A Comparative Study of Language Learning Strategies Used by Monolingual and Bilingual Learners

Abstract

The purpose of this research is to analyze monolingual and bilingual university students’ language learning strategies (LLS) comparatively and to determine whether students’ level of using language learning strategies in foreign language learning process changes in terms of variables such as gender, department and school type. This research was conducted among 524 university students at Yüzüncü Yıl University and Bülent Ecevit University Çaycuma Vocational School. Data of the study was collected by “Strategy Inventory of Language Learning” developed by Oxford (1990) and adapted into Turkish by Cesur and Fer (2007). Data collected was analyzed with descriptive statistics and parametric tests. As a result of the research, it was found that bilingual students use language learning strategies in foreign language learning process more than monolingual students. Furthermore, it was found that university students use language learning strategies at middle level; students mostly use metacognitive strategies and use affective strategies the least; female students use language learning strategies more than male students except cognitive and affective strategies; English language and literature and English language teaching department students use language learning strategies more than department of translation students; 4 years faculty students use language learning strategies more than vocational school students.

The Preferences of in-Service Elt Teachers' Language Learning Strategies in Their Own Language Learning Process

“…In this sense, Oxford (1990) categorizes LLS under two main titles as direct and indirect strategies, and direct strategies consists of memory, compensation and cognitive strategies; whereas indirect strategies are classified as metacognitive, affective and social strategies. As it is stated above, the categories of LLS designed by Oxford (1990) is seen as more understandable, concrete and practical, and therefore in Turkey, similar to other countries, it has been preferred by many researchers who have been studying on the use of LLS by learners (Tunç -Özgür, 2003;Uyar Uslan, 2006;Kozmonova, 2008;Deneme, 2008;Aslan, 2009;Gürsoy, 2010;Açıkel, 2011;Demirel, 2012;Hamamcı, 2012;Özyılmaz, 2012;İzci & Sucu, 2013;Aksoy & Şivetoğlu, 2014;Yayla, Kozikoğlu & Çelik, 2016). As there have been lots of studies on Oxford's LLS categories, in addition to the other advantages, studying with these strategies gives a chance to compare the results of a study with the other ones which have been available in the literature.…”

“…However, it can be stated that even if there have been a number of studies based on learners' LLS use and the significance of LLS in language learning (O'Malley & Chamot, 1990;Oxford, 1990;Stern, 1992;Cohen, 1996;Hamamcı, 2012;Özyılmaz, 2012;İzci & Sucu, 2013;Aksoy & Şivetoğlu, 2014;Yayla, Kozikoğlu & Çelik, 2016); in the literature, there have not so many studies on LLS preferences and knowledge of in-service ELT teachers. Hence, in this study, LLS preferences and awareness of teachers who are teaching a foreign language are tried to be analyzed in terms of their own language learning strategies, as the use of LLS is a concept that should be supported for young learners (Gürsoy, 2010), primary and secondary school teachers are specifically selected as the participants of this study, and so the preferences of primary and secondary schools ELT teachers on the use of LLS is aimed to be introduced for the aim of improving LLS use in the classrooms.…”