• <tr id="yyy80"></tr>
  • <sup id="yyy80"></sup>
  • <tfoot id="yyy80"><noscript id="yyy80"></noscript></tfoot>
  • 99热精品在线国产_美女午夜性视频免费_国产精品国产高清国产av_av欧美777_自拍偷自拍亚洲精品老妇_亚洲熟女精品中文字幕_www日本黄色视频网_国产精品野战在线观看 ?

    Language Learning Strategies Used by Asian Studentsin English-medium Universities

    2013-03-27 06:27:13
    當代外語研究 2013年12期

    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.

    建设人人有责人人尽责人人享有的| 午夜免费观看性视频| 亚洲精品一二三| 天堂中文最新版在线下载| 日本色播在线视频| 久久影院123| 色婷婷久久久亚洲欧美| 在线观看人妻少妇| 亚洲欧美精品自产自拍| 亚洲一级一片aⅴ在线观看| 美女福利国产在线| 欧美日韩亚洲高清精品| 精品酒店卫生间| 如日韩欧美国产精品一区二区三区 | 在线观看av片永久免费下载| 97在线视频观看| 国产淫片久久久久久久久| 中文字幕人妻熟人妻熟丝袜美| 岛国毛片在线播放| 亚洲美女视频黄频| 丰满少妇做爰视频| 中文字幕人妻熟人妻熟丝袜美| 欧美最新免费一区二区三区| 一区二区av电影网| 午夜老司机福利剧场| 国产91av在线免费观看| 欧美日韩综合久久久久久| 3wmmmm亚洲av在线观看| 精品卡一卡二卡四卡免费| 国产精品蜜桃在线观看| 十八禁网站网址无遮挡 | 插阴视频在线观看视频| 亚洲美女搞黄在线观看| 欧美日韩综合久久久久久| 国产一区二区在线观看日韩| 国产精品久久久久久av不卡| 午夜激情福利司机影院| 丝袜脚勾引网站| 国产极品粉嫩免费观看在线 | 汤姆久久久久久久影院中文字幕| 久久热精品热| 伊人亚洲综合成人网| 三级国产精品欧美在线观看| 亚洲精品自拍成人| 最黄视频免费看| 久久久久视频综合| 久久综合国产亚洲精品| 日日摸夜夜添夜夜爱| 国语对白做爰xxxⅹ性视频网站| 如日韩欧美国产精品一区二区三区 | 性高湖久久久久久久久免费观看| 亚洲,欧美,日韩| 国产在线视频一区二区| 国产日韩欧美在线精品| 丝瓜视频免费看黄片| 国产视频内射| 丝袜在线中文字幕| 伊人久久国产一区二区| 日韩电影二区| 国产探花极品一区二区| 精品熟女少妇av免费看| 男人舔奶头视频| 欧美bdsm另类| 精品一区在线观看国产| 精品少妇内射三级| 国产精品嫩草影院av在线观看| 久久久久久久亚洲中文字幕| 久久热精品热| 我要看日韩黄色一级片| 久热久热在线精品观看| 老司机影院毛片| 亚洲国产av新网站| 我要看黄色一级片免费的| 一个人免费看片子| 精品人妻偷拍中文字幕| 视频中文字幕在线观看| 久热久热在线精品观看| 99视频精品全部免费 在线| 国产成人免费观看mmmm| 亚洲婷婷狠狠爱综合网| 晚上一个人看的免费电影| 一个人看视频在线观看www免费| 中文欧美无线码| 亚洲精品久久午夜乱码| 新久久久久国产一级毛片| 国产高清不卡午夜福利| 精品国产一区二区久久| 夜夜骑夜夜射夜夜干| 在线观看人妻少妇| a级毛片在线看网站| 国产精品欧美亚洲77777| 最近的中文字幕免费完整| 成人午夜精彩视频在线观看| av福利片在线| 国产精品久久久久成人av| 少妇精品久久久久久久| 日韩av在线免费看完整版不卡| 免费av中文字幕在线| 