Language learning strategies:

students’ and teachers’ perceptions

Carol Griffiths

Downloaded from eltj.oxfordjournals.org at University of Wollongong on March 27, 2011

Although issues related to learner variables have received considerable
attention over the years, issues related to teachers have not been researched as
thoroughly. This study aimed to investigate the point of intersection of teachers’
and learners’ perceptions regarding language learning strategies. Using an original
questionnaire developed in a classroom situation and based on student input,
this study examined reported frequency of strategy use by international students
and teacher perceptions regarding the importance of strategy use. Although
students’ and teachers’ perceptions were not perfectly matched, results indicated
that teachers regard strategy use as highly important, and there was a high level
of accord (71 per cent) between strategies which students reported using highly
frequently and those which teachers reported regarding as highly important, an
encouraging finding somewhat at variance with the results of some previous
studies. Implications of these results for the teaching/learning situation are
discussed.

Background and Over the years a great deal of research has been carried out into learner
rationale variables which might affect language learning (such as nationality, age,
gender, and motivation among many others). The variable on which the
present article will focus is students’ language learning strategy use. In the
years since Rubin (1975) brought the concept of language learning strategies
to a wide audience, the term has been notoriously difficult to define and
consensus has been elusive. (See, for instance, Dörnyei and Skehan 2003;
Macaro 2004.) For the purposes of the present article, language learning
strategies will be taken to mean ‘activities consciously chosen by learners for
the purpose of regulating their own language learning’.
In spite of the close attention paid to learner variables, issues related to
teachers have not attracted the same degree of attention, even though
teachers are ‘pivotal in the enterprise of teaching and learning’ (Freeman
and Richards 1996: 1), and, as such, will inevitably have a major impact on
what goes on in the classroom. Because of their pivotal role, teacher
practices and perceptions are critically important since they have the
potential to influence the effectiveness of the teaching/learning process.
The importance of finding out more about teacher perceptions of language
learning strategies is underlined by research which suggests that teachers
are generally not aware of their students’ language learning strategies
(O’Malley et al. 1985).

E LT Journal Volume 61/2 April 2007; doi:10.1093/elt/ccm001 91

ª The Author 2007. Published by Oxford University Press; all rights reserved.
 Indeed, teachers may hold beliefs regarding their students’ strategy usage
which are quite contrary to what their students report. When the well known
Strategy Inventory for Language Learning or S I LL (Oxford 1990) was used
to examine students’ reported frequency of use of six types of language
learning strategies (memory, cognitive, compensation, metacognitive,
affective, social) as well as teachers’ perceptions of how often these six
strategy groups were used by their students (Griffiths and Parr 2001), the
results indicated that students’ and teachers’ perceptions did not coincide at
any point. Nunan (1988) also talks of ‘clear mismatches between learners’
and teachers’ views’ (p. 93), and Willing (1989) of ‘disparate perspectives’
regarding learning strategies (p. 1). The potential for such mismatches to
negatively affect what goes on in the classroom suggests a need to find out
more about how teachers’ perceptions intersect with students’ perceptions
in order that such findings might be used to inform classroom practice.

Downloaded from eltj.oxfordjournals.org at University of Wollongong on March 27, 2011

This article will report on one section of a larger study conducted at a private
English language school for international students in Auckland, New
Zealand. This section of the study used a real classroom situation to
investigate students’ language learning strategy use. The class involved was
called the Study Skills class, conducted during students’ first week at the
school for the purpose of orienting new students to the school’s facilities
(such as the self-study room) and to raise students’ awareness of how they
might study more effectively and use their time at the school to maximum
advantage.

The school context When the Study Skills class was set up, the Strategy Inventory for Language
Learning or SILL (Oxford 1990) was used with the students to stimulate
reflection and discussion. Experience with the class, however, indicated that
some of the items of the SILL were not entirely suitable for the students in
this setting. Very few of them reported using rhyme or flashcards, for
instance, and they often found it difficult to understand what these
strategies involved. Other strategies which students could be observed using
frequently, such as consulting a dictionary, are not included in the SIL L. For
the current study, it was therefore decided to use input by students in the
Study Skills class to create a new questionnaire more reflective of actual
usage in the current setting.
Teachers at the school took part in regular (usually monthly) professional
development sessions. During some of these sessions, questions related to
language learning strategies were discussed. Teachers indicated that they
found it difficult to assess their students’ frequency of strategy use (the
question asked by Griffiths and Parr 2001) because it involved a very
subjective judgement which they did not always feel well qualified to make.
In the light of this feedback it was decided to approach the question of
teachers’ perceptions of students’ language learning strategy use from
a slightly different direction by asking for perceptions of the importance of
specified strategy items for language learning.
Teachers were also concerned at the difficulty of classifying strategies
into Oxford’s (1990) memory, cognitive, compensation, metacognitive,
affective, or social categories, as Griffiths and Parr’s (2001) teachers had
done, since, they argued, many strategy items could be included in more

