English Language Teaching; Vol. 8, No.

11; 2015
ISSN 1916-4742 E-ISSN 1916-4750
Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education

Variations of Language Learning Strategy Use among Three Colleges

at a Private Four-year Technology University in Taiwan
Huei-Chen Yeh1
1
Applied English Department, St. John’s University, New Taipei City, Taiwan
Correspondence: Huei-Chen Yeh, Applied English Department, St. John’s University, New Taipei City, Taiwan.
E-mail: [email protected]

Received: July 19, 2015 Accepted: October 8, 2015 Online Published: October 18, 2015
doi:10.5539/elt.v8n11p183 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/elt.v8n11p183

Abstract
This study aims to examine the college students in Taiwan for the attributes of how their English test scores are
being affected by language learning strategy use. The university is recognized as a second-tier technology
university in Taiwan, as the students are considered to have low levels of English proficiency and learning
motivation. A group of 156 students from three colleges (Engineering, Business and Management, and Humanity
and Social Science) participated in the study. The result found that the students from Humanity and Social
Science have the highest mean scores on their English tests and the highest level language learning strategies
among the three colleges at the university. Cognitive strategy is found to be the only statistically significant
difference among the study students from three colleges; the other five strategies are not found to be statisically
significant. Compensation strategy is found to be most frequently used by all of the students. Cognitive and
metacognitive strategies are found to be the least used among the study group.
Keywords: language learning strategy, engineering college, business and management college, college of
humanity and Social Science, Taiwanese university students, SILL, ANOVA
1. Introduction
1.1 Background of the Study
In the past few decades, language learning strategies have been widely discussed among language teachers and
researchers (Anderson, 2005, Cohen, 1998; Naiman et al., 1978, O’Malley & Chamot, 1990; Oxford, 1990a,
1996; Oxford & Burry-Stock, 1995; Oxford & Ehrman, 1995; Rubin, 1975; Stern, 1975; Wenden & Rubin, 1987;
Wong & Nunan, 2011; Yeh, 2014). Language learning strategies have first been classified and defined by Oxford
in 1990, and she (who? – state name of author) developed the first version of SILL to help study language
learning strategies. Language learning strategies are being identified as distinct behaviors and mental processes
used among learners to help assist language acquisition (Park, 2011; Weinstein & Mayer, 1986). Various studies
have proven the language strategies impact learning L2 (Bialystok, 1981; Chamot & Kupper, 1989; Cohen, 1990;
Naiman, Frohlich & Todesco, 1975). Good language learners are identified as the following: active and accurate
guessers, strong-motivated communicators, mentally-independent individuals, brave persons who make mistakes,
people who tend to analyzing language-patterns, and enjoy taking any opportunities to use the language,
monitoring others’ talks, and paying close attentions to meanings (Oxford, 1994; Rubin, 1975). However, Cohen
(1997) argued that Rubin (1975) failed to take into individual difference into language learning process. Cohen
(2003) offered a more comprehensive way to understand a variety of language learning strategies adapted among
different individuals.
1.2 Explore Importance of the Problem
During globalization and internationalization during the 1980s, the general public in Taiwan developed a strong
belief to make connections to the world; thus, the knowledge economy made a radical impact on Taiwan since
then. The ever-increasing contact between people around the world made English communication skills more
important than ever before. As a result, the English learning environment is prevalent in society, and remains so
even today. (Yeh, 2014a). Most individuals believe that they need to learn English well to expand their life scope

183
www.ccsenet.org/elt English Language Teaching Vol. 8, No. 11; 2015

and enrich their life experiences.

