MASKANA.Vol. 9, Ed. 2,=
1-8,
2018
https://doi.org/10.185=
37/mskn.09.02.01
© Author(s) 2018. This=
work is
distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Research Article
A case study of learning strateg=
ies
of older adults attending an English course
Juan F. Mora1=
1 Instituto
Universitario de Lenguas, Universidad de Cuenca, Av. 12 de abril, Cuenca,
Ecuador.
2 =
GIER, Universidad de Cuenca, Av. 12=
de
abril, Cuenca, Ecuador.
Autor para
correspondencia: fernando.mora@ucuenca.edu.ec
Fecha de re=
cepción:
6 de noviembre de 2018 - Fecha de aceptación: 11 de noviembre de 2018
ABSTRACT
This stu=
dy
explores the most frequently used learning strategies of a group of older
adults in the city of Cuenca, Ecuador, attending an English course. Sixty-s=
ix participants
(with an average age of 71.05) responded to the 50-item questionnaire on
learning strategies of Oxford (1990). Statistical analyses and an analysis =
of
correlation between sociodemographic variables were conducted to determine =
the
prevailing learning styles of the intervention group and its relationship w=
ith
the sociodemographic characteristics of the participants. The results indic=
ate
that older adults use all the strategies categorized by Oxford, predominant=
ly
the metacognitive ones, meaning that they mainly reflect, plan, monitor, and
evaluate their own learning process. In addition, the results reveal the
positive correlation of the variables age, level of English, and level of
education and occupation before retirement. The three last-mentioned were f=
ound
to be determinant in the preferences of the participants.
Keywords=
: Older
adults, learning strategies, lifelong learning, EFL.
RESUMEN
Este estudio
examina las estrategias de aprendizaje más utilizadas por un grupo de adult=
os
mayores en la ciudad de Cuenca, Ecuador. Sesenta y seis participantes (con =
una
edad promedio de 71.05) que tomaron un curso de inglés como lengua extranje=
ra
respondieron al cuestionario de 50 preguntas sobre estrategias de aprendiza=
je
de Oxford (1990). Se realizaron análisis estadísticos y un análisis de
correlación entre las variables sociodemográficas para determinar los estil=
os
de aprendizaje prevalecientes del grupo de intervención y su relación con l=
as
características sociodemográficas de los participantes. Los resultados indi=
can
que los adultos mayores utilizan todas las estrategias categorizadas por
Oxford, de manera particular las metacognitivas, lo que significa que
principalmente reflexionan, planifican, monitorean y evalúan su propio proc=
eso
de aprendizaje. Además, los resultados revelan la correlación positiva de l=
as
variables edad, nivel de inglés y nivel de educación y ocupación antes de la
jubilación. Se evidenció que las tres últimas fueron determinantes en las
preferencias de los participantes.
Palabras cl=
ave: Adultos mayores, estrategias de
aprendizaje, aprendizaje permanente, EFL.
1. =
INTRODUC=
TION
The stud=
y of
learning strategies has been widely reported, particularly regarding the
benefits of using them in an academic setting. It is important to start by
providing a definition of learning strategies. A pertinent definition is th=
at
of Dansereau (1985), who conceives them as “a set of processes or steps whi=
ch
might facilitate the acquisition, storage and use of information”. Another
important definition is provided by Monereo (1994), who states that learning
strategies are “planned behaviors which select and organize cognitive,
affective, and motor mechanisms in order to cope with global or specific
learning situations”. On the other hand, some consider the expression learning strategies to be a synony=
m of
the terms learning behaviors, tacti=
cs,
resources, skills, and othe=
rs
(Griffiths, 2008), while others regard them as different (Gómez, 2013), sta=
ting
that learning techniques are specific activities students use mechanically,
whereas learning strategies are the reflective use of those techniques. In =
the
field of foreign languages, Rebecca Oxford, a very well-known researcher in
learning strategies, points out that such terms can be defined as “specific
actions taken by the learner to make learning easier, faster, more enjoyabl=
e,
more self-directed, more effective, and more transferable to new situations”
(Oxford, 1990). This definition is the one that informs the development of =
this
study.
