科研成果详情

Previous studies have examined associations between learner variables and selective use of language learning strategies. The typical approach has involved collation of responses to items in terms of conceptually defined strategies and strategy types (e.g., metacognitive, cognitive, and social-affective). Yet, preconceived links between items, strategies, and types of strategies in typical item inventories are questionable in nature; specifically, item design procedures have imposed methodological limitations on this approach. Moreover, the relative number of items and strategies used to measure types of strategies limits direct comparisons. In one version of a language learning strategies test, for example, Liyanage (2004) collated 20 items for 7 strategies thought to be metacognitive learning strategies, 34 items for 15 strategies thought to be cognitive strategies, and 9 items for 4 strategies thought to be socialaffective strategies. One outcome of this disparity in items per strategy type is to render measures of metacognition more reliable than measures of social-affective strategies. The current study reports the outcome of using factor analytic techniques to re-examine data collected in two previous studies (Liyanage, 2004; Liyanage, Birch, & Grimbeek, 2004). Data from four ethnic groups yielded two contrasting and statistically acceptable short lists for measuring specific strategies used to learn languages.