SILL ver. 7.0 and Ten Item Personality Inventory(TIPI) (Gosling et al., 2003). The data analysis revealed that the Polish participants ofthe study used strategies less frequently than their Italian counterparts, except formemory strategies. In particular, the Italians considerably outperformed them intheir use of affective strategies, which may suggest that the investigated Polish andItalian learners adopt different mindsets regarding language learning.

Keywords: personality; language learning strategies; cultural differences

1. Introduction

Originating from humanistic psychology (Bugental, 1964), research into individ-ual variation in language learning has not just greatly extended the scope of

Jakub Przybył

440

knowledge about the learner, but also resulted in a number of pedagogical con-clusions. A number of researchers have attempted to define language learningstrategies (LLS). For example, a definition of LLS provided by Wenden (1987)sees them as “steps or mental operations used in learning or problem solvingthat require direct analysis, transformation, or synthesis of learning materials inorder to store, retrieve, and use knowledge” (1987, p. 10). In her book, whichincludes the questionnaire used in the present study, Oxford (1990, p. 1) re-ferred to LLS as “steps taken by the students to enhance their own learning” and“tools for active, self-directed involvement, which is essential for developingcommunicative competence”, or “the way students learn a wide range of sub-jects”. The definition provided by Griffiths (2013, p. 36) suggests that LLS areactivities “consciously chosen by learners for the purpose of regulating theirown language learning”. The role of LLS cannot be ignored since, as Droździał-Szelest (1997) suggested, they are a valid explanatory variable in investigatingsecond language achievement. Oxford (2004) underscored the possibility of pre-dicting learners’ success by investigating the strategy chains which they usewhen performing a task. More recently, Cohen (2011) addressed the necessityof creating a complex theoretical framework for investigating LLS, suggestingthat the description of LLS needs to involve three aspects, that is the goal, thesituational component, and the mental action. Oxford (2011) distinguished be-tween strategies and skills on the basis of their deliberateness (i.e., the propertyof strategies) or automaticity (i.e., the property of skills), and suggested that thestrategic self-regulation model she put forward has a double utility, namely thepotential for both ordinary, and crisis-like situations for using LLS.

With reference to the links between LLS and learners’ culture, nationalorigin has been reported to determine language learners’ choice of strategies(Oxford & Nyikos, 1989, p. 292). Consequently, Oxford (1990) offered differentversions of strategy inventories so as to cater for the specificity of investigatingthe strategies of native speakers of English learning other languages (AppendixB), and learners of English as a foreign language (Appendix C). Moreno et al.(1991) used the Cognitive Skills Inventory to demonstrate that learners varyacross cultures with respect to integration within the target language culture,repetition and monitoring habits, as well as coping. Oxford (1996) consideredcultural background to be one of the factors affecting strategy choice andshowed, for example, that Spanish learners may often resort to inferring or pre-dicting, while Japanese learners may manifest preference for strategies whichrequire greater precision and accuracy. Reflecting on the results of her empiricalinvestigations, Griffiths (2003) concluded that language learners from Europetend to outperform students of other origins in terms of the frequency of strat-egy use, which she attributed to the specificity of the European culture and the

Cultural variation in the use of language learning strategies: A comparative study

441

educational background of most European students. Lee and Oxford (2008)identified a number of strategies which were not included in the SILL, but wererelatively frequently employed by learners in order to compensate for a lack ofopportunities to interact with native speakers of English. Grainger’s (2012) studyindicated that Asian learners of Japanese were more frequent strategy usersthan Australian learners, and that their strategies were more diverse. The re-searcher concluded that language the learning environment constituted an im-portant factor in the selection of LLS. Finally, Castillo and Córdova (2013) re-ported that Mexican language learners use strategies from the cognitive domainmore frequently than strategies constituting the other domains.

The present author decided to use the opportunity to investigate the cul-tural background of language learning strategy users while he was in charge ofthe teaching process in a branch of a private language school in the UK. Sincemost of his students were Italian, he decided to gather relevant data from theselearners, wondering whether he could attempt to compare them with a groupof Polish learners belonging to the same age group. For that reason, he con-tacted two school principals from the town where he used to live and soon gottheir initial consent. Another aim was to provide insights into the relationshipsbetween language learners’ personality and their choice of language learningstrategies. Finally, he also aimed to review the rationale, design, and assessmenttools to be employed in a subsequent, larger-scale study of language learningstrategies. A decision was made to employ an adaptation of the Ten-Item Per-sonality Inventory (TIPI) (Gosling, Rentfrow, & Swann Jr., 2003) as an alternativemeasurement tool of personality to NEO-FFI (Costa & McCrae, 2003), a 60-itempersonality questionnaire, which, despite meeting the goodness criteria for apsychometric test, is relatively long and therefore time-consuming to fill in. De-veloped in 2014, TIPI is recommended for scientific research, including pilotstudies (Sorokowska et al., 2014), and could possibly become a more cost- andtime-efficient alternative to NEO-FFI. Along with the adaptation of TIPI, the au-thor administered an adaptation of SILL ver. 7.0. Both tools were delivered inthe learners’ mother tongues in order to avoid potential misunderstanding.

