LA No: 342
Strategy Knowledge and Perceived Strategy Use: Singaporean Students’ Awareness of Listening and Speaking Strategies Donglan Zhang and Christine C.M. Goh Nanyang Technological University, Singapore The past three decades have seen a growing body of research into language learner metacognitive knowledge, strategy use, and the relationship between them. However, the correlation between knowledge about strategies and strategy use in ESL listening and speaking has not been explored. This study investigates 278 Singaporean students’ knowledge and use of 40 listening and speaking strategies, and the relationship between these two variables. Distinctions were made among use-focused and formfocused learning strategies, comprehension strategies and communication strategies. The results showed that the students tended to believe in the usefulness of all four groups of strategies but seemed more often to use use-focused ones. Of the 40 strategies, 32 were perceived as useful by half the students, whereas only 13 were reported as used frequently. The discrepancy indicates that, while the students were generally aware of the usefulness of the strategies, they were not yet conscious and confident strategy users. There seems to be a need to increase their repertoire of strategies. Correlations were found between perceptions of the usefulness and perceived use of the strategies. The paper ends by considering teaching implications and future research. doi:10.2167/la342.0
Keywords: listening and speaking, awareness, metacognitive knowledge, strategy knowledge, perceived strategy use, Singaporean ESL learners
Introduction The past three decades have seen a growing body of research on language learner metacognitive knowledge and learner strategies. An individual’s metacognitive knowledge is his or her personal knowledge or beliefs about language learning (Wenden, 1991, 1998). Learner strategies refer to the steps or actions consciously selected by learners to improve the learning or/and use of a second language (Cohen, 1998). While research into both areas has signalled a link between the two variables – for example, metacognitive knowledge about learning a language is thought to account for language learners’ use of strategies and play a role in developing autonomous learners (Cotterall, 1995; Wenden, 1991, 1998) – few empirical studies have examined the relationship. Even fewer have investigated links between learner knowledge about strategies and use (perceived or actual) of these strategies. No study has focused on listening and speaking simultaneously with Singaporean language learners as subjects. This 0965-8416/06/03 0199-21 $20.00/0 LANGUAGE AWARENESS
© 2006 D. Zhang and C.C.M. Goh Vol. 15, No. 3, 2006
199
LA No: 342
200
Language Awareness
study addresses these gaps. Below, we introduce our research context, and then present the key concepts in our study and review related research.
The Context of Singapore English is used as the medium of instruction and taught as the first language in schools in Singapore. However, some students are more comfortable using their mother tongues (Chinese, Indian and Malay languages) in everyday communication, including with friends in school. Although all students would have no hesitation in claiming that they speak and write in English, the type of English used by many students is a colloquial variety known in academic circles as Singapore Colloquial English (Gupta, 1994), or ‘Singlish’ among Singaporeans. It can be incomprehensible to non-Singaporeans and has many morphological, syntactical, lexical and phonological variants when compared with the standard variety prescribed in the national syllabus. It is often used as a solidarity and identity marker, even in schools. This situation leads some teachers and academics to perceive that many Singaporean students are learning and using English as a second language (Pakir, 1993). Furthermore, although students strongly associate English listening and speaking abilities with their academic and personal development, many find it difficult to speak well and understand English spoken by native British or American people; some even express difficulty in understanding their teachers (D.L. Zhang, 2001, 2004). This inadequate development of speaking and listening skills has been noted by others (Forbes, 1991; Pakir, 1995). Accordingly, a national ‘Speak Good English’ campaign was launched in 2000 to urge people to ‘Speak Well; Be Understood’.
Metacognitive Knowledge The term ‘metacognitive knowledge’ was first used by Flavell (1979/1992) to refer to an individual’s personal knowledge or beliefs about learning. Researchers maintain that what learners know about learning can help them become active participants in their own performance rather than passive recipients of instruction and influence the process and the outcome of their learning. Learners who have a high degree of metacognitive awareness are thought to be more capable of regulating their learning by finding the best ways to practise and reinforce what they have learnt. Wenden applies the term to language learning, describing learners’ metacognitive knowledge as including all ‘beliefs, insights and concepts that language learners have acquired about language and the language learning process’ (Wenden, 1991: 34), which fall into three categories: person, task, and strategy knowledge. Person knowledge encompasses everything that language learners have come to believe about themselves and others as learners. Task knowledge refers to what learners know about the purpose, demands and nature of learning tasks. Strategy knowledge is learners’ perceptions or beliefs about strategies that are effective in facilitating learning and achieving defined learning goals in specific situations. Since Wenden’s application, more research has been done into metacognitive knowledge about language learning and learning specific skills such as listening (Goh, 1997), reading (Zhang, L.J., 2001), and writing (Victori, 1999).
LA No: 342
Awareness of Listening and Speaking Strategies
201
However, although strategy knowledge is an important component of metacognitive knowledge, few studies have given it specific in-depth attention. The only study found to date that has included strategy knowledge about listening is Goh (1997). Her 40 tertiary-level Chinese students on an English for Academic Purposes programme in Singapore exhibited high awareness regarding which strategies can assist comprehension, which are useful for developing listening, and which ones do not always work. There seem to be none on speaking.
