SPEAKING STRATEGIES USE OF GRADE ELEVEN STUDENTS AT

LEKA NEKEMTE PREPARATORY SCHOOL: GENDER IN FOCUS

M.A. THESIS

FAYISA FIKADU GALATA

JUNE 2016

NEKEMTE, ETHIOPIA
 WOLLEGA UNIVERSITY SCHOOL

OF GRADUATE STUDIES

SPEAKING STRATEGIES USE OF GRADE ELEVEN STUDENTS AT

LEKA NEKEMTE PREPARATORY SCHOOL: GENDER IN FOCUS

A Thesis Submitted to Department of Language Studies and Literature,

Institute of Language Studies and Journalism, Graduate Program

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement for the Master of Arts Degree in

TEFL

Fayisa Fikadu

JUNE 2016

NEKEMTE, ETHIOPIA
 WOLLEGA UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES

As thesis research advisors, we here by certify that we have read and evaluated this thesis prepared,
under our guidance, by _ entitled:

We recommended that it is submitted for oral defense as fulfilling the thesis requirement.

Rufael Disasa (PhD) ………………………

Main Advisor Signature

Dagim Endale (MA) …………………….....

Co-Advisor Signature

As member of the Board of Examiners of the MA Thesis Open Defense Examination, we certify that
we have read, and evaluated the thesis prepared by _ and examined the
candidate. We recommended that the thesis is accepted as fulfilling the thesis requirement for the
degree of MA in TEFL.

……..........…………… ………………. …………………………

Chair man Signature Date

……………………...... ………………. …....................................

External examiner Signature Date

………………………... ……………….. ………………………...

Internal examiner Signature Date
 Declaration

I, the undersigned, declare that this Thesis is my original work and has not been presented for a
degree in any other University and that all the materials used in the Thesis have been duly
acknowledged.

Name: Fayisa Fikadu Galata

Signature:

Place: Wollega University

Date of Submission:

i
 Abstract
This study explored speaking strategies use of grade 11 students at Leka Nekemte Preparatory School.
Survey research design was used in the study. Both quantitative and qualitative methods were used.
The data for this research were gathered from 108 (57 Male and 51 Female) participants. The
strategy use was assessed through a 36 items Speaking Strategies Questionnaire (SSQ), which was
modified from Oxford’s (1990) Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) and classroom
observations. The internal reliability of the instrument was checked and revealed an acceptable
reliability (.726). Moreover, the researcher had also checked the questionnaire items for their validity
before they were actually administered. The data were analyzed using Statistical Package for Social
Sciences (SPSS) version-20. The results show that compensation strategies were the most often used
strategy category by the learners, while meta-cognitive strategies ranked last on students preference
scale. The study also revealed that there is no significant differences between female and male
students in their preferences of strategy groups usage, in which both females and males preferred
meta-cognitive strategies the least and compensation strategies the most. The orders of both groups’
preferences of the strategies were compensation strategy, memory strategy, social strategy, affective
strategy, cognitive strategy and meta-cognitive strategy. Even though these female and male groups
of the respondents reported as well as seen during classroom observation using both direct strategies
(memory, compensation and cognitive) and indirect strategies (meta-cognitive, affective and social),
they prefer using direct strategies than indirect strategies. In general, the results of the independent
samples t-test revealed that there is significant relationship between gender and speaking strategies
use. In other word, there is significant difference between both female and male students use of
speaking strategies. Finally, based on the findings of the study, it was suggested that students in
general and specially females should take their own responsibility so as to employ various learning
strategies frequently in order to be good speaking skills’ learners that results being proficient in the
target language. Furthermore, it was recommended to incorporate speaking skills learning strategies
training into the curriculum.

ii
 Acknowledgments

First and foremost, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my advisors Rufael Disasa (PhD)
and Dagim Endale (MA) for their continuous support, patience and enthusiasm that significantly
contributed to the present shape of my thesis.

Secondly, I am most grateful to the administrative bodies of Leka Nekemte Preparatory School for
their permission to conduct this thesis in the school and priceless help during data collection from the
respondents.

Thirdly, my heartfelt gratitude goes to the English department staff members and students of Leka
Nekemte Preparatory School for their cooperation and devotion of their precious time during data
collection.

Fourthly, I am also grateful to my uncle, Mr. Wakjire Mosisa and my friends, Agessa Alemu,
S h u m i K e b e d e and Derara Daba (MA) for their moral support and encouragement with their best
wishes.

Finally, I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude to Onesmos Nesib Academy for the computer
service I was provided during writing and printing this thesis.

iii
 Table of Contents

Content Page
Declaration............................................................................................................................ i
Abstract................................................................................................................................ ii
Acknowledgments ..............................................................................................................iii
Table of Contents................................................................................................................ iv
List of Tables ..................................................................................................................... vii
List of Abbreviations and Acronyms ...............................................................................viii
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 1
1.1. Background of the Study ....................................................................................... 1
1.2. Statement of the Problem....................................................................................... 4
1.3. Objectives of the Study .......................................................................................... 7
1.4. Significance of the Study ....................................................................................... 8
1.5. Delimitation of the Study....................................................................................... 8
1.6. Limitation of the Study .......................................................................................... 9
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ............................................... 10
2.1. Speaking Skills .................................................................................................... 10
2.2. Speaking Skills in Foreign Language Learning .................................................. 12
2.3. The Importance of Speaking Skills...................................................................... 14
2.4. The Role of Students in Learning Speaking Skills .............................................. 15
2.5. The Concept of Strategy ...................................................................................... 17
2.6. Foreign Language Learning and Learning Strategies.......................................... 18
2.6.1. Foreign Language Learning .......................................................................... 18
2.6.2. Learning Strategies ........................................................................................ 20
2.7. Classifications of Learning Strategies ................................................................. 21
2.8. Main Features of Learning Strategies .................................................................. 23
2.9. The Purposes of Learning Strategies ................................................................... 24
2.10. The Concept of Gender ...................................................................................... 24
2.11. Gender and Learning Strategies......................................................................... 25
iv
 2.12. Speaking Strategies ............................................................................................ 27
2.13. Classifications of Speaking Strategies ............................................................... 28
2.13.1. Direct Strategies .......................................................................................... 28
2.13.1.1.Memory Strategies ................................................................................. 28
2.13.1.2.Cognitive Strategies ............................................................................... 29
2.13.1.3.Compensation Strategies ........................................................................ 30
2.13.2. Indirect Strategies ........................................................................................ 31
2.13.2.1. Meta-cognitive Strategies ..................................................................... 31
2.13.2.2. Affective Strategies............................................................................... 32
2.13.2.3. Social Strategies .................................................................................... 33
2.14. Speaking Strategies Use and Gender ................................................................. 35
2.15. Studies on Speaking Strategies .......................................................................... 37
CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY ............................... 39
3.1. Research Design .................................................................................................. 39
3.2. Area of the Study ................................................................................................. 40
3.3. Data Sources ........................................................................................................ 41
3.4. Sampling Techniques........................................................................................... 41
3.5. Data Collection Instruments ................................................................................ 42
3.5.1. Questionnaire................................................................................................. 42
3.5.1.1. Reliability of the Questionnaire ............................................................. 44
3.5.1.2. Validity of the Questionnaire .................................................................. 44
3.5.2. Observation ................................................................................................... 45
3.6. Procedure of Data Collection............................................................................... 46
3.7. Procedure of Data Analysis ................................................................................. 47
3.8. Ethical Considerations in the Study..................................................................... 48
3.9. Classification Scheme .......................................................................................... 48
CHAPTER FOUR: DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION................................................. 50
4.1. Overall Speaking Strategy Use ............................................................................ 50
4.2. Use of Speaking Strategies by Gender ................................................................ 51

v
 4.2.1. Gender and Direct Strategies ..................................................................... 52
4.2.1.1. Female and Male use of Memory Strategies .......................................... 52
4.2.1.2. Female and Male Use of Cognitive Strategies ....................................... 54
4.2.1.3. Female and Male Use of Compensation Strategies................................ 55
4.2.2. Gender and Indirect Strategies ...................................................................... 56
4.2.2.1. Female and Male Use of Meta-cognitive Strategies .............................. 57
4.2.2.2. Female and Male Use of Affective Strategies ........................................ 58
4.2.2.3. Female and Male Use of Social Strategies ............................................. 59
4.3. Females’ and Males’ Preferences of the Overall Speaking Strategies ................ 60
4.4. Analysis on Significance Difference of Speaking Strategies by Female and
Male learners .................................................................................................... 62
4.5. Discussion ............................................................................................................ 64
4.5.1. Learners Overall Speaking Strategies Use .................................................... 64
4.5.2. Preference of Speaking Strategy Categories by Female and Male Learner..66
4.5.3. Overall Speaking Strategy use in Relation to Gender ................................... 68
CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........... 69
5.1. Summary .............................................................................................................. 69
5.2. Conclusions .......................................................................................................... 70
5.3. Recommendations ................................................................................................ 70
REFERENCES .......................................................................................................72
APPENDICES ........................................................................................................78
APPENDIX A ....................................................................................................................... 78
APPENDIX B........................................................................................................................ 81
APPENDIX C........................................................................................................................ 84
APPENDIX D ....................................................................................................................... 87
APPENDIX E ........................................................................................................................ 88
APPENDIX F ........................................................................................................................ 93
APPENDIX G ....................................................................................................................... 94
APPENDIX H ....................................................................................................................... 95
APPENDIX I ......................................................................................................................... 96
APPENDIX J......................................................................................................................... 97
APPENDIX K ....................................................................................................................... 99

vi
 List of Tables
Tables Page

Table 1: Description of the Study Participants. ................................................................ 42

Table 2: Learning Strategies with two Categories and Six Subcategories ....................... 49
Table 3: Overall Speaking Strategies Used by the Learners ............................................ 50
Table 4: Female and Male Learners’ Responses on Direct Strategies ............................. 52
Table 5: Female and Male Learners’ Responses on Memory Strategies ......................... 53
Table 6: Female and Male Learners’ Responses on Cognitive Strategies. ...................... 54
Table 7: Female and Male Learners’ Responses on Compensation Strategies. ............... 55
Table 8: Female and Male Learners’ Responses on Indirect Strategies. .......................... 56
Table 9: Female and Male Learners’ Responses on Meta-cognitive Strategies............... 57
Table 10: Female and Male Learners’ Responses on Affective Strategies. ..................... 58
Table 11: Female and Male Learners’ Responses on Social Strategies. .......................... 59
Table 12: Female and Male Learners’ Preferences of the Six Categories of Speaking
Strategies in Rank Order.................................................................................................... 60
Table 13: Female and Male Learners’ Preferences of the Direct and Indirect Strategies in
Rank Order ........................................................................................................................ 61
Table 14: Results of the Independent Samples t-test for the Female and Male
Participants’ Use of the Six Strategy Categories ............................................................... 62
Table 15: Results of the Independent Samples t-test for the Female and Male
Participants’ Use of Direct and Indirect Strategies ........................................................... 63

vii
 List of Abbreviations and Acronyms

I. Abbreviations

SPSS Statistical Package for Social Science

EFL English as a Foreign Language

ESL English as a Second Language

SLA Second Language Acquisition

TL Target Language

WHO World Health Organization

ELT English Language Teaching

II. Acronyms

PRAC Practical for Language Learning

GO Guessing in Listening and Reading, and Overcoming Limitations in Speaking and

Writing
SD Standard Deviation

SSQ Speaking Strategies Questionnaire

SILL Strategy Inventory for Language Learning

LLSs Language Learning Strategies

LSs Learning Strategies

viii
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

1.1. Background of the Study

English is an international language and is used globally all over the world. It has become the
language that links the world altogether. Crystal (1997) reveals that English is the language that have
been expanded breaking the barriers of color, race and belief, and has continued to spread all over the
world. The current status of English as an international language is underpinned by its wide use in a
range of fields such as education, politics, diplomacy, international trade and industry, commerce,
science and technology, media, information technology, popular culture, and communication
(Crystal, 2003). In education field, it has been used as the medium of instruction in all secondary and
preparatory schools as well as Colleges and Universities. Moreover, it is believed that people who are
fluent in English would tend to earn better jobs in the corporate world because they would have a
skill to communicate better with people from other countries (Jenkins, 2010). Therefore, the above
factors and the large number of speakers who use English worldwide can be considered valid reasons
for English language special status in Ethiopia.

Learning a new language involves learning skills of listening, speaking, reading, writing, grammar
and Vocabulary. However, Language learning for much of its history has been concerned with the
receptive skills particularly with the written language (Brown etal 1984). The spoken language has
been given little or no recognition in educational thinking (Richards 1989). It is relatively recently
that educationalists have begun to seriously consider the importance and necessity of learning the
spoken language (Brown et.al 1984).

Speaking is said to be the most direct way to talk to people (Yunzhong, 1985). As stated by Chaney
(1998) speaking is the process of building and sharing meaning through the use of verbal and non-
verbal symbols. He also stated that, it is crucial part of second language learning and teaching. The
goal of teaching a language in general and speaking in particular is to get students become
communicatively competent because it is only in that way those students can express themselves and
learn how to follow the social and cultural rules appropriate in each communicative circumstance.

English as foreign language (EFL) learners are then expected to master English, especially to become
fluent in English speaking skills as among others, a means of international communication. The
importance of being fluent in speaking English is relevant to Nunan’s s tudy (2000) which revealed

1
that mastering the art of speaking is the single most important aspect of learning a second and a
foreign language. According to him, success is measured in terms of the ability to carry out a
conversation in the language.

According to Yemeserach (2015), during the last few decades, EFL scholars and teachers have
shifted their focus away from the teacher- centered perspective to learner-centered perspective.
Nowadays, students take on more responsibility for their learning in order to meet their own
individual needs. The learner- centered approach puts more responsibility on the students’ shoulder
to take full advantage of opportunities to learn by making use of language learning strategies. That is,
as language learning studies became more learner-centered, their intent was ultimately to introduce
less successful learners to strategic ways to promote their personal success in language learning.

Learning strategies are “operations or steps used by a learner to facilitate the acqui sition, storage,
retrieval or use of information” (Rigney, 1978 cited in Aslan, 2009). O’Malley and Chamot (1990)
characterized learning strategies as “the special thoughts or behaviors that individuals use to help
them comprehend, learn, or retain new information.” Additionally, according to Chamot (2004)
learning strategies are “the conscious thoughts and actions that learners take in order to achieve a
learning goal.”

It is impossible to deny that, some learners perform better than others in language learning. This
indicates that individual learner variables influence learning outcomes as the result of the learning
strategies that the learners employ. A good language learner tries to find ways to use these strategies
to succeed in language learning. These strategies usually make learning more successful if they make
use of learning strategies while learning a foreign language. Otherwise, many learners fail to learn a
foreign language as they are not self-directed learners or they are used to being spoon-fed learners.
Thus, investigating students’ language learning strategies use is very important to make strategy
training in accordance with the students’ needs. Recently, there is a shift of research f ocus from
general to skill learning strategies (Yemeserach, 2015). Beside this change, some studies have been
conducted on vocabulary, reading, listening, and writing strategies employed by language learners
with different socio- economic and cultural back ground though further research is still required by
considering several variables. However, a research in to the investigation of students’ use of speaking
strategies has been a less studied area since speaking plays an important role in almost every
educational pursuit. Those who speak well tend to sound more mature and professional.

2
Nevertheless, as Brumfit and Johnson (1987) agreed, “students especially in developing countries,
who have received several years of formal English teaching, frequently remain deficient in the ability
to actually use the language, and to understand its use, in normal communication, whether in the
spoken or the written mode.” And as most scholars (Chamot, 2004; Oxford, 1990; Rubin, 1975)
indicate, one of the reasons for this problem is the students’ limited use of learning strategies for a
long time without being effective.

On the other hand, there are variables which could influence the choice and use of language learning
strategies. Many researchers have studied variables influencing learners’ language- learning strategy
use. They have investigated how the use of language- learning strategies are affected by learner
specific variables, such as age, gender, language proficiency, motivation, anxiety, aptitude, and
cultural background (e.g., Ahmadi and Mahmoodi, 2012; Aslan, 2009; Gurata, 2008; Li, 2005;
Rahimi, Riazi and Safi ,2008). However, the variable that the current study was intended to
investigate was gender. Gender which refers to the social categorization of male and female is
considered as one of the factors which affect learners’ language learning strategy use. Many studies
have investigated the correlation between language learning strategies and gender, and significant
differences have been reported by most studies. Green and Oxford (1995) as cited in Radwan (2011)
found that females use strategies more frequently than males. Contrary to this finding, in Radwan’s
(2011) study, males are reported to use social strategies frequently than females. On the other hand,
Rahimi, Riazi and Safi (2008) did not report any differences in strategy use among Persian EFL
learners as a result of gender difference. This indicates that the studies come up with mixed result
rather than standing on one continuum.

In Ethiopia context, it is believed that gender is the major factor which determines differences in all
aspects including education (Yemeserach, 2015). Since the gender gap between boy and girl students
is wide, it has become a major concern to the ministry of education to narrow this disparity.
Currently, in Ethiopian schools female learners’ enrollment is significantly increasing in all levels of
academic setting. However, their number seems to be slightly declined in higher educational levels
such as colleges and universities. Additionally, girls’ participation is less in high school English
lessons as compared with boys, because they are shy. As a result, female learners are said to be less
effective in English learning and their expected overall achievement is also lower than male learners
(Atkins, 1995). Thus, this less achievement of female learners could be related with the learning
strategies they use. Therefore, further studies are needed to look in to the effects of gender on the

3
learning strategies of the specific language skills (e.g. speaking, reading, writing, grammar,
vocabulary).

More specifically, the problems of speaking English language were observed among male and female
students of grade eleven at Leka Nekemte Preparatory School. However, female students are most of
the time observed being less strategic in learning speaking skills when compared to male students.
Throughout his stay in the profession, the researcher has been informally observing that, students
usually feel insecure about their level of English and they face problems communicating as well as
expressing themselves in English language. As a result, they rather remain silent as they are in fear of
making mistakes and do not show active participation in speaking lessons. When English as foreign
language teachers including the researcher himself give the students speaking tasks to be done
individually, in pair, or in group, majority of them fail to achieve the objectives of the teachers and
the lesson as a result of their poor speaking skill. There is also disparity among them because of their
gender. It was on the basis of the assumptions that these students were not well informed the existing
speaking strategies that the researcher was inspired to conduct a study on speaking strategies
employed by female and male students of grade eleven at Leka Nekemte Preparatory School.

Generally, the researcher believed that being aware of certain speaking strategies of males and
females which are crucial in enhancing foreign language speaking skills would help learners to
acquire good speaking skills. This assumption was based on several theories in language learning
strategies which postulate that learners’ success in language learning or lack of it is attributable to the
various strategies which different learners can bring to tasks. Thus, speaking strategies which male
and female students of grade eleven at Leka Nekemte preparatory school employ during speaking
English classes were needed to be well addressed.

1.2. Statement of the Problem

In English Language classroom, speaking is the most often used skill (Brown, 1994). It is recognized
as critical for functioning in an English language context, both by teachers and students. Hence, the
ability of students to communicate naturally in English is one of the long-term goals that language
teachers like to achieve in class. Indeed, it is a demanding task for language teachers to provide
sufficient input for students to be competent speakers of English.

Currently in Ethiopia, a considerable number of students are attending higher institutions and
colleges with a very less knowledge of English speaking and little ability to use the language

4
accurately (Haregewain, 2008). As a result, it is very difficult to uphold quality of education if the
learners are deficient in speaking throughout their college stay. Although the main cause of learner
difficulties in speaking skills can be attributed to different variables, quite recently, language scholars
are drawing attention to ‘learning strategies' that learners employ in speaking skills learning as one of
the major factors for either success or failure in learning English speaking (Anderson, 2005;
Chamot,2004; Oxford,1990; Rubin, 1975). The reason is that learners who use strategies more often,
with more varieties, and more appropriately become successful while unsuccessful learners stick to
only limited strategies without recognizing that the strategies are helping them to accomplish their
goal or not (ibid).

Moreover, among the many factors that are generally conceived to affect the use of speaking skills
learning strategies, gender is the one which is said to have a ‘profound effect on strategy choice’ of
learners (Oxford and Nyikos, 1989 cited in Zeynali, 2012). In the majority of studies, females are
reported to use strategies with greater frequency than their male counter parts. On the contrary, a
study cited in Aslan (2009) as conducted by Tran (1988) in Vietnamese refugees discovered that
male learners use strategies with greater frequency than female learners. The disparity of the findings
of these researchers shows that, the discussion of the role of gender in speaking skills learning
strategies has been in the agenda of many scholars for a long time; yet the results they reached at are
still far from being conclusive. In the second language literature, extensive researches have been
conducted in order to determine general language learning strategies. In addition, several studies
have investigated the learning strategies that learners employ in specific language skills. Regarding
speaking most of the local and international researches haven’t given much attention to explore
learner’s speaking strategies. Therefore, there was a great lack of studies that specifically target the
identification of the learning strategies that learners use for learning speaking skills. Thus, the
researcher was inspired to conduct a study on speaking strategies use of female and male students of
grade 11 at Leka Nekemte preparatory school focusing on the effect of gender on the basis of various
reasons which could affect the use of the speaking strategies.

Even though much emphasis has been given for learner-centered perspective in which learners are
more responsible to control and make their learning quicker, to diagnose their own learning strengths
and weaknesses as well as to make their learning effective, students are not always aware of the
power of consciously using learning strategies especially in learning speaking. As a result, learners

5
use same strategies again and again without recognizing whether the strategies are effective for them
or not.

As far as the researcher’s knowledge goes, some research works have been conducted internationally
and among them, Cohen and Aphek, (1981) carried out a study on the ‘various speaking strategies
used by the students in their attempt to become proficient speakers of English.” The researchers
established that the majority of the Students usually made use of the memory strategy and make less
use of other strategies. The studies revealed that direct strategy appears to be generally used or
utilized by the students.

On the other hand, two local studies were conducted on strategies use. The first one was, speaking
strategy use of Kotebe Teachers College students on their attempt to become proficient speakers of
English by Tsegay Tafere (2013); yet this study did not mention the case of gender at all. Moreover,
the study was confined to College students learning in Kotebe College of Teacher Education.

The other study was conducted by Endaweke Abebe (2008) on “EFL learners’ language learning
strategy use”: the case of male and female preparatory students. The purpose of this study was to
identify EFL learning strategy use of male and female students. It was to attain the type and range
of strategy they use and frequency level thereby to assess the differences/similarities in using
the EFL learning strategies by male and female students. Results of the study show that females
use more often the three language learning strategies which are memory, cognitive and
metacognive among the six language learning strategies than their male counterpart.

However, the present study is different from the above studies by different researchers. It is different
from the study of Cohen and Aphek, (1981) because there is a clear economical, political and socio
cultural and learning environment difference between the study which was conducted by these
researchers and the present study in Leka Nekemte Preparatory School. Furthermore, the present
study is different from the study of Tsegay Tafere (2013) which did not mention the case of gender at
all and confined to College students because the present study was focused on male and female
students learning in Preparatory school specifically in grade 11; in which a considerable attention is
required in this level from different concerned bodies (e.g., school’s administration, teachers, learners
themselves, parents, etc.) to make competitive and effective learners who can meet the requirement
of higher institution. Finally, the present study is different from the study by Endaweke Abebe
(2008). Even though the study is confined to male and female students of preparatory level, it differs

6
from the present study in terms of its topic. The study by Edaweke Abebe was more general which
deals with all language skills learning strategies as opposed to the concern of the present researcher
which is speaking skills learning strategies.

Therefore, the researcher has not come across any local research done so far on the area of gender
differences in speaking strategies use though the impact of gender in education is enormous
especially in Ethiopian context. Hence, in this study, an attempt was made to investigate the speaking
strategies grade eleven students i.e. both male and female at Leka Nekemte preparatory School
employ in enhancing their speaking skills during their speaking skills classes. The aim was to
investigate what speaking strategies the students, both males and females, employ or utilize on their
own to facilitate their speaking skills proficiency.

Consequently, the present study tried to answer the following basic research questions in order to fill
the above mentioned gaps.
1. What are the overall speaking strategies used by the female and male students of grade
eleven at Leka Nekemte Preparatory School?
2. What speaking skills learning strategy groups do male and female students of grade eleven at
Leka Nekemte Preparatory school prefer and employ?
3. Is there a significant difference in speaking strategies use due to gender among grade eleven
students at Leka Nekemte preparatory School?

1.3. Objectives of the Study

The general objective of this study was:

 To explore speaking strategies use of grade 11 students focusing on gender differences.

More specifically, the objectives of the present study were:

 Assessing learners’ over all speaking strategies use by grade eleven students.
 Finding out grade eleven male and female students’ preference and use of speaking strategy
groups.
 Identifying the difference (if any) in speaking strategies use between male and female
students of grade eleven.

7
1.4. Significance of the Study

Research is basically conducted to solve certain problems or to answer certain questions. Similarly,
this study was expected to cast light on the speaking strategies grade 11 students at Leka Nekemte
Preparatory School employ in facilitating their speaking proficiency where different bodies
benefitted from it. These beneficiaries can access the thesis from the university’s post graduate
library. Moreover, the researcher would also make the study’s thesis available on a website in
collaboration with the University.

Assessing gender differences in speaking skills learning strategies is mainly intended to generate
theoretical and practical insights into EFL learning. Generally, investigations into such speaking
strategies are very useful in that, ' ... they (the strategies) may be encouraged, or even taught, and
incorporated into teaching materials (Rivers, 1989).

