The Effect of Strategy Based Instruction on EFL Learners’ Writing Ability

The Effect of Strategy Based Instruction on

EFL Learners’ Writing Ability

Author

Fatemeh Mahdavirad (Ph.D.)

Yazd University, Yazd, Iran

Biodata

Fatemeh Mahdaviradassistant professor of ELT at Yazd University, Iran. Her research interests include syllabus design, materials development, second language acquisition theory and research, task-based language teaching, and discourse analysis.

Abstract

The present study investigates the effect of strategy based instruction of writing on developing learners’ writing abilities in English as a foreign language. The participants of the study were thirty Iranian Ph.D. students doing an English writing course. A longitudinal study was conducted in which a Strategy Based Instruction (SBI) Program was employed to compare the participants’ score before and after SBI training. Five procedures, namely, strategy preparation, strategy awareness-raising, strategy instruction, strategy practice, and personalization of strategies were followed to familiarize the participants with different categories of language learning strategies including memory, cognitive, compensation, metacognitive, and social. The results of the statistical analysis showthat the application of SBI program has a positive effect in improving Ph.D. students’ writing abilities. The frequency of strategy use was also investigated using the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL). The pedagogical implication of the study is that if the instructors systematically introduce and reinforce strategies that can help learners to develop writing skills, the learners may well improve the performance on writing tasks. The study also suggests the notion of integrating strategy training into writing instructional plan and embedding strategies into writing tasks.

Keywords: Language learning strategies (LLSs), Strategy based instruction (SBI),

Strategy learning, Strategy use, Writing skills

Iranian EFL Journal 76

1. Introduction

Language learning strategies (LLSs) are one of the most important individual difference factors in language acquisition (Skehan, 1989). As Ehrman and Oxford (1990) put it, compared to less proficient learners, more proficient learners are more likely to use a wider range of language learning strategies. Language learning strategies can be utilized to promote greater learner autonomy because as Dickinson (1987) argues, the use of appropriate strategies allows learners to take more responsibility for their own learning. This is, in turn, a big challenge for Iranian non-English-major Ph.D. students who are no longer in a formal classroom setting of EFL. While many studies have focused on the use of language learning strategies for improving speaking, reading, and listening skills (Cohen, 2000; O’Malley, Chamot, Stewner-Manzanares, Russo, and Küppler, 1985, Weiying, 2000; Li and Liu, 2008, to name a few), very few have investigated the role of SBI in improving writing skills (eg. McMullen, 2009). It implies that more attention should be paid to finding whether learners can use learning strategies for improving their writing ability which is a unique challenge when they want to write and publish academic articles in English. The present study is an attempt to concentrate on the effect of strategy based instruction of writing in developing Iranian non-English-major Ph.D. students’ writing abilities in English as a foreign language.

2. Literature Review: Strategy Based Instruction

According to Cohen (2003), language learners are being encouraged to learn and use a broad range of language learning strategies that can be tapped throughout the learning process, because it is believed that learning will be facilitated by making learners aware of the range of strategies from which they can select during language learning and use. The most efficient way to heighten learner’s awareness is to provide strategy training. To have a successful and helpful learning strategy instruction some requirements must be met by the teachers. These are summarized by Oxford (1994) into the following principles that she left subject to further investigation:

1) L2 strategy training should be based clearlyon students’ attitudes, beliefs, and stated needs,

2) strategies should be chosen so that they mesh with and support each other and so that they fit the requirements of the language task, the learners’ goals, and the learners’ style of learning, Iranian EFL Journal 77

3) training should, if possible, be integrated into regular L2 activities over a long period of time rather than taught as a separate, short intervention,

4) students should have plenty of opportunities for strategy training during language classes,

5) strategy training should include explanations, handouts, activities, brainstorming, and materials for reference and home study,

6) affective issues such as anxiety, motivation, beliefs, and interests–all of which influence strategy choice–should be directly addressed by L2 strategy training,

7) strategy training should be explicit, overt, and relevant and should provide plenty of practice with varied L2 tasks involving authentic materials,

8) strategy training should not be solely tied to the class at hand; it should provide strategies that are transferable to future language tasks beyond a given class,

9) strategy training should be somewhat individualized, as different students prefer or need certain strategies for particular tasks, and

10) strategy training should provide students with a mechanism to evaluate their own progress and to evaluate the success of the training and the value of the strategies in multiple tasks.

