Cultural variation in the useof language learning strategies: A comparative study

(1)

Faculty of Philology, State University of Applied Sciences in Konin, Poland KSJ 4 (4). 2016. 439-461 http://ksj.pwsz.konin.edu.pl doi: 10.30438/ksj.2016.4.4.4

Cultural variation in the use of language learning strategies: A comparative study

Jakub Przybył

Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań, Poland jakub.przybyl@amu.edu.pl

Abstract

No instructional approach can guarantee a full accomplishment of learners’ goals, such as, for example, becoming a global citizen by knowing the language, understanding culture, making friends, getting a better feel for their culture, or communi- cating for world peace (Oxford, 2013). What facilitates the accomplishment of these goals is the use of language learning strategies. Not only does the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) (Oxford, 1990) continue to be a valid tool in studies of second language learning, but it also has a great potential in investigating cultural differences among learners. In order to compare Polish and Italian language learners’

use of strategies, the present author conducted a quantitative study of 72 Italian students, 80 lower secondary, and 80 upper secondary school students from Poland.

Participants completed adaptations of SILL ver. 7.0 and Ten Item Personality Inventory (TIPI) (Gosling et al., 2003). The data analysis revealed that the Polish participants of the study used strategies less frequently than their Italian counterparts, except for memory strategies. In particular, the Italians considerably outperformed them in their use of affective strategies, which may suggest that the investigated Polish and Italian learners adopt different mindsets regarding language learning.

Keywords: personality; language learning strategies; cultural differences

1. Introduction

Originating from humanistic psychology (Bugental, 1964), research into individual variation in language learning has not just greatly extended the scope of

(2)

knowledge about the learner, but also resulted in a number of pedagogical conclusions. A number of researchers have attempted to define language learning strategies (LLS). For example, a definition of LLS provided by Wenden (1987) sees them as “steps or mental operations used in learning or problem solving that require direct analysis, transformation, or synthesis of learning materials in order to store, retrieve, and use knowledge” (1987, p. 10). In her book, which includes the questionnaire used in the present study, Oxford (1990, p. 1) referred to LLS as “steps taken by the students to enhance their own learning” and

“tools for active, self-directed involvement, which is essential for developing communicative competence”, or “the way students learn a wide range of subjects”. The definition provided by Griffiths (2013, p. 36) suggests that LLS are activities “consciously chosen by learners for the purpose of regulating their own language learning”. The role of LLS cannot be ignored since, as Droździał- Szelest (1997) suggested, they are a valid explanatory variable in investigating second language achievement. Oxford (2004) underscored the possibility of pre- dicting learners’ success by investigating the strategy chains which they use when performing a task. More recently, Cohen (2011) addressed the necessity of creating a complex theoretical framework for investigating LLS, suggesting that the description of LLS needs to involve three aspects, that is the goal, the situational component, and the mental action. Oxford (2011) distinguished between strategies and skills on the basis of their deliberateness (i.e., the property of strategies) or automaticity (i.e., the property of skills), and suggested that the strategic self-regulation model she put forward has a double utility, namely the potential for both ordinary, and crisis-like situations for using LLS.

With reference to the links between LLS and learners’ culture, national origin has been reported to determine language learners’ choice of strategies (Oxford & Nyikos, 1989, p. 292). Consequently, Oxford (1990) offered different versions of strategy inventories so as to cater for the specificity of investigating the strategies of native speakers of English learning other languages (Appendix B), and learners of English as a foreign language (Appendix C). Moreno et al.

(1991) used the Cognitive Skills Inventory to demonstrate that learners vary across cultures with respect to integration within the target language culture, repetition and monitoring habits, as well as coping. Oxford (1996) considered cultural background to be one of the factors affecting strategy choice and showed, for example, that Spanish learners may often resort to inferring or pre- dicting, while Japanese learners may manifest preference for strategies which require greater precision and accuracy. Reflecting on the results of her empirical investigations, Griffiths (2003) concluded that language learners from Europe tend to outperform students of other origins in terms of the frequency of strategy use, which she attributed to the specificity of the European culture and the

(3)

educational background of most European students. Lee and Oxford (2008) identified a number of strategies which were not included in the SILL, but were relatively frequently employed by learners in order to compensate for a lack of opportunities to interact with native speakers of English. Grainger’s (2012) study indicated that Asian learners of Japanese were more frequent strategy users than Australian learners, and that their strategies were more diverse. The re- searcher concluded that language the learning environment constituted an important factor in the selection of LLS. Finally, Castillo and Córdova (2013) reported that Mexican language learners use strategies from the cognitive domain more frequently than strategies constituting the other domains.

The present author decided to use the opportunity to investigate the cultural background of language learning strategy users while he was in charge of the teaching process in a branch of a private language school in the UK. Since most of his students were Italian, he decided to gather relevant data from these learners, wondering whether he could attempt to compare them with a group of Polish learners belonging to the same age group. For that reason, he con- tacted two school principals from the town where he used to live and soon got their initial consent. Another aim was to provide insights into the relationships between language learners’ personality and their choice of language learning strategies. Finally, he also aimed to review the rationale, design, and assessment tools to be employed in a subsequent, larger-scale study of language learning strategies. A decision was made to employ an adaptation of the Ten-Item Per- sonality Inventory (TIPI) (Gosling, Rentfrow, & Swann Jr., 2003) as an alternative measurement tool of personality to NEO-FFI (Costa & McCrae, 2003), a 60-item personality questionnaire, which, despite meeting the goodness criteria for a psychometric test, is relatively long and therefore time-consuming to fill in. De- veloped in 2014, TIPI is recommended for scientific research, including pilot studies (Sorokowska et al., 2014), and could possibly become a more cost- and time-efficient alternative to NEO-FFI. Along with the adaptation of TIPI, the author administered an adaptation of SILL ver. 7.0. Both tools were delivered in the learners’ mother tongues in order to avoid potential misunderstanding.