Listening and Speaking Strategies Since the 1970s, categories of strategies for language learning in general have been documented (O’Malley & Chamot, 1990; Oxford, 1990; Rubin, 1975) with a view to boosting learning outcomes by empowering learners, poor achievers in particular, with strategies conducive to success. Research on listening and speaking strategies has also grown (Færch & Kasper, 1983; Goh, 1998, 2002; Huang & van Naerssen, 1987; Kasper & Kellerman, 1997; Vandergrift, 1997), reflecting the importance of oral and listening skills in language development. O’Malley and Chamot’s (1990) four-dimensional typology (cognitive, metacognitive, social and affective) has so far been the most influential categorisation adopted as the framework for investigating and categorising strategies for learning specific skills. Applied to listening, cognitive strategies are used to infer, predict, interpret, store and recall information; metacognitive strategies are for planning, monitoring and evaluating mental processes and for managing difficulties during listening; social strategies serve to enlist the help or cooperation of interlocutors to facilitate comprehension; and affective strategies enable the listener to manage emotions, motivation and attitudes that interfere with comprehension. Socialaffective strategies are similar to some speaking, or communication, strategies, which are means of dealing with communication trouble spots, such as misunderstanding the interlocutor or not knowing a word. While dozens of conversational or communication strategies have been identified (see Dörnyei & Scott, 1997, for a review), the most important ones include asking for repetition, asking for clarification, checking for comprehension, adjusting or avoiding a message, rephrasing, and appealing for help. Cohen (1998) distinguishes between language learning strategies and language use strategies, and employs ‘language learner strategies’ as the cover term for both. While learning strategies are steps or actions consciously selected by learners to improve the learning of a second language, use strategies are those used for improving their use of the language. Learning and use strategies can be further differentiated according to whether they are metacognitive, cognitive, social, or affective (Cohen, 1998: 7). Using his terms, learning strategies for listening and speaking encompass what listeners and speakers do to learn to improve their ability to listen and speak; use strategies concern how listeners and speakers manage real-time/online interactions with a spoken text or an interlocutor, how they make sense of what is heard by drawing on cognitive or metacognitive comprehension strategies, and what they do when they do not understand or when they do not know how to express something in mind by soliciting compensatory/social-affective communication strategies.
LA No: 342
202
Language Awareness
Virtually, learning strategies serve as offline preparation for online performance, where use strategies come into play.
Relation between Metacognitive Knowledge and Strategy Use Research on metacognitive knowledge (including beliefs) about language learning and that on learner strategies have both acknowledged a mutual influence in terms of second language learning. Ellis and Sinclair (1989) point out that learner awareness of and reflection on their knowledge of the language learning process provide a basis for acquiring learning strategies. Rubin (1987) posits that metacognitive knowledge is essential for learners selecting and activating strategies. Wenden (1987) found that ESL students listed the strategies consistent with their professed beliefs. For example, those who thought it important to use the language used communicative strategies; those who emphasised the importance of learning about the target language and paid attention to language forms adopted cognitive strategies. Studies by Wen and Johnson (1997) and Yang (1999) have explored the relationship between the two variables, but have focused more on general metacognitive knowledge and learner strategy use. Wen and Johnson’s (1997) questionnaire study of the effects of learner factors on 242 Chinese tertiarylevel students’ EFL achievement included an examination of the relationship between learner beliefs and strategy use. They identified strong direct effects of belief variables on strategy variables. Also using a questionnaire, made up of Horwitz’s (1988) BALLI (Beliefs about Language Learning Inventory) and Oxford’s (1990) SILL (Strategy Inventory for Language Learning), Yang (1999) investigated 505 tertiary-level Chinese/Taiwanese EFL learners’ beliefs about English language learning and their perceived use of English learning strategies and the relationship between the two. She found a strong correlation between beliefs and strategy use. Self-efficacy beliefs were strongly related to the use of all types of learning strategies, especially functional practice strategies. In addition, learners’ beliefs about the nature and value of spoken English were closely linked to their use of formal oral-practice strategies. Goh (1998) and Victori (1999) are the only studies that have examined learners’ knowledge about strategies and strategy use. Goh compared the strategy knowledge and use of 40 ESL tertiary-level Chinese students, and found that all the strategies used during listening were also reported as useful for facilitating comprehension, though the number of students who identified specific tactics as useful was substantially less than the number who actually used them. Collecting data from two good and two poor Spanish writers in advanced EFL classes at the University of Barcelona, Victori found that the two poor writers’ reported strategy knowledge did not always coincide with what they actually did, while the reported behaviour of the good pair aligned more with their practice. In spite of Goh and Victori, no empirical study has to date examined the correlation between knowledge about specific groups of strategies for learning specific skills and the use of the same groups of strategies. None has explored language learners’ knowledge about listening and speaking strategies and its relationship with the use of such strategies in the Singapore context. Accordingly, we report on our questionnaire study of 278 Singapore secondary school
LA No: 342
Awareness of Listening and Speaking Strategies
203
students’ metacognitive knowledge about strategies for learning to listen and speak ESL (in terms of their views on the usefulness of the strategies), their perceived use of the strategies, and the relationship between such knowledge and perceived strategy use.
The Study Research questions The present study addressed the following research questions: (1) Do the students believe the listening and speaking strategies to be useful? (2) Do the students use the listening and speaking strategies frequently? (3) Do the students’ views of the listening and speaking strategies correlate with their perceived use of these strategies? Participants A total of 278 students, average age 15, participated. They were from three ethnic groups (Chinese, Malays and Indians) and attended a neighbourhood secondary school in Singapore.1 They had learned English as the school language for at least eight years. Most spoke another language or a colloquial variety of English at home. Questionnaire A 40-strategy-item questionnaire, Metacognitive Awareness Inventory in Listening and Speaking Strategies (MAILSS), was constructed (see Appendix), drawing from a few studies on listening and communication strategies (Dörnyei & Scott, 1997; Goh, 1998; Huang & van Naerssen, 1987). Some items were also drawn from the O’Malley and Chamot (1990) and Oxford (1990) inventories meant for language learning in general. Distinctions were made among learning strategies, comprehension strategies, and communication strategies. The strategies were put into four groups: use-focused learning strategies, form-focused learning strategies, comprehension strategies, and communication strategies. The first two groups are learning strategies for improving listening and speaking abilities. While use-focused learning strategies focus on learner initiatives to learn to use English for communication, such as seeking opportunities to speak with good language users and participating actively in classroom communicative activities, form-focused learning strategies emphasise learner initiatives for developing the form-related aspects of oral communication skills, such as reading aloud for pronunciation/fluency and working on grammar. Although there may not be a clear dividing line between use-focused and form-focused strategies, or functional and formal strategies (Huang & van Naerssen, 1987), due to the inherent unity of meaning and form in language (Bialystok, 1979), the two groups of strategies do have their predominant characteristics. The other two groups of strategies are for facilitating comprehension and communication during real-time interactions with spoken texts or interlocutors. Comprehension strategies involve how students attempt to make sense of the spoken text.