A variety of instructional models for strategy training have already been developed and implemented in a variety of learning contexts (Pearson and Dole, 1987; Oxford, 1990; Chamot and O’Malley, 1994; Nyikos, 1991; Grenfell and Harris, 1999; Cohen and Weaver, 2006). The focus of the present study is on a model called Strategy Based Instruction (SBI) which refers to a learner-centered approach toteaching that focuses on ‘explicit and implicit inclusion of language learning and language use strategies’ in language teaching materials (Cohen and Weaver, 1998:1). As Griffiths (2003) and Cohen (1998) state, SBI enables learners to find which strategieswork best for them and how to use them in a variety of language learning use situations. According to Cohen (2003:1), regardless ofthe differences among these frameworks, all strategy based instructions try to provide the learners with the tools to self.

Iranian EFL Journal 78

Cohen (2003:2) believes that in a typical SBI classroom, teachers do the following:

- describe, model, and give examples of potentially useful strategies

- elicit additional examples from students, based on learners’ own learning experiences

- lead small-group and whole-class discussions about strategies

- encourage learners to experiment with a broad range of strategies, and

- integrate strategies into everyday class materials, explicitly and implicitly embedding them

into the language tasks to provide for contextualized strategy practice.

3. Method

The present study undertakes to examine if Strategy Based Instruction (SBI) can help Iranian non-English major Ph.D. students develop their English writing skills: Research Question 1: Can Strategy Based Instruction help Iranian Ph.D. students improve their writing skills? It also determines learners’ preferences of language learning strategies: Research Question 2: What are the LLSs that are most frequently used by Iranian Ph.D. students?

3.1. Participants

The participants in the study were 20 male and 10 female Ph.D. students of three different state universities doing an English writing course at a private-control language institute in Tabriz, Iran. The participants were studying chemistry, biology, physics, histology, and nutrition. The purpose of the course was developing writing skills for academic articles. They participated in the study as part of the course assessment in their respective course. The researcher was the teacher of that course. The participants’ ages ranged between 24 and 38, and the average age equaled 28. The native languageof the learners was Azerbaijani Turkish (70%), Kurdish (10%), and Persian (20%). The native speakers of Azerbaijani and Kurdish used Persian as their second language and English was the foreign language of language of all participants.

3.2. Procedure

3.2.1. Procedure for Phase I

In order to find an answer to the first research question, a longitudinal study was conducted in which a Strategy Based Instruction (SBI) Program was employed. The aim was to compare the final scores of the participants before SBI training and the final scores of the same

Iranian EFL Journal 79

participants after SBI training. The framework developed by Cohen and Weaver (2006: 4-5) was adopted in which six categories of strategies were included:

- memory (eg. I use flashcards to remember new English words);

- cognitive (eg. I make summaries of information that I hear or read in English);

- compensation (eg. If I cannot think of an English word, I use a word or phrase of a word

that means the same thing);

- metacognitive (eg. I plan my schedule);

- affective (eg. I encourage myself); and

- social. (eg. I practice English with other learners)

Five procedures were followed:

1. Strategy Preparation: A brief explanation of each  strategy was provided. Also, the participants were encouraged to express their own experiences of that strategy.

2. Strategy Awareness-Raising: Different kinds of strategies and their potential benefits were explained. The explanation was accompanied by PowerPoint presentation.

3. Strategy Instruction: In addition, a handout including a list of examples of strategies was given to the participants. Also each strategy was modeled by the teacher to clarify strategy use.

4. Strategy Practice: The participants were provided with an opportunity to experience language learning strategy use. The course material included many examples of strategy use which were practiced throughout the term.

5. Personalization of Strategies: This step involved asking the learners to fill out a short questionnaire to specify their favorite languagelearning/use strategies and their attitudes towards their effectiveness.

3.2.2. Procedure for Phase II

In order to measure strategy use, Oxford’s (1990) Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) was used in the second phase of the study. The SILL was devised by Oxford (1990) as an instrument for assessing the frequency of use of language learning strategies by learners. There are two versions: one for native speakers of English (80 items) and another for learners of English as a second or foreign language (50 items). The SILL is one of the most useful manuals of learner strategy assessment tool currently available. The SILL appears to be the only language learning strategy instrument that has been checked for reliability and validated in multiple ways (Oxford and Burry-Stock, 1995). Many previous measures were not adopted for many studies because they lacked reliability and validity data.

