You are on page 1of 23

S3wtem. Vol. 23, No. I, pp.

1-23, 1995
Copyright © 1995 Elsevier Science Ltd
~ Pergamon Printed in Great Britain. All rights reser,,ed
0346-25 IX/95 $9.50+0.00




University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL, USA

With factor analysis contributions by Neff Anderson, Ohio University, USA;
Deena Boraie, American University in Cairo, Egypt; John Green, University of
Puerto Rico at Mayaguez and Salem State College, USA; Gene Halleck, Oklahoma
State University, USA; Omneya Kassabgy, Career Development Center, Cairo,
Egypt; Victoria Talbott, Skagit Valley Junior College, USA; Yoshinori Watanabe,
Japan; Nae-Dong Yang, National Taiwan University, Taiwan, ROC; Wenpeng
Zhang, Ohio University, USA

Summative rating scales are among the most efficient and comprehensive ways to
assess frequency of language learning strategy use. This article discusses
applications of this assessment technique and describes the most widely employed
strategy scale, the ESL/EFL version of the Strategy Inventory for Language
Learning (SILL). Reliability of the SILL is high across many cultural groups.
Validity of the SILL rests on its predictive and correlative link with language
performance (course grades, standardized test scores, ratings of proficiency), as
well as its confirmed relationship to sensory preferences. Studies of strategy use
frequencies and factor analytic results across cultures are included.


One of the most prevalent ways to assess the use of language learning strategies is to use a
summative rating scale, popularly known as a questionnaire, an inventory, or (less accurately)
a survey. The most often used strategy scale around the world at this time is the Strategy
Inventoryfor Language Learning (SILL, Oxford, 1986-1990). This article has four purposes:
(1) to present information on the advantages and disadvantages of using a strategy scale in
comparison with other means of strategy assessment; (2) to discuss strategy scales other than
the SILL; (3) to provide detailed results concerning the ESL/EFL SILL itself: utility,
reliability, validity, frequency-of-strategy-use studies, and underlying factor structure; and (4)
to offer implications for research and instruction.



Compared with the other strategy assessment techniques, student-completed, summative rating
scales have a number of advantages. These self-report scales are easy and quick to give,
provide a general assessment of each student's typical strategies across a variety of possible
tasks, may be the most cost-effective mode of strategy assessment, and are almost completely
nonthreatening when administered using paper and pencil (or computer) under conditions of
confidentiality. Moreover, many students discover a great deal about themselves from taking a
strategy scale, especially one like the SILL that is self-scoring and that provides immediate
learner feedback. However, a disadvantage of the SILL and other strategy scales is that they
do not describe in detail the language learning strategies a student uses in response to any
specific language task (as does the more time-consuming think-aloud protocol).

Each of the other techniques also has advantages and disadvantages (explored in more detail
by Cohen, 1987; Oxford, 1990b). For example, informal and formal observation are easy to
use in the classroom but cannot provide information on unobservable, mental strategies such
as reasoning or analyzing. Interviews, whether formal or not, provide personalized information
on many types of strategies that would not be available through observation, but they take
considerable time from the teacher and the students. Group discussions can give a wonderful
picture of the strategies used by the class as a whole, but they do not offer full information
about the strategies used by any individual student. Language learning diaries and dialogue
journals provide detailed, rich data on learning strategies for individuals, but the data do not
provide direct comparisons between students because of the open-ended nature of the diaries
or journals. Recollective narratives (or other recollective modes) generally unite language
learning strategies with other important aspects of learning, such as motivation and learning
style, providing a "big picture" of the whole learning process, yet recollectives might (in
learners whose memories tend toward leveling rather than toward sharpening) be influenced
by slight loss of detail. Think-aloud protocols offer the most detailed information of all
because the student describes strategies while doing a language task; but these protocols are
usually used only on a one-to-one basis, take a great deal of time, reflect strategies related just
to the task at hand (not a general portrait of the individual's strategies in toto), and are not
summative across students for group information.

Most of these strategy assessment techniques involve some type of learner self-report. The
reason for researchers' frequent use of learner self-report is that it is often difficult for
researchers to employ standard observational method. Thus, much of the research on language
learning strategies depends on learners' willingness and ability to describe their internal
behaviors, both cognitive and affective (emotional), as noted by Oxford (1990b) and Harlow
(1988). This situation has led some people to question learning strategy research because of
possible problems in self-reporting: "social desirability" biases in responses, over-subjectivity,
inability to verbalize clearly, and low self-awareness among certain learners. Nevertheless,
researchers have discovered, through conducting repeated studies with clear instructions in
situations where no grades or sanctions are involved with strategy use, that many or most
language learners are capable of remembering their strategies and describing them lucidly and
in a relatively objective manner (see, e.g. Chamot and Kupper, 1989; O'Malley and Chamot,

Reliability was marginally acceptable (. listening and speaking outside of class. Formal practice with rules and structures was less effective as students advanced to higher levels of learning. with engineers avoiding strategies that were deemed "positive" for gaining communicative language proficiency. No data were published on reliability or validity. McGroarty (1987) used a 56-item Language Learning Strategy Student Questionnaire with a 0-6 range. The items showed different ways of applying a total of 16 strategies.e. such as asking questions for clarification.61. Politzer (1983) published 1-4-scaled strategy scale including 51 items divided into three groups: general behaviors. The Learning Strategies Inventory (Chamot et al. and reading.. although taught by communicative methods. such as relying heavily on the dictionary. Spanish and Russian students used somewhat different strategies across language levels (beginning and intermediate/advanced). classroom behaviors.63). and that females used social learning strategies more often than males. 1-3-scaled instrument to assess reading strategies of Hispanic ESL students in grades 3-5. Students of Russian used more strategies than students of Spanish. Major academic field had a significant effect on strategy choice. No reliability or validity data were given. The survey was used with students learning intensive ESL in an eight-week course. The scale asked questions about the extent to which strategies were used on both oral and written tasks in communicative settings (the strategies were functional practice and inferencing or guessing) and in formal classroom settings (the strategies were formal practice and monitoring). Successful strategies for grammar differed from those for listening and speaking. and interactions outside of class. Using this survey with US university students of French. and . Improvements in ESL achievement were related to individual strategies. and interactions outside of class. since many engineers were also Asian. University students of Spanish. but there was an overlap with nationality. but functional practice had no such limitation. Results showed that six of the . Seven of the items were expected to be positively related to learning and seven negatively related. speaking in class. Using the scale with students of French in grades 10 and 12 in Canada. classroom behaviors. 1-4-scaled instrument divided into five parts: listening in class. untitled rating scale to assess strategy use. with higher-level students using more so-called "positive" strategies (i. Bialystok found that functional practice had a stronger relationship with achievement than did any of the other strategies. nevertheless avoided authentic practice strategy and used traditional learning strategies. 1987) is a 48-item. strategies related to communicative language proficiency). and Spanish. Politzer and McGroarty (1985) used a somewhat similar Behavior Questionnaire containing 66 items divided into three groups: individual study behaviors. even though monitoring and inferencing were used more often. divided into the same three groups as in the Politzer and McGroarty study above. German. . structured. writing. Politzer found that course level influenced strategy use. No reliability or validity data were published. STRATEGY INVENTORY FOR LANGUAGE LEARNING 3 STRATEGY RATING SCALES OTHER THAN THE SILL Bialystok (1981) used a 12-item.51. Reliability and validity data were absent for this instrument. Padron and Waxman (1988) developed a 14-item.

