International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World

(IJLLALW)

Volume 5 (2), February 2014; 253-264 Nosratinia, M., et al

ISSN (online): 2289-2737 & ISSN (print): 2289-3245 www.ijllalw.org

EXPLORING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN EFL

LEARNERS LANGUAGE LEARNING STYLES AND
STRATEGIES
Mania Nosratinia
Assistant Professor, Islamic Azad University, at Central Tehran, Faculty of Foreign Languages,
English Department, Tehran, Iran
Email: mania_nosratinia@yahoo.com
Zahra Mojri
MA in TEFL, Islamic Azad University at Central Tehran, Faculty of Foreign Languages, English
Department, Tehran, Iran
Email: zahramojri@gmail.com
Elnaz Sarabchian
MA in TEFL, Islamic Azad University at Central Tehran, Faculty of Foreign Languages, English
Department, Tehran, Iran.
Email: Elnaz.sarabchian@gmail.com
ABSTRACT
The present study aimed at finding the degree of relationship between Iranian EFL learners'
learning styles and their preferences in using specific language learning strategies. To meet the
above purpose, a total number of 148 male and female students, between 20-25 years old,
studying English Language Teaching and English Language Literature at Islamic Azad
University, Central Tehran, Iran were randomly selected and given Language Learning
Strategies (LLSs) and Learning Style questionnaires. Pearson Product Correlation results
revealed a statistically significant relationship between EFL learners affective strategy with
visual style (r = .85, P < .05) and auditory style (r = .81, P < .05), metacognitive strategy and
visual style (r = .80, P < .05). Implications of the study are presented and discussed.
KEYWORDS: language learning, learning styles, learning strategies, good learners, individual
differences
INTRODUCTION
In the last three decades, an important shift has been taken place in the field of second/foreign
language teaching and learning, and researchers have focused mainly on learners individual
factors. O Malley and Chamot (1990) point out that, Differences between more effective
learners and less effective learners were found in the number and range of strategies used. In
addition, there is a relationship between the frequent use of learning strategies and achievement
in the language (Green & Oxford, 1995; Oxford & Burry-Stock, 1995). According to Oxford
(1990) learning strategies are ...specific actions taken by the learner to make learning easier,
253

International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World

(IJLLALW)

Volume 5 (2), February 2014; 253-264 Nosratinia, M., et al

ISSN (online): 2289-2737 & ISSN (print): 2289-3245 www.ijllalw.org

faster, more enjoyable, more self-directed, more effective, and more transferable to new
situations (p. 8). She emphasized, ...learning strategies are important for language learning
because they are tools for active, self-directed involvement (p. 1). Furthermore, studies have
found that successful language learners are more likely to engage in active language learning and
use more learning strategies than less successful learners (Bialystok, 1981; Chamot & Kpper,
1989; Oxford & Nyikos, 1989; Park, 1997; Peacock & Ho, 2003; Phillips, 1991; Politzer, 1983).
Among influential factors in learning success, lots of researches have focused on learning styles
(e.g., Oxford, 1993; Oxford, Holloway, & Murillo, 1992; Oxford & Anderson, 1995; Reid, 1987,
1995, 1998; Wintergerst, DeCapua, Itzen, 2001, 2003), and possible relationships between
learning styles and strategies (e.g., Carson & Longhini, 2002; Ehrman, Leaver, Oxford, 2003;
Ehrman & Oxford, 1990; Ely & Pease-Alvarez, 1996; Oxford, 1990b, 2001, 2003; Rossi-Le,
1995).
Since contextual factors may affect the use of language learning styles and strategies of EFL
learners, this study was an attempt to investigate the relationship between Iranian EFL learners
language learning strategies and styles.
Language Learning Style
Styles as a general term, can be defined as an individuals natural, habitual, and preferred way
of absorbing, processing, and retaining new information and skills (Kinsella, 1995, p. 171).
Learning styles are generally stable constructs that are developed by students regardless of the
subject being studied or the skill being mastered. There are different ways of categorizing styles.
Christison (2003) distinguishes between cognitive style (field dependent versus field
independent, analytic versus global, reflective versus impulsive); sensory style (visual versus
auditory versus tactile versus kinesthetic) and personality styles (tolerance of ambiguity, right
brain versus left brain dominance).
Willing (1994) identified four major styles: communicative, analytical, authority-oriented and
concrete. These styles were derived from learner strategy preferences, which Willing (1994)
clustered them in the following ways:

