Understanding Successful and Unsuccessful EFL Students in Chinese Universities

Abstract

Unlike success in first language acquisition, success in learning a second or foreign language is considerably more variable. Recently, second language acquisition researchers have called for more integrative research on individual difference factors. With this goal in mind, this study followed a larger, quantitative study of the links between self-directedness for language learning and English language learning attainment among university students on the Chinese mainland and in Hong Kong. Drawing on the findings of that study (Gan, 2003), this 1-semester study looked closely at 2 small groups of tertiary-level English as a foreign language (EFL) learners in China in order to document how they carried out their out-of-class (self-directed) English learning, as well as to elaborate issues that may be critical to understanding the variability that had already been observed in their English learning outcomes.The data were gathered through interviews, diaries, and follow-up email correspondence with 9 successful and 9 unsuccessful second-year EFL students at 2 Chinese mainland universities. Using grounded theory methodology (Strauss & Corbin, 1994, 6 categories of qualitative data were constructed: conceptualizing English language learning; perceptions of the College English Course; learning and practising strategies; self-management; internal drive; and English proficiency tests. The study findings suggest that different levels of success may be explained by a complex and dynamic interplay of internal cognition and emotion, external incentives, and social context. The findings imply the need to take a holistic view of variation in language learning outcomes and to broaden the scope of the current practice in learner strategy training.INVESTIGATIONS INTO THE DIFFERENCES between successful and unsuccessful learners in the field of second and foreign language learning attracted attention with the studies of Rubin (1975), Stern (1975), and Naiman, Fröhlich, Stern, and Todesco (1978, which aimed to establish what good language learning strategies might be and to share them with unsuccessful learners. Continuing these initial investigations, various other researchers explored the relationships be-tween reported strategy use and language learning outcomes in the hope of identifying the range and nature of learning strategies employed by good, successful, or effective language learners, with good, successful, or effective generally understood to mean those learners who perform well on tests or examinations, or who are rated as such by their teachers (

Investigation into Learning Strategies Used by Effective and Less Effective EFL Learners in Korea

“…In the extent of anxiety level, however, less effective learners were, in general, more worried about listening comprehension than effective learners. In addition, it was found that the anxiety level was reversely related to the confidence level because effective learners were more confident and less worried in their listening comprehension than less effective learners (Gan et al, 2004). It is noteworthy that when L2 learners are worried too much and have low confidence in performing listening tasks, their cognitive system and affective system do not function normally and block their comprehension tasks.…”

“…In quantitative studies, the studies to date have shown generally statistically significant but low correlations between strategy use and L2 proficiency (Griffiths, 2003;Nisbet et al, 2005;Phakiti, 2003). In qualitative studies, effective learners have not always used different learning strategies than less effective learners, depending on different learners in different learning contexts (Gan et al, 2004;O'Malley et al, 1989;Vandergrift, 1997).…”

“…These studies imply that compared with effective learners, less effective learners use learning strategies inactively or inappropriately. In order to test this implication, several studies have been undertaken to systematically investigate learning strategies used by both effective and less effective learners (Gan et al, 2004;O'Malley et al, 1989;Porte, 1988;Vandergrift, 1997;Vann & Abraham, 1990). …”

Open and distance language learning at the Shantou Radio and TV University, China, and the Open University, United Kingdom: a cross‐cultural perspective

“…While we should not ignore cultural differences, and should indeed design our distance language courses and tailor our learner support to take account of them, it is equally important that we work to achieve this in the context of a wider heterogeneity and avoid, as Sanchez and Gunawardena (1998) caution, making generalizations about individuals based on knowledge about specific culturally defined groups. There is some evidence from other studies (Gan et al, 2004;Gieve & Clark, 2005) that Chinese students, particularly those learning English in distance mode, are becoming increasingly aware of the benefits of autonomous study, and that 'apparently stable, culturally determined approaches to learning are far more flexible to contextual variation than we might expect' (Gieve & Clark, 2005, p. 262). This was borne out by this study in that 91.3% of SRTVU students considered that changes in learning approach were possible.…”

“…It should be seen as a useful starting point for further research in this area, particularly in relation to the interpretation and practice of learner autonomy in distance as opposed to face-to-face language learning, across different cultures, and the issues this raises for curriculum design. Given the increasingly held view that language learning is 'culture-bound'-in other words, that learning a language is inextricably linked to learning about the target language culture (Palfreyman & Smith, 2003;Gan et al, 2004)-other research routes might link more explicitly the 'distance' factor in language learning to the development of intercultural awareness, and seek to identify in what ways this might be significant in comparison with classroom-based learning situations. The relationship between motivations and aspirations among learners from different cultures studying a language in distance mode and the development of intercultural competence as a learning goal might also be a fruitful area to research.…”