French a nd Japanese Lea rne rs
Plannlng t.1onltorfng Evoluotlon Plonnlng Monltorlng Evoluatlon 1--- Japanese ---l
Fig u re 5.6
'Learners of Fre nch reported , o n ave rag e , two more instances of plan ni ng strategies and one more i n stance of evaluation strateg ies than learners of Japanese. Learn e rs of French and Japanese were si m i lar in their freque ncy of use of monitori n g . A com parison of Figure 5 . 6 and Figure 5.3 reveals that the i m pact of mode of study on the generic categ o ries of M S U , namely planning , mo nito ri ng and evaluatio n , was much g reater than the impact of t he TL.
F u rthe r co mparison of learn e rs of Fre nch and Japanese was carried out based on thei r use of i ndividual m etacog nitive strategies. Frequency data are prese nted in Table 5 . 1 0 .
Table 5 . 1 0
Frequency of Metacognitive Strategy Use Learners of F rench and Japanese
French Japanese Learners Learners M etacognitive Strategies (N=1 9) (N=1 8) N 0/o N % PLAN N I N G Advance O rganisation 1 7 6.49 6 3.09 Organisational Planning 29 1 1 .07 22 1 1 .34 Time Lapse 1 0 3.82 1 4 7.22 Directed Attention 8 3.05 9 4.64 Selective Attention 1 8 6.87 1 2 6. 1 9 Self-management 40 1 5 .27 23 1 1 .86 Analysing Needs 2 .76 0 .00 Revision 8 3 . 05 1 1 5.67 Delayed P roduction 4 1 .53 0 .00 Prioritising 4 1 .53 3 1 .55
Seek Practice Opp. 8 3.05 3 1 .55
Subtotal 1 48 56.49 1 03 53.09 MONITO R I NG Comprehension Monitoring 1 9 7.25 22 1 1 .34 Production Monitoring 2 .76 5 2.58 Auditory M onitoring 0 0.00 1 .52 Visual Monitoring 1 .38 0 .00 Strategy Monitoring 6 2.29 4 2.06 , Plan Monitoring 2 .76 0 .00 Double-check Monitoring 0 0.00 1 .52 Problem Identification 1 1 4.20 1 2 6. 1 9 Subtotal 41 1 5 .65 45 23.20 EVALUATION Production Evaluation 5 1 .91 3 1 .55 Performance Evaluation 3 1 . 1 5 3 1 .55 Ability Evaluation 24 9 . 1 6 4 2.06 Strategy Evaluation 3 2 1 2 .21 32 1 6.49
Lang. Repertoire Evaluation 9 3.44 4 2.06
Subtotal 73 27.86 46 23.71
Total 262 1 00.00 1 94 1 00.00
( Due to rounding the percent total does not always equal 1 00.)
Total N 0/o 23 5.04 5 1 1 1 . 1 8 24 5 . 26 1 7 3 . 73 30 6.58 63 1 3 .82 2 .44 1 9 4. 1 7 4 .88 7 1 .54 1 1 2.41 25 1 55 .05 41 8.99 7 1 .54 1 .22 1 .22 1 0 2 . 1 9 2 .44 1 .22 23 5 . 04 86 1 8 .86 8 1 .75 6 1 .32 28 6. 1 4 64 1 4 .04 1 3 2.85 1 1 9 26. 1 0 456 1 00 .00
Analysis of the i nformatio n i n Table 5 . 1 0 reveals that learners of F re nch and Japanese were very s i m i l ar in thei r use of i ndividual m etacog nitive strategies. Fo r both g roups the most f requent metacog nitive strategies were two plan n i ng strategies and one evaluation strategy : se lf- m anag e m e nt , o rgan i sational pla n n i n g a n d strategy evaluatio n . Both g roups also re po rted high use of t h e co mpre h e nsion monito ri ng strategy.
