Language Learning Strategy Profile of University Learners in the Tanzanian Hybrid Language Learning Context

Language Learning Strategy Profile of University Learners in the Tanzanian Hybrid Language Learning Context

Ben Nyongesa Wekesa

Department of English, Literature, Journalism & Mass Communication, Kibabii University, Kenya

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.9020062

Received: 16 January 2025; Accepted: 21 January 2025; Published: 03 March 2025

ABSTRACT

Language learning, as crucial as it, is related to many factors including sociological, psychological, cognitive psychological, biological and cross-cultural factors Among these factors is the language situation in a country. This study focused on the Hybrid language learning context among Tanzanian university language learners. This study sought to establish the overall strategy profile, the preference among the six strategy categories and the preferences among the individual strategies. Guided by Sociocultural Theory by Vygotsky (1978), a total of 510 respondents randomly sampled from both public and private universities after stratification were involved. Questionnaire based on Oxford (1990) SILL was adopted. Data was statistically analysed using SPSS Version 20. Findings from the study indicated that the language learning strategy use, as measured by the SILL, was moderate (M= 3.4). In terms of the six strategy categories, they were reportedly used in the order of metacognitive, social, cognitive, affective, memory and compensation; with metacognitive strategies used the most frequently (M=3.87) followed by social strategies (M=3.603). The least used strategies (M=2.909) reported were the compensation strategies. The preference for metacognitive strategies can be attributed to the learning culture and the education system examinations oriented and hence learners are expected to be keen on monitoring their progress in language learning and also since learning takes place in poor-input environments, learners try to look for opportunities to practice the language. The argument for the low usage of compensation strategies is due to delayed production or avoidance. They prefer to pay attention when someone is speaking to participating in conversations yet compensation strategies are production strategies. It was also observed that the respondents avoid conversations in English. This is attributed to the low proficiency in English which again goes back to lack of practice opportunities. Regarding individual strategies, the metacognitive strategy of “I pay attention when someone is speaking in English” (No 32) was reported the most frequently used strategy item. On the other hand, the memory strategies of “using flashcards, vocabulary lists to learn new English words” (No 6) was the least reported. The findings indicate that language learners vary widely in their choices and usage of strategies and therefore more research should be conducted on other factors to establish the trend so that language teachers, learners and other stakeholders can be guided appropriately on matters language teaching and learning.

Keywords: Language Learning Strategies, Hybrid Language Context, Tanzania, University level

INTRODUCTION

During the last couple of decades, there has been a growing concern with the cultural, social, political, economic and technological changes in the world. In order to keep up with these changes, people all over the world are trying to learn a second, even a third language in order to meet the needs created by all these changes. Language has been at centre stage in these changes and so language learning is one of the most important needs and it has become a necessity in people’s lives.

Language learning, as crucial as it, is related to many factors including sociological, psychological, cognitive psychological, biological and cross-cultural factors. Among these factors, (Griffiths & Soruç, 2021; Li et al., 2022, Teng, 2023) stated that Individual Differences in general and learning strategies in particular, are considered an essential factor that determine how learners could achieve success at language learning. To improve learners’ second language learning, studies have been conducted to establish the relationship between these factors and language learning.

Effective language learning has therefore become one of the areas of concern in the field of ESL/EFL learning which researchers and applied linguists have given much attention to. Because of this concern, the field of applied linguistics during the past decades witnessed a shift from teacher-centred to learner-centred approaches of language learning and teaching. Consequently, a shift of attention has taken place in second language acquisition research from the products of language learning to the processes through which learning takes place (Oxford, 1990). This means that the teacher as an educator is not only to impart knowledge to learners but also what is considered more important, to equip the learners with the abilities and skills to be able to learn in self-directed way.  The study and teaching of Language Learning Strategies is one of the ways of achieving learner autonomy in language learning.  Language learning strategies (LLS) involve conscious, selected behaviours performed to achieve a particular task, and the application of LLS depends on the task being resolved. LLS are often employed to memorize, process, store, retrieve and use new information in real situations. Learners also use these strategies to enhance their self-confidence, autonomy and self-regulation when learning a target language. LLS also includes cognitive skills that can be learned and improved (O’Malley & Chamot, 1990), and allow language learners to advance their language knowledge development in their own way.