LA No: 342
204
Language Awareness
Table 1 Strategy groups, number of strategies in each group and reliability coefficients (n = 278) Label
Description
Number of items
Alpha
SKUFS SKFFS
Knowledge about use-focused learning strategies
10
0.84
Knowledge about form-focused learning strategies
10
0.84
SKCPS
Knowledge about comprehension strategies
10
0.85
SKCMS
Knowledge about communication strategies
10
0.86
SUUFS
Perceived use of use-focused learning strategies
10
0.85
SUFFS
Perceived use of form-focused learning strategies
10
0.85
SUCPS
Perceived use of comprehension strategies
10
0.85
SUCMS
Perceived use of communication strategies
10
0.86
The questionnaire (MAILSS) Notes: SKUFS = Knowledge about use-focused learning strategies SKFFS = Knowledge about form-focused learning strategies SKCPS = Knowledge about comprehension strategies SKCMS = Knowledge about communication strategies SUUFS = Perceived use of use-focused learning strategies SUFFS = Perceived use of form-focused learning strategies SUCPS = Perceived use of comprehension strategies SUCMS = Perceived use of communication strategies
40
0.87
Communication strategies take two forms in this study. One concerns what students do when they miss or fail to understand what has been said. The other involves how to communicate their meaning when they lack specific words. The comprehension and communication strategies can be discussed with reference to cognitive, metacognitive, social/affective strategies, in that many of them fall well into such sub-categories as prediction, contextualisation, visualisation, inferencing, translation, selective attention, directed attention, and cooperation (Goh, 2002; O’Malley et al., 1989). The 40 strategy items both gauge knowledge about strategies and tap into perceived use of strategies. Students rated the usefulness of each strategy on a scale from ‘Least Useful’ (1) to ‘Most Useful’ (5), and estimated their use of them from ‘Never’ (1) to ‘Very Often’ (5). Reliability checks on the questionnaire yielded alphas ranging from 0.84 to 0.86.2 Table 1 shows the strategy groups, the number of strategies in each, and the reliability coefficients. Data collection All necessary approval was gained for school data collection, and student participation was voluntary. Questionnaires were administered to 288 students in a single session, with assistance from the school HOD of English. Students were asked to respond according to their own views and experiences, without guessing at desirable answers. Incomplete answers on 10 questionnaires reduced the number analysed to 278.
LA No: 342
Awareness of Listening and Speaking Strategies
205
Data analysis Descriptive statistics were employed to examine students’ knowledge about the strategies and their reported use of the strategies respectively. Means and standard deviations were computed to gauge a tendency of the students’ views of the usefulness of the strategies and their perceived use of the strategies. Since five-point scales were employed, the mean values indicating the tendency for endorsement of usefulness and frequency of use of a strategy are 3.50 and above. Percentages were calculated, along with the sums of responses of ‘Agree’ and ‘Strongly Agree’ and of ‘Often’ and ‘Very Often’ to get a deeper understanding of the responses to individual strategies. In order to gauge the relations between strategy knowledge and perceived strategy use, means and standard deviations of the two variables were first compared. Pearson Product-Moment procedures were then performed to calculate correlations between strategy knowledge and perceived strategy use at two levels: strategy group and individual strategy.
Results Perceived usefulness and use of listening and speaking strategies Table 2 displays a comparison of the means and standard deviations of the students’ knowledge about and perceived use of the four groups of strategies. We can see that all the means for knowledge are above 3.50, indicating an overall belief in the usefulness of the four strategy groups, namely, use-focused learning (M = 3.73, SD = 0.55), form-focused learning (M = 3.56, SD = 0.55), comprehension (M = 3.61, SD = 0.46) and communication (M = 3.56, SD = 0.53). However, apart from the mean for perceived use of use-focused learning strategies (M = 3.51, SD = 0.60), the means for the perceived use of the other strategy groups were below 3.50, suggesting that the students did not use all the four groups of listening and speaking strategies. An examination of the responses to the strategies revealed that, out of the 40 strategies, while 32 were perceived by more than 50% of the students as useful and very useful, only 13 were reported as used often and most often. Table 3 shows that more than half the students viewed all the 10 use-focused learning strategies and seven of 10 form-focused learning strategies as useful for improving listening and speaking abilities, nine of 10 comprehension strategies as useful for assisting understanding in transactional situations, and six of 10 communication strategies as useful for assisting oral communication. The Table 2 Comparison of means and standard deviations of strategy knowledge and perceived strategy use (n = 278) SKUFS
SUUFS
SKFFS
SUFFS
SKCPS
SUCPS
SKCMS
SUCMS
Minimum
1.73
1.82
1.55
1.09
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.40
Maximum
5.00
4.82
5.00
4.91
4.64
4.55
5.00
5.00
Mean
3.73
3.51
3.56
3.23
3.61
3.32
3.56
3.28
Standard deviation
0.55
0.60
0.55
0.69
0.46
0.55
0.53
0.60
LA No: 342
206
Language Awareness
Table 3 Strategies perceived as useful and reported as used by over 50% of the students (n = 278)
Communication strategies
Comprehension strategies
Form-focused learning strategies
Use-focused learning strategies
Group Strategy
Code U (%) Code O (%)
Looking for opportunities to speak to a person who can speak good English Participating actively in communicative activities in class Listening to English radio Watching English TV programmes and movies Thinking in English what to say Mentally answering in English a question when my teacher has asked another student to answer Taking the initiative to answer teachers’ questions whenever possible Reading English newspapers and magazines to enlarge knowledge of the world Using subtitles to check my interpretation when watching English movies Orally summarising the stories or texts I hear or read
SK1
66.5
SU1
56.4
SK2 SK3 SK4 SK5 SK6
64.7 71.3 72.7 67.3 61.1
SU3 SU4
57.2 65.4
SK7
53.2
SK8
68.4
SU8
52.9
SK9
53.2
SU9
53.2
Imitating spoken materials to improve my pronunciation Practising reading aloud Listening to major varieties of English (e.g. American English, British English) and note the their characteristics Paying attention to the way my teacher or other good speakers of English express themselves Spending time working on grammar Mentally correcting verbal errors or mistakes of others Paying attention to my grammar while speaking
SK12 50.7 SK13 67.6 SK14 56.8