Among the
benefits of learning strategies, some studies suggested that their frequent,
varied, and efficient use might result in an improvement of the students’
performance in general terms (Zimmerman & Pons, 1986; Pressley &
Associates, 1990; Barca, Peralbo, Porto, Barca, Santorum, & Castro, 201=
3),
and also in language learning (O’Malley & Chamot, 1990; O’Malley & =
Chamot,
1994; Park, 1997; Oxford, 2003; Anderson, 2005; Nisbet, Tindall, & Arro=
yo,
2005; Gómez, 2013). In the latter area, students tend to improve their
performance even more when their instructors not only teach the target
language, but also when they focus on building awareness on the use of
strategies (O’Malley & Chamot, 1994; Nunan, 1996; Oxford, 1996a; Kinosh=
ita
& Dokkyo, 2003), so that students can choose the ones that best help th=
em
achieve their learning goals (Anderson, 2005). Another relevant aspect to t=
ake
into account is age since the older people are, the more strategies it seems
they tend to develop (Skehan, 1989; Oxford, 1990; Ellis, 1994; Quarles, 199=
8;
Chamot, Kupper, & Impink-Hernandez, 1998; Yang, 2007) and use them more
efficiently (Devlin, 1996; Lee & Oxford, 2008); this is why age together
with learning strategies are considered the two major variables (together w=
ith
learning strategies) that contribute to the process of second language
acquisition (Ellis, 1994).
One of t=
he
most prominent researchers on language learning strategies is Rebecca Oxfor=
d,
who makes a distinction between direct and indirect strategies. Direct
strategies are the ones “that directly involve the target language,” meaning
that they “require mental processing of the language” (Oxford, 1990), while
indirect strategies “provide indirect support for language learning through
focusing, planning, evaluating, seeking opportunities, controlling anxiety,
increasing cooperation and empathy, and other means” (Oxford, 1990). The au=
thor
identifies six groups within these strategies, namely:
Direct s=
trategies:
1.&n=
bsp;
Cognitive strategies help
students to take advantage of the language material in direct ways.
Analysis, note-taking, outlining, reasoning, reorganizing information,
summarizing, and synthesizing are examples of this type of strategies.
2.&n=
bsp;
Memory-related strategies help learners enter and
retrieve new information by creating mental linkages between images and sou=
nds
in their memory. These strategies include grouping words, placing new words
into context, using imagery, or using physical response, among others.
3.&n=
bsp;
Compensation strategies represent ways in which st=
udents
deal with gaps in existing knowledge, such as guessing in reading and
listening, using synonyms in speaking and writing, and using gestures in
speaking.
Indirect
strategies:
1.&n=
bsp;
Metacognitive strategies are ways in which students
regulate their own learning processes. These involve reflecting, planning,
monitoring, and evaluating such processes.
2.&n=
bsp;
Affective strategies are those meant to manage one=
’s
emotions, like coping with anxiety, expressing feelings, encouraging and
rewarding oneself when performing well, and relaxing.
3.&n=
bsp;
Social strategies help learners tackle language is=
sues
by interacting with others through asking questions, cooperating, and
empathizing in the group.
Under th=
ese
premises, Oxford (1989) designed her Strategy Inventory for Language Learni=
ng
(SILL), featuring 50 quantitative, close-ended questions, aiming to identify
the most frequent strategies used by language learners. This questionnaire =
has
been widely used since it was released (Dörnyei, 2005; White, Schramm, &
Chamot, 2007), and it has been translated into several languages (Oxford,
1996b).
Findings
about learning strategies used by learners in languages, and other fields, =
have
been reported worldwide. However, there is limited information about the
strategies used by older adults, particularly when learning a foreign langu=
age.
Therefore, this study attempts to determine the learning strategies of a gr=
oup
of elders who took an English course in Cuenca, as well as to ascertain to =
what
extent their language learning strategies are influenced by the
socio-demographic variables such as age, knowledge level of English before
taking the course, level of education, and occupation before retirement.
