English Language Teaching

Vol. 3, No. 1, pp.31-47, 2016

Language Learning Strategy Preferences of Asian EFL Learners

Jalal Kamalizad
Assistant Profesor of TEFL, Islamic Azad University of Malard

Kaveh J. Kalilzadeh 2
PhD Candidate of TEFL, Islamic Azad University, Science and Research
Branch

Abstract

Responding to the controversies in the results of past studies concerning the effect of
nationality/ethnicity on using language learning strategies, this study adopts Oxford’s
(1990) strategy inventory for language learning (SILL) to report Iranian male college
level EFL learners’ pattern of strategy use and compare it with other Asian EFL
learners’ strategy use pattern. This comparison might hopefully enhance scholars’
understanding about the role of nationality/ethnicity in learners’ choice and use of
strategies and would also add to the literature in the field. As such, the results of the
study revealed that the Iranian participants are medium strategy users (M = 3.31) and
resembled many other Asian background EFL learners. Descriptive statistics,
multivariate analysis of the variances (MANOVA) and follow-up post-hoc
comparison tests used in this investigation showed that the participants perceived
using metacognitive (M = 3.79) and social (M = 3.82) categories of strategies at a
high level and significantly (p < .05) higher than other categories of the SILL.
Memory (M = 2.89) and affective (M = 2.75) categories of strategies turned out to be
least favored by them and were less significantly (p < .05) used than other categories
listed in SILL. The results of individual strategy item analysis were in conformity
with the above results. Based on the noticeable similarities discovered in the strategy
use pattern of Asian EFL learners, the author suggested some guidelines for teachers
and policy makers working in Asian EFL context.

Keywords: learning strategies; nationality; Asian background English learners;

EFL; strategy use pattern

Received on: 02/04/2016 Accepted on:10/07/2016

Email: kaveh_j2004@yahoo.com

TRIAL MODE − a valid license will remove this message. See the keywords property of this PDF for more information.
 32 Language Learning Strategy Preferences …
1. Introduction
Cognitive Psychology, emerging in the 1960's, changed language researchers'
way of thinking about language learning strategies (Weinstein & Mayer,
1986). Oxford and Schramm (2007, p. 47) define second language learner
strategy from the psychological perspective as “a specific plan, action,
behavior, step, or technique that individual learners use, with some degree of
consciousness, to improve their progress in developing skills in a second or
foreign language.” Oxford (1999) states that, “such strategies can facilitate the
internalization, storage, retrieval, or use of the new language and are tools for
greater learner autonomy” (P. 518). Research in the field started with strategies
of “Good Language Learners” followed by research on “Less Successful
Language Learners”. As by-product of such endeavor, several classification
frameworks of LLSs were outlined by experts in the field such as Rubin
(1981), Bialystok (1978), O’Mally and Chamot (1990) and Oxford (1990).
From 1980 up to date, it has been the concern of many researchers to
investigate what variables are related to the learner’s choice and use of learner
strategies and how strong their influences are. Nationality has been one of
these variables believed to affect learners’ choice of strategies. For instance,
Politzer and McGroarty (1985) in a pioneering effort to investigate the effect
of nationality on LLSs found out that Asian students showed fewer of the
strategies expected of “good” language learners than did Hispanic students. In
terms of progress in English, however, the Asian learners made more progress
than did their Hispanic counterparts.
The authors speculated, based on these results, that what constitute
good strategies might be ethnocentric. Several studies have been conducted to
explore the patterns of strategy use of Asian background language learners.
Nevertheless, most of these projects have been executed in East and Southeast
Asia (Oh, 1992; Bedell & Oxford, 1996; Park, 1997; Bremmer, 1999; Ok,
2003; Peacock & Ho, 2003; Yang, 2010) where the context of language
learning is quite different from that of some other Asian countries such as Iran.
Thus, more research should be conducted with English learners of other Asian
nationality domains in order to give us a clear picture of the role of
nationality/ethnicity in using LLSs. This study, in turn, aimed at discovering
both similarities and differences between Iranian English learners and other
Asian background EFL learners in terms of their strategy use pattern. The
purpose of doing such study, hence; could be summarized in the following
research questions:
1. What is the strategy use pattern of Iranian English learners in terms of
overall use of the SILL, and the application of SILL’s six strategy
categories?
2. With respect to 50 individual strategy items in the SILL, what are the
most and least frequently used strategies of Iranian learners in this
study?
3. How comparable are Iranian English learners with other Asian
background EFL learners with regard to their strategy use pattern?