For most learners, the English-proficiency certificates are crucial not only to fulfill the English-proficiency
requirement of college graduation, but also to identify their language abilities while searching for competitive
jobs upon graduation. In general, Taiwanese students experience certain levels of frustration and challenges
when they feel pressured to pass English-proficiency tests, such as GEPT, ILETS, TOEFL, and TOEIC. These
English-proficiency certificates are most commonly used and accepted among schools and business industries.
English proficiency certificates used to be the most recognized and commonly accepted index of individual’s
English proficiency levels; as a result, students, parents, teachers, and administrators set teaching goals to help
students pass the English proficiency tests which are seen as a requirement of university graduation at all-level
educational institutes in Taiwan.
1.3 The Relevant Studies of Language Learning Strategies
The purpose of studying the use of language learners’ strategies is not only for the teachers and curriculum
administrators, but also for language learners themselves. Many studies indicate the characteristics of good
language learners. For example, they are individuals who are highly self-disciplined and aware of their learning
strategy use and tasks. Wong and Nunan’s study (2011) summarized that learning strategies are a complex set of
mental and communicative procedures from the research previously done (Chamot, 2005; O’Malley & Chamot,
1990). A hypothesis of awareness and strategy-development was studied to improve enhancing the effectiveness
of language acquisition (Macaro, 2001). There are five characteristics of good language learners identified by
Wang (1992), in a study of 490 undergraduate English-majored students in China by using Reid’s (1987)
Perceptual Learning Style Preference Questionnaire (PLSPQ). These traits are listed as the following:
“(1)learning styles are one of the main aspects reflecting learner differences in English language learning;
(2)the Chinese undergraduate students of English investigated preferred kinesthetic learning most and group
learning least;(3) learning styles were affected by the length of time of English learning; (4) learning styles were
related to EFL achievements; (5) students who are not good at listening and reading were more likely to prefer
visual learning” (Wang & Nunan, 2011, p. 147).
Furthermore, Oxford (1994) listed some important findings which support the effectiveness of using language
learning strategies to enhance learners’ proficiency. These findings are listed as following: (1) appropriate
language learning strategy use can improve leaners’ language proficiency (Oxford et al., 1993; Thompson &
Rubin, 1993), (2) successful language learners are usually using language learning strategies tactically to reach
the requirement for various language tasks (Chamot & Kupper, 1989), and they can easily explicate their various
engaged language strategies (O’Malley & Chamot, 1990); (3) both cognitive and metacognitive strategies are
often employed together to support each other. Combination of two or more strategies helps in language learning
(O’Malley & Chamot, 1990); (4) certain language learning strategies are bonded together for specific language
tasks (Chamot & Kupper, 1989); (5) language learners don’t pay attention to their feelings and social
relationships with others; thus, few studies on social and affective strategies are found in L2 research (Oxford,
1994).
Oxford (1995) reported that Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) was structured based on a
statistical procedure of factor analysis grouping language learning strategies. The well-defined strategies in the
SILL are memory, cognitive, compensation, metacognitive, affective, and social strategies. Memory strategies
are grouping, imagery, rhyming, and structured reviewing. Cognitive strategies can be practiced as reasoning,
analyzing, summarizing, and general practicing. Compensation strategies are taught through activities including
guessing meanings, and using synonyms and gestures to express the unknown words. Metacognitive strategies
are practiced by paying attention, searching for practice opportunities, scheduling for language learning tasks,
self-monitoring own learning paths and progress, and self-checking own errors. Affective strategies could be
trained via the listed activities of anxiety reduction, self-encouragement, and self-reward. Social strategies are
practiced through asking questions, working together with native speakers, and being cultural aware of the
language. In terms of four-language skills, listening refers to memory strategy, reading refers to cognitive
strategy, and writing refers to metacognitive strategy. Speaking skills require more complex rules of
compensation, affective, and social strategies used interchangeably (Abhakorn, 2008; Cohen, 2003; Oxford,
1995; Wu & Lin, 2009; Yeh, 2014.)
Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) is one of the most popular measures of language learning
strategies. SILL has been commonly used to study L2 learners’ overall learning strategy use, the relationships of

184
www.ccsenet.org/elt English Language Teaching Vol. 8, No. 11; 2015

strategies used and L2 proficiency, the factors relating to learners’ choice of adopting different strategies, and
language training curriculum (Green & Oxford, 1995; Griffiths, 2003; Hong-Nam & Leavell, 2006; McMullen,
2009; Nisbet et al., 2005; Nyikos and Oxford, 1993; Park, 1977, 2011; Riazi and Rahimi, 2005; Wharton, 2000;
Yang, 1999). SILL was being examined and proved its fair reliability with an acceptable alpha value of .60
and .70 in most of the previous research (Hair et al., 1998; Landau & Everitt, 2004; Park 2011). Hence, SILL is
used for this study to study the group of 156 sophomore students enrolled at a private four-year technology
university in Northern Taiwan. The study aims to investigate the difference among those students’ language
learning strategies adapted and their English proficiency levels within three colleges including Engineering,
Business, and Humanity and Social Science.
A study done by Carol Mango in 2010 investigated 302 Korean students, aged between 14 and 18, at a high
school in the Philippines. The students in the study were all Korean native-speakers who were studying English
as their second language. Three research questions were asked in the study: “1) will the language learning
strategies significantly contribute in increasing Korean students’ English proficiency?; 2) do the number of
months learning formal English increase the English proficiency of Korean students?; 3) will the overall
relationship of the language learning strategies and English proficiency increase when length of formal study of
English is added as a predictor of English proficiency?” (Mango, 2010, p. 48). Her study group had self-reported
English-study which ranged from one to 144 months. The scores of student English proficiency ranged from 5 to
35, and the mean of English proficiency test was 18.48. The SILL scores ranged from 0.56 to 5, which meant the
language learning strategies were from very low to high across the study group. The mean scores of SILL were
memory (2.05), cognitive (2.05), compensation (3.48), metacognitive (3.34), affective (3.14) and social (3.51)
strategies. From her (who?) study, the compensation strategy and period of studying English were found to be
significant; and the rest of predictors were not significant.
1.4 The Hypotheses and Research Questions of the Study
This study had one main purpose: to explore the language learning characteristics among the students from three
colleges at a private four-year Technology University in Northern Taiwan. The hypotheses and research
questions are listed as the following.
Hypothesis one: “There is no statistical difference on language learning strategies used among the students from
the three colleges of Engineering, Business, and Humanity and Social Science.”
Hypothesis two: “There is no statistical difference on students’ English test scores (proficiency) among the
students from the three colleges of Engineering, Business, and Humanity and Social Science.”
Research Questions are listed as the following.
1). What kinds of language learning strategies do the Engineering-College students use? What are the strategies
used most frequently and least frequently by the students?
2). What kinds of language learning strategies do the Business-College students use? What are the strategies
used most frequently and least frequently by the students?
3). What kinds of language learning strategies do the students at the College of Humanity and Social Science use?
What are the strategies used most frequently and least frequently by the students?
4). Are there any statically significant differences in strategy use among the students from the three colleges?
What are the strategies used most frequently and least frequently by the study students?
5). Are the mean scores of the students at the 3 colleges statistically different from each other on the English
test?
2. Method
2.1 Study Participants
The study student group were the students enrolled in the fall semester of 2012. The total number of the study
group was 156 as they were randomly chosen from each department. The mean of the study students’ age is
19.26. The group has 46 (29.5%) female and 110 (70.5%) male students, and it represents the gender proportion
of the study university.
2.2 English-proficiency Placement Test
Anglia Examinations (http://anglia.org/about-anglia) started at and are now based in Chichester College,