2. =
METHODOL=
OGY
2.1.=
Participants and context
The
participants were 66 senior citizens taking a six-month English course at t=
he
University of Cuenca, in Ecuador, during the 2014-2015 academic year. This
course was taught as part of a research project aiming to assess the effect=
s of
learning English upon the cognitive processes of older adults (Estévez et al., 2016). The participants to=
ok a
placement test before the beginning of the course and then three classes we=
re
offered: one called Starter, for
those who had never taken English classes before (32 participants); another
called Elementary, for those wh=
o had
some knowledge of English, equivalent to level A1 of the Common European
Framework of References for Languages (CEFR) (Council for Cultural Cooperat=
ion,
2001) (15 participants); and one called Pre-Intermediate,
featuring older adults who could have conversations in English about topics
that were familiar or of personal interest, equivalent to level B1 of the C=
EFR
(19 participants).
The aver=
age
age of this group of older adults was 71.05, of which 5 participants had
attended primary school only, 40 secondary school, and 21 colleges;
furthermore, 23 were blue-collar workers before retirement, while 43 were
white-collar workers. Table 1 summarizes the participants’ socio-demographic
profile:
|
Table 1. Participants’ socio-=
demographic
profile.<=
span
lang=3DEN-US style=3D'font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:SimSun;mso-ansi-language:EN-US'> |
|||
|
Parameter |
Group |
n |
% |
|
Age range |
65-70 years |
39 |
59 |
|
71-80 years |
25 |
38 |
|
|
81-85 years |
2 |
3 |
|
|
Gender |
Male |
28 |
42 |
|
Female |
38 |
58 |
|
|
School level |
Elementary |
5 |
8 |
|
High school |
40 |
60 |
|
|
University |
21 |
32 |
|
|
Occupation before retirement |
Blue-collar worke=
rs |
23 |
35 |
|
White-collar work=
ers |
43 |
65 |
2.2.=
Data collection
The
instrument used to determine the learning strategies of the participants was
the SILL by Oxford (1990). This 50-item questionnaire comprises a set of six
sections assessing the frequency with which learners use direct and indirect
strategies: memory (9 questions: 1-9), cognitive (14 questions: 10-23),
compensation (6 questions: 24-29), metacognitive (9 questions: 30-38),
affective (6 questions: 39-44), and social (6 questions: 45-50). The
participants responded using a five-point Likert scale, in which 1 means never or almost never true of me, =
2, usually not true of me, 3, somewhat true of me, 4, usually true of me, and 5, always or almost always true of me. The
score obtained establishes the strategies used at high (average score of 3.=
5 to
5), medium (2.5 to 3.4), and low (2.4 and below) levels.
Since th=
is
course was taught within the framework of a research project, the participa=
nts
had already been told at the beginning of the course that, besides usual
English tests, a number of surveys and questionnaires would be administered=
in
the classroom at different times. The researchers had the participants enga=
ged
in different course activities for several weeks, expecting that their
responses to the SILL would resemble the learning experience they were unde=
rgoing
in that moment. Then, in=
the
fourth month of the course, the questionnaire was applied. This instrument =
was
translated into Spanish by the researchers so that the senior citizens,
especially those in the Starter and Elementary groups, could feel confident
enough to fully understand the questions and give suitable answers.
=
3. =
ANALYSIS AND RESULT=
S
The aver=
age
response of the participants regarding their most frequently used strategies
when learning English is shown in Fig. 1. The results feature the six types=
of
language learning strategies established by Oxford (1990): memory, cognitiv=
e,
compensation, metacognitive, affective, and social. As can be seen, the
participants use memory, cognitive, compensation, affective and social
strategies at a medium level, while they are high users of metacognitive
strategies. These findings mean that older adults tend to recall informatio=
n by
producing mental pictures and sounds in their memory; they also employ
strategies like note-taking, outlining, summarizing, among others, and when
they lack knowledge, they compensate for it by guessing, using synonyms or
gestures; furthermore, they control the feelings they experience while
learning, and they interact with their peers when facing language issues. A=
nd,
at a greater extent, the participants reflect, plan, monitor and evaluate t=
heir
learning process when attending the English course.
|
|
|
Figure 1. Average score of language learning strategies of older adults. Co=
de
language learning strategy: 1 =3D Memory-related strategies; 2 =3D Cognit=
ive
strategies; 3 =3D Compensation strategies; 4 =3D Metacognitive strategies=
; 5 =3D
Affective strategies; 6 =3D Social strategies. |
After
determining the language learning strategies of the participants, a correla=
tion
of such strategies with some sociodemographic variables was carried out. The
statistically significant correlations are outlined in the following sectio=
ns.
