Abstract

The aim of this paper is to review the major findings from research done on EFL learners’ learning strategies in Chinese-speaking contexts and compare them with those from the West. The relevance and applicability of the western research findings in the Chinese EFL situation will be discussed. Finally, the paper will draw some cautious suggestions and implications for EFL learning and teaching in China.

1. Introduction

In the last two decades or so, based on the identification and classification of the characteristics of the ‘good’ language learners, considerable research has been done on language learning strategies and various learner variables affecting the choice and use of learning strategies, in the world of ESL learning (Rubin, 1975, Stern 1975, Wenden and Rubin, 1987, Oxford, 1989, Oxford, 1990, Porte, 1988, Lawson and Hogben, 1996, Rees-Miller, 1993, O’Malley and Chamot, 1991, Oxford and Scarcella, 1994, White, 1995). The study of language learning strategies still attracts great attention from current researchers, mostly hoping that these strategies have a causative effect upon language learning outcomes and that they can be trained in some way (Skehan, 1989: 139). One phenomenon that has been duly noticed by some teacher researchers (Huang and Van-Naerssen, 1987, Gu and Johnson, 1996, Wen and Johnson, 1997, Kouraogo, 1993) is that the majority of the research studies have been carried out in English-speaking countries in the West, such as USA, where ESL learners are mainly concerned.

This paper is to review the major findings from research done on EFL learners’ learning strategies in Chinese-speaking contexts and compare them with those from the West. The relevance and applicability of the western research findings in the Chinese EFL situation will be discussed. Finally, the paper will draw some cautious suggestions and implications for EFL learning and teaching in China.

2. Research findings on learning strategies of Chinese EFL learners

Within the ‘explosion of activity’ (Skehan, 1991: 285, cited in Ellis, 1994: 529) of the study of learning strategies, the world of Second Language Acquisition has seen several studies conducted by Chinese teachers and using Chinese subjects in China. Perhaps Huang and Van-Naerssen’s study (1987) was the first one, followed by Gu and Johnson’s (1996) and Wen and Johnson’s (1997). These three studies have covered some of the frequently discussed areas such as vocabulary learning strategies, oral communicative abilities and general language proficiency, and have used subjects at different levels of EFL proficiency. These studies were aimed to ‘throw new light upon assumptions about language learners and language learning’ (Wen, 1997:) in Chinese contexts, and hopefully in EFL contexts in other parts of the world. This section will first review the major findings of the three studies separately and then come to the generalisation of what seems to be the overall pattern of use of language learning strategies among EFL Chinese learners.

2.1 Huang and Van-Naerssen’s study (1987)

Huang and Van-Naerssen studied 60 graduating English-major students who had completed four years of university education by means of written questionnaires on use of learning strategies and an in-depth interview. The subjects also took an oral examination to help establish their oral communicative ability.

The learning strategies Huang and Van-Naerssen aimed to classify were put in three groups (based on Rubin, 1975 and Stern, 1975), namely:

Formal practice: included such activities as listening to and doing pattern drills, listening in order to improve pronunciation, memorising and reciting texts, imitating, retelling stories, reading aloud, and reading in order to learn vocabulary items or grammatical structures;

Functional practice: included activities which mainly focused on using language for communication, such as speaking with other students and native speakers, listening and reading for comprehension, attending lectures, watching films and TV programs, and thinking or talking to oneself in English;

Monitoring: as a strategy, refers to the efforts made by the learner to pay attention to the use of linguistic forms and modify language responses.

The main findings of this study were as follows.

1. There is significant difference for some functional practice techniques, such as speaking with other students, teachers and native speakers, thinking in English and participating in group activities, between the high- and low- level proficiency students;

2. With regard to formal practice and monitoring strategies, no significant difference was found between the two groups of learners. Although no direct cause and effect relationship was found, Huang and Van-Naerssen, in their conclusion, tentatively suggest that the use of functional practice strategies can contribute to success in the development of oral communicative abilities.

2.2 Gu and Johnson’s study (1996)

Whereas Huang and Van-Naerssen were interested in the possible relationship between language learning strategies and oral communicative proficiency, Gu and Van-Naerssen turned their attention to vocabulary learning strategies and language learning outcomes. The latter researchers studied 850 sophomore non-English majors at Beijing Normal University, China. The instruments they employed included a vocabulary learning questionnaire, two vocabulary size tests, the university-wide English proficiency test scores and the nation-wide college entrance English examination scores to show student’s beginning level at the university.

