TITLE: Understanding Successful and Unsuccessful EFL Students in Chinese Universities

SOURCE: The Modern Language Journal 88 no2 229-44 Summ 2004

The magazine publisher is the copyright holder of this article and it is reproduced with permission.
Further reproduction of this article in violation of the copyright is prohibited. To contact the publisher:
www.blackwellpublishers.co.uk

ZHENGDONG GAN; GILLIAN HUMPHREYS; LIZ HAMP-LYONS

ABSTRACT
Unlike success in first language acquisition, success in learning a second or foreign language is
considerably more variable. Recently, second language acquisition researchers have called for more
integrative research on individual difference factors. With this goal in mind, this study followed a larger,
quantitative study of the links between self-directedness for language learning and English language
learning attainment among university students on the Chinese mainland and in Hong Kong. Drawing on
the findings of that study (Gan, 2003), this 1-semester study looked closely at 2 small groups of tertiary-
level English as a foreign language (EFL) learners in China in order to document how they carried out
their out-of-class (self-directed) English learning, as well as to elaborate issues that may be critical to
understanding the variability that had already been observed in their English learning outcomes. The data
were gathered through interviews, diaries, and follow-up email correspondence with 9 successful and 9
unsuccessful second-year EFL students at 2 Chinese mainland universities. Using grounded theory
methodology (Strauss & Corbin, 1994, 1998), 6 categories of qualitative data were constructed:
conceptualizing English language learning; perceptions of the College English Course; learning and
practising strategies; self-management; internal drive; and English proficiency tests. The study findings
suggest that different levels of success may be explained by a complex and dynamic interplay of internal
cognition and emotion, external incentives, and social context. The findings imply the need to take a
holistic view of variation in language learning outcomes and to broaden the scope of the current practice
in learner strategy training.
INVESTIGATIONS INTO THE DIFFERENCES between successful and unsuccessful learners in the
field of second and foreign language learning attracted attention with the studies of Rubin (1975), Stern
(1975), and Naiman, Fr ๖ hlich, Stern, and Todesco (1978), which aimed to establish what good language
learning strategies might be and to share them with unsuccessful learners. Continuing these initial
investigations, various other researchers explored the relationships between reported strategy use and
language learning outcomes in the hope of identifying the range and nature of learning strategies
employed by good, successful, or effective language learners, with good, successful, or effective
generally understood to mean those learners who perform well on tests r examinations, or who are rated
as such by their teachers (Abraham & Vann, 1987; Green & Oxford, 1995; Huang & van Naerssen, 1987;
O'Malley, Chamot, Stewner-Manzanares, Kpper, & Russo, 1985; Politzer & McGroarty, 1985; Purpura,
1998; Vann & Abraham, 1990; Wen & Johnson, 1997). The general findings from these studies are that
successful students demonstrate a greater use of learning strategies or more appropriate application of
strategies to the learning task, whereas less successful or unsuccessful students use a limited or
inappropriately applied repertoire of language learning strategies.
Previous studies on differences between successful and unsuccessful language learners have, however,
focused mainly on learning strategies. The combined effects of the use of strategies with other learner
factors (e.g., attitudes and motivation), which may play an important role in the variance of language
learning outcomes, have not received due consideration. Moreover, the majority of second language
research on learner factors to date has been conducted in Western countries, either on groups of mixed
nationalities studying English as a second/foreign language or on native speakers of English learning a
foreign language. Given the scarcity of adequate empirical research on learner difference factors in
language learning within the Asian English as a foreign language (EFL) context, a research project
comprising both a quantitative survey and qualitative study was started in China and in Hong Kong in
2000 in an attempt to map out a picture of key learner variables that might lead to different language
learning outcomes among tertiary-level Chinese EFL students. The research began with a large (N = 619)
quantitative study of the links between self-directedness for language learning and English language
attainment among university students on the Chinese mainland and in Hong Kong (Gan, 2003). Drawing
on the findings of that study, this 1-semester follow-up study looked closely at two small groups of
tertiary-level EFL learners from the Chinese mainland in order to document how they carried out their
out-of-class (self-directed) English learning, as well as to elaborate issues that may be critical to
understanding the variability that had already been observed in the quantitative study. The qualitative
study aimed to understand better the language learning psychology and processes of the Chinese EFL
students.

