Language Learning Strategies Used by Asian Studentsin English-medium Universities

The University of Hong Kong, China

An increasing number of Asian students pursue English medium tertiary education for better academic credentials. These students face daunting linguistic challenges in their struggle for academic survival and success. This article gives an overview of language learning strategy (LLS) research undertaken in two theoretical and methodological orientations, namely, psychometric survey studies using a strategy inventory and sociocultural, largely qualitative research that examines learners’ strategy use in relation to contextual mediation. Under each category of research, the article reviews four studies on Asian students’ strategy use in different research contexts including Britain, Canada, Hong Kong, India, New Zealand and United States. It also documents relevant critiques associated with these studies. Given the widely accepted importance of strategy use in language learning, it can be argued that research on Asian tertiary students’ strategy use in English medium universities informs an institutional effort to support their pursuit of linguistic competence.

Keywords: Language learning strategy, psychometric survey, sococultural perspectives, English medium university, Asian students, critique

Correspondence should be addressed to Dr. Xuesong Gao, Faculty of Education, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam Road, Hong Kong SAR, China. Email: xsgao@hku.hk

INTRODUCTION

An increasing number of Asian students pursue tertiary education in English medium for better academic credentials in countries like Canada, the United States and Great Britain as well as in multi-lingual contexts such as in India or Hong Kong (Gao, 2010; Li & Bray, 2007; Hong-Nam & Leavell, 2006; Parks & Raymond, 2004; Skyrme, 2005). These students, who mostly learnt English as a foreign language or a second language, face a daunting linguistic challenge in their struggle for academic survival and success as they often need to overcome their linguistic inadequacy in the learning process. Given the widely accepted importance of strategy in the learning success (Chamot, 2001; Cohen & Macaro, 2007; Hsiao & Oxford, 2002), an understanding of Asian tertiary students’ strategy use in English medium universities is needed in order to enable language teachers to better support these students’ efforts to acquire the needed linguistic competence.

This article is a meta-analysis of selected studies on Asian students’ strategy use in learning of languages in English medium universities. For the sake of focus, the article focuses on general language learning strategies (LLS), instead of task-based or skill-specific learning strategies such as vocabulary learning strategies. Language learners’ strategies refer to efforts directed towards success in language learning and/or use (Cohen & Macaro, 2007). In language learning research, LLS has been approached with various underlying theories and research techniques (see Cohen & Macaro, 2007; Gao, 2010; Oxford, 2003). This article focuses on two types of LLS research in relation to Asian students in English medium universities: traditional survey studies that measure learners’ strategy use as a psychological property and sociocultural, largely qualitative, studies that regard learners’ strategy use as emerging from interactions with contextual conditions. Asian students in these studies refer to tertiary learners of different nationalities, including Indian, Japanese and Korean but the majority of them are Chinese. The dominance of Chinese tertiary students in this review may be associated with the recent outflow of students from the Chinese mainland to English medium universities worldwide, which has caught attention of researchers (Gao, 2010; Li & Bray, 2007; Parks & Raymond, 2004; Skyrme, 2005). The contexts of these studies include not only English medium universities in North America and Great Britain, but also countries and regions like Singapore, India and Hong Kong.

PSYCHOLOGICAL APPROACHES IN LLS RESEARCH

In the last three decades, LLS research has generated a large mass of literature produced by language learning specialists, confirming researchers’ belief that language learning success is at least partially or potentially related to strategy use (e.g., Chamot, 2001; Cohen & Macaro, 2007; D?rnyei, 2005; McDonough, 1999; Zhang, 2003). The bulk of LLS research conceptualizes LLS as “psychological features of the individual that can change through practice and strategy instruction” and adopts quantitative methodological approaches in capturing and exploring language learners’ strategy use (Oxford, 2003, p. 77). These studies have focused on listing, classification and measurement of language learners’ strategy use, hoping to establish relationships between learners’ strategy use and their learning success.

One of the major contributions made by this large body of LLS research “has been the elaboration of taxonomies, which focus on a range of strategy types”, driven by an assumption that “an understanding of the types of strategies used by good language learners will be [...] beneficial to those who have been less successful” (Parks & Raymond, 2004, p. 375). In most LLS research, student-completed, summative rating scales (i.e., survey methods) are the most popular method of data collection, although other data collection methods such as interviews and think-aloud protocols are also used (Gao, 2004). Among research works relying on survey instruments, Oxford’s (1990) Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) turns out to be the most influential. SILL has six categories: Cognitive (how learners think of their learning), metacognitive (how they manage their own learning), memory (how they remember and retain language), compensation (how they make up the limited language proficiency to achieve successful language use) and affective strategies (how they adjust their affective status in the learning process). It asks study participants to rate the frequency of their strategy use from 1 (Never true of them) to 5 (always or almost always true of me) on a 5-point Likert scale.