92 Carol Griffiths
 than one group: a strategy such as looking for opportunities to converse in
English, for instance, might be considered metacognitive since it involves
self-management, but might also be considered social since, by its nature, it
involves interaction with others. (This issue is also discussed by Ellis (1994)
among others.) For this reason, strategy items for the new questionnaire
were not grouped, but amalgamated to provide an overall strategy frequency
rating and also looked at on an individual item basis.

The investigation For the reasons explained above, the research question for this study
Research question was:
n How do teachers’ reported perceptions of the importance of language
learning strategies correspond with students’ overall reported frequency
of strategy use and reported frequency of use of specific strategy items?

Downloaded from eltj.oxfordjournals.org at University of Wollongong on March 27, 2011

Instrument: English In order to construct the new questionnaire, the study skills class followed
Language Learning a set format over a period of one month. The concept of language learning
Strategy Inventory strategies was first explained to the students, and they were then asked
(E L L S I ) for their ideas regarding language learning strategies which they had found
useful in their own study. These were listed on the board. Following this
brainstorming stage, when students had had an opportunity to contribute
their own ideas, the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL,
Oxford 1990) was handed out and students were allowed time to work
through it. As students completed the SIL L, they were organized into
groups to exchange ideas with each other. Any additional contributions
to the strategy list produced as a result of these discussions were added to
the existing list already on the board.
Over the month the strategy lists generated in this way were kept and, by the
end of this period, a list of 32 items had emerged. Some of the items
suggested by the students were very broad (for example, ‘Watching TV’),
and could be broken down into much more precise and meaningful
sequences of strategies. However, the practical need to restrict the length
of the instrument so that it could be completed within the time available
in the Study Skills class (less than two hours) drove the decision to leave
further investigation into such broad items for later projects if the results
of the EL LSI indicated that this might be useful. These were written into
a new questionnaire (the strategy statements can be seen in Table 1) which
was called the English Language Learning Strategy Inventory (E L L S I)
and used in place of the S IL L with subsequent Study Skills classes. Students
were asked how often they used the strategy items, using a 5-point Likert
scale from 1 (never or almost never) to 5 (always or almost always). The
same strategy statements were used to survey the teachers who were asked
to rate the items in terms of importance from 1 (very low) to 5 (very high).
In light of the uncertainty over strategy grouping explained previously,
the EL LSI strategy items were not grouped.

Participants Over a period of three months, the English Language Learning Strategy
Inventory (ELLS I) was completed by 131 students. There were both male
(N ¼ 55) and female (N ¼ 76) students from 14 different nations (Japan,
Korea, Switzerland, Italy, Argentina, Thailand, Germany, Indonesia,
Lithuania, Austria, Taiwan, Brazil, China, Hong Kong). Ages ranged from

Perceptions of learning strategies 93

 14 to 64 and students were spread over seven course levels: elementary,
mid-elementary, upper elementary, pre-intermediate, mid-intermediate,
upper intermediate, advanced. Students were assigned to these levels on
the basis of their score on the Oxford Placement Test (Allan 1995) and on
their performance on an oral interview conducted by a member of staff. In
addition to the students, 34 teachers of English to speakers of other
languages (ESOL) in New Zealand, who were teaching at the language
school at the time, returned the teachers’ version of the questionnaire.

Data collection Over a period of three months following construction of the new
questionnaire, the EL LSI was used with the Study Skills class to
stimulate reflection regarding strategy use by students new to the school
and collected at the end of the class. Over the same period of time,
teachers at the school were given the teachers’ version of the ELLS I

Downloaded from eltj.oxfordjournals.org at University of Wollongong on March 27, 2011

and asked to hand it in at their convenience. Teachers employed at the
time of the start of the project were included as well as new teachers who
arrived during the three-month period covered by the project.