Accordin=
g to
the results of an English placement test, as mentioned before, the particip=
ants
were assigned to three groups: starter, elementary, and pre-intermediate.
Figure 2 shows that the beginners use metacognitive and memory strategies a=
t a
high level, and compensation strategies at a medium level. Regarding the
elementary learners, the data reveal that their high level of preference is=
for
the cognitive, metacognitive, affective, and social strategies, while they
adopt compensation strategies at a medium level. Finally, the pre-intermedi=
ate
students use metacognitive and social strategies at a high level, while usi=
ng
the rest of strategies at a medium level. Besides the above analysis, an AN=
OVA
test[1] =
and
the Scheffe Test[2] =
were
applied in order to compare the groups regarding their use of learning
strategies. The results, however, do not show statistical differences.
|
Starter |
Elementary |
Pre-Intermediate |
|
|
|
|
|
Figure 2. Absolute level values of strategy use according to the students’
English proficiency, respectively at STARTER, ELEMENTARY and PRE-INTERMED=
IATE
level. Dotted red line: HIGH, large dot blue line: MEDIUM, and full green
line: LOW. |
In order=
to
provide more detail about the strategies most and least used by the
participants, Table 2 below shows those with a high use (higher than 3.5
points) and those with a minimum use (lower than 2.4 points). As mentioned
before, metacognitive strategies (questions 30-38) are the ones the
participants use the most and, among them, the strategy the participants
predominantly use is I pay attentio=
n when
someone is speaking English, while the least used strategies belong to =
the
memory and compensation groups.
|
Table 2. Avera=
ge
of the most and the least used strategies. |
|||
|
No |
Question |
Avg |
Level |
|
|
|
|
|
|
32 |
I pay
attention when someone is speaking English |
4.39 |
High |
|
33 |
I try =
to
find out how to be a better learner of English |
4.26 |
High |
|
8 |
I review English lessons often |
4.11 |
High |
|
31 |
I noti=
ce
my English mistakes and use that information to help me do better<=
span
lang=3DEN-US style=3D'font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:SimSun;mso-ansi-language:EN-US'> |
4.08 |
High |
|
38 |
I think
about my progress in learning English |
4.11 |
High |
|
5 |
I use
rhymes to remember new English words |
2.33 |
Low |
|
27 |
I read English without looking up every =
new
word |
2.31 |
Low |
|
26 |
I make up new words if I do not know the right ones in English |
2.25 |
Low |
Age and
language learning strategies
To deter=
mine
the correlation of between age and the average of use of language learning
strategies, an analysis based on the Pearson correlation coefficient was
applied. The results show that there is not a significant correlation betwe=
en
the above variables. However, when applying the same analysis to each of the
groups of students, according their level of English, the results show a
statistically significant and moderate indirect correlation of the age of t=
he
elementary learners and their social learning strategies. This indicates th=
at
the older the elementary learners are, the=
less
likely they are to use these strategies to learn English.
|
Table 3. Correlation of age and language learning
strategies of the elementary learners (N=3D15). |
||
|
Parameter |
Pearson correlati=
on |
Sign. (two-tailed=
) |
|
AGE |
1 |
|
|
AVG_A |
-.297 |
.283 |
|
AVG_B |
-.389 |
.152 |
|
AVG_C |
-.431 |
.109 |
|
AVG_D |
-.357 |
.192 |
|
AVG_E |
-.178 |
.525 |
|
AVG_F |
-.646** |
.009 |
Table 4
shows the results of an ANOVA test, which reveals that there is a statistic=
ally
significant difference (p<0.05) between the levels of education and the
averages of memory-related, compensation, and affective strategies of
pre-intermediate learners. It is important to mention that these students
attended high school and university; the data indicate that those who went =
only
as far as secondary school seem to use the previously mentioned strategies =
more
often than those who achieved a higher degree of education.
