SYSTEM System 35 (2007) 338–352 www.elsevier.com/locate/system
The relationship between language learning strategies, proficiency, age and self-efficacy beliefs: A study of language learners in Botswana Joel Mokuedi Magogwe a
a,*
, Rhonda Oliver
b,1
Communication and Study Skills Unit, University of Botswana, P.O. Box 402454, Gaborone, Botswana b Chair of Education Faculty of Regional Professional Studies, Edith Cowan University (South West Campus), Robertson Drive, Bunbury, WA 6230, Australia Received 9 August 2006; received in revised form 8 January 2007; accepted 24 January 2007
Abstract This research seeks to extend our current knowledge by exploring the relationship between preferred language strategies, age, proficiency, and self-efficacy beliefs. Responding to the call for more replication of strategy research and for research in different cultural contexts, this research was undertaken in Botswana between 2002 and 2005. The adapted versions of the Oxford [Oxford, R., 1990. Language learning strategies: what every teacher should know. Newbury House, New York] Strategies Inventory for Language Learning (strategies) and the Morgan-Jinks Student Efficacy Scale [Jinks, J.L., Morgan, V.L., 1999. Children’s perceived academic self-efficacy: an inventory. Retrieved 13/9/2004, from http://www.coe.ilstu.edu/scienceed/jinks/efficacypub97.htm] (self-efficacy) instruments were used to gather this data. The results indicate that Botswana students do use a number of language learning strategies, but that they show distinct preferences for particular types of strategies. The findings also reveal a dynamic relationship between use of language learning strategies and proficiency, level of schooling (representing age differences) and self-efficacy beliefs. These results may be used in the future to inform pedagogy and as such the outcomes from this research are important for a country where the learning of English is an important educational requirement. Ó 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Language learning strategies; Self-efficacy beliefs; Age; Level of education; Botswana *
1
Corresponding author. Tel.: +267 3552421/3164636/71695346. E-mail addresses:
[email protected] (J.M. Magogwe),
[email protected] (R. Oliver). Tel.: +61 9780 7761; fax: +61 9780 7814.
0346-251X/$ - see front matter Ó 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.system.2007.01.003
J.M. Magogwe, R. Oliver / System 35 (2007) 338–352
339
1. Background 1.1. English in Botswana This study was conducted in Botswana, southern Africa. In Botswana English is an official language used in education and commerce and Setswana is the national language spoken by 85% of the Batswana (the people of Botswana). The other 15% speak their local language(s) in addition to Setswana. English is a primary medium of instruction and a compulsory subject from Standard Three (i.e., the third year of formal schooling) onwards. However, in spite of its importance, for many in Botswana English is a second language and its use for day-to-day communication is limited. In spite of this, English is a prerequisite for further education, and candidates who enroll in a tertiary degree, with the exception of those doing science courses, must have passed English in their final examination in senior secondary school. Despite its pivotal role in education and commerce, many Botswana students across all levels of education are not proficient in the English language. They cannot speak English fluently and do not perform well in the English examinations, especially at higher levels of education. Hence the purpose of this study is to explore factors that may contribute to an improvement in English language learning in Botswana. In particular, because of their apparent contribution to second language acquisition (SLA), it is the aim of this study to examine those language learning strategies used by Botswana students and the relationship between these and other aspects (e.g., age, level of education, proficiency, self-efficacy) that are deemed to have an influence on the process of acquisition. Thus the current research, being undertaken in an African context, responds to a call made by Oxford (1993) for more language strategy research with students from different cultural backgrounds. 2. Literature review 2.1. Language learning strategies Language strategies have long been associated with effective language learning (for example, Cohen, 1998; Green and Oxford, 1995; Hsiao and Oxford, 2002; O’Malley and Chamot, 1990). With a few notable exceptions (e.g., Phillips, 1991; Green and Oxford, 1995) it generally has been claimed that good language learners use strategies more frequently, and in a greater number of situations, than do weaker/less proficient learners (e.g., Ehrman and Oxford, 1990; Green and Oxford, 1995; Rubin, 1975). Rubin (1975), who along with Stern (1975) was one of the first to undertake research in this area, describes language learning strategies as skills utilized by a learner to attain knowledge. They are techniques consciously used by learners to improve their progress in acquiring, storing, retaining, recalling, and using information in the second or foreign language (O’Malley and Chamot, 1990; Oxford, 1990). The utility of language learning strategies is reflected in the various ways they have been classified. For example, Oxford (1989) in her Strategies Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) prescribes six categories namely: Memory strategies, cognitive strategies, compensation strategies, metacognitive strategies, affective strategies and social strategies. However, she also cautions that there is overlap between some of the strategy categories.
