LA No: 342

Strategy Knowledge and Perceived

Strategy Use: Singaporean Students’
Awareness of Listening and Speaking
Strategies

Donglan Zhang and Christine C.M. Goh

Nanyang Technological University, Singapore
The past three decades have seen a growing body of research into language learner
metacognitive knowledge, strategy use, and the relationship between them. However,
the correlation between knowledge about strategies and strategy use in ESL listening
and speaking has not been explored. This study investigates 278 Singaporean students’
knowledge and use of 40 listening and speaking strategies, and the relationship
between these two variables. Distinctions were made among use-focused and form-
focused learning strategies, comprehension strategies and communication strategies.
The results showed that the students tended to believe in the usefulness of all four
groups of strategies but seemed more often to use use-focused ones. Of the 40 strate-
gies, 32 were perceived as useful by half the students, whereas only 13 were reported
as used frequently. The discrepancy indicates that, while the students were generally
aware of the usefulness of the strategies, they were not yet conscious and confident
strategy users. There seems to be a need to increase their repertoire of strategies. Cor-
relations were found between perceptions of the usefulness and perceived use of the
strategies. The paper ends by considering teaching implications and future research.

doi:10.2167/la342.0

Keywords: listening and speaking, awareness, metacognitive knowledge,

strategy knowledge, perceived strategy use, Singaporean ESL learners

Introduction
The past three decades have seen a growing body of research on language
learner metacognitive knowledge and learner strategies. An individual’s
metacognitive knowledge is his or her personal knowledge or beliefs about
language learning (Wenden, 1991, 1998). Learner strategies refer to the steps or
actions consciously selected by learners to improve the learning or/and use of
a second language (Cohen, 1998). While research into both areas has signalled a
link between the two variables – for example, metacognitive knowledge about
learning a language is thought to account for language learners’ use of strategies
and play a role in developing autonomous learners (Cotterall, 1995; Wenden,
1991, 1998) – few empirical studies have examined the relationship. Even fewer
have investigated links between learner knowledge about strategies and use
(perceived or actual) of these strategies. No study has focused on listening and
speaking simultaneously with Singaporean language learners as subjects. This

0965-8416/06/03 0199-21 $20.00/0 © 2006 D. Zhang and C.C.M. Goh

LANGUAGE AWARENESS Vol. 15, No. 3, 2006

199
 LA No: 342

200 Language Awareness

study addresses these gaps. Below, we introduce our research context, and then
present the key concepts in our study and review related research.

The Context of Singapore

English is used as the medium of instruction and taught as the first language
in schools in Singapore. However, some students are more comfortable using
their mother tongues (Chinese, Indian and Malay languages) in everyday com-
munication, including with friends in school. Although all students would
have no hesitation in claiming that they speak and write in English, the type
of English used by many students is a colloquial variety known in academic
circles as Singapore Colloquial English (Gupta, 1994), or ‘Singlish’ among Sin-
gaporeans. It can be incomprehensible to non-Singaporeans and has many
morphological, syntactical, lexical and phonological variants when compared
with the standard variety prescribed in the national syllabus. It is often used
as a solidarity and identity marker, even in schools. This situation leads some
teachers and academics to perceive that many Singaporean students are
learning and using English as a second language (Pakir, 1993). Furthermore,
although students strongly associate English listening and speaking abilities
with their academic and personal development, many find it difficult to speak
well and understand English spoken by native British or American people;
some even express difficulty in understanding their teachers (D.L. Zhang,
2001, 2004). This inadequate development of speaking and listening skills has
been noted by others (Forbes, 1991; Pakir, 1995). Accordingly, a national ‘Speak
Good English’ campaign was launched in 2000 to urge people to ‘Speak Well;
Be Understood’.

Metacognitive Knowledge
The term ‘metacognitive knowledge’ was first used by Flavell (1979/1992) to
refer to an individual’s personal knowledge or beliefs about learning. Research-
ers maintain that what learners know about learning can help them become
active participants in their own performance rather than passive recipients of
instruction and influence the process and the outcome of their learning. Learners
who have a high degree of metacognitive awareness are thought to be more
capable of regulating their learning by finding the best ways to practise and
reinforce what they have learnt. Wenden applies the term to language learning,
describing learners’ metacognitive knowledge as including all ‘beliefs, insights
and concepts that language learners have acquired about language and the
language learning process’ (Wenden, 1991: 34), which fall into three categories:
person, task, and strategy knowledge. Person knowledge encompasses every-
thing that language learners have come to believe about themselves and others
as learners. Task knowledge refers to what learners know about the purpose,
demands and nature of learning tasks. Strategy knowledge is learners’ percep-
tions or beliefs about strategies that are effective in facilitating learning and
achieving defined learning goals in specific situations. Since Wenden’s appli-
cation, more research has been done into metacognitive knowledge about
language learning and learning specific skills such as listening (Goh, 1997),
reading (Zhang, L.J., 2001), and writing (Victori, 1999).
 LA No: 342

Awareness of Listening and Speaking Strategies 201

However, although strategy knowledge is an important component of met-

acognitive knowledge, few studies have given it specific in-depth attention.
The only study found to date that has included strategy knowledge about
listening is Goh (1997). Her 40 tertiary-level Chinese students on an English
for Academic Purposes programme in Singapore exhibited high awareness
regarding which strategies can assist comprehension, which are useful for
developing listening, and which ones do not always work. There seem to be
none on speaking.