2. The study

2.1. Method

2.1.1. Participants

The participants of the study included adolescent Polish and Italian learners ofEnglish. The latter attended a fortnightly course in English at a British summer

Jakub Przybył

442

school in Bath, UK. They received a placement test on arrival, and also attendedan interview with a teacher assessing their speaking fluency so as to be assignedfor an appropriate level group. The score on the oral interview was incorporatedinto the test result (20% of the score) for each participant. Levels ranged from 1(complete beginners) to 6 (advanced students). No students were assigned togroup 1. The investigated Italians were lower and upper secondary school stu-dents (Scuola Secondaria di primo grado and Scuola Secondaria di secondogrado, for students aged 11-13 and 14-17/19 respectively). School leavers in It-aly are 17 years old if they graduate from a three-year vocational school or 19years old if they graduate from a five-year vocational school or any type of sec-ond grade secondary schools. The groups of Poles were students from twoschools, a lower secondary school and an upper secondary school. Both schoolsare located in Rawicz, a town in the south-west of Poland. Following the study,the students of the upper secondary school attended a lecture on languagelearning strategies, which the present author had to deliver as a part of theagreement with the school authorities. Table 1 presents descriptive data for allthe participants who were initially involved in the study.

Table 1 Descriptive statistics before age selection

nationality N minimum age maximum age mean age std. deviation age variance

Italian 72 10 17 13.89 1.70 2.91

Polish 138 13 18 15.57 1.78 3.19

Due to differences in educational systems, the Italian students were a bityounger. Since the age of puberty constitutes a specific boundary in second lan-guage acquisition studies, both because of its significance in the Critical PeriodHypothesis and, as was pointed by Sakai (2005), because language learners canbe treated as second language learners rather than first language learners afterreaching the age of puberty, it is possible to assume that changes in cognitiveprocesses may result in using different language strategies. Moreover, develop-mental psychologists make a distinction between the latency period and the pe-riod of adolescence, typically starting not later than at the age of thirteen(Brzezińska, 2005). Taking into account these premises, the analysis was re-stricted to Poles and Italians aged 13-18. Relevant data is shown in Table 2. Ascan be seen, Polish students were on average one year older than their Italiancounterparts. The one-year difference in the age range for both nationalities isreflected in the values of both standard variation and considerably higher agevariance for Poles. At the same time, age values for Polish learners were almost


443

evenly distributed (-0.07). Detailed information on participants’ age is presentedin Figure 1.

Table 2 Descriptive statistics for the study after applying age selection

nationality N range minimum maximum mean std.deviation variance skewness kurtosis

Italian 56 4 13 17 14.54 1.32 1.74 0.58 -0.57.Polish 138 5 13 18 15.57 1.79 3.19 -0.07 -1.28

Figure 1 Participants’ age

The learners varied in terms of their different levels of proficiency. Italianlearners attended classes at six different levels of proficiency. Figure 2 shows thedistribution of Italian learners across levels of proficiency1.

Figure 2 Italian learners’ distribution of proficiency levels diagnosed with aplacement test in the UK

1These levels correspond with the following CEFR levels: Level 1 – A1, level 2 – A2, level 3 –A2+, level 4 – B1, level 5 – B1+, level 6 – B2.

0%

10%20%

30%40%

13 14 15 16 17

Age frequencies: Italians

0%5%

10%15%20%25%

13 14 15 16 17

Age frequencies: Poles

5,4%

35,7%39,3%

14,3%

5,4%

Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Level 6

Italians’ proficiency levels

Jakub Przybył

444

The Polish learners attended two different school types: 51% of all stu-dents were lower secondary school students while 49% attended an upper sec-ondary school. They all studied English as a foreign language and had startedtheir education in English in primary school. Although no placement test wasconducted for these students, it was reasonable to expect that their level ofcompetence could be mostly be assessed as A1+ to B1 CEFR (lower secondaryschool) and A2-B2 CEFR (upper secondary school), which can be inferred fromthe foreign language curriculum.

2.1.2. Materials and procedure

Italian students were asked to complete Italian adaptations of TIPI and SILL ver.7.0, translated by their group leaders, who were native speakers of Italian andEnglish linguists by profession. Polish students were also asked to complete ad-aptations of both questionnaires in their mother tongue. Participation in thestudy was voluntary. Questionnaires were distributed in the classrooms by theteachers who were in charge of particular groups or classes. These tools are de-scribed in more detail below.

Adaptations of TIPIOne of the aims of the study was to examine whether an alternative tool to NEO-FFI could be used for personality measurement. An attempt was made to assessthe reliability of TIPI. Out of the four methods of testing the reliability of a researchinstrument (Hornowska, 2001), the Spearman-Brown formula was chosen to cal-culate the reliability of TIPI as it is recommended for two-question scales (Eisingaet al., 2013). Table 3 presents the values of the Spearman-Brown formula for TIPI.

Table 3 Spearman-Brown reliability statistics for personality scales (TIPI)

scale items reliability values

openness to experience +5/-10 0.182conscientiousness +3/-8 0.441extroversion +1/-6 0.426agreeableness +7/-2 0.165emotional stability +9/-4 0.205

As can be seen from the table, three personality scales show extremelylow reliability values. They do not differ considerably from the values obtainedby the authors of the inventory, which, one must not forget, is designed to esti-mate personality dimensions (extremely broad constructs), with only two ques-tions relating to broader semantic categories (Gosling et al., 2013, p. 516).


445

Adaptations of SILL ver. 7.0Both Polish and Italian adaptations included two modifications which the

present author decided to introduce in order to account for technological pro-gress and in this way cater for strategies that are available in the second decadeof 21st century, but could not be employed back in the 1990s. The list of modi-fications is presented in Table 4. With respect to question 15, the introducedamendment was connected with greater availability of English films and pro-grams in the age of the Internet, whose number of users definitely exceeds thenumber of cinema goers. For this reason, watching films is therefore no longerlimited to the cinema. As far as question 17 is concerned, the range of means ofwritten communication has increased considerably over the last 30 years, withemails, instant messengers and text messages gradually replacing traditional,paper-and-pen writing. Both changes can be viewed in terms of adaptation inthe sense that Hornowska (2001, p. 29-30) describes as the process of adjustingthe original version of the questionnaire to the specificity of the local culture.