340
J.M. Magogwe, R. Oliver / System 35 (2007) 338–352
Planning, for instance, can be both a metacognitive strategy, and, because it also requires reasoning, a cognitive strategy. Oxford’s classification has been selected for this study because it is comprehensive, detailed and systematic (Vidal, 2002). In addition, it is reliable and valid across many cultural groups, and it links individual strategies, as well as groups of strategies, with each of the four language skill areas of listening, reading, speaking and writing (Oxford and Burry-Stock, 1995). These links are seen as being of particular relevance given the school and university settings of the current research. 2.2. Age and stages of learning or schooling Very little research has directly addressed the issue of age with respect to language learning strategies. Of that which has been conducted, Oxford found that students of different ages and stages of L2 learning use different strategies, with certain strategies used more by older or more advanced learners. In a study involving 348 students in a private language school in New Zealand, Griffiths (2003) discovered a positive correlation between level and reported frequency of language learning strategy use. Thus the current study, which was undertaken with students from various levels of education (primary, secondary and tertiary), addresses the dearth of research exploring the effect of age (given that stage of schooling generally correlates with age) on choice of language learning strategies. By undertaking research such as this, it is envisaged that educators in Botswana, and elsewhere, may be assisted in developing appropriate curricula and instructional strategies for students of different ages (Twyford, 1988). 2.3. Language proficiency Language proficiency has been consistently linked with strategy use (e.g., Green and Oxford, 1995; Khaldieh, 2000; Wharton, 2000) – the general pattern being that increased proficiency is linked to greater strategy use. However, there have also been results that suggest that the relationship is more complex than a simple linear correspondence between developing proficiency and strategy use, and depends to a large extent on the type of strategy employed. Chen (1990), for instance, found that more proficient learners actually used fewer communication strategies, though they used them more effectively than less proficient students. At the same time because of the correlational nature of this type of research causality cannot be claimed (Mahlobo, 2003) and as such it cannot be determined whether the language proficiency comes before, after or concurrently with strategy use (Halbach, 2000). Proficiency has been determined in a multitude of ways by various researchers. Green and Oxford provide examples of the ways proficiency has been determined including: selfratings (Oxford and Nyikos, 1989); language achievement tests (O’Mara and Lett, 1990; Phillips, 1991); entrance and placement examinations (Mullins, 1992); language course grades (Mullins, 1992); years of language study (Watanabe, 1990); and, career status (Ehrman and Oxford, 1989). In the current research, proficiency has been determined on the basis of the teachers’ judgments about their students which were, in turn, based on the marks/grades and their personal ‘on-balance’ assessment of their students given the descriptors of high proficiency or good; middle proficiency or fair; low proficiency or poor. This was done for a variety of
J.M. Magogwe, R. Oliver / System 35 (2007) 338–352
341
reasons including the lack of appropriate English language assessments available in Botswana and because of practical considerations related to the large sample size and large geographic region from which the data were collected. 2.4. Self-efficacy beliefs Self-efficacy beliefs have been defined as: ‘‘people’s judgment of their capabilities to organise and execute courses of action required to attain designated types of performances’’ (Bandura and Schunk, 1981, p. 31). Bandura (1984) suggests that students’ judgments of their capability to perform academic tasks, that is, their self-efficacy beliefs, predict their capability to accomplish such tasks. Further, it is suggested that these judgments of self-efficacy mediate the effect of other influences, such as aptitude or previous achievement, on subsequent performance. It has been observed that highly efficacious students are confident about what they can achieve; set themselves challenges and are committed to achieving them; work harder to avoid failure; are highly resilient and link failure with insufficient effort or deficient knowledge and skills which they believe they are capable of acquiring (Ching, 2002). Previous SLA investigations have found a strong link between increased strategy use and success (e.g., Ehrman and Oxford, 1990; Green and Oxford, 1995; Rubin, 1975), with success being measured using proficiency and/or grades. This suggests that there maybe a connection between increased strategy use and higher self-efficacy beliefs. Investigations into self-efficacy and general learning strategies provide support for this hypothesis. Pajares and Schunk (2001), for example, found that students who believed they were capable of performing tasks used more cognitive and metacognitive strategies and persisted longer than those who did not. Similarly, other research findings suggest that self-efficacy beliefs are related to self-regulated learning variables and use of learning strategies (for example see Feather, 1988; Fincham and Cain, 1986; Pape and Wang, 2003). Although Wang (2004) indicates self-efficacy beliefs have been rarely investigated in relation to SLA, the few studies that have been undertaken all suggest that a relationship does indeed exist between self-efficacy beliefs and strategy use (e.g., Purdie and Oliver, 1999; Rossiter, 2003). Given the small number of studies undertaken to date, there is clearly a need for more research in this area. This is particularly true with respect to the issue of age: The general self-efficacy belief literature indicates that self-efficacy beliefs are related not only to academic achievement but also to age and/or level of education (e.g., Pajares and Schunk, 2001). However, it is currently unknown if this is also true in relation to self-efficacy and language learning strategies. It is one aim of the current study to address this gap in the literature. 3. Research questions The specific questions addressed in this research are: 1. What types of language learning strategies do the Botswana students use? 2. What is the relationship between the language learning strategies chosen by Botswana students, and their age/level of schooling, their proficiency, and their self-efficacy beliefs?