The SILL response options were based on the widely used and well accepted response options of the Learning and Study Strategies Inventory described by Weinstein et al. If the psychometric properties of reliability and validity have not been explored. such as "I try to find patterns in English" or . and these were both in the negative direction. somewhat true of me. Noguchi's (1991) Questionnaire for Learners is an instrument with 24 items on a 3-point scale and 24 more on a 4-point scale. Two revised versions of the SILL. including a dozen dissertations and theses. No reliability or validity data were offered.4 REBECCA L. and always or almost always true of me. or 5) to a strategy description. 2. Kim (1991) designed a Perceptual Learning Strategy Questionnaire. it is impossible to know whether we can put faith in the results of the research. According to research reports and articles published in the English language within the last 10-15 years. This instrument includes some scaled items and some yes-no items. as well as free-response questions. have been done using the SILL. Another reason for developing the SILL is that the instruments just mentioned do not always systematically represent all the kinds of strategies viewed as important to language learning. OXFORD and JUDITH A. THE STRATEGY INVENTORY FOR LANGUAGE LEARNING (SILL) Development The SILL (Oxford 1986-present) 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. This article deals only with research done using the 50-item (short) version. On the SILL. Wangsotorn et al. Few of the above instruments have any published reliability or validity data. were published in an appendix to Oxford's (1990b) learning strategy book for language teachers. It is estimated that 40-50 major studies. A more comprehensive scale was needed for measuring strategy use among ESL and EFL students. learners are asked to indicate their response (1. Huang (1984) and Huang and van Naerssen (1987) used a Strategies Questionnaire for Chinese EFL learners. the SILL appears to be the only language learning strategy instrument that has been extensively checked for reliability and validated in multiple ways. (1986) used the Chulalongkorn University Language Institute Learning Strategy Form A (consisting of 42 yes-no statements about students behaviors) for Thai learners of EFL. These studies have involved an estimated 8000-8500 language learners. only two strategies were significantly related to learning outcomes. 3. The SILL uses a choice of five Likert-scale responses for each strategy described: never or almost never true of me. 4. Bedell (1993) points out a number of additional strategy scales. one for foreign language learners whose native language is English (80 items) and the other for learners of English as a second or foreign language (ESL/EFL. However. based largely on items from the SILL. including 18 items. California. Wen and Johnson's (1991) strategy scale is also adapted from the SILL. Most of the items concern strategies for improving listening and speaking skills. (1987). generally true of me. BURRY-STOCK seven most-used strategies were in the predicted-positive group. generally not true of me. 50 items). no strategies significantly helped learning to occur. This is the key reason that the SILL was developed.

covering strategies related to practice and to the all-important "deep processing" in which learners analyze. These early subscales include: (1) Memory. A background questionnaire is also available to document age. such as asking questions. planning for language tasks. synthesize. (2) Cognitive strategies.strategies. (3) Compensation strategies (to compensate for limited knowledge). STRATEGY INVENTORY FOR LANGUAGE LEARNING 5 "I plan my schedule so I will have enough time to study English. and validity. rhyming. the largest group of items is the cognitive strategies. and monitoring error (nine items). and becoming culturally aware (six items). Spanish. Chinese. reliability. (5) Affective (emotional." In addition to the original English version. the 50-item instrument. (4) Metacognitive strategies. such as grouping. German. and transform new information (Oxford and Ehrman. and structured reviewing (nine items). Normally. In 1989. Thai. self- encouragement. A SILL package includes: a short set of directions to the student with a sample item. and a strategy graph that allows each learner to graph results from the SILL. PSYCHOMETRIC QUALITIES OF THE ESL/EFL SILL This section describes the psychometric quality of the 50-item ESL/EFL SILL. a summary profile that shows students' results and provides examples for student self-interpretation. sex. Korean. As shown above. as well as general practicing (14 items). such as anxiety reduction. motivation. such as paying attention. analyzing. Six subscales were developed based on the early factor analyses. a scoring worksheet on which students record their answers and calculate their averages for each strategy subscale and their overall average. such quality is established and presented in terms of utility. consciously searching for practice opportunities. (6) Social strategies. self-evaluating one's progress. imagery. and other information (see Oxford. Russian. such as reasoning. with the intent that each subscale would have an adequate number of items to facilitate more in-depth research and understanding of the learning strategies for ESL/EFL. This procedure allows the researcher to subdivide an instrument into dimensions usually referred to subscales or factors. summarizing (all reflective of deep processing). (Note that psychometric quality data are also available for the longer form of the SILL that was designed . such as guessing meanings from the context in reading and listening and using synonyms and gestures to convey meaning when the precise expression is not known (six items). 1990b). and Ukrainian. language experience. Japanese. This stands to reason. motivation-related) strategies. cooperating with native speakers of the language. and self-reward (six items). the SILL was organized according to strategy groups using a statistical procedure called factor analysis. because research on learning strategies suggests that cognitive strategies possess the greatest variety. French. the ESL/EFL SILL has been translated into the following languages: Arabic. 1995).

the ESL/EFL SILL reliabilities have been high.91 using the Puerto Rican Spanish translation with 374 EFL learners on the island of Puerto Rico. Talbott's (1993) data had a . was chosen as the most appropriate reliability index. In general.93 using the researcher-revised Korean translation with 332 Korean university EFL learners (Park. Cronbach alpha reliability coefficient is used on continuous data such as the Likert-type scale in the SILL.86 with 159 students. Nyikos and Oxford. Oxford and Ehrman.91. So far the utility of the SILL has not included making placements of individuals into language classes on the basis of strategy use results. a measure of internal consistency. In the case of the SILL. Bedell. to be compared with strategy use later (sometimes after strategy training interventions).94 using the Chinese translation with a sample of 590 Taiwanese university EFL learners (Yang. . 1992a). Cronbach alphas have been: .87 with 141 students. where the goal has been chiefly to reveal the relationship between strategy use and language performance.) Utility An instrument might be reliable and valid (see explanations below) without being very useful. BURRY-STOCK for native English speakers learning foreign languages. 1991) data had a reliability of . Other classroom uses of the SILL have included assessing strategy use at a given point. according to the many people around the world who have employed it. Involving 31 learners. see Oxford. With the ESL/EFL SILL. Anderson's (1993) data on 95 students had a reliability of . .95--found for the 80-item foreign language SILL given in the native language of the respondent. 1990). OXFORD and JUDITH A.92 using the Japanese translation with 255 Japanese university and college EFL students (Watanabe.91-.S. and . 1993. and individualizing classroom instruction based on the strategy use of different students. (These reliabilities are similar to those--. 1992. All the reliabilities below refer to heterogeneous (multi-language) groups of ESL learners in the U. . The reason this goal is important is that if there is a strong relationship between these two variables. Reliability Reliability refers to the degree of precision or accuracy of scores on an instrument. 1992a. 1995.91 using the Korean translation with 59 Korean university EFL learners (Oh. 1992). The most frequent venue has been the classroom. Phillips' (1990. Utility is the usefulness of an instrument in real-world settings for making decisions relevant to people's lives. that is a use the author of the SILL does not particularly recommend. 1993. 1993. 1986. Oxford and Nyikos.) Slightly lower but still very acceptable reliabilities are found for the ESL/EFL SILL when it is not administered in the native language of the respondents but is given in English instead. perhaps language performance can be improved by enhancing strategy use.6 REBECCA L. SILL data from Oxford et al. Oxford and Burry. See the reference list for dozens of studies showing various uses of the SILL. making the conceptual linkage between strategy use and underlying learning styles. 1989. Cronbach alpha. reliability of the SILL is determined with the whole instrument. The SILL has utility. 1994). comparing the often very different learning strategies of women and men. Wildner-Bassett. (1989) showed a reliability of . Though the current ESL/EFL SILL was constructed using six subscales. The utility of an instrument is important to its overall psychometric quality. see Oxford.