Msuya (2016) conducted an exploratory account of English as a Foreign Language learning strategies used by Tanzanian secondary school students. Data were gathered from 70 EFL learners in two ordinary level secondary schools in Tanzania, through a questionnaire inventory adapted from Oxford (1990). The data were then analyzed and results tabulated. Findings show that the majority of the respondents were using social strategies and relatively few were using compensation and memory strategies. The most popular social strategy was practising English with others. As for the affective strategies, the most popular was talking to someone else about how one feels about English. Among the memory strategies, using new English words in a sentence was most popular unlike in cognitive strategies where initiating conversations in English was the most popular learning strategy. It was concluded that EFL learners in Tanzania do not have learning one language learning strategy suitable for all learners. Banda and Chauma (2025) investigated the use of compensation strategies by Malawian teachers and learners in the context of English as a second language (ESL) and its impact on learners, improvement in performance in written comprehension. They found out that intelligent guessing was the most effectively used strategy among others such switching to L1, getting help, avoiding communication partially or totally among others. It is imperative that little research has been done on language learning strategy profiles of learners in hybrid language learning contexts.

The choice and use of Language Learning Strategies is not automatic. Research on LLSs (Oxford 1990a; Cohen 1987; and O’Malley and Chamot 1990 among others) has shown that there are a number of factors that influence their choice. These factors include proficiency level, motivation, gender, self-efficacy, ethnicity, cultural background and learning environment. In this study, the Hybrid language learning context in Tanzania was a factor. This is a type of context which befits the description of neither ESL or EFL rather it is a blend of the two. In other words, a hybrid learning context bears characteristics of both ESL and EFL. In such a learning context, language learners rarely apply cognitive strategies such as practising naturalistically or using the target language for actual communication (Nyongesa 2014)

Understanding learners’ strategy use is of great significance for practitioners and scholars, as it could yield fruitful information to the language acquisition process and the role of learning strategies in language development, particularly in Hybrid language contexts. The aim of the current study is to raise awareness of LLS among language learners, teachers, and those involved in curriculum design and language learning development programs.

The main objective of this study was to establish the strategy profile for the university language learners in Tanzania. In this objective, three intentions were investigated: first, to establish the overall strategy use for the sample. Second, to establish the sample’s strategy preference of the six strategy categories. Third, to find out the most frequently used strategies and the least used strategies in the sample involved in the study.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

Vygotsky’s Socio-Cultural Theory

The Socio-Cultural Theory (SCT) provides a very important underpinning background to the roles of LLSs in facilitating second language acquisition. According to Vygotsky, an individual’s cognitive system is a result of social interaction (Vygotsky, 1978). Such interaction is vital for the development of language acquisition both in formal learning contexts and in natural settings. This theory views Second Language Acquisition as a social semiotic construct. It predicts that learning occurs as a result of mentorship and socio-cultural activity. The form-meaning associations that learners make are situational and cultural-based, and the resulting symbols, that is, the knowledge of the L2 mediate conscious thought relating to those situations and cultural phenomena (Lantolf, 1994). The prediction is that the meta-linguistic knowledge will vary in important ways depending on the context of learning and that learners’ knowledge of various levels of linguistic representation (sociolinguistic, phonological, lexical and strategy knowledge) will vary widely from one learning context to another because each context is defined by a unique set of situations and culture (Lantolf and Appel, 1994). A similar argument taken by the present study is that the choice of LLS is determined by socio-cultural factors.

Internalisation, the zone of proximal development and mediation constitute the core concepts or tenets of SCT (Lantolf, 2000, p.1). Vygotsky maintained that higher psychological functions originate in interaction between individuals (inter-psychological level) before they are transferred within the individual (intra-psychological level). The central concept for SCT is the mediation of human behaviour with tools and signs systems. A tool could be as simple as a textbook or visual materials (Donato and McCormick, 1994), or symbolic language (Kozulin, 1990). Such tools allow us to regulate our environment (Lantolf, 1994, p.418). External social speech is internalised through mediation (Vygotsky, 1978). In this way, SCT link society to the mind through mediation. Language as a tool of the mind bridges the individual understanding of us and particular contexts and situations within the world. Donato and McCormick (1994) also state “social processes and mental processes can be understood only if we understand the tools and signs that mediate them”. LLSs are one such mediation tools in language learning.