342
J.M. Magogwe, R. Oliver / System 35 (2007) 338–352
4. Method 4.1. Participants Data was collected between 2002 and 2005 from 480 students from primary schools, secondary schools, and a tertiary institution. These students were selected to represent the various ages of Botswana students. For the purpose of consistency only participants from government schools were selected. It should be noted that when compared to the other institutions used for this study, the University of Botswana is not wholly government owned and administered. At each level of education, the students were selected using a stratified random sample method; according to location, gender, and level of English language proficiency (as determined by the respective teachers and lecturers). Of the 480 students who participated 168 were primary school students, 175 secondary students and 137 tertiary students. The primary students were selected from four primary schools, two located in the south and the other two in the north of the country. The secondary students were selected from four (4) schools, again two from the south and two from the north. All the tertiary students were enrolled at the University of Botswana. The background information of these participants is presented in Table 1. 4.2. Instruments A modified version of the SILL (50-item Version 7.0 for ESL/EFL) (Oxford, 1989) was used to collect information on strategies. The background questionnaire accompanying the SILL instrument was also adapted and used to collect the students’ demographic information. There were two versions of the questionnaire, one for both primary and secondary schools, and the other for university students (these questionnaires are available on request). All items in the questionnaires were designed for a Likert scale response using a four-interval scale of ‘‘Strongly Disagree’’, ‘‘Disagree,’’ ‘‘Agree,’’ and ‘‘Strongly Agree.’’
Table 1 Demographic information Primary n
Secondary %
n
Tertiary %
n
%
Gender F M
80 88
47.6 52.4
87 88
49.7 50.3
87 50
63.5 36.5
Age 5–10 11–15 16–20 21–25 26+
2 153 11 1 1
1.2 91.1 6.5 0.6 0.6
0 2 173 0 0
0 1.1 98.9 0 0
2 0 82 47 4
1.5 0 59.9 34.4 2.9
L1 Setswana English Other
145 1 22
86.3 0.6 13.1
158 2 14
90.8 1.1 8
119 2 5
86.9 1.5 10.9
J.M. Magogwe, R. Oliver / System 35 (2007) 338–352
343
The Morgan-Jinks Student Efficacy Scale (MJSES) was used in the current research to collect self-efficacy information. It was selected because, as Jinks and Morgan (1999) indicate, the MJSES scale has undergone extensive development to assure validity and reliability. There were three versions of the questionnaire adapted to suit primary, secondary and university students. Again, the instruments were pilot tested before data collection occurred. On this basis it was determined that there was no need to translate the questionnaires. However, the four-interval Likert scale responses were adapted to ‘‘Strongly Disagree’’, ‘‘Disagree,’’ ‘‘Agree,’’ and ‘‘Strongly Agree’’ as these descriptors are more familiar to the participants. In addition, in order to clarify the subject or language referred to, the word ‘‘English’’ was added to some of the questions in the questionnaire. 4.3. Procedure Before data collection could proceed, permission was sought from the relevant authorities both at executive/ministry and school levels, and from parents and guardians. Students were given advance notice, between one to three days, that they would be doing the questionnaires. Otherwise, the detailed process of administering the questionnaires was adhered to as closely as possible as described by the original authors. Students were advised that their responses would not affect course grades and therefore they were asked to answer honestly. 4.3.1. Analysis As a first step in the analysis of this data, the reliability of each instrument was calculated. In this study the SILL questionnaire had an alpha reliability coefficient of 0.89 for the primary version; 0.82 for the secondary; and, 0.84 for tertiary version. With respect to the MJSE Scale it had an alpha reliability coefficient of 0.75 for the primary; 0.68 for the secondary; and, 0.67 for the tertiary versions of the questionnaire. Although low, these levels are still deemed to be within the acceptable range. Descriptive and inferential statistics were then used to analyze the data. Firstly, the means and standard deviations of the questionnaire data were computed. Next, one sample t-tests and one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), repeated measures ANOVA and mixed factorial ANOVA tests were used to determine the significance of variation in mean strategy use across the six SILL categories and the mean self-efficacy beliefs across the MJSES by level of education and proficiency. To determine where the specific differences lay Least Significance Differences (LSD) and Bonferroni post-hoc tests were used. Finally, analysis was undertaken to investigate the correlation (Pearson Product Moment) between self-efficacy beliefs and ESL learning strategies across proficiency levels and level of education. 5. Findings 5.1. Overall use of language learning strategies From the results it can be seen that the means for the students’ overall strategy use, regardless of level of education, are quite similar (see Table 2). In contrast there do appear to be differences according to the proficiency of the learners, although the results suggest that in this study this was true for only those students at primary and secondary levels.
