Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Learning Strategy Training and the Shift in Learners’ Beliefs About Language Learning: A Reading Comprehension Context

Learning Strategy Training and the Shift in Learners’ Beliefs About Language Learning: A Reading... This study examines the impact of teaching learning strategies on learners’ beliefs about language learning and reading comprehension ability. Participants were 78 university freshmen studying English language teaching, translation, and literature. They were divided into two groups. The experimental group received a number of learning strategies adopted and adapted by the researchers, including concept-mapping, vocabulary notebook, passage restatement, dictionary use, summary writing, and guessing. The treatment was carried out 4 hr a week for 15 consecutive weeks. The Language Learners’ Beliefs Scale, developed and validated by Birjandi and Mohammadi, and the reading comprehension section of Cambridge Preliminary English Test (PET) were administered before and after the treatment to identify the students’ shifts in beliefs about language learning and to measure reading comprehension ability, respectively. The results of independent t test indicated that the instruction of learning strategies changed the university students’ beliefs about language learning. Furthermore, learning strategy instruction could boost their reading comprehension ability. Keywords learning strategy training, beliefs about language leaning, learners’ beliefs, LLBS, reading comprehension these studies indicating that good language learners have Introduction “insight into the nature of the task [of learning]” (p. 2). The ultimate goal of educational systems is to instill in their Hosenfeld (1978) also referred to “mini-theories” of second learners the basic skills to achieve success, to culture the language learning that forms the way learners learn language. learners’ mind, to develop active, critical, cognitive skills, These theories are the beliefs learners hold and can be regarded and to make the learners who strive for excellence for them- as a variable, because they can vary from learner to learner. selves and others. In fact, in these systems, the sole purpose Much of the research since then has been concerned with pro- of a teacher, as Kreis (2004) asserted, is not to impart knowl- viding new classification for the learners’ beliefs. edge to his or her students, but to shape their beliefs so that Administering Beliefs About Language Learning they are regarded as the extension of themselves. However, Inventory (BALLI), Horwitz (1987) suggested five general how can a teacher shape and reshape the learners’ mentality? areas of beliefs: (a) the difficulty of language learning, (b) Students attend the class with a wide range of knowledge, aptitude for language learning, (c) the nature of language socio-cultural background, educational experiences, and per- learning, (d) learning and communication strategies, and (e) sonal attitudes toward English language learning. This signi- motivation and expectations. Wenden (1986, 1987) also fies the importance of studying learners’ belief about identified a classification of beliefs with three categories: (a) language learning and the ways to enrich it. use of language, (b) beliefs relating to learning about the lan- Since the 1970s, when cognitive approach to language guage, and (c) the importance of personal factors. learning became prevalent, learners were seen more actively involved in the process of language learning. A line of research Department of English, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad dealt with good language learners pioneered by Rubin (1975) University, Tehran, Iran and Naiman, Frohlich, Stern, and Todesco (1996/1978). They Corresponding Author: identified a set of strategies that facilitate their learning. The Mojtaba Mohammadi, Department of English, Faculty of Language and results of these studies and many others were underlining the Literature, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, learners’ personal beliefs they held as their experience in the Iran. process of language learning. Omaggio (1978) summarized Email: m.mohammadi@riau.ac.ir This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License Creative Commons CC BY: (http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access page (http://www.uk.sagepub.com/aboutus/openaccess.htm). 2 SAGE Open Benson and Lor (1999) also distinguished two different she identified three general categories of self-directing learn- categories: higher order conceptions and lower order beliefs. ing strategies: (a) knowing about language, (b) planning, and They defined conceptions as “concerned with what the (c) self-evaluation. Rubin (1987) suggested that there are learner thinks the objects and processes of learning are,” three kinds of strategies that contribute directly or indirectly whereas beliefs are “what the learner holds to be true about to language learning: learning strategies, communication these objects and processes” (p. 464). strategies, and social strategies. O’Malley and Chamot Ellis (2004) divided the construct into two general levels: (1990) proposed a framework in which three major types of higher order conceptions (epistemology) and lower order learning strategies are classified: metacognitive, cognitive, beliefs. A number of studies, including Benson and Lor and social/affective. Metacognitive strategies are the ones (1999) and Tanaka (2004), have proposed that learners have that involve planning for learning, thinking about the learn- certain conceptions regarding what language is and how it is ing process as it is taking place, monitoring of one’s produc- learned. It contains three categories: quantitative/analytic, tion or comprehension, and evaluating learning after an qualitative/experiential, and self-efficacy/confidence. activity is completed. Cognitive strategies, according to Despite all these classifications, a point to consider is that O’Malley and Chamot (1990), “are more directly related to belief is culture-based in nature, and learners in any context individual learning tasks and entails direct manipulation or can have their own type of beliefs being shaped or reshaped transformation of learning materials” (p. 8), strategies such by means of a variety of sources. Learning strategy training as repetition, translation, grouping, deduction, contextualiza- can be a case in point. tion, and transfer. Social/affective strategies concern interac- tion with other learners and native speakers and management of the affective demands made by language learning such as Learning Strategy Training cooperation, question for clarification, and self-talks. In the past 40 years or so, the literature on language learning Oxford’s model of learning strategies is believed to be strategy research has witnessed a diversity of issues on its one of the most comprehensive classifications (Brown, 2007; path to reach the present status. Chamot (2004) introduced Ellis, 1994). In Oxford’s (1990) taxonomy, she distinguished eight such issues extracted from the literature of leaning between direct and indirect strategies. The former consist of strategy in the literature. The first issue to discuss here is the “strategies that directly involve the target language . . . [in a identification of language learning strategies. A substantial way that] require mental processing of the language” (p. 37). body of literature is devoted to defining what learning strat- The latter, however, “provide indirect support for language egy is and identifying these unobservable mental learning learning through focusing, planning, evaluating seeking strategies. In English as a foreign language (EFL) context, opportunities, controlling anxiety, increasing cooperation Richards and Schmidt (2010) simply defined learning strate- and empathy and other means” (p. 151). The strategies under gies as “the ways in which learners attempt to work out the the first category (direct), according to Oxford, are memory meanings and uses of words, grammatical rules, and other strategies, cognitive strategies, and compensation strategies. aspects of the language they are learning” (p. 331). In Stern’s Memory strategies, also called mnemonics, “enables learners (1983) view, strategy is “best reserved for general tendencies to store verbal material and then retrieve it when needed for or overall characteristics of the approach employed by the communication” (Oxford, 1990, p. 39). Cognitive strategies language learner, leaving techniques as the term to refer to vary a lot “ranging from repeating to analyzing expressions particular forms of observable learning behavior” (p. 236). to summarizing” (p. 43). Oxford (1990) identified four sets At the same time, Rubin (1987) asserted that learning strate- of cognitive strategies: “1) Practicing, 2) Receiving and gies are “strategies which contribute to the development of sending messages, 3) Analyzing and reasoning, and 4) the language system which the learner constructs and affect Creating structure for input and output” (p. 17). Compensation learning directly” (p. 15). In her article, Oxford (1989) strategies, according to Oxford (1990), “enable learners to referred to language learning strategies as “behaviors or use the new language for either comprehension or production actions which learners use to make language learning more despite limitations in knowledge” (p. 47). The second cate- successful, self-directed and enjoyable” (p. 235). Anderson gory (indirect) includes “actions which go beyond purely (2005) defined strategies as “the conscious actions that learn- cognitive devices, and which provide a way for learners to ers take to improve their language learning” (p. 757). coordinate their own learning process” (p. 136). According to Chamot (2005), learning strategies are “proce- Stern (1992), furthermore, summarized and reclassified dures that facilitate a learning task. Strategies are most often his classification of 10 strategies, offered in Stern (1983), conscious and goal-driven, especially in the beginning stages into 5 main language learning strategies: (a) management of tackling an unfamiliar language task” (p. 112). and planning strategies, (b) cognitive strategies, (c) commu- When the concept of learning strategy was investigated nicative–experiential strategies, (d) interpersonal strategies, and defined, it was time to devise some classifications and (e) affective strategies. according to the conceptualization of the term learning strat- Another line of research in language learning strategy is the egy. There are almost dozens of second language learning relationship between learning strategy and the learner vari- strategy classifications. In Wenden’s (1983) classification, ables such as gender and level of language proficiency. Several Mohammadi et al. 3 works were carried out to underline the role of gender (El-Dib, Table 1. Total Variance Explained. 2004; Kaylani, 1996; Oxford, Park-Oh, Ito, & Sumrall, 1993; Factors Eigenvalue % of variance Cumulative % Vandergrift, 1997; Wharton, 2000); however, as Chamot (2004) asserted, we cannot certainly confirm any role for gen- 1 4.85 14.616 14.61 2 2.19 6.675 21.27 der in learning strategy use. As for proficiency level, the results 3 1.82 5.531 26.80 tend to be convergent. The majority of the studies (Anderson, 4 1.67 5.068 31.87 2005; Bruen, 2001; Chamot & El-Dinary, 1999; Green & 5 1.53 4.657 36.52 Oxford, 1995; Mohammadi, 2009; O’Malley & Chamot, 1990; Wharton, 2000) revealed that students with more com- mand of English are skillful users of learning strategies. Method The next line in the language learning strategy research is the fact that learning strategy use is culture- and context- Participants specific. The results of some studies underlined that the adoption of strategies may vary among the learners in differ- The population of the study included all the students studying ent learning contexts and with various cultural values English language at the faculty of Persian literature and foreign (Keatley, Chamot, Spokane, & Greenstreet, 2004; Olivares- languages in Islamic Azad University, Roudehen Branch in Cuhat, 2002; Wharton, 2000). Tehran. Out of them, two intact classes with a total of 92 stu- One more research area in the literature of language learn- dents were selected from among the freshman students who had ing strategy is the explicit instruction of strategy within such been admitted to the faculty using cluster random sampling. The frameworks as Strategy-Based Instruction or Learning freshman students were selected because their beliefs about lan- Strategy Training. Many scholars unanimously agree on the guage learning were all shaped in their school period, and the usefulness of explicit instruction of strategy (Anderson, change could be more significant. They were both male (n = 23) 2005; Butler, 