Guessing and anticipating the content of the spoken text based on any information given (e.g. topic, picture, questions) before listening Relating the incoming information to what I know Imagining/Visualising things being heard Trying to get the overall meaning of the spoken text Paying attention to the details of the spoken text Writing down key words or concepts in short-hand form Guessing the meanings of unknown words or phrases using information available (e.g. words in the context, knowledge of word formation) Paying attention to organisational ‘signals’ of a spoken text (e.g. first, yet) Concentrating on the listening task in spite of difficulty
SK21 57.6
SK30 59.3
SU30 50.7
Asking the speaker to repeat it Asking the speaker to explain it Telling the speaker what I get and asking him/her to confirm the correctness of my understanding Using words with similar meanings in English Trying to express it in a different way Using examples to illustrate what I want to express
SK31 82.7 SK32 81.6 SK33 59.0
SU31 61.9 SU32 58.6
SK35 74.5 SK37 69.4 SK38 59.3
SU35 58.7 SU37 57.5
SK10 51.5
SK15 72.3
SU15 55.7
SK17 57.6 SK18 53.6 SK19 64.0
SK22 SK24 SK25 SK26 SK27 SK28
58.3 60.4 71.6 78.8 65.8 50.4
SU25 59.7 SU26 58.6
SK29 50.4
Notes: U = Useful and most useful O = Often and most often SK = Knowledge about strategy SU = Perceived use of strategy
strategies reported as used included five use-focused learning strategies, one form-focused learning strategy, three comprehension strategies, and four communication strategies. The 13 strategies reported as used were among the 32 strategies reported as useful.
LA No: 342
Awareness of Listening and Speaking Strategies
207
Correlations between knowledge of and perceived use of the strategies Correlations were calculated in order to identify the relation between strategy knowledge and perceived strategy use. The analyses revealed that the four strategy knowledge variables had statistically significant correlations with the four perceived strategy use variables (Figure 1). Prominent correlations existed between corresponding variables, namely, knowledge about use-focused strategies (SKUFS) and perceived use of use-focused strategies (SUUFS) (r = 0.690, p < 0.01), knowledge about form-focused strategies (SKFFS) and perceived use of form-focused strategies (SUFFS) (r = 0.516, p < 0.01), knowledge about comprehension strategies (SKCPS) and perceived use of comprehension strategies (SUCPS) (r = 0.595, p < 0.01), and knowledge about communication strategies (SKCMS) and perceived use of communication strategies (SUCMS) (r = 0.628, p < 0.01). Further analyses showed that the students’ beliefs about the usefulness of all the strategies (SK’s) turned out to be significantly and positively correlated to their perceived use of these strategies (SU’s) (see Table 4). For example, the correlation between SK1 (the usefulness of ‘looking for opportunities to speak to a person who can speak good English’) and SU1 (reported use of this strategy) is 0.585, indicating a moderate link between what the students thought about the strategy and how much they used it. SKUFS SKCPS
SKFFS SKCMS
0.8
0.69 0.7 0.595
0.628
0.6
Score
0.516
0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2
0.358 0.345
0.449
0.395
0.347
0.357
0.285
0.285
0.414
0.301
0.322
0.229
0.1 0
SUUFS
SUFFS
SUCPS
SUCMS
Perceived Strategy Use
Notes: SKUFS = Knowledge about use-focused learning strategies SKFFS = Knowledge about form-focused learning strategies SKCPS = Knowledge about comprehension strategies SKCMS = Knowledge about communication strategies SUUFS = Perceived use of use-focused learning strategies SUFFS = Perceived use of form-focused learning strategies SUCPS = Perceived use of comprehension strategies SUCMS = Perceived use of communication strategies
Figure 1 Correlations between strategy knowledge and perceived strategy use
SU20
SU19
SU18
SU17
0.467**
SK11
0.585**
0.383**
SK12
0.390**
SK2
0.467**
SK13
0.533**
SK3
0.453**
SK14
0.552**
SK4
0.401**
SK15
0.333**
SK5
0.340**
SK16
0.418**
SK6
0.308**
SK17
0.438**
SK7
0.394**
SK18
0.436**
SK8
0323**
SK19
0.551**
SK9
0.312**
SK20
0.396**
SK10
208
SU16
SU15
SU14
SU13
SU12
SU11
SU10
SU9
SU8
SU7
SU6
SU5
SU4
SU3
SU2
SU1
SK1
Table 4 Correlation coefficients between corresponding items for strategy knowledge and perceived strategy use
LA No: 342
Language Awareness
0.539**
SK31
0.514**
SK21
0.472**
SK32
0.466**
SK22
0.448**
SK33
0.574**
SK23
0.549**
SK34
0.603**
SK24
0.522**
SK35
0.481**
SK25
0.549**
SK36
0.342**
SK26
0.517**
SK37
0.390**
SK27
0.387**
SK38
0.378**
SK28
0.501**
SK39
0.503**
SK29
0.393**
SK40
0.537**
SK30
Awareness of Listening and Speaking Strategies
Notes: SK(1–40) = strategy knowledge items SU(1–40) = perceived strategy use items ** Significant at p < 0.01 level
SU40
SU39
SU38
SU37
SU36
SU35
SU34
SU33
SU32
SU31
SU30
SU29
SU28
SU27
SU26
SU25
SU24
SU23
SU22
SU21
Table 4 (cont.) Correlation coefficients between corresponding items for strategy knowledge and perceived strategy use
LA No: 342
209
LA No: 342
210
Language Awareness
Discussion The students’ reports on the usefulness of the listening and speaking strategies were higher in means and more in number than their reports on strategy use. Correlations were found between their perceptions of the usefulness and their reported use of the strategies. In the four sections below, the first three discuss perceived usefulness and use of learning strategies (use-focused and form-focused), comprehension strategies and communication strategies respectively. The fourth discusses the correlations between knowledge and perceived use of the strategies. Perceived usefulness and use of learning strategies For improving listening and speaking abilities, the students believed that use-focused learning strategies (M = 3.73, SD = 0.55) were more useful than form-focused ones (M = 3.56, SD = 0.55). They also reported using the former (M = 3.51) more frequently than the latter (M = 3.23). This corresponds to the view that a language can be better learned through using it (Littlewood, 1981). While it is beyond the scope of this study to identify whether there is a link between high use of use-focused strategies and high oral communication ability, a significant difference in the use of functional practice, operationalised similarly to use-focused learning strategies, was found between high and low oral communication ability groups in Huang and van Naerssen (1987). In their study, students more successful in oral communication reported using functional practice strategies more frequently than the less successful ones, suggesting that functional practice might be more responsible for success in oral communication. With the findings from the present study and Huang and van Naerssen, we can assume that Singaporean students, enjoying a predominantly English milieu, can have their oral communication skills honed conveniently if they choose actively to employ use-focused learning strategies. The students endorsed all the 10 use-focused strategies, which included four media- and recreation-related strategies such as ‘listening to English radio’ and ‘watching English TV programmes and movies’. This endorsement is justifiable given