• <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.

    久久久久久国产a免费观看| 午夜亚洲福利在线播放| 午夜激情福利司机影院| 国产aⅴ精品一区二区三区波| 尤物成人国产欧美一区二区三区| a级一级毛片免费在线观看| a级一级毛片免费在线观看| 欧美激情久久久久久爽电影| 色在线成人网| 国产精品女同一区二区软件 | 欧美一区二区亚洲| 成年免费大片在线观看| 国产午夜精品论理片| ponron亚洲| 国产免费av片在线观看野外av| 免费观看人在逋| 热99re8久久精品国产| 久久人妻av系列| 老司机在亚洲福利影院| 成人三级黄色视频| 日本a在线网址| 国产亚洲欧美98| 国产av麻豆久久久久久久| 中文亚洲av片在线观看爽| 久久这里只有精品中国| 两个人视频免费观看高清| 美女 人体艺术 gogo| 国产色婷婷99| 欧美日韩综合久久久久久 | 婷婷亚洲欧美| www日本黄色视频网| 日韩欧美免费精品| 中出人妻视频一区二区| 成人永久免费在线观看视频| 国产三级中文精品| 免费看美女性在线毛片视频| 校园春色视频在线观看| 亚洲精品一卡2卡三卡4卡5卡| 18禁黄网站禁片免费观看直播| 精品久久久久久久毛片微露脸| 欧美乱妇无乱码| 国产高清videossex| 757午夜福利合集在线观看| 日韩欧美精品v在线| 亚洲精品美女久久久久99蜜臀| 久久久久国内视频| 九色国产91popny在线| 一个人看的www免费观看视频| 美女大奶头视频| 欧美性感艳星| 操出白浆在线播放| 91九色精品人成在线观看| 神马国产精品三级电影在线观看| 少妇裸体淫交视频免费看高清| 国内精品久久久久久久电影| 欧美+日韩+精品| 午夜免费成人在线视频| 亚洲性夜色夜夜综合| 热99re8久久精品国产| 一级毛片高清免费大全| 91久久精品电影网| 噜噜噜噜噜久久久久久91| 在线观看免费午夜福利视频| 小蜜桃在线观看免费完整版高清| 国产一区二区三区视频了| 精品久久久久久,| 久久精品影院6| 90打野战视频偷拍视频| 一个人看的www免费观看视频| 亚洲无线观看免费| 国产av麻豆久久久久久久| a级一级毛片免费在线观看| 国产精品99久久久久久久久| 内射极品少妇av片p| 国产午夜福利久久久久久| 好男人电影高清在线观看| 午夜福利18| 91麻豆精品激情在线观看国产| 久久久久久国产a免费观看| 久久亚洲真实| 亚洲av免费高清在线观看| 国产精品久久久久久久久免 | 在线观看美女被高潮喷水网站 | av在线天堂中文字幕| 一区二区三区免费毛片| 很黄的视频免费| 成人一区二区视频在线观看| 免费看a级黄色片| 欧美性猛交╳xxx乱大交人| 日本撒尿小便嘘嘘汇集6| 欧美乱色亚洲激情| 国产不卡一卡二| 国产精品久久久久久人妻精品电影| 欧美成人免费av一区二区三区| 757午夜福利合集在线观看| 日本 av在线| 亚洲黑人精品在线| 99热精品在线国产| 久久国产乱子伦精品免费另类| 精品免费久久久久久久清纯| 精品人妻一区二区三区麻豆 | 亚洲aⅴ乱码一区二区在线播放| 人妻久久中文字幕网| 婷婷亚洲欧美| 长腿黑丝高跟| 少妇人妻精品综合一区二区 | 亚洲精品美女久久久久99蜜臀| 在线观看日韩欧美| 午夜日韩欧美国产| 久久亚洲精品不卡| 俺也久久电影网| 男女那种视频在线观看| 午夜福利高清视频| 国产精品精品国产色婷婷| 两人在一起打扑克的视频| 国产伦在线观看视频一区| 久久国产乱子伦精品免费另类| 久久6这里有精品| 精品午夜福利视频在线观看一区| 