Research into Language Learning Strategies:

Language learning strategies justifies their inclusion on the grounds that they help learners

become more fluent in what they already know and may lead learners to gain new information

about what is appropriate or permissible in the target language. In other words, communication

may leads to learning.

There are many problems that researchers face in the field of language learning strategies. One

of the problems that researchers face in the field of language learning strategies is that they

cannot be directly noticed. One can only derive them from the behavior of language learners. As

Ellis (1986, p.14) puts it: “It is a bit like trying to work out the classification system of a library

when the only evidence to go on consists of the few books you have been allowed to take out”.

Due to all these difficulties of such an activity, to find a method to record and interpret the

phenomena involved is quite a challenge, a process which Ellis(1986, p.188) likens to

“stumbling blindfold round a room to find a hidden object”.

A variety of approaches used in many researches over the years to this discouraging

task, among which the most often employed is the task of gathering data about good language

learners and about what thing is the reason of their success compared to failed language learner.

Interesting insights have also been gained by looking at the strategies used by less successful

learners.

Studies involving successful and unsuccessful language learners:

Rubin was one of the earliest researches of this field and according to him strategies are

“the techniques or devices which a learner may use to acquire knowledge” (p.43). According to

him successful language learners have a strong desire to communicate and they were more into

guessing during doubt and were not care much about being wrong or appearing mad. This did
not mean that they were not concerned about correctness however, good language learners

desired to pay focus on the formation and meaning in their language. The stated aim for Rubin’s

research was to enhance the success record of the less successful students by teaching them the

strategies of the more successful learners. With all this good language learners are also continual

of practicing and monitoring the language of people in their surroundings and their own

language. Rubin also assert that a number of variables like target language proficiency, situation,

age and cultural differences effect the involvement of these strategies.

Some of the current researchers in the field such as Wong Filmore (1982) who, reporting

on research into individual differences at the University of California, observed carefully those

social strategies used by good language learners, has backed up the discoveries of Rubin. She

observe that the good language learners “spent more time than they should have during class

time socializing and minding everyone else’s business….They were constantly involved in the

affairs of their classmates” (p.63). This conduct shows stability with the strong desire to

communicate noted by Rubin (1975) as a mark of good language learners.

During the time of Rubin’s findings, Stern (1975) put forward a catalogue of ten

language learning strategies. According to his reliance, good language learners can be recognized

by a personal learning style and fruitful learning strategies, a tolerant and socialite approach to

the target language which is empathetic with its speakers, technical knowledge of handling a

language, an active approach to a learning task, strategies that deal with experiments and

planning with the aim of forming a new language into ordered system with progressive revision,

continuous search of meaning, desire to practice, willing to communicate with the target

language, potential to develop the target language more and more as a separate reference system

while learning to think about it and critically sensitive self monitoring in language use.
 This long list of features are different than the specific way in which Rubin (1975) discuss

the term strategy, especially as she improved her usage of the term in later work. (or instance

Rubin, 1981; 1987).

Works by Rubin and Stern can undoubtedly be regarded as the keystone of much

subsequent work on language learning strategies but the difficulty of definition is still there in

the present time. Other important researchers in this area are Naiman, Frohlich, Stern and

Todesco (1978). The researchers also try to know what thing is common in most proficient,

skilled, experienced and expert language learners. Using a very immense definition strategies as

“general, more or less deliberate approaches” (p.4) they found out that good language learners do

active participation in language learning process. They have potential to change their learning

styles according to their need, are able to develop recollection of language both as a means of

communication and as a system of rules, are also working hard to amend their language

knowledge, develop target language as a separate system which does not always have to be

related to the first language and are conscious of the requirements of learning language.

Other researches that have aimed at finding the link between language learning strategies

and success in language development by speakers of others language have concluded on varied

outcomes. According to O’Malley’s findings (1985, 1985a), all students use a large number of

different learning strategies, defined as “any set of operations or steps used by a learner that will

facilitate the acquisition, storage, retrieval and use of information” (1985, p.23) but high

proficient language learners involve meta-cognitive strategies (that is strategies used by students

to manage their own learning) in their learning and from this, researchers made a conclusion and

reasoning that the more successful students have perhaps more potential and probable to exercise

greater meta-cognitive control over their learning.