The learning strategies Gu and Johnson aimed to clarify were grouped as such: Metacognitive strategies (self-initiation and selective attention), guessing strategies, dictionary strategies, note-taking strategies, memory strategies (rehearsal and encoding) and activation strategies.

This study came to the following main findings.

(1). The studied group of EFL Chinese learners ‘reported using more meaning oriented strategies than rote strategies in learning vocabulary’ (p. 668);

(2). The following strategies showed positive correlation with vocabulary size and general language proficiency. They are self-initiation, selective attention, ‘contextual guessing, skilful use of dictionaries for learning purposes ( as opposed to looking up for comprehension only), note- taking, paying attention to word formation, contextual encoding, and intentional activation of new words’ (P.668).

(3). Oral repetition correlates with general language proficiency.

2.3 Wen and Johnson’s study (1997)

Wen and Johnson examined 242 second -year English-majored students in five tertiary institutions in Shanghai and Nanjing, China. They looked at language learning variables and their relationship to English achievement in this context. They used both quantitative and qualitative data and used the instruments of Language Learner Factors Questionnaire and 3 nation-wide language proficiency tests (two were the college-entrance tests for both Chinese and English, and the other the Graded Test for English Majors (GEM4)) for the former, and interviews, dairy studies and on-task observation (a reading task) for the latter.

Wen and Johnson divided L2 learning variables into 2 large categories – unmodifiable ones, those which are either environmental, instrumental or individual constraints upon language learning , like sex, intelligence, aptitude and prior learning experience, and modifiable ones, those which contribute most immediately and directly to the learning outcomes and are more open to external intervention (Wen and Johnson, p. 28-30). Among the many variables examined are the following groups of learning strategies – vocabulary learning strategies, tolerating ambiguity strategies, mother tongue avoidance strategies and management strategies.

After careful calculation and analysis, Wen and Johnson came to the following conclusions with regard to language learning strategies of the studied group of learners.

(1). Vocabulary learning strategies and mother tongue avoidance strategies have positive effects upon English language proficiency;

(2). Tolerating ambiguity / risk-taking strategies have negative effects upon general language proficiency;

(3). Management strategies, including planning, evaluation, study habits and affective control, play an important role in differentiating successful and unsuccessful learners;

(4). Belief variables, like learning purpose, attribution belief, management belief, form-focused belief, meaning-focused belief and mother tongue avoidance belief, have strong and consistent effects on learning strategy variables.

2.4 A synthesis of the findings of the three studies

These three studies have covered the most frequently addressed areas within Second Language Acquisition – vocabulary learning strategies, learning strategies with regard to oral communicative abilities and general English language proficiency. The subjects in these studies are EFL learners at different levels including graduating English-major students and second year non-English-major students in different places like Guangzhou, Nanjing, Shanghai, and Beijing in China. It is hoped here that a synthesis of their findings may help provide a general picture of the use of learning strategies at college level in China. Among the many various strategies reported used by these EFL learners in China, the following characteristics appear to be outstanding. The paper does not attempt to be comprehensive in this generalisation.

· Reading as a major means to be exposed to the target language

It seems from the three studies that one outstanding feature of the target groups of Chinese EFL learners is that reading may stand out as the most important source of language input for them. This can be seen from what Gu and Johnson (1996) term their successful learners in terms of vocabulary size and general proficiency as ‘readers’ (p. 662). Their readers learn English and its vocabulary ‘primarily through reading, guessing, and contextual encoding, while at the same time sparing some attention to word forms’ (p. 662). Huang and Van-Naerssen’s study (1987) also proves reading practice is very important. For their learners, reading practice correlates with speaking practice and both of them are strongly positive predictors of students’ oral proficiency (p. 292). Presumably, they should also correlates with students’ general language proficiency. Surprisingly enough, deliberately or not, Huang and Van-Naerssen did not mention anything at all about the possible relationship between the vocabulary learning strategies they studied and students’ general language proficiency and that between oral communicative abilities and general proficiency. For Wen and Johnson’s study (1997), among the four groups of vocabulary learning strategies, the high achievers carried out more activities related to learning new words in prescribed reading and self-initiated reading, especially, in the latter task. Having been said that, this importance of reading needs to be interpreted with regard to the specific ‘ FLLIPE ( foreign language learning in input-poor environments)’ (Kouraogo, 1993: 165) context in China.

