Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 29 (2011) 1567 – 1576

International Conference on Education and Educational Psychology (ICEEPSY 2011)

Language Learning Strategies Used by Successful and Unsuccessful

Iranian EFL Students
Mohammad Hossein Geramia*, Shiva Madani Ghareh Baighloub
a
Department of English Literature, Islamic Azad University, Soofian Branch, Soofian, Iran
a
Department of English Literature, Islamic Azad University, Soofian Branch, Soofian, Iran

Abstract

The important part language learning strategies play in second language acquisition(SLA) has been noted by many SLA
researchers and also, many studies have been conducted to explore them (Rubin, 1975 and 1981; Naiman et al, 1978;
O'Malley et al, 1985 and 1990; Ellis, 1985; Oxford, 1990 and Cohen, 2000). Since language is socially mediated and
context dependent, it would be expected that learners' use of language learning strategies may vary with the environment.
This study examines the application of language learning strategies by successful and unsuccessful Iranian EFL students. To
do so, memory, cognitive, compensation, metacognitive, affective and social language learning strategies were investigated.
To collect data, the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL; Oxford, 1990) was administered to successful and
unsuccessful EFL students. They, then, were analyzed using descriptive statistics. The findings of the study indicated that
successful EFL students used a wider range of learning strategies and different from those often preferred by their
unsuccessful peers. The former often used metacognitive strategies while the latter tended to use surface level cognitive
strategies. The results of this study can be beneficial for Iranian language teachers in terms of raising their awareness on
narrowing the gap between the students' language learning strategies and their teaching methodologies preferences.
©©2011 Published
2011 Published by Elsevier
by Elsevier Ltd. Open
Ltd. Selection access
and/or under CC
peer-review BY-NC-ND
under license.
responsibility of Dr. Zafer Bekirogullari of Cognitive – Counselling,
Research &and/or
Selection Conference Services C-crcs.
peer-review under responsibility of Dr Zafer Bekirogullari.
Key Words: Language Learning Strategies (LLS) ; Successful EFL Students ; Unsuccessful EFL Students

1. Introduction

Over the last few decades, a gradual but significant shift of attention has taken place within the field of education,
resulting in less emphasis on teachers and teaching to greater emphasis on learner and learning. At the same time, a
shift of attention has taken place in second language acquisition research from the products of language learning to
the processes through which learning takes place ( Oxford, 1990). Many education studies have investigated learner
characteristics and in an effort to lead learners towards autonomous and independent language learners, research in
second language acquisition has largely focused on learner centered approaches to second language teaching ( Reiss,
1985; Wenden, 1991; Tamada, 1996). As a result of this change in emphasis, language learning strategies have
emerged not only as integral components of various theoretical models of language proficiency ( Ellis, 1985;

* Mohammad Hossein Gerami. Tel.: +989143116498.

E-mail address: mh.gerami242@gmail.com..

1877-0428 © 2011 Published by Elsevier Ltd. Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license.
Selection and/or peer-review under responsibility of Dr Zafer Bekirogullari.
doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.11.399
1568 Mohammad Hossein Gerami and Shiva Madani Ghareh Baighlou / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 29 (2011) 1567 – 1576

Bachman and Palmer, 1996) but also as a means of achieving learners' autonomy in the process of language learning
( Oxford, 1990; Benson and Vollor, 1997).

1.1.Definition of language learning strategies

Many researchers have defined the term language learning strategy. Oxford (1990) defines language learning
strategies as " approaches or techniques that learners use to enhance their progress in developing L2 skills ".
Wenden (1991) defines it as "mental steps or operations that learners use to learn a new language and to regulate
their efforts to do so." Richards and Platt (1992) define it as "…intentional behavior and thoughts used by learners
during learning so as to better help them understand, learn, or remember new information". Cook (2001) defines
learning strategy as "a choice that learner makes while learning or using the second language that affects learning".
Finally, Griffiths (2007) defines language learning strategies as activities consciously chosen by learners for the
purpose of regulating their own language learning. These definitions inform us that learning strategies are essential
in learning a language.

