Japanese Language Learning Strategies

by High and Low Achievers MORI Sachiho

Key words: language learning strategy, high and low achievers, kanji, vocabulary, and grammar learning

Abstract Considerable research has provided evidence that language

learning strategies have a strong relation to successful L2 learning. However, use differs across L2 learners, language-specific tasks, and individual learner variables affecting strategy use. Moreover, there is a paucity of research examining strategy use for specific tasks in learning Japanese.

This study examined the strategy use of eight high and five low achievers as measured by midterm exam scores and the teacher ’s perception at an American university. By using e-mail queries, concurrent interviews, and follow-up e-mails over a period of a one and a half months, this study examined strategies the learners used for learning kanji, vocabulary, and grammar tasks, and examined differences in the use of specific strategies between high and low achievers.

The results showed that although learners tended to use some common cognitive strategies, the quality of strategy use between the high and low achievers differed. The high achievers used a wider range of strategies, especially with regard to cognitive, metacognitive, and social strategies. Also, although both high and low achievers reported comparable amounts of time studying Japanese per week, high achievers spent their time more wisely (strategically) by being more active in producing language, and their practice distributed over multiple times to monitor their performance. This suggests that quality of strategy use is one of the factors which makes a distinction in the level of achievement in the learning of Japanese, and introducing the appropriate strategies to tasks in the classrooms may

－ 41 －

小出記念日本語教育研究会18　　2010.3

be beneficial to learners’ success in learning Japanese.

1. INTRODUCTION Considerable research on L2 learning strategies has provided

evidence that language learning strategies have a strong relation to successful L2 learning (Bremner, 1998; Bruen, 2001; Gan, Humphereys, & Hamp-Lyons, 2004; Goh & Foong, 1997; Green & Oxford, 1995; Griffiths, 2007; Huang & Naerssen, 1987; Newman, Trenchs-Parera, & Pujol, 2003; Norton, 2000; Oxford, 1990; Park, 1997; Peacock, 2001; Peacock & Ho, 2003; Politzer & McGroarty, 1985; Rubin, 1975; Vann & Abraham, 1990; Wharton, 2000). However, language learning strategies are meaningful in language learning only when used in task-appropriate ways, and there is a paucity of research examining strategy use for specific tasks, especially with regard to tasks used in learning Japanese (Graham, 1997; Grainger, 1997 and 2005; Nakamura, 1997; Nishimura, 1993; Oxford, Lavine, Felkins, Hollaway, & Salah, 1996; Yokosuka, 1999). Also, language learning strategy use is different across L2 learners, and individual learner variables affect their strategy use and their strategy choices (Bremner, 1998; Bruen, 2001; Ehrman & Oxford, 1995; Goh & Foong, 1997; Mori, 2007; Nyikos & Oxford, 1993; Oxford & Nyikos, 1989; Park, 1997; Peacock, 2001; Peacock & Ho, 2003; Shmais, 2003; Wharton, 2000). Therefore, it is important to investigate the appropriateness of specific strategy uses for particular learners in learning specific tasks in a particular context (Hamada, 1999). In order to address this issue, this study attempted to unveil (1) what kinds of strategies the learners of Japanese use for learning specific tasks 1 in Japanese (learning kanji, vocabulary, and grammar) outside of the classroom in the United States, and (2) the differences in the strategy use between high and low achievers in their learning of Japanese.

2. PREVIOUS STUDIES

Many studies have found that the use of strategies between successful and unsuccessful learners differed. According to the

－ 42 －

quantitative studies based on the SILL data (Bremner [1998] explored 149 Chinese learners of English, Goh & Foong [1997] investigated 175 Chinese learners of English, Peacock [2001] examined 140 Chinese learners of English, Peacock and Ho [2003] studied 1006 Chinese learners of English, Park [1997] investigated 332 Korean learners of English, and Green and Oxford [1995] studied 374 Spanish learners of English), the results clearly suggested that cognitive strategies seemed to be most associated with L2 proficiency (as measured by norm-referenced test scores or classroom test scores), followed by metacognitive and social strategies.