that English is the dominant and most accessible language in the local mass media and recreational places. They valued active participation in classroom activities and being responsive to teachers’ questions, either overtly or covertly. Their vote for the usefulness of seeking opportunities to speak to a better speaker of English reflects their awareness that oral communication abilities can be gained through constant efforts to use the language for interaction with others, especially good speakers of English. The students believed in thinking in English when thinking about what to say. Research has shown that attempts at formulating one’s thinking by using the linguistic forms of the target language are essential for gaining an intuitive command of the language. A strong relationship between thinking in the target language and achievement in learning the language was reported in Huang and van Naerssen (1987). The students also tended to share the general belief that summarising and retelling what is read or heard is useful for improving oral communication skills. Although all 10 use-focused learning strategies were reported to be useful, only five were reported as used often. In addition, the percentages for the
LA No: 342
Awareness of Listening and Speaking Strategies
211
reported strategies, ranging from 52.9% to 65.4%, indicated a moderate frequency of use. This result suggests that the students were yet to become conscious or confident strategy users. A closer look at the five use-focused learning strategies that were reported as used reveals that they are different from those not reported in that they concern activities outside school premises. For instance, the adoption of ‘watching English TV programmes and movies’, which attracted the highest report (65.4%), could stem from its being one of the popular afterschool activities among local students. This indicates that the students do take opportunities to practise using English while they are engaged in enjoyable activities. Their attraction to out-of-class activities for learning points to a need for teachers to create opportunities to use strategies in relation to school or classroom activities. More than half of the students perceived seven out of ten form-focused learning strategies as useful. Compared with this moderate report on usefulness, however, the report on use is low. Only one strategy, ‘paying attention to the way my teacher or other good speakers of English express themselves’, was reported as used frequently by over 50% of the students. This seems to suggest that Singaporean students, like those of other Asian countries such as China, show respect for their teachers to the point where they regard them as role models in the learning process. They may want to listen to teachers for good vocabulary, grammar and pronunciation. It is surprising that, while over half the students valued grammar correctness, thinking it useful to pay attention to grammar and to spend time working on grammar, not as many reported actually doing so. Similarly, they did not report working on pronunciation, though they thought it useful to imitate taped materials and listen to British and American accents and notice their features. On one hand, their perceptions might be a result of the government’s call to improve the standard of English spoken by the people. On the other hand, low report of form-focused learning strategies may suggest that the government’s initiative of ‘Speak Well, Be Understood’, which lays much emphasis on the form of English spoken in terms of grammar, pronunciation and vocabulary, has not been received adequately by the students, though they believed that good oral communication ability is linked to better future opportunities (D.L. Zhang, 2001). One underlying reason could be that they found it easy to get by in their daily lives using a mutually shared non-standard variety of English, even though Singapore is a predominantly English-speaking country where a high level in English oral communication skills is sought and valued. Thus, they had the misconception that they might not need to put in effort in this regard. Another reason may be that, in contrast to many use-focused learning strategies which can be approached in fun-filled activities, form-focused strategies entail commitment and special effort if effects are to be felt. In addition, although reading aloud was hailed as useful (perhaps resulting from students being tested in earlier primary school years on reading short passages aloud) the students did not report using it often. Perhaps those who believed in its usefulness simply accepted it as such after years of doing it. Alternatively, perhaps reading aloud has become so familiar that it functions automatically without deliberate activation. Not as many students embraced memorisation of
LA No: 342
212
Language Awareness
chunks of reading and vocabulary. The students were also yet to see the value of knowledge of text types in improving listening and speaking abilities. Perceived usefulness and use of comprehension strategies The results showed that almost all the strategies for comprehension were perceived by more than 50% of the students as useful for assisting comprehension in transactional one-way listening situations. These included such cognitive and metacognitive strategies as prediction, visualisation, inferencing, contextualisation, selective attention and directed attention. Listening comprehension is a process of reconstructing the intended spoken message by translating its lexical and grammatical information into meaning units that can be combined with the listener’s knowledge and cognitive structures (Samuels, 1987). Knowledge sources such as linguistic knowledge, knowledge of the co-text and general world knowledge come into play in meaning-construction. When the listeners know the context of a message, for example, they can activate their prior knowledge and make the appropriate inferences essential to the comprehension of the message (Long, 1990). Therefore, it is heartening that the students in the study tended to regard it as useful to relate incoming information to what they already know about the topic, and to guess content of spoken text and meanings of unknown words from information available. However, although such perceptions reflected the students’ awareness of the usefulness of different kinds of comprehension strategies, they tended to under-use such strategies and only three were reported used often. A low report of use in terms of number and frequency could well indicate that these Singaporean students were still basic users of comprehension strategies. This can further be seen from the three strategies they reported using, namely, ‘trying to get the overall meaning of the spoken text’, ‘paying attention to the details of the spoken text’, and ‘concentrating on the listening task in spite of difficulty’. Useful as these strategies are in practice, they are among the most common ones in the existing strategy inventories. The choice of using them often rather than