1.2.Classification of language learning strategies

Rubin (1981) identified three kinds of strategies which contribute directly or indirectly to language learning:
learning strategies, communication strategies, and social strategies. O'Malley et al. (1985) divided LLS into three
main categories: metacognitive, cognitive, and socio-affective strategies. In oxford (1990) a distinction is made
between direct and indirect strategies: Direct strategies require mental processing of the target language. There are
three main groups of direct strategies: memory strategies, cognitive strategies and compensation strategies. Each
group processes the language differently and for different purposes. Indirect strategies, on the other hand, support
and manage language learning often without involving the target language directly. There are three groups of
indirect strategies: metacognitive strategies ,affective strategies and social strategies. Oxford's classification has
been selected for this study.

1.3.Studies on Language Learning Strategies

In the last three decades, many researchers have studied language learning strategies and factors related to choice
and use of language learning strategies such as learners' level of language proficiency, motivation, learning style,
cultural backgrounds, gender, nationality and context of language learning (Oxford and Nyikos, 1989; Ehrman and
Oxford, 1989; Ellis,1994; Cohen,1998, Wharton,2000; Griffiths,2003; Rahimi, et al., 2004 Chamot,2005, and
Zhang, 2008). Several studies indicated some of the learning strategy preferences reported by students in different
cultural contexts. In a study among Chinese learners, it was found that students reported a preference for social
strategies as well as a disinclination to use affective strategies (Tamada,1996). Rahimi and Rezaei (2005)
investigated the use of language learning strategies by post-secondary level Persian EFL learners. The results of the
study pointed to proficiency level and motivation as major predictors of the use of language learning strategies. The
difference between learners’ use of the SILL’s six major strategy categories was found to be significant. Some
studies have also been done to explore the language learning strategies used by successful language learners so that
they can be trained to less successful language learners as a part of English teaching syllabuses (Oxford, 1993).
Most researchers have agreed that more proficient learners employ a wider range of strategies more efficiently than
less proficient learners (Green & Oxford, 1995;Lan& Oxford, 2003; Oxford, 1996; Oxford & Ehrman, 1995;
Philips, 1991;Gan and et.al.2004;Takeuchi,2003; and Griffiths, 2008).
Since language is socially mediated and context dependent, it would be expected that learners' use of language
learning strategies may vary with the context. In Iran, for instance, for the past three decades, due to a variety of
social and political reasons, Iranian EFL learners have had little or no contact with native speakers of English. The
use of Internet and other media, such as satellite TV, is neither widespread nor easily accessible to all language
learners. Moreover, language teaching during high school years is mostly grammar–based with no attention paid to
languages (Rahimi and et.al. 2005). Thus, this study intends to investigate the language learning strategies of Iranian
EFL university students by finding out what learning strategies they employ most frequently. It also aims to
compare the differences used in learning students between the successful and the unsuccessful EFL students. The
 Mohammad Hossein Gerami and Shiva Madani Ghareh Baighlou / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 29 (2011) 1567 – 1576 1569

research questions of this study are : (1) What are the most and least used categories of language learning strategies
by Iranian successful and unsuccessful EFL university students? And, (2) Are Iranian successful and unsuccessful
EFL university students high, medium or low 'language learning strategy' users?

2.Method

2.1.Participants

The participants attending this study were 200 male (73) and female (127) EFL learners out of 388 subjects
randomly selected from the students of two universities in Iran, I.A.U - Tabriz Branch and Daneshvarane Tabriz
University, majoring in TEFL and English Translation.

2.2.Instruments

The study used two instruments, the Strategy Inventory of Language Learning (SILL) by Oxford and the English
Test as a Foreign Language (TOEFL).