TRIAL MODE − a valid license will remove this message. See the keywords property of this PDF for more information.
 33 English Language Teaching, Vol. 3, No. 1, 2016

In the following section, the definition of LLSs and

nationality/ethnicity as a variable will be addressed in some detail as pertinent
to the topic under investigation.
2. Literature Review
2.1 Language Learning Strategy: Definition
Many researchers have underscored the pivotal role of LLSs; however, they
have differed in defining what a LLS is. Rubin (1987) regards LLSs as
constructed by the learner to directly contribute to the development of their
language system. Chamot (1993) defined LLSs as the behaviors and thought
processes language learners apply to help them acquire, store, retrieve and use
information within the target language. Ellis’(1994) definition of LLS reads as
“an attempt to develop linguistic and sociolinguistic competence in the target
language” (p.530). According to O’Malley and Chamot (1990) LLSs are
specific ways of processing information and enhancing comprehension,
learning or the retention of information. The difference in the definitions of
LLSs could be traced to the different processes LLSs have been attached to by
different researchers in the field during discreet periods of time. Some
definitions reflect a greater emphasis of the role of LLSs on the processes of
language learning than on language learning as a product. For instance, Oxford
(1992/1993) defines LLSs as: “specific actions, behaviors, steps, or techniques
that students (often intentionally) use to improve their progress in developing
L2 skills. These strategies can facilitate the internalization, storage, retrieval, or
use of the new language. ‘‘Strategies are tools for self-directed involvement
necessary for developing communicative ability” (p.18).
2.2 Nationality/Ethnicity and Language Learning Strategy
Most probably, study on nationality as a factor that might influence learner’s
strategy choice began with efforts by Politzer and McGroarty (1985) who
found out that Asian students showed fewer of the strategies expected of
“good” language learners than did Hispanic students. Bedell and Oxford (1996)
studied the strategies used by 353 mainland Chinese EFL university students;
they revealed that compensation strategies were the highest-ranking category.
They found that this was also true with Chinese students studying in Taiwan
and the US. The Puerto Rican and Egyptian students, in contrast, reported a
moderate use of compensation strategies. Based on their findings, the authors
argued that the higher use of compensation strategies might be typical of Asian
students. They also reported low use of memory strategies by Asian students.
Bremner (1999) studied a group of Hong Kong university students,
the findings suggested that compensation and metacognitive strategies were
their most favored ones, while affective and memory strategies were the least
frequently used strategies by these English learners. Meanwhile, the
participants perceived themselves as medium strategy users. Griffiths and Parr
(2000) reported finding that European students reported using language

TRIAL MODE − a valid license will remove this message. See the keywords property of this PDF for more information.
 34 Language Learning Strategy Preferences …
learning strategies more frequently than language learners of other
nationalities. They reported that European students showed working at a
significantly higher level than learners of other nationalities. Mochizuki’s
(1999) study on Japanese EFL students reported infrequent use of memory
strategies by this group of Japanese learners. Peacock and Ho (2003) studied
the strategy use of 1006 Hong Kong university students; they argued that the
participants were medium strategy users with compensation category of
strategies as the most frequently used one followed by cognitive, metacognitive
and social strategy categories. Memory and affective strategies were reported
as the least frequently used ones.
A more recent study by Riazi and Rahimi (2005) on Iranian university
students’ LLS use pattern gained similar result, that is, Iranian students are
medium strategy users. They perceived using memory strategies less frequently
than other strategies, while, metacognitive category of strategies was the most
frequently used one. Another Iranian study (Nikoopour, Amini, & Kashefi,
2011) revealed that, in terms of overall strategy use, Iranian EFL learners are,
in general, moderate strategy users with metacognitive strategies being their
most and memory strategies being their least favored ones. Chang (2009) used
SILL to study Taiwanese college level English learners’ strategy use pattern in
both EFL and ESL contexts. While memory and affective categories were least
favored by his participants, cognitive and social strategy categories were
reportedly their most frequently used ones which is rather in contrast with
some other EFL studies in the field regarding the high use of cognitive and
social strategies by the participants in his study.
Yang (2010) studied the strategy use pattern of 288 Korean university
students. The findings indicated that Korean university students used a medium
range of strategies. Compensation strategies were used most frequently
whereas memory strategies were used least frequently by this group of Korean
EFL learners. The authors in most of the studies presented above used
Oxford’s SILL for their investigation and their study results generally suggest
that nationality plays a significant role in learner’s choice and use of strategies.
In sum, the results of the above mentioned studies can be summarized as: 1)
the Asian EFL participants perceived themselves as medium strategy users, 2)
metacognitive and compensation strategies were reportedly the most frequently
used strategies while affective and memory strategies were the least frequently
used strategies of these Asian EFL learners, and 3) European learners reported
higher use of LLSs compared to other nationalities. In this study, Iranian mail
college level English learners’ strategy use pattern will be explored and
compared to that of other Asian background EFL learners’. Other backgrounds
such as European nationality are beyond the scope of this study and will not be
discussed here.