Communicative: These learners were defined by the following learning strategies: they
like to learn by watching, listening to native speakers, talking to friends in English,
watching television in English, using English out of class, learning new words by hearing
them, and learning by conversation.
Analytical: These learners like studying grammar, studying English books and
newspapers, studying alone, finding their own mistakes, and working on problems set by
the teacher.
Authority-oriented: The learners prefer the teacher to explain everything, having their
own textbook, writing everything in a notebook, studying grammar, learning by reading,
and learning new words by seeing them.
Concrete: These learners tend to like games, pictures, film, video, using cassettes, talking
in pairs, and practicing English outside class.
254

International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World

(IJLLALW)

Volume 5 (2), February 2014; 253-264 Nosratinia, M., et al

ISSN (online): 2289-2737 & ISSN (print): 2289-3245 www.ijllalw.org

Language Learning Strategies

Learning strategies, according to Chamot (2005), are the specific mental and communicative
procedures that learners employ in order to learn and use language. Weinstein and Mayer (1986)
state that the goal of learning strategies is to affect the learners motivational or affective state,
or the way in which the learner selects, acquires, organizes, or integrates new knowledge (p.
315).
Learning strategies enable students to take more responsibilities of their own language learning
and develop autonomy in their studies. In other words, Learners proactive contribution to
enhancing the effectiveness of their own learning (Drnyei, 2005, p. 166) is essential in
developing skills in learning-how-to-learn. In classifying language strategies, Oxford (1990)
makes a distinction between direct and indirect strategies. Direct strategies are those specific
procedures that learners can use to improve their language skills, and include memorizing,
analyzing, reasoning and guessing intelligently. On the other hand, indirect strategies include
factors such as evaluating ones learning and cooperating with others.
Language Learning Styles and Strategies
Broadly speaking, learning styles can be defined as general approaches to language learning,
while learning strategies are specific ways learners choose to cope with language tasks in
particular contexts (Cohen, 2003; Oxford, 2003).
Highlighting learner factor, a learning-how-to-learn dimension, into language pedagogy has been
argued for in a range of pedagogical contexts and situations. Nunan (1999) for example, argues
that knowledge of strategies is important, because the greater awareness you have of what you
are doing, if you are conscious of the processes underlying the learning that you are involved in,
the learning will be more effective. Research shows that learners who are taught the strategies
underlying their learning are more highly motivated than those who are not. Review of language
learning strategies from 80s can be traced back to a study conducted by Carroll (1981)
investigating inductive learning. In this study, the ability to derive rules from samples of
language was positively correlated with language aptitude. In another study, OMalley, Chamot,
Stewner-Manzanares, Russo, and Kupper (1985) investigated the effect of different types of
strategy training (metacognitive, cognitive, and socioaffective) on different language skills.
Based on the results of this study training had a significant effect on speaking but not on
listening.
A decade later, in an investigation into the effect of providing opportunities for reflection, selfreporting and self-monitoring among university students, Nunan (1995) found that opportunities
to reflect on learning led to greater sensitivity to the learning process over time. Students were
also able to make greater connections between their English classes and content courses
conducted in English. Finally, opportunities to keep guided journals helped learners to develop
skills for articulating what they wanted to learn and how they wanted to learn it.
Li and Qin (2006) looked at the relationship between learning styles and strategies in tertiarylevel English learners in China. Utilizing both qualitative and quantitative data collection
255

International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World

(IJLLALW)