Table 5,=
on
the other hand, indicates the results of a Student’s t-test[3], which
show that the averages of memory-related and cognitive strategies are
correlated to the variable occupation before retirement. The data reveal th=
at
those who used to be white-collar workers use those strategies more frequen=
tly
than those who were blue-collar workers before retirement.
|
Table 4: Correl=
ation
of levels of education and language learning strategies of the
pre-intermediate learners. |
|||
|
Source of variation |
Sum squares |
DF |
Mean square |
|
AVG_A |
|
|
|
|
Between groups |
1.313<= o:p> |
1 |
1.313 |
|
Within groups |
4.473<= o:p> |
17 |
0.263 |
|
Corrected total |
5.786<= o:p> |
18 |
|
|
F (variance ratio) =3D 4.991 p =3D
.039 |
|||
|
AVG_B |
|
|
|
|
Between groups |
1.718<= o:p> |
1 |
1.718 |
|
Within groups |
4.240<= o:p> |
17 |
0.249 |
|
Corrected total |
5.959<= o:p> |
18 |
|
|
F (variance ratio) =3D 6.888 p =3D
.018 |
|||
|
AVG_C |
|
|
|
|
Between groups |
0.948<= o:p> |
1 |
0.948 |
|
Within groups |
3.459<= o:p> |
17 |
0.203 |
|
Corrected total |
4.407<= o:p> |
18 |
|
|
F (variance ratio) =3D 4.660 p =3D
.045 |
|
Table 5. Students’ T-test
distribution between occupation before retirement and language learning
strategies (top: AVG_A; bottom: AVG_B). |
|||
|
AVG_A |
Equal variances
assumed |
Equal variances n=
ot
assumed |
|
|
Levene’s test for equality of variances |
F |
0.141 |
|
|
Sig. |
0.708 |
|
|
|
T-test for equality of means |
t |
2.425 |
2.413 |
|
DF |
45.726 |
64 |
|
|
Sig. (2-tailed) |
0.019 |
0.019 |
|
|
Mean difference |
0.4585505 |
0.4585505 |
|
|
Std. error difference |
0.1890818 |
0.1900417 |
|
|
95% conf. interval of the difference |
Lower |
0.0778869 |
0.0788985 |
|
Upper |
0.8392140 |
0.8382024 |
|
AVG_B |
Equal variances
assumed |
Equal variances n=
ot
assumed |
|
|
Levene’s test for equality of variances |
F |
2.800 |
|
|
Sig. |
0.099 |
|
|
|
T-test for equality of means |
t |
2.145 |
1.964 |
|
DF |
57.038 |
64 |
|
|
Sig. (2-tailed) |
0.036 |
0.054 |
|
|
Mean difference |
0.3309162 |
0.3309162 |
|
|
Std. error difference |
0.1542948 |
0.1684748 |
|
|
95% conf. interval of the difference |
Lower |
0.0219505 |
0.0056509 |
|
Upper |
0.6398818 |
0.6674833 |
=
4. =
DISCUSSION
The main
target of this study was to determine the learning strategies of a group of
elders who were part of an English course in Cuenca, and their possible
correlation with the variables age, level of English, level of education and
occupation before retirement. Even though this study is exploratory, and
therefore could be considered not representative, it may offer useful
information on the correlations between the most frequently used strategies=
of
senior citizens and their socio-demographic characteristics, and thus provi=
de
research questions for future studies on lifelong learning.
In order to find out the most common strategies used by the group of
older adults, the SILL by Oxford was used. The results of this questionnaire
reveal that the participants use memory, cognitive, compensation, affective=
and
social strategies at a medium level and metacognitive strategies at a high
level. These findings are consistent with those by Quarles (1998), which indicated that in a
study conducted over a group of 98 senior citizens, metacognition was their
second-most-used strategy, after me=
tamotivation
(being aware of their reasons for participating in educational programs).