TRIAL MODE − a valid license will remove this message. See the keywords property of this PDF for more information.
 35 English Language Teaching, Vol. 3, No. 1, 2016

3. Method

3.1 Participants
The participants of this study were 157 Iranian male college level English
learners that were randomly selected based on a two-step cluster sampling
procedure. As the author was doing the main study in two countries, the
participants of the study were partly selected from different branches of a
reputable language institute located in Tehran, the capital city of Iran, and
partly from a Malaysian language center in Kuala Lumpur, the capital city of
Malaysia. They had been posited to their appropriate levels of language
proficiency based on their language institutes’ placement tests. The authors
also used the participants’ self-rated proficiency report to assure the students
were righteously placed to their groups of low, intermediate and advanced
English learners as the proficiency factor was another variable in the main
project (discussed elsewhere). All participants were studying English at their
private language centers to improve their four language skills for both
communicative and academic purposes. Their age range was between 22 and
28.
3.2 Instrumentation
Oxford’s (1990) Strategy Inventory for Language Learning or SILL (version
seven) used in this study is a 50-item survey. It is applied to discover the
frequency of language learner strategies used by second or foreign language
learners in learning English. A rating scale from 1 to 5 is used as the indication
of the numbers for the likert scale as number one meaning ‘never or almost
never true of me’, and number 5 standing for ‘always or almost always true of
me’. The SILL’s alpha co-efficient for reliability is 0.92 (Griffiths, 2007) and
content validity is 0.99 (Oxford & Burry-Stock, 1995). This inventory consists
of six major categories each containing a number of items. The categories
include: 1) Memory (nine items: 1-9); 2) Cognitive (14 items: 10-23); 3)
Compensation (six items: 24-29); 4) Metacognitive (nine items: 30-38); 5)
Affective (six items: 39-44); and 6) Social (six items: 45-50). The SILL is used
to conduct surveys for the purpose of summarizing results for a group by
means of statistical treatment and objectively diagnosing the problem of
individual students (Oxford, 1990). The overall average indicates how often
learners tend to use the language learning strategy.

TRIAL MODE − a valid license will remove this message. See the keywords property of this PDF for more information.
 36 Language Learning Strategy Preferences …
3.3 Data Collection Procedure
Oxford’s (1990) Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) along with
the authors’ equivalent Persian translation of the SILL was used to elicit
information on language learning strategies of the participants. To further
ensure the reliability of the inventory, it was administered to 33 subjects
randomly selected from those who had participated in the study, with a time
interval of two weeks. The test-retest reliability index turned out to be 0.81.
The students’ performance on the questionnaires were scored and analyzed for
exploring their pattern of strategy use. Data analysis was carried out using the
Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS). Descriptive statistics (mean and
standard deviation) were utilized to find out the participants’ mean score over
the SILL, and in the 50 individual items of strategies included in SILL as well
as in the six categories of strategies in SILL. A multivariate analysis of the
variances (MANOVA) was used to see if there were significant differences
between the categories of strategies as perceived to be used by the participants
in the study. Accordingly, Follow-up post-hoc comparison tests were adopted
to determine where exactly the differences lied between the means of strategy
categories.
4. Results and Discussion
The participants in this study gained the overall strategy mean score of 3.31
which indicates they are medium strategy users as can be seen in Table 1.
Table 1
Overall Use of Learning Strategies by the Iranian Participants

N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation

SILL 157 1.8 4.6 3.317 .5088

Table 2
Descriptive Statistics Categories of SILL
Std.
N Minimum Maximum Mean Deviation

Social 157 2.0 5.0 3.821 .6996

Metacognitive 157 1.3 5.0 3.793 .7033

Compensation 157 1.8 5.0 3.421 .7042

Cognitive 157 1.4 4.6 3.261 .6076

Memory 157 1.1 4.6 2.896 .6640

Affective 157 1.5 4.8 2.756 .6169

TRIAL MODE − a valid license will remove this message. See the keywords property of this PDF for more information.
 37 English Language Teaching, Vol. 3, No. 1, 2016

Table 2 shows descriptive information on the learners’ mean scores

over SILL six strategy categories. The table presents the categories from the
most favored category to the least favored one as perceived to be used by
the participants.
The results of the multivariate analysis of variances test (MANOVA)
indicate that there are significant differences (F (2, 152) = 120.48, p = .000<
.05) between the mean scores of the six categories of strategies in SILL.
Follow-up post-hoc comparison tests (Table 3) were also obtained to let us
discern where exactly the differences lie.
Table 3
Post-Hoc Scheffe Comparison Tests for the Categories of the SILL

Mean Difference 95%

(I) SILL (J) SILL Std. Error Sig. Confidence Interval
(I-J) for Difference
Lower Upper
Bound Bound
.
Memory .365* .043 000 .237 .493
.
Cognitive Affective .505* .052 000 .349 .662
.
Memory .525* .059 000 .349 .702
.
Compensation Cognitive .160* .050 027 .010 .311
.
Affective .666* .059 000 .490 .842
.
Memory .897* .049 000 .749 1.044
.
Cognitive .531* .047 000 .393 .670
Compensatio .
Metacognitive n .371* .063 000 .183 .559
.
Affective 1.037* .053 000 .878 1.196
.
Memory .925* .057 000 .754 1.095
.
Cognitive .559* .051 000 .407 .712
Compensatio .
Social n .399* .064 000 .209 .589
.
Affective 1.065* .064 000 .875 1.255
Note. *. The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.