1. (SILL) Strategy Inventory for Language Learning

The current study used SILL questionnaire (Oxford, 1990, pp. 293-300) to determine the type of language
learning strategies and frequency of strategy use of Iranian EFL students. It is a 50-item Likert-type questionnaire
with five-scale responses regarding the six major strategy groups as distributed in Table 1. According to Oxford
(1990) classification, learners with the mean of 3.5 or more were considered as high strategy users, learners with the
mean of below 2.4 are low strategy users and the mean for medium strategy users is between 2.4 and 3.5.

Table 1: Distribution of strategy items according to the six strategy types.

Strategy Type Items Total

Memory 1-9 9
Cognitive 10-23 14
Compensation 24-29 6
Metacognitive 30-38 9
Affective 39-44 6
Social 45-50 6
50

The items were in the form of statements and the participants graded them from 1 to 5 where:
1 means never true of me.
2 means rarely true of me.
3 means sometimes true of me.
4 means usually true of me.
5 means always true of me.

2. TOEFL ( Test of English as a Foreign Language )

To discriminate successful and unsuccessful students, a TOEFL test was administered. Based on the results of the
test, the students were divided into three groups: high, low and mid levels with the top 27% belonging to successful
group and 27% belonging to unsuccessful group. The present study focused on the first two groups of students.

2.3.Data Collection and Analysis

1570 Mohammad Hossein Gerami and Shiva Madani Ghareh Baighlou / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 29 (2011) 1567 – 1576

The SILL questionnaire was administered to 200 successful and unsuccessful students out of the 388. The
questionnaire administration took 30 minutes. The descriptive statistics was used to investigate the differences
between the successful and unsuccessful students in their use of language learning strategies.

3. Results

Table 1 shows 100 successful EFL students' responses to language learning strategies. They used metacognitive,
compensation, social, memory, cognitive, and affective strategies respectively. The mean of the most frequently
used strategy, metacognitive, is 4.16. And, the mean of the least frequently used strategy, affective, is 2.4. The
successful EFL students reported medium use of strategy categories, as the mean of overall strategy use is 3.29.

Table1: Frequency of Language learning strategies used by successful students.

Strategy Mean SD Rank Strategy use

Metacognitive 4.16 0.60 1 High
Compensation 3.90 0.64 2 High
Social 3.27 0.79 3 Medium
Memory 3.15 0.72 4 Medium
Cognitive 2.83 0.74 5 Medium
Affective 2.47 0.57 6 Medium

Table 2 shows 100 unsuccessful EFL students' responses to language learning strategies.They used cognitive,
compensation, memory, metacognitive, social, and affective strategies respectively. The unsuccessful EFL students
reported low use of strategy categories as, the overall mean is 2.34. The mean of the most frequently used strategy,
cognitive, is 2.82. And, the mean of the least frequently used strategy, affective, is 1.73, lower than all other strategy
groups.

Table 2: Frequency of Language learning strategies used by unsuccessful students.

Strategy Mean SD Rank Strategy use

Cognitive 2.82 0.60 1 Medium
Compensation 2.67 0.64 2 Medium
Memory 2.45 0.79 3 Medium
Metacognitive 2.34 0.72 4 Low
Social 2.05 0.74 5 Low
Affective 1.73 0.57 6 Low

Table 3 shows the descriptive statistics including mean, mode and standard deviation of each item on the
language learning strategy questionnaire. The statistical data of the questionnaire are also illustrated clearly in bar
charts, which supply a direct viewing impression of both successful and unsuccessful subjects' responses to the
range of language learning strategy questionnaire. Figure 1, 2, 3, 4,5 and 6.