Based on his theory of the Zone of Proximal Development, a learner will be able to perform at a level beyond the limit of his or her potential with the scaffolding of a teacher or a more capable peer (Vygotsky, 1978). With such scaffolding and assistance, the learner then gradually becomes more independent in his/her learning. As the learner becomes increasingly equipped with what it takes to be an independent and autonomous learner, the scaffolding should be gradually removed. The scaffolding provided by the teacher in the learning process encompasses all kinds of support to facilitate and enhance learning. LLSs are precisely a kind of scaffolding that teachers can provide (Cohen et al., 2023). In other words, teachers can teach students new strategies and can help them sharpen their existing ones. Equipped with LLSs through instruction, learners will be able to employ them on their own to continue with their learning process even with the absence of the teacher’s support, after all, teachers will not be there for learners after they leave the learning environment. With the gain of “self-control and autonomy through strategy use” (Oxford and Nyikos, 1989), learners will be able to continue their journey in the learning of either a second or a foreign language. In a classroom situation, Donato and McCormick (1994) say that collaborative work among language learners provides some opportunity for scaffolded help as in expert-novice relationships in the everyday setting.

Socio-cultural linguists see language acquisition in social terms. For them, L2 learning is a matter of problem solving in a master-apprentice relationship. Language learning means joining a second culture and is seen as a process of group socialisation, where language is a tool for teaching group traits, values, and beliefs. Language learning becomes difficult where learner’s cultural values and beliefs and practices conflict with those of the second culture. Alegre (2001) says that the more a classroom reflects the actual culture of the target language, the more students would increase not only their communication skills, but also their ability to transcend culture by internalising the tools and symbols that define that culture. The position taken in this study that language is a social phenomenon and therefore, language learning is influenced by socio-cultural factors is in line with Vygotsky’s rationale for Mediation, the Zone of Proximal Development and Scaffolding since enhancing learners’ potential beyond their mental level is at the heart of the concept of language learning strategies.

METHODOLOGY

This study was carried out purposely in Tanzania mainland. The targeted population of this research was university language learners in Tanzania mainland. Language learners at university levels were involved because, first, they have had formal instruction in English for a period of at least over ten years. Second, because they are believed to be aware of their own learning strategies and they are also in a position to discuss these strategies. A total of 510 respondents randomly sampled across both public and private universities, were involved. This was after stratified sampling of public and private universities in two regions: southern region and the northern region. A total of six (6) universities were sampled. Through random sampling, a total of 510 participants were selected and involved in the study. Such a large sample size was appropriate since the study set to establish statistical significance. Before conducting the main study, a pilot study was administered. A total of thirty-seven university students, who were not involved in the main research, formed the sample for the pilot study.  The number of participants was within the range proposed by Lightbown and Spada (2007) who says “the sample size in pilot study ranges from twenty to bigger samples of sixty-five.” Based on the observations noted during the pilot study, it became apparent that some of the questionnaire items be revised with special attention to issues of simplicity, comprehensibility, and contextual appropriateness. The participants were engaged in an informal conversation in order to get their views on areas of difficulties in the SILL questionnaire. The participants in the pilot study singled out strategy items 5, 6, 22, 25, 35, 45, 46 and 48 which were rather difficult to understand. To avoid any misunderstandings of these items in the actual study, they were revised. The SILL (Strategy Inventory for Language Learning) questionnaire based on Oxford’s (1990) categorization was used. The 50 items in this version were tested for validity and reliability. According to SPSS Cronbach’s alpha results in Table 1 below, the internal reliability coefficient in the piloted version of the SILL for a total of 50 strategy items was .899 which was very high. In other words, the questionnaire was proven to be a reliable instrument in investigating the LLS use.