Another major contribution made by these LLS studies is that the field now has a much sophisticated understanding of individual differences in learners’ strategy use. Survey studies on learners’ strategy use allow “a systematic investigation of the various factors that influence strategy use” (Ellis, 2004, p.545; also see Peacock & Ho, 2003; Sheorey, 1999). Among the many individual difference factors, learner gender and English proficiency have been two of the most studied variables in relation to learners’ strategy use (Benson & Gao, 2008; D?rnyei, 2005). In recent years, strategy researchers have also displayed a greater awareness of the necessity to explore strategy use among particular cultural groups of learners in specific sociocultural contexts and/or task settings. Since more LLS research is needed to explore the mediation of context on learners’ strategy use (Hsiao & Oxford, 2002), this review purposely selects studies that have addressed contextual influences on learners’ strategy use, including those in Hong Kong(Peacock & Ho, 2003), India (Sheorey, 1999), Singapore (Goh & Kwah, 1997) and United States (Hong-Nam & Leavell, 2006). The Four SILL-based survey studies are summarized below to illustrate how survey studies have been undertaken on Asian tertiary students’ strategy use in English medium universities along the line that treats learners’ strategy use as a psychological trait “l(fā)argely pertained to individual will and knowledge” (Parks & Raymond, 2004, p. 375).

FOUR SURVEY STUDIES ON ASIAN STUDENTS IN ENLGIHS-MEDIUM UNIVERSITIES

Singapore

Goh and Kwah (1997) investigated the frequency of use of different strategies in relation to learner gender and English proficiency among 175 Chinese students in Singapore. The students were enrolled in a six-month intensive English language programme in a Singaporean tertiary institution. In the study, the participants were grouped under three levels of proficiency, low (59 students), medium (64 students) and high (52 students). 50 students of the whole cohort were females and 125 were males. The results show that metacognitive (M=3.54) strategies were the most frequently used strategies among the participants, followed by compensation (M=3.46), cognitive (M=3.27), social (M=3.16), affective (M=3.07) and memory (M=2.88) strategies. The data suggest that the participants “were very aware of themselves as learners and highly analytical about the processes involved in learning” English (p. 46). For instance, they paid much attention to their mistakes in using English and tried to improve their English using their awareness of such weaknesses. In addition, they identified in the study that high proficiency students tended to use cognitive and metacognitive strategies more frequently than low proficiency students while they did not differ significantly in use of strategies in other categories. They also found that female students in general reported using strategies more frequently than their male counterparts, though statistically significant differences were found only in use of compensation and affective strategies. They found it most surprising that these students apparently used memory strategies least frequently in spite of a long tradition of memorisation associated with Chinese learners. Follow-up interviews revealed that these students had little knowledge about specific techniques and strategies listed in the SILL. Therefore, Goh and Kwah (1997, p. 51) contended that Chinese students would “benefit greatly from training in the use of all learning strategies” as language teachers’ support to their language learning efforts. In particular, given Chinese students’ “willingness and ability to commit things to memory”, they recommended that “specific training in memory skills” be provided to them so that they could fully utilize the range of memory strategies listed in the SILL (ibid).

India

In contrast to Goh and Kwah’s study on migrating Chinese students in Singapore, Sheorey (1999) examined Indian college students’ language strategy use in the setting of an indigenized variety of English. Like Goh and Kwah’s study, the inquiry also explored Indian tertiary students’ strategy use with their background factors such as gender and self-reported English proficiency and attempted to interpret the participants’ strategy use in relation to their cultural and educational background. Sheorey (1999) adapted SILL to respect local educational realities and cultural ways of learning. The new survey instrument had four categories of strategies, functional practice strategies (such as looking for opportunities to practice English outside the class), cognitive-memory strategies (such as consciously analysing the target language components to facilitate memory processing), metacognitive and systematic learning strategies (such as monitoring their language learning) and social strategies (such as reaching out to other people for assistance). The survey was administered to 1,261 students in three undergraduate degree programmes, including science, arts and commerce. Among the participants, 684 did not have English as the medium of instruction in their high school while 575 students reported that their high school subjects were all taught in English. The results showed that female students reported high overall use of strategies and in 3 categories of strategies, except the functional practice category. Likewise, the study also revealed that students with a high proficiency level reported a significantly high frequency of strategy use than those with a low proficiency level. In particular, Sheorey (1999, p. 186) noted that low proficiency students “are reluctant to use English in public or in informal conversation for fear of making mistakes and losing face”, even though ‘they are well aware of the need to be proficient in English for educational or career advancement’ purposes. Further analysis of the data showed that Indian college students used strategies that help them to cope with university examinations while they adopted functional strategies to practice and improve their English outside the class. These findings indicate that the students’ strategy use was intricately related to the cultural and educational contexts in India. Although communicative competence in social exchanges makes a considerable difference in one’s career advancement in the Indian context, typical English language classrooms offer few opportunities to Indian students to practice and use English and examinations often encourage them to memorise English texts or particular aspects of the language. As these students were interested in achieving a high proficiency level, Sheorey argued that they would be helped if they could be taught to use strategies of learning English.