夜夜看夜夜爽夜夜摸| 国产欧美日韩精品亚洲av| 久久久色成人| 亚洲av中文字字幕乱码综合| 午夜福利在线在线| 亚洲精华国产精华精| 国产精品一区二区免费欧美| 国产男靠女视频免费网站| 免费观看人在逋| 欧洲精品卡2卡3卡4卡5卡区| 两个人的视频大全免费| 国产黄色小视频在线观看| 精品久久久久久成人av| 国产爱豆传媒在线观看| 欧美成人性av电影在线观看| 两个人看的免费小视频| av中文乱码字幕在线| 一夜夜www| 在线播放国产精品三级| 又粗又爽又猛毛片免费看| 黄色视频,在线免费观看| 人妻久久中文字幕网| 亚洲人成网站在线播放欧美日韩| 午夜福利免费观看在线| 一卡2卡三卡四卡精品乱码亚洲| 成年版毛片免费区| 亚洲熟妇熟女久久| 狂野欧美激情性xxxx| 网址你懂的国产日韩在线| 久久久成人免费电影| 毛片女人毛片| 熟妇人妻久久中文字幕3abv| 久久这里只有精品中国| 18禁黄网站禁片午夜丰满| 亚洲成av人片在线播放无| 亚洲精品成人久久久久久| 欧美xxxx黑人xx丫x性爽| 淫妇啪啪啪对白视频| 日韩欧美国产一区二区入口| 欧美成人一区二区免费高清观看| 99热精品在线国产| 国内揄拍国产精品人妻在线| 给我免费播放毛片高清在线观看| 99国产精品一区二区三区| 国产欧美日韩一区二区三| 麻豆成人午夜福利视频| 亚洲国产精品合色在线| 亚洲精品粉嫩美女一区| 欧美中文日本在线观看视频| 不卡一级毛片| 成人午夜高清在线视频| 脱女人内裤的视频| 男女下面进入的视频免费午夜| 亚洲最大成人手机在线| 一个人看视频在线观看www免费 | 老司机深夜福利视频在线观看| 国内揄拍国产精品人妻在线| 美女 人体艺术 gogo| 色老头精品视频在线观看| 高清日韩中文字幕在线| 国产成人欧美在线观看| 亚洲成人久久性| 免费看美女性在线毛片视频| 国内精品久久久久精免费| 午夜影院日韩av| 一边摸一边抽搐一进一小说| 老司机深夜福利视频在线观看| 国产精品,欧美在线| 午夜激情福利司机影院| 在线天堂最新版资源| 色综合站精品国产| 午夜久久久久精精品| 久久久久久人人人人人| 久久久久国内视频| 9191精品国产免费久久| 国产精品免费一区二区三区在线| 老司机午夜福利在线观看视频| 女同久久另类99精品国产91| 欧美性感艳星| 欧美最黄视频在线播放免费| 搡女人真爽免费视频火全软件 | 一级黄色大片毛片| 一个人免费在线观看的高清视频| 一本精品99久久精品77| 精品久久久久久,| 久久久久九九精品影院| 无限看片的www在线观看| 热99在线观看视频| 亚洲五月天丁香| 欧美大码av| 午夜福利在线观看免费完整高清在 | 91av网一区二区| 美女cb高潮喷水在线观看| 免费av观看视频| 久久精品国产亚洲av香蕉五月| 一进一出抽搐动态| 99视频精品全部免费 在线| 天天添夜夜摸| 国产激情欧美一区二区| 丰满的人妻完整版| 国产单亲对白刺激| 精品电影一区二区在线| 国产亚洲精品久久久com| 91九色精品人成在线观看| 免费电影在线观看免费观看| 夜夜夜夜夜久久久久| 久久精品91蜜桃| 日本免费a在线| 久久久久久久亚洲中文字幕 | 欧美成人性av电影在线观看| 国产亚洲精品综合一区在线观看| 天堂√8在线中文| 中出人妻视频一区二区| av天堂在线播放| 亚洲精华国产精华精| 9191精品国产免费久久| 变态另类丝袜制服| 制服人妻中文乱码| 国产真人三级小视频在线观看| 国产淫片久久久久久久久 | 人妻夜夜爽99麻豆av| 久久6这里有精品| 亚洲av中文字字幕乱码综合| 国产高清视频在线观看网站| 女人被狂操c到高潮| 国产一级毛片七仙女欲春2| 观看美女的网站| 脱女人内裤的视频| 亚洲,欧美精品.