Listening and Speaking Strategies

Since the 1970s, categories of strategies for language learning in general have
been documented (O’Malley & Chamot, 1990; Oxford, 1990; Rubin, 1975) with
a view to boosting learning outcomes by empowering learners, poor achievers
in particular, with strategies conducive to success. Research on listening and
speaking strategies has also grown (Færch & Kasper, 1983; Goh, 1998, 2002;
Huang & van Naerssen, 1987; Kasper & Kellerman, 1997; Vandergrift, 1997),
reflecting the importance of oral and listening skills in language development.
O’Malley and Chamot’s (1990) four-dimensional typology (cognitive, meta-
cognitive, social and affective) has so far been the most influential categorisation
adopted as the framework for investigating and categorising strategies for learning
specific skills. Applied to listening, cognitive strategies are used to infer, predict,
interpret, store and recall information; metacognitive strategies are for planning,
monitoring and evaluating mental processes and for managing difficulties during
listening; social strategies serve to enlist the help or cooperation of interlocutors
to facilitate comprehension; and affective strategies enable the listener to manage
emotions, motivation and attitudes that interfere with comprehension. Social-
affective strategies are similar to some speaking, or communication, strategies,
which are means of dealing with communication trouble spots, such as misunder-
standing the interlocutor or not knowing a word. While dozens of conversational
or communication strategies have been identified (see Dörnyei & Scott, 1997, for a
review), the most important ones include asking for repetition, asking for clarifi-
cation, checking for comprehension, adjusting or avoiding a message, rephrasing,
and appealing for help.
Cohen (1998) distinguishes between language learning strategies and
language use strategies, and employs ‘language learner strategies’ as the cover
term for both. While learning strategies are steps or actions consciously selected
by learners to improve the learning of a second language, use strategies are
those used for improving their use of the language. Learning and use strate-
gies can be further differentiated according to whether they are metacognitive,
cognitive, social, or affective (Cohen, 1998: 7). Using his terms, learning strate-
gies for listening and speaking encompass what listeners and speakers do to
learn to improve their ability to listen and speak; use strategies concern how
listeners and speakers manage real-time/online interactions with a spoken
text or an interlocutor, how they make sense of what is heard by drawing on
cognitive or metacognitive comprehension strategies, and what they do when
they do not understand or when they do not know how to express something
in mind by soliciting compensatory/social-affective communication strategies.
 LA No: 342

202 Language Awareness

Virtually, learning strategies serve as offline preparation for online performance,

where use strategies come into play.

Relation between Metacognitive Knowledge and Strategy Use

Research on metacognitive knowledge (including beliefs) about language
learning and that on learner strategies have both acknowledged a mutual
influence in terms of second language learning. Ellis and Sinclair (1989) point
out that learner awareness of and reflection on their knowledge of the language
learning process provide a basis for acquiring learning strategies. Rubin (1987)
posits that metacognitive knowledge is essential for learners selecting and
activating strategies. Wenden (1987) found that ESL students listed the strate-
gies consistent with their professed beliefs. For example, those who thought
it important to use the language used communicative strategies; those who
emphasised the importance of learning about the target language and paid
attention to language forms adopted cognitive strategies.
Studies by Wen and Johnson (1997) and Yang (1999) have explored the
relationship between the two variables, but have focused more on general
metacognitive knowledge and learner strategy use. Wen and Johnson’s (1997)
questionnaire study of the effects of learner factors on 242 Chinese tertiary-
level students’ EFL achievement included an examination of the relationship
between learner beliefs and strategy use. They identified strong direct effects
of belief variables on strategy variables. Also using a questionnaire, made up
of Horwitz’s (1988) BALLI (Beliefs about Language Learning Inventory) and
Oxford’s (1990) SILL (Strategy Inventory for Language Learning), Yang (1999)
investigated 505 tertiary-level Chinese/Taiwanese EFL learners’ beliefs about
English language learning and their perceived use of English learning strategies
and the relationship between the two. She found a strong correlation between
beliefs and strategy use. Self-efficacy beliefs were strongly related to the use
of all types of learning strategies, especially functional practice strategies. In
addition, learners’ beliefs about the nature and value of spoken English were
closely linked to their use of formal oral-practice strategies.
Goh (1998) and Victori (1999) are the only studies that have examined learners’
knowledge about strategies and strategy use. Goh compared the strategy
knowledge and use of 40 ESL tertiary-level Chinese students, and found that all
the strategies used during listening were also reported as useful for facilitating
comprehension, though the number of students who identified specific tactics as
useful was substantially less than the number who actually used them. Collect-
ing data from two good and two poor Spanish writers in advanced EFL classes
at the University of Barcelona, Victori found that the two poor writers’ reported
strategy knowledge did not always coincide with what they actually did, while
the reported behaviour of the good pair aligned more with their practice.
In spite of Goh and Victori, no empirical study has to date examined the cor-
relation between knowledge about specific groups of strategies for learning
specific skills and the use of the same groups of strategies. None has explored
language learners’ knowledge about listening and speaking strategies and its
relationship with the use of such strategies in the Singapore context. Accord-
ingly, we report on our questionnaire study of 278 Singapore secondary school
 LA No: 342

Awareness of Listening and Speaking Strategies 203

students’ metacognitive knowledge about strategies for learning to listen and

speak ESL (in terms of their views on the usefulness of the strategies), their
perceived use of the strategies, and the relationship between such knowledge
and perceived strategy use.

The Study

Research questions
The present study addressed the following research questions:
(1) Do the students believe the listening and speaking strategies to be
useful?
(2) Do the students use the listening and speaking strategies frequently?
(3) Do the students’ views of the listening and speaking strategies correlate
with their perceived use of these strategies?

Participants
A total of 278 students, average age 15, participated. They were from three
ethnic groups (Chinese, Malays and Indians) and attended a neighbour-
hood secondary school in Singapore.1 They had learned English as the school
language for at least eight years. Most spoke another language or a colloquial
variety of English at home.

Questionnaire
A 40-strategy-item questionnaire, Metacognitive Awareness Inventory in
Listening and Speaking Strategies (MAILSS), was constructed (see Appendix),
drawing from a few studies on listening and communication strategies (Dörnyei
& Scott, 1997; Goh, 1998; Huang & van Naerssen, 1987). Some items were also
drawn from the O’Malley and Chamot (1990) and Oxford (1990) inventories
meant for language learning in general. Distinctions were made among learning
strategies, comprehension strategies, and communication strategies. The strate-
gies were put into four groups: use-focused learning strategies, form-focused
learning strategies, comprehension strategies, and communication strategies.
The first two groups are learning strategies for improving listening and speaking
abilities. While use-focused learning strategies focus on learner initiatives to
learn to use English for communication, such as seeking opportunities to speak
with good language users and participating actively in classroom communi-
cative activities, form-focused learning strategies emphasise learner initiatives
for developing the form-related aspects of oral communication skills, such as
reading aloud for pronunciation/fluency and working on grammar. Although
there may not be a clear dividing line between use-focused and form-focused
strategies, or functional and formal strategies (Huang & van Naerssen, 1987),
due to the inherent unity of meaning and form in language (Bialystok, 1979), the
two groups of strategies do have their predominant characteristics. The other
two groups of strategies are for facilitating comprehension and communication
during real-time interactions with spoken texts or interlocutors. Comprehen-
sion strategies involve how students attempt to make sense of the spoken text.
 LA No: 342