185
www.ccsenet.org/elt English Language Teaching Vol. 8, No. 11; 2015

Chichester, England since 1994. Anglia Examinations has regional offices around the world, including Africa,
Europe, Asia, and Ibero-American Network; the Greater China office covers the areas of Taiwan, Hong Kong,
Macau, and Mainland China. The tests offer a variety of English proficiency tests and training programs from
educational to business domains, from young children to adults in academe and business industries. The Anglia
examination develops a test of comprehensive four-skill (listening, speaking, reading, and writing) based on the
CEFR standard. Appendix 1 lists an equivalence table of CEFR, Anglia Examinations and other English
proficiency tests. The placement test of the study was compiled by the staff of Anglia Examinations in Taiwan. A
one-hour placement test with one-hundred multiple-choice questions including listening and reading was given
to the students in class, along with the SILL survey. It took about almost two hours to complete both the
placement test and SILL survey, along with clearly explained instructions for the students.
2.3 Revised Chinese SILL inventory (34-item)
The first version of 80-item SILL were tested and proved its reliability between 0.91 to 0.95 from the
respondents given the survey in their native languages (Oxford, 1995.-) SILL given to ESL/EFL students,
Cronbach’s alpha values were proven to be high: 0.94 to a sample of 590 Taiwanese university EFL learners
(Yang, 1992a); 0.92 to a sample of 255 Japanese university EFL learners (Watanabe, 1990); 0.91 to a group of 59
Korean university EFL learners (Oh, 1992); and 0.93 to another group of 332 Korean university EFL learners
(Park, 1994); and 0.91 to a group of 374 EFL learners in Puerto Rico (Oxford, 1986, 1995; Oxford and Nyikos,
1989; Wildner-Bassett, 1992a; Bedell, 1993; Nyikos & Oxford, 1993; Oxford & Burry, 1993). The revised
Chinese SILL inventory contained 34 questions, which were selected from the 80-item SILL (Oxford, 1990). The
shorter version was created for the students in order to increase the survey-competition rates. The questions were
selected based on the pretest result from a group of 50 students at the university. The pretest was given to
randomly chosen students from the department. The reliability and validity remained statistically significant,
Cronbach’s alpha values were proven to be higher than 0.6 (Yeh, 2014). The survey was administrated to other
groups of students at the university, which remained a good model (Yeh, 2014). It is suggested the acceptable
values of individual item loadings should be greater than 0.5 (Chin, 1998; Shepherd, Tesch, & Hsu, 2006, p. 208).
SILL has proven to be reliable and valid through different study groups around the world in the past three
decades. The reliability of SILL was proven by Oxford and her associates (1986 & 1995), which it is 0.99. The
internal consistency reliability of SILL is 0.94 from Yang’s study (1993) of 505 participants, and 0.92 from
Watanabe’s study (1990) of 315 Chinese participants (Magno, 2010). SILL was being examined and proved to be
fairly reliable with an acceptable alpha value of .60 and .70 in most of the previous research (Landau & Everitt,
2004; Park, 2011). Oxford (1996) reported the Chronbach’s alpha of SILL is 0.93 to 0.98 as the SILL given in
learner’s language or in L2. Numerous studies have reported the high validity of SILL as a significant index to
language learning performance (Landau and Everitt, 2004; Mango, 2010; Nisbet, Tindall, & Arroyo, 2005;
Oxford, 1990b; Park, 2011).
2.4 Procedure of Data Collection & Coding
Survey data were collected along with an one-hour placement test was given in class. The students took about
ten to twenty minutes to finish the adapted SILL survey, followed by the Anglia English Test. The tests were
collected and graded by the team of Anglia Examination proctors based at Chichester College, Chichester,
England; the SILL surveys were to be coded into an Excel file for further statistical analyses. The scores of test
results were converted to TOEIC scores (see the Table 1). The reason for converting the test scores is for the
analytical procedure, because the Anglia Examination only gives the results of letter grades based on the CEFR
standard. 299 students were chosen to take the test, but only 156 students completed the tests and answered
survey questions, which is a 52.174% completion rate for this study.

186
www.ccsenet.org/elt English Language Teaching Vol. 8, No. 11; 2015

Table 1. Result of Pretest to the English-majored student based on the equivalence table of language proficiency
on the CEFR standard
English proficiency
Anglia test result
N. Percentage (Converted to TOEIC score based on
with level classification
CEFR standard)
0 10 6.4 0
A1/Low-elementary 37 23.7 0
A2/ Elementary 49 31.4 173
A2+/ Pre-Intermediate 33 21.2 280.5
B1/ Intermediate 19 12.2 388
B2/ Advanced 8 5.1 668
C1/ Proficiency 0 0 888
Total 156 100