Table 4 Amendments introduced to the original SILL ver. 7.0

questionno. original wording question after introduced amendments

15 I watch English language TV shows spoken inEnglish or go to movies spoken in English.

I watch English TV programmes and films

17 I write notes, messages, letters, or reports inEnglish.

I write notes, messages, letters, or other formsin English

Since all the scales of language learning strategies included more items,Cronbach’s alpha was calculated for each of them to evaluate the reliability ofthe adaptation of SILL ver. 7.0 as a research tool. Calculated in this way, the reli-ability coefficient refers to the internal consistency of a research instrument andthus also validates the homogeneity of a construct (Hornowska, 2001, p. 55).Cronbach’s alpha values for strategy scales are shown in Table 5. The values ofthe reliability coefficient are shown in two variants, for raw data and for stand-ardized items, since both options were used in later stages of analysis.

Table 5 Cronbach’s alpha for strategy scales

scale no. of items reliability for allparticipants

reliability for nationalitiesItalians Poles

memory strategies 9 0.602/0.611 0.591/0.609 0.617/0.633cognitive strategies 14 0.775/0.777 0.785/0.786 0.776/0.779compensation strategies 6 0.549/0.558 0.528/0.525 0.603/0.607metacognitive strategies 9 0.803/0.803 0.818/0.821 0.800/0.799affective strategies 6 0.528/0.517 0.514/0.497 0.509/0.526social strategies 6 0.698/0.699 0.692/0.693 0.704/0.704

Jakub Przybył

446

An interesting finding was that, treated as a single construct, memory andcognitive strategies scored very high on reliability when tested for both all par-ticipants and for the two nationalities separately (α = 0.803 and α for standard-ized items = 0.807). This suggests that perhaps the two scales can be treated asa single scale. This is confirmed by Oxford (2011), who did not include memorystrategies as a separate category in the strategic self-regulation model, but in-cluded them in the cognitive dimension. As far as affective strategies and com-pensation strategies are concerned, Cronbach’s alpha values are low. Therefore,one recommendation from the study would be to further adapt the question-naires by adding more questions in each of these scales, for example, by usingthe procedure involving competent judges (Brzeziński & Maruszewski, 1978).With regard to memory strategies, alpha values are acceptable and it can beexpected that they will be even higher in the main study, following the increasein the number of participants. The remaining strategy scales, that is cognitive,metacognitive and social strategies, all show good reliability values.

2.1.3. Analytical procedures

The next step involved the analysis of data distribution within scales. It wastested for normality considering both sets of data (personality and languagelearning strategies) in order to choose appropriate measurements of relation-ships (parametric or nonparametric). For that purpose, the Kolmogorov-Smirnovtest was applied separately for five scales personality domains and six scales oflanguage learning strategies, as well as for the two constructs in order to deter-mine p values. Measurements were conducted for all participants as well as af-ter splitting the investigated population into two nationality groups. For eachdata set, H0 assumed that data distribution did not differ significantly from nor-mal. H1, on the other hand, assumed that data distribution was significantly dif-ferent from normal. H0 was accepted if p values exceeded 0.05. Table 6 providesinformation on data distribution.

Consequently, in further analysis parametric tests were used for all datawhose distribution was not significantly different from normal, while their non-parametric equivalents were employed for all data distributions significantly dif-ferent from normal. Statistical analysis involved computing descriptive statisticsand correlations.


447

Table 6 K-S normality test results

scale complete data sets national data setsItalians Poles

openness to experience different from normal different from normal different from normalconscientiousness different from normal different from normal different from normalextroversion different from normal normal different from normalagreeableness different from normal normal different from normalemotional stability different from normal different from normal different from normalmemory strategies different from normal normal different from normalcognitive strategies normal normal normalcompensation strategies normal normal normalmetacognitive strategies normal normal normalaffective strategies normal different from normal normalsocial strategies normal normal normalGULLS normal different from normal normal

2.2. Results

2.2.1. General use of language learning strategies

First, an attempt was made to investigate how the Italian and Polish learners dif-fered in their preference for various language learning strategies. For that purpose,descriptive statistics were calculated and the results can be found in Table 7, whichcontains frequencies of strategy use for both investigated nationalities and for bothtypes of schools attended by Polish students. N stands for the number of partici-pants and SD is the standard deviation. Frequencies are presented for each of thesix strategy scales (i.e., the memory, cognitive, compensation, metacognitive, af-fective, and sociocultural scale), but also for all strategies altogether, that is generaluse of language learning strategies, labelled GULLS, a construct which is usefulwhen referring to the aggregated use of language learning strategies.