HongKong

Peacock and Ho (2003) investigated the use of English learning strategies by English for Academic Purposes (EAP) students in an English medium university in Hong Kong. The participants came from eight disciplines, building, business, computing, English, primary education and so on. The main data drew from a survey using Oxford’s (1990) SILL among 1,006 students. In contrast to many other large scale SILL studies, Peacock and Ho went beyond the use of SILL and invited three students from each discipline for 15-minute interviews to collect reasons behind their use of particular strategies. They also analysed the participants’ use of individual strategies in the SILL rather than computing the average mean values of the participants’ strategy use under six categories. They found that the participants used compensation strategies most frequently, which was followed by cognitive, metacognitive, social, memory and affective strategies (in the order of frequency). The results suggest that there were disciplinary differences among the participants’ overall strategy use and their use of individual strategies. For example, English major students used cognitive, metacognitive and social strategies more frequently than students in other academic disciplines. They also reported higher use of 26 individual strategies including “I try to talk like native English speakers”. In addition, Peacock and Ho identified a positive correlation between the participants’ English proficiency levels and 27 individual strategies. Participants of high proficiency levels also tended to use a wider range of individual strategies than those of low proficiency levels. Moreover, they found that female participants were more inclined to report higher use of strategies. While most of these findings confirm early research on individual differences in strategy use, the interview part of the inquiry provided interesting insights into the reasons behind the participants’ strategy use. Those who reported low use of strategies were found to have little interest or pleasure in learning English and enjoying foreign culture(s). They also claimed that they did not need much English and/or give low priority to the learning of English in comparison with other academic learning tasks. In contrast, students who used strategies frequently appeared to have strong motivation in learning English and also enjoy learning the language and foreign culture(s). Unsurprisingly, students who were strongly motivated to learn English were English major students. Students including those in math or science programmes were more likely to have a much weaker desire to learn English. Reflecting on these findings, Peacock and Ho (2003, p. 194) recommended that EAP teachers provide discipline-specific strategy training to the students and promote “a more positive attitude and approach to English among their students”, such as “English can be an interesting subject”.

UnitedStates

Hong-Nam and Leavell (2006) explored the strategy use of 55 ESL students enrolled in a college’s Intensive English Programme (IEP). The majority of the participants (52 participants) were Asian students from countries and regions like Japan, Korea, Taiwan and the Chinese mainland. The statistical analysis revealed that the participants reported high use of cognitive (M=3.44), compensation (M=3.59), metacognitive (M=3.66) and social (M=3.62) strategies while memory (M=3.04) and affective (M=3.02) strategies appeared to be the least preferred. The study also identified a curvilinear relationship between strategy use and English proficiency as students in the intermediate level reported more use of language learning strategies than those in beginning and advanced levels. Female participants were also found to use strategies more frequently than males. While female participants favoured social (M=3.70) and metacognitive (M=3.67) strategies, males reported high use of metacognitive (M=3.65) and compensation (M=3.65) strategies. The least used strategies for males were affective (M=2.87) strategies and for females it was memory (M=3.06) strategies. Hong-Nam and Leavell (2006) reasoned that the IEP setting might have mediated the participants’ strategy use as identified in the survey. While the IEP programme motivated the participants to use more metacognitive and social strategies in their pursuit of linguistic competence for academic studies, the student-oriented teaching philosophy underpinning the programme might have also encouraged the participants to interact with each other in the learning process. The curvilinear relationship between strategy use and proficiency indicates that teachers need to adopt different strategies to foster strategy use among students of varying proficiency levels. Hong-Nam and Leavell (2006) suggested that students in the intermediate level be encouraged to reflect on their strategy use rather than taught directly on how to use particular strategies and teachers should play a facilitator role in supporting advanced students’ strategy use in learning English. They also discussed the importance of social networks in supporting female students’ use of social strategies.