The most notable differe n ce in MSU betwe e n the TL groups re lated to the ability evaluati o n strategy. Fo r learners of French, abi l ity evaluati on is the fou rt h most frequ e nt metacog n itive strategy (totalli ng 2 4 instances of strategy use) , but for learners of Japanese this strategy is hard ly used at all (am o u nting to fo u r reported i nstances o f st rategy use) . Abi lity evaluat i o n takes place a s the learn e r judges his/he r abi lity to perfo rm a task. I n stances such a s t h e fol lowing we re frequ e ntly reported by learners of French:
BFD I can usually manage the grammar questions
quite easily so I work on those first. I do all of
them, and I leave the part I find the most
difficult, the essay questions, until last.
1 1 FD The o ral work I usually find hardest - that's my weakest point. I find I can read French without too much difficulty, but I find I am not always able to use words actively in speaking. On the other hand I can usually carry out the written work without too much of a struggle.
For both g roups the least freque ntly used strategies were one plan ni ng strategy (analysi n g needs) and several monitori ng strateg ies (audito ry m o nito ri ng , vi sual monitori n g , plan monitori n g , dou ble-check monitori ng ) .
5.5.2 The I nfluence of the Target Lan g uage o n CSU Reports
Table 5. 1 1 presents f reque ncy data on the use of cog n itive strateg i es by learners
of Fre nch and J apanese.
Table 5 . 1 1
Frequency of Cognitive Strategy Use Learners of French and Japanese
French J apanese
Learners Learners Total
Cognitive Strategies (N=1 9) (N=1 8) N % N 0/o N o/o Note-taking Note-taking 1 2 6.94 8 5.41 20 6 . 23 Writing Out 2 1 . 1 6 1 5 1 0. 1 4 1 7 5 . 30 Listing 6 3 .47 3 2.03 9 2 . 80 Noting Down 6 3 .47 1 .68 7 2 . 1 8 Highlighting 5 2.89 0 0.00 5 1 .56 Underlining 1 . 58 1 .68 2 . 62 Subtotal 32 1 8 .51 28 1 8 .94 50 1 8 .69 Resou rcing 30 1 7.34 1 5 1 0 . 1 4 45 1 4.02 Repetition 1 5 8.67 28 1 8 .92 43 1 3 .40 Elaboration Between-Parts 24 1 3 .87 5 3 .38 29 9 . 03 Personal 7 4.05 0 0.00 7 2 . 1 8 I magery 3 1 .73 2 1 .35 5 1 .56 World 2 1 . 1 6 3 2.03 5 1 .56 Creative 1 .58 0 0.00 1 . 3 1 ' Subtotal 37 21 .39 8 6.76 47 1 4.64 Translation 1 2 6.94 23 1 5 .54 35 1 0 .90 Read Aloud 1 0 5 .78 1 2 8 . 1 1 22 6.85 Transfer 6 3.47 6 4.05 1 2 3.74 Contextualisation 6 3.47 5 3 .38 1 1 3.43 Summarisation 3 1 .73 4 2.70 7 2 . 1 8 Auditory Representation 5 2.89 2 1 .35 7 2 . 1 8 Work in TL 5 2.89 1 . 68 6 1 .87 Grouping 4 2.31 1 . 68 5 1 .56 lnferencing 2 1 . 1 6 3 2.03 5 1 .56 M emorisation 0 0 .00 5 3.38 5 1 .56 Rehearsal 4 2 . 3 1 0 0.00 4 1 . 25 Recombination 1 .58 2 1 .35 3 0.93 Deduction 0 0.00 2 1 .35 2 0 . 62 Substitution 1 .58 1 . 68 2 0 . 62 Total 1 73 1 00.00 1 48 1 00.00 32 1 1 00.00
Initial pe rusal of the fig u res in Table 5 . 1 1 m ay suggest that learne rs of French and J apanese were co mparable in terms of frequent use of note-taki ng , resou rci n g and repetition. Howeve r, a more detai led study of t h e fig u res b ri ng s to light diffe re nces i n t h e patterns of use o f these strategies. Fo r note-taki ng ,
learne rs of Japanese reported frequ e nt u se of the writi ng out strategy (1 5 instances) , while for l earners of Fre nch this strategy was ve ry i nfrequ e nt (two i nstances). Writi ng out is a mechan ical procedure involvi ng re peated copyi ng i n order to memori se material . T h e e xamples presented below show that for learne rs of J apanese writi ng out was almost always li nked to the learni n g of kanji : 1 J D I g o through the word lists which have the kanji I need to
learn and keep writing them out. I find that by writing things out I retain them better.