others could also suggest that in the process of listening, the students were merely focusing on getting meaning and labouring over details in the input without being able to pay attention to other skills involved. For example, they should have exploited their knowledge about the organisation of various text types commonly encountered in listening to help with comprehension. In addition, while concentrating on the listening task in spite of difficulty is useful for not losing the general message, over-reliance on it could make listening a tense and tiring activity. They should have learned to distinguish degrees of relevance and importance in the input in order to adjust their attention accordingly and maximise the chance of getting relevant information. That said, their reports concerning the strategy of concentrating in spite of difficulty spoke of their commendable effort in trying to understand. After all, listening is transitory in nature and thus, for the information to be processed and comprehended, it is crucial to give adequate attention to the spoken text during listening. A point worth noting is that, though showing awareness of the usefulness of prior knowledge or schemata related strategies for facilitating comprehension, the students did not indicate using them often. This could mean that they were unable or lacking confidence to draw upon such higher-level strategies as
LA No: 342
Awareness of Listening and Speaking Strategies
213
‘relating the incoming information to what I know’. It could be because the students were yet to learn to cope with the cognitive demands required by the use of such a strategy. According to Anderson (2000), the comprehension process consists of three phases, which represent different levels of processing: perception, parsing and utilisation. From the students’ reports of strategies used, we can infer that they are usually good at the perception and parsing stages, in the sense that they give attention to recognising the sounds in the stream of the speech and processing them syntactically and semantically. However, too much energy expended on these aspects could have left them with little processing capacity for relating the mental representation of the input to existing knowledge stored in the memory (utilisation). It is also worth noting that the only comprehension strategy that was less endorsed but still received some recognition (from 40% of the students) was translation from English into the mother tongue. This is revealing, to a certain degree, of the language policy, language use and language teaching methodology in Singapore. With English being learned as the first language, and with the mother tongues of the different ethnic groups as the second language in schools, translation has never been advocated as a teaching or learning strategy in Singapore.3 However, in multilingual Singapore where English is actually a second language for many Singaporeans (Pakir, 1993), it is not uncommon to see students conversing in two or more languages simultaneously in daily interactions and even in the classroom. Therefore, it is understandable that twofifths of the students thought it useful to draw upon translation to understand. They must have learned from their own experience that translating, or more precisely, in this case codemixing, can be of help. Perceived usefulness and use of communication strategies Communication strategies, similar to socio/affective strategies, were operationalised as a means of dealing with communication troublespots such as missing or failing to understand the interlocutor or not knowing a particular word. More than half the students endorsed three strategies for compensating for incomplete comprehension; that is, they thought it useful to ask for repetition, ask for explanation and ask for confirmation of their initial understanding. However, among these three strategies, they reported often asking the speaker to repeat and explain while not often asking the interlocutor to check their understanding. Recalling that the students reported the use of concentration on the task in order to understand, we can assume that their not readily asking for confirmation could mean that they would usually listen out for later clues. Their not asking for confirmation could also suggest that many of these Singaporean students can be seen in terms of one single group of Asian learners (i.e. grouped together with some learners from other Asian countries) who tend to be self-conscious and not daring enough to seek clarification and confirmation during interpersonal interactions. As regards the seven strategies for getting meanings across, three were thought useful by over half the students. They were ‘using a word with the similar meaning in English’, ‘trying to express their intentions in a different way’, and ‘using examples to show what they want to express’. However, only the first two among the three were reported as used often. The general low perception and low use of
LA No: 342
214
Language Awareness
these communication strategies could have to do with the students’ perception that they did not have much problem understanding and conversing with each other in their daily lives (though some indicated varying degrees of difficulty in understanding speakers of other varieties of English such as American, British and Australian [D.L. Zhang, 2001, 2004]). In other words, the students could have used their efficiency as a communicator in daily situations as a yardstick when reporting the usefulness and use of the strategies. Correlations between knowledge of and perceived use of strategies Significant correlations were found in this study between the students’ knowledge of strategies and their perceived use of them. This shows an interdependence of and reciprocal relationship between the two variables. That is, while students’ knowledge about strategies can influence their use of the strategies, their use of strategies can also reinforce their beliefs about the usefulness of the strategies. That said, the knowledge-influences-use relation seems to have more explanatory power. Knowledge and beliefs are views formed from personal experiences in the course of learning. They are relatively stable and can (sub)consciously affect students’ learning behaviours and outcomes (Wenden, 1998). People usually have some perceptions or thoughts before they take certain actions. What, why and how they learn is more likely to depend on what they believe to be right. Therefore, the role played by knowledge in learners’ approaches to learning and improving language skills cannot be ignored. Following this reasoning, when learners deem strategies useful, it should be natural for them to try them out. The positive coefficients identified may then indicate that the students’ knowledge of the usefulness of the strategies would influence positively their decision to use the strategies. Some support for this view can be found in the finding reported earlier that the 13 strategies reported as used were among the 32 strategies reported as useful.