Volume 5 (2), February 2014; 253-264 Nosratinia, M., et al

ISSN (online): 2289-2737 & ISSN (print): 2289-3245 www.ijllalw.org

methods, including questionnaires and interview, the researchers were able to demonstrate that
learning styles have a significant influence on learners learning strategy choices. Styles may thus
have an impact on learning outcomes. Based on the obtained results, the investigators conclude
that learner training and helping learners identify their strengths and weaknesses can have a
positive impact on learning outcomes.
Magogwe and Oliver (2007) examined the different pattern of strategy use by three groups of
students: primary, secondary, and tertiary students in Botswana, South Africa. They reported that
the more proficient learners used language learning strategies more often than did the less
proficient learners. The primary students preferred using social strategies, whereas both
secondary and tertiary students preferred using metacognitive strategies.
However, among those factors, national origin or ethnicity has a strong influence on the strategy
types that language learners used (Oxford, 1989), and the types of strategies used by language
learners depend on the kinds of learners and settings in which the learning occurred (Wharton,
2000). For example, Takeuchi (2003) conducted a study on the use of strategy types in Japanese
contexts through analyzing the strategy use reported in 67 books on "How I have learned a
foreign language". He reported that metacognitive strategies were most preferred strategies
among Japanese.
Xuan (2005) found that the Chinese graduate students of science at Qingdao Technical
University were medium strategy users. They used metacognitive strategies most often and social
strategies least often. Furthermore, Hong-Nam and Leavell (2006) found that 55 ESL students
preferred using metacognitive strategies most, followed by social, compensation, and cognitive
strategies. The least preferred strategies were affective and memory strategies. Unlike those
findings, Peacock and Ho (2003) examined the strategy use of 1006 Hong Kong university
students. They reported that students were medium strategy users with compensation category as
the most frequently used strategies followed by cognitive, metacognitive, social, memory and
affective strategies respectively.
Studies of language learning strategies have shown that their application is related to both
individual differences (Ehrman, Leaver, & Oxford, 2003; Skehan, 1991) and the contexts in
which learners acquire the language (Garcia, 2005; Parks & Raymond, 2005). Oxford (1989)
offers a synthesis of the studies carried out regarding the LLS and the variables that affect
strategy choice. She presents the results of studies carried out with respects to LLS choice and
language being learned, duration, degree of awareness, age, and sex, affective variables such as
attitudes, motivational level, personality characteristics, and general personality type. Learning
styles is another variable but Oxford asserts, little research has been dedicated to the relationship
between learning strategy use and learning style (p. 241). Thus, the present study aimed at
investigating the relationship among Iranian EFL learners language learning strategies and style
preferences.

256

International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World

(IJLLALW)

Volume 5 (2), February 2014; 253-264 Nosratinia, M., et al

ISSN (online): 2289-2737 & ISSN (print): 2289-3245 www.ijllalw.org

RESEARCH QUESTION
Is there any significant relationship between EFL learners language learning styles and
strategies?
MEHODOLOGY
Participants
One hundred forty eight male and female EFL learners, ranging between 19 and 32 years old,
majoring in English Translation and English Literature at Islamic Azad University, Central
Tehran, Iran were randomly selected. The participants were almost evenly split between men
(48.0%) and women (52.0%).
Instruments
In order to carry through the purpose of the study, the following two instruments were utilized:
The Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL)
SILL questionnaire developed by Oxford (1990) covers six categories of strategies for language
learning: Items 1-9 are concerned with the effectiveness of memory (memory strategies); items
10-23 are concerned with the use of mental processes (cognitive strategies); items 24-29 relate to
the compensation for missing knowledge (compensation strategies); items 30-38 deal with the
organization and evaluation of learning (meta-cognitive strategies); items 39-44 are concerned
with emotion management (affective strategies); and items 45-50 deal with learning with others
(social strategies). According to Ehrman and Oxford (1990), SILL has consistently scored above
.90 using Cronbach alpha, which indicates high internal reliability. Also the content validity of
the instrument is very high (As cited in Salehi, 2011).
Perceptual Learning Style Preference
Perceptual Learning Style Preference (PLSP) Questionnaire developed by Reid (1987) was used
to assess students learning styles. It is a self-reporting questionnaire developed on the basis of
existing learning style instruments with some changes suggested by non-native speaker
informants and US consultants in the field of linguistics. The participants responded on the basis
of a five point Likert scale, ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree.
Procedure
A brief session with students studying at Islamic Azad University, central Tehran, Iran was
arranged. Students were informed that their performance on the questionnaires will not affect
their final test results and their scores will be used for the purpose of research. The students were
also assured for the confidentiality of the data gathering procedure. After giving an oral
instruction of how to perform on the questionnaires, participants received a package of research
instruments containing the learning styles and SILL questionnaires along with the written
instructions for each form. Students answered questionnaires in 45 minutes. In exchange for their
participation, individuals were provided the opportunity to receive confidential feedback on their
results on each of the questionnaires. In order to preserve confidentiality of the results,
participants could code their papers with alphabet instead of their names; each questionnaire
257

International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World

(IJLLALW)

