High temperature electrical properties and oxidation resistance of V-Nb-Mo-Ta-W high entropy alloy thin films

BRIEF RESEARCH REPORTS TESOL Quarterly invites readers to submit short reports and updates on their work. These summaries may address any areas of interest to Quarterly readers.

Edited by LAWRENCE JUN ZHANG University of Auckland MARY JANE CURRY University of Rochester

Self-Regulated Learning Strategy Profiles Among English as a Foreign Language Learners XIANGJING CHEN Xi’an Jiaotong University Xi’an, Shaanxi, China

CHUANG WANG University of Macau Taipa, Macau, China

DO-HONG KIM Augusta University Augusta, Georgia, United States

doi: 10.1002/tesq.540

“授人以鱼，不如授之以渔” is a famous Chinese saying that means we can feed a person for a day by giving him/her a fish, but we can feed that person for a lifetime if we teach him/her how to fish. The implication of this Chinese saying in the field of teaching English as second/foreign language is that we’d better teach students how to gain knowledge and help them cultivate self-regulation via equipping them with learning strategies rather than solely passing the knowledge to the students in order for them to improve their English language proficiency. TESOL QUARTERLY Vol. 0, No. 0, 0000 © 2019 TESOL International Association

1

Proficiency in English is of critical importance in many countries, including college admissions, study abroad programs, and finding and keep a job (Wang & Bai, 2017). English language learners in China struggle because there are not enough efficient strategies available to help them learn a foreign language (Guo, Xu, & Liu, 2018; Wang, Hu, Zhang, Chang, & Xu, 2012). Research has shown that English language learners who rely upon more strategies perform better on English language proficiency tests (Green & Oxford, 1995; Lan & Oxford, 2003). Therefore, teachers of English must introduce their students to multiple language-learning strategies in order to facilitate the learning process and improve learning outcomes. Research has also shown that self-regulation plays an important role in the learning process and that the use of self-regulated learning strategies (SRLS) predicts positive academic achievements (e.g., Guo et al., 2018). In addition, previous studies were largely based on survey data with a lack of connection between survey data and performance measures (e.g., Hurd & Xiao, 2010; Oxford, 2017; Oxford & Burry-Stock, 1995). The purpose of this study, therefore, fills this gap by (a) generating profiles of English language learners based on their use of SRLS; and (b) examining differences in performance on English language proficiency tests between the learners profiled. Identifying various types of English language learners based on their use of SRLS is significant in assisting classroom teachers to provide instructional relevant pedagogy to meet the individual needs of the learners.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK Self-regulation involves the reciprocal interplay of environmental, behavioral, and personal processes (Zimmerman & Risemberg, 1997). Zimmerman (2000) classified the self-regulation process into three phases: forethought, performance, and self-reflection. At the forethought phase, a self-regulated learner sets goals and determines the tasks needed to reach those goals by analyzing his/her own competencies and assessing whether each goal is realistic. He/she then figures out the best ways to achieve each goal. During the performance phase, the self-regulated learner takes notes on or keeps records of his/her process, makes changes to the strategies he/she is using, and/or makes adjustments to the originally set goals as needed. At the completion of all tasks, the self-regulated learner reflects fully upon the process and summarizes lessons learned in order to do better in the future. This iterative process of forethought, performance, and self-reflection goes on throughout the learning cycle.

2

TESOL QUARTERLY

LITERATURE REVIEW Researchers in the field of education have paid attention to learners’ use of strategies to learn a second/foreign language for nearly half a century (e.g., Guo et al., 2018; Li & Qin, 2006). As a result, multiple instruments to measure language-learning strategies have been developed (e.g., Tragant, Thompson, & Victori, 2013). The most extensively used one remains the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) developed by Oxford (1990). The strategies measured by SILL are either direct language-learning strategies (i.e., cognitive, memory, and compensatory strategies) or indirect languagelearning strategies (i.e., metacognitive, affective, and social strategies). Not one of these strategies was developed from the self-regulation theory, however, and therefore none reflects the three phrases of self-regulation: forethought, performance, and reflection (Zimmerman, 2000). Not all language learning strategies are self-regulatory, but SRLS are strategies. The self-regulation process consists of cognitive, motivational, and affective components (Paris & Paris, 2001). Although many previous studies have examined self-regulation of English language learners on specific domains such as vocabulary (e.g., Tseng, Dornyei, & Schmitt, 2006) and writing (e.g., Teng & Zhang, 2016), it remains unexplored about how second/foreign language learners employ various SRLS to cope with negative affective arousal (Guo et al., 2018). This study focuses on the strategies used for self-regulation purposes and therefore pays attention to the language learner’s use of SRLS during the learning process. In addition to collecting self-reports of learning strategies by the use of surveys, think-aloud protocols and interviews (both semi-structured and structured) have been used to solicit information on learning strategies from students (e.g., Bai, 2018; Li & Qin, 2006; Pape & Wang, 2003). The advantage of using verbal protocols and interviews is that the strategies reported originally come from the students themselves instead of being suggested by the designers of surveys. However, the coding process of the qualitative data gleaned from verbal protocols and interviews can be time-consuming, and multiple qualitative data analytical procedures, such as thematic analyses and constant comparison method, are necessary. Fourteen categories of SRLS emerged from the analyses of transcriptions of middle school students’ think-aloud protocols (Pape & Wang, 2003). These SRLS include cognitive, metacognitive, affective, compensatory, and memorization behaviors. Other researchers have also identified motivational strategies, such as getting mentally ready for an assignment (Boekaerts & Cascallar, 2006).

