LEARNING STRATEGIES
Julia
Reimer
ABSTRACT
This
article describes a short-term classroom-based study on learning strategy use
and strategies instruction to low-literate adult Hmong students with no prior
formal education. Data on strategy use was collected through classroom
observations and interviews with 11 Hmong students. Results showed that
participants were using a number of strategies successfully, and could benefit
from more focus on metacognitive, compensation, and social strategies. Seven
strategies instruction sessions were provided to the class.
INTRODUCTION
I am a
teacher educator, working primarily with teachers who hope to teach English
abroad. My primary motivation for entering the field of
While
working with these students, I was reminded of a number of realities faced by
teachers of adult
LITERATURE REVIEW
Overview of Learning Strategies
Cohen (1998), O’Malley & Chamot (1990), and Oxford (1990) have done much work
on defining and categorizing language learning strategies. Chamot (2005)
defines strategies as actions that facilitate learning. They are goal-focused,
and as they are being learned, must be conscious. Once a strategy has been used
many times, it may become more automatic. Chamot points out that a major
advantage of strategies is that they can be taught to learners who are
struggling. While this may be true, Oxford and Leaver (1996) note that the
purpose of strategies instruction is not to encourage each student to use
exactly the same strategy for the same situation or task. Rather, learners need
to become aware of and build on strategies they already use, so that they can
make choices that best fit their individual needs. Cohen (2003) also points out
that strategies can not be labeled as "good" or even
"effective" on their own: their effectiveness depends a given task or
situation, and the learner's own learning style preferences.
While there are a number of
schemes for categorizing strategies, a common list includes cognitive,
metacognitive, affective, and social strategies (Cohen, 2003). Cognitive
strategies include using memory aids, analyzing language to find patterns,
practicing the language, and so on. (It should be noted that Oxford (1990)
separates memory strategies out from other cognitive strategies.) Metacognitive
strategies are those that help in organizing and evaluating one's learning.
Affective strategies include actions that help one deal with the emotions that
go along with learning a language. Social strategies are techniques for
eliciting explanations and practice opportunities from other people. Cohen
(1998) has distinguished between language learning
strategies and language use
strategies. The former are strategies to aid actual learning, and the latter
are strategies used once the language has been learned and is available for use
in communication.
Much
reported research on adults' use of language learning strategies has been
conducted with learners who have a strong prior educational background. For
example, Bedell and Oxford (1996) cite studies done with learners from a wide
variety of countries, primarily at the university level. Given the population
under study for this paper, Starks-Martin's (1996) research on Hmong university
students' perception of their own strategies use is interesting.[1]
Using think-alouds, reading journals, and study skills portfolios to collect
data, Starks-Martin (1996) found that her learners used a lot of memorization
and repeated readings to comprehend texts. They also tended to use word-for
word answers from the textbooks in answering questions, and studied alone.
These findings seem to indicate use of cognitive strategies.
A smaller
number of learning strategies use studies have been done with immigrant adults
in the US in community colleges or community-based
Learning Styles and Learning
Strategies
A recent
survey of language strategies experts shows near uniform agreement that a
learner's background (among other factors) affects choice of learning
strategies (Cohen, 2008). These background factors include things such as age,
gender, prior knowledge, and so on. Several published studies have looked at
the background factor of learning style preferences among Hmong learners.
Oxford (2003) defines learning styles as general preferences for approaching
learning, whether it be learning content, learning a second language, or
solving a problem. These can be perceptual styles (e.g. tactile, visual), social
styles (e.g. introverted, extroverted), or cognitive styles (e.g. analyzing,
synthesizing).
Hvitfeldt
(1986) did a microethnographic study to examine the cognitive styles of field
independence and field dependence (or field sensitivity) in a group of
upper-beginning Hmong adults with little literacy background. Field independent
learners tend to focus on internal modes of learning, pay less attention to
social aspects of learning, enjoy learning abstract concepts and analyzing
details, and so on. Field dependent learners, on the other hand, are more
attuned to external, social aspects of learning such as peer and teacher
support, and do well with global learning. Hvitfeldt notes that "Hmong
classroom behavior, particularly the emphasis on cooperative achievement, the
establishment of a warm and personal classroom climate, and the reliance on
teacher guidance and direction, fits the description of field-dependent (or
field-sensitive) observable behaviors" (p. 73). Worthley (1987)
administered the Group Embedded Figures
Test to a group of male Hmong students (17 years of age and older), and
concluded that the majority of the group were field dependent.