| 久久精品国产99精品国产亚洲性色| 身体一侧抽搐| 日本黄大片高清| 欧美成人性av电影在线观看| 亚洲无线观看免费| 国产亚洲欧美在线一区二区| 久久久久精品国产欧美久久久| 欧美日本亚洲视频在线播放| 国产成人av教育| 在线观看66精品国产| 噜噜噜噜噜久久久久久91| 国产高清三级在线| 欧美av亚洲av综合av国产av| 欧美成人一区二区免费高清观看| 国产精品一区二区免费欧美| 老司机在亚洲福利影院| 国产精品综合久久久久久久免费| 草草在线视频免费看| 亚洲五月婷婷丁香| 免费av观看视频| 亚洲av成人不卡在线观看播放网| 草草在线视频免费看| 亚洲欧美一区二区三区黑人| 在线观看日韩欧美| 国内久久婷婷六月综合欲色啪| 成人亚洲精品av一区二区| 国产高清三级在线| 人人妻人人看人人澡| 美女被艹到高潮喷水动态| 亚洲成av人片在线播放无| h日本视频在线播放| 12—13女人毛片做爰片一| 国产成人系列免费观看| 国产精品免费一区二区三区在线| 亚洲av一区综合| 亚洲精品久久国产高清桃花| 无人区码免费观看不卡| 精品日产1卡2卡| 夜夜躁狠狠躁天天躁| 亚洲熟妇中文字幕五十中出| 色精品久久人妻99蜜桃| 免费人成在线观看视频色| 午夜福利高清视频| 69人妻影院| a级一级毛片免费在线观看| 久久久久久久久大av| 久久久国产成人精品二区| 老熟妇仑乱视频hdxx| 日本 欧美在线| 无限看片的www在线观看| 有码 亚洲区| 天堂影院成人在线观看| 最新中文字幕久久久久| 女人被狂操c到高潮| 91久久精品电影网| 1024手机看黄色片| 亚洲电影在线观看av| 免费人成视频x8x8入口观看| 又黄又粗又硬又大视频| 俄罗斯特黄特色一大片| 午夜视频国产福利| 十八禁网站免费在线| 精品久久久久久成人av| 国产真人三级小视频在线观看| x7x7x7水蜜桃| 日韩欧美国产一区二区入口| 无人区码免费观看不卡| 大型黄色视频在线免费观看| 国产欧美日韩一区二区精品| 国产99白浆流出| 色精品久久人妻99蜜桃| 国语自产精品视频在线第100页| 久久久精品欧美日韩精品| 中文字幕久久专区| 日本精品一区二区三区蜜桃| 最近最新中文字幕大全电影3| av欧美777| 国产成人欧美在线观看| 精品久久久久久,| 51国产日韩欧美| 国产免费一级a男人的天堂| 中亚洲国语对白在线视频| 亚洲最大成人中文| 一个人免费在线观看电影| 亚洲中文日韩欧美视频| 国产一区二区激情短视频| 精品久久久久久久久久免费视频| 亚洲av免费在线观看| 国产精品久久电影中文字幕| 国内揄拍国产精品人妻在线| 内地一区二区视频在线| 久久精品国产自在天天线| 成人鲁丝片一二三区免费| 嫩草影视91久久| 麻豆成人午夜福利视频| 一进一出抽搐gif免费好疼| 国产精品久久视频播放| 日本成人三级电影网站| 亚洲精华国产精华精| 欧美激情久久久久久爽电影| 91久久精品国产一区二区成人 | 亚洲片人在线观看| 日韩欧美在线二视频| 国产一区二区在线观看日韩 | 成人永久免费在线观看视频| 少妇人妻一区二区三区视频| 国产亚洲欧美98| 小说图片视频综合网站| 偷拍熟女少妇极品色| 最近最新中文字幕大全电影3| 亚洲自拍偷在线| 麻豆成人午夜福利视频| 欧美激情久久久久久爽电影| 淫秽高清视频在线观看| 国产在视频线在精品| 国产高潮美女av| 欧美成人a在线观看| 久久久久久久久中文| www日本黄色视频网| 