3J D I have a visual memory so I need to write things out, especially with the kanji. I write out several words which exemplify one kanji, then I co ver up the Japanese side, look at the English side, then write it out again.
9J D I write out the kanji several times just to get the flow o f the strokes. Learning the kanji is the most mind-numbing part o f it all. Writing out the kanji helps me to concentrate on learning them.
A si milar e mphasis o n the more rote aspects of learning was reflected in the g reater use o f repetition by learne rs of Japanese (28 reported i n stances) t han by learne rs of F re nch ( 1 5 reported i nstances). Learners of Fre nch tended to make use of oth e r reso u rces i n maste ri ng the TL (30 repo rted i nstances) m o re then learne rs of J apanese (1 5 repo rted i n stances).
The m ost marked differe nces betwee n learn ers of Fre nch and J apanese relate to the use of e labo ration and translatio n . Ove ral l , learners of F re n ch repo rted 37 i nstances of elaborat i o n , while learne rs of Japanese reported o nly eight such instances. E l aborati o n , as discussed i n sectio n 5.3.2, takes place as the learne rs make meani ngfu l con n ections betwee n new i nfo rmation and old i nfo rmatio n , o r
betwee n i nfo rmatio n i n differe nt parts of a text . I nstances of betwee n-parts e laboration and pe rsonal e labo ration appeared 3 1 times fo r learners of Fre nch, but o n ly five times for learne rs of Japanese. Thus, i n atte mpti ng to maste r the F re nch languag e , learne rs made more active , mean i ngful associations with and wit h i n the TL m ate rial than did their Japanese co u nte rparts .
Lea rn e rs o f Japanese appeared to rely more heavily o n t ranslatio n . They reported 23 i nstances of translati o n , that is al most double the n u m ber given by learners of F re nch (1 2 i n stances). This tende ncy to re ly o n t ranslati on is also mi rro red i n the e xtent t o which learn ers chose t o wo rk i n the T L. Learners o f French g ave five i n stances when they made a conscious choice to carry out in Fre nch all aspects of wo rki ng through a particular task, whi l e fo r learners of Japanese o n ly o n e such instance was reported .
Summary
To summarise , the n , more diffe re nces emerged betwe e n learn ers of French and Japanese for CSU than fo r M S U . The most freque nt strategies used by learners of F re nch and Japanese were note-taki n g , resou rci ng and repetitio n , though the way i n_ which and the extent to which these strateg ies we re used varied accordi ng to the TL g roup. Learners of Japanese made g reater use of the writing out and re petition strategies than did learners of French . Ve ry clear diffe re nces e m e rged between the TL g roups when the use of e laboration and t ran slation was co nsidered. Learn e rs of Fre nch made frequent associations betwee n new and old i nfo rmation and between diffe rent parts of the learning materials. Co nversely, learners of Japan ese made hardly any use at all of e labo ration strategies. I n stead , fo r learn e rs of Japanese atte mpts to i m p rove TL co mpetence were characte rised by the frequent use of translatio n .
5.5.3 The I nfluence of the TL on SSU Repo rts
Learners of Fre nc h and Japanese reported an a l most equal number of inst ances of SSU , as displayed in Table 5. 1 2.