Despite the ‘explosion in the demand for English’ and ‘massive expansion’ (Cortazzi and Jin, 1996) of English learning and teaching, EFL in China still displays the disadvantage of poor input and few chances for learners to engage themselves in a variety of wide communicative activities and to put the target language into real communication. This is especially true for students in middle schools and colleges. For them, the most exposure to English is either in the classrooms, where the teacher (mostly Chinese-speaking rather than native) directs their study, or outside the classrooms when they can find access to the English language input. The most probable input situations they can find and put themselves into is from books, reading materials and listening materials, but not likely from real conversations. For them, reading itself is one means of putting the language into use. It is a combination of effortful study, deliberate use, elaboration and analysis of the target language (Wen and Johnson, 1997). Thus, those techniques and strategies that promote effective reading are frequently dwelled on by the Chinese EFL learners.

Careful study of new vocabulary encountered in reading and listening seems to be the general behaviour the top group of EFL learners in China are likely to adopt. In prescribed reading, students are generally required to understand every detail of the reading material including new vocabulary and phrases, structures, as well as the discourse structure and the overall meaning. When engaged in this kind of reading tasks, it may be more beneficial if students pay more attention to new words and expressions. More analytic study of the new words, phrases, and their form-meaning complex may result in better learning outcomes. Even in self-initiated reading, those high achievers from Wen and Johnson’s study reported using more careful study of the new vocabulary, either by taking some notes of the word-meaning association or memorizing them in their own way (p.36). This reading with deliberate elaboration and analysis is not necessarily a support for Krashen’s theory of unconscious acquisition under the condition of provision of comprehensible input (1987), rather it is a kind of conscious manipulation and elaboration of the target language.

· Guessing from context

Guessing from context is another technique most of these EFL learners reported using when engaged in reading tasks. Gu’s students reported extensive use of both local cues (from the immediate context) and wider cues (from wider context, such as the sentences before and after, the paragraph or the whole text, social background knowledge, etc.) (p. 664). For this group of students, learning vocabulary in natural context (as indicated before, reading is a natural situation) positively related to both vocabulary size and general proficiency (p. 660). Wen and Johnson seem to have got some contradictory findings about guessing strategies in their sample groups of learners. They found that tolerating ambiguity (risk-taking or guessing) strategies ‘had a negative effect (-.11) on English achievement’ (p. 36). They interpret this finding as that guessing strategies might help learners’ strategies ‘to grasp the overall meaning in their receptive skills but may limit or eliminate opportunities for learning new words or structures and inhibit the development of productive skills (p. 36).

However, considered further with the qualitative data from Wen and Johnson’s study (1997: 31), the picture becomes much clearer. In actuality, both the top- and bottom-groups of their subjects used guessing strategies extensively. The difference lies in how, where and when they use these strategies.

“The higher achievers used Tamb ( Tolerating ambiguity ) Strategies consistently throughout their reading, but they made a clear distinction between prescribed reading for study purposes and reading for pleasure. For the latter, they relied extensively on guessing but sometimes used the dictionary to check their guess at the meaning of words they considered important or interesting. In their intensive reading (same as the prescribed reading), a guess was consistently checked against the dictionary, and the use of the dictionary was seen as an opportunity to extend their knowledge of the language. The lower achievers were less consistent in their use of both guessing and dictionary strategies.” (p. 37)