SELF-REGULATED LEARNING STRATEGIES PROFILES

3

Four categories of strategies for facilitating the learning process of second-language acquisition have been identified in the literature: (1) self-evaluation, (2) organizing and transforming, (3) seeking information, and (4) seeking social assistance (Ching, 2002). All of these strategies were included in the fourteen categories of the SRLS reported by the middle school students learning mathematics (Pape & Wang, 2003). Thus, not only have SRLS been investigated in the field of English as a second language (Ching, 2002), they have been researched as well in the area of mathematics education (Pape & Wang, 2003). In addition, a positive link between the use of strategies and student language-learning outcomes was identified in previous studies (e.g., Baker & Boonkit, 2004; Green & Oxford, 1995; Lan & Oxford, 2003; Zhang, Gu, & Hu, 2008). Specifically, the strategy of goal setting and planning was used often by higher achievers in language learning scenarios (Chamot & El-Dinary, 1999; de Larios, Manch on, Murphy, & Marın, 2008). Numerous studies have provided evidence of a consistent positive relationship between the use of SRLS and student learning outcomes (e.g., Asmari, 2013; Chen, 2011; Pape & Wang, 2003; Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons, 1990). Strategies used to learn vocabulary, to tolerate ambiguity, and to take risks, as well as the strategy of avoiding the use of one’s native language, have had a direct effect on English-language achievement (Wen & Johnson, 1997). Previous studies on language-learning strategies were largely based on variable-centered approaches, which try to find relationships between independent and dependent variables (e.g., Green & Oxford, 1995; Hsiao & Oxford, 2002; Zhang, 2010). Some of these approaches included measurement errors (e.g., structural equation modeling), while others assumed no measurement errors (e.g., analysis of variance). Variable-centered approaches cannot account for unobserved heterogeneity in the data. For example, a variable-centered approach can examine the relationship between motivation and engagement and conclude that the variation of motivation is associated with that of engagement, but only a person-centered approach can discover if highly motivated students are also those who are highly engaged. Person-centered approaches to data analysis, such as latent class analysis (LCA), capture unobserved heterogeneity (e.g., students with high, medium, and low levels of motivation) within subsets of populations (McCutcheon, 1987). LCA analyzes the structure of the relationships between categorical variables and comes up with a characterization of latent/unobserved groups in the population studied. Latent profile analysis (LPA) is similar to LCA, except that the observed variables are continuous (B. O. Muthen, 2004). To the best of our knowledge, no previous study of English language learners’ SRLS has used a person-centered approach such as LCA or 4

TESOL QUARTERLY

LPA, although various levels and dimensions of SRLS have been identified in the literature (e.g., Li & Qin, 2006; Oxford, 2011). The literature suggests underlying latent dimensions to English language learners’ SRLS and that distinct SRLS profiles would be identifiable. The purpose of this study was to classify English language learners into groups who share similar profiles for their SRLS. The person-centered data analysis approach of LPA was used with undergraduate students in China. The research questions that guided this study are as follows: 1. How should English-language learners be classified by their use of self-regulated learning strategies? 2. Do performance results on English-language proficiency tests differ for English-language learners classified by their use of self-regulated learning strategies?

METHODS Participants This study was based on preliminary findings from a larger project that examined the validity of the instruments developed by Wang and Bai (2017) to measure self-efficacy beliefs and SRLS among English language learners. Convenience sampling was used to recruit participants from the sophomore class of a university in the southeastern region of China. Of the 501 student participants, 82% were male. The average age of the participants was 20.60 years, with the youngest being 17 years old and the oldest being 25. All of the participants were majoring in medicine at the time of the study and all were enrolled in English courses at the university. Participants completed a survey in their classrooms, and their responses were entered into the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) analytical software tool.