Therefore, the investigator hoped that conducting the study would have necessary contributions for:
students, teachers, other researchers and curriculum designers. Initially, the findings of this study can
help teachers to get more insights in to how students learn speaking besides their gender differences,
encourage their students to be conscious of several learning strategies, and create a more suitable
learning environment appeal to the speaking skills learning strategies of male and female learners.
Consequently, learners can improve and monitor their learning and become autonomous learners.
Furthermore, by looking at the strategies the students already employ, it would be possible to
introduce new ones through consciousness-raising programs and related strategy training.

Moreover, the study can provide deeper insight to curriculum developers in order to incorporate
learning strategies training into the curriculum. Therefore, students would have enough access to
strategy training. Finally, the results may call for more investigators to enrich the existing research
findings in the area of speaking skills learning strategies.

1.5. Delimitation of the Study

The study was confined to one public school; Leka Nekemte preparatory school which is found in
Nekemte town, East Wollega Zone, Oromia Regional State, Ethiopia. The subjects of the study were
only grade 11 students from both natural and social science streams. The study involved 108 students
out of 340 total populations. Additionally, this research mainly focused on identifying the learning
strategies of speaking taking gender among the other variables which are believed to have

8
relationships with speaking skills learning strategies. Moreover, the study did not; include other
factors which could affect learners’ English speaking skills, extend to other areas of language skills
like listening, reading, writing, vocabulary and grammar. Therefore, speaking strategies employed by
female and male students of grade eleven at Leka Nekemte preparatory school was focused topically
for the sake of this study.

1.6. Limitation of the Study

It would be appropriate to carry out the study in larger scale than the range covered by the present
study. However, the limited time and other resources did not allow me doing so. Thus, this study is
not perfect since it has some limitations. Firstly, the research site was limited to only one
governmental preparatory school. So that, comparisons was not made. The researcher, however, feels
that it would have been much better if more governmental and private preparatory schools had been
involved in the study for both pilot and actual study. Secondly, the study did not investigate variables
such as, achievement, anxiety, motivation and so on, which are believed to have relationship with
speaking strategies. Rather the study mainly concerned on investigating the effect of only one
variable (gender) on speaking strategies.

9
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

2.1. Speaking Skills

Speaking is an interactive process of constructing meaning that involves producing, receiving,

processing and utilizing both verbal and nonverbal components (Burn and Joyce, 1997 cited in
Natalia, 2008). In addition, Nunan (1999) and Cameron (2001) explain that as a productive aural/oral
skill, speaking deals with the meaning negotiation and the active use of language to express
meanings so that other people can make sense of them. This definition shows that speaking
emphasizes the use of language interactively in order to make meaning on what is said. All these
show that speaking concerns meaning creation which involves both verbal and non-verbal symbols
through an interaction process.

In the teaching - learning of English as a foreign language context, the definitions of speaking above
indicate the importance of teaching and learning this skill interactively. This is also argued by
Erikson (2009) who believes that teaching and learning speaking as a language skill should be in the
form of practices, such as pronouncing words correctly, producing correct sentences and creating
logical sentences.

In teaching and learning speaking, Harris (1969) as cited in Imanin (2010) mentions five important
components to be emphasized in speaking, i.e. pronunciation (including the segmental features,
vowels, and consonant, the stress and intonation pattern), grammar, vocabulary, fluency (the case and
speed of the flow of speed), and comprehension (for oral communication certainly requires a subject
to respond to speech as well as to initiate it). Further, Bukart (1998) elaborates that the teaching and
learning of speaking should involve aspects like mechanics (e.g., pronunciation grammar and
vocabulary) and functions (transaction and interaction). The above components of teaching and
learning speaking are found important to be explicitly done by both teachers and students. Students
still found pronunciation, vocabulary and grammar difficult to master. This, to some extent, hinders
them from being able to speak fluently and communicatively in English.

Speaking is “the process of building and sharing meaning through the use of verbal (face -to-face,
radio or TV and other media) and non- verbal (body language, tone of voice and gestures) in a
variety of contents “(Chaney, 1998). Speaking is the productive aural/oral skill. It consists of
producing systematic verbal utterances to convey meaning. Speaking is an interactive process of
constructing meaning that involves producing and receiving and processing information (Brown,

10
10
1994). Its form and meaning are dependent on the context in which it occurs, including the
participants themselves, their collective experiences, the physical environment and the purposes for
speaking. Speaking requires that learners not only know how to produce specific points of language
such as grammar, pronunciation, or vocabulary ("linguistic competence"), but also that they
understand when, why, and in what ways to produce language ("sociolinguistic competence")
(Nunan,1999).

Speaking, as Karen (1994) defines it, is an expressive language skill in which the speaker uses verbal
symbols to communicate. When we speak, we are composing with language by constructing
meaning. Speaking allows us to develop new thoughts as we create ideas. Spoken language
production, or learning to speak in the foreign language is often considered to be one of the most
difficult aspects of language learning for the teachers to help the students with. The practical
problems are obvious. In written production, each writer writes without disturbing the rest of the
class at his own speed; whereas, in the production of speech, each speaker speaks, in the meantime
this speaker requires to be listened in besides, When he/she speaks, he/she makes a noise which will
disturb other students unless they are participating in the overall interaction with the actual speaker
(Brown and Yule, 1989).

Nunan (2003) said speaking is a very important part of second language learning because; the ability
to communicate in a second language clearly and efficiently contributes to the success of the learner
in school and later in life. Beside the fact that speaking is a skill, which deserves attention like other
skills, both in first and second languages, learners often need to be able to speak with confidence and
carry out many of their basic transactions. They may make or lose their friends because of lack of
speaking skill. It is the medium part excellence social solidarity, social ranking, of professional
advancement and of business. It is also a medium through which much language is learned and which
particularly conductive for learning, perhaps, then the learning of speaking merits more thought
(Bygate, 1987).

Students learn to speak by speaking (Rivers, 1981). However, the teaching-learning of oral language
skills was traditionally considered as the most difficult task; because in the past, written language
was given more attention than speaking. Speaking a language is different for foreign language
learners because effective oral communication requires the ability to use the language appropriately
in social interactions (Shumin, 1997). Whilst the speaking ability of students and making them use

11
11
speech pattern of language they learn, and activities they are supposed to undertake must be selected
carefully.

Moreover, students should be encouraged to go under intensive oral exercises that are basically
designed for communication purposes. Such activities according to Bygate, (1987) give students both
confidence and motivation for oral practice.

The intention is, often, that the student should be able to ‘express himself/herself in the target
language; to attain basic interactive skills like exchanging greetings and thanks and apologies, etc.
and to express his/her ‘needs’ request information, service etc. (Brown and Yule, 1989). In addition,
to let learners master this kind of skills, a real world use of language should be incorporated in the
classroom as much as possible.

2.2. Speaking Skills in Foreign Language Learning

Speaking a foreign language correctly is perhaps the most difficult of all skills. When speaking, not
only is a speaker required to put words together in an understandable way, but also he/she has to
speak them in an intelligible fashion (Jones 1993). Moreover, when, for example, conversing with
someone, an instant reaction or thought is called for. If, on the other hand, we take writing, there
could be perhaps enough time to think about and to look up the words and expressions we are using
in dictionaries, and, at the same time, there could be time for second thoughts and for going through
what has been written again and again.

However, the spoken language, despite its being the most difficult compared to the other skills, has
been given little or no recognition in educational thinking, and certainly has not been considered as a
vehicle of learning (Haliday 1990). It has been in many ways an undervalued skill which could
perhaps be because we can almost all speak compared to writing and reading and so take the skill too
much for granted, or due to the fact that speaking is transient and improvised, and can therefore be
viewed as facile, superficial, or glib (Bygate 1993). Traditionally, therefore, for these and other
reasons, the first task of teachers has been to ensure that children could read and write. In other
words, as Haliday notes, once a child is literate, it is assumed that he or she can use written language
as a tool for learning, in the same way that he or she has always learnt through spoken language.

Nevertheless, despite the little recognition given to it (the spoken language) in educational thinking,
the dynamic changes and developments in methods of language teaching throughout history reflect

12
12
recognition of changes in the kind of proficiency learners need, such as a move toward oral
proficiency rather than reading comprehension, for example/as the only goal of language study
(Richards et al 1989).

The serious consideration of the spoken language as a decisive skill on second/foreign language
teaching and learning can be generally dated to the subsequent years of the Second World War
(Brown et al 1989) when a few enthusiasts began to insist on its inclusion in foreign language
teaching. But it is only during the last twenty years that this view has prevailed and became widely
accepted (Brown 1985).

Scholars, who have been able to see the important role of the spoken language in foreign language
teaching, have pointed out that the written language alone could not give the necessary competence
in a foreign language as the students have been devoid of the sort of spoken language which is highly
valued within the educational system (Brown et al 1984). Teachers, too, have begun to give
recognition to the learning potential the spoken language has and hence have started to assign a
certain place in their class activities. In fact, this has been noted and determined by the pattern of
speech roles that the spoken language sets up. That is, as Haliday underlines, … it is quicker and
more effective to check whether a student knows the answer by asking a question orally in class than
by setting a written test every time (1990).

It is interesting to note that the spoken language, though viewed by some people even today as a skill
desirable in itself (the need to be articulate, 'orate', to get on in life), its role as an essential equipment
for learning other things (Haliday 1990) is prized more greatly and is getting the attention of
researchers and teachers in the day to day teaching activity (Jones 1993). It is believed by many
scholars to be the most natural way of learning a new language (Rivers 1989). At the same time,
from the teachers’ practical activities and the research studies conducted concerning its importance
and place in language teaching-learning, it has come to be understood as a vehicle of language
learning through which much language is learnt (Bygate 1993). It is a means of increasing the
students' confidence, building a warm, uninhibited, confident, sympathetic relationship among the
students and between the teacher and students. It is a means by which the students can see the
practical and tangible value or use of the language as they speak and interact through it (Rivers 1985,
Brown et al 1989). It gives life to the classroom teaching and learning process.

13
13
Previously, the chief concern of language teaching focused on the study of the written language.
And this was true to the English language as well. Bygate (1993) also states, “Speaking has been an
undervalued skill due to the fact that it is transient and improvised and can, therefore, be
viewed as facile, superficial or glib”. However, other scholars such as Richards et al (1987)
comment that the dynamic changes and developments in methods of language teaching throughout
history reflect recognition of changes in the kind of proficiency learners’ need, such as a move
towards oral proficiency rather than reading comprehension as the only goal of language study.
Because of this, speaking is getting the attention of the researchers and teachers in the day to
day teaching activity (Jones, 1993).

The researchers conducted on the importance and place of speaking in language teaching and the
teachers’ practical activities have come to show that speaking is a vehicle of language learning
(Bygate, 1993). Speaking enables students to relate what they know with what they are learning. In
addition, it increases students’ confidence, gives life to the teaching learning proce ss and builds
good relationship between teachers and students and among the students themselves.

Generally, speaking is a means of socializing oneself with others in and outside the classroom
(Richards 1989, Brown et al 1984), of increasing the students’ confidence by reducing tension, and
of internalizing pronunciation, stress and intonation of a language (Rivers 1988, Oxford 1990).
Hence, since it is central to classroom education and almost everything goes through it, teachers and
researchers in language teaching-learning insist that putting a great effort is necessary to develop
speaking competence (Brown et al 1984). Speaking thus, having these and other uses, is necessary if
it is investigated and a thorough knowledge is obtained about it in the teaching-learning process.

2.3. The Importance of Speaking Skills

In the traditional approaches of language learning and teaching, the Speaking Skill was neglected in
many classrooms where the emphasis was mainly on reading and writing. The Grammar-Translation
method is one example, Richards and Rodgers (2001) mention that reading and writing are the
essential skills to be focused on however, little or no attention is paid to the skill of speaking and
listening. In the communicative approach, speaking was given more importance since oral
communication involves speech where learners are expected to interact verbally with other people.
Moreover, the teachers’ talk will be reduced; that is to say learners are supported to talk more in the
classroom.

14
14
Ur (2000) declares also that “of all the four skills [listening, speaking, reading and writing], speaking
seems intuitively the most important: people who know a language are referred to as, speakers of the
language, as if speaking included all other kinds of knowing.” Today, many second language learners
give the speaking skill priority in their learning because if they master this skill then they will be
considered as if they have mastered all of the other skills. It is understood that most people take
speaking and knowing a language as synonyms. Celce-Murcia (2001) argues that for most people
“the ability to speak a language is synonymous with knowing that language since speech is the most
basic means of human communication.”

The importance of speaking is more revealed with the integration of the other language skills. For
instance, speaking can help students to develop their vocabulary and grammar and then improving
their writing skill. With speaking, learners can express their personal feeling, opinions or ideas; tell
stories; inform or explain; request; converse and discuss, i.e. through speaking, we can display the
different functions of language. Speaking is very important outside the classroom as well. Many
companies and organizations look for people who speak English very well for the purpose of
communicating with other people. So, speakers of foreign languages have more opportunities to get
jobs in such companies. Baker and Westrup (2003) support that, “a student who can speak English
well may have greater chance for further education, of finding employment and gaining promotion.”

2.4. The Role of Students in Learning Speaking Skills

Besides the teacher’s role, students play a great role in assigning teaching speaking skills. They are
expected to participate in teaching-learning process in different ways. One of the most important
outcomes of the movement towards more communicatively oriented language learning and teaching
has been the enhancement of the role of the learner in the language learning process (Wenden, 1991).
Cotterall and Crabbe (1999) believe that in formal educational contexts the most successful learners
are autonomous (they accept responsibility for their learning; they constantly reflect on what they are
learning, why they are learning, and with what degree of success of learning).

Scharle and Szabo (2000) point out that, autonomous learners are those who accept the idea that their
own efforts are crucial to progress in learning language and behave accordingly. When doing their
homework, or answering a question in class, they are not aspiring to please the teacher, or to get a
good mark. They are simply making an effort in order to learn something.

15
15
They are willing to cooperate with the teacher and other in the learning group for every one’s be nefit
(Ibid). Hedge (2000) agrees that an autonomous learner is one who is self motivated, one who takes
the initiatives, one who has a clear idea of what he/she wants to learn and one who has his/her own
plan for pursuing and achieving his goal. She also characterized autonomous learners as those who:

 Know their needs and work productively with the teacher towards the achievement of their
objectives.
 Learn both inside and outside the classroom.
 Can take classroom based material and can build on it.
 Know how to use resources independently.
 Adjust their learning strategies when necessary to improve learning.
 Manage and divide the time in learning properly.

Within the context of education, Wenden (1991) also characterized autonomous learners as those
who are motivated to learn, good guessers, choosing material, methods and tasks, selecting the
criteria for evaluation, taking an active approach to the task and willing to take risks (ibid).
Furthermore, Dickinson (1995) characterizes autonomous learners as ‘those who have the capacity
for being active and independent in the learning process; they can identify goals; formulate their own
goals, and can change goals to suit their own learning needs and interests; they are able to use
learning strategies, and monitor their own learning”. Kohonen et al. (2001) insists that learners need
to develop the following kinds of capacities:
Confidence: sense of control and mastery of one’s body, behavior and the world.
Curiosity: desire to find out about things.
Intentionality: capacity to work with persistence and develop a sense of competence.
Self-control: ability to modulate and control one’s action appropriately.
Relatedness: ability to engage with others.
Communication: ability to exchange idea, feelings and experiences with others and developing
trusts in others.
Cooperation: balancing one’s needs with those of others in group situations.

However good a teacher may be, students will never learn a language unless they aim to learn outside
as well as during class time. This is because language learning is too complex to learn in a classroom
(Harmer 2001). Besides, she claims that to compensate for the limits of classroom time and to
counter the problem of learning language, students need to develop their own learning strategies so

16
16
that as far as possible they have to be autonomous learners. To develop their autonomy, teachers
need to facilitate learners to increase their self understanding and awareness of themselves (Kohonen
et al, 2001).

2.5. The Concept of Strategy

The word strategy comes from the ancient Greek word ‘Strategia’, which means steps or actions
taken for the purpose of winning a war known as military strategy (Wikipedia, 2009).Though
definition of strategy has several interpretations, but all of them come from this source. Thus, the
word comes from the ancient Greek term ‘Strategia’, used to refer to the tactics employed to defeat
the enemy. In the educational field, the use of this term is not very different, but in this case the
enemy is the students’ lack of knowledge.

One of the earliest researchers in this field, Rubin (1975) provided a very broad definition of learning
strategies as "the techniques or devices which a learner may use to acquire knowledge". Oxford
(1992) offers the following definition: strategies are specific actions, behaviours, steps or techniques
that students (often intentionally) use to improve their progress in developing foreign language skills.
These strategies can facilitate the internalization, storage, retrieval or use of the new language.
Strategies are tools for the self-directed involvement necessary for developing communicative
ability. Based on Oxford (1992), direct strategies for dealing with the new language are the first
major classification and are used to work with the language in different tasks and situations. The
second major classification is indirect strategies used for the general acquisition of learning. When
conditions are created for the students’ development of strategies, teachers need to bear in mind that
what they teach must be consistent with what students need. According to Hedge (2000) and Macaro
(2003), it is possible to identify four needs:

(A) Contextualised practice: the aim is to connect the linguistic features with their functions by
finding a situation in which what they are learning is commonly used.

(B) Personalized language: the teacher has to make students express their ideas, feelings and
opinions using the target language. Students tend to remember more of the language when they can
use it in interpersonal situations.

(C) Building awareness of the social use of the language: the aim here is to make students
understand that there are situations with an appropriate social behaviour and an appropriate use of the

17
17
language. Therefore, conversational misunderstandings that can cause language problems can be
avoided.

(D) Building confidence: when teachers build confidence in students they are able to produce the
language quickly and automatically at ease. Teachers also need to create a positive environment for
classroom communication.

In brief, the teaching context in this 21stcentury is determined by the globalised world in which
students are immersed. The demanding work conditions create a need for students to be autonomous
and efficient in all areas. It is in this context where learning strategies become important to develop
the students’ language ability in order for them to be self-sufficient and direct their own learning
process.

2.6. Foreign Language Learning and Learning Strategies

2.6.1. Foreign Language Learning

The term second/foreign language learning refers to “the subconscious or conscious process by
which language other than the mother tongue is learnt in a natural or tutored setting” (Ellis, 1985).
There has been much debate about exactly how language is learned, and many issues are still
unresolved. There are many theories of second language acquisition/learning, but none are accepted
as a complete explanation by all SLA researchers. According to the behaviorists, speech is language
because there are many languages without written forms. Because we learn to speak before we learn
to read and write (Demirezen, 1988). So that language learning takes place through habit formation.
That is, learners receive linguistic input from speakers in their environment by building up chains of
stimulus-response links and when correct responses and imitations are coherently reinforced, then
habit formation is established. In this behaviorist view of learning there was little attention for any
active processing by the learner since the whole process of language learning is teacher centered
rather than being a learner centered that encourage learners to take control of their language learning
by employing different learning strategies (Brown, 2007; Ellis, 1985). Later, this behaviorist theory
for language learning was challenged by psychologists and language acquisition researchers and
cognitive theory for language acquisition emerged. The most prominent characteristics of the
cognitive theory could be described as the focus on the processes underlying complex learning. In
this theory learners have to pay attention to any aspect of the language which they are trying to
understand or produce. Gradually, through experience and practice, learners become able to use

18
18
certain parts of their knowledge so quickly and automatically that they are not even aware that they
are doing it (Lightbown and Spada, 1993).

Current cognitive theories to learning stress that learning is an active, constructive, cumulative, and
self-directed process that depends on the mental activities of the learner rather than simply being an
observable stimulus- response process (Brown, 2007). In the view of cognitive theory, the notion of
effective language learning requires the active involvement of the learner in the process. This
explicitly acknowledges the use of various learning strategies since learning is goal-oriented; the
learner must somehow organize his/her resources and activities in order to achieve the goal of
learning. This theory is a relative new comer to SLA research, and has not yet been widely tested
empirically. Because the theory itself cannot easily predict what kinds of structures will be
automatized through practice (Horanicova, 2006).

Therefore, construction theory succeeds cognitive theory. A refreshing characteristic of

constructivism is its integration of linguistic, psychological, and sociological paradigms, in contrast
to the previous theories. Thus, in this theory learners are thought to construct mental pictures of the
language being learned. These mental pictures are thought to develop in predictable stages. That is,
certain structures are acquired in a predictable sequence. In other words, acquisition takes place
internally as learners read and hear samples of the language that they understand. It means that the
speech and writing which the learner eventually produces is seen as an outcome of the learning
process rather than as the cause of learning or even as a necessary step in learning. Thus, learners’
oral or written production is useful only when it allows the learner to participate in communicative
situations. Likewise, this theory also emphasizes the importance of social interaction and cooperative
learning in constructing both cognitive and emotional images of reality (Brown, 2007; Lightbown
and Spada, 1993). Moreover, constructivism advocates student-centered, discovery learning where
students must individually discover and transform complex information if they are to make it their
own or simply they use information they previously know to acquire more knowledge. Therefore,
learners require playing a more active role in order to facilitate their learning using learning strategies
(Brown, 2007). On the other dimension, there is an interactionist theory. Like creative construction
theory, this theory places a large emphasis up on the input that a learner receives. The main
difference however, is that in interaction theory, the stress is placed almost entirely upon input. It
means that this theory highlight the important role of the social environment and the important role
social input has in structuring language learning.

19
19
Interactionists claim that a crucial element in the language learning process is the modified input that
learners are exposed to and the way in which native speakers interact in conversation with learners
(Ellis, 1985; Lightbown and Spada, 1993). In general, learning takes place as a result of a complex
interaction between the linguistic environments and the learners’ internal mechanisms (Ellis, 1997).
Furthermore, Ellis (1985) points out that mere exposure to the L2 is not enough. Learners appear to
need L2 data that are especially suited to whatever stage of development they are at. Besides,
learners require using learning strategies to processes the L2 input in order to develop linguistic
knowledge or learners need to shift the input they received and relate it to their existing knowledge
using learning strategies. All in all, it is obvious that any given second language learner may differ
from another second language learner because of the way in which learners use learning strategies to
learn a L2 and the way they use their L2 knowledge. That is why Ellis (ibid) stresses the importance
of investigating learning strategies since it has a central place in Second Language Learning.

2.6.2. Learning Strategies

Learning strategies have been in the center of attention and they have gained great importance in the
teaching-learning environment. A number of language theorists have defined language learning
strategies in different ways. Rubin (1975) who was one of the earliest researchers in this field defines
learning strategies as “the techniques or devise which a learner may use to acquire knowl edge.”
O’Malley and Chamot (1990) characterized learning strategies as “the special thoughts or behaviors
that individuals use to help them comprehend, learn, or retain new information.” Thus learning
strategies were seen as special ways of processing information that enhance comprehension, learning,
or retention of the information. Brown (2007) on the other hand views learning strategies relating
with “input- to processing, storage, and retrieval, that is, to taking messages from others.”
Additionally, for Paterson and Rosbottom (1995) learning strategies are “the particular habits or
patterns espoused when engaged in the learning process”.

Whereas prior descriptions of learning strategies paid more attention to products of learning and
behaviors reflecting unobservable cognitive processes, as well as limit learning strategies to receptive
skills, definitions eventually provided clearer understanding of what learners think and do during
language learning. In this regard learning strategies have been explained by Cohen (1996) as “the
steps or actions selected by learners either to improve the learning of a second language, the use of it,
or both.” Similarly, Chamot (2004) also describes learning strategies as “the conscious thoughts and
actions that learners take in order to achieve a learning goal.” One of the most applicable definitions

20
20
which have been cited most frequently in the literature was provided by Oxford (1990). She defines
language learning strategies as “the specific actions taken by the learner to make learning easier,
faster, more enjoyable, more self directed, more effective and more transferable to new situations.” It
is indeed, a reflection of what the learner intends to do and specific actions he/she can take. The
author also prominently includes how context plays a crucial role in the language learning process.

2.7. Classifications of Learning Strategies

Regardless of the past research into the existence and application of learning strategies, “exactly how
many strategies are available to learners to assist them in FL learning and how these strategies should
be classified is open to debate” (Hsiao and Oxford, 2002). Various suggestions on how strategies can
be enumerated and classified have been made (O’Malley, et al., 1985; Wenden and Rubin, 1987;
O’Malley and Chamot, 1990; Oxford, 1990), each of which is based on an individual theory about
learning strategies and their effect on L2 acquisition. Some, for example, place importance on
socio/affective strategies which suggests that the researchers believe that the learners themselves, and
their interactions with others, are of great importance (Hsiao and Oxford, 2002).

The early work of researchers (Rubin, 1975; Naiman, et al., 1978) with regard to learning strategies,
and their application by learners, demonstrated two important facts: firstly, that second/foreign
language learners applied language learning strategies and, secondly, that these strategies could be
described and classified (O’Malley et al., 1985). However, much of this early work was more
involved with compiling inventories of observed strategy use rather than focusing on classifying the
strategies into exclusive categories (Ellis, 2002).

Eventually though, Rubin (1981) saw strategies as falling under two broad categories:
 Strategies that directly affect learning, such as clarification/verification, monitoring,
memorisation, guessing/inductive reasoning, deductive reasoning and practice.

 Strategies that indirectly affect learning, such as creating opportunities to use and practice the
language, and using production tricks such as communication strategies.

Oxford (1990) used this classification as a basis for her own direct/indirect strategy classification,
albeit with some important differences. An initial concern was that Rubin’s (1981) classification
system was not detailed enough, and that overlaps appeared within classification areas, creating
categories of strategies that were not mutually exclusive (Hsiao and Oxford, 2002).