Descriptive Statistics (Table 2), and the results of post-hoc

comparison tests (Table 3) indicate that social (M= 3.82, SD = .70) and
metacognitive (M=3.79, SD=.70) categories of strategies were significantly (p
= .000< .05) used higher than the other categories in the SILL. Affective
category (M = 2.76, SD = .61) as well as memory category of strategies
(M=2.90, SD=.66) were used significantly lower (p < .05) than the other

TRIAL MODE − a valid license will remove this message. See the keywords property of this PDF for more information.
 38 Language Learning Strategy Preferences …
categories in SILL. At the middle of this hierarchy, that is, after social and
metacognitive and before memory and social categories are located
compensation (M= 3.42, SD= .70) and cognitive (M= 3.26, SD = .60)
categories which were significantly different (p < .05) from the other categories
on one hand and only slightly different from each other in a significant way (p
= .027 < .05) on the other hand. Obviously, based on the results displayed in
Table 2, social and metacognitive categories fall within a high range of use
(M= above 3.49), while the other categories are in a medium range of use (M=
between 2.5 and 3.49).
Accordingly, of the SILL’s 50 strategy items, the author has looked at
the participants’ seven most and least frequently used individual strategies
which are discussed along with the strategy categories analysis further in this
section. Prior to that, Table 4, and Table 5 are presented in the following part
as showing the participants’ most and least favored individual strategies
respectively.
Table 4
Descriptive Statistics Seven Most Frequently Used Strategies by Iranian
Participants
N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
Q49 157 1 5 4.35 .869
Q32 157 1 5 4.24 .878
Q38 157 1 5 4.06 1.004
Q33 157 2 5 4.04 .960
Q48 157 1 5 4.02 1.022
Q29 157 1 5 4.01 .971
Q45 157 1 5 3.92 1.056

Table 5
Descriptive Statistics Seven Least Frequently Used Strategies by Iranian
Participants

N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation

Q6 157 1 5 2.73 1.447
Q17 157 1 5 2.70 1.248
Q44 157 1 5 2.45 1.288
Q5 157 2 5 2.24 1.157
Q41 157 1 5 2.21 1.177
Q7 157 1 5 1.96 1.106
Q43 157 0 5 1.61 1.066

When we compare the results of the present study with those of other
studies (Chang, 1991; Oh, 1992; Yang, 1994; Park, 1997; Bremmer, 1999;
Wharton, 2000; Peacock & Ho, 2003; Chang, 2009), it turns out that Asian
EFL learners show similar patterns on at least two aspects: 1) Asian EFL
learners are generally moderate users of language learning strategies, 2)
Affective strategies (at least those listed in SILL) are least favored by the

TRIAL MODE − a valid license will remove this message. See the keywords property of this PDF for more information.
 39 English Language Teaching, Vol. 3, No. 1, 2016

majority of Asian EFL learners.

The results of the present study showed that metacognitive strategies
were most favored by the Iranian participants. Similarly, in several other
studies with Asian EFL participants, including Iranian ones, the same result
was obtained (Oh, 1992; Park, 1997; Riazi & Rahimi, 2005) to name a few.
This is in conformity with the results gained on individual strategy items;
among the 50 items in the SILL, item 32 (M =4.24) (I pay attention when
someone is speaking English), item 33 (M =4.04) (I try to find out how to be
better learner of English), and item 38 (M =4.06) (I think about my progress in
learning English) as metacognitive strategies show the highest mean scores as
perceived to be used by Iranian language learners in the study. High use of
metacognitive strategies by EFL learners including Iranian English learners
could be linked to the lack of natural English use in settings where they are
living or learning English. Additionally, in some cultures such as Iranian
culture implicit instruction is not regarded as teaching and learners expect to be
fed with explicit rules even in the presence of namely communicative
approaches of teaching in their English classes. As a result, they can hardly
pick up the target language as they heavily rely on their conscious skills and
strategies (metacognitive behavior) for learning the target language. Thus, it is
not unusual to observe high use of metacognitive strategies by Iranian learners
of English, who strive to learn the language in spite of the existence of mainly
grammar-based approaches of teaching English in Many Iranian public or
private language institutes that provoke mainly conscious processes on the
aspects of Iranian language learners’ strategy use.
The participants in this study also resemble many Asian EFL
participants in other studies (reviewed above) with respect to their low frequent
use of affective and memory strategies. Affective strategies, in fact, enable
learners to control their emotions, attitudes, and motivations in language
learning processes. Lower use of affective strategies by the participants of this
study could be due to their difficulty in managing their emotions and anxiety to
use the target language especially in the form of a presentation or a lecture or
even a simple talk in front of other students in the class. Their fear of using the
target language might relate to the fact that English is not used beyond the
walls of the classrooms especially in spoken forms and as a result, Iranian
learners hardly build up second language identity required for taking roles,
interacting in English and many other activities which involve using the target
language for self-expression. Another likely explanation for the lower use of
affective strategies is that there are a few unusual strategy items in the SILL
that might not gain a high score even by good language learners which, in turn,
might affect the total category mean score. For instance, strategy items 41, 43,
and 44 respectively shown up as “I give myself a reward or treat when I do
well in English” or “I write down my feelings in a language learning diary” or
“I talk to someone else about how I feel when I am learning English” were
least favored by the participants in this study and gained the lowest mean

