CHAPTER 2

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURES AND STUDIES

This chapter includes a survey of related literature and studies with regard to

the variables in the study namely learners' grammar proficiency and language learning

strategies. The said literature and studies will help the researcher to better understand

the topic of the current study. Likewise, the theoretical framework and conceptual

framework are included in this chapter.

Language Learning Strategy

According to Oxford (1990), learning strategies play such a vital role in

language acquisition. Exploring acquisition strategies utilized by a triad of teaching

learners and teaching them to unsuccessful learners can facilitate the latter to enhance

their second or foreign language learning. Strategy teaching, according to experts, is

most beneficial when it is incorporated into standard classroom instruction (Cohen,

1998; Oxford & Leaver, 1996; Anderson, 2005). Language classrooms, for example,

should have a dual emphasis, not just on teaching language content but also on

improving learning processes. Moreover, interest in improving the learning and use of

a second language through strategy instruction has grown at the elementary,

secondary, and university levels, as well as at adult centers and self-access centers,

according to Cohen (2011). Every person learns in a unique way. In that case,

learning strategies and styles are thought to play a role in this.

Furthermore, learning styles are described by Oxford (2001) as "the general

approaches that students use in learning a new language or any other subject". More

than 21 learning styles have been identified in the literature. Some of these learning

types, such as the four perceptual learning preferences of visual learning, auditory
learning, kinesthetic learning, and tactile learning are more associated with second

language learning. Auditory learners tend to learn more by listening to lectures or

audio materials, while visual learners prefer reading or studying maps. Tactile

learners prefer hands-on activities such as constructing models or conducting

laboratory experiments, whereas kinesthetic learners prefer experiential learning with

physical interaction. In research by Reid (1987), it was discovered that these learning

styles vary depending on gender and cultural differences.

As opposed to language learning styles, learning strategies are basic activities,

habits, steps, or techniques used by students to facilitate their own learning (Scarcella

& Oxford, 1992, p. 63). However, they are linked between; the choice of a strategy or

series of strategies is determined by the individual's learning style as well as the task

at hand (H. D. Brown, 2000; Oxford, 2001). This may explain why learning strategies

differ from person to person, and why a particular learning strategy cannot always aid

in the acquisition of a specific language point. Apart from that, multiple researchers

have shown that gender variations in strategy usage can be clarified by learning styles

(Ehrman & Oxford, 1988; Green & Oxford, 1995).

Moreover, Wong-Fillmore described social strategies in the late 1970s (1976,

cited in Wenden & Rubin, 1987). These were the methods for keeping the

conversation going. Besides, communication methods, which Tarone (1981)

distinguished from learning strategies, aided speaking capacity by using a variety of

techniques such as coining terms and circumlocution. Several researchers in the 1980s

distinguished between cognitive and metacognitive methods (e.g., A. L. Brown &

Palinscar, 1982; O'Malley & Chamot, 1990). As a result, O'Malley and Chamot

(1990) developed one of the most detailed strategy lists ever. There were three main

categories and twenty-four secondary categories on their list. The following are the
three groups, as well as several subcategories: (1) metacognitive strategies (selective

focus, tracking, and evaluation); (2) cognitive strategies (repetition, classification, and

notetaking); and (3) social- affective strategies (cooperation and question for

clarification). Another study, Oxford (1990), provided language teachers with a

taxonomy of language learning techniques as well as many technical training

activities covering the four language skills. In terms of strategy preparation, Oxford

also created a systematic survey based on her taxonomy called the Strategy Inventory

for Language Learning (SILL).

Grammar Proficiency

According to Rutherford (1988), grammar was used to mean the analysis of a

language system, and the study of grammar was not just considered an essential

feature of language learning but was thought to be sufficient for learners to actually

acquire another language in the course. The focal part of syntax in the language

educational plan has stayed unchallenged as of not long ago, sentence structure

instructional method has obviously been the wellspring of much discussion. For

instance, some language teachers have contended that languages from foreign are best

scholarly deductively, where understudies are approached to retain and present

definitions, rules, models, and exemptions. In this methodology, the instruction of

language clearly elaborates the transmission of punctuation rules from instructor to

understudy, and to realize a language intended to know the complexities of its

linguistic framework and to recount its guidelines. On the other hand, other language

teachers have kept up that language learning is best accomplished inductively. In this

methodology, understudies are given instances of the objective language and

prompted to find its fundamental hierarchical standards to have the option to detail a

conventional arrangement of rules and recommendations.

