A Study of Language Learning Strategies Used by College

EFL Learners in Taiwan

Chang, Ching-Yi∗ & Liu, Shu-Chen∗∗ & Lee, Yi-Nian∗∗∗

Abstract
The study was designed to investigate the influence of gender and major on

college EFL learning strategy use in Taiwan. A total of 1758 Taiwanese college EFL

learners took part in this research study. The participants completed the two sets of

self-reported questionnaires, including Background Characteristics and Strategy

Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) (Oxford, 1989). The collected data were

computed and analyzed via descriptive statistics, t-test, and one-way ANOVA. The

findings of the study were generalized as follows: (1) There was not a great difference

among the frequency of each strategy that Taiwanese college EFL learners report

using, all in medium-use level. (2) Statistically significant differences were found in

the use of cognitive strategies, metacognitive strategies, social strategies and overall

strategies with regard to gender. (3) Statistically significant differences were found in

the use of six subcategories of language learning strategies and overall strategies with

regard to major. In the end of this study, the pedagogical implications were provided.

Key Words: Language Learning Strategies, SILL.

∗
Assistant Professor in the Department of Applied English Studies at MingDao University
∗∗
Associate Professor in the Department of Applied English Studies at MingDao University
∗∗∗
Assistant Professor in the Department of Applied English Studies at MingDao University
 第二期（2007 年 3 月）

1. Motivation and Introduction

Over the past few decades, researchers and language teachers started to consider

that no single research finding or teaching method could guarantee absolute and

predicable success in second or foreign language (L2/FL) teaching. Some learners

seem to be successful in second or foreign language regardless of teaching methods or

techniques. Therefore, a considerable number of researchers have shifted their focus

from teaching methods or techniques to language learning strategy use. Research on

language learning strategies began with the strategies of the “good language learner”

by Rubin (1975) and Stern (1975). From these initial research efforts, numerous

researchers have attempted to emphasize the importance of language learning strategy

use by successful language learners (e.g., Abraham & Vann, 1987, 1990; Chamot &

Kupper, 1989; Naiman, Frolich, Stern, and Todesco, 1978; O’Malley & Chamot, 1990;

Oxford et al., 1989,1993, 1995; Politzer & McGroarty, 1985; Ramsey, 1980; Reiss,

1983). They noted that, generally speaking, more successful learners employed

language learning strategies more frequently and more appropriately than did less

successful learners. The researchers believe that language learning strategy plays a

significant role in L2/FL learning, due to the fact that language learning strategies that

can help learners to facilitate the acquisition, storage, retrieval or use of information

and increase self-confidence.

Learning English as a foreign language (EFL) is very popular in Taiwan. English

is valuable in the fields of technology, science, education, business and international

communication. Since Taiwan joined to World Trade Organization (WTO) in year

2002, English has become more important to, and needed by, Taiwanese people. In

Taiwan, English was a required subject taught in junior and senior high school for six

years. In addition, the Ministry of Education (MOE) in Taiwan (1998) decided to

236
 A Study of Language Learning Strategies Used by College EFL Learners in Taiwan

include EFL in the national elementary education curriculum. Therefore, since

September 2001, English has been taught as a required subject starting from grade 5.

The subject of English has assured the EFL learning of a crucial role in Taiwanese

elementary and secondary education curricula. However, in the most of colleges,

English class generally involves only two to three hours per week for one or two years.

Generally speaking, the majority of students are not able to achieve the standard level

of English proficiency; they lack self-confidence in their English proficiency.

Therefore, to improve student English proficiency, most of the colleges have adopted

the policy requirement that their graduates must demonstrate English proficiency.

Accordingly, how to assist college students’ English learning has become an important

issue. Therefore, the researchers hope that insights into Taiwanese college EFL

learners’ use of English learning strategies could provide information for researchers

and educators that will furnish them with knowledge about how to enhance and assist

the students in the use of language learning strategies.

2. Literature Review

Definitions and Classifications of Language Learning Strategies

“Strategy”, from the ancient Greek term strategia, refers to generalship or the art

of war. In a more specific sense, strategy entails the optimal management of troops,

ships or aircraft in a planned campaign. “Tactics” is different but related to strategies,

which are tools to achieve the success of strategies. Moreover, the two expressions

share some basic concepts: planning, competition, conscious manipulation and

movement toward a goal. In nonmilitary settings, the concept of strategy has been

applied to the non-adversarial situations, where it has come to mean a plan, step or an

action is taken for achieving a specific objective (Oxford, 1990). Oxford (1990) stated

237
 第二期（2007 年 3 月）

that strategies are particularly important for language learning “because they are tools

for active, self-directed involvement, which is essential for developing communicative

competence” (p.1). Because of its significance, learning strategies have been

extensively employed in the educational field. In defining the language learning

strategy, “different researchers use different terms and different concepts” (Oxford &

Crookall, 1989, p.414); therefore, a great number of researchers have formulated their

own definitions which will be discussed in the followings.