344
J.M. Magogwe, R. Oliver / System 35 (2007) 338–352
Table 2 Overall strategy use by primary, secondary and tertiary students of different proficiency levels Proficiency
Good Fair Poor
Primary
Secondary
Tertiary
n
m
SD
n
m
SD
n
m
SD
58 57 54
2.99 2.83 2.82
0.276 0.408 0.398
57 60 57
2.84 2.90 2.76
0.247 0.269 0.275
39 34 64
2.85 2.93 2.84
0.245 0.292 0.232
Using a one-way ANOVA the results show that there is a significant effect for proficiency (F(2, 167) = 3.88, p = 0.23) for primary school students. The LSD post-hoc test shows that the significant differences are between the good and the fair students (p = 0.02) and good and poor students (p = 0.014). There is no significant difference between fair and poor students. Even so, the pattern of these results support previous findings that students of high proficiency use more strategies than those of low proficiency, and this is true for students of younger ages. For the secondary school students, the pattern appears to be slightly different both to the results of the primary students, and to those reported in numerous other studies, with the fair students having the highest overall mean (M = 2.90) for strategy use, and although a one-way ANOVA shows that there is a significant effect for proficiency (F(2, 173) = 3.779, p < 0.05), the LSD post-hoc test shows that the significant difference is only between the fair and the poor students (p = 0.02). Therefore, the general trend is consistent with previous claims that the use of strategies increases with proficiency. A similar pattern of strategy use by the secondary students also occurs in the tertiary student group. However, unlike the results for the lower level of education, the one-way ANOVA results show that there is no significant effect for proficiency (F(2, 136) = 1.474, p = 0.233) with respect to strategy use at the tertiary level. Although this finding is contrary to previous research, when considered in relation to the results for the younger groups of students it does suggest a dynamic relationship between level of education and proficiency in learner strategy use. Overall these strategy use results clearly indicate that primary, secondary and tertiary Botswana students do indeed use language learning strategies. As such they are consistent with the results of other language learning strategy studies which show that L2 learners from different cultural backgrounds use language learning strategies in an apparent attempt to become effective learners of English language (for example, Carson and Longhini, 2002; Cohen, 1990; Hsiao and Oxford, 2002; O’Malley and Chamot, 1990; Rubin, 1975). Further, it would also seem that the general pattern emergent from the literature (e.g., Green and Oxford, 1995; Khaldieh, 2000; Wharton, 2000) that more proficient learners use more strategies, generally holds true for this cohort of learners in Botswana. 5.2. Categories of language learning strategies The different pattern of strategy use for the three age groups also applies in relation to the categories of strategies, with each age group showing preference in a different order. For example, at the primary school level the mean score of social strategy use is greater, in turn, than that of metacognitive, cognitive, affective, memory and compensation strategies (see Table 3). The results of a one-way repeated measures ANOVA show that there is
J.M. Magogwe, R. Oliver / System 35 (2007) 338–352
345
Table 3 Strategy use by primary, secondary and tertiary students Strategy
Metacognitive Social Cognitive Affective Memory Compensation
Primary
Secondary
Tertiary
n
m
SD
n
m
SD
n
m
SD
168 168 168 168 168 168
3.06 3.21 2.91 2.79 2.76 2.51
0.513 0.500 0.430 0.493 0.508 0.551
174 173 174 174 174 172
3.22 3.05 2.91 2.63 2.57 2.45
0.403 0.449 0.337 0.461 0.384 0.498
137 137 137 137 137 137
3.26 2.83 2.93 2.73 2.69 2.54
0.353 0.460 0.348 0.436 0.365 0.433
a significant effect for strategy category (F(5, 835) = 71.66, p < 0.001). Further, the Bonferroni post-hoc test shows that at this level of education there is a significant difference between the mean preferred use of most categories of strategies except between the memory strategies and cognitive strategies, and between memory strategies and affective strategies. At the secondary level a slightly different pattern of use occurs. Specifically, in terms of mean scores the most preferred strategies are of a metacognitive kind. The next most preferred type of strategy for this group is social (which, by contrast, the primary school students prefer most), then cognitive, affective, memory and compensation strategies. Again a oneway repeated measures ANOVA test shows a significant effect for strategy category (F(5, 850) = 122.347, p < 0.001) with these secondary students. The Bonferroni post-hoc test shows a significant difference between most of the categories except between the memory and compensation, memory and affective strategies, and compensation and affective strategies. At the tertiary level, yet a different pattern of preference emerges. For this group whilst again the metacognitive strategies have the highest mean, they are followed by cognitive, social, affective, memory, and compensation strategies. The results of a one-way repeated measures ANOVA show that there was a significant effect for strategy category (F(5, 675) = 71.457, p < 0.001). The Bonferroni tests showed a significant difference between all other categories except between memory and affective strategies, cognitive and social strategies, and affective and social strategies. Next is presented the use of various categories of strategies (e.g., social, cognitive) by good, fair and poor proficiency students in the different levels of education (see Table 4). The emerging picture is that at primary level all the students, regardless of proficiency, indicated a preference for more