TRIAL MODE − a valid license will remove this message. See the keywords property of this PDF for more information.
 40 Language Learning Strategy Preferences …
scores (M = 2.21, 1.61 and 2.45 respectively) among almost all the SILL
strategy items.
Likewise, memory strategies were least favored by Iranian
participants in this study as well as by other Asian participants in several other
studies (Oh, 1992; Peacock & Ho, 2003; Chang, 2009) to name a few. Memory
strategies, based on Oxford’s (1990) definition, enable learners to create mental
linkages, group, associate, elaborate and place new words into a context. They
also let learners make connections between images and sounds. Some
strategies in this category enable learners to use keywords and represent sounds
in memory, while some other memory strategies entail reviewing which
enables students to do structured reviewing. Finally, employing action using
physical response is another technique in this category. One explanation for the
lower use of these strategies as Oxford (1990) claims is that language students
rarely report using memory strategies, which may also be the case in the
present study. Oxford believes that language learners might not be aware of
how often they actually employ memory strategies. It is likely that the
participants in the present study just underestimate how often they use memory
Strategies. Another likely explanation for the lower use of memory strategies
according to Riazi and Rahimi (2005) might be due to the fact that traditional
rote memorization strategies that Asian learners once were reported to have
preferred might differ from the specific memory strategies reported in Oxford’s
(1990) SILL. This interpretation is in conformity with the results gained on
individual strategy item analysis. Of 50 items in the SILL, item 5 (I use rhymes
to remember new English words, M= 2.24) and item 7 (I physically act out new
English words, M= 1.96) are memory strategy items which gained the lowest
mean scores among almost all the SILL items.
The participants in this study reported using compensation (M= 3.42)
and cognitive (3.26) categories of strategies at a medium level. They used these
categories significantly higher than affective and memory categories but they
used them significantly lower than metacognitive and social categories of
strategies. As related to the application of compensation strategy category, the
results of this study resemble the results of some other studies with Asian EFL
learners (including Iranian students) who reportedly applied compensation
strategies at a medium level (Green, 91; Oh, 92; Park, 97; Riazi & Rahimi,
2005; Chang, 2009; Nikoopour et al., 2011), but are in contrast with the results
gained in other studies indicating a high use of compensation strategies by
Asian EFL learners (Chang, 1991; Yang,1994; Bedell & Oxford, 1996;
Bremmer, 99; Peacock & Ho, 2003; Yang, 2010) to name a few. On the whole,
participants in the present study applied compensation strategies at an
acceptable rate (M = 3.42) and significantly higher than affective, memory, and
cognitive strategies. Of the SILL’s 50 individual strategy items, too, item 29 (If
I can’t think of an English word, I use a word or phrase that means the same
thing, M= 4.01) as a compensation strategy was among the top seven strategies
most favored by the participants in the study. Higher use of compensation
strategies as Bedell and Oxford (1996) argued is typical of Asian English
learners.

TRIAL MODE − a valid license will remove this message. See the keywords property of this PDF for more information.
 41 English Language Teaching, Vol. 3, No. 1, 2016