Qualitative research studies on language learning strategy use by successful and unsuccessful learners have provided a more detailed picture of the characteristics involved in language learning. Rubin (1975) indicated that a “good language learner” is an accurate and correct guesser, a good communicator, a risk-taker, an active participant, pays attention to forms, seeks opportunities to practice, monitors errors, and attends to meanings. Gan, Humphereys, and Hamp-Lyons (2004) studied nine successful and nine unsuccessful Chinese learners of English (as measured by College English Test scores and teachers’ perceptions) through interview, learners’ diaries, and follow-up e-mails. Their study found that successful learners tended to employ a strategy of “a systematic plan to master” more than unsuccessful learners when they studied vocabulary and previewed a lesson (Gan, Humphereys, & Hamp-Lyons, 2004). In addition, Norton (2000) studied five immigrant women in Canada who were successful learners of English (based on self-reports of their language learning success) through interviews and task analysis, including cloze passages, dictation, dialogue, crosswords, short essays, and oral interviews. Norton’s study (2000) revealed that these successful learners were active participants in tasks, utilized social networking, recognized the systems of a language, used the target language for their daily communication, managed affective facts, and monitored their language learning. On the other hand, Vann and Abraham (1990) studied two unsuccessful Arabic learners of English (as measured by their average weekly gains on the

－ 43 －

Michigan Test of English Language Proficiency) through interviews. The study found that the unsuccessful learners tended to fail to apply appropriate strategies to tasks, did not use metacognitive strategies, and lacked self-regulation skills, although they were active strategy users. Therefore, the results found in qualitative studies also suggest that the language learning behaviors that have an association with successful L2 learning seemed to be related to cognitive, metacognitive, and social strategies. Also, successful and unsuccessful learners tended to use similar strategies for their language learning, but did not apply them to tasks appropriately, nor were they aware of metacognitive strategies.

However, most of these previous studies did not examine strategy use for specific tasks, but instead examined learners’ strategy use for general language learning. The measurements of learners’ L2 proficiency also did not assess their performance on specific tasks in most of these studies. Thus, it is important to conduct studies examining appropriate strategies to specific tasks by comparing high and low level learners in their achievement on tasks through a valid assessment of these tasks.

3. METHOD 3.1 Participants

The participants of this study consisted of eight high achievers and five low achievers. All 13 participants were from the same second-year Japanese course at an American university in the fall semester of 2007. Approximately one out of four learners who were enrolled in this second-year Japanese course participated in this study. Strategy training was not provided to the participants.

The midterm written exam scores helped in determining the selection of high and low achievers because the scores directly measured their achievement in learning the specific task types (i.e., kanji, vocabulary, and grammar) covered in the materials during the period of this study; an independent norm-referenced test could not validly reflect participants’ in-class achievement on the target tasks. The criteria for distinguishing between the different types of

－ 44 －

learners was: for high achievers, the score on the midterm written exam was to be above 95%; and for low achievers, the score on the midterm written exam was determined between 75% to 85%.2 Based on these criteria, eight high achievers and five low achievers were chosen. Furthermore, I sought the head instructor ’s perceptions of the selected participants. I asked the instructor, who had experience in teaching Japanese for over 25 years in American universities whether our selections were appropriate or not, based on her observation of the learners’ class performances. She agreed with the selection of the participants without any concern. Because of this informal inter agreement, I decided to designate these selected participants as high achievers and low achievers in this study.