Park
(2002) looked at perceptual and social learning styles of Southeast Asian
immigrant high school students from a variety of cultural backgrounds,
including Hmong, Vietnamese, Cambodian, and Lao. She also included Anglo
students in the study. Specifically, she collected data on the perceptual
preferences for auditory, visual, kinesthetic, and tactile learning; and on the
social preferences for group and individual learning. Park's data on Hmong
students show a "major preference" for all four perceptual styles,
with tactile learning scoring the highest. The data also show "major
preference" for group learning, and "minor preference" for
individual learning. Of all six learning styles examined, the Hmong learners
scored highest preference for group learning.[2]
Given the results of the Hvitfeldt
(1986) and Park (2002) studies on Hmong learners' cognitive, perceptual, and
social learning style preferences, can we make some inferences about their
strategy use? Cohen (2003) reminds us that learning styles and learning
strategies do not operate separately from tasks. He notes that research
literature linking style, strategies, and task is difficult to find. More
common are studies that more broadly link certain styles with certain strategy
preferences. Rossi-Le's (1995) is one such study that is of some relevance here
because the subjects were adult
The picture emerging from the studies cited above
on learning styles and strategies use among adult Hmong students seems to show
learners that are field dependent (Hvitfeldt,
1986; Worthley, 1987) and with a preference for group learning (Park, 2002).
These findings may lead one to believe that social learning strategies would be
preferred. It is interesting, then, to note that both Degenhardt (2005) and
Starks-Martin (1996) comment on low use of interactive strategies among their
Hmong learners.
Strategies Instruction
If
strategies can indeed help students become more effective learners of the
language, it makes sense that teachers should try to integrate strategies
instruction into their curricula. Chamot (2005) notes a number of important
principles for strategies instruction, including identifying strategies that
learners are already using, thoughtful matching of strategies and tasks, and
providing both implicit and explicit strategies instruction. Citing a number of
studies on the effectiveness of strategies instruction, Chamot goes on to note
outcomes such as improvement on language skills tests[3],
positive attitudes toward language learning strategies, and transfer of
learning strategies to new tasks following strategies instruction.
There are
many factors to consider as one approaches strategies instruction: In what
language should the instruction take place? Over what period of time will the
instruction take place? Which strategies should be taught? What are the
students' current levels of awareness about strategies? Will the instruction be
integrated with regular classroom instruction, or will there be a special
"strategy class"? What is the learners' educational level and
background? Clearly, each setting and situation will require slightly different
approaches to strategies instruction. While there is no one-size-fits-all
method to instruction, Oxford and Leaver (1996) advocate what they call
"strategy-plus-control" instruction. They define control as the
ability (on the part of the student) not only to use a specific strategy, but
to evaluate the success of use, as well as the ability to consciously transfer
the use of the strategy to a new setting or task. They note a number of
characteristics of instructional models that emphasize
"strategy-plus-control":
1. Identification of strategies to be taught.
2. Assessment of current strategy use as a precursor to
strategy instruction.
3. Strategy instruction of students over a long period of
time.
4. Explicit demonstration, discussion, use, evaluation,
and transfer of specific strategies.
5. Preparation and use of specific materials tailored to
the regular language learning tasks.
6. On-going evaluation by teacher and participants of the
effectiveness of the strategy instruction.
7. Flexibility in individualizing or adapting strategy
assistance to the needs of each learner. (p. 236)
Another
commonly used model for strategies instruction is the Cognitive Academic
Language Learning Approach (CALLA) Model (Chamot, Barnhardt, Robbins &
El-Dinary, 1996), which involves the following steps:
1. Preparation: students prepare for learning a new
strategy by identifying the prior knowledge and use of the strategy.
2. Presentation: the teacher models the use of the new
strategy.
3. Practice: students practice the strategy with materials
of moderate difficulty.
4. Evaluation: students evaluate their use of the strategy
and how well it is working for them.
5. Expansion: students apply the strategy in a new
situation or learning task.
The CALLA
model and the strategy-plus-control models share a number of key steps,
including assessment of strategy usage, explicit modeling of the strategy,
practice with the strategy, evaluation of the effectiveness of the strategy,
and then applying the strategy in new situations / tasks.
In
summary, while learning strategies and styles have been categorized and studied
among students from a variety of cultural backgrounds, and various models of
strategies instruction have been proposed, little has been published on
strategies use and instruction with adult immigrant learners with little to no
prior educational background. These learners are perhaps in particular need of
strategies instruction, since they are often in formal ESL instructional
settings for a short period of time, due to limited funding and the need to
find a job. Their lack of formal education means that learning to learn in general
is vital for their success. The current study attempts to answer the following
questions:
1. What learning strategies are adult Hmong students with
little or no prior formal education using to learn English?