in this case learning strategy use. Wen and Johnson. 1991). Thus.02) significantly more often than less proficient ESL students.88 with 137 students. Validity refers to the degree to which an instrument measures what it purports to measure. In these ESL/EFL SILL studies. Predictive validity.006) and formal practice (p < . 1989. 1990.85. The reliability of the SILL administered in this manner contains somewhat more measurement error due to the confounding language effect. This evidence is probably the strongest support possible to the assertion of the validity of the SILL. and construct validity.. The content validity of the SILL is very high. reliability of the ESL/EFL SILL goes down. However. Two strategy experts matched the SILL items with agreement at . A three-study combination (merging ESL data from Oxford et al. Criterion-related validity studies related to language performance. A number of studies have demonstrated this relationship. and professional language career status (Ehrman and Oxford. Validio. Chang. proficiency self-ratings (Oxford and Nyikos. rather than in the respondent's native language. 1991). one form of criterion-related validity. 1993a. these reliabilities are very respectable. is demonstrated when data are collected for all variables at one time. Chang. 1990. Both concurrent and predictive SILL validity are shown in relationships between the SILL on the one hand and language performance on the other. when the SILL is administered in the target language. Watanabe. Several bases exist for validity: content validity. Talbott 1993) showed a reliability of . 1990. Park 1994). Criterion-related validity involves either predictive or concurrent relationships between the key variable. 1989. language performance is measured in various ways: general language proficiency tests (Rossi-Le. STRATEGY INVENTORY FOR LANGUAGE LEARNING 7 reliability of . A content-validity study. another form of criterion-related validity. 1991. Green and Oxford.. criterion-related validity. and the SILL can be administered in the respondent's native language or a foreign or second language with confidence that measurement error is minimal. and other important variables. 1991. Anderson 1993. 1986). grades in a language course (Mullins. 1992. Here are some examples of the relationship between strategy use on the ESL/EFL SILL and language performance. 1989). oral language proficiency tests (Chang. Content validity is determined by professional judgement. b). but not greatly. which itself was built from a detailed blueprint of a range of over 200 possible strategy types (for complete details see Oxford. English. language achievement tests directly related to course content (Oxford et al. language proficiency level (on a standardized test) predicted strategy use in multiple regression analyses. 1991. More proficient ESL students used self-management strategies like planning and evaluating (p < . is established with the use of a criterion and at least one predictor variable in a simple or multiple regression analysis. Rossi-Le (1989) found that for 147 adult ESL students in the midwestern and the northeastern parts of the US. Phillips. Concurrent validity. 1991). . in this case language performance.99 against entries in a comprehensive language learning strategy taxonomy.

0005-. trying not to translate word-for-word. it is necessary to use a number of statistical procedures to establish evidence that this theoretical construct is defined by the items on the instrument. Using a modified version of the ESL/EFL SILL translated into Japanese. p < . the researchers found that one- third of the variance in English proficiency was related to combined effects of six variables. a multiple regression procedure.20. letters. The CELT was used in that study to measure English achievement among 78 Japanese first-year students of English at a women's college in Kyoto. Wen and Johnson (1991) studied the learning strategies of 242 second-year English majors at seven postsecondary institutions in Nanjing and Shanghai. The only other significant predictor was the degree of learner motivation (. which provides evidence of construct validity. 1991a. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) and multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) use pre-established groups to demonstrate construct validity. These proficiency self-ratings correlated moderately (average r = . A variety of statistical procedures is used to bring meaning to construct validity. Takeuchi (1993a) used multiple regression and found that eight SILL items predicted 58% of the variance in scores on the Comprehensive English Language Test. are written to define an abstract notion of a theoretical construct. dividing words into parts to find meaning. If two distinct groups have different results on an assessment. For instance. Four strategies negatively predicted language achievement: asking questions in English. The ESL/EFL SILL was modified slightly for the distance education students in this study by Oxford et al. including the SILL. using flashcards. correlation coefficients are an index from -1 to +1 which describes the degree to which two phenomena "vary together" in strength (stronger is close to 1) and direction (positively or negatively). the instrument differentiates between known groups. OXFORD and JUDITH A. Since most instruments. and paying attention when someone is speaking English. p < . The figure of 58% is unusually high when compared with previous studies.04). messages. This means that in general most SILL strategies were used more often by students who rated their language proficiency higher and used less often by students who rated their language proficiency lower.003). Construct validity concerns how well a theoretical construct is measured. writing down feelings in a language learning diary. except for those in the social/affective strategies. (1993a. learning strategy use was a moderate but significant predictor of Japanese language achievement (. In a multiple regression analysis. Factor analysis and multidimensional scaling are also used to document the dimensionality of the theoretical construct.30) with SILL strategies (p < . and trying to find as many ways as possible to use English. BURRY-STOCK Strategy use was related to language achievement scores (final test grades) in a study involving 107 high school students of Japanese. Takeuchi explained some of these findings based on cultural influences (see also Takeuchi. b). Four strategies positively predicted language achievement: writing notes. These subjects had recent national English proficiency scores that averaged 10 points higher than the country's mean. Construct Validity Studies.8 REBECCA L. or reports in English. . three of which were groups of strategies taken from the SILL. Using a partial least square procedure. b. Watanabe (1990) asked university and college EFL students in Japan to rate from low to high their own proficiency in English.001). 1993b).30.

Park found that the correlation between total TOEFL scores and strategy use was r = . r = . The profile of medium-proficiency students using more strategies more often than high-proficiency or low-proficiency students produced a curvilinear pattern.28. social and metacognitive strategies had a higher relationship (r = . so she looked at strategies singly.33. Thus. they have great amounts of stimulation in English but do not need to produce the language for survival reasons. The English as a Second Language Achievement Test (ESLAT). . finding out how to be a better speaker. Phillips (1990.21).24. In addition. respectively) to TOEFL scores than did other kinds of strategies (memory. but students with high scores on the oral interview used significantly more social strategies than those with low scores. These students can be designated as neither ESL students nor EFL students but are instead a hybrid of the two categories owing to their high English input and their low English output. Neither the scores on the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL) nor the llyin Oral Interview significantly affected overall strategy use. Then Park calculated TOEFL scores for each group. is a measure of overall English proficiency (not achievement on a given curriculum). Cognitive. r = . showed significantly higher overall strategy use than did the high-proficiency or the low-proficiency group. compensation. Green (1991) investigated 213 Spanish-speaking students learning English on the island of Puerto Rico. She found no consistent differences between high-proficiency students and low-proficiency students on entire strategy categories.23. Three measures of proficiency (self-ratings and two standardized tests) showed different effects on strategy use. . Park divided the subjects into three groups according to their strategy use: low. many of which would logically be found among beginning students: using flashcards.0001).34 (p < . and writing down feelings in a journal. Students who rated themselves above average in proficiency used more strategies overall than those who rated themselves below average. Green found moderate and significant correlations. and . The low TOEFL scorers reported significantly greater use of certain strategies. a linear relationship was shown between strategy use and language proficiency. affective. STRATEGY INVENTORY FOR LANGUAGE LEARNING 9 Chang (1991) used the SILL to investigate the learning strategies and English proficiency of 50 mainland Chinese and Taiwanese ESL students at a southeastern university in the US. and avoiding verbatim translation. She found that middle scorers on the TOEFL. r = . medium and high. noticing tension or nervousness. Post hoc tests showed that the high strategy group has a language proficiency score that was significantly higher than that of the medium strategy use group. Additionally. Park (1994) employed the SILL to determine the relationship between strategy use and proficiency among 332 students of EFL at the Korea Maritime University and Inha University. defining clear goals for learning English. which was used in the study.30. looking for conversation partners. 199 l) found strong relationships between ESL/EFL SILL frequencies and English proficiency levels (measured by the TOEFL) among 141 adult ESL learners in seven western states in the US. when strategy use was defined as the mean number of strategies used frequently and the mean number of strategy categories that had at least one frequently used strategy. who thus had moderate proficiency in English. Phillips discovered that high TOEFL scorers used certain learning strategies significantly more often than low TOEFL scorers: paraphrasing. According to ANOVA. which in turn had a higher language proficiency score than that of the low strategy use group. the TOEFL mean scores of these three groups differed significantly from each other.