免费在线观看亚洲国产| 1000部很黄的大片| 欧美日韩乱码在线| 男女那种视频在线观看| 国产免费av片在线观看野外av| 99久国产av精品| 午夜免费成人在线视频| 国产真实乱freesex| 波野结衣二区三区在线 | 舔av片在线| 精品久久久久久久久久免费视频| eeuss影院久久| 两人在一起打扑克的视频| 老司机在亚洲福利影院| 国内毛片毛片毛片毛片毛片| 免费观看精品视频网站| 男女下面进入的视频免费午夜| 精品久久久久久久末码| 熟妇人妻久久中文字幕3abv| 天堂√8在线中文| 在线播放国产精品三级| 久久国产乱子伦精品免费另类| 国产欧美日韩一区二区精品| av福利片在线观看| а√天堂www在线а√下载| 亚洲欧美日韩高清在线视频| avwww免费| 18禁黄网站禁片午夜丰满| 国产毛片a区久久久久| 深夜精品福利| 99久国产av精品| 欧美大码av| 欧美日韩综合久久久久久 | 国产亚洲精品av在线| 大型黄色视频在线免费观看| 国产亚洲欧美在线一区二区| 精品熟女少妇八av免费久了| 制服人妻中文乱码| 日韩中文字幕欧美一区二区| 国产91精品成人一区二区三区| 精品久久久久久久末码| 成年女人毛片免费观看观看9| 在线国产一区二区在线| 国产精品综合久久久久久久免费| АⅤ资源中文在线天堂| 国产亚洲av嫩草精品影院| 国产精品久久电影中文字幕| 网址你懂的国产日韩在线| 亚洲精品在线观看二区| 亚洲国产精品成人综合色| 淫妇啪啪啪对白视频| 欧美bdsm另类| 亚洲成人久久爱视频| 中文亚洲av片在线观看爽| 狠狠狠狠99中文字幕| 中文字幕久久专区| 热99在线观看视频| 亚洲欧美激情综合另类| 亚洲中文字幕一区二区三区有码在线看| 狠狠狠狠99中文字幕| 中文字幕高清在线视频| 深夜精品福利| 日韩欧美在线二视频| 日本与韩国留学比较| 一本一本综合久久| 国产黄片美女视频| 深爱激情五月婷婷| 国产激情偷乱视频一区二区| 亚洲,欧美精品.| 99久国产av精品| 亚洲欧美日韩无卡精品| 色尼玛亚洲综合影院| 亚洲av免费在线观看| 窝窝影院91人妻| 国产精品自产拍在线观看55亚洲| 国产精品一区二区三区四区免费观看 | 中出人妻视频一区二区| 搡女人真爽免费视频火全软件 | 欧美在线黄色| 精品国产亚洲在线| 男人的好看免费观看在线视频| 免费av不卡在线播放| 最后的刺客免费高清国语| 午夜福利在线观看免费完整高清在 | 真人一进一出gif抽搐免费| 在线观看av片永久免费下载| 欧美黄色淫秽网站| 亚洲片人在线观看| 亚洲av成人精品一区久久| 国产一区二区在线av高清观看| 色综合婷婷激情| 国产伦人伦偷精品视频| 变态另类成人亚洲欧美熟女| 亚洲五月婷婷丁香| 成人国产一区最新在线观看| 97超级碰碰碰精品色视频在线观看| 啦啦啦免费观看视频1| www.熟女人妻精品国产| 国产av不卡久久| 中文字幕久久专区| 叶爱在线成人免费视频播放| 老司机在亚洲福利影院| 男人和女人高潮做爰伦理| 身体一侧抽搐| tocl精华| 亚洲国产高清在线一区二区三| 啪啪无遮挡十八禁网站| 两性午夜刺激爽爽歪歪视频在线观看| 亚洲精品粉嫩美女一区| 天堂网av新在线| 深夜精品福利| 最新美女视频免费是黄的| 亚洲精品日韩av片在线观看 | 99久久99久久久精品蜜桃| 99精品欧美一区二区三区四区| 人妻久久中文字幕网| 欧美日本亚洲视频在线播放| 午夜精品久久久久久毛片777| 日本黄色视频三级网站网址| 男女视频在线观看网站免费| 韩国av一区二区三区四区| 日本精品一区二区三区蜜桃| svipshipincom国产片| av国产免费在线观看| 