ATTITUDE, MOTIVATION, AND STRATEGY USE

Ames (1986) suggested that the effectiveness of the learner must be examined in relation to those
beliefs and perceptions that enable learners to become involved, independent, and confident in their own
learning. Similarly, McCombs (1990) suggested that attitudes and beliefs about the self and the learning
environment can influence a student's tendency to approach, expend effort in, and persist in learning tasks
on a continuing, self-directed basis. Such a rationale thus places language learners' attitudes at the centre
of their language learning process because it assumes that attitudes to language learning condition
language learning behaviour. An attitude is usually assumed to consist of three components--cognitive,
affective, and behavioural (Mantle-Bromley, 1995; Wenden, 1998; Zimbardo & Leippe, 1991). The
cognitive component comprises what a person knows or believes about the object of the attitude. The
affective component is the degree of like or dislike, approval or disapproval associated with the attitudinal
object, such as the teacher and the class. The behavioural component consists of attitudes that predispose
people to act in a certain way. According to Wenden (1998), the kinds of attitudes that are crucial to
learner autonomy are those relating to learners' evaluations of their own role in learning and their learning
ability.
Benson and Lor (1999) stressed that how learners conceptualize the language learning process may
influence how they actually approach the task of learning the language. Based on the observation
(Marton, Watkins, & Tang, 1997) that describes learning conceptions associated with memorization as
quantitative and conceptions associated with understanding as qualitative, Benson and Lor (1999) argued
for a relationship between qualitative conceptions of learning and readiness for autonomy; in other words,
a qualitative conception of language learning tends to dispose learners towards autonomous learning.
Noels, Cl้ment, and Pelletier (1999) also noted that students' perceptions of their teachers' communicative
style are related to intrinsic motivation and that teachers may have an important effect upon language
learners' beliefs about themselves as learners and how they actually undertake learning (Oxford, 2001).
The theory of language learning strategies postulates that part of the differential success rate among
second or foreign language learners may be attributable to the varying strategies that different learners
bring to the language learning process. According to Oxford (1990), language learning strategies are
actions, behaviours, steps, or techniques used by learners to enhance learning. This definition of language
learning strategies often overlaps somewhat with another term, language learning activities. Such an
overlap in the definition of strategies and activities also appears to exist among researchers in the area of
educational psychology (Vermetten, Lodemijks, & Vermunt, 1999). However, language learning activities
do not correspond exactly to language learning strategies (Freeman, 1999). Freeman emphasized that
language learning activities "are overt, conscious and intentional, and should be clearly distinguished
from the fast mental processes mentioned in the cognitive literature on learning strategies" (p. 80). These
mental processes comprise direct manipulation or transformation of the learning materials. The learning
outcome is thus supposed to depend on the specific strategies of manipulating or transforming.
Meanwhile, metacognition is also regarded as essential for effective learning to take place (Sternberg,
1998). A generalized conclusion that emerges from the relevant research is that metacognition includes
control or management of cognitive processes through planning, monitoring, and evaluating activities or
strategies, or both (Anderson, 2002; O'Malley et al., 1985; Sternberg, 1998). Overall, the bulk of language
learning strategy research to date has identified two broad types of strategies: cognitive learning strategies
and self-management(FN1) strategies (Rubin, 2001; Wen & Johnson, 1997). Use of both types of
strategies has shown significant association with the target language proficiency level. For example,
Bremner (1998) conducted a survey of the language learning strategies used by a group of Hong Kong
learners and found a high use of cognitive strategies among learners with high proficiency levels. Wen
and Johnson (1997) found that high-level learners tended to be characterized by an overall better
management of the various learning strategies than their low-level counterparts.
The traditionally well-known constructs concerning motivation for second language learning are
integrative and instrumental motivation (Gardner, 1985; Gardner & Lambert, 1972). The past decade,
however, has witnessed a considerable expansion of the traditional conceptualization of second language
motivation. The new orientation to the study of motivation has been partly stimulated by developments in
educational psychology (D ๖ rnyei & Skehan, 2003). For example, believing that learning a second
language involves a combination of external and internal regulatory factors, Noels and her colleagues
(Noels, 2001; Noels, Pelletier, Cl้ment, & Vallerand, 2000) set out to explore how the intrinsic/extrinsic
paradigm can be used for illustrating the extent to which learners are motivated into carrying out their
language learning on a self-directed basis. There has also been growing attention among motivation
researchers directed at examining learners' motivational patterns in a given sociocultural or educational
environment. These researchers have emphasized that motivation is subject to considerable contextual
variation (D ๖ rnyei, 1998; Ehrman, 1996; Noels, 2001). This emphasis echoes the current social-
cognitive approach of educational psychologists in the study of motivation, an approach that emphasizes
how students construe the situation, interpret events in the situation, and process information about the
situation (Jarvela, 1998; Pintrich & Schunk, 1996).
In addition to the view that strategy choice may be influenced by how one conceptualizes language and
language learning in general (Pennington, 1999), research has provided evidence that the type of
motivation has a significant effect on language use and preferred language learning activities (Oxford &
Nyikos, 1989). Researchers (Ellis, 1994; Gardner, 1985; McDonough, 1986; Skehan, 1989) tend to
describe second language learning as a cyclical process: strong motivation, positive attitudes, and
effective learning effort may result in increased language attainment and the feeling of progress, which
may in turn enhance motivation and facilitate further effort.
In most of the studies that have examined attitudes, motivation, or strategies to date, a quantitative
approach was adopted. In recent years, however, researchers have called for qualitative investigative
methods in the study of crucial variables assumed to be responsible for the differences between successful
and unsuccessful learners (Larsen-Freeman, 2001; Parry, 1993; Vann & Abraham, 1990). Ushioda (2001)
remarked that the value of a qualitative research approach lies in its potential to cast a different light on
the phenomena under investigation and to raise a different set of issues. Moreover, "the openness of
qualitative inquiry allows the researcher to approach the inherent complexity of social interaction and to
do justice to that complexity, to respect it in its own right" (Glesne & Peshkin, 1992, p. 7).
The inconclusiveness of research on learner factors indicates that the qualitative investigative approach
may add a vital dimension to the understanding of the complexities of language learning experiences and
effects. Also worthy of note is that the research in this domain has been largely dominated by a Euro-
Anglo English as a second language (ESL) perspective. The inevitable result of this dominance is that the
unique EFL contexts in China, as in other Asian countries, have not been fully studied. China is in
transition as it opens further to the world after decades of isolation and is experiencing an explosion in
commercial, technological, and cultural exchanges with Western countries. Recently, China joined the
market-based global economy, and its fast-moving world financial markets appeal to many foreign
companies. This financial growth has given rise to a pressing demand for large numbers of competent
users of English in a wide range of professions and businesses. We believe that such recent political,
economic, and social factors will have--have in fact already had--a great impact on English languages
teaching and learning in China. Our goal in this study was therefore to obtain through qualitative data as
complete a picture as possible of the potential attitudinal/behavioral differences between successful and
unsuccessful tertiary-level Chinese EFL students within a country that is experiencing great changes.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS
According to Janesick (2000), "qualitative researchers have open minds but not empty minds" (p. 384).
In order to guide their studies, they need to identify a problem or topic and formulate questions in very
general terms. The broad research questions that guided our investigation in this study were as follows.
1. Are there any typical attitudinal differences between successful and unsuccessful tertiary-level
Chinese EFL students?
2. What strategies do they report using in their English learning?
3. How are they typically motivated into carrying out their English learning?

METHODOLOGY

CONTEXT OF THE STUDY

All first- and second-year students at the university level in China are required by the Chinese Ministry
of Education to take the College English Course (CEC). The CEC traditionally offers 3 or 4 hours of
classroom English training per week in intensive reading, extensive reading, and listening. The CEC is
very closely linked to the College English Test (CET). Insufficiently resourced and under pressure to
teach to the test, many teachers tend to focus on linguistic knowledge from textbooks authorized by the
Ministry of Education. The students are supposed to apply to take the CET Band 4 (CET4) at the end of
semester 1 of year 2. The CET is a "large-scale standardized test" (Yang, 2000), administered by the
National College English Testing Committee on behalf of the Chinese Ministry of Education, "with a
view to 1) promoting the implementation of the National College English Teaching Syllabus, and 2)
measuring objectively and accurately the real English ability of college students in China" (Yang, 2000, p.
197). There are two levels of the CET: CET4 and CET6. Recently, the CET Spoken English Test (CET-
SET) has been included as a component of the CET test. CET4 is considered compulsory by universities,
and students are generally required to pass CET4 at a minimum of 60% in order to qualify for their
bachelor's degree, whereas CET6 and CET-SET are taken entirely on a voluntary basis.

PARTICIPANTS
The participants for this qualitative study were from two universities in Hefei:(FN2) the University of
Science and Technology of China and Anhui University. At the time of this qualitative study, the students
had just completed their CEC and taken CET4. The lead researcher of this study first visited English
teachers in the two universities, and asked if they could recommend some of the previous quantitative
study participants who could be classified into either successful or unsuccessful students in their English
learning. Five teachers agreed to do so. The criteria these five teachers were given for distinguishing the
two types of students were (a) for successful students, CET4 scores should be above 80% on a 100%
scale; for unsuccessful students, CET4 scores should be below 60% on a 100% scale; (b) successful
students should not merely be good test takers, their performance in the regular English classes should put
them among the top 5% of the class based on their teacher's perception; the unsuccessful students should
not merely be poor test takers, their performance in the regular English classes should put them among
the bottom 5% of the class based on their teacher's perception. The five teachers recommended altogether
18 students (9 successful and 9 unsuccessful) from the two universities. The lead researcher then
telephoned each of the 18 students and explained to them the purpose of the research and what they were
expected to do. The researcher particularly made it clear that their information would be kept strictly
confidential and would be used only for the purpose of doing research. All 18 students expressed
willingness to participate in the research study. The participants' personal data are given in Table 1.