2. What strategies would be useful for them?
3. What do teachers of adult ESL need to know about
strategies instruction for learners with little prior formal education?
PROJECT OVERVIEW
This
project took place in a beginning literacy ABE/ESL class in a metro area
learning center. Classes meet five days a week, for four hours each day. There
is a workforce focus for the curriculum at this center.
There
were four stages to the project: pre-study observations of the class to collect
data about observable learning strategies the students were already using;
interviews with 11 Hmong students on their use of strategies and their prior
learning experiences; six strategies instruction sessions; and an evaluation
session with the learners.
One
reality of ABE/ESL classes is the amount of turn-over in the student
population. While I chose this site specifically because it has a workforce
education focus, and students' financial support is dependent on their
attendance, there were few students who were involved in all four stages of the
study.
PARTICIPANTS
As noted
above, different students participated in different stages of the project. The
pre-study observation stage focused primarily on five of the Hmong students
(two of whom I later interviewed), and one Karen student (whom I didn't include
in the interview group).
In the second stage, interviews
were conducted with 11 Hmong students. (See Table 1) Two students were male and
nine were female. Ages ranged from 20 to 58. Most had no prior formal education
in Hmong. The amount of ESL study (both in the current program and prior
programs) ranged from one month to slightly over 2 years. Ten of the
participants reported some degree of proficiency in at least one other language
(Thai or Lao). The two men both reported a fair level of fluency, while the
women mostly reported understanding / speaking "a little".
Participants were given a CASAS test in March, 2007. (Those scores with an
asterisk were from January, 2007.) Scaled CASAS scores ranged from 174-191,
which placed them at the beginning ABE literacy level. The following is a
description of functional and workplace skills for learners scoring less than
200 on the CASAS test.
Individual
has little or no ability to read basic signs or maps and can provide limited
personal information on simple forms. The individual can handle routine entry
level jobs that require little or no basic written communication or
computational skills and no knowledge of computers or other technology.
(National Reporting System for Adult Education, 2007)
Table 1: Demographic Information on
Interview Participants
|
Participant # |
Gender |
Age |
Prior Formal Education (other than
ESL) |
Amount of ESL Study |
Other L2 (self-reported
proficiency) |
CASAS score (scaled) |
|
1 |
F |
29 |
0 |
2 years, 3 months |
Thai (a little) |
188* |
|
2 |
M |
58 |
0 |
2 years |
Thai (fluent), Lao |
174 |
|
3 |
F |
24 |
> 1 year |
2 months |
Thai (a little) |
180 |
|
4 |
M |
36 |
0 (learned to read Hmong from
parents) |
1 month |
Thai and Lao (fairly fluent in
both) |
184 |
|
5 |
F |
27 |
0 |
6 months |
Thai and Lao (a little) |
178* |
|
6 |
F |
24 |
0 |
1 year, 6 months |
|
174 |
|
7 |
F |
48 |
0 |
1 year, 6 months |
Thai (a little) |
176 |
|
8 |
F |
50 |
0 |
3 months |
Lao ("less than Hmong") |
176 |
|
9 |
F |
20 |
0 |
1 month |
Lao (understands a bit) |
191 |
|
10 |
F |
37 |
0 |
8-9 months |
Thai (a little) |
176 |
|
11 |
F |
46 |
0 |
1 month |
Thai (a little) |
175 |
The
post-interview phase involved six strategies instruction sessions. All students
in the class participated in these sessions, whether I had interviewed them or
not. Attendance varied at each session, with approximately 15 learners each
session. Learners were Hmong, Karen, and Somali. Because a number of the
interviewees had already moved on to a higher level class, or had left the
program, I didn't focus specifically on the Hmong group. The fourth and final
stage involved surveying students who had participated in these strategies
instruction sessions (regardless of whether I had interviewed them or not) to
get their perspective on the strategies instruction they had received.
