Language Learning Strategies and

English Proficiency in
Korean Univelsity Students
Gi-Pyo park
Soonchunhyang University
ABSTRACT This paper investigates the relationship between language learning strategies and
L2 proficiency. Language learning strategies were measured by the Strategy Inventory for Lun-
guage Learning (SILL, ESL/EFL Student Version), and L2 proficiency was determined by the
Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL) for 332 university students learning English in
Korea. The findings of this study are: ( I ) the relationship between language learning strategies
and L2 proficiencywas linear; (2) all six categories of language learning strategies as well as
total language learning strategies were significantlycorrelated with the TOEFL scores; and (3)
cognitive and social strategies were more predictive of the TOEFL scores than the other four
strategy categories,jointly accounting for 13 percent of the total variation in the TOEFL scores.
These findingsprovide evidence that L2 learners need language learning strategies, specifically
cognitive and social strategies in the Korean context, to facilitate L2 acquisition and suggest
that language learning strategies be taught in classrooms, focusing on effectivestrategies that
may improve the results o f strategy training.
Learning strategies are defined as specific b e for language learning, motivation, sex, level,
haviors and thought processes used by the and national origin (Oxford 1989), and strat-
learner to facilitate acquisition, storage, or r e egy training (Chamot 1993;Wenden 1987).
trieval of information (Weinstein and Mayer Even though many empirical studies report
1986).These behaviors and thought processes that language learning strategies are related to
are goal-oriented,consciously deployed,amen- L2 proficiency/achievement (Chamot and
able to change, and can be observable or non- Kupper 1993; McGroarty and Oxford 1990;Ox-
observable (Wenden 1987). Thus, the use of ford and Nyikos 1989; Phillips 1991; Ramirez
language learning strategies may facilitate L2 1986), there are only a few studies that show
acquisition by inviting more and better input, the kind and magnitude of this relationship
by processing input into intake, and by pro- (l3ialystok 1981; Mullins 1992; Politzer and Mc-
ducing output. Groarty 1985). Furthermore, the relationship
Since the first attempts at good language between language learning strategies and L2
learner studies (Naiman et al. 1978), research proficiency shown in these studies is limited.
on language learning strategies has prolifer- According to Bialystok (1981), only functional
ated on the theoretical foundations of lan- practice among four strategies of functional
guage learning strategies in terms of cognitive and formal practice, monitoring, and inferenc-
theories (Nyikos and Oxford 1993; O’Malley ing is significantly related to grammar, reading,
and Chamot 1990),variables underlying strat- listening, and writing skills. Politzer and Mc-
egy choice such as beliefs about language Groarty (1985) report that there is no relation-
learning, learning style/personality,purpose ship between three types of learning behaviors
-classroom, individual, and interaction-
Gi-Pyo Park (Ph.D., University of Texas) is Full-Time In- and four types of proficiency gains-the Plais
structor of English Language and Literature at Soonchunh- ter Aural Comprehension Test (Plaister and
yang University, Asan, South Korea. Blatchford 1971), the Comprehensive English