国产乱来视频区| 国产伦在线观看视频一区| 一区二区三区精品91| 人人妻人人添人人爽欧美一区卜| 纯流量卡能插随身wifi吗| 五月开心婷婷网| 日本vs欧美在线观看视频 | 人体艺术视频欧美日本| 九色成人免费人妻av| 熟女人妻精品中文字幕| 亚洲欧美日韩东京热| 国产欧美日韩综合在线一区二区 | 另类亚洲欧美激情| 亚洲真实伦在线观看| 国产黄片视频在线免费观看| 日本91视频免费播放| 亚洲欧美一区二区三区黑人 | 人妻制服诱惑在线中文字幕| 一区二区av电影网| 欧美日韩av久久| 蜜桃在线观看..| 亚洲精品日韩av片在线观看| 一级毛片我不卡| 夜夜爽夜夜爽视频| 亚洲精品日韩av片在线观看| 免费观看的影片在线观看| 精品久久久噜噜| 久久热精品热| 高清不卡的av网站| 一级爰片在线观看| 在线观看免费日韩欧美大片 | 97精品久久久久久久久久精品| 国产成人午夜福利电影在线观看| 一区二区av电影网| 最近2019中文字幕mv第一页| 亚洲在久久综合| 九九久久精品国产亚洲av麻豆| 插阴视频在线观看视频| 亚洲欧美成人精品一区二区| av福利片在线| 国产精品一区www在线观看| 日韩成人伦理影院| 菩萨蛮人人尽说江南好唐韦庄| 亚洲va在线va天堂va国产| 久久婷婷青草| 哪个播放器可以免费观看大片| 久久韩国三级中文字幕| 精品人妻一区二区三区麻豆| 日韩av在线免费看完整版不卡| 精品少妇久久久久久888优播| 国产深夜福利视频在线观看| 国产黄色免费在线视频| 日韩成人av中文字幕在线观看| 欧美 亚洲 国产 日韩一| 少妇熟女欧美另类| 蜜桃在线观看..| 国产一区二区在线观看日韩| 国产精品一区www在线观看| 国产成人一区二区在线| 又大又黄又爽视频免费| 国产片特级美女逼逼视频| 免费看不卡的av| 五月伊人婷婷丁香| a 毛片基地| 人人妻人人爽人人添夜夜欢视频 | 成人二区视频| 久久99一区二区三区| 伦理电影免费视频| 在线亚洲精品国产二区图片欧美 | 99久久中文字幕三级久久日本| 精品人妻熟女av久视频| 伦理电影大哥的女人| 丰满少妇做爰视频| 成年av动漫网址| 久久国产精品大桥未久av | 伊人久久精品亚洲午夜| 高清av免费在线| 建设人人有责人人尽责人人享有的| 日韩熟女老妇一区二区性免费视频| 国产一区亚洲一区在线观看| 极品教师在线视频| 日韩人妻高清精品专区| 18禁在线无遮挡免费观看视频| 在线观看一区二区三区激情| 婷婷色麻豆天堂久久| 日日爽夜夜爽网站| 两个人免费观看高清视频 | 日本欧美视频一区| 亚洲av中文av极速乱| 欧美日韩精品成人综合77777| 日韩精品有码人妻一区| 99九九线精品视频在线观看视频| 我要看黄色一级片免费的| 国产在线一区二区三区精| 人人妻人人澡人人爽人人夜夜| 亚洲欧美精品自产自拍| 一级毛片黄色毛片免费观看视频| 久久99精品国语久久久| 久久青草综合色| 成人美女网站在线观看视频| 中文欧美无线码| 婷婷色综合www| 国产伦理片在线播放av一区| 久久人人爽人人爽人人片va| 三上悠亚av全集在线观看 | 国产日韩欧美视频二区| 插逼视频在线观看| 精品少妇久久久久久888优播| tube8黄色片| 国产精品成人在线| a 毛片基地| 女性生殖器流出的白浆| 9色porny在线观看| 一个人免费看片子| 最黄视频免费看| 麻豆成人午夜福利视频| 欧美最新免费一区二区三区| 日韩成人av中文字幕在线观看| 在线观看一区二区三区激情| 亚洲欧洲国产日韩| 青春草国产在线视频| 美女脱内裤让男人舔精品视频| 我要看日韩黄色一级片| 免费人成在线观看视频色| 欧美bdsm另类| 性色av一级| 