Schemeck (1988) stated, strategy is “the implementation of a set of procedures

(tactics) for accomplishing something” and learning strategy is “a sequence of

procedures for accomplishing learning” (p.5). Weinstein and Mayer (1986) proposed

learning strategies as “behaviors and thoughts that a learner engages in during

learning and that are intended to influence the learner’s encoding process” (p.315).

More specifically, Rigney (1978) defined learning strategies as “cognitive strategy”

which is “used to signify operations and procedures that the student may use to

acquire, retain, and retrieve different kinds of knowledge and performance”(p.165).

Rubin (1975) defined strategies as “the techniques or devices, which a learner

may use to acquire knowledge” (p.43). Later, Rubin (1981) conducted a study to

identify cognitive strategies in second language learning and introduced the

distinction between direct and indirect language learning strategies. In 1987, Rubin

proposed, “language learning strategies are strategies which contribute to the

development of the language system which the learner constructs and affect learning

directly” (p.23). She also suggested that language learning strategies include “any set

of operations, steps, plans, routines used by the learner to facilitate the obtaining,

storage, retrieval and use of information” (p.19).

Bialystok (1978) defined language learning strategies as “optional means for

exploiting available information to improve competence in a second language” (p.71).

238
 A Study of Language Learning Strategies Used by College EFL Learners in Taiwan

Meanwhile, he identified four kinds of language learning strategies: (a) formal

practicing; (b) functional practicing; (c) monitoring; and (d) inferencing.

According to O’Malley et al. (1985), “language learning strategies have been broadly

defined as any set of operations or steps used by a learner that will facilitate the

acquisition, storage, retrieval, or use of information” (p.23). In this study, they

classified twenty-six strategies into three subgroups: metacognitive, cognitive and

socio-affective. Similarly, Chamot (1987) gave a definition of language learning

strategies as “techniques, approaches or deliberate actions that students take in order

to facilitate the learning and recall of both linguistic and content area information”

(p.71). She proposed that some language learning strategies are observable, but some

may not be observable. In cognitive perspective, O’Malley and Chamot (1990)

viewed language learning strategies as “the special thoughts or behaviors of

processing information that individuals use to help them comprehend, learn, or retain

new information” (p.1). Nisbet (1986) offered another definition of language learning

strategies as “always purposeful and goal-oriented, but perhaps not always carried out

at a conscious or deliberate level. They can be lengthy or so rapid in execution that it

is impossible for the learner to recapture, recall or even be aware that one has used a

strategy” (p.25). Oxford and Crookall (1989) defined language learning strategies as

“steps taken by the learner to aid the acquisition, storage, and retrieval of information”

(p.404). They noted that strategies may be used consciously but they can also become

habitual and automatic with practice. Similarly, Oxford (1990) claimed “learning

strategies are steps taken by students to enhance their own learning” (p.1). She

proposed a more specific definition of learning strategies as “specific actions taken by

the learner to make learning easier, faster, more enjoyable, more self-directed, more

effective, and more transferable to new situations” (p.8).

MacIntyre (1994) argued that the term strategy implied active planning in pursuit

239
 第二期（2007 年 3 月）

of some goal, which was not something that would automatically occur. He

emphasized the learners’ deliberate action of language learning strategies. He

provided a different perspective of defining language learning strategies as “the

actions chosen by language students that are intended to facilitate language

acquisition and communication” (p.190). The definition focuses more on learners’

intention and choice of using language learning strategies.

In Oxford’s (1990) study, she synthesized prior study results and came up with a

language learning strategy system (See Table 1). Six categories, including memory

strategies, cognitive strategies, compensation strategies, metacognitive strategies,

affective strategies, and social strategies, were divided into two major types, direct

and indirect.

Table 1 Oxford’s Language Learning Strategy System (Oxford, 1990, p.17)

Type Primary strategies Secondary strategies

Direct 1. Memory strategies A. Creating mental linkages

strategies

B. Applying images and sounds

C. Reviewing well

D. Employing action

2. Cognitive strategies A. Practicing

B. Receiving and sending

messages

C. Analyzing and reasoning

D. Creating structure for input

and output

240
 A Study of Language Learning Strategies Used by College EFL Learners in Taiwan

[Link] strategies A. Guessing intelligently

B. Overcoming limitations in

speaking and writing

Indirect [Link] strategies A. Centering your learning

strategies

B. Arranging and planning your

learning

C. Evaluating your learning

2. Affective strategies A. Lowering your anxiety

B. Encouraging yourself

C. Taking your emotional

temperature

3. Social strategies A. Asking questions

B. Cooperating with others

C. Empathizing with others

3. Methodology

Research Questions

This study aimed to investigate language learning strategies used by college

students in Taiwanese EFL context, and set out to seek answers to the following

research questions:

1. What kinds of language learning strategies do Taiwanese college EFL learners

report using?