Furthermore, various language instructors have been stronger in their endeavor

to stress the part of sentence structure in language education. They accepted that

foreign languages were best educated, similarly that children get familiar with their

native language, through supported openness to the language and through association.

This belief gave rise to the ‘natural method’, the ‘direct method’, and, ultimately, to

the ‘natural approach to language acquisition (Krashen and Terrell, 1983). Albeit

these language training techniques varied as far as whether first and second language

securing were expected to include indistinguishable cycles, these strategies made next

to zero arrangement for the proper guidance of punctuation, and understudies were

left to their own gadgets to distinguish and become familiar with the principles. In

these methodologies, sentence structure was not, at this point, seen solely as a bunch

of syntactic reflections to be presented, but instead, as a bunch of rules to be disguised

and utilized for correspondence. To realize a language intended to have the option to

utilize it for some genuine reason, and the evaluation of linguistic information

depended on assignments expecting understudies to show their capacity to convey in

talking or composing.

For now, the discussion about language education has been settled. However,

there are few scientists who actually keep on producing the conversation. For

instance, most language instructors these days would at this point don't anticipate that

their students should commit an excess of time to depict and breaking down language

frameworks, to making an interpretation of writings, or to learning a language

exclusively for admittance to its writing; rather, they would need their understudies to

get familiar with the language for some open purpose. On the other hand, the capacity
to impart viably and suddenly, all things considered, the circumstance was the

essential objective of language learning today. Language educators today would not

reject that syntactic fitness is a vital piece of informative language capacity, yet most

would keep up that punctuation ought to be seen as a vital asset for viable

correspondence.

Although controversies arise from time to time over its place in language

classrooms, grammar is still necessary for accurate language production. It has been

shown that exposure to the target language is not enough for learners to ‘pick up’

accurate linguistic form, especially when the exposure is limited to the EFL classroom

(Larsen-Freeman, 2001) not, except under special circumstances, an object of study in

itself. In an ever-evolving competitive world, learning a Foreign Language (FL) has

become essential. To enhance learners’ learning proficiency, learners should be

encouraged to build the necessary competence for learning an FL, and this could be

done by enhancing the employment of Language Learning Strategies (LLSs),

as LLSs constitute an essential aspect of boosting and promoting the learning process

(Chamot, 2001; Griffiths, 2003; Griffiths & Oxford, 2014; Oxford, 1990; Rubin,

1975). They have a persuasive and advocate role as an aid for learners to boost and

improve their language learning proficiency, and have been explored by researchers

since the 1970’s. Despite the crucial developments on LLSs since the 1970’s,

Grammar Learning Strategies (GLSs) are in their infant stage in the field. LLSs

researchers have not given as much attention to GLSs as to the other language skills;

therefore, GLSs have largely been ignored (Anderson, 2005; Cohen, 2011; Cohen,

Pinilla-Herrera, Thompson, & Witzig, 2001; Oxford, Lee, & Park, 2007; Pawlak,

2009a; Pawlak, 2012).

Impact of Language Learning Strategy on Students’ Grammar Proficiency

 There are many studies conducted in order to explain either the relation or the

impact of language learning strategy on grammar proficiency of language learners.

There are studies under different contexts, using different participants, applying

different research designs and methods to gather the data, and still arrived with

different results that let the stand of the study about this matter to continue until this

current time. In line with this, the following collections related studies from different

researchers with their varying purpose, methods, result, and discussion after

conducting their study in light of these two variables; language learning strategy and

grammar proficiency. The related studies were presented in thematic order wherein

the studies were grouped according to the research method used in the studies of

various experts in the field of language research.