Visual students are described by Oxford et al. displayed no significant difference by proficiency level. O'Malley and Chamot 1990. In Mullins' (1991) SILL study. as expected.30s. higher proficiency was associated with more frequent strategy use. Auditory students are comfortable without visual input and frequently use strategies that encourage conversation in a noisy.32 (p < . metacognitive strategies (p < . with females using strategies significantly more often than males in this study. As shown by Dreyer and Oxford (in preparation). Significant variation occurred by gender. Criterion-related and construct validity in relationship to learning styles. e. With a larger sample of 374 students. as using strategies involving reading alone in a quiet place or paying attention to blackboards. for instance. Green (1992):showed that language level had a statistically significant influence on strategy use. to language performance in a number of studies. (These results agree with earlier research using varied strategy assessment instruments.10 REBECCA L. Oxford et al.006) with language course grades.008). In a later analysis of variance. approximately 45% of the total variance in language proficiency (TOEFL scores) in a South African ESL study was explained by learning strategy use as measured by SILL.0001). compensation strategy use correlated at r = . 1991). The sample consisted of 305 Afrikaans first-year university students learning ESL in South Africa (Dreyer.g. showing that more advanced or more proficient students use strategies more frequently. Thus. BURRY-STOCK usually in the high .0001) with language placement scores and at r = . For instance. Oxford and Nyikos.005) was found between affective strategy use and language entrance examination scores.32 (p < . memory and affective strategies.0025).38 (p < . a negative correlation of r = -. social environment with multiple sources of aural stimulation.03) was found between metacognitive strategy use and language course grades. with much smaller amounts contributed by affective and social strategies. Huang. with higher-proficiency students in general using strategies more frequently than lower-proficiency students. and social strategies (p < . the relationship is linear. which are different from language placement scores in this particular Thai university.) In most but not all instances. 1989.24 (p < . In the four significant categories. 1984. ESL/EFL SILL strategy frequency is related. . thus providing validity evidence for the SILL as a strategy instrument. However. and he discovered the same level of correlations between individual SILL items and proficiency scores. OXFORD and JUDITH A. and other forms of visual stimulation. 1989. A regression analysis demonstrated that the greatest part of the variance was accounted for by metacognitive strategies.73). between SILL strategy factors and ESLAT proficiency scores. Two other categories of strategies.. 1992). 110 Thai university-level EFL majors showed linkages between strategy use and various measures of English proficiency. Corrales and Call. computer screens.0001). It is possible that students who are very anxious and who resort to affective strategies do less well on the entrance examination. Green and Oxford (in preparation) found that language proficiency level had significant effects on the use of the following kinds of strategies: compensation strategies (p < . cognitive strategies (p < . A correlation of r = . Canonical correlation showed a highly significant relationship between the parts of the TOEFL and the categories on the SILL (r = . Strong relationships between learning strategy use and sensory preferences---often viewed as an aspect of learning style--have been posited (see. movies.

33. STRATEGY INVENTORY FOR LANGUAGE LEARNING 11 Kinesthetic students need movement strategies. p < . negatively predicted using independent strategies (13 = -.0008) and self- management or metacognitive strategies (13 = -.20.02) as often as others did. p < . Rossi-Le (1989) found a significant relationship (p < . and strategies for searching for and communicating meaning (B = -. Being a tactile learner significantly predicted employing authentic language use strategies (B = . Rossi-Le's MANOVA results showed that visual learners preferred visualization strategies (p < .02). p < .0005).008). p < .01) but was a negative predictor of employing authentic language use strategies (13 = -. Kinesthetic learners did not use general study strategies (p < . thus at the same time strengthening the evidence of validity of the SILL..009). Compared with others.01). This was not the case.0005) between sensory preference (visual. however. and tactile students require strategies that involve manipulating real objects in the classroom. Is the ESL/EFL SILL likely to draw upon this kind of bias? Is the SILL vulnerable to validity problems caused by dishonest responses? Yang (1992b.006) and self-management/metacognitive strategies (p < .0002) but negatively predicted use of memory strategies (B = -. and high frequencies. A kinesthetic learning style predicted infrequent use of general study strategies (13 = -.002). who might be expected to use significant numbers of strategies frequently). the responses showed a range of strategy use and were in no way clustered at the extremely high end (except for the responses of language teachers. Social desirability response bias is the tendency of a person to answer dishonestly for one of two purposes: to please the researcher or to show himself or herself as being a good or socially acceptable person.22.003) or self- management/metacognitive strategies (p < . Thus. Having an auditory learning style significantly predicted memory strategies (13 -. the first author of this article has examined the data statistically to determine the number of low. affective strategies (B = -.23. The regression results indicated that a visual learning style predicted using visualization strategies (B = .0005). p < . and she also found significant predictive relationships through multiple regression. p < .04). 16. This response bias can lead to "faking the results".22. In repeated studies with the ESL/EFL SILL. p < . p < . these predictions are low-to-moderate and significant. 1993) tested the E S L / E F L SILL for "fakability" of responses (using the well known and respected Marlowe-Crown Social Desirability Scale) with 505 Taiwanese students of English as a foreign language. p < . validity is destroyed. Auditory-style learners used memory strategies more than did other learners (p < .001).001) and strategies for meaning (B = . tactile learners demonstrated significant use of strategies for searching for and communicating meaning (p < .00005).38. auditory.32. Some ESL/EFL SILL data exist supporting the link between learning strategy use and sensory preferences. tactile and kinesthetic) and overall strategy use on the ESL/EFL SILL through a MANOVA. She found no statistical evidence that students faked any of their answers on the SILL. Fakability (social desirability) results: another indicator of validity. p < . If people are not honest in their answers. . Social desirability response bias would cause respondents to try to show very frequent (very high) use of strategies. both types need to use the strategy of taking frequent breaks. Being a visual learner.32.26. medium.20. p < .

(1989) found high frequencies of use for 60% of the strategies on the SILL with 159 ESL learners in the US. affective. Puerto Rico is thus a hybrid of ESL and EFL elements. second language environments Oxford et al. .4 were designated medium strategy use. and compensation strategies. significant differences related to career interests. and strategies for studying or practicing independently. Moreover.4 were regarded as low strategy use. OXFORD and JUDITH A. high frequencies of strategy use existed for most of the strategies. Frequency o f strategy use related to foreign vs. authentic language strategies. visualization strategies. as in Puerto Rico). and memory strategies. metacognitive. though bombarded by English input through TV. including social. social. were self-ratings of proficiency and two standardized proficiency tests. and strategies for studying independently. Chang found the highest use of compensation strategies and the lowest use of affective strategies. Medium-frequencies of use in that study were found for memory strategies. compensation. does not demand English as a survival tool. strategies for searching for and communicating meaning. 1991) investigated the strategies of 141 adult ESL learners in seven western states and found that half of the strategy groups were used at a high level (metacognitive. cultural background. found high levels of strategy use for two-thirds of the strategy groups. memory strategies. visualization strategies. Humanities and social science majors used more learning strategies than science majors. affective and memory strategies. while medium levels of use were uncovered for the other two strategy categories. social strategies. radio and movies.) In this study. general study strategies. Likewise.0 were usually considered high strategy use. and memory strategies). A few comparisons of SILL frequencies are presented here. The island of Puerto Rico. and formal practice strategies. as discussed earlier.0-2. and 1. cognitive. showed medium use. BURRY-STOCK STRATEGY FREQUENCY STUDIES USING THE EFL/ESL SILL Frequency of use of language learning strategies appears to be directly related to whether students are in an ESL or EFL setting (or in a hybrid of ESL and EFL environments. with a sample of 43 ESL students at a large northeastern university in the US. Phillips (1990. Similarly. strategies for searching for and communicating meaning. 1992) preliminary study of 213 students (not to be confused with Green and Oxford's larger study of 374 students in 1993) at a Puerto Rican university showed that only one strategy category was used at a high level: metacognitive strategies. cognitive. metacognitive strategies. affective. Green's (1991. The rest of the strategies. one in the midwest and the other in New England. Oxford et al. while the others were used at a medium level (cognitive. formal practice strategies. and gender have been found in the frequency of strategy use. institution. (Additional measures. including social strategies.5-5. Chang (1991) used the SILL to investigate frequencies of strategy use of 50 Chinese ESL students at a southeastern university in the US. (1989). Rossi-Le (1989) found that among 147 adult learners in two community colleges in the US. These strategies included self-management. authentic language use. the other categories were used at a medium level: social. affective strategies. Averages of 3. and compensation strategies). 2.12 REBECCA L. and affective strategies.5-3. including general study strategies.