Data analysis After collection, the information from the EL LSI questionnaires was
entered onto a database (S P SS) to enable data analysis to be carried out. The
data obtained from the students’ EL LSI questionnaires (N ¼ 131) were
analysed for reliability, and the possibility of a statistically significant
relationship between course level (where 1 ¼ elementary and 7 ¼ advanced)
and language learning strategy use was investigated (using a Spearman test
of correlation for ordinal data). The average reported frequency of language
learning strategy use across all students was calculated for each strategy
item and overall, and the number of strategies used at a high rate of
frequency (defined as average ¼ 3.5 or above, cf. Oxford 1990) was counted.
In order to explore patterns of strategy use by higher and lower level
students, the sample was divided into two groups: the lower level included
elementary, mid-elementary, and upper elementary students (N ¼ 73), and
the higher level included pre-intermediate, mid-intermediate, upper
intermediate and advanced students (N ¼ 58). The average reported
frequency of language learning strategy use for each strategy item and
overall, and the number of strategies used at a high rate of frequency were
also calculated for both the lower and the higher level groups.
The data obtained from the teachers’ ELLSI questionnaires (n ¼ 34)
were also analysed for reliability and averages were calculated in order to
determine the average level of importance ascribed by teachers to each
strategy item as well as to strategy use overall. The number of strategies
which teachers reportedly considered highly important (using the
average ¼ 3.5 or above threshold to maintain continuity with the
threshold set for the students’ data) was counted. These results were
then compared with results from the students’ data.

Results The alpha co-efficient for reliability of the students’ version of the EL LSI
was .87, and for the teachers’ version it was .89. The relationship between
course level and overall reported frequency of language learning strategy
use as measured by the ELLS I was found to be significant (r ¼ .35, p , .01,
n ¼ 131). Although this is not a strong relationship, it is more than would

94 Carol Griffiths
 be expected merely by chance, and suggests the usefulness of further
exploration into the relationship between course level and language
learning strategy use.
The students who participated in this study (N ¼ 131) reported an
average frequency of language learning strategy use over all E L L S I items
of 3.1, with lower level students reporting a lower average frequency of
language learning strategy use (average ¼ 2.9) than that reported by higher
level students (average ¼ 3.3). Seven items were reportedly used at a high
rate of frequency (average ¼ 3.5 or above) across all students, with lower
level students reporting highly frequent use of five strategy items and
higher level students reporting highly frequent use of 15 strategy items.
Teachers reported ascribing a high level of importance to language
learning strategies (overall average ¼ 3.6), and they reported regarding

Downloaded from eltj.oxfordjournals.org at University of Wollongong on March 27, 2011

17 of the 32 strategy items (that is, more than half) as highly important
(using the same average ¼ 3.5 threshold used for the students’ data).
These results are set out in Table 1.

No. Teachers Low level High level All students Statement (abbreviated)
1 3.3 3.7 3.9 3.8 doing homework
2 3.9 3.8 4.3 4.0 learning from the teacher
3 4.6 3.3 3.5 3.4 learning in an environment where the language is spoken
4 3.6 2.4 3.0 2.7 reading books in English
5 2.4 2.5 2.8 2.6 using a computer
6 3.2 2.8 3.5 3.1 watching TV in English
7 3.8 3.0 3.2 3.1 revising regularly
8 2.6 3.2 3.7 3.4 listening to songs in English
9 3.5 1.9 2.4 2.1 using language learning games
10 3.2 1.9 2.7 2.2 writing letters in English
11 1.8 2.3 2.2 2.2 listening to music while studying
12 4.4 3.4 3.7 3.5 talking to other students in English
13 3.1 4.2 4.1 4.2 using a dictionary
14 3.4 2.0 2.7 2.4 reading newspapers in English
15 3.7 3.3 3.6 3.4 studying English grammar
16 4.0 2.9 3.7 3.3 consciously learning new vocabulary
17 3.8 3.5 3.5 3.5 keeping a language learning notebook
18 4.8 3.2 3.6 3.4 talking to native speakers of English
19 3.9 2.7 2.9 2.8 noting language used in the environment
20 3.1 2.7 2.7 2.7 controlling schedules so that English study is done
21 3.0 2.6 2.9 2.7 pre-planning language learning encounters
22 3.7 3.2 3.1 3.2 not worrying about mistakes