2. Does learner gender influence Taiwanese college EFL learners’ use of

language learning strategies?

241
 第二期（2007 年 3 月）

3. Does Taiwanese college EFL learners’ use of language learning strategies

differ relative to learner major?

Population and Sample

The targeted population of this research was freshmen, sophomores, juniors, and

seniors at colleges in Taiwan. The researchers divided the distribution area into three

regions: Northern Taiwan, Central Taiwan, and Southern Taiwan. Cluster and random

selection were used in the sampling process of this research study. In each region, two

colleges were randomly selected so altogether six schools were involved in this study.

Eight classes of students were randomly chosen in each school as the samples for this

study. In addition, the researchers grouped the subjects according to their majors:

humanities and social science, business and management, science and engineering,

and others. As a result, a total of 1993students at Taiwanese colleges were invited to

participate in this survey research. Of the 1993 returned questionnaires, 235

questionnaires were discarded as invalid, those either incomplete or did not follow the

answering instruction. Therefore, a total of 1758 subject responses (88.2% of 1993

participants) were used for the statistical analysis. In addition, based on the ethical

consideration, the names of the school and the participants’ personal data were kept

anonymous in the current study.

Instrumentation

The instruments of this study involved two sets of questionnaires: (a)

Background Characteristics, (b) Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL).

Background Characteristics

In order to understand the background and demographic information of subjects,

the current researchers designed two questions to gather the data regarding the gender,

242
 A Study of Language Learning Strategies Used by College EFL Learners in Taiwan

and major.

The Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL)

The Strategy Inventory for language Learning (SILL) (Oxford, 1990) was first

designed as an instrument for assessing the frequency of use of language learning

strategies by students at the Defense language Institute in Monterey, California. Two

revised versions of the SILL exist, one for foreign language learners whose native

language in English (80 items) and the other for learners of English as a second or

foreign language (ESL/EFL, 50 items). It is estimated that 40 to50 major studies,

including a dozen dissertations and theses, have been done using the SILL. These

studies have involved an estimated 8000 to 8500 language learners. Within the last 10

to 15 years, the SILL appears to be the only one language learning strategy instrument

that has been extensively checked for reliability and validated in multiple ways

(Oxford & Burry-Stock, 1995, p.4). In this current study, the ESL/EFL 50 items

version 7.0 of SILL was employed as an instrument to investigate EFL learners’ use of

language learning strategies.

The version 7.0 of SILL contains of 50 items, and characterized into six

subscales: (a) memory strategies (items 1 to 9), (b) cognitive strategies (items 10 to

23), (c) compensation strategies (items 24 to 29), (d) metacognitive strategies (items

30 to 38), (e) affective strategies (items 39 to 44), (f) social strategies (items 45 to 50).

These SILL 50 items are evaluated on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 to 5.

The number indicates how often the learner uses the strategies.

Never or almost never true of me =1

Generally not true of me =2

Somewhat true of me =3

Generally true of me =4

243
 第二期（2007 年 3 月）

Always or almost always true of me =5

In general, the ESL/EFL SILL reliabilities have been high. Cronbach Alphas

have been .94 using the Chinese translation with a sample of 590 Taiwanese

university EFL learners (Yang, 1992). Additionally, in studies worldwide, the SILL’s

reliability using Cronbach’s alpha is ordinarily in the range of the .90s (Oxford &

Ehrman, 1995, p.370).

Data Analysis

The Statistical Package for the Social Science (SPSS) for Microsoft Windows

10.0 was used to complete the analysis of the collected data. Descriptive statistics,

including frequencies, means, standard deviations and percentages, were implemented

in order to investigate the demographic data, and the use of language learning

strategies. t-test, one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and the Scheffe post-hoc test

were used to determine whether any significant relationships exist among respondents

in the use of language learning strategies regarding their background characteristics.

In addition, the .05 level of statistical significance was set at all statistical tests in the

present study.

4. Results of Data Analysis

Question One

What kinds of language learning strategies do Taiwanese college EFL learners

report using?

Descriptive statistics was employed to investigate the language learning strategies that

Taiwanese college EFL learners report using. Table 2 illustrates that the mean of

frequency of overall strategy use was 2.89, which was approximately at a medium

244
 A Study of Language Learning Strategies Used by College EFL Learners in Taiwan

degree (with a range from 1 to 5). According to the results of Table 2, the most

frequently used strategy was compensation strategies (M=2.98) and followed by

memory strategies (M =2.93), metacognitive strategies (M =2.91), social strategies (M

=2.90), cognitive strategies (M =2.84) and affective strategies (M =2.80). There was

not a big difference among the frequency of each strategy that Taiwanese college EFL

learners report using.