Volume 5 (2), February 2014; 253-264 Nosratinia, M., et al

ISSN (online): 2289-2737 & ISSN (print): 2289-3245 www.ijllalw.org

package was labeled with a 4-digit code to prevent misunderstanding of possible similar alphabet
coding. Questionnaires were gathered and data was extracted and inserted into an excel file. The
SPSS (V. 17) was also used for statistical analyses.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Before discussing the results, a review of the descriptive statistics is displayed in Table 1.
Table 1: Descriptive Statistics: Language Learning Strategies and Learning Styles
N
Minimum Maximum Mean
Std. Deviation
Variance
Memory
148
11
32
21.08
4.323
18.687
Cognitive
148
19
52
35.68
5.817
33.837
Compensation
148
8
23
14.84
3.057
9.343
Metacognitive
148
13
36
26.36
5.006
25.063
Affective
148
6
20
12.44
2.795
7.813
Social
148
6
23
14.61
3.487
12.158
Learning Style
148
56
143
112.77
17.861
319.022

Reliability of the Instruments

Considering the fact that reliability of the instruments is a vital prerequisite to the validity of a
study of this nature and its findings, the internal consistency of the three instruments was
estimated at the outset of statistical analyses. The following three tables report the internal
consistency of the utilized instruments.
Table 2: Reliability Index of PLSP
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha
N of Items
PLSP
Group

.92

30

.75

Individual .71

Visual

.32

Auditory

.36

Tactile

.52

kinesthetic .56

258

International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World

(IJLLALW)

Volume 5 (2), February 2014; 253-264 Nosratinia, M., et al

ISSN (online): 2289-2737 & ISSN (print): 2289-3245 www.ijllalw.org
Table 3: Reliability Index of SILL
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha
N of Items
SILL
Memory
Cognitive
Compensation
Metacognitive
Affective
Social

.96
.86
.71
.62
.76
.42
.71

50
9
14
6
9
6
6

The Pearson correlation was run to probe any significant relationships between EFL learners use
of language learning strategies and learning style preferences. Based on the results displayed in
Table 4, it can be concluded that there were significant relationships between the components of
the two questionnaires.
Affective strategy showed a significant correlation with visual style (r = .85, P < .05) and
auditory style (r = .81, P < .05). Also, there was a significant correlation between metacognitive
strategy and visual style (r = .80, P < .05) of EFL learners.
Table 4: Pearson Correlations; Components of Language Learning Strategies and Learning Styles
Memory Cognitive Compensation Metacognitive Affective Social
Pearson Correlation .744**
.649**
.668**
.676**
.691**
.740**
Group
Sig. (2-tailed)
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
N
148
148
148
148
148
148
Pearson Correlation .717**
.713**
.543**
.683**
.664**
.687**
Individual
Sig. (2-tailed)
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
N
148
148
148
148
148
148
Pearson Correlation .684**
.752**
.576**
.807**
.850**
.745**
Visual
Sig. (2-tailed)
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
N
148
148
148
148
148
148
Pearson Correlation .584**
.616**
.560**
.798**
.815**
.755**
Auditory
Sig. (2-tailed)
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
N
148
148
148
148
148
148
Pearson Correlation .538**
.571**
.513**
.775**
.748**
.782**
Tactile
Sig. (2-tailed)
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
N
148
148
148
148
148
148
Pearson Correlation .562**
.627**
.542**
.778**
.753**
.882**
Kinesthetic Sig. (2-tailed)
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
N
148
148
148
148
148
148
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

However, compensation strategy showed a low correlation with tactile style (r = .51, P < .05) and
kinesthetic style (r = .54, P < .05). Furthermore, memory strategy showed low correlation with
tactile style (r = .53, P < .05).

259

International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World

(IJLLALW)