Table 1 The Results of the Reliability Analysis of the Translated Version of the SILL

After data collection, each questionnaire was examined individually and coded for statistical analysis using SPSS version 20. The researcher conducted descriptive statistics, including percentages, means and standard deviations to summarise the learners’ responses to strategy preference. This study followed strict ethical guidelines including informed consent, participant confidentiality, and data protection protocols. All data were anonymised and used exclusively for research purposes. The study received approval from relevant institutional review board/ethics committee.

RESULTS

The following were the results;

The Overall Strategy Use

In a bid to establish the overall strategy use among the English language learners, Oxford’s (1990) key for the classification of the strategy frequency scale was adopted. In her key, high use ranges from 3.5-4.4 (usually used) and 4.5-5.0 (almost always or always used), medium use ranges from 2.5-3.4 (sometimes used) while low use ranges from 1.0-1.4 (never or almost never used) 1.5-2.4 (usually not used). Table 2 below shows the overall strategy use.

Table 2 The Overall Strategy Use

For the entire group of the students, the overall mean of strategy use was 3.35 (SD= 0.7) on the 5-point Likert scale, which, according to Oxford’s (1990) key to understanding mean scores, is medium.

Results of the Six Strategy Categories

In terms of the six strategy categories, all the means indicated medium use for all the groups except for meta-cognitive strategy, which were the most frequently employed with a high mean of 3.874 (SD= 0.71), followed by social strategies, which also presented a high mean of 3.603 (SD= 0.74). It therefore follows that the sample in this study had a higher preference to meta-cognitive and social strategies than the rest of the strategies. Both strategy categories fall in the High level of strategy ranking by Oxford (1990) frequency scale. This finding contradict Msuya (2016) findings that Social strategies were highly preferred. The reason to this could be the different levels of education of the participants. Msuya (2016) investigated Secondary school language learners whereas this study involved university language learners, who are expected to be in charge of their own learning, hence a higher affinity to metacognitive strategies. The results of the six strategy categories are summarised in Table 3 as follows:

Table 3 Means and Standard Deviations Indicating Strategy Use of the Whole Sample on Each of the Strategy Categories

From Table 3 above, it can be seen that cognitive strategies had a medium Mean score of 3.289 (SD= 0.58) so were the affective strategies with a medium Mean of 3.277 (SD= 0.73).  Memory and compensation strategies were reported the least used strategies with Means of 3.142 (SD= 0.61) and 2.909 (SD= 0.85) respectively.

Results of the Most and the Least Reported Strategies for the Whole Sample

From the results, interestingly, it appeared that the meta-cognitive strategy of “I pay attention when someone is speaking in English” (No 32) tops the list with a very high mean of 4.23 (SD= 0.925). The second mostly reported strategy is a meta-cognitive one again “I try to find out how to be a better learner of English” (No 33) with a mean of 4.13 (SD= 1.04). The third place on the list is held by the social strategy of “if I do not understand something in English, I ask the teacher or my friends for help” (No 45) with a high mean of 4.12 (SD= 0.966). Out of the ten most frequently used strategy items, five are the meta-cognitive strategies; two are from the social strategies while the memory, the affective and the cognitive strategy categories have only one item each. A summary of the ten most frequently reported strategies is presented in Table 4 below as follows:

Table 4 Ten Most Frequently Used Strategies in the Sample

Regarding the least frequently used strategies in the whole sample, Table 5 below presents the results. The memory strategies of “using flashcards to learn new English words” (No 6) topped the list with a mean of low-use range, that is, 2.08 (SD= 1.165). There followed the compensation strategy of “I read English without looking up every new word” (No 27) with a mean of 2.55 (SD= 1.294). The compensation strategies of “To understand unfamiliar English words, I make guesses” (No 24) and of “I use Kiswahili words if I do not know the right ones in English” (No 26) came in next with medium means of 2.62 (SD= 1.395) and 2.67 (SD= 1.391) respectively. The fifth place on the list is occupied by the cognitive strategy of “I read for pleasure in English” (No 16) with a low mean of 2.77 (SD= 1.281).