Table 2 Summary of Descriptive Statistics for Language Learning Strategy Use

m<3 m>3
Strategies M SD Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage

Memory 1021 58.1% 737 49.1%

2.93 (2) .588
Cognitive 1115 63.4% 643 36.6%
2.84 (5) .688
Compensation 977 55.6% 781 44.4%
2.97 (1) .691
Metacognitive 997 56.7% 761 43.3%
2.91 (3) .716
Affective 1166 66.3% 592 33.7%
2.80 (6) .691
Social 1044 59.4% 714 40.6%
2.90 (4) .803
Overall Strategy
2.89 .576 1041 59.2% 717 40.8%
Use

N=1758

Question Two

Does learner gender influence Taiwanese college EFL learners’ use of language

learning strategies?

T-test of equality of means was performed to examine the relationships between

gender differences and the use of language learning strategies. The results of this t-test

analysis are illustrated in Table 3. Based on this t-test analysis, significant differences

245
 第二期（2007 年 3 月）

were found between male and female learners in overall strategy use (t=-2.50*, p<.05).

The mean of frequency of male learners in overall strategy use was 2.85, and the

mean of frequency of female learners was 2.92; therefore, male learners presented less

frequently in using overall strategy than did female learners. According to the results

of six subcategories of language learning strategies respectively, significant

differences did not exist in the use of memory strategies, compensation strategies, and

affective strategies by gender (t =-2.09, -1.48, -1.80, p>.05). However, significant

differences existed in the use of cognitive strategies, metacognitive strategies, and

social strategies (t =-2.64*, -2.76*, -4.30*, p<.05). The means of frequency of male

learners in using cognitive strategies, metacognitive strategies, and social strategies

were 2.79, 2.85, and 2.97; the means of frequency of female learners in using

cognitive strategies, metacognitive strategies, and social strategies were 2.87, 2.95,

and 2.97. Consequently, female learners reported using cognitive strategies,

metacognitive strategies, and social strategies more often than did male learners.

Table 3 Summary of Variation in Language Learning Strategy Use by Gender

n M SD
Strategies
Male Female Male Female Male Female t p
Memory 761 997 2.93 2.93 .601 .578 -.21 .835
Cognitive 761 997 2.79 2.87 .683 .654 -2.64* .008
Compensation 761 997 2.97 2.97 .715 .673 -.15 .882
Metacognitive 761 997 2.85 2.95 .746 .690 -2.76* .006
Affective 761 997 2.77 2.83 .704 .679 -1.79 .073
Social 761 997 2.80 2.97 .812 .788 -4.30* .001
Overall Strategy
761 997 2.85 2.92 .588 .566 -2.50* .013
Use

*p<.05

246
 A Study of Language Learning Strategies Used by College EFL Learners in Taiwan

Question Three

Does Taiwanese college EFL learners’ use of language learning strategies differ

relative to learner major?

Descriptive statistics was computed to understand the current situations of

language learning strategy use regarding major differences among EFL learners at

colleges. As shown in Table 4, in the use of memory strategies, the mean of frequency

of humanities and social science learners was 3.04, the mean of frequency of business

and management learners was 2.88, and the mean of frequency of science and

engineering learners was 2.91. In the use of cognitive strategies, the mean of

frequency of humanities and social science learners was 3.11, the mean of frequency

of business and management learners was 2.72, and the mean of frequency of science

and engineering learners was 2.73. In the use of compensative strategies, the mean of

frequency of humanities and social science learners was 3.17, the mean of frequency

of business and management learners was 2.92, and the mean of frequency of science

and engineering learners was 2.87. In the use of metacognitive strategies, the mean of

frequency of humanities and social science learners was 3.11, the mean of frequency

of business and management learners was 2.85, and the mean of frequency of science

and engineering learners was 2.80. In the use of affective strategies, the mean of

frequency of humanities and social science learners was 2.99, the mean of frequency

of business and management learners was 2.75, and the mean of frequency of science

and engineering learners was 2.71. In the use of social strategies, the mean of

frequency of humanities and social science learners was 3.24, the mean of frequency

of business and management learners was 2.80, and the mean of frequency of science

and engineering learners was 2.72. In overall strategy use, the mean of frequency of

humanities and social science learners was 3.11, the mean of frequency of business

and management learners was 2.82, and the mean of frequency of science and

247
 第二期（2007 年 3 月）

engineering learners was 2.79. According to the results of descriptive statistics

analysis, the humanities and social science learners seemed to be more commonly in

using overall strategy and six subcategories of language learning strategies than did

other two majors.