The success of language learning significantly depends on multiple sets of

complex factors; among these are language-learning strategies of which learners in

different countries may show different preferences. Needed areas of language learning

strategy research include, among others, the strategy of grammar learning and the

context-based approach to learning strategies. To fill in these gaps, this study entitled

“Strategies for Better Learning of English Grammar: Chinese vs. Thais” aimed at

finding the grammar learning strategies adopted by high school students as well as

exploring the national differences between Chinese and Thai students. The results

showed that in general, the strategies significantly taken up by the high achievers in

the grammar test included the metacognitive, the memory, the social, and the

cognitive. In terms of the national differences, the strategies that characterized the

Thai students were social and affective. Regarding the Chinese, even though they

generally applied all strategy categories at lower frequencies, they were found to
prefer different sub-strategies in the following three categories: memory (revision and

space reliance), cognitive (note-taking), and metacognitive (lesson preview).

There were these previous studies with the findings that lead to implications

for learners of grammar, interesting future research in grammar strategies, and

culturally responsive grammar teaching. For instance, the main premise of this paper

“Grammar Learning Strategy Inventory (GLSI): Another look” is to gain momentum.

It is to create valid and reliable data collection instruments that would enable tapping

the use of different types of GLS. In line with this reasoning, the article reports a

study that aimed to determine the psychometric properties of the Grammar Learning

Strategy Inventory (GLSI), a tool constructed by Pawlak (2009b, 2013) on the basis

of his classification of strategies for learning grammar in a second or foreign

language. Exploratory factor analysis was also employed with the purpose of

uncovering the underlying structure of strategic learning of grammar. The analysis

provided evidence for largely satisfactory validity and reliability of the GLSI,

indicating at the same time there is room for improvement, with concrete changes

being possible after the instrument has been tested with a much larger sample.

Another research entitled “Grammar Learning Strategies Used by English Good

Achievers: A Case Study at Seventh Grade Students of SMP N 4 Surakarta aimed to

describe the metacognitive grammar learning strategies, cognitive grammar learning

strategies, and socio- affective grammar learning strategies used by good achievers of

junior high school. This research tried to explore how the realization of the strategies

used in practice. This study was a case study with a qualitative method. The data in

this study were in the form of information about learning strategies obtained from six

good achievers in the seventh grade of SMP N 4 Surakarta. This research used an

open-ended questionnaire and in-depth interview to collect the data. To analyze the
data, the researcher used some techniques i.e. data reduction, data display, drawing

conclusions, and verification. The results of this study indicated that almost all

strategies by O’Malley were used by the subjects. Furthermore, the metacognitive

strategy is the most frequently used by good achievers. It showed that good achievers

tend to use various strategies when learning.

Moreover, there was a study that explored grammar learning strategies used by

grade 11 students of Medhanealem preparatory school focusing on the differences

between the two genders. A survey research design was used in the study. The data

for this research was gathered from 264 (117 Male and 147 Female) participants. The

strategy use was assessed through a 35 items Grammar Learning Strategies

Questionnaire (GLSQ), which was modified from Oxford’s (1990) Strategy Inventory

for Language Learning (SILL). The internal reliability of the instrument was checked

and revealed acceptable reliability (.60). The data were analyzed using Statistical

Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version-20. The results show that Compensation

Strategies were the first used strategy category by the learners, while Affective

Strategies ranked last on students preference scale. The study also reveals that there

were differences between male and female students in their preferences of strategy

categories, in which males prefer Affective Strategies the least, while Metacognitive

Strategies were the least favoured strategy group by females, whereas Compensation

Strategies were the most preferred strategy group by both male and female learners. In

general, the result of the independent Samples t-test reveals that there was no

significant relationship between gender and grammar learning strategies used. Finally,

based on the findings of the study, it was suggested that teachers need to create

opportunities for students to use indirect strategies. Additionally, it was recommended

to incorporate learning strategies training into the curriculum.