Likewise, Castro (2011) found in a group of 89 university students, majoring
engineering and technology, a high use of metacognitive strategies in an EFL
context and a medium use of the remaining ones. Similarly, Nisbet, Tindall,
& Arroyo (2005) conducted a study with 168 third-year English majors wh=
ich
indicated that metacognitive strategies were the most frequently used, foll=
owed
by the social and cognitive ones (high strategy use range), while compensat=
ion,
affective and memory-related strategies featured a medium strategy use rang=
e.
These studies are mentioned since their participants had already gone throu=
gh
elementary and middle school, meaning that metacognitive strategies are pro=
bably
mostly handled by individuals with learning experience rather than beginners
(Fernández-Castillo, 2015). This assertion is supported by the findings of =
the
two cases previously cited as well as the foregoing study, since all of them
included adults who had already attended at least primary school. These
outcomes differ, however, from those reported by Chen (2014), which did not
find significant differences between the frequency of use of metacognitive
strategies of Taiwanese learners in elementary school and university in a s=
tudy
carried out with 1,023 participants from four levels of education.
When
analyzing the learning preferences of the present group of older adults and
their sociodemographic variables, three correlations were found to be stati=
stically
significant:
1.
2.&n=
bsp;
Age and language learning strategies: age is anoth=
er
variable that seems to influence language learning strategies among older
adults. This study suggests that older learners are not likely to use social
strategies. This might be because confiden=
ce
increases with age, while self-esteem is gained through experience,
which is acquired within the learning process (Skehan, 1989). These findings
are in line with those of Quarles (1998), Marins (2010), Wu (2011), Sadeghi
& Attar (2013), and Sadeghi & Khonbi (2012), whose studies showed t=
hat
when the participants started learning the target language, they tended to =
use
social strategies frequently, but as they got older their preference for th=
at
strategy diminished.
3.&n=
bsp;
Level of education and occupation before retirement
and language learning strategies: the results of this study show that the
participants with higher educational levels (white-collar workers) tend to =
use
memory-related strategies more frequently than those with some high school =
education
or less (blue-collar workers); furthermore, those who attended high school =
only
seem to prefer memory-related, compensation, and affective strategies to a
greater extent than those who had higher education. This might mean that
memory-related strategies are primarily used by those who engage in learning
processes, particularly when attending primary and secondary school, but th=
en
that strategy is little by little surpassed by other strategies as the
individuals increase their level of education (Oxford, 2003). In the same v=
ein,
Quarles (1998), Griffiths & Parr (2001), Orrego & Díaz (2010), Cast=
ro
(2011), Wu (2011), García & Vivas (2014), and Frankenmolen, Fasotti,
Kessels, & Oosterman (2018) found that memory-related strategies were a=
mong
the least used by the participants in their studies, most of whom were
university students.
=
5. =
CONCLUSIONS
The resu=
lts
of this study might be helpful to teachers dealing especially with lifelong
learning courses. Instructors can help the=
ir
students by making them aware of different strategies and guiding them in
selecting those most useful in achieving specific learning outcomes.=
In
regard to the foregoing study, the strategy most frequently used by the gro=
up
of older adults taking an English course is the metacognitive strategy; this
seems to be the result of their previous (and probably long) formal
instruction, which led them to scaffold this strategy. It is worth pointing=
out
that there are no good or bad strategies. Rather, teachers should be aware =
of
how effective the strategies used by their students are in order to suggest
other strategies, if applicable, or ways to improve and exploit them
accurately. It might also be important to make students aware of their lear=
ning
styles, so that they can use strategies that better fit such styles.
The main
limitation of this study was the small number of participants; therefore,
finding significant relationships from the data was difficult. The English
courses offered specifically for older adults were the first ones provided =
by
the University of Cuenca at that time. The small number of senior students =
was
probably due to two factors: (a) the publicity of these courses was not
advertised enough because of limited financial resources, and (b) since it =
was
the first time this type of courses was offered in the city, the elder
community was not aware enough about the benefits an English course might b=
ring
them. Therefore, it is suggested further research on how older adults may
learn, particularly when attending a foreign language course.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The auth=
ors
want to express their deep gratitude to Dr. Alan Blackstock because of his
willingness, kindness, and support for the completion of this task.