CRITIQUES OF SURVEY STUDIES IN LLS RESEARCH

The development of strategy taxonomies and inventories has contributed to an enhanced understanding of learners’ strategy use in relation to factors such as learner gender and English proficiency. However, the dominance of questionnaires as strategy use measurement instruments has been questioned among researchers (for an overview, see Gao, 2004, 2010).

First, these critics argued that some popular strategy use questionnaires might be psychologically flawed because the frequency of individual learners’ strategy use measured by these questionnaires cannot be cumulative when representing LLS as a psychological trait (D?rnyei, 2005). In Goh and Kwah’s (1997) study, it is possible for the participants to use predominantly one or two memory strategies, which significantly brings down the average mean values of their overall memory strategy use. For this reason, the findings on the participants’ low use of memory strategies might be misleading and they do not necessarily contradict the argument that Chinese students are inclined to memorise.

Second, the boundaries between different categories of strategies in popular questionnaires like SILL might have been much blurred in the actual learning process. Strategy researchers have noted that language learners sometimes use cognitive and metacognitive strategies rather than affective strategies to overcome their anxiety, demotivation and stress in language learning (Hurd, 2007). The consistent findings on learners’ low use of affective strategies in the studies reviewed above may be accounted for as a particular cultural way of learning in which learners often use other strategies to deal with affective aspects of learning (see Goh & Kwah, 1997; Hong-Nam & Leavell, 2006; Peacock & Ho, 2002). They may not indicate a lack of learners’ strategy use that needs to be remedied.

Third, Phakiti (2003) points out the problem where the frequency data of learners’ strategy use is analysed together with constructs such as gender, which is both biologically static (sex) and socioculturally dynamic (gender). It is unlikely for studies reviewed thus far to have attended the dynamic nature of gender even though these studies made claims about the connections between gender and strategy use (Hong-Nam & Leavell, 2006; Peacock & Ho, 2002; Sheorey, 1999). Phakiti (2003) further argues that learners’ strategic behaviour is dynamic and to have a proper understanding of their strategy use in relation to many of their individual characteristics, one has to situate their strategy use in specific settings and identify what particular goals or aims these learners use strategies for.

As a result, there seems a need to develop questionnaires that capture language learners’ strategy use with references to “their goals (for learning languages or using languages), relevant linguistic skills (listening or speaking), functions (planning language learning or practising language) and so on” (Gao, 2004, p. 8. For an example of such development, please see Cohen & Weaver, 2006). Meanwhile, it has become necessary to explore how individual learners develop appropriate strategy use in response to different learning tasks in specific learning settings across time (Gao, 2007a; Macaro, 2006). Such research has recently become more established within what Block (2003) calls the “social turn” in language learning research or the advent of sociocultural perspectives, which refer to a variety of approaches to learning and sharing an emphasis on the importance of social, political and cultural processes in mediating learners’ cognitive and metacognitive processes (Thorne, 2005; Zuengler & Miller, 2006; see also Gao & Zhang, 2011).

SocioculturalLLSresearch

Sociocultural perspectives allow researchers to view learners as social agents in active pursuit of language-related competence and non-linguistic objectives (Palfreyman, 2003; Zuengler & Miller, 2006). They conceptualize language learning not only as individual meta-cognitive and cognitive activities but also as social acts that are meaningfully related to learners’ identity formation (Norton & Toohey, 2001; Oxford, 2003). In sociocultural perspectives, learners’ strategy use is regarded as both a cognitive choice made by individuals and an emergent phenomenon “directly connected to the practices of cultural groups” (Donato & McCormick, 1994, p. 453). Sociocultural perspectives help researchers capture the dynamic nature of learners’ strategy use emerging from interactions between their agency and contextual conditions (Gao, 2010; Gao & Zhang, 2011).