Iranian EFL Journal 80

The SILL uses a 5 Likert-scale for which the learners are asked to indicate their response to a strategy description:

1. Never or almost never true of me

2. Usually not true of me

3. Somewhat true of me

4. Usually true of me

5. Always or almost always true of me (Oxford, 1990: 293)

The version of the SILL used in this study is a 50 item instrument that is grouped into two main groups, direct strategies and indirect strategies, which are further subdivided into 6 groups. Oxford’s (1990) taxonomy of language strategies is shown in the following: Direct strategiesare classified into: Memory strategies(9 items) are used for entering new information into memory storage and for retrieving it when  need for communication. (e.g., grouping, representing sounds in memory, structured reviewing, using physical response).  Cognitive strategies(14 items) are used for linking new information with existing schemata and for analyzing and classifying it. Cognitive strategies are responsible for deep processing, forming and revising internal mental models and receiving and producing messages in the target language (e.g., repeating, getting the idea quickly, analyzing and taking notes). Compensation strategies(6 items) include such strategies as guessing and using gestures. Such strategies are needed to fill any gaps in the knowledge of the language. (e.g., switching to the mother tongue, using other clues, getting help and using a synonym). On the other hand, indirect strategies are divided into Metacognitive, Affective and Social: Metacognitive strategies(9 items) are techniques used for organizing, planning, focusing and evaluating one’s own learning. (e.g., linking new information with already known one, seeking practice opportunities, and self-monitoring). Affective strategies(6 items) are used for handling feelings, attitudes and motivations. (e.g., lowering anxiety by use of music, encouraging oneself and discussing feelings with others). Social strategies(6 items) are used for facilitating interaction by asking questions, and cooperating with others in the learning process, (eg. Asking for classification, cooperating with others and developing cultural understanding).

Iranian EFL Journal 81

The questionnaire was translated into Persian by the researcher herself and checked by two translation instructor taking into consideration that the items retained their essential meaning and that the translation was easilyunderstood. Oxford and Burry-Stock (1995:6) report ‘very acceptable reliabilities’ for the English version of the inventory. Its Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficients which are a measure of internal consistency, range from 0.89 to 0.98 (Oxford and Burry-Stock (1995:4). According to Oxford and Burry-Stock (1995:10), validity evidence, the degree to which an instrument measures what it claims to measure, has also been examined via a wide assortments of studies. The participants were asked to self-report the frequency of their strategy use for the fifty items of the inventory.

4. Results

4.1. Results of Phase I

The grading system which assigned identical rating scale was employed by the researcher for assessment in all cases, awarding scores for content, coherence, and mechanics, thus ensuring intra-rater consistency and reliability. Content was evaluated on organization, thesis statement, topic sentences, and conclusion. Coherence was assessed on the clarity and understandability of the writing. Any irrelevantsentences which did not support the topic sentence were marked accordingly. For scoring mechanics punctuation, spelling, and grammar were taken into account. At the end of the term, Pre-SBI scores were compared to Post-SBI scores. As Table 1 shows, it was revealed that the Post-SBI scores of the participants were higher than their Pre-SBI scores.

Results of Phase II

Table 3 presents rank ordering of the strategiesaccording to their frequency of usage. The means and percentages in Table 3 show that Metacognitive strategies have the highest mean (3.98) which indicates a high use of Metacognitive strategies followed by Affective, Social, Cognitive and Memory, while Compensation strategies ranked the lowest mean (3.15). It was also found that one of the six strategies groups(Metacognitive) falls in the high range, while the other 5 strategy groups fall in the medium range.