 This result, to some level, shows contrast with the result of the study of Ehrman and

Oxford (1995) who studied carefully the connection between end-of-course proficiency and a

numbers of variables including language learning. This study concluded that cognitive strategies

like reading for pleasure and looking for patterns in target language were the only strategies that

showed important positive relationship with favorable outcome in language learning.

A large scale study of university students of Puerto Rico by Green and Oxford (1995)

discovered that high level students are more frequent users of language learning strategies. Green

and Oxford also found a group of 23 strategies which they named as “bedrock strategies”. They

noted that these strategies are used equally frequently by students across proficiency levels.

Green and Oxford suppose that these strategies are not definitely useless but they may help in the

learning process despite their insufficiency to move the less successful students to higher levels

of proficiency.

Griffiths (2003) also discovered a positive relation between reported frequency of

language learning strategy use between course level. In one research, Griffit studied 348 students

are drawn a conclusion from his study that advanced language learners make use of language

learning strategies more often as compared to the elementary students. An examination of the

patterns of language learning strategy use which came out from the date, high level students

regularly use strategies relating to language systems, to vocabulary, to reading, to the tolerance

of ambiguity, to interaction with others, to the management of feelings, to the utilization of

available resources and to the management of learning.

Although the desire to study good language learning is natural, researchers know that

a great deal of things can be learnt by observing the activities of unsuccessful or failed learners

and as a result, by implication, what learners should conceivably try to avoid. Sinclair Bell
(1995) discusses her own less than totally successful endeavors to learn Chinese and notes that

she found the experience extremely monotonous. According to her, one of the reasons of her

difficulties is “I used the same strategies and approaches for l2 literacy as had given me success

in l1 literacy” (p.701).

Student’s familiar strategy pattern is another problem. This problem is also discussed by

O’Malley (1987). Porte observes the same. (1988, p.168) as he writes “The majority of learners

said that they used strategies which were the same as, or very similarly to, those they had use at

schools in their native countries”. Porte interviewed fifteen less successful learners in private

language schools in London and concluded that these under-achieving students as a matter of

fact used almost same kind of strategies that successful language learners used. The variance was

not found in the use of kind of strategies but “the fact that they may demonstrate less

sophistication and a less suitable response to a particular activity” (p.68).

The / Study of language learning strategies used by successful and unsuccessful learners has

revealed a lot of interesting things. However, the picture which comes out is quite away from

being uniform. Research into various factors which impact individual students in their choice of

learning strategies is an alternative approach which has been chosen by researchers. It means

possible reasons for this lack of unity might include the different contexts of the studies, the

differing research methods used, or the varying nature of the language learners themselves.

Studies investigating factors affecting strategy choice:

Studies which have examined the relationship between sex and strategy use have come

to mixed conclusions. Ehrman and Oxford (1989) and Oxford and Nyikos (1989) discovered

distinct gender differences in strategy use. The study by Green and Oxford (1995) came to the

same conclusion. Ehrman and Oxford’s (1990) study, however failed to discover any evidence of
differing language learning strategy use between the sexes. It might be concluded, perhaps, that,

although men and women do not always demonstrate differences in language learning strategy

use, where differences are found women tend to use more language learning strategies than men.

The effects of psychological type were the focus of a study by Ehrman and Oxford (1989)

when they reported on an investigation into the effects of learner variables on adult language

learning strategies at the Foreign Service Institute, USA. They concluded that the relationship

between language learning strategy use and personality type (as measured by the Myers-Briggs

Type Indicator MBTI) is far from straightforward. In a later study in the same setting, Ehrman

and Oxford (1990) concluded that psychological type appears to have a strong influence on the

way learners use language learning strategies.

Motivation is very helpful for language learners and makes a great effect on

language learning strategy. The effects of motivation on language learning strategy use were

highlighted or spotlight when Oxford and Nyikos (1989) surveyed 1,200 students studying

various languages in a Midwestern American university in order to examine the kinds of

language learning strategies the students reported using. On this occasion or moment, the degree

of expressed motivation was discovered to be the most influential of the variables affecting

strategy choice examined.

Ehrman and Oxford (1989) in their study at the Foreign Service institute discovered that

career choice had a major effect on reported language learning strategy use; a finding which they

suggest may be the result of underlying motivation.

Studies which have investigated nationality as a factor in language learning strategy use

are not easy to find, although Griffiths and Parr (2000) reported finding that European students

reported using language learning strategies significantly more frequently than students of other
nationalities, especially strategies relating to vocabulary, to reading, to interaction with others, to

reading and to the tolerance of ambiguity. The students of Europe were also working at a

outstandingly higher level than students of other nationalities.