204 Language Awareness

Table 1 Strategy groups, number of strategies in each group and reliability coefficients
(n = 278)

Label Description Number Alpha

of items
SKUFS Knowledge about use-focused learning strategies 10 0.84
SKFFS Knowledge about form-focused learning strategies 10 0.84
SKCPS Knowledge about comprehension strategies 10 0.85
SKCMS Knowledge about communication strategies 10 0.86
SUUFS Perceived use of use-focused learning strategies 10 0.85
SUFFS Perceived use of form-focused learning strategies 10 0.85
SUCPS Perceived use of comprehension strategies 10 0.85
SUCMS Perceived use of communication strategies 10 0.86
The questionnaire (MAILSS) 40 0.87
Notes:
SKUFS = Knowledge about use-focused learning strategies
SKFFS = Knowledge about form-focused learning strategies
SKCPS = Knowledge about comprehension strategies
SKCMS = Knowledge about communication strategies
SUUFS = Perceived use of use-focused learning strategies
SUFFS = Perceived use of form-focused learning strategies
SUCPS = Perceived use of comprehension strategies
SUCMS = Perceived use of communication strategies

Communication strategies take two forms in this study. One concerns what
students do when they miss or fail to understand what has been said. The other
involves how to communicate their meaning when they lack specific words. The
comprehension and communication strategies can be discussed with reference
to cognitive, metacognitive, social/affective strategies, in that many of them
fall well into such sub-categories as prediction, contextualisation, visualisation,
inferencing, translation, selective attention, directed attention, and cooperation
(Goh, 2002; O’Malley et al., 1989).
The 40 strategy items both gauge knowledge about strategies and tap into
perceived use of strategies. Students rated the usefulness of each strategy on
a scale from ‘Least Useful’ (1) to ‘Most Useful’ (5), and estimated their use of
them from ‘Never’ (1) to ‘Very Often’ (5). Reliability checks on the question-
naire yielded alphas ranging from 0.84 to 0.86.2 Table 1 shows the strategy
groups, the number of strategies in each, and the reliability coefficients.

Data collection
All necessary approval was gained for school data collection, and student
participation was voluntary. Questionnaires were administered to 288 students
in a single session, with assistance from the school HOD of English. Students
were asked to respond according to their own views and experiences, without
guessing at desirable answers. Incomplete answers on 10 questionnaires reduced
the number analysed to 278.
 LA No: 342

Awareness of Listening and Speaking Strategies 205

Data analysis
Descriptive statistics were employed to examine students’ knowledge
about the strategies and their reported use of the strategies respectively.
Means and standard deviations were computed to gauge a tendency of the
students’ views of the usefulness of the strategies and their perceived use of
the strategies. Since five-point scales were employed, the mean values indi-
cating the tendency for endorsement of usefulness and frequency of use of a
strategy are 3.50 and above. Percentages were calculated, along with the sums
of responses of ‘Agree’ and ‘Strongly Agree’ and of ‘Often’ and ‘Very Often’ to
get a deeper understanding of the responses to individual strategies. In order
to gauge the relations between strategy knowledge and perceived strategy
use, means and standard deviations of the two variables were first compared.
Pearson Product-Moment procedures were then performed to calculate corre-
lations between strategy knowledge and perceived strategy use at two levels:
strategy group and individual strategy.

Results
Perceived usefulness and use of listening and speaking strategies
Table 2 displays a comparison of the means and standard deviations of the
students’ knowledge about and perceived use of the four groups of strate-
gies. We can see that all the means for knowledge are above 3.50, indicating an
overall belief in the usefulness of the four strategy groups, namely, use-focused
learning (M = 3.73, SD = 0.55), form-focused learning (M = 3.56, SD = 0.55),
comprehension (M = 3.61, SD = 0.46) and communication (M = 3.56, SD = 0.53).
However, apart from the mean for perceived use of use-focused learning strate-
gies (M = 3.51, SD = 0.60), the means for the perceived use of the other strategy
groups were below 3.50, suggesting that the students did not use all the four
groups of listening and speaking strategies.
An examination of the responses to the strategies revealed that, out of the
40 strategies, while 32 were perceived by more than 50% of the students as
useful and very useful, only 13 were reported as used often and most often.
Table 3 shows that more than half the students viewed all the 10 use-focused
learning strategies and seven of 10 form-focused learning strategies as useful
for improving listening and speaking abilities, nine of 10 comprehension strate-
gies as useful for assisting understanding in transactional situations, and six of
10 communication strategies as useful for assisting oral communication. The

Table 2 Comparison of means and standard deviations of strategy knowledge and

perceived strategy use (n = 278)

SKUFS SUUFS SKFFS SUFFS SKCPS SUCPS SKCMS SUCMS

Minimum 1.73 1.82 1.55 1.09 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.40
Maximum 5.00 4.82 5.00 4.91 4.64 4.55 5.00 5.00
Mean 3.73 3.51 3.56 3.23 3.61 3.32 3.56 3.28
Standard 0.55 0.60 0.55 0.69 0.46 0.55 0.53 0.60
deviation
 LA No: 342

206 Language Awareness

Table 3 Strategies perceived as useful and reported as used by over 50% of the students
(n = 278)

Group Strategy Code U (%) Code O (%)

Looking for opportunities to speak to a person who can SK1 66.5 SU1 56.4
speak good English
Use-focused learning strategies

Participating actively in communicative activities in class SK2 64.7

Listening to English radio SK3 71.3 SU3 57.2
Watching English TV programmes and movies SK4 72.7 SU4 65.4
Thinking in English what to say SK5 67.3
Mentally answering in English a question when my teacher SK6 61.1
has asked another student to answer
Taking the initiative to answer teachers’ questions whenever SK7 53.2
possible
Reading English newspapers and magazines to enlarge SK8 68.4 SU8 52.9
knowledge of the world
Using subtitles to check my interpretation when watching SK9 53.2 SU9 53.2
English movies
Orally summarising the stories or texts I hear or read SK10 51.5
Imitating spoken materials to improve my pronunciation SK12 50.7
Practising reading aloud SK13 67.6
learning strategies