Sociocultural LLS research highlights the importance of contextual mediation on language learners’ strategy use (Gao, 2010; Parks & Raymond, 2004; Palfreyman, 2006). Contextual learning discourses, reflecting the dominant values, attitudes and beliefs attached to the learning of a foreign language, can cause changes in language learners’ discourses about values, attitudes and beliefs in the learning process and, in turn, their strategy use. The availability and accessibility of material and cultural artifacts, such as books and learning materials, helps language learners adopt strategies different from what they use when these tools and artifacts are not available or accessible. Various social agents’ actions not only mediate discourses to language learners but also provide the material support and assistance crucial for learners’ engagement in acquiring linguistic competence. Consequently, these social agents also profoundly mediate learners’ strategy use in particular settings. Therefore, sociocultural perspectives offer “a robust framework for investigating and explaining the development and use of strategies” (Donato & McCormick, 1994, p. 462). Sociocultural LLS research also has the potential in revealing “a new dimension to the study of learning strategies” in research (Palfreyman, 2003, p. 245), which is demonstrated herein below.

SOCIOCULTURAL LLS RESEARCH ON ASIAN STUDENTS IN ENGLISH-MEDIUM UNIVERSITIES

Canada

Parks and Raymond (2004) investigated how the strategies used by Chinese students enrolled in an MBA course at a Canadian University developed as they moved from sheltered classes into electives in which they studied alongside native speakers of English. The study involved multiple data collection procedures including interviews with students, EAP teachers and MBA professors, class observations and collection of documents such as course outlines and samples of student work. Parks and Raymond (2004) observed changes in strategy use in three main areas. One of the main changes related to reading; in order to cope with the quantity of reading in the MBA electives, and with the goal of passing the course in mind, the students became highly selective in what they read. They also developed a variety of strategies for speaking out in participatory lectures that were influenced by re-evaluations of their ability to interact in English; the students’ lack of participation in sheltered lectures had been noted by their professors and their researchers and, as Parks and Raymond put it, with the presence of native speakers in lectures “the students themselves henceforth perceived their lack of involvement as an issue” (p. 384). Lastly, the students developed strategies for coping with the demands of teamwork including avoidance of groups containing Canadians and more positive strategies through which they repositioned themselves as competent team members. One of the major conclusions of Parks and Raymond’s study was that strategy use is “a more complex, socially-situated phenomenon” (p. 387) than it often appears to be in the learning strategies literature. Emphasising the mediating role of native English speakers’ presence in this particular situation, Parks and Raymond suggested that the students’ use or non-use of strategies was also mediated by issues of personal and social identity implicated in their views of appropriate classroom behaviour, their assessments of Canadian students’ behaviour and attitudes of Canadian students and professors towards them.

Britain

Whereas Parks and Raymond (2004) investigated changes in Chinese students’ strategy use within an overseas setting, Gao (2006) investigated changes in strategy use among Chinese undergraduate and postgraduate students when they moved from China to a university in the United Kingdom. The data were collected through interviews in which the students were asked to describe their approaches to learning English in these settings. The changes Gao observed were first interpreted in terms of factors of psychological and social differences (Gao, 2003) but in Gao (2006) the data were revisited from a sociocultural perspective. The focus of this second study was on how strategy use is mediated through discourses, goals and agents in the learning process in China and the United Kingdom. Gao found that in China a tendency to favour memorisation and practice strategies is mediated through discourses that emphasise the value of English as a “tool” for educational and social advancement, an orientation towards the goal of passing English examinations and the direction and advice of teachers, language learning experts and family members. Once the students moved to the United Kingdom, however, the force of these mediating factors diminished, because the students had largely achieved the opportunities for advancement that English offered them in China and because assessment tools shifted from tests of English to assessment of coursework through the medium of English. In the United Kingdom, the students also appeared to be divide into two groups: a group whose use of strategies was considerably reduced and who often felt ‘lost’ in their learning of English, and a group who shifted towards greater use of social strategies and sought opportunities for interacting with English speakers. Gao also described how this shift was facilitated by interactions with supportive English speakers. One of the important differences between the two groups, he argues, was that the first tended to be more oriented towards the goal of gaining academic qualifications through the medium of English, while the second were more strongly oriented towards learning English as a goal in its own right.