Table 5 . 1 2
Frequency of Social Strategy U se Learners of French and Japanese
French J apanese
Learners Learners Total
Social Strategies (N= 1 9) (N= 1 8) N % N o/o N o/o Questioning 5 41 .67 1 0 90.91 1 5 65.22 Co-operation 3 25.00 1 9 .09 4 1 7.39 Other-Reinforce ment 4 33 .33 0 .00 4 1 7.39 Total 1 2 1 00.00 1 1 1 00.00 23 1 00 .00
For both g roups t h e largest categ o ry of SSU was questi o n i n g . H oweve r diffe rences emerged when the range of S S U was exam i ned. Learne rs of French u sed a g reater variety of social strateg ies, particu larly i n enlisti ng the help of fri e nds o r family to e ncou rage their l earn i n g e ndeavo u rs (other- re i nfo rce ment) , as i n :
3FD I ask my husband to make sure I keep on track so when I
start to procrastinate about getting down to my work he reminds me that what I should be doing is not housework but French.
5.5.4 The I nfluence of the TL on ASU Reports
Learners of Fre nch made more frequent u se of affective strateg ies t h an learners of Japanese, and also used a g reate r range of affective strategi es.
Table 5 . 1 3
Frequency of Affective Strategy Use
Learners of French and Japanese
French Japanese
Learners Learners Total
Affective Strategies (N= 1 9) (N=1 8) N 0/o N 0/o N 0/o Self-motivation 1 0 43 .48 9 69 .23 1 9 52 .78 Self-encourageme nt 8 34.78 3 23 .08 1 1 3 0 .56 Self-reinforcement 4 1 7 .39 1 7 .69 5 1 3 .89 Self-talk 4.35 0 0.00 2 .78 Total 23 1 00.00 1 3 1 00.00 36 1 00 .00
The fig u res i n Table 5 . 1 3 reveal that both g roups made al most equal u se of se lf m otivati o n , but l earn e rs of Fre nch made g reater u se of se lf-e nco u rag e m e nt, se lf rei nforce m e nt and se lf-talk than learn e rs of Japanese. The fo llowi n g excerpts ·show how learn e rs of Fre nch used the strategies of se lf-e ncourag e m e nt and se lf-
re i nforce m e nt to manage their feelings about the learn i ng process.
8FD
1 1 FD
What I try not to do at the beginning is to look at the devoir until I have done the work because that can actually scare m e silly and I do not like to put that extra stress on myself before I have had a chance to learn what is in the actual dossier.
I do the sections that I least like first and then I do the sections that I enjoy, like the recreation, as a sort of reward.
5.6 S U M MARY
The yoked s u bject tech nique proved to be a p roductive method for e liciti ng repo rts of strategy use from u nderg raduate fo reign lang uage learners . Seve ral n ew strateg i e s were ide ntifi ed which had not appeared in the strategy use lite ratu re . These were time lapse and seeking p ractice o pportunities ( m etacog nitive st rategies) , a number of subtypes of the note-taki n g strategy (cog nitive strateg ies) , other- rei nfo rce m e nt (a social strategy) and se lf-motivati on (an affective strategy) .
As mentioned i n section 3.3.2, the verbal re port study was not as co m prehensive i n scope as t h e question nai re study . T h ro u g h the yoked subject p rocedure two variables were exami ned, namely mode of study and the TL , fo r t h e i r re lationshi p to strategy choice.
I n the verbal report study variance i n MSU was more stro ng ly associated with mode of study than with the TL. Distance l earners made more freq u e nt use of m etacog nitive strategies and employed a wider range of m etacog n itive strategies than classro o m l earn e rs. Furth ermo re , distance learners used all t h ree aspects •Of metacog n ition (planni n g , mo nito ri n g , evaluation) to ove rsee t h e i r learning e ndeavo u rs while classroo m learners confi n ed their metacog nitive co ntrol mostly to plan ning activities. Distance learne rs m ade g reater use of s e lf-m anage ment and advance o rganisatio n than classroom learn e rs.
The TL was not fou nd to play an obvious ro le i n metacog n itive strategy choice by lang uage learners in diffe rent TL g ro u ps . Learne rs of French and Japanese we re co m parable in their MSU , thoug h learners of French used slig htly more planning and evaluation strategies than learners of Japanese.
The mai n i nfluen ce on CSU was very clearly the TL rather than m o d e of study. Learners of J apanese re lied on strateg ies which pertai ned to the more m echanical aspects of lang uage learni ng , i n particular repetiti o n , t ranslation and