Table 5 Ten Least Frequently Used Strategies in the whole Sample

Out of the ten least used strategy items, 4 belong to the compensation category while the memories, affective and cognitive have 2 respectively. The social and metacognitive category had no item among the ten least used strategy items.

Strategy Use and Strategy Categories

Memory strategy use

Table 6 below shows the means and standard deviations of each strategy item with regard to the participants’ memory strategy use, and Figure 1 summarises the differences in the participants’ use of memory strategies by plotting the means in a bar graph.

Table 6 Means and Standard Deviations of Participants’ Memory Strategy Use

Figure 1 Graph for Memory Strategy Use

From Figure 1 above, it can be observed that most frequently used memory strategy item is item 8 (M=3.95), reviewing of the lesson quite often. In comparison, item 6 (M=2.08), using flashcards/ vocabulary lists to remember new English words was found to be the least frequently used memory strategy by the participants. In conclusion, with regard to the Tanzanian language learners’ use of memory strategies, reviewing often is the most frequently used strategy while the use of flashcards was the least used strategy when memorizing new English words.

Cognitive strategy use

Table 7 shows the means and standard deviations of each item in the participants’ cognitive strategy use. In addition, Figure 2 summarises the participants’ use of cognitive strategies by plotting the means in a bar graph.

Table 7 Means and Standard Deviations for Participants’ Cognitive Strategy Use

The results indicated that the participants in learning environments which emphasize memorisation practice a great deal so as to internalise the new English words learned. It is also observed that the participants do not actively look for outside English materials to read in their free time.

Figure 2 Graph for Cognitive Strategy Use

As seen in Figure 2 above, item 13 (M=4.01), concerning the use of English words in different ways was found to be the most frequently used cognitive strategy, while item 16 (M=2.77), regarding students’ habit of reading English for pleasure, was found to be the least frequently used.

In conclusion, regarding cognitive strategies, the results show that they use the new English word in different ways but they are not used to reading English materials such as books, newspapers and comics for pleasure.

Compensation strategy use

With regard to compensation strategies, Table 8 presents the means and standard deviations of each item, and Figure 3 summarises the participants’ use of compensation strategies by plotting the means in a bar graph.

Table 8 Means and Standard Deviations of Participants’ Compensation Strategy Use

The above information is summarised in Figure 3 below as follows:

Figure 3 Graph for Compensation Strategy Use

As shown in Figure 3 above, item 29 (M=3.46) medium use, concerning the use of synonyms was reported to be the most frequently used compensation strategy. This agrees to findings by Gul Peker et al (2021 and Syafryadin et al 2020) On the other hand, item 27 (M=2.55), “when I read English materials and come across a new word, I do not look up every new word”, was reported to be the least frequently used compensation strategy. This shows that the participants are used to looking up every new word they encountered when reading English materials. In conclusion, when it comes to the participants’ use of compensation strategies, they preferred using synonyms. On the other hand, they have the habit of looking up in the dictionary for the meaning every new word they encountered in English.

Meta-cognitive strategy use

The results of the participants’ use of meta-cognitive strategies are presented in form of means and standard deviations in Table 9 below, and Figure 4 summarises the participants’ use of metacognitive strategies by plotting the means in a bar graph.

Table 9 Means and Standard Deviations of Participants’ Meta-cognitive Strategy Use

As seen in Figure 4 below, item 32 (M=4.23), I pay attention when someone is speaking English, was reported the most frequently used metacognitive strategy. However, the results suggested that the participants seldom look for people they can talk to in English (M=3.56). A summary of the results of metacognitive strategies is presented in Figure 4 below.

Figure 4 Graph for Metacognitive Strategy Use

In conclusion, with regard to metacognitive strategies, the results indicate that the participants paid attention when someone spoke in English. However, they rarely look for people or opportunities to speak in English. In comparison to other strategy categories, all the metacognitive strategies were highly employed.

Affective strategy use

When it comes to the participants’ use of affective strategies, Table 10 presents the means and standard deviations of each item and Figure 5 summarises difference in the participants’ use of affective strategies by plotting the means in a bar graph. As seen in Figure 5 below, item 40 (M=.98), “I encourage myself to speak English even when I am afraid of making a mistake”, was found to be the most frequently employed affective strategy by the participants. In the participants’ use of affective strategies, item 43 (M=2.83), I write down my feelings in a language learning diary, was found to be the least preferred affective strategy among the participants. The results suggested that participants rarely jot down feelings about their English learning.