国产av码专区亚洲av| 91久久精品国产一区二区三区| 亚洲精品国产av蜜桃| 国产免费一级a男人的天堂| 国产高清有码在线观看视频| 日韩电影二区| 成人国产av品久久久| 国产高清三级在线| 黄片无遮挡物在线观看| 99久国产av精品国产电影| 精品人妻熟女毛片av久久网站| 国产成人精品婷婷| 新久久久久国产一级毛片| 亚洲精品,欧美精品| 成人无遮挡网站| 91精品一卡2卡3卡4卡| 中国三级夫妇交换| 免费看日本二区| 午夜福利网站1000一区二区三区| 午夜91福利影院| 亚洲性久久影院| 亚洲国产欧美在线一区| av线在线观看网站| 免费观看a级毛片全部| 国产精品熟女久久久久浪| 不卡视频在线观看欧美| 亚洲欧洲日产国产| 丝袜喷水一区| 精品一区二区免费观看| 特大巨黑吊av在线直播| 这个男人来自地球电影免费观看 | 精品亚洲乱码少妇综合久久| 欧美亚洲 丝袜 人妻 在线| 一本久久精品| 波野结衣二区三区在线| 黄色毛片三级朝国网站 | 国精品久久久久久国模美| 成人午夜精彩视频在线观看| 又粗又硬又长又爽又黄的视频| 熟妇人妻不卡中文字幕| 69精品国产乱码久久久| 人妻系列 视频| 精品熟女少妇av免费看| 免费观看无遮挡的男女| 18+在线观看网站| 桃花免费在线播放| 三上悠亚av全集在线观看 | 99热这里只有精品一区| 91aial.com中文字幕在线观看| 麻豆成人午夜福利视频| 成人亚洲精品一区在线观看| 看非洲黑人一级黄片| 91久久精品国产一区二区三区| 免费黄色在线免费观看| a级毛色黄片| 精品少妇黑人巨大在线播放| av网站免费在线观看视频| 在线观看美女被高潮喷水网站| 性色av一级| 精品久久久噜噜| 久久久久久久久久久免费av| 色吧在线观看| 国产 精品1| 久久av网站| av福利片在线| 午夜福利影视在线免费观看| 成年女人在线观看亚洲视频| 婷婷色麻豆天堂久久| 久久99热这里只频精品6学生| 久久精品国产亚洲av天美| 免费观看av网站的网址| 日本猛色少妇xxxxx猛交久久| 国产日韩欧美视频二区| 亚洲在久久综合| 夫妻午夜视频| 久久这里有精品视频免费| 丰满人妻一区二区三区视频av| 99热这里只有精品一区| 国产欧美日韩综合在线一区二区 | 多毛熟女@视频| 国产精品福利在线免费观看| 日本猛色少妇xxxxx猛交久久| 最近手机中文字幕大全| av视频免费观看在线观看| 日本-黄色视频高清免费观看| 少妇人妻久久综合中文| 春色校园在线视频观看| 美女中出高潮动态图| 午夜老司机福利剧场| 成年av动漫网址| 一级毛片黄色毛片免费观看视频| a级毛片免费高清观看在线播放| 亚洲国产欧美日韩在线播放 | 日本猛色少妇xxxxx猛交久久| 麻豆乱淫一区二区| 亚洲在久久综合| 日韩大片免费观看网站| 久久精品国产亚洲网站| 国产成人freesex在线| 少妇丰满av| 春色校园在线视频观看| 波野结衣二区三区在线| 国产免费一区二区三区四区乱码| 波野结衣二区三区在线| 王馨瑶露胸无遮挡在线观看| 夫妻性生交免费视频一级片| 精品少妇久久久久久888优播| 中文资源天堂在线| 9色porny在线观看| 欧美人与善性xxx| 国产高清国产精品国产三级| a级片在线免费高清观看视频| 多毛熟女@视频| 男女无遮挡免费网站观看| 国产欧美另类精品又又久久亚洲欧美| 99热这里只有是精品50| 18禁裸乳无遮挡动漫免费视频| 亚洲国产精品国产精品| 国产成人91sexporn| 纯流量卡能插随身wifi吗| 亚洲熟女精品中文字幕| 国产视频内射| 国产午夜精品久久久久久一区二区三区| 久久人人爽人人片av| 久久久亚洲精品成人影院| 简卡轻食公司| 91午夜精品亚洲一区二区三区| 老司机影院成人| 黄色日韩在线| 成人无遮挡网站| 国产精品.