2. The study 2.1. Method 2.1.1. Participants

The participants of the study included adolescent Polish and Italian learners of English. The latter attended a fortnightly course in English at a British summer

(4)

school in Bath, UK. They received a placement test on arrival, and also attended an interview with a teacher assessing their speaking fluency so as to be assigned for an appropriate level group. The score on the oral interview was incorporated into the test result (20% of the score) for each participant. Levels ranged from 1 (complete beginners) to 6 (advanced students). No students were assigned to group 1. The investigated Italians were lower and upper secondary school stu- dents (Scuola Secondaria di primo grado and Scuola Secondaria di secondo grado, for students aged 11-13 and 14-17/19 respectively). School leavers in It- aly are 17 years old if they graduate from a three-year vocational school or 19 years old if they graduate from a five-year vocational school or any type of second grade secondary schools. The groups of Poles were students from two schools, a lower secondary school and an upper secondary school. Both schools are located in Rawicz, a town in the south-west of Poland. Following the study, the students of the upper secondary school attended a lecture on language learning strategies, which the present author had to deliver as a part of the agreement with the school authorities. Table 1 presents descriptive data for all the participants who were initially involved in the study.

Table 1 Descriptive statistics before age selection

nationality N minimum age maximum age mean age std. deviation age variance

Italian 72 10 17 13.89 1.70 2.91

Polish 138 13 18 15.57 1.78 3.19

Due to differences in educational systems, the Italian students were a bit younger. Since the age of puberty constitutes a specific boundary in second language acquisition studies, both because of its significance in the Critical Period Hypothesis and, as was pointed by Sakai (2005), because language learners can be treated as second language learners rather than first language learners after reaching the age of puberty, it is possible to assume that changes in cognitive processes may result in using different language strategies. Moreover, develop- mental psychologists make a distinction between the latency period and the period of adolescence, typically starting not later than at the age of thirteen (Brzezińska, 2005). Taking into account these premises, the analysis was re- stricted to Poles and Italians aged 13-18. Relevant data is shown in Table 2. As can be seen, Polish students were on average one year older than their Italian counterparts. The one-year difference in the age range for both nationalities is reflected in the values of both standard variation and considerably higher age variance for Poles. At the same time, age values for Polish learners were almost

(5)

evenly distributed (-0.07). Detailed information on participants’ age is presented in Figure 1.

Table 2 Descriptive statistics for the study after applying age selection

nationality N range minimum maximum mean std.deviation variance skewness kurtosis

Italian 56 4 13 17 14.54 1.32 1.74 0.58 -0.57.

Polish 138 5 13 18 15.57 1.79 3.19 -0.07 -1.28

Figure 1 Participants’ age

The learners varied in terms of their different levels of proficiency. Italian learners attended classes at six different levels of proficiency. Figure 2 shows the distribution of Italian learners across levels of proficiency¹.

Figure 2 Italian learners’ distribution of proficiency levels diagnosed with a placement test in the UK

1These levels correspond with the following CEFR levels: Level 1 – A1, level 2 – A2, level 3 – A2+, level 4 – B1, level 5 – B1+, level 6 – B2.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

13 14 15 16 17

Age frequencies: Italians

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

13 14 15 16 17

Age frequencies: Poles

5,4%

35,7% 39,3%

14,3%

5,4%

Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Level 6

Italians’ proficiency levels

(6)

The Polish learners attended two different school types: 51% of all students were lower secondary school students while 49% attended an upper secondary school. They all studied English as a foreign language and had started their education in English in primary school. Although no placement test was conducted for these students, it was reasonable to expect that their level of competence could be mostly be assessed as A1+ to B1 CEFR (lower secondary school) and A2-B2 CEFR (upper secondary school), which can be inferred from the foreign language curriculum.

2.1.2. Materials and procedure

Italian students were asked to complete Italian adaptations of TIPI and SILL ver.

7.0, translated by their group leaders, who were native speakers of Italian and English linguists by profession. Polish students were also asked to complete adaptations of both questionnaires in their mother tongue. Participation in the study was voluntary. Questionnaires were distributed in the classrooms by the teachers who were in charge of particular groups or classes. These tools are de- scribed in more detail below.

Adaptations of TIPI

One of the aims of the study was to examine whether an alternative tool to NEO- FFI could be used for personality measurement. An attempt was made to assess the reliability of TIPI. Out of the four methods of testing the reliability of a research instrument (Hornowska, 2001), the Spearman-Brown formula was chosen to cal- culate the reliability of TIPI as it is recommended for two-question scales (Eisinga et al., 2013). Table 3 presents the values of the Spearman-Brown formula for TIPI.

Table 3 Spearman-Brown reliability statistics for personality scales (TIPI)

scale items reliability values

openness to experience +5/-10 0.182

conscientiousness +3/-8 0.441

extroversion +1/-6 0.426

agreeableness +7/-2 0.165

emotional stability +9/-4 0.205

As can be seen from the table, three personality scales show extremely low reliability values. They do not differ considerably from the values obtained by the authors of the inventory, which, one must not forget, is designed to esti- mate personality dimensions (extremely broad constructs), with only two questions relating to broader semantic categories (Gosling et al., 2013, p. 516).