21
21
Oxford’s (1990) direct/indirect dichotomy differed from Rubin’s (1981) in that it introduced
categorical groups under which separate strategies could be listed. Learning strategies were still
divided into direct and indirect, where direct strategies “require mental processing of the language”
and, thereby, “directly involve the target language” (Oxford, 1990). Indirect strategies are seen more
to “underpin the business of language learning and are called “indirect” because they support and
manage language learning without (in many instances) directly involving the target language.

Under direct strategies Oxford (1990) lists:

 Memory strategies – assisting with information storage and retrieval, and include grouping,
using imagery, repetition

 Cognitive strategies – assisting with comprehension and production of language, and include
practising, analysing and reasoning

 Compensation strategies – allowing use of the language notwithstanding gaps in L2

knowledge, and include guessing and gesture

On the other hand, under indirect strategies Oxford (1990) listed:

 Meta-cognitive strategies – allowing learners to control their cognitive learning processes,
and include planning and self-evaluation
 Affective strategies – helping to control motivation and attitude, and include steps taken to
lower anxiety and encourage oneself
 Social strategies – helping learners to improve through interaction with others, and include
asking questions, taking active roles in the classroom and seeking practice opportunities

In the same year, O’Malley and Chamot (1990) also came up with a classification system that while
overlapping considerably with Oxford’s (1990), also differed in some key areas, highlighting
different opinions as to how strategies should be classified. O’Malley and Chamot saw strategies
belonging to three broad categories: cognitive, meta-cognitive and socio-affective. Important
differences occur in certain areas, often, it appears, to do with theoretical approach. For example,
O’Malley and Chamot list ‘guessing’ as a cognitive factor, while Oxford sees it as a compensatory
factor and, as opposed to O’Malley and Chamot, Oxford proposes that memory strategies have
specific functions and so separates them from the cognitive category. Also, Oxford separates social

22
22
strategies from affective ones, and in doing so is able to list strategies more exclusively. There were
three learning strategy classifications since 1970s (See Appendix I).

2.8. Main Features of Learning Strategies

Oxford (1990) listed the main features of language learning strategies, in which Language learning
strategies:
 Contribute to the main goal of communicative competence. In order to develop communicative
competence, it is important for learners to develop: knowledge of grammatical rules (grammatical
competence), the ability to use the language as appropriate for the particular social context in
which the communication takes place (sociolinguistics competence), the ability to interpret
messages coherently with the entire text (discourse competence) and the ability to initiate, control,
and redirect communication (strategic competence) Canale and Swain (1980).
 Encourage learners for greater self-direction.
 Expand the role of teachers. The roles of teachers include identifying students’ lea rning strategies,
conducting training on learning strategies and helping learners become more independent.
 Are problem oriented. They are tools used to solve a problem or to accomplish a task.
 They are specific action taken by the learner to enhance their learning.
 Involve many aspects of the learner, not just the cognitive; those dealing with mental processing
and manipulation of the new language. Rather they include meta-cognitive functions like
planning, evaluation and arriving one’s own learning; emotional, social, and other functions as
well.
 Offer direct and indirect support of learning.
 Are observable to some degree. They are not always readily observable. For instance, the act of
making mental associations, which is memory strategy, cannot be observed. However, doing
works in cooperation with others can be observed.
 Have some levels of consciousness. They usually reflect conscious efforts by learners to take
control of their learning.
 Can be taught through strategy training.
 Are flexible; that is, they are not always in the same sequences or certain patterns.
 Influenced by a variety of factors to be chosen and used by the learner such as motivation, gender,
nationality, age, learning style, etc.

23
23
2.9. The Purposes of Learning Strategies

Within communicative approaches to language teaching a key goal is for the learner to develop
communicative competence in the target L2/FL, and language learning strategies can help students in
doing so. As Oxford (1990) indicates, language learning strategies contribute a high importance for
effective communicative competence. According to Canale and Swain (1980), there are four
dimensions of communicative competence. These are grammatical competence, sociolinguistic
competence, discourse competence, and strategic competence. Therefore, language learning
strategies can be used as a tool to facilitate these dimensions of communicative competence. More
specifically, Cognitive strategies such as practicing, analyzing, and reasoning; Memory strategies or
rehearsal, and Compensation strategies develop vocabulary and grammatical competence or accuracy
(Oxford, 2003). Besides, Oxford (2003) notes although Memory strategies are often used for
memorizing vocabulary and structures in initial stages of language learning, but learners need such
strategies much less when their knowledge of vocabulary and structures has become larger.

In addition to this, Social strategies, such as frequent contact with native speakers and cooperation
with other learners increase sociolinguistic competence. Several kinds of strategies, such as asking
questions, rehearsing, and use of contextual clues, enhance discourse competence. Lastly, some
strategies such as using synonyms or gestures and guessing the meaning of words form the basis of
strategic competence. Moreover, learning strategies can also enable students to become more
independent, autonomous, lifelong learners and learners can be able to adopt and maintain certain
attitudes to keep themselves involved in the language learning process (Oxford, 1990). As explained
by Ehrman et al (2003) ,learning strategies are helpful if: (a) the strategy relates well to the L2 task at
hand, (b) the strategy fits the particular student’s learning style preferences to one degree or another,
and (c) the student employs the strategy effectively and links it with other relevant strategies.
Besides, they may assist learners in mastering the forms and functions required for reception or
production in the second or foreign language and thus affect achievement (Rubin, 1975).

2.10. The Concept of Gender

The sex and gender distinction is not universal. In ordinary speech, sex and gender are often used
interchangeably (Johnson and Repta 2012). However, some dictionaries and several academic
disciplines give them different definitions. Sex is annotated as different from gender in the Oxford
English Dictionary (2010), where it says sex “tends now to refer to biological differences” w hile

24
24
gender is “a euphemism for the sex of a human being, often intended to emphasize the social and
cultural, as opposed to the biological, distinctions between the sexes.” The World Health
Organization (WHO) similarly states that “sex refers to the biological and physiological
characteristics that define men and women and that ‘male’ and ‘female’ are sex categories.”
However, gender refers to “the socially constructed roles, behaviors, activities, and attributes that a
given society considers appropriate for men and women and that ‘masculine’ and ‘feminine’ are
gender categories.”

The other scholar Jhonson and Repta (2012) defines these two terminologies similarly, but in a broad
expression. So sex is defined as “a biological construct that encapsulates t he anatomical,
physiological, genetic, and hormonal variation that exists in species.” Whereas, gender is “a
multidimensional construct that refers to the different roles, responsibilities, limitations, and
experiences provided to individuals based on sex/gender.” According to the author’s view, gender
builds on biological sex to give meaning to sex differences, categorizing individuals with labels such
as woman and man. These categories are socially constructed. Finally, according to Sunderland
(2006), gender is described as a “sort of social correlate of sex.” It means that biological males and
females posses certain culturally imbued characteristics. In relation with this for the author “sex is a
biological determination to be male and female.”

2.11. Gender and Learning Strategies

Gender has been given little attention in research on the development of second and foreign language
though it is assumed that it has a direct relationship with language (Bidlake, 2007; Oxford, 1992).
The rare research on gender differences in second or foreign languages has concentrated on how
people learn these languages, that is, on the choice of strategies they employ for language learning
(Oxford, 1992). Gender is considered as an important factor affecting the choice of language learning
strategies in language learning and is said to have a profound effect on strategy choice (Oxford &
Nyikos, 1989). It has been found by many researchers that males and females employ different
strategies in relation to their gender characteristics. However, studies which have examined the
relationship between gender and strategy use have come to mixed conclusions.

The result of the majority of studies indicates higher use of strategies by females than males. Oxford
and Nyikos (1989), for example, examined gender differences in strategy use of 1200 college
foreign-language students in the US. The study found that females use learning strategies more

25
25
frequently than males. The study revealed that females more frequently use general study strategies,
formal- rule related practice strategies, and conversational input elicitation strategies because of their
desire for good grades and need for social approval. Similarly, Green and Oxford’s (1995) study of
English language use of university students in Puerto Rico also revealed a greater use of learning
strategies by women than by men. Many frequently used strategies by female fell within the
categories of memory, cognitive, affective, and social strategies. They concluded that differences in
strategy use by gender can be explained within individual learning style, motivations, and attitudes
(cited in Aslan, 2009).

Likewise, Tam’s (2013) study of language learning strategies of university students in Hong Kong
also indicates female dominance over males in strategies use. The finding implies that male students
are less willing to take a provocative role in communicating and seeking help from other English
learners or speakers to improve their English skills. The findings of Gurata’s (2008) study on study
on grammar learning strategies employed by Turkish EFL students also support female dominance in
strategies use. The major findings showed that females reported using more Meta-cognitive, Social
and Affective strategies than the males. However, while studies found that differences in strategy use
may exist between males and females, other studies reported more strategies used by males. For
instance, Radwan’s (2011) study on the effects of L2 proficiency and gender on choice of langu age
learning strategies by university students revealed that male students used more social strategies than
female students which is totally contrary to the above studies. The author indicates that the culture of
the society gives men more responsibility in the major political and social dimensions. So, they have
to develop extremely good social skills to operate in this context. However, the conservative nature
of culture, customs and habits prevents females to develop communicative abilities in the language
with other people.

On the other hand, a study of Rahimi, Riazi and Saif (2008) on the investigation of the factors
affecting the use of language learning strategies by Persian EFL learners reported that gender did not
have a significant overall effect on the use of language learning strategies. In general, research
findings have indicated that the differences in strategy use between females and males exist and the
use of strategies between them differ somewhat. Researchers generally agree that gender difference
in strategy use may result from various factors such as learning styles, language learning experiences,
socialization, and/or life experience.

26
26
Moreover, one of the important issue which Oxford (1994) recommends is that teachers need to learn
to identify and understand their students’ individual differences, even they need become more aware
that their teaching styles are appropriate to their learners strategies.

2.12. Speaking Strategies

An important component of language learning strategy training is that of speaking strategies.

According to O’Malley and Chamot (1990), speaking strategies are crucial because they help foreign
language learners “in negotiating meaning where either linguistic structures or sociolinguistic rules
are not shared between a second language learner and a speaker of the target language”.

One goal of a language learner may be to speak the foreign language in different oral exchanges and
ultimately to be a competent speaker. For Hedge (2000), a competent speaker knows how to make
use of speaking strategies. Hedge (ibid) comments that: “These strategies come into play when
learners are unable to express what they want to say because they lack the resources to do so
successfully”. These verbal and non-verbal strategies (e.g. verbal circumlocution, clarification, non-
verbal mimicry, gestures, etc.) may be used to compensate for a breakdown in communication or for
unknown words or topics, and they may also be used to enhance effective communication.

Speaking strategies are essential, since they provide foreign language learners with valuable tools to
communicate in the target language in diverse situations. However, there is disagreement as to
whether or not to teach speaking strategies. Kellerman (1991) advocates against such training and
believes that learners can transfer these strategies naturally from their native language to the target
language. On the other hand, Canale (1983) encourages training in speaking strategies because:
learners must be shown how such a strategy can be implemented in the second language...
Furthermore, learners must be encouraged to use such strategies (rather than remain silent...) and
must be given the opportunity to use them.

A study carried out in the Mexican context by Mugford (2007) reveals that learners and even
teachers are not prepared to deal with some not-so-pleasant communicative exchanges, including
rudeness, disrespect, and impoliteness. Although this could be considered an unrelated topic,
Mugford argues that students should be taught speaking strategies so that they may be able to
communicate realistically when interacting in English.

27
27
In a recent study Nakatani (2005) showed that students who were taught speaking strategies made a
significant improvement in their oral tests. The teaching of speaking strategies could complement
teaching a foreign language and ELT training; however, in practice it seems that the teaching of
speaking strategies may not be given enough importance.

2.13. Classifications of Speaking Strategies

A classification reported so far under the classification of learning strategies supported the view that
Oxford’s classification of learning strategies encompasses all aspects of strategy use and is the most
comprehensive classification to date (Ellis, 1994). It has further been validated by Oxford (1990)
through factor analysis measures and has proved to be the most valid classification of learning
strategies. The strategy categories (i.e., cognitive, meta-cognitive, affective, social, memory and
compensation) in Oxford’s classification will, therefore, form the framework based on which the
learning strategies that will be reported by participants in this study will be categorized and analyzed.
Each strategy type is described as follows:

2.13.1.Direct Strategies

These strategies directly contribute to learning speaking. They include memory, cognitive and
compensation strategies.

2.13.1.1. Memory Strategies

In language learning process, a language learner tries to store or receive new information that
he/she is taught in the language classroom or in any other learning context. He/she also
needs to remember the language elements such as words or grammar rules he/she has learnt.
Hence to cope with these entire related processes, a leaner tends to develop strategies which enable
him/her to achieve all the stated objectives. These strategies are said to be memory strategies
which help students to store and retrieve information (Richards and Lock hart 1996). Some types
of these strategies include creating mental linkage (e.g. placing new words into a context),
applying images and sounds (e.g. Representing sounds in memory), reviewing well and
employing action (ibid).

Moreover, memory strategies help learners’ link one L2 item or concept with another but do not
necessarily involve deep understanding. Various Memory related strategies enable learners to learn

28
28
and retrieve information in an orderly string (e.g., acronyms), while other techniques create learning
and retrieval via sounds (e.g., rhyming), images (e.g., a mental picture of the word itself or the
meaning of the word), a combination of sounds and images (e.g., the keyword method), body
movement (e.g., total physical response), mechanical means (e.g., flashcards), or location (e.g., on a
page or blackboard). Memory strategies are often used for memorizing vocabulary and structures in
initial stages of language learning, but that learners need such strategies much less when their arsenal
of vocabulary and structures has become larger.

More specifically, memory strategies are specific devices used by learners to make mental linkages
that will allow new information, most often vocabulary, to enter and remain in long-term memory.
Oxford (1990) categorized memory strategies into four: creating mental linkages, applying images
and sounds, reviewing well, and employing action.

Creating mental linkages strategies form the corner stone for the rest of the memory strategies
by classifying and reclassifying language material into meaningful units, by associating or
elaborating, and by placing new words into a context. Applying images and sounds strategies
include using imagery, using key words, semantic mapping, and representing sounds in
memory. Reviewing well strategy is done by reviewing carefully in spaced intervals. Employing
action includes two ways, namely by using physical response or sensation and by using mechanical
techniques.

Although memory strategies could easily be viewed as cognitive strategies, their purpose is limited to
memorization and involves mostly surface processing (Biggs, 1988). Prior research shows that
memory strategies operate differently from many cognitive strategies in terms of frequency of use
(Oxford, 1996; Lan and Oxford, 2003).

2.13.1.2. Cognitive Strategies

Cognitive strategies which enable learners to understand and produce new language are categorized
as direct strategies. They are typically found to be the most popular strategies with the
language learners (Oxford, 1990). Cognitive strategies are defined by Rubin (1987) as “the
steps, or operations used in problem solving that require direct analysis, transformation or
synthesis of learning materials”. Compared to memory strategies, the purpose of cognitive strategies
is not simply memorization but deeper processing and use of the language (ibid).

29
29
They include techniques which enable learners to make their language learning meaningful and
understandable. Thus, there are four types of cognitive strategies, namely “practicing, receiving
and sending messages, analyzing and reasoning, and creating structure for input and output”. Oxford
creates the acronym PRAC, as illustrated in her statement “Cognitive strategies are practical
for language learning” (Oxford, 1990).

Practicing is the most important type of strategies that includes repeating, formally practicing
with sounds and writing systems, recognizing and using formulas and patterns, recombining, and
practicing naturally. Receiving and sending messages can be used by learners to extracting the new
ideas by using a variety of resources for understanding or producing meaning. Analyzing and
reasoning are concerned with the logical analysis and reasoning as applied to various target language
skills. These strategies contain reasoning deductively, analyzing expressions, translating, and
transferring. Creating structure for input and output combines three ways to create structure,
namely taking notes, summarizing, and highlighting.

Generally, cognitive strategies enable the learner to manipulate the language material in direct ways,
e.g., through reasoning, analysis, note-taking, summarizing, synthesizing, outlining, reorganizing
information to develop stronger schemas (knowledge structures), practicing in naturalistic settings,
and practicing structures and sounds formally.

2.13.1.3. Compensation Strategies

In some way learners are sometimes forced to use some techniques to use the language without
interruption in speaking or in some other language learning process. For instance, during speaking
while learners are unable to utter the right word for that particular expression they are likely
to shift to replace the word or phrase in some way. These strategies or techniques are grouped
under compensation strategies category. They attribute to enhance learners strategies which enable
them to use some other alternatives to understand the language or to use the language by
overcoming the limitations they face in the process of using or learning the language. This means
that learners try to make up limited knowledge whenever they encounter in short of word or phrase.
These strategies include guessing intelligently for instance using clues to guess meaning and
overcoming limitations in speaking and writing for instance to use body language during
speaking instead of some missing words or expressions (Richard and Lockhart, 1994;and
Williams and Burden ,1997).

30
30
In other words, compensation strategies help learners when comprehending and producing the new
language. Compensation strategies are classified into two, namely guessing intelligently in listening
and reading, and overcoming limitations in speaking and writing. Oxford (1990) created
acronym for this strategy GO as illustrated by her statement, “language learners can GO far with
compensation strategies”. This strategy is useful when the learners try to make educated guesses
rather than become panic and tend to use whatever words they can find. In guessing strategies there
are two strategies that can be used. The first one is ‘using linguistic clues’ (language based
clues) and using other clues (non-language based clues). The second strategy is ‘overcoming
limitations’, as applied in speaking and writing, such as switching to the mother tongue, getting
help, using mime and gesture, avoiding communication partially or totally, selecting the topic,
adjusting or approximating the message, coining words, and using circumlocution or synonym.

2.13.2.Indirect Strategies

These are strategies that enable direct strategies to occur or help learners to use direct
strategies in language learning. These are meta-cognitive, affective and social strategies.

2.13.2.1. Meta-cognitive Strategies

The fourth category of learning strategies is placed under indirect learning strategies in
Oxford’s taxonomy. Meta means “above” or “beyond,” so meta-cognitive means “beyond” the
cognitive. These are strategies that go beyond the cognitive and the way learners manage their own
learning process. These types of learning strategies (meta-cognitive) permit the learners to
control their own learning. Some of the devices of these strategies include: organizing, planning
and evaluating. They are used to oversee, regulate or self direct language learning. O’Malley and
Chamot (1990) say that “Students without meta-cognitive approaches are essentially learners
without directing and ability to review their progress, accomplishments, and further learning
direction.”

Wenden (1987) listed several planning ways that learners use, to choose what and how they
want to learn the language; then, they prioritize which part of the language they prefer to learn
first and finally they could set up their own learning goals. Meta-cognitive strategies; therefore,
facilitate learners to make self-control to their own learning process. Oxford (1990) categorizes
meta-cognitive strategies into three as centering your learning, arranging and planning your
learning, and evaluating your learning. Centering your learning helps learners to keep focusing on

31
31
certain language tasks, activities, skills, or materials. These strategies include activities such as over
viewing and linking with already known material; paying attention to specific aspects of the language
or situational details; and delaying speech production to focus on listening.

Arranging and planning your own learning include strategies used in finding out about language
learning; organizing; setting goals and objectives; identifying the purpose of language task;
planning for a language task; and seeking practice opportunities. Evaluating your own
learning is self monitoring such as identifying errors in understanding or producing new
language by evaluating ones progress.

Thus, meta cognitive strategies (e.g., identifying one’s own learning style preferences and needs,
planning for an L2 task, gathering and organizing materials, arranging a study space and a schedule,
monitoring mistakes, and evaluating task success, and evaluating the success of any type of learning
strategy) are employed for managing the learning process overall.

2.13.2.2. Affective Strategies

They are categorized under indirect learning strategies. These strategies enable learners gain control
over their emotions, attitudes, motivations and values. They include the techniques learners use to
lower their anxiety, encouraging themselves as successful language learners when they do better
and taking their emotional temperature by making discussion with someone else (Richards and
Lockhart, 1994).

Affective strategies, such as identifying one’s mood and anxiety level, talking about feelings,
rewarding oneself for good performance, and using deep breathing or positive self-talk, have been
shown to be significantly related to L2 proficiency in research by Oxford and Ehrman (1995) among
native English speakers learning foreign languages.

Furthermore, affective strategies refer to the learners’ emotions, attitudes, motivations, and
values towards their learning process. These strategies help learners deal with their own
emotions, motivations and attitudes while learning English language. As the unstable emotions
and motivations would influence the learners’ effort during the learning process, “good
language learners are often those who know how to control their emotions and attitudes about
learning” (Savington, 1983; cited in Oxford, 1990). There are three ways used by learners to
maintain their affective personality: lowering your anxiety, encouraging yourself, and taking

32
32
your emotional temperature (Oxford, 1990). Lowering your anxiety can be applied by using
progressive relaxation, deep breathing or mediation; by listening to music, or also by using
laughter. Encouraging yourself includes activities like making positive statements, taking risks
wisely, and rewarding yourself. Taking your emotional temperature consists of activities, like
listening to one’s body, using a checklist to discover feelings, attitudes, and motivation s concerning
language learning.

2.13.2.3. Social Strategies

These strategies contribute to learning indirectly like the former two strategies. They enable learners
interact with other people to develop the language. They include techniques such as asking
questions, asking for clarification, cooperating with others for example cooperating with
proficient users of the new language (Oxford, 1990). Social strategies (e.g., asking questions to get
verification, asking for clarification of a confusing point, asking for help in doing a language task,
talking with a native-speaking conversation partner, and exploring cultural and social norms) help the
learner work with others and understand the target culture as well as the language. Social strategies
were significantly associated with L2 proficiency in the investigation of native-English-speaking
foreign language learners by Oxford and Ehrman (1995).

In other words, Learning a new language requires a learner to be able to communicate in the
new language in the community. Social strategies help learners when they engage in a
conversation. Social strategies include activities such as asking questions, cooperating with others,
and empathizing with others (Oxford, 1990). Asking questions includes activities like asking for
clarification by paraphrasing, slow down, give example; and asking for correction when the
learner makes a mistake. Cooperating with others can be done with peers or with proficient
users of the new language. Empathizing with others is applied by developing cultural
understanding and becoming aware of other’s thoughts and feelings.

Social strategies refer to how learners interact with other people in the context of learning languages
and related culture. Social strategies include, among others, asking someone to speak slowly,
practicing with others and showing interest in learning about the culture of English-speaking
countries. This category, sometimes combined with affective strategies, is often part of strategy
research (Oxford, 1990). As noted in the model shown above, Oxford broke down the social/affective
category of O’Malley and Chamot (1990) into two categories, social and affective, and included

33
33
more strategies in these two categories. The O’Malley and Chamot model contained only a
few strategies in the social/affective category, implying comparison with meta-cognitive and
cognitive categories that social/affective strategies were not very important. The Oxford model’s
increased emphasis on social and affective strategies accorded with research from cognitive
and educational psychology (Oxford, 1990). Furthermore, Oxford’s model united the whole range
of compensation strategies for making up for missing knowledge. Other LS models had
unsystematically scattered compensation strategies into categories such as cognitive strategies
(O’Malley & Chamot, 1990), communication strategies (Bialystok, 1978), and language use
strategies (Cohen, 1998).

Despite any advances provided by her model, Oxford cautioned that “there is not complete
agreement on how many strategies exist; how they should be defined, demarcated, and
categorized: and whether it is – or ever will be – possible to create a real, scientifically
validated hierarchy of strategies” (1990). Hsaio’s confirmatory factor analysis compared the six -
category model to two other LLS models (O’Malley & Chamot, 1990; Rubin, 1981) and found
that it explained significantly more of the variance in learners’ strategy use than did the other
two models, as reported in detail in Hsaio and Oxford (2002). Oxford’s model has been used by
researchers and teachers around the world.

As can be seen from the above attempts, categorization of learning strategies was a logical
outgrowth of research which attempted to identify and define strategic behaviors of language
learners. This not only helped to group strategies, but also it assisted in creating instructional
framework.

Ellis (1994) pointed out that Oxford’s (1990) system of language learning strategy
classification was developed from strong theoretical bases and describe meta-cognitive and
cognitive strategies more explicitly than other works.

The strategies can be specified as follows: 1) Memory strategies for remembering and retrieving new
information. 2) Cognitive strategies for understanding and producing the language. 3) Compensation
strategies for using the language despite lack of knowledge. 4) Meta-cognitive strategies for
coordinating the learning process. 5) Affective strategies for regulating emotions. 6) Social strategies
for learning with others (Oxford, 1990) (See Appendix J).

34
34
More specifically, Oxford (1990) in Sri Wahyuni (2013) claims that, 46 out of 62 strategies from her
whole strategy taxonomies are useful for the learning of speaking skills (See Appendix K)

2.14. Speaking Strategies Use and Gender

Many studies have investigated the correlation between speaking strategies and gender, and
significant differences have been reported by most studies focusing on the relationship between LSs
and gender. For example, Green and Oxford (1995) found that females use more Social and Affective
Strategies. Kato (2005) obtained the same result in her study examining a group of Japanese EFL
(English as Foreign Language) students.