久久久| av在线播放精品| 欧美人与善性xxx| 99九九线精品视频在线观看视频| 色5月婷婷丁香| 中国国产av一级| 亚洲精华国产精华液的使用体验| 久久久精品94久久精品| 久久毛片免费看一区二区三区| 欧美另类一区| kizo精华| 综合色丁香网| 国产一区二区三区综合在线观看 | 一级a做视频免费观看| 亚洲国产毛片av蜜桃av| 高清av免费在线| 日韩精品免费视频一区二区三区 | 天天操日日干夜夜撸| 五月天丁香电影| 制服丝袜香蕉在线| 国产精品熟女久久久久浪| 亚洲欧美一区二区三区黑人 | a级毛片在线看网站| 国产美女午夜福利| 日日啪夜夜撸| 啦啦啦啦在线视频资源| 欧美bdsm另类| 又爽又黄a免费视频| 七月丁香在线播放| 国产高清三级在线| 日本猛色少妇xxxxx猛交久久| av专区在线播放| 欧美少妇被猛烈插入视频| 国产伦精品一区二区三区四那| √禁漫天堂资源中文www| 久久久精品免费免费高清| 成人特级av手机在线观看| 午夜免费观看性视频| 激情五月婷婷亚洲| 亚洲,欧美,日韩| 国产黄片视频在线免费观看| 亚洲av二区三区四区| 成人无遮挡网站| 精品国产露脸久久av麻豆| 春色校园在线视频观看| 91久久精品电影网| 国产中年淑女户外野战色| 国产精品偷伦视频观看了| 亚洲av综合色区一区| 观看av在线不卡| 久久久久久久国产电影| 我的女老师完整版在线观看| 成年女人在线观看亚洲视频| 精品一区在线观看国产| 久久久久久久久久成人| 国产免费视频播放在线视频| 在线天堂最新版资源| 国产亚洲精品久久久com| 久久99一区二区三区| 亚洲国产精品成人久久小说| 男人舔奶头视频| 夜夜骑夜夜射夜夜干| 在线播放无遮挡| 午夜激情久久久久久久| 国产色婷婷99| 丰满乱子伦码专区| 色5月婷婷丁香| 久久青草综合色| 国产黄片美女视频| 99久国产av精品国产电影| 在线看a的网站| 狂野欧美激情性bbbbbb| 如日韩欧美国产精品一区二区三区 | 午夜福利影视在线免费观看| 天天操日日干夜夜撸| 一级黄片播放器| 国产一区二区三区av在线| 中文字幕免费在线视频6| www.色视频.com| 丁香六月天网| 国产亚洲午夜精品一区二区久久| kizo精华| av在线播放精品| 人人妻人人澡人人爽人人夜夜| 午夜福利影视在线免费观看| 久久热精品热| 国产亚洲一区二区精品| 看非洲黑人一级黄片| 日日啪夜夜爽| 在线观看三级黄色| 欧美老熟妇乱子伦牲交| 高清不卡的av网站| 你懂的网址亚洲精品在线观看| 麻豆成人午夜福利视频| 欧美精品一区二区免费开放| 亚洲av在线观看美女高潮| 国产精品人妻久久久影院| 国产伦精品一区二区三区四那| 99九九线精品视频在线观看视频| 久久久久久久久久久免费av| 色婷婷久久久亚洲欧美| 亚洲真实伦在线观看| 亚洲精品国产av蜜桃| 一级毛片 在线播放| 久久婷婷青草| 久久久久久久精品精品| 插逼视频在线观看| 欧美xxxx性猛交bbbb| 深夜a级毛片| 伊人久久国产一区二区| 国产亚洲午夜精品一区二区久久| 久久精品国产亚洲av涩爱| 王馨瑶露胸无遮挡在线观看| 99久久中文字幕三级久久日本| 日本色播在线视频| 久久国内精品自在自线图片| 亚洲经典国产精华液单| 国产黄片视频在线免费观看| 久久毛片免费看一区二区三区| 国产精品人妻久久久影院| 精品人妻一区二区三区麻豆| 最新中文字幕久久久久| 亚洲国产欧美日韩在线播放 | 91久久精品国产一区二区成人| 中文资源天堂在线| 精品一区在线观看国产| 一级毛片aaaaaa免费看小| 精品午夜福利在线看| 