NewZealand

Skyrme (2005) examined mainland Chinese students’ experiences of academic adaptation in a New Zealand university with focus on the development of some key strategies in response to their perceived academic challenges. The inquiry, a longitudinal study into the participants’ shifting learning practices, used semi-structured interviews as a means to collect data of perceptions and experiences. Language learning strategies emerged as a crucial component of the participants’ learning narratives in the research process although Skyrme did not try to undertake a thorough investigation of their strategy use as in Gao (2003, 2006). The inquiry found that the participants’ strategy use was dynamic and evolving over time in some cases as a result of the participants’ growing English language resources which opened new possibilities to them, while in others in response to their “clearer understanding of the learning practices and discourse norms of their new situation” (Skyrme, 2005, p. 3).8 The paper discusses three main findings, including the participants’ use of reading strategies, seeking help from teachers outside the class and strategic use of L1 and L2 in the learning process. Like the participants in Parks and Raymond (2004), the students in this study attributed great importance to reading as they used it as a strategy to compensate their lack of competence to understand lectures. Skyrme also noted that some participants strongly believed in their right to seek clarifications from course tutors, which might otherwise be seen as their dependence on teachers. The participants only gradually learnt to use other learning resources and assume more responsibility in the learning process. The inquiry also found that most of the participants’ strategy choices were dependent on their English level. When the participants’ English level was low, they found it necessary to use L1 to store and process information. As their English improved along the time, the participants were also found to have used English increasingly as an effective means for academic learning. Given the importance of reading in the participants’ learning process, Skyrme recommended that teachers in EAP courses prepare students for the challenges in processing long academic texts “beyond the familiar relatively short texts around the unit theme” (Skyrme, 2005, p. 10). Language teachers also need to be trained to have an awareness of discourse requirements specific to particular disciplines so that they provide support to the first year students to help them adapt to academic studies in the new setting. For example, Mike, a case study participant, was only able to “see what meaning might be extracted from his textbooks [...], and how that meaning did connect with the other teaching materials” in the course, after reading the course’s test paper for the previous year (p. 4).

HongKong

Like Parks and Raymond (2004), Gao (2007b) is a longitudinal ethnographic inquiry into one mainland Chinese student’s English learning strategy use in an English medium university in Hong Kong. Drawing on sociocultural language learning research, the study explored the dynamic relationship between the participant’s strategy use and changing learning contexts. The study recounted how the participant attempted to create alternative ways of learning and sought new learning opportunities within the learning context, how she came to realize the limitations of her efforts and withdrew from her early active pursuits, and how she followed other mainland Chinese students and started memorising words and attached her own meanings to her memorization efforts. The inquiry revealed the profound mediation of contextual conditions and processes on the participant’s strategy use. It was rich material resources in the university that made it possible for her to progressively adopt a variety of strategic behaviours to increase her exposure to the language. Meanwhile, she invested time and energy in making friends and socializing with local students at her hall and faculty so that she could have social opportunities for using English. However, her efforts to carve out a favourable niche for her language learning were constrained by the challenges that she encountered in participating in the local students’ community. She became aware of the cultural gap that prevented her from becoming a fully participatory member in the local community, which consequently discouraged her from using social learning strategies. As a result, she tried to regain momentum in learning English by following other mainland students in memorising GRE (Graduate Record Exam) vocabulary. While other mainland Chinese students memorised GRE vocabulary in preparation for the high stakes examination for further studies in North American universities, she attempted to create her own meanings of memorising vocabulary by drawing on her encounters with her idol. Her idol was the winner of a nationwide singing competition, chosen by millions of young Chinese through text-messaging. In the competition, she wrote to her idol, advising her on how to pronounce English words properly when singing English songs and received in return an autographed photo of the idol. This incident reminded her that learning English could have many other meanings and she did not have to define its meaning as something like receiving a good job offer in Hong Kong or doing doctoral studies in the USA, as did many mainland Chinese students. The study highlighted the strategic responses that she had to the particular benefits and constraints that she experienced when learning English in Hong Kong. These responses were her efforts to utilize opportunities and/or bypass contextual constraints in the new learning context.

CRITIQUES OF SOCIOCULTURAL LLS RESEARCH

Like other theoretical approaches in language learning strategy research, sociocultural research has also been challenged. While recognizing the importance of contextual mediation in learners’ strategy use, Wenden (1998, 2002) is critical of a tendency in sociocultural language learning strategy research to downplay the role of learners’ agency, their beliefs, knowledge or meta-cognitive knowledge in their choice of strategy use. She argues as follows:

In these studies the knowledge/beliefs embedded in the setting or which emerge through the interaction that takes place in it is overlooked as a source of insight on learner’s motives, goals and operations. The review, on the role of metacognitive knowledge in the self-regulation of learning, highlights this variable that appears to be ignored and underdeveloped in sociocultural theory. (Wenden, 1998, p. 530)

In response to Wenden’s observation, Palfreyman (2003, p. 244) warns that placing emphasis on agency as part of learners’ “personal assets” implies the danger of reinforcing the “cognitive individual” and divorcing learners from contexts, thereby presenting an impoverished view of learners (see also Parks & Raymond, 2004). In a recent discussion on the roles of agency and metacognition in language learners’ strategic learning, Gao and Zhang (2011) contend that agency and metacognition should be “considered complementary to each other in revealing the process... underlying language learners’ strategic and autonomous efforts” (p. 38).