Foreign Language Annals, 30, No. 2,1997

 FOREIGN LANGUAGE A ” A L S 4 U M M E R 1997
Language Test for Speakers of English as a Sec-
ond Language (Hams and Palmer 1970), a dis-
crete-point communicative competence test,
and a global communicative competence
test-except the significant relationship be-
tween interaction behaviors and a global com-
municative competence test. In the study by
Mullins (1992), she finds, in general, no rela-
tionship between language learning strategies
and entrance examination scores, placement
test scores, and G.P.A. She further reports that
this relationship depends on types of language
learning strategies.That is, there are significant
relationshipsbetween compensation strategies
and placement test scores and G.P.A. These re-
sults raise serious and critical questions: Is
there a relationship between language learning
strategies and L2 proficiency?Are some strate-
gies more related to L2 proficiency than others?
The strategy inventory for language learn-
ing (SILL) developed by Oxford (1990) is
commonly used to measure L2 learners’ use
of language learning strategies in (E)FL as
well as (E)SL situations (LoCastro 1994;
Mullins 1992;Oxford and Nyikos 1989;Phillips
1991; Yang 1992). This is because the reliabil-
ity and validity of the SILL are reported to be
high in many studies (Oxford and Burry 1993).
In spite of its high reliability and validity, how-
ever, the SILL should be used with caution in
EFL situations because EFL students have re-
ported using some language learning strate-
gies that are in the SILL and some that are not
(LoCastro 1994; Mullins 1992).
Researchers have utilized various types of
data such as self-report, self-observation, and
self-revelation in order to assess students’ use
of language learning strategies (Cohen 1987).
Even though these data are often called into
question as research techniques in the domain
of L2 acquisition as well as in psychology
(Seliger 1983), they can be helpful techniques
in exploring cognitive processes if they are
elicited carefully (Ericsson and Simon 1984).
Among these data, self-report questionnaires
can provide information from a large popula-
tion, and the information can be compared
and interpreted objectively through statistical
data analysis.
212
In spite of the increasing popularity of r e
search on language learning strategies, atten-
tion to this has been neglected in English as a
Foreign Language (EFL) education in Korea.
In classrooms across the levels of academia,
teachers focus on transmitting knowledge
about English to students without teaching
“how to learn” English. In other words, teach-
ers do not teach English learning strategies in
the classroom, resulting in the fact that Ko-
rean students are accustomed to only taking
knowledge from their teachers. Thus they may
not know “how to learn” outside the class-
room where they spend much of their time
learning English.
Research on language learning strategies of
Korean students could help these students
learn “how to learn,” sensitize Korean teach-
ers and researchers to the topic of language
learning strategies, and supplement current
research on such strategies.
Research Questions
This paper investigates the relationship be-
tween language learning strategiesand L2 pro
ficiency. For this purpose, three research
questions were addressed:
1. Is there a relationship between language
learning strategies and L2 proficiency? If so, is
the relationship linear or curvilinear?
2. What are the correlations among six cat-
egories of language learning strategies, total
language learning strategies, and L2 profi-
ciency?
3. Which categories of language learning
strategies are more predictive of L2 profi-
ciency?
Methodology
Subjects. The subjects were 332 intermedi-
ate- to advanced-level students attending two
universities in Korea. They had been studying
English for at least six years since middle
school as a required course for the entrance
examinations to high school and university.
The focus was on learning vocabulary, gram-
mar, and reading skills, ignoring other skills
such as speaking, listening,and writing. These
students later continued to study English at the
 FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS4UMMER 1997
university level with a greater variety of goals,
such as getting a job, going to graduate school,
fulfilling requirements, or satisfymg their inter-
est in the English language and cultures. In the
university, they focused on learning speaking
and listening skills as well as on learning v o
cabulaty, grammar, and reading skills.
The subjects were enrolled in English lan-
guage courses. They ranged from freshmen to
seniors, majoring in either humanities and s o
cia1 sciences (30 percent) or engineering (70
percent). These students were 91 percent
male and 9 percent female, and ranged in age
from 19 to 29, with a n average age of 23.1. At
the time of data collection, the subjects re-
ported studying the English language for
about one hour or less per day (52 percent),
for about two hours (28 percent), or for about
three hours or more (20 percent), for the
major reasons of getting a job in the future (53
percent), interest in the English language and
cultures (33 percent), and other reasons (14
percent). Considering the time they had spent
studying the English language, these students
were assumed to have enough English profi-
ciency to take the TOEFL and use English
learning strategies to facilitate their English
learning.
Instrumentation. Three instruments were used
in this study: the Strategy Inventory for Language
Learning (SILL, ESUEFL Student Version), an
Individual Background Questionnaire (IBQ),
and the Test of English as a Foreign Language
(TOEFL).
In order to measure the variety and fre-
quency of students’ use of language learning
strategies, Oxford (1990) developed the struc-
tured self-report questionnaire, the SILL [ESU
EFL Student Version]. The SILL contains items
that consist of six strategy categories: memory
strategies for storing and retrieving new infor-
mation; cognitive strategies for understanding
and producing the language; compensation
strategies for overcoming deficiencies of
knowledge in language; metacognitive strate
gies for directing the learning process; affec-
tive strategies for regulating emotions,
motivations, and attitudes; and social strate-
213
gies for increasing learning experiences with
other people. The 50 Likertscale items of the
SILL measure frequencies of strategy use and
range from “1: never or almost never true of
me” to “5: always or almost always true of
me.” Even though the reliability (37-.96) and
validity (.95) of the SILL have turned out to be
high in many studies (Nyikos and Oxford
1993; Oxford and Burry 1993), I modified the
original SILL slightly to better measure the
English learning strategies of university stu-
dents in Korea. Cronbach’s alpha for the SILL
used in this study is as follows: memory (.65),
cognitive (.82), compensation (.61), metacog-
nitive (.85), affective (.68), social (.70), and
total strategies (.93).
The Individual Background Questionnaire
(IBQ) was used to better understand the
results of this study. The IBQ includes identifi-
cation number, gender, age, major, classi-
fication, purpose for studying the English
language, and hours spent studying the Eng-
lish language per day. Korean versions of the
SILL and the IBQ were used for this study in
order to minimize any possible errors coming
from the students’ comprehension of English.
A practice version of the TOEFL was used to
determine the English proficiency of the sub-
jects. The multiple-choice format of the TOEFL
consists of three sections: listening c o m p r e
hension, structure and written expression, and
vocabulary and reading comprehension. The
reliability and validity of the TOEFL taken in
1981-82 are .95 and .8979 respectively (TOEFL
Test and Score Manual, 1983).
Data Collection and Analysis. Considering
the relatively large sample size (N = 332) of
this study, the data were collected through
cluster sampling in classrooms. I collected the
data-SILL, IBQ, and TOEFL-either during or
after the class hour with the cooperation of
the English teachers in charge of the class.
After explaining the nature of this study to the
subjects, I asked all the students who volun-
teered for this study to complete a consent
form. The subjects were then asked whether
they had taken the same practice TOEFL be-
fore, and n o students had to be eliminated on
 FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS--SUMMER 1997
this basis. The subjects were also reminded
that there are no right or wrong answers on
the SILL and the IBQ, and they were asked to
give an honest response. In addition, they
were assured of the confidentiality of the re-
sults and the benefits of participating in this
study: (1) to take the practice TOEFL and get
feedback about the results and (2) to think
about how they go about learning English.
Specific care was taken to remind the subjects
that the SILL does not measure their beliefs,
that is, what they think about learning English,
but does measure their strategies, that is, how
they actually go about learning English.
The analysis of the data was camed out on
a Macintosh using the SPSS statistical program.
In order to explore the results of this study
fully, descriptive statistics for the six categories
of language learning strategies, total language
learning strategies, and the TOEFL scores were
calculated followed by paired sample t - tests
comparing the six adjacent categories of lan-
guage learning strategies in order of mean
magnitude. Other individual variables, such as
classification, gender, major, and so forth,
were not controlled. For Research Question 1,
the subjects were divided into three groups ac-
cording to their scores on the use of total lan-
guage learning strategies: low, middle, and
high. After calculating the mean scores of the
TOEFL scores for each of the three groups, an
analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted
to identify any significant differences in the
TOEFL mean scores among these three
groups, followed by post-hoc tests when nec-
essary. For Research Question 2, Pearson-prod-
uct moment correlations were used to
investigate the relationships among the six cat-
egories of language learning strategies, total
language learning strategies, and the TOEFL
scores. For Research Question 3, a stepwise
multiple regression analysis was performed to
determine which categories of language learn-
ing strategies were more predictive of the
TOEFL scores. Following a comparison of the
results of a stepwise regression model and a
full regression model, cross validation was per-
formed in order to check the generalizability
of the regression equation.
214
Results
The descriptive statistics for the variables-
six categories of language learning strategies
in order of mean magnitude, total language
learning strategies, and the TOEFL scores-
combined with paired sample t - tests com-
paring the adjacent strategy means-are
shown in Table 1. (See page 220.)
As seen in Table 1, these Korean students
used the six categories of language learning
strategies-metacognitive (met.), compensa-
tion (corn.), memory (mem.), cognitive (cog.),
social (soc.), affective (aff.) strategies-and
total language learning strategies at a medium
level (means range from 2.91 to 3.50), and their
proficiency in English was generally at an in-
termediate level (TOEFL mean: 454). Among
the six categories of language learning strate
gies, these students used metacognitive, com-
pensation, and memory strategies more
frequently than cognitive, social, and affective
strategies. In addition, they used metacognitive
strategies most frequently and affective strate-
gies least frequently.
In order to find the relationship between
language learning strategies and L2 profi-
ciency, the subjects were randomly divided
into three groups of similar size according to
their scores on total language learning strate
gies: a low'strategy group (strategy mean =
2.76 , n = log), a middle strategy group (strat-
egy mean = 3.20, n = 11l), and a high strategy
group (strategy mean = 3.70, n = 112). Then
the mean scores of the strategy and TOEFL for
these three groups were calculated, as pre-
sented in Table 2. (See page 220.)
The TOEFL mean scores of these three
groups were found to be significantly different
from each other [F(2, 329) = 17.25; p < .01].
According to the post-hoc Scheffe test, the
TOEFL mean score of the high strategy group
was significantly higher than that of the mid-
dle strategy group, and the TOEFL mean score
of the middle strategy group was again signifi-
cantly higher than that of the low strategy
group. In other words, the more students use
language learning strategies, the higher their
TOEFL scores. This linear relationship be-
tween language learning strategies and the
 FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNAU-SUMMER 1997