Listening to major varieties of English (e.g. American SK14 56.8

Form-focused

English, British English) and note the their characteristics

Paying attention to the way my teacher or other good SK15 72.3 SU15 55.7
speakers of English express themselves
Spending time working on grammar SK17 57.6
Mentally correcting verbal errors or mistakes of others SK18 53.6
Paying attention to my grammar while speaking SK19 64.0

Guessing and anticipating the content of the spoken SK21 57.6

text based on any information given (e.g. topic, picture,
Comprehension strategies

questions) before listening

Relating the incoming information to what I know SK22 58.3
Imagining/Visualising things being heard SK24 60.4
Trying to get the overall meaning of the spoken text SK25 71.6 SU25 59.7
Paying attention to the details of the spoken text SK26 78.8 SU26 58.6
Writing down key words or concepts in short-hand form SK27 65.8
Guessing the meanings of unknown words or phrases using SK28 50.4
information available (e.g. words in the context, knowledge
of word formation)
Paying attention to organisational ‘signals’ of a spoken text SK29 50.4
(e.g. first, yet)
Concentrating on the listening task in spite of difficulty SK30 59.3 SU30 50.7
Asking the speaker to repeat it SK31 82.7 SU31 61.9
Communication

Asking the speaker to explain it SK32 81.6 SU32 58.6

strategies

Telling the speaker what I get and asking him/her to SK33 59.0
confirm the correctness of my understanding
Using words with similar meanings in English SK35 74.5 SU35 58.7
Trying to express it in a different way SK37 69.4 SU37 57.5
Using examples to illustrate what I want to express SK38 59.3
Notes: U = Useful and most useful O = Often and most often SK = Knowledge about
strategy SU = Perceived use of strategy

strategies reported as used included five use-focused learning strategies, one

form-focused learning strategy, three comprehension strategies, and four com-
munication strategies. The 13 strategies reported as used were among the 32
strategies reported as useful.
 LA No: 342

Awareness of Listening and Speaking Strategies 207

Correlations between knowledge of and perceived use of the strategies

Correlations were calculated in order to identify the relation between strategy
knowledge and perceived strategy use. The analyses revealed that the four
strategy knowledge variables had statistically significant correlations with the
four perceived strategy use variables (Figure 1). Prominent correlations existed
between corresponding variables, namely, knowledge about use-focused strate-
gies (SKUFS) and perceived use of use-focused strategies (SUUFS) (r = 0.690, p
< 0.01), knowledge about form-focused strategies (SKFFS) and perceived use
of form-focused strategies (SUFFS) (r = 0.516, p < 0.01), knowledge about com-
prehension strategies (SKCPS) and perceived use of comprehension strategies
(SUCPS) (r = 0.595, p < 0.01), and knowledge about communication strategies
(SKCMS) and perceived use of communication strategies (SUCMS) (r = 0.628, p
< 0.01). Further analyses showed that the students’ beliefs about the usefulness
of all the strategies (SK’s) turned out to be significantly and positively corre-
lated to their perceived use of these strategies (SU’s) (see Table 4). For example,
the correlation between SK1 (the usefulness of ‘looking for opportunities to speak
to a person who can speak good English’) and SU1 (reported use of this strategy) is
0.585, indicating a moderate link between what the students thought about the
strategy and how much they used it.

SKUFS SKFFS
SKCPS SKCMS
0.8
0.69
0.7
0.628
0.595
0.6
0.516
0.5
Score

0.395 0.414
0.358 0.449
0.4
0.357 0.347
0.345 0.285
0.3
0.322
0.285 0.301
0.2
0.229
0.1

0
SUUFS SUFFS SUCPS SUCMS
Perceived Strategy Use
Notes:
SKUFS = Knowledge about use-focused learning strategies
SKFFS = Knowledge about form-focused learning strategies
SKCPS = Knowledge about comprehension strategies
SKCMS = Knowledge about communication strategies
SUUFS = Perceived use of use-focused learning strategies
SUFFS = Perceived use of form-focused learning strategies
SUCPS = Perceived use of comprehension strategies
SUCMS = Perceived use of communication strategies

Figure 1 Correlations between strategy knowledge and perceived strategy use

Table 4 Correlation coefficients between corresponding items for strategy knowledge and perceived strategy use
208

SK1 SK2 SK3 SK4 SK5 SK6 SK7 SK8 SK9 SK10
SU1 0.585**
SU2 0.390**
SU3 0.533**
SU4 0.552**
SU5 0.333**
SU6 0.418**
SU7 0.438**
SU8 0.436**
SU9 0.551**
SU10 0.396**
SK11 SK12 SK13 SK14 SK15 SK16 SK17 SK18 SK19 SK20
LA No: 342

SU11 0.467**
SU12 0.383**
SU13 0.467**
SU14 0.453**
SU15 0.401**
SU16 0.340**
SU17 0.308**
SU18 0.394**
SU19 0323**
SU20 0.312**
Language Awareness
Table 4 (cont.) Correlation coefficients between corresponding items for strategy knowledge and perceived strategy use

SK21 SK22 SK23 SK24 SK25 SK26 SK27 SK28 SK29 SK30
SU21 0.514**
SU22 0.466**
SU23 0.574**
SU24 0.603**
SU25 0.481**
SU26 0.342**
SU27 0.390**
SU28 0.378**
SU29 0.503**
SU30 0.537**
SK31 SK32 SK33 SK34 SK35 SK36 SK37 SK38 SK39 SK40
SU31 0.539**
Awareness of Listening and Speaking Strategies
LA No: 342

SU32 0.472**
SU33 0.448**
SU34 0.549**
SU35 0.522**
SU36 0.549**
SU37 0.517**
SU38 0.387**
SU39 0.501**
SU40 0.393**

Notes: SK(1–40) = strategy knowledge items SU(1–40) = perceived strategy use items ** Significant at p < 0.01 level
209
 LA No: 342

210 Language Awareness

Discussion
The students’ reports on the usefulness of the listening and speaking strate-
gies were higher in means and more in number than their reports on strategy
use. Correlations were found between their perceptions of the usefulness and
their reported use of the strategies. In the four sections below, the first three
discuss perceived usefulness and use of learning strategies (use-focused and
form-focused), comprehension strategies and communication strategies respec-
tively. The fourth discusses the correlations between knowledge and perceived
use of the strategies.

