Study on English Learning Strategies of College Students in Non-English Majors

Education Research Frontier December 2015, Volume 5, Issue 4, PP.81-85

Study on English Learning Strategies of College Students in Non-English Majors Wenjun Lu School of Foreign Language and Culture, Beijing Wuzi University, 101149, China luwenjun6210@sohu.com

Abstract The purpose of the study aims at investigating English learning strategies of college students in non-English majors and analyzing the differences between successful and less successful learners in terms of English learning strategies frequencies in their English learning. The study demonstrates that it is necessary for teachers to implement English learning strategy training in their instruction.

Keywords: Learning Strategy; Successful Learners; Less Successful Learners

1 INTRODUCTION Research on the study of learning strategies has been blossoming in China in recent years. Many researchers have conducted researches to investigate the differences between successful and less successful learners. For example, Wen (2001) explored the differences of strategy employment between a successful and a less successful learner and developmental patterns in motivation, beliefs and strategies of English learners in China respectively; Yuan et al (2004) investigated the discrepancy in the use of language learning strategies between English majors and nonEnglish majors and the correlations with their academic achievements in English, using quantitative approach. Zheng (2011) reviewed the achievement and imperfections of English learning strategies in Chinese colleges and universities; Lu (2014) reported an empirical study on learning strategy training for English majors in the implementation of language learning strategies in EFL writing. However, there is still much room for exploring the effectiveness of English learning strategies for non-English majors.

Therefore, the purpose of this research is to investigate learning strategies of three-year college students in nonEnglish majors as well as to analyze the differences between successful and less successful learners in terms of learning strategies frequency in the course of their English learning. The research will try to answer the following three questions: 

What are the overall conditions (descriptive statistics) of three-year college students' strategy employment?



Are there any differences between successful and less successful learners in the frequencies of strategy utilization?



Are there any differences between successful and less successful learners in the order of strategy frequency?



In this research, the subjects involved are 100 three-year college students of non-English majors. The researcher will utilize Oxford's (1990) Strategy Inventory for Language Learning as the instrument, and will carry out the research in person.

Over the past two decades, Chinese scholars had conducted many researches on English learning strategies, some apply quantitative approaches while others employ qualitative approaches. All researchers have reached the consensus that the study of learning strategy is necessary; Students can be trained to employ strategies in their learning. It is possible to implement strategies in the course of language learning. Teachers should be aware of the importance and necessity of strategy training in their instruction. Therefore, it is significant to carry out a small scale research in my school, and try to find the differences between relatively successful and less successful learners in - 81 www.erfrontier.org

terms of the frequency of strategy use, the sequence of strategy frequency and their overall conditions of strategies use. The theoretical basis of the research is based on the theories discussed above, and the strategy inventory for language learning has been demonstrated feasible and effective in the research of this field. As a result, this small research is significant and well underpinned in terms of theory.

2 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 2.1 Subjects The subjects involved in this research are 106 sophomores of three-year college students in non-English majors studying at Yanjing Medical Institute of Capital University of Medical Sciences. All the subjects had studied English for six years before entering college, and they have been learning English for more than one year in college. All the subjects have participated in practical college English examinations, or college English Band Three examination, which was held in June, 2014. The rationale why we choose sophomores as subjects is that they have been studying at college for one year, and the purpose of the research is to study on English learning strategies of three-year college students. In the third year of their study, they won't learn English, so in the second year of their study, it is more suitable to choose them as subjects. The teachers were willingly to cooperate with the researcher when the researcher told them about the purpose of the questionnaire.

2.2 Instruments One instrument involved in the research is Oxford's Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (Version 7.0 Oxford, 1990). The purpose of the questionnaire is to investigate the overall conditions of students' strategy use. There are altogether 50 items falling into six categories, namely, memory, cognitive, compensation, metacognitive, affective and social. All the items are divided into Likert-scales from "never" to "always". (1=never, 2=seldom, 3=sometimes, 4=often, 5=always) The other instrument involved is students' examination scores they gained from College English Band Three Examination. 106 students participated in the research, but only 100 questionnaire papers were regarded as valid ones, six questionnaires were regarded as invalid ones. Among them, 36 students passed the examination, that is, their scores are above 60 points, and they are considered as successful learners. But, 64 students didn't pass the examination, that is, their scores are below 60 points, so they are considered as less successful learners.