REFERENCES
Al-sohba=
ni,
Y. (2018). Language learning strategy use by Turkish international school
students in Yemen. Journal of Teaching and teacher Education, 6(2), 9=
5-106.
Anderson, N. (2005). Estrategias pa=
ra
el aprendizaje de una lengua extranjera. Káñina,
Revista de Artes y Letras, 29(1-2),
171-174.
Barca, A., Peralbo, M., Porto, A. M=
.,
Barca, E., Santorum, R., & Castro, F. V. (2013). Estrategias de
aprendizaje, autoconcepto y rendimiento académico en la adolescencia. Revista Galego-Portuguesa de Psicoloxí=
a e
Educación, 21, 195-212.
Castro, I. (2011). Language learning strategies for unsuccessful language learners in
Ecuador. Master’s degree thesis. Guayaquil: Escuela Superior Politéctni=
ca
del Litoral.
Chamot, A., Kupper, L., &
Impink-Hernandez, M. (1998). A study =
of
learning strategies in foreign language instruction: Findings of the
longitudinal study. McLean, VA: Interstate Research Associates.
Chen, M. (2014). Age differences=
in
the use of language learning strategies. English
Language Teaching, 7(2), 14=
4-151.
=
https://=
doi.org/10.5539/elt.v7n2p144
Council for Cultural Cooperation.
(2001). Common European framework f=
or
languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Strasbourg, Germany.
Dansereau, (1985). Learning strategy research. In: J.=
W.
Segal, S. F. Chipman, & R. Glaser (Eds.). Thinking and learning skills
(Vol. 1): Relating instruction to research, 209-240. Florence, KY: Routledg=
e,
Taylor & Francis Group.
Devlin, M. (1996). Older and Wis=
er?
A comparison of the learning and study strategies of mature age and younger
teacher education students. Higher
Education Research & Development, 15(1),
51-60.
Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner:
Individual differences in second language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawr=
ence
Erlbaum Associates.
Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisiti=
on.
Oxford: Oxf=
ord
University Press.
Estévez, F., Webster, F., Mora, F.,
García, J., Cisneros, V., & Cevallos, A. (2016). Impacto del aprendizaje
del inglés sobre los procesos cognitivos en adultos mayores. Un estudio
preliminar en Cuenca. Revista Ecuat=
oriana
de Neurología, 24(1-3), 28-=
32.
Fernández-Castillo, A. (2015).
Estrategias de aprendizaje y adquisición de una segunda lengua. REIDOCREA, 4(48=
),
391-404.
Frankenmolen, N. L., Fasotti, L.,
Kessels, R. P., & Oosterman, J. M. (2018). The influence of cognitive reser=
ve
and age on the use of memory strategies. Experimental
Aging Research, 44(2), 117-=
134.
García, M. & Vivas, A. (2014=
).
Language learning strategies in foreign language learning and proficiency
levels by teacher training university students. Revista de Investigación Educativa, 32(2), 363-378.
Gavriilidou, Z. &
Psaltou-Joycey, A. (2009). Language learning strategies: An overview. JAL,
25, 11-25.
Griffiths, C. & Parr, J. (20=
01). Language-learning strategies: The=
ory
and perception. ELT Journal, 55(3), 247-254.
Griffiths, C. & Cansiz, G.
(2008). Language learning strategies: An holistic view. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 5(3),
473-493.
Gómez, B. (2013). Las estrategias de aprendizaje en el aula de lengua extranjera.
Bachelor’s thesis. Valladolid, Spain: Universidad de Valladolid.
Kinoshita, Y. & Dokkyo, H. (200=
3). Integrat=
ing
language learning strategy instruction into ESL/EFL lessons. TESL Journal, 9(4). Retrieved from
http://iteslj.org/Techniques/Kinoshita-Strategy.html
Marins, P. (2010). Estrategias de
aprendizaje y desarrollo de la motivación: un estudio empírico con estudian=
tes
de E/LE brasileños. Porta Linguarum=
, 14, 141-160.
Monereo, C. (Coord.) (1994). Estrategias de enseñanza y aprendizaje. Formación del profesorado y aplicación en la escuela. Barcelona: Graó.<= o:p>
Nisbet, =
D.