Perceived usefulness and use of learning strategies

For improving listening and speaking abilities, the students believed that
use-focused learning strategies (M = 3.73, SD = 0.55) were more useful than
form-focused ones (M = 3.56, SD = 0.55). They also reported using the former
(M = 3.51) more frequently than the latter (M = 3.23). This corresponds to
the view that a language can be better learned through using it (Littlewood,
1981). While it is beyond the scope of this study to identify whether there is a
link between high use of use-focused strategies and high oral communication
ability, a significant difference in the use of functional practice, operational-
ised similarly to use-focused learning strategies, was found between high and
low oral communication ability groups in Huang and van Naerssen (1987). In
their study, students more successful in oral communication reported using
functional practice strategies more frequently than the less successful ones, sug-
gesting that functional practice might be more responsible for success in oral
communication. With the findings from the present study and Huang and van
Naerssen, we can assume that Singaporean students, enjoying a predominantly
English milieu, can have their oral communication skills honed conveniently if
they choose actively to employ use-focused learning strategies.
The students endorsed all the 10 use-focused strategies, which included
four media- and recreation-related strategies such as ‘listening to English radio’
and ‘watching English TV programmes and movies’. This endorsement is justifi-
able given that English is the dominant and most accessible language in the
local mass media and recreational places. They valued active participation in
classroom activities and being responsive to teachers’ questions, either overtly
or covertly. Their vote for the usefulness of seeking opportunities to speak to
a better speaker of English reflects their awareness that oral communication
abilities can be gained through constant efforts to use the language for interac-
tion with others, especially good speakers of English. The students believed
in thinking in English when thinking about what to say. Research has shown
that attempts at formulating one’s thinking by using the linguistic forms of the
target language are essential for gaining an intuitive command of the language.
A strong relationship between thinking in the target language and achievement
in learning the language was reported in Huang and van Naerssen (1987). The
students also tended to share the general belief that summarising and retelling
what is read or heard is useful for improving oral communication skills.
Although all 10 use-focused learning strategies were reported to be useful,
only five were reported as used often. In addition, the percentages for the
 LA No: 342

Awareness of Listening and Speaking Strategies 211

reported strategies, ranging from 52.9% to 65.4%, indicated a moderate frequency

of use. This result suggests that the students were yet to become conscious or
confident strategy users. A closer look at the five use-focused learning strate-
gies that were reported as used reveals that they are different from those not
reported in that they concern activities outside school premises. For instance,
the adoption of ‘watching English TV programmes and movies’, which attracted
the highest report (65.4%), could stem from its being one of the popular after-
school activities among local students. This indicates that the students do take
opportunities to practise using English while they are engaged in enjoyable
activities. Their attraction to out-of-class activities for learning points to a need
for teachers to create opportunities to use strategies in relation to school or
classroom activities.
More than half of the students perceived seven out of ten form-focused
learning strategies as useful. Compared with this moderate report on useful-
ness, however, the report on use is low. Only one strategy, ‘paying attention to the
way my teacher or other good speakers of English express themselves’, was reported
as used frequently by over 50% of the students. This seems to suggest that Sin-
gaporean students, like those of other Asian countries such as China, show
respect for their teachers to the point where they regard them as role models in
the learning process. They may want to listen to teachers for good vocabulary,
grammar and pronunciation.
It is surprising that, while over half the students valued grammar correct-
ness, thinking it useful to pay attention to grammar and to spend time working
on grammar, not as many reported actually doing so. Similarly, they did not
report working on pronunciation, though they thought it useful to imitate taped
materials and listen to British and American accents and notice their features.
On one hand, their perceptions might be a result of the government’s call to
improve the standard of English spoken by the people. On the other hand, low
report of form-focused learning strategies may suggest that the government’s
initiative of ‘Speak Well, Be Understood’, which lays much emphasis on the
form of English spoken in terms of grammar, pronunciation and vocabulary,
has not been received adequately by the students, though they believed that
good oral communication ability is linked to better future opportunities (D.L.
Zhang, 2001). One underlying reason could be that they found it easy to get by
in their daily lives using a mutually shared non-standard variety of English,
even though Singapore is a predominantly English-speaking country where a
high level in English oral communication skills is sought and valued. Thus,
they had the misconception that they might not need to put in effort in this
regard. Another reason may be that, in contrast to many use-focused learning
strategies which can be approached in fun-filled activities, form-focused strate-
gies entail commitment and special effort if effects are to be felt. In addition,
although reading aloud was hailed as useful (perhaps resulting from students
being tested in earlier primary school years on reading short passages aloud)
the students did not report using it often. Perhaps those who believed in its
usefulness simply accepted it as such after years of doing it. Alternatively,
perhaps reading aloud has become so familiar that it functions automatically
without deliberate activation. Not as many students embraced memorisation of
 LA No: 342

212 Language Awareness

chunks of reading and vocabulary. The students were also yet to see the value of
knowledge of text types in improving listening and speaking abilities.