 Although major advances have been made in research on language learning

strategies (LLS), there are some areas that have been somewhat surprisingly neglected

by specialists. This applies without a doubt to the strategies that learners draw on to

better understand and learn grammar rules but also to employ grammar structures in

real-time processing, as required in spontaneous communication. In this paper entitled

“Grammar Learning Strategies as a key to mastering second language grammar: A

research agenda”, the researcher outlines a research agenda for grammar learning

strategies (GLS), identifying three distinct lines of inquiry: (1) identification and

measurement of GLS, (2) examination of factors moderating GLS use, and (3)

strategies- based instruction as applied to GLS. Although these three areas are to some

extent reflective of the main focus of empirical investigations in research on LLS, in

each case, researchers try to demonstrate how cutting-edge theoretical and empirical

developments can be applied to the study of GLS. For each of the three areas,

researchers propose research tasks the execution of which has the potential of moving

research on GLS forward.

Furthermore, another study about “Grammar Learning Strategies and

Language Attainment: Seeking a Relationship” contributes to the paucity of empirical

investigations in this domain by presenting the findings of a study that sought to

investigate the relationship between the use of grammar learning strategies (GLS)

reported by 142 English Department students and target language attainment,

operationalized as their performance in a practical grammar course and the end-of-

the-year examination. Information about GLS use was obtained by means of a tool

that was designed on the basis of a theoretical scheme proposed by Oxford, Rang Lee,

and Park (2007) in which GLS are divided into three categories depending on whether

they represent implicit learning with a focus on form, explicit inductive learning, and
explicit deductive learning. The analysis failed to find a strong positive relationship

between the use of GLS and achievement, irrespective of the level of the BA program,

or statistically significant differences in this respect between lower-level and higher-

level participants. The highest, albeit very weak, correlation was identified between

the use of GLS associated with explicit deductive learning and grammar course

grades, which testifies to the traditional nature of instruction the subjects receive. The

findings serve as a basis for putting forward a handful of recommendations for

learning, teaching, and testing grammar as well as directions for future studies into

grammar learning strategies.

It is evident that learning English as a second and even foreign language has

been stressed out in all levels of education. Thus, teachers and researchers have been

focusing on describing externally observable behaviors of language learners, followed

by attempts to label categorized strategic behaviors and link them to language

proficiency. For instance, this descriptive correlational study entitled “Influence of

Language Learning Strategies to English Proficiency Test Performance of College

Students'', that aimed to describe the extent of learners’ use of the language learning

strategies (LLS) and determine its relationship with English proficiency test

performance of college students (N=82). The Oxford’s Strategy Inventory Language

Learning (SILL) and a standardized College English Proficiency Test were the main

instruments of the study. Results showed that memory, metacognitive, cognitive,

compensation, organizing and evaluation, and affective learning strategies do not

significantly affect students’ English proficiency test performance; whereas social

learning strategies are a strong predictor of students’ English proficiency test

performance. This research provides a basis for utilizing social learning strategies as

an intervention for improving students’ English proficiency.

 Besides, this study about “Three Factors Affecting Language Learning:

Grammar Learning Strategies, Self-Efficacy, and Learner Autonomy'', mainly

investigated (a) the relationship among grammar learning strategies, self-efficacy, and

learner autonomy and (b) their effects on academic success. Investigating all of them

gives some clues for classroom practice. The study was conducted at Gaziantep

University Foreign Languages Higher School with the participation of 350 students

from four different proficiency levels (elementary, pre- intermediate, intermediate,

and upper-intermediate). The data were collected through a questionnaire that has

three parts with 65-items. The data collected through the questionnaires were

analyzed by means of the quantitative method including calculating descriptive

statistics. According to analysis results, there is a positive relationship between

grammar learning strategies and academic success (r=.185 p>.01), self-efficacy and

academic success (r=.455 p>.01), and learner autonomy and academic success (r=.120

p>.01). When grammar learning strategies, self-efficacy, and learner autonomy were

investigated together, it was observed that there was a statistically positive

relationship with academic success (r=.472 p>.01).

Sarıçoban (2005) also investigated the employment of grammar learning

strategies by university-level students. The researcher used a questionnaire to

determine the learning strategies used by the students. However, the items and the

categorization used for these items are suspect; some of the items that are called

learning strategies by the researcher seem to be attitudes or preferences. Another

study that aimed to investigate grammar learning strategies was conducted by Yalçın

(2003). In this study, the researcher devised a grammar learning strategy

questionnaire to explore the strategies that EFL learners use. In addition, Yalçın

explored the correlation between grammar learning strategy use and overall student
achievement. The results of this study indicated no significant relationship between

grammar learning strategy use and achievement.