(7)

Adaptations of SILL ver. 7.0

Both Polish and Italian adaptations included two modifications which the present author decided to introduce in order to account for technological pro- gress and in this way cater for strategies that are available in the second decade of 21st century, but could not be employed back in the 1990s. The list of modifications is presented in Table 4. With respect to question 15, the introduced amendment was connected with greater availability of English films and programs in the age of the Internet, whose number of users definitely exceeds the number of cinema goers. For this reason, watching films is therefore no longer limited to the cinema. As far as question 17 is concerned, the range of means of written communication has increased considerably over the last 30 years, with emails, instant messengers and text messages gradually replacing traditional, paper-and-pen writing. Both changes can be viewed in terms of adaptation in the sense that Hornowska (2001, p. 29-30) describes as the process of adjusting the original version of the questionnaire to the specificity of the local culture.

Table 4 Amendments introduced to the original SILL ver. 7.0

question

no. original wording question after introduced amendments 15 I watch English language TV shows spoken in

English or go to movies spoken in English. I watch English TV programmes and films 17 I write notes, messages, letters, or reports in

English. I write notes, messages, letters, or other forms in English

Since all the scales of language learning strategies included more items, Cronbach’s alpha was calculated for each of them to evaluate the reliability of the adaptation of SILL ver. 7.0 as a research tool. Calculated in this way, the reliability coefficient refers to the internal consistency of a research instrument and thus also validates the homogeneity of a construct (Hornowska, 2001, p. 55).

Cronbach’s alpha values for strategy scales are shown in Table 5. The values of the reliability coefficient are shown in two variants, for raw data and for stand- ardized items, since both options were used in later stages of analysis.

Table 5 Cronbach’s alpha for strategy scales

scale no. of items reliability for all

participants reliability for nationalities Italians Poles

memory strategies 9 0.602/0.611 0.591/0.609 0.617/0.633

cognitive strategies 14 0.775/0.777 0.785/0.786 0.776/0.779 compensation strategies 6 0.549/0.558 0.528/0.525 0.603/0.607 metacognitive strategies 9 0.803/0.803 0.818/0.821 0.800/0.799 affective strategies 6 0.528/0.517 0.514/0.497 0.509/0.526

social strategies 6 0.698/0.699 0.692/0.693 0.704/0.704

(8)

An interesting finding was that, treated as a single construct, memory and cognitive strategies scored very high on reliability when tested for both all participants and for the two nationalities separately (α = 0.803 and α for standard- ized items = 0.807). This suggests that perhaps the two scales can be treated as a single scale. This is confirmed by Oxford (2011), who did not include memory strategies as a separate category in the strategic self-regulation model, but included them in the cognitive dimension. As far as affective strategies and compensation strategies are concerned, Cronbach’s alpha values are low. Therefore, one recommendation from the study would be to further adapt the questionnaires by adding more questions in each of these scales, for example, by using the procedure involving competent judges (Brzeziński & Maruszewski, 1978).

With regard to memory strategies, alpha values are acceptable and it can be expected that they will be even higher in the main study, following the increase in the number of participants. The remaining strategy scales, that is cognitive, metacognitive and social strategies, all show good reliability values.

2.1.3. Analytical procedures

The next step involved the analysis of data distribution within scales. It was tested for normality considering both sets of data (personality and language learning strategies) in order to choose appropriate measurements of relationships (parametric or nonparametric). For that purpose, the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was applied separately for five scales personality domains and six scales of language learning strategies, as well as for the two constructs in order to deter- mine p values. Measurements were conducted for all participants as well as af- ter splitting the investigated population into two nationality groups. For each data set, H0 assumed that data distribution did not differ significantly from normal. H1, on the other hand, assumed that data distribution was significantly different from normal. H0 was accepted if p values exceeded 0.05. Table 6 provides information on data distribution.

Consequently, in further analysis parametric tests were used for all data whose distribution was not significantly different from normal, while their nonparametric equivalents were employed for all data distributions significantly different from normal. Statistical analysis involved computing descriptive statistics and correlations.

(9)

Table 6 K-S normality test results

scale complete data sets national data sets

Italians Poles

openness to experience different from normal different from normal different from normal conscientiousness different from normal different from normal different from normal extroversion different from normal normal different from normal agreeableness different from normal normal different from normal emotional stability different from normal different from normal different from normal memory strategies different from normal normal different from normal

cognitive strategies normal normal normal

compensation strategies normal normal normal

metacognitive strategies normal normal normal

affective strategies normal different from normal normal

social strategies normal normal normal

GULLS normal different from normal normal

2.2. Results

2.2.1. General use of language learning strategies

First, an attempt was made to investigate how the Italian and Polish learners differed in their preference for various language learning strategies. For that purpose, descriptive statistics were calculated and the results can be found in Table 7, which contains frequencies of strategy use for both investigated nationalities and for both types of schools attended by Polish students. N stands for the number of participants and SD is the standard deviation. Frequencies are presented for each of the six strategy scales (i.e., the memory, cognitive, compensation, metacognitive, affective, and sociocultural scale), but also for all strategies altogether, that is general use of language learning strategies, labelled GULLS, a construct which is useful when referring to the aggregated use of language learning strategies.

