Download FOREIGN LANGUAGE SPEAKING STRATEGY USE IN ACADEMIC

FOREIGN LANGUAGE SPEAKING STRATEGY USE IN ACADEMIC ESP
CONTEXT: A STUDY OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS
UNDERGRADUATES
Bojović D. Milevica,
Foreign language lecturer, PhD in Philology, University of Kragujevac,
Faculty of Agronomy in Čačak, Serbia
Abstract
The article considers agricultural economics undergraduate students’ use of
speaking strategies in the English for specific purposes classroom at academic
education level. Strategies as the means of active and self-directing involvement in
the process of foreign language learning are vital for the development of foreign
language communicative competence. Speaking strategies are assumed to be used by
foreign language learners to exercise their oral performance in the target language.
Foreign language speaking strategies are theoretically based on the researches
considering strategies of foreign language learning. The classification of language
learning strategies and strategies of speaking is presented in the paper. The
agricultural economics undergraduate students’ use of speaking strategies is
evaluated from the aspect of using memory, cognitive, compensation, metacognitive,
and affective strategies. The participants were the undergraduate students in the field
of agricultural economics, learning English for Specific Purposes at the Faculty of
Agronomy in Čačak, University of Kragujevac, Serbia. The obtained results indicate
that the participants’ overall use of speaking strategies is frequent and that most
frequently used speaking strategies are metacognitive and affective strategies.
Keywords: academic context, English for specific purposes, speaking, strategies.
Introduction
Language learning strategies has become a particular issue of interest to be
incorporated into language curricula at all levels of study. There is a belief that the
focus on language learning strategies helps students become more effective learners
and initiate the activation of learner-centered philosophy [Nunan, 1995]. Strategies in
foreign language (FL) learning are “techniques or devices that learners apply in order
to acquire knowledge of a foreign language” [Rubin, 1975, p. 43], or “specific actions
or techniques that students use, often intentionally, to improve their progress in
developing foreign language skills” [Green & Oxford, 1995, p 262].
In an attempt to produce a classification of FL learning strategies, Oxford
[1990] synthesized earlier work on language learning strategies [Rubin, 1975;
O’Maley et al., 1985]. The resulting classification indicates that good language
learners use six groups of strategies:
 memory strategies help learners link one FL item/concept with another
(creating mental linkages, employing action, linking sounds and images,
rhyming);
 cognitive strategies enable the learner to manipulate the language material in
direct ways through reasoning, analyzing, synthesizing, summarizing, creating
knowledge structures;
 compensation strategies help the learner make up for the missing knowledge
(guessing from the context in listening/reading, using synonyms or
explanations in speaking/writing);
 metacognitive strategies are employed for managing the learning process
(identifying one’s own learning style preferences, planning for a particular FL
task, monitoring and evaluating task success);
 affective strategies refer to directing feelings, motivations, and attitudes in FL
learning (self-reward for good performance, positive self-talk); and
 social strategies help the learner work with others and understand the target
culture as well as the language (asking questions for clarification, exploring
cultural and social norms).
The strategies of language learning can also be classified according to skill
area regarding reading, writing, listening, and speaking language skills [Cohen &
Weaver, 2006]. In this approach, speaking strategies are seen as language strategies
used for the productive skill in the oral mode. The concept of speaking strategies is
based on the Oxford’s taxonomy of language learning strategies [1990] explained
above and involves the categories of memory, cognitive, compensation,
metacognitive, and affective strategies. This study examines the agricultural
economics undergraduate students’ use of speaking strategies in English as a foreign
language for specific purposes in the academic classroom context.
Organization of research
The participants were twenty undergraduate students in the field of agricultural
economics, learning English as a foreign language (EFL) or more precisely, learning
English for Specific Purposes (ESP) at the Faculty of Agronomy in Čačak, University
in Kragujevac, Serbia.
The variables used in the study are FL speaking strategies, involving memory,
cognitive, compensation, metacognitive, and affective strategies. The research
instrument is the Strategy Inventory for Foreign Language Speaking Skills (SIFLSS),
based on the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning or SILL [Oxford, 1989]. The
instrument items considering speaking strategies are extracted from original SILL
scale. The SIFLSS scale consists of 20 items and is of the Likert-type, with choices
ranging from “never or almost never true of me” (1) to “always or almost always true
of me” (5). The SIFLSS items measure students’ evaluation of their own use of
speaking strategies in EFL from the perspective of the overall use of speaking
strategies, and memory, cognitive, compensation, metacognitive, and affective
strategies.
The measures of descriptive statistics (mean values, frequency analysis) were
used for data processing. For the Likert-scaled SIFLSS items, the following key
helped to interpret the means: mean values from 3.5 to 5.0 indicate high use, from 2.5
to 3.49 indicate medium use, and from 1.0 to 2.49 indicate low use [Oxford, 1990].
Considering the frequency analysis, it is important to emphasize that the SIFFLS item
ratings were also collapsed into three categories, representing high use (for always
true of me and usually true of me), medium use (for somewhat true of me), and low
use (for usually not true of me and never true of me).
The instrument SIFLSS is used to collect the data in the study. It was
administered to the participants by their English language teacher during their regular
university ESP classes.
Results
The instrument SIFLSS is found to be reliable and internally consistent as the
coefficient Cronbach’s alpha is r=0.81. This result is within the scope of the values
found in the literature for the SILL, on which the SIFLSS is based, ranging from 0.81
to 0.94 [Lee & Oxford, 2008; Murray, 2010; Oxford & Burry-Stock, 1995].