TOEFL scores of the three groups is shown in als were normally distributed around the pre
Figure 1. dicted TOEFL scores (normality) and had a
The correlations among the six categories of linear relationship with the predicted TOEFL
language learning strategies, total language scores (linearity), confirming the linear rela-
learning strategies,and the TOEFL scores were tionship between language learning strategies
calculated and presented in Table 3. Since the and L2 proficiency in Figure 1. In addition, the
FIGURE 1 variance of the residuals around the predicted
TOEFL scores was approximately the same at
The Relationship between Language all values of the predicted TOEFL scores (he
Learning Strategies and the TOEFL moscedasticity).These findings indicate that
Scores of the Three Groups the three assumptions were met approxi-
TOEFL mately for the regression model.
A stepwise multiple regression was per-

430
420

410
/ ; ;474 ,

Srrategy Groups
formed with the TOEFL scores as the criterion
variable and the six categories of language
learning strategies as predictor variables, in
order to discover which categories of lan-
guage learning strategies were more predic-
Low Middle High
tive of the TOEFL scores. The results of the
general relationship between language learn- stepwise regression model are presented in
ing strategies and the TOEFL scores was linear Table 4. (See page 221.)
in Figure 1, the Pearson product-momentcor- As seen in Table 4, two predictor variables of
relations were used to investigate the correla- cognitive and social strategies jointly ac-
tions among these variables. counted for significant variation in the TOEFL
According to Table 3 (see page 221) all six scores [R2+R = .13, F(2, 325) = 24.24, p < .01].
categories of language learning strategies as This variation (R+R = .13) in the TOEFL scores
well as total language learning strategies were explained by cognitive and social strategies in
significantlyrelated to the TOEFL scores.Table the stepwise regression model was not very dif-
3 also shows that the six categoriesof language ferent from the variation (R2+R = .14) ex-
learning strategies were all significantly corre plained by all six categories of language
lated among themselves and with total lan- learning strategiesin the TOEFL scores in a full
guage learning strategies. In spite of these regression model [R2+R = .14, F(6,321) = 8.40,
significant correlations among the six strategy p < .01].Table 4 also showsthat one scale point
categories, however, the value of the variance of improvement on the cognitive and social
inflation factors (VlFs) of these strategy cate strategies,say from 3 to 4, predicts an improve
gories was small (1.60 to 2.24). The small value ment of about 25 or 13 points respectively on
of the VIFs of these strategycategoriesindicates the TOEFL scores. It is interestingto note that in
that there is no reason to consider variable spite of the significant relationship between all
deletion to combat multicollinearity (Stevens six categories of language learning strategies
1992). and the TOEFL scores and the low value of the
Multiple regression analysis was used to es- VIFs of the six categories of language learning
timate the prediction equation between lan- strategies, only the two variables of cognitive
guage learning strategies and the TOEFL and social strategies significantly accounted
scores. As a preliminary step to the regression for much of the variance in the TOEFL scores.
analysis, the three assumptions of normality, In order to check the validity of the regres-
linearity, and homoscedasticity for the regres- sion equation obtained in Table 4, cross-vali-
sion model were checked by investigatingthe dation was conducted by randomly splitting
scatterplotsof residuals (Y-Y’) against the pre- the sample into two subsamples: a screening
dicted TOEFL scores (Y’). In general, residu- sample and a calibration sample (Stevens