Table 7 Descriptive statistics of language learning strategy use

Strategy use Italians Poles Polish lower

secondary school Polish upper secondary school

N Mean SD N Mean SD N Mean SD N Mean SD

Memory strategies 56 2.48 0.54 141 2.59 0.58 72 2.71 0.53 69 2.46 0.61 Cognitive strategies 56 2.88 0.61 141 2.77 0.59 72 2.66 0.58 69 2.87 0.59 Compensation strategies 56 3.13 0.71 141 3.03 0.68 72 2.92 0.71 69 3.14 0.63 Metacognitive strategies 56 3.23 0.75 141 3.09 0.70 72 2.94 0.66 69 3.24 0.71 Affective strategies 56 2.83 0.58 141 2.29 0.63 72 2.27 0.67 69 2.32 0.60 Social strategies 56 3.28 0.81 141 2.99 0.79 72 2.91 0.74 69 3.07 0.84

GULLS 56 2.97 0.45 141 2.79 0.49 72 2.73 0.50 69 2.85 0.47

(10)

The data clearly shows that Italian students outperformed Polish students in the frequency of use of all language learning strategies except the scale of memory strategies. In order to examine whether the differences in strategy use between nationalities were statistically significant across nationalities an inde- pendent samples Mann-Whitney U test was conducted (non-parametric, since data distribution of GULLS was significantly different from normal for the analyzed group of Italians). H0 assumed that the distribution of strategy use did not differ significantly, while H1 assumed that they were different. Since the p value did not exceed 0.05, the null hypothesis was rejected. Data sets differed significantly in terms of distribution across nationalities. Not only was the mean strategy use higher among Italians (by more than 6.4%), but these students also more often represented frequent strategy users (scores about the median constitute 81.8% of the Italian population in comparison with 74.5% for Poles). Fig- ure 3 illustrates the general use of language learning strategies (GULLS) across different nationalities and school types.

Figure 3 General use of language learning strategies across nationalities and school types

2,48 2,88

3,13

3,23 2,83

3,28 2,59

2,77

3,03

3,09 2,29 2,99

Mean IT Mean PL Mean PL LSS Mean PL USS

(11)

2.2.2. Use of memory strategies

It was observed that the use of memory strategies tended to decline among older learners and/or among more advanced learners as scores differed with regard to Polish students of lower vs. higher secondary schools. The results of the study show that Polish upper secondary school students used memory strategies less frequently than lower secondary school students. Also, it is possible to make a comparison regarding frequent and rare strategy users. Grouping learners into the two categories (with mean values of strategy use below and above 2.5 appropriately) and using cross tabulation reveals that relatively more Poles than Italians were frequent memory strategy users (58.2% in comparison with 51.2% in the case of Italians). All students, regardless of their nationality, used rhymes to remember new words least frequently in comparison to other memory strategies. The most favored strategies, however, differed across nationalities. Poles (both lower and upper secondary school students) preferred reviewing English lessons while their Italian counterparts showed preference for thinking of relationships between what they already knew and new things they learnt in English. The latter finding is the first one which can be related to cultural differences. The traditional model, where the teacher still constitutes a source of knowledge and learning English is viewed as learning a subject rather than a foreign language, can still be encountered in Polish schools.

2.2.3. Use of cognitive strategies

Italian learners used cognitive strategies relatively more frequently than their Polish counterparts (mean use was higher by nearly 4%, almost 8.3% among Polish lower secondary school students and 0.3% among Polish upper secondary school students respectively). Three quarters of the investigated Italians represented frequent strategy users (with mean values exceeding 2.5) while the proportion for Polish students amounted to 66%. The relatively low difference in the use of the strategies from the category in question was reflected in the lack of statistical significance of differences between the two data sets, that is Ital- ians and Poles. Among the Italians, the most frequently employed strategy tended to be reading a passage quickly (skimming) and then, reading it again, more slowly and carefully. This strategy was, on average, used 23% more often than any other strategy in the cognitive category. The investigated Italians also reported saying or writing new English words several times and practicing the sounds of English (both strategies were chosen by more than 9% of Italian learners than an average strategy in this category). At the same time, they rarely read for pleasure (this strategy was the least frequently used). Poles resorted greatly

(12)

to LLS which can be deemed as more traditional in ELT methodology, less refined or just simpler. Their most favored strategy in the cognitive category was saying or writing new English words several times, which was followed by using the English words they knew in different ways. The data shows that the strategies which they employed least frequently involved writing notes, messages, letters or reports in English.

2.2.4. Use of compensation strategies

In the vast majority of cases, both Italians and Poles reported using a word or phrase that means the same as the word or phrase that they were unable to remember or retrieve in English or that they just did not know. Regarding Polish learners, there was an increasing trend in the use of compensation strategies as they moved from lower to upper secondary school. Also, the difference in the use of these strategies did not distinguish Italians substantially from Poles (the frequency of use was just 3% higher for Italians). Learners relatively seldom resort to using gestures in the process of communication (Italians) and word coin- age (Poles). The first of the last two findings may be viewed as surprising to some extent since, like all southern Europeans, Italians are typically associated with using relatively more gestures than people of different nationalities. Low frequency of gesture use as a compensation strategy may indicate that gestures are used in L1 in a different way than they are used in L2 and that they support verbal communication rather than replacing it. This is confirmed in a publication about Italian gestures where the use of gestures is referred to as co-speech (Bonaiuto & Bonaiuto, 2014).