Instrument The Questionnaire of English Self-Regulated Learning Strategies (QESRLS) includes 68 items (see the appendix). Each item describes a self-regulated learning strategy in the context of studying English as a foreign language. Students were asked to select the survey response that best reflected the frequency of their use of these strategies: 0 = I never use it, 1 = I seldom use it, 2 = I sometimes use it, and 3 = I often use it. The 11 categories of SRLS measured in QESRLS were modified from the 14 categories originally developed by researchers observing SELF-REGULATED LEARNING STRATEGIES PROFILES

5

middle school students’ problem-solving behaviors through thinkaloud protocols (Pape & Wang, 2003). The 11 categories are (1) selfevaluation, (2) organization and transformation, (3) rehearsal and memorization, (4) seeking social assistance, (5) persistence when faced with challenges, (6) seeking opportunities to practice English, (7) keeping records and monitoring, (8) self-consequences, (9) goal-setting and planning, (10) review of records, and (11) interpretation strategies. Previous studies have reported strong internal consistency for the responses to QESRLS (Wang & Bai, 2017). Comprehensive English proficiency tests were administered to the participants as midterm and final exams, and the English-speaking proficiency test was also administered at the end of the school year as an oral exam. The comprehensive English proficiency tests were combinations of criterion-referenced (according to the content covered in the course) and aptitude tests (general English proficiency). The total score achievable on each test was 100 points: 20 for listening comprehension, 35 for reading comprehension, 30 for vocabulary and grammar, and 15 for writing. The English-speaking proficiency test was administered in four steps: (1) students were assigned to groups of three or four, (2) each group of students were interviewed by two teachers of English, (3) all students participated in a discussion on a topic related to their studies or daily life, and (4) the teachers questioned each student after this discussion. Each teacher graded each student’s oral English proficiency on a developmental scale that ranged from 1 (low) to 4 (high), and the mean score from each teacher was used as the final grade for each student. While topics and guidelines were given to students beforehand, a substantial effort was made to ensure spontaneous, rather than prepared, responses.

Data Analysis Latent profile analysis (LPA) was used with Mplus version 7.0 (L. K. Muth en & Muth en, 1998–2012) to identify the optimal number of latent profiles underlying student responses to the survey (QESRLS). Analysis started with a one-class model and then a two-class model, a three-class model, and a four-class model. The final model was chosen through comparisons of the goodness of fit of the models with a reference to the theoretical framework and previous literature used in this study. To determine the best-fitting and most parsimonious model, a combination of goodness of fit indexes such as Bayesian information criterion (BIC), adjusted BIC (ABIC), and bootstrap likelihood ratio test (BLRT) were used. Relative entropy (probability values) were used to determine the accuracy of classifying individuals into latent groups. 6

TESOL QUARTERLY

Entropy values range from 0 to 1; values close to 1 suggest high certainty in classification (i.e., clear separation of the classes), while values close to 0 suggest low certainty in classification (Asparouhov & Muth en, 2014). One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was employed to examine differences in the profiles as a result of LPA with respect to QESRLS scores and English proficiency test scores.

RESULTS Extraction of Latent Profiles Model fit information is presented in Table 1. All models under examination exhibited entropy values close to 1, indicating a good classification of the participants. Both the BIC and ABIC values suggest that the three-profile and four-profile models were much better than the two-profile model and the BLRT test showed a small p-value (Asparouhov & Muthen, 2012). Although the four-profile model had the lowest BIC and ABIC values and showed a significant BLRT result, two of the four profiles (Profiles 2 and 3) appeared to be redundant. A one-way ANOVA with post-hoc tests showed that the difference between the two profiles in self-regulation total means was minimal and was not statistically significant (p = .09). The two profiles also did not show significant differences in 7 of the 11 self-regulation categories. A joint frequency distribution of the thee-profile and four-profile solutions showed that the majority of cases assigned to Profiles 2 and 3 in the four-profile solution were assigned to Profile 2 in the three-profile solution (73.3% and 93.8%, respectively). Although Ching’s (2002) study noted four categories of strategies for facilitating the learning process of second language acquisition, Guo et al.’s (2018) classification of language-learning strategies falls into three categories: metacognitive, cognitive, and social/affective strategies. Oxford (2011) also identified three language learning strategies: cognitive, memory, and compensatory. This resulted in a decision to go with the three-profile solution, an approach which is consistent with the literature (Guo et al., 2018; Oxford, 2011; Pape & Wang, 2003).