The results however were not always consistent. Ghadessy (1998) investigated a group of university
students in the Hong Kong Baptist University. She reported there were significant gender differences
in five of the six categories of LSs, except Memory Strategies. Rahimi, Riazi, and Saif (2008), on the
contrary, claimed there was no relationship between speaking and gender in their research on Persian
EFL learners. Nisbet, Tindall, and Arroyo (2005) also obtained similar results in their study, which
examined 168 third-year English majors at Hanan University in China. Therefore, there is a need to
further investigate the correlation between the variation in the use of LLSs and gender, which was
recommended in previous studies (Green & Oxford 1995).

On the other hands, at the early stage of research on learning strategies in relation to certain learner
factors, in the late 1980s, gender attracted researchers because of its possible influence on use of
strategies. At that stage, there had been little research on the gender question. However, Oxford and
Nyikos (1989) pointed out that “sex had a profound effect on strategy choice”. This implies a simple,
straightforward relation between learning strategies and gender. Over time, the research took gender
more and more seriously. But it offered conflicting findings: female students’ strategy use surpassing
male students’, male students’ strategy use surpassing female students’, and n o or a less clear
distinction between male and female students’ strategy use. Details of each group of these studies
follow.

Most studies reveal female students’ strategy use surpassing male students’ in terms of quantity,
frequency, and quality. With respect to the quantity, either from the point of view of the overall
strategy use, specific strategy groups, or specific individual strategies, studies demonstrate that
female students use or tend to use more strategies than male students do (Lan and Oxford, 2003; Liu,
2004). Concerning the frequency of use, studies show that female students use strategies more often

35
35
than male students do (Dreyer and Oxford, 1996; Lan and Oxford, 2003). As regards the quality of
use, studies reveal better strategy use of female than of male students (for example, Green and
Oxford, 1995). Studies demonstrate indeed various findings on the relationship between learning
strategies and gender, favouring female students. Some reveal significant differences in the overall
strategy use (Lan and Oxford, 2003; Liu, 2004); in each of the strategy groups (Green and Oxford,
1995); and in specific individual strategies (Hong-Nam and Leavell, 2006). Hong-Nam and Leavell
(2006), for instance, show that significant differences between male and female students lay only in
the use of affective strategies.

A couple of studies give evidence of male students’ strategy use surpassing female students’.
Wharton (2000), for example, demonstrates that male students significantly differed from female
students in their strategy use. Male students significantly used more strategies more often than female
students did. Similarly, Radwan (2011) reveals differences between male students and female
students in their strategy use. Unlike Wharton (2000), however, he demonstrates that the significant
differences lay only in the use of social strategies. The general tendency, though, still showed that
male students used more strategies than female students. Green and Oxford (1995) also discover one
cognitive strategy from the SILL, i.e. ‘watching TV or movies in English’, that was used more often
by male than by female students. In general, however, female students did surpass male students, in
their use of 14 of15 strategies from the SILL, showing differences between genders.

Other studies reveal no or a less clear distinction between male and female students’ strategy use.
Dadour and Robbins (1996) demonstrate that there was no difference between male and female
students in strategy use. Both sexes used an array of learning strategies to help them develop their
speaking skills. Ehrman and Oxford (1990) also discover no significant differences between genders
in terms of strategy use. Riazi and Khodadadi (2007) in a study of the effect of gender on the use of
communication strategies among Iranian EFL tertiary students find that female students showed a
greater interest in using strategies, but no statistical significance was observed between male and
female students in their strategy use.

Kaylani (1996) cited in Lee and Oxford, 2008) discovers differences between male and female
students in terms of strategy use, but the differences were not caused only by gender, but gender in
relation to proficiency. Therefore, a less clear distinction between them was apparent. Commenting
on his research finding, i.e. male students significantly used more social strategies than female
students did, that contradicts findings of other research studies (for example, Radwan (2011)) argues

36
36
that students’ cultural background contributes to the occurrence of this finding, which he gained from
a study of adult Omani learners. He states that the Omani tribal system, requiring interactions among
large extended kin groups, requires men to develop extremely good social skills to operate in the
context. This might have influenced the men in their L2 learning. Additionally, the conservative
nature of culture, customs, and habits prevents females in Arab regions from socializing and
establishing relationships outside their immediate circles. Kobayashi (2002) addresses a similar issue,
i.e. Japanese female students’ superiority in attitudes to English over fellow Japanese male
counterparts, by pointing to local social factors as the reasons. Such social factors include the status
of English as feminised academic and professional choices and women’s marginalised status in the
local society.

2.15. Studies on Speaking Strategies

Meanwhile, although different researchers have identified different strategies, it is Naiman et al

(1978) who first tried to deal with and identify the different strategies in light of the various language
skills. For example, they have identified strategies used in facilitating speaking such as avoidance of
fear of making mistakes, making contact with native speakers, asking for corrections and memorizing
dialogues.

O'Malley et al (1990) have also identified and discussed certain speaking strategies which were used
by the students in combination with other strategies. Some of the speaking strategies identified were:
functional planning / rehearsing to carry out an upcoming language task/, self-monitoring /checking
the appropriateness of one's oral production while it is taking place/, self-evaluation/ checking the
outcomes of one's own language learning/, imitating a language model, transfer, that is, using
previous linguistic knowledge to assist production, translation/and cooperation /working together
with one or more peers to solve a problem/.

Oxford, too, in her extensive study on learning strategies, has tried to identify different speaking
strategies although she considers the scheme as a proposal to be tested through practical classroom
use and research (1990). She has used the 'Strategy Inventory for Language Learning' (SILL) in
identifying the learning strategies which has been later augmented by linking strategies to various
language skills such as speaking.

Although speaking is one of the most ignored skills in EFL/ESL research, for many learners, it is one
of the most important goals, and there is much interest in learning it, especially in the EFL context of

37
37
Ethiopia, where lack of contact with native speakers of English has made the learning process of this
skill difficult. Knowledge about the variables which influence the use of speaking strategies and their
communicative effects has implications for second/foreign language teaching because the choice of
certain speaking strategies can either influence or be influenced by various factors. Some studies
have examined the effect of variables such as motivation, attitude, gender, level of proficiency, and
context of speaking strategies use (Chen, 1990; Faerach and Kasper, 1983; Sedaghat, 2001). Afsarnia
(1999), Bialystok and Frohlich (1980), Green and Oxford (1995) and provided evidence of a
relationship between the learner’s proficiency and their choice of specific speaking strategy types.

Researchers have tried their best to investigate the effect of learning strategies on language learning,
in general, and speaking, in particular. The majority of the researchers have considered the strategies
as individual capabilities, improved through practice and instruction (Liu, 2011). They have also
attributed the effect of strategic-based instruction of speaking to reducing anxiety (Allen & Freeland,
2001) through direct teaching and by the help of the instructors. Although several studies have been
conducted on LLSs, there seems to be limited research on speaking strategies.

From those studies, some have investigated the correlation between speaking skills learning
strategies and gender, and significant differences have been reported by most studies. Green and
Oxford (1995) as cited in Radwan (2011) found that females use strategies more frequently than
males. Contrary to this finding, in Radwan’s (2011) study, males are reported to use social strategies
frequently than females. On the other hand, Rahimi, Riazi and Safi (2008) did not report any
differences in strategy use among Persian EFL learners as a result of gender difference. This
indicates that the studies come up with mixed result rather than standing on one continuum.

On the other hand, Moriam (2005) investigated the differences of speaking strategy use by the EFL-
major university students in Japan and Bangladesh. EFL speaking strategies were measured by a
speaking strategy use questionnaire with items selected, combined and simplified from two sets:
Language Strategy Use Survey and The Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) (Oxford,
1990) on 165 EFL-majors, 102 Japanese students including, 70 females and 32 males, and 63
Bangladeshi students including 26 females and 37 males. The major findings were that the
Bangladeshi learners reported more frequent use of cognitive and interpersonal strategies than the
Japanese learners. The Japanese females reported more use of cognitive strategy than the males.

38
38
CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY

3.1. Research Design

Survey study design was used in this research. The survey study design is the most widely used
design in many fields. This research design involves the gathering of limited data from the relatively
large number of cases at a particular time. Additionally, survey is frequently employed to indicate
prevailing conditions or particular trends. It is not concerned with the characteristics of individuals as
individuals, but it is concerned with providing information about population characteristics (Neuman,
2007). Moreover, the survey asks many people (called respondents) about their beliefs, opinions,
characteristics, and past or present behavior. As a result, it is appropriate for the research questions
about self-reported beliefs or behaviors. The survey study is strongest when the answer respondents
give to questions measure variables. That is, many questions can be asked at one time in survey to
measure many variables (often with multiple indicators), and test several hypotheses in a single
survey. Thus, survey is a broad study of a generalized statistical nature (Best & Kahn, 2006 and
Neuman, 2007). Therefore, this design was appropriate to address the “what” questions (what are the
groups of strategies being preferred) and the inferential statistics. Therefore, the researcher simply
surveyed what existed concerning the specified topic but was not in a position to manipulate or
control the variables to see whether a change in one variable caused a change in another variable.

Furthermore, a quantitative research method was used in this study. This method is based on
explaining phenomena by collecting numerical data that are analyzed using mathematics based
methods (in particular statistics) such as frequencies, means, standard deviations, and ranges
(Anderson, 1998). Besides, quantitative research method looked at relationships between variables,
assumed sample is representative of the population, and the subjectivity of researcher in this method
was recognized less.

In other words, quantitative research method was appropriate to solve the research problems of the
present study since the purpose of this research was to get an overall view of learners’ speaking
strategy preferences, and to assess the relationship between strategy use and gender. The quantitative
results (mean, standard deviation, and p-values) were reported in tables organized to give a suitable
overall picture at a glance.

39
39
On the other hand, the researcher employed qualitative approaches so as to analyze the collected
data. The main purpose of using qualitative approach was to narrate the qualitative data in words. In
order to collect descriptive data revealing students’ practices, the study was conducted within a
qualitative framework. Indeed, numbers and statistical analysis cannot reveal what is in learners’
minds; neither can they allow their voices to be heard (Evans, 2001).

Generally, the survey study design was used with the help of both qualitative and quantitative
methods in order to best fit the aims of this study as well as to support the weakness of one approach
with the strength of the other.

3.2. Area of the Study

The population of this study is grade eleven students in Nekemte town, East Wollega Zone, Oromia
Regional State. The rationale for selecting Nekemte town was that having served as a teacher for five
years in the high schools; the researcher has been acquainted with the educational practices there.
This could give the researcher both administrative convenience and good insight into the actual
research concern.

More specifically, one Preparatory school in Nekemte town which is Leka Nekemte preparatory
school was selected purposively for this study. The main reason for selecting this school was the
presence of convenient situation. Since the researcher is currently teaching in the town, it was not
difficult for him to get all the necessary cooperation during data collection. In addition to this, it gave
ample opportunity for the present researcher to observe students’ activities during Speaking English
classes. As a result, the researcher could observe them as frequently as possible because it did not
demand any cost and transportation.

Moreover, this kind of research was not conducted in the school because it was opened two years
ago. The subjects of the study were grade 11 students because grade 12 students were busy in
preparing themselves for national level examinations during the time of data collection and since
they were likely to use exam-oriented strategies or limited strategies in order to achieve their
immediate goal, their response to the self report cannot be valid.

40
40
3.3. Data Sources

As the study looked at the speaking strategies employed by female and male students of grade eleven
at Leka Nekemte preparatory school, the data sources of the study were students. Therefore, data
sources in this context referred to 51 female and 57 male students of grade eleven at Leka Nekemte
preparatory school out of which sample size were selected. This grade level of the school has six
sections. The total number of the students in the above mentioned grade level of the school was 340.
It was to the students of the stated grade level that the researcher generalized the result of the study.

3.4. Sampling Techniques

The sample size of this study was taken from six sections of grade eleven in the school. There were a
total of 340 students. From these, 3 sections were social sciences while 3 of them were natural
sciences. In the social science stream there were 168 (71 Female and 97 Male) students where as 172
(90 Female and 82 Male) students were in natural science stream. Consequently, there were 161
female students and 179 male students of grade eleven at the school.

In order to conduct this research, one section each from both natural science and social science
streams was excluded because 30 voluntary students those who participated in the pilot study were
selected from these two sections. As a result, 112 students from the two sections (i.e. 56 students
from each of natural science and social science) were not included in the actual study. Then, the
process of determining sample participants was made using a scientific sample size calculator with a
95% confidence level and 5 margin of error (Kotari, 2004). The 95% confidence level means the
researcher can be 99% certain and the 5% indicates that when the researcher administers the
questionnaire, the paper may not be filled or returned due to different reasons.

Thus, 113 sample participants were required from 226 total populations. After all, a proportion of
one section from social science stream and one section from natural science stream were selected as a
sample from the total of four sections.

These sections (section “B” from Natural Science and section “D” from Social Science) were
selected using simple random sampling technique. In these sections, there were 113 students.
However, 5 students (2 students from Social Science Stream and 3 students from Natural Science
Stream) were missed from the actual sample size (113) since they were absent from classroom
because of their own problems when the questionnaire was administered. Therefore, the

41
41
questionnaire was distributed to 108 (51 Female and 57 male) participants. The participants’
descriptions are summarized below in Table 4.

Table 1: Description of the Study Participants.

Gender Field of Study Age Total %

N.S % S.S % Range Average

Female 26 48.15 25 46.30 16-20 18.49 51 47.22
Male 28 51.85 29 53.70 16-20 18.26 57 52.78
Total 54 100 54 100 16-20 18.37 108 100

As observed in the table above, 46.30 % of the participants were Female learners, while 53.70 %
were Male learners. The number of male students was higher than the female students in the study,
because there were slightly more male students in the school when compared to the number of their
counterpart. Their mean age was 18.37 ranging from 16 to 20 years. Since the questionnaire was
completed in class with the presence of the researcher, the return rate was 100%.

3.5. Data Collection Instruments

Data collecting instruments used for studies usually depend on the questions of each study. In other
words, the way one asks the basic research questions often determine the type of instruments to be
used in order to collect data. The researcher believes that, if an incorrect instrument is to be used, the
job may not be done at all and the validity of the study will be worthless.

On the other hand, some speaking strategies occur overtly and are relatively easy to observe, whereas
other speaking strategies occur only covertly and require introspective forms of data collection.
Research studies have confirmed that the broadest range of coverage for strategy use can be obtained
through self report questionnaires and to some extent through classroom observations. Therefore, in
this study, the researcher used self report questionnaire for the students and classroom observation as
an instrument of data collection.

3.5.1. Questionnaire

“Questionnaire is among the most efficient and comprehensive ways in order to assess language
learning strategy use” (Oxford, 1996). In the most studies of language learning strate gies,
questionnaire was chosen as a basic instrument, because respondents have enough time to read and

42
42
give a well thought responses in written form without the intervention of the interviewer, it is suitable
in the case of big enquires and it is also economical in terms of time and energy (Anderson, 1998;
Kotari, 2004; Best & Khan, 2006).

Thus, in order to gather valuable information from data sources, Oxford’s (1990) version 7.0
ESL/EFL Strategy Inventory for Language Learners (SILL) was adapted. The SILL has been
employed as a key instrument in numerous studies assessing the frequency of strategy use by
students from different linguistic and cultural backgrounds. Besides, it has been used in various
studies to show how much strategy use correlate with various variables such as gender, proficiency
level, task, culture, etc. Therefore, the SILL was modified as it could be convenient to explore the
learners’ speaking strategies. This modified Speaking Strategies Questionnaire (SSQ) consisted two
parts. The first part contains questions used to elicit information related with the learners’
background such as age, gender and stream of their study. The second part which contains 36 items
was grouped under the six categories of speaking strategy as proposed by Oxford (1990). Each of
these six categories of Speaking Strategies which are; memory strategies, cognitive strategies,
compensation strategies, meta-cognitive strategies, affective strategies, and social strategies included
6 (six) statements about specific strategies.

The subjects were required to respond on a 5- point Likert Scale, ranging from 1 (Never or almost
never true of me) to 5 (always or almost always true of me). As a result, responses were measured on
a five-point Likert scale of intensity rating which places an individual somewhere on an agreement
continuum (Kerlinger, 1977) concerning a particular item. This greater variance response was
selected with the assumption that individuals show differences in frequenting or using the various
strategies. Moreover, when giving more possible options, it is believed that the respondents would
have more possibilities to choose from them expressing their experiences since, for example, as
Kerlinger underlines, subjects could agree or they could agree strongly. Thus, the five-point Likert
was preferred because of the degree it entails for determining the intensity of experience or attitude
expression of the subjects. Furthermore, the main advantage of a five-point scale is that a greater
variance can be resulted (ibid).

The questionnaire items of this study examined language learners' use of the speaking strategies by
asking them to indicate the extent to which they were engaged in a variety of activities on the basis or
along response categories: never or almost never true of me, usually not true of me, somewhat true of
me, usually true of me, always or almost always true of me. The scores of the items in each category

43
43
were then summed up and expressed in mean as well as standard deviation and examined how the
respondents frequently employ the various speaking strategies. Thus, higher mean was meant to
indicate greater use and lower mean was meant to indicate less use of a particular strategy. The
advantage of such a design is that it would help to limit the responses to information that is relevant
and to easily administer to large groups. At the same time, the scoring and data analysis would be
relatively simple since applying quantitative measures is possible.

In short, the questions which assess language learners' use of the speaking strategies by asking them
to indicate the extent to which they are engaged in a variety of activities on the basis or along
response categories: Never or almost never true of me, Usually not true of me, Somewhat true of me,
Usually true of me, Always or almost always true of me which were prepared with some adaptation
based on Oxford’s (1990) explanation of strategies useful for speaking skills to meet the need for
collecting more specific data on strategies for speaking skills.

3.5.1.1. Reliability of the Questionnaire

Before the questionnaire was administered in a large scale, it had been piloted on a group of 30
voluntary female and male students of grade 11 at Leka Nekemte preparatory school. The
questionnaire was administered by randomly selecting students from both social science and natural
science stream. Then, the internal consistency of the questionnaire was checked using the Statistical
Package for Social Sciences (SPSS- Version 20) and the calculated Cronbach alpha revealed an
acceptable reliability (.726) which fitted the purpose of the study.

3.5.1.2. Validity of the Questionnaire

In addition to testing the internal reliability of the questionnaire, the pilot study was used again so as
to verify whether the statements in the questionnaire would be comprehended by the students or not.
Feedback was sought from the students regarding the wording of the questionnaire. On the other
hand, the researcher gave the questionnaire to 5 English language teachers of the school in order to
review the items of the questionnaire and assess whether the items were suitable for the purpose of
the study. After all, the questionnaire was revised based on the comments and suggestions given by
the students, and teachers regarding the use of some words and the structure of some items.

44
44
3.5.2. Observation

The other method of collecting data for this study was in the form of qualitative, observation, which
was considered an effective method of assessing speaking strategies in particular. In accordance with
a description by Cohen, et al. (2000), these observations were used with a schedule devised while
observing and a system called event sampling for which tally was kept of the speaking strategies as
they occurred.

Seliger and Shohamy (1989) explained that, “the main use of observation is to examine a phenomena
or a behavior while it is going on”. On the other hand, according to Salkind (1991), observation
allows the researcher to see directly what learners experience and what is going on in reality in the
classroom.

It is true that classroom observation can help to notice and describe the students' paralinguistic
behaviors, such as eye and head movements, smiles, eye contact as well as verbal linguistic
behaviors - what they actually say etc. although it cannot easily capture what the students think or
how they feel. However, in the hope that the information which is gathered through classroom
observation would enrich the data on students’ speaking strategies use, su ccessive classroom
observations for six sessions were conducted. Two sections out of these six sections were observed
three times each. The selection of these two classes for observation was using the lottery method.
Each period of the observation was lasted for 40 minutes. The observed classes were section “A”
from the natural science stream and section “E” from the social science stream.

The researcher took a note as well as tally for counting events as they occurred while observing.
Moreover, while observing these classes, the researcher focused on the speaking strategies male and
female students of this grade level use i.e. paralinguistic behaviors such as eye and head movements,
smiles, and eye contact as well as verbal linguistic behaviors.

Classroom observation was helpful in observing and retaining some of the speaking strategies
employed by the students such as non-verbal reactions because not all strategies are directly
observable. Many strategies are mental processes and take place in the learner’s mind. Some
speaking strategies, however, looked to be entirely observable. The first task therefore, was to
compile a list of what might be deemed “observable” strategies, and this was done by selecting from
Oxford’s (1990) list which listed speaking strategies under the six strategy classifications. The
speaking strategies deemed observable are listed below:

45
45
1. Compensation strategies: These speaking strategies include: Switching to the L1, Getting help,
Using mime or gesture, Avoiding communication partially, or totally, selecting the topic, Adjusting
or approximating the message, Coining words, Using circumlocution or synonym.

2. Meta-cognitive: These speaking strategies on the other hand include: Delaying speech production
to focus on listening and correcting oneself when he/she feels not using the correct form. For
instance, the speaker may keep on repeating the previous word when he/she forgets until he/she be
able to use the correct word or expression.

3. Affective: These strategies include: minimizing speaking anxiety using laughter, Self-
encouragement by taking risks wisely, discussing one’s own feelings.

4. Social: These strategies include: Cooperating with peers and proficient users of English.

As the strategies being measured, apart from gesture, were all identified through listening, the audio
recordings of these activities were used repeatedly. This negated the potential difficulty of my
reliance on a one-off observation, taking place in real time, during the performance of the alternative
data collection procedures. A concern with the observed behaviors being context-specific was
minimised by the observations being undertaken in three different circumstances, which altered the
contexts in which the speaking strategies might be used.

Therefore, in the hope that the information which would be gathered through classroom observations
would enrich the data gathered through a questionnaire on grade eleven female and male students’
speaking strategy use, six successive classroom observations were conducted.

3.6. Procedure of Data Collection

First, questionnaires’ items were prepared in English and translated into Oromo language in order to
make the questions clear for the respondents and get clear response. Then, the researcher informed
the school directors about the issue of the work through letter from the ‘Institute of Language Studies
and Journalism Research, T/T and Post Graduate Assistant Dean’ office. Then, data collection
procedure for the actual study was started after one week of the pilot study.

Data was collected by the researcher from the two selected classes using simple random sampling.
Before distributing the questionnaires to complete, the researcher explained the purpose of the study
in each session. In the explanation, the researcher emphasized that the study does not have anything

46
46
to do with the assessment and evaluation of their current learning and the expected outcome of the
study would be useful for future learners facing similar learning issues. Next, the researcher
explained how to complete the questionnaire and the participants were told to forward items which
they might be confused by. Finally, the researcher explicitly requested them to complete the
questionnaires as truthfully as they could. Thus, it was hoped that the students would complete the
questionnaire more sincerely. At the end, the Oromo language versions were distributed to
respondents by the researcher and their feedback was collected.

On the other hand, the researcher conducted classroom observations three times for each of the two
classes out of six sections of the stated grade level which were selected using lottery method.

During the observation, audio recording seemed important for the researcher in detecting certain
speaking strategies which are verbal reactions in the study. As stated above, it was helpful in
recording and retaining some of the speaking strategies employed by the students which might have
gone unnoticed during the classroom observations. Therefore, audio recording was made while the
students were engaging in certain speaking activities.

3.7. Procedure of Data Analysis

After the questionnaires were completed by the students, they were collected and checked for
completeness. Then, the items were codified and subjected to statistical procedures using Statistical
Package for Social Science (SPSS) version-20. Descriptive statistics such as means and Standard
deviations were computed to see the results of research question 1, which intended to investigate the
learners’ overall speaking strategies, and an independent samples t- test was employed to see the
means and Standard Deviations in research question 2, which concerned on exploring male and
female learners favorable type of speaking strategies, which were categorized in to six major groups;
1.Memory strategies; 2.Cognitive Strategies; 3.Compensation Strategies; 4.Meta-cognitive
Strategies; 5.Affective Strategies; 6.Social Strategies. The levels of each strategy use were labeled
based on Oxford’s (1990) suggestion. Thus, the low use of strategy was determined between 1.00
and 2.49. The medium use of strategy was determined between 2.50 and 3.49, and the high use of
strategy was determined between 3.50 and 5:00. Regarding research question 3, which focused on the
analysis of significance difference on speaking strategies between females and males, an independent
samples t- test were employed. On the other hand, the data which were obtained through classroom
observation were thematically categorized, analyzed and interpreted.

47
47
3.8. Ethical Considerations in the Study

Researches involving human participants do not have to cause any problem on the subjects of the
study (Geoffrey, 2005). Therefore, the issue of ethics in this study was kept by telling the purpose of
the study to the participants. The respondents were given adequate orientation until all of them
understand the entire aspects of the study in their mother tongue. For example, they were asked for
their willingness to be recorded and photographed during the direct observation sessions. Moreover,
the information they gave to the researcher was kept confidential for convenience. The researcher
also tried to convince the participants that the study was for the good of themselves, teachers and the
school community at large.

3.9. Classification Scheme

Each learner develops strategies which suit his/her individual needs and personality and implements
them in different ways. Because of this variability, a definite list of language learning strategies has
not yet emerged. Nevertheless, the findings in strategy research so far allow certain generalizations
regardless of learner differences in the use of strategies.

In this survey study, therefore, the basic classification scheme developed by Oxford (1990) was used
in classifying the various speaking strategies. The classification scheme which is found most useful
for organizing the strategies has, as discussed in the preceding chapter and indicated in the table
below, two primary categories and six subcategories.

Oxford's scheme is based on an extensive research review and a comprehensive taxonomy of

second/foreign language learning strategies that systematically covers the language skills i.e
speaking, listening, reading, writing, vocabulary and grammar. In other words, it is more
comprehensive, up to date and detailed, and above all, it is more systematic in linking individual
strategies with each of the four language skills (Ehrman, M. et al. 1988).