Table 7 Descriptive statistics of language learning strategy use

Strategy use Italians Poles Polish lowersecondary school

Polish uppersecondary school

N Mean SD N Mean SD N Mean SD N Mean SDMemory strategies 56 2.48 0.54 141 2.59 0.58 72 2.71 0.53 69 2.46 0.61Cognitive strategies 56 2.88 0.61 141 2.77 0.59 72 2.66 0.58 69 2.87 0.59Compensation strategies 56 3.13 0.71 141 3.03 0.68 72 2.92 0.71 69 3.14 0.63Metacognitive strategies 56 3.23 0.75 141 3.09 0.70 72 2.94 0.66 69 3.24 0.71Affective strategies 56 2.83 0.58 141 2.29 0.63 72 2.27 0.67 69 2.32 0.60Social strategies 56 3.28 0.81 141 2.99 0.79 72 2.91 0.74 69 3.07 0.84GULLS 56 2.97 0.45 141 2.79 0.49 72 2.73 0.50 69 2.85 0.47

Jakub Przybył

448

The data clearly shows that Italian students outperformed Polish studentsin the frequency of use of all language learning strategies except the scale ofmemory strategies. In order to examine whether the differences in strategy usebetween nationalities were statistically significant across nationalities an inde-pendent samples Mann-Whitney U test was conducted (non-parametric, sincedata distribution of GULLS was significantly different from normal for the ana-lyzed group of Italians). H0 assumed that the distribution of strategy use did notdiffer significantly, while H1 assumed that they were different. Since the p valuedid not exceed 0.05, the null hypothesis was rejected. Data sets differed signifi-cantly in terms of distribution across nationalities. Not only was the mean strat-egy use higher among Italians (by more than 6.4%), but these students alsomore often represented frequent strategy users (scores about the median con-stitute 81.8% of the Italian population in comparison with 74.5% for Poles). Fig-ure 3 illustrates the general use of language learning strategies (GULLS) acrossdifferent nationalities and school types.

Figure 3 General use of language learning strategies across nationalities andschool types

2,482,88

3,13

3,23

2,83

3,282,59

2,77

3,03

3,09

2,29

2,99

Mean ITMean PLMean PL LSSMean PL USS


449

2.2.2. Use of memory strategies

It was observed that the use of memory strategies tended to decline amongolder learners and/or among more advanced learners as scores differed withregard to Polish students of lower vs. higher secondary schools. The results ofthe study show that Polish upper secondary school students used memory strat-egies less frequently than lower secondary school students. Also, it is possibleto make a comparison regarding frequent and rare strategy users. Groupinglearners into the two categories (with mean values of strategy use below andabove 2.5 appropriately) and using cross tabulation reveals that relatively morePoles than Italians were frequent memory strategy users (58.2% in comparisonwith 51.2% in the case of Italians). All students, regardless of their nationality,used rhymes to remember new words least frequently in comparison to othermemory strategies. The most favored strategies, however, differed across na-tionalities. Poles (both lower and upper secondary school students) preferredreviewing English lessons while their Italian counterparts showed preference forthinking of relationships between what they already knew and new things theylearnt in English. The latter finding is the first one which can be related to cul-tural differences. The traditional model, where the teacher still constitutes asource of knowledge and learning English is viewed as learning a subject ratherthan a foreign language, can still be encountered in Polish schools.

2.2.3. Use of cognitive strategies

Italian learners used cognitive strategies relatively more frequently than theirPolish counterparts (mean use was higher by nearly 4%, almost 8.3% amongPolish lower secondary school students and 0.3% among Polish upper secondaryschool students respectively). Three quarters of the investigated Italians repre-sented frequent strategy users (with mean values exceeding 2.5) while the pro-portion for Polish students amounted to 66%. The relatively low difference inthe use of the strategies from the category in question was reflected in the lackof statistical significance of differences between the two data sets, that is Ital-ians and Poles. Among the Italians, the most frequently employed strategytended to be reading a passage quickly (skimming) and then, reading it again,more slowly and carefully. This strategy was, on average, used 23% more oftenthan any other strategy in the cognitive category. The investigated Italians alsoreported saying or writing new English words several times and practicing thesounds of English (both strategies were chosen by more than 9% of Italian learn-ers than an average strategy in this category). At the same time, they rarely readfor pleasure (this strategy was the least frequently used). Poles resorted greatly

Jakub Przybył

450

to LLS which can be deemed as more traditional in ELT methodology, less refinedor just simpler. Their most favored strategy in the cognitive category was sayingor writing new English words several times, which was followed by using theEnglish words they knew in different ways. The data shows that the strategieswhich they employed least frequently involved writing notes, messages, lettersor reports in English.

2.2.4. Use of compensation strategies

In the vast majority of cases, both Italians and Poles reported using a word orphrase that means the same as the word or phrase that they were unable toremember or retrieve in English or that they just did not know. Regarding Polishlearners, there was an increasing trend in the use of compensation strategies asthey moved from lower to upper secondary school. Also, the difference in theuse of these strategies did not distinguish Italians substantially from Poles (thefrequency of use was just 3% higher for Italians). Learners relatively seldom re-sort to using gestures in the process of communication (Italians) and word coin-age (Poles). The first of the last two findings may be viewed as surprising to someextent since, like all southern Europeans, Italians are typically associated withusing relatively more gestures than people of different nationalities. Low fre-quency of gesture use as a compensation strategy may indicate that gesturesare used in L1 in a different way than they are used in L2 and that they supportverbal communication rather than replacing it. This is confirmed in a publicationabout Italian gestures where the use of gestures is referred to as co-speech(Bonaiuto & Bonaiuto, 2014).

2.2.5. Use of metacognitive strategies

Interestingly enough, metacognitive strategies were favored by Poles in compari-son to all other language learning strategies. At the same time, they used themslightly less frequently than Italian learners (mean frequency was higher by 4.5%and the difference was not statistically significant). Italians showed much greatera willingness to discover routes to successful language learning. Most of them re-ported often trying to find ways to become better learners of English. Using thistactic (item 32) can be compared to orchestrating all the strategies employed tolearn a foreign language, willingness to boost one’s autonomy and a desire tostrive for expert knowledge on language learning strategies on the part of thelearner. At the same time, the Poles investigated in the study most frequently pre-ferred paying attention when someone was speaking English (item 33).