Perceived usefulness and use of comprehension strategies

The results showed that almost all the strategies for comprehension were
perceived by more than 50% of the students as useful for assisting comprehen-
sion in transactional one-way listening situations. These included such cognitive
and metacognitive strategies as prediction, visualisation, inferencing, contextu-
alisation, selective attention and directed attention. Listening comprehension is a
process of reconstructing the intended spoken message by translating its lexical
and grammatical information into meaning units that can be combined with
the listener’s knowledge and cognitive structures (Samuels, 1987). Knowledge
sources such as linguistic knowledge, knowledge of the co-text and general world
knowledge come into play in meaning-construction. When the listeners know the
context of a message, for example, they can activate their prior knowledge and
make the appropriate inferences essential to the comprehension of the message
(Long, 1990). Therefore, it is heartening that the students in the study tended to
regard it as useful to relate incoming information to what they already know
about the topic, and to guess content of spoken text and meanings of unknown
words from information available.
However, although such perceptions reflected the students’ awareness of
the usefulness of different kinds of comprehension strategies, they tended to
under-use such strategies and only three were reported used often. A low report
of use in terms of number and frequency could well indicate that these Sin-
gaporean students were still basic users of comprehension strategies. This can
further be seen from the three strategies they reported using, namely, ‘trying
to get the overall meaning of the spoken text’, ‘paying attention to the details of the
spoken text’, and ‘concentrating on the listening task in spite of difficulty’. Useful as
these strategies are in practice, they are among the most common ones in the
existing strategy inventories. The choice of using them often rather than others
could also suggest that in the process of listening, the students were merely
focusing on getting meaning and labouring over details in the input without
being able to pay attention to other skills involved. For example, they should
have exploited their knowledge about the organisation of various text types
commonly encountered in listening to help with comprehension. In addition,
while concentrating on the listening task in spite of difficulty is useful for not
losing the general message, over-reliance on it could make listening a tense and
tiring activity. They should have learned to distinguish degrees of relevance
and importance in the input in order to adjust their attention accordingly and
maximise the chance of getting relevant information. That said, their reports
concerning the strategy of concentrating in spite of difficulty spoke of their
commendable effort in trying to understand. After all, listening is transitory in
nature and thus, for the information to be processed and comprehended, it is
crucial to give adequate attention to the spoken text during listening.
A point worth noting is that, though showing awareness of the usefulness
of prior knowledge or schemata related strategies for facilitating comprehen-
sion, the students did not indicate using them often. This could mean that they
were unable or lacking confidence to draw upon such higher-level strategies as
 LA No: 342

Awareness of Listening and Speaking Strategies 213

‘relating the incoming information to what I know’. It could be because the students
were yet to learn to cope with the cognitive demands required by the use of such
a strategy. According to Anderson (2000), the comprehension process consists of
three phases, which represent different levels of processing: perception, parsing
and utilisation. From the students’ reports of strategies used, we can infer that
they are usually good at the perception and parsing stages, in the sense that
they give attention to recognising the sounds in the stream of the speech and
processing them syntactically and semantically. However, too much energy
expended on these aspects could have left them with little processing capacity
for relating the mental representation of the input to existing knowledge stored
in the memory (utilisation).
It is also worth noting that the only comprehension strategy that was less
endorsed but still received some recognition (from 40% of the students) was
translation from English into the mother tongue. This is revealing, to a certain
degree, of the language policy, language use and language teaching methodol-
ogy in Singapore. With English being learned as the first language, and with
the mother tongues of the different ethnic groups as the second language in
schools, translation has never been advocated as a teaching or learning strategy
in Singapore.3 However, in multilingual Singapore where English is actually
a second language for many Singaporeans (Pakir, 1993), it is not uncommon
to see students conversing in two or more languages simultaneously in daily
interactions and even in the classroom. Therefore, it is understandable that two-
fifths of the students thought it useful to draw upon translation to understand.
They must have learned from their own experience that translating, or more
precisely, in this case codemixing, can be of help.

Perceived usefulness and use of communication strategies

Communication strategies, similar to socio/affective strategies, were oper-
ationalised as a means of dealing with communication troublespots such as
missing or failing to understand the interlocutor or not knowing a particular
word. More than half the students endorsed three strategies for compensating
for incomplete comprehension; that is, they thought it useful to ask for repeti-
tion, ask for explanation and ask for confirmation of their initial understanding.
However, among these three strategies, they reported often asking the speaker
to repeat and explain while not often asking the interlocutor to check their
understanding. Recalling that the students reported the use of concentration
on the task in order to understand, we can assume that their not readily asking
for confirmation could mean that they would usually listen out for later clues.
Their not asking for confirmation could also suggest that many of these Singa-
porean students can be seen in terms of one single group of Asian learners (i.e.
grouped together with some learners from other Asian countries) who tend to
be self-conscious and not daring enough to seek clarification and confirmation
during interpersonal interactions.
As regards the seven strategies for getting meanings across, three were
thought useful by over half the students. They were ‘using a word with the similar
meaning in English’, ‘trying to express their intentions in a different way’, and ‘using
examples to show what they want to express’. However, only the first two among the
three were reported as used often. The general low perception and low use of
 LA No: 342

214 Language Awareness

these communication strategies could have to do with the students’ perception

that they did not have much problem understanding and conversing with each
other in their daily lives (though some indicated varying degrees of difficulty in
understanding speakers of other varieties of English such as American, British
and Australian [D.L. Zhang, 2001, 2004]). In other words, the students could
have used their efficiency as a communicator in daily situations as a yardstick
when reporting the usefulness and use of the strategies.

Correlations between knowledge of and perceived use of strategies

Significant correlations were found in this study between the students’
knowledge of strategies and their perceived use of them. This shows an inter-
dependence of and reciprocal relationship between the two variables. That is,
while students’ knowledge about strategies can influence their use of the strate-
gies, their use of strategies can also reinforce their beliefs about the usefulness
of the strategies.
That said, the knowledge-influences-use relation seems to have more explana-
tory power. Knowledge and beliefs are views formed from personal experiences
in the course of learning. They are relatively stable and can (sub)consciously
affect students’ learning behaviours and outcomes (Wenden, 1998). People
usually have some perceptions or thoughts before they take certain actions.
What, why and how they learn is more likely to depend on what they believe
to be right. Therefore, the role played by knowledge in learners’ approaches
to learning and improving language skills cannot be ignored. Following this
reasoning, when learners deem strategies useful, it should be natural for them
to try them out. The positive coefficients identified may then indicate that the
students’ knowledge of the usefulness of the strategies would influence posi-
tively their decision to use the strategies. Some support for this view can be
found in the finding reported earlier that the 13 strategies reported as used were
among the 32 strategies reported as useful.