5. Discussion, Conclusion and Implications

The results of the study show that if the learnersare aware of the array of strategies they can use, they can learn to select the appropriate strategies that can help them in writing. The use of strategies practiced repeatedly throughout the term could be observed in Post-SBI test. For

Iranian EFL Journal 83

example, after SBI training, the participants began to use notes to organize before they write. This would help them to avoid irrelevant sentences in their writings. This would, in turn, lead to a more coherent writing. An investigation of the Post-SBI writings shows that the participants utilized the strategies practiced inSBI program to improve their writings in terms of organization, coherence, and mechanics. The greatest improvement was in the area of mechanics. Compensation strategies were employed frequently. Thus, the learners’ improvement in writing at the end of the term canbe attributed to the SBI program. In other words, the empirical evidence in this longitudinal study reveals that regarding the research question put forward, SBI can help learners improve their writing abilities in an EFL context. Language courses designed for postgraduate students can seek to provide strategy training in writing. This can be carried out as English writing course syllabus for Ph.D. students or as a component of the English courses syllabuses which are currently practiced. In either cases, LLSs can be systematically integrated with the writing materials. As Cohen (2003) puts it out, at the first stage, learners’ needs for improving a particular skill and also the resources available for teaching that skill should be identified. After deciding what strategies need to be taught, developed, and enhanced, materials, course materials should be prepared in such a way that they include exercises on LLSs. Ample opportunities need to be provided and a conductive environment should be created for the learners to practice using the strategies taught. This practice should be followed by constant evaluation and revision of the course materials. According to Carrell (1989: 129), effective teaching must include not only training and practice in the use of ‘task-specific strategies, instruction, overseeing, and monitoring these skills (ie, self-regulation training)’, but more importantly, ‘information about the significance and outcome of these skills and the range of their utility (ie, awareness-raising)’. A close examination of the results of thisstudy reveals that the participants’ learning strategy use as measured by the SILL ranges from high (81.4) to medium (61.8), with Metacognitive strategies used more frequently. Metacognitive strategies involve exercising “executive control” over one’s language learning through planning, monitoring, and evaluating. They are techniques that are used for organizing, planning, focusing and evaluating one’s learning. In general, these strategies help learners to gain control over their emotions and motivations related to languagelearning through self-monitoring. The high use of Metacognitive strategies among Iranian EFL learners is similar to that observed among students from Asian countries like Japan, China,Korea and Taiwan as reported in some of the studies on Asian students (e.g., Sheorey, 1998; Oxford et al., 1990).

Iranian EFL Journal 84

Compensation strategies, which ranked the lowest (3.15), are strategies that enable students to make up for missing knowledge in the process of comprehending or producing the target language. However, the students were reluctant to use Compensation strategies, e.g. they did not use gestures when they had difficulty producing the language, and they didn’t make up new words when they did not know the right ones. The most important implication of this study is the need to provide students with further opportunities to use LLSs more frequently since the overall strategy use by the subjects under study falls in the medium range. The less frequent strategies in this study (Cognitive, Memory and Compensation) can form the core of a program of classroom strategy instruction. O’Malley and Chamot  introduce the following steps to strategy instruction: the teacher first identifies or shows students for their currentlanguage strategies, explains the rationale and application for using additional learning strategies, provides opportunities and materials for practice, and evaluate or assist students to evaluate their degree of success with new learning strategies.(1990, pp. 157-59) The teacher’s role in strategy training isan important one. The teacher should learn about the students, their interest, motivations, and learning styles. The teacher can learn what language learning strategies his/her students appear to be using by observing their behavior in class: Do they cooperate with their peers or seem to have much contact outside of class with proficient foreign language users? Do they ask for clarification, verification or correction? Besides observing their behavior in class, the teacher can have adequate knowledge about the students, their goals, motivations, language learning strategies, and their understanding of the course to be taught. It is a fact that each learner within the same classroom may have different learning styles and varied awareness of the use of strategies. The language teacher should provide a wide range of learning strategies in order to fulfill different learning styles that meet the needs and expectations of his students who possessing different learning styles, motivations, strategy preferences, etc. As in all classroom studies, the researcher was confronted with the inevitable limitation related to the sample size as the sample size for this study was not large, and thus, as always, further research is needed to makestronger generalizations. In order to enable better accumulation of knowledge in this research domain, sufficient numbers of studies in which variable like participant factors are taken into account, are needed. Moreover, the study can be conducted in settings different from that of this study. Hopefully, the issues raised and discussed in this work have offered insights for improved research practices. Replication

Iranian EFL Journal 85

Studies are obviously advisable in order topermit greater confidence in the results.Replication of the study across different proficiency levels and investigating the contribution of individual differences to the way SBI training influences different language skills are suggested. Also, more action research is required to provide more empirical data suggesting how teaching LLSs can contribute to the development of language skills other than writing. Longitudinal studies can be conducted to investigate the impact of factors such as motivation, proficiency level, gender, learning style, and learning context (ESL vs. EFL) in learning, selection, and use of LLSs in developing writing skills in Iranian EFL context.