3. Result of the Study Analyses

3.1 Descriptive Results
Upon the completion of data entry, some important descriptive analyses are displayed to explore the background
of the study group. The study group of 156 students included 46 (29.5%) female and 110 (70.5%) male students.
Based on the responses on their perception of learning English, seventy one (71) students (45.5%) of the group
think of English as very important, and 78 students (50%) express that English is important to them; there were
only 7 (4.5%) students who reported learning English is a little important or not important. As the students
reported their learning interests, sixty five (65/ 41.7%) said they have no interest in studying English, as 91
students (58.3%) reported themselves interested in learning English. The mean student age and test score
(converted to TOEIC scores) are 19.25 and 195.08. The average period of studying English is 9.29 years.
The simple guideline is if that skewness is less than the absolute value of 1 (+/- 1), the variables are at least
approximately normal (Hair et al., 2009). The Kurtosis values of language learning strategies in the study are all
acceptable with an absolute value less than 3. Table 2 displays all the values of Skewness and Kurtosis which
means a good distribution of normality. At the following table, the study students showed their most frequently
used compensation strategy (M = 2.945), followed by memory strategy (M = 2.731), affective strategy (M =
2.630), social strategy (M = 2.614), metacognitive strategy (M = 2.578), and cognitive strategy (M = 2.559). The
study students show very little above average level to equally using all six language learning strategies, which it
is under an assumption that the students have the ability to self-report their used strategies.

Table 2. List of descriptive statistics of test scores and six language learning strategies
Factors N Min. Max. Mean Std. Dev. Skewness Kurtosis
Test Score 156 0.000 668.000 195.080 171.274 .850 .809
Memory 156 1.170 4.330 2.731 .644 -.178 -.168
Cognitive 156 1.000 5.000 2.559 .730 .193 .559
Compensation 156 1.200 4.600 2.945 .605 -.018 .656
Metacognitive 156 1.000 5.000 2.578 .714 .024 .301
Affection 156 1.000 4.400 2.630 .737 -.090 -.386
Social 156 1.000 5.000 2.614 .734 -.165 .208
Valid N 156

187
www.ccsenet.org/elt English Language Teaching Vol. 8, No. 11; 2015

A one-way between subjects ANOVA (Table 3 and 4) was conducted to compare the effect of different language
learning strategy use for three colleges: Engineering, Business, and Humanity and Social Science. There was a
significant effect of different colleges on English test scores at the p < .05 level [ F (2, 153) = 3.9, p = 0.022*].
Post hoc comparisons using the Tukey HSD test (Table 5) indicated that the mean score of the English test for
the College of Humanity and Social Science (M = 259.890, SD = 204.195) was significantly different than the
Business College (M = 156.120, SD = 177.321). However, the Business College did not significantly differ from
both colleges of Engineering (M = 182.460, SD = 145.882), and Humanity and Social Science. The result
answered the hypothesis one as it is rejected (p < 0.022, at two-tailed statistical significance) and the results
determined that there is a statistical difference toward the test scores among three colleges (see Table 4.)

Table 3. Descriptive table of English test scores among three colleges

95% Confidence Interval for
Mean Score of Std. Mean
College N Std. Error
Eng. tests Deviation Lower Upper
Bound Bound
1. Engineering 85 182.460 145.882 15.823 150.99 213.920
2. Business 34 156.120 177.321 30.410 94.250 217.990
3. Humanity & Social
37 259.890 204.195 33.570 191.81 327.970
Science
222.170
Total (3 colleges) 156 195.080 171.274 13.713 168

Note: Colleges of Engineering (coded as 1), Business (coded as 2), and Humanity & Social Science (coded as 3).

Table 4. ANOVA table of English Test scores among three colleges

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Test scores vs. colleges
220575.714 2 110287.857 3.900 0.022*

*p < 0.05 at 2-tailed statistical significance level.

Table 5 lists the post hoc comparison by using the Tukey HSD test which shows a statistical significance
between Colleges of Business and Humanity and Social Science. There is no statistical significance found
comparing the Engineering College to both Colleges of Business and Humanity and Social Science.

Table 5. Post hoc comparisons using the Tukey HSD test on different colleges to English test scores
Mean 95% Confidence Interval
(I) college (J) college Std. Error Sig.
Difference (I-J) Lower Bound Upper Bound
Engineering Business 26.341 34.122 .721 -54.420 107.100
HSS -77.433 33.119 .054 -155.820 .950
Business Engineering -26.341 34.122 .721 -107.100 54.420
HSS -103.774* 39.949 .028* -198.320 -9.230
HSS Engineering 77.433 33.119 .054 -0.950 155.820
Business 103.774* 39.949 .028* 9.230 198.320
* The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 (2-tailed) level. HSS—Humanity & Social Science.

188
www.ccsenet.org/elt English Language Teaching Vol. 8, No. 11; 2015

Table 6 lists all the descriptive statistics of language strategy used by college. It answers the research question 1
to 4. From the analysis, the students from Engineering College are found to use compensation strategy most
often with a mean value of 2.938; whereas they are found to least often use social strategy with a mean value of
2.582. The students at Business College are found to most often use compensation strategy with a mean value of
2.900, and they least often use metacognitive strategy with a mean value of 2.485. The students at College
Humanity and Social Science are found to most often use compensation strategy with a mean value of 3.000, and
they least often use cognitive strategy with a mean value of 2.698.