For this reason the researcher decided to adapt the scheme and classify the speaking strategies
identified in accordance with this existing classification system.

48
48
 Table 2: Learning Strategies with two Categories and Six Subcategories

No Direct strategy No Indirect Strategy

1. Memory Strategy 1. Meta-cognitive strategy
2. Cognitive Strategy 2. Affective Strategy
3. Compensation Strategy 3. Social Strategy
(Oxford 1990).

When adapting the classification scheme, not all the sets of learning strategies were used in the
questionnaire. Instead, only the relevant individual strategies for speaking skill were selected and
included.

49
49
CHAPTER FOUR: DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

4.1. Overall Speaking Strategy Use

The mean scores of the Likert-scaled strategy use items were interpreted based on Oxford’s (1990)
suggestion. So, 1.00-2.49 as low strategy use, 2.50-3.49 as medium strategy use, and 3.50-5.00 as
high strategy use. The average strategy use for overall strategy use ranged from a high 4.66 to a low
of 3.40. Regarding strategy categories, the participants reported on using all the six categories of
Speaking strategies. Similarly, they are reported as high strategy users except for meta-cognitive
strategies, with a mean value of 3.40, which was significantly lower than the means of all other
strategy categories.

Items 1- 36 were designed to investigate the overall speaking strategy use of the learners (see
Appendix A). The overall use of speaking strategies by the subjects has been shown in Table 3.

Table 3: Overall Speaking Strategies Used by the Learners

Main Mean Standard Sub- Mean SD

Strategies Deviation strategies
Memory 4.39 1.066
Direct 4.44 1.082 Cognitive 4.26 1.299
Strategies Compensation 4.66 0.781
Meta- 3.40 1.614
Indirect 3.84 1.397 cognitive
Strategies Affective 3.93 1.271
Social 4.18 1.147
Total 4.14 1.285 - - -

This Table presents the mean and standard deviation of strategy use among all the subjects. The
mean for compensation strategies (4.66) was significantly higher than all other strategy groups.
Additionally, table 3 above presents the mean value and standard deviation of two sub scales. As
mentioned in chapter two, the first three of the six categories (Memory, Cognitive, Compensation)
fall under a larger class- Direct Strategies, while the last three (Meta-cognitive, Affective, Social) are
grouped under Indirect Strategies. Thus, descriptive statistics was employed in order to compute
learners’ responses. As it is shown in the table, the students used both direct and indirect speaking
strategies at a higher level that falls between 3.50- 5.00. The learners used direct strategies that are

50
50
involved in conscious mental processes of speaking skills learning with mean value of 4.44, while
indirect strategies that facilitate speaking skills learning without the direct involvement of speaking
were used by the students with a mean value of 3.84. These mean values indicate the learners
employed direct strategies more than indirect strategies. Overall, the total mean value for the sample
was 4.14, which shows the learners were higher users of the overall strategies.

On the other hand, the observation results also reveal that the participants of the study preferred
direct strategies to indirect strategies in general, and compensation strategies to others which were
deemed observable. There was a significantly high use of compensation strategies by the participants
to help them successfully communicate their messages. Three in particular stood out as the most
commonly used: avoiding communication (usually by merely skipping past unknown vocabulary),
the use of circumlocution (the use of many words to describe something simple) and/or synonyms to
replace unknown vocabulary, and approximating the message (by attempting to get near enough that
the overall meaning was understood by the listener, and then moving on), being the most commonly
used. Moreover, from the deemed observable strategies of speaking skills, meta-cognitive strategies
were the least favoured strategies by the participants of the study. The participants were hardly seen
delaying speech production to focus on listening, correcting him/her self when he/she feels not using
the correct form. Thus, the results from the speaking strategies questionnaire and classroom
observation are similar in the preferences of the speaking strategies.

Generally, the participants of this study favored compensation strategies as their best than the other
strategy categories. Nevertheless, meta-cognitive strategies were the least preferred to be employed
by the students. All in all, the learners used more of direct strategy than indirect strategy categories.

4.2. Use of Speaking Strategies by Gender

The second research question of the current study sought answer as to whether the type of speaking
strategies used by females and males in learning speaking skills are similar, or different in the type of
strategy use. Therefore, in order to find the results concerning gender difference in the preferences of
speaking strategies, an independent samples t-test was employed.

The data were analyzed according to two main domains. That is, under “direct strategies” three
strategy groups (Memory strategies, Cognitive strategies, Compensation strategies) were included
and under “indirect strategies”, categories of “, Meta-cognitive strategies, Affective strategies, and
Social strategies” were analyzed in detail.

51
51
 4.2.1. Gender and Direct Strategies

Items 1-18 were designed to assess female and male learners’ use of direct speaking strategies. An
independent samples t-test was computed to explore female and male learners’ use of direct
strategies. The result of female and male learners’ use of direct st rategies is presented in Table 4.

Table 4: Female and Male Learners’ Responses on Direct Strategies

Gender Mean SD
Direct Female 1.21 .652
Strategy Male 1.67 .476

As Table 4 above, indicates the mean value of females using direct strategies was 1.21, while the
average of males using direct strategies was 1.67, which indicates both of them use direct strategies
in lower level.

Likewise, as to the classroom observation, both females and males were observed using direct
strategy categories since they preferred using compensation strategies which is one of the strategies
of direct strategies. Even though two of the direct strategies which are memory and cognitive
strategies were deemed to be unobservable ones, compensation strategies alone made the direct
strategies preferable being used dominantly by the participants.

Therefore, the results of both speaking strategies questionnaire (SSQ) and classroom observation
reveal that, male students use direct strategies most often than their female counterparts.

4.2.1.1. Female and Male use of Memory Strategies

After analyzing the direct strategies as a whole, sub scales of this set were further analyzed. Thus, in
order to examine females and males preferences of Memory strategy categories, an independent
samples t-test was computed. Six items (1-6) were included in Memory Strategies group, which
refers to the strategies students use for storing and retrieving information in learning speaking skills.
Table 5 below presented female and male learners’ use of memory strategies.

52
52
Table 5: Female and Male Learners’ Responses on Memory Strategies

No Item Gender Mean SD

1. I Practice English new words and expressions in Female 5.00 .000

meaningful contexts repeatedly in order to remember
them. Male 4.25 1.090
2. I use rhyming to remember new elements in the language Female 3.71 1.205
which are useful for speaking. Male 5.00 .000
3. I revise orally the language materials such as stories, Female 4.27 .874
dialogues etc which I learned in a structured way in order
to remember and use their structures during speaking.
Male 4.02 1.609
4. When preparing an oral report in a class, I Write it down in Female 4.78 .415
English, and then memorize it. Male 3.88 1.489
5. I connect the sound of a new English language word and Female 5.00 .000
an image or picture of the word so as to help me remember
the word.
Male 3.51 1.311
6. I remember a new English word by imagining (mental Female 4.10 1.025
picture) a situation in which the word might be used Male 5.00 .000
Total Memory strategies Female 1.57 .500
Male 2.96 .186

The above table about female and male learners’ response on the given items refers to memory
strategies. The gathered data show female learners’ mean scores of these items are 5.00, 3.71,
4.27, 4.78, 5.00, and 4.10 respectively. Likewise, the gathered data show male learners’ mean
scores of these items are 4.25, 5.00, 4.02, 3.88, 3.51, and 5.00 respectively.

On the other hand, as it is seen in Table 5, the mean of female students’ use of memory strategies
was 1.57, while the mean score of male students using memory strategies was 2.96, which shows
that males use memory strategies more than females. In other words, females use memory strategies
in a lower level and males use memory strategies in a moderate level.

Furthermore, since the memory strategies the participants of the study use were deemed to be
unobservable because they are mental processes or take place in the learner’s mind these strategies
were not given attention to be observed.

53
53
 4.2.1.2. Female and Male Use of Cognitive Strategies

In this category, six items (7-12) were planned to assess the participants’ Cognitive strategies. These
strategies are those which enable learners to understand and produce new language items orally to
make sense of them. The results obtained from the analysis of the questionnaire regarding Cognitive
strategies are presented below in Table 6.

Table 6: Female and Male Learners’ Responses on Cognitive Strategies.

No Item Gender Mean SD

1. I record my voice and compare it with the voice of Female 3.63 1.385
proficient or native speakers. Male 4.37 1.472
2. I imitate the way native/proficient speakers’ talk in the Female 4.61 .695
language.
Male 3.51 1.733
3. I participate in structured communication exercises to Female 4.82 .385
practice speaking. Male 3.89 1.555
4. While speaking I transfer the knowledge of words, Female 5.00 .000
concepts or structures from L1/native language/ to FL
/English language/ Male 4.09 1.340
5. I repeat silently to myself when someone is speaking Female 3.51 1.528
English language Male 5.00 .000
6. I give the summary of the dialogues or the texts in my own Female 4.04 1.148
words. Male 4.65 1.142
Total Cognitive Strategies Female 1.12 .325
Male 2.02 .225

The above table about female and male learners’ responses on the given 6 items refers to
cognitive strategies. The gathered data show female learners’ mean scores of these items are
3.63, 4.61, 4.82, 5.00, 3.51, and 4.04 respectively. Likewise, the gathered data show male
learners’ mean scores of these items are 4.37, 3.51, 3.89, 4.09, 5.00, and 4.65 respectively.

As Table 6 above indicates, males surpass females in the use of Cognitive strategies, in which the
average of males using Cognitive strategies was 2.02, while the mean score of females using
Cognitive strategies was 1.12.

54
54
on the other hand, like that of memory strategies discussed above, the cognitive strategies the
participants of the study use were deemed to be unobservable because they are mental processes or
taking place in the learner’s mind these strategies were not given attention to be observed.

4.2.1.3. Female and Male Use of Compensation Strategies

In Compensation strategies group, six items (13-18) were included. They are the strategies which
learners assume they use for enabling themselves to use different strategies of speaking when they
encounter problems related to the gaps they have in speaking. Table 7 below shows female and male
learners’ responses to Compensation strategy category.

Table 7: Female and Male Learners’ Responses on Compensation Strategies.

No Item Gender Mean SD

1. When my teacher asks questions other students in class, Female 4.51 .758
I try to answer him/her mentally to myself. Male 4.72 .921
2. When I forget or fail to remember a word or an expression, I Female 4.78 .415
keep on repeating the previous word for some time until I
can recall or get a word/form which may send the message
across. Male 4.30 1.133
3. When I can't think of the word while speaking in English, I Female 5.00 .000
tend to use physical motion such as gesture (body language)
and facial expressions in place of it to express myself better
and to indicate the meaning. Male 4.32 .967
4. I ask my teacher or classmates to tell me the right word or Female 4.45 .966
expression during a conversation in English when I don't
seem to get the right one.
Male 5.00 .000
5. I think in my First language and then I translate it into Female 4.18 1.126
English language. Male 5.00 .000
6. I change my way of saying things according to the context Female 5.00 .000
and use words which are familiar to me while speaking.
Male 4.70 .597
Total Compensation Strategies Female 2.49 .612
Male 3.67 .476

The above table about female and male learners’ responses on the given 6 items refers to
compensation strategies. The gathered data show female learners’ mean scores of these items are
4.51, 4.78, 5.00, 4.45, 4.18, and 5.00 respectively. Likewise, the gathered data show male
learners’ mean scores of these items are 4.72, 4.30, 4.32, 5.00, 5.00, and 4.70 respectively.

55
55
As indicated in Table 7 above, the average of females using Compensation strategies was 2.49, while
the average of males using Compensation strategies was 3.67, which implies female students use
Compensation strategies in a lower level and male students use Compensation strategies in a
moderate level.

Furthermore, from both groups of the participants, males were observed using compensation
strategies which were; Switching to the L1, Getting help, Using mime or gesture, Avoiding
communication partially, or totally, selecting the topic, Adjusting or approximating the message,
Coining words, Using circumlocution or synonym than their female counterparts.

Thus, the results of both speaking strategies questionnaire (SSQ) and classroom observation about
compensation strategies usage by females and males were similar.

4.2.2. Gender and Indirect Strategies

Items 19-36 were designed to investigate female and male learners’ use of indirect strategies. Thus,
in order to investigate female and male learners’ responses to the indirect strategies, a n independent
samples t-test was computed. Thus, Table 8 below presented female and male learners’ responses on
indirect strategies.

Table 8: Female and Male Learners’ Responses on Indirect Strategies.

Gender Mean Standard Deviation

Indirect Female 1.03 .471
Strategies Male 1.19 .559

As illustrated in Table 8 above, female students using indirect strategies were 1.03 in average score
while males using indirect strategies were 1.19 in average, which indicated males’ superiority in the
use of this domain for learning speaking skills.

As it was seen during the classroom observation, indirect strategies in general were in use by both
groups of the participants. However, male students were observed using the indirect strategies than
females.

56
56
 4.2.2.1. Female and Male Use of Meta-cognitive Strategies

Items (19-24) were devoted to draw out information on a way that the learners use to control,
regulate, or coordinate their own speaking skills learning process. The analysis of Meta-cognitive
strategy category is illustrated in Table 9 below.
Table 9: Female and Male Learners’ Responses on Meta-cognitive Strategies.

No Item Gender Mean SD

1. I try to correct myself when I feel that I am not using the Female 4.02 1.556
correct form while speaking. Male 2.89 1.655
2. When I am prepared for oral presentation, I consider the Female 2.37 1.612
requirements like the nature of the task, my own
capabilities/my current language ski11/s/, and whatever else Male 4.16 1.192
I have to know and do in order to give a good talk.
3. I arrange my schedule to practice speaking the new language Female 2.63 1.248
consistently, not just when there is the pressure of an
Male 4.30 1.535
assessment.
4. I plan my goals for language learning, for instance, how Female 2.51 1.155
proficient I want to become or how I might want to use the
language in the long run. Male 4.33 1.200
5. I try to find as many ways as I can to use the target language Female 4.18 .994
e.g. looking for people I can talk to in English language.
Male 2.56 1.626
6. I pay attention to grammar and word order during a Female 3.37 1.708
conversation
Male 3.30 1.592
Total Meta-cognitive Strategies Female 1.00 .000
Male 1.58 .498

The above table about female and male learners’ responses on the given 6 items refers to meta -
cognitive strategies. The gathered data show female learners’ mean scores of these items are
4.02, 2.37, 2.63, 2.51, 4.18, and 3.37 respectively. Likewise, the gathered data show male
learners’ mean scores of these items are 2.89, 4.16, 4.30, 4.33, 2.56, and 3.30 respectively.

As shown in Table 9 above, males surpass females in using Meta-cognitive strategies in which the
average score of males was 1.58, whereas 1.00 was the mean score of females. This shows that both
groups use Meta-cognitive strategies in a lower level.

On the other hand, female and male students were observed while using meta-cognitive strategies
least compared to other strategies. However, the classroom observation made while sorting out either

57
57
females or males use meta-cognitive strategies more, revealed that male participants use it than their
female counterparts.

Therefore, data gathered with the help of both tools show that, meta-cognitive strategies were the
least favoured strategies by both groups and most favoured strategies by male participants when it is
compared to the usage of female participants.

4.2.2.2. Female and Male Use of Affective Strategies

In items (25-30) of the questionnaire, an attempt was made to explore the usage of Affective
strategies that are necessary for speaking skills learning. These strategies help learners in regulating
their emotions, and motivations so as to develop self confidence. The results obtained from the
analysis of students responses concerning these strategies are presented in Table 10 below.

Table 10: Female and Male Learners’ Responses on Affective Strategies.

No Item Gender Mean SD

1. I try to relax myself when I become tense while speaking in Female 3.82 1.595
English language. Male 4.14 .875
2. I encourage myself by thinking and speaking positive Female 3.61 .723
statements in order to feel more confident and be more
willing to take risks. Male 4.14 1.540
3. I discuss about my performances of speaking in English with Female 5.00 .000
my friends. Male 3.32 1.212
4. I discuss my feelings about the language learning process in Female 4.90 .300
order to get better learning ways inside and outside the
classroom with my teacher and friends. Male 2.33 1.107
5. I encourage myself to express what I want to say in English Female 3.61 1.097
even when I am afraid of making a mistake
Male 4.58 .498
6. I give myself a reward or treat when I do well in English Female 4.27 .750
language Male 3.63 1.543
Total Affective Strategies Female 1.18 .385
Male 2.32 .469

The above table about female and male learners’ responses on the given 6 items refers to
affective strategies. The gathered data show female learners’ mean scores of these items are 3.82,
3.61, 5.00, 4.90, 3.61, and 4.27 respectively. Likewise, the gathered data show male learners’
mean scores of these items are 4.14, 4.14, 3.32, 2.33, 4.58, and 3.63 respectively.

58
58
As described in Table 10, males with the average score of 2.32 were superior to females with the
mean score of 1.18 in their use of Affective strategies. However, both groups still use these affective
strategies in a lower level.

Like the results of speaking strategies questionnaire, classroom observation on the other hand reveals
that, males use affective strategies from which some were: Lowering anxiety using laughter, Self-
encouragement by taking risks wisely and discussing their feelings much more than their female
counterparts.

4.2.2.3. Female and Male Use of Social Strategies

Items (31-36) were all used to explore the various Social strategies, which require learners to interact
with others in learning speaking skills. The results obtained from the analysis of the responses of the
subjects regarding Social Strategies category are presented in Table 11 below.

Table 11: Female and Male Learners’ Responses on Social Strategies.

No Item Gender Mean SD

1. I try to learn about the culture of English speakers. Female 4.51 .579
Male 3.77 1.427
2. I cooperate with my friends to practice, review and/or share Female 5.00 .000
information in learning the English language. Male 3.49 1.255
3. I ask my teacher, classmates or English speakers for Female 3.73 1.429
corrections of errors in my speaking Male 4.61 .796
4. I ask questions in English for verification and more Female 4.41 .920
explanations in class. Male 4.44 .945
5. I pay close attention to the thoughts and feelings of other Female 4.49 .612
students with whom I interact. Male 3.63 1.422
6. I practice speaking English with others like my teacher, Female 4.31 1.140
native speakers or friends after class. Male 3.95 1.156
Total Social Strategies Female 1.45 .503
Male 2.67 .476

The above table about female and male learners’ responses on the given 6 items refers to social
strategies. The gathered data show female learners’ mean scores of these items are 4.51, 5.00,
3.73, 4.41, 4.49, and 4.31 respectively. Likewise, the gathered data show male learners’ mean
scores of these items are 3.77, 3.49, 4.61, 4.44, 3.63, and 3.95 respectively.

59
59
As shown in Table 11, the average of females using Social Strategies was 1.45, whereas the average
of males using Social Strategies was 2.67, which implies males use Social Strategies in a moderate
level and females employ the strategies of Social in a lower level.

As it was observed during classroom observation, female participants preferred using social
strategies least when compared to their male counterparts. Some of the strategies which were
observed were: Cooperating with peers, cooperating with proficient users of English.

4.3. Females’ and Males’ Preferences of the Overall Speaking Strategies

The data collected by a means of questionnaire show that females and males use various speaking
strategies spreading over six strategy groups. Table 12 below displays the results of descriptive
statistics for each speaking strategy group. As regards what strategy group females and males favored
the most and least, the mean scores gives this information.

Table 12: Female and Male Learners’ Preferences of the Six Categories of Speaking
Strategies in Rank Order

Females Males
Strategy Mean SD Rank Mean SD Rank
Memory 1.57 .500 2 2.96 .186 2
Cognitive 1.12 .325 5 2.05 .225 5
Compensation 2.49 .612 1 3.67 .476 1
Meta-cognitive 1.00 .000 6 1.58 .498 6
Affective 1.18 .385 4 2.32 .469 4
Social 1.45 .503 3 2.67 .476 3

In the table, the Compensation Strategy group has the lowest mean 2.49 and highest mean 3.67
respectively for both females and males. These mean scores indicate that females and males prefer to
use Compensation Strategy more than the other strategy groups. On the other hand, both females and
males prefer to use Memory Strategy in the second place with the low and medium mean value of
1.57 and 2.96 respectively. Moreover, Social strategy took the third place in the rank to be employed
by both females and males with the medium mean value of 1.45 and 2.76 respectively.

With regard to the Indirect Strategies, affective strategy was the fourth preferred strategy group by
both females with the average value of 1.18, and males with the average value of 2.32.Furthemore,
Cognitive strategy group is employed by both females and males in the fifth place with the average

60
60
value of 1.12 and 2.05 respectively. Finally, Meta-cognitive strategy group is the least preferred
category by both females and males with mean value of 1.00 and 1.58 respectively.

However, the mean value of both groups of female and male for each of the given strategies differ.
The use of the given strategies of female students compared to male students’ use of the strategies
was in a low level, while males’ use of three strategies which were Compensation, Memory and
Social was in a moderate level except their usage was in a lower level in the rest strategies.

In general, the above Table of female and male learners’ preferences of the six categories of speaking
strategies in rank order shows that both female and male students prefer using Compensation strategy
than the rest. The strategy both groups prefer to use next to compensation strategy was memory
strategy. The rank order of the rest strategy groups both female and male students prefer to use were
Social, Affective, Cognitive and Meta-cognitive strategies in the order of preference. Therefore, the
rank order of these strategy groups from highly preferred to less preferred ones according to the
result of statistical descriptive given in the Table 12 above.

On the other hand, the results of classroom observation reveal the most preference of compensation
strategies and least preference of meta-cognitive strategies by both groups of the participants since
they were observed being used most often and hardly respectively. In other words, the result of
female and male learners’ Preferences of the categories of speaking strategies those which deemed to
be observed in rank order was consistent with the result of speaking strategies questionnaire (SSQ).

Moreover, regarding females and males preferences of the direct and indirect speaking strategies the
descriptive statistics was presented in Table 13 below.

Table 13: Female and Male Learners’ Preferences of the Direct and Indirect Strategies in
Rank Order

Females Males
Strategy Mean SD Rank Mean SD Rank
Direct 1.21 .652 1 1.67 .476 1
Indirect 1.03 .471 2 1.19 .559 2
Overall 1.12 .257 1.43 .379

In the above table, the direct strategies with mean values of 1.21 and 1.67 respectively for female and
male students were preferred more than indirect strategies, which were employed by females and
males with the mean score of 1.03 and 1.19 respectively. In other words, indirect strategies are

61
61
employed less by females and males. Generally, both females and males were lower users of the
overall speaking strategies with equal mean value of 1.12 and 1.43 respectively.

On the other hand, as to the classroom observation, both females and males were observed using
more of direct strategy categories than indirect strategy categories since they preferred using
compensation strategies which is one of the strategies of direct strategies than the rest of the
strategies of both direct and indirect strategies. Even though two of the direct strategies which are
memory and cognitive strategies were deemed to be unobservable ones, compensation strategies
alone made the direct strategies preferred to indirect strategies being used dominantly by the
participants.

4.4. Analysis on Significance Difference of Speaking Strategies by Female and

Male learners
Beyond the description of what strategy and strategy group that female and male learners used and
favored, regarding the third research question, an inferential statistics can show whether gender,
significantly affected the use of speaking strategies. Thus, an independent samples t-test is the most
appropriate statistical test to investigate the differences in strategy use between female and male
learners and the statistical significance level was accepted to be α <05 for all the independent sample
findings. Table 14 below, shows the result of an independent samples t-test of the six strategy
categories.

Table 14: Results of the Independent Samples t-test for the Female and Male Participants’
Use of the Six Strategy Categories

Levene's Test for t-test for Equality of Means

Strategy Equality of Variances
Categories F Sig. t df Sig. (2- Mean
tailed) Difference
Memory 267.939 .000 -19.627 106 .000 -1.396
Cognitive 6.183 .014 -17.509 106 .000 -.935
Compensation 9.100 .003 -11.212 106 .000 -1.176
Meta- 1957.728 .000 -8.296 106 .000 -.579
cognitive
Affective 11.960 .001 -11.702 106 .000 -1.139
Social 4.807 .031 -12.911 106 .000 -1.216

The results of the t-test displayed in the Table 14 show: the results of Levene’s Test for Equality of
Variances, the t value, df, and the p value of each of the six strategy groups. As indicated in the table,

62
62
Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances of Memory strategies shows that, the sig. value was .000,
which was less than .05. Therefore, it can be assumed that the variances were not equal. Additionally,
the t-value was –19.627 (p= .000), which was less than .05. Thus, it can be concluded that the
difference in the use of Memory strategies of females and males was significant. In the case of
Cognitive Strategies, Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances, the sig. value was .014, which was
less than .05. Thus, it can be assumed that the variances were not equal. Besides, the t value was -
17.509 and the statistical significant value was (p=.000), which was less than .05. This implies that
there was significant difference between females and males in the use of this strategy category.

Likewise, for Compensation Strategies, Levene’s Test for Equality of Varianc es, the sig. value was
.003, which was less than .05. As a result, the variances were assumed to have a difference. And the
t- value was -11.212 (p= .00), which was less than .05. As a result, the difference in the use of
Compensation Strategies of females and males was significant. Similarly, Levene’s Test for Equality
of Variances, the sig. value of Meta-cognitive strategy group was .000, the affective strategy group
.001, and the social strategy group was .031. All these sig. values were less than than .05. Therefore,
it can be assumed that the variances were not equal. In addition, the t value for the Meta-cognitive
strategy group was 8.296 (.000), the affective strategy group -11.702 (.000), and the social strategy
group -1.66 (p= .000). These p values were less than .05. Therefore, the difference in the use of
Meta-cognitive, affective, and social strategies were significant.