Description of the Three-Profile Model Of the 501 students included in the analysis, 11.6% were classified into Profile 1, 48.3% were classified into Profile 2, and 40.1% were classified into Profile 3. The distributions of the total and subscale scores in QESRLS across the latent profiles are displayed in Table 2. A SELF-REGULATED LEARNING STRATEGIES PROFILES

7

TABLE 1 Model Fit Criteria for One- to Five-Profile Models Model One-profile Two-profile Three-profile Four-profile Five-profile

BIC

ABIC

Entropy

Bootstrap LRT (p)

87858 84218 83377 83097 83662

87427 83568 82507 82008 82355

n/a .93 .93 .93 .93

n/a .00 .00 .00 .00

Note. BIC = Bayesian Information Criterion; ABIC = Adjusted BIC; LRT = likelihood ratio test; LRT = Likelihood Ratio Test; n/a = not applicable

one-way ANOVA was conducted to examine differences in the total QESRLS score among the three profiles. Results showed a statistically significant difference, F (2,498) = 851, p < .001. Post-hoc analysis with Bonferroni adjustment showed that all pairs were significantly different (p < .001). One-way ANOVAs of the subscale scores showed that all pairs were significantly different (p < .001) for all subscale QESRLS scores. Specifically, students in Profile 1 had lower scores in the total and all subscale QESRLS scores in comparison to students in Profiles 2 and 3. Students in Profile 3 had higher total and all subscale QESRLS scores than their counterparts in Profiles 1 and 2. For all three profiles, persistence when faced with challenges was the most-used strategy and seeking opportunities to practice English was the least-used strategy. However, there were noticeable differences in the usage of SRLS among three profiles. For example, self-evaluation was one of the three most-used strategies by students in Profile 3, whereas it was the sixth- and fifth-most-used strategy by those in Profiles 1 and 2, respectively. The next most-used strategy by students in Profile 3 was goal-setting and planning, which was not often used for those in Profiles 1 and 2 (ranked eighth and sixth, respectively). Students in Profile 1 showed quite different patterns of use of the SRLS. For example, self-consequences was the second-most-used strategy by students in Profile 1, but it was ranked fourth and sixth by those in Profiles 2 and 3, respectively. Students in Profile 1 also often used keeping records and monitoring (ranked fourth), but this strategy was less used by those in Profiles 2 and 3 (ranked eight and seventh, respectively). In sum, students in Profile 3 used a wider variety of SRLS, including high-order level, metacognitive, and motivational strategies such as goal-setting and selfevaluation. Students in Profile 2 were somewhat similar to those in Profile 3, but they used SRLS at a relatively low level. Students in Profile 1 tended to use extrinsic regulation (e.g., self-rewards) and behavioral strategies (e.g., keeping records); they were less likely to use high-order level strategies, indicating that remedial instruction in this area could be beneficial to those students. 8

TESOL QUARTERLY

While Pape and Wang (2003) classified SRLS into five categories— cognitive, metacognitive, affective, compensatory, and memorization behaviors—Guo et al. (2018) classified language-learning strategies into three—metacognitive, cognitive, and social/affective strategies. Following Guo et al.’s (2018) classification of language-learning strategies as well as Pape and Wang’s (2003) classification of SRLS, we named students in Profile 3 as metacognitive learners, students in Profile 2 as cognitive learners, and students in Profile 3 as compensatory/memorization learners.

Demographic Characteristics The gender distribution among study participants was similar across the three profiles. There were more males than females across all three profiles: For the compensatory/memorization learners, 27.6% were female and 72.4% were male; for the cognitive learners, 15.7% were female and 84.3% were male; for the metacognitive learners, 18.4% were female and 81.6% were male. The average age was also similar across the compensatory/memorization learners (M = 20.12, SD = 1.24), the cognitive learners (M = 20.13, SD = 1.02), and the metacognitive learners (M = 19.95, SD = 1.08).

