Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching

Ed. by Jordens, Peter / Roberts, Leah


IMPACT FACTOR 2018: 0.667
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 1.296

CiteScore 2018: 1.02

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.891
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 1.341

Online
ISSN
1613-4141
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Ahead of print

Issues

Language learning strategy use in context: the effects of self-efficacy and CLIL on language proficiency

Nils Jaekel
  • Corresponding author
  • Theory and Practice in Teacher Education, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Knoxville, TN, 37996, USA
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
Published Online: 2018-06-22 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2016-0102

Abstract

Language learning strategies (LLS) are suggested to facilitate learning and support learner autonomy. The integration of content and language in foreign language education increases the cognitive work load. Furthermore, self-efficacy has been identified as a key predictor for strategy use and language achievement. The present study aimed to (1) investigate LLS use in content-based versus traditional foreign language environments and (2) assess the impact LLS use and self-efficacy have on language proficiency. Participants were Year 9 Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) and regular English as a foreign language (EFL) students (N=378) in Germany. Structural equation modelling, controlling for a range of confounding variables, showed that (1) there was no difference in LLS use between CLIL and EFL students. (2) LLS use had a negative impact while self-efficacy predicted higher language proficiency. These results suggest that students may best be supported by enhancing their self-efficacy while they should carefully choose their strategies.

Keywords: second language acquisition; content-based language learning; individual differences; language learning straetegies; psycholinguistics; bilingualism; syntax; self-efficacy

References

  • Ackerl, C. 2007. Lexico-grammar in the essays of CLIL and non-CLIL students: Error analysis of written production. Vienna Englisch Working Papers 16(3). 6–11. https://anglistik.univie.ac.at/fileadmin/user_upload/dep_anglist/weitere_Uploads/Views/Views_0703.pdf (accessed)

  • Arbuckle, J. L. 2014. Amos (Version 23.0). Chicago: IBM SPSS.Google Scholar

  • Aronin, L. & B. Hufeisen. 2009. On the genesis and development of L3 research, multilingualism and multiple language acquisition: About this book. In L. Aronin & B. Hufeisen (eds.), AILA applied linguistics series: V. 6. The exploration of multilingualism. Development of research on L3, multilingualism, and multiple language acquisition, 1–10. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Pub. Co.Google Scholar

  • Bandura, A. 1986. The explanatory and predictive scope of self-efficacy theory. Journal of Clinical and Social Psychology, 4, 359–373.Google Scholar

  • Bandura, A. 1997. Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. Princeton, N.J: Recording for the Blind & Dyslexic.Google Scholar

  • Bandura, A., C. Barbaranelli, G. V. Caprara & C. Pastorelli. 1996. Multifaceted Impact of Self-Efficacy Beliefs on Academic Functioning. Child Development 67(3). 1206–1222. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Benson, P. & X. Gao. 2008. Individual variation and language learning strategies. In S. Hurd & T. Lewis (eds.), Language learning strategies in independent settings, 25–40. Bristol, Buffalo, Toronto: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar

  • Blair, C. & C. C. Raver. 2012. Child development in the context of adversity: Experiential canalization of brain and behavior. The American psychologist 67(4). 309–318. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Bonnet, A. 2002. 47 % - Das Spracherwerbspotenzial englischsprachigen Chemieunterrichts. In S. Breidbach, G. Bach & D. Wolff (eds.), Mehrsprachigkeit in Schule und Unterricht: Bd. 1. Bilingualer Sachfachunterricht. Didaktik, Lehrer-/Lernerforschung und Bildungspolitik zwischen Theorie und Empirie, 125–139. Frankfurt am Main, New York: P. Lang.Google Scholar

  • Chamot, A. U. 2005. Language learning strategy instruction: Current issues and research. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 25. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Chamot, A. U. 2009. The CALLA handbook: Implementing the cognitive academic language learning approach (2nd ed). White Plains, NY: Pearson Education.Google Scholar

  • Chamot, A. U. & M. O’Malley. 1994. The CALLA handbook: Implementing the cognitive academic language learning approach. Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley Pub. Co.Google Scholar