215
 FOREIGN LANGUAGE A ” A L S 4 U M M E R 1997
1992). In the cross-validation study, the Pear-
son product-moment correlations (ryy’ ) be-
tween the predicted TOEFL scores (Y‘) and
the observed TOEFL scores ( Y ) was .32, indi-
cating low shrinkage between the R2+R of the
screening sample (.13) and that of the Cali-
bration sample (.lo). This low shrinkage indi-
cates that the regression equation obtained in
Table 4 is fairly stable and may be generaliz-
able. Since the regression equation of the
combined sample in Table 4 is more reliable
than that of the screening sample due to the
larger sample size, only the equation of the
combined sample is reported in this study for
future predictions.
Discussion
One of the findings of this study is that the
relationship between language learning strate
gies and L2 proficiency was linear, contradict-
ing the findings of other studies in which the
relationship between these two variables was
curvilinear (Green 1991; Phillips 1991). Phillips
(1991) reports that students in the mid-profi-
ciency group (TOEFL range: 481-506) used
more language learning strategies than stu-
dents in high (TOEFL range: 507-600) and low
(TOEFL range: 397-480) proficiency groups,
and argues that this might result from the lack
of awareness of strategy use by the low-profi-
ciency group, and the lack of need for strategy
use by the high-proficiency group; however,
considering the TOEFL range of the high-pro-
ficiency group, I contend that students in the
high-proficiency group may need language
learning strategies and use more strategies
than students in the mid-proficiency group.
Citing the study by Green (1991), Oxford and
Cohen (1992) speculate that intermediate
learners’ use of more language learning strate
gies than advanced learners resulted from ad-
vanced learners’ automatization of their
language learning strategies; however, this
speculation needs to be further investigated,
focusing on who the advanced learners are
and on the proficiency level at which autom-
atization occurs.
Another finding of this study is that all six
categories of language learning strategies-
216
memory, cognitive, compensation, metacog-
nitive, affective, and social strategies-as well
as total language learning strategies were sig-
nificantly correlated with the TOEFL scores.
This finding is critical in that current research
on language learning strategies, in general,
has failed to show the relationship between
language learning strategies and L2 profi-
ciency (Bialystok 1981; Mullns 1992; Politzer
and McGroarty 1985). The significant relation-
ship between language learning strategies and
the TOEFL scores indicates the importance of
quantity of strategy use in L2 proficiency. Ad-
mitting the importance of quantity of strategy
use in L2 proficiency, some researchers con-
tend that appropriate use of language learning
strategies leads to improved L2 proficiency
(Porte 1988; Vann and Roberta 1990). In this
regard, the variety of language learning strate
gies that L2 learners can command may be a
precondition for appropriate use of language
learning strategies, depending on a variety of
learner characteristics such as beliefs about
language learning, learning style, level, and
purpose for language learning.
A third finding of this study is that among
the six categories of language learning strate
gies, cognitive and social strategies were more
predictive of the TOEFL scores than the other
four categories of language learning strate-
gies. This finding indicates the importance of
active mental engagement for manipulating
and transforming learning materials through
such cognitive strategies as practicing, ana-
lyzing, reasoning, and elaboration, and of
interacting with others to increase learning ex-
periences through such social strategies as
asking questions and cooperating with others
in L2 acquisition (OMalley and Chamot 1990;
Oxford 1990). Why cognitive and social strate
gies were more predictive of other strategies
in Korean learners was not clear; however,
considering the critical roles of cognitive in-
volvement and social interaction in L2 acqui-
sition in general (Gass a n d Varonis 1994;
O’Malley et al. 1987) and in language learning
strategies in particular (Bialystok 1981; Rubin
1981), this finding can b e applied to other
learners with different cultural backgrounds.
 FOREIGN LANGUAGE A ” A L S 4 U M M E R 1997
In spite of the significant relationship be-
tween all six categories of language learning
strategies and the TOEFL scores, however,
strategy use accounted for only 13 to 14 per-
cent of the total variation in the TOEFL scores.
Several explanations can be offered for this
small variance between strategy use and the
TOEFL scores. First, one instrument, the SILL,
used in this study might measure only some of
the language learningstrategiesthese students
used to learn English. For instance, even
though the validity of the SILL is reported to
be high in several studies (Oxford and Burry
1993), Japanese and Filipino EFL students
were found to use English learning strategies
that are not inventoried in the SILL (LoCastro
1994; Mullins 1992). Likewise, the other instru-
ment, the TOEFL, might determine these stu-
dents’ limited English proficiency. This is
because the TOEFL used in this study did not
measure students’ speaking and writing skills.
Second, some students might have forgotten
the language learning strategiesthey had used
before and failed to report their use of such
strategies, which contributed to their TOEFL
scores, when the data were collected. Third,
L2 acquisition can be explained by natural
and unconscious processes as well as by in-
tentional and conscious language learning
strategies. These natural and unconscious