Table 3: The descriptive statistics of the language learning strategy questionnaire

Item Strategy Successful Unsuccessful

Me S.D Mo Me S.D Mo
1. I think of relationship between what I already know and new 2.33 1.15 2 2.81 1.12 2
things I learn in English
2. I use new English words in a sentence so I can remember them. 2.90 0.96 3 2.03 1.02 2
 Mohammad Hossein Gerami and Shiva Madani Ghareh Baighlou / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 29 (2011) 1567 – 1576 1571

3. I connect the sound of a new English word and an image or 3.92 1.11 3 2.50 0.96 2
picture of the word to help me remember the word.
4. I remember a new English word by making a mental picture of a 3.31 0.99 3 2.88 1.15 3
situation in which the word might be used.
5. I use rhymes to remember new English words. 3.17 0.91 3 2.76 0.96 2
6. I use flashcards to remember new English words. 3.32 1.16 3 2.44 1.05 2
7. I physically act out new English words. 2.87 0.85 3 2.22 1.14 2
8. I review English lessons often. 3.70 1.05 4 2.10 1.08 2
9. I remember new English words or phrases by remembering their 2.87 1.23 3 2.32 1.15 2
location on the page, on the board, or on a street sign.
10. I say or write new English words several times 2.33 0.95 2 3.81 0.94 3
11. I try to walk like native English speakers. 2.90 0.92 3 2.08 1.03 2
12. I practice the sounds of English. 3.12 1.00 4 2.50 1.03 2
13. I use the English words I know in different ways. 2.31 0.82 2 2.88 1.00 3
14. I start conversations in English. 3.17 0.90 3 2.76 1.04 2
15. I watch English language TV shows spoken in English or go to 3.32 0.87 4 2.44 0.95 2
movies spoken in English
16. I read for pleasure in English. 2.87 1.13 3 2.22 1.19 2
17. I write notes, messages, letters or reports in English. 2.70 1.17 3 2.10 0.98 2
18. I first skim an English passage (read over the passage quickly) 2.87 1.04 4 2.82 0.98 2
then go back and read carefully.
19. I look for words in my own language that are similar to new words 2.80 0.99 3 3.82 0.86 3
in English.
20. I try to find patterns in English. 2.98 1.09 3 3.76 1.06 3
21. I find the meaning of an English word by dividing it into parts that 2.88 0.88 3 2.94 0.96 2
I understand.
22. I try not to translate word-for-word. 3.44 1.09 4 2.25 1.09 2
23. I make summaries of information that I hear or read in English. 2.05 1.05 2 3.10 1.01 3
24. To understand unfamiliar English words, I make guesses. 3.44 0.86 3 2.99 0.06 3
25. When I can't think of a word during a conversation in English, I 3.88 0.88 3 2.95 0.99 3
use gestures.
26. I make up new words if I do not know the right ones in English. 4.33 1.02 4 2.89 0.86 2
27. I read English without looking up every new word. 3.90 0.95 4 2.06 1.05 2
28. I try to guess what the other person will say next in English. 4.44 1.01 3 2.97 0.86 2
29. If I can't think of an English word, I use a word or phrase that 3.45 1.17 3 2.18 1.13 2
means the same thing.
30. I try to find as many ways as I can to use my English. 4.80 1.13 3 2.14 1.03 2
31. I notice my English mistakes and use that information to help me 4.07 0.87 4 2.95 0.66 3
do better.
32. I pay attention when someone is speaking English. 3.54 0.90 4 2.64 1.04 3
33. I try to find out how to be a better learner of English. 3.55 0.82 3 2.50 1.00 1
34. I plan my schedule so I will have enough time to study English. 4.59 0.92 4 2.94 0.88 2
35. I look for people I can talk to in English. 4.97 1.23 3 2.15 1.11 1
36. I look for opportunities to read as much as possible in English. 4.44 1.05 4 2.96 0.96 3
37. I have clear goals for improving my English skills. 3.50 0.91 3 1.90 0.04 1
38. I think about my progress in learning English. 4.01 0.86 3 2.89 1.95 2
39. I try to relax whenever I feel afraid of using English. 2.55 0.88 3 1.08 1.06 1
40. I encourage myself to speak English even when I am afraid of 2.44 1.02 3 1.72 0.97 2
making a mistake.
41. I give myself a reward or treat when I do well I English. 2.98 0.95 3 2.00 1.18 1
1572 Mohammad Hossein Gerami and Shiva Madani Ghareh Baighlou / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 29 (2011) 1567 – 1576