451

2.2.6. Use of affective strategies

Affective strategies constituted an area which was not given considerable atten-tion by the Polish learners of English investigated in the study. These strategieswere least frequently used, which probably means that the Polish learners didnot view them as effective or necessary. On a positive note, the analysis showedthat the most favored tactic in this category was using English words even whencorrectness was at stake. On the other hand, not using reflection as an intro-spective tool (either self-reflection in the form of a diary or simply sharing one’sfeelings about language learning with others) might mean that Polish learnersdid not consider language learning to be important enough or, perhaps, they didnot realise that they would be able to improve their learning strategies and out-comes through reflection. The Italians shared these characteristics, which mightresult from the fact that reflection is mediated by age (Brzezińska, 2005). Fur-thermore, very seldom do Polish students reward themselves when they do wellin English. This may be explained by the failure to notice their own achievementsor exposure to considerable negative feedback, which implies that learners aresubject to a system of punishments rather than rewards and remain unfamiliarwith the notion of a reward as such. In this respect, Italians manifested muchmore initiative. The frequency of using rewards among the Italian learners ex-ceeded the value calculated for the Polish learners by 62%, a difference that wasstatistically significant (p< 0.05).

2.2.7. Use of social strategies

The analysis showed that social strategies were employed more frequently thanany other language strategy by the analyzed group of Italian learners. The aver-age frequency of use of these strategies exceeded the mean strategy use bymore than 10%. The difference was again statistically significant, which was con-firmed by the results of a t-test (p< 0.05, both data sets not significantly differentfrom normal). A vast majority of the Italians participating in the study resorted toasking for repetition and/or requesting a decrease in the speed of speech if theyencountered comprehension difficulties. These strategies were also used by Polesmore frequently than any other in the analyzed category, but their use was notnearly as frequent as their use by young Italians (mean values varied by more than10%). The least frequently used strategy in the social domain for both nationalitiesinvolved making attempts to learn about the culture of English speakers.

Jakub Przybył

452

2.2.8. Links with learner’s personality

The next stage of the analysis consisted in investigating the existence of intercor-relations between various strategy scales and correlations between strategyscales and personality dimensions. Two types of correlation coefficients were cal-culated, Pearson’s r for sets of data only including scales whose data distributionwas not significantly different from normal and Spearman-Brown’s rho coefficientfor sets including at least one scale whose distribution was significantly differentfrom normal. Calculations were performed for the Italians and Poles separatelysince their GULLS was significantly different. For analytical purposes, the followinginterpretation of correlation strength was adapted (Bedyńska & Brzezicka, 2007):

— coefficients below 0.3 indicate weak correlations, not sufficient to con-firm a linear relationship;

— correlations between 0.3 and 0.5 indicate moderate correlations;— correlations between 0.5 and 0.7 indicate strong correlations;— correlations between 0.7 and 1 point to very strong correlations.

The above interpretation is relevant for social sciences.

Table 8 Intercorrelations of strategy scales for Italians

Memorystrategies

Cognitivestrategies

Metacognitivestrategies

Affectivestrategies*

Socialstrategies

Memory strategies 1 0.360 .382Cognitive strategies 0.360 1 0.774 0.543* 0.675Metacognitive strategies 0.382 0.774 1 0.584* 0.754Affective strategies* 0.577* 0.583* 1* 0.439*Social strategies 0.675 0.754 0.432* 1

First, correlations between strategy scales were calculated for Italians andthe results are presented in Table 8. Statistically insignificant correlations orweak correlations have all been excluded from the table. Non-parametric corre-lations (rho) have been marked with an asterisk symbol. As can be seen fromthe data, there were two very strong correlations, the stronger one referring tothe two scales belonging to the same, cognitive dimension (cognitive and met-acognitive strategies) and the weaker one marking the relationship betweenmetacognitive and social strategy use. Since metacognitive strategies were ini-tially the only meta-dimension in the strategy model which underlies the ques-tionnaire used in the present study, they also included looking for interlocutorswho could participate in a conversation in English (item 6 in SILL ver.7.0), andpaying attention to people speaking English (tactic D3), which, since both tacticsrequire a third party, could partly explain the above relationship. Other correla-tions between strategy scales observed in Table 8 are relatively weak and point


453

to the fact that frequent strategy users tended to use more than one categoryof strategies, which can be seen as a sign of their awareness of language learningstrategies in general and confirm the notion of GULL as a construct.

A similar set of intercorrelations between strategy scales was calculated forthe Poles. Results can be seen in Table 9, which is not inclusive of any statisticallyinsignificant or weak correlations. As can be seen from the data, the only verystrong correlation was observed between cognitive and metacognitive scales,which both belong to the cognitive dimension. A greater number of statisticallysignificant correlations in the matrix than was the case of the investigated Italianscan be explained by greater homogeneity of LLS users. In other words, if a Polishparticipant uses some LLS, he or she is more likely to use other LLS as well. Giventhe fact that the mean values of strategy use were lower in all scales except formemory strategies, one must acknowledge the fact that the Polish learners par-ticipating in the study use strategies less frequently than their Italian counter-parts, which may stem from the fact that they lack strategy training in general.