  • Cohen, A. D. & C. Griffiths. 2015. Revisiting LLS Research 40 Years Later. TESOL Quarterly 49. 1. https://sites.google.com/a/umn.edu/andrewdcohen/docments/Revisiting%20LLS%20Rearch%2040%20Years%20Later%20-%20Revised%20Version%2011Sep14.docx?attredirects=0&d=1 (accessed)

  • Coyle, D. 2007. Strategic classrooms: Learning communities which nurture the development of learner strategies. Language Learning Journal 35(1). 65–79. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Dörnyei, Z & P Skehan. 2003. Individual differences in second language learning. In C Doughty & M. H Long (eds.), Blackwell handbooks in linguistics. The handbook of second language acquisition, 589–630. Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub.Google Scholar

  • Dörnyei, Z. & E. Ushioda. 2011. Teaching and researching motivation. 2nd edn. Harlow, England, New York: Longman/Pearson.Google Scholar

  • Dreyer, C & R Oxford. 1996. Learning strategies and other predictors of ESL proficiency among Afrikaans speakers in South Africa. In R Oxford (ed.), Language learning strategies around the world. Cross-cultural perspectives, 61–74. Honolulu: Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center, University of Hawai’i at Manoa.Google Scholar

  • Eckes, T. & R. Grotjahn. 2006. A closer look at the construct validity of C-tests. Language Testing 23(3). 290–325. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Ehmke, T & N Jude. 2010. Soziale Herkunft und Kompetenzerwerb. In E Klieme (ed.), PISA 2009. Bilanz nach einem Jahrzehnt, 231–254. Münster: Waxmann.Google Scholar

  • Ehrman, M & R Oxford. 1989. Effects of sex differences, career choice, and psychological type on adult language learning strategies. The Modern Language Journal 73(1). 1–13. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Ehrman, M & R Oxford. 1995. Cognition Plus: Correlates of language learning success. The Modern Language Journal 79(1). 67–89. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Ehrman, M. E., B. L. Leaver & R. L. Oxford. 2003. A brief overview of individual differences in second language learning. System 31(3). 313–330. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • European Commission. 2006. Content and language integrated learning (CLIL) at school in Europe. Brussels: Eurydice. European Unit.Google Scholar

  • Ganzeboom, H. B. G., P. M. de Graaf & D. J. Treiman. 1992. A standard international socioeconomic index of occupational status. Social Science Research 21. 1–56.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Gao, X. 2010. Strategic language learning: The roles of agency and context. Buffalo, N.Y: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar

  • Gardner, R. C., P. F. Tremblay & A.-M. Masgoret. 1997. Towards a full model of second language learning: An empirical investigation. The Modern Language Journal 81(3). 344–362. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Green, J. M. & R Oxford. 1995. A closer look at learning strategies, L2 proficiency, and gender. TESOL Quarterly 29(2). 261–297. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Grenfell, M. 2007. Language learner strategy research and modern foreign language teaching and learning. Language Learning Journal 35(1). 9–22. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Grenfell, M. & E Macaro. 2008. Claims and critiques. In A. D. Cohen & E Macaro (eds.), Language learner strategies. Thirty years of research and practice, 9–28. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Griffiths, C. 2003a. Language learning strategy use and proficiency: The relationship between patterns of reported language learning strategy (LLS) use by speakers of other languages (SOL) and proficiency with implications for the teaching/learning situation. https://researchspace.auckland.ac.nz/handle/2292/9 (accessed)

  • Griffiths, C. 2003b. Patterns of language learning strategy use. System 31(3). 367–383. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Griffiths, C. 2013. The strategy factor in successful language learning. Second Language Acquisition. Bristol: Buffalo, Toronto.Google Scholar

  • Grotjahn, R. 2002. Konstruktion und Einsatz von C-Tests: Ein Leitfaden für die Praxis. In R Grotjahn (ed.), Der C-Test. Theoretische Grundlagen und praktische Anwendungen, 211–225. Bochum: Verein z. Förd. d. AKS.Google Scholar