3.2 Data Sources 3.2.1 E-mail Queries

E-mail queries were sent once a week over a one month period to all 13 of the participants. The e-mail message instructed each participant to write how much time, where, with whom, what tasks, the reasons for the study of the tasks, and how they studied each of the tasks in the past week. The e-mail questions focused on direct strategies (i.e., cognitive strategies) and not indirect strategies (i.e., metacognitive strategies) (Oxford, 1990). 3.2.2 Interview

A semi-structured interview with each of the 13 participants was conducted once, after the e-mail queries. The interview questions were to determine, what kinds of strategies they had been using for learning the specific tasks, and to probe further points that were found as the e-mails were reviewed. The interview was approximately one hour long, and took place face to face in a university library. In order to better analyze the data, I audio tape-recorded and transcribed all the interviews with permission from the participants. 3.2.3 Follow-up E-mail

After the interview, a follow-up e-mail was sent once to each participant in order to clarify interview and e-mail information as

－ 45 －

needed. In the e-mail messages, I listed some of their unclear and/or notable statements, and asked them to provide further information.

3.3 Data Analysis Procedures

In order to focus on the strategies participants used for specific tasks that they commonly performed for class, I examined all of the first through fourth e-mail responses by the 13 participants in which they were asked what learning tasks they spent most of their time working on each week over the one month period under examination. First, I listed all the tasks indicated in their e-mail responses, and then categorized them. Next, in order to discern if the tasks were commonly studied by both high and low achievers, I counted the number of citations of each task by the high and low achievers. According to the tasks found in this study, I analyzed their strategy usage for each of the specific tasks separately: learning kanji, vocabulary, and grammar study.

Moreover, in order to find out the learners’ motivation to study these tasks, I listed all the reasons indicated in the four e-mail responses in which they were asked why they studied these tasks, and then put them into categories. Next, in order to indicate if the learners’ motivation had a possible effect on high or low achievement in learning the tasks, I counted the number of citations of each motivation by the high and low achievers.

Furthermore, in order to indicate whether or not learners’ study time has a possible effect on high or low achievement in the learning of Japanese, I calculated the average study time for all three tasks based on their e-mail responses to being asked how much time they studied Japanese each week over a one month period for eight high and five low achievers.

The data for the learners’ strategy use consisted of five sets of e-mail responses (one of which was the follow-up e-mail) and transcriptions of audio tape-recorded interviews. The constant comparative method (Merriam, 1998) was used to analyze these qualitative data to establish strategy categories. First, I reviewed one of the first e-mail responses, noted the strategies that the learner

－ 46 －

reported, and grouped these notes into strategy categories. Next, I compared the group of strategies that developed from the first set of e-mail responses with the strategy groups found in the second set of e-mails, and merged them into a new set of categories. I repeated the same procedures for all of the e-mail and interview data until all data had been categorized. After strategy categories were developed, I further examined which strategy categories were reported to be used by more learners than others by counting the number of learners who made statements in each category.

According to Merriam’s suggestions (1998), reliability was strengthened by the triangulation of data sources (i.e., interviews, e-mails, and follow-up e-mails) and by providing detailed descriptions of the data collection and analysis procedures. Validity was ensured by triangulation of data, peer examination, and member check. Peer examination was conducted by having a research assistant review and comment on our analysis. When he found interpretations that were not adequate or that were different from my interpretation, we discussed them until an agreement was reached. Member check was conducted by having all the participants review and comment on our analysis. I showed each participant only their portions of the findings of the study, and asked for their feedback on my interpretation by e-mail.

4. RESULTS 4.1 Task Types, Motivation, and Study Time Reported by the Learners

The study of kanji, vocabulary, dialogue, and grammar were the tasks that the 13 participants spent most of their time studying over the one month period. There were no answers related to studying for other tasks in their e-mail answers. Among these four tasks, the study of kanji was the most frequently reported task, followed by vocabulary and grammar. Dialogue was studied the least on average. There was no marked difference among the high and low achievers with regard to the average frequency of the tasks that they focused on studying per week. Thus, this study examined learners’ strategy use for kanji, vocabulary, and grammar learning tasks.

