活動手冊 - 開南大學

A Close Look at Learning Strategy Uses in Writing Skills among
Technological College EFL Students
Chian-Wen Kao
Graduate Program
Applied Foreign Languages
National Pingtung Institute of Commerce
Abstract
Uses of strategies have been regarded as a facilitative tool of English learning for
years (Cohen, 1998; Freeman, 2000; O’Malley & Chamot, 1990; Oxford, 1990). A
number of empirical studies have also been conducted to corroborate the positive effect
of strategy uses on language learning (e.g. Dreyer & Oxford, 1996; Green & Oxford,
1995; Park, 1997; Sheorey, 1999; Wharton, 2000). Thus, the importance of strategy
uses in students’ English learning is undeniable. However, most studies were done to
scrutinize strategies used in general language skills; few were carried out to investigate
strategies used in specific skills, particularly productive skills (Lam & Wong, 2000).
Especially, the English writing skill has always been considered as the most difficult
skill to master (Tompkins, 2004). Even university students, particularly technological
college students could not write well enough (Li, 2004; Liao, 2004). However, since
English writing instruction in vocational education intends to be English for Specific
Purpose (ESP) oriented, writing is an important and useful skill for students to apply in
their future workplace. Hence, it is worthwhile to understand how they learn writing
skills. The current study aimed to explore technological college students’ learning
strategies in the writing skill and to find out the problems of student writers’ strategy
uses. The 106 students majoring in Applied English in northern and southern Taiwan
participated in this study. A questionnaire designed based on Oxford’s classification of
learning strategies (1990) were used to elicit students’ strategy uses in the writing skill.
Results indicated that technological college student writers’ learning strategies were
medium use with direct strategies more frequently than indirect ones. Furthermore,
among all strategies, compensation strategies were used most frequently; affective ones,
least frequently. However, the association among these strategies revealed that uses of
cognitive and metacognitive strategies could significantly promote other strategy uses
including memory, compensation, affective and social ones. Ultimately, the most and
least frequent strategies among six-group strategies were sorted out to discuss why they
attempted to use this strategy instead of the other one. Pedagogical implications were
-14-