Compensation strategies enable learners to guess intelligently using

linguistic cues and other cues. Some of these strategies enable learners to
overcome limitations in speaking and writing; they switch to their mother
tongue, get help, use mime or gesture, avoid communication partially or
totally, select the topic, adjust or approximate the message, coin words, and use
circumlocution or synonyms (Oxford, 1990). High use of compensation
strategies usually (but not always) characterizes the learners who struggle with
lower competence. In fact, what has been long emphasized in relation to a
compensation strategy definition by many people in the field is its connection
to a deficit in the learner’s language competence. However, as Cohen (2007)
state learners can be highly strategic in an area where they actually do not have
a problem or deficit. Iranian students like other Asian EFL learners may
frequently use compensation strategies to both compensate for the gap in their
target language knowledge and act strategically to make progress in terms of
language learning.
Another area of great similarity between the present study and several
other studies with Asian background English learners including Iranian ones
(Chang, 1991; Yang, 1994; Bedell & Oxford, 1996; Bremmer, 1999; Park,
1997; Peacock & Ho, 2003; Riazi & Rahimi, 2005; Chang, 2009; Yang, 2010;
Nikoopour et al., 2011) is in moderate use of cognitive strategies. In the present
study Iranian learners perceived using cognitive strategies (M = 3.26) at a
medium level and significantly (p < .05) higher than affective and memory
strategies. Oxford (1990) regards cognitive strategies to be responsible for
understanding and producing the target language. They are central to learning
as they involve direct manipulation of the target language, thus, failure or poor
performance in language learning can be linked to low use of these strategies.
Thus, it can be concluded that strategies such as repeating, practicing English
sounds, finding patterns, analyzing, reasoning, and summarizing the target
language information are used by Asian background English learners at an
average rate. In other words, average use of cognitive strategies is typical of
Asian EFL learners including Iranian EFL learners.
Finally, Iranian learners in this study perceived themselves as high
users of social strategies (M = 3.82). With this regard, the results gained by the
present study support the results of only a few similar studies (Wharton, 2000;
Chang, 2009) with Asian Non-Iranian language learners as the participants.
Iranian English learners reported a high use of social strategies in some similar
projects. For instance, Kafipour, Jabbari, Soori, and Shokrpour, (2011) studied
the strategy use pattern of 156 Iranian post graduate students majoring in art
and science and found that their participants applied social strategies at a high
level. In another study on Iranian English learners, Sadighi and Zarafshan
(2006) also reported high use of social strategies by their participants.
Nonetheless, the results of the present study are dissimilar to the
results obtained in several other studies (Chang, 1991; Oh, 92; Yang, 1994;
Bedell & Oxford, 1996; Park, 97; Bremmer, 99; Peacock & Ho, 2003; Yang,

TRIAL MODE − a valid license will remove this message. See the keywords property of this PDF for more information.
 42 Language Learning Strategy Preferences …
2010), in which non-Iranian Asian background English learners reported to use
social strategies at a medium range. Also, in a few studies Asian English
learners perceived themselves as low users of social strategies. For instance,
Noguchi (1991) administered SILL to Japanese university students and
revealed that they were moderate strategy users, overall, and used all strategy
categories between low to medium ranges. Social category turned out to be
least favored among this group of Japanese students.
Based on Oxford’s (1990) definition, social strategies help students
learn through interaction with others. Strategies in this category mainly entail
asking questions for correction or clarification, cooperating with other
proficient language users, and finally developing cultural understanding.
Logically, one might expect low use of social strategies by EFL learners,
specifically by Iranian ones as Iran is an EFL context where learners do not
have abundant opportunities to communicate the target language in out of the
classroom settings. However, the results of the study contradict the notion. A
glance over individual social strategies reveals that except for the strategy item
46 (I ask English speakers to correct me when I talk) which is normally more
applicable in settings where there are native and non-native users of the target
language outside the classroom, other items included in this category could be
employed both in and out of the classroom. For instance, item 45 (If I don’t
understand something in English, I ask the other person to slow down and say
it again), item 48 (I ask for help from others who can speak English well) and
item 49 (I ask questions in English) gained the highest mean scores (M= 3.94,
4.02, and 4.35 respectively) among almost all the SILL’s items and obviously
were perceived to be employed most frequently by the participants of this study
in classroom settings where their teachers and more knowledgeable peers are
essential sources for correction, clarification, and verification. Thus it could be
argued that social strategies included in SILL might not truly measure learners’
social strategy use pattern.

5. Conclusion and Implications

The results of individual strategy item analysis accord with the results gained
on category analysis; the most frequently used items by the participants
belonged to their most favored strategy categories, i.e. social and
metacognitive strategy categories while the items which gained the lowest
mean scores belonged to their least favored categories, i.e. memory and
affective categories. On comparison, the study results indicate that Iranian
English learners as a big nationality show striking similarities in terms of
strategy use pattern to other Asian EFL learners. Like other Asian EFL
learners, they perceive themselves as medium strategy users (M= 3.33)
regarding the overall use of SILL. Similar to many other Asian EFL learners,
Iranian students favor metacognitive category of strategies the most (M= 3.79)
and memory (M= 2.89) and affective (M= 2.75) strategy categories the least
regarding the six strategy categories in Oxford’s (1990) SILL. Additionally,
Iranian participants in this study resemble many other Asian background EFL