Conclusion, Implications and Suggestions for Further Research

This study found that, while students tended to believe in the usefulness of all
four groups of strategies, they seemed more often to use use-focused ones. The
majority of the 40 strategies were perceived as useful, but comparatively fewer
strategies were reported as used frequently. The discrepancy indicates that the
students, generally aware of the usefulness of these strategies for becoming
better listeners and speakers of English, were not yet conscious and confident
strategy users. Several factors could account for the under-use of strategies.
One could be that the students have never received instruction about strategies
and are yet to internalise the benefits of using them. The second could be that
they lack a plan or the persistence to try out the strategies they deem useful.
They may have the misconception that listening and speaking abilities will
develop easily in a predominantly English-speaking Singapore; thus no effort
is necessary. They may find themselves managing well in their daily lives using
the local variety, thus having little incentive to resort to strategies for improving
language ability.
Research has repeatedly shown that good and poor learners are differentiated
 LA No: 342

Awareness of Listening and Speaking Strategies 215

in terms of the number and level of strategies employed. Good listeners, for
example, tend to use more varied and higher-level strategies (Goh, 1998). There
is, therefore, a need to raise the students’ awareness and ability to use a range
of strategies. Awareness-raising activities aimed at drawing students’ attention
to strategies, along with strategy instruction to broaden their strategy reper-
toires and increase their confidence and ability in strategy use, should become
the order of the day in language classrooms. Significant correlations found in
this study between perceptions and reported use of strategies also warrant
such double-facet intervention. Questionnaires such as the one used for this
study can be used as a teaching tool. Keeping reflective journals can also be a
valuable option (Goh & Zhang, 2002). Such intervention will benefit students in
the ‘examination-driven culture’ of Singapore (Cheah, 1998), maximising their
potential to become better listeners and speakers of English.
We suggest conducting similar studies with a wider range of Singapo-
rean learners in order to broaden our knowledge of their strategy awareness.
Research is also needed into how far knowledge about strategies can influence
their actual application and ESL listening and speaking performance. Finally,
we need to explore the culture-specificity and context-dependent nature of such
strategies through comparative research.

Acknowledgements
We would like to express our appreciation to Dr Peter Garrett and two
anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments on previous versions of
this paper. Our gratitude goes to the students for their participation, Singapore
Ministry of Education and the school principal for approval of our entry for
data collection. The first author thanks Nanyang Technological University for
a two-year full research scholarship for an MA project, of which this report is
part. She also thanks Rita Skuja-Steele, Lawrence Jun Zhang, Peter Yongqi Gu,
Qing Wang and Jaswant Singh for their support and encouragement.

Correspondence
Any correspondence should be directed to Ms Donglan Zhang, 290A, Bukit
Batok Street 24, #08-81, Singapore, 652290 Republic of Singapore (dlzhang@
pmail.nut.edu.sg).

Notes
1. There are four types of schools in Singapore, namely, independent, autonomous,
government-aided, and government/neighbourhood. While independent and
autonomous schools are ‘elite’ ones, the large majority of students attend neighbour-
hood schools.
2. The MAILSS questionnaire is part of an extended questionnaire, which also includes
person knowledge and task knowledge (D.L. Zhang, 2001).
3. On the other hand, English has recently been used to assist Mandarin teaching in a
few designated primary schools in response to the lament that many children from
purely English-speaking families cannot cope with the mother tongue subject.

References
Anderson, J.R. (2000) Cognitive Psychology and Its Implications (5th edn). New York:
Worth.
 LA No: 342

216 Language Awareness

Bialystok, E. (1979) The role of conscious strategies in second language proficiency. The
Canadian Modern Language Review 35, 372–94.
Cheah, Y.M. (1998) The examination culture and its impact on literacy innovations: The
case of Singapore. Language and Education 12, 192–209.
Cohen, A.D. (1998) Strategies in Learning and Using a Second Language. Harlow:
Longman.
Cotterall, S. (1995) Readiness for autonomy: Investigating learner beliefs. System 23,
195–205.
Dörnyei, Z. and Scott, M.L. (1997) Communication strategies in a second language: Defi-
nitions and taxonomies. Language Learning 47, 173–210.
Ellis, G. and Sinclair, B. (1989) Learning to Learn English: A Course in Learner Training.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Færch, C. and Kasper, G. (1983) Strategies in Interlanguage Communication. London:
Longman.
Flavell, J.H. (1979/1992) Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of
cognitive-developmental inquiry. In T.O. Nelson (ed.) Metacognition: Core Readings.
Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Originally published in 1979, in American Psychologist 34,
906–11.
Forbes, D. (1991) ‘Singlish’: The background and nature of the general English of
Singapore. English Today 34, 18–21.
Goh, C. (1997) Metacognitive awareness and second language listeners. ELT Journal 51,
361–9.
Goh, C.C.M. (1998) How learners with different listening abilities use comprehension
strategies and tactics. Language Teaching Research 2, 124–47.
Goh, C.C.M. (2002) Learners’ self-reports on comprehension and learning strategies for
listening. Asian Journal of English Language Teaching 12, 45–68.
Goh, C.C.M. and Zhang, D.L. (2002) A metacognitive framework for reflective journals.
In A.C.S. Cheong and C.C.M. Goh (eds) Teachers’ Handbook on Teaching Generic Thinking
Skills. Singapore: Prentice Hall.
Gupta, A. (1994) The Step-tongue: Children’s English in Singapore. Clevedon: Multilingual
Matters.
Horwitz, E.K. (1988) The beliefs about language learning of beginning university foreign
language students. Modern Language Journal 72, 283–94.
Huang, X.H. and van Naerssen, M. (1987) Learning strategies for oral communication.
Applied Linguistics 8, 287–307.
Kasper, G. and Kellerman, E. (eds) (1997) Communication Strategies: Psycholinguistic and
Sociolinguistic Perspectives. New York: Addison Wesley Longman.
Littlewood, W. (1981) Communicative Language Teaching: An Introduction. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Long, D.R. (1990) What you don’t know can’t help you: An exploratory study of back-
ground knowledge and second language listening comprehension. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition 12, 65–80.
O’Malley, J.M. and Chamot, A.U. (1990) Learning Strategies in Second Language Acquisition.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
O’Malley, J.M., Chamot, A.U. and Küpper, L. (1989) Listening comprehension strategies
in second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics 10, 418–37.
Oxford, R.L. (1990) Language Learning Strategies: What Every Teacher Should Know. New
York: Newbury House.
Pakir, A. (1993) Two tongues tied: Bilingualism in Singapore. Journal of Multilingual and
Multicultural Development 10, 167–79.
Pakir, A. (1995) Expanding triangles of English expression in Singapore: Implications for
teaching. In S.C. Teng and M.L. Ho (eds) The English Language in Singapore: Implications
for Teaching. Singapore: Singapore Association of Applied Linguistics.
Rubin, J. (1975) What the ‘good language learner’ can teach us. TESOL Quarterly 9,
41–51.
Rubin, J. (1987) Learner strategies: Theoretical assumptions, research history and
 LA No: 342