processes may come from native language
knowledge (Park 1995),innate universal gram-
mar and languagespecific learning principles
accessible to adult L2 learners (White 1989),
and/or general learning principles (Felix 1985).
One of the variables underlying strategy
choice is national ,origin (Politzer and Mc-
Groarty 1985). Even though it is a popular b e
lief that Asian students favor using memory
strategies,this assumption has been rejected in
several studies in which Japanese and Tai-
wanese EFL students and Asian ESL students
used memory strategies least frequently (Lo-
Castro 1994; Phillips 1991; Yang 1992). Thus,
the finding of somewhat frequent use of mem-
ory strategies compared with other strategy cat-
egories by the Korean EFL students in this study
leaves Asian students’use of memory strategies
something to be explored further. In addition,
217
regardless of the importance of social strategies
in L2 proficiency, these Korean students used
them second to the least frequently,confirming
the belief that Asian students generally avoid
social interaction to learn an L2. The Korean
students’ less frequent use of social strategies
may be attributed to their grammar-oriented
language learning experiences in the class-
room, limited opportunities to use English with
other people both in and outside the class-
room, or their particular beliefs about language
learning that are related to strategy choice
(Abraham and Vann 1987; Horwitz 1988). In
addition, considering that social strategy use
may require affective demands, the fact that
these students used affectivestrategiesleast fre
quently may be related to their less frequent
use of social strategies.
Pedagogical Implications
Two findings of this study-the linear rela-
tionship between language learning strategies
and the TOEFL scores, and the significant cor-
relations between all six strategy categories
and the TOEFL scores-provide evidence that
language learning strategies are related to L2
proficiency. These findings suggest that strat-
egy training be conducted in classrooms to
help students become autonomous L2 learn-
ers outside the classroom where much of L2
learning occurs. In order for L2 learners to b e
come autonomous learners who take charge
of their learning, they must use appropriate
language learning strategies (Wenden 1991).
General guidelines about how strategy train-
ing should be conducted are described well
in other studies .(O’Malley and Chamot. 1990;
Oxford 1990; Wenden 1991).
In spite of these guidelines and efforts made
by researchers and teachers to improve the r e
sults of strategy training, however, strategy
training has not been very successful (Rees-
Miller 1993). Training results may be further
complicated when strategy training is con-
ducted in a large classroom, which is a com-
mon aspect of L2 education around the
world. When strategy training is conducted in
a large classroom, in which a variety of learn-
ers with different learner characteristicsexist,
 FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS-SUMMER 1997
teachers cannot introduce language learning
strategies that fit every student’s individual
learner characteristics. Thus, the other finding
of this study-the more important role of cog-
nitive and social strategies than the other four
strategy categories in predicting the TOEFL
scores within a Korean context-suggest that
teachers need to identify more effective lan-
guage learning strategies for the students in
the classroom and focus on teaching these
strategies to the students in order to improve
their performance. Effective language learn-
ing strategies are considered more easily ac-
quired than less effective language learning
strategies in that the former are rewarded
more directly and quickly than the latter in L2
acquisition. This leads L2 learners to be moti-
vated to learn the strategies being taught and
to use them later more willingly and fre-
quently in L2 acquisition tasks.
Conclusion and Recommendations
This study explored the relationship b e
tween language learning strategies and L2 p r o
ficiency. Considering that the students’ use of
language learning strategies and L2 profi-
ciency was identified through a self-report
questionnaire of the SlLL and the TOEFL at one
point in time, and that this study showed only
the relationship between language learning
strategies and L2 proficiency without further r e
vealing the direction of this relationship, one
should be cautious in making generalizations
based on the findings of this study. Neverthe
less, what this study does show is that there is a
significant, linear relationship between lan-
guage learning strategies and the TOEFL
s’cores, that -a11 six categories of language learn-
ing strategies were correlated with the TOEFL
scores, and that cognitive and social strategies
were more predictive of the TOEFL scores than
the other four strategy categories, jointly ac-
counting for 13 percent of the total variation in
the TOEFL scores, in this sample of university Chamot, Anna U. 1993. “Student Responses to Learn-
students learning English in Korea. These em-
pirical findings confirm some of the earlier r e
sults and dispute other important findings,
stimulating further research in the following
areas: (1) The exact nature of the relationship
218
between language learning strategies and L2
proficiency, whether linear or curvilinear,
needs to be investigated further through other
populations and data such as interviews, ob-
servations, and think-aloud procedures over
time as well as at one point in time. In addition,
if it is curvilinear, the proficiency level at which
the line plateaus should be explored as well.
(2) Even though language learning strategies
were related to the TOEFL scores, it is not cer-