TRIAL MODE − a valid license will remove this message. See the keywords property of this PDF for more information.
 43 English Language Teaching, Vol. 3, No. 1, 2016

learners with regard to moderate use of cognitive category of strategies (M=

3.26). Compensation category of strategies is the domain where studies show
contradictory results, with some indicating a high use of these strategies by
Asian EFL learners, and some reporting moderate use of this category of
strategies by Asian background English learners.
This study reports moderate use of compensation category of
strategies (M= 3.42) by Iranian EFL learners. However, unlike many other
Asian background EFL learners, Iranian participants in this study perceived
themselves as high users of social category of strategies (M= 3.82). The finding
of the study highlights the role of ethnicity in learners’ choice and use of
strategies. The difference, in turn, might be due to the unique thinking styles of
Iranian learners. The difference in the strategy use pattern between Iranian and
other Asian background learners might also come in the light with reference to
Naraghi Zadeh (2004) as arguing that Iranian students mix all the learning
orientations. She believes it to be rooted in the Iranian learning culture. This
might relate to their specific philosophy of life indicating that a human being
can only be perfect, when he studies all of the sciences and arts. This might
also be due to the influence of the French educational system that Iran adopted
in the last century. In such a system the students have to study all subjects.
Thus, the author of this study believes that language instructors could achieve
more fruitful outcomes in their language classes if they adjusted their teaching
styles to their learners’ particular thinking styles and strategies.
Considering the existing contradiction in the results gained by past
studies in relation to the role of ethnicity in learners’ choice of strategies, the
author suggests that the researchers in the field avoid broad generalizations
such as “Asian EFL learners highly use compensation strategies” without
thoroughly comparing the results of their own studies with the results gained in
other studies. In fact, what might be appealing to the researchers in the field is
a pressing need to investigate other sociocultural factors (such as sociopolitical
conditions of a particular society) that interact with the nationality/ethnicity
variable to influence learner’s strategy use preferences.
Realizing the striking similarities between Iranian and other Asian
background EFL learners with regard to their strategy use pattern can give
policy makers and language teachers' fruitful insights when planning a lesson
or designing a syllabus in Asian EFL contexts. For instance, high use of
metacognitive strategies indicates that Asian learners of English are very
conscious of their learning process when they are learning and using English in
a context where there are not many ready-made situations for communicative
use of English. High use of metacognitive strategies by Asian EFL learners are
also linked to learners’ autonomy and success in language learning as
suggested by some researchers such as Griffiths (2008) in the field. She regards
metacognition as a guide for choosing, monitoring, combining and evaluating
approaches for learning languages without which learners have no direction.
She also regards metacognitive behavior of the learner as ‘an essential element

TRIAL MODE − a valid license will remove this message. See the keywords property of this PDF for more information.
 44 Language Learning Strategy Preferences …
of autonomy’ which enables them to take charge of their learning even in the
absence of appropriate teaching schedules and programs.
Revolving around the low use of affective strategies by Asian EFL
learners we realize that they experience a high level of anxiety when they use
English both inside and outside their English classes. EFL learners’ high level
of anxiety when using the target language can relate to their less exposure to
authentic and rich target language input in their surroundings. As such when
planning a lesson in an Asian EFL context where immediate use of the
language seems far removed outside the classroom, the following guidelines
may help teachers to compensate for the lack of ready-made situations for
communicative use of the target language by the students:
· Take class time to work on the activities that cannot be done as
homework;
· Teach the students learning strategies that could be applied both in and
outside the class;
· Use authentic language inputs which are culturally bound and
motivating in order to boost interaction between peers and their level of
enjoyment for learning the language;
· Assign the students a plethora of extra-class activities which involve
them in active use of the target language outside the class, such as
having them watch a movie and write a report for the class, write a
journal on their learning progress, send emails to other peers and etc.;
· Encourage the students to form language communities and schedule
regular activities;
· Help learners to find out more intrinsic factors for language learning;
· De-emphasize the role of language tests and emphasize genuine use of
the language and interaction.
· Provide the students with appropriate and authentic materials that
accord with their thinking styles and strategies.

References
Bedell, D. A., & Oxford, R. L. (1996). Cross-cultural comparisons of language
learning strategies in the People's Republic of China and other
countries. In R. L. Oxford (Ed.), Language learning strategies around
the world: Cross-cultural perspective (pp. 47-60). University of Hawaii
at Manoa: Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.
Bialystok, E. (1978). A theoretical model of second language learning.
Language Learning, 28, 69-83.
Bremner, S. (1999). Language learning strategies and language proficiency:
Investigating the relationship in Hong Kong. Canadian Modern
Language Review, 55, 490-514.
Chamot, A. (1993). Student responses to learning strategy instruction in the
foreign language classroom. Foreign Language Annals, 26, 308-321.