Table 6. Descriptive statistics of language learning strategy use by colleges

95% Confidence Interval
Std. for Mean
Strategy College N Mean Std. Error
Dev. Lower Upper
Bound Bound
Memory 1 85 2.740 .596 .065 2.611 2.868
2 34 2.588 .657 .113 2.359 2.817
3 37 2.841 .728 .120 2.598 3.083
Total 156 2.731 .644 .052 2.629 2.832
Cognitive 1 85 2.617 .670 .073 2.473 2.761
2 34 2.265 .735 .126 2.008 2.521
3 37 2.698 .800 .132 2.431 2.965
Total 156 2.559 .730 .058 2.444 2.675
Compensation 1 85 2.938 .592 .064 2.811 3.066
2 34 2.900 .608 .104 2.688 3.112
3 37 3.000 .643 .106 2.786 3.214
Total 156 2.945 .605 .048 2.849 3.040
Metacognitive 1 85 2.561 .696 .075 2.411 2.711
2 34 2.485 .689 .118 2.245 2.726
3 37 2.703 .776 .128 2.444 2.961
Total 156 2.578 .714 .057 2.465 2.691
Affective 1 85 2.601 .719 .078 2.445 2.756
2 34 2.601 .776 .133 2.330 2.871
3 37 2.724 .755 .124 2.473 2.976
Total 156 2.630 .737 .059 2.513 2.747
Social 1 85 2.582 .715 .078 2.428 2.736
2 34 2.535 .774 .133 2.265 2.805
3 37 2.761 .742 .122 2.514 3.009
Total 156 2.614 .734 .059 2.498 2.730
Note: Colleges of Engineering (coded as 1), Business (coded as 2), and Humanity & Social Science (coded as 3).

Table 7 lists ANOVA test of language learning strategies by colleges. Among all six language learning strategies,
cognitive strategy is only found to have a statistical significant difference among the three colleges. In terms of
the study group, they found that compensation strategy (M = 2.945) is the most frequently used strategy;

189
www.ccsenet.org/elt English Language Teaching Vol. 8, No. 11; 2015

whereas, the least used strategy among the study students is cognitive strategy with the mean value of 2.559 (See
Table 6 and 7.) Table 9 lists all the strategies by rank and college.

Table 7. ANOVA Test of language learning strategies by colleges

Strategy Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Memory 1.144 2 0.572 1.387 0.253
Cognitive 3.947 2 1.974 3.843 0.024*
Compensation 0.185 2 0.092 0.25 0.779
Metacognitive 0.893 2 0.446 0.875 0.419
Affective 0.433 2 0.216 0.395 0.674
Social 1.105 2 0.552 1.025 0.361
*p < 0.05 at 2-tailed significant level.

The test scores of the students from Engineering College have shown to be statistically different from those of
the students at the College of Humanity and Social Science. The test scores of the students from the Business
College were found to be significantly statisically different from those of the students at the Humanity and Social
Science College. The students from the College of Humanity and Social Science showed statistically significant
differences on English test scores compared to both the students from the Engineering and Business Colleges.

Table 8. Post Hoc test of comparing the used strategies among three colleges
95% Confidence
Mean Interval
Strategy (I) college (J) college Difference Std. Error Sig.
(I-J) Lower Upper
Bound Bound
Memory 1 2 0.151 0.130 0.479 -0.157 0.460
3 -0.101 0.127 0.704 -0.401 0.198
2 1 -0.151 0.130 0.479 -0.460 0.157
3 -0.252 0.153 0.226 -0.614 0.109
3 1 0.101 0.127 0.704 -0.198 0.401
2 0.252 0.153 0.226 -0.109 0.614
Cognitive 1 2 .352* 0.145 0.044 0.008 0.696
3 -0.081 0.141 0.833 -0.415 0.253
2 1 -.352* 0.145 0.044 -0.696 -0.008
3 -.433* 0.170 0.032 -0.836 -0.031
3 1 0.081 0.141 0.833 -0.253 0.415
2 .433* 0.170 0.032 0.031 0.836
Compensation 1 2 0.038 0.123 0.948 -0.254 0.330
3 -0.062 0.120 0.864 -0.345 0.222
2 1 -0.038 0.123 0.948 -0.330 0.254
3 -0.100 0.144 0.768 -0.442 0.242
3 1 0.062 0.120 0.864 -0.222 0.345
2 0.100 0.144 0.768 -0.242 0.442

190
www.ccsenet.org/elt English Language Teaching Vol. 8, No. 11; 2015

Metacognitive 1 2 0.075 0.145 0.861 -0.268 0.418

3 -0.142 0.141 0.572 -0.475 0.191
2 1 -0.075 0.145 0.861 -0.418 0.268
3 -0.217 0.170 0.408 -0.619 0.184
3 1 0.142 0.141 0.572 -0.191 0.475
2 0.217 0.170 0.408 -0.184 0.619
Affective 1 2 0.000 0.150 1.000 -0.356 0.355
3 -0.124 0.146 0.673 -0.469 0.221
2 1 0.000 0.150 1.000 -0.355 0.356
3 -0.124 0.176 0.762 -0.540 0.292
3 1 0.124 0.146 0.673 -0.221 0.469
2 0.124 0.176 0.762 -0.292 0.540
Social 1 2 0.047 0.149 0.947 -0.306 0.400
3 -0.180 0.145 0.431 -0.522 0.163
2 1 -0.047 0.149 0.947 -0.400 0.306
3 -0.227 0.174 0.398 -0.639 0.186
3 1 0.180 0.145 0.431 -0.163 0.522
2 0.227 0.174 0.398 -0.186 0.639
* p < 0.05 at 2-tailed statistical significance level.