Volume 5 (2), February 2014; 253-264 Nosratinia, M., et al

ISSN (online): 2289-2737 & ISSN (print): 2289-3245 www.ijllalw.org

Discussion
Some literature seems to hold the view that students learning styles are predetermined by their
culture (Wong, 2003). Also, as stated, national origin or ethnicity has a strong influence on the
strategy types that language learners used (Oxford, 1989), and the types of strategies used by
language learners depend on the kinds of learners and settings in which the learning occurred
(Wharton, 2000). Therefore, it is important to consider the role that learning context and cultural
factors might have on students learning style and use of language learning strategies. This study
investigated the relationship among language learning strategies and styles of Iranian EFL
learners. Based on the obtained results, there were significant relationships between the
components of the two questionnaires.
Affective strategy showed a significant correlation with visual style (r = .85, P < .05) and
auditory style (r = .81, P < .05). Also, there was a significant correlation between metacognitive
strategy and visual style (r = .80, P < .05) of EFL learners. However, compensation strategy
showed a low correlation with tactile style (r = .51, P < .05) and kinesthetic style (r = .54, P <
.05). Furthermore, memory strategy showed low correlation with tactile style (r = .53, P < .05).
Affective strategies also had a significant correlation with Iranian EFL students auditory and
visual learning style. Here it is important to look at the specific choices they made of affective
strategies. This might be due to the fact that in Irans learning context teachers provide
appropriate context for students to engage in self-talk about the importance of trying to speak
English in the face of embarrassment or mistakes and more likely to reward themselves when
they did well. Their overall comfort level with mistakes, combined with the hindsight of knowing
that mistakes are a natural part of language learning, may allow learners to have less anxiety and
more control. Zimmerman and Martinez-Pons (1990) found more confident students were more
likely to use more learning strategies which makes a great deal of sense, especially when the use
of the strategy involves displaying their knowledge (or lack of knowledge) to others in a public
context.
Metacognitive strategies positive correlation with visual learning style might reveal the tendency
of Iranian students in higher-order executive skills that involve planning, organizing, monitoring,
and evaluating (OMalley & Chamot, 1990). These strategies are characteristics of strategic
learners and are often the most important difference between novice and expert learners (Paris,
Lipson, & Wixson, 1994). Visual learners have the tendency to make use of metacognitive
strategies such as concept map and mind map when planning and organizing new information.
Denckla (1996) describes this metacognitive self-assessment and self-management as part of an
expert learners executive functioning. of the two elements of executive functioning. Rivers
(1990) regards self-assessment as the more crucial skill in language learning, especially in terms
of a language learners ability to learn autonomously.
The result of the current study are in line with Li and Qin (2006) study that demonstrated
learning styles have a significant influence on learners learning strategy choices. In another
study, Shmais (2003) investigated the strategy use of Arab EFL English majors in Palestine. His
study showed that the participants were moderate strategy users. The most frequent used
260

International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World

(IJLLALW)

Volume 5 (2), February 2014; 253-264 Nosratinia, M., et al

ISSN (online): 2289-2737 & ISSN (print): 2289-3245 www.ijllalw.org

strategies were metacognitive strategies, but the least frequent used strategies were compensation
strategies. Moreover, Riazi and Rahimi (2005) investigated the pattern of language learning
strategy use by Iranian learners. Their findings were similar to Shmais (2003) in that Iranian
learners were moderate strategy users, and they used metacognitive strategies at the highest level.
CONCLUSION
Current study has demonstrated the relationship between Iranian EFL learners use of language
learning strategies and their learning style preferences.
Pedagogically, the findings of the current study suggest that teachers should be aware of learners
learning style to assist students to be good language learners. Language teachers in Iranian
community tend to play the role of transmitters of knowledge of the target language in the
classroom (a teacher-centered teaching approach) instead of being facilitators in language
teaching and learning. Iranian teachers should focus on classroom activities based on the
concepts of communicative teaching and learning (Sato & Kleinsasser, 1999; Savignon, 1991),
and encourage students to use strategies, which aid the development of communicative
competence.
Learners should also be encouraged to develop a greater range of strategies and to activate their
language outside of the classroom. They should, in short, be encouraged to think about the
processes underlying their own learning, and to see that, ultimately, they are responsible for their
own learning (Nunan, 1995). Oxford (1993) notes that once learners are aware of their own
learning styles, it enables them to adapt their learning strategies to suit different learning tasks in
particular contexts. Learners can take advantages of their learning styles by matching learning
strategies with their styles; similarly, learners can compensate for the disadvantages of their
learning styles to balance their learning by adjusting learning strategies.
At the end, following Christison (2003), it is suggested that teachers audit their own classroom
practices to identify the strategies that they themselves favor. Teaching style and learning style
are closely related. In fact, as Christison suggests, they can be seen as two sides of one coin.
Learners are more likely to stretch their own learning style and develop greater flexibility as
learners if teachers stretch their own teaching style and develop greater flexibility as teachers.
Stretching their style and increasing the range of teaching strategies they employ will help
teachers cater to the different learner types that will almost certainly exist in their classrooms.
Since this study was conducted at university level, further research is needed to be carried out in
private language schools or different age ranges in order to compare the results. Furthermore, in
this study age and gender were not considered, therefore, future studies can be carried out
considering age and gender of the participants