DATA COLLECTION
In
selecting the methods for data collection, I kept a number of factors in mind:
1) The learners were low-literate; 2) There was a language gap: I speak no
Hmong, and the learners have low English proficiency; 3) The learners had
likely had little experience reflecting on their own learning, so this would be
a novel concept for them; and 4) I wanted to select methods that other ABE ESL
teachers could use with a similar population. These factors pointed to methods
that didn't involve reading or writing on the part of the learners, that could
be done with a translator, that would be fairly open-ended and conversational, and
that were fairly intuitive for teachers. I had also decided that I wanted to
get a general picture of strategies use, both inside and outside of the
classroom, rather than focusing on a specific skill area. A final point I
considered was that while the learners had had little formal education, they
were all adults who had clearly learned many things during their lifetimes. How
could I help them to reflect on their prior informal learning experiences to
see what strategies they already used that could be transferred to language
learning?
Cohen and
Scott (1996) discuss a number of approaches to assessing language learning
strategies: strategies interviews and written questionnaires, observation,
verbal report, diaries and dialog journals, recollective studies, and computer
tracking. In the current study, I used observation and interviews that focused
on current and past learning experiences.
Observations
Cohen and
Scott (1996) note that a major drawback of collecting data on learning
strategies through observation is that only a limited number of strategies are
behavioral; many occur on a cognitive level and are thus not observable. While
this is clearly a disadvantage, I felt observation would still be a good
initial, impressionistic way to gather data while at the same time allowing the
students to get used to my presence in the classroom prior to the interviews,
and also to learn about the tasks that the teacher used. I observed 9 sessions,
for approximately 2 hours each session. For the first two sessions, I wrote
general notes about strategies that I observed a number of learners using. For
the next seven sessions, I focused on a specific student, and collected data
through three-column field notes. In one column, I noted the time; in the
second I noted the task and the teacher's actions, instructions, corrections,
interactions with students, and so on; and in the third column, I noted the
student's actions, utterances, and responses. To analyze this data, I read
through the field notes and marked where I had observed a learning strategy,
named the strategy, and noted whether it seemed an effective strategy for the
specific task.
Interviews
The
primary way that I collected data on learning strategies use among the group of
eleven Hmong learners was through one-on-one oral interviews, with the aid of a
translator. Cohen and Scott (1996) discuss the advantages and disadvantages of
structure within learning strategy questionnaires and interviews. They note
that with more structured interviews, there is more control on the part of the
interviewer, and the data collected with this type of instrument is more easily
analyzed statistically. On the other hand, less structured interviews offer the
participants the opportunity to explore areas of interest to them. A
disadvantage noted by Cohen and Scott is that data collected in this manner is
more likely to be individualized, and this therefore makes it difficult to find
overall patterns. Another point made by Cohen and Scott is that interviews can
focus on either current learning experiences or past ones (recollective).
The
interview questions I developed were intended to be a hybrid of structured and
unstructured probes, and I hoped to have learners reflect on both current
language learning experiences as well as past informal learning experiences
(learning another L2 or a job). The interview covered six general areas: 1) the
participants' prior formal learning experiences; 2) literacy activities in
Hmong; 3) other language learning experiences; 4) participants' prior jobs and
how they were learned; 5) learning English in the current program; and 6) use
of English outside of the classroom.
Section 1
helped me assess how experienced the participants were in formal education
settings, as well as how those educational experiences (if any) compared to
their current program. Section 2 gave more details about level of L1 literacy.
I knew most of these learners were considered to be low-literate in Hmong, but
I wanted to get further information. Sections 3 and 4 helped students reflect
on informal learning experiences (learning jobs and other languages) and the
strategies they used
Section 5
included the most structured questions. Using Oxford's Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (Oxford, 1990) as a point
of departure, I created general questions with two specific examples to cover
the six areas of the SILL: memory strategies, cognitive strategies,
compensation strategies, metacognitive strategies, affective strategies, and
social strategies. For example, for memory strategies, I asked, "Do you do
things to help you remember words and new ideas in English?" then gave
some specific examples: "Do you try to use new words? Do you review your
English lessons? Your notebook and papers?" I hoped to have students
reflect generally on the strategy, then give a simple frequency answer:
"many times", "sometimes", or "never". In
practice, it was very difficult to get students to respond with frequencies,
even with the translator's help. After several interviews, I dropped the
frequency questions and just noted if the students reported using this type of
strategy.
The final
section of the interview, section 6, focused on use of English outside of the
classroom. I hoped that it would give me a chance to explore again some use strategies.
RESULTS
Observation
Table 2
below summarizes the most common effective and ineffective strategies
observed. Table 3 includes a number of
strategies of unknown efficacy. I have labeled each with one of the six areas
covered in the SILL. However, it should be noted that there may be other areas
that each could fit into.