DATA TYPES
The present study used multiple data types, for example, interviews, diaries, and follow-up emails as a
triangulation strategy to provide "a rich and complex picture of some social phenomenon being studied"
(Mathison, 1988, p. 13). According to Denzin (1989), triangulation can often be achieved via three basic
approaches: (a) using multiple methods, (b) using multiple sources, and (c) using more than one
investigator in the research process. In this study, all the data analyses were carried out through
cooperation among the three researchers in order to accommodate the third type of triangulation.
Interviews. The lead researcher conducted two interviews with each of the 18 participants between
March and May, 2001. The first interview focused on the participants' attitudes towards language
learning, their preferred language learning activities, and the main sources of the motivation that would
initiate and sustain their English learning effort. In the second interview, conducted 2 months later, each
participant was asked to report how he or she had carried out language learning since the last time he or
she was interviewed, whether he or she had had any difficulties in English learning and how he or she had
overcome those difficulties. The researcher also asked the participants in the second interview whether
they had a theory about English language learning and what they would tell a friend who had just entered
the university and asked for advice about English learning there. After the questions had steered the
interview in a general direction, every attempt was made to let the interviewee take the lead while the
interviewer probed for clarification and expansion of what was said. For example, if an interviewee said
that his English learning activity was vocabulary study, the researcher would further ask: What was the
purpose of studying vocabulary? Where was the vocabulary from? How did he or she learn the
vocabulary? and so on. Each of the two interviews with each participant was conducted in Chinese at his
or her university (usually in the student's classroom) and lasted about 40 minutes. The interviews were
tape-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and later translated into English in their entirety. A list of main
interview questions appears in Appendix A. Follow-up email correspondence with the participants was
also used to probe further some points that emerged while the interviews were being transcribed and
translated.
Diaries. At the end of the first interview, each participant was asked to keep a 2-month diary in Chinese
describing or reflecting on his or her language learning feelings, preferences, and experiences, in or
outside of class. The participants were given guidelines on how to keep a language learning diary (see
Appendix B). These guidelines provided a context for sustained reflection on various aspects of the
participants' English language learning. The researcher collected the participants' diaries at the end of
each month. In addition, he contacted the participants regularly by phone to ask them about their feelings
or difficulties keeping the diary. Immediately after each diary collection, he read through all diary entries
to see whether there were any confusing or especially notable points that would need to be clarified
further by email or telephone. As with the interviews, all the diaries(FN3) were translated into English in
such a manner as to preserve as far as possible the lexical distinctions and discursive structure of the
original writing.

DATA ANALYSIS
As described above, the data for this study consisted of translated transcripts of interviews, translated
diaries, and follow-up emails. In keeping with qualitative research procedures (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000;
Lincoln & Guba, 1985), we allowed the data to reveal their own naturally occurring patterns in an
inductive manner rather than impose a priori categories (Dey, 1999; Strauss & Corbin, 1998). However,
the massive amounts of data generated in this study needed to be organized, so we used a grounded theory
process (Strauss & Corbin, 1994) in which patterns and clusters gradually and successively emerged from
the data. The three researchers discussed cases in which there was uncertainty until an agreement was
reached.
In this iterative process, information from the first interviews as well as from the students' diaries
informed the lead researchers as he prepared questions for the second interviews, and data from
interviews and diaries determined the questions for further clarification and probing by follow-up email
correspondence. Therefore, as the research progressed, the researchers' conceptual frame for
understanding the data was refined and informed further stages of the study, as is typical of grounded
qualitative research.

RESULTS
Six themes emerged from the analysis of the data: (a) conceptualizing English language learning; (b)
perceptions of the College English Course; (c) learning and practising strategies; (d) self-management; (e)
internal drive; and (f) English proficiency tests. Comparisons between the 9 successful and the 9
unsuccessful students are reported based on each theme for the sake of clarity, although there is some
overlap among responses between categories. We present the six themes according to a framework of
three dimensions: attitudinal characteristics, strategies reported, and motivational experiences.

ATTITUDINAL CHARACTERISTICS
Conceptualizing English Language Learning. A broad range of language learning conceptions emerged
among the successful students. Most notably, all the successful students referred to English vocabulary
learning as a very important part of their language learning. "Words are the bricks a building is made up
of. Without bricks, where will the building be?" (a successful student [SS]). It seemed that for these
students, English learning means accumulation of language knowledge like bricks. One student said in the
interview: "I think I've already mastered the basic English grammar at secondary school; now the main
task for me is to expand my vocabulary" (SS). Besides frequently referring to English learning as a
process of mastering linguistic knowledge, the successful students in this study repeatedly emphasized the
need to gain a practical command of English for use in the future. The emphasis was consistent with the
diverse techniques they reported for developing practical language skills, for example, "I particularly like
reading business English articles" (SS); "I listen to VOA(FN4) for an hour before I go to sleep every
evening" (SS); "I go to practise oral English every Friday in the English corner"(FN5) (SS).
Some successful students touched upon the issue of culture, suggesting that learning a language means
learning its culture as well, and that neglect of culture could bring about bad consequences. An example
reported by one of the successful students was difficulty in understanding the meaning of the slang phrase
"before Jack Robinson can kill you," which prompted him to write the following entry in his diary:

Chinese students do not start with the target culture, custom or idioms when they learn
English. Instead, they begin with grammar. So what they say and write is grammatically
correct but may be culturally inappropriate, or lack a genuine foreign flavor. (SS)

Failure to understand English humor was also regarded as culture-bound:

While I was reading an English humor book, I could not understand some of the humor.
Perhaps it originates from the Bible and things like that in Western culture. Our English
learning is always separated from its culture. Thus, we lack such a cultural background.
(SS)
 Developing and maintaining language sense was another interesting notion repeatedly mentioned by
over half of the successful students in this study. Language sense, in the view of one of the successful
students, was something that indicates that one can use the appropriate language at the appropriate time
without much thought. These students seemed to have no doubt that one could acquire language sense if
one immersed oneself in the language through listening to English broadcasts and reading English
newspapers. IN addition, 3 successful students reported their belief in learning a language through using it
in authentic settings as a tool to communicate or associate with others, for example:

Every day I speak English to my classmates. At first, they thought I was crazy, and
looked at the with strange expressions on their faces. I believe an effective way to learn
English is to use it in our daily communication. I don't care whether my classmates
respond in Chinese or English, so long as I can express myself in English to them. I also
believe that if you can communicate in English freely with others, you will have no
problem at all coping with any tests. (SS)