and Taiwanese students in these studies (Green.28) except for compensation strategies. post-test frequencies were all medium (3. These students were all at the intermediate level of language proficiency on the TOEFL. who led a pre. compensation strategies edged toward high use but did not reach it. Green and Oxford. cognitive. 1994. Mullins' subjects were all majoring in English and were probably self-chosen as better language learners. Likewise. Subscale frequency means were: compensation 3.36. while medium-frequency strategies were compensation. 1993. the Oh EFL results. who found that 64 language faculty members from four higher education institutions--all expected to be good language learners--showed high- frequency use of five out of six strategy groups (metacognitive. and compensation strategies somewhat more often than cognitive. and memory strategies were used at a low frequency. Oh.65). All these frequencies represent medium use. In another investigation. found that the only strategy category used at a high frequency was metacognitive strategies. The differences between the Green ESL/EFL hybrid results.92-3. Noguchi. Pre-test frequencies were all medium (2. cognitive 2. Japanese. with medium use of affective strategies. and cognitive. Korean. compensation. affective. The 332 Korean university students in a different study by Park (1994) used all groups of strategies at a medium frequency level.72. after a semester of discussing strategies. somewhat more popular were memory and cognitive strategies. and memory strategies). and memory). social. The Puerto Rican. social. In the first author's reanalysis of the data using Noguchi's frequency codes. which were slightly above medium (3.and post-test study involving 68 Taiwanese university students of English. affective 2. social 2. and metacognitive). which . and affective strategies.86. This speculation is supported by Indonesian EFL data provided by Davis and Abas (1991). They used metacognitive.57). memory. affective.31). as were metacognitive and affective strategies.72. we found that almost all the strategy groups had medium to low use. 1994. but all were in the medium range.69. social. and the Noguchi EFL results on the one hand. 1994) did not need English for daily survival. and memory 2. 1992. while the other half were used at a medium level (social. Yang. half of the strategy categories were used at a high level (compensation. 1991. 1992. cognitive. Social strategies were notably unpopular with these Japanese junior high students. 1991. in a study by Mullins (1992) of 110 Thai university EFL students majoring in English. Somewhat similar results were found by Yang (1994). Frequency o f strategy use related to the institution Frequency of strategy use might sometimes be related to the prestige of the institution. Klassen (1994) conducted a study of learning strategies of 228 freshmen English students at Feng-Chia University in Taiwan. They did not necessarily want to become expert language learners and were not using most kinds of strategies often. Klassen. who conducted a study involving 59 EFL students from the National Fisheries University in Korea. STRATEGY INVENTORY FOR LANGUAGE LEARNING 13 Oh (1992).64.08-3. Noguchi (1991) studied 174 junior high Japanese learners of EFL. except for compensation strategies (3. Park. and the Mullins EFL results on the other can be explained by the fact that Mullins' EFL subjects had specialized career interests. Frequency o f strategy use related to career interests In contrast to many of the above results. metacognitive 2.

b. however. indicating low to high frequencies. This solution accounted for over 50% of the variance in most data sets (51.0. He found that one of his samples. 1991.3% in Japan. Oxford. Green. (1994)--761 adult EFL learners in Cairo. Frequency of strategy use related to gender In many ESL/EFL strategy frequency studies involving gender. Some studies.30 were considered acceptable for simple structure. 353 EFL students from the People's Republic of China. 1992. used language learning strategies more frequently than the other sample. In a few studies. 1988. which came from a prestigious university. Egypt. 1991. and 51. and Oxford et al. Dreyer. 1993.6% in Puerto Rico. 1989. with other strategy categories at a medium level. Bedell (1993) conducted exactly the same kind of factor analysis with another group. 1990. 44.. 1993. and (6) the combination of Anderson (1993). The first sample used compensation and affective strategies at a high level. OXFORD and JUDITH A. Factor loadings greater than or equal to . 1993a. 43.9% in Taiwan. 1992. Noguchi. Ehrman and Oxford. The second sample used all strategy groups at a medium level. noted by Bedell and by Green and Oxford. females have had a distinctly different pattern of strategy use from that of males (Watanabe. SEARCHING FOR THE UNDERLYING STRUCTURE OF THE ESL/EFL SILL: RECENT FACTOR ANALYSES A large meta-study (Oxford and Burry. Bedell's study also included use of the 80-item SILL with 353 Chinese subjects and showed a linear relationship between strategy use and proficiency. (4) Watanabe (1990)--255 university EFL students in Japan. 1993a. (1990)--137 university ESL students in the US. 1994) compared the factor structures of six sets of ESL/EFL SILL data. Oxford et al. Varimax (oblique) solution was chosen for the six studies. (3) Zhang (1994)--741 secondary school EFL students in the People's Republic of China.14 REBECCA L. This finding suggests that for most samples. a larger group than Yang used in her dissertation (1992b. Green and Oxford. The six sets included: (1) Green and Oxford (1993)--374 ESL/EFL ("hybrid") university students in Puerto Rico. 1993). 1992b. A nine-factor. about one half of the language learning strategy use is represented by the items on the identified SILL factors. Watanabe (1990) investigated the strategies of 316 EFL students in Japan and used a principal components analysis to create strategy categories. have shown that males have surpassed females on individual strategies but not on whole clusters or categories of strategies. BURRY-STOCK is in turn related to the kinds of students who are accepted by the institution. 51.9% in combined US). 1993).7% in the People's Republic of China. b). The main message found in Bedall's graph is that different cultural groups use particular kinds of strategies at different levels of frequency. Yang. 53. Talbott (1993). Oxford. which came from a less prestigious college. Bedell.4% in Egypt. (5) Boraie et al. 1993. using the Kaiser rule of eigenvalues greater than 1. Bedell used the 80-item version of the SILL rather than the . Frequency of strategy use related to culture Bedell (1993) presented 50-item SILL frequency data from a number of studies on a graph. (2) Yang (1992a)--590 university EFL students in Taiwan. principal components. the results have usually favored females as more frequent users of strategies (for instance.

while broadly comparable. (6) m e m o r y - vocabulary. Bedell's Factor 1 consisted of functional practice-productive strategies (active. looking for people to talk to. asking questions in English.6% of the variance explained by this factor). and trying to talk like native speakers of English. writing notes and other items in English. practicing English with others. seeking opportunities to read in English.1%). finding ways to use English. are not totally parallel. These strategies included reading for pleasure. developing cultural understanding. (7) formal practice and affective. starting conversations in English. so the results. (3) compensation. Table 1. reading without looking up all the words. (8) social and error-correction. STRATEGY INVENTORY FOR LANGUAGE LEARNING 15 50-item ESL/EFL version. naturalistic l a n g u a g e use). Now we turn to the six factor analyses using the 50-item SILL (Table 1). having clear goals. watching TV or movies in English. using new words in a sentence. Factor 2 was primarily comprised of metacognitive planning strategies (7. B e d e l l ' s other factors included: (2) m e t a c o g n i t i v e ( m a n a g e m e n t ) . Factor 1 was comprised of strategies for active. (4) functional practice-receptive. Factor 3 affective and social . This overall structure accounted for 41% of the variance in SILL responses in the Bedell study. naturalistic language use (21. Factor analysis comparisonacross six data sets Factor/ Location PuertoRico Taiwan PR China Japan Egypt CombinedUS 1 Active Metacognitive Active Active Metacognitive Active language use planning language use languageuse planning language use 2 Metacognitive Active Metacognitive Sensory Sensory Metacognitive planning languageuse planning memory memory planning strategies strategies 3 Affective Memory Affective Metacognitive/ Affective Affective and social and analysis and social social/affective and social strategies 4 Reflection Formal Sensory Compensation Active Sensory (analysis & oral practice memory and analysis language memory anxiety) strategies use strategies 5 Sensory Social Compensation Formal Request Social memory strategies in reading oral practice and strategies strategies repetition 6 Social/ Compensation Metacognitive Affective Sensory Compensation cognitive in reading and affective strategies memory and analysis conversation and anxiety 7 Sensory Affective Sensory Compensation Compensation Metacognitive (visual) strategies (visual) in speaking in reading planning memory memory & listening 8 C o g n i t i v e Compensation Attention Attention General General and in speaking to key to key memory memory relaxation details details strategies strategies 9 General General General Reflection Sensory Compensation compensation memory memory (analysis & memory and strategies strategies anxiety) strategies nonanalytic Puerto Rico For Puerto Rico. (9) cognitive- analytic. (5) review and reception.