social, metacognitive and cognitive strategies and fewer compensation and affective strategies. At the same time, however, the younger students of higher proficiency levels indicated that they used more social and metacognitive strategies than did the fair and poor proficiency students. A mixed factorial ANOVA test shows a significant effect for the strategy category (F(5, 825) = 73.687, p < 0.001), but not for proficiency (F(2, 165) = 3.216, f < 1), although there is a significant interaction between proficiency and strategy categories (F(10, 825) = 4.947, p < 0.001). Therefore, for this level of education it would seem that proficiency influences the use of strategies of particular types. At the secondary school level good and fair students indicated a greater preference for metacognitive, social and cognitive and compensation strategies than did students deemed to be of a poor proficiency level. The mixed factorial ANOVA test results show that there is a significant effect for strategy category (F(5, 840) = 122.962, p < 0.001), but again there
346
J.M. Magogwe, R. Oliver / System 35 (2007) 338–352
Table 4 Strategy use of primary, secondary and tertiary students by proficiency Strategy
Primary
Secondary
Tertiary
n
m
SD
n
m
SD
n
m
SD
Metacognitive
Good Fair Poor
58 57 54
3.25 3.02 2.88
0.383 0.499 0.547
57 60 57
3.24 3.25 3.17
0.444 0.401 0.363
39 34 64
3.28 3.32 3.21
0.385 0.349 0.333
Social
Good Fair Poor
58 57 54
3.35 3.20 3.07
0.419 0.548 0.540
57 60 57
3.08 3.09 2.99
0.391 0.471 0.481
38 34 64
2.86 2.95 2.75
0.432 0.384 0.503
Cognitive
Good Fair Poor
58 57 54
3.03 2.83 2.87
0.357 0.446 0.464
57 60 57
2.92 2.99 2.82
0.319 0.318 0.357
39 34 64
2.88 2.98 2.94
0.330 0.353 0.356
Affective
Good Fair Poor
58 57 54
2.85 2.69 2.72
0.483 0.500 0.534
57 60 57
2.54 2.75 2.58
0.431 0.461 0.467
39 34 64
2.76 2.77 2.68
0.451 0.425 0.435
Memory
Good Fair Poor
58 57 54
2.89 2.80 2.69
0.462 0.508 0.498
57 60 57
2.59 2.58 2.53
0.341 0.423 0.385
39 34 64
2.63 2.73 2.70
0.366 0.410 0.340
Compensation
Good Fair Poor
58 57 54
2.45 2.41 2.68
0.507 0.563 0.555
57 60 57
2.50 2.55 2.30
0.450 0.551 0.456
39 34 64
2.50 2.63 2.52
0.449 0.467 0.404
is no significant effect for proficiency, nor this time is there a significant interaction between proficiency and strategy categories (F(10, 840) = 1.318, F < 1). In other words, at this level of education the proficiency level of students did not significantly influence the preference for strategies from particular categories even though overall the more proficient students (fair and good) used more strategies than did poor students. At the tertiary level all students indicated a greater preference for metacognitive, cognitive and social strategies than they did for other strategies. However, more good and fair students recorded preference for metacognitive strategies than did the poor proficiency students. Even so, although the results from a mixed factorial ANOVA show that there was a significant effect for strategy category (F(5, 665) = 67.146, p < 0.001), there was no significant effect for proficiency (F(1, 133) = 1.858, F < 1), nor was there a significant interaction effect for category and proficiency (F(10, 665) = 0.732, F < 1). Thus these findings support an observation made by Wharton (2000) that the types of strategies used depend on the kind of learners and setting in which learning occurs. Specifically, the preference for particular types of strategies was influenced by proficiency at the primary school level, but not at the secondary or tertiary level. Further, when compared to learners in other cultural settings it is apparent that the combination of strategies preferred by the Botswana students is not the same as that as for other learners. For example, Chang (1991) showed that the most preferred strategies of the 50 Chinese ESL students in his study were compensation strategies and the least preferred were affective strategies, whereas in this study compensation strategies were the least preferred across all levels of education. The results across the three levels of schooling also suggest that particular strategies may be developmentally acquired. For example, both the secondary and tertiary level
J.M. Magogwe, R. Oliver / System 35 (2007) 338–352
347
students preferred metacognitive strategies, whereas the primary school students preferred social strategies. This may occur because students at higher levels of education are more independent learners and metacognitive strategies best match this characteristic. Even so, social strategies were preferred more often than other strategies by students from all levels of education in Botswana. This may reflect a cultural approach to learning in this particular African context, or it may be that the social strategies have synergies with the English language teaching approach now being used in that country (where there has been a shift toward developing sociolinguistic and communicative competencies). At the same time, however, there are many similarities between this data and that collected in other contexts. For example the students in this study indicated a low level of preference for affective strategies. This is similar to the results of studies such as those by Chamot and Kupper (1989) and Goh and Kwah (1997). It may also be that like students in Oxford’s (1993) study, students in Botswana are largely unaware of the potential of affective strategies. In summary it is apparent that the students in this study used all six categories of language learning strategies, regardless of educational level and proficiency (at the secondary and tertiary levels). At the same time it does seem that in the Botswana context some categories are preferred over others. Specifically, metacognitive, social and cognitive strategies were more preferred than affective, memory and compensation strategies across all levels of education, suggesting the possibility that these may be culturally determined strategies. 