亚洲人与动物交配视频| 精品一区二区三区人妻视频| a在线观看视频网站| 国产乱人伦免费视频| 一夜夜www| 国产亚洲精品一区二区www| 国产精品一区二区三区四区久久| 亚洲第一电影网av| 欧美日本亚洲视频在线播放| 两人在一起打扑克的视频| 神马国产精品三级电影在线观看| 成熟少妇高潮喷水视频| 中文字幕人妻丝袜一区二区| 国产亚洲精品一区二区www| 久久精品91无色码中文字幕| 亚洲专区中文字幕在线| 熟女少妇亚洲综合色aaa.| 深夜精品福利| 亚洲无线观看免费| 最后的刺客免费高清国语| 欧美+亚洲+日韩+国产| 熟女少妇亚洲综合色aaa.| 亚洲av成人av| 亚洲va日本ⅴa欧美va伊人久久| 黄片大片在线免费观看| 国产三级中文精品| 国产成人啪精品午夜网站| 九色成人免费人妻av| 一个人看视频在线观看www免费 | 日本五十路高清| 丰满人妻熟妇乱又伦精品不卡| 国产一区二区亚洲精品在线观看| 国内精品一区二区在线观看| 真人一进一出gif抽搐免费| 亚洲欧美日韩无卡精品| 国产在线精品亚洲第一网站| 听说在线观看完整版免费高清| av天堂中文字幕网| 国产美女午夜福利| 亚洲美女视频黄频| 可以在线观看毛片的网站| 少妇裸体淫交视频免费看高清| 黄色日韩在线| 非洲黑人性xxxx精品又粗又长| 亚洲美女视频黄频| 中文字幕av在线有码专区| 丝袜美腿在线中文| 99久久久亚洲精品蜜臀av| 性欧美人与动物交配| 亚洲av美国av| 99国产精品一区二区三区| 午夜福利视频1000在线观看| 日韩欧美精品v在线| 亚洲av成人精品一区久久| 国产黄色小视频在线观看| 不卡一级毛片| 色av中文字幕| 99在线人妻在线中文字幕| 国产毛片a区久久久久| 一级作爱视频免费观看| 久久精品夜夜夜夜夜久久蜜豆| 怎么达到女性高潮| 69av精品久久久久久| 国产爱豆传媒在线观看| 日本三级黄在线观看| 欧美性猛交黑人性爽| 黄色成人免费大全| 热99re8久久精品国产| 色综合亚洲欧美另类图片| 91在线观看av| 久久性视频一级片| 亚洲成人中文字幕在线播放| 天堂网av新在线| 亚洲av熟女| 精品电影一区二区在线| 久久久久久国产a免费观看| 亚洲最大成人中文| 熟女人妻精品中文字幕| 久久久成人免费电影| 中文资源天堂在线| 欧美成狂野欧美在线观看| 国产真人三级小视频在线观看| 丁香六月欧美| 欧美黑人巨大hd| 国产三级中文精品| 老师上课跳d突然被开到最大视频 久久午夜综合久久蜜桃 | 超碰av人人做人人爽久久 | 亚洲av第一区精品v没综合| 悠悠久久av| 欧美中文综合在线视频| 久久久久久国产a免费观看| 在线a可以看的网站| 免费在线观看成人毛片| 88av欧美| 手机成人av网站| 很黄的视频免费| www.色视频.com| 韩国av一区二区三区四区| 亚洲av免费高清在线观看| 色在线成人网| 亚洲第一电影网av| 国产黄a三级三级三级人| 伊人久久精品亚洲午夜| 麻豆国产av国片精品| 婷婷六月久久综合丁香| 国产亚洲精品综合一区在线观看| 免费观看的影片在线观看| 午夜福利欧美成人| 怎么达到女性高潮| 乱人视频在线观看| av专区在线播放| 日韩av在线大香蕉| 午夜免费成人在线视频| 老师上课跳d突然被开到最大视频 久久午夜综合久久蜜桃 | 草草在线视频免费看| 中文资源天堂在线| 最近在线观看免费完整版| 一a级毛片在线观看| 午夜日韩欧美国产| 青草久久国产| www日本黄色视频网| 在线国产一区二区在线| 日韩av在线大香蕉| 国产99白浆流出|