2.2.5. Use of metacognitive strategies

Interestingly enough, metacognitive strategies were favored by Poles in comparison to all other language learning strategies. At the same time, they used them slightly less frequently than Italian learners (mean frequency was higher by 4.5%

and the difference was not statistically significant). Italians showed much greater a willingness to discover routes to successful language learning. Most of them reported often trying to find ways to become better learners of English. Using this tactic (item 32) can be compared to orchestrating all the strategies employed to learn a foreign language, willingness to boost one’s autonomy and a desire to strive for expert knowledge on language learning strategies on the part of the learner. At the same time, the Poles investigated in the study most frequently preferred paying attention when someone was speaking English (item 33).

(13)

2.2.6. Use of affective strategies

Affective strategies constituted an area which was not given considerable attention by the Polish learners of English investigated in the study. These strategies were least frequently used, which probably means that the Polish learners did not view them as effective or necessary. On a positive note, the analysis showed that the most favored tactic in this category was using English words even when correctness was at stake. On the other hand, not using reflection as an intro- spective tool (either self-reflection in the form of a diary or simply sharing one’s feelings about language learning with others) might mean that Polish learners did not consider language learning to be important enough or, perhaps, they did not realise that they would be able to improve their learning strategies and outcomes through reflection. The Italians shared these characteristics, which might result from the fact that reflection is mediated by age (Brzezińska, 2005). Fur- thermore, very seldom do Polish students reward themselves when they do well in English. This may be explained by the failure to notice their own achievements or exposure to considerable negative feedback, which implies that learners are subject to a system of punishments rather than rewards and remain unfamiliar with the notion of a reward as such. In this respect, Italians manifested much more initiative. The frequency of using rewards among the Italian learners exceeded the value calculated for the Polish learners by 62%, a difference that was statistically significant (p< 0.05).

2.2.7. Use of social strategies

The analysis showed that social strategies were employed more frequently than any other language strategy by the analyzed group of Italian learners. The average frequency of use of these strategies exceeded the mean strategy use by more than 10%. The difference was again statistically significant, which was con- firmed by the results of a t-test (p< 0.05, both data sets not significantly different from normal). A vast majority of the Italians participating in the study resorted to asking for repetition and/or requesting a decrease in the speed of speech if they encountered comprehension difficulties. These strategies were also used by Poles more frequently than any other in the analyzed category, but their use was not nearly as frequent as their use by young Italians (mean values varied by more than 10%). The least frequently used strategy in the social domain for both nationalities involved making attempts to learn about the culture of English speakers.

(14)

2.2.8. Links with learner’s personality

The next stage of the analysis consisted in investigating the existence of intercorrelations between various strategy scales and correlations between strategy scales and personality dimensions. Two types of correlation coefficients were cal- culated, Pearson’s r for sets of data only including scales whose data distribution was not significantly different from normal and Spearman-Brown’s rho coefficient for sets including at least one scale whose distribution was significantly different from normal. Calculations were performed for the Italians and Poles separately since their GULLS was significantly different. For analytical purposes, the following interpretation of correlation strength was adapted (Bedyńska & Brzezicka, 2007):

— coefficients below 0.3 indicate weak correlations, not sufficient to confirm a linear relationship;

— correlations between 0.3 and 0.5 indicate moderate correlations;

— correlations between 0.5 and 0.7 indicate strong correlations;

— correlations between 0.7 and 1 point to very strong correlations.

The above interpretation is relevant for social sciences.

Table 8 Intercorrelations of strategy scales for Italians

Memory

strategies Cognitive

strategies Metacognitive

strategies Affective

strategies* Social strategies

Memory strategies 1 0.360 .382

Cognitive strategies 0.360 1 0.774 0.543* 0.675

Metacognitive strategies 0.382 0.774 1 0.584* 0.754

Affective strategies* 0.577* 0.583* 1* 0.439*

Social strategies 0.675 0.754 0.432* 1

First, correlations between strategy scales were calculated for Italians and the results are presented in Table 8. Statistically insignificant correlations or weak correlations have all been excluded from the table. Non-parametric corre- lations (rho) have been marked with an asterisk symbol. As can be seen from the data, there were two very strong correlations, the stronger one referring to the two scales belonging to the same, cognitive dimension (cognitive and metacognitive strategies) and the weaker one marking the relationship between metacognitive and social strategy use. Since metacognitive strategies were initially the only meta-dimension in the strategy model which underlies the questionnaire used in the present study, they also included looking for interlocutors who could participate in a conversation in English (item 6 in SILL ver.7.0), and paying attention to people speaking English (tactic D3), which, since both tactics require a third party, could partly explain the above relationship. Other correlations between strategy scales observed in Table 8 are relatively weak and point

(15)

to the fact that frequent strategy users tended to use more than one category of strategies, which can be seen as a sign of their awareness of language learning strategies in general and confirm the notion of GULL as a construct.

A similar set of intercorrelations between strategy scales was calculated for the Poles. Results can be seen in Table 9, which is not inclusive of any statistically insignificant or weak correlations. As can be seen from the data, the only very strong correlation was observed between cognitive and metacognitive scales, which both belong to the cognitive dimension. A greater number of statistically significant correlations in the matrix than was the case of the investigated Italians can be explained by greater homogeneity of LLS users. In other words, if a Polish participant uses some LLS, he or she is more likely to use other LLS as well. Given the fact that the mean values of strategy use were lower in all scales except for memory strategies, one must acknowledge the fact that the Polish learners participating in the study use strategies less frequently than their Italian counterparts, which may stem from the fact that they lack strategy training in general.