42. I notice if I am tense when I am studying or using English. 2.50 1.01 2 2.09 1.04 2
43. I write down my feelings in a language learning diary. 2.33 1.17 2 1.64 0.95 1
44. I talk to someone else about how I feel when I am learning 2.04 1.13 3 1.85 1.04 2
English.
45. If I do not understand something in English, I ask the other person 3.50 0.86 4 2.04 1.00 2
to slow down or say it again.
46. I ask English speakers to correct me when I talk. 2.05 0.88 3 2.04 0.94 2
47. I practice English with other students. 2.94 0.91 3 2.26 1.15 2
48. I ask for help from English speakers. 2.33 1.16 3 1.86 0.96 2
49. I ask questions in English. 2.77 0.85 3 2.05 1.06 1
50. I try to learn about the culture of English speakers. 3.08 1.05 3 2.08 0.96 2

As it is shown in Fig.1, item 3, I connect the sound of a new English word and an image or picture of the word
to help me remember the word. and item 4, I remember a new English word by making a mental picture of a
situation in which the word might be used are the most preferred memory strategy for successful and unsuccessful
students respectively. Since the mean of memory use for successful students is 3.15 and 2.45 for unsuccessful
students and, the average is 2,8, it shows that both successful and unsuccessful students are medium memory
strategy users.

2 Successful
Unsuccessful
1

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Figure. 1. Graphic Representation of Memory Strategies

The mean of cognitive strategy use for successful and unsuccessful students is almost the same ( 2.83 and 2.82
respectively) and they use cognitive strategies moderately. Of course, according to table 2. cognitive strategy is the
highest ranking category for unsuccessful students. Fig.2 shows that item 3, I connect the sound of a new English
word and an image or picture of the word to help me remember the word. and item 4, I remember a new English
word by making a mental picture of a situation in which the word might be used are the most preferred memory
strategy for successful and unsuccessful students respectively.

4
3.5
3
2.5
2 Successful
1.5 Unsuccessful
1
0.5
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Figure. 2. Graphic Representation of Cognitive Strategies

 Mohammad Hossein Gerami and Shiva Madani Ghareh Baighlou / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 29 (2011) 1567 – 1576 1573

According to Fig.3, item 28, I try to guess what the other person will say next in English and item 24, To
understand unfamiliar English words, I make guesses are the most preferred compensation strategy for successful
and unsuccessful students respectively. Successful students are high strategy users and their unsuccessful peers are
medium compensation strategy users.

3
Successful
2 Unsuccessful
1

0
1 2 3 4 5 6

Figure. 3. Graphic Representation of Compensation Strategies

The answers of the participants for the items dealing with metacognitive strategies show that successful students
apply metacognitive strategies most and are high metacognitive strategy users but unsuccessful students are medium
metacognitive strategy users . As it is shown in Fig.4, item 30, I try to find as many ways as I can to use my English.
and item 31,I notice my English mistakes and use that information to help me do better are the most preferred social
strategy for successful and unsuccessful students respectively.The reason for the more frequent use of this strategy
group by the successful students than by the unsuccessful ones may be interpreted by referring to Cohen (2000) who
claimed that the application of metacognitive strategies requires higher proficiency of the target language.