TABLE 2 Summary of the SRLS Total, SRLS Subscale, and English Proficiency Test Scores by Profile Profile 1

SRLS total SRLS subscales Self-evaluation Organization and transformation Rehearsal and memorization Seeking social assistance Persistence when faced with challenges Seeking opportunity Keeping records and monitoring Self-consequences Goal setting and planning Review of records Interpretation strategies English Proficiency Tests Midterm Final Oral exam

Profile 2

Profile 3

M

SD

M

SD

M

SD

1.04

0.27

1.64

0.16

2.10

0.17

1.04 0.87 1.02 0.97 1.51 0.62 1.07 1.35 0.97 1.05 1.19

0.58 0.39 0.50 0.49 0.64 0.38 0.62 0.70 0.54 0.67 0.39

1.71 1.50 1.58 1.59 2.08 1.21 1.58 1.73 1.64 1.73 1.89

0.54 0.29 0.36 0.55 0.47 0.44 0.60 0.68 0.48 0.68 0.33

2.27 1.95 1.96 1.98 2.43 1.79 2.05 2.15 2.24 2.18 2.38

0.44 0.27 0.43 0.53 0.40 0.44 0.57 0.60 0.42 0.62 0.29

64.35 62.79 2.09

8.60 14.55 1.08

65.92 66.69 2.43

8.17 12.72 0.95

68.02 67.85 2.55

8.96 12.39 1.00

SELF-REGULATED LEARNING STRATEGIES PROFILES

9

English Proficiency Test Scores Table 2 shows the English proficiency test scores (midterm, final, and oral exams) for the participants in the three profiles. The metacognitive learners (Profile 3) had the highest English proficiency test scores, followed by cognitive learners (Profile 2), and then the compensatory/memorization learners (Profile 1). ANOVA results showed statistically significant differences. For the midterm, F (2, 468) = 5.22, p < .01; for the final, F (2, 491) = 3.41, p < .05; and for the oral, F (2, 470) = 4.57, p < .05). Post-hoc analysis showed that not all pairs were statistically significantly different on all the measures. For the midterm, the metacognitive learners were statistically significantly different from the cognitive and compensatory/memorization learners (p < .05), but the difference between the cognitive and compensatory/ memorization was not statistically significantly different (p > .05). For the final and oral exams, the metacognitive learners were statistically significantly different from the compensatory/memorization learners (p < .05) but not from the cognitive learners (p > .05), and there was no statistically significant difference between the cognitive and compensatory/memorization learners (p > .05).

DISCUSSION Based on the responses to the QESRLS, we were able to categorize students into three profiles: metacognitive learners, cognitive learners, and compensatory/memorization learners. Metacognitive learners (Profile 3) are those students who used not only more varieties of selfregulated learning strategies, but also certain specific strategies, such as goal setting and planning. This finding is consistent with previous studies in that the strategy of goal setting and planning was found to have been used most by higher achievers in language learning (Chamot & El-Dinary, 1999; de Larios et al., 2008). Instructors of English language are encouraged to help students set goals and make plans to achieve the goals. In the process of learning English, students are recommended to use these specific strategies as discussed in this study because higher achievers used these strategies more frequently. This result also highlights the importance of forethought, one of the three phases in the self-regulation process (Zimmerman, 2000). Li and Qin (2006) noted that learning styles significantly influenced a learner’s choice of learning strategies and that higher achievers were more likely to employ strategies that were not their preferred styles. Similarly, findings from the current study suggest that higher achievers 10

TESOL QUARTERLY

are also metacognitive learners (Profile 3) and that they tend to use a wider variety of SRLS. Li and Qin (2006) also found that higher achievers were more aware of their weakness and were motivated to compensate for these gaps with conscious efforts to adapt to various learning demands. Results from this study suggest that higher achievers in language learning use a greater variety of self-regulated learning strategies. These findings are supported by the self-regulated learning theory that guided the current study. Classroom instructors can benefit from this study by encouraging their students to be acquainted with a variety of SRLS and use them frequently. Students may develop their own styles and preferences while using these strategies.

LIMITATIONS AND SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY Although this study is limited in not only the convenience sampling method, which led to an imbalanced sample of male and female students, but also a dependence on the participants’ responses to a survey, it contributes to the field by adding additional evidence of construct validity for QESRLS, other aspects of which have been validated in previous studies (e.g., Wang & Bai, 2017; Wang, Kim, Bong, & Ahn, 2013). Thus, this study completes the series of validation studies of the QESRLS. As discussed by Messick (1995), validity is a single unitary construct that emphasizes the meaning and interpretation of a score. The three profiles of students classified here by their responses to the QESRLS were distinguishable in their performance on English proficiency tests, which suggests that the meaning and interpretation of the QESRLS scores are correct. Recognizing the heterogeneity of English language learners in terms of their use of self-regulated learning strategies has strong implications to the self-regulation theory, as well as to teaching practices generally. Previous studies of language learners focused heavily on language-learning strategies and rarely connected observations to a theoretical framework or assessment of performance (e.g., Hurd & Xiao, 2010; Oxford, 2017; Oxford & Burry-Stock, 1995). This study employed self-regulation theory in the field of second language acquisition and provided evidence to support this theory. As discussed in the literature, previous studies used variable-centered approaches whereas this study used a person-centered approach, which allows researchers to examine the heterogeneity (e.g., metacognitive learners and compensatory/memorization learners) within subsets of populations (McCutcheon, 1987). Variable-centered approaches provide correlation coefficients between strategy use and learning outcomes, but are not as much relevant to pedagogy used in the classroom. Simply SELF-REGULATED LEARNING STRATEGIES PROFILES