5.3. Self-efficacy beliefs As previously indicated, an adapted form of the MJSES questionnaire was used to ascertain the participants’ self-efficacy beliefs. The following scale was used to score the students’ responses to this: 1 represents ‘strongly disagree’, 2 ‘disagree’, 3 ‘agree’ and 4 ‘strongly agree’. Therefore means above 2 represent positive self-efficacy beliefs, with higher results equating to stronger and more positive beliefs. The overall self-efficacy means were positive and quite similar across the three levels of education. At the primary level the overall self-efficacy mean was 2.79 (SD = 0.24, n = 168). At the secondary level, although the overall mean (M = 2.60; SD = 0.22, n = 173) was lower than that for the primary school students, it still shows positive self-efficacy beliefs. The overall mean of the MJSES results for the tertiary students was 2.68 (SD = 0.25, n = 136). Not surprisingly when proficiency is also considered, the results show small differences between the groups, with the pattern being the higher the proficiency, the higher the selfefficacy beliefs. Thus it can be seen that good students generally scored the highest mean followed by fair students and then poor students (see Table 5). However, the one-way Table 5 Self-efficacy beliefs of primary, secondary and tertiary students by proficiency Proficiency
Good Fair Poor Total
Primary
Secondary
Tertiary
n
M
SD
n
M
SD
n
M
SD
58 56 54 168
2.84 2.78 2.74 2.79
0.208 0.338 0.351 0.305
57 60 56 173
2.65 2.60 2.56 2.60
0.209 0.219 0.228 0.220
39 33 64 136
2.69 2.69 2.67 2.68
0.249 0.259 0.250 0.250
348
J.M. Magogwe, R. Oliver / System 35 (2007) 338–352
ANOVA results showed that there were no significant differences between the means of the three proficiency groups, whether for primary students (F(2, 167) = 1.531, p = 0.219), for secondary students (F(2, 172) = 2.023, p = 0.135), or for tertiary students (F(2, 133) = 0.117, p = 0.890). 5.4. The relationship between self-efficacy beliefs and language learning strategies To examine whether or not relationships exist between the students’ strategy use and self-efficacy beliefs, the overall results of SILL and MJSES were statistically compared using Pearson Product Moment correlations. Firstly this was done for students at different levels of education and then in terms of their proficiency. As shown in Table 6, for primary school there is a moderate, positive (r = 0.588) and significant (p < 0.001) correlation between self-efficacy beliefs and overall use of strategies. Specifically the results show that an increase in self-efficacy beliefs of primary school students is related to an increase in their use of strategies. However, this relationship is not strong. At the secondary school level the relationship between self-efficacy beliefs and overall use of strategies is moderate (0.435), positive and significant (p < 0.001). Finally, at the tertiary level a weak, positive (0.297) and significant (p < 0.001) relationship exists between self-efficacy beliefs and overall use of strategies. 5.5. The relationship between self-efficacy beliefs, strategies, level of education and proficiency An analysis was made of the relationship between self-efficacy beliefs, language learning strategy use and proficiency for students at the different levels of education. The results suggest that the factors of age (as represented here by levels of education) and proficiency combine in complex ways with regard to their relationship with self-efficacy beliefs and use of language learning strategies (see Table 7). The emerging pattern is that as the level of
Table 6 Relationship between self-efficacy beliefs and overall use of strategies for primary, secondary and tertiary students Strategy
Primary
Secondary
Tertiary
n Pearson R significance
168 0.558 0.001
172 0.435 0.001
136 0.297 0.001
Table 7 Correlation between self-efficacy and strategies for different proficiency groups of primary, secondary and tertiary students Proficiency
Good Fair Poor
Primary
Secondary
Tertiary
n
Pearson R
Significance
n
Pearson R
Significance
n
Pearson R
Significance
58 56 54
0.367 0.482 0.699
0.005 0.001 0.001
57 59 56
0.280 0.432 0.557
0.035 0.001 0.001
39 33 64
0.044 0.504 0.323
0.791 0.003 0.009
J.M. Magogwe, R. Oliver / System 35 (2007) 338–352
349
proficiency increases, the correlation between self-efficacy beliefs and use of strategies decreases, although this varied slightly for the students at different levels of education. In terms of proficiency, the primary school results show a weak (0.367), positive, but not significant (p = 0.005) relationship between self-efficacy beliefs and use of strategies for good students. For those students of fair proficiency the relationship is moderate, positive (0.482) and significant (p < 0.01). Comparatively, there is a strong, positive (0.699) and significant (p < 0.001) correlation for poor proficiency students. Previous research (Pajares and Schunk, 2001) has suggested that high self-efficacy beliefs are associated with high achievement, and similarly high use of strategies has also been related to the qualities of ‘good’ language learning and according to these results this appears to be the case in Botswana, at least with respect to primary school students. At secondary school level, the results mirror those found for primary school students as they show a weak (0.280), positive but not significant (p = 0.035) relationship between selfefficacy beliefs and use of strategies for good students. On the other hand there is moderate, positive (0.432) and significant (p < 0.01) correlation for fair students. Comparatively, there is a strong, positive (0.557) and significant (p < 0.001) correlation for poor proficiency students. It can be seen that, as for primary school students, the