making summaries. guessing what the speaker will say.7%) was devoted to metacognitive planning strategies.0%). the primary explanatory factor (23. Factor 8 compensation in speaking (2.7%). Factor 2 was clearly an active.3% of the variance). including planning the schedule. watching English language TV or movies. Taiwan For Taiwan. Factor 3 metacognitive. learning about the culture. and Factor 9 general compensation strategies (2.5%).8%).6%).9% of the variance. finding reading opportunities. Strategies loading on this factor included finding conversation partners. avoiding translation. having clear goals. encouraging oneself.4%) general memory strategies.1%).3%). learning the culture. Factor 8 strategies for cognitively manipulating the language and trying to relax (2. Factor 5 for formal oral practice (3.6%). finding a different way to say something. strategies for active.8%). naturalistic language use comprised Factor 1.3%). and affective strategies (5.8%). was metacognitive strategies (26. using words in different ways. encouraging oneself to speak despite fear. looking for reading opportunities. and Factor 9 (2.9%). using new words in sentences. These included starting conversations. naturalistic language use and accounted for 18.4%). looking for people to talk with. OXFORD and JUDITH A. Factor 1 consisted of active. trying to talk like native speakers. social. Factor 5 social strategies (3.6%).5%) sensory. looking for practice opportunities. Factor 3 (3.8%).7%) metacognitive and affective strategies. Factor 6 affective strategies (3. Factor 2 (4. asking for help. chiefly visual. trying to find better ways to learn English. using TV/radio. Factor 2 chiefly concerned sensory memory strategies (6. Factor 3 concerned memory and analytic strategies (4. finding ways to use the language.5%). Japan For Japan. and practicing with others. writing in a language learning diary. Factor 7 sensory. Factor 8 (2.16 REBECCA L. Factor 4 reflective strategies for language analysis and anxiety awareness (3.9%). Factor 6 compensation in reading (2.4%).8%) affective and social strategies. . factor 7 (2. Factor 5 sensory memory strategies (3. Factor 4 formal oral practice strategies (3. and noticing mistakes to learn better. using familiar words differently. reading without looking up words. Factor 6 (2. and using gestures or the native language temporarily. memory strategies (2. the most explanatory factor. looking for conversation partners. imitating speech. thinking about progress. Factor 6 social and cognitive strategies for conversation practice (3. Factor 4 (3. memory strategies. asking for correction. and Factor 9 strategies for reflection (related to analysis and anxiety) (2.5%) attention to key details. naturalistic language use factor (4. BURRY-STOCK strategies (4.3% of the variance). Factor 1.2%).9%) compensation in reading. and Factor 9 general memory strategies (2. mainly visual. reading for pleasure.3%). asking questions. Factor 7 affective strategies (2. finding ways to use English. anticipating the speaker.8%).3%) sensory memory strategies. reading for pleasure. Factor 4 compensation and analysis strategies (3.7%). Factor 5 (2. reviewing often.5%). Factor 8 attention to key details (2. writing in English. starting conversations in English. Factor 7 compensation in speaking (2. writing notes and other items in English. People's Republic of China For the mainland Chinese sample in the Zhang study.

using familiar words differently.2%). PR China 3.6%) sensory m e m o r y strategies and anxiety-reduction strategies. trying to concentrate on the speaker. compensation and analytic strategies (3. practicing sounds or alphabet. Factor 3. making summaries. Factor 3 (5. Combined US 1. thinking about progress. Factor 6. Taiwan 7 Reflection (analysis & anxiety) Puerto Rico 4. PR China 7 Attention to key details PR China 8. Combined US 5 Sensory (visual) memory Puerto Rico 7. metacognitive planning strategies (3. PR China 9 Comparisons and comments Among the most important factors explaining the variance were active. Factor 1. PR China 2. and sensory memory strategies.4%) sensory memory strategies. Factor 4 (4. compensation strategies not involving analysis (3. Combined US For the combined US sample. finding ways to use the language. Factor 6 (3. guessing.0%). Factor 1 was made up of strategies for active. naturalistic language use. finding a different way to say something. Affective and social strategies as a combination.1%). Taiwan 2. looking for people to talk with. and active use strategies.7% of the variance.6% of the variance). Puerto Rico 2. looking for opportunities to read in English) supplemented by social. including imitating speech. planning the schedule for studying. putting new words into sentences. Puerto Rico 5 Affective and social Puerto Rico 3. sensory memory strategies (5. general m e m o r y strategies (3.7%) active. Factor 4. Combined US 6 Compensation in speaking Japan 7. Taiwan 8 Social strategies Taiwan 5. Japan 5 Compensation and analysis Japan 4. Factor 8 (3. encouraging oneself. and reading for pleasure. starting conversations. Factor 2 (5. Egypt 3 Affective strategies Combined US 3. Subsidiary factors included: Factor 2. and Factor 9.0%) was composed of sensory memory strategies. affective . naturalistic language use. naturalistic language use (16.2%). PR China 1. Egypt 1. Egypt 4 Metacognitive planning Taiwan 1.4%). Factor 8. metacognitive planning strategies (8. skimming. Japan 4. writing in English. Taiwan 9. consisted mainly of metacognitive planning strategies (finding out how to be a better language learner.3%) affective and social strategies. looking for people to talk to in English. affective strategies (5. Factor 7.1%) general memory strategies.8%). PR China 4.5%). Common factors across data sets Factor name Location and factor number Active language use Puerto Rico 1. These three factors appeared repeatedly across data sets. compensation. Combined US 4.2%). finding as many ways as possible to use English. Japan 1. Japan 9 Formal oral practice Taiwan 4. metacognitive planning. social strategies (4. Combined US 2 and 7 Sensory memory strategies Japan 2. Japan 8 General memory strategies Combined US 8. Table 2. Factor 7 (4. which accounted for 10. and Factor 9 (3. Factor 5. paying attention to the speaker.4%) compensation in reading and listening. Egypt 2 and 9. STRATEGY INVENTORY FOR LANGUAGE LEARNING 17 Egypt The Egyptian study of adult EFL learners produced the following factors. planning goals.4%) request and repetition. using TV/radio. saying or writing repeatedly. Factor 5 (4.

compensation in speaking. cognitive and relaxation. . and general compensation. Oxford. for many people to date. through strategy assessment teachers can help their students recognize the power of using language learning strategies for making learning quicker. language researchers must conceptualize language learning strategies in a way that includes the social and affective sides of learning (as shown in the SILL) as well as the more intellectual and "executive-managerial" sides. Third. Japan. more than almost any other discipline. teachers should use the most reliable and valid strategy assessment measure that they can. cognitive and relaxation (8). visual memory. compensation and analysis. Because of the national and cultural differences in these factor analyses. we would prefer several large data sets from each country. OXFORD and JUDITH A. with three unique factors: social/cognitive conversation. not just a cognitive or metacognitive exercise. diaries. Second. When time and resources are restricted. is an adventure of the whole person. Multiple techniques are to be encouraged whenever the time and resources are available. or other means (for details see Cohen. comfortable. 1987. 1990b). memory and analysis. compensation in reading and listening (7). To make completely defensible national/cultural norms. and combined US each had only one unique factor. Teachers can help students identify their current learning strategies by means of surveys. BURRY-STOCK strategies alone. compensation in reading (6) PR China Metacognitive and affective (6) Japan Metacognitive/social/affective (3) Egypt Request and repetition (5). general compensation (9) Taiwan Memory and analysis (3).18 REBECCA L. social strategies. Egypt stood out as the most unique data set (Table 3). Language learning. based on the information from strategy assessment. Teachers need to know the advantages and disadvantages of each assessment technique. memory and compensation. compensation in reading. Taiwan had two unique factors: first. and second. teachers can weave learning strategy training into regular classroom events in a natural. Unique factors in various data sets Location Factor name and number Puerto Rico Social/cognitive conversation (6). but explicit way. with four factors not found elsewhere: request and repetition. even though a particular individual might not fully reflect the trends. memory and compensation (8) Combined US Compensation and nonanalytic (9) IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH AND INSTRUCTION First. interviews. At this point we have only single data sets from most countries with which to work. it is obvious that the same SILL factor structure might not be appropriate for all people who are learning ESL or EFL. and compensation in reading and listening. Table 3. and general memory strategies were also common to various data sets (Table 2). think-aloud protocols. The People's Republic of China. formal oral practice. Puerto Rico was also atypical. memory and anxiety. sensory memory and anxiety (6). this has been the SILL. easier. It would be helpful in the future to create country-by-country SILL norms around the world based on large-scale factor analyses. and more effective. National/cultural differences exist. reflective strategies. attention to key details.