Conclusion, Implications and Suggestions for Further Research This study found that, while students tended to believe in the usefulness of all four groups of strategies, they seemed more often to use use-focused ones. The majority of the 40 strategies were perceived as useful, but comparatively fewer strategies were reported as used frequently. The discrepancy indicates that the students, generally aware of the usefulness of these strategies for becoming better listeners and speakers of English, were not yet conscious and confident strategy users. Several factors could account for the under-use of strategies. One could be that the students have never received instruction about strategies and are yet to internalise the benefits of using them. The second could be that they lack a plan or the persistence to try out the strategies they deem useful. They may have the misconception that listening and speaking abilities will develop easily in a predominantly English-speaking Singapore; thus no effort is necessary. They may find themselves managing well in their daily lives using the local variety, thus having little incentive to resort to strategies for improving language ability. Research has repeatedly shown that good and poor learners are differentiated
LA No: 342
Awareness of Listening and Speaking Strategies
215
in terms of the number and level of strategies employed. Good listeners, for example, tend to use more varied and higher-level strategies (Goh, 1998). There is, therefore, a need to raise the students’ awareness and ability to use a range of strategies. Awareness-raising activities aimed at drawing students’ attention to strategies, along with strategy instruction to broaden their strategy repertoires and increase their confidence and ability in strategy use, should become the order of the day in language classrooms. Significant correlations found in this study between perceptions and reported use of strategies also warrant such double-facet intervention. Questionnaires such as the one used for this study can be used as a teaching tool. Keeping reflective journals can also be a valuable option (Goh & Zhang, 2002). Such intervention will benefit students in the ‘examination-driven culture’ of Singapore (Cheah, 1998), maximising their potential to become better listeners and speakers of English. We suggest conducting similar studies with a wider range of Singaporean learners in order to broaden our knowledge of their strategy awareness. Research is also needed into how far knowledge about strategies can influence their actual application and ESL listening and speaking performance. Finally, we need to explore the culture-specificity and context-dependent nature of such strategies through comparative research. Acknowledgements We would like to express our appreciation to Dr Peter Garrett and two anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments on previous versions of this paper. Our gratitude goes to the students for their participation, Singapore Ministry of Education and the school principal for approval of our entry for data collection. The first author thanks Nanyang Technological University for a two-year full research scholarship for an MA project, of which this report is part. She also thanks Rita Skuja-Steele, Lawrence Jun Zhang, Peter Yongqi Gu, Qing Wang and Jaswant Singh for their support and encouragement. Correspondence Any correspondence should be directed to Ms Donglan Zhang, 290A, Bukit Batok Street 24, #08-81, Singapore, 652290 Republic of Singapore (dlzhang@ pmail.nut.edu.sg). Notes 1. There are four types of schools in Singapore, namely, independent, autonomous, government-aided, and government/neighbourhood. While independent and autonomous schools are ‘elite’ ones, the large majority of students attend neighbourhood schools. 2. The MAILSS questionnaire is part of an extended questionnaire, which also includes person knowledge and task knowledge (D.L. Zhang, 2001). 3. On the other hand, English has recently been used to assist Mandarin teaching in a few designated primary schools in response to the lament that many children from purely English-speaking families cannot cope with the mother tongue subject.
References Anderson, J.R. (2000) Cognitive Psychology and Its Implications (5th edn). New York: Worth.
LA No: 342
216
Language Awareness
Bialystok, E. (1979) The role of conscious strategies in second language proficiency. The Canadian Modern Language Review 35, 372–94. Cheah, Y.M. (1998) The examination culture and its impact on literacy innovations: The case of Singapore. Language and Education 12, 192–209. Cohen, A.D. (1998) Strategies in Learning and Using a Second Language. Harlow: Longman. Cotterall, S. (1995) Readiness for autonomy: Investigating learner beliefs. System 23, 195–205. Dörnyei, Z. and Scott, M.L. (1997) Communication strategies in a second language: Definitions and taxonomies. Language Learning 47, 173–210. Ellis, G. and Sinclair, B. (1989) Learning to Learn English: A Course in Learner Training. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Færch, C. and Kasper, G. (1983) Strategies in Interlanguage Communication. London: Longman. Flavell, J.H. (1979/1992) Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. In T.O. Nelson (ed.) Metacognition: Core Readings. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Originally published in 1979, in American Psychologist 34, 906–11. Forbes, D. (1991) ‘Singlish’: The background and nature of the general English of Singapore. English Today 34, 18–21. Goh, C. (1997) Metacognitive awareness and second language listeners. ELT Journal 51, 361–9. Goh, C.C.M. (1998) How learners with different listening abilities use comprehension strategies and tactics. Language Teaching Research 2, 124–47. Goh, C.C.M. (2002) Learners’ self-reports on comprehension and learning strategies for listening. Asian Journal of English Language Teaching 12, 45–68. Goh, C.C.M. and Zhang, D.L. (2002) A metacognitive framework for reflective journals. In A.C.S. Cheong and C.C.M. Goh (eds) Teachers’ Handbook on Teaching Generic Thinking Skills. Singapore: Prentice Hall. Gupta, A. (1994) The Step-tongue: Children’s English in Singapore. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Horwitz, E.K. (1988) The beliefs about language learning of beginning university foreign language students. Modern Language Journal 72, 283–94. Huang, X.H. and van Naerssen, M. (1987) Learning strategies for oral communication. Applied Linguistics 8, 287–307. Kasper, G. and Kellerman, E. (eds) (1997) Communication Strategies: Psycholinguistic and Sociolinguistic Perspectives. New York: Addison Wesley Longman. Littlewood, W. (1981) Communicative Language Teaching: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Long, D.R. (1990) What you don’t know can’t help you: An exploratory study of background knowledge and second language listening comprehension. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 12, 65–80. O’Malley, J.M. and Chamot, A.U. (1990) Learning Strategies in Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. O’Malley, J.M., Chamot, A.U. and Küpper, L. (1989) Listening comprehension strategies in second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics 10, 418–37. Oxford, R.L. (1990) Language Learning Strategies: What Every Teacher Should Know. New York: Newbury House. Pakir, A. (1993) Two tongues tied: Bilingualism in Singapore. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 10, 167–79. Pakir, A. (1995) Expanding triangles of English expression in Singapore: Implications for teaching. In S.C. Teng and M.L. Ho (eds) The English Language in Singapore: Implications for Teaching. Singapore: Singapore Association of Applied Linguistics. Rubin, J. (1975) What the ‘good language learner’ can teach us. TESOL Quarterly 9, 41–51. Rubin, J. (1987) Learner strategies: Theoretical assumptions, research history and