1997; Chamot, Barnhardt, El-Dinary, & and female (n = 55). To homogenize the students, a proficiency Robbins, 1999; Cohen, 1998; Goh & Taib, 2006; Lam, 2009; test (Test of English as a Foreign Language [TOEFL]) was Nguyen & Gu, 2013; Nunan, 1997; O’Malley & Chamot, administered to all of them. For the sake of practicality, only the 1990; Oxford & Leaver, 1996; Rubin & McCoy, 2008; Shen, reading comprehension and structure sections were adminis- 2003). However, the integration or separation of strategy tered. Based on the results, those at the extreme ends, standing training from other learning tasks is a source of contention. at the point more than one standard deviation below and above Some argue for the integration of them (Chamot et al., 1999; the mean, were crossed out of the study. They were totally 78 Chamot & O’Malley, 1994; Cohen, 1998; Grenfell & Harris, students majoring in English language teaching, English lan- 1999; Nunan, 1997; Oxford & Leaver, 1996), whereas others guage translation, and English language literature ranging are for their separation (Gu, 1996; Vance, 1999; Weinstein & between 19 and 31 years old with the mean index of 21. Mayer, 1986). Rubin, Chamot, Harris, and Anderson (2007) also introduced four core features of a strategy-based instruc- Instrument tion model: (a) awareness raising, (b) presentation and mod- eling, (c) providing multiple practice opportunities, and (d) The research instrument in this study was Language Learners’ evaluating the effectiveness of strategies and transferring Beliefs Scale (LLBS; see the appendix) designed by Birjandi them to new tasks. and Mohammadi (2014), which has 32 items. To estimate the There are some other research lines in the literature of reliability of the measure, as reported by Birjandi and learning strategy such as the role of the language of instruc- Mohammadi, the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was calcu- tion in teaching learning strategies and the transfer of strate- lated among a group of 328 university students, which came gies to new tasks or to the rest of their education, which are to be .78. To investigate the construct validity, they subjected recently taken care of. the 32-item LLBS to principal components analysis (PCA) A closer look at the above discussions implies that learn- using SPSS Version 16. The Kaiser–Meyer–Oklin (KMO) ing strategies are not just an affective factor but a cognitive measure of sampling adequacy was 0.74, and Bartlett’s test factor as well, which are affected by cultural, social, and situ- of sphericity had reached statistical significance supporting ational contexts of use. This study aimed to investigate the the factorability of the correlation matrix. The results of five- answer to the following questions: factor solution (Table 1) revealed a total of 36.52% of the variance, with Components 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 contributing Research Question 1: Does teaching language learning 14.61%, 6.67%, 5.53%, 5.06%, and 4.65%, respectively. strategies have any significant effect on the beliefs of The underlying constructs that were considered in the scale Iranian EFL learners? were Mediatory beliefs (seven items), Self-beliefs (eight items), Research Question 2: Does teaching language learning Attributive beliefs (six items), Traditional beliefs (six items), strategies have any significant effect on the reading com- and Epistemological beliefs (five items). Self-beliefs referred to prehension ability of the Iranian EFL learners? the beliefs about self-worth, self-concept, and self-efficacy, 4 SAGE Open whereas epistemological beliefs were designated to the beliefs Table 2. Normality Assumption for Pretest and Posttest of Beliefs. about the nature of knowledge of language and learning. n Skewness Kurtosis Attributive beliefs are beliefs about the causes of language learning, and mediatory beliefs are composed of beliefs about Class Statistic Statistic SE Ratio Statistic SE Ratio the role of mediators in language learning. Traditional beliefs Experimental also refer to all the learning beliefs that are deeply rooted in Pretest 40 −0.434 0.374 −1.16 −1.073 0.733 −1.46 the traditional English language learning/teaching methodol- Posttest 40 0.359 0.374 0.959 −0.932 0.733 −1.27 ogy. The answer to the items of the LLBS was supposed to be Control done on a 4-point Likert-type scale with 4 options for the Pretest 38 −0050 0.383 −0.130 −0.811 0.750 −1.08 responses as strongly disagree, disagree, agree, or strongly Posttest 38 0.095 0.383 −0.248 −1.360 0.750 −1.81 agree. For the ease of computation, the responses were numerically coded 1 to 4, respectively. The reading comprehension section of Cambridge Table 3. Descriptive Statistics for Pretest of Beliefs by Groups. Preliminary English Test (PET) was also used as a pretest Group n M SD SE M and posttest to measure participants’ reading comprehension ability. It included 35 items in five different parts adminis- Experimental 40 13.90 2.016 0.318 Control 38 13.94 1.891 0.306 tered in Sessions 1 and 16. points of view or from the character’s point of view and the Procedure other by restricting them to use limited number of vocabulary Having homogenized the students and deselected those at both to restate the text. It also contained the story reproduction using extremes in the proficiency test, the researcher had two classes certain given keywords. The students were also taught the of control (n = 38) and experimental (n = 40) groups. LLBS and proper use of monolingual dictionary and kept practicing it in reading comprehension test, as pretests, were administered to class. In summary writing strategy, to enhance their memory of both classes to identify their beliefs about language learning and the main ideas, students were asked to write the summary of their reading comprehension ability prior to the treatment. Both their reading passages (at most one to three paragraphs) and of the classes were taught by one of the researchers so that the their story readings at home (more than five paragraphs). In impact of the teacher’s cognition, bias, teaching methods, and guessing strategy, they worked on the meaning of the keywords styles was nullified. The university syllabus for the course in the passage and were encouraged to do the postreading activ- required the course book called Active Skills for Reading Book ities guessing the other words through context, word roots, pre- 3 (Anderson, 2008, 2nd ed.). It should be mentioned here that fixes, and suffixes. This way, their tolerance of ambiguity could although verifying strategy is one of the six basic assumptions be fostered. At the end of the semester (with a 15-week inter- of the book, the researchers decided to choose the course book val), the LLBS and reading comprehension test were adminis- for two reasons: One is that what is claimed by the study is the tered again to check the probable changes in learners’ beliefs explicit instruction of learning strategies while it is not directly about language learning and reading comprehension abilities. claimed by the series’ author. Second, the researchers’ years of experience revealed that the explicit teaching of learning strate- Data Analysis and Discussion gies is not a common practice of the teachers in the classes of this type. In the experimental class, in addition to their class- To answer the research questions, the data from the adminis- room syllabus, the students were presented a set of strategies. trations of LLBS to both experimental and control groups Because the classes were both “Reading Comprehension,” most were collected as the pretest and posttest. Independent- of the learning strategies presented in the experimental class samples t tests were run to compare the experimental and were in one way or another related to it and the related skills and control groups’ means on the pretest and posttest of beliefs. subskills. The researchers adopted and adapted a number of Before discussing the results, it should be mentioned that the learning strategies for the experimental class, including con- assumption of normality—a prerequisite to independent- cept-mapping, vocabulary notebook, passage restatement, dic- samples t test—was met (Table 2). The ratios of skewness tionary use, summary writing, and guessing. and kurtosis over their respective standard errors were In concept-mapping strategy, students were required to “within the ranges of ± 1.96” (Field, 2009). identify important concepts in their passages and relate those The assumption of homogeneity of variance will be discussed concepts to each other. Students were also asked to prepare a when reporting the results of the independent-samples t test. vocabulary notebook for any new words they encountered in The data on pretests were, then, analyzed. Independent t lessons along with their synonyms and antonyms, collocations, test was run to compare the experimental and control groups’ roots, and derivations. In passage restatement strategy, they mean scores on pretest of beliefs to prove that the two groups were supposed to restate the reading passage or the stories held the same beliefs prior to the main study. As displayed in assigned to them for their classmates. This strategy had two Table 3, the mean scores for experimental and control groups different versions: one by restating the story from different on pretest of beliefs were 13.90 and 13.94, respectively. Mohammadi et al. 5 Table 4. Independent t Test for Pretest of Beliefs by Groups. Levene’s test for equality of variances t test for equality of M 95% confidence interval of the difference Significance SE F Significance T df (two-tailed) M difference difference Lower Upper Equal variances assumed 0.41 0.52 0.107 76 0.915 0.047 0.443 −0.835 0.930 Equal variances not assumed 0.107 75.9 0.915 0.047 0.442 −0.834 0.928 for experimental and control groups on posttest of beliefs were 15.80 and 14.54, respectively. The results of the independent t test, t(76) = 2.73, p < .05, 20.00 and the effect size, r = .29, representing an almost moderate 18.50 17.00 effect size according to Field (2009), indicate that there was 15.50 a significant but moderate difference between experimental 14.00 and control groups’ mean scores on the posttest. Thus, it can 12.50 be concluded the null hypothesis as teaching language learn- 11.00 ing strategies does not have any significant effect on the 9.50 beliefs Iranian EFL learners possess is rejected although the 8.00 6.50 results should be interpreted cautiously due to the moderate 5.00 effect size value of the t statistic. ExperimentalControl Series1 It should be noted that the assumption of homogeneity of 13.90 13.94 variances was met (Levene’s F = 2, p = .161 > .05). That is why the first row of Table 6, that is, “Equal variances Figure 1. Pretest of beliefs by groups. assumed” was reported. Figure 2 represents the heterogene- ity of posttest for both groups. To answer the second research question, the data on read- Table 5. Descriptive Statistics for Posttest of Beliefs by Groups. ing comprehension pretests were analyzed. Independent t Group n M SD SE M test was run to compare the experimental and control groups’ mean scores on pretest of reading comprehension to prove Experimental 40 15.80 1.937 0.306 that the two groups held the same ability prior to the main Control 38 14.54 2.179 0.353 study. As displayed in Table 7, the mean scores for experi- mental and control groups on pretest of reading comprehen- sion were 13.71 and 13.94, respectively. The results of the independent t test, t(76) = 0.107, p > An independent-samples t test was conducted to compare .05, and the effect size, r = .012, representing a weak effect the scores of reading comprehension pretests for control and size according to Field (2009), indicated that there was no experimental classes. The results showed that there was no significant difference between experimental and control significant difference in reading comprehension scores for groups’ mean scores on the pretest of beliefs. Thus, it can be control group (M = 13.94, SD = 1.89) and experimental concluded that the two groups enjoyed the same level of group (M = 13.71, SD = 2.23), t(78) = −0.5, p = .62, two- beliefs prior to the main study. tailed (Table 8). The magnitude of the differences in the It should be noted that the assumption of homogeneity of means, according to Cohen (1988), was very small (η = variances was met (Levene’s F = .413, p = .522 > .05). That .003). is why the first row of Table 4, that is, “Equal variances The data on reading comprehension posttests were also assumed,” was reported. Figure 1 represents the homogene- analyzed. Independent t test was run to compare the experi- ity of pretest for both groups. mental and control groups’ mean scores on posttest of read- Next, the posttests were analyzed. An independent t test ing comprehension to investigate the effect of teaching was run to compare the experimental and control groups’ language learning strategies on the students’ reading com- mean scores on posttest of beliefs to probe the effect of prehension ability. As displayed in Table 9, the mean scores teaching learning strategies on the shifts in their beliefs about for experimental and control groups on pretest of reading language learning. As displayed in Table 5, the mean scores comprehension were 15.8 and 14.35, respectively. 