  • Gu, Y. 2002. Gender, academic major, and vocabulary learning strategies of Chinese EFL learners. RELC Journal 33(1). 35–54. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Gu, Y & R. K. Johnson. 1996. Vocabulary learning strategies and language learning outcomes. Language Learning 46(4). 643–679. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Gunning, P & R. L. Oxford. 2014. Children’s learning strategy use and the effects of strategy instruction on success in learning ESL in Canada. System 43. 82–100. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Harrington, D. 2009. Confirmatory factor analysis. Pocket guides to social work research methods. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Harris, V. 2007. Exploring progression: Reading and listening strategy instruction with near-beginner learners of French. Language Learning Journal 35(2). 189–204. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Hong-Nam, K & A. G. Leavell. 2006. Language learning strategy use of ESL students in an intensive English learning context. System 34(3). 399–415. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Horwitz, E. K. 1999. Cultural and situational influences on foreign language learners’ beliefs about language learning: A review of BALLI studies. System 27(4). 557–576. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Hsiao, T & R Oxford. 2002. Comparing theories of language learning strategies: A confirmatory factor analysis. The Modern Language Journal 86(3). 368–383. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Hsieh, P. P.-H. & H.-S. Kang. 2010. Attribution and self-efficacy and their interrelationship in the Korean EFL context. Language Learning 60(3). 606–627. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • IBM Corp. 2015. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 23.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.Google Scholar

  • In’namia, Y. & R Koizumi. 2011. Structural equation modeling in language testing and learning research: A Review. Language Assessment Quarterly: An International Journal 8. 250–276. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • International Labour Organization. 2010. ISCO - International Standard Classification of Occupations. http://www.ilo.org/public/english/bureau/stat/isco/index.htm (accessed)

  • Jackson, D. L., J. A. Gillaspy & R Purc-Stephenson. 2009. Reporting practices in confirmatory factor analysis: An overview and some recommendations. Psychological Methods 14(1). 6–23. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Jaekel, N. 2015. Use and impact of language learning strategies on language proficiency. Investigating the impact of individual difference variables and participation in CLIL streams. Doctoral thesis (Doctoral Thesis). Ruhr-University of Bochum,Bochum. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/277014378_Use_and_impact_of_language_learning_strategies_on_language_proficiency_Investigating_the_impact_of_individual_difference_variables_and_participation_in_CLIL_streams (Retrieved from)

  • Jaekel, N, M. Schurig, M. Florian & M. Ritter 2017. From early starters to late finishers?: A longitudinal study of early foreign language learning in school. Language Learning, 67: 631–664. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Järvinen, H.-M. 2007. Language in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL). In D Marsh & D Wolff (eds.), Diverse contexts - converging goals. CLIL in Europe, 253–260. Frankfurt am Main [u.a.]:: Lang.Google Scholar

  • Kaylani, C. 1996. The influence of gender and motivation on EFL learning strategy use in Jordan. In R Oxford (ed.), Language learning strategies around the world. Cross-cultural perspectives, 75–88. Honolulu: Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center, University of Hawai’i at Manoa.Google Scholar

  • Klieme, E. (ed.). 2008. Unterricht und Kompetenzerwerb in Deutsch und Englisch: Ergebnisse der DESI-Studie. Weinheim, Basel: Beltz.Google Scholar

  • Kontra, E. H. & J Kormos. 2006. Strategy use and the construct of C-tests. In R Grotjahn (ed.), Der C-Test. Theorie, Empirie, Anwendungen/The C-test: Theory, empirical research, applications, 121–138. Frankfurt am Main, New York: P. Lang.Google Scholar

  • Kormos, J, T Kiddle & K. Csizer. 2011. Systems of Goals, Attitudes, and Self-related Beliefs in Second-Language-Learning Motivation. Applied Linguistics 32(5). 495–516. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Lan, R & R. L. Oxford. 2003. Language learning strategy profiles of elementary school students in Taiwan. IRAL - International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 41. 4. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Lasagabaster, D. 2008. Foreign language competence in content and language integrated courses. The Open Applied Linguistics Journal 1(1). 30–41. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Lee, K. R. & R Oxford. 2008. Understanding EFL learners’ strategy use and strategy awareness. Asian EFL Journal 10(1). 7–32.Google Scholar