This use of guessing (inferencing) strategies is widely accepted as an effective and successful technique learners use for comprehension in research literature (Oxford, 1990, Oxford and Scarcella, 1994, O’Malley and Chamot, 1990, Chamot, 1987, Wenden, 1987, Lawson and Hogben, 1996). At least, guessing and inferencing can facilitate language learning in three ways. On the one hand, quite obviously, they save time for the learner. Students do not have to interrupt reading when they come across unfamiliar words or expressions if they can infer meaning out of the context. They do not need to trouble themselves to move between whatever they are reading and looking up the items in dictionaries which might not be so easy to find immediately anyway. If the task is a listening one or in real time communication, it is simply not possible to stop listening and look up a dictionary without interrupting and fragmenting the natural flow of the materials or topics. On the other hand, by guessing from the context or inferencing meaning from both linguistic and paralinguistic features, learners can speed up their reading without affecting the overall comprehension of the material. Again, in the specific contexts like China where there is simply not enough natural input, the more students can manage to read, it means that they have access to more language exposure, more activation of the new language forms and meanings, although basically it is only in the form of one-way intake on the students’ part. Another way in which guessing can facilitate language learning is that when learners engage themselves in guessing or inferencing word meaning from context, cognitively, they may be more deeply involved in the process of deliberate elaboration and manipulation of the given material, otherwise it can only be some kind of a free random guess. Hence, the word-meaning complex may result in longer retention in their memory.

· Dictionary use

Closely related to guessing and inferencing from context is the strategies of using dictionaries. It seems that most of the students in Wen and Johnson’s context reported using dictionary for different purposes (this can be seen from the citation in the discussion of guessing strategies). Their sample top students used the dictionary to check their guess at the meaning of words that they thought interesting and important in their self-initiated reading. In their intensive reading course, they always checked their guessed meaning against the dictionary. The lower achievers also reported using dictionaries, but their use of the seemed inconsistent and much simpler in purpose and process. At the same time, Gu and Johnson’s students also reported extensive use of dictionaries both for comprehension and learning vocabulary. From these studies, it seems that although Chinese students use dictionaries widely, the difference between the successful and unsuccessful language learners lie in the way they use the dictionary. A more skilful and flexible manipulation of the entries and their explanations and meanings in the dictionary, plus an integration of the dictionary definitions into the concrete context would probably bring about more accurate meaning and better understanding of the materials involved. As pointed out by Oxford and Scarcella (1994) , learners had better be reminded that ‘relying on dictionary as a primary way to increase vocabulary ( and perhaps to aid comprehension) does not work’ (p. 238).

· Repetition and memorization

A general belief about Chinese, or even Asian learners in literature is that these learners use more rote learning or memorization strategies. It has become a mini caricature of the Asian students (Oxford and Scarcella, 1994: 237, Oxford, 1989: 242). The research findings from these three studies can only serve to provide some counter-proof to this view. The participants in Gu and Johnson’s study neither seemed to believe in simple memorization of word lists, nor did they report strong reliance upon the use of rote learning / memorization strategies. The only exceptional technique or procedure which positively helped these learners was oral repetition, a kind of rehearsal, either of the sound of the new words or their word-meaning associations (p. 654). Huang and Van-Naerssen, in their study, traced the origin of memorization and recitation of Chinese students back to the traditional ideas about education, the dual principles of understanding and memorization. The two researchers also attribute the use of memorization techniques to the poor-input language learning environment where ‘memorized input is an important source of language’ (p. 294). Actually, repetition strategies have been found to be generally employed by students in other language contexts (Chamot, 1987: 80, O’Malley and Chamot, 1991: 121, Lawson and Hogben, 1996: 120). It can be argued that memorizing words and phrases does not necessarily mean rote-learning long lists of vocabulary. If it is based on the process of understanding the materials first by means of elaborate study of the items, it may result in better and longer retention in students’ memory.

· Students’ own management of EFL learning

Research shows that self-management of one’s own learning process is very critical among Chinese learners. In Wen and Johnson’s study, management strategies were classified into four groups: planning, evaluation, study habits, and affective control. They found that management strategies had strong direct effects on most of the learning strategy latent variables and showed the largest indirect effect upon students’ general language proficiency (p. 389). Gu and Johnson also found that students generally dwelled on self-initiation and selective attention, although the latter appeared slightly weaker than the former (p. 654). This finding is in line with the main stream literature in the world of SLA.

It is not possible here to list all the strategies, techniques or procedures reported used by these Chinese EFL learners, nor is it the intention of the present paper. The above brief synthesis is only hoped to serve as a generalization of the procedures and processes these foreign language learners may go through during their learning of the language, and hoped to help the writer himself understand these possible processes more accurately.