6 SAGE Open Table 6. Independent t Test Posttest of Beliefs by Groups. Levene’s test for equality of variances t test for equality of M 95% confidence interval of the difference Significance M SE F Significance T df (two-tailed) difference difference Lower Upper Equal variances assumed 2.01 0.161 2.70 76 0.008 1.261 0.466 0.332 2.189 Equal variances not assumed 2.69 73.9 0.009 1.261 0.468 0.328 2.193 language learning strategies could lead to familiarizing the learners with what the nature of language is and how it is learned. The instruction of learning strategies was integrated 20.00 with the linguistic content classroom tasks, and the results 18.50 were in line with those proposed by some scholars who argue 17.00 for their integration (Chamot et al., 1999; Chamot & 15.50 O’Malley, 1994; Cohen, 1998; Grenfell & Harris, 1999; 14.00 Nunan, 1997; Oxford & Leaver, 1996). The findings also 12.50 proved a shift in the learners’ beliefs about language learning 11.00 and endorsed the results of the study by Yang (1992) who 9.50 indicated that learning “strategies can cause beliefs as well” 8.00 (p. 148). 6.50 5.00 Experimental Control Conclusion and Implications Series1 15.8014.54 This study was an attempt to examine the effect of teaching learning strategies on learners’ beliefs about language learn- Figure 2. Posttest of beliefs by groups. ing and their reading comprehension ability. The findings of the study can be categorized into two parts: the effects of learning strategies on both changes in learners’ beliefs and Table 7. Descriptive Statistics for Pretest of Reading Comprehension by Groups. their dynamicity and their reading comprehension ability. The results of this study indicated that strategy-rich class- Group n M SD SE M rooms can enrich the students’ beliefs and develop their cog- Experimental 40 13.71 2.23 0.353 nition about language learning. There are two groups of Control 38 13.94 1.89 0.306 studies in the literature adopting language learning beliefs and language learning strategies as the major variable. The first group examined the effects of learning beliefs on stu- An independent-samples t test was conducted to compare dents’ language learning strategies (Abraham & Vann, 1987; the scores of reading comprehension posttests for control Elbaum, Berg, & Dodd, 1993; Riley, 1997; Yang, 1992) and and experimental classes. The results showed that there was unanimously agreed that language learning beliefs can influ- a significant difference in reading comprehension scores for ence learning strategy use. The second group has examined control group (M = 14.3, SD = 2.34) and experimental group the relationship between beliefs about language learning and (M = 15.8, SD = 1.93), t(78) = 2.97, p = .004, two-tailed learning strategy use (Abedini, Rahimi, & Zare-ee, 2011; (Table 10). The magnitude of the differences in the means, Chang & Shen, 2010; Li, 2010; Su, 1995; Yang, 1999; Yu, according to Cohen (1988), was very large (η = 0.1). 2007; Zare-ee, 2010). It means that this study can be a pio- The results of the present study, first and foremost, sup- neer work because, as mentioned above, there has been no port the usefulness of explicit instruction of strategy as such study in the literature as far as the researchers could already proposed by some scholars (Anderson, 2005; Butler, access. 1997; Chamot et al., 1999; Cohen, 1998; De Silva, 2014; The results of this study are also significant when the Goh & Taib, 2006; Gu, 2007; Nguyen & Gu, 2013; Nunan, learners’ beliefs have changed during a short term. The lit- 1997; O’Malley & Chamot, 1990; Oxford & Leaver, 1996; erature has witnessed two groups of studies in this respect: Rubin & McCoy, 2008; Shen, 2003). Change in the learners’ One is related to those which claim that belief is stable, beliefs about language learning as a result of teaching inflexible, and resistant to change that was once favorably Mohammadi et al. 7 Table 8. Independent t Test for Pretest of Reading Comprehension by Groups. Levene’s test for equality of variances t test for equality of M 95% confidence interval of the difference Significance M SE F Significance T df (two-tailed) difference difference Lower Upper Equal variances assumed 2.7 0.15 −0.499 76 0.619 −0.234 0.47 −1.17 0.702 Equal variances not −0.501 74.9 0.618 −0.234 0.468 −1.168 0.698 assumed Table 9. Descriptive Statistics for Posttest of Reading Comprehension by Groups. Group n M SD SE M Experimental 40 15.80 1.93 0.306 Control 38 15.35 2.34 0.379 Table 10. Independent t Test for Posttest of Reading Comprehension by Groups. Levene’s test for equality of variances t test for equality of M 95% confidence interval of the difference Significance M SE F Significance T df (two-tailed) difference difference Lower Upper Equal variances assumed 4.3 0.04 2.97 76 0.004 1.44 0.485 0.477 2.412 Equal variances not assumed 2.96 71.9 0.004 1.44 0.488 0.471 2.417 prevalent in many scientific studies (e.g., Almarza, 1996; suggestion for further studies. Furthermore, the future stud- Freeman, 1992; Guillaume & Rudney, 1993; Horwitz, 1987, ies can be on the investigation of macro-dynamicity of 1988; Johnson, 1996; Kennedy, 1991; Nettle, 1998; Su, beliefs about language learning rather than micro-dynamic- 1995; Tumposky, 1991; Yang, 1992). For them, education is ity, which was adopted by this study. believed to be ineffective in changing or influencing the The results of this study enjoy certain implications for the beliefs. The second group is related to those which concluded stakeholders in language education. Teachers are suggested that beliefs at micro-level (short time) are not changing and to equip students with the strategies for better learning along are very stable at the group level (e.g., Kern, 1995). The with the course content. This is helpful for the students not results of this study have no commonalities with those in only to be a “good language learner” but also to improve both of the above groups. However, it is in line with the their autonomy and self-efficacy. The message for the teach- results of a few studies that ended up with significant changes ers is that students’ beliefs can be shaped or reshaped if there in learners’ beliefs at 1-year intervals or shorter (Amuzie & are meditational tools such as strategies for language learn- Winke, 2009; Lim, Pagram, & Nastiti, 2009; Oh, 1996; ing. Syllabus designers are also recommended to include Sugiyama, 2003; Tanaka & Ellis, 2003). learning strategies within the syllabus. If these strategies are This study was conducted among university students with reinforced by the course books all through the syllabus, stu- more or less established beliefs about language learning. It dents’ beliefs are formed and reformed more systematically. can be carried out among language learners of different pro- Only this can revive the hope that an educational system is ficiency levels. Also, belief changes here were investigated stepping toward its ultimate goal, which is educating from an emic rather than etic perspective, which can be a students for the future. 8 SAGE Open Appendix Appendix (continued) Language Learners’ Beliefs Scale (LLBS) Dear participant, This questionnaire is designed to help the researcher gain 23 I think my friends in class can help me better understanding of your beliefs about language learning. a lot in language learning. There is no right or wrong response. Please indicate your 24 Speaking English with others in class present opinion about each of the statements by putting ✓ can improve my English. mark into the boxes. 25 Teacher’s feedback on my language Your time is appreciated ☺ learning helps me most. 26 The administrative staff affects my learning English. 27 Learning English is quite different from learning other subjects such as math or science. 1 I like my classmate(s) to tell me what 28 Learning English requires a special my faults are. ability. 2 I can learn a language if I like it. 29 Vocabulary is the most important 3 My own effort plays an important role part of language learning. in successful language learning. 30 Some languages are easier to learn 4 I have the ability to learn a language than others. successfully 31 Communication with the world is the 5 I think someday I can learn English major goal of learning English. very well. 32 Native teachers are better than non- 6 To understand English, I must native ones. translate it to Farsi. 7 Learning English is very difficult without teachers. Declaration of Conflicting Interests 8 Speaking with native speakers is more useful than non-native speakers. The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect 9 I study English in the same way as I to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. study other subjects. 10 Grammar is the most important part Funding of language learning. The author(s) received no financial support for the research and/or 11 My parents have a major role in my authorship of this article. learning English. 12 I have a clear idea of what I need References English for. Abedini, A., Rahimi, A., & Zare-ee, A. (2011). Relationship 13 Learning English is faster if I put between Iranian EFL learners’ beliefs about language learn- enough effort into it. ing, their language learning strategy use, and their language 14 Easy tasks and homework can help proficiency. Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences, 28, me learn better. 1029-1033. 15 I like to learn English to know the Abraham, R. G., & Vann, R. J. (1987). Strategies of two lan- culture of its people. guage learners: A case study. In A. L. Wenden & J. Rubin 16 The amount of practice plays a major (Eds.), Learner strategies in language learning (pp. 85-102). part in learning English. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. 17 Feedback on my learning from others Almarza, G. (1996). Student foreign language teacher’s knowl- in class is very helpful. edge growth. In D. Freeman & J. C. Richards (Eds.), Teacher 18 Learning English is mostly a matter of learning in language teaching (pp. 50-78). Cambridge, UK: good course books. Cambridge University Press. 19 Teachers can best help me learn Amuzie, G. L., & Winke, P. (2009). Changes in language learning English. beliefs as a result of study abroad. System, 37, 366-370. 20 Learning English is easier if I know Anderson, N. J. (2005). L2 learning strategies. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), another foreign language. Handbook of research in second language teaching and learn- 21 I am satisfied with my progress in ing (pp. 757-771). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. English. Anderson, N. J. (2008). Active skills for reading: Book 3 (2nd ed.). 22 I need the teacher to tell me how I Boston, MA: Heinle ELT. am progressing. Benson, P., & Lor, W. (1999). Conceptions of language and lan- (continued) guage learning. System, 27, 459-472. Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree Mohammadi et al. 9 Birjandi, P., & Mohammadi, M. (2014). The development and Green, J. M., & Oxford, R. (1995). A closer look at learning strate- validation of language learner beliefs scale in the Iranian EFL gies, L2 proficiency, and gender. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 261- context. The Journal of Language and Translation, 4(1), 1-9. 297. Brown, H. D. (2007). Principles of language learning and teaching Grenfell, M., & Harris, V. (1999). Modern languages and learn- (5th ed.). New York, NY: Pearson Education. ing strategies: In theory and practice. London, England: Bruen, J. (2001). Strategies for success: Profiling the effective Routledge. learner of German. Foreign Language Annals, 34, 216-225. Gu, P. Y. (1996). Robin Hood in SLA: What has the learning strat- Butler, D. L. (1997, April). The roles of goal setting and self-mon- egy researcher taught us? Asian Journal of English Language itoring in students’ self-regulated engagement in tasks. Paper Teaching, 6, 1-29. presented as part of a symposium on goal setting and moni- Gu, Y. (2007). Strategy-based instruction. In T. Yashima & T. toring coordinated by Dale Schunk and Barry Zimmerman Nabei (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Symposium on at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research English Education in Japan: Exploring New Frontiers (pp. 21- Association, Washington, DC. 38). Osaka, Japan: Yubunsha. Chamot, A. U. (2004). Issues in language learning strategy research Guillaume, A. M., & Rudney, G. L. (1993). Student teachers’ and teaching. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language growth towards independence: An analysis of their changing Teaching, 1, 14-26. concerns. Teaching and Teacher Education, 9, 65-80. Chamot, A. U. (2005). Language learning strategy instruc- Horwitz, E. K. (1987). Surveying student beliefs about language tion: Current issues and research. Annual Review of Applied learning. In A. Wenden & J. Rubin (Eds.), Learner strategies Linguistics, 25, 112-130. in language learning (pp. 119-129). London, England: Prentice Chamot, A. U., Barnhardt, S., El-Dinary, P. B., & Robbins, J. Hall. (1999). The learning strategies handbook. White Plains, NY: Horwitz, E. K. (1988). Beliefs about language learning of beginning Addison Wesley Longman. university foreign language students. The Modern Language Chamot, A. U., & El-Dinary, P. B. (1999). Children’s learning Journal, 72, 283-294. strategies in immersion classrooms. The Modern Language Hosenfeld, C. (1978). Learning about learning: Discovering our Journal, 83, 319-341. students’ strategies. Foreign Language Annals, 9, 117-129. Chamot, A. U., & O’Malley, J. M. (1994). The CALLA handbook: Johnson, K. E. (1996). The vision versus reality: The tensions of Implementing the cognitive academic language learning the TESOL practicum. In D. Freeman & J. C. Richards (Eds.), approach. White Plains, NY: Addison Wesley Longman. Teacher learning in language teaching (pp. 30-49). Cambridge, Chang, C. Y., & Shen, M. C. (2010). The effects of beliefs about UK: Cambridge University Press. language learning and learning strategy use of junior high Kaylani, C. (1996). The influence of gender and motivation on EFL school EFL learners in remote districts. Research in Higher learning strategy use in Jordan. In R. L. Oxford (Ed.), Language Education Journal, 8, 1-8. learning strategies around the world: Cross-cultural perspec- Cohen, A. D. (1998). Strategies in learning and using a second lan- tives (pp. 75-88). Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. guage. London, England: Longman. Keatley, C., Chamot, A. U., Spokane, A., & Greenstreet, S. (2004). Cohen, J. W. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral Learning strategies of students of Arabic. The Language sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum. Resource, 8(4). De Silva, R. (2014). Writing strategy training: Its impact on writ- Kennedy, M. (1991). A research agenda on teacher learning. ing in a second language for academic purposes. Language East Lansing, MI: National Centre for Research on Teacher Teaching Research, 18(3), 1-24. Learning. Elbaum, B., Berg, C. A., & Dodd, D. H. (1993). Previous learning Kern, G. (1995). Students’ and teachers’ beliefs about lan- experience, strategy beliefs, and task definition in self-regu- guage learning. Foreign Language Annals, 28, 71-92. lated foreign language learning. Contemporary Educational doi:10.1111/j.1944-9720.1995.tb00770.x Psychology, 18, 318-336. Kreis, J. (2004). Learner and instructor roles. Retrieved from El-Dib, M. A. B. (2004). Language learning strategies in Kuwait: http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/NLI0547C.pdf Links to gender, language level, and culture in a hybrid con- Lam, W. Y. K. (2009). Examining the effects of metacognitive text. Foreign Language Annals, 37, 85-95. strategy instruction on ESL group discussions: A synthesis of Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford, approaches. Language Teaching Research, 13, 129-150. UK: Oxford University Press. Li, F. (2010). Relationship between EFL learners’ belief and learn- Ellis, R. (2004). Individual differences in second language learn- ing strategy use by English majors in vocational college. ing. In A. Davies & C. Elder (Eds.), The handbook of applied Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 1, 858-866. linguistics (pp. 525-551). Oxford, UK: Blackwell. doi:10.4304/jltr.1.6. 858-866 Field, A. P. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS (3rd ed.). Lim, C. P., Pagram, J., & Nastiti, H. (2009). Professional devel- London, England: SAGE. opment goes east: Examining changes in teachers’ beliefs in Freeman, D. (1992). Language teacher education, emerging dis- four Indonesian schools. Proceedings of the 2nd International course, and change in classroom practice. In J. Flowerdew, M. Conference of Teaching and Learning (ICTL), INTI University Brock, & S. Hsia (Eds.), Perspectives on language teacher edu- College, Malaysia. cation (pp. 1-21). Hong Kong: Hong Kong City Polytechnic. Mohammadi, M. (2009). On the relationship between learning Goh, C., & Taib, Y. (2006). Metacognitive instruction in listening strategies and EFL learners’ level of proficiency. The Journal for young learners. ELT Journal, 60, 222-232. of Modern Thoughts in Education, 4(3), 103-116. 10 SAGE Open Naiman, N., Frohlich, M., Stern, M. M., & Todesco, A. (1978). Stern, H. H. (1983). Fundamental concepts of language teaching. The good language learner. Toronto, Canada: Ontario Institute Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. for Studies in Education. (Reprinted in 1996 by Multilingual Stern, H. H. (1992). Issues and options in language teaching. Matters, Clevedon, UK) Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Nettle, E. B. (1998). Stability and change in the beliefs of stu- Su, D. (1995). A study of English learning strategies and styles of dent teachers during practice teaching. Teaching and Teacher Chinese university students in relation to their cultural beliefs Education, 14, 193-204. and beliefs about learning English (Unpublished doctoral dis- Nguyen, L. T. C., & Gu, Y. (2013). Strategy-based instruction: sertation). University of Georgia, Athens. A learner-focused approach to developing learner autonomy. Sugiyama, A. (2003). Beliefs and reality: How educational experi- Language Teaching Research, 17, 9-30. ences in the United States affect teaching practices of Japanese Nunan, D. (1997). Does learner strategy training make a difference? EFL teachers (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). State Lenguas Modernas, 24, 123-142. University of New York at Buffalo. Oh, M. T. (1996). Beliefs about language learning and foreign lan- Tanaka, K. (2004). Changes in Japanese students’ beliefs about guage anxiety: A study of American university students learn- language learning and English language proficiency in a ing Japanese (Doctoral dissertation, University of Texas at study-abroad context (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Austin, UMI). (Dissertation Services UMI No. 9705927). University of Auckland, New Zealand. Olivares-Cuhat, G. (2002). Learning strategies and achievement Tanaka, K., & Ellis, R. (2003). Study-abroad, language proficiency, in the Spanish writing classroom: A case study. Foreign and learner beliefs about language learning. JALT Journal, Language Annals, 35, 561-570. 25(1), 63-83. Omaggio, A. C. (1978, May). Successful language learners: What Tumposky, N. (1991). Student beliefs about language learning: A do we know about them? ERIC/CLL News Bulletin, pp. 2-3. cross-cultural study. Carleton Papers in Applied Language O’Malley, J. M., & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning strategies Studies, 8, 50-65. in second language acquisition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Vance, S. J. (1999). Language learning strategies: Is there a best University Press. way to teach them? (ERIC Document Reproduction Service Oxford, R. L. (1989). Use of language learning strategies: A syn- ED 438-716; FL 026–146) thesis of studies with implications for strategy training. System, Vandergrift, L. (1997). The comprehension strategies of second 17, 235-247. language (French) listeners: A descriptive study. Foreign Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every Language Annals, 30, 387-409. teacher should know. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle. Weinstein, C. E., & Mayer, R. E. (1986). The teaching of learning Oxford, R. L., & Leaver, B. L. (1996). A synthesis of strategy instruc- strategies. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on tion for language learners. In R. L. Oxford (Ed.), Language teaching (3rd ed., pp. 315-327). New York, NY: Macmillan. learning strategies around the world: Cross-cultural perspec- Wenden, A. (1983). A literature review: The process of interven- tives (pp. 227-246). Manoa: University of Hawaii Press. tion. Language Learning, 33, 103-121. Oxford, R. L., Park-Oh, Y., Ito, S., & Sumrall, M. (1993). Japanese Wenden, A. (1986). What do second-language learners know about by satellite: Effects of motivation, language learning styles and their language learning? Applied Linguistics, 7, 186-205. strategies, gender, course level, and previous language learn- Wenden, A. (1987). How to be a successful language learner: ing experiences on Japanese language achievement. Foreign Insights and prescriptions from L2 learners. In A. Wenden & Language Annals, 26, 359-371. J. Rubin (Eds.), Learner strategies in language learning (pp. Richards, J.C., & Schmidt, R. (2010). Longman dictionary of 103-117). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. language teaching and applied linguistics. (4th ed.). Harlow, Wharton, G. (2000). Language learning strategy use of bilingual England: Longman. foreign language learners in Singapore. Language Learning, Riley, P. (1997). The guru and the conjurer: Aspects of counseling 50, 203-244. for self-access. In P. Benson & P. Voller (Eds.), Autonomy and Yang, N. D. (1992). Second language learners’ beliefs about lan- independence in language learning (pp. 114-131). New York, guage learning and their use of learning strategies: A study of NY: Longman. college students of English in Taiwan (Unpublished doctoral Rubin, J. (1975). What the “good language learner” can teach us. dissertation). University of Texas at Austin. TESOL Quarterly, 9, 41-51. Yang, N. D. (1999).The relationship between EFL learners’ beliefs Rubin, J. (1987). Learner strategies: Theoretical assumptions, and learning strategy use. System, 27, 515-535. research history, and typology. In A. Wenden & J. Rubin Yu, X. (2007). A survey on the relationship between learning (Eds.). Learner strategies in language learning (pp. 15-30). beliefs and learning strategies. US–China Education Review, London, England: Prentice Hall. 4(1), 58-61. Rubin, J., Chamot, A. U., Harris, V., & Anderson, N. J. (2007). Zare-ee, A. (2010). Association between university students’ Intervening in the use of strategies. In A. D. Cohen & E. Macaro beliefs and their learning strategy use. Procedia: Social and (Eds.), Language learner strategies: 30 years of research and Behavioral Sciences, 5, 882-886. practice (pp. 141-160). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Rubin, J., & McCoy, P. (2008). Tasks and good language learners. Author Biographies In C. Griffiths (Ed.), Lessons from good language learners (pp. 294-305). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Mojtaba Mohammadi is a PhD graduate of teaching English as a Shen, H.-J. (2003). The role of explicit instruction in ESL/EFL foreign language (TEFL) at Islamic Azad University (IAU) Science reading. Foreign Language Annals, 36, 424-433. and Research Branch, Tehran, Iran. He held his MA in TEFL in Mohammadi et al. 11 1999 from IAU Central Tehran Branch. He is a faculty member of TEFL. He is also the author of English textbooks for high school and English Language Teaching (ELT) Department at IAU Roudehen preuniversity levels, used nationwide, and 10 university textbooks. Branch. He has been teaching English for about 18 years in English Parviz Maftoon is an associate professor of teaching English at language institutes and universities. His areas of interest include IAU, Science and Research Branch, Tehran, Iran. He received his teacher and learner beliefs, computer-assisted language learning, PhD degree from New York University in teaching English to testing and assessment, and writing skill. speakers of other languages (TESOL). His primary research inter- Parviz Birjandi has an MA in applied linguistics from the Colorado ests concern second language (SL) acquisition, SL/first language State University and a PhD in English education, research methods, (FL) teaching methodology, and language curriculum development. and statistics from the University of Colorado. He is the head of He has published nationally and internationally and written and English Language Department in the IAU, Science and Research edited a number of English books. He is currently on the editorial Branch, Tehran. He has published more than 30 articles in the area of board of several language journals in Iran. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png SAGE Open SAGE

Learning Strategy Training and the Shift in Learners’ Beliefs About Language Learning: A Reading Comprehension Context

SAGE Open , Volume 5 (2): 1 – Apr 10, 2015

Loading next page...