Table 9 Intercorrelations of strategy scales for Poles

Memory

strategies Cognitive

strategies Compensation

strategies Metacognitive

strategies Affective

strategies Social strategies

Memory strategies 1 0.496 0.484 0.448

Cognitive strategies 0.496 1 0.549 0.720 0.364 0.598

Compensation strategies 0.549 1 0.409 0.354 0.410

Metacognitive strategies 0.484 0.720 0.409 1 0.409 0.645

Affective strategies 0.364 0.354 0.409 1 0.323

Social strategies 0.448 0.598 0.410 0.645 0.323 1

Table 10 is a correlation matrix of Italian students’ personality traits meas- ured by TIPI and their use of all language learning strategies. Only statistically significant, moderate or strong, correlations have been included. The table shows clearly that for the analyzed group of Italian students, conscientiousness is the feature which correlates with the development of four types of language learning strategies. Characterized by efficiency and good organizational and managerial skills, conscientious people display such traits as carefulness, thor- oughness and deliberation (Thompson, 2008), which, especially in the last case, might be a kind of trigger for activating learning strategies. Hence, as can be seen in Table 10, the quality strongly correlates with the use of metacognitive strategies and moderately with the use of memory and cognitive strategies. The trait also moderately correlates with the reported application of affective strategies. Another personality trait which shows a moderate correlation with one of the strategy scales is openness to experience. It is correlated with the use of social strategies, a scale which involves interaction with other L2 learners and/or

(16)

users. This interaction is probably relatively easier for people who show preference for variety and can therefore participate in conversations with different users of L2, merely by seeking interaction with different interlocutors or intellectual curiosity, which can also involve curiosity towards other people’s views, opinions, knowledge or use of the target language.²

Table 10 Correlations between personality dimensions and LSS use in the case of Italian participants

Openness

to experience Conscientiousness Extroversion Agreeableness Emotional stability

Memory strategies .447^**

Cognitive strategies .412^**

Compensation strategies

Metacognitive strategies .533^**

Affective strategies .329^*

Social strategies .326^*

The analysis of correlations between Polish learners’ personality traits and their use of language learning strategies showed no clear patterns of co-depend- ence. As far as statistically significant relationships are concerned, none of them exceeded the value of r = 0.3, which means that none of the statistically signifi- cant correlations were moderate, strong or very strong. While this is true if the investigated group of Polish students is examined with no division into observa- tional subsets (lower secondary school and upper secondary school students), different results were obtained after grouping the investigated Poles into two subsets, i.e., attending lower or upper secondary schools. While no statistically significant relationships could be observed between lower secondary school students’ personality traits and their use of language learning strategies, two interesting tendencies could be traced from the correlation matrix for upper secondary school students shown in Table 11.

Table 11 Correlations between personality dimensions and LSS use in the case of Polish participants

Openness

to experience Conscientiousness Extroversion Agreeableness Emotional

stability Openness to experience

Affective strategies 0.344 0.325

The two personality traits which moderately correlate with the use of affective learning strategies included agreeableness and openness to experience.

2 Openness to experience involves active imagination, aesthetic sensitivity, attentiveness to inner feelings, preference for variety, and intellectual curiosity (Costa & McCrae, 1992)

(17)

As stated above, openness to experience involves attentiveness to inner feelings and hence, its moderate relationship with the use of affective strategies does not really come as a surprise. The other moderate correlation was found between the use of affective strategies and agreeableness, which can be under- stood as beingkind, sympathetic, cooperative, warm and considerate (Thomp- son, 2008). It is possible that a person who uses affective language learning strategies can more easily accept his/her own weaknesses as a language learner or develop ways of handling failure in language learning, so that he or she is not easily discouraged from learning a foreign language.

To summarize, it is possible to trace more connections between the Ital- ians’ personality traits and the use of LLS than in the case of the Polish students in the analyzed groups. The general impression from correlation analysis is that Polish students tended to use strategies in an “all or nothing” manner and that their use of strategies is generally not dependent on their personality traits. The situation, however, changes as they mature because tendencies in strategy choice develop in upper secondary school, that is either when learners’ self- awareness reaches a certain minimum level or when they are familiarized with at least some elements of the (whole) language learning strategy spectrum. In the analyzed group, Italian learners tended to choose their preferred strategies earlier than Poles, which probably results from their greater awareness of the available range of strategies.

3. Conclusion

It is possible to draw a number of conclusions from the findings of the present study, as well as the juxtaposition of the LLS typically used by investigated groups of learners. Firstly, a closer look at the use of particular categories of language learning strategies reveals a lot of details about Polish students’ learning preferences. As far as memory strategies are concerned, the fact that using memory strategies is more common among the investigated Polish learners may also result from viewing English as a school subject that involves a certain dose of knowledge rather than skills or language functions. Regarding the metacognitive scale, the strategies which involve writing were relatively seldom employed by both groups of learners. This can be interpreted in several ways. Ob- viously, it is possible to point to the relative scarcity of attention given to the development of writing skills in EFL curricula in general. From a slightly different perspective, however, it is possible to assume that the learning of English comes to an end when learners leave the classroom or finish learning it for classroom purposes. Perhaps they would just need to be acquainted with some simple ideas, such as making shopping lists, texting each other in English or writing elements of

(18)

their daily timetables in L2, activities in which they can engage in their out-of- school life. Even those strategies which require less active participation, such as paying more attention to language (e.g., the English words that one can find in product descriptions) and maximizing the input in the background (e.g., listen- ing to English radio programs, films and songs) could possibly contribute to an improvement in their L2 proficiency.