24-35. R. E. Learning strategies germane to various countries should be among the first considerations of any ESL/EFL teacher or researcher who wants to enhance student learning. Rosslyn. D.. Language Learning 28. University of Alabama. MD. O'MALLEY. and KUPPER. studies will need to be replicated so that more consistent information becomes available within and across populations. gender.a l o u d p r o c e d u r e .. Unpublished manuscript. STRATEGYINVENTORYFOR LANGUAGELEARNING 19 C h a m o t and K u p p e r (1989). REFERENCES ANDERSON. BIALYSTOK. J. Teachers must also keep in mind differences in motivation. This would contribute to the validity of various assessment techniques. learning style. BIALYSTOK. this i n f o r m a t i o n w o u l d be useful in s e l e c t i o n of an a s s e s s m e n t procedure. KASSABGY. A. Athens. Modern Language Journal 65. Fifth. Particularly important is more information on how students from different cultural backgrounds and different countries use language learning strategies. and a survey to see how closely they relate to each other. (1994) Empowering teachers and learners: Style and strategy awareness. D. L. BORAIE. (1981) The role of conscious strategies in second language proficiency. O. VA. Unpublished manuscript. Fourth. U. . it would be useful to correlate results from a think-aloud protocol. N. Unpublished master's thesis. Baltimore. OH. U. Further effort is underway to replicate this summary study and develop norms for each specific country. Acknowledgement--Thanks to Martha Nyikos and Katalin Nyikos for field-testingthe earliest version of the ESL/EFL SILL and for making suggestions about revising the instrument. (1987) A study of learning strategies in foreign language instruction: first year report. Foreign Language Annals 22. BEDELL. strategy assessments using different measurement modes with the same sample of students could be cross-correlated. (1993a) Chinese data on EFL strategy use among university students. University of Alabama. Ohio University. M. BEDELL. Paper presented at the annual meeting of Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages. InterAmerica Research Associates. As shown above. Tuscaloosa. and IMPINK-HERNANDEZ. AL. (1978) A theoretical model of second language learning. A. an interview. KUPPER L. M. In sum. D. and O ' M a l l e y and C h a m o t (1990) provide helpful details on how to do this. (1993b) Crosscultural variation in the choice of language learning strategies: A mainland Chinese investigation with comparison to previous studies. students from different countries utilize different strategies and prioritize common strategies differently. O x f o r d (1990b). CHAMOT. 13-24. Tuscaloosa. (1993) Data on adult ESL strategy use. CHAMOT. (1989) Learning strategies in foreign language instruction. 69-83. and other factors that affect learning strategy use. teaching students. If results show that an interview and a survey are highly correlated but that they are only weakly correlated with a t h i n k . E. and designing classroom research. it is critical that learning strategies be considered when planning courses. and OXFORD.. For instance. AL.

(1991) A comparison of learning strategies of college students enrolled in beginning and advanced English as a second language. 1. C. J. (1990) Adult language learning styles and strategies in an intensive training setting. Foreign Language Annals 22. (1992) Additional analyses of Puerto Rican strategy data. LAWRENCE. E. S. Learning Style Profile. R. career choice. COHEN. R. EHRMAN. Indonesia. and OXFORD.. Potchefstroom University. D. BURRY-STOCK CHANG. Modern Language Journal 74. X. DREYER. Unpublished master's thesis. 227-240. Canadian Modern Language Review 45. (1987) Learning strategies for oral communication. MYERS. VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals. (eds). EHRMAN. KLASSEN. L. M. Chulalongkorn University. 311-327. Reston. PR. CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. and Rubin. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. J.. Unpublished manuscript.-J. E. and OXFORD. Applied Linguistics 8. Loma Linda. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Bangkok. G. Thailands. P.-D. and DUNN. A. DAVIS. (1987) Studying learner strategies: How we get the Information. J. and CALL. (1984) A synthesis of learning style research involving the MBTI. GREEN. DREYER. L. NJ: Prentice-Hall. M.20 REBECCA L. Master's thesis. (1984) An investigation of learning strategies in oral communication that Chinese EFL learners in China employ. E. (1988) The effects of the yellow highlighter--Second-language learner strategies and their effectiveness: a research update. Journal of Psychological Type. California State University at Chico. R. Palo alto. HUANG. 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. 31-42. San Diego. Indonesia: Summer Institute of Linguistics. 91-102. M. E. W. LANGUIS. R. A. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. and MONK. CA. Learner Strategies in Language Learning. (1989) Effects of sex differences. and ABAS. and OXFORD. (1985) A Guide to the Development and Use of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. 287-307. 2-15. L. O. (1995) Learner variables related to ESL proficiency among Afrikaans-speakers in South Africa. S. and psychological type on adult language learning strategies. (1989) At a loss for words: The use of communication strategies to convey lexical meaning. CA. (1992) Successful English language learning strategies of students enrolled in the Faculty of Arts. (1991) Second Language Learning Strategies Utilized by Some Members of Language Departments at Four lnstitutions--Sulawesi. Unpublished manuscript. Englewood Cliffs. Paper presented at the annual meeting of Puerto Rico Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages. Sulawesi. (1989). OXFORD and JUDITH A. (1991) Language learning strategies of Puerto Rican university students. CA. M. (1993) New analyses on expanded Puerto Rican strategy data. University of Puerto Rico at Mayaguez. University of Georgia. Athens. South Africa. M. GREEN. Paper presented at the annual meeting of Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages. HUANG. University of Puerto Rico at Mayaguez and University of Alabama. Modern Language Journal 73. and McCAULLEY. TESOL Quarterly (submitted). K/M. United States International University. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. (1987) Pattems of persistent second language learners: elementary Spanish. M. M. MULLINS. X. FL. (1992) Learner variables as predictors of ESL proficiency.-H and VAN NAERSSEN. McGROARTY. J. H. AL. J. Chinese University of Hong Kong. San Juan. 1-13. In Wenden. M. HARLOW. J. GA. with LETTERI. . L. R. (1994) The language learning strategies of freshman English students in Taiwan: a case study. CORRALES. Loma Linda University. GREEN. Miami.-H. A. pp. C. Tuscaloosa. C. and OXFORD. KEEFE. J.