higher the students’ reported use of strategies the higher their self-efficacy beliefs, although given the lack of significance for good students this can be best described as a trend. Further, the correlation weakens as proficiency increases, a result similar to that of the primary school students. At the tertiary level there is a weak, positive (0.044) but not significant (p = 0.791) relationship between self-efficacy beliefs and use of strategies for good students. Comparatively, there is a strong, positive (0.504) but again not significant (p = 0.003) correlation for fair students. Similarly, the correlation for poor proficiency students is weak, positive (0.323) but not significant (p = 0.009) (see Table 7). Therefore, although the pattern of results is similar to that of the primary and secondary school students, none of the correlations were significant. Therefore it is apparent that there is an interplay of relationships between the factors of self-efficacy, strategy use and proficiency, and level of school. These relationships, whilst at times not strong, are dynamic and certainly worthy of much further research. 6. Limitations of this study One of the limitations of this study is that the number of schools from which data were collected is small, hence making it difficult to generalise the findings of this research to the entire population of students in Botswana. However, it is important to point out that the students used in this study share important common attributes such as that, in the respective levels, they all belong to government or government aided schools, they belong to the same level of education, their ages do not vary a great deal and that they use the same English curriculum. A more significant limitation in this study is a methodological one: Teachers and lecturers were asked to select good, fair and poor students either by using marks or their knowledge of the students’ performance in English. It should be noted, however, that there may have been some variation in the procedures used by the teachers and lecturers to select the students. Although this was based on previous strategy research, a standardised test may have provided data that allowed for more reliable comparisons.
350
J.M. Magogwe, R. Oliver / System 35 (2007) 338–352
7. Conclusion As anticipated, the results of this research are consistent with the general findings of previous language learning strategy studies (see Dreyer, 1992; Green and Oxford, 1995; O’Malley and Chamot, 1990; Taguchi, 2002) and at the same time provide new evidence for strategy use, in this case in the Botswana context. Like previous research, this study found more overall use of language learning strategies among more proficient learners than less proficient ones, and this was consistent across all levels of education. However, the findings of this research also suggested more complex patterns of use than have appeared in earlier studies and they also provide indication that there is a relationship between type of strategy use and successful language learning, but that this is mediated by a number of factors, including self-efficacy beliefs. With respect to the type of strategies used, the findings of the current research show some differences according to level of school and, in the primary school, according to proficiency. It is also apparent that particular strategies may be culturally more appropriate, and therefore preferred, or it may that the educational experience of Botswana students leads them to prefer some strategies (e.g., social strategies) over others. It would also seem that the choice of particular strategies may be determined, at least in part, by the age of the learners. For example, in this study secondary and tertiary students were more likely to choose metacognitive strategies than were their primary school counterparts, perhaps because of their level of cognitive development. The findings of the current research show that Botswana students across all levels of education are moderately efficacious about their learning of the English language, although not consistently so. With regard to age the self-efficacy belief results were mixed, sometimes favouring younger learners and at other times older learners. The results of this study also showed that there was a positive and significant but weak relationship between self-efficacy beliefs and use of overall language learning strategies across all proficiency levels (although this relationship is not strong). Despite this association not being strong, the results clearly indicate that there is still room for a great deal more research relating to strategy use and self-efficacy, and in turn, these in relation to age and proficiency. For example, the fact that poor proficiency learners with high self-efficacy, use strategies more often (which could, in time, lead to improved proficiency) is an area worthy of further exploration. In terms of English language learning in Botswana, these results may be used in the future to inform pedagogy. For example, strategies should be incorporated into the curriculum and the students should be explicitly taught how to use the strategies. This is particularly pertinent given that English is an important educational requirement. References Bandura, A., 1984. Recycling misconceptions of perceived self-efficacy. Cognitive Therapy and Research 8, 231– 255. Bandura, A., Schunk, D.H., 1981. Cultivating competence, self-efficacy, and intrinsic interest through proximal self-motivation. The Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 41, 586–598. Carson, J.G., Longhini, A., 2002. Focusing on learning styles and strategies: a diary study in an immersion setting. Language Learning 52 (2), 401–438. Chamot, A., Kupper, L., 1989. Learning strategies in foreign language instruction. Foreign Language Annals 22 (1), 13–24.