Table 4 Summary of Descriptive Statistic for Using Language Learning Strategies

Regarding Majors
Humanities & Business & Science &
Strategies Social Science Management Engineering
n M SD n M SD n M SD

Memory 506 3.04 .574 620 2.87 .588 632 2.91 .588
Cognitive 506 3.11 .632 620 2.73 .644 632 2.73 .658
Compensation 506 3.17 .629 620 2.92 .661 632 2.87 .736
Metacognitive 506 3.11 .681 620 2.85 .687 632 2.80 .737
Affective 506 2.99 .654 620 2.75 .663 632 2.71 .716
Social 506 3.24 .729 620 2.80 .777 632 2.72 .801
Overall Strategy
506 3.11 .551 620 2.82 .539 632 2.79 .586
Use

N=1758

One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was further run to investigate the

relationships between major differences and the use of language learning strategies. If

significant differences existed, Scheffe post hoc analysis was used to determine which

major groups were significantly different in the use of language learning strategies.

The results of one-way ANOVA and Scheffe post hoc analysis are presented in Tables

5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10. As the results of Table 5 show, there were significantly different

248
 A Study of Language Learning Strategies Used by College EFL Learners in Taiwan

in the use of memory strategies with regard to major differences (F=11.77*, p<.05).

According to the results of Scheffe post hoc analysis, significant differences existed

among the groups of “humanities and social science” and “business and management”,

“humanities and social science” and “science and engineering” with respect to

memory strategy use. As the mean scores reveal that the groups of humanities and

social science used memory strategies most frequently among three different majors.

Table 5 Summary of One-way ANOVA and Scheffe Post Hoc for Using Memory

Strategies Regarding Majors

Memory Scheffe
SS df MS F p
Strategies post-hoc
Between
8.040 2 4.020 11.77* .001
Groups *1>2
Within
599.446 1755 .342 *1>3
Groups
Total
607.485 1757

*p<.05

Note: 1- humanities and social science groups.

2- business and management groups.

3- science and engineering groups.

As show in Table 6, significant differences existed among different majors in the

use of cognitive strategies (F=62.24*, p<.05). As Scheffe post hoc analysis shows,

significant differences were found in the use of cognitive strategies in respect of the

groups of “humanities and social science” and “business and management”,

“humanities and social science” and “science and engineering”. Resulting mean

scores indicate that the groups of “humanities and social science” used cognitive

249
 第二期（2007 年 3 月）

strategies more often than did the groups of “business and management”, and the

groups of “science and engineering”.

Table 6 Summary of One-way ANOVA and Scheffe Post Hoc for Using Cognitive

Strategies Regarding Majors

Cognitive Scheffe
SS df MS F p
Strategies post-hoc
Between
51.961 2 25.980 62.24* .001
Groups *1>2
Within
732.604 1755 .417 *1>3
Groups
Total
784.565 1757

*p<.05

Note: 1- humanities and social science groups.

2- business and management groups.

3- science and engineering groups.

Table 7 indicates that significant differences existed among different majors with

respect to compensation strategies (F=29.34*, p<.05). According to the results of

Scheffe post hoc analysis, significant differences existed among the groups of

“humanities and social science” and “business and management”, “humanities and

social science” and “science and engineering” with respect to the use of compensation

strategies. The mean scores reveal that the groups of “humanities and social science”

were the most frequent users in using compensation strategies among three different

majors.

250
 A Study of Language Learning Strategies Used by College EFL Learners in Taiwan

Table 7 Summary of One-way ANOVA and Scheffe Post Hoc for Using

Compensation Strategies Regarding Majors

Compensation Scheffe
SS df MS F p
Strategies post-hoc
Between
27.182 2 13.591 29.34* .001
Groups *1>2
Within
812.933 1755 .463 *1>3
Groups
Total
840.115 1757

*p<.05

Note: 1- humanities and social science groups.

2- business and management groups.

3- science and engineering groups.

According to the results of one-way ANOVA in Table 8, significant differences

were found in the use of metacognitive strategies regarding major differences

(F=31.42*, p<.05). The results of Scheffe post hoc analysis indicate that significant

differences existed among the groups of “humanities and social science” and

“business and management”, “humanities and social science” and “science and

engineering” in the use of metacognitive strategies. Consequently, resulting mean

scores report that the groups of humanities and social science used metacognitive

strategies most commonly among all three majors.

251
 第二期（2007 年 3 月）

Table 8 Summary of One-way ANOVA and Scheffe Post Hoc for Using

Metacognitive Strategies Regarding Majors

Metacognitive Scheffe
SS df MS F p
Strategies post-hoc
Between
31.150 2 15.575 31.42* .001
Groups *1>2
Within
869.873 1755 .496 *1>3
Groups
Total
901.023 1757

*p<.05

Note: 1- humanities and social science groups.

2- business and management groups.

3- science and engineering groups.