－ 47 －

The major motivation for the learners to study these four tasks was because there were quizzes over these skills. 84% of the 13 learners (n = 11) reported that they studied kanji, vocabulary, and grammar in order to prepare for the tests and quizzes, indicating that instrumental motivation (Gardner, 1985) was the primary impetus for study. These learners’ responses were consistent over the one month period. Preparation for quizzes was a common reason for studying these tasks among the high and low achievers, although there were some small differences in these percentages. Other reasons to study these tasks included studying for the purpose of communicating with friends and for developing speaking and reading skills.

Finally, the results of learners’ average study time for one week was 5.88 hours over the one month period. The average study times by the high (M = 6.38 hours) and low (M = 6.13 hours) achievers were also similar. Thus, it may not be said that the low achievers could not succeed in learning Japanese because of insufficient time studying the language or because their types of motivation are different from the high achievers.

4.2 Kanji Learning Strategies by the High and Low Achievers TABLE 1 High and Low Achievers Using Five Types of Kanji Learning Strategies Written

Repetition # (%)

Oral Repetition # (%)

Flash Cards # (%)

Radicals # (%)

Creating Reading Sentences # (%)

High (N = 8) 8 (100) 4 (50) 0 (0) 3 (38) 6 (75) Low (N = 5) 3 (60) 5 (100) 3 (60) 3 (60) 1 (20)

According to Table 1, all of the high achievers practiced kanji by written repetition, whereas all of the low achievers studied kanji by oral repetition. These high achievers tended to write the kanji character itself, and then write a kanji word with the pronunciation in hiragana. While the high achievers practiced writing kanji repeatedly, the low achievers tended to simply say the pronunciation

－ 48 －

of kanji words aloud repeatedly. Only low achievers used flash cards. They tended to look at each card, and if they did not know the pronunciation of the word, checked the other side of the card, and put the card in a different pile to be reviewed until they could automatically recall them. Only a few high and low achievers used radicals of kanji to memorize kanji characters. These learners tended to break up a kanji character into smaller parts that they were familiar with. For instance, Barry explained that the “kanji of isogu ‘to hurry’ consists of ku ‘ku’ in katakana, yo ‘yo’ in katakana, and kokoro ‘heart’ in kanji” (Interview with Barry-Low on 09/26/07). In addition to repetition practice, many high achievers (n = 6 or 75%) practiced kanji in a sentential context, whereas only one low achiever did so. They created sentences with new kanji words and/or consciously used them in their homework. They also reported reading kanji words in passages, such as those found in the textbook, Japanese manga, games, and e-mail messages. Therefore, the low achievers tended to practice kanji mainly by written and oral repetition. However, in addition to these repetition practices, the high achievers tended to study kanji also by creating sentences and reading passages.

4.3 Vocabulary Learning Strategies by the High and Low Achievers TABLE 2 High and Low Achievers Using Six Types of Vocabulary Learning Strategies Oral

Repetition# (%)

Written Repetition # (%)

Flashcards # (%)

Mnemonics # (%)

Quizzing Each other # (%)

Creating Sentences # (%)

High (N=8)

8 (100)

6 (75)

0 (0)

2 (25)

5 (63)

8 (100)

Low (N=5)

5 (100)

1 (20)

3 (60)

2 (40)

0 (0)

1 (20)

According to Table 2, both high and low achievers practiced vocabulary by oral repetition. They tended to be covering the English side of the vocabulary list, and saying the equivalent aloud in English, and then covering the Japanese side and saying the