On the other hand, the result of classroom observation reveals the presence of significant difference
between female and male groups of the participants since males were observed using compensation
strategies, social strategies, affective strategies which were deemed to be observable by Oxford
(1990) much more when compared to their female counter parts.

Therefore, there is a significant difference between females and males in the use of all of the given
strategies of speaking skills.

Table 15: Results of the Independent Samples t-test for the Female and Male Participants’
Use of Direct and Indirect Strategies
Sub- Scales Levene's Test for Equality of t-test for Equality of Means
Variances
F Sig. T df Sig.(2- Mean
tailed) Difference
Direct 400.444 .000 -10.006 106 .000 .67
Indirect 2.699 .002 -.004 106 .03 -.06495
Overall 3.180 .0047 -.859 106 .048 -.04566

63
63
Table 15 above shows the significance levels of direct and indirect speaking strategies. As can be
seen in the table, Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances, the sig. value of direct strategies was
.0.000 and of the indirect strategies was .002. These sig. values were less than .05. Thus, the
variances were assumed to be different. And the t-value for the direct strategies was -10.006 (p=
0.000) and the indirect strategies .002 (p= .03). These p values were less than .05. As a result, it can
be concluded that there was significant difference between females and males in the use of both
direct and indirect strategies.

Furthermore, the significance level of the total number of strategies employed by female and male
learners was computed. As the results displayed in Table above Levene’s Test for Equality of
Variances, the sig. value .0047, was less than .05. Therefore, it can be assumed that the variances
were not equal. And the t-value was -.859 (p=0.048), which was less than .05. Consequently, it can
be concluded that the difference in overall speaking strategy use of females and males was
significant. In other words, there was significant difference between females and males in the use of
speaking strategies.

On the other hand, based on the result of classroom observation which results in the dominance of
compensation strategy that is a sub-strategy of direct strategies in terms of usage, one can easily
identify the presence of significant difference between direct and indirect strategies.

4.5. Discussion

The major focus of this study was to explore students’ use of speaking strategies and to detect the
relationship between gender and speaking strategies use. Each strategy has its own objective on how
to tackle the difficulty in learning speaking skills. The current study generated three significant
findings. First, compensation Strategies were the most preferred strategy category by the learners,
while the least preferred were meta-cognitive Strategies. Second, female and male students do not
differ in their preference of speaking strategies. Third, results of the independent samples t-test
indicated that there was significant difference between females and males in the use of the overall
speaking strategies as well as in the six taxonomies of the speaking strategies.

4.5.1. Learners Overall Speaking Strategies Use

The results of the present study indicate that the participants were reported to use direct strategies
more than indirect strategies. According to Oxford (1990) direct strategies are more related with

64
64
mental processing of the target language, while indirect strategies support and manage language
learning without directly involving the target language. This implies that probably the participants of
the present study did not realize the importance of indirect strategies that are related with their
emotions, coordination of the learning process, and the creation of interaction with others so as to
facilitate the successful learning of speaking Skills. As a result, the learners might give less attention
to the indirect strategies. After all, this result is not supported by some previous study findings, which
reported that the participants were good at indirect strategies than direct strategies (e.g., Daghir, S.,
& Abdi, R. (2010), Aslan, 2009). The possible reason for this contradiction could be the learning
environment and, the cultural background of the learners.

Moreover, the participants of the study preferred Compensation strategies the most with the highest
mean value. This result is consistent with the previous studies (Li, 2005; Tam, 2013) that reported
Compensation strategies as the most frequently used strategy category. Contrary to the finding of the
present research, Daghir & Abdi’s (2010) finding revealed Compensation Strategies as the least
frequently used ones. The fact that Compensation strategies are one of the important means of
communication, learners prefer to use the strategies mostly in formal language learning settings to
reduce communication breakdowns as a result of inadequate repertoire of vocabulary and
expressions. However, the high use of compensation strategies may reflect the very traditional and
didactic nature of these classrooms and thus considered input-poor environments (Kourago, 1993
cited in Wahyuni, 2013). Besides, making informed guesses is strongly encouraged because of the
exam-oriented nature of the learning environment. If students are not willing to take risks, or will
respond only if they are certain their answer is correct, this would likely have a negative impact on
their performance because questions would be left unanswered.

The least favored strategies by the participants in this study were meta-cognitive Strategies. This
finding is in line with some studies (Hong-Nam & Leavell, 2006; Tam, 2013) that reported meta-
cognitive strategies as the least preferred category. Contrary to this result, in Ahmadi & Mahmoodi’s
(2012) study reveals meta-cognitive Strategies were the most used category by the learners. This
negative tendency in the use of meta-cognitive strategies is perhaps due to the learners’ low intension
to plan ahead of their learning. Therefore, students would face a great disadvantage since meta-
cognitive Strategies have lots of importance to the learners. Oxford (1990) believes that “the meta-
cognitive side of the learner is probably one of the very biggest influences on language learning
success or failure.”

65
65
 4.5.2. Preference of Speaking Strategy Categories by Female and Male
Learners

Female and male respondents were similar in their preference of the six groups of speaking
strategies. More specifically, Compensation strategies were the top rated strategy category with a
moderate and high mean value respectively by females and males with significant difference between
them. In other words, males were higher in using the strategy. Contrary to this finding, in Green and
Oxford’s (1995) study, the Compensation strategy category did not show significant difference (cited
in Li, 2005). Likewise, in Yalcin’s (2006) study on language learning strategies based on gender
indicated that there was no statistically significant difference between females and males in the use of
Compensation strategies (cited in Aslan, 2009).

Furthermore, memory strategies were the second most preferred strategy category in a medium level
by females and males with significant difference. This finding seems contradict with what Oxford
(1990) has stated about the use of memory strategies by language learners. She reported that
regardless of the powerful contribution of Memory strategies to language learning, “some research
shows that language learners rarely report using these strategies…especially beyond elementary
levels of language learning.” Similarly, the result is inconsistent with some studies (Ahmadi &
Mahmoodi, 2012; Hong-Nam & Leavell, 2006; Li, 2005; Rahimi, Riazi & Saif, 2008) that found
least frequent use of Memory category by female learners. However, female and male participants of
this study were moderate users of this strategy category. This inconsistency in the findings may be
indicative of the context-specific nature of the strategies. Moreover, Wen & Wang’s (1996) study
revealed females’ superiority to their male counter parts in the use of Memory strategies was
inconsistent with the finding of the present study. Likewise, the other which is not correspondent
research was Wahyuni (2013) study, which depicted females’ use of Memory strategies more than
males.

Moreover, social strategies were the third strategy category to be preferred by both females and
males with the lowest and medium mean value respectively. This finding is incompatible with
(Hong-Nam & Leavell, 2006; (Green and Oxford, 1995 as cited in Tam, 2013); Zeynali, 2012) in
which female learners tend to use Social strategies more than male learners. However, the findings of
the present study is congruent with the result of Radwan’s (2011) research, which reported males use
of Social strategies more than females because of the cultural background of the students. The reason

66
66
which accounts for the reluctance of female subjects to make cooperation with others may be related
to the gender-related behavior difference. Contrarily to the finding, Tannen (1990) (cited in Tam,
2013) indicates that males value status and independence more, whereas females value connection,
cooperation, and intimacy more. According to him, seeking help from others, which is a sign of
showing a sense of inferiority, hampers male subjects’ interest in cooperating with others in the
learning process. Contrary to the finding of the present study Hong-Nam & Leavell (2006) also argue
that women tend to build relationships and use social network with greater consistency than men.

In addition to the above three strategies, the use of affective strategies indicating the use of emotional
support systems in the context of speaking skills learning is ranked fourth by both females and males
with low and medium mean value respectively. Contrary to the finding of the present study, Oxford
(1993) cited in (Zeynali, 2012) believes, female learners tend to pay more attention to their feelings
more than males. However, contrary to the above study, males were more interested to use Affective
strategies. This finding is on the other hand, inconsistent with a study (Ahmadi & Mahmoodi, 2012)
that found affective strategies to be among the most used strategy categories. Furthermore, this
finding is inconsistent with findings from studies by (Aslan, 2009; Hong-Nam & Leavell, 2006;
Wahyuni, 2013; Zeynali, 2012) in which the findings revealed males use of affective strategies the
least among the other strategy categories and indicated females superiority in this group.

On the other hand, Oxford’s (1990) report on Cognitive strategies doesn’t agree with the result of the
present study since the respondents of this study use this category below the expectation. She points
out that “Cognitive strategies are typically found to be the most popular strategies with language
learners.” However, in line with the finding of this research, Rahimi, Riazi & Saif’s (2008) study
revealed males superiority to females in the use of Cognitive strategies. Moreover, consistent with
the result of this study, (Ahmadi & Mahmoodi’s, 2012) finding revealed that Cognitive strategies
were the least applied strategy categories by males and females and in Salahshour et al (2013) study
males were reported to use Cognitive strategies more than females. To sum up, a possible reason for
the finding of the present study is probably the result of behavioral difference between males and
females. That is, males are likely to be more interested in challenge. It means that, according to
Oxford (1990) cognitive strategies are more of “practical for language learning.”

Finally, meta-cognitive strategies were the least to be preferred by both females and males. This
result somewhat agrees with what Oxford (1990) states about meta-cognitive strategies. She pointed
out that “though meta-cognitive strategies are extremely important, research shows that learners use

67
67
these strategies hardly and without much sense of their importance.” Moreover, contrary to the
finding of this research, some studies (Hong-Nam & Leavell, 2006; Rahimi, Riazi & Saif, 2008)
reported that females’ use of meta-cognitive strategies more than the other strategy categories. The
reason for the result of the present research is perhaps due to both groups’ and specially female
learners’ unawareness of the power of meta-cognitive strategies in the learning process of speaking
skills.

4.5.3. Overall Speaking Strategy use in Relation to Gender

The mean value of the overall strategy use was different for male and female respondents. Gender
differences, therefore, turned out to have significant effect on participants overall use of speaking
strategies, since male participants were reported to have slight superiority to females in all strategy
categories ( Compensation, Memory, Social, Affective, Cognitive and Meta-cognitive). The findings
of the relationship between gender and the overall speaking strategy use in the present study is
inconsistent with former studies (Hong-Nam & Leavell, 2006; Li, 2005; Radwan, 2011; Rahimi,
Riazi & Saif, 2008; Wahyuni, 2013), which reported that there is no significant difference between
males and females in the use of the overall speaking skills learning strategies though there were
significant differences in particular strategy categories and in the pattern of strategy category
preferences between the two groups. A possible reason for this presence of gender effect on overall
speaking strategies use in the present study might be the fact that, the participants of this study were
enrolled in a similar learning environment but different awareness and attitude towards how the skills
of certain language like speaking skills is learned. Therefore, it is possible that the respondents’
awareness and attitude of speaking skills learning strategies maximised the gender effect in this
study.

68
68
CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1. Summary

The purpose of this study was to gain a comprehensive understanding of the students’ speaking
strategy use and more specifically revealing the relationship between the speaking strategies use and
gender. The study was conducted at the preparatory level, specifically Leka Nekemte Preparatory
School. The participants were 108 grade 11 students from 6 sections. Survey study design was used
in the research. To achieve the above purposes, both quantitative and qualitative methods were used.
Thus, in order to collect the quantitative data, the participants were given a 36- item questionnaire,
and they were asked to respond to each item using 5 Likert- scales. On the other hand, the researcher
used classroom observation as another tool of data collection. In order to analyze the data collected
through classroom observations the researcher used qualitative approach.

The study applied descriptive and inferential statistical analysis to make sense of the quantitative
data. The descriptive statistics helped to investigate problems posed in the first research question, i.e.
what speaking skills learning strategies students use. Inferential statistics were helpful in
investigating research problems posed in the second research question, i.e. what strategy group
female and male students preferred the most and least, and third research question, i.e. whether
gender significantly affected strategy use.

The results of the study revealed that the strategy category that is most often used by the participants
in this study compared to other strategies was compensation strategy. However, meta-cognitive
strategy category was the one that was found to be the least preferred group by the students. In
addition, the results showed that the learners favored direct speaking strategies more than indirect
speaking strategies.

On the other hand, females and males were similar in the pattern of speaking strategy group
preferences. Both of the groups favored compensation strategies group more than the other strategy
categories and direct strategies than indirect strategies. According to the results, both female and
male learners favored meta-cognitive the least when compared to all other strategies. All in all,
significant differences were found between females and males in the use of the six categories of
speaking strategies.

69
69
5.2. Conclusions

To conclude, the findings of this study provide a greater understanding of strategies use of the
students in general and females as well as males preference of speaking skills learning strategies in
particular.

The students are more of direct strategy users than indirect strategies. Additionally, the results of the
study showed that the strategy category that is most used by the participants in the present study was
compensation strategy. However, according to the result of the study, the least used strategy was
meta-cognitive strategies. These results of the research show that the context of speaking skills
learning such as the teaching approach adopted in the classroom and the speaking tasks to be
practiced seems played an important role in the learners’ speaking strategy preferences.

In terms of females and males preferences of strategies, both male and female learners favored
Compensation strategies in the highest level. However, meta-cognitive strategies were the least
preferred strategy group by both females and males than the other strategy groups. Consequently, it
seems that awareness of strategy use and psychological traits might be the major factors for their
strategy choices.

The study also revealed that there was significant difference between female and male students in
terms of using speaking skills learning strategies. In general, the students are perhaps enrolled in a
traditional way of learning process than the communicative one that give much emphasis to facilitate
practical speaking skills learning for real life situation as well as independent (autonomous) learning.

5.3. Recommendations

Based on the findings of the present study the following recommendations are made:

1. It is very important for teachers to realize that not all strategies are suitable for all learners due
to individual differences such as gender. Female and male learners may have different
preference for speaking strategies use. Thus, if teachers have a better understanding of their
students’ preference of strategy, they may try to instruct them how to select other neglected
speaking strategies besides their own. Such awareness of teachers may also lead them towards
implementing a learner- centered approach which encourages autonomous learning.

70
70
2. Teachers should raise learners’ awareness of the functions and usefulness of speaking strategies
so that they become encouraged to select and use more appropriate strategies in their speaking
skills learning.

3. Students themselves and especially females should take their own

responsibility to employ various strategies to be good speaking skills’
learners.

4. There is a need to provide students with further opportunities to use indirect strategies which are
Affective, Meta-cognitive, and Social strategies in name. Thus, in order to lead students to
utilize these strategies, language teachers need to create convenient environment inside and
outside the classroom. For example, they should involve their learners in a variety of
communicative tasks. Thus, the role of a teacher should be modified as a facilitator, which
motivates and encourages learners’ active participation in the teaching and learning process.

5. Syllabus designers and material developers need to incorporate speaking skills learning
strategies training into the curriculum that provide opportunities to learners to use the strategies.
For example, it should be included in text book and through that language teachers can encourage
their students to use them. This is because studies show that there is a positive relationship
between high use of learning strategies and performance (Oxford and Burry, 1993, as cited in
Oxford and Ehrman, 1995).

6. The current investigation measured speaking skills learning strategy use and preferences using
self- report questionnaire and observation as instruments of data collection at a particular point
in time. It is the recommendation of this researcher that future endeavors incorporate a variety of
measures such as interviews, and other methods which might provide richer and more sample
specific data and replicate the study in other settings to see the similarities and differences of the
results between the studies.

7. The current research presents a wealth of information on the role of gender on speaking
strategies use. However, it is no matter how carefully conducted, cannot be taken as conclusive.
Thus, further research is needed in order to fully explore this area and the nature of the
relationship between speaking strategies and other variables such as achievement, motivation,
anxiety of speaking skills learning, etc.

71
71
 REFERENCES
Afsarnia, M. (1999). EFL strategy inventory for listening comprehension, it psychometric
characteristics, factor analysis, and the intermediate effects of gender, proficiency level, LC
strategies, and LC scores in authentic LC texts and tasks. Unpublished MA thesis, Shiraz
University, Shiraz, Iran.
Ahmadi, A., & Mahmoodi, S. (2012). Language Learning Strategy Use and Instruction for the
Iranian Junior High School EFL Learners. RALS, 3 (2).
Allen, D., & Freeland, T. (2001). Oral communication in the academy. Speaking Teaching, 11 (2),
1-6
nd
Anderson, G. (1998). Fundamentals of Educational Research (2 Ed.). London: the Falmer
Press.
Anderson, N. (2005). L2 strategy research. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), handbook of research in second
language teaching and learning. Mahewah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Aslan, O. (2009). The Role of Gender and Language Learning Strategies in Learning English.
Unpublished MA Thesis, Turkish: Middle East Technical University.
Atkins, J. et al (1995). Skills Development Methodology I. Addis Ababa: Addis Ababa University
Printing Press.
Baker, J., & Westrup, H. (2003). Essential Speaking Skills: A Handbook for English Language
Teachers. London: Continuum .
th
Best, W., & Khan, V. (2006). Research in Education (10 Ed.). New York: Pearson Education Inc.
Bialystok, E. (1978). A theoretical model of second language learning. Language Learning, 28,
69-83
Bialystok, E., & Frölich, M. (1980). Oral communication strategies for lexical difficulties.
Interlanguage Studies Bulletin, 5, 3-30.
Bidlake, E. (2007). Language Learning as a Gendered Experience. Retrieved from
http://research.ncl.ac.uk/index-ARECLS/volume 4-documents.
Biggs, (1988). Learning strategies and learning styles, New York: Plenum Press.
Brown, et al, (1989). Teaching the Spoken Language, Cambridge University Press.
th
Brown, H. (2007). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching (5 ed.). New York: Pearson
Education, inc.
Brown, et al (1989). A practical guide for language learning: A fifteen-week program of
strategies for success. New York: McGraw Hill.
Brown, et al (1994) Principle of Language Learning and Teaching. 337 rd ed. Englewood Cliffs:
Prentice Hall.
Brown, H. (1985). Strategies for success: A practical guide to learning English. Upper Saddle
River: Pearson ESL.
Brumfit, C., & Johnson, K. (1987). The Communicative Approach to Language Teaching. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Bukart. R. (1998). The Essential of Language Teaching, Retrieved on November 23, 2009,
http://www.nclrc.org/essentials/speaking/spindex.htm

72
72
Bygate, M. (1987). Speaking: A scheme for teacher education. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bygate, M. (1993).Speaking. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cameron, L. (2001). Teaching Language to Young Learners. London: Cambridge University
Press.
Canale, M. (1983) From communicative competence to language pedagogy. In. J. C. Richards
and R. W. Schmidt (eds). Language and Communication. London: Longman.
Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical Bases of Communicative Approaches to Second
Language Teaching and Testing. Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 1-47.
Celce-Murcia, M. (2001). Teaching English as a second or foreign language. Boston: Heinle &
Heinle.
Chamot, A. (2004). Issues in Language Learning Strategy Research and Teaching. Electronic
Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 1(1), 14-26.
Chaney, A. (1998) Teaching oral communication in grades K-8, USA: Viacom Company.
Cohen & Aphek, (1981) various speaking strategies used by the students in their attempt to become
proficient speakers of English. Applied Linguistics, 2 (2): 67-96.
Cohen, A. (1996). Second Language Learning and Use Strategies: Clarifying the Issues. Center
for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition,
Cohen, A. D. (1998). Strategies in learning and using a second language. London and New York:
Longman.
Cotterall, S. & Crabbe, D. (1999), Learner Autonomy in Language Learning: Defining the Field
and the Effecting Change. Berlin: Peter Lang
Crystal, D. (2003). English as a Global Language (Second edition). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Daghir, S., & Abdi, R. (2010). Investigating the Relationship between Learner’s Gender,
Proficiency and Language Learning Strategies: The Case of EFL Iraqi Learners. Journal
of the College of Arts, 53, 32-56.
Dadour, E. S. & Robbins, J. (1996). University-level studies using strategy instruction to improve
speaking ability in Egypt and Japan. In R. L. Oxford (Ed.), Language learning strategies
around the world: Cross-cultural perspectives. Manoa: University of Hawaii Press.
Demirezen, M. (1988). Behaviorist Theory and Language Learning. Hacettepe University.
Dickinson, L. (1995). Self-Instruction in Language Learning: Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Ehrman, M. & Oxford, R. L. (1990). Adult language learning styles and strategies in an intensive
training setting. The Modern Language Journal, 71(iii), 311-327.
Ehrman, M. (1996). Understanding second language learning difficulties. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Ehrman, M. et al (2003). A Brief Overview of Individual Differences in Second Language
Learning. System, 31, 313-330.
Ehrman, M. et al. 1988. 'Effects of Sex Differences, Career Choice, and Psychological Type on
Adult Language Learning Strategies'. The Modem Language Journal, 72(3), 253-65.52
Ellis, R. (1985). Understanding Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (1997). SLA Research and Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

73
73
Ellis, R. (2002). The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.Gardner, R. C. and Lambert, W. E., 1972. Motivational variables in
second language acquisition. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 13, pp. 266 272 .
Endaweke Abebe (2008) EFL Learning Strategy Use: The Case of Male And Female Preparatory
Students. Unpublished Thesis, AAU
Erikson, T. (2009), Students’ Obstacles in Practicing Speaking English: (A Case Study at Batam
Polytechnic. Bandung: UPI Library (unpublished paper).
Evans, N. W. (2001). In their own words: Polynesian students’ perspectives on persistence in an
American university. (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation). University of Southern
California, Los Angeles, CA.
Faerach, C. & Kasper, G (1983) Plans and strategies in foreign language communication. In C.
Gardner, R.C., P.F. Tremblay and A-M. Masgoret (1997). Towards a full model of second
language learning: An empirical investigation. Modern Language Journal, 81 (93): 344-362.
Geoffrey, N. (2005). Essentials of Research Design and Methodology. New Jersey: John Willey
and Sons Inc.
Green, J.M., & Oxford, R.L. (1995). A closer look at learning strategies, L2 proficiency, and
gender. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 261–297.
Gurata, A. (2008). The Grammar Learning Strategies Employed by Turkish University
Preparatory School EFL Students. Unpublished MA Thesis, Turkish: Bilkent University.
Haliday, M.A.K. (1990). Spoken and Written Language. Oxford: OUP.
Haregewain Abate. (2008). The Effect of Communicative Grammar on the Grammatical Accuracy
of Students Academic Writing: An Integrated Approach to TEFL. Unpublished PhD
Dissertation, Addis Ababa: Addis Ababa University.
Harmer, J. (2001). The practice of English language. London: Longman.
Hedge, T. (2000). Teaching and Learning in the Language Classroom.Oxford. OUP.
Horanicova, Z. (2006). The Influence of Cognitive Psychology in a Second Language Instruction.
Department of Foreign Languages, (pp. 153-156). Safarik University: Slovakia.
Hsiao, T. & Oxford, R. L. (2002). Comparing theories of language learning strategies: A
confirmatory factor analysis. The Modern Language Journal, 86(iii), 368-383.
Huang, X-H. & Van Naerssen, M. (1987). Learning strategies for oral communication. Applied
Linguistics, 8(3), 287-307.
Imanin, A. (2010). The Use Of Group Discussion In Speaking Instruction. Bandung: UPI Library
(unpublished paper).
Jhonson, J., & Repta, R. (2012). Sex and Gender: Beyond the Binaries. In J.L. Oliffe and L.
Greaves (Eds.). Designing and Conducting Gender, Sex and Health Research, 17-37.
Thousandoaks: Sage Publcations.
Jones, R. (1993). How to Master Language. Plymouth. How to Book Ltd.
Kaylani, C. (1996). The influence of gender and motivation on EFL learning strategy use in
Jordan. In R. L. Oxford (Ed.), Language learning strategies around the world: Cross-
cultural perspectives (pp. 75-88). Manoa: University of Hawaii Press.
Kerlinger, F. N. (1977). Foundations of Behavioural Research I2nd edition!. NewYork: Holt
International Edition. Kotebe College of Teacher Education. 1992. Catalogue. Addis Ababa:
KCTE Computer centre.

74
74
Kobayashi, Y. (2002). The role of gender in foreign language learning attitudes: Japanese female
students’ attitudes towards English learning. Gender and Education, 14(2), 181-197.
Kohonen, V. et al. (2001), Experiential Learning in Foreign Language Education: London:
Longman.
Kothari, R. (2004). Research Methodology: Methods and Techniques. New Delhi: New Age
International Ltd.
Lan, R. & Oxford, R. L. (2003). Language learning strategy profiles of elementary school students
in Taiwan. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 41, 339-379.
Lee, K. R. & Oxford, R. (2008). Understanding EFL learners’ strategy use and strategy awareness.
Asian EFL Journal, 10(1), 7-32.
Li, A. (2005). A Look at Chinese ESL Students Use of Learning Strategies in Relation to Their
English Language Proficiency, Gender and Perceived Language Difficulties- A Quantitative
Study. Supporting Independent English Language Learning in the 21th Century:
Proceedings of the Independent Learning Association Conference Inaugural, 18(2), 39-54.
Lightbown, P., & Spada, N. (1993). How Languages are Learned. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Liu, D. (2004). EFL proficiency, gender, and language learning strategy use among a group of
Chinese Technological Institute English majors. ARECLS E-Journal, 1. Retrieved
February2,2009,fromhttp://www.ecls.ncl.ac.uk/publish/Volume1/Dongyue/Dongyue.htm
Naiman, N., et al (1978). The good language learner. Toronto, Canada: The Ontario Institute for
Studies in Education.
Nakatani, Y. (2005). The effects of awareness-raising training on oral communication strategy
use. The Modern Language Journal, 89, 76-91.
Natalia. (2008). The EFL Students’ Strategies In Learning English Speaking Skills Bandung: UPI
Library (unpublished paper).
nd
Neuman, W. (2007). Basics of Social Research: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches (2
ed.). New York: Pearson Education, inc.
Nisbet, D., et al (2005). Language Learning Strategies and English Proficiency of Chinese
University Students. Foreign Language Annals, 38(1), 100-107.
Nunan, D. (1999). Second Language Teaching & Learning. Boston: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
Nunan, D. (2000). Language Teaching Methodology. Essex: Pearson Education Ltd
Nunan, D. (2003). Practical English Language Teaching. New York: McGraw Hill
O.Malley, J.M. et al. (1990). Learning Strategies III Second Language Learning Acquisition.
Cambridge: CUP.
O’Malley, J., & Chamot, U. (1990). Learning Strategies in Second Language Acquisition.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary (2010).
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
O’Malley J., et al. (1985a). Learning Strategies Used by Beginning and Intermediate ESL
Students. In Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press
O'Malley, et al (1989). Variables Affecting Choice of Language Learning Strategies by University
Students. The Modern Language Journal, (3):291-299.
Oxford ,R & Nyikos, M. (1989). Variables Affecting Coice of Language Learning Strategies by
University Students. Modern Language Journal 73(2),29 1-300.