E. Magnan (ed. and psychometric testing of Oxford's Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL). (1990) Learning Strategies in Second Language Acquisition. In S. OXFORD. M. and BURRY. Applied Language Learning 4. (1986-present) Strategy Inventory for Language Learning. Unpublished manuscript.. OXFORD. 35-55. L. L. Tuscaloosa. R. Modern Language Journal 73(2). Tottori. Z. Journal of Psychological Type 16.1. OXFORD. (1991b). 1-25. R. and EHRMAN. 321-329. U. S. and OXFORD. Y. M. Englewood Cliffs. OXFORD. T. (1990b) Language Learning Strategies: What Ever). E. ARI Technical Report 728. M. pp. Now Boston: Heinle & Heinle. Various versions. and CHAMOT.). and EHRMAN.. S. 235-247. R. System 17. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education. M. L. GA. J. L. Army Research Institute.. Atlanta. STRATEGY INVENTORY FOR LANGUAGELEARNING 21 NOGUCHI. OXFORD. N J: Prentice-Hall. OXFORD. (ed. L. Language Teaching 1. VT: Northeast Conference on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. L. (1991a) Review of language learning strategy research and its implications. NYIKOS. EYRING. (1988) Vive la difference? Reflections on sex differences in use of language learning strategies. L. 22-32. OXFORD. (1991) Style wars: Teacher-student style conflicts in the language classroom. L.. OXFORD. OXFORD. R. OXFORD. In J. NYIKOS. A.. L. R. . and EHRMAN. and NYIKOS. T. S. M. ITO. Questionnairefor Learners. and SUMRALL. Tottori University. M. V. Challenges in the 1990sfor college foreign language programs. System in press.. M. Japan. LEZHNEV. R. (1992) Learning strategies used by university EFL students in Korea. norming. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. R. 314 8 . (1993b) Learning a language by satellite: What influences achievement? System 21(1). R. University of Alabama. J. Teacher Should Know. O'MALLEY. 3-53. J. OXFORD. (1993b) La difference continue. 65-94. R. (1989) Use of language learning strategies: A synthesis of studies with implications for strategy training. (1993) A factor analytic study of language-learning strategy use: Interpretations from information-processing and social psychology Modern Language Journal 77.. J. Shifting the Instructional Focus to the Learner. PARK-OH.. (1989) Variables affecting choice of language learning strategies by university students. NYIKOS. Appendices as ARI Research Note 86-92. New York. L. OXFORD. ITO. VA. (1993) Evolution. Exploring gender. American Journal of Distance Education 7. (1986) Development and psychometric testing of the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL). M.). : Gender differences in second/foreign language learning styles and strategies.. S. Tottori. 11-22. R. (1993a) Instructional implications of gender differences in language learning styles and strategies. In Magnan. R. and LAVINE. Sutherland (ed.. Japan. NOGUCHI. 291-300. Tottori University. (1989) Psychological type and adult language learning strategies: A pilot study. Newbury House/Harper & Row. NYIKOS. Middlebury. L. R. (1989) Learning strategies of adult ESL learners in the US: A collaborative study. L. pp. L. PARK-OH. (1995) Adults' language learning strategies in an intensive foreign language program in the United States. R. OXFORD. and ROSSI-LE. OXFORD. E. S. R. OH. Unpublished bachelor's thesis. OXFORD. M. L. Y. 140-147. EHRMAN. AL. AL: Oxford Associates.. Foreign Language Annals 21(4). L. pp.). L. Tuscaloosa. 10-25. and SUMRALL. Alexandria. M.. A. R. K. M. Boston: Heinle & Heinle. R. R. (1993a) Factors affecting achievement in a satellite- delivered Japanese language program. R. (1990a) Language learning strategies and beyond: A look at strategies in the context of styles. OXFORD. L.

Englewood Cliffs. Bulletin of the Institute of Interdisciplinary Studies of Culture 10.) A look at learner strategy use and ESL proficiency. WEN. San Francisco. Washington. A. R. R.. C. V. and WAXMAN. PHILLIPS.-D. SRIPAIPAN. and McGROARTY. BURRY-STOCK OXFORD.. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Unpublished manuscript. Paper presented at the Sixth International Conference of the Institute of Language in Education. POLITZER. Paper presented at the annual meeting of International Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages. O. A. (1983) An exploratory study of self-reported language learning behaviors and their relation to achievement.22 REBECCA L. (1994) Language learning strategies: why do adults need them? Manuscript. and SCHULTE. PALMER. Des Moines. (eds) (1987) Learner Strategies in Language Learning. Language Laboratory 30. and VEJAPHURTI.. YANG. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 6. J. RATTANAPRUCKS. (1992b) Relationships among language learning strategies. POLITZER. TAKEUCHI. 146-150. O. M. N. CA. Y. T. CA. CA. Lancaster University. TAKEUCHI. N. WILDNER-BASSET]?. (1990) Language learning strategies. FL: H & H Publishers. WANGSOTORN. (1990) English as a second language learner strategies of adult Asian students using the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning. Tucson. (1993a) A study of language learning strategies and their relation to achievement in EFL listening comprehension. L. UK. Anaheim. H. 64-83. N. Bulletin of the Institute for Interdisciplinary Studies of Culture 8. 131-141. TESOL Quarterly 19. V. Gohokenkyu to Eigokoyoiku (Studies on English Language Usage and Language Teaching) 13. and self-image of students in a university intensive ESL program. M. T. NJ: Prentice- Hall. A. O. and learning styles. CATESOL Journal 56-67. TAKEUCHI. (1991) Language learning approaches and outcomes: A study of tertiary English majors in China. Y. (1989) Perceptual learning style preferences and their relationship to language learning strategies in adult students of English as a second language. AZ. (1992a) Data on students in an intensive EFL program in Taipei. E. Clearwater. Unpublished manuscript. (1985) An exploratory study of learning behaviors and their relationship to gains in linguistic and communicative competence. China.. M. WENDEN. (1987) Learning and Study Strategies Inventory. TESOL Quarterly 22. University of San Francisco. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. R. TALBOTT. and HALLECK. JARUNGGIDANAN. WATANABE. Unpublished master's thesis. 58~55. PARK. and staying overseas. WILDNER-BASSETT. Chicago. (1993b) Language learning strategies and their relationship to achievement in English as a foreign language. (1991. and JOHNSON. University of Arizona. PHILLIPS. P. IA. motivation. G. A. C. K. SINGKALWANIJ. (1988) The effects of ESL students' perceptions of their cognitive strategies on reading achievement. Nov. University of Texas at Austin. WEINSTEIN.. 103-124.. Paper presented at the annual meeting of International Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages. National Taiwan University. TAKEUCHI. (1993) Strategies of adult ESL students: Data. years spent at college/university. attitudes. Drake University. and RUBIN. Hong Kong. 17-34. OXFORD and JUDITH A. V. Q. V. R. . (1990) External variables affecting language learning strategies of Japanese EFL learners: Effects of entrance examination. (1991a) A study of EFL students' use of language learning strategies. L. Unpublished manuscript. (1991b) Language learning strategies in second and foreign language of strategies frequency. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. C. TALBOTT. PADRON. personality types. (1992a) Data set of foreign language students' strategies. Skagit Valley Junior College. Lancaster. (1986) Relationships between learning modes and the beginners' success in English. D. ROSSI-LE. 54-65. G. San Francisco. O.

STRATEGY INVENTORY FOR LANGUAGELEARNING 23 YANG. (42) notice tension. (7) physically act out words. N.-D. (15) watch TV/movies. YANG. (27) read without looking up words. (26) make up new words. (33) find out how to learn better. (3) connect sounds and images. (41) give self a reward. YANG. Paper presented at the annual meeting of International Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages. (16) read for pleasure. (14) start conversations. (50) learn about culture. (1992b) Second language learners' beliefs about language learning and their use of learning strategies: A study of college students of English in Taiwan. Research report. (40) encourage self to speak when afraid. (9) remember by location. W. (11) try to talk like native speakers.-D. (1993) Understanding Chinese students' language beliefs and learning strategy use. Austin. (47) practice with others. (45) ask for slowness or repetition. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. (48) ask questions. (10) say or write words several times. (24) guess the unknown. (25) using gestures. (2) use new words in a sentence. GA. (13) use words in different ways. Athens. (1994) Data on university EFL language use.-D. (43) write a learning diary. Atlanta. (30) find as many ways as possible to use English. APPENDIX STRATEGIES MEASURED ON THE SILL (1) Think of relationships between known and new. N. (18) skim then read. OH. (21) divide words for meaning. University of Texas. (12) practice sounds. (8) review often. TX. (31) notice mistakes. (36) look for opportunities to read. (35) look for conversation partners. (28) guess what the speaker will say. or reports. (44) talk about feelings. (17) write notes. (29) use circumlocution or synonym. Taiwan. (22) avoid verbatim translation. (32) pay attention to the speaker. messages. National Taiwan University. (38) think about progress. ZHANG. (20) find patterns. Ohio University. (4) use mental images. . (5) use rhyme. Unpublished manuscript. (6) use flashcards. (1994) An investigation of Taiwanese college students' use of English learning strategies. (34) plan schedule. (46) ask for correction. (19) look for similar words across languages. N. (39) relax when fearful. letters. (23) make summaries. (37) have clear goals.