In Taiwan, a study involving questionnaire and group interviews held, Yang (1998) made

some interesting discoveries about her students’ language learning strategy use, including

strategies for using dictionaries. In a later study, Yang (1999) discovered that, although her

students were aware of various language learning strategies, few of them actually reported using

them.

Using a journal writing method, Usuki (2000) discussed the psychological barriers to the

adoption of effective language learning strategies by Japanese students, who are typically

regarded as passive learners, and recommended more co-operations or collaboration between

students and teachers. Two studies which produced findings on nationality-related differences in

language learning strategies incidental to the main research thrust were those reported by Politzer

and McGroarty (1985) and by O’Malley (1987).

Politzer and McGroarty discovered that Asian students exhibited fewer of the

strategies expected of “good” language learners than did Hispanic students while O’Malley

ascribed the lack of success of Asian students to the persistence of familiar strategies.

An interesting contrast to the findings of the all of the previous studies in this sections

that by Willing (1988). Willing administered questionnaires or quiz on learning style preference

and strategy use to a large number of adult immigrant speakers of other languages in Australia.

The results were examined for style preference and strategy use compared with various

biographical variables such as ethnic origin, age, gender, proficiency and length of residence in

Australia. Willing concluded that style preference and strategy use remained virtually constant
across all of these variables. Such conflicting research findings do nothing but underscore the

difficulties of reaching any kind of consensus in the area of language learning strategies.

Studies of the effects of strategy instruction:

There is a belief that language learning strategies are teachable or helpful for learners.

The belief that language learning strategies are teachable and that learners can benefit from

coaching in learning strategies underlies much of the research in the field (for instance Oxford,

1990; Larsen-Freeman, 1991; Cook, 1991) In line with this belief, many researchers have

worked to demonstrate the pedagogical applications of findings from studies into language

learning strategies.

The effects of the teaching of cognitive and meta cognitive strategies on reading

comprehension in the classroom was conducted by Tang and Moore (1992) in one study which

researched. They concluded that, while cognitive strategy instruction (title discussion, pre-

teaching vocabulary) improved comprehension scores, the performance gains were not

maintained upon the withdrawal of the treatment.

Meta-cognitive strategy instruction, on the other hand, involving the teaching of self-

monitoring strategies, appeared to lead to improvements in comprehension ability which was

maintained beyond the end of the treatment. This finding accords with that of O’Malley et al

(1985) who discovered that higher level students are more able than lower level students to

exercise meta-cognitive control over their learning.

In another or additional classroom based study which aimed to research whether learner

strategy training makes a difference in terms of knowledge, skills and attitudes, Nunan (1995)

involved 60 students in a 12 week programme “designed to help them reflect on their own

learning, to develop their knowledge of, and ability to apply learning strategies, to assess their
own progress, and to apply their language skills beyond the classroom”(p.3). Nunan concluded

that his study supported the idea that language classrooms should have a dual focus, teaching

both content and an awareness of language processes.

A negative result for the effectiveness of language learning strategy instruction was

achieved, however, when O’Malley (1987) and his colleagues randomly assigned 75 students to

one of three instructional groups where they received training in (1) meta cognitive, cognitive

and socio-affective strategies, (2) cognitive and socio affective strategies, or (3) no special

instruction in language learning strategies (control group) for listening, speaking and vocabulary

acquisition skills.

Among other findings, it was discovered that the control group for vocabulary

actually scored slightly higher than the treatment groups. O’Malley explains this unexpected

finding as being due to the persistence of familiar strategies among certain students, who

continued to use rote repetitive strategies and was unwilling to adopt the strategies presented in

training, especially when they knew they would be tested within only a few minutes.

This is an interesting finding when compared with Porte’s (1988) observations

concerning his underachieving students and with Sinclair Bell’s (1995) comments on her own

attempt to become literate in Chinese.

Language learning strategies enhance the ability of learning of an individual. Although

results regarding the effectiveness of strategy training are rather mixed, the hypothesis that some

of the success achieved by good language learners may be as a result of more effective language

learning strategies is intuitively appealing, as is the assumption that the language learning

strategies of the more successful students maybe learnt by the less successful students and that

teachers can assist the language learning process by promoting language learning strategy
awareness and use. This teach ability component has meant that language learning strategies are

increasingly attracting the attention of contemporary educators and researchers who are keen to

harness the potential which language learning strategies would seem to have to enhance an

individual’s ability to learn language.