Table 9 Intercorrelations of strategy scales for Poles

Memorystrategies

Cognitivestrategies

Compensationstrategies

Metacognitivestrategies

Affectivestrategies

Socialstrategies

Memory strategies 1 0.496 0.484 0.448Cognitive strategies 0.496 1 0.549 0.720 0.364 0.598Compensation strategies 0.549 1 0.409 0.354 0.410Metacognitive strategies 0.484 0.720 0.409 1 0.409 0.645Affective strategies 0.364 0.354 0.409 1 0.323Social strategies 0.448 0.598 0.410 0.645 0.323 1

Table 10 is a correlation matrix of Italian students’ personality traits meas-ured by TIPI and their use of all language learning strategies. Only statisticallysignificant, moderate or strong, correlations have been included. The tableshows clearly that for the analyzed group of Italian students, conscientiousnessis the feature which correlates with the development of four types of languagelearning strategies. Characterized by efficiency and good organizational andmanagerial skills, conscientious people display such traits as carefulness, thor-oughness and deliberation (Thompson, 2008), which, especially in the last case,might be a kind of trigger for activating learning strategies. Hence, as can beseen in Table 10, the quality strongly correlates with the use of metacognitivestrategies and moderately with the use of memory and cognitive strategies. Thetrait also moderately correlates with the reported application of affective strat-egies. Another personality trait which shows a moderate correlation with oneof the strategy scales is openness to experience. It is correlated with the use ofsocial strategies, a scale which involves interaction with other L2 learners and/or

Jakub Przybył

454

users. This interaction is probably relatively easier for people who show prefer-ence for variety and can therefore participate in conversations with differentusers of L2, merely by seeking interaction with different interlocutors or intel-lectual curiosity, which can also involve curiosity towards other people’s views,opinions, knowledge or use of the target language.2

Table 10 Correlations between personality dimensions and LSS use in the caseof Italian participants

Opennessto experience Conscientiousness Extroversion Agreeableness Emotional

stabilityMemory strategies .447**

Cognitive strategies .412**

Compensation strategiesMetacognitive strategies .533**

Affective strategies .329*

Social strategies .326*

The analysis of correlations between Polish learners’ personality traits andtheir use of language learning strategies showed no clear patterns of co-depend-ence. As far as statistically significant relationships are concerned, none of themexceeded the value of r = 0.3, which means that none of the statistically signifi-cant correlations were moderate, strong or very strong. While this is true if theinvestigated group of Polish students is examined with no division into observa-tional subsets (lower secondary school and upper secondary school students),different results were obtained after grouping the investigated Poles into twosubsets, i.e., attending lower or upper secondary schools. While no statisticallysignificant relationships could be observed between lower secondary schoolstudents’ personality traits and their use of language learning strategies, twointeresting tendencies could be traced from the correlation matrix for uppersecondary school students shown in Table 11.

Table 11 Correlations between personality dimensions and LSS use in the caseof Polish participants

Opennessto experience Conscientiousness Extroversion Agreeableness Emotional

stabilityOpenness

to experienceAffective strategies 0.344 0.325

The two personality traits which moderately correlate with the use of af-fective learning strategies included agreeableness and openness to experience.

2 Openness to experience involves active imagination, aesthetic sensitivity, attentivenessto inner feelings, preference for variety, and intellectual curiosity (Costa & McCrae, 1992)


455

As stated above, openness to experience involves attentiveness to inner feelingsand hence, its moderate relationship with the use of affective strategies doesnot really come as a surprise. The other moderate correlation was found be-tween the use of affective strategies and agreeableness, which can be under-stood as being kind, sympathetic, cooperative, warm and considerate (Thomp-son, 2008). It is possible that a person who uses affective language learningstrategies can more easily accept his/her own weaknesses as a language learneror develop ways of handling failure in language learning, so that he or she is noteasily discouraged from learning a foreign language.

To summarize, it is possible to trace more connections between the Ital-ians’ personality traits and the use of LLS than in the case of the Polish studentsin the analyzed groups. The general impression from correlation analysis is thatPolish students tended to use strategies in an “all or nothing” manner and thattheir use of strategies is generally not dependent on their personality traits. Thesituation, however, changes as they mature because tendencies in strategychoice develop in upper secondary school, that is either when learners’ self-awareness reaches a certain minimum level or when they are familiarized withat least some elements of the (whole) language learning strategy spectrum. Inthe analyzed group, Italian learners tended to choose their preferred strategiesearlier than Poles, which probably results from their greater awareness of theavailable range of strategies.

3. Conclusion

It is possible to draw a number of conclusions from the findings of the presentstudy, as well as the juxtaposition of the LLS typically used by investigatedgroups of learners. Firstly, a closer look at the use of particular categories oflanguage learning strategies reveals a lot of details about Polish students’ learn-ing preferences. As far as memory strategies are concerned, the fact that usingmemory strategies is more common among the investigated Polish learners mayalso result from viewing English as a school subject that involves a certain doseof knowledge rather than skills or language functions. Regarding the metacog-nitive scale, the strategies which involve writing were relatively seldom em-ployed by both groups of learners. This can be interpreted in several ways. Ob-viously, it is possible to point to the relative scarcity of attention given to thedevelopment of writing skills in EFL curricula in general. From a slightly differentperspective, however, it is possible to assume that the learning of English comesto an end when learners leave the classroom or finish learning it for classroompurposes. Perhaps they would just need to be acquainted with some simple ideas,such as making shopping lists, texting each other in English or writing elements of

Jakub Przybył

456

their daily timetables in L2, activities in which they can engage in their out-of-school life. Even those strategies which require less active participation, such aspaying more attention to language (e.g., the English words that one can find inproduct descriptions) and maximizing the input in the background (e.g., listen-ing to English radio programs, films and songs) could possibly contribute to animprovement in their L2 proficiency.