75
75
Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary (2010). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Oxford, R. & M. Ehrman. (1995). “Adults’ Language Learning Strategies in an Intensive Foreign
Language Program in United States.” System, Vol. 23, No. 3, Pp. 359-386.
Oxford, R. (1990). Language Learning Strategies: What Every Teacher Should Know. Rowley,
Mass: Newbury House, 284-297.
Oxford, R. (1992). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. Boston:
Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
Oxford, R. (1996). Employing a questionnaire to assess the use of language learning strategies.
Applied Language Learning, 7, 25-45.
Oxford, R. (2003). Language Learning Styles and Strategies: An Overview, p. 1-25.
Oxford, R. L. & Nyikos, M. (1989). Variables affecting choice of language learning strategies by
university students. The Modern Language Journal, 73(iii), 291-300.
Oxford, R. L. (1994). Language learning strategies: An update. ERIC Digest (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED376707).
Oxford, R. L. (2011a). Teaching and researching language learning strategies. Harlow: Pearson
Longman.
Oxford, R. L. (2011b). Research timeline: Strategies for learning a second or foreign language.
Language Teaching, 44(2), 167-180.
Oxford, R. L., et al (2004). Effect of the presence and difficulty of task on strategy use: An
exploratory study. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 42, 1-47.
Oxford, R.L., & Ehrman, M.E. (1995). Adults’ language learning strategies in an intensive foreign
language program in the United States. System, 23, 359–386.
Oxford: Advanced learner’s dictionary (7th ed.) (2005). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Paterson, P., & Rosbottom, J. (1995). Learning Style and Learning Strategies in a Multimedia
Environment. Association of Learning Technology Journal, 3 (1), 12-21.
Radwan, A. (2011). Effects of L2 Proficiency and Gender on Choice of Language Learning
Strategies by University Students Majoring in English. Asian EFL Journal, p. 115-163. Rahimi,
M., et al (2008). An Investigation in to the Factors Affecting the Use of Language
Learning Strategies by Persian EFL Learners. CJAL, 11(2), 31-60.54
Riazi, A. & Khodadadi, F. (2007). The effect of EFL students’ level of proficiency and gender on
their use of speaking proficiency. Journal of Teaching English Language and Literature,
1(2), 99-116.
nd
Richards, J., & Rodgers, T. (2001). Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching (2 ed.).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Richards, J. C & Lockhart, C, (1996). Reflections Teaching in second Language Classroom.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Richards, et al. (1987) Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Rivers, W. M. (1988). Interactive language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rivers, W.M. (1981). Teaching Foreign Language Skills (2nd Ed.). Chicago: University Of
Chicago Press.
Rivers, Wilga M. (1985). Speaking in Many Tongues: Essays in foreign language teaching /3rd
edition!. Cambridge: CUP.

76
76
Rubin, J. (1975). What the ‘good language learner’ can teach us. TESOL Quarterly, 9, 41-51.
Rubin, J. (1981). Study of cognitive processes in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 2:
117-131.
Rubin, J. & Thompson, I. (1994). How to become a more successful language learner (2nd ed.).
Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Rubin. J. (1987). Learner Strategies: Theoretical Assumptions, Research History and Typology. In
Wenden & Rubin (Eds.).
Salahshour, F. et al. (2013). The Relationship between Language Learning Strategy Use,
Language Proficiency Level and Learners Gender. Social and Behavioral Sciences, 70, p.
634-643. Iran: Azerbaijan University of Tarbiat Moallem,
Salkind, N. (1991). Exploring Research. New York: Macmillan Publisher.
Selinger, H. W., & Shoamy, E. (1989). Second Language Research Method, Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Shumin, K. (1997) “Developing Adult EFL Students’ Speaking Abilities.” English Teaching
Forum, Volume 35 number 3.
Sunderland, J. (2006). Language and Gender. New York: Routledge. Tam, C. (2013). A Study on
Language Learning Strategies (LLSs) of University Students in Hong Kong. Taiwan Journal
of Linguistics, 11(2), 1-42.
Tam, C. (2013). A Study on Language Learning Strategies (LLSs) of University Students in
Hong Kong. Taiwan Journal of Linguistics, 11(2), 1-42.
Tran, T.V. (1988). Sex differences in English language acculturation and learning strategies
among Vietnamese adults age 40 and over in the United States. Sex Roles, 19: 747-758. 24
Tsegay Tafere, (1995). Speaking Strategies Employed by first year Students at the Kotebe College
of Teacher Education. Unpublished Thesis, AAU
Wahyuni, S. (2013). L2 Speaking Strategies Employed By Indonesian EFL Tertiary Students
across Proficiency and Gender. A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at
the University of Canberra Australia: Australia.
Wenden, A. (1991). Learner strategies for learner autonomy. New York: Prentice Hall.
Wenden, A. (1987). ‘Conceptual Background and Utility.’ In A. Wended and J. Rubin (Eds).
Learner Strategies and Language Learning (PP.?). Englewood cliffs. New Jersey: Prentice
Hall.
Wharton, G. (2000). Language learning strategy use of bilingual foreign language learners in
Singapore. Language Learning, 50(2), 203–243.
Williams, M., & Burden R. L. (1997). Psychology for language teachers: A Social Constructive
Approach. Cambridge: CUP.
Yemeserach Bayou (2015). Grammar Learning Strategies Use Of Grade 11 Students At
Medhanealem Preparatory School: Gender In Focus. Unpublished Thesis, AAU
Zeynali, S. (2012). Exploring the Gender Effect on EFL Learners’ Learning Strategies. Theory
and Practice in Language Studies, 2(8), 1614-1620.

77
77
 APPENDICES

APPENDIX A WOLLEGA
UNIVERSITY

SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES

INSTITUTE OF LANGUAGE STUDIES AND JOURNALISM

DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE

Students’ Speaking Strategies Questionnaire (SSSsQ)

Dear student,

I would like to thank you for your kind cooperation to fill this questionnaire.
This questionnaire is designed to gather information on speaking strategies use of grade 11 students
at Leka Nekemte preparatory school focusing on gender. It has no intention to evaluate you based on
the responses you give to the statements. This is not a test, therefore, there is no right or wrong
answer since different learners may learn speaking in different ways. Answer in terms of how well
the statement describes you. Do not answer how you think you should be, or what other people do.
Each of your genuine responses has a high value for the success of the study. Thus, the researcher
kindly requests you to give your frank and honest responses to the statements.
Thank you in advance!
Instruction I: complete the following background information using tick (√) in the boxes
provided.
1. Age:
2. What is your Sex? F M
3. What is a Stream of your Study? Social Science Natural Science

Instruction II: This part contains statements about strategies of learning English speaking
skills. Please read each statement carefully and show your response by putting a tick mark / √ /
along your response that tells HOW TRUE OF YOU THE STATEMENT IS. There are five
possible answers for each statement:

78
78
 1. Never or almost never true of me 4. Usually true of me
2. Usually not true of me 5. Always or almost always true of me
3. Somewhat true of me
 NEVER OR ALMOST NEVER TRUE OF ME means that the statement is very rarely true
of you.
 USUALLY NOT TRUE OF ME means that the statement is true less than half the time.
 SOMEWHAT TRUE OF ME means that the statement is true of you about half the time.
 USUALLY TRUE OF ME means that the statement is true more than half the time.
 ALWAYS OR ALMOST ALWAYS TRUE OF ME means that the statement is true of you
almost always.

No Speaking Strategies 1 2 3 4 5
1. I Practice English new words and expressions in meaningful contexts
repeatedly in order to remember them.
2. I use rhyming to remember new elements in the language which are useful for
speaking.
3. I revise orally the language materials such as stories, dialogues etc which I
learned in a structured way in order to remember and use their structures during
speaking.
4. When preparing an oral report in a class, I Write it down in English, and then
memorize it.
5. I connect the sound of a new English language word and an image or picture of
the word so as to help me remember the word.
6. I remember a new English word by imagining (mental picture) a situation in
which the word might be used
7. I record my voice and compare it with the voice of proficient or native
speakers.
8. I imitate the way native/proficient speakers talk in the language e.g. I repeat
after listening to radio, recordings or music as well as my teachers or people
who are good at English, listening carefully about the structures, words and
idioms that they use and I try to use them in my speech.
9. I participate in structured communication exercises to practice speaking.
10. While speaking I transfer the knowledge of words, concepts or structures from
L1/native language/ to FL /English language/
11. I repeat silently to myself when someone is speaking English language
12. I give the summary of the dialogues or the texts in my own words.
13. When my teacher asks questions other students in class, I try to answer
him/her mentally to myself.
14. When I forget or fail to remember a word or an expression, I keep on repeating
the previous word for some time until I can recall or get a word/form which
may send the message across.
15. When I can't think of the word while speaking in English, I tend to use physical

79
79
 motion such as gesture (body language) and facial expressions in place of it to
express myself better and to indicate the meaning.
16. I ask my teacher or classmates to tell me the right word or expression during a
conversation in English when I don't seem to get the right one.
17. I think in my First language and then I translate it into English language.
18. I change my way of saying things according to the context and use words
which are familiar to me while speaking.
19. I try to correct myself when I feel that I am not using the correct form while
speaking.
20. When I am prepared for oral presentation, I consider the requirements like the
nature of the task, my own capabilities/my current language ski11/s/, and
whatever else I have to know and do in order to give a good talk.
21. I arrange my schedule to practice speaking the new language consistently, not
just when there is the pressure of an assessment.
22. I plan my goals for language learning, for instance, how proficient I want to
become or how I might want to use the language in the long run.
23. I try to find as many ways as I can to use the target language e.g. looking for
people I can talk to in English language.
24. I pay attention to grammar and word order during a conversation
25. I try to relax myself when I become tense while speaking in English language.
26. I encourage myself by thinking and speaking positive statements in order to
feel more confident and be more willing to take risks.
27. I discuss about my performances of speaking in English with my friends.
28. I discuss my feelings about the language learning process in order to get better
learning ways inside and outside the classroom with my teacher and friends.

29. I encourage myself to express what I want to say in English even when I am
afraid of making a mistake
30. I give myself a reward or treat when I do well in English language
31. I try to learn about the culture of English speakers.
32. I cooperate with my friends to practice, review and/or share information in
learning the English language.
33. I ask my teacher, classmates or English speakers for corrections of errors in
my speaking
34. I ask questions in English for verification and more explanations in class.
35. I pay close attention to the thoughts and feelings of other students with whom I
interact.
36. I practice speaking English with others like my teacher, native speakers or
friends after class.

80
 APPENDIX B

YUUNIVARSIITII WALLAGGAATTI
SAGANTAA QORANNOO BARNOOTA DIGIRII LAMMAFFAA
INISTITUUTII QORANNOO AFAANII FI GAAZEXEESSUMMAA
MUUMMEE AFAAN INGILIZII FI OG-BARRUU
Bar-gaaffii Barattootaaf Dhimma “Maloota Dubbanna Afaan Ingilizii Baruu Barattootni
Dhiiraa fi Dubaraa kutaa 11 ffaaFayyadaman” Ilaalchisuun Qophaa’uun Dhiyaate.

Jaallatamaa Barataa,
Kayyoon qorannaa kanaa ‘Maloota Dubbannaa Afaan Ingilizii Baruu Kan Barattootni Dhiiraa fi
Dubaraa Itti Fayyadaman’ adda baasuuf waan ta’eef deebii haqa-qabeessa ati kennitu qorannoo
kana bu’a qabeessa taasisa.
Waan na gargaarteef, durseen sigalateeffadha!

Ajaja 1ffaa: Bakka duwwaa armaan gaditti kenname irratti odeeffannoo waa’ee kee ibsu guuti.

1. Umurii:
2. Saala: Dhiira Dhalaa
3. Muummee Barnootaa: Saayinsii Uumamaa Saayinsii Hawaasa
ffaa
Ajaja 2 : Yaada kee tartiiba armaan gadii keessaa filachuun lakkoofsa filannoo kee bakka
bu’uun gabatee kenname keessatti argamu jalatti mallattoo (√) kaa’uun deebisi.
1. Gonkumaa/ hanga tokko gonkumaa na hin 4. Yeroo baay’ee na ilaallata
ilaallatu 5. Yeroo hundaa/hanga tokko yeroo hundaa na
2. Yeroo baay’ee na hin ilaallatu ilaallata
3. Hanga tokko na ilaallata

L Maloota Dubbannaa Afaan Ingilizii Baruuf Gargaaran 1 2 3 4 5

1. Jechoota haarawaa fi ibsawwan afaan Ingilizii haala hiika qabeessa keessatti
akkan yaadadhuuf irra deddeebi’uudhaan nan shaakala.
2. Elementoota afaan Ingilizii haaraa ta’an kanneen booda dubbannaaf na gargaaran
yaadachuuf mana rukkuttaa (haala ittiin dhuminsa) isaaniin fayyadama.
3. Kanneen akka oduu durii fi waliin dubbannaa namoota biroon haala qindoomina
qabuun dhiyaatan yaadachuufis ta’ee caasaa isaanii yeroo dubbannaa kootii
fayyadamuuf afaaniin irra deddeebi’uun nan jedha (shaakala).
4. Daree keessatti yommuun gabaasa afaaniin dhiyaatu qopheessu, afaan Ingliziin
barreessuun isa barreeffame immoo sammuutti qabadha.
5. Yaadachuuf akka na gargaarutti sagalee fi haala qubeeffama jecha haaraa afaan
Ingilizii tokkoo walittin qabsiisa.
6. Jecha afaan Ingilizii haaraa tokko yaadachuuf haala qabatamaa inni keessatti
gargaaruu danda’u sammuu koo keessatti suuraa isaan kaasa.
7. Yeroon afaan Ingilizii haasa’u, sagalee koo waraabuun kan nama afaanicha
haalaan dubbatuu yookin kan nama afaan kun afaan dhalootaa ta’eefii waliin wal
nan dorgomsiisa.
81
8. Namoota afaan kana haalaan danda’an yookin afaan kun afaan dhalootaa isaanii
ta’eef jechoota fi caasaalee isaan fayyadaman haalaan dhaggeeffachuun akka gara
fuula duraatti itti fayyadamuuf na gargaarutti nan akkeessa. Fakkeenyaaf:
Raadiyoo, waan waraabamee ture (muuziqaa) akkasumas barsiisaa koo fi namoota
biroo kanneen afaan kana haalaan danda’an haalaan dhaggeeffachuun afaaniin irra
deebi’uu.
9. Dubbannaa shaakaluuf gochaalee waliin dubbii caaseffamuun dhiyaatan irratti nan
hirmaadha.
10. Yommuun dubbadhu beekumsa jechootaa, yaadawwan ijoo fi caasaalee isaan kan
afaan dhalootaan gara kan afaan Ingiliziitti ceesisa (dabarsa).
11. Yommuu namni biraan afaan Ingilizii haasa’u, ani immoo waan inni jechuun
dubbatu ofii kootiif sagalee xiqqaadhaan irran deebi’a.
12. Waliin dubbiiwwan ykn bareeffamoota dhiyaataniif jechoota mataa koo
fayyadamuun gudunfaa itti nan kenna.
13 Yommuu barsiisaan koo barataa kan biraa daree keessatti gaaffii gaafatu, ani
gaaffi sana itti yaaduun ofuma koottii (utuu ifa hin baasiin) deebii isaa nan
deebisa.
14. Yommuun jecha ykn ibsa tokko dubbannaa keessatti dagadhu yookin yaadachuu
dadhabu, jecha (ibsa) jechicha (ibsicha) ani dagadhe dursuun dhufe sanan hanga
jecha ykn ibsa dagatame sana yaadadhutti irra deddeebi’uudhaan nan dubbadha.
15. Yommuun jecha tokko dubbannaa keessatti dagadhu yookin yaadachuu dadhabu,
yaada akkasumas hiika sana haalaan ibsuuf mallattoolee ergaa dabarsan kanneen
qaamaan mul’achuu danda’an nan fayyadama.
16. Yommuun jecha ykn ibsa sirrii kan yaada koo ibsuu danda’u dubbannaa keessatti
argachuu dadhabu, barsiisaas ta’ee barattoota daree koo nan gaafadha.
17. Yommuu dubbannaa kootti afaan dhalootaa kootiin yaaduun dubbachuuf immoo
gara afaan Ingiliziittin jijjiira.
18 Haala irratti hundaa’uudhaan karaa waan dubbattamu jechuu kootii nan jijjiira
akkasumas jechootan sirriitti beekun fayyadama.
19. Yommuun dubbadhu yoon waan sirrii fayyadamuun dubbachaa akka hin jirree
barutti of nan sirreessa.
20. Dubbannaa gaarii ta’e akkan dhiyeessuuf duraan durseen yommuun dhiyeessa
afaaniif qophaa’un wantoota barbaachisoo kanneen akka amala gochichaa fi
dandeettii koo kan yeroo sanaan ilaalcha keessa galcha.
21. Yommuun sababa madaalliif dirqamu qofaa osoo hin taane, sagantaa baafachuun
dhaabbataadhaan dubbannaa afaan Ingilizii nan shaakala.
22. Afaan Ingiliffaa baruuf galma koo nan karoorsa. Fakkeenyaaf: Dandeetti
dubbannaa akkamii gara fuula duraatti qabaachuu akkan qabuu fi afaanichaa
akkamittin fayyadamu akkan fedhu.
23. Karaa danda’amu hundumaanuu afaan Ingilizii fayyadamuuf nan
yaala.Fakkeenyaaf: Naman afaan kana waliin dubbachuu danda’u barabaaduun
waliin dubbachuu.
24. Yommuun waliin dubbii taasisu, seerlugaa fi duraa-duuba jechootaatiif
xiyyeeffannoo nan kenna.
25. Yommuun afaan Ingiliziitiin dubbaadhu sodaan yoo natti dhaga’amu soda sana
hir’isuuf ofin bashannansiisa.
26. Himoota poozitiivii ta’an yaaduu fi dubbachuun akkasumas rakkoolee yeroo
dubbannaa na mudataan keessumeessuun of nan jajjabeessa.
27. Dhimma dandeetti dubbannaa afaan Ingilizii irraatti ani qabu hiriyoota koo waliin

82
 nan mari’adha.
28. Barsiisaa fi hiriyoota koo waliin dhimma adeemsa barnoota afaanii ilaalchisuun
waan natti dhaga’amu mari’achuun karaalee barnootaa caalu daree keessattis ta’ee
alatti argachuuf nan carraaqa.
29. Yommuun dogoggoraa uumamuuf sodaan natti dhaga’amu illee yoo ta’e, waanaan
afaan Ingiliziin jechuu barbaade sana ibsuuf ofin jajjabeessa.
30. Yommuun Afaan Ingilizii fayyadamuun dalagaa gaarii godhu ofin jajjabeessa.
31. Waa’ee aadaa warra afaan Ingilizii dubbataanii (afaan kun afaan dhalootaa isaanii
ta’e) baruuf nan yaala.
32. Afaan Ingilizii baruuf hiriyoota koo waliin walitti dhufuun nan yaala, shaakala
akkasumas odeeffannoo waa’ee afanicha baruu wal nan jijjiira.
33. Yommuu dubbannaa kootii dogoggora uumamu akka na sirreessaniif barsiisaa
koo, barattoota daree koo yookiin dubbattoota afaan Ingilizii nan gaafadha.
34. Yaada irratti haasa’amaa jiru tokko dhugoomsachuuf akkasumas caalaatti ibsa
argachuuf gaaffii nan gaafadha.
35. Ilaalchaa fi yaada barattoota na waliin afaan Ingilizii dubbataniif xiyyeeffannoo
guddaa nan kenna.
36. Dareetiin booda afaan ingilizii dubbachuu; hiriyoota, barsiisaa akkasumas
namoota afaan kun afaan dhalootaa isaanii ta’e waliin nan shaakala.

83
 APPENDIX C

TABLE SHOWING THE RESULTS OF ADMINISTERED QUESTIONNAIRE

Main Sub- Item No Respondents Frequency Total

Strategies Strategies 1 2 3 4 5
Direct Memory ITEM 1 Female 2 0 2 7 40 51
Strategy Strategy Male 1 2 2 10 42 57
Total 3 2 4 17 82 108
ITEM 2 Female 1 2 4 9 35 51
Male 3 4 5 7 38 57
Total 4 6 9 16 73 108
ITEM 3 Female 3 3 6 5 34 51
Male 5 5 8 4 35 57
Total 8 8 14 9 69 108
ITEM 4 Female 0 1 8 5 37 51
Male 1 2 9 6 39 57
Total 1 3 17 11 76 108
ITEM 5 Female 2 3 7 4 35 51
Male 3 5 8 7 34 57
Total 5 8 15 11 69 108
ITEM 6 Female 0 1 2 10 38 51
Male 1 3 4 8 41 57
Total 1 4 6 18 79 108
Total of Female 8 10 29 40 219 306
Memory Male 14 21 36 42 229 342
Strategy Total of Total for 22 31 65 82 448 648
Memory
Cognitive ITEM 7 Female 3 7 2 2 37 51
Strategy Male 6 12 2 3 34 57
Total 9 19 4 5 71 108
ITEM 8 Female 3 3 4 5 36 51
Male 7 12 2 3 33 57
Total 10 15 6 8 69 108
ITEM 9 Female 2 1 3 5 40 51
Male 6 4 5 4 38 57
Total 8 5 8 9 78 108
ITEM 10 Female 3 0 1 6 41 51
Male 3 3 2 7 42 57
Total 6 3 3 13 83 108
ITEM 11 Female 2 3 2 5 39 51
Male 5 7 3 3 39 57
Total 7 10 5 8 78 108
ITEM 12 Female 0 2 2 5 42 51
Male 5 6 6 4 36 57
Total 5 8 8 9 78 108
Total of Female 13 16 14 28 235 306
Cognitive Male 32 44 20 24 222 342
Strategy Total of Total for 45 60 34 52 457 648
Cognitive

84
 Female 1 2 3 4 41 51
Compensa- ITEM 13
Male 0 2 5 5 45 57
tion Strategy
Total 1 4 8 9 86 108
ITEM 14 Female 0 2 5 5 39 51
Male 1 2 7 6 41 57
Total 1 4 12 11 80 108
ITEM 15 Female 0 1 3 4 43 51
Male 0 3 5 7 42 57
Total 0 4 8 11 85 108
ITEM 16 Female 0 1 2 2 46 51
Male 0 2 6 1 48 57
Total 0 3 8 3 94 108
ITEM 17 Female 0 1 1 5 44 51
Male 1 4 6 4 42 57
Total 1 5 7 9 86 108
ITEM 18 Female 0 0 0 4 47 51
Male 0 0 4 5 48 57
Total 0 0 4 9 95 108
Total of Female 1 7 14 24 260 306
Compensation Male 2 13 33 28 266 342
Strategy Total of Total for 3 20 47 52 526 648
Compensation
Total of Direct Female 22 33 57 92 714 918
Strategy Male 48 78 89 94 717 1026
Total of Total for 70 111 146 186 1431 1944
Direct S.
Indirect Meta- ITEM 19 Female 14 3 5 6 23 51
Strategy cognitive Male 13 7 6 4 27 57
Strategy Total 27 10 11 10 50 108
ITEM 20 Female 7 4 5 5 30 51
Male 17 14 7 3 16 57
Total 24 18 12 8 46 108
ITEM 21 Female 13 1 7 6 24 51
Male 8 14 4 4 27 57
Total 21 15 11 10 51 108
ITEM 22 Female 2 12 10 8 19 51
Male 12 8 8 5 24 57
Total 14 20 18 13 43 108
ITEM 23 Female 20 1 15 3 12 51
Male 5 4 15 3 30 57
Total 25 5 30 6 42 108
ITEM 24 Female 12 3 7 8 21 51
Male 12 13 5 4 23 57
Total 24 16 12 12 44 108
Total of Meta- Female 68 24 49 36 129 306
cognitive Male 67 60 45 23 147 342
Strategy Total of Total for 135 84 94 59 276 648
Meta-cognitive
Affective ITEM 25 Female 5 5 7 8 26 51
Strategy Male 2 4 11 10 30 57
Total 7 9 18 18 56 108
ITEM 26 Female 4 3 13 9 22 51
85
 Male 3 4 14 8 28 57
Total 7 7 27 17 50 108
ITEM 27 Female 6 1 5 12 27 51
Male 2 4 6 15 30 57
Total 8 5 11 27 57 108
ITEM 28 Female 8 6 9 7 21 51
Male 10 6 8 8 25 57
Total 18 12 17 15 46 108
ITEM 29 Female 1 0 14 11 25 51
Male 0 3 15 13 26 57
Total 1 3 29 24 51 108
ITEM30 Female 5 9 7 9 21 51
Male 1 3 11 10 32 57
Total 6 12 18 19 53 108
Total of Female 29 24 55 56 142 306
Affective Male 18 24 65 64 171 342
strategy Total of Total for 47 48 120 120 313 648
Affective
Strategy
Social ITEM 31 Female 3 1 10 9 28 51
Strategy Male 3 3 9 12 30 57
Total 6 4 19 21 58 108
ITEM 32 Female 2 5 5 8 31 51
Male 3 4 4 13 33 57
Total 5 9 9 21 64 108
ITEM 33 Female 4 1 6 10 30 51
Male 4 3 5 11 34 57
Total 8 4 11 21 64 108
ITEM 34 Female 2 1 4 12 32 51
Male 1 1 5 14 36 57
Total 3 2 9 26 68 108
ITEM 35 Female 1 8 6 9 27 51
Male 1 8 8 11 29 57
Total 2 16 14 20 56 108
ITEM 36 Female 1 4 10 7 29 51
Male 3 3 11 9 31 57
Total 4 7 21 16 60 108
Total of Social Female 13 20 41 55 177 306
strategy Male 15 22 42 70 193 342
Total of Total for 28 42 83 125 370 648
Social S.
Total of Female 110 68 145 147 448 918
Indirect Male 100 106 152 157 511 1026
Strategy Total of Total for 210 174 297 304 959 1944
Indirect S.
Total of Overall Strategies Female 132 101 202 239 1162 1836