Table 2: Most Common Effective and
Ineffective Strategies
|
Effective
Strategies |
Ineffective
Strategies |
|
Paper
and pens ready, on track with papers; look over handouts as class gets ready.
(metacognitive) |
Difficulty
keeping track of papers |
|
Copy
from board or handouts when appropriate (when the teacher gives them time);
attend to classroom activity (cognitive
and metacognitive) |
Copy
from board or handout when the teacher is explaining something else or is
leading choral repetition |
|
Copy
from board or handouts and ask questions that show comprehension (cognitive) |
Copy
from board or handouts, but with attention solely on form, not meaning |
|
Spontaneous
repetition of dialogs; personalizing of new vocabulary (Ex: “Mai x-ray
four time.” i.e., I've had x-rays four times.) (cognitive) |
|
|
Create
new language as requested (cognitive) |
|
|
Use
text, pictures, other clues to orient themselves to the material (i.e., on
grocery ads, look for pictures of "apples" as well as text) (cognitive and compensation) |
Look
only for requested text (i.e., on grocery ads, look for the word “apples”
alone) |
|
Ask
teacher for help: clarification of directions, correction of answers, etc. (cognitive and metacognitive) |
Avoid
interaction with teacher |
|
“Teach”
other students: checking their work, asking teacher to help others, etc. (social) |
|
Table 3: Most Common Strategies of
Unknown Efficacy
|
Ask for and give translations in
L1 (cognitive) Choral repetition to self (cognitive and memory) |
One needs
to be careful in generalizing these results, particularly since they only
represent observable strategies. However, a few things do bear noting. First,
students were very adept at a number of observable social strategies. They
asked each other questions, checked their work with the teacher and with peers,
asked the teacher to help peers who needed it, translated for each other, and
so on. They truly made their learning a social experience. This is in line with
Hvitfeldt (1986), Worthley (1987) and
Park's (2002) work which showed Hmong learners to be field sensitive and to
have a preference for group learning. Second, there were a number of
"routine" classroom strategies that these learners were clearly
familiar with: copying, repeating to themselves, and scanning a text to find
target words. This was interesting for me to note, since most of the learners
had little experience in a formal classroom setting. I noticed that the more
experienced learners often directed the newcomers to write things down, and the
teacher certainly asked for repetition and gave students time and directions to
copy, too. However, it is also interesting to note that these strategies were
not always effective. Indeed, sometimes students were engaged in copying, for
example, in a way that hindered their learning (for example, when the teacher
was explaining something else). As mentioned in the literature review, Cohen
(2003) reminds us that strategies can only be judged effective (or not) within the context of a given task or
situation. So, for a strategy to work, there needs to be informed choice on the
part of the learner: they need to know why they're using it, and the
appropriate times and settings to use it.
Interviews
As
mentioned earlier, the interviews with the Hmong learners covered six general
areas. The results for each are discussed below.
1)
Participants' prior formal learning experiences
Only one
of the participants had any formal education (outside of ESL classes). She had
attended school in Thailand for less than a year when she was about 10. She
reported that the teacher's writing on the board and "explaining
things" were helpful to her learning. In terms of her own learning
strategies, she reported that writing in a notebook was helpful. Due to the
remoteness (in time and distance) of this experience, it was difficult to get
more details.
2)
Literacy activities in Hmong
Seven of
the participants reported some literacy in Hmong (five women and both men). One
reported learning to read from his parents, another from her children, and a
third from friends. Of the seven, four reported being able to write: one writes
her name, one writes grocery lists, two write to relatives, and one writes
"many things". In terms of reading activities, six of the seven
reported some skills: two can sound out words but not read sentences; one reads
notes and letters from family; and three reported feeling comfortable reading a
variety of texts (one of these specified that she reads typed texts more easily).
3) Other
language learning experiences
As noted
above, ten of the participants reported some degree of proficiency in at least
one other language (Thai or Lao). The two men both reported a fair level of
fluency, while the women mostly reported understanding / speaking "a
little". Most reported being able to do tasks such as naming objects,
talking about their family, and shopping. None of the participants had studied
Thai or Lao formally. They all reported learning the languages through talking
with native speakers. One participant noted, "It was easier to learn Thai
because I had to speak it. Thai is easier to understand than English. When I hear Thai, I can just try to speak it. The words are easier to understand. English
has so many words, [synonyms]." This was particularly interesting to me.