Two metacognitive strategies used most frequently by the Polish and Ital-ian participants were different in a number of aspects although they repre-sented the category of metacognitive strategies. The tactic investigated in item33, that is trying to find how to be a better learner of English, preferred by theinvestigated Italian learners, requires more involvement, planning and even in-terest in managing the learning process. In contrast, tactic represented by item32, that is paying attention when someone is speaking English, preferred byPolish learners, is an example of passive behavior, which involves resorting to athird party as a source of input and/or knowledge about the target language. Ofcourse, it can be used outside the classroom, for example, when learners listento broadcasts, podcasts, films or clips, when they encounter foreigners usingEnglish, or when they use English as L2 for communication purposes outside theclassroom, spending time with other users of English. However, as pointed outabove, for the Polish participants learning English resembles learning one ofmany school subjects rather than learning a foreign language, and it does notreally happen very often that they can meet foreigners in Rawicz. Instead, whenanalyzed from a classroom perspective, such outcomes may suggest that learn-ers prefer adopting passive attitudes during classes and may rely on teacher talkand prioritize acquiring skills traditionally viewed as receptive over those seenas productive. Unfortunately, no measures of teacher talk in relevant classroomsare available for the investigated groups of learners.

The least favored strategy among the Italians was looking for opportuni-ties to read as much as possible in English, which, again, involves reading skills,and can be associated with the fact that reading for pleasure was the least oftenused strategy in the cognitive domain. Reading in English is thus not popularamong the Italian learners investigated in this study, either as a form of enter-tainment or as a means of increasing their L2 proficiency. It is also the case withthe Polish students who chose this strategy the least frequently; however, thechoice which was almost as rare involved looking for people they can talk to inEnglish, which, again, confirms the view that language learning is seen more interms of learning another school subject rather than learning to communicate.Neglecting the search for opportunities to communicate results in less frequenttarget language use and may reduce the development of communicative com-petence from the very outset.


457

The study has shown that a number of strategies preferred by the investi-gated Polish students were more passive, required less involvement and possi-bly that learners and pointed to an external locus of control in language learning.The students focused on paying attention rather than contributing actively, andrevising before tests rather than attempting to plan and organize languagelearning. The frequency of using affective strategies remains dramatically lowand hence, there is an urgent need for training in that particular area. The dif-ferences in the use of affective strategies between the Poles and Italians mighthave resulted from greater popularity of positive feedback in Italian schools, andfrom the fact that the Polish education system has been promoting learners’behaviors which involve adjustment to hierarchy and passive absorption ofknowledge followed by its reproduction. Much in the same way, there is a needto persuade learners to seek contact with other L2 users, which is reflected inthe lower use of social strategies among the investigated Poles. All of these char-acteristics of the Polish participants may be at least partly the consequence ofthe teaching that they have been subject to as well as the curriculum, whichpartly determines the kind of instruction that learners receive. The classroomreality may still not include enough focus on communication in the target lan-guage and the instructors might need to consider making the learning experi-ence more rewarding for students. More than anything else, the Poles need con-siderable support in learning how to learn English, using language learning strat-egies and fostering their autonomy in language learning in general. Also, the factthat learners show little willingness to learn the culture of native speakers ofEnglish can be related to the position of English as lingua franca, learnt by stu-dents of various nationalities as a compulsory subject rather than a language oftheir own choice, chosen in response to their cultural interests. Analyzing theuse of language learning strategies among the investigated Poles has shown thata large proportion of learners demonstrated an “all or nothing” attitude. Hence,it can be assumed that learners tend to exhibit a high or low GULLS level, whichcould be empirically investigated as a separate construct. These finding may beconnected with a relatively low level of knowledge of some students when itcomes to the range of language learning strategies that can be used to supportforeign language learning.

The investigated exhibited the use of more active strategies and weremore eager to seek solutions in language learning while their Polish counter-parts proved to employ more passive strategies and were more “traditional”learners. A vast majority of the Polish learners engaged in reception rather than ininteracting in the foreign language. In addition, the investigated Polish studentsfailed to recognize the supportive nature of some language learning strategies, es-pecially those involving planning their learning and employing affect and interaction

Jakub Przybył

458

as well as looking for opportunities to participate in L2 communication. This mayresult from viewing English as a school subject rather than as a genuine meansof communication. Relatively high numbers of low strategy users were revealedamong Polish participants attending both lower secondary school and uppersecondary school. This has at least two serious consequences. First, bridging thegap in strategy use does not really happen naturally as students grow older. Sec-ond, the curriculum may not sufficiently emphasize strategy training and stu-dents remain unfamiliar with a number of tactics that could support their lan-guage education.

Finally, the characteristics of some language learning strategies seem tointersect with the personality dimensions, especially openness to experienceand conscientiousness. These relationships ought to be subject to more thor-ough investigation with a more heterogeneous group of learners, since categor-ical variables such as nationality or school level may blur the influence of per-sonality, which as Dörnyei and Ryan (2015) point out, remains the most individ-ual of all individual difference factors.

4. Limitations and directions for future research

Further investigation of the relationships between language learners’ personal-ity traits and their use of learning strategies requires a more reliable personalityinventory than TIPI. It would this seem that the NEO-FFI rather than TIPI shouldbe employed in future research. At the same time, the Polish adaptation of SILLver. 7.0 needs be extended so as to improve the reliability of the strategy scaleswhose reliability did not prove to be satisfactory in the comparative study. Also,research into the influence of learners’ personality requires a more homogene-ous group since nationality and school level both constitute stronger predictorsof language learning strategies than personality. It must also be admitted thatmany of the results were not statistically significant, which may indicate thatother factors apart from nationality might exert a considerable influence on theuse of language learning strategies.


459

References

Bedyńska, S., & Brzezicka-Rotkiewicz, A. (Eds.). (2007). Statystyczny drogowskaz:Praktyczny poradnik analizy danych w naukach społecznych na przykładach zpsychologii. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Wyższej Szkoły Psychologii Społecznej.