Probably the strengths of sociocultural language learning strategy research do not lie in examining in detail how learners’ beliefs, knowledge, motivation and so on work in a way that psychometric measurement studies have done. When contrasted with survey studies, sociocultural research may appear to be unable to generate directly transferable teaching tips enabling language teachers to support their students. The required support to students implied in sociocultural research often goes beyond what language teachers normally achieve in language classrooms. For instance, university English teachers in Hong Kong find it challenging to help mainland Chinese students to sort out their relationships with local counterparts. English teachers may also find it difficult to deal with the intercultural relationships between Chinese students and English speaking students in Canada or Britain (Gao, 2006, 2007b; Parks & Raymond, 2004). To give effective support to Asian students in English medium universities for adaptation, it may require language teachers and content course tutors to collaborate in the process (e.g., Skyrme, 2005), which is often beyond language teachers’ control. However, similar criticisms also apply to survey studies. For instance, EAP teachers’ call on students to see English as ‘a(chǎn)n important subject’ (Peacock & Ho, 2003, p.194) may fall upon deaf ears if there is no institution-wide commitment to make English important in the learning and teaching process at English medium universities. In the case of Sheorey (1999), English medium universities also need to align the ways of conducting learning assessment for better learning among students. Hong-Nam and Leavell (2006) point out the unmistakable importance of community or social support in their study participants’ language learning process, which echoes findings from sociocultural language learning strategy research. In fact, psychometric survey and sociocultural research findings on learners’ strategy use in English medium universities address different stakeholders, including university policy makers, content course lectures, language teachers and students, to create and sustain viable resource-rich learning spaces or communities that motivate and sustain learners’ strategic learning efforts.

CONCLUSION

This article has so far given an overview of language learning strategy research undertaken in two theoretical and methodological orientations, namely, psychological studies using a strategy inventory and sociocultural, largely qualitative research that examines learners’ strategy use in relation to contextual mediation. Under each category of research, I have described four studies done in different research contexts such as Britain, Canada, Hong Kong, India, New Zealand and United States. I have also documented relevant critiques associated with these studies, highlighting respective strengths and weaknesses for both types of research. Survey studies have generated insightful findings concerning individual differences in learners’ strategy use. These findings inform language teachers’ effort to develop learner-centered support schemes that empower language learners in different academic disciplines or cultural contexts with knowledge of the role strategy can play in learning English. Sociocultural research attempts to enhance our understanding of the role of context in learners’ strategy use by examining learners’ interaction with contextual discourses, material/cultural artifacts and social agents. Its findings also inform language teachers’ pedagogical support in English medium universities to assist students in coping with contextual conditions in the language learning process. In particular, together with some of the survey studies, sociocultural language learning strategy research recommends that English medium universities transform themselves into supportive communities that are rich in material learning resources and consist of members committed to the promotion of learning English in words and in deeds. Therefore, seen in a synergy, both types of research contribute to the constant search for answers to the question of how Asian students in English medium universities might be supported in their quest for linguistic competence.

REFERENCES

Benson, P. & Gao, X. (2008). Individual variation in language learning strategy. In S. Hurd & T. Lewis (Eds.),Languagelearningstrategiesinindependentlearningsettings(pp. 25-40). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Block, D. (2003).Thesocialturninsecondlanguageacquisition. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Chamot, A. U. (2001).Theroleoflearningstrategiesinsecondlanguageacquisition. In M. Breen (Ed.),InLearnercontributionstolanguagelearning(pp. 25-43). Harlow: Pearson Education.

Cohen, A. & Macaro, E. (2007).Languagelearnerstrategies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Cohen, A. D. & Weaver, S. J. (2006).Styles-andstrategies-basedinstruction:Ateachers’guide. CARLA Working Paper. Minneapolis: Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition.

Donato, R. & McCormick, D. (1994). A sociocultural perspective on language learning strategies: The role of mediation.TheModernLanguageJournal, 78, 453-464.

D?rnyei, Z. (2005).Thepsychologyofthelanguagelearner:Individualdifferencesinsecondlanguageacquisition. Mahwah: Erlbaum.

Ellis, R. (2004). Individual differences in second language learning. In A. Davies & C. Elder (Eds.),Thehandbookofappliedlinguistics(pp. 525-550). Oxford: Blackwell.