In addition, the study entitled “Language Learning Strategies and Language

Proficiency: Investigating the Relationship in Hong Kong”, reports on a survey of the

language learning strategies used by a group of Hong Kong learners. The aims of the

study were to investigate levels of strategy use among the group and to examine levels

of association between strategy use and language proficiency. The SILL questionnaire

(Strategies Inventory of Language Learning) by Oxford (1990, pp. 293-300) was

used. SILL consists of six categories of strategies: memory, cognitive, compensation,

metacognitive, affective, and social. The results showed that compensation and

metacognitive strategies were the most used, while affective and memory strategies

were the least used. Previous examinations of the nature of the relationship between

strategy use and proficiency and ways of measuring this are discussed. In this study, it

was found that there was significant variation in proficiency in relation to eleven out

of a possible fifty strategies. Of these, nine were in the cognitive category, one in the

compensation category, and one in the social category. The article concludes by

questioning the appropriateness of using the SILL and proficiency measure in tandem

as a way of establishing a clear relationship between strategy use and proficiency and

suggests directions that might be pursued in language learning strategy research.

This another case of schools in Albania, where English is taught as a foreign

language, shows that pupils who do well in proficiency tests, do not perform

adequately in oral communication for the same grammatical knowledge. The paper

entitled “Introducing Grammar Learning Strategies in A2 and B1 classes of English as

a Foreign Language: San Albanian Casestudy”, which aims to introduce a range of

available grammar learning strategies for learners of EFL to use in the A2 and B1
levels was conducted. The material is accompanied by concrete examples of how

grammar learning strategies can be included in lesson plans, based on textbook

material. The aim is to render interested readers the awareness of the possible need to

increase communicative grammar proficiency in learners of EFL by increasing their

awareness of the range of means available to create long-lasting associations between

the theory, acquisition, and correct usage of grammar. The earlier the attempts to

create independent grammar learners, the sooner the opportunity exists for these

learners to reach native-like grammar proficiency.

Meanwhile, the study examines language learning strategy (LLS) use in

connection with foreign language attitude, proficiency, and general school

achievement among lower secondary students in Years 5 and 8 (n = 868) in Hungary.

An adapted version of the Strategies Inventory for Language Learning questionnaire

was used for data collection. The results showed that Hungarian students mainly

engage in metacognitive strategies in both years. Differences between more and less

proficient language learners’ strategy use have also been found. Concerning the effect

of LLS on foreign language attitude, the foreign language mark, and school

achievement, path analysis indicated a good fit in both years. The metacognitive,

social, and memory strategies primarily influenced foreign language attitudes and

marks in Year 5. The metacognitive strategies had a slight impact on school

achievement as well as on foreign language marks. We demonstrated the dominant

effect of metacognitive strategies and the low effect of memory strategies in Year 8.

In addition, metacognitive strategies also influenced foreign language marks. The

effect of foreign language marks on school achievement was also remarkable. There

was a strong impact on the children’s attitudes through these variables.

 The role of grammar instruction in an ESL/EFL context has been for decades a

major issue for students and teachers alike. Researchers have debated whether

grammar should be taught in the classroom and students, for their part, have generally

looked upon grammar instruction as a necessary evil at best, and an avoidable burden

at worst. The paper reports a study undertaken entitled “Difficulties in and Learning

Grammar in an EFL Context”, to investigate the difficulties teachers face in teaching

grammar to EFL students as well as those faced by students in learning it, in the

teachers' perception. The study aimed to find out whether there are significant

differences in teachers' perceptions of difficulties with their gender, qualification,

teaching experience, and the level they teach in school, thus providing insights into

their own and their students' difficulties. Mean scores and t-test were used to interpret

the data. The main findings are reported with implications.