LA No: 342
Awareness of Listening and Speaking Strategies
217
typology. In A. Wenden and J. Rubin (eds) Learner Strategies in Language Learning (pp. 15–30). London: Prentice Hall. Samuels, S.J. (1987) Factors influencing listening and reading comprehension. In R. Horowitz and S.J. Samuels (eds) Comprehending Oral and Written Language (pp. 295– 325). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Vandergrift, L. (1997) The comprehension strategies of second language (French) listeners: A descriptive study. Foreign Language Annals 30, 387–409. Victori, M. (1999) An analysis of writing knowledge in EFL composing: A case study of two effective and two less effective writers. System 27, 537–55. Wen, Q.F. and Johnson, R.K. (1997) L2 learner variables and English achievement: A study of tertiary-level English majors in China. Applied Linguistics 18, 27–48. Wenden, A.L. (1987) How to be a successful language learner: Insights and prescriptions from L2 learners. In A. Wenden and J. Rubin (eds) Learner Strategies in Language Learning (pp. 103–18). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Wenden, A.L. (1991) Learner Strategies for Learner Autonomy. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Wenden, A.L. (1998) Metacognitive knowledge and language learning. Applied Linguistics 19, 515–537. Yang, N.D. (1999) The relationship between EFL learners’ beliefs and learning strategy use. System 27, 515–35. Young, M.Y.C. (1997) A serial ordering of listening comprehension strategies used by advanced ESL learners in Hong Kong. Asian Journal of English Language Teaching 7, 35–53. Zhang, D.L. (2001) Singaporean students’ metacognitive knowledge about learning English oral skills. Unpublished MA thesis. Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. Zhang, D.L. (2004) ‘Your English is too cheem!’: Singaporean student listening difficulties and their tackling strategies. Asian Englishes 7, 74–91. Zhang, L.J. (2001) Awareness in reading: EFL students’ metacognitive knowledge of reading strategies in an acquisition-poor environment. Language Awareness 10, 268–88.
LA No: 342
218
Language Awareness
Appendix: Questionnaire Metacognitive Awareness Inventory in Listening and Speaking Strategies (MAILSS) A. Some people think that the following behaviours are good for improving the ability to listen and speak in English. Please circle a number to indicate
b) how often YOU use each of them 1 = Never 2 = Rarely 3 = Sometimes 4 = Often 5 = Most often
1 = Least useful 2 = Not useful 3 = Neutral 4 = Useful 5 = Most useful
a) how useful YOU think each of them is
12345
SK1
Looking for opportunities to speak to a person who can speak good English
SU1
12345
12345
SK2
Participating actively in communicative activities in class
SU2
12345
12345
SK3
Listening to English radio
SU3
12345
12345
SK4
Watching English TV programmes and movies
SU4
12345
12345
SK5
Thinking in English what to say
SU5
12345
12345
SK6
Mentally answering in English a question when the teacher has asked another student to answer
SU6
12345
12345
SK7
Taking the initiative to answer teachers’ questions whenever possible
SU7
12345
12345
SK8
Reading English newspapers and magazines to enlarge my knowledge of the world
SU8
12345
12345
SK9
Using subtitles to check my interpretation when watching English movies
SU9
12345
12345
SK10
Orally summarising the stories or texts I hear or read
SU10
12345
12345
SK11
Memorising important and interesting information I read or hear so that I can use them later in my own speech
SU11
12345
12345
SK12
Imitating spoken materials to improve my pronunciation
SU12
12345
12345
SK13
Practising reading aloud
SU13
12345
12345
SK14
Listening to major varieties of English (e.g. American English, British English) and note the their characteristics
SU14
12345
12345
SK15
Paying attention to the way my teacher or other good speakers of English express themselves
SU15
12345
12345
SK16
Spending time memorising words and expressions
SU16
12345
12345
SK17
Spending time working on grammar
SU17
12345
12345
SK18
Mentally correcting verbal errors or mistakes of others
SU18
12345
12345
SK19
Paying attention to my grammar while speaking
SU19
12345
12345
SK20
Noting the organisational patterns of spoken texts
SU20
12345
LA No: 342
Awareness of Listening and Speaking Strategies
219
B. Some people think that the following behaviours help understand and speak English better. Please circle a number to indicate: b) how often YOU use each of them 1 = Never 2 = Rarely 3 = Sometimes 4 = Often 5 = Most often
1 = Least useful 2 = Not useful 3 = Neutral 4 = Useful 5 = Most useful
a) how useful YOU think each of them is
Before or while listening in English 12345
SK21
Guessing and anticipating the content of the spoken text based on any information given (e.g. topic, picture, questions) before listening
SU21
12345
12345
SK22
Relating the incoming information to what I know
SU22
12345
12345
SK23
Translating things being heard into my mother tongue
SU23
12345
12345
SK24
Imagining/visualising things being heard
SU24
12345
12345
SK25
Trying to get the overall meaning of the spoken text
SU25
12345
SK26
Paying attention to the details of the spoken text
SU26
12345
12345
SK27
Writing down key words or concepts in short-hand form
SU27
12345
12345
SK28
Guessing the meanings of unknown words or phrases using information available (e.g. words in the context, knowledge of word formation, knowledge of the topic)
SU28
12345
12345
SK29
Paying attention to organisational ‘signals’ of a spoken text (e.g. first, however, in addition)
SU29
12345
12345
SK30
Concentrating on the listening task in spite of difficulty
SU30
12345
When failing to hear or understand something while talking to someone in English 12345
SK31
Asking the speaker to repeat it
SU31
12345
12345
SK32
Asking the speaker to explain it
SU32
12345
12345
SK33
Telling the speaker what I get and asking him/her to confirm the correctness of my understanding
SU33
12345
When not knowing how to express something while talking to someone in English 12345
SK34
Using words with similar meanings in my mother tongue
SU34
12345
12345
SK35
Using words with similar meanings in English
SU35
12345
12345
SK36
Making up words to use
SU36
12345
12345
SK37
Trying to express it in a different way
SU37
12345
12345
SK38
Using examples to illustrate what I want to express
SU38
12345