Gao, X.(2004). A critical review of questionnaire use in learner strategy research.Prospect:AnAustralianJournalofTESOL, 19, 3-14.

Gao, X.(2006). Understanding changes in Chinese students’ uses of learning strategies in China and Britain: A socio-cultural re-interpretation.System, 34, 55-67.

Gao, X. (2007a). Has language learning strategy research come to an end? A response to Tsengetal. (2006).AppliedLinguistics, 28, 615-620.

Gao, X. (2007b). Language learning experiences and learning strategy research: Voices of a mainland Chinese student in Hong Kong.InnovationsinLanguageLearningandTeaching, 1, 193-207.

Gao, X. (2010).Strategiclanguagelearning:Therolesofagencyandcontext. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

Gao, X. & Zhang, L.J. (2011). Joining forces for synergy: Agency and metacognition as interrelated theoretical perspectives on learner autonomy. In G. Murray, X. Gao, & T. Lamb (Eds.)Identity,motivationandautonomyinlanguagelearning(pp.25-41). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

Goh, C. M. & Kwah, P.(1997). Chinese ESL students’ learning strategies: A look at frequency, proficiency, and gender.HongKongJournalofAppliedLinguistics, 2, 39-53.

Hong-Nam, K. & Leavell, A.. G. (2006). Language learning strategy use of ESL students in an intensive English learning context.System, 34, 399-415.

Hsiao, T. & Oxford, R. (2002). Comparing theories of language learning strategies: A confirmatory factor analysis.TheModernLanguageJournal, 86, 368-383.

Hurd, S. (2007). Distant voices: Learners’ stories about the affective side of learning a language at a distance.InnovationinLanguageLearningandTeaching, 1, 242-259.

Li, M. & Bray, M. (2007). Cross-border flows of students for higher education: Push-pull factors and motivations of mainland Chinese students in Hong Kong and Macau.HigherEducation, 53, 791-818.

Macaro, E. (2006). Strategies for language learning and for language use: Revising the theoretical framework.TheModernLanguageJournal, 90, 320-37.

McDonough, S. H. (1999). Learner strategies.LanguageTeaching, 32, 1-18.

Norton, B. & Toohey, K. (2001). Changing perspectives on good language learners.TESOLQuarterly, 35, 307-321.

Oxford, R. (1990).Languagelearningstrategies:Whateveryteachershouldknow. New York: Newbury House/Harper & Row.

Oxford, R. (2003). Towards a more systematic model of L2 learner autonomy. In D. Palfreyman & R. Smith(Eds.),Learnerautonomyacrosscultures:Languageeducationperspectives(pp. 75-92). Basingtoke: Palgrave MacMillan.

Palfreyman, D. (2003). Expanding the discourse on learner development: A reply to Anita Wenden.AppliedLinguistics, 24, 243-248.

Palfreyman, D. (2006). Social context and resources for language learning.System, 34, 352-370.

Parks, S. & Raymond, P. M. (2004). Strategy use by non-native English speaking students in an MBA program: not business as usual.TheModernLanguageJournal, 88, 374-389.

Peacock, M. & Ho, B. (2003). Student language learning strategies across eight disciplines.InternationalJournalofAppliedLinguistics, 13, 179-200.

Phakiti, A. (2003). A closer look at gender and strategy use in L2 reading.LanguageLearning, 53, 649-702.

Sheorey, R. (1999). An examination of language learning strategy use in the setting of an indigenised variety of English.System, 27, 173-190.

Skyrme, G. (2005).Thereflectivelearner:Chineseinternationalstudents’useofstrategiestoenhanceuniversitystudy. Research Paper Series. School of Language Studies, Massey University. http:∥www.crie.org.nz/research_paper/G.Skyrme%20WP%2016.pdf.

Thorne, S. (2005). Epistemology, politics, and ethics in sociocultural theory.TheModernLanguageJournal, 89, 393-409.

Wenden, A.(1998). Metacognitive knowledge and language learning.AppliedLinguistics, 19, 515-537.

Wenden, A. (2002). Learner development in language learning.AppliedLinguistics, 23, 32-55.

Zhang, L.J. (2003). Research into Chinese EFL learner strategies: Methods, findings and instructional issues.RELCJournal, 34, 284-322.

Zuengler, J. & Miller, E. R. (2006). Cognitive and sociocultural perspectives: Two parallel SLA worlds.TESOLQuarterly, 40, 35-58.