Bonaiuto, M., & Bonaiuto, T. (2014). Gestures and body language in SouthernEurope: Italy. In C. Müller, A. Cienki, E. Fricke, S. H. Ladewig, D. McNeill, &J. Bressem (Eds.), Body – language – communication. An internationalhandbook on multimodality in human interaction (Vol. 2, pp. 132-135).Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.

Brzezińska, A. (Ed.). (2005). Psychologiczne portrety człowieka. Praktyczna psy-chologia rozwojowa. Gdańsk: Gdańskie Wydawnictwo Psychologiczne.

Brzeziński, J., & Maruszewski T. (1978). Metoda sędziów kompetentnych i jej zastoso-wanie w badaniach pedagogicznych. Kwartalnik Pedagogiczny, 23, 569-587.

Castillo, M. C. del Ángel, & Córdova, K. E. Gallardo. (2013). Language learningstrategies and academic success: A Mexican perspective. Universitas Psy-chologica, 13, doi:10.11144/Javeriana.UPSY13-2.llsa

Cohen, A. D. (2011). Strategies in learning and using a second language. Harlow:Longman.

Costa, P. T. Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Four ways five factors are basic. Personalityand Individual Differences, 13, 653-665. doi:10.1016/0191-8869(92)90236-I

Costa, P. T. Jr., & McCrae, R. R. 2003. Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) manual. Odessa, FL: Psycho-logical Assessment Resources.

Dörnyei. Z., & Ryan, S. (2015). The psychology of the language learner revisited.New York: Routledge.

Droździał-Szelest, K. (1997). Language learning strategies in the process of ac-quiring a foreign language. Poznań: Motivex.

Eisinga, R., Te Grotenhuis, M., & Pelzer, B. (2013). The reliability of a two-itemscale: Pearson, Cronbach, or Spearman-Brown? International Journal ofPublic Health, 4, 637-642. doi: 10.1007/s00038-012-0416-3

Gosling, S. D., Rentfrow P. J., & Swann W. B. Jr. (2003). A very brief measure ofthe five personality domains. Journal of Research in Personality,37, 504-528. doi:10.1016/S0092-6566(03)00046-1

Griffiths, C. (2003). Patterns of language learning strategy use. System, 31, 367-383.doi: 10.1016/S0346-251X(03)00048-4

Griffiths, C. (2013). The strategy factor in successful language learning. Bristol:Multilingual Matters.

Jakub Przybył

460

Grainger, P. (2012). The impact of cultural background on the choice of language learn-ing strategies in the JFL context. System, 40, 483-493. doi: 10.1016/j.system.2012.10.011

Hornowska, E. (2001). Testy psychologiczne. Teoria i praktyka. Warszawa: Wy-dawnictwo Naukowe Scholar.

Lee, K. R, & Oxford, R. L. (2008) Understanding EFL learners’ strategy use andstrategy awareness. Asian EFL Journal, 10, 7-32. doi: 70.40.196.162

Matthews, G., Deary, I. J., & Whiteman, M. C. (2003). Personality traits. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

McCrae, R. R., & John, O. P. (1992). An introduction to the five-factor model andits applications. Journal of Personality, 60, 175–215. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.1992.tb00970.x

Moreno, V., & di Vesta, F. J. (1991). Cross-cultural comparison of study habits. Journalof Educational Psychology, 83, 231-239. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.83.2.231

Nowakowska, M. (1975). Psychologia ilościowa z elementami naukometrii. War-szawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe.

Nyikos, M., & Oxford, R. L. (1993). A factor analytic study of language-learning stra-tegy use: Interpretations from information-processing theory and social psy-chology. Modern Language Journal, 77, 11-22. doi: 10.2307/329553

Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher shouldknow. Boston: Heinle.

Oxford, R. L. (Ed.) (1996). Language learning strategies around the world: Cross-cultural perspectives. Honolulu: University of Hawaii.

Oxford, R., Cho, Y., Leung, S., & Kim, H-J. (2004). Effect of the presence and difficultyof task on strategy use: An exploratory study. IRAL, 42, 1-47. doi: 10.1515/iral.2004.001

Oxford, R. L. (2011). Teaching and researching language learning strategies. Har-low: Longman.

Oxford, R. L. (2013). English teachers helping students become strategic and success-ful: Ten guidelines. Retrieved from: http://appi.pt/act/congsemin/27cong.htm

Oxford, R. L., & Nyikos, M. (1989). Variables affecting choice of language learningstrategies by university students. Modern Language Journal, 73, 291-300.doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4781.1989.tb06367.x

Pawlak, M. (Ed.). (2012). New perspectives on individual differences in languagelearning and teaching. Heidelberg: Springer.

Sakai, K. L. (2005). Language acquisition and brain development. Science, 310,815-819. doi: 10.1126/science.1113530

Scarcella, R. C., & Oxford, R. L. (1992). The individual in the communicative class-room. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.


461

Sorokowska, A., Słowińska, A., Zbieg, A., & Sorokowski, P. (2014). Polska adapta-cja testu Ten Item Personality Inventory (TIPI) – TIPI-PL – wersja standar-dowa i internetowa. Wrocław: WrocLab.

Thompson, E. R. (2008). Development and validation of an international Englishbig-five mini-markers. Personality and Individual Differences, 6, 542-548.doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2008.06.013

Wenden, A., & Rubin, J. (Ed.). (1987). Learner strategies in language learning.Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall International.

cultural variation in the use of language learning ... · a number of researchers have attempted to...

Documents