Variables affecting language learning strategies:

There are many factors which effect or influence students using language learning

strategies. The factors influence students using language learning strategies: age, sex, attitude,

motivation, aptitude, learning stage, task requirements, teacher expectation, learning styles,

individual differences, motivation, cultural differences, beliefs about language learning, and

language proficiency (Rubin, 1975; Bialystok, 1979; Abraham & Vann, 1987, 1990; Oxford,

1989; Oxford &Nyikos 1989; Chamot&Kupper 1989; Ehrman and Oxford, 1995).

As the aim of investigating language learning strategies is to produce more effective

learning, it has to focus on research into the relationship between using language learning

strategies and language learning results. Below will be presented a review of several main

research based on language proficiency.

Rubin (1975) focused on observation of successful second language learners, and

concluded that the characteristics of good language learners are to be a willing and accurate

guesser, to have a strong drive to communicate, to learn from communication, to be uninhibited

and willing to make mistakes, paying attention to form by looking for patterns, taking advantage

of every opportunity to practise, monitoring the speech of themselves and others, and focusing

on meaning. Therefore, Rubin suggested that language teachers could help less successful
learners to promote their language proficiency by paying more attention to productive language

learning ARECLS, 2010, Vol.7, 132-152. 143 strategies.

Bialystok (1979) examined the influences of using learning strategies on ESL learners’

performance and found that using all four strategies (formal practising, monitoring, functional

practicing, and inferring) in Bialystok’s model of second language learning had positive effects

on language learners’ achievement, and only functional practising affected language learners’

proficiency in all tasks.

Oxford and Nyikos (1989) explored the relationship between language learners’

proficiency and their use of strategy use as well. They used SILL to investigate 1200 students of

university who studied five different foreign languages, and found that different background

affected use of language learning strategies. Moreover, students’ self-rating of proficiency levels

was closely linked to their use of language learning strategies; for example, students who

considered themselves to be proficient in speaking, listening or reading tended to employ more

language learning strategies.

Both the successful and unsuccessful learners used or employ the same strategies. Vann

&Abraham (1987, 1990) carried out research into successful and unsuccessful language learners.

The results of their studies revealed that unsuccessful learners did use strategies generally

considered as useful, and often they employed the same strategies as successful learners.

However, the difference is that successful learners used strategies more appropriate in different

situations than unsuccessful learners, and used a larger range of strategies in language learning

more frequently ARECLS, 2010, Vol.7, 132-152. 144 and appropriately.

 Ehrman and Oxford (1995) found that only cognitive strategies had a significant

relationship with language proficiency in the SILL category. Other strategies, (memory,

compensation, Meta cognitive, affective, and social strategies) had no significant relationship

with proficiency. On the other hand, only cognitive strategies significantly influenced ESL/EFL

learners’ proficiency outcomes. To conclude, it is clear that there are significant relationships

between language learning strategies and language proficiency.

In other words, language learners who use language learning strategies more than

others generally achieve greater language proficiency, and research into L2 learning

demonstrated that good language learners used strategies more frequently and appropriately to

enhance their target language learning. Therefore, in order to help language students to learn the

target language more successfully, and effectively, the relationship between the employment of

language learning strategies and language proficiency should be further explored on a worldwide

scale.

As mentioned in this section, research into language learning strategies has found that more

proficient language learners use learning strategies more frequently and more different types of

strategies than less proficient language learners and are better able to choose strategies

appropriate to the task. Thus, the types ARECLS, 2010, Vol.7, 132-152. 145 of language

learning strategies used by different learners vary according to many variables. The following

section will focus on concepts of cultural background.

Cultural Background:

The fact that certain types of learners defined by cultural background are predisposed

to use certain types of strategies, and many language learning strategies may be based on
ethnocentric assumptions about effective language learning (Politzerof&McGroarty, 1985). As a

result, it is difficult to argue that researchers have adequately investigated the effects of cultural

background in determining strategy preferences (Politzer&McGroarty, 1985). Bedell (1993)

found that different cultural groups use particular kinds of strategies at different levels of

frequency (cited in Oxford et al., 1995).