3. Implications and suggestions

As indicated in the introduction, studies of language learning strategies are generally expected to establish a causal relationship between the use of learning strategies and the general language proficiency. If there happens to be such a strong relationship between the two, it is likely that ‘language performance can be improved by enhancing strategy use’ (Oxford and Burry-Stock, 1993: p. 6). A great amount of work has been done on how to train learners to use effective strategies and research studies have found quite controversial results (Benson, 1995, Rees-Miller, 1993, Chamot and Rubin, 1994, O’Malley and Chamot, 1990, Oxford, 1990, Oxford, 1994). So, what does this ‘state of the art’ mean to the already not-easy jobs of Chinese EFL learners and teachers as well?

3.1 Successful or unsuccessful?

The findings of the three studies reviewed in the previous section seem to support one of the research findings in the West that, most probably, it is the way learners use individually tailored combinations of strategies, rather than some single strategies, that distinguish successful learners from unsuccessful ones (Oxford, 1994, Kouraogo, 1993). Thus the problem arises: what strategies make a good and effective combination for a specific learner and a specific language task? If learner training is considered at all, before it is implemented, this question needs to be answered first. The problem is that some strategies suitable and effective for some successful learners may not work well for other successful or unsuccessful learners and unsuccessful learners have been found using many ‘good’ language learning strategies (Huang and Van-Naerssen, 1987, Porte, 1988). Similarly, there are language learners who have been successful in their learning, using strategies not listed under the label of ‘good language learner’ model, or not approved effective in literature (Fillmore, 1983, cited in Rees-Miller 1993). More research is needed to ascertain the factors influencing individual learner’s selection and use of language learning strategies, i.e., who use what kinds of strategies when engaged in a certain kind of language task.

3.2 Awareness raising

It has been found in empirical studies that successful language learners are more consistent in their self-report of their use of learning strategies than their unsuccessful peers (Lawson and Hogben, 1996: 127, Kouraogo, 1993: 169, Wen and Johnson, 1997). If successful students tend to give more stable and consistent answers in the questionnaires and interviews about learning strategies, it indicates that they are more clearly aware of the strategies they use. It is likely that, among the many variables influencing one’s language learning and proficiency, awareness of one’s own learning strategies and learning styles, and of how one learns the language most effectively, may help enhance the learning process and contribute to the learning outcome.

This awareness of one’s learning strategies can be achieved through a process of self-discovery. Language learners should be encouraged, and helped when it is necessary, to recognize and identify their own learning styles, their own preference as to how best to learn, and to analyze how their own learning strategies facilitate their language learning. In EFL contexts in China where teachers and students experience a serious lack of opportunities to engage themselves in real communicative activities, this self-discovery of their own learning strategies and learning styles can serve to provide some chances for purposeful communication. Teachers and students can be encouraged to talk about their language learning and teaching experience, and students can discuss with each other and exchange ideas about how they prefer to learn. This can also build up a bridge for teachers and students, students themselves as well, to understand each other. The affective state of the little community within the classroom has also an important part to play. As pointed out by Porte (1988: 171), language learners may be ‘better served by making sure that we help them to identify, nurture and where necessary and feasible, refine their own current repertoire of learning strategies’.

3.3 More research needed

As mentioned before, in the EFL contexts as large and complicated as in China, any generalization may be incomplete or even misleading. This review only looked at the major findings of three studies done on Chinese English learners. More research is badly needed to obtain a more comprehensive picture of Chinese EFL learners and their language learning strategies. At the same time, in order to help our students in identifying and self-evaluating their own strategies, we teachers need to be more aware of the possible differences between different individual learners. This readiness to accommodate individual learners can only be based on careful study and analysis of each individual student, his/her learning styles, preferences and many other factors.

At the same time, we teachers need to be reflective and critical of our own teaching practice. By investigating students’ learning styles and learning strategies, teachers can address more specifically individual student’s needs and characteristics, and try those more approachable ideas and tasks with different students accordingly. We have to be aware of the fact that our learners are not completely empty vessels waiting to be filled.