TRIAL MODE − a valid license will remove this message. See the keywords property of this PDF for more information.
 45 English Language Teaching, Vol. 3, No. 1, 2016

Chang, F. (2009). Language learning strategies of Taiwanese college level

EFL/ESL learners. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Alliants
International University.
Chang, S. J. (1991). A study of language learning behaviors of Chinese
students at the university of Georgia and the relation of these behaviors
to oral proficiency and other factors. (Unpublished doctoral
dissertation). University of Georgia, Athens, the USA.
Cohen, A. (2007). Coming to terms with language learner strategies. In A. D.
Cohen, & E. Macaro (Eds.), Language learner strategies (pp. 29-45).
New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition (p. 530). Oxford,
UK: Oxford University Press.
Green, J. M. (1991). Language learning strategies of Puerto Rican university
students. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of Puerto Rico
Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages. San Juan, Puerto
Rico.
Griffiths, C. (2007). Language learning strategies: Student`s and teacher`s
perception. ELT Journal, 61(2), 91-99.
Griffiths, C. (2008). Lessons from good language learners. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Griffiths, C., & Parr, J. M. (2000). Language learning strategies, nationality,
independence and proficiency. Independence, 28, 7-10.
Kafipour, R., Jabbari, M., Soori, A., & Shokrpour, N. (2011). Utilization of
language learning strategies by Iranian post graduate students and their
attitude and motivation toward English learning. Higher Education of
Social Science, 1(2),10-18.
Mochizuki, A. (1999). Language learning strategies used by Japanese
university students. RELC Journal, 30(2), 101-113.
Naraghi Zadeh, A. (2004). The culturally dependent diversification of learning
behavior based on the learning-style model “Experiential Learning”
and a case study of Iranian student teachers. (Unpublished doctoral
dissertation). Cuvillier Verlag, Gottingen.
Nikoopour, J., Amini, M., & Kashefi, J. (2011). Language learning strategy
preferences of Iranian EFL learners. Paper presented at the
International Conference on Social Science and Humanity, Singapore.
Noguchi, C. T. (1991). Questionnaire for learners. Tottori, Tottori University,
Japan.
Oh, J. (1992). Learning strategies used by university EFL students in Korea.
Language Teaching, 1, 3-53.
Ok, L. Y. (2003). The relationship of school year, sex and proficiency on the
use of learning strategies in learning English of Korean junior high
school students. Asian EFL Journal, 5(3), 1-36.
O’Malley, J. M., & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning strategies in second
language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

TRIAL MODE − a valid license will remove this message. See the keywords property of this PDF for more information.
 46 Language Learning Strategy Preferences …
Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should
know. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.
Oxford, R. (1992/1993). Language learning strategies in a nutshell: Update and
ESL suggestions. TESOL Journal, 2, 18-22.
Oxford, R. L. (1999). Relationship between second language learning
strategies andlanguage proficiency in the context of learner autonomy
and self-regulation. In A. D. Cohen, & E. Macaro (Eds.), Language
learner strategies (pp. 47-68). New York, NY: Oxford.
Oxford, R., & Burry-Stock, J. (1995). Assessing the use of language learning
strategies worldwide with the ESL/EFL version of the Strategy
Inventory for Language Learning (SILL). System, 23, 153-175.
Oxford, R. L., & Schramm, K. (2007). Bridging the gap between psychological
and sociocultural perspectives on L2 learner strategies. In A. D. Cohen,
& E. Macaro (Eds.), Language learner strategies (pp. 47-68). New
York, NY: Oxford.
Park, G. (1997). Language learning strategies and English proficiency in
Korean university students. Foreign Language Annals, 30(2), 211-221.
Peacock, M., & Ho, B. (2003). Students language learning strategies across
eight disciplines. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 13(2),
179-200.
Politzer, R., & McGroarty, M. (1985). An exploratory study of learning
behaviors and their relationship to gains in linguistic and
communicative competence. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 103-123.
Riazi, A., & Rahimi, M. (2005). Iranian EFL learners’ pattern of language
learning strategy use. The Journal of Asia TEFL, 2, 103-129.
Rubin, J. (1981). The study of cognitive processes in second language learning.
Applied Liguistics, 2, 117-131.
Sadighi, F., & Zarafshan, M. (2006). Effects of attitude and motivation on the
use of language learning strategies by Iranian EFL university students.
Journal of Social Sciences & Humanities of Shiraz University, 23(1),
71-80.
Weinstein, C., & Mayer, R. (1986). The teaching of learning strategies. In M.
Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 315-
327). New York, NY: Macmillan.
Wharton, G. (2000). Language learning strategy use of bilingual foreign
language learners in Singapore. Language Learning, 50, 203-243.
Yang, N-D. (1994). An investigation of Taiwanese college students’ uses of
English learning Strategies. Research report, National Taiwan
University, Taiwan.

TRIAL MODE − a valid license will remove this message. See the keywords property of this PDF for more information.
 47 English Language Teaching, Vol. 3, No. 1, 2016

Yang, M. (2010). Language learning strategies of English as a foreign

language university student in Korea. (Unpublished doctoral
dissertation). Indiana State University, Indiana, USA.

TRIAL MODE − a valid license will remove this message. See the keywords property of this PDF for more information.