乱码一卡2卡4卡精品| 菩萨蛮人人尽说江南好唐韦庄| 午夜精品国产一区二区电影| 3wmmmm亚洲av在线观看| 超碰97精品在线观看| 日日啪夜夜撸| 在线观看三级黄色| 国产精品伦人一区二区| 日本av免费视频播放| 国产精品久久久久久久久免| 国产精品成人在线| 少妇 在线观看| 亚洲av中文av极速乱| 国产视频内射| 少妇人妻一区二区三区视频| 女的被弄到高潮叫床怎么办| 又大又黄又爽视频免费| 亚洲人成网站在线播| av福利片在线| 熟妇人妻不卡中文字幕| 99热国产这里只有精品6| 国产一级毛片在线| 亚洲熟女精品中文字幕| 一级av片app| 日韩中字成人| 三上悠亚av全集在线观看 | 人妻人人澡人人爽人人| 久久免费观看电影| 亚洲不卡免费看| 亚洲内射少妇av| 免费看光身美女| 大香蕉97超碰在线| 日本av免费视频播放| 在线观看人妻少妇| 99九九线精品视频在线观看视频| 国产高清不卡午夜福利| 国产中年淑女户外野战色| 亚洲av成人精品一二三区| 国产色婷婷99| av国产精品久久久久影院| 制服丝袜香蕉在线| 国产一级毛片在线| 国产男人的电影天堂91| 亚洲久久久国产精品| 夜夜骑夜夜射夜夜干| 亚洲真实伦在线观看| 又爽又黄a免费视频| 噜噜噜噜噜久久久久久91| 国产精品.久久久| 国产 精品1| 久久精品久久久久久噜噜老黄| 一级爰片在线观看| 日本爱情动作片www.在线观看| 久久人妻熟女aⅴ| 妹子高潮喷水视频| 97超视频在线观看视频| 亚洲在久久综合| 国产精品熟女久久久久浪| 欧美日韩视频精品一区| 亚洲国产毛片av蜜桃av| 观看美女的网站| 亚洲欧美一区二区三区黑人 | 久久久久久久久大av| 在线播放无遮挡| 一级毛片我不卡| 日产精品乱码卡一卡2卡三| 涩涩av久久男人的天堂| 在线观看美女被高潮喷水网站| 免费观看在线日韩| 国产一级毛片在线| 久久久国产一区二区| 亚洲中文av在线| 亚洲人与动物交配视频| 精品一区二区免费观看| 另类亚洲欧美激情| 美女内射精品一级片tv| freevideosex欧美| 老女人水多毛片| 欧美日韩视频高清一区二区三区二| 国产有黄有色有爽视频| 国产视频内射| 亚洲精品色激情综合| 99国产精品免费福利视频| 国产老妇伦熟女老妇高清| 少妇被粗大猛烈的视频| 两个人免费观看高清视频 | 亚洲欧美一区二区三区黑人 | 女人精品久久久久毛片| 国产伦在线观看视频一区| av不卡在线播放| 看非洲黑人一级黄片| av专区在线播放| 亚洲情色 制服丝袜| 国产精品.久久久| 男人和女人高潮做爰伦理| 精品久久久久久久久亚洲| 黄色欧美视频在线观看| 男女国产视频网站| 免费看光身美女| 国内精品宾馆在线| 久久精品久久久久久噜噜老黄| 欧美变态另类bdsm刘玥| videossex国产| 中文欧美无线码| 男人添女人高潮全过程视频| 美女福利国产在线| 最新的欧美精品一区二区| tube8黄色片| 一区二区三区四区激情视频| 一级,二级,三级黄色视频| av在线app专区| 天美传媒精品一区二区| 边亲边吃奶的免费视频| 十八禁高潮呻吟视频 | 精品国产一区二区三区久久久樱花| 麻豆精品久久久久久蜜桃| 亚洲av福利一区| h日本视频在线播放| 国产精品国产三级国产专区5o| 在线观看三级黄色| 国产白丝娇喘喷水9色精品| 韩国av在线不卡| 自拍欧美九色日韩亚洲蝌蚪91 | 国产淫片久久久久久久久| 国产一区二区在线观看av| 国产伦在线观看视频一区| 亚洲国产色片| 国产成人91sexporn| 精品人妻熟女毛片av久久网站| 亚洲国产精品成人久久小说| 国产一区二区在线观看av| 久久av网站| 久久久久精品性色|