Perceptions of learning strategies 95

23 3.2 2.4 2.2 2.3 using a self-study centre
24 4.2 3.0 3.4 3.2 trying to think in English
25 4.4 3.5 4.1 3.8 listening to native speakers of English
26 4.4 3.4 3.9 3.6 learning from mistakes
27 3.2 3.2 3.5 3.3 spending time studying English
28 4.2 2.5 3.2 2.8 making friends with native speakers
29 3.2 2.9 3.6 3.2 watching movies in English
30 3.3 2.6 3.2 2.8 learning about the culture of English speakers
31 3.4 2.5 3.1 2.8 listening to the radio in English
32 3.7 1.9 1.9 1.9 writing a diary in English

Downloaded from eltj.oxfordjournals.org at University of Wollongong on March 27, 2011

3.6 2.9 3.3 3.1 overall average level of importance/frequency
17 5 15 7 number of high importance/frequency items
table 1 Average levels of importance ascribed to language learning strategies by teachers
and average reported frequency of strategy use by lower level, higher level, and,
across all students with number of high importance/frequency items. Averages of
3.5 or higher are set in bold for emphasis

Discussion and The results of the reliability analyses are well above the standard reliability
amplification of threshold of .70, indicating that the EL LSI was a reliable instrument for
results the purposes of surveying reported frequency of language learning strategy
use and reported perceptions of importance in this setting. The finding
of a significant positive correlation between course level and reported
frequency of language learning strategy use supports findings from other
studies (for instance Green and Oxford 1995; Griffiths 2003). Furthermore,
many more strategies were reportedly used highly frequently by higher
level students than by lower level students. In other words, the results
indicate that, in general, higher level students reported using a larger
repertoire of strategies more frequently than lower level students.

Agreement between The 17 language learning strategies which teachers report regarding as
teachers and highly important (see Table 1 for statements) include all but two of the
students strategies which students reported using highly frequently across all
students. Put another way, teachers regard as highly important 5 out of 7,
or 71 per cent, of the strategies which students across all levels report using
highly frequently. This result would seem to imply that teachers and
students are generally ‘on the same wavelength’ when it comes to reported
student practices and teacher perceptions of importance regarding
language learning strategy use, which is an encouraging discovery because
of its implications of a good accord between students and teachers in this
area and the potentially positive consequences in terms of classroom
dynamics.
Perhaps unexpectedly, Item 1 (‘doing homework’) is not included among the
17 strategies which teachers report regarding as highly important, although
it is reportedly used highly frequently across all students. Interestingly,
though, teachers report regarding ‘revising regularly’ (Item 7) as highly

96 Carol Griffiths
 important, whereas students do not report using this strategy highly
frequently. What, one wonders, is the perceived difference between
homework and revision? Perhaps homework is set by the teacher, whereas
revision is more likely to be self-directed? Perhaps, then, students are
indicating a preference for teacher-directed study whereas teachers are
expecting students to take more responsibility for their own learning,
which, in turn, may reflect the different educational traditions of teacher
and student and suggests a lack of accord between student and teacher
expectations of learner independence in the language classroom, an area
worthy of further research to investigate how such divergent expectations
might be reconciled.
Item 13 (‘using a dictionary’) is also not reported as being considered highly
important by teachers, although it is reported to be used highly frequently

Downloaded from eltj.oxfordjournals.org at University of Wollongong on March 27, 2011

across all students. Since lower level students reported using a dictionary
more frequently (average ¼ 4.2) than higher level students (average ¼ 4.1),
perhaps the low level of importance ascribed to this strategy by teachers
reflects their experience of strategy progression in their classrooms. This, in
turn, raises a question regarding teaching practice: since higher level
students report using dictionaries less often than lower level students,
should dictionary use in classrooms be discouraged, or even banned, or
should dictionaries be accepted as a necessary support without which lower
level students would struggle to cope with the demands of learning a new
language? This is another area where further research would be useful to
inform classroom practice.

Areas of A possible area of concern may be the twelve strategies which teachers
disagreement report regarding as highly important but which students across all levels
do not report using highly frequently (Items 3, 4, 7, 9, 15, 16, 18, 19, 22, 24,
28, 32). This gap in student/teacher perceptions is most salient in the case
of the two strategies which students overall report using least frequently,
that is Item 32—‘writing a diary’ (student average ¼ 1.9)—and Item 9—
‘using language learning games’ (student average ¼ 2.1). Teachers, on the
contrary, report considering these two strategies as highly important,
indicating another perceptual gap awaiting further research to clarify
whether they are important for language learning or not, and whether or
not students should be using them more frequently than they currently
report.
Another area where students’ and teachers’ perceptions regarding language
learning strategy use seem to be somewhat divergent is the group of five
strategies (Items 6, 8, 9, 27, 29) which high level students report using
highly frequently although teachers do not appear to regard them as highly
important ones for their students. Since three of these strategies (using TV,
songs, movies) relate to the use of resources which are readily accessible to
students, research might help to establish the usefulness or otherwise of
these strategies which are such an easy, obvious, and inexpensive way for
students to increase their exposure to the target language.