Table 10 Means and Standard Deviations of Participants’ Affective Strategy Use

The information in Table 10 above is summarised in the graph below as follows:

Figure 5 Graph for Affective Strategy Use

In conclusion, the results suggested that language learners involved in this study noticed when they felt tensed up when speaking in English but still brave through it by self-encouragement however, they rarely keep diaries of their feelings.

Social strategy use

Concerning the participants’ use of social strategies, Table 11 shows the means and standard deviations of each item, and Figure 6 better presents differences in the participants’ use of social strategies by plotting the means in a bar graph.

Table 11 Means and Standard Deviations of Participants’ Social Strategies Use

The results in Figure 6 below show that item 45 (M=4.12), “if I do not understand something in English I ask the teacher or my colleagues for help”, was reported the most frequently used social strategy while item 50 (M=3.19), I try to learn about the culture of English speakers, was reported the least employed social strategy by the participants.

Figure 6 Graph for Social Strategy Use

The results suggested that the participants tend to seek help from people who are more proficient than they whenever they do not understand something in English. In conclusion, the results of the social strategy use suggested that the participants preferred asking for help from their teachers or peers whenever they face difficulties in learning English. However, they rarely bothered to learn the culture of the English language speakers.

CONCLUSION

In summary, findings from the study indicated that the language learning strategy use of the university English language learners in the Tanzanian Hybrid language context, as measured by the SILL was moderate (M= 3.4). This falls at the upper bound of moderate use. The argument was that learners in a hybrid language context, despite having motivation to learn English, are faced with challenges of lack of authentic resources and opportunities to use the language.

In terms of the six strategy categories, they were reportedly used in the order of metacognitive, social, cognitive, affective, memory and compensation; with metacognitive strategies used the most frequently (M=3.87) followed by social strategies (M=3.603). The least used strategies (M=2.909) reported were the compensation strategies. Compensation strategies enable students to make up for missing knowledge in the process of comprehending or producing the target language. The preference for metacognitive strategies can be attributed to the following, first; the learning culture and the education system lay more emphasis on passing of examinations and hence learners are expected to be keen on monitoring their progress in language learning. Second, the language learners are instrumentally motivated to pass in English since it is believed to open ways to better paying jobs in the future, in this case, to graduate as language teachers.  Third, since learning takes place in poor-input environments, learners try to look for opportunities to practice the language.

The argument for the high usage of social strategies is attributed to the Tanzanian Ujamaa (familyhood) culture which emphasises on collaboration for better achievement. This culture finds its way into the language classroom as well. They ask for help from their peers and their teacher, though mostly in Kiswahili. The argument for the low usage of compensation strategies is due to delayed production or avoidance. They prefer to pay attention when someone is speaking to participating in conversations yet compensation strategies are production strategies. It was also observed that the respondents avoid conversations in English. This is attributed to the low proficiency in English which again goes back to lack of practice opportunities.

A closer examination of some individual strategies, in both the quantitative and qualitative studies, showed that the metacognitive strategy of “I pay attention when someone is speaking in English” (No 32) was reported the most frequently used strategy item. The second most used strategy was the social strategy of “if I do not understand something in English, I ask the teacher or my friends for help” (No 45). The third was the use of a dictionary to get the meaning of a new word. It was the second least used strategy item in the SILL “I read English without looking up every new word”.  On the other hand, the memory strategies of “using flashcards, vocabulary lists to learn new English words” (No 6) was the least reported in the SILL and not mentioned at in the interviews. The compensation strategies of “To understand unfamiliar English words, I make guesses” (No 24).