－ 49 －

Japanese word aloud. However, six out of eight high achievers (75%) studied vocabulary also by writing them down, whereas only one low achiever did so. Only low achievers used flash cards. They looked at a Japanese word on a card (easier), if they could not say the meaning, they checked the other side of the card for the meaning and put the card in a different pile. They repeated these procedures until they knew all the cards, and then they went over the English sides of the flash cards in order to practice saying the Japanese words (harder) using the same procedures. Only a few high and low achievers used mnemonics to memorize vocabulary. These learners tended to link the sound of a new word with another familiar word which has a similar sound in Japanese. For example, “niwa ‘yard’ is associated with niwa ‘two birds’” (Interview with Francine-Low on 10/01/07). Only high achievers (n = 5 or 63%) quizzed each other on vocabulary. For example, Elizabeth reported, “I would say the vocabulary word in English, then [Eugene-High] and I would both write the word in Japanese on our white boards, then check them against the book” (E-mail from Elizabeth-High on week 4). In addition, all of the high achievers practiced vocabulary in sentence contexts, whereas only one low achiever did so. These high achievers tended to actively use new words by manipulating the target words to produce their own sentences with old and/or new grammatical patterns. For example, Mike indicated, “I would look at the [vocabulary] list, find words I didn’t know, and practice saying them out loud. Also, I made up [and say] a quick sentence using the word” (E-mail response from Mike-High on 09/09/07). One of Mike’s example sentences was watasi wa oosutoraria wo kankoo sitai desu “I want to go sight seeing in Australia” with the target vocabulary kankoo “sight seeing” (Interview with Mike-High on 10/05/07). He even made the target vocabulary kankoo “sight seeing,” which is a noun, into its verbal form kankoo suru “do sight seeing.” Also, he used the word in the previously learned grammar ~ tai “want to ~.” Therefore, the low achievers tended to study vocabulary mainly by oral repetition. However, in addition to oral repetition practice, the high achievers tended to study vocabulary also by written repetition, quizzing each

－ 50 －

other on vocabulary, and creating sentences.

4.4 Grammar Learning Strategies by the High Achievers and Low Achievers TABLE 3 High and Low Achievers Using Five Types of Grammar Learning Strategies Homework

# (%)

Textbook Explanation# (%)

Notes # (%)

Textbook Exercises # (%)

Creating Sentence # (%)

High (N = 8) 3 (38) 6 (75) 5 (63) 8 (100) 6 (75) Low(N = 5) 3 (60) 5 (100) 2 (40) 4 (80) 2 (40)

According to Table 3, the numbers of the high and low achievers who studied grammar through these strategies were not notably different, however; the ways in which they used each of the strategies were different. The low achievers tended to study grammar mainly by completing homework, reading the textbook, taking notes in class, and practicing the textbook exercises in class. However, in addition to these activities, the high achievers tended to study grammar also by reviewing homework, organizing their own grammar notes, re-practicing exercises outside of class, and producing sentences with the grammar. For instance, the high achievers reported doing homework as well as reviewing the corrected homework. They tended to look over their mistakes in grammar and spelling that the teacher corrected in order to make sure not to make the same mistakes again for tests. The high achievers also reported taking notes in class as well as creating their own grammar notes 3 to organize the grammar points for test preparation, although the low achievers reported taking notes in class and reading the notes and the textbook again before tests. In addition, the high achievers tended to do the textbook exercises by their own initiative before (to prepare for class) and/or after (to prepare for the tests) class in order to self-test their ability to use the grammar. On the other hand, the low achievers reported only doing the exercises in class in order to study grammar. The high achievers also practiced writing their own sentences to practice using the

－ 51 －

grammars.

5. CONCLUSIONS & DISCUSSION This study found more differences than similarities in

strategy use between the high and low achievers for the tasks of learning kanji, vocabulary, and grammar, which are described in Figure 1.

－ 52 －

FIG

URE

1

Hig

h an

d Lo

w A

chie

vers

Str

ateg

y U

se fo

r Kan

ji, V

ocab

ular

y, an

d G

ram

mar

Tas

ks

Wri

tten

Rep

etiti

on

Crea

ting

Sent

ence

s

Ora

l Rep

etiti

on

Read

ing

Pass

ages

Ka

nji L

earn

ing

Rec

ogni

tion

Pr

oduc

tion

L

ow A

chie

vers

Hig

h Ac

hiev

ers

Wri

tten

Rep

etiti

on

Qui

zing

Eac

h O

ther

Ora

l Rep

etiti

on

Crea

ting

Sent

ence

s Vo

cabu

lary

Lea

rnin

g R

ecog

nitio

n

Prod

uctio

n

Low

Ach

ieve

rs

H

igh

Achi

ever

s

Hom

ewor

k (c

ompl

etin

g)