Two metacognitive strategies used most frequently by the Polish and Ital- ian participants were different in a number of aspects although they represented the category of metacognitive strategies. The tactic investigated in item 33, that is trying to find how to be a better learner of English, preferred by the investigated Italian learners, requires more involvement, planning and even in- terest in managing the learning process. In contrast, tactic represented by item 32, that is paying attention when someone is speaking English, preferred by Polish learners, is an example of passive behavior, which involves resorting to a third party as a source of input and/or knowledge about the target language. Of course, it can be used outside the classroom, for example, when learners listen to broadcasts, podcasts, films or clips, when they encounter foreigners using English, or when they use English as L2 for communication purposes outside the classroom, spending time with other users of English. However, as pointed out above, for the Polish participants learning English resembles learning one of many school subjects rather than learning a foreign language, and it does not really happen very often that they can meet foreigners in Rawicz. Instead, when analyzed from a classroom perspective, such outcomes may suggest that learners prefer adopting passive attitudes during classes and may rely on teacher talk and prioritize acquiring skills traditionally viewed as receptive over those seen as productive. Unfortunately, no measures of teacher talk in relevant classrooms are available for the investigated groups of learners.

The least favored strategy among the Italians was looking for opportunities to read as much as possible in English, which, again, involves reading skills, and can be associated with the fact that reading for pleasure was the least often used strategy in the cognitive domain. Reading in English is thus not popular among the Italian learners investigated in this study, either as a form of enter- tainment or as a means of increasing their L2 proficiency. It is also the case with the Polish students who chose this strategy the least frequently; however, the choice which was almost as rare involved looking for people they can talk to in English, which, again, confirms the view that language learning is seen more in terms of learning another school subject rather than learning to communicate.

Neglecting the search for opportunities to communicate results in less frequent target language use and may reduce the development of communicative competence from the very outset.

(19)

The study has shown that a number of strategies preferred by the investigated Polish students were more passive, required less involvement and possibly that learners and pointed to an external locus of control in language learning.

The students focused on paying attention rather than contributing actively, and revising before tests rather than attempting to plan and organize language learning. The frequency of using affective strategies remains dramatically low and hence, there is an urgent need for training in that particular area. The differences in the use of affective strategies between the Poles and Italians might have resulted from greater popularity of positive feedback in Italian schools, and from the fact that the Polish education system has been promoting learners’

behaviors which involve adjustment to hierarchy and passive absorption of knowledge followed by its reproduction. Much in the same way, there is a need to persuade learners to seek contact with other L2 users, which is reflected in the lower use of social strategies among the investigated Poles. All of these characteristics of the Polish participants may be at least partly the consequence of the teaching that they have been subject to as well as the curriculum, which partly determines the kind of instruction that learners receive. The classroom reality may still not include enough focus on communication in the target language and the instructors might need to consider making the learning experience more rewarding for students. More than anything else, the Poles need considerable support in learning how to learn English, using language learning strategies and fostering their autonomy in language learning in general. Also, the fact that learners show little willingness to learn the culture of native speakers of English can be related to the position of English as lingua franca, learnt by stu- dents of various nationalities as a compulsory subject rather than a language of their own choice, chosen in response to their cultural interests. Analyzing the use of language learning strategies among the investigated Poles has shown that a large proportion of learners demonstrated an “all or nothing” attitude. Hence, it can be assumed that learners tend to exhibit a high or low GULLS level, which could be empirically investigated as a separate construct. These finding may be connected with a relatively low level of knowledge of some students when it comes to the range of language learning strategies that can be used to support foreign language learning.

The investigated exhibited the use of more active strategies and were more eager to seek solutions in language learning while their Polish counterparts proved to employ more passive strategies and were more “traditional”

learners. A vast majority of the Polish learners engaged in reception rather than in interacting in the foreign language. In addition, the investigated Polish students failed to recognize the supportive nature of some language learning strategies, especially those involving planning their learning and employing affect and interaction

(20)

as well as looking for opportunities to participate in L2 communication. This may result from viewing English as a school subject rather than as a genuine means of communication. Relatively high numbers of low strategy users were revealed among Polish participants attending both lower secondary school and upper secondary school. This has at least two serious consequences. First, bridging the gap in strategy use does not really happen naturally as students grow older. Sec- ond, the curriculum may not sufficiently emphasize strategy training and students remain unfamiliar with a number of tactics that could support their language education.

Finally, the characteristics of some language learning strategies seem to intersect with the personality dimensions, especially openness to experience and conscientiousness. These relationships ought to be subject to more thor- ough investigation with a more heterogeneous group of learners, since categor- ical variables such as nationality or school level may blur the influence of personality, which as Dörnyei and Ryan (2015) point out, remains the most individual of all individual difference factors.

4. Limitations and directions for future research

Further investigation of the relationships between language learners’ personality traits and their use of learning strategies requires a more reliable personality inventory than TIPI. It would this seem that the NEO-FFI rather than TIPI should be employed in future research. At the same time, the Polish adaptation of SILL ver. 7.0 needs be extended so as to improve the reliability of the strategy scales whose reliability did not prove to be satisfactory in the comparative study. Also, research into the influence of learners’ personality requires a more homogene- ous group since nationality and school level both constitute stronger predictors of language learning strategies than personality. It must also be admitted that many of the results were not statistically significant, which may indicate that other factors apart from nationality might exert a considerable influence on the use of language learning strategies.

(21)

References

Bedyńska, S., & Brzezicka-Rotkiewicz, A. (Eds.). (2007). Statystyczny drogowskaz:

Praktyczny poradnik analizy danych w naukach społecznych na przykładach z psychologii. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Wyższej Szkoły Psychologii Społecznej.