The students from Humanity and Social Science College demonstrated their averages to be higher than overall
averages at all of the six language learning strategies. However, the Business College students showed their
mean to be lower of all six strategies compared to overall averages among all three colleges. The
Engineering-College students show that only cognitive and affective strategies are lower than overall (3 colleges)
average means. Table 9 lists all the strategies’ mean values and their ranks by college and overall value.

Table 9. Comparison and rank of language learning strategies used among three colleges
Rank of College of Humanity Overall
Engineering College Business College
strategy use and Social Science (3 colleges)
Compensation Compensation Compensation Compensation
1 (most often used)
(M = 2.938) (M = 2.900) (M = 3.000) (M = 2.945)
Memory Affective Memory Memory
2
(M = 2.740) (M = 2.601) (M = 2.841) (M = 2.731)
Cognitive Memory Social Affective
3
(M = 2.617) (M = 2.588) (M = 2.761) (M = 2.630)
Affective Social Affective Social
4
(M = 2.601) (M = 2.535) (M = 2.724) (M = 2.614)
Social Metacognitive Metacognitive Metacognitive
5
(M = 2.582) (M = 2.485) (M = 2.703) (M = 2.578)
Metacognitive Cognitive Cognitive Cognitive
6 (least often used)
(M = 2.561) (M = 2.265) (M = 2.698) (M = 2.559)

191
www.ccsenet.org/elt English Language Teaching Vol. 8, No. 11; 2015

From the above analyses, both research hypotheses are rejected as language learning strategies and test cores are
found to be statistically significant among the three colleges. Table 10 lists the research hypotheses’ results.
Cognitive strategy was found to have a statistically significant difference among all three colleges (Table 7 and
8.) The students from Business and Humanity and Social Science (HSS) are statistically significantly different on
their test scores, as the students at HSS had better test scores (Table 5.)

Table 10. The result of research hypotheses

Hypothesis Statement Accepted Rejected
1 There is no statistical difference on language learning strategies ●
used among the students from the three colleges of
Engineering, Business, and Humanity and Social Science.
2 There is no statistical difference on students’ English test scores ●
(proficiency) among the students from the three colleges of
Engineering, Business, and Humanity and Social Science.

4. Discussion
The study has proven that students from different colleges have different concepts to conceptualize the received
information and knowledge. If teachers want to make the learning effective in class, we should help our students
become familiar with all the language learning strategies in order to make them practice these strategies outside
the class. From the study result, the low test scores showed that the students suffered challenges and difficulties
in language learning; yet the teachers might not know how to help them improve their language learning and test
scores. Cognitive and metacognitive strategies are found to be the least used strategies among the students,
which might confirm why the students failed to perform well in their English learning and test scores. Both
cognitive and metacognitive strategies are often employed together to support each other. A combination of two
or more strategies used is more effective in language learning (O’Malley & Chamot, 1990.) Oxford confirmed
(1994, 1996, 1996a) that the language learners who apply both cognitive and metacognitive strategies more
frequently tend to have better results in language performance. Cognitive strategy appears to be the only
statistically significant difference to apply among the study students from the three colleges.
Students from HSS have the best test scores compared to the students from the other two colleges. Those
students who have better test scores tend to have higher scores on their language learning strategies, which
means that test scores are enhanced by using the learning strategies properly. In terms of the test scores, students
from Business College have the lowest scores compared to the students from the other two colleges. The mean of
the test score for the Business College students is 156.120, compared to the mean scores of both colleges of
Engineering (M = 182.460) and Humanity and Social Science (259.890). All these scores were converted to
TOEIC score, which implies the proficiency levels of students from Engineering and Business Colleges are at
the elementary level. The proficiency level of Humanity and Social Science College students is at
pre-intermediate level with a mean score of 259.890 (Table 1). It shows the current difficulties and challenges
faced by college faculty as the students in general have an average low English proficiency, which will affect
their learning motivation and goals. The average test score of the study student group is 195.08, which is a low
proficiency level and students can’t succeed in the real world.
A strong proof from the study result is that only 7 (4.5%) students out of 157 students reported learning English
as a little or not important to them, as 95.5% of the study students said learning English is important to them.
There is the big gap for students and faculty to fill, as we could help our students improve their language
learning by introducing correct strategy usage of language learning strategies. Though 61 (41.7%) students
express themselves as having no interest in learning English, it might give the teachers and program designers a
way to rethink ideas to help improve students’ test performance and enhance their learning motivation. I strongly
believe that frustration from low test score discourage them from learning English, which in my knowledge is
that the students with no interest to learn don’t understand challenges they encounter, and are finding an excuse
to avoid learning English. The era of globalization and a knowledge economy has already come with the
advanced technology.. English is a communication tool for all educated individuals to access the world, and is a

192
www.ccsenet.org/elt English Language Teaching Vol. 8, No. 11; 2015

must-learn language for all-level students.