261

International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World

(IJLLALW)

Volume 5 (2), February 2014; 253-264 Nosratinia, M., et al

ISSN (online): 2289-2737 & ISSN (print): 2289-3245 www.ijllalw.org

REFERENCE
Oxford, R. L. (2003). Language learning styles and strategies: Concepts and relationships. IRAL
41 (4), 271-278.
Reid, J. M. (1998). Understanding learning styles in the second language classroom. Prentice
Hall Regents, Upper Saddle River, N.J.
Bialystok, E. (1981). The role of conscious strategies in second language proficiency. Modern
Language Journal, 65, 24-35.
Carroll, J. B. (1981). Twenty-five years of research on foreign language aptitude. In K.C. Diller,
Individual Differences and Universals in Language Learning Aptitude (pp. 83-180).
Mass, Newbury House, Rowley.
Carson, J. G., Longhini, A. (2002). Focusing on learning styles and strategies: A diary study in an
immersion setting. Language Learning, 52 (2), 401-438.
Chamot, A. U., & Kpper, K. (1989). Learning strategies in foreign language instruction.
Foreign Language Annals, 22, 13-24.
Chamot, A. U. (2005). Language learning strategy instruction: Current issues and research.
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 25, 112-130.
Christison, M. A. (2003). Learning styles and strategies. In D. Nunan, Practical English
Language Teaching (pp. 267-288). New York, McGraw-Hill.
Denckla, M. (1996). Research on executive function in a neuro developmental context:
Application of clinical measures. Developmental Neuropsychology, 12, 5-15.
Drnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second
language acquisition. N.J., Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah.
Ehrman, M. E., Leaver, B. L., & Oxford, R. L. (2003). A brief overview of individual differences
in second language learning. System 31 (3), 313-330.
Ehrman, M. E., & Oxford, R. L. (1990). Adult language learning styles and strategies in an
intensive training setting. The Modern Language Journal 74 (3), 311-327.
Ely, C., Pease-Alvarez, L. (1996). Learning styles and strategies in ESOL: Introduction to the
special issue. TESOL Journal 6 (1).
Garcia, E. E. (2005). Teaching and learning in two languages: Bilingualism and schooling in the
United States. New York: Teachers College Press.
Green, J. M., & Oxford, R. L. (1995). A closer look at learning strategies, L2 proficiency, and
gender. TESOL Quarterly, 29 (2), 261-297.
Hong-Nam, K., & Leavell, A.G. (2006). Language use of ESL students in an intensive English
learning context. System, 34, 399-419.
Kinsella, K., 1995. Understanding and empowering diverse learners. In: J. M. Reid, (Ed.),
Learning styles in the ESL/EFL classroom (pp. 170-194). Boston, Mass, Heinle.
Li, J., Qin, X. Q. (2006). Language learning styles and strategies of tertiary-level English learners
in China. RELC Journal 37 (1), 67-89.
Nunan, D. (1995). Closing the gap between learning and instruction. TESOL Quarterly 29 (1),
133-158.
Nunan, D. (1999). Second Language Teaching and Learning. Boston, Heinle.
O'Malley, J. M., & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning strategies in second language acquisition.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
OMalley, J. M., Chamot, A.U., Stewner-Manzanares, G., Russo, G., & Kupper, L. (1985).
262

International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World

(IJLLALW)

Volume 5 (2), February 2014; 253-264 Nosratinia, M., et al

ISSN (online): 2289-2737 & ISSN (print): 2289-3245 www.ijllalw.org

Learning strategy applications with students of English as a second language. TESOL