tain yet whether they had causal effects on the
TOEFL scores. In addition, strategy use ac-
counted for only 13 to 14 percent of the varia-
tion in the TOEFL scores. Thus, the variables
that explain the rest of the variation in L2 profi-
ciency need to be explored. (3) Whether the
importance of cognitive and social strategies in
predicting the TOEFL scores is specific to Ko
rean learners or general to other learners from
different cultures needs to be investigated. (4)
The question of whether Asian students favor
using memory strategies or not should be in-
vestigated through the SILL and other types of
data. Finally, (5) the results of training that fo
cuses on effective language learning strategies
in a large classroom need to be investigated,
with an upper limit of classroom size for strat-
egy training.
The empirical findings of this study, com-
bined with the findings to be made in the
areas above, can contribute to building not
only strategy science in L2 acquisition but also
a more complete theory of L2 acquisition.
REFERENCES
Abraham, Roberta C., and Roberta J. Vann. 1987.
“Strategies of Two Language Learners: A Case
Study,” 85-102 in Anita Wenden and Joah
Rubin, eds., Learner Strategies in Language
Learning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bialystok, Ellen. 1981. “The Role of Conscious
Strategies in Second Language Proficiency.”
Modern Language Journal 65: 24-35.
ing Strategy Instruction in the Foreign Language
Classroom.”Foreign Language Annals 26: 30821.
Chamot, Anna U., and Lisa Kupper. 1989. “Learn-
ing Strategies in Foreign Language Instruction. ”
Foreign Language Annals 22: 13-24.
 FOREIGN M G U A G E A ” A L S 4 U M M E R 1997
Cohen, D. Andrew. 1987. “Studying Learner Strate
gies: How We Get the Information,” 3140 in
Anita Wenden and Joan Rubin, eds., Learner
Strategies in Language Learning. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Ericsson, Anders, and Herbert Simon. 1984. Proto-
col Analysis: VerbalReports as Data. Cambridge:
MIT Press.
Felix, Sascha. 1985. “More Evidence on Competing
Cognitive Systems.“ Second Language Research
1: 47-72.
G a s , Susan, and Evangeline Varonis. 1994. “Input,
Interaction, and Second Language Production.”
Studies in Second Language Acquisition 16: 284-
302.
Green, John. 1991. “Language Learning Strategies
of Puerto Rican University Students.” Paper p r e
sented at the annual meeting of Puerto Rico
TESOL, San Juan, PR.
Harris, David, and L. Palmer. 1970. CELT/A Com-
prehensive English Language Test for Speakers
of English as a Second Language. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Horwitz, Elaine. 1988. “TheBeliefs about Language
Learning of Beginning University Foreign Lan-
guage Students.” Modern Language Journal 72:
282-94.
LoCastro, Virginia. 1994. “Learning Strategies and
Learning Environments.” TESOL Quarterly 28:
409-14.
McGroarty, Mary, and Rebecca Oxford. 1990. “Lan-
guage Learning Strategies: An Introduction and
Two Related Studies,” 56-74 in Amado M.
Padilla, Halford H. Fairchild, and Conception
M. Valadez, eds., Foreign Language Education:
Issues and Strategies. Newbury Park, CA: S a g e
publications.
Mullins, P. Yampek. 1992. Successful English Lan-
guage Learning Strategies of Students Enrolled at
the Faculty of Arts, Chulalongkorn University,
Bangkok, Thailand. Diss., United States Interna-
tional Univ.
Naiman, Neil, Maria Frohlich, Hans H. Stem, and
Angie Todesco. 1978. The Good Language
Learner. Toronto: Modern Language Center, On-
tario Institute for Studies in Education.
Nyikos, Martha, and Rebecca Oxford. 1993. “A Fac-
tor Analytic Study of Language Learning Strategy
Use: Interpretations from Information- Process-
219
ing Theory and Social Psychology.” The Modem
Language Journal 77: 11-22.
O’Malley, Michael, and Anna U. Chamot. 1990.
Learning Strategies in Second Language AcquisC
tion. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.
O’Malley, Michael, Anna U. Chamot, and Carol
Walker. 1987. “Some Applications of Cognitive
Theory to Second Language Acquisition.” Stud-
ies in Second Language Acquisition 9: 287-306.
Oxford, Rebecca. 1990. Language Learning Strate-
gies: What Every Teacher Should Know. New
York: Newbury House.
Oxford, Rebecca, and Judith Burry. 1993. “Evolu-
tion, Norming, Factor Analysis, and Psychomet-
ric Testing of ‘the Strategy Inventory for Language
Learning (SILL)’ throughout the World.” Paper
presented at the annual meeting of National
Council on Measurement in Education.
Oxford, Rebecca, and Andrew Cohen. 1992. “Lan-
guage Learning Strategies: Crucial Issues of Con-
cept and Classification.” Applied Language
Learning 3: 1-35.
Oxford, Rebecca, and Martha Nyikos. 1989. “Useof
Language Learning Strategies: A Synthesis of
Studies with Implications for Strategy Training.”
System 17: 23547.
-.“Variables Affecting Choice of Language
Learning Strategies.” The Modern Language
Journal 73: 291-300.
Park, Gi-Pyo. 1995. ”TheCompensation Model.“Texas
Papers in Fopign Language Education 2: 4356.
Phillips, Victoria. 1991. “A Look at Learner Strategy
Use and ESL Proficiency.” R e CAESOL Journal
November: 57-67.
Plaister, Theodore, and Charles Blatchford. 1971.
Plaister Aural Comprehension Test CpACIJ. Hon-
olulu: Univ. of Hawaii, English Language Institute.
Politzer, Robert, and Mary McGroarty. 1985. “An
Exploratory Study of Learning Behaviors and
Their Relationship to Gains in Linguistic and
Communicative Competence.” ESOL Quarter&
19: 103-23.
Porte, Graeme. 1988. “Poor Language Learners and
Their Strategies for Dealing with New Vocabu-
lary.” ELTJournal42: 167-72.
Ramirez, Arnulfo. 1986. “Language Learning Strate
gies Used by Adolescents Studying French in
New York Schools.” Foreign Language Annals
19: 13141.
 FOREIGN LANGUAGE A “ A L S 4 U M M E R 1997