2.3 Data Collection Method As planned, the questionnaire was conducted in their English class, it was about half an hour before their class was over. All students were given a brief description of the questionnaire, and they finished the questionnaire at the same time in the classroom. Students were told the purpose of the questionnaire and asked to answer the questions as accurately as possible. Students were also told that there were no right or wrong answers for the questions, what they needed to do was to choose from 1 to 5 to finish the items, and they must write down their College English Band Three Examination score on their questionnaire papers. Those whose scores are above 60 belong to Group 1 and those whose scores are below 60 belong to Group 2. At the end of the questionnaire, the questionnaire papers were collected anonymously.

According to Oxford's classification on Strategy Inventory for Language Learning, the frequency of strategy employment goes into three levels, that is high, medium and low. High stands for 3.5 to 5.0, medium stands for 2.5 to 3.4, and low stands for 1.0 to 2.4. It can be seen more clearly as shown in Figure 1. Their English teachers were together with them, so whenever they had any doubt about the items in the questionnaire, they could ask their English teachers for help.

When the questionnaire papers were finished, the researcher collected all the papers with the help of the English teachers. According to classification, the questionnaire papers are put into two groups, that is, Group 1( those whose scores are above 60) and Group 2 (those whose scores are below 60). All the data is analyzed in computer with SPSS (Version 13.0). First, descriptive statistics is conducted to analyze students' learning strategy employment in every category (the result is shown in Figure 2); second, independent sample t-test is conducted to analyze the differences of means between successful and less successful learners in every category (the result is shown in Figure 3), third, - 82 www.erfrontier.org

the order of strategy frequency between Group 1 and Group 2 can be learned from Figure 4.

FIGURE 1.

CLASSIFICATION OF FREQUENCY OF LEARNING STRATEGY USE

frequency High Medium Low

average

appraisal

4.5 to 5.0

always

3.5 to 4.4

often

2.5 to 3.4

sometimes

1.5 to 2.4

seldom

1.0 to 1.4

never

3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION After the questionnaire papers were collected, the data was analyzed. First, descriptive statistics is employed in order to get students' overall conditions of learning strategy use in every category. The result can be seen from Figure 2.

Second, independent sample t-test is employed in order to learn the differences of means between successful and less successful learners in every category, the result is shown in Figure 3.

The order of strategy frequency between Group 1 and Group 2 is shown in Figure 4.

FIGURE 2. MEAN OF STUDENTS' LEARNING STRATEGY EMPLOYMENT (DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS) Category

Mean

S.D.

memory

2.33

.591

cognitive

2.38

.637

compensation

2.41

.774

metacognitive

2.42

.643

affective

2.19

.597

social

2.37

.651

FIGURE 3. COMPARISON OF MEANS BETWEEN TWO GROUPS categories

Group 1

Group 2

mean

S.D.

Mean

S.D.

memory

2.86

.569

2.02

.330

cognitive

3.03

.595

2.01

.260

compensation

3.26

.521

1.93

.377

metacognitive

2.99

.699

2.10

.290

affective

2.69

.577

1.90

.384

social

3.05

449

1.99

.378

Group 1= those who passed College English Band Three Examination Group 2= those who failed College English Band Three Examination

FIGURE 4. THE ORDER OF STRATEGY FREQUENCY BETWEEN GROUP 1 AND GROUP 2 Group 1

Group 2

order

category

mean

order

category

mean

1

compensation

3.26

1

metacognitive

2.10

2

social

3.05

2

memory

2.02

3

cognitive

3.03

3

cognitive

2.01

4

metacognitive

2.99

4

socail

1.99

5

memory

2.86

5

compensation

1.93

6

affective

2.69

6

affective

1.90

- 83 www.erfrontier.org

From figure 2 it can be seen that the general conditions of three-year college students' learning strategy use is low.

The order of their strategy frequency is metacognitive (2.42), compensation (2.41), cognitive (2.38), social (2.37), memory (2.33) and affective (2.19).The highest is metacognitive (2.42), the lowest is affective (2.19). Their average scores of strategy frequency are low, according to the classification of frequency of learning strategy use (As shown in Figure 1), only metacognitive and compensation are a bit above low level, the other four categories belong to the low level. It indicates that three-year college students are not good at employing learning strategies in their English learning, most of them are less successful language learners, and they are not successful users of learning strategies, either. It partly explains the phenomenon why many three-year college students are less successful language learners even if they have spent much time learning English, for they don't pay enough attention to their learning methods, and they don't frequently employ learning strategies in their learning.