Bonaiuto, M., & Bonaiuto, T. (2014). Gestures and body language in Southern Europe: Italy. In C. Müller, A. Cienki, E. Fricke, S. H. Ladewig, D. McNeill, &

J. Bressem (Eds.), Body – language – communication. An international handbook on multimodality in human interaction (Vol. 2, pp. 132-135).

Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.

Brzezińska, A. (Ed.). (2005). Psychologiczne portrety człowieka. Praktyczna psy- chologia rozwojowa. Gdańsk: Gdańskie Wydawnictwo Psychologiczne.

Brzeziński, J., & Maruszewski T. (1978). Metoda sędziów kompetentnych i jej zastoso- wanie w badaniach pedagogicznych. Kwartalnik Pedagogiczny, 23, 569-587.

Castillo, M. C. del Ángel, & Córdova, K. E. Gallardo. (2013). Language learning strategies and academic success: A Mexican perspective. Universitas Psy- chologica, 13, doi:10.11144/Javeriana.UPSY13-2.llsa

Cohen, A. D. (2011). Strategies in learning and using a second language. Harlow:

Longman.

Costa, P. T. Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Four ways five factors are basic. Personality and Individual Differences, 13, 653-665. doi:10.1016/0191-8869(92)90236-I Costa, P. T. Jr., & McCrae, R. R. 2003. Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-

R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) manual. Odessa, FL: Psycho- logical Assessment Resources.

Dörnyei. Z., & Ryan, S. (2015). The psychology of the language learner revisited.

New York: Routledge.

Droździał-Szelest, K. (1997). Language learning strategies in the process of ac- quiring a foreign language. Poznań: Motivex.

Eisinga, R., Te Grotenhuis, M., & Pelzer, B. (2013). The reliability of a two-item scale: Pearson, Cronbach, or Spearman-Brown? International Journal of Public Health, 4, 637-642. doi: 10.1007/s00038-012-0416-3

Gosling, S. D., Rentfrow P. J., & Swann W. B. Jr. (2003). A very brief measure of the five personality domains. Journal of Research in Personality,37, 504- 528. doi:10.1016/S0092-6566(03)00046-1

Griffiths, C. (2003). Patterns of language learning strategy use. System, 31, 367- 383.doi: 10.1016/S0346-251X(03)00048-4

Griffiths, C. (2013). The strategy factor in successful language learning. Bristol:

Multilingual Matters.

(22)

Grainger, P. (2012). The impact of cultural background on the choice of language learn- ing strategies in the JFL context. System, 40, 483-493. doi: 10.1016/j.system.

2012.10.011

Hornowska, E. (2001). Testy psychologiczne. Teoria i praktyka. Warszawa: Wy- dawnictwo Naukowe Scholar.

Lee, K. R, & Oxford, R. L. (2008) Understanding EFL learners’ strategy use and strategy awareness. Asian EFL Journal, 10, 7-32. doi: 70.40.196.162 Matthews, G., Deary, I. J., & Whiteman, M. C. (2003). Personality traits. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

McCrae, R. R., & John, O. P. (1992). An introduction to the five-factor model and its applications. Journal of Personality, 60, 175–215. doi: 10.1111/j.1467- 6494.1992.tb00970.x

Moreno, V., & di Vesta, F. J. (1991). Cross-cultural comparison of study habits. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 231-239. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.83.2.231 Nowakowska, M. (1975). Psychologia ilościowa z elementami naukometrii. War-

szawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe.

Nyikos, M., & Oxford, R. L. (1993). A factor analytic study of language-learning strategy use: Interpretations from information-processing theory and social psy- chology. Modern Language Journal, 77, 11-22. doi: 10.2307/329553

Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. Boston: Heinle.

Oxford, R. L. (Ed.) (1996). Language learning strategies around the world: Cross- cultural perspectives. Honolulu: University of Hawaii.

Oxford, R., Cho, Y., Leung, S., & Kim, H-J. (2004). Effect of the presence and difficulty of task on strategy use: An exploratory study. IRAL, 42, 1-47. doi: 10.1515/

iral.2004.001

Oxford, R. L. (2011). Teaching and researching language learning strategies. Har- low: Longman.

Oxford, R. L. (2013). English teachers helping students become strategic and success- ful: Ten guidelines. Retrieved from: http://appi.pt/act/congsemin/27cong.htm Oxford, R. L., & Nyikos, M. (1989). Variables affecting choice of language learning strategies by university students. Modern Language Journal, 73, 291-300.

doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4781.1989.tb06367.x

Pawlak, M. (Ed.). (2012). New perspectives on individual differences in language learning and teaching. Heidelberg: Springer.

Sakai, K. L. (2005). Language acquisition and brain development. Science, 310, 815-819. doi: 10.1126/science.1113530

Scarcella, R. C., & Oxford, R. L. (1992). The individual in the communicative class- room. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.

(23)

Sorokowska, A., Słowińska, A., Zbieg, A., & Sorokowski, P. (2014). Polska adapta- cja testu Ten Item Personality Inventory (TIPI) – TIPI-PL – wersja standar- dowa i internetowa. Wrocław: WrocLab.

Thompson, E. R. (2008). Development and validation of an international English big-five mini-markers. Personality and Individual Differences, 6, 542-548.

doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2008.06.013

Wenden, A., & Rubin, J. (Ed.). (1987). Learner strategies in language learning.

Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall International.