5
4

3
Successful
2
Unsuccessful
1
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Figure. 4. Graphic Representation of Metacognitive Strategies

Concerning the items measuring the affective strategies, the results suggest that the strategies in item 41, I give
myself a reward or treat when I do well I English and 42, I notice if I am tense or nervous when I am studying or
using English are the most preferred social strategy for successful and unsuccessful students respectively. Successful
students sometimes employed affective strategies (mean: 2.47) while their unsuccessful peers only seldom used
them (mean: 1.73). It was interesting to find that the lowest results for both successful and unsuccessful students
belonged to the use of affective strategies.
1574 Mohammad Hossein Gerami and Shiva Madani Ghareh Baighlou / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 29 (2011) 1567 – 1576

3
2.5
2
1.5 Successful
1 Unsuccessful
0.5
0
1 2 3 4 5 6

Figure. 5.Graphic Representation of Affective Strategies

As far as the use of social strategies is concerned, the questions are designed to measure the ability of using
strategies to learn with others. As it is shown in Fig.6, item 45, If I do not understand something in English, I ask the
other person to slow down or say it again and item 47, I practice English with other students are the most preferred
social strategy for successful and unsuccessful students respectively. Successful students sometimes employed
social strategies (mean: 3.27) while their unsuccessful peers only seldom used them (mean: 2.05). This indicates that
the successful students might be more aware of social strategy use and tend to intentionally seek out opportunities to
interact with other language users in order to enhance their proficiency of the target language than their unsuccessful
peers.

2 Successful
Unsuccessful
1

0
1 2 3 4 5 6

Figure. 6 . Graphic Representation of Social Strategies

4. Conclusions and suggestions

The findings of this study provide a better understanding of strategy use among Iranian successful and
unsuccessful EFL students. Iranian successful EFL university students seemed to be aware of the importance of
learning English and were applying some kind of measures to facilitate their own learning.They reported using a
wider range of learning strategies and different from those often preferred by their unsuccessful peers. The former
often used metacognitive strategies while the latter tended to use surface level cognitive strategies. The successful
students used overall strategies significantly more frequently than the unsuccessful students. The study also found
that the Iranian EFL students used affective strategies least frequently. Therefore, Iranian language teachers should
try to exert an influence over the emotional atmosphere of the classroom.
Moreover, the results of this study suggest a number of useful implications and can be beneficial for Iranian
language teachers in terms of raising their awareness on narrowing the gap between the students' language learning
strategies and their teaching methodologies preferences. First, all EFL students should be informed of available
strategies and the important role of language learning strategies in the learning of English. Second, the focus of
strategy instruction should be on unsuccessful students, giving them more opportunities to practice strategies and
 Mohammad Hossein Gerami and Shiva Madani Ghareh Baighlou / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 29 (2011) 1567 – 1576 1575

encouraging them to regularly evaluate their progress. Third, in view of the lack of communication in English in the
Iranian context, an environment where students can have more opportunities to use English and simultaneously
practice learning strategies should be provided. Fourth, curriculum developers should modify the language
curriculum to include activities that involve the students in the actual use of the target language. Fifth, language
teachers should detect the language learning strategies of their students and help them compensate the missing areas
in their strategy preference and use.