 
/lp/sage/learning-strategy-training-and-the-shift-in-learners-beliefs-about-lKj0F2P6kq

References (91)

Publisher
SAGE
Copyright
Copyright © 2022 by SAGE Publications Inc, unless otherwise noted. Manuscript content on this site is licensed under Creative Commons Licenses.
ISSN
2158-2440
eISSN
2158-2440
DOI
10.1177/2158244015579726
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

This study examines the impact of teaching learning strategies on learners’ beliefs about language learning and reading comprehension ability. Participants were 78 university freshmen studying English language teaching, translation, and literature. They were divided into two groups. The experimental group received a number of learning strategies adopted and adapted by the researchers, including concept-mapping, vocabulary notebook, passage restatement, dictionary use, summary writing, and guessing. The treatment was carried out 4 hr a week for 15 consecutive weeks. The Language Learners’ Beliefs Scale, developed and validated by Birjandi and Mohammadi, and the reading comprehension section of Cambridge Preliminary English Test (PET) were administered before and after the treatment to identify the students’ shifts in beliefs about language learning and to measure reading comprehension ability, respectively. The results of independent t test indicated that the instruction of learning strategies changed the university students’ beliefs about language learning. Furthermore, learning strategy instruction could boost their reading comprehension ability. Keywords learning strategy training, beliefs about language leaning, learners’ beliefs, LLBS, reading comprehension these studies indicating that good language learners have Introduction “insight into the nature of the task [of learning]” (p. 2). The ultimate goal of educational systems is to instill in their Hosenfeld (1978) also referred to “mini-theories” of second learners the basic skills to achieve success, to culture the language learning that forms the way learners learn language. learners’ mind, to develop active, critical, cognitive skills, These theories are the beliefs learners hold and can be regarded and to make the learners who strive for excellence for them- as a variable, because they can vary from learner to learner. selves and others. In fact, in these systems, the sole purpose Much of the research since then has been concerned with pro- of a teacher, as Kreis (2004) asserted, is not to impart knowl- viding new classification for the learners’ beliefs. edge to his or her students, but to shape their beliefs so that Administering Beliefs About Language Learning they are regarded as the extension of themselves. However, Inventory (BALLI), Horwitz (1987) suggested five general how can a teacher shape and reshape the learners’ mentality? areas of beliefs: (a) the difficulty of language learning, (b) Students attend the class with a wide range of knowledge, aptitude for language learning, (c) the nature of language socio-cultural background, educational experiences, and per- learning, (d) learning and communication strategies, and (e) sonal attitudes toward English language learning. This signi- motivation and expectations. Wenden (1986, 1987) also fies the importance of studying learners’ belief about identified a classification of beliefs with three categories: (a) language learning and the ways to enrich it. use of language, (b) beliefs relating to learning about the lan- Since the 1970s, when cognitive approach to language guage, and (c) the importance of personal factors. learning became prevalent, learners were seen more actively involved in the process of language learning. A line of research Department of English, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad dealt with good language learners pioneered by Rubin (1975) University, Tehran, Iran and Naiman, Frohlich, Stern, and Todesco (1996/1978). They Corresponding Author: identified a set of strategies that facilitate their learning. The Mojtaba Mohammadi, Department of English, Faculty of Language and results of these studies and many others were underlining the Literature, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, learners’ personal beliefs they held as their experience in the Iran. process of language learning. Omaggio (1978) summarized Email: m.mohammadi@riau.ac.ir This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License Creative Commons CC BY: (http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access page (http://www.uk.sagepub.com/aboutus/openaccess.htm). 2 SAGE Open Benson and Lor (1999) also distinguished two different she identified three general categories of self-directing learn- categories: higher order conceptions and lower order beliefs. ing strategies: (a) knowing about language, (b) planning, and They defined conceptions as “concerned with what the (c) self-evaluation. Rubin (1987) suggested that there are learner thinks the objects and processes of learning are,” three kinds of strategies that contribute directly or indirectly whereas beliefs are “what the learner holds to be true about to language learning: learning strategies, communication these objects and processes” (p. 464). strategies, and social strategies. O’Malley and Chamot Ellis (2004) divided the construct into two general levels: (1990) proposed a framework in which three major types of higher order conceptions (epistemology) and lower order learning strategies are classified: metacognitive, cognitive, beliefs. A number of studies, including Benson and Lor and social/affective. Metacognitive strategies are the ones (1999) and Tanaka (2004), have proposed that learners have that involve planning for learning, thinking about the learn- certain conceptions regarding what language is and how it is ing process as it is taking place, monitoring of one’s produc- learned. It contains three categories: quantitative/analytic, tion or comprehension, and evaluating learning after an qualitative/experiential, and self-efficacy/confidence. activity is completed. Cognitive strategies, according to Despite all these classifications, a point to consider is that O’Malley and Chamot (1990), “are more directly related to belief is culture-based in nature, and learners in any context individual learning tasks and entails direct manipulation or can have their own type of beliefs being shaped or reshaped transformation of learning materials” (p. 8), strategies such by means of a variety of sources. Learning strategy training as repetition, translation, grouping, deduction, contextualiza- can be a case in point. tion, and transfer. Social/affective strategies concern interac- tion with other learners and native speakers and management of the affective demands made by language learning such as Learning Strategy Training cooperation, question for clarification, and self-talks. In the past 40 years or so, the literature on language learning Oxford’s model of learning strategies is believed to be strategy research has witnessed a diversity of issues on its one of the most comprehensive classifications (Brown, 2007; path to reach the present status. Chamot (2004) introduced Ellis, 1994). In Oxford’s (1990) taxonomy, she distinguished eight such issues extracted from the literature of leaning between direct and indirect strategies. The former consist of strategy in the literature. The first issue to discuss here is the “strategies that directly involve the target language . . . [in a identification of language learning strategies. A substantial way that] require mental processing of the language” (p. 37). body of literature is devoted to defining what learning strat- The latter, however, “provide indirect support for language egy is and identifying these unobservable mental learning learning through focusing, planning, evaluating seeking strategies. In English as a foreign language (EFL) context, opportunities, controlling anxiety, increasing cooperation Richards and Schmidt (2010) simply defined learning strate- and empathy and other means” (p. 151). The strategies under gies as “the ways in which learners attempt to work out the the first category (direct), according to Oxford, are memory meanings and uses of words, grammatical rules, and other strategies, cognitive strategies, and compensation strategies. aspects of the language they are learning” (p. 331). In Stern’s Memory strategies, also called mnemonics, “enables learners (1983) view, strategy is “best reserved for general tendencies to store verbal material and then retrieve it when needed for or overall characteristics of the approach employed by the communication” (Oxford, 1990, p. 39). Cognitive strategies language learner, leaving techniques as the term to refer to vary a lot “ranging from repeating to analyzing expressions particular forms of observable learning behavior” (p. 236). to summarizing” (p. 43). Oxford (1990) identified four sets At the same time, Rubin (1987) asserted that learning strate- of cognitive strategies: “1) Practicing, 2) Receiving and gies are “strategies which contribute to the development of sending messages, 3) Analyzing and reasoning, and 4) the language system which the learner constructs and affect Creating structure for input and output” (p. 17). Compensation learning directly” (p. 15). In her article, Oxford (1989) strategies, according to Oxford (1990), “enable learners to referred to language learning strategies as “behaviors or use the new language for either comprehension or production actions which learners use to make language learning more despite limitations in knowledge” (p. 47). The second cate- successful, self-directed and enjoyable” (p. 235). Anderson gory (indirect) includes “actions which go beyond purely (2005) defined strategies as “the conscious actions that learn- cognitive devices, and which provide a way for learners to ers take to improve their language learning” (p. 757). coordinate their own learning process” (p. 136). According to Chamot (2005), learning strategies are “proce- Stern (1992), furthermore, summarized and reclassified dures that facilitate a learning task. Strategies are most often his classification of 10 strategies, offered in Stern (1983), conscious and goal-driven, especially in the beginning stages into 5 main language learning strategies: (a) management of tackling an unfamiliar language task” (p. 112). and planning strategies, (b) cognitive strategies, (c) commu- When the concept of learning strategy was investigated nicative–experiential strategies, (d) interpersonal strategies, and defined, it was time to devise some classifications and (e) affective strategies. according to the conceptualization of the term learning strat- Another line of research in language learning strategy is the egy. There are almost dozens of second language learning relationship between learning strategy and the learner vari- strategy classifications. In Wenden’s (1983) classification, ables such as gender and level of language proficiency. Several Mohammadi et al. 3 works were carried out to underline the role of gender (El-Dib, Table 1. Total Variance Explained. 