Awareness of Listening and Speaking Strategies 217

typology. In A. Wenden and J. Rubin (eds) Learner Strategies in Language Learning (pp.
15–30). London: Prentice Hall.
Samuels, S.J. (1987) Factors influencing listening and reading comprehension. In R.
Horowitz and S.J. Samuels (eds) Comprehending Oral and Written Language (pp. 295–
325). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Vandergrift, L. (1997) The comprehension strategies of second language (French)
listeners: A descriptive study. Foreign Language Annals 30, 387–409.
Victori, M. (1999) An analysis of writing knowledge in EFL composing: A case study of
two effective and two less effective writers. System 27, 537–55.
Wen, Q.F. and Johnson, R.K. (1997) L2 learner variables and English achievement: A
study of tertiary-level English majors in China. Applied Linguistics 18, 27–48.
Wenden, A.L. (1987) How to be a successful language learner: Insights and prescrip-
tions from L2 learners. In A. Wenden and J. Rubin (eds) Learner Strategies in Language
Learning (pp. 103–18). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Wenden, A.L. (1991) Learner Strategies for Learner Autonomy. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Wenden, A.L. (1998) Metacognitive knowledge and language learning. Applied Linguis-
tics 19, 515–537.
Yang, N.D. (1999) The relationship between EFL learners’ beliefs and learning strategy
use. System 27, 515–35.
Young, M.Y.C. (1997) A serial ordering of listening comprehension strategies used by
advanced ESL learners in Hong Kong. Asian Journal of English Language Teaching 7,
35–53.
Zhang, D.L. (2001) Singaporean students’ metacognitive knowledge about learning
English oral skills. Unpublished MA thesis. Nanyang Technological University,
Singapore.
Zhang, D.L. (2004) ‘Your English is too cheem!’: Singaporean student listening difficul-
ties and their tackling strategies. Asian Englishes 7, 74–91.
Zhang, L.J. (2001) Awareness in reading: EFL students’ metacognitive knowledge
of reading strategies in an acquisition-poor environment. Language Awareness 10,
268–88.
 LA No: 342

218 Language Awareness

Appendix: Questionnaire

Metacognitive Awareness Inventory in Listening and Speaking Strategies

(MAILSS)
A. Some people think that the following behaviours are good for improving the
ability to listen and speak in English. Please circle a number to indicate

a) how useful YOU think each of them is b) how often YOU use each of them
1 = Least useful

5 = Most useful

3 = Sometimes

5 = Most often
2 = Not useful
3 = Neutral
4 = Useful

2 = Rarely
1 = Never

4 = Often
12345 SK1 Looking for opportunities to speak to a person who can SU1 12345
speak good English
12345 SK2 Participating actively in communicative activities in SU2 12345
class
12345 SK3 Listening to English radio SU3 12345
12345 SK4 Watching English TV programmes and movies SU4 12345
12345 SK5 Thinking in English what to say SU5 12345
12345 SK6 Mentally answering in English a question when the SU6 12345
teacher has asked another student to answer
12345 SK7 Taking the initiative to answer teachers’ questions SU7 12345
whenever possible
12345 SK8 Reading English newspapers and magazines to enlarge SU8 12345
my knowledge of the world
12345 SK9 Using subtitles to check my interpretation when SU9 12345
watching
English movies
12345 SK10 Orally summarising the stories or texts I hear or read SU10 12345
12345 SK11 Memorising important and interesting information SU11 12345
I read or hear so that I can use them later in my own
speech
12345 SK12 Imitating spoken materials to improve my SU12 12345
pronunciation
12345 SK13 Practising reading aloud SU13 12345
12345 SK14 Listening to major varieties of English (e.g. SU14 12345
American English, British English) and note the their
characteristics
12345 SK15 Paying attention to the way my teacher or other good SU15 12345
speakers of English express themselves
12345 SK16 Spending time memorising words and expressions SU16 12345
12345 SK17 Spending time working on grammar SU17 12345
12345 SK18 Mentally correcting verbal errors or mistakes of others SU18 12345
12345 SK19 Paying attention to my grammar while speaking SU19 12345
12345 SK20 Noting the organisational patterns of spoken texts SU20 12345
 LA No: 342

Awareness of Listening and Speaking Strategies 219

B. Some people think that the following behaviours help understand and speak
English better. Please circle a number to indicate:

a) how useful YOU think each of them is b) how often YOU use each of them
1 = Least useful

5 = Most useful

3 = Sometimes

5 = Most often
2 = Not useful
3 = Neutral
4 = Useful

2 = Rarely
1 = Never

4 = Often
Before or while listening in English
12345 SK21 Guessing and anticipating the content of the spoken SU21 12345
text based on any information given (e.g. topic, picture,
questions) before listening
12345 SK22 Relating the incoming information to what I know SU22 12345
12345 SK23 Translating things being heard into my mother tongue SU23 12345
12345 SK24 Imagining/visualising things being heard SU24 12345
12345 SK25 Trying to get the overall meaning of the spoken text SU25
12345 SK26 Paying attention to the details of the spoken text SU26 12345
12345 SK27 Writing down key words or concepts in short-hand SU27 12345
form
12345 SK28 Guessing the meanings of unknown words or phrases SU28 12345
using information available (e.g. words in the context,
knowledge of word formation, knowledge of the topic)
12345 SK29 Paying attention to organisational ‘signals’ of a spoken SU29 12345
text (e.g. first, however, in addition)
12345 SK30 Concentrating on the listening task in spite of difficulty SU30 12345
When failing to hear or understand something while talking to someone in English
12345 SK31 Asking the speaker to repeat it SU31 12345
12345 SK32 Asking the speaker to explain it SU32 12345
12345 SK33 Telling the speaker what I get and asking him/her to SU33 12345
confirm the correctness of my understanding
When not knowing how to express something while talking to someone in English
12345 SK34 Using words with similar meanings in my mother SU34 12345
tongue
12345 SK35 Using words with similar meanings in English SU35 12345
12345 SK36 Making up words to use SU36 12345
12345 SK37 Trying to express it in a different way SU37 12345
12345 SK38 Using examples to illustrate what I want to express SU38 12345