Like the successful students, the unsuccessful students seemed to recognize that English learning in a
sense means a mastery of basic linguistic knowledge as well. Most commonly expressed among these
unsuccessful students was their emphasis on both vocabulary and grammar. Their view of language as
knowledge was clearly reflected in a response like "the main problem with my English is that I'm very
weak in the basics of English, the basic grammatical knowledge and the basic vocabulary. I need to work
hard at both" (an unsuccessful student [US]). Here, the student evaluated his English negatively because
he felt that his foundation in English was not good, and that he needed to absorb more grammatical and
vocabulary knowledge.
Almost all the unsuccessful students in this study were particularly explicit about the problems
confronted in vocabulary learning. The majority of them appeared to have a deep-seated belief that a
basic vocabulary must be mastered before any other learning activity could take place. They seemed to be
trapped in the learning of vocabulary and could not move ahead; some of them admired the high-level
students who could read English newspapers and magazines, understand an English radio broadcast, and
talk in English with a teacher or foreigner, whereas they were unable to do os. One unsuccessful student
mentioned that he noticed there were some books in English about computer science (his specialist area),
and if he had a good mastery of English vocabulary, he would be able to read those books. However, all
the unsuccessful students mentioned in either the interview or the diary the need to practise reading,
listening, and writing, as one of them said: "I have to practise these three language skills because they will
be tested" (US). Listening or reading CET-type materials, or practising writing according to the CET
writing guide, thus appeared to dominate in the unsuccessful students' English language skills practice.
Perceptions of the College English Course. Two successful students ascribed their English learning
achievement to the College English Course. They seemed to be very interested in everything the teacher
taught in class. They commented that they needed to be encouraged and kept on the right track by their
teachers. The College English Course was valued because the teachers were assumed to play a facilitative
role as guides not only for English learning but also for personal development, as 1 of the 2 successful
students described in her diary: "From my university English teacher, I have learned how to learn English
better, how to get along with others. This is helpful not only for my English study but also for my
development as a human being" (SS).
The majority of the successful students, however, felt that the College English Course was too rigid or
too traditional. These characteristics of the course were cited by successful students as the major
drawback, which was consistent with such responses as, "The teacher just lectured in front of the
blackboard most of the time" (SS); "We have rarely had any opportunity to develop communicative
competence in English in the class" (SS). Having been "spoon-fed" at secondary school, these successful
students expected a more lively, communication-oriented teaching style in order to maximize their
classroom learning. They seemed to be dissatisfied with being "consumers" of language courses and
teacher hours, and they gave the impression that they could be "producers" of their own learning
programs. Naturally, they were sensitive to any variance in teaching styles between teachers and to
different types of lessons, as a student remarked in the interview: "In our extensive reading class, the
teacher occasionally organized some discussion activity on a certain hot topic. The teacher also liked to
tell some interesting anecdotes that excited interest in learning. This class was useful." (SS)
All the unsuccessful students indicated that the source of boredom in the College English Course was
the teaching style. A feeling that was expressed by about half of the unsuccessful students was that their
university English teachers were not particularly supportive or approachable:
 My teacher's teaching does not cater to the different levels and needs of different
students. Teachers tend to be enthusiastic only with the better students. I do not enjoy the
classroom atmosphere. Once the teacher leaves the classroom, he or she is not available
at all. (US)

Another unsuccessful student commented in the interview that when he arrived at the university, he
found that English learning there was very different from English learning at secondary school, about
which he clearly felt nostalgic: "My secondary school English teacher explained every detail clearly,
corrected every mistake I made in a test, and took measures to ensure that we did our English homework
properly. He was very responsible" (US).
Finally there was also a sense of learned helplessness among the unsuccessful students: "I have many
problems with my English, but I do not know what I should start with" (US); "I have lost confidence and
interest completely in College English" (US); "It's really painful to be in the English class" (US). All the
unsuccessful students openly admitted that, demoralized as a result of a sense of helplessness and loss of
confidence, they often skipped English classes. Some were absent from their English classes for a month
or more, even a whole semester, and they came only to attend the final examination at the end of the
course. Some of them told the researcher in the interview that they went to the English classes only
because attendance was sometimes checked by the teacher.

STRATEGIES REPORTED
Learning and Practising Strategies. As a whole, the successful students reported a wider range of
English learning activities than the unsuccessful students, as already indicated in the previous section. In
order to look at the differences in the use of specific learning and practising strategies, we examined how
the two groups of students went about two common learning activities: vocabulary learning and lesson
previewing.
Unsuccessful students' vocabulary learning strategies largely consisted of memorizing words by rote
(sometimes just looking at the Chinese meaning and repeating the spelling of the word or repeatedly
copying the spelling) and doing particular vocabulary exercises. All the unsuccessful students complained
that they kept forgetting the words they had memorized, yet they did not take any measures to enhance
the vocabulary they learned. One of them told the researcher that he memorized on average two pages of
words a day from a CET vocabulary book. The researcher asked what percentage of these words he still
remembered. He said he did not know. He just memorized but did not go back and recheck or take any
other measures to strengthen the words. Thus, with regard to vocabulary study, the unsuccessful students
tended to be trapped in a vicious cycle of attempting to memorize, forgetting, and feeling frustrated.
Successful students learned words by rote and did vocabulary exercises too, but most of them reported
doing regular reading with the particular purpose of reinforcing vocabulary, and 4 of them reported the
habit of trying to put the words they had learned into use. But what made the successful students in this
study distinctly different from the unsuccessful students in terms of vocabulary learning was the strategy
used to maintain and strengthen the vocabulary in their memory (reported by about two-thirds of the
successful students). This strategy was usually characterized by a systematic plan to master a particular
batch of English words and expressions. Such a plan stipulated clearly at what point the vocabulary study
would be carried out, how much time would be spent on the first round of memorization, when to begin
and how much time would be spend on the second or third round of memorization, and so forth.
Most of the unsuccessful students said that they sometimes previewed lessons, but their remarks
indicated that their lesson previewing lacked adequate planning, and they did not pay enough attention to
this learning activity:

I either have a look at the vocabulary list, or directly take a look at a reference book. I
can't understand the text without the help of a reference book, which provides ready
translations and explanations of the text, as well as that keys to the answers of the
exercises at the end of the text. (US)

It could be concluded that lesson previewing by these unsuccessful students might have been rather
impressionistic and did not involve much use of specific focused cognitive strategies. In contrast, typical
lesson previewing by the successful students as a whole included a sequence of steps: (a) memorizing the
new words on the vocabulary list attached to the text; (b) reading the texts several times, not only to get a
global understanding but also to underline the specific parts they felt particularly interested in or felt
necessary to concentrate on later in class; (c) attempting to do the exercises at the end of the text
independently; and (d) preparing questions that would be worth discussing with the teacher or classmates.
Self-Management. The successful students seemed to be able to set particular objectives for
themselves, such as enhancement of specific language skills or expansion of vocabulary. They appeared
to have a clear idea of what learning materials should be used, what possible phases they might undergo,
and how the learning activities should be carried out. One student described his decision to improve his
spoken English as soon as he entered the university:

My hometown does not have a good English learning environment compared with
Beijing or Shanghai. Also, because my middle school English teacher's English
pronunciation was not accurate, my spoken English was not so good. I made up my mind
to improve it through making use of good English learning resources at university. So I
try to find chances to speak English in class. I also go to the English Corner at
neighboring Anhui University every week, rain or shine. (SS)

Besides self-monitoring that included evaluating whether a series of learning activities in relation to a
particular learning objective proceeded as planned, successful students generally reported evaluating
experiences that ranged from progress in a specific language skill, the effectiveness of a learning strategy,
or performance of a specific task to reflections over the usefulness of taking the CET. Implicit in the
successful students' evaluation is that they tended to locate responsibility inside themselves, as in:
"Listening and speaking training is very limited in the class; you have to rely on yourself to seek
opportunities to improve them" (SS). Also worthy of note is their use of self-encouragement to help
themselves persevere when confronted with challenges or mistakes, or when faced with adverse learning
circumstances. "One of my personal characteristics is that I do not like speaking in public. This is really
disadvantageous to practising spoken English. However, every time I pluck up my courage to go to
English Corner to speak, I overcome my weakness" (SS). Another successful student wrote in her diary:

In my experience, learning English is a process of gradual accumulation. One must study

step by step. Any little progress is the result of constant and hard effort. Sometimes, you
may feel that you have made no progress after a long period of extraordinary effort;
however at this moment, if you strive forward one further step, things will be different,
that is, at a certain point, the changes in quantity will turn into changes in quality. (SS)