2004; Kaylani, 1996; Oxford, Park-Oh, Ito, & Sumrall, 1993; Factors Eigenvalue % of variance Cumulative % Vandergrift, 1997; Wharton, 2000); however, as Chamot (2004) asserted, we cannot certainly confirm any role for gen- 1 4.85 14.616 14.61 2 2.19 6.675 21.27 der in learning strategy use. As for proficiency level, the results 3 1.82 5.531 26.80 tend to be convergent. The majority of the studies (Anderson, 4 1.67 5.068 31.87 2005; Bruen, 2001; Chamot & El-Dinary, 1999; Green & 5 1.53 4.657 36.52 Oxford, 1995; Mohammadi, 2009; O’Malley & Chamot, 1990; Wharton, 2000) revealed that students with more com- mand of English are skillful users of learning strategies. Method The next line in the language learning strategy research is the fact that learning strategy use is culture- and context- Participants specific. The results of some studies underlined that the adoption of strategies may vary among the learners in differ- The population of the study included all the students studying ent learning contexts and with various cultural values English language at the faculty of Persian literature and foreign (Keatley, Chamot, Spokane, & Greenstreet, 2004; Olivares- languages in Islamic Azad University, Roudehen Branch in Cuhat, 2002; Wharton, 2000). Tehran. Out of them, two intact classes with a total of 92 stu- One more research area in the literature of language learn- dents were selected from among the freshman students who had ing strategy is the explicit instruction of strategy within such been admitted to the faculty using cluster random sampling. The frameworks as Strategy-Based Instruction or Learning freshman students were selected because their beliefs about lan- Strategy Training. Many scholars unanimously agree on the guage learning were all shaped in their school period, and the usefulness of explicit instruction of strategy (Anderson, change could be more significant. They were both male (n = 23) 2005; Butler, 1997; Chamot, Barnhardt, El-Dinary, & and female (n = 55). To homogenize the students, a proficiency Robbins, 1999; Cohen, 1998; Goh & Taib, 2006; Lam, 2009; test (Test of English as a Foreign Language [TOEFL]) was Nguyen & Gu, 2013; Nunan, 1997; O’Malley & Chamot, administered to all of them. For the sake of practicality, only the 1990; Oxford & Leaver, 1996; Rubin & McCoy, 2008; Shen, reading comprehension and structure sections were adminis- 2003). However, the integration or separation of strategy tered. Based on the results, those at the extreme ends, standing training from other learning tasks is a source of contention. at the point more than one standard deviation below and above Some argue for the integration of them (Chamot et al., 1999; the mean, were crossed out of the study. They were totally 78 Chamot & O’Malley, 1994; Cohen, 1998; Grenfell & Harris, students majoring in English language teaching, English lan- 1999; Nunan, 1997; Oxford & Leaver, 1996), whereas others guage translation, and English language literature ranging are for their separation (Gu, 1996; Vance, 1999; Weinstein & between 19 and 31 years old with the mean index of 21. Mayer, 1986). Rubin, Chamot, Harris, and Anderson (2007) also introduced four core features of a strategy-based instruc- Instrument tion model: (a) awareness raising, (b) presentation and mod- eling, (c) providing multiple practice opportunities, and (d) The research instrument in this study was Language Learners’ evaluating the effectiveness of strategies and transferring Beliefs Scale (LLBS; see the appendix) designed by Birjandi them to new tasks. and Mohammadi (2014), which has 32 items. To estimate the There are some other research lines in the literature of reliability of the measure, as reported by Birjandi and learning strategy such as the role of the language of instruc- Mohammadi, the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was calcu- tion in teaching learning strategies and the transfer of strate- lated among a group of 328 university students, which came gies to new tasks or to the rest of their education, which are to be .78. To investigate the construct validity, they subjected recently taken care of. the 32-item LLBS to principal components analysis (PCA) A closer look at the above discussions implies that learn- using SPSS Version 16. The Kaiser–Meyer–Oklin (KMO) ing strategies are not just an affective factor but a cognitive measure of sampling adequacy was 0.74, and Bartlett’s test factor as well, which are affected by cultural, social, and situ- of sphericity had reached statistical significance supporting ational contexts of use. This study aimed to investigate the the factorability of the correlation matrix. The results of five- answer to the following questions: factor solution (Table 1) revealed a total of 36.52% of the variance, with Components 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 contributing Research Question 1: Does teaching language learning 14.61%, 6.67%, 5.53%, 5.06%, and 4.65%, respectively. strategies have any significant effect on the beliefs of The underlying constructs that were considered in the scale Iranian EFL learners? were Mediatory beliefs (seven items), Self-beliefs (eight items), Research Question 2: Does teaching language learning Attributive beliefs (six items), Traditional beliefs (six items), strategies have any significant effect on the reading com- and Epistemological beliefs (five items). Self-beliefs referred to prehension ability of the Iranian EFL learners? the beliefs about self-worth, self-concept, and self-efficacy, 4 SAGE Open whereas epistemological beliefs were designated to the beliefs Table 2. Normality Assumption for Pretest and Posttest of Beliefs. about the nature of knowledge of language and learning. n Skewness Kurtosis Attributive beliefs are beliefs about the causes of language learning, and mediatory beliefs are composed of beliefs about Class Statistic Statistic SE Ratio Statistic SE Ratio the role of mediators in language learning. Traditional beliefs Experimental also refer to all the learning beliefs that are deeply rooted in Pretest 40 −0.434 0.374 −1.16 −1.073 0.733 −1.46 the traditional English language learning/teaching methodol- Posttest 40 0.359 0.374 0.959 −0.932 0.733 −1.27 ogy. The answer to the items of the LLBS was supposed to be Control done on a 4-point Likert-type scale with 4 options for the Pretest 38 −0050 0.383 −0.130 −0.811 0.750 −1.08 responses as strongly disagree, disagree, agree, or strongly Posttest 38 0.095 0.383 −0.248 −1.360 0.750 −1.81 agree. For the ease of computation, the responses were numerically coded 1 to 4, respectively. The reading comprehension section of Cambridge Table 3. Descriptive Statistics for Pretest of Beliefs by Groups. Preliminary English Test (PET) was also used as a pretest Group n M SD SE M and posttest to measure participants’ reading comprehension ability. It included 35 items in five different parts adminis- Experimental 40 13.90 2.016 0.318 Control 38 13.94 1.891 0.306 tered in Sessions 1 and 16. points of view or from the character’s point of view and the Procedure other by restricting them to use limited number of vocabulary Having homogenized the students and deselected those at both to restate the text. It also contained the story reproduction using extremes in the proficiency test, the researcher had two classes certain given keywords. The students were also taught the of control (n = 38) and experimental (n = 40) groups. LLBS and proper use of monolingual dictionary and kept practicing it in reading comprehension test, as pretests, were administered to class. In summary writing strategy, to enhance their memory of both classes to identify their beliefs about language learning and the main ideas, students were asked to write the summary of their reading comprehension ability prior to the treatment. Both their reading passages (at most one to three paragraphs) and of the classes were taught by one of the researchers so that the their story readings at home (more than five paragraphs). In impact of the teacher’s cognition, bias, teaching methods, and guessing strategy, they worked on the meaning of the keywords styles was nullified. The university syllabus for the course in the passage and were encouraged to do the postreading activ- required the course book called Active Skills for Reading Book ities guessing the other words through context, word roots, pre- 3 (Anderson, 2008, 2nd ed.). It should be mentioned here that fixes, and suffixes. This way, their tolerance of ambiguity could although verifying strategy is one of the six basic assumptions be fostered. At the end of the semester (with a 15-week inter- of the book, the researchers decided to choose the course book val), the LLBS and reading comprehension test were adminis- for two reasons: One is that what is claimed by the study is the tered again to check the probable changes in learners’ beliefs explicit instruction of learning strategies while it is not directly about language learning and reading comprehension abilities. claimed by the series’ author. Second, the researchers’ years of experience revealed that the explicit teaching of learning strate- Data Analysis and Discussion gies is not a common practice of the teachers in the classes of this type. In the experimental class, in addition to their class- To answer the research questions, the data from the adminis- room syllabus, the students were presented a set of strategies. trations of LLBS to both experimental and control groups Because the classes were both “Reading Comprehension,” most were collected as the pretest and posttest. Independent- of the learning strategies presented in the experimental class samples t tests were run to compare the experimental and were in one way or another related to it and the related skills and control groups’ means on the pretest and posttest of beliefs. subskills. The researchers adopted and adapted a number of Before discussing the results, it should be mentioned that the learning strategies for the experimental class, including con- assumption of normality—a prerequisite to independent- cept-mapping, vocabulary notebook, passage restatement, dic- samples t test—was met (Table 2). The ratios of skewness tionary use, summary writing, and guessing. and kurtosis over their respective standard errors were In concept-mapping strategy, students were required to “within the ranges of ± 1.96” (Field, 2009). identify important concepts in their passages and relate those The assumption of homogeneity of variance will be discussed concepts to each other. Students were also asked to prepare a when reporting the results of the independent-samples t test. vocabulary notebook for any new words they encountered in The data on pretests were, then, analyzed. Independent t lessons along with their synonyms and antonyms, collocations, test was run to compare the experimental and control groups’ roots, and derivations. In passage restatement strategy, they mean scores on pretest of beliefs to prove that the two groups were supposed to restate the reading passage or the stories held the same beliefs prior to the main study. As displayed in assigned to them for their classmates. This strategy had two Table 3, the mean scores for experimental and control groups different versions: one by restating the story from different on pretest of beliefs were 13.90 and 13.94, respectively. Mohammadi et al. 5 Table 4. Independent t Test for Pretest of Beliefs by Groups. Levene’s test for equality of variances t test for equality of M 95% confidence interval of the difference Significance SE F Significance T df (two-tailed) M difference difference Lower Upper Equal variances assumed 0.41 0.52 0.107 76 0.915 0.047 0.443 −0.835 0.930 Equal variances not assumed 0.107 75.9 0.915 0.047 0.442 −0.834 0.928 for experimental and control groups on posttest of beliefs were 15.80 and 14.54, respectively. The results of the independent t test, t(76) = 2.73, p < .05, 20.00 and the effect size, r = .29, representing an almost moderate 18.50 17.00 effect size according to Field (2009), indicate that there was 15.50 a significant but moderate difference between experimental 14.00 and control groups’ mean scores on the posttest. Thus, it can 12.50 be concluded the null hypothesis as teaching language learn- 11.00 ing strategies does not have any significant effect on the 9.50 beliefs Iranian EFL learners possess is rejected although the 8.00 6.50 results should be interpreted cautiously due to the moderate 5.00 effect size value of the t statistic. ExperimentalControl Series1 It should be noted that the assumption of homogeneity of 13.90 13.94 variances was met (Levene’s F = 2, p = .161 > .05). That is why the first row of Table 6, that is, “Equal variances Figure 1. Pretest of beliefs by groups. assumed” was reported. Figure 2 represents the heterogene- ity of posttest for both groups. To answer the second research question, the data on read- Table 5. Descriptive Statistics for Posttest of Beliefs by Groups. ing comprehension pretests were analyzed. Independent t Group n M SD SE M test was run to compare the experimental and control groups’ mean scores on pretest of reading comprehension to prove Experimental 40 15.80 1.937 0.306 that the two groups held the same ability prior to the main Control 38 14.54 2.179 0.353 study. As displayed in Table 7, the mean scores for experi- mental and control groups on pretest of reading comprehen- sion were 13.71 and 13.94, respectively. The results of the independent t test, t(76) = 0.107, p > An independent-samples t test was conducted to compare .05, and the effect size, r = .012, representing a weak effect the scores of reading comprehension pretests for control and size according to Field (2009), indicated that there was no experimental classes. The results showed that there was no significant difference between experimental and control significant difference in reading comprehension scores for groups’ mean scores on the pretest of beliefs. Thus, it can be control group (M = 13.94, SD = 1.89) and experimental concluded that the two groups enjoyed the same level of group (M = 13.71, SD = 2.23), t(78) = −0.5, p = .62, two- beliefs prior to the main study. tailed (Table 8). The magnitude of the differences in the It should be noted that the assumption of homogeneity of means, according to Cohen (1988), was very small (η = variances was met (Levene’s F = .413, p = .522 > .05). That .003). is why the first row of Table 4, that is, “Equal variances The data on reading comprehension posttests were also assumed,” was reported. Figure 1 represents the homogene- analyzed. Independent t test was run to compare the experi- ity of pretest for both groups. mental and control groups’ mean scores on posttest of read- Next, the posttests were analyzed. An independent t test ing comprehension to investigate the effect of teaching was run to compare the experimental and control groups’ language learning strategies on the students’ reading com- mean scores on posttest of beliefs to probe the effect of prehension ability. As displayed in Table 9, the mean scores teaching learning strategies on the shifts in their beliefs about for experimental and control groups on pretest of reading language learning. As displayed in Table 5, the mean scores comprehension were 15.8 and 14.35, respectively. 