Rees-Miller, Janie. 1993. “A Critical Appraisal of
Learner Training: Theoretical Bases and Teach-
ing Implications.” TESOL Quarterly 27: 67989.
Rubin, Joan. 1981. “The Study of Cognitive
Processes in Second Language Learning.” Ap-
plied Linguistics 2: 117-31.
Seliger, Herbert. 1983. “The Language Learner as
Linguist: Of Metaphors and Realities.” Applied
Linguistics 4: 17991.
Stevens, James. 1992. Applied Multivariate Statistics
for the Social Sciences. Hillsdale, NJ.
TOEFL Test and Score Manual. 1983. Princeton, NJ:
Educational Testing Service.
Vann, Roberta J., and Roberta G. Abraham. 1990.
“Strategiesof Unsuccessful Language Learners.”
7ESOL Quarterly 24: 177-98.
Weinstein, Claire, and Richard Mayer. 1986. “The
Teaching of Learning Strategies,” 315-27 in Mer-
lin C. Wittrock, ed., Handbook o f Research on
Teaching.New York: Macmillan.
Wenden, Anita. 1991. Learner Strategies forLearner
Autonomy: Planning and Implementing Learner
Training for Language Learners. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
-. 1987. “Conceptual Background and Utility,”
3-13 in Anita Wenden and Joan Rubin, eds.,
Learner Strategies in Language Learning. Engle
wood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
-. 1987. “IncorporatingLearner Training in the
Classroom,” 159-68. in Anita Wenden and Joan
Rubin, eds., Learner Strategies in Language Learn-
ing. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1987.
White, Lydia. 1989. Universal Grammar and Second
Language Acquisition. John Benjamins Publish-
ing Company: Amsterdam, Philadelphia.
Yang, Nae-Dong. 1992. Second Language Learners’
Beliefi About Language Learning and Their Use
o f Learning Strategies: A Study o f College Stu-
dents. Diss., The Univ. of Texas at Austin.