Reference
Bachman, L.F. and A.S. Palmer. (1996). Language testing in practice. New York: Oxford University Press.
Benson, P. and P. Voller (eds.). (1997). Autonomy and independence in language learning. London: Longman.
Chamot, A.U., (2005). Language learning strategy instruction: Current issues and research. Annual Review of
Applied Linguistics.25:112-30.
Cohen, A.D. (1998). Strategies in learning and using a second language. London: Longman.
Cohen, A. D. (2000).Strategies in learning and using a second language. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and
Research Press.
Cook, V. (2001). Second Language Learning and Language Teaching. London: Edward Arnold.
Ehrman, M. and R. Oxford. 1989. Effects of sex differences, career choice, and psychological type on adult
language learning strategies. Modern Language Journal,73, pp. 1–13.
Ellis, R. (1985). Understanding second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.
Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.
Gan, Z., Humphreys, G., & Hamp-Lyons. (2004). Understanding successful and unsuccessful EFL Students in
Chinese universities. The Modern Language Journal, 88:229-44.
Green, J.M., & Oxford, R.L.(1995).A closer look at learning strategies,L2 Proficiency, and gender. TESOL
Quarterly, 29, 261-297.
Griffiths, C. (2003). Patterns of language learning strategies use. System, 31:367-83.
Griffiths, C. (2007). Language learning strategies: Student's and teacher's perceptions. ELT Journal 61(2), 91-99.
Griffiths, C. (2008). Lessons from good language learners. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lan, R. & Oxford, R.L. (2003). Language learning strategy profiles of elementary school learners in Taiwan.
International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 41, 339-379.
Naiman, N., Frohlich, M., Stern, H. H., &Todesco, A. (1978). The good language learner: Research in Education, 7
(pp. 285-288).Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Institute for Studies in Education.
O’Malley, J.M., A.U. Chamot, G. Stewner-Manzanares, R.P. Russo and L. Küpper.(1985). Learning strategy
applications with students of English as a second language. TESOL Quarterly, 19, pp. 557–584.
Oxford, R. (1990). Language learning strategies:What every teacher should know. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Oxford, R. (1993). Language learning strategies in a nutshell: Update and ESL suggestions. TESOL Journal, 2, pp.
18–22.
Oxford, R. (1996)a. Language learning strategies around the world: Crosscultural perspectives. Second Language
Teaching & Curriculum Center, University of Hawaii.
Oxford, R. L. (1996)b. Language learning strategies: what every teacher should know. Cairo, Egypt: Anglo
Egyptian.
Oxford, R. and M. Ehrman (1995). Adults, language learning strategies in an intensive foreign language program in
the United States. System, 23, pp. 359–386.
Oxford, R. and M. Nyikos. (1989). Variables affecting choice of language learning strategies by university students.
Modern Language Journal, 73, pp. 291–300.
Phillips, V. (1991). A look at learner strategy use and ESL proficiency. CATESOL Journal, Nov. 57-67.
Rahimi, M. (2004). An investigation into the factors affecting Iranian EFL students’ perceived use of language
learning strategies. Doctoral dissertation, Shiraz University, Iran.
Reiss, M.A. (1985). The good language learner: Another look. Canadian Modern Language Review, 41, pp. 511–
523.
1576 Mohammad Hossein Gerami and Shiva Madani Ghareh Baighlou / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 29 (2011) 1567 – 1576

Rahimi,M.and Riazi, A. (2005). Iranian EFL learners’ pattern of language learning strategy use. Journal of Asia
TEFL, 2,1, pp. 103–129.
Richards, J., Platt, J. (1992). Longman dictionary of applied linguistics. London: Longman Group Ltd.
Rubin, J. (1975). “What the ‘good language learner’ can teach us.” TESOLQuarterly, 9, 41-51.
Rubin, J. (1987). Learner strategies: Theoretical assumptions, research history and typology. In A.L. Wenden, and J.
Rubin (eds.), Learner strategies in language learning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, pp. 15–30.
Rubin, J. (1981). “Study of cognitive processes in second language learning.” Applied Linguistics, 11, 117-131.
Takeuchi O. (2003). What can we learn from good language learners? A qualitative study in the Japanese foreign
language context. System, 31, 385-392.
Tamada, Y. (1996). The relationship between Japanese learners’ personal factors and their choices of language
learning strategies. Modern Language Journal, 80, pp. 120–131.
Wenden, A.L. (1991). Learner strategies for learner autonomy. New York: Prentice-Hall.
Wharton, G. (2000). Language learning strategy use of bilingual foreign language learners in Singapore. Language
Learning, 50, pp. 203–243.
Zhang, L. J. (2008). Constructivist pedagogy in strategic reading instruction: Exploring pathways to learner
development in the English as a second language (ESL) classrooms. Instructional Science: An International
Journal of the Learning Sciences, 36(2), 89–116.