From figure 3 it can be seen that the two groups vary much in terms of means. Group 1, or the successful learners, their frequency of strategy use is much higher than that of Group 2, or less successful learners. In Group 1, it can be found that their mean scores are between 3.26 to 2.69, their frequency of strategy use belongs to medium level. The highest is compensation (3.26) and the lowest is affective (2.69). However, in Group 2, it can be seen that their mean scores are only between 2.10 to 1.90, their frequency of strategy use belongs to low level. The highest is metacognitive (2.10) and the lowest is affective (1.90). The highest in Group 2 is lower than the lowest in Group 1.

So we can conclude that successful learners are frequent users of learning strategies whereas less successful learners are not frequent users of learning strategies.

From figure 4 it can be seen that the order of strategy frequency of Group 1 varies from that of Group 2. In Group 1, compensation (3.26) and social (3.05) are in the first two places. It demonstrates that successful learners are good at guessing the meanings of new words and phrases through context, and using synonyms to replace in their learning.

In addition, they like collaborative work, they dare to ask questions and can make the most of opportunities to learn from others. However, in Group 2, metacognitive (2.10) and memory (2.02) are in the first two places. It shows that less successful learners also have the intention to learn English well. They attempt to find ways to improve their English and arrange much time to learn English, too. The less successful learners spend much time memorizing, but their learning result is not so successful as they expected. It demonstrates that memorizing mechanically is not an effective way of learning English. In Group 1, as well as in Group 2, cognitive is in the third place. In Group 1, metacognitive and memory is in the fourth and fifth place respectively. In Group 2, social and compensation are in the fourth and fifth place respectively. It shows that successful learners don't often memorize mechanically. But less successful learners are not good at collaborative work, and they are not good at guessing the meaning of new words from context or using synonyms to replace, either. Lastly, it is found that both in Group 1 and Group 2, affective is in the last place. It proves that both successful and less successful learners are not good at controlling their emotions in learning, and they dare not to speak actively in class because they are afraid of making mistakes.

According to Oxford's (1990) classification of strategy frequency, it can be learned that three-year college students overall conditions of strategy use are low, only metacognitive (2.42) and compensation (2.41) are a bit above low level, others like cognitive (2.38), social (2.37), memory (2.33) and affective (2.19) are all at low level. From this research, we can conclude that it is necessary to attach much importance to strategy training in teaching, so teachers should be aware of the importance of strategy training. They should train their students to use learning strategies in their learning. As for students, they should also realize the importance of strategy training, and they should endeavor to improve their learning methods.

4 CONCLUSION From the descriptive statistics, it can be seen that the means between successful and less successful learners vary much. The means of successful learners are much higher than that of less successful learners. It is apparent that English learning outcome is closely related with the frequency of strategy use, that is, the more strategies learners can employ in their learning, the more likely that they will be successful in their learning. Less successful learners should pay much attention to their learning approaches, they should do their utmost to cultivate the sense of implementing learning strategy in their learning.

- 84 www.erfrontier.org

Less successful learners should alter their habitus of learning since the order of strategy frequency plays a role in learning outcome. They can't memorize mechanically in their learning if they want to boost their learning outcome.

Teachers should cultivate students to utilize learning strategies in accordance with their individual differences. In a word, there is still much room for further investigation on language learning strategies.

REFERENCES [1]

Lu Wenjun. An Emperical Study of Metacognitive Strategy Training in English Writing Insruction. Foreign Language and Literature Studies.1 (2014):10-18.

[2]

Oxford, R.L. Language Learning Strategies: what every teacher should know. New York: Newbury House Publishers, 1990.

[3]

Wen Qiufang. The Changing Rules and Characteristics of English Learners’ Motivation, Concept and Strategies. Foreign Languages and Their Teaching. 3 (2001): 105-110.

[4]

Yuan Fengshi et al. Study on the Discripency of Learning Strategies between English Majors and Non-English Majors. Foreign Language World. 5 (2004): 25-32.

[5]

Zheng Yurong. Overview on the Achievement and Imperfections of English Learning Strategies in China. Foreign Language World. 3 (2011):82-88.

- 85 www.erfrontier.org