Hom

ewor

k (r

evie

win

g)

Not

es (i

n cl

ass)

N

otes

(org

aniz

ing

by-s

elf)

Text

book

Exe

rcis

es (i

n cl

ass)

Te

xtbo

ok E

xerc

ises

(out

side

of c

lass

)

C

reat

ing

Sent

ence

s G

ram

mar

Lea

rnin

g R

ecog

nitio

n

Prod

uctio

n

Low

Ach

ieve

rs

H

igh

Achi

ever

s

－ 53 －

According to Figure 1, the low achievers tended to study kanji and vocabulary mainly through oral repetition practice, and to practice grammar by completing the required course exercises. However, in addition to using these strategies, the high achievers tended to practice using kanji and vocabulary in sentential contexts, and to study grammar by organizing the grammar notes, re-doing the textbook exercises, and creating their own sentences. Many of them also regularly cooperated with a classmate by practicing using the learned materials and assessing each other’s performance, as previous studies have shown that social interaction seemed to be associated with high L2 proficiency (Griffiths, 2007; Politzer & McGroarty, 1985; Huang & Naerssen, 1987). Through these strategic approaches, the high achievers tended to more consciously and frequently monitor their performance and mastery of the target materials than the low achievers.

These results indicate that the high achievers spent their time more wisely (strategically) than the low achievers, by being active in producing the language (i.e., creating sentences with the new words and grammars), practicing the materials multiple times (i.e., practicing textbook exercises before and after class), and using various combinations of strategy categories (i.e., cognitive, metacognitive, and social strategies) in order to monitor their learning, although the types of motivation among the two groups of learners was not notably different. Based on this observation, these results may further suggest that the high achievers tended to study the tasks until they could use and produce them appropriately by themselves in tests and class, whereas the low achievers tended to terminate their study of the tasks at the stage of understanding and recognizing the materials.

These results may be because the high achievers might have already developed their own task-appropriate strategies by evaluating their previous Japanese learning, and might know how and how much they have to study the tasks. In fact, the high achievers reported their self-efficacy (Bandura, 2001) on these strategies, and explained what kinds of strategies could not work

－ 54 －

well (i.e., flash cards for memorizing kanji). On the other hand, the low achievers might have not yet developed the strategies by monitoring their learning, and have not yet figured out how and how thoroughly they have to study the tasks by themselves. In fact, the two low achievers asked for effective methods in the interviews, and the other two mentioned that they were not “good” language learners and that the only things they could do were the things they cited in their e-mails, indicating their lack of self-efficacy (Bandura, 2001). Furthermore, the results indicated that using flashcards may not relate to high achievement, but how to use the flashcards may be a key to success in their learning. In fact, the low achievers tended to use flash cards primarily for self-testing of the pronunciation by oral repetition while looking at the cards, although the high achievers tended to practice target words by written repetition and creating sentences. Thus, while using flashcards, s/he may need to practice writing a word down, self-testing it, and creating a sentence with the word.

These suggestions found in this study are not unique. Nevertheless, the tasks which were investigated showed that learners focus on classroom tasks, but also that learners who go beyond those tasks, to include repeated writing and self-invented sentences, are more successful on the tasks themselves. Thus, if a teacher consciously introduces and models the strategies in a classroom (Nyikos, 1991), learners may be aware of strategies and increase their strategy repertoires. This may lead learners to start choosing and incorporating strategies which are beneficial to their individual language learning needs.