J.M. Magogwe, R. Oliver / System 35 (2007) 338–352
351
Chang, S.F., 1991. A study of language learning behaviours of Chinese students at the University of Georgia and the relation of those behaviours to oral proficiency and other factors. University of Georgia, Athens, GA. Chen, S.Q., 1990. A study of communication strategies in interlanguage production by Chinese EFL learners. Language Learning 40, 155–187. Ching, L.C., 2002. Strategy and self-regulation instruction as contributors to Improving students’ cognitive model in an ESL programme. English For Specific Purposes 13, 261–289. Cohen, E.G., 1990. Teaching in multiculturally heterogeneous classrooms: findings from a model program. McGill Journal of Education 26 (1), 7–23. Cohen, A.D., 1998. Strategies in Learning and Using a Second Language. Longman, Essex, UK. Dreyer, C., 1992. Learner Variables as Predictors of ESL Proficiency. Potchefstroom University, South Africa. Ehrman, M., Oxford, R., 1989. Effects of sex differences, career choice, and psychological type on adult language learning strategies. The Modern Language Journal 72 (iii), 253–265. Ehrman, M., Oxford, R., 1990. Adult language learning strategies in an intensive training setting. The Modern Language Journal 74 (3), 311–327. Feather, N.T., 1988. Values, valences, and course enrollment: testing the role of personal values within an expectancy-valence framework. Journal of Educational Psychology 80, 381–391. Fincham, F., Cain, K., 1986. Learned helplessness in humans: a developmental analysis. Developmental Review 6, 138–156. Goh, C., Kwah, P.F., 1997. Chinese ESL students’ learning strategies: a look at frequency, proficiency and gender. Hong Kong Journal of Applied Linguistics 2, 39–53. Green, M., Oxford, R., 1995. A closer look at learning strategies, L2 proficiency and gender. TESOL Quarterly 29, 261–297. Griffiths, C., 2003. Patterns of language learning strategy use. System 31 (3), 367–383. Halbach, A., 2000. Finding out about students’ learning strategies by looking at their diaries: a case study. System 28, 85–96. Hsiao, T., Oxford, R., 2002. Comparing theories of language learning strategies: a confirmatory factor analysis. The Modern Language Journal 86 (3), 368–383. Jinks, J.L., Morgan, V.L., 1999. Children’s perceived academic self-efficacy: an inventory. Retrieved 13/9/2004, from http://www.coe.ilstu.edu/scienceed/jinks/efficacypub97.htm. Khaldieh, S.A., 2000. Learning strategies and writing processes of proficient vs. less-proficient learners of Arabic. Foreign Language Annals 33 (5), 522–533. Mahlobo, E.B., 2003. The relationship between standardised test performance and language learning strategies in English as s second language: a case study. Journal For Language Teaching 37 (2), 164–176. Mullins, P. (1992). Successful English language strategies of students enrolled in the Faculty of Arts, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok Thailand. United States International University, San Diego, CA. O’Malley, J.M., Chamot, A., 1990. Learning Strategies in Second Language Acquisition. CUP, Cambridge. O’Mara, F., Lett, J., 1990. Foreign Language Learning and Retention: Interim Results of the Language Skill Change Project. Advanced Technology, Inc., Reston, VA. Oxford, R., 1989. Use of language learning strategies: a synthesis of studies with implications for strategy training. System 17, 235–247. Oxford, R., 1990. Language Learning Strategies: What Every Teacher Should Know. Newbury House, New York. Oxford, R., 1993. Research on second language learning strategies. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 13, 175–187. Oxford, R., Burry-Stock, J.A., 1995. Assessing the use of language learning strategies worldwide with the ESL/ EFL version of the strategy inventory for language learning (SILL). System 23 (1), 1–23. Oxford, R., Nyikos, M., 1989. Variables affecting choice of language learning strategies by university students. The Modern Language Journal 73 (ii), 291–300. Pajares, F., Schunk, D.H., 2001. Self-efficacy beliefs and school success: Self-efficacy, self-concept, and school achievement. In: Perception. Ablex Publishing, London, pp. 239–266. Pape, S.J., Wang, C., 2003. Middle school children’s strategic behavior: classification and relation to academic achievement and mathematical problem-solving. Instructional Science 31, 419–449. Phillips, V., 1991. A look at learner strategy use and ESL proficiency. CATESOL Journal, 57–67. Purdie, N., Oliver, R., 1999. Language learning strategies used by bilingual school-aged children. System 27, 375– 388.
352
J.M. Magogwe, R. Oliver / System 35 (2007) 338–352
Rossiter, M.J., 2003. The effects of affective strategy training in the ESL classroom. Retrieved 13/9, 2004, from http:/www-writing.berkely.edu//tesl-ej/ej26/az.html. Rubin, J., 1975. What the good language learner can teach us. TESOL Quarterly 9, 41–51. Stern, H.H., 1975. What can we learn from the good language learner? Canadian Modern Language Review 31, 304–318. Taguchi, T., 2002. Learner factors affecting the use of learning strategies in cross-cultural contexts. Prospect 17 (2), 18–31. Twyford, C.W., 1988. Age-related factors in second language acquisition. Focus, 2. Vidal, R.J., 2002. Is there a correlation between reported language learning strategy use, actual strategy use and achievement? Linguagem & Ensino 5 (1), 43–73. Wang, C., 2004. Self-regulated learning strategies and self-efficacy beliefs of children learning English as a second language. Unpublished Ph.D., Ohio State University, Educational Theory and Practice. Watanabe, Y., 1990. External variables affecting learning strategies of Japanese EFL learners: effects of entrance examination, years spent at college/university, and staying overseas. Unpublished master’s thesis, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK. Wharton, G., 2000. Language learning strategy use of bilingual foreign language learners in Singapore. Language Learning 50 (2), 203–243.