Furthermore, Asian students tend to prefer rote memorisation and rule-oriented

strategies (Politzer&McGroarty, 1985). For instance, Taiwanese students seem far more

structured, analytical, memory-based, and Meta cognitively oriented than other groups (Oxford,

1994). O’Malley &Chamot (1990) also found that Asian students prefer their own established

rote learning strategies, and showed Asian students to be less willing than Hispanic students to

try new learning techniques (O’Malley et al., 1985).

Moreover, Huang & Van Naerrsen (1987); Tyacke&Mendelsohn (1986) pointed out that

Asian learners prefer strategies including rote ARECLS, 2010, Vol.7, 132-152. 146

memorisation and a focus on the linguistic code, and Politzer&McGroarty (1985) and Noguchi

(1991) found social strategies to be generally unpopular among Chinese and Japanese students.

In short, there are many variables that affect the language learning strategies of different

students, one of which is cultural background.

Role of Motivation in Learning:

Introduction:
 Motivation is one of the most important factors that influence the success in

language learning. Motivation has several effects on students learning or learners. Motivation

will increase learner’s time on task and is also an important factor affecting their leaning and

achievement. Even though research has demonstrated that success in language learning is related

to positive attitudes and motivation, it is not easy to define and measure motivation, and the

direction of this relationship is not clear, whether motivation leads to successful language

learning or the success in language learning increases motivation. Brown (1987: 114) defines

motivation as ‘an inner drive, impulse, emotion or desire that moves one to a particular action’.

Thus, a motivated learner is the learner who wants to achieve a goal and who is

willing to invest time and effort in reaching that goal. Brown (ibid.) remarks that all human

beings have needs or drives that are more or less innate, but their intensity depends on the

environment. Ausubel (1968: 368-379) has identified six needs and desires that are integral parts

of motivation: the need for exploration, the need for manipulation, the need for activity, the need

for stimulation, the need for knowledge and the need for ego enhancement.

What is meant by the term motivation?

The term motivation in a second language learning context is seen according to Gardner

(1985) as ‘referring to the extent to which the individual works or strives to learn the language

because of a desire to do so and the satisfaction experienced in this activity (p.10).’ According to

the Pocket Oxford English Dictionary, motivation is 1. The reason or reasons behind one’s

actions or behavior. 2. Enthusiasm. Hence, the abstract term ‘motivation’ on its own is rather

difficult to define. It is easier and more useful to think in terms of the ‘motivated’ learner: one
who is willing or even eager to invest effort in learning activities and to progress. Here we want

to explain two kinds of motivation which are relevant to our study.

Types of Motivation:

Studies of motivation in second language learning have led to several distinctions, one of

which is the distinction between integrative and instrumental motivation.

Integrative and instrumental motivation

One of the most influential studies on motivation in second language learning was

carried out by Gardner and Lambert (1972). They identified two kinds of attitudes that influence

motivation in language learning: attitudes to the target-language speakers and attitudes related to

the possible uses of the language being learned. Gardner (1985) maintains that in contrast to

motivation, attitudes do not have direct influence on learning: ‘Motivation in the present context

refers to the combination of effort plus desire to achieve the goal of learning plus favourable

attitudes towards learning the language’. The two kinds of attitude correspond to the two kinds of

motivation: integrative and instrumental. Gardner et al. (1977: 244) describe these two kinds of

motivation as follows:

‘Integrative reasons are defined as those which indicate an interest in learning the

language in order to meet and communicate with members of the second language community.

Instrumental reasons refer to those reasons which stress the pragmatic aspects of learning the

second language, without any particular interest in communicating with the second language

community.’

Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation:

Another distinction related to motivation is the distinction between extrinsic (externally

regulated) and intrinsic (internally regulated) motivation. Intrinsic motivation refers to behavior
that is driven by internal rewards. In other words, the motivation to engage in a behavior arises

from within the individual because it is naturally satisfying you. Intrinsic motivation performing

is an action because you enjoy the activity. External motivation is influenced by some kind of

external incentive such as money, prize, grades, positive feedback (Brown, 2007: 172), the desire

of students to please parents, their wish to succeed in an external exam, peer-group influences

(Ur, 1996: 277). Intrinsic motivation, on the other hand, comes from the learners and their

attitudes towards the language, their learning aims and goals, their emotions, their ambitions, and

so on. Deci (1975: 23) describes intrinsic motivation as follows:

‘Intrinsically motivated activities are ones for which there is not apparent reward except the

activity itself. People seem to engage in the activities for their own sake and because they lead to

an extrinsic reward. Intrinsically motivated behaviours are aimed at bringing about certain

internally rewarding consequences, namely feelings of competence and self determination.’