These learners may have low proficiency in English, but they are not novice
language learners: they've spent most of their lives in settings where they are
not native speakers, and they've learned at least some of the other L2. I had
seen them speak Thai (seemingly without embarrassment) with Karen speakers in
the class, and they also seemed largely comfortable trying to speak with the
teacher in English. When asked in another question about how they feel when they
need to speak English, most reported not feeling nervous. Yet, it was
fascinating that seven of them later reported using no English outside of the
class, and one of these reported actively avoiding using English.
4)
Participants' prior jobs and how they were learned
All
eleven participants reported having at least one prior job (held in either
Thailand or Laos). Ten of them had done farming with their family. Four had
done farming for others. Two had done sewing. One each had done construction,
road work, retail work, and work as a maid. When asked how they had learned
their jobs, nearly all reported beginning to work as a child, and observing
older people work.
5)
Learning English in the current program (learning strategies)
Table 4
summarizes the participants' reported use of strategies. There are several
points worth noting. For metacognitive strategies, eight of the learners
reported trying to review material at home, between 30 minutes to 2 hours a
day. This was surprising to me. I expected that they would not have much time
for learning at home. They also reported great frustration with review, because
they could not remember what the material meant, or could not read their own
handwriting. In addition, nine of the participants reported spending a lot of
time thinking (and worrying) about the fact that they need to learn English. In
terms of affect, there were mixed responses. Three participants noted feeling
stressed about learning English. In contrast, when asked how they deal with
nervousness about speaking English, eight reported not feeling nervous. Perhaps
they interpreted the question to be about nervousness in the classroom.
Table 4: Participants' reported strategy
usage in current program
|
Memory strategies |
Cognitive strategies |
Compensation strategies |
Metacognitive strategies |
Affective strategies |
Social strategies |
|
saying words outloud (n=5) writing words down (n=4) |
listening to TV in English (n=7) listening to relatives speak
English (n=3) checking comprehension with others
(n=2) speak less Hmong in class (n=1) |
using a translator (n=3) using realia (in a store, eg)
(n=3) preparing ahead for communication
(n=1) |
reviewing at home (n=8) setting aside time to practice
with family (n=1) |
in class, focusing on listening
rather than responding (n=1) |
asking for help from others
(teacher, peers, children, others) (n=11) |
6) Use of
English outside of the classroom
As
mentioned earlier, seven of the participants reported using no English outside
of the class, and one of these reported actively avoiding using English. Of the
others, three use English in the grocery store, two with their children's
teachers, two with doctors (although one pointed out that she quickly resorts
to a translator), and one practices with her family.
STRATEGIES INSTRUCTION
After the
observations and interviews, the classroom teacher and I wanted to teach some
relevant strategies to the learners. We reviewed the data I had collected, and
the teacher added her own observations of areas where the learners were having
difficulty. It seemed like the most immediate needs were for memory strategies,
metacognitive strategies, and compensation strategies. More specifically, since
learners had identified the desire to review at home, but a lack of
understanding of their materials, we felt that teaching them first how to
create flashcards, then use them would be useful (memory strategies). It was
also clear that the materials in their notebooks were not well organized, and
this impeded review (a metacognitive strategy). Planning opportunities to
practice with native speakers in low-stress situations was another goal (a metacognitive
and social strategy), so we wanted to help them identify common phrases they
could use. We also felt that they needed some phrases that would help them with
circumlocution (a compensation strategy).
We
developed seven one-hour long strategies instruction sessions, which were
conducted approximately weekly. For three of these, more proficient students
(from a higher level class at the site) were used as translators. The others
were conducted entirely in English. Each
session began with a brief statement of why the strategy was important, when it
could be used, and how it related to problems that the interviewees had
articulated. Then, the instructor modeled the strategy. The bulk of the time
was spent having learners either create their own materials (flashcards) or
practicing using the strategy. For about half of the strategies, the classroom
teacher was able to follow up during the rest of the week to help students to
either continue applying the strategy, to apply the strategy to new language,
or to check on their use of the strategy outside of class. For example, after
identifying a schema for organizing the materials in their notebooks, she had
them identify where to place class handouts each time they received them.
PARTICIPANT FEEDBACK ON STRATEGIES
INSTRUCTION
After the
seven strategies instruction sessions, I wanted to get feedback from the
learners. I developed a feedback sheet that used visuals, and also used more
proficient English speakers from a higher level class as translators. While
there were eleven respondents in all, not all of them had attended every
instructional session. Table 5 provides the participants' responses. In the
second column, "helps me learn / speak", participants were instructed
to select the largest circle for "a lot", the middle one for
"some", and the smallest one for "a little".