In contrast, the unsuccessful students made no reference to setting their own language learning
objectives. They generally appeared to lack the initiative to improve their English by their own efforts; in
other words, they lacked the kind of global strategies (Wenden, 1985) through which they themselves
could create learning and practice goals or opportunities. The diary and interview data clearly revealed
that almost none of the unsuccessful students in this study had any specific short-term or long-term goals
in English learning, other than passing CET4. One of them stated that when he arrived at the university,
he felt relieved from the pressure of the National College Entrance Examination. He did not undertake
any outside-of-class English learning for a year and a half and even frequently skipped English class.
Some unsuccessful students reported that they could vaguely recognize where a problem was, but were
unable to figure out the causes and find the appropriate measures to deal with it, for example, "Why do I
keep forgetting English words?" (US). Some of them tended to locate the problem outside themselves: "If
there were an English-speaking environment, I would learn better" (US); "I'm attending a CET
preparatory course, but it is not as effective as I expected" (US). Another unsuccessful student said rather
emotionally in the interview:

I want to read aloud in the mornings. But, you know, you can't do this in the dormitory,
and you can't do this in the classroom, you can't do this in the sports ground, as you will
disturb other classmates.... All in all, I want to learn English well, but the conditions
never permit. (US)

Most evident in the data was that a majority of unsuccessful students, admitted that they simply
avoided learning English when frustrated at the failure to see any tangible progress. Consequently, they
tended to adopt a laissez-faire attitude towards learning problems: "I kept forgetting words I memorized; I
felt extremely bored any very frustrated, so I just stopped memorizing. Maybe I'll have to pick it up again
next week" (US). Two unsuccessful students said that they indulged in other activities (e.g., computer
games) and could not control themselves, leaving no time for English study at all and meanwhile
gradually losing interest not only in English but also in other subjects.

MOTIVATIONS EXPERIENCES
Internal Drive. In the case of these Chinese students, it seems that the question of what makes them
decide to choose English does not apply because English is a compulsory subject from secondary school
to university. The more relevant question we pursued here is: What makes these students persist and
maintain English learning activity on their own? What we found from our tertiary-level Chinese EFL
students may shed some light on the argument that it is not known whether it is, in fact, high motivation
that makes some people choose to study the language or the study of the language that creates motivation
(Inbar, Donitsa-Schmidt, & Shohamy, 2001). First of all, positive language learning experiences seem to
trigger the development of intrinsic motivational processes in learners: "I always feel good about learning
English: I do not think learning English vocabulary is a difficult thing for me" (SS); "I once ranked first in
an English competition in secondary school in my home town. My interest in English was further
enhanced as a result of that 'victory'" (SS). One successful student wrote this diary entry:

Today, I read Gone with the Wind again. After reading several pages, I felt very excited
as I could read it fluently now, whereas a year ago when I was reading the book, I came
across many new words on each page. Being aware of this progress, I felt more optimistic
about my future English learning, and became more interested in learning English. (SS)

Another kind of internal drive among the successful students, which appeared to be associated with
enhanced confidence and self-efficacy, was reported to be prompted by teacher encouragement, praise,
and enthusiasm.

In secondary school my teacher used to recommend me to lead the class reading aloud,
and to do role plays in class. He liked to speak highly of me in class. I have built up high
self-esteem in English through these activities. I always told myself I should keep the No.
1 position in English in my class. (SS)

In contrast to the successful students, almost none of the unsuccessful students mentioned the
motivational experiences common among their successful counterparts as described above.
English Proficiency Tests. By the time of this research project, all the successful students had taken the
CET4; their scores ranged from 82% to 97% (on a 100% scale). All of them had set the new personal goal
of taking the CET6; a majority of them volunteered to take the CET Spoken English Test, and half of
them mentioned they would take the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL) or the International
English Language Testing System (IELTS) in the near future for the purpose of doing graduate study in
the United States or the United Kingdom. Learning and practising English for English proficiency tests
was an important part of our successful students' English learning experience. These students took a
positive attitude towards a standardized language proficiency test such as the CET4 because they
regarded it as an opportunity to assess their level of English proficiency. The response from one
successful student is particularly illustrative of this point.

Just about one month ahead of the test last semester, I started to prepare for CET4 in
earnest. But I was confident.... On the whole, a CET certificate indicates that your
English has now reached a certain level. So it's worthwhile working for it and taking it as
a sort of criterion to assess ourself. (SS)

Overall, the CET4 or the CET6 did not seem a daunting task to the successful students. They believed
tests like the TOEFL, IELTS or Graduate Record Examination (GRE) would be much more challenging in
terms of test-taking strategies and preparation than the CET. Most of them saw the CET as a rehearsal
exercise for TOEFL, the IELTS, or the GRE.
The picture was quite different for the unsuccessful students. At the time of this study, these students
were preparing for the CET4 for the second time. The majority of them indicated that a CET4 certificate
would suffice for them (i.e., they did not have any intention of taking CET6 and the CET Spoken English
Test, let alone TOEFL, IELTS, and GRE). Overall, the unsuccessful students expressed anxiety, panic,
indifference, or hatred towards the CET: "I have to pass; otherwise I will not be able to get my bachelor's
degree" (US); "If it were not for the purpose of passing tests, who would learn English?" (US). Common
to almost all the unsuccessful students is that they had no idea if they had mastered the linguistic
knowledge (e.g., vocabulary or grammar) or language skills necessary for the CET4, and lack of
confidence was evident among almost all them. Speculating on the prospect of passing the CET4, one
unsuccessful student said in the interview: "If on-the-spot test-taking skills are brought into full play, I
may pass CET4 this time" (US). Apparently, this student believed that passing the CET4 would depend
partly on luck.