Quarterly 19 (4), 285-296.
Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. Boston:
Heinle & Heinle.
Oxford, R. L. (1989). Use of language learning strategies: A synthesis of studies with
implications for strategy training. System, 17 (2), 235-247.
Oxford, R. L., & Burry, J. L. A. (1995). Assessing the use of language learning strategies
worldwide with the ESL/EFL version of the strategy inventory for language learning
(SILL). System, 23(1), 1-23.
Oxford, R. L., & Nyikos, M. (1989). Variables affecting choice of language learning strategies by
university students. Modern Language Journal, 73, 291-300.
Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies and beyond: A look at strategies in the
context of styles. In S. S. Magnan (Ed.), shifting the instructional focus to the learner (pp.
35-55). Middlebury, VT: Northeast Conference on the Teaching of Foreign Languages.
Oxford, R. L. (1990). Styles, strategies, and aptitude: Important connections for language
learning. In T. S. Parry, & C. W. Stansfield, (Eds.), Language aptitude reconsidered (pp.
67-125). New Jersey, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs.
Oxford, R. L. (1993). Style analysis survey (SAS). University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa.
Oxford, R. L. (2001). Language learning styles and strategies. In M. Celce-Murcia, (Ed.),
Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language (pp. 359-366). Boston, Mass, Heinle
& Heinle.
Oxford, R. L. Anderson, N. (1995). A crosscultural view of learning styles. Language Teaching
28 (4), 201-215.
Oxford, R. L., Holloway, M. E., Murillo, D. (1992). Language learning styles: Research and
practical considerations for teaching in the multicultural tertiary ESL/EFL classroom.
System 20(4), 439-456.
Paris, S., Lipson, M. Y., & Wixson, K. K. (1994). Becoming a strategic reader. In R. B. Rudell,
M. R. Ruddell, & H. Singer (2nd ed.). Theoretical models and processes of reading (pp.
788-810). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Park, G. P. (1997). Language learning strategies and English proficiency in Korean University
students. Foreign Language Annals, 30(2), 211-221.
Parks, S., & Raymond, P. (2005). Strategy use by nonnative-English-speaking students in an
MBA program: Not business as usual! Modern Language Journal, 88(3), 374-389.
Peacock, M., & Ho, B. (2003). Student language learning strategies across eight disciplines.
International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 13(2), 179-200.
Phillips, V. (1991). A look at learner strategy use and ESL proficiency. CATESOL Journal, 4, 5767.
Politzer, R. (1983). An exploratory study of self-reported language learning behaviors and their
relation to achievement. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 6, 54-65.
Reid, J. M. (1995). Learning Styles in the ESL/EFL Classroom. Heinle & Heinle Publishers,
Boston.
Reid, J. M. (1987). The learning style preferences of ESL students. TESOL Quarterly 21 (1), 87111.
Riazi, A., & Rahimi, M. (2005). Iranian EFL learners pattern of language learning strategy use.
263

International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World

(IJLLALW)

Volume 5 (2), February 2014; 253-264 Nosratinia, M., et al

ISSN (online): 2289-2737 & ISSN (print): 2289-3245 www.ijllalw.org

The Journal of ASIA TEFL, 2(1), 103-129.

Rivers, W. P. (2001). Autonomy at all costs: An ethnography of metacognitive self-assessment
and self-management among experienced language learners. The Modern Language
Journal, 85(2), 279-290.
Rossi-Le, L. (1995). Learning styles and strategies in adult immigrant ESL students. In J. Reid,
(Ed.), Learning Styles in the ESL/EFL Classroom (pp. 118-125). Boston, Heinle & Heinle
Publishers.
Shmais, W. A. (2003). Language learning strategy use in Palestine. TESL-EJ, 7(2), 1-17.
Stern, H. H. (1983). Fundamental concepts of language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Skehan, P. (1991). Individual differences in second language learning. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 13, 275-298.
Weinstein, C., & Mayer, R. (1986). The teaching of learning strategies. In M.C. Wittrock, (Ed.),
Handbook of Research on Teaching, (3rd ed.) (pp. 315-327). New York , Macmillan,.
Wharton, G. (2000). Language learning strategy use of bilingual foreign language learners in
Singapore. Language Learning, 50(2), 203-243.
Willing, K., (1994). Learning Strategies in Adult Migrant Education. Sydney National Centre for
English Language Teaching and Research.
Wintergerst, A. C., DeCapua, A., & Itzen, R. C. (2001). The construct validity of one learning
styles instrument. System 29(3), 385-403.
Wintergerst, A. C., DeCapua, A., & Verna, M. A. (2003). Conceptualizing learning style
modalities for ESL/EFL students. System 31 (1), 85-106.
Wong, K. (2003). What does quality higher education mean to Asian international students?
Paper presented at The Annual Postgraduate Research Forum. Adelaide: University of
South Australia.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1990). Student differences in self-regulated learning:
Relating grade, sex, and giftedness to self-efficacy and strategy use. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 82, 51-59.

264