6. FUTURE STUDY

One must be cautious in simply suggesting that high achievers’ strategies can help low achievers improve their language learning (Miyazaki, 2003). Thus, an experimental study examining the impacts on the strategies found in this study should be conducted in order to find out the causal relationship (Bremner, 1998; Green & Oxford, 1995) between the strategies and their achievement. A future

－ 55 －

study also needs to explore learners’ reasons behind their strategy use, their self-efficacy (Bandura, 2001), the relations to their learning styles (Cohen & Weaver, 2006), and learners’ aptitude (Grigorenko, Sternberg, & Ehrman, 2000; Skehan, 2002), which may affect learners’ strategy development and their language learning achievement. 1 In this study, the term “task” refers not to a specific task (i.e., a task based strategy assessment), instead refers to the study of kanji, study of vocabulary, and study of grammar. 2 The participants were not necessarily top eight and bottom five students from the class. Also, none of the low achievers performed exhaustively well in one particular task in the mid-term exam, such as receiving 95% of kanji part. 3 These learners tended to organize their notes by writing a grammar pattern, the meaning of the grammar, example sentences, and extra information explained in class. REFERENCES Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective.

Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 1-26. Bremner, S. (1998). Language learning strategies and language

proficiency: Investigating the relationship in Hong Kong. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 55 (4), 490-514.

Bruen, J. (2001). Strategies for success: Profiling the effective learners of German. Foreign Language Annals, 34 (3), 216-225.

Cohen, A. D. & Weaver, S. J. (2006). Styles- and strategies-based instruction: A teachers’ guide. Minnesota: University of Minnesota, Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition.

Ehrman, M. & Oxford, R. L. (1995). Cognitive plus: Correlates of language learning success. Modern Language Journal, 79 (1), 67-89.

Gan, Z., Humphereys, G., & Hamp-Lyons, L. (2004). Understanding successful and unsuccessful EFL students in Chinese universities. Modern Language Journal, 88 (2), 229-243.

－ 56 －

Gardner, R. C. (1985). Social psychology and language learning: The role of attitude and motivation. London: Edward Arnold.

Goh, O. & Foong, K. (1997). Chinese ESL students’ learning strategies: A look at frequency, proficiency, and gender. Hong Kong Journal of Applied Linguistics, 2 (1), 39-53.

Graham, S. (1997). Effective language learning: Positive strategies for advanced level language learning. Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters Ltd.

Grainger, P. R. (1997). Language-learning strategies for learners of Japanese: Investigating ethnicity. Foreign Language Annals, 30 (3), 378-385.

Grainger, P. R. (2005). Second language learning strategies and Japanese: Does orthography make a difference? System, 33, 327-339.

Green, J. M. & Oxford, R. (1995). A closer look at learning strategies, L2 proficiency, and gender. TESOL Quarterly, 29 (2), 261-297.

Griffiths, C. (2007). Strategies and good language learners. In C. Griffiths (Ed), Lessons from the good language learner. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Grigorenko, E. L., Sternberg, R. J., & Ehrman, M. (2000). A theory-based approach to the measurement of foreign language aptitude: The CANAL-F theory and test. Modern Language Journal, 84 (3), 390-405.

Hamada, M. (1999). Gakushuu-sya ha donoyoona sutoratejii wo tsukatte iruka [What types of strategies do learners use?]. In J. V. Neustupny & S. Miyazaki (Eds.), Nihongo-kyooiku to nihongo-gakusyuu: Gakusyuu sutoratejii-ron ni mukete [Japanese language teaching and Japanese language learning: Towards a theory of language learning strategies]. (pp. 69-80). Tokyo: Kuroshio Shuppan.

Huang, X. H. & Naerssen, V. (1987). Learning strategies for oral communication. Applied Linguistics, 287-307.

Merrian, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

－ 57 －

Miyazaki, S. (2003). Gakusyuu sutoratejii kenkyuu saikoo: Riron, hoohoo-ron, ooyoo no kanten kara [Review of language learning strategy research: Theory, method, and application]. Waseda Daigaku Nihongo Kyooiku Kenkyuu [Waseda University Journal of Japanese Language Teaching], 2, 17-26.