As the results of Table 9 show, there were significantly different among different

majors with respect to the use of affective strategies (F=28.55*, p<.05). Resulting

Scheffe post hoc analysis indicate that significant differences existed among the

groups of “humanities and social science” and “business and management”,

“humanities and social science” and “science and engineering” in the use of affective

strategies. According to the results of mean scores, the groups of “humanities and

social science” used affective strategies more frequently than did the groups of

“business and management”, and the groups of “science and engineering”.

252
 A Study of Language Learning Strategies Used by College EFL Learners in Taiwan

Table 9 Summary of One-way ANOVA and Scheffe Post Hoc for Using Affective

Strategies Regarding Majors

Affective Scheffe
SS df MS F p
Strategies post-hoc
Between
26.416 2 13.208 28.55* .001
Groups *1>2
Within
811.853 1755 .463 *1>3
Groups
Total
838.268 1757

*p<.05

Note: 1- humanities and social science groups.

2- business and management groups.

3- science and engineering groups.

Table 10 reveals that significant differences existed among majors with respect to

the use of social strategies (F=70.77*, p<.05). As Scheffe post hoc analysis present

that significant differences existed among the groups of “humanities and social

science” and “business and management”, “humanities and social science” and

“science and engineering” in social strategy use. The mean scores indicate that the

groups of humanities and social science were the most commonly users among all

different majors in using social strategies.

253
 第二期（2007 年 3 月）

Table 10 Summary of One-way ANOVA and Scheffe Post Hoc for Using Social

Strategies Regarding Majors

Social Scheffe
SS df MS F p
Strategies post-hoc
Between
84.483 2 42.242 70.77* .001
Groups *1>2
Within
1047.488 1755 .597 *1>3
Groups
Total
1131.971 1757

*p<.05

Note: 1- humanities and social science groups.

2- business and management groups.

3- science and engineering groups.

According to the results of one-way ANOVA in Table 11, significant differences

were found in the use of overall strategy regarding major differences (F=54.07*,

p<.05). The results of Scheffe post hoc analysis show that significant differences

existed among the groups of “humanities and social science” and “business and

management”, “humanities and social science” and “science and engineering” in

overall strategy use. Therefore, resulting mean scores indicate that the groups of

humanities and social science used overall strategies most frequently among all three

majors.

254
 A Study of Language Learning Strategies Used by College EFL Learners in Taiwan

Table 11 Summary of One-way ANOVA and Scheffe Post Hoc for Using Overall

Strategy Regarding Majors

Overall Scheffe
SS df MS F p
Strategy post-hoc
Between
33.896 2 16.948 54.07* .001
Groups *1>2
Within
550.110 1755 .313 *1>3
Groups
Total
584.005 1757

*p<.05

Note: 1- humanities and social science groups.

2- business and management groups.

3- science and engineering groups.

5. Findings and Discussions

With reference to the research questions posed in this study, the findings and

discussions were summarized as follows:

(1) In general, there was not a big difference among the frequency of each

strategy that Taiwanese college EFL learners report using, all in medium-use

level. According to the rank order of the frequency of use, the most frequently

used strategy was compensation strategies and followed by memory strategies,

metacognitive strategies, social strategies, cognitive strategies and affective

strategies. In line with the previous studies (Chang & Huang, 1999; Ho, 1999;

Klassen, 1994; Teng, 1999; Yang, 1993, 1994), the finding of the current study

255
 第二期（2007 年 3 月）

reveals that compensation strategies were most frequently used. In addition,

the mean of frequency of overall strategy use was 2.89, which showed in

medium use. The results show that these learners did not apply strategies as

frequently as they could in learning English as a foreign language that was

consistent with previous studies conducted either in Taiwan or in other

countries (Chang, 1997; Ehrman & Oxford, 1989; Oxford, & Crookall, 1989).

(2) Statistically significant differences were found between male and female

learners in their overall strategy use. In this current study, female learners

showed significantly greater use of language learning strategies than did male

learners in three of six categories on the SILL: cognitive strategies,

metacognitive strategies, and social strategies. The finding of gender

differences is in accordance with previous research studies (Ehrman & Oxford,

1989; Green & Oxford, 1995; Kaylani, 1996; Noguchi, 1991; Nyikos, 1990;

Oxford, 1993; Oxford & Ehrman, 1993; Oxford & Nyikos, 1989; Politzer,

1983; Sy, 1994 & 1995; Willing, 1988; Yang, 1992& 1994). According to

Oxford (1993), one possible explanation might be related to female’s social

skills, stronger verbal skills, and greater conformity to academic and linguistic

norms.