DISCUSSION
From the outset, the present qualitative research focused on potential patterns and processes among two
types of EFL learners in a Chinese context. This focus is consistent with assumptions of grounded
methods used to infer a substantive theory that "evolves from the study of a phenomenon situated in one
particular situational context" (Strauss & Corbin, 1990, p. 174). The information gleaned through
interviews, diaries, and email correspondence in this study, although obviously subjective, presented a
tantalizing glimpse of the language learning psychology and behaviour of a group of tertiary-level
Chinese EFL students, which could be followed up by further studies. The findings of this study may
provide additional insights into the question, "How is it that some people can learn a second or foreign
language so easily and do well while others, given what seem to be the same opportunities to learn, find it
almost impossible?" (Gardner & Lambert, 1972, p. 130). However, we do not seek to generalize or make
claims about other learners on the basis of this study, first because of its very small scale, and second
because of its very specific Asian EFL context. As Thomas (2001) said, "the folk psychology of one
culture can differ from the folk psychology of another" (p. 7). Rather, we hope to have shown the value of
exploring crucial learner factors as an interactive complex of processes that underlie and explain
differences between successful and unsuccessful tertiary-level Chinese EFL learners.
This study showed both similarities and differences between the successful and unsuccessful students
in terms of how they may be conceptualizing the process of language learning. Though for both the
successful and unsuccessful students, language learning means accumulation of language knowledge and
developing practical language skills, a broader range of conceptions emerged among the successful
students. In other words, learning a language means learning its culture; language learning means
developing and maintaining language sense; language learning entails learning the language through
using it. Furthermore, whereas some successful students in this study appeared to hold both
incremental/quantitative (e.g., viewing English as a collection of linguistic bricks) and integrative (e.g.,
learning English means developing language sense) conceptions of language and language learning that
might favorably dispose them toward using a mixture of approaches, unsuccessful students' perceptions of
their learning contexts were found to be suggestive of a mainly incremental/quantitative approach (e.g.,
they seemed to feel that something basic in their English was missing), which seemed to correspond with
their relatively limited view of English learning.
Our data have suggested apparent differences in attitudes towards the CEC between the successful and
unsuccessful students. Implicit in this finding is that the whole socioemotional and cognitive system of
classroom interaction may stimulate progressive development among successful students but regressive
coping efforts among unsuccessful students. The unsuccessful students displayed an overall negative
attitude: They felt bored by the teaching styles; they thought the teacher was not supportive or even
approachable; they even lost confidence in going to the English classes because they regarded the teacher
as being unable to help them pass the CET4. The successful students, though most of them found the
regular classroom English teaching rigid or traditional, believed they could learn something--linguistic
knowledge or skills--from the class. Some successful students felt that their teacher's guidance was very
valuable not only in their English learning but also in their overall development as human beings.
Particularly notable is that the majority of the successful students maintained a good rapport with their
English teachers.
It is interesting that both the successful and unsuccessful students in the study reported some similar
cognitive learning or practising activities such as vocabulary learning and lesson previewing. They also
appeared to employ some similar learning and practising strategies, such as learning words by rote. These
similarities are understandable given that these students were basically a homogeneous group in terms of
their cultural environment and the instructional input they received. However, the successful students
reported some learning or practising activities (e.g., going to the English Corner) that were not mentioned
by the unsuccessful students. In addition, the quality (i.e., the depth and width) in the use of some
common cognitive learning or practising strategies varied to some extent between the successful and
unsuccessful students. The greater variety of learning or practising activities and the more sophisticated
use of strategies by the successful students, as compared to the unsuccessful students, might be related to
the former's overall English learning goal, which was characterized by their apparent emphasis on a
practical command of English.
Our analysis revealed striking differences in terms of self-management in language learning between
the successful and unsuccessful students under study. The data indicated that the successful students
attributed their success to controllable factors such as effort and strategy use, that they generally felt
optimistic about their performance in English, and that the majority of them appeared to be able to
determine their own learning goals, to locate a learning problem and its causes, and then to take
corresponding measures to overcome the problem. They actively made use of the learning and practising
resources (including teachers) around them. They seemed to be able to sustain their work towards a
learning goal at their own pace. The unsuccessful students, in contrast, tended to find it difficult to adjust
to the university language learning environment and experienced a noticeable sense of helplessness; some
of them expressed considerable disillusionment with the College English coursework. Though all the
unsuccessful students in the present study considered persistence, strong will, and hard work crucial for
success in language learning, these were the internal factors they thought they were lacking, and they
appeared to be more prone to emotional responses that interfered with learning than the successful
students. These unsuccessful students also tended to locate the sources of learning problems outside
themselves, seeing inadequacies in the environment and in their teachers and thus failing to see the proper
role of what Williams and Burden (1997) called "significant others" (as cited in Nikolov, 2001, p. 164).
The majority of successful students in this study seemed to be motivated both externally and internally.
Although sources of internal drive such as interest, learning progress, enhanced self-confidence, and self-
efficacy seemed to play an important role in influencing their tendency to approach and persist in learning
tasks on a continuing and self-directed basis, learning and practising English for various English
proficiency tests was also an important part of the successful students' English learning experience. Their
test preparation was sometimes mediated by self-initiated goals, such as winning a scholarship for
graduate study in a Western country. By contrast, the unsuccessful students' language learning apparently
was an extrinsically motivated affair, in other words, chiefly driven by compulsory examinations.
Paradoxically, the compulsory test also emerged as a factor undermining the unsuccessful students'
interest and persistence in learning. These unsuccessful students tended to marginalize English learning
except when the test (i.e., CET4) was approaching, and most of them generally lacked a further interest in
any other voluntary English tests (CET6, TOEFL, etc.).
This study thus illustrates that attitudes, strategy use, and motivation tend to be situation- and person-
specific and that they are perhaps a consequence of goal orientation, personal choice, engagement with
different kinds of learning activities, and social interaction. Taken collectively, the results that emerged
from our study seem to indicate that different levels of success as EFL learners are formed by a complex
and dynamic interplay of internal cognition and emotion, external incentives, and social context. Our
qualitative inquiry therefore highlights the importance of a sociocultural and interactionist perspective in
understanding learner difference factors and their impact on learning outcomes.
In light of the results of the present study, we would like to argue for a holistic perspective towards not
only learner differences in language learning outcomes but also learner strategy training that attempts to
teach less successful language learners to use the strategies characterizing their more successful peers.
Such an integrative view may shed light on some "tantalizing puzzles" (Chamot, 2001) in the domain of
current research on learner strategy training. This integrative view is in line with the current reform
movements in education that are calling for teachers to attend to the needs of the whole student in
achieving high academic standards as well as to provide more integrative and personally relevant
curricula and learning assessment (McCombs, 1998). We suggest the present mode of strategy training in
the area of foreign/second language education be expanded to include fostering positive cognition/beliefs
about language learning, exploring the role of teacher-learner interaction in facilitating self-directed
learning, and identifying pedagogical approaches in an attempt to nurture intrinsic motivation in students'
learning process. We believe that an integrative perspective will help us better understand the process
underlying both successful and unsuccessful language learning and help teachers and researchers make
informed choices about potential instructional interventions.

FUTURE DIRECTIONS
Mainstream Second Language Acquisition research has been largely anchored within a cognitive
framework (Larsen-Freeman, 2001). This cognitive perspective sees learners not as merely passive
recipients of knowledge and skills but as metacognitively, motivationally, or behaviorally active
promoters of their learning achievement. The past decade, however, has seen an appreciation of the role
of contextual factors in learners' second/foreign language learning (Gardner, Masgoret, & Tremblay,
1999; Lantolf & Appel 1994; Norton & Toohey, 2001; Siegel, 2003). Unlike the cognitive perspective, the
sociocultural approach suggests that contexts shape what an individual needs and wants to learn, when
and where the learning takes place, and how the learning is perceived. The findings from the present
study lead us to agree with researchers who argue that interaction of learner difference factors and
contextual factors contribute to differential success as language learners (Cl้ment & Gardner, 2001;
Sinclair, McGrath, & Lamb, 2000). In this article, we have examined three frequently investigated learner
difference variables (i.e., attitudes, strategies, and motivation) from an ethnographic perspective. Though
we have illustrated how these variables might be implicated in English learning among Chinese university
EFL students, the differential function and the relative dominance of these variables, as well as the nature
of the causal sequences, warrant further vigorous empirical research. D ๖ rnyei and Skehan (2003) noted
that strategy research in mainstream educational psychology is now focusing on the learner's conscious
and proactive contribution to the enhancement of her or his own learning process, that is, how the learner
self-regulates his or her learning. Profiling a self-regulated learner will undoubtedly help us better
understand the secrets of successful language learning. D ๖ rnyei and Skehan further stated that "self-
regulation and motivation are inextricably bound together, as they both concern the antecedents of
increased learner achievement" (p. 612). Further research on the relationships between self-regulation and
motivation should therefore be of great significance.
Due to the methodological constraints, we did not include some other potentially important learner
difference variables (e.g., language aptitude) in our present investigation. We would like to point out that
research and theorizing on language aptitude has increased in recent years after having languished for a
period of time. Researchers (Grigorenko, Sternberg, & Ehrman, 2000; Skehan, 2002) in the areas of both
Second Language Acquisition and cognitive psychology now seem to believe that language aptitude is a
form of developing expertise rather than a fixed inborn talent. The construct of foreign language aptitude
thus remains to be researched fully, and more refined measurement needs to be produced. Most important,
how foreign language aptitude may be implicated in learning achievement at different learning stages, in
different sociocultural contexts, or both, should be a very promising avenue to be explored.
ADDED MATERIAL
ZHENGDONG GAN
English Language Centre
The Hong Kong Polytechnic
University
Hung Hom Kowloon
Hong Kong
Email: ecgan@polyu.edu.hk
GILLIAN HUMPHREYS
Department of English
The Hong Kong Polytechnic
University
Hung Hom Kowloon
Hong Kong
Email: eghump@polyu.edu.hk
LIZ HAMP-LYONS
Language Testing Research Centre
Schools of Languages
University of Melbourne
Parkville VIC 3010
Australia
Email: lizhl@unimelb.edu.au