TABLE 1
Descriptive Statistics for the Variables and Paired Sample r- Tests for Mean
Difference between the Six Adjacent Strategy Categories (N = 332)

Variable Mean S.D. Min. Max. Difference t

Met. Str. 3.50 .57 2.00 5.00 Met.>Corn. 5.22* *

Corn. Str. 3.35 .58 1.40 5.00 Corn.>Mern. 2.30*
Mern. Str. 3.25 .49 2.13 4.67 MernXog. 2.44*
Cog. Str. 3.20 .49 2.00 4.87 cog.>soc. 4.72**
SOC.Str. 3.06 .62 1.33 5.00 Soc.>Af f . 5.51**
Aff. Str. 2.91 .58 1.29 5.00
Total Str. 3.2 1 .44 2.14 4.74
TOEFL 453.87 50.81 350.00 607.00

*p < .05 **p < .O1

TABLE 2
Strategy and the TOEFL Mean Scores of the Three Strategy Groups
Strategy Groups
Low (n = 109) Middle (n = 111) High (n = 112)

Strategy Mean 2.76 3.20 3.70

TOEFL Mean 435 453 474

220
 FOREIGN LANGUAGE A " A L S 4 U M M E R 1997

TABLE 3
Correlations among the Six Categories of Language Learning Strategies, Total
Language Learning Strategies, and the TOEFL Scores

Mem. cog. Corn. Met. Aff. SOC. Total TOEFL

Mern. 1.oo
cog. .54 1.oo
Corn. .49 .53 1.oo
Met. .47 .63 .49 1.00
Aff. .50 .58 .60 .6 1 1.oo
SOC. .46 .58 .57 .57 .64 1.00
Total. .72 .86 .72 .83 .80 .78 1.00
TOEFL .24 .33 .2 1 .28 .23 .30 .34 1.oo

The correlations are all significant below .01.

TABLE 4
Stepwise Multiple Regression: Cognitive and Social Strategies on
the TOEFL Scores (N = 327,5 missing)

Variable Cumulative R2 b Beta t

R2 Change

cog. .ll .ll 25.34 .24 3.86**

SOC. .13 .02 13.06 .16 2.49*
(Constant) 333.12

* p < .05 * * p < .01