4. Conclusion

This paper has tried to review the major findings of studies done on Chinese-speaking EFL learners in China. It seems that in FLLIPE (Kouraogo, 1993) situations like China, reading stand out as the most important means to access the target language. Naturally, those strategies closely related to reading (effective reading) are frequently dwelled on by Chinese EFL learners (successful ones), such as guessing from contexts, looking up dictionaries. In terms of oral communicative abilities, students who engage more in functional practice, looking for chances to speak to other students and teachers seem to perform better. Memorization skills, like oral repetition, and elaborate study skills are both importantly correlated with students’ overall proficiency.

Finally, it is suggested that teachers and learners need to develop a sensitivity to the importance of various factors affecting language learning and to different language learning strategies which may play different roles for different learners. It is hoped that learners can be helped to identify and explore consciously what kind of strategies and techniques they use and become more aware of what is going on in their learning process – both cognitively and metacognitively involved in their learning process, at least before these strategies have been automatised.

Bibliography

Benson, Phil 1995, ‘A Critical View of Learner Training’. Learning Learning, 2/2 PP.1-23

Chamot, A. U. 1987, ‘The Learning Strategies of ESL Students’ in Wenden, Anita and Rubin, Joan (eds), Learner Strategies in Language Learning. Prentice-Hall International

Chamot, A. U. and Rubin, Joan 1994, ‘Comments on Janie Rees-Miller’s “A Critical Appraisal of Learner Training: Theoretical Bases and Teaching Implications” ’. TESOL Quarterly. Vol. 28, No. 4, PP. 771-776

Cortazzi, M. and Jin, Lixian 1996, ‘English Teaching and Learning in China’. Language Teaching, 29, PP.61-80

Ellis, Rod 1994, The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press

Gu, Yongqi and Johnson, R. K. 1996, ‘Vocabulary learning Strategies and Language Learning Outcomes’. Language Teaching, 46:4, PP. 643-679

Huang, Xiaohua and Van-Naerssen, M. 1987, ‘ Learning Strategies for Oral Communication’. Applied Linguistics, Vol. 8, No. 3 PP.

Kouraogo, Pierre 1993, ‘Language Learning Strategies in Input-Poor Environments’. System, Vol. 21, No. 2, PP. 165-173

Krashen, S. D. 1987, Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Prentice-Hall International

Lawson, M. J. and Hogben, D. 1996, ‘The Vocabulary Learning Strategies of Foreign Language Students’. Language Learning, 46:1, PP. 101-135

O’Malley, J. M. and Chamot, A. U. 1990, Learning Strategies in Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Oxford, R. L. 1989, ‘Use of Language Learning Strategies: A Synthesis of Studies with Implications for Strategy Training’. System. Vol. 17, No. 2, PP. 235-247

Oxford, R. L. 1990, Language Learning Strategies: What Every Teacher Should Know. New York: Newbury House

Oxford, R. L. 1994, Language Learning Strategies: An Update. ERIC L & L Digest – a web page (sorry, I lost the web address)

Oxford, R. L. and Burry-Stock, J. A. 1995, ‘Assessing the Use of Language Learning Strategies Worldwide with the ESL/EFL version of the Strategy Inventory for Language learning (SILL)’. System, Vol. 23, No. 1, PP. 1-23

Oxford, R. L. and Scarcella, R. C. 1994, ‘ Second Language Vocabulary Learning among Adults: State of the Art in Vocabulary instruction’. System, Vol. 22, No. 2, PP.231-243

Porte, Graeme 1988, ‘Poor Language Learners and Their Strategies for Dealing with New Vocabulary’. ELT Journal, Vol. 42, No. 3, PP. 167-172

Rees-Miller, J 1993, ‘ A Critical Appraisal of Learner Training: Theoretical Bases and Teaching Implications’. TESOL Quarterly, Vol. 27, No. 4, PP. 679-689

Rubin, J. 1975, ‘What the “Good Language Learner” can teach us?’ . TESOL Quarterly, VOL. 9, No. 1, PP. 41-51

Skehan, P. 1989, Individual Differences in Second Language Learning. London: Edward Arnold

Wen, Qiufang and Johnson, R. K. 1997, ‘ Second Language Learner Variables and English Achievement: A Study of Tertiary Level English Majors in China’. Applied Linguistics, Vol. 18, No. 1, PP. 27-48

White, Cynthia 1995, ‘Autonomy and Strategy Use in Distance Foreign Language Learning: Research findings’. System, Vol. 23, no. 2, PP. 207-221