Conclusion Overall, it is encouraging to discover that a learner variable (language

learning strategies) which was found to be significantly correlated with
course level was found to be considered highly important by teachers, given

Perceptions of learning strategies 97

 the assumption that teachers might therefore be expected to promote
language learning strategy use by their students. Further research aimed at
investigating these relationships and providing triangulation (for instance
by means of interviews) would be very useful, as would further exploration
to find out more about how some of the broad strategy items of the EL LSI
(for instance ‘doing homework’, ‘using a dictionary’) are used by students.
Although, as might be expected, there are some strategies where teacher
perceptions of importance and student reported frequency of use are
mismatched, it is encouraging in terms of implications for the efficacy of
what goes on in the classroom to have discovered that teachers report
a strong awareness of the importance of language learning strategies, and
that so many (71 per cent) of the strategies which students report using
highly frequently are regarded as important by teachers. This finding, which

Downloaded from eltj.oxfordjournals.org at University of Wollongong on March 27, 2011

runs somewhat contrary to the findings of some previous studies (for
instance Griffiths and Parr 2001), may, perhaps, reflect a growing
awareness of the importance of language learning strategies in the language
teaching and learning area generally.
It is now more than a quarter of a century since Rubin’s (1975) ground-
breaking article in the language learning strategy field sowed the seeds of
debates which are unresolved to this day, and there is still much work to be
done to find effective ways to use what has been discovered about good
language learners and their strategies in the language teaching/learning
situation. Nevertheless, despite some need to re-assess teacher perceptions
regarding the strategies which are important for their students, it is
reassuring that this study has discovered so much common ground at the
point of intersection between students’ and teachers’ perceptions regarding
language learning strategies.
Revised version received April 2005

References Macaro, E. 2004. ‘Fourteen features of a language

Allan, D. 1995. Oxford Placement Test. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Dörnyei, Z. and P. Skehan. 2003. ‘Individual
differences in second language learning’ in C.
Doughty and M. Long (eds.). Handbook of Second
Language Acquisition. Oxford: Blackwell, 589–630.
Ellis, R. 1994. Understanding Second Language
Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Freeman, D. and J. Richards (eds.). 1996. Teacher
Learning in Language Teaching. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Green, J. and R. Oxford. 1995. ‘A closer look at
learning strategies, L2 proficiency and sex’. TE S O L
Quarterly 29/2: 261–97.
Griffiths, C. 2003. ‘Language learning strategy use
and proficiency’. http://80-wwwlib.umi.com.
ezproxy.auckland.ac.nz/dissertations/gateway.
Griffiths, C. and J. Parr. 2001. ‘Language-learning
strategies: theory and perception’. ELT Journal 55/3:
247–54.
learner strategy’. Working Paper Series 4. http://
www.crie.org.nz.
Nunan, D. 1988. The Learner-Centred Curriculum.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
O’Malley, J. M., A. Chamot, G. Stewner-Manzanares,
L. Kupper, and R. Russo. 1985. ‘Learning strategies
used by beginning and intermediate ES L students’.
Language Learning 35/1: 21–46.
Oxford, R. 1990. Language Learning Strategies: What
Every Teacher Should Know. New York: Newbury
House.
Rubin, J. 1975. ‘What the ‘‘good language learner’’
can teach us’. T E S OL Quarterly 9/1: 41–51.
Willing, K. 1989. Teaching How to Learn: Learning
Strategies in E SL. Sydney: National Centre for
English Language Teaching and Research.
The author
Carol Griffiths has specialized as an ES OL teacher
and manager for many years. She graduated with

98 Carol Griffiths
a PhD from the University of Auckland after had a number of articles published. Carol currently
completing a thesis reporting research into language works for AIS St Helens, a tertiary institution for
learning strategy use by E SO L students. She has international students in Auckland, New Zealand.
presented papers at a number of conferences and has Email: carolgriffiths5@gmail.com

Downloaded from eltj.oxfordjournals.org at University of Wollongong on March 27, 2011

Perceptions of learning strategies 99