References

Carrell, P. L. (1989). Metacognitive awareness and second language reading. Modern Language Journal, 73, 121-134.

Chamot, A., & O’Malley, (1994). The CALLA handbook: Implementing the cognitive academic

language learning approach. In A. Cohen (Ed.), Strategy Training for Second Language

Learners.Center for Advanced Research on LanguageAcquisition, University of Minnesota,

Minneapolis, MN (ERIC Documentation Reproduction Services No. EDO-FL-03-02) (pp. 1-2), Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Cohen, A. (1998). Strategies in Learning and Using a Second Language. New York: Addison Wesley Longman,.

Cohen, A. (2000). Strategies in Learning and Using a Second Language. Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.

Cohen, A. (2003). Strategy training for second language learners. Center for Advanced Research on Language acquisition,University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN (ERIC Documentation Reproduction Services, No., EDO_FL-03-02), (pp. 1-25), Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Cohen. A., & Weaver, S. (1998). Strategies-based instruction for second language learners. In W A., Renandya, and G.M., Jacobs (Eds.), Learners and Language Learning, Anthology Series 39,(pp. 1-25), Singapore: SAMEO Regional Language Center.

Cohen, A., & Weaver, S. (2006). Styles- and Strategies-Based Instruction: A teacher’s guide.Center for Advanced Research on Language acquisition. University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN.

Dickinson, L. (198 7). Self-instruction in language learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ehrman, M., and Oxford, R. (1990). Adult language learning styles and strategies in an intensive training setting. Modern Language Journal, 74, 311-327. Iranian EFL Journal 86

Grenfell, M., and Harris, V. (1999). Modern languages and learning strategies: In theory and practice. In C., Griffiths (Ed.),Lessons from good language learners. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Griffiths , C. (2003). Patterns of Language Learning Strategy Use. System, 31, 367-3 83.

Li, Y., and Liu, Y. (2008). The impact of strategies-based instruction on listening comprehension. English Language Teaching, 1/2: 128-134.

McMullen, M. (2009). Using language learning strategies to improve the writing skills off Saudi EFL students: Will it really work? System, 37, 418-433.

Nyikos, M. (1991). Prioritizing student learning: A guide for teachers. In L., Strasheim (Ed.), Focus on the foreign language learner: Priorities and strategies. National Textbook, Lincolnwood, IL.

O’Malley, J. M., Chamot, A. U., Stewner-Manzanares, G., Russo, R., & Küpper, L. (1985). Learning strategy applications with students of English as a second language. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 557-584.

Oxford, R.L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. Boston: Heinle and Heinle Publishers. Oxford, R, L., (1994). Language learning strategies: An updated. Eric Clearinghouse on Language and Linguistics (online).

Oxford, R. & Burry-Stock, Judith A. (1995). Assessing the use of language learning strategies worldwide with the ESL/EFL version of the strategy inventory for language learning (SILL). University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL, USA.

Oxford, R., Crookall, D. Cohen, A., Lavine, R., Nyikos, M., and Sutter, W. (1990). Strategy training for language learners: Six situational case studies and a training model. Foreign Language Annals, 22, 197-216.

Pearson, P. and Dole, A. (1987). Explicit comprehension instruction: A review of research and a new conceptualization of learning. Elementary School Journal, 88, 151-165. Sheorey, R., (1998). The state of English and English language teaching in India. TESOL Matters,8 (4), 1, 19.

Skehan, P. (1989). Individual differences in second language learning. In J., Green, and R., Oxford (Eds.), A closer look at learning strategies, L2 proficiency and gender. TESOL Quarterly, 9(2), 261-297.

Weiying, W. (2000). Using learning strategies todevelop listening comprehension: A case study. Teaching English in China, 23/1: 42-45.

http://www.Iranian-efl-journal.com

Iranian.efljournal@yahoo.com