  • Maaz, K, U Trautwein, C Gresch, O Lüdtke & R Watermann. 2009. Intercoder-Reliabilität bei der Berufscodierung nach der ISCO-88 und Validität des sozioökonomischen Status. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft 12(2). 281–301. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Macaro, E. 2006. Strategies for language learning and for language use: Revising the theoretical framework. The Modern Language Journal 90(3). 320–337. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • McLoyd, V. C. 1998. Socioeconomic disadvantage and child development. American Psychologist 53(2). 185–204. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • McMullen, M. G. 2009. Using language learning strategies to improve the writing skills of Saudi EFL students: Will it really work? System 37(3). 418–433. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Mewald, C. 2007. A comparison of oral foreign language performance of learners in CLIL and in mainstream classes at lower secondary level in Lower Austria. In C. Dalton-Puffer & U Smit (eds.), Empirical perspectives on CLIL classroom discourse, 137–177. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar

  • Mills, N, F Pajares & C Herron. 2007. Self-efficacy of College Intermediate French Students: Relation to Achievement and Motivation. Language Learning 57(3). 417–442. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Mißler, B. 1999. Fremdsprachenlernerfahrungen und Lernstrategien: Eine empirische Untersuchung. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar

  • Murayama, K, R Pekrun, S. Lichtenfeld & R Vom Hofe. 2012. Predicting long-term growth in students’ mathematics achievement: The unique contributions of motivation and cognitive strategies. Child Development, n/a CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Nguyen, N. & F Godwyll. 2010. Factors influencing language-learning strategy use of English learners in an ESL context. Mid-Western Educational Researcher 23(4). 7–13.Google Scholar

  • Nikolov, M. & J. M. Djigunovic. 2006. Recent research on age, second language acquisition, and early foreign language learning. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 26. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Nold, G, J Hartig, S Hinz & H Rossa. 2008. Klassen mit bilingualem Sachfachunterricht: Englisch als Arbeitssprache. In E Klieme (ed.), Unterricht und Kompetenzerwerb in Deutsch und Englisch. Ergebnisse der DESI-Studie, 451–457. Weinheim, Basel: Beltz.Google Scholar

  • Osterhage, S. 2009. Sachfachkönnen (scientific literacy) bilingual und monolingual unterrichteter Biologieschüler: Ein Kompetenzvergleich. In D Caspari, W Hallet, A Wegner & W Zydatiß (eds.), Bilingualer Unterricht macht Schule. Beiträge aus der Praxisforschung, 2nd edn. 41–50. Frankfurt, M, Berlin, Bern, Bruxelles, New York, NY, Oxford, Wien: Lang.Google Scholar

  • Oxford, R. 1990. Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. Boston, Mass: Heinle & Heinle.Google Scholar

  • Oxford, R. 2011. Teaching and researching language learning strategies. Harlow. England, N.Y: Pearson/Longman.Google Scholar

  • Oxford, R & J. A. Burry-Stock. 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Oxford, R, Y Cho, S Leung & H.-J. Kim. 2004. Effect of the presence and difficulty of task on strategy use: An exploratory study. IRAL - International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 42(1). 1–47. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Oxford, R & M Ehrman. 1995. Adults’ language learning strategies in an intensive foreign language program in the United States. System 23(3). 359–386. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Oxford, R & M Nyikos. 1989. Variables affecting choice of language learning strategies by university students. The Modern Language Journal 73(3). 291–300. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Oxford, R. L. 2017. Teaching and researching language learning strategies: Self-regulation in context. New York N.Y: Routledge.Google Scholar

  • Pemberton, R. (ed.). 1996. Taking control: Autonomy in language learning. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.Google Scholar

  • Psaltou-Joycey, A & Z Kantaridou. 2009. Plurilingualism, language learning strategy use and learning style preferences. International Journal of Multilingualism 6(4). 460–474. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Purpura, J. E. 1999. Learner strategy use and performance on language tests: A structural equation modeling approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Raatz, U. 2002. C-Tests and intelligence. In J. A. Coleman, R Grotjahn & U. Raatz (eds.), University language testing and the C-test, 169–185. Bochum: AKS-Verl.Google Scholar

  • Rumlich, D. 2016. Evaluating bilingual education in Germany: CLIL students’ general English proficiency, EFL self-concept and interest. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar

  • Scarcella, R. C. & R. Oxford. 1992. The Tapestry of language learning: The individual in the communicative classroom. Boston, Mass.: Heinle & Heinle.Google Scholar

  • Schrader, F.-W., A. Helmke, W. Wagner, G. Nold & K. Schröder. 2008. Lernstrategien im Fach Englisch. In E. Klieme (ed.), Unterricht und Kompetenzerwerb in Deutsch und Englisch. Ergebnisse der DESI-Studie, 270–282. Weinheim, Basel: Beltz.Google Scholar

  • Schreiber, J. B., A. Nora, F. K. Stage, E. A. Barlow & J. King. 2006. Reporting structural equation modeling and confirmatory factor analysis results: A review. The Journal of Educational Research 99(6). 323–338. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Schunk, D. H. & F. Pajares. 2010. Self-efficacy beliefs. In P. L. Peterson (ed.), Science direct. International Encyclopedia of Education. Editors-in-Chief: Penelope L. Peterson … [et al.], 3rd edn. 668–672. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar

  • Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. 2007. Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon/Pearson Education.Google Scholar

  • Tuncer, U. 2009. How do monolingual and bilingual language learners differ in use of learning strategies while learning a foreign language? Evidences from Mersin University. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 1(1). 852–856. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Van Der Silk, F. W. P., R. W. N. W. Van Hout & J. J. Schepens. 2015. The gender gap in second language acquisition: Gender differences in the acquisition of Dutch among immigrants from 88 countries with 49 mother tongues. PloS one 10(11). e0142056. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Vockrodt-Scholz, V. & W. Zydatiß. 2010. Sprachproduktive Faktoren und die Konstruktvalidität von C-Tests: Kompetenzniveaus und Fehlerquotient in textsortengebundenen Schreibaufgaben. In R. Grotjahn (ed.), Der C-Test: Beiträge aus der aktuellen Forschung, 1–40. Frankfurt, M, Berlin, Bern, Bruxelles, New York, NY, Oxford, Wien: Lang.Google Scholar

  • Weiß, R. H. 2008. CFT 20-R, Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe.Google Scholar

  • Wenden, A. 2001. Metacognitive knowledge in SLA: The neglected variable. In M. P. Breen (ed.), Learner contributions to language learning. New directions in research, 44–64. Harlow, England, New York: Longman.Google Scholar

  • Wharton, G. 2000. Language learning strategy use of bilingual foreign language learners in Singapore. Language Learning 50(2). 203–243. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Wolff, D. 2009. Strategien im bilingualen Sachfachunterricht. In C. Gnutzmann, F. G. Königs, Zöfgen Ekkehard & M. Raupach (eds.), Themenschwerpunkt: Strategien im Fremdsprachenunterricht, 137–157. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar

  • Wu, Y.-L. 2008. Language learning strategies used by students at different proficiency levels. Asian EFL Journal 10. 4.Google Scholar

  • Yang, N.-D. 1999. The relationship between EFL learners’ beliefs and learning strategy use. System 27(4). 515–535. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Zimmerman, B. J. 2000. Self-efficacy: An essential motive to learn. Contemporary educational psychology 25(1). 82–91. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Zimmerman, B. J. 2008. Investigating self-regulation and motivation: Historical background, methodological developments, and future prospects. American Educational Research Journal 45(1). 166–183. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Zydatiß, W. 2005. Bildungsstandards und Kompetenzniveaus im Englischunterricht: Konzepte, Empirie, Kritik und Konsequenzen. Frankfurt am Main, New York: Lang.Google Scholar

  • Zydatiß, W. 2007. Deutsch-Englische Züge in Berlin (DEZIBEL): Eine Evaluation des bilingualen Sachfachunterrichts an Gymnasien; Kontext, Kompetenzen, Konsequenzen. Mehrsprachigkeit in Schule und Unterricht: Vol. 7. Frankfurt am Main: Lang.Google Scholar

About the article

Published Online: 2018-06-22


Citation Information: International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, ISSN (Online) 1613-4141, ISSN (Print) 0019-042X, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2016-0102.

Export Citation

© 2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston.Get Permission

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in