(3) Statistically significant differences existed among different majors in the use of

overall strategies and six subcategories of language learning strategies. As the

results indicate, learners in “humanities and social science” seemed to be more

frequently in using overall strategies and six subcategories of language

learning strategies than did learners in “business and management”, “science

and engineering”. A number of studies have shown that significant

relationships were found between majors and language learning strategy

256
 A Study of Language Learning Strategies Used by College EFL Learners in Taiwan

choices, and the learners in “humanities and social science” reported using

language learning strategies more commonly than did learners in other majors

(Chang, 1991; Oxford & Nyikos 1989; Politzer & McGroarty, 1985, Yang,

1994), which are consistent with the finding in this present study. In general,

majority of students who majored in “humanities and social science” in this

study were female, and who majored in “science and engineering” were

mostly male students; accordingly, the result of this current investigation is

somewhat in accordance with the result showed in gender differences in using

language learning strategies.

6. Pedagogical Implications

The findings derived from the current study may suggest some pedagogical

implications. Since it is very crucial for students to understand the importance of

using language learning strategies in the process of language learning; hence, EFL

teachers should deliver this message to their students. According to the results of this

study, some students showed that they do not really use these strategies for their

English learning even though they know the strategies are available. But some

students reported that they even do not know there are strategies for language learning.

Consequently, teachers should help students cultivate and raise their awareness of

language learning strategies. Once students are aware of advantages of using

strategies in their language learning process, they will be willing to and appropriately

employ these strategies to facilitate their English learning.

257
 第二期（2007 年 3 月）

References
Abraham, R. G., & Vann, R. J. (1987). Strategies of two language learners: A case
study. In A. L. Wenden & J. Rubin (Eds.), Learner strategies in language learning
(pp.85-102). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bialystok, E. (1978). A theoretical model of second language learning. Language
Learning, 28, 69-83.
Chamot, A. U. (1987). The learning strategies of ESL students. In A. Wenden & J.
Rubin (Eds.), Learner strategies in language learning (pp. 71-83). Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Chamot, A. U., & Kupper, L. (1989). Learning strategies in foreign language
instruction. Foreign Language Annuals, 22, 13-24.
Chang, S. F. & Huang, S. C. (1999). Taiwanese English learners’ learning motivation
and language learning strategies. Proceedings of the Sixteenth Conference on
English Teaching and Learning in the Republic of China (pp.111-128), Taipei,
Taiwan: The Crane Publishing Co.
Chang, S. J. (1991). A study of language learning behaviors of Chinese students at the
University of Georgia and the relation of those behaviors to oral proficiency and
other factors. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Georgia, Athens,
GA.
Chang, Y. J. (1997). A study of English learning achievement in relation to English
learning strategy and motivation of junior high school students in Taiwan.
Unpublished master’s thesis, National Kaohsiung Normal University. Taiwan:
Kaohsiung.
Ehrman, M. & Oxford, R. (1989). Effects of sex differences, career choice, and
psychological type on adult language learning strategies. Modern Language
Journal, 73, 1-13.
Green, J. M. & Oxford, R. L. (1995). A closer look at learning strategies, L2
proficiency, and gender. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 261-297.
Ho, I. P. (1999). Relationship between motivation/attitude, efforts, and English
proficiency and Taiwan Technological University students’ English learning
strategy use. Journal of National Taipei University of Technology, 32:1, 611-674.
Kaylani, C. (1996). The influence of gender and motivation on EFL learning strategy
use in Jordan. In [Link] (Ed.). Language learning strategies around the
world: Cross-cultural perspective (pp.75-88). University of Hawaii Press.
Klassen, J. (1994). The language learning strategies of freshman English students in
Taiwan: A case study. Master’s thesis, California State University at Chico, CA.
MacIntyre, P. D. (1994). Toward a social psychological model of strategy use. Foreign
Language Annals, 27 (2), 185-195.
Naiman, N., Frohlich, M., Stern, H. H., & Todesco, A. (1978). The good language
learner (Research in Education Series No.7). Toronto, Canada: Ontario Institute
for Studies in Education.

258
 A Study of Language Learning Strategies Used by College EFL Learners in Taiwan

Nisbet, J. & Shucksmith, J. (1986). Learning strategies. NY: Routledge.