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors have benefited from discussion on this article with Professor Alan Davies and Dr. David
Qian. Professor Andrew Cohen also made helpful comments on an earlier version of this article which
was presented at the International Language in Education Conference, 2001, in Hong Kong.
TABLE 1 Participants' Personal Data

CET4
Student/Gender Age Score % Class Performance Major
1 Female 20 84 Satisfactory Computer
2 Male 20 89 Satisfactory Electronics
3 Male 20 90 Satisfactory Electronics
4 Female 21 98 Satisfactory Electronics
5 Female 21 90 Satisfactory Engineering
6 Male 20 90 Satisfactory Electronics
7 Male 20 84.5 Satisfactory Business Management
8 Male 21 84 Satisfactory Business Management
9 Female 20 82.5 Satisfactory Law
10 Female 21 51 Unsatisfactory Engineering
11 Male 20 57 Unsatisfactory Electronics
12 Female 20 53 Unsatisfactory Engineering
13 Male 21 57.5 Unsatisfactory Electronics
14 Male 21 43 Unsatisfactory Engineering
15 Male 20 54 Unsatisfactory Computer
16 Male 20 46.5 Unsatisfactory Computer
17 Male 20 56 Unsatisfactory Business Management
18 Male 21 46 Unsatisfactory Business Management

FOOTNOTES
1 Self-management involves self-regulation of cognition and affect through goal setting, planning,
evaluation, and volitional control.
2 Hefei is the lead researcher's hometown. However, none of these participants were known to him.
3 The successful students wrote 121 entries, averaging about 13 entries per student; the unsuccessful
students wrote 51 entries, averaging about 6 entries per student.
4 VOA = Voice of America.
5 English Corner in a Chinese university refers to a gathering where volunteers meet to practise spoken
English with each other on a fixed day each week.