Furthermore, the study about “The Grammar Learning State Employed by

Turkish University Preparatory School EFL Students”, that mainly investigated (a)

which learning strategies Turkish EFL learners use when learning and using grammar

structures, and (b) the difference in learning strategy use by several variables, such as

gender, proficiency level, and achievement on grammar tests. The study was

conducted at Middle East Technical University (METU), School of foreign languages,

with the participation of 176 students from three different proficiency levels (pre-

intermediate, intermediate, and upper-intermediate). The data were collected through

a 35-item questionnaire regarding grammar learning strategies. The analysis of the

quantitative data revealed that Turkish EFL learners think learning English grammar

is important, and that these learners use a variety of learning strategies when they

learn and use grammar structures. The findings from this study also indicated that

there is a difference in
learning strategy use among different proficiency levels. Similarly, a significant

difference was found between iv males and females in terms of their strategy use.

In an ever-evolving competitive world, learning a Foreign Language (FL) has

become essential. To enhance learners’ learning proficiency, learners should be

encouraged to build the necessary competence for learning an FL, and this could be

done by enhancing the employment of Language Learning Strategies (LLSs), as LLSs

constitute an essential aspect of boosting and promoting the learning process

(Chamot, 2001; Griffiths, 2003; Griffiths & Oxford, 2014; Oxford, 1990; Rubin,

1975). They have a persuasive and advocate role as an aid for learners to boost and

improve their language learning proficiency, and have been explored by researchers

since the 1970’s. Despite the crucial developments on LLSs since the 1970’s,

Grammar Learning Strategies (GLSs) are in their infant stage in the field. LLSs

researchers have not given as much attention to GLSs as to the other language skills;

therefore, GLSs have largely been ignored (Anderson, 2005; Cohen, 2011; Cohen,

Pinilla-Herrera, Thompson, & Witzig, 2001; Oxford, Lee, & Park, 2007; Pawlak,

2009a; Pawlak, 2012). For example, Oxford et al. (2007, p. 117) called GLSs the

“Second Cinderella” of LLSs research. This issue of learning strategies remains a

complicated matter in the field of teaching English as a Foreign Language (EFL).

Although the research has been intensive in the last twenty-five years, it is difficult to

draw teaching strategies that fit learning contexts that vary greatly due to particular

features of the learner. Furthermore, regarding grammar, teachers are even more

convinced that it is their primary duty to lead and monitor the acquisition process in

the classroom.

Synthesis
 The survey literature and studies discuss the concept of language learning

strategy, grammar proficiency, how it can be measured, categories of language

learning strategy, the relation and difference in assessing grammar proficiency along

the language learning strategy used by the second language learners. The learning

strategies play a role in acquiring language. The review of literature and studies stated

and discussed the learning strategies (Oxford, 1990) as well as how grammar should

be viewed and how the strategies play in grammar proficiency of the learner. The

literature emphasized that learning strategies may not vary from person to person and

even a particular learning strategy does not have an assurance to help in particular

language points.

Literature and studies indicated the role of grammar in language teaching.

These also pointed out and has a debate that foreign languages can easily be learned

in the same way by the native language of the learners through interaction and

exposure to the language. But then, as continuously generating new studies, it arises

that exposure to the target language is not enough for the accurate linguistic form and

that if Language Learning Strategies implied for grammar or learning proficiency of

individuals, the learners must or should be encouraged to have the necessary

competence for learning.

Moreover, based on the results of related studies, language learning strategies

will always depend on multiple sets of complex factors. One of the main factors that

need to be considered is the interconnection of language proficiency in different

contexts, it says that the techniques of the said contexts will help to achieve better

language learning, but still, several research findings are there that may go against this

conclusion.
 For instance, there are a lot of related studies that offer a lot of techniques for

effective language learning. One of those techniques is the study of language

proficiency among high school students (Chinese vs Thais). The result of this study

concluded by saying that Thais are more efficient in language proficiency than

Chinese. However, according to Pawlak (2009b, 292013) Exploratory factor analysis

was needed to be employed to uncover the underlying structure of strategic learning

of grammar, states that it is necessary to create valid and reliable data collection

instruments that would enable tapping the use of different types of Grammar

Language Strategies (GLS) for gaining momentum for better language learning. On

the other hand, Oxford’s (1990) focuses on gender factors. He wanted to prove that

there were differences between male and female students in their preferences of

strategy categories, in which males prefer Affective Strategies the least, while

Metacognitive Strategies were the least favored strategy group by females, whereas