11

showing the correlation coefficients in the existing literature is not helpful to teachers in the classroom as teachers still do not know specifically how to improve their pedagogy to increase students’ use of strategies and to improve the students’ performance in academic learning. To be more instruction-relevant, teachers would like to know what specific strategies to teach what specific groups of students. This study demonstrated that the QESRLS measure is useful to classify students into meaningful groups so that teachers can target these particular populations when choosing which pedagogy to teach specific groups of students. Evidence of the construct validity of QESRLS was provided by verifying that most of the students who scored high on QESRLS showed high levels of English proficiency. Although some of our mean comparisons turned out to be statistically nonsignificant, the statistically significant differences found in this study were in the same direction as hypothesized by latent profile analysis. The results were encouraging although not completely distinguished all three profiles with respect to midterm, final, and oral exams. It is a challenge to see the differences of all three measures in a single study; thus further studies are warranted to continue the examination of the differences between these three profiles of English language learners. English language instructors can use QESRLS to identify students who lack awareness of and who do not use SRLS. These instructors can then design differential programs to reflect the best instructional practice for teaching English language learners. As Wenden (1998) and Chamot (2005) argued, students’ metacognition about language learning can help teachers facilitate their students’ language development. Furthermore, students classified as compensatory/memorization learners should be provided tailored metacognitive and cognitive strategies, such as goal setting and planning. Although the literature has established a positive link between English language proficiency and use of SRLS (Baker & Boonkit, 2004; Lan & Oxford, 2003; Zhang et al., 2008), this study provided more detailed information about specific strategies that might be helpful for various groups of learners. Exposing students to, and helping them use, the iterative three phases of self-regulation (forethought, performance, and reflection) in the process of learning English as a second/foreign language greatly enhances the development of self-learning and autonomy (Zimmerman, 2000). THE AUTHORS Xiangjing Chen is a professor of linguistics at the School of Foreign Studies of Xi’an Jiaotong University. Her areas of expertise include English teaching pedagogy and teaching effectiveness. She is currently the Dean of the School of 12

TESOL QUARTERLY

Foreign Studies. She has published 15 journal articles, 20 textbooks and 7 translated books. Chuang Wang is Distinguished Professor of Quantitative Research Methods and Dean of Faculty of Education at the University of Macau. His areas of expertise include educational statistics and English language learners’ self-efficacy beliefs. He has published 7 books, 19 book chapters, and 102 peer-reviewed journal articles. He has served as the editor-in-chief of the New Waves—Educational Research and Development Journal and the editor of the Journal of Applied Educational and Policy Research. Do-Hong Kim is a professor of educational research at Augusta University. Her research interests include the application of psychometric and quantitative methods to issues in educational and psychological assessment. One area of measurement in which she is especially interested is that of assessment of special populations, particularly dual-language learners and children with learning disabilities.

REFERENCES Asmari, A. A. (2013). Investigation of writing strategies, writing apprehension, and writing achievement among Saudi EFL-major students. International Education Studies, 6(11), 130–143. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v6n11p130. Asparouhov, T., & Muthen, B. (2012). Using Mplus TECH11 and TECH14 to test the number of latent classes. Retrieved from https://www.statmodel.com/exam ples/webnotes/webnote14.pdf. Asparouhov, T., & Muthen, B. (2014). Auxiliary variables in mixture modeling: Three-step approaches using Mplus. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 21, 329–341. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2014.915181. Bai, B. (2018). Understanding primary school students’ use of self-regulated writing strategies through think-aloud protocols. System, 78, 15–26. Baker, W., & Boonkit, K. (2004). Learning strategies in reading and writing: EAP contexts. RELC Journal, 35(3), 299–328. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0033688205052143. Boekaerts, M., & Cascallar, E. (2006). How far have we moved toward the integration of theory and practice in self-regulation? Educational Psychology Review, 18, 199–210. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-006-9013-4. Chamot, A. U. (2005). Language learning strategy instruction: Current issues and research. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 25, 112–130. https://doi.org/10. 1017/s0267190505000061. Chamot, A. U., & El-Dinary, P. B. (1999). Children’s learning strategies in language immersion classrooms. Modern Language Journal, 83, 319–338. https:// doi.org/10.1111/0026-7902.00025. Chen, Y. (2011). Study of the writing strategies used by Chinese non-English majors. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 1, 245–251. https://doi.org/10. 4304/tpls.1.3.245-251. Ching, L. C. (2002). Strategy and self-regulations instruction as contributors to improving students’ cognitive model in an ESL program. English for Specific Purposes, 21, 261–289. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0889-4906(01)00008-4. de Larios, R. J., Manch on, R. M., Murphy, L., & Marin, J. (2008). The foreign language writer’s strategic behaviour in the allocation of time to writing processes.