Noguchi, T. (1991). Review of language learning strategy: Research and its
implications. Unpublished bachelor’s thesis, Tottori University, Tottori, Japan,
1991.
Nyikos, M. (1990). Sex-related differences in adult language learning: Socialization
and memory factors. Modern Language Journal, 74 (3), 273-287.
O’Malley, J. M., & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning strategies in second language
acquisition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
O’Malley, J. M., Chamot, A. U., Stewner-Manzanares, G., Russo, R. P., & Kupper, L.
(1985). Learning strategies used by beginning and intermediate ESL students.
Language Learning, 35, 21-46.
Oxford, R. L. (1989). Use of language learning strategies: A synthesis of studies with
implication for strategy training. System, 17, 235-247.
Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know.
Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
Oxford, R. L. (1993). Instructional implications of gender differences in L2 learning
styles and strategies. Applied Language Learning, 4 (1-2), 65-94.
Oxford, R. L., & Burry-stock, J. A. (1995). Assessing the use of language learning
strategies worldwide with the ESL/EFL version of the strategy inventory for
language learning (SILL). System, 23 (1), 1-23.
Oxford, R. L., & Crookall, D. (1989). Research on language learning strategies:
Methods, findings, and instructional issues. Modern Language Journal, 73,
404-19.
Oxford, R. L., & Ehrman, M. (1993). Second language research on individual
differences. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 13, 188-205.
Oxford, R. L., & Ehrman, M. (1995). Adult’s language learning strategies in an
intensive foreign language program in the United States. System, 23 (3), 359-86.
Oxford, R. L., & Nyikos, M. (1989). Variables affecting choice of language learning
strategies by university students. Modern Language Journal, 73, 291-300.
Politzer, R. (1983). An exploratory study of self-reported language learning behaviors
and their relation to achievement. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 6,
54-65.
Politzer, R. L., & McGroarty, M. (1985). An exploratory study of learning behaviors
and their relationship to gains in linguistic and communicative competence.
TESOL Quartely, 19, 103-123.
Ramasay, R.M.G. (1980). Language learning approach styles of adult multilingual and
successful language learners. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 345,
73-96.
Reiss, M. A. (1983). Helping the unsuccessful language learner. Canadian Modern
Language Review, 39 (2), 256-266.

259
 第二期（2007 年 3 月）

Rigney, J. W. (1978). Learning strategies: A theoretical perspective. In H. F. O’Neil, Jr.

(Ed.), Learning Strategies (pp. 165-205). NY: Academic.
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, 11, 117-31.
Schemeck, R. R. (Ed.) (1988). Learning strategies and learning styles. New York, NY:
Plenum Press.
Stern, H. H. (1975). What can we learn from the good language learner? Canadian
Modern Language Review, 31, 304-18.
Sy, B. M. (1994) Sex differences and language learning strategies. Papers from the
Eleventh Conference on English Teaching and Learning in the Republic of China
(pp.19-41). Taipei, Taiwan: The Crane Publishing Co.
Sy, B. M (1995). Gender differences, perceptions on foreign language learning and
language learning strategies. Paper presented at the Twelfth Conference on
English Teaching and Learning in the Republic of China (pp.215-277). Taipei:
The Crane Publishing Co.
Teng, H. C. (1999). A study on English learning strategies used by students at
technology university. The Proceedings of the Eighth International Symposium on
English Teaching. Taipei, Taiwan: The Crane Publishing Co.
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.315-27). NY:
Macmillan.
Willing, K. (1988). Learning Styles in adult migrant education. Adelaide, South
Australia: National Curriculum Resource Centre.
Yang, B. L. (1993). A study of English learning strategies and techniques used by
senior high school students with high achievements in English. Unpublished
master’s thesis, National Kaohsiung Normal University. Taiwan: Kaohsiung.
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. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Texas at Austin, Texas.
Yang, N. D. (1993). Beliefs about language learning and learning strategy use: A
study of college students of English in Taiwan (pp.193-219). Paper from the tenth
conference on English teaching and learning in the Republic of China. Taipei: The
Crane Publishing Co.
Yang, N. D. (1994). A study of factors affecting college EFL students’ use of learning
strategies. Papers of the eleventh conference on English teaching and learning in
the Republic of China (pp.53-82). Taipei, Taiwan: The Crane Publishing Co.

260
 A Study of Language Learning Strategies Used by College EFL Learners in Taiwan

台灣大學生英語學習策略之研究

張靜怡∗ 、劉淑楨∗∗、李宜年∗∗∗

摘 要

本研究主旨在於探討性別及不同學系對台灣大學生語言學習策略使用之影
響。共有 1758 位來自北、中、南的大學生參與本研究。主要研究工具為一式兩
份的問卷，包含個人基本資料及語言學習量表。本研究採用的分析方式主要為量
化統計，包含描述性統計，獨立樣本 t 考驗，及單因子變異數分析。
本研究主要發現如下：
1. 台灣大學生在六大語言學習策略的使用頻率上並無顯著差異，皆為中等強度。
2. 不同性別的學生在使用認知策略，後設認知策略，社會策略及整體語言學策
略上有顯著差異。
3. 不同學系的學生在六大語言學習策略及整體語言學習策略的使用上，有顯著
差異。
最後本研究亦提供了教學上的建議給從事英語教學的老師，建議老師們可以
有計畫性的介紹及教導學生不同的語言學習策略，讓學生可以運用不同的學習策
略，幫助學生更有效率的學習語言。

關鍵詞: 語言學習策略、語言學習策略量表

∗
明道管理學院應用英語系助理教授
∗∗
明道管理學院應用英語系副教授
∗∗∗
明道管理學院應用英語系助理教授

261
第二期（2007 年 3 月）

262