Global, situational and task motivation:

A third distinction concerning motivation has been made by Brown (1987: 115) who

identifies three types of motivation:

1. Global motivation, which refers to the general orientation of the learners to the goals of

learning the foreign language;

2. Situational motivation, which depends on the situation in which the learning takes place

(classroom learning, naturalistic learning);

3. Task motivation, which is the motivation of the learner to do a particular task

Strategies to increase Learner’s motivation:

 Some strategies for the teachers can be very effective to increase language learners'

motivation and to create good attitude among the students toward the language learning. They

are the following:

Create a Friendly Atmosphere in the Classroom:

Develop a friendly climate in which all students feel recognized and valued. Many

students feel more comfortable participating in classroom activities after they know their teacher

and their peers. A friendly behavior between students and teachers is helpful for learners to

Creating a safe and comfortable environment where everyone feels like a part of the whole is one

of the most significant factors in encouraging motivation and good attitude. Doing so may take

time as students adjust themselves to a new setting.

At the beginning of the school year, you can provide students with a bright and colourful

classroom with pictures and projects completed by the previous year's students. This gives

students the impression that learning the target language will be easy and enjoyable. It also gives

students a chance to learn from what is present in the environment.

Pair and group activities can be used from the very outset, reducing the pressure of

teacher–student interaction and allowing students to feel recognized by their peers. The feeling

of becoming a part of the whole is one of the strongest motivational factors at the beginning of a

school year. One ice-breaker that you could use to start this process is the nickname activity.

Students can invent and write down a nickname (or use a nickname they already have). Arranged

in a circle, each student has to stand up and explain his or her nickname. Along with introducing

themselves, this fun activity gives students a chance to create a friendly and flexible classroom

atmosphere.
Encourage Students to Personalize the Classroom Environment:

Providing students with a learner- centered, low-anxiety classroom environment has

a great impact on language acquisition. Personalizing the environment can relax the students and

enhance the friendly atmosphere, which will increase their desire and attitude to learn and

develop their language skills. Students who feel safe and comfortable will feel more secure

taking chances; they will display greater motivation to read aloud in class or write an essay

without the fear of being criticized.

Create Situations in Which Students Will Feel a Sense of Accomplishment:

A sense of accomplishment is a great factor in motivating students. Be sure to give

positive feedback and reinforcement. Doing so can increase students' satisfaction and encourage

positive self-evaluation. A student who feels a sense of accomplishment will have a better

attitude to direct his or her own studies and learning outcomes. Positive as well as negative

comments influence motivation and attitude, but research consistently indicates that students are

more affected by positive feedback and success. Praise builds students' self-confidence,

competence, and self-esteem.

However, giving positive feedback should not be mistaken for correcting mistakes

without giving explanations. Some teachers correct students' mistakes without really explaining

the reason for doing so. It is very important for teachers to point out the good aspects of a

student's work and to provide a clear explanation of his or her mistakes. Students value the

teacher's ideas when they feel that their good work is appreciated, and this encourages them to

start evaluating themselves for further studies.

Encourage Students to Set Their Own Short-Term Goals:

 Language learners can achieve success by setting their own goals and by directing

their studies toward their own expectations. Students can help themselves achieve their goals by

determining their own language needs and by defining why they want to learn the language.

Having goals and expectations leads to increased motivation, this in turn, leads to a higher level

of language competence. We as teachers should encourage students to have specific short-term

goals such as communicating with English speakers or reading books in English. No matter what

these goals are, we should help students set and pursue them.

Provide Pair and Group to develop Student’s confidence:

Students learn by doing, making, writing, designing, creating, and solving. Passivity

decreases students' motivation and curiosity and leads to low attitude toward language learning.

Students' enthusiasm, involvement, and willingness to participate affect the quality of class

discussion as an opportunity for learning. Small-group activities and pair work boost students'

self-confidence and are excellent sources of motivation. Group work can give quiet students a

chance to express their ideas and feelings on a topic because they find it easier to speak to groups

of three or four than to an entire class.

Once students have spoken in small groups, they usually become less reluctant to speak

to the class as a whole. Group activities allow students not only to express their ideas but also to

work cooperatively, which increases class cohesion and thus motivation. This method is very

flexible.