The results obtained by descriptive analysis indicate that the overall use of EFL
speaking strategies among the participants is frequent since the mean value of the
overall speaking strategy use is M=3.55. Most frequently used speaking strategies are
metacognitve (M=4.04) and affective strategies (M=3.82), the ranking of the
students’ use of speaking strategies being illustrated in Table 1.
Table 1. Students’ use of strategies of speaking in ESP classroom
Strategies of speaking - categories
Metacognitive strategies
Affective strategies
Compensation strategies
Memory strategies
Cognitive strategies
N = 20
M – mean value, N - number of participants
Ranking (M)
1 (4.04)
2 (3.82)
3 (3.45)
4 (3.34)
5 (3.25)
Use of speaking strategies
high use
high use
medium use
medium use
medium use
The descriptive analysis of individual SIFLSS items indicates that two
individual strategies, one belonging to the category of memory strategies and the
other belonging to affective strategies, are used highly frequently by the
undergraduate students of agricultural economics (mean values for both items being
M > 4.50). The first highly frequently used strategy, belonging to the category of
memory strategies, refers to students’ association of new material with already
known (M=4.80). The frequency analysis shows that 95% of the participants use this
strategy frequently, while only 5% of the respondents show moderate use of this
strategy. The other highly frequently used strategy, which belongs to the category of
affective strategies, refers to students’ relaxation when feeling afraid of speaking in
English (M=4.60). The frequency analysis indicates that 95% of the students always
try to relax when feeling afraid of speaking in English, while the remaining 5% of the
respondents show medium use of this speaking strategy. Another frequently used
affective strategy considers the students encouraging themselves to speak in English
when feeling afraid of making mistake (M=4.15).
Furthermore, the students frequently notice their mistakes when speaking in
English, and pay attention when someone is speaking in English - mean values for
these two strategies are M=4.05 and M=4.40, respectively; these two individual items
belong to metacognitive strategies. Also, two individual compensation strategies are
frequently used by the participants - using gestures during conversations and using
synonyms (a word or phrase) when not being able to think of a proper English word
(mean values for these two strategies being M=3.70 and 4.05, respectively). In
addition, the students frequently try to talk like native English speakers (M=3.65) and
to practice the sounds of English (M=3.55) – both items belong to cognitive
strategies.
The participants also show moderate use of the following individual strategies,
the mean values for these strategies being 2.50 < M < 3.49: using new English words
in a sentence in order to memorize them (memory strategy); repeating new words in
English, initiating conversation, and making summaries of information in English (all
three items belong to cognitive strategies); making up new words when not being
able to use the appropriate one in English and anticipating what the collocutor will
say in English (compensation strategies); looking for people to talk to in English
(metacognitive strategies); and, giving self-reward for doing well when speaking in
English (affective strategy).
Finally, only one individual strategy is used rarely. Generally, the students
rarely use rhymes to remember new English words (M=2.15). The frequency analysis
shows that almost half of the students (45% of them) never use rhymes to remember
new English words, while 55% of the respondents use this strategy frequently.
Conclusion
The study examined some tendencies of using strategies of speaking in ESP at
tertiary level of education. The aim of the study was to determine the most frequently
used strategies of speaking in EFL among the students in the field of agricultural
economics from undergraduate population.
The results of the study revealed that university undergraduate students of
agricultural economics generally use the strategies of speaking in university ESP
education context frequently and that most frequently used strategies are
metacognitive and affective strategies. The students also showed medium levels of
use of memory, cognitive, and compensation strategies. Considering individual
strategies of speaking in English as a foreign language, most strategies (11 out of 20)
were used frequently and only one was used rarely.
ESP/EFL teachers, as well as foreign language teachers in general, should be
aware of their students’ speaking strategy preferences so that they could orient their
foreign language teaching and interweave the strategy teaching into language
instruction. Also, ESP/EFL teachers should give students the chance to practice their
speaking skills and employ speaking strategies in the classroom context. In this way
they can become more efficient speaking strategy users. On the other hand, it is
necessary to be aware that speaking strategy use is but one component in learning to
speak efficiently in a foreign language - other individual variables such as differences
in learning styles, aptitude, motivation, classroom anxiety, attitude, social context and
cultural differences also have a significant role to play.
References
1. Cohen, A. D., & Weaver, C. J. (2006). Styles and strategies-based instruction: A teachers’
guide. Minneapolis, MN: Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition,
University of Minnesota.
2. Green, J. M., & Oxford, R. (1995). A closer look at learning strategies, L2 proficiency, and
gender. TESOL Quarterly, 29(2), 261-297.
3. Lee, K. R., & Oxford, R. (2008). Understanding EFL learners’ strategy use and strategy
awareness. The Asian EFL Journal, 10(1), 7-32.
4. Murray, B. (2010). Students’ language learning strategy use and achievement in the Korean
as a foreign language classroom. Foreign Language Annals 43(4), 624-634.
5. Nunan, D. (1995). Closing the gap between learning and instruction. TESOL Quarterly,
29(1), 133-158.
6. O’Malley, J. M., Chamot, A. U., Stewner-Manzanares, G., Russo, R. P., & Kupper, L.
(1985). Learning strategy applications with students of English as a second language,
TESOL Quarterly, 19(3), 557-584.
7. Oxford, R. L. (1989). Strategy Inventory for Language Learning. Retrieved on January 12,
2008, from http://www.finchpark.com/arts/sille.doc.
8. Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. New
York: Newbury House.
9. Oxford, R. L., & Burry-Stock, J. A. (1995). Assessing the use of language learning
strategies worldwide with ESL/EFL version of the Strategy Inventory for Language
Learning (SILLL). System, 23(1), 1-23.
10. Rubin, J. (1975). What the “good language learner” can teach us?, TESOL Quarterly, 9(1),
41-51.