Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
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.