Table 5: Learners' Feedback on Strategies
Instruction
|
Strategy |
Helps me learn
/ speak |
I use it x
times out of class |
||||||||
|
1. making
flashcards |
|
0 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
|||
|
|
n=7 |
|
n=4 |
n=3 |
|
|
|
n=3 |
|
n=1 |
|
2. using
flashcards |
|
0 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
|||
|
|
n=7 |
|
n=3 |
n=4 |
|
n=1 |
n=2 |
n=2 |
n=1 |
n=1 |
|
3. organizing
notebook |
|
(only an in-class
activity) |
||||||||
|
|
n=7 |
n=1 |
n=5 |
n=1 |
||||||
|
4. something
for (a phrase taught for circumlocution) |
|
0 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
|||
|
|
n=7 |
n=3 |
n=4 |
|
n=3 |
n=1 |
n=1 |
n=2 |
|
|
|
5. a machine
for (a phrase taught for circumlocution) |
|
0 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
|||
|
|
n=8 |
n=4 |
n=2 |
n=2 |
n=4 |
|
|
n=3 |
n=1 |
|
|
6. speaking to
people outside of class |
|
0 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
|||
|
|
n=11 |
n=2 |
n=3 |
n=5 |
n=7 |
n=1 |
n=1 |
n=1 |
n=1 |
|
The
participants found the metacognitive strategy of organizing their notebooks to
be most helpful, followed by the phrases taught for circumlocution (a
compensation strategy). The social strategy of speaking to people outside of
the class was the one they reported as least helpful, and also the one they
tried least frequently outside of class.
DISCUSSION
This
project began as an attempt to answer three key questions about adult Hmong
learners' use of learning strategies. While there were a number of problems in
the design and carrying out of the project, interesting information did result.
After discussing a number of the drawbacks in the study, I will address each of
the three key questions.
One area
of weakness in the design was that the interview questions about strategy use
were very general, and thus the responses lacked detail. Indeed, this lack of
detail made it difficult to categorize some of the behaviors. A better option
would have been to have learners perform a specific language task, then reflect
on how they had accomplished the task. In terms of the strategies instruction
section, the project would have benefited from a more long-term time frame.
Much more time could have been spent in practicing and applying each strategy.
Finally, it is difficult to evaluate the impact, if any, of the strategies
instruction sessions on the learners' use of strategies and on language
learning. Again, the timeframe was too short to allow for more follow-up.
1. What
learning strategies are adult Hmong students with little or no prior formal
education using to learn English?
It is of
course impossible to generalize the results of the observations and interviews.
In addition, the more important question is what strategies they are using
effectively. The clearest one that I saw was using peers and the teacher to
help them learn. A number of learners were able to focus their attention in the
classroom appropriately. I was also gratified to hear that at least one learner
spent time planning for interactions, and another allowed herself to just sit
and listen in class when she felt overwhelmed. Perhaps the most interesting
insight for me was less about a specific strategy, but that these learners are
very experienced in being non-native speakers and language learners, despite
the fact that they are recent immigrants to the US, and have only recently been
in formal learning situations. Are there elements of informal learning, which
seems to have served them well in learning Thai, that could be built into ESL
curricula here? Perhaps a more experiential, community-based approach may
replicate some of their successes, and be more familiar to them than sitting in
a classroom. This is not a criticism of the teachers at the site of the study,
who do a very good job of integrating a lot of field trips into the curricula,
as well as applying work skills in a hands-on way at a thrift shop housed at
the site.
2. What
strategies would be useful to students?
We chose
strategies based on the outcomes of the observations and interviews. For this
reason, it is difficult to generalize which strategies would be useful for
another group. However, I think that most low-literate learners with no prior
education would benefit from metacognitive strategies, particularly those related
to thinking about, organizing, and evaluating their learning. In addition,
because there are so many language gaps when one is at a low proficiency level,
some compensation strategies would also likely benefit most low-literate
learners.
3. What
do teachers of adult ESL need to know about strategies instruction for learners
with little prior formal education?
Awareness
about the different types of strategies is important for all teachers, as well
as ideas about how to gather information about students' current strategy use.
Teachers also need to think about integrating strategies instruction in with
the rest of their curriculum, and find ways to recycle strategies once they
have been taught.
In
addition, there are a number of factors that are helpful for those working with
learners with no prior formal education. These include:
- Trying to anticipate what
students will have difficulty with as a result of being low-literate. For example, our students had real
difficulty with metacognition about their first language. (It was hard for
them to think of a word in their L1 that “sounded like” an English word –
something I asked them to do when making flashcards.)