L., Tindall, E. R. and Arroyo, A. A. (2005). Language learning strategies a=
nd
English proficiency of Chinese university students. Foreign Language Annals, 38,
100-107.
Nunan, D. (1996). Learner strate=
gy
training in the classroom: An action research study. TESOL Journal, 6(1),
35-41.
O’Malley, M. & Chamot, A.
(1990). Learning strategies in seco=
nd
language acquisition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
O’Malley, J. M. & Chamot, A.=
U.
(1994). The CALLA handbook: impleme=
nting
the cognitive academic language learning approach. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
Orrego, L. M. & Díaz, A. E.
(2010). Empleo de
estrategias de aprendizaje de lenguas extranjeras: inglés y francés. Íkala, 15(2=
4),
105-142.
Oxford, R. L. (1989). Use of language learning
strategies: A synthesis of studies with implications for strategy training.=
System, 17(2), 235-247.
Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What eve=
ry
teacher should know. New York, NY: Newbury House.
Oxford, R. L. (1996a). Language learning strategies around the
World: Cross-cultural perspectives. Manoa, Honolulu: University of Hawa=
ii
Press.
Oxford, R. L. (1996b). Employing=
a
questionnaire to assess the use of language learning strategies. Applied Language Learning, 7, 25-4=
5.
Oxford, R. L. (2003). Language
learning styles and strategies: An overview. GALA, 1-25.
Park, G. P. (1997). Language
learning strategies and English proficiency in Korean universities studies.=
Foreign Language Annals, 30(2), 21=
1-221.
Pressley, M. & Associates.
(1990). Cognitive strategy instruct=
ion
that really improves children’s academic performance. Cambridge, MA:
Brookline Books.
Quarles,=
H.
(1998). Learning strategies preferr=
ed by
older individuals. PhD thesis. Bozeman, MT: Montana State University.
Sadeghi, K. & Attar, M. T.
(2013). The relationship between learning strategy use and starting age of
learning EFL. Procedia - Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 70, 38=
7-396.
Sadeghi, K., & Khonbi, Z. A.
(2012). Learners’ starting age of learning EFL and use of language learning
strategies. English Language Teachi=
ng,
6(1), 28-34.
Salahshour, F., Sharifi, M. &
Salahshour, N. (2013). The relationship between language learning strategy =
use,
language proficiency level and learner gender. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 70, 634-643.
Salem, N. (2006). The role of motivation, gender, and la=
nguage
learning strategies in EFL proficiency. Beirut, Lebanon: The American
University of Beirut.
Skehan, P. (1989). Individual differences in second-langu=
age
learning. London, UK: Edward Arnold.
White, S., Schramm, K. & Cha=
mot,
A.U. (2007). Research methods in strategy research: Re-examining the toolbo=
x.
In: A.D. Cohen and E. Macaro (Eds.). Language
learner strategies: Thirty years of practice. Oxford, UK: Oxford Univer=
sity
Press, pp. 93-116.
Wu, I. J. (2011). Learning strategies used by internatio=
nal
students from Taiwan in a university context: A case study. Master’s
thesis, California State University, US.
Yang, M. N. (2007). Language
learning strategies for junior college students in Taiwan: Investigating
ethnicity and proficiency. Asian EFL
Journal, 9(2), 63-70.
Zarei, A. & Baharestani, N.
(2014). Language learning strategy use across proficiency levels. i-manager’s Journal of English on Engl=
ish
Language teaching, 4(4), 27=
-38.
Zimmerman, B. J. & Pons, M. =
M.
(1986). Development of a structured interview for assessing student use of
self-regulated learning strategies. American Educational Research Journ=
al,
23, 614-628.
[1] Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) is a statistical met=
hod to
test general rather than specific differences between two or more means.
[2] The
Scheffe Test is a post-hoc test used in analysis of variance to find out pa=
irs
of means that are significant.
[3] A
test for statistical significance that uses tables of a statistical
distribution called Student’s t-distribution.
MASKANA,
Vol. 9, No. 2, 2018
Revista
semestral de la DIUC =
=
=
2