Compensation Strategies were the most preferred strategy group by both male and

female learners. But then, at the end of this study, the result of the independent

Samples t-test reveals that there was no significant relationship between gender and

grammar learning strategies used. Since the two studies mentioned above focused on

high school and preparatory level, Sarıçoban (2005) and Yalçın n(2003) focused on

the university level. They investigate the employment of grammar learning strategies

performed by college students. Both of them create questionnaires to be answered by

the college students but they only differ because Yalçın focused on EFL students, but

still at the university level.

Theoretical Framework
 The concept that will be used in this study was based on Oxford’s (1990) idea

of teaching grammar should be taught along with the appropriate language learning

strategy. In the literature concerning cognitive science in general or language learning

in particular, the term ‘strategy’ has been referred to as a small range of synonyms

such as ‘technique’, ‘tactic’ and ‘skills’, by which individual researchers describe

their understandings in this particular area in slightly different ways. Just as Bialystok

(1983, cited in Wenden and Rubin 1987:7) states, ‘there is little consensus in the

literature concerning either the definition or the identification of language learning

strategies. Some more or less overlapping statements are compared as follows.

To begin with, some views are triggering the discussion about whether

language learning strategies are behavioral (observable), mental (unobservable), or

both. For example, Oxford (1989ˈcited in Ellis, 1994: 531) defines the term as

‘behaviors or actions, whereas Weinstein and Mayer (1986) argue learning strategies

involve both behaviors and thoughts. Secondly, the disagreement is about the nature

of the behaviors, on the presupposition the language learning strategies are behaviors.

Stern (1983, cited in Ellis,1994:531) claims that ‘strategy is best reserved for general

tendencies or overall characteristics of the approach employed by the language

learner, leaving techniques as the term to refer to particular forms of observable

learning behavior. Here Stern describes the nature of strategy as general and overall,

while Wenden (1987) blurs the distinction between these two by referring to

‘strategies’ as specific actions or techniques, adding that they are not about the

general approach of learners like reflecting and risk-taking. The last major dispute

deals with learners’ awareness of strategy use.

Some address this by applying distinct terms, for example, Seliger (1984, cited

in Ellis, 1994) refers to the abstract cognitive categories of processing information

subconsciously or unconsciously as ‘strategies’, while he defines another term

‘tactics’ as learners’ deliberate response to the learning circumstances. However,

many researchers avoid making a clear distinction on the issue of consciousness, and

some suggest that learners cope with new information by deploying strategies

consciously and these strategies would gradually become subconscious with repeated

application and self-adaptation. Although each of these arguments describes learning

strategies from a unique perspective, they may have helped us get a general notion of

what are learner strategies: ·Learning strategies are either behavioral thus observable,

or mental than not observable. ·Learning strategies could be either general approaches

or specific actions or techniques adopted to learn a Target Language (TL). ·Learners

are generally aware of what approaches or techniques they have used in language

learning, despite some subconscious activities under certain circumstances.

According to Rubin (1987), there are three kinds of learner strategies, namely,

learning strategies, communication strategies, and social strategies. It is noted that she

uses ‘learner’ in the superordinate to differentiate it from the subordinate. Among the

three, the first two are further named as direct strategies, in that they make a direct

and primary contribution to language learning, through obtaining, storing, retrieving,

and using language, as opposed to the indirect way in which social strategies

contribute to language learning. As the first and major category, learning strategies

may further break into cognitive and metacognitive strategies. O’ Malley (1987) notes

that the former normally entail direct manipulation or organization of new

information, some typical examples of which are repetition, resourcing, translation,

grouping, note-taking, deducing, and inferencing; on the other hand, the latter often

include planning, monitoring, and evaluating learning activities.