REFERENCES
Abraham, R. G., & Vann, R.J. (1987). Strategies of two language learners: A case study. In A. Wenden
& J. Rubin (Eds.), Learner strategies in language learning (pp. 85-102). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice
Hall.
Ames, C. (1986). Effective motivation: The contribution of the learning environment. In R. Feldman
(Ed.), The social psychology of education: Current research and theory (pp. 235-236). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Anderson, N. (2002). Using telescopes, microscopes, and kaleidoscopes to put metacognition into
perspective. TESOL Matters, 12(4), I.
Benson, P., & Lor, W. (1999). Conceptions of language and language learning. System, 27, 459-472.
Bremner, S. (1998). Language learning strategies and language proficiency: Investigating the
relationship in Hong Kong. Asia Pacific Journal of Language in Education, 2, 67-92.
Chamot, A. U. (2001). The role of learning strategies in second language acquisition. In M. P. Breen
(Ed.), Learner contributions to language learning: New directions in research (pp. 25-43). New York:
Longman.
Cl้ment, R., & Gardner, R. (2001). Second language mastery. In P. Robinson & H. Giles (Eds.), The
new handbook of language and social psychology (pp. 489-504). New York: Wiley.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2000). Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Denzin, N. K. (1989). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Dey, I. (1999). Grounding grounded theory: Guidelines for qualitative inquiry. San Diego; CA:
Academic Press.
D ๖ rnyei, Z. (1998). Motivation in second and foreign language learning. Language Teaching, 31, 117-
135.
D ๖ rnyei, Z., & Skehan, P. (2003). Individual differences in L2 learning. In C. J. Doughty & M. H.
Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 589-630). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Ehrman, M. E. (1996). An exploration of adult language learner motivation, self-efficacy, and anxiety.
In R. Oxford (Ed.), Language learning motivation: Pathways to the new century (pp. 81-103). Honolulu,
HI: University of Hawai'i at Manoa.
Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Freeman, M. (1999). The language learning activities of students of EFL and French at two
universities. Language Learning Journal, 19, 80-88.
Gan, Z. (2003). Self-directed language learning among university EFL students in Mainland China and
Hong Kong: A study of attitudes, strategies and motivation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, the Hong
Kong Polytechnic University.
Gardner, R. C. (1985). Social psychology and language learning: The role of attitude and motivation.
London: Edward Arnold.
Gardner, R. C., & Lambert, W. E. (1972). Attitudes and motivation in second language learning.
Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Gardner, R. C., Masgoret, A-M., & Tremblay, P. (1999). Home background characteristics of second
language learning. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 18, 419-437.
Glesne, C., & Peshkin, A. (1992). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction. New York:
Longman.
Green, J. M., & Oxford, R. L. (1995). A closer look at learning strategies, L2 proficiency, and gender.
TESOL Quarterly, 29, 261-297.
Grigorenko, E. L., Sternberg, R. J., & Ehrman, M. (2000). A theory-based approach to the measurement
of foreign language aptitude: The CANAL-F theory and test. Modern Language Journal, 84, 390-405.
Hitchcock, G., & Hughes, D. (1995). Research and teacher: A qualitative introduction to school-based
research. New York: Routledge.
Huang, X-H., & van Naerssen, M. (1987). Learning strategies for oral communication. Applied
Linguistics, 8, 287-307.
Inbar, O., Donitsa-Schmidt, S., & Shohamy, E. (2001). Students' motivation as a function of language
learning: The teaching of Arabic in Israel. In Z. D ๖ rnyei & R. Schmidt (Eds.), Motivation and second
language acquisition (pp. 297-311). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai'i Press.
Janesick, V. J. (2000). The choreography of qualitative research design. In N.K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln
(Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 379-399). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Jarvela, S. (1998). Socioemotional aspects of students' learning in a cognitive-apprenticeship
environment. Instructional Sciences, 26, 439-472.
Lantolf, J., & Appel, G. (1994). Vygotskian approaches to second language research. Norwood, NJ:
Ablex.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2001). Individual cognitive/affective learner contributions and differential success
in second language acquisition. In M. P. Breen (Ed.), Learner contributions to language learning: New
directions in research (pp. 12-24). New York: Longman.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Mantle-Bromley, C. (1995). Positive attitudes and realistic beliefs: Links to proficiency. Modern
Language Journal 79, 372-386.
Marton, F., Watkins, D., & Tang, C. (1997). Discontinuities and continuities in the experience of
learning: An interview study of high-school students in Hong Kong. Learning and Instruction, 7, 21-48.
Mathison, S. (1988). Why triangulate? Educational Researcher, 17, 13-17.
McCombs, B. L. (1990). Putting the self in self-regulated learning: The self as agent in integrative will
and skill. Educational Psychologist, 25, 51-69.
McCombs, B. L. (1998). Integrating metacognition, affect, and motivation in improving teacher
training. In N. M. Lambert & B. L. McCombs (Eds.), How students learn: Reforming schools through
learner-centered education (pp. 379-408). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
McDonough, S. H. (1986). Psychology in foreign language teaching (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
Naiman, N., Fr&:ohlich, M., Stern, H., & Todesco, A. (1978). The good language learner. Toronto,
Canada: The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.
Nikolov, M. (2001). A study of unsuccessful language learners. In Z. D ๖ rnyei & R. Schmidt (Eds.),
Motivation and second language acquisition (pp. 149-169). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai'i Press.
Noels, K. A. (2001). New orientations in language learning motivation: Towards a model of intrinsic,
extrinsic, and integrative orientations and motivation. In Z. D ๖ rnyei & R. Schmidt (Eds.), Motivation
and second language acquisition (pp. 43-68). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai'i Press.
Noels, K. A., Cl้ment, R., & Pelletier, L. G. (1999). Perceptions of teachers' communicative style and
students' intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Modern Language Journal, 83, 23-34.
Noels, K. A., Pelletier, L. G., Cl้ment, R., & Vallerand, R. J. (2000). Why are you learning a second
language? Motivational orientations and self-determination theory. Language Learning, 50, 57-85.
 Norton, B., & Toohey, K. (2001). Changing perspectives on good language learners. TESOL Quarterly,
35, 307-332.
O'Malley, J. M., Chamot,A. U., Stewner-Manzanares, G., Kpper, L., & Russo, R. P. (1985). Learning
strategies used by beginning and intermediate ESL students. Language Learning, 35, 21-46.
Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. New York:
Newbury House/Harper & Row. Now Boston: Heinle.
Oxford, R. L. (2001). "The bleached bones of a story": Learners' constructions of language teachers. In
M. P. Breen (Ed.), Learner contributions to language learning: New directions in research (pp. 86-111).
New York: Longman.
Oxford, R. L., & Nyikos, M. (1989). Variables affecting choice of language learning strategies by
university students. Modern Language Journal, 73, 291-300.
Parry, K. (1993). The social construction of reading strategies: New directions for research. Journal of
Research in Reading, 12, 148-158.
Pennington, M. C. (1999). Language learning: An introduction. London: Arnold.
Pintrich, P., & Schunk, D. (1996). Motivation in education: Theory, research, and applications.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Merrill.
Politzer, R., & McGroarty, M. (1985). An exploratory study of learning behaviors and their relationship
to gains in linguistic and communicative competence. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 103-123.
Purpura, J. E. (1998). Learner strategy use and performance on language tests: A structural equation
modeling approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rubin, J. (1975). What the "good language learner" can teach us. TESOL Quarterly, 9, 41-51.
Rubin, J. (2001). Language learner self-management. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication, 11, 25-
38.
Siegel, J. (2003). Social context. In C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second
language acquisition (pp. 178-223). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Sinclair, B., McGrath, I., & Lamb, T. (2000). Learner autonomy, teacher autonomy: Future directions.
Harlow, England: Longman.
Skehan, P. (1989). Individual differences in second language learning. London: Arnold.
Skehan, P. (2002). Theorizing and updating aptitude. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Individual differences and
instructed language learning (pp. 69-3). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Stern, H. H. (1975). What can we learn from the good language learner? Canadian Modern Language
Review, 34, 304-318.
Sternburg, R. (1998). Metacognition, abilities, and developing expertise: What makes an expert
student? Instructional Science, 26, 127-140.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and
techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1994). Grounded theory methodology: An overview. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S.
Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 273-285). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research; Techniques and procedures for
developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Thomas, R. M. (2001). Folk psychologies across cultures. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Ushioda, E. (2001). Language learning at university: Exploring the role of motivational thinking. In Z.
D ๖ rnyei & R. Schmidt (Eds.), Motivation and second language acquisition (pp. 93-125). Honolulu, HI:
University of Hawai'i Press.
Vann, R. J., & Abraham, R. G. (1990). Strategies of unsuccessful language learners. TESOL Quarterly,
24, 177-197.
Vermetten, Y., Lodewijks, H., & Vermunt, J. (1999). Consistency and variability of learning strategies
in different university courses. Higher Education, 37, 1-21.
Wenden, A. (1985). Learner strategies. TESOL Newsletter, 19, 1-7.
Wenden, A. (1998). Learner strategies for learner autonomy. London: Prentice Hall.
Wenden, A. (1999). An introduction to metacognitive knowledge and beliefs in language learning:
Beyond the basics. System, 27, 435-441.
Wen, Q., & Johnson, R. K. (1997). L2 learner variables and English achievement: A study of tertiary-
level English majors in China. Applied Linguistics, 18, 27-47.
Williams, M., & Burden, R. L. (1997). Psychology for language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Williams, M., & Burden, R. L. (1999). Students' developing conceptions of themselves as language
learners. Modern Language Journal, 83, 193-201.
 Yang, H. (2000). Validation study of the College English Test. In Tokyo Organizing Committee (Eds.),
Selected Papers from AILA '99 (pp. 197-208). Waseda, Japan: Waseda University Press.
Zimbardo, P. G., & Leippe, M. R. (1991). The psychology of attitude change and social influence.
Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

APPENDIX A

KEY QUESTIONS ASKED IN THE INTERVIEWS

1. How did you feel about your English learning at your secondary school?
2. How do you feel about the College English classes at university?
3. Do you have any English learning activities outside class?
4. In your view, how would you say that studying English differs from studying other subjects?
5. In your view, how would you say that studying English at university differs from studying English at
secondary school?
6. How would you describe your present state of motivation for learning English?
7. Do you have a theory about English learning?
8. What will you tell a friend who has just entered into university and asks you for advice about
English learning at university?

APPENDIX B

DIARY GUIDELINES
Dear Friend,
Thank you very much for your help with our research, which aims to investigate how university
students study English. Here are some suggestions on how to approach the writing of your diary.
1. I prefer you to write in Chinese. Do not worry about grammar or organization if you are writing in
English.
2. Carry a small notebook with you so you can make notes about your English learning experience
whenever you wish.
3. Support your insights with examples.
4. Write anything and everything you feel. For example, you can write about the following topics:
(a) your own English learning activities after class, and your purposes and feelings about these
activities.
(b) teaching or learning activities in the classroom and your feelings about these activities.
(c) opinions about how English should be learned.
(d) reflections on your problems and progress in your English.

FORTHCOMING IN THE MODERN LANGUAGE JOURNAL

Karen Ann Watson-Gegeo. "Mind, Language, and Epistemology: Toward a Language Socialization
Paradigm for SLA"
Christine Uber Grosse. "The Competitive Advantage of Foreign Languages and Cultural Knowledge"
Susan Parks & Patricia M. Raymond. "Strategy Use by Nonnative-English-Speaking Students in an
MBA Program: Not Business as Usual!"
JoAnn Hammadou Sullivan. "Identifying the Best Foreign Language Teachers: Teacher Standards and
Professional Portfolios"
Shoichi Matsumura & George Hann. "Computer Anxiety and Students' Preferred Feedback Methods in
EFL Writing"
Nan Jiang. "Semantic Transfer and Its Implications for Vocabulary Teaching in a Second Language"
David P. Benseler & Suzanne S. Moore. Doctoral Degrees Granted in Foreign Languages in the United
States: 2003