The world has changed quickly and evolved with highly developed technology and diverse communications.
Education is not only seen as academic degrees, but also as a way to give each individual with proper
capabilities access to the world. Traditional teaching method are no longer useful and don’t attract students today;
we will need more proactive and interactive delivery methods to help our students gain their needed skills to
succeed in the real world upon their graduation from schools. Strategies give the learners clear principles to
follow when they encounter language learning which they will benefit from by practicing and mastering the
language learning strategies; whereas they will greatly develop their learning styles and motivation. Education is
now being redefined as to teachers supporting their students to learn and manage knowledge (Poham, 2001).
Teachers should take advantage of applying enormous learning technologies to help students develop their
abilities and increase their competitiveness.
On an earlier note in this paper, listening refers to memory strategy, as reading refers to cognitive strategy, and
writing refers to metacognitive strategy. Speaking skills require more complex skills of compensation, affective,
and social strategies used interchangeably (Abhakorn, 2008; Cohen, 2003; Oxford, 1995; Wu & Lin, 2009; Yeh,
2014). It might reveal an explanation why the study students reported their speaking skill much better than the
other three language skills (listening, reading, and writing.) This study has also discovered important findings as
why most Taiwanese students experience low levels in their English achievements and motivation, while it
makes an urgent call for teachers and program administrators to rethink the issues. Most importantly, Taiwanese
college students need well-instructed English curriculum to help them develop proper learning skills to make
language learning efficient.
References
Aacken, S. V. (1999). What motivates L2 learners in acquisition of Kanji using CALL: A case study.
Computer-Assisted Language Learning, 12, 113-116. http://dx.doi.org/10.1076/call.12.2.113.5723
Abhakorn, J. (2008). The implications of learner strategies for second or foreign language teaching. ARECLS, 5,
186-204.
Anderson, N. J. (2005). Learning strategies. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of Research in Second Language
Teaching and Learning (pp.757-771). Erlbaum, Mahwah, N.J.
Bedell, D. (1993). Crosscultural variation in the choice of language learning strategies: a mainland Chinese
investigation with comparison to previous studies. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Alabama,
Tuscaloosa, AL.
Bialystok, E. (1981). The role of conscious strategies in second language proficiency. Modern Language Journal,
65, 24-35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1981.tb00949.x
Brown, H. D. (2007). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching (5th Ed.). N.Y., USA: Pearson Education.
Chamot, A. U. (2005). Language learning strategy instruction: current issues and research. Annual Review of
Applied Linguistics, 25, 112-130. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0267190505000061
Chamot, A. U., & Kupper, L. (1989). Learning strategies in foreign language instruction. Foreign Language
Annals, 22, 13-24. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.1989.tb03138.x
Chamot, A. U., & O’Malley, J. M. (1994). The CALLA handbook: implementing the cognitive academic
language learning approach. Reading: MA Addison- Wesley.
Coatswroth, J. H. (2004). Globalization, growth, and welfare in history. In M. Suarez-Orozco, & S.Oin-Hilliard
(Eds.), Globalization—Culture and Education in the New Millennium (p. 223). University of California
Press, Berkeley, CA.
Cohen, A. D. (1990). Language learning: Insights for learners, instructors, and researchers. NY: Newbury
House/Harper Collins.
Cohen, A. D. (1998). Strategies in Learning and Using a Second Language. Longman, London. Cohen, A. D.
(1996). Second language learning and use strategies: clarifying the issues. Minnesota: Center for advanced
research on language acquisition, University of Minnesota.
Cohen, A. D. (1998). Strategies in learning and using a second language. London: Longman.

193
www.ccsenet.org/elt English Language Teaching Vol. 8, No. 11; 2015

Cohen, A. D. (2003). Strategy training for second language learners. Minnesota: Center for advanced research
on language acquisition, University of Minnesota.
Cummins, J. (1994). The cross-lingual dimensions of language proficiency: Implications for bilingual education
and the optimal age issue. TESOL Quarterly, 14, 175-187. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3586312
Cummins, J. (1990). Knowledge, power and identity in teaching ESL. In F. Genessee (Ed.), Educating second
language children: The whole child, the whole curriculum, the whole community. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Dörnyei, Z. (1997). Psychological processes in cooperative language learning: group dynamics and motivation,
the Modern Language Journal, 81, 482-493.
Hara, H., & Takemura, A., & Yoshida, R. (2009). Multivariate data analysis. New York: Prentice Hall.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.csda.2008.11.030
Lohmoller, J.-B. (1989). Latent Variable Path Modeling with Partial Least Squares, Heidelberg; Physica.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-52512-4
Macaro, E. (2001). Learning Strategies in Foreign and Second Language Classroom. Continuum, London.
Mango, C. (2010). Korean students’ language learning strategies and years of studying English as predictors of
proficiency in English, TESOL Journal, 2, 39-61.
Moore, M. A. (2003). A world without Walls: Freedom, Development, Free Trade and Global Governance (p.
421). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K.
Naiman, N., Frohlich, M., Stern, H. H., & Todesco, A. (1978). The good language learner. Research in Education
Series, Vol.7, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (OISE) Press, Toronto, Ontario.
Nisbet, D. I., Tindall, E. R., & Arroyo, A. A. (2005). Language learning strategies and English proficiency of
Chinese university students. Foreign Language Annuals in Proquest Journal, 38(1), 100-108.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2005.tb02457.x
Nyikos, M., & Oxford, R. (1993). A factor analysis study of language-learning strategy use: interpretations from
information-processing and social psychology. Modern Language Journal, 77, 11-22.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1993.tb01940.x
Oh, J. (1992). Learning strategies used by university EFL students in Korea. Language Teaching, 1, 3-53.1.
O’Malley, J. M., & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning Strategies in Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/cbo9781139524490
Oxford, R. (1986). Development and Psychometric Testing of the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning
(SILL). ARI Technical Report 728. Alexandria, VA; Army Research Institute.
Oxford, R. (1990). Language learning strategies: what every teacher should know. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Oxford, R. I. (1990a). Language Learning Strategies: What Every Teacher Should Know. Newbury House,
Boston.
Oxford, R. (1990b). Language learning strategies and beyond: a look at strategies in the context of styles. In S. S.
Magnan (Eds.), Shifting the Instructional Focus to the Learner (pp. 35-55). Northeast Conference on the
Teaching of Foreign Languages. Middlebury, VT: Middlebury College.
Oxford, R. (1994). Language learning strategies: an update. ERIC Digests. Retrieved January 2014, from
http://www.cal.org/resources/digest/oxford01.html
Oxford, R. (1996). Language Learning Strategies Around the World: Cross-cultural Perspectives. University of
Hawaii, Honolulu. Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center, University of Hawaii Press.
Oxford, R. (1996a). Employing a questionnaire to assess the use of language learning strategies. Applied
Language Learning, 7, retrieved Dec. 2013 from
http://www.dliflc.edu/Academics/academic_materials/all/ALLissures/all7.pdf#page=28
Oxford, R., & Burry-Stock, J. (1995). Assessing the use of language learning strategies worldwide with the
ESL/EFL version of the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL). System, 23(1), 1-23.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0346-251X(94)00047-A