Male 148 184 241 251 1228 2052

Total 280 285 443 490 2390 3888

86
 APPENDIX D
Descriptive Statistics
N Minimum Maximum Mean SD
ITEM 1 108 1.00 5.00 4.60 .875
ITEM 2 108 1.00 5.00 4.39 1.049
ITEM 3 108 1.00 5.00 4.14 1.315
ITEM 4 108 1.00 5.00 4.31 1.203
ITEM 5 108 1.00 5.0 4.21 1.208
ITEM 6 108 1.00 5.00 4.57 .834
ITEM 7 108 1.00 5.00 4.02 1.472
ITEM 8 108 1.00 5.00 4.03 1.450
ITEM 9 108 1.00 5.00 4.33 1.246
ITEM 10 108 1.00 5.00 4.52 1.072
ITEM 11 108 1.00 5.00 4.30 1.284
ITEM 12 108 1.00 5.00 4.36 1.180
ITEM 13 108 1.00 5.00 4.62 .851
ITEM 14 108 1.00 5.00 4.53 .901
ITEM 15 108 1.00 5.00 4.64 .779
ITEM 16 108 1.00 5.00 4.74 .715
ITEM 17 108 1.00 5.00 4.61 .874
ITEM 18 108 1.00 5.00 4.84 .457
ITEM 19 108 1.00 5.00 3.43 1.698
ITEM 20 108 1.00 5.00 3.31 1.661
ITEM 21 108 1.00 5.00 3.51 1.632
ITEM 22 108 1.00 5.00 3.47 1.488
ITEM 23 108 1.00 5.00 3.32 1.582
ITEM 24 108 1.00 5.00 3.33 1.641
ITEM 25 108 1.00 5.00 3.99 1.272
ITEM 26 108 1.00 5.00 3.89 1.248
ITEM 27 108 1.00 5.00 4.11 1.218
ITEM 28 108 1.00 5.00 3.55 1.531
ITEM 29 108 1.00 5.00 4.12 .964
ITEM 30 108 1.00 5.00 3.94 1.270
ITEM 31 108 1.00 5.00 4.12 1.166
ITEM 32 108 1.00 5.00 4.20 1.182
ITEM 33 108 1.00 5.00 4.19 1.219
ITEM 34 108 1.00 5.00 4.43 .929
ITEM 35 108 1.00 5.00 4.04 1.191
ITEM 36 108 1.00 5.00 4.12 1.158
Memory 648 1.00 5.00 4.39 1.066
Cognitive 648 1.00 5.00 4.26 1.299
Compensation 648 1.00 5.00 4.66 .781
Meta-cognitive 648 1.00 5.00 3.40 1.614
Affective 648 1.00 5.00 3.93 1.271
Social 648 1.00 5.00 4.18 1.147
Direct 1944 1.00 5.00 4.44 1.082
Indirect 1944 1.00 5.00 3.84 1.397
Overall 3888 1.00 5.00 4.14 1.285
Valid N (List wise) 108

87
87
 APPENDIX E

Statistics of an Independent Samples t-test for Gender and Speaking Strategies

A. Group Statistics
Gender of N Mean Std. Std. Error Mean
respondents Deviation
Female 51 5.00 .000 .000
ITEM 1
Male 57 4.25 1.090 .144
Female 51 3.71 1.205 .169
ITEM 2
Male 57 5.00 .000 .000
Female 51 4.27 .874 .122
ITEM 3
Male 57 4.02 1.609 .213
Female 51 4.78 .415 .058
ITEM 4
Male 57 3.88 1.489 .197
Female 51 5.00 .000 .000
ITEM 5
Male 57 3.51 1.311 .174
Female 51 4.10 1.025 .143
ITEM 6
Male 57 5.00 .000 .000
Female 51 3.63 1.385 .194
ITEM 7
Male 57 4.37 1.472 .195
Female 51 4.61 .695 .097
ITEM 8
Male 57 3.51 1.733 .230
Female 51 4.82 .385 .054
ITEM 9
Male 57 3.89 1.555 .206
Female 51 5.00 .000 .000
ITEM 10
Male 57 4.09 1.340 .177
Female 51 3.51 1.528 .214
ITEM 11
Male 57 5.00 .000 .000
Female 51 4.04 1.148 .161
ITEM 12
Male 57 4.65 1.142 .151
Female 51 4.51 .758 .106
ITEM 13
Male 57 4.72 .921 .122
Female 51 4.78 .415 .058
ITEM 14
Male 57 4.30 1.133 .150
Female 51 5.00 .000 .000
ITEM 15
Male 57 4.32 .967 .128
Female 51 4.45 .966 .135
ITEM 16
Male 57 5.00 .000 .000
Female 51 4.18 1.126 .158
ITEM 17
Male 57 5.00 .000 .000
Female 51 5.00 .000 .000
ITEM 18
Male 57 4.70 .597 .079
Female 51 4.02 1.556 .218
ITEM 19
Male 57 2.89 1.655 .219
Female 51 2.37 1.612 .226
ITEM 20
Male 57 4.16 1.192 .158
Female 51 2.63 1.248 .175
ITEM 21
Male 57 4.30 1.535 .203

88
88
 Female 51 2.51 1.155 .162
ITEM 22
Male 57 4.33 1.200 .159
Female 51 4.18 .994 .139
ITEM 23
Male 57 2.56 1.626 .215
Female 51 3.37 1.708 .239
ITEM 24
Male 57 3.30 1.592 .211
Female 51 3.82 1.596 .224
ITEM 25
Male 57 4.14 .875 .116
Female 51 3.61 .723 .101
ITEM 26
Male 57 4.14 1.540 .204
Female 51 5.00 .000 .000
ITEM 27
Male 57 3.32 1.212 .161
Female 51 4.90 .300 .042
ITEM 28
Male 57 2.33 1.107 .147
Female 51 3.61 1.097 .154
ITEM 29
Male 57 4.58 .498 .066
Female 51 4.27 .750 .105
ITEM 30
Male 57 3.63 1.543 .204
Female 51 4.51 .579 .081
ITEM 31
Male 57 3.77 1.427 .189
Female 51 5.00 .000 .000
ITEM 32
Male 57 3.49 1.255 .166
Female 51 3.73 1.429 .200
ITEM 33
Male 57 4.61 .796 .105
Female 51 4.41 .920 .129
ITEM 34
Male 57 4.44 .945 .125
Female 51 4.49 .612 .086
ITEM 35
Male 57 3.63 1.422 .188
Female 51 4.31 1.140 .160
ITEM 36
Male 57 3.95 1.156 .153

B. Independent Sample Test

Levene's Test for t-test for Equality of Means
Equality of
Variances
F Sig. t df Sig. (2- Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence
tailed) D/ce D/ce Interval of the D/ce
Lower Upper
Equal variances
68.167 .000 4.939 106 .000 .754 .153 .452 1.057
assumed
ITEM 1
Equal variances
5.224 56.000 .000 .754 .144 .465 1.044
not assumed
Equal variances
129.142 .000 -8.113 106 .000 -1.294 .160 -1.610 -.978
assumed
ITEM 2
Equal variances
-7.670 50.000 .000 -1.294 .169 -1.633 -.955
not assumed
Equal variances
29.401 .000 1.014 106 .313 .257 .253 -.245 .759
assumed
ITEM 3
Equal variances
1.046 88.248 .299 .257 .246 -.231 .745
not assumed

89
 Equal variances
271.135 .000 4.205 106 .000 .907 .216 .479 1.335
assumed
ITEM 4
Equal variances
4.412 65.611 .000 .907 .206 .497 1.318
not assumed
Equal variances
156.899 .000 8.119 106 .000 1.491 .184 1.127 1.855
assumed
ITEM 5
Equal variances
8.588 56.000 .000 1.491 .174 1.143 1.839
not assumed
Equal variances
79.884 .000 -6.649 106 .000 -.902 .136 -1.171 -.633
assumed
ITEM 6
Equal variances
-6.285 50.000 .000 -.902 .143 -1.190 -.614
not assumed
Equal variances
2.684 .104 -2.686 106 .008 -.741 .276 -1.288 -.194
assumed
ITEM 7
Equal variances
-2.695 105.717 .008 -.741 .275 -1.286 -.196
not assumed
Equal variances
216.639 .000 4.232 106 .000 1.099 .260 .584 1.614
assumed
ITEM 8
Equal variances
4.408 75.217 .000 1.099 .249 .602 1.596
not assumed
Equal variances
127.393 .000 4.152 106 .000 .929 .224 .485 1.372
assumed
ITEM 9
Equal variances
4.363 63.605 .000 .929 .213 .503 1.354
not assumed
Equal variances
73.452 .000 4.859 106 .000 .912 .188 .540 1.284
assumed
ITEM 10
Equal variances
5.140 56.000 .000 .912 .177 .557 1.268
not assumed
Equal variances
279.354 .000 -7.367 106 .000 -1.490 .202 -1.891 -1.089
assumed
ITEM 11
Equal variances
-6.965 50.000 .000 -1.490 .214 -1.920 -1.060
not assumed
Equal variances
4.936 .028 -2.764 106 .007 -.610 .221 -1.047 -.172
assumed
ITEM 12
Equal variances
-2.763 104.541 .007 -.610 .221 -1.048 -.172
not assumed
Equal variances
1.444 .232 -1.281 106 .203 -.209 .163 -.534 .115
assumed
ITEM 13
Equal variances
-1.295 105.299 .198 -.209 .162 -.530 .111
not assumed
Equal variances
61.405 .000 2.893 106 .005 .486 .168 .153 .819
assumed
ITEM 14
Equal variances
3.019 72.254 .004 .486 .161 .165 .807
not assumed
Equal variances
132.577 .000 5.053 106 .000 .684 .135 .416 .953
assumed
ITEM 15
Equal variances
5.344 56.000 .000 .684 .128 .428 .941
not assumed
Equal variances
126.945 .000 -4.295 106 .000 -.549 .128 -.802 -.296
assumed
ITEM 16
Equal variances
-4.060 50.000 .000 -.549 .135 -.821 -.277
not assumed
Equal variances
ITEM 17 133.996 .000 -5.524 106 .000 -.824 .149 -1.119 -.528
assumed
90
 Equal variances
-5.222 50.000 .000 -.824 .158 -1.140 -.507
not assumed
Equal variances
77.107 .000 3.569 106 .001 .298 .084 .133 .464
assumed
ITEM 18
Equal variances
3.774 56.000 .000 .298 .079 .140 .457
not assumed
Equal variances
2.187 .142 3.628 106 .000 1.125 .310 .510 1.740
assumed
ITEM 19
Equal variances
3.640 105.732 .000 1.125 .309 .512 1.738
not assumed
Equal variances
5.939 .016 -6.589 106 .000 -1.785 .271 -2.323 -1.248
assumed
ITEM 20
Equal variances
-6.481 91.371 .000 -1.785 .275 -2.332 -1.238
not assumed
Equal variances
.282 .596 -6.161 106 .000 -1.671 .271 -2.208 -1.133
assumed
ITEM 21
Equal variances
-6.231 105.083 .000 -1.671 .268 -2.202 -1.139
not assumed
Equal variances
.042 .838 -8.023 106 .000 -1.824 .227 -2.274 -1.373
assumed
ITEM 22
Equal variances
-8.040 105.418 .000 -1.824 .227 -2.273 -1.374
not assumed
Equal variances
26.625 .000 6.139 106 .000 1.615 .263 1.094 2.137
assumed
ITEM 23
Equal variances
6.298 94.161 .000 1.615 .256 1.106 2.124
not assumed
Equal variances
1.224 .271 .234 106 .815 .074 .318 -.555 .704
assumed
ITEM 24
Equal variances
.233 102.588 .816 .074 .319 -.558 .707
not assumed
Equal variances
35.244 .000 -1.297 106 .198 -.317 .244 -.801 .168
assumed
ITEM 25
Equal variances
-1.258 75.618 .212 -.317 .252 -.818 .185
not assumed
Equal variances
28.990 .000 -2.256 106 .026 -.533 .236 -1.001 -.064
assumed
ITEM 26
Equal variances
-2.338 81.459 .022 -.533 .228 -.986 -.079
not assumed
Equal variances
114.762 .000 9.916 106 .000 1.684 .170 1.347 2.021
assumed
ITEM 27
Equal variances
10.488 56.000 .000 1.684 .161 1.363 2.006
not assumed
Equal variances
111.791 .000 16.039 106 .000 2.569 .160 2.251 2.886
assumed
ITEM 28
Equal variances
16.835 65.093 .000 2.569 .153 2.264 2.873
not assumed
Equal variances
62.168 .000 -6.028 106 .000 -.971 .161 -1.291 -.652
assumed
ITEM 29
Equal variances
-5.809 68.085 .000 -.971 .167 -1.305 -.638
not assumed
Equal variances
82.716 .000 2.703 106 .008 .643 .238 .171 1.115
assumed
ITEM 30
Equal variances
2.798 83.034 .006 .643 .230 .186 1.100
not assumed
91
 Equal variances
78.256 .000 3.446 106 .001 .738 .214 .313 1.162
assumed
ITEM 31
Equal variances
3.588 75.617 .001 .738 .206 .328 1.147
not assumed
Equal variances
135.340 .000 8.579 106 .000 1.509 .176 1.160 1.857
assumed
ITEM 32
Equal variances
9.074 56.000 .000 1.509 .166 1.176 1.842
not assumed
Equal variances
14.164 .000 -4.045 106 .000 -.889 .220 -1.324 -.453
assumed
ITEM 33
Equal variances
-3.927 76.366 .000 -.889 .226 -1.339 -.438
not assumed
Equal variances
1.057 .306 -.149 106 .882 -.027 .180 -.384 .330
assumed
ITEM 34
Equal variances
-.149 105.228 .882 -.027 .180 -.383 .329
not assumed
Equal variances
135.093 .000 3.992 106 .000 .859 .215 .432 1.285
assumed
ITEM 35
Equal variances
4.149 77.863 .000 .859 .207 .447 1.271
not assumed
Equal variances
7.047 .009 1.655 106 .101 .366 .221 -.073 .805
assumed
ITEM 36
Equal variances
1.656 104.984 .101 .366 .221 -.072 .805
not assumed

92
 APPENDIX F
A. Group Statistics
Gender of respondents N Mean SD Std. Error Mean
Female 51 1.57 .500 .070
Memory
Male 57 2.96 .186 .025
Female 51 1.12 .325 .046
Cognitive
Male 57 2.05 .225 .030
Female 51 2.49 .612 .086
Compensation
Male 57 3.67 .476 .063
Female 51 1.00 .000 .000
Meta-cognitive
Male 57 1.58 .498 .066
Female 51 1.18 .385 .054
Affective
Male 57 2.32 .469 .062
Female 51 1.45 .503 .070
Social
Male 57 2.67 .476 .063

B. Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test t-test for Equality of Means
for Equality of
Variances
F Sig. t df Sig. (2- Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence
tailed) D/ce D/ce Interval of the
D/ce
Lower Upper
Equal variances
267.939 .000 -19.627 106 .000 -1.396 .071 -1.537 -1.255
assumed
Memory
Equal variances
-18.810 62.239 .000 -1.396 .074 -1.545 -1.248
not assumed
Equal variances
6.183 .014 -17.509 106 .000 -.935 .053 -1.041 -.829
assumed
Cognitive
Equal variances
-17.166 87.684 .000 -.935 .054 -1.043 -.827
not assumed
Equal variances
9.100 .003 -11.212 106 .000 -1.176 .105 -1.384 -.968
assumed
Compensation
Equal variances
-11.058 94.076 .000 -1.176 .106 -1.388 -.965
not assumed
Equal variances
1957.728 .000 -8.296 106 .000 -.579 .070 -.717 -.441
Meta- assumed
cognitive Equal variances
-8.775 56.000 .000 -.579 .066 -.711 -.447
not assumed
Equal variances
11.960 .001 -13.702 106 .000 -1.139 .083 -1.304 -.974
assumed
Affective
Equal variances
-13.852 105.253 .000 -1.139 .082 -1.302 -.976
not assumed
Equal variances
4.807 .031 -12.911 106 .000 -1.216 .094 -1.402 -1.029
assumed
Social
Equal variances
-12.872 103.119 .000 -1.216 .094 -1.403 -1.028
not assumed

93
93
 APPENDIX G

Group Statistics
Gender of N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error
respondents Mean
Female 51 1.57 .500 .070
Memory
Male 57 2.96 .186 .025

Gender of N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error

respondents Mean
Female 51 1.12 .325 .046
Cognitive
Male 57 2.05 .225 .030

Gender of N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error

respondents Mean
Female 51 2.49 .612 .086
Compensation
Male 57 3.67 .476 .063

gender of N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error

respondents Mean
Female 51 1.00 .000 .000
Meta-cognitive
Male 57 1.58 .498 .066

gender of N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error

respondents Mean
Female 51 1.18 .385 .054
Affective
Male 57 2.32 .469 .062

Gender of N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error

respondents Mean
Female 51 1.45 .503 .070
Social
Male 57 2.67 .476 .063

Gender of N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error

respondents Mean
Female 51 1.21 .652 .053
Direct
Male 57 1.67 .476 .063

Gender of N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error

respondents Mean
Female 51 1.03 .471 .037
Indirect
Male 57 1.19 .559 .049

94
94
 APPENDIX H
A. Group Statistics

Gender of N Mean Std. Std. Error

respondents Deviation Mean
Direct Female 51 1.21 .652 .053
Male 57 1.67 .476 .063
Indirect Female 51 1.03 .471 .037
Male 57 1.19 .559 .049

B. Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test t-test for Equality of Means

for Equality of
Variances
F Sig. t df Sig. Mean Std. 95%
(2- D/ce Error Confidence
tailed D/ce Interval of the
) D/ce
Lower Upper
Direct Equal variances 400.444 .000 -10.006 106 .000 -.667 .067 -.799 -.535
assumed
Equal variances -10.583 56.000 .000 -.667 .063 -.793 -.540
not assumed
Indirect Equal variances
assumed 2.699 .002 -.004 106 .03 -.06495 .064 -.852 -.617
Equal variances -.0379 67.000 .0186 .065 .061 -.847 -.622
not assumed

95
95
 APPENDIX I
Learning Strategy Classifications Since 1970s
No. Researcher(s) and Year Language learning Strategies Classification
1. Naiman etal (1978) Active task Approach
Realization of language as system
Realization of language as a means of communication and
interaction
Management of affective demands
Monitoring L2 performance
2. Rubin (1981) Strategies that directly affect Learning
Clarification/ verification
Monitoring
Memorization
Guessing/inductive inferring
Deductive reasoning
Practice
Processes that contribute directly to learning
creating opportunities for practice
production tricks
3. Brown and palinscar (1982),and Cognitive Strategies
O’Malley etal (1985) Meta-cognitive strategies
Social- Affective strategies
4. Oxford( 1990) Direct Strategies
Memory Strategies
Cognitive strategies
Compensation strategies
Indirect Strategies
Meta-cognitive Strategies
Affective Strategies
Social Strategies

96
96
 APPENDIX J

Oxford’s Strategy Inventory for Language Learners

Learning Strategy Inventory for Language Learners
Version 7.0 (ESL/EFL) Author: R. Oxford (1990)
1. Never true of me: also includes ‘almost never true of me’ – it does not
happen very often in your learning behaviour.
2. Usually not true of me: it happens occasionally in your learning behavior.
3. Somewhat true of me: it happens in a fairly regular pattern in your learning
behavior.
4. Usually true of me: it happens regularly and represents an obvious pattern
in your learning behavior.
5. Always true of me: also includes ‘alm ost always true of me’- it happens
a l m os t all the time and represents a strong pattern in your learning
behavior.

No LANGUAGE LEARNING STRATEGIES FREQUENCI

ES
PART A 1 2 3 4 5
1. I think of the relationships between what I already know and
new things I learn in English.
2. I use new English words in a sentence so I can remember
them.
3. I connect the sound of an English word and an image or
picture of the world to help me remember the word.
4. I remember a new English word by making a mental picture
of a situation in which the word might be used.
5. I use rhymes to remember new English words.
6. I use flashcards to remember new English words.
7. I physically act out new English Words.
8. I review English lessons often.
9. I remember the new words or phrases by remembering their
location on the page, on the board, or on a street sign.
PART B
10. I say or write new English words several times.
11. I try to talk like native English speakers.
12. I practice the sounds of English.
13. I use the English word I know in different ways.
14. I start conversations in English.
15. I watch English language TV shows spoken in English or go
to movies spoken in English.
16. I read for pleasure in English.
17. I write note, messages, letters, or reports in English.
18. I first skim an English passage (read over the passage
quickly) then go back and read carefully.
19. I look forwards in my own languages that are similar to new

97
97
 words in English.
20. I try to find patterns in English.
21. I find the meaning of an English word by dividing it into parts
that I understand.
22. I try not to translate word- for- word.
23. I make summaries of information that I hear or read in
English.,
PART C
24. To understand unfamiliar English unfamiliar English words,
I make guesses.
25. When I cannot think of a word during a conversation in
English, I use gesture.
26. I make up new words if I do not know the write ones in
English.
27. I read English without looking up every new word.
28. I try to guess what the other person will say next in English.
29. If I cannot think of an English word, I use a word phrase
that means the same thing.
PART D
30. I try to find as many ways as I can to use my English.
31. I notice my English mistakes and use that information to help
me do better.
32. I pay attention when someone is speaking English.
33. I try to find out how to be a better learner of English.
34. I plan my schedule so I have enough time to study English.
35. I look for people I can talk to in English.
36. I look for opportunities to read as much as possible in
English.
37. I have clear goals for improving my English skills.
38. I think about my progress in English.
PART E
39. I try to relax whenever I feel afraid of using English.
40. I encourage myself to speak English even when I am afraid of
making mistake.
41. I give myself a reward or treat when I do well in English.
42. I notice if I am tense or nervous when I am studying English.
43. I write down my feelings in a language-learning diary.
44. I talk to someone else about how I feel when I am learning
English.
PART F
45. If I do not understand something in English, I ask the other
person to slow down or say it again.
46. I ask English speakers to correct me when I talk.
47. I practice my English with other students.
48. I ask for help from English speakers.
49. I ask questions in English.
50. I try to learn about the culture of English speakers.

98
 APPENDIX K
Specific Speaking Strategies (Oxford 1990) in Sri Wahyuni (2013)
Item Strategy Group Class
1. Placing new words into a context Memory Direct
2. Representing sounds in memory
3. Structured reviewing
4. Repeating Cognitive
5. Formally practising with sounds and writing systems
6. Recognizing and using formulas and patterns
7. Recombining
8. Practising naturalistically
9. Using resources for receiving and sending messages
10. Reasoning deductively
11. Translating
12. Transferring
13. Switching to the mother tongue Compensation
14. Getting help
15. Using mime or gesture
16. Avoiding communication partially or totally
17. Selecting the topic
18. Adjusting or approximating the message
19. Coining words
20 Using a circumlocution or synonym
21. Over viewing and linking with already known material Meta Cognitive Indirect
22. Paying attention
23. Delaying speech production to focus on listening
24. Finding out about speaking skills learning
25. Organizing
26. Setting goals and objectives
27. Identifying the purpose of a speaking task
28. Planning for a speaking task
29. Seeking practice opportunities
30. Self-monitoring
31. Self-evaluating
32. Using progressive relaxation, deep breathing, or meditation Affective
33. Using music
34. Using laughter
35. Making positive statements
36. Taking risks wisely
37. Rewarding yourself
38. Listening to your body
39. Using a checklist
40. Writing a speaking skill learning diary
41. Discussing your feelings with someone else
42. Asking for correction Social
43. Cooperating with peers
44. Cooperating with proficient users of the new language
45. Developing cultural understanding
46 Becoming aware of others’ thoughts and feelings

99