SELF-REGULATED LEARNING STRATEGIES PROFILES

13

Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 30–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw. 2007.08.005. Green, J. M., & Oxford, R. (1995). A closer look at learning strategies, L2 proficiency, and gender. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 261–297. https://doi.org/10.2307/ 3587625. Guo, Y., Xu, J., & Liu, X. (2018). English language learners’ use of self-regulatory strategies for foreign language anxiety in China. System, 76, 49–61. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.system.2018.05.001. Hsiao, T. Y., & Oxford, R. L. (2002). Comparing theories of language learning strategies: A confirmatory factor analysis. Modern Language Journal, 2, 368–383. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-4781.00155. Hurd, S., & Xiao, J. (2010). Anxiety and affective control among distance language learners in China and the UK. RELC Journal, 41, 183–200. https://doi. org/10.1177/0033688210373640. Lan, R., & Oxford, R. (2003). Language learning strategy profile of elementary school students in Taiwan. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 41, 339– 379. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.2003.016. Li, J., & Qin, X. (2006). Language learning styles and learning strategies of tertiary-level learners in China. Regional Language Centre Journal, 37, 67–90. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688206063475. McCutcheon, A. L. (1987). Latent class analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412984713.n2. Messick, S. (1995). Validity of psychological assessment: Validation of inferences from person’s responses and performances as scientific inquiry into score meaning. American Psychologist, 50, 741–749. https://doi.org/10.1037//0003066x.50.9.741. Muth en, B. O. (2004). Latent variable analysis: Growth mixture modeling and related techniques for longitudinal data. In D. Kaplan (Ed.), Handbook of quantitative methodology for the social sciences (pp. 345–368). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412986311.n19. Muth en, L. K., & Muthen, B. O. (1998–2012). Mplus version 7 [Computer software]. Los Angeles, CA: Muthen & Muthen. Oxford, R. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. Boston, MA: Cengage. Oxford, R. (2011). Teaching and researching language learning strategies. New York, NY: Pearson. Oxford, R. L. (2017). Anxious language learners can change their minds: Ideas and strategies from traditional psychology and positive psychology. In C. Gkonou, M. Daubney, & J. Dewaele (Eds.), New insights into language anxiety (pp. 177–197). Bristol, England: Multilingual Matters. Oxford, R. L., & Burry-Stock, J. (1995). Assessing the use of language learning strategies worldwide with the ESL/EFL version of the strategy inventory for language learning (SILL). System, 23, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/0346-251X (94)00047-A. Pape, S., & Wang, C. (2003). Middle school children’s strategic behavior: Classification and relation to academic achievement and mathematical problem-solving. Instructional Science, 31, 419–449. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025710707285. Paris, S., & Paris, A. (2001). Classroom applications of research on self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 36, 89–101. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3602_4. Teng, L. S., & Zhang, L. J. (2016). A questionnaire-based validation of multidimensional models of self-regulated learning strategies. Modern Language Journal, 100, 674–704. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12339.