194
www.ccsenet.org/elt English Language Teaching Vol. 8, No. 11; 2015

Oxford, R., & Ehrman, M. (1995). Adults’ language learning strategies in an intensive foreign language program
in the United States. System, 23(3), 359-386. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0346-251X(95)00023-D
Oxford, R., & Nyikos, M. (1989). Variables affecting choice of language learning strategies by university
students. Modern language Journal, 73(2), 291-300. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1989.tb06367.x
Oxford, R., & Searin, J. (1994). Language learning motivation: Expanding the theoretical framework. The
Modern Language Journal, 78(9), 12-28. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1994.tb02011.x
Palfreyman, D. (2006). Social context and resources for language learning. System, 34, 352-370.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2006.05.001
Park, G. P. (2011). The validation process of the SILL: A confirmatory factor analysis. English Language
Teaching, 4(4), 21-27. http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/elt.v4n4p21
Poham, W. J. (2001). Teaching to the test, Educational Leadership, 58(6), 16-20.
Ringle, C. M., Sarstedt, M., & Straub, D. W. (2012). Editor’s Comments: a critical look at the use of PLS-SEM
in MIS Quarterly, MIS Quarterly, 36(1), iii-xiv.
Rubin, J. (1975). What the “good language learner” can teach us. TESOL Quarterly, 9(1), 41-51.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3586011
Stern, H. H. (1975). What can we learn from the good language learner? Canadian Modern Language Review,
31(2), 304-318.
Tsai, Y. R., Ernst, C., & Talley, P. C. (2010). L1 and L2 strategy use in reading comprehension of Chinese EFL
readers. Reading Psychology, 31, 1-29. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02702710802412081
Watanabe, Y. (1990). External variables affecting language learning strategies of Japanese EFL learners: effects
of entrance examination, years spent at college/university, and staying overseas. Unpublished master’s
thesis, Lancaster University, Lancaster, England.
Weistein, C. E., & Mayer, R. (1986). The teaching of learning strategies. In M. C. Weittrock (Ed.), Handbook of
research on teaching (pp. 315-327.) New York: Macmillan.
Wenden, A. L., & Rubin, J. (1987). Learner Strategies in Language Learning. Prentice Hall, New York.
Wildner-Bassett, M. (1992). Data set of foreign language students’ strategies. Unpublished manuscript,
University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ.
Wong, L. C., & Nunan, D. (2011). The learning styles and strategies of effective language learners. System, 39,
144-163. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2011.05.004
Yang, N. D. (1993). Understanding Chinese students’ language beliefs and learning strategy use. Paper
presented at Annual Meeting of the Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Atlanta, Georgia,
USA.
Yeh, H. C. (2014). CFA analysis of the Second-language learning strategies used among university students in
China. International Journal of Education and Research, 2(4), 425-436.
Yeh, H. C. (2014a). Quantitative and qualitative analysis of elementary students’ achievements in English
learning. International Journal of Speech Language and the Law, 21(1), 224-258.

195
www.ccsenet.org/elt English Language Teaching Vol. 8, No. 11; 2015

Appendix A. Equalevance table of CEFR, Anglia Examinations and other English proficiency tests
CEFR Ascentis Anglia Cambridge TOEIC TOFEL -IBT IELTS
YLE/ Main Suite
C2/ Mastery Masters CPE 7.5-8.5
C1/ EOP AcCEP T Proficiency CAE 990- 110-120 6.0-7.0
786
B2/ Vantage advanced FCE 785- 87-109 4.5-5.5
551
B1/ Threshold Intermediate PET 550- 57-86 3.0-4.0
Pre-intermediate 226
A2/ Waystage Elementary KET 225- 1.5-2.5
Flyers 121
A1/ Breakthrough preliminary Movers 120- 0-1.0
0
(Lower than A1) Primary Junior First step starters
Note: Downloaded on March 22, 2014 adapted from http://tw.anglia.org/安格國際英檢簡介/cefr-對照表

Copyrights
Copyright for this article is retained by the author(s), with first publication rights granted to the journal.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/).

196