6 SAGE Open Table 6. Independent t Test Posttest of Beliefs by Groups. Levene’s test for equality of variances t test for equality of M 95% confidence interval of the difference Significance M SE F Significance T df (two-tailed) difference difference Lower Upper Equal variances assumed 2.01 0.161 2.70 76 0.008 1.261 0.466 0.332 2.189 Equal variances not assumed 2.69 73.9 0.009 1.261 0.468 0.328 2.193 language learning strategies could lead to familiarizing the learners with what the nature of language is and how it is learned. The instruction of learning strategies was integrated 20.00 with the linguistic content classroom tasks, and the results 18.50 were in line with those proposed by some scholars who argue 17.00 for their integration (Chamot et al., 1999; Chamot & 15.50 O’Malley, 1994; Cohen, 1998; Grenfell & Harris, 1999; 14.00 Nunan, 1997; Oxford & Leaver, 1996). The findings also 12.50 proved a shift in the learners’ beliefs about language learning 11.00 and endorsed the results of the study by Yang (1992) who 9.50 indicated that learning “strategies can cause beliefs as well” 8.00 (p. 148). 6.50 5.00 Experimental Control Conclusion and Implications Series1 15.8014.54 This study was an attempt to examine the effect of teaching learning strategies on learners’ beliefs about language learn- Figure 2. Posttest of beliefs by groups. ing and their reading comprehension ability. The findings of the study can be categorized into two parts: the effects of learning strategies on both changes in learners’ beliefs and Table 7. Descriptive Statistics for Pretest of Reading Comprehension by Groups. their dynamicity and their reading comprehension ability. The results of this study indicated that strategy-rich class- Group n M SD SE M rooms can enrich the students’ beliefs and develop their cog- Experimental 40 13.71 2.23 0.353 nition about language learning. There are two groups of Control 38 13.94 1.89 0.306 studies in the literature adopting language learning beliefs and language learning strategies as the major variable. The first group examined the effects of learning beliefs on stu- An independent-samples t test was conducted to compare dents’ language learning strategies (Abraham & Vann, 1987; the scores of reading comprehension posttests for control Elbaum, Berg, & Dodd, 1993; Riley, 1997; Yang, 1992) and and experimental classes. The results showed that there was unanimously agreed that language learning beliefs can influ- a significant difference in reading comprehension scores for ence learning strategy use. The second group has examined control group (M = 14.3, SD = 2.34) and experimental group the relationship between beliefs about language learning and (M = 15.8, SD = 1.93), t(78) = 2.97, p = .004, two-tailed learning strategy use (Abedini, Rahimi, & Zare-ee, 2011; (Table 10). The magnitude of the differences in the means, Chang & Shen, 2010; Li, 2010; Su, 1995; Yang, 1999; Yu, according to Cohen (1988), was very large (η = 0.1). 2007; Zare-ee, 2010). It means that this study can be a pio- The results of the present study, first and foremost, sup- neer work because, as mentioned above, there has been no port the usefulness of explicit instruction of strategy as such study in the literature as far as the researchers could already proposed by some scholars (Anderson, 2005; Butler, access. 1997; Chamot et al., 1999; Cohen, 1998; De Silva, 2014; The results of this study are also significant when the Goh & Taib, 2006; Gu, 2007; Nguyen & Gu, 2013; Nunan, learners’ beliefs have changed during a short term. The lit- 1997; O’Malley & Chamot, 1990; Oxford & Leaver, 1996; erature has witnessed two groups of studies in this respect: Rubin & McCoy, 2008; Shen, 2003). Change in the learners’ One is related to those which claim that belief is stable, beliefs about language learning as a result of teaching inflexible, and resistant to change that was once favorably Mohammadi et al. 7 Table 8. Independent t Test for Pretest of Reading Comprehension by Groups. Levene’s test for equality of variances t test for equality of M 95% confidence interval of the difference Significance M SE F Significance T df (two-tailed) difference difference Lower Upper Equal variances assumed 2.7 0.15 −0.499 76 0.619 −0.234 0.47 −1.17 0.702 Equal variances not −0.501 74.9 0.618 −0.234 0.468 −1.168 0.698 assumed Table 9. Descriptive Statistics for Posttest of Reading Comprehension by Groups. Group n M SD SE M Experimental 40 15.80 1.93 0.306 Control 38 15.35 2.34 0.379 Table 10. Independent t Test for Posttest of Reading Comprehension by Groups. Levene’s test for equality of variances t test for equality of M 95% confidence interval of the difference Significance M SE F Significance T df (two-tailed) difference difference Lower Upper Equal variances assumed 4.3 0.04 2.97 76 0.004 1.44 0.485 0.477 2.412 Equal variances not assumed 2.96 71.9 0.004 1.44 0.488 0.471 2.417 prevalent in many scientific studies (e.g., Almarza, 1996; suggestion for further studies. Furthermore, the future stud- Freeman, 1992; Guillaume & Rudney, 1993; Horwitz, 1987, ies can be on the investigation of macro-dynamicity of 1988; Johnson, 1996; Kennedy, 1991; Nettle, 1998; Su, beliefs about language learning rather than micro-dynamic- 1995; Tumposky, 1991; Yang, 1992). For them, education is ity, which was adopted by this study. believed to be ineffective in changing or influencing the The results of this study enjoy certain implications for the beliefs. The second group is related to those which concluded stakeholders in language education. Teachers are suggested that beliefs at micro-level (short time) are not changing and to equip students with the strategies for better learning along are very stable at the group level (e.g., Kern, 1995). The with the course content. This is helpful for the students not results of this study have no commonalities with those in only to be a “good language learner” but also to improve both of the above groups. However, it is in line with the their autonomy and self-efficacy. The message for the teach- results of a few studies that ended up with significant changes ers is that students’ beliefs can be shaped or reshaped if there in learners’ beliefs at 1-year intervals or shorter (Amuzie & are meditational tools such as strategies for language learn- Winke, 2009; Lim, Pagram, & Nastiti, 2009; Oh, 1996; ing. Syllabus designers are also recommended to include Sugiyama, 2003; Tanaka & Ellis, 2003). learning strategies within the syllabus. If these strategies are This study was conducted among university students with reinforced by the course books all through the syllabus, stu- more or less established beliefs about language learning. It dents’ beliefs are formed and reformed more systematically. can be carried out among language learners of different pro- Only this can revive the hope that an educational system is ficiency levels. Also, belief changes here were investigated stepping toward its ultimate goal, which is educating from an emic rather than etic perspective, which can be a students for the future. 8 SAGE Open Appendix Appendix (continued) Language Learners’ Beliefs Scale (LLBS) Dear participant, This questionnaire is designed to help the researcher gain 23 I think my friends in class can help me better understanding of your beliefs about language learning. a lot in language learning. There is no right or wrong response. Please indicate your 24 Speaking English with others in class present opinion about each of the statements by putting ✓ can improve my English. mark into the boxes. 25 Teacher’s feedback on my language Your time is appreciated ☺ learning helps me most. 26 The administrative staff affects my learning English. 27 Learning English is quite different from learning other subjects such as math or science. 1 I like my classmate(s) to tell me what 28 Learning English requires a special my faults are. ability. 2 I can learn a language if I like it. 29 Vocabulary is the most important 3 My own effort plays an important role part of language learning. in successful language learning. 30 Some languages are easier to learn 4 I have the ability to learn a language than others. successfully 31 Communication with the world is the 5 I think someday I can learn English major goal of learning English. very well. 32 Native teachers are better than non- 6 To understand English, I must native ones. translate it to Farsi. 7 Learning English is very difficult without teachers. Declaration of Conflicting Interests 8 Speaking with native speakers is more useful than non-native speakers. The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect 9 I study English in the same way as I to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. study other subjects. 10 Grammar is the most important part Funding of language learning. The author(s) received no financial support for the research and/or 11 My parents have a major role in my authorship of this article. learning English. 12 I have a clear idea of what I need References English for. Abedini, A., Rahimi, A., & Zare-ee, A. (2011). Relationship 13 Learning English is faster if I put between Iranian EFL learners’ beliefs about language learn- enough effort into it. ing, their language learning strategy use, and their language 14 Easy tasks and homework can help proficiency. Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences, 28, me learn better. 1029-1033. 15 I like to learn English to know the Abraham, R. G., & Vann, R. J. (1987). Strategies of two lan- culture of its people. guage learners: A case study. In A. L. Wenden & J. Rubin 16 The amount of practice plays a major (Eds.), Learner strategies in language learning (pp. 85-102). part in learning English. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. 17 Feedback on my learning from others Almarza, G. (1996). Student foreign language teacher’s knowl- in class is very helpful. edge growth. In D. Freeman & J. C. Richards (Eds.), Teacher 18 Learning English is mostly a matter of learning in language teaching (pp. 50-78). Cambridge, UK: good course books. Cambridge University Press. 19 Teachers can best help me learn Amuzie, G. L., & Winke, P. (2009). Changes in language learning English. beliefs as a result of study abroad. System, 37, 366-370. 20 Learning English is easier if I know Anderson, N. J. (2005). L2 learning strategies. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), another foreign language. Handbook of research in second language teaching and learn- 21 I am satisfied with my progress in ing (pp. 757-771). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. English. Anderson, N. J. (2008). Active skills for reading: Book 3 (2nd ed.). 22 I need the teacher to tell me how I Boston, MA: Heinle ELT. am progressing. Benson, P., & Lor, W. (1999). Conceptions of language and lan- (continued) guage learning. System, 27, 459-472. Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree Mohammadi et al. 9 Birjandi, P., & Mohammadi, M. (2014). The development and Green, J. M., & Oxford, R. (1995). A closer look at learning strate- validation of language learner beliefs scale in the Iranian EFL gies, L2 proficiency, and gender. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 261- context. The Journal of Language and Translation, 4(1), 1-9. 297. Brown, H. D. (2007). Principles of language learning and teaching Grenfell, M., & Harris, V. (1999). Modern languages and learn- (5th ed.). New York, NY: Pearson Education. ing strategies: In theory and practice. London, England: Bruen, J. (2001). Strategies for success: Profiling the effective Routledge. learner of German. Foreign Language Annals, 34, 216-225. Gu, P. Y. (1996). Robin Hood in SLA: What has the learning strat- Butler, D. L. (1997, April). The roles of goal setting and self-mon- egy researcher taught us? Asian Journal of English Language itoring in students’ self-regulated engagement in tasks. Paper Teaching, 6, 1-29. presented as part of a symposium on goal setting and moni- Gu, Y. (2007). Strategy-based instruction. In T. Yashima & T. toring coordinated by Dale Schunk and Barry Zimmerman Nabei (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Symposium on at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research English Education in Japan: Exploring New Frontiers (pp. 21- Association, Washington, DC. 38). Osaka, Japan: Yubunsha. Chamot, A. U. (2004). Issues in language learning strategy research Guillaume, A. M., & Rudney, G. L. (1993). Student teachers’ and teaching. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language growth towards independence: An analysis of their changing Teaching, 1, 14-26. concerns. Teaching and Teacher Education, 9, 65-80. Chamot, A. U. (2005). Language learning strategy instruc- Horwitz, E. K. (1987). Surveying student beliefs about language tion: Current issues and research. Annual Review of Applied learning. In A. Wenden & J. Rubin (Eds.), Learner strategies Linguistics, 25, 112-130. in language learning (pp. 119-129). London, England: Prentice Chamot, A. U., Barnhardt, S., El-Dinary, P. B., & Robbins, J. Hall. (1999). The learning strategies handbook. White Plains, NY: Horwitz, E. K. (1988). Beliefs about language learning of beginning Addison Wesley Longman. university foreign language students. The Modern Language Chamot, A. U., & El-Dinary, P. B. (1999). Children’s learning Journal, 72, 283-294. strategies in immersion classrooms. The Modern Language Hosenfeld, C. (1978). Learning about learning: Discovering our Journal, 83, 319-341. students’ strategies. Foreign Language Annals, 9, 117-129. Chamot, A. U., & O’Malley, J. M. (1994). The CALLA handbook: Johnson, K. E. (1996). The vision versus reality: The tensions of Implementing the cognitive academic language learning the TESOL practicum. In D. Freeman & J. C. Richards (Eds.), approach. White Plains, NY: Addison Wesley Longman. Teacher learning in language teaching (pp. 30-49). Cambridge, Chang, C. Y., & Shen, M. C. (2010). The effects of beliefs about UK: Cambridge University Press. language learning and learning strategy use of junior high Kaylani, C. (1996). The influence of gender and motivation on EFL school EFL learners in remote districts. Research in Higher learning strategy use in Jordan. In R. L. Oxford (Ed.), Language Education Journal, 8, 1-8. learning strategies around the world: Cross-cultural perspec- Cohen, A. D. (1998). Strategies in learning and using a second lan- tives (pp. 75-88). Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. guage. London, England: Longman. Keatley, C., Chamot, A. U., Spokane, A., & Greenstreet, S. (2004). Cohen, J. W. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral Learning strategies of students of Arabic. The Language sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum. Resource, 8(4). De Silva, R. (2014). Writing strategy training: Its impact on writ- Kennedy, M. (1991). A research agenda on teacher learning. ing in a second language for academic purposes. Language East Lansing, MI: National Centre for Research on Teacher Teaching Research, 18(3), 1-24. Learning. Elbaum, B., Berg, C. A., & Dodd, D. H. (1993). Previous learning Kern, G. (1995). Students’ and teachers’ beliefs about lan- experience, strategy beliefs, and task definition in self-regu- guage learning. Foreign Language Annals, 28, 71-92. lated foreign language learning. Contemporary Educational doi:10.1111/j.1944-9720.1995.tb00770.x Psychology, 18, 318-336. Kreis, J. (2004). Learner and instructor roles. Retrieved from El-Dib, M. A. B. (2004). Language learning strategies in Kuwait: http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/NLI0547C.pdf Links to gender, language level, and culture in a hybrid con- Lam, W. Y. K. (2009). Examining the effects of metacognitive text. Foreign Language Annals, 37, 85-95. strategy instruction on ESL group discussions: A synthesis of Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford, approaches. Language Teaching Research, 13, 129-150. UK: Oxford University Press. Li, F. (2010). Relationship between EFL learners’ belief and learn- Ellis, R. (2004). Individual differences in second language learn- ing strategy use by English majors in vocational college. ing. In A. Davies & C. Elder (Eds.), The handbook of applied Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 1, 858-866. linguistics (pp. 525-551). Oxford, UK: Blackwell. doi:10.4304/jltr.1.6. 858-866 Field, A. P. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS (3rd ed.). Lim, C. P., Pagram, J., & Nastiti, H. (2009). Professional devel- London, England: SAGE. opment goes east: Examining changes in teachers’ beliefs in Freeman, D. (1992). Language teacher education, emerging dis- four Indonesian schools. Proceedings of the 2nd International course, and change in classroom practice. In J. Flowerdew, M. Conference of Teaching and Learning (ICTL), INTI University Brock, & S. Hsia (Eds.), Perspectives on language teacher edu- College, Malaysia. cation (pp. 1-21). Hong Kong: Hong Kong City Polytechnic. Mohammadi, M. (2009). On the relationship between learning Goh, C., & Taib, Y. (2006). Metacognitive instruction in listening strategies and EFL learners’ level of proficiency. The Journal for young learners. ELT Journal, 60, 222-232. of Modern Thoughts in Education, 4(3), 103-116. 10 SAGE Open Naiman, N., Frohlich, M., Stern, M. M., & Todesco, A. (1978). Stern, H. H. (1983). Fundamental concepts of language teaching. The good language learner. Toronto, Canada: Ontario Institute Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. for Studies in Education. (Reprinted in 1996 by Multilingual Stern, H. H. (1992). Issues and options in language teaching. Matters, Clevedon, UK) Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Nettle, E. B. (1998). Stability and change in the beliefs of stu- Su, D. (1995). A study of English learning strategies and styles of dent teachers during practice teaching. Teaching and Teacher Chinese university students in relation to their cultural beliefs Education, 14, 193-204. and beliefs about learning English (Unpublished doctoral dis- Nguyen, L. T. C., & Gu, Y. (2013). Strategy-based instruction: sertation). University of Georgia, Athens. A learner-focused approach to developing learner autonomy. Sugiyama, A. (2003). Beliefs and reality: How educational experi- Language Teaching Research, 17, 9-30. ences in the United States affect teaching practices of Japanese Nunan, D. (1997). Does learner strategy training make a difference? EFL teachers (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). State Lenguas Modernas, 24, 123-142. University of New York at Buffalo. Oh, M. T. (1996). Beliefs about language learning and foreign lan- Tanaka, K. (2004). Changes in Japanese students’ beliefs about guage anxiety: A study of American university students learn- language learning and English language proficiency in a ing Japanese (Doctoral dissertation, University of Texas at study-abroad context (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Austin, UMI). (Dissertation Services UMI No. 9705927). University of Auckland, New Zealand. Olivares-Cuhat, G. (2002). Learning strategies and achievement Tanaka, K., & Ellis, R. (2003). Study-abroad, language proficiency, in the Spanish writing classroom: A case study. Foreign and learner beliefs about language learning. JALT Journal, Language Annals, 35, 561-570. 25(1), 63-83. Omaggio, A. C. (1978, May). Successful language learners: What Tumposky, N. (1991). Student beliefs about language learning: A do we know about them? ERIC/CLL News Bulletin, pp. 2-3. cross-cultural study. Carleton Papers in Applied Language O’Malley, J. M., & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning strategies Studies, 8, 50-65. in second language acquisition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Vance, S. J. (1999). Language learning strategies: Is there a best University Press. way to teach them? (ERIC Document Reproduction Service Oxford, R. L. (1989). Use of language learning strategies: A syn- ED 438-716; FL 026–146) thesis of studies with implications for strategy training. System, Vandergrift, L. (1997). The comprehension strategies of second 17, 235-247. language (French) listeners: A descriptive study. Foreign Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every Language Annals, 30, 387-409. teacher should know. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle. Weinstein, C. E., & Mayer, R. E. (1986). The teaching of learning Oxford, R. L., & Leaver, B. L. (1996). A synthesis of strategy instruc- strategies. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on tion for language learners. In R. L. Oxford (Ed.), Language teaching (3rd ed., pp. 315-327). New York, NY: Macmillan. learning strategies around the world: Cross-cultural perspec- Wenden, A. (1983). A literature review: The process of interven- tives (pp. 227-246). Manoa: University of Hawaii Press. tion. Language Learning, 33, 103-121. Oxford, R. L., Park-Oh, Y., Ito, S., & Sumrall, M. (1993). Japanese Wenden, A. (1986). What do second-language learners know about by satellite: Effects of motivation, language learning styles and their language learning? Applied Linguistics, 7, 186-205. strategies, gender, course level, and previous language learn- Wenden, A. (1987). How to be a successful language learner: ing experiences on Japanese language achievement. Foreign Insights and prescriptions from L2 learners. In A. Wenden & Language Annals, 26, 359-371. J. Rubin (Eds.), Learner strategies in language learning (pp. Richards, J.C., & Schmidt, R. (2010). Longman dictionary of 103-117). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. language teaching and applied linguistics. (4th ed.). Harlow, Wharton, G. (2000). Language learning strategy use of bilingual England: Longman. foreign language learners in Singapore. Language Learning, Riley, P. (1997). The guru and the conjurer: Aspects of counseling 50, 203-244. for self-access. In P. Benson & P. Voller (Eds.), Autonomy and Yang, N. D. (1992). Second language learners’ beliefs about lan- independence in language learning (pp. 114-131). New York, guage learning and their use of learning strategies: A study of NY: Longman. college students of English in Taiwan (Unpublished doctoral Rubin, J. (1975). What the “good language learner” can teach us. dissertation). University of Texas at Austin. TESOL Quarterly, 9, 41-51. Yang, N. D. (1999).The relationship between EFL learners’ beliefs Rubin, J. (1987). Learner strategies: Theoretical assumptions, and learning strategy use. System, 27, 515-535. research history, and typology. In A. Wenden & J. Rubin Yu, X. (2007). A survey on the relationship between learning (Eds.). Learner strategies in language learning (pp. 15-30). beliefs and learning strategies. US–China Education Review, London, England: Prentice Hall. 4(1), 58-61. Rubin, J., Chamot, A. U., Harris, V., & Anderson, N. J. (2007). Zare-ee, A. (2010). Association between university students’ Intervening in the use of strategies. In A. D. Cohen & E. Macaro beliefs and their learning strategy use. Procedia: Social and (Eds.), Language learner strategies: 30 years of research and Behavioral Sciences, 5, 882-886. practice (pp. 141-160). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Rubin, J., & McCoy, P. (2008). Tasks and good language learners. Author Biographies In C. Griffiths (Ed.), Lessons from good language learners (pp. 294-305). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Mojtaba Mohammadi is a PhD graduate of teaching English as a Shen, H.-J. (2003). The role of explicit instruction in ESL/EFL foreign language (TEFL) at Islamic Azad University (IAU) Science reading. Foreign Language Annals, 36, 424-433. and Research Branch, Tehran, Iran. He held his MA in TEFL in Mohammadi et al. 11 1999 from IAU Central Tehran Branch. He is a faculty member of TEFL. He is also the author of English textbooks for high school and English Language Teaching (ELT) Department at IAU Roudehen preuniversity levels, used nationwide, and 10 university textbooks. Branch. He has been teaching English for about 18 years in English Parviz Maftoon is an associate professor of teaching English at language institutes and universities. His areas of interest include IAU, Science and Research Branch, Tehran, Iran. He received his teacher and learner beliefs, computer-assisted language learning, PhD degree from New York University in teaching English to testing and assessment, and writing skill. speakers of other languages (TESOL). His primary research inter- Parviz Birjandi has an MA in applied linguistics from the Colorado ests concern second language (SL) acquisition, SL/first language State University and a PhD in English education, research methods, (FL) teaching methodology, and language curriculum development. and statistics from the University of Colorado. He is the head of He has published nationally and internationally and written and English Language Department in the IAU, Science and Research edited a number of English books. He is currently on the editorial Branch, Tehran. He has published more than 30 articles in the area of board of several language journals in Iran.

Journal

SAGE OpenSAGE

Published: Apr 10, 2015

Keywords: learning strategy training; beliefs about language leaning; learners’ beliefs; LLBS; reading comprehension

There are no references for this article.