The Relationship between Language Learning Strategies, Field of Study, Gender, and Language Proficiency

Research in English Language Pedagogy

مقاله 4، دوره 2، شماره 2، خرداد 2015، صفحه 46-61   

نوع مقاله: Original Article

نویسندگان

Habibollah Mashhady^* ؛ Nasser Fallah

University of Zabol

چکیده

The present study aimed at exploring the potential relationship between language learning strategies (LLS) and factors such as major fields of study, sex, and language proficiency among university students across different fields such as medicine, sciences, engineering, humanities, and English. To this end, 200 master students were collected and tested. In addition, 25 English teachers were included. The findings showed that there was no significant difference among English students and students of other fields of study in terms of strategy use. It was also found that there was no significant relationship between language learning strategies and variables of sex, and language proficiency. Another line of the findings indicated that students enjoyed a high level of metacognitive knowledge of what they were doing. Finally, to examine how students viewed their language needs across different fields of study, the fourth-year students of medicine, engineering, science, and humanities were asked to express their own ideas about the present status of ESP courses. After analyzing the students’ responses to the questionnaire, it could be understood that ESP courses had not been beneficial because they were far away from the students’ needs and expectations.
Key words: Language Learning Strategies Language Proficiency Field of Study Gender

کلیدواژه‌ها

Language Learning Strategies؛ language proficiency؛ field of study؛ gender

مراجع

Bialystok, E. (1990). Communication strategies: A psychological analysis of second language use. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.  
Borzabadi Farahani, D. (2000). A Study on the Relationship between Language Learning Strategies, Learning Styles, and Language Proficiency Of EFL Students. An Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation. Tehran: University of Tehran.  
Hudson, T. (1991).A Content Comprehension Approach to Reading English for Science and Technology.TESOL Quarterly, 25(1), 77-104.  
Hutchinson, T. & Waters, A. (1987).English for specific purposes: A learning-centered approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.  
Jordan, R. R. (1997). English for academic purposes: A guide and resource book for teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.  
Kasper, L. F. (1997). Assessing the metacognitive growth of ESL student writers.TESL EJ, 3 (1), 1-20.
Kumaravadivelu, B. (1994). The post- method condition: Emerging strategies for second/ foreign language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 28(1), 27-48.
Lessard-Clouston, M. (1997). Language learning strategies: An overview for L2 teachers. The Internet TESL Journal 3 (12). Retrieved from http://iteslj.org/Articles/Lessard-Clouston-Strategy.html
Lunzer, E., Waite, M., & Dolan, T. (1979).Comprehension and comprehension tests. In E. Lunzer& K. Gardner (Eds.).The effective use of reading. Portsmouth, NTT: Heinemann.  
O’Malley, J. M. &Chamot, A. U. (1989).learning strategies in second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.  
O’Malley, J. M. &Chamot, A. U., Stewner-Manzanaraes, G., Kupper, L., & Russo, R. (1985).Learning strategy applications with students of English as second language.TESOL Quarterly, 19(3), 557-584.
Oxford, R. L. (1989). Use of language learning strategies: Synthesis of studies with implications for strategy training. System, 17, 235-247.
Oxford, R. L. (1990). language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. Newbury House, Harperand Row, New York, New Boston: Heinle and Heinle. 

Oxford, R. L. & Ehrman, M. E. (1995).Adults’ language learning strategies in an Intensive foreign language program in the United States, System, 32(2).359-386.
Oxford, R. L. & Nyikos, M. (1989).Variables affecting choice of language learning strategies by University Students.Modern Language Journal, 23(2), 291-300.
Politzer, R. L. (1983). Research Notes: An Exploratory Study of Self -Reported Language Learning Behaviors and Their Relation to Gains in Linguistic and Communicative Competence. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 111-125.
Richards, J. C. (1990). The Language Teaching Matrix. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.  
Rubin, J. (1987). Learner strategies: Theoretical assumptions, research history and typology. In Wenden, A; And Rubin, J. (Eds.). Learner strategies in language learning, (pp.15-30). London: Prentice-Hall International.  
Swales, J.M. (1990).Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Trimble, L. (1985). English for science and technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.  
Wenden, A. L. (1991). Learner strategies for learner autonomy. London: Prentice-Hall International.  
Wenden, A. L. (1998). Metacognitive knowledge and language learning.Applied Linguistics, 19(4), 515-537.
Widdowson, H. G. (1981). English for specific purposes: Criteria for course design. In L. Selinker; E. Ttarone; and V. Hanzeli (Eds.).English for academic and technical purposes. Rowley, Mass: Newbury House.  
Widdowson, H. G. (1983). Learning purpose and language use. Oxford: Oxford University Press.