Mori, S. (2007). Language learning strategy use by learners of Japanese at different levels. Paper of the Japanese Language Teaching Association in Honer of Professor Fumiko Koide, 15, 87-104.

Nakamura, S. (1997). Nihongo gakusyuu-sya no kanji gakusyuu sutoratejii [Kanji learning strategies by learners of Japanese]. Nihongo Kyooiku Kenkyuu [Japanese Language Education Research], 33, 107-112.

Newman, M., Trenchs-Parera, M., & Pujol, M. (2003). Core academic literacy principles versus culture-specific practices: A multi-case study of academic achievement. English for Specific Purposes, 22, 45-71.

Nishimura, Y. (1993). Nihongo jyugyoo ni okeru gakusyuu-sya no ninchi-katee to gakusyuu sutoratejii [Metacognition and learning strategies in the Japanese language classroom]. Tsukuba Daigaku Ryuugaku Sentaa Nihongo Kyooiku Ronsyuu [Tsukuba University International Student Center Japanese Language Education Journal], 8, 153-173.

Norton, B. (2000). Identity and language learning: Gender, ethnicity and educational change. London: Longman/Personal Education.

Nyikos, M. (1991) Prioritizing student learning: A guide for teachers. In S. L. Strasheim (Ed.), Focus on the foreign language learner: Priorities and strategies. (pp. 25-39). Illinois: National Textbook.

Nyikos, M. & Oxford, R. (1993). A factor analysis study of language-learning strategy use: Interpretations from information-processing theory and social psychology. Modern Language Journal, 77 (1), 11-22.

Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every

－ 58 －

teacher should know. Boston: Heinle & Heinle Publishers. Oxford, R. L., Lavine, R. Z., Felkins, G., Hollaway, M. E., & Salah, A.

(1996). Telling their stories: Language students use diaries and recollection. In R. L. Oxford (Ed.), Language learning strategies around the world: Cross-cultural perspectives. (pp. 19-34). Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.

Oxford, R. L. & Nyikos, M. (1989). Variables affecting the choice of language learning strategies by university students. Modern Language Journal, 73 (3), 291-300.

Park, G. (1997). Language learning strategies and English proficiency in Korean university students. Foreign Language Annals, 30 (2), 211-221.

Peacock, M. (2001). Language learning strategies and EAP proficiency: Teacher views, students views, and test results. In J. Flowerdew & M. Peacock (Eds.), Research perspectives on English for academic purposes. (pp. 268-285). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Peacock, M., & Ho, B. (2003). Student language learning strategies across eight disciplines. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 13 (2), 179-200.

Politzer, R. & McGroarty, M. (1985). An exploratory student of learning behaviors and their relationship to gains in linguistic and communicative competence. TESOL Quarterly, 19 (1), 103-123.

Rubin, J. (1975). What the “good” language learner” can teach us. TESOL Quarterly, 9 (1), 41-51.

Skehan, P. (2002). Theorizing and updating aptitude. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Individual differences and instructed language learning. (pp. 69-93). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Shmais, W. (2003). Language learning strategy use in Palestine. Teaching English as a Second and Foreign Language, 7 (2), 1-13.

Vann, R. J. & Abraham, R. (1990). Strategies of unsuccessful language learners. TESOL Quarterly, 24 (2), 177-197.

Wharton, G. (2000). Language learning strategy use of bilingual

－ 59 －

foreign language learners in Singapore. Language Learning, 50 (2), 203-243.

Yokosuka, R. (1999). Goi oyobi kanji gakushuu sutoratejii no kenkyuu [Vocabulary and kanji learning strategy research]. In J. V. Neustupny & S. Miyazaki (Eds.), Nihongo-kyooiku to nihongo-gakusyuu: Gakusyuu sutoratejii-ron ni mukete [Japanese language teaching and Japanese language learning: Towards a theory of language learning strategies]. (pp. 97-116). Tokyo: Kuroshio Shuppan.

(Aoyama Gakuin University)

－ 60 －