REFERENCES

1. Alegre, M.A (2001). Vygotsky and Socio-cultural Theory: Key Concepts and Application in the Language Classroom.
2. Available: http://www. itransfer.org/IAI/FACT/Forms/IAI Library.
3. Banda, A. C. & Chauma, A. (2025). Compensation Learning Strategies That Malawian Learners Use in Written Comprehension in Malawi. East African Journal of Education Studies, 8(1), 168-181. https://doi.org/10.37284/eajes.8.1.2584
4. Cohen, A. D., Gu, P. Y., Nyikos, M., Plonsky, L., Harris, V., Gunning, P., … & Gao, X. A. (2023). Tangible insights on the strategizing of language learners and users. Language Teaching, 56(3), 313-332.Cohen, A. D. (1987). Using Verbal Reports in Research on Language Learning. In C. Faerch and G. Kasper, (Eds.) Introspection in Second Language Research. (Pp.82-95) Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
5. Donato, R. & McCormick, D. (1994). A Socio-Cultural Perspective on Language Learning Strategies: The Role of Mediation. The Modern Language Journal 78, pp. 453-64
6. Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The Psychology of the Language Learner: Individual Differences in Second Language Acquisition. Mahwah New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
7. Dörnyei, Z. and Skehan, P. (2003). Individual Differences in Second Language Learning. In Catherine J. Doughty and Michael H. Long (eds), The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. Malden, Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 589-630.
8. Griffiths, C., & Soruç, A. (2021) Individual Differences in Language Learning: A Complex Systems Theory Perspective. Palgrave Macmillan.
9. Gul Peker, G.B., & Erdemir, N. (2021). Does compensation strategy instruction work? An action research study. ELT journal 75(3), 351 – 361. https://doi/org/10.1093/elt/ccaa073.
10. Habók, A., Magyar, A., & Molnár, G. (2022). English as a foreign language learners’ strategy awareness across proficiency levels from the perspective of self-regulated learning metafactors. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1019561
11. Hosseinpur, R. M., & Kazemi, Z. (2022). Composing strategies employed by high-and low-performing Iranian EFL students in essay writing classes. Assessing Writing, 51, 100601. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2021.100601
12. Kazi, A. S., Iqbal, H. M., & Moghal, S. (2022). English Language Learning Strategies in Higher Secondary Education. In N. Ali Raza & C. Coombe (Eds.), English Language Teaching in Pakistan (pp. 245-259). Springer Nature Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-7826-4_16
13. Kozulin, A., (1990). Vygotsky Psychology. A Bibliography of Ideas. New York: Harvester-Wheatshesf.
14. Lantolf, J.P. (Ed.). (2000). Socio-Cultural Theory and Second Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
15. Lantolf, J. P., and Appel, G. (1994) Vygotskian Approaches to Second Language Research, Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
16. Li, S., Hiver, P., & Papi, M. (Eds.). (2022). Individual differences in second language acquisition: Theory, research, and practice. In The Routledge Handbook of Second Language Acquisition and Individual Differences. (pp.3-34). Routledge.
17. Msuya E. (2016). Language Learning Strategies by EFL Secondary School Learners in Tanzania: An Exploratory Account. In BELT-Brazillian English Language Teaching Journal. Vol7 (1) 94- DIO:10.15448/2178-3640.2016.1.23414
18. Nyongesa, B.N. (2014). Sociocultural Determinants of the Choice of English Language Learning Strategies among Language Learners in Tanzania. Unpublished Doctoral Thesis, University of Nairobi, Kenya.
19. O’Malley, J. M., and Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning Strategies in Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
20. Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language Learning Strategies: What Every Teacher Should Know. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.
21. Oxford, R. L & Nyikos M. (1989). Variables Affecting Choice of Language Learning Strategies by University Students, The Modern Language Journal, 73(3), pp. 291-300.
22. Syafryadin, S., Martina, F., & Salniwati, S. (2020). Learners’ strategies in learning speaking: Experience of two Indonesian. Journal for language and foreign language learning, 9, 34- 47. https://doi.org/10.21580/vjv9i14791
23. Teng, F. (2023). Language learning strategies. In Z. Wein, R. Sparks, A. Biedron, and F. Teng (Eds). Cognitive Individual Differences in second language acquisition: Theories, assessment and pedagogy (pp. 147-173). Berlin: De Gruyter.
24. Vygotsky, L.S. (1978) Mind in Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.