- Breaking strategies down into
smaller steps. For example,
students made flashcards in session one.
In session two, they practiced using the flashcards. In session three, they added more
information to their cards (person, thing, action).
- Having students practice
strategies with known material. When students are familiar with the basic
task and language, they are free to focus more on the strategy being
taught.
- Using higher-level students
as translators during strategy training sessions. This allows for more
depth in the explanations. In addition, the strategies apply to all
levels, so it’s time well spent for all students.
CONCLUSION
This
project shows that preliterate adult Hmong students are already using a number
of learning strategies effectively. It also suggests that many learners can
benefit from additional strategies instruction, and in fact want to learn how
to learn more effectively. When providing strategies instruction, teachers need
to pay particular attention to teaching them in manageable steps, and using
known material for practice. Suggestions for further research are to do more
in-depth interviews with individual learners. To focus specifically on current
language learning, it would be good to have them perform a learning task, and
then reflect on that. Another fertile area for further exploration is the
learners' experiences of learning Thai. An interesting way to gain
retrospective information on these informal learning experiences would be
asking them to tell stories about learning the language. Perhaps there are
program and curricular changes that we could make to better match the learning
styles and preferences of these learners.
AUTHOR
Julia Reimer is an Assistant Professor at the
Center for Second Language Teaching and Learning at Hamline University. She has
taught ESL in Minnesota and Spain. She received her MAT in ESL from the School
for International Training.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author is grateful to MinneTESOL for the grant
which supported this project.
REFERENCES
Bedell, D. A. & Oxford, R. L. (1996).
Cross-cultural comparisons of language learning strategies in the People's
Republic of
Chamot, A.U., Barnhardt, S., El-Dinary, P., &
Robbins, J. (1996). Methods for teaching learning strategies in the foreign
language classroom. In R. Oxford (Ed.), Language
learning strategies around the world: Cross-cultural perspectives
(pp.175-188). Honolulu:
University of Hawai'i, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.
Chamot, A. U. (2005). Language learning strategy
instruction: Current issues and research. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 25, 112–130.
Cohen, A. D. (1998). Strategies in learning and
using a second language. London: Longman.
Cohen, A. D. (2003) The
learner's side of foreign language learning: Where do styles, strategies, and
tasks meet? IRAL, 41 (4), 279-91.
Cohen, A.
D. (2008). Coming to terms with language learner strategies: Surveying the
experts. In A. D. Cohen and E. Macaro (Eds.), Language learner strategies: 30 years of research and practice (pp.
29-45). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cohen, A. D. & Scott, K.
(1996). A synthesis of approaches to assessing language learning strategies. In R. Oxford (Ed.), Language learning strategies around the world: Cross-cultural perspectives
(pp.189-106). Honolulu:
University of Hawai'i, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.
Degenhardt,
K. (2005). Language learning strategies
and low-level adult English language learners. Unpublished master's thesis,
Hvitfeldt, C. (1986). Traditional
culture, perceptual style, and learning: The classroom behavior of Hmong
adults. Adult Education Quarterly, 36(2),
65-77.
National Reporting System for Adult Education. (2007). Implementation guidelines: Measures and methods for
the National Reporting System for Adult Education. Retrieved December 31,
2007 from
http://www.nrsweb.org/docs/ImplementationGuidelines.pdf
O'Malley, J. M., & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning
strategies in second language
acquisition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning
strategies: What every teacher should know. Boston: Heinle and Heinle.
Oxford, R. L. (2003) Language learning styles and
strategies: Concepts and relationships. IRAL,
41(4), 271-278.
Park, C. C. (2002) Crosscultural differences in
learning styles of secondary English learners. Bilingual
Research Journal, 26(2), 213-229.
Accessed Nov. 13, 2007 from http://brj.asu.edu/content/vol26_no2/pdf/ART13.PDF
Rossi-Le, Laura (1995). Learning styles and
strategies in adult immnigrant ESL students. In J. M. Reid (ed.) Learning
styles in the ESL/EFL classroom (pp.118-125). New York: Heinle and Heinle.
Starks-Martin,
G. (1996). Using
"think-alouds," journals, and portfolios to assess Hmong students'
perceptions of their study/learning strategies. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED 399 803)
Worthley,
K. M. E. (1987). Learning style factor of
field dependence / independence and problem solving strategies of Hmong refugee
students. Unpublished master's thesis,