 The second category in Rubin’s system of typology, communication strategies

are often employed when learners participate in a conversation, facilitating the

ongoing conversation and allowing learners more chances of exposure to L2, such as

clarification strategy and avoidance strategy. The last one, social strategies, appearing

with affective strategies in lots of strategy research reports, are applied with a lower

frequency in classroom activities, for example, cooperating with peer learners in

group work and asking teachers for clarification, due to lack of real-life

communicative situations and inevitable resort to mother tongue (Carless, 2007).

Although the primary and significant aspects of learner strategies have been covered

in Rubin’s categorization, some specific strategies owing their importance in L2

learning deserve particular attention. Take mnemonic techniques, for instance, they

are applied and relied on to some degree in lots of language learning areas. Deployed

with other aides in a learning setting, like visual aids and physical responses

(Thompson, 1987), memorizing strategies could be particularly effective to some

learners. There are other perspectives from which learning strategies are examined,

too. Oxford (1990) develops a six-item group of L2 learning behaviors, in which not

only affective and social strategy are treated and valued respectively, but cognitive

strategy are dealt with in three smaller parts, which are memory-related, general

cognitive, and compensatory strategy. There is not sufficient evidence to say this way

is better than another systematizing approach, or vice versa, but it devotes the insight

of seeing learners as persons able of accessing and utilizing comprehensive resources,

rather than information processors and at the same time reminds teachers of some

potentially enhance-able aspects of their learners.

Conceptual Framework
Input Process
Output
TMCC Education 1. Gather data Transparent data of
Language Learning
Students’ Language 2. Apply statistics Strategy and Grammar
Proficiency for each
Learning Strategy 3. Analysis and research participants
for
TMCC Education interpretation of awareness on what
Language Learning
Students Grammar data Strategies used to
improve Grammar
Proficiency Proficiency

Fig. 1 Conceptual Paradigm of the Study

Input is something from an external environment that is fed into the system. In

an information system, the inputs may be raw data captured in some way or pre-

existing data which has been provided by an external system. In this study, the input

includes the variables of the study such as the TMCC education students’ language

learning strategies and TMCC education students’ grammar proficiency. The process

accepts the inputs into the system and performs some type of operation on it,

transforming it into some other state. In the simplest terms, the process is the heart of

the system.

The process in this study includes the survey questionnaire and grammar test

which aim to identify which language learning strategies used by the education

students have an impact on their grammar proficiency. The process also includes data

analysis and data interpretation. Output from the system is the result of processing the

input. Without the output, a system has no link back to its external environment. The

output of an information system may be reports generated from an information

system. In this study, the different language learning strategies used by the education
students will help the learners to identify the impact of LLS on their grammar

proficiency, which intends to improve their learning habits as learners.

Hypothesis

To answer the research problem in this study, the researchers have used this

hypothesis:

There is no significant difference on Grammar Proficiency among TMCC

Education Students when they are grouped according to their Language Learning

Strategies.

Definition of Terms

For the better understanding of this study, the following terms are defined

conceptually and operationally.

Grammar Proficiency. In this study, it refers to the mastery of English grammar that

shows students’ ability to make use of their grammar competence.

Language Learning Strategies. In this study, this refers to the strategies aid students

to becoming more effective learners and foster more efficient development.

Memory Strategies. In this study, it is about the strategy that will regulate the

learning of students and mostly used for storage of information, this will be having

creating mental linkages, applying sounds, reviewing and employing action.

Cognitive Strategies. In this study, it refers to the strategy that will focused on

mental strategies, this is for having sense on learning of the students including

analyzing and reasoning.

Compensation Strategies. In this study, it refers the strategy that will help students

or the learners to overcome the knowledge gap to continue the communication.

Metacognitive Strategies. In this study it refers the strategy will help the students to

control their own learning. Students will be able to plan their learning strategies.

Affective Strategies. In this study, it refers the strategy that will focused on the

emotion of the learners, it can be also attitude, values and motivation. This strategy

can help the learners on their language learning to manage their feelings.

Social Strategies. In this study, it refers the strategy that will involve people, this is a

social strategies that students engaged to opportunity to exposed in environment and

form social behaviour.

Education Students. In this study, these are the Education Students at Trece Martires

City College from first year to third year and are the respondents of the study.