14

TESOL QUARTERLY

Tragant, E., Thompson, M. S., & Victori, M. (2013). Understanding foreign language learning strategies: A validation study. System, 41, 95–108. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.system.2013.01.007. Tseng, W., Dornyei, Z., & Schmitt, N. (2006). A new approach to assessing strategic learning: The case of self-regulation in vocabulary acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 27, 78–102. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/ami046. Wang, C., & Bai, B. (2017). Validating the instruments to measure ESL/EFL learners’ self-efficacy beliefs and self-regulated learning strategies. TESOL Quarterly, 51, 931–947. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.355. Wang, C., Hu, J., Zhang, G., Chang, Y., & Xu, Y. (2012). Chinese college students’ self-regulated learning strategies and self-efficacy beliefs in learning English as a foreign language. Journal of Research in Education, 22(2), 103–135. Wang, C., Kim, D.-H., Bong, M., & Ahn, H. S. (2013). Examining measurement properties of an English self-efficacy scale for English language learners in Korea. International Journal of Educational Research, 59, 23–34. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.ijer.2013.02.004. Wenden, A. L. (1998). Metacognitive knowledge and language learning. Applied Linguistics, 19, 515–537. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/19.4.515. Wen, Q., & Johnson, R. K. (1997). Second language learner variables and English achievement: A study of tertiary-level English majors in China. Applied Linguistics, 18, 27–48. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/18.1.27. Zhang, L. J. (2010). A dynamic metacognitive systems account of Chinese university students’ knowledge about EFL reading. TESOL Quarterly, 44, 320–353. https://doi.org/10.5054/tq.2010.223352. Zhang, L. J., Gu, P. Y., & Hu, G. (2008). A cognitive perspective on Singaporean primary school pupils’ use of reading strategies in learning to read in English. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 245–271. https://doi.org/10.1348/ 000709907x218179. Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 13–39). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978012109890-2/50031-7. 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. https://doi.org/10.1037/00220663.82.1.51. Zimmerman, B., & Risemberg, R. (1997). Becoming a self-regulated writer: A social cognitive perspective. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 22, 73–101. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1997.0919.

APPENDIX QUESTIONNAIRE OF ENGLISH SELF-REGULATED LEARNING STRATEGIES (QESRLS) Category 1: Self-Evaluation (4 items)

• • •

Check my English homework before turning them in. Proofread my English composition after I complete writing. Adjust my reading speed according to the difficulty of the article.

SELF-REGULATED LEARNING STRATEGIES PROFILES

15

•

When I finish my English composition, I have a rest and then read it again to check whether it should be revised.

Category 2: Organization and Transformation (18 items)

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Write an outline before writing English compositions. Write an outline after reading an English article. Summarize the main idea of each paragraph when reading. Summarize the theme of an English article when I read it. Classify new words in order to memorize them. Use Chinese phrases which are similar to English words in pronunciation to memorize the pronunciation of these words. Make a chart to summarize the grammatical points learned. Recite similar words altogether. Compare the similarities and differences between English and Chinese. Memorize English words of which the pronunciations are similar. Memorize a new word by memorizing where I learned it. Consider how to say something in English in my mind before saying it out loud. When I listen to English, I translate it into Chinese to help me understand it. Translate what I have read in English into Chinese to help me understand it. Think out a composition in Chinese before writing it in English. Underline key points during my English reading. Make sure to write a topic sentence in each paragraph in writing. Make sure that the content of each paragraph supports its topic sentence in English writing.

Category 3: Rehearsal and Memorization (6 items)

• • • • •

Recite English texts in the process of studying English. Review the cards of new words in order to memorize them. Read texts I have learned again and again in order to recite them. Write new words many times in order to memorize the spellings. Read new words repeatedly in order to memorize them.

Category 4: Seeking Social Assistance (3 items)

• 16

Consult teachers when I encounter difficulties in the process of studying English. TESOL QUARTERLY

• •

If I cannot follow someone’s English, I let him/her speak slowly. Ask classmates when I have questions in my English study.

Category 5: Persistence (4 items)

• • • •

Keep reading when I encounter difficulties in English reading. Read an English article several times if I don’t understand it at the first time. Search related documents when I have difficulties in studying English. Listen to audio-recorded English several times if I cannot understand it for the first time.

Category 6: Seeking Opportunities (8 items)

• • • • • • • •

Listen to American or British broadcasts to improve my pronunciation. Use sentence patterns just learned to make new sentences for practice. Send emails to friends in English on my initiative. Try my best to find opportunities to practice my oral English. Watch English TV programs on my initiative. Listen to English radio programs on my initiative. Try to use various English expressions to express the same meaning. Use words just learned to make new sentences on my initiative.

Category 7: Record Keeping and Monitoring (2 items)

• •

Write down the mistakes I often make in the process of studying English. Take notes in English classes.

Category 8: Self-Consequences (2 items)

• •

Reward myself when I make a progress in studying English. Have a break when I am tired during my English study.

Category 9: Goal Setting and Planning (4 items)

• • • •

Set a goal to study English. Make a study plan in the process of studying English When a friend wants to play with me but I have not finished my homework yet, I do not play until I finish my homework. Find a quiet place when the environment is disturbing.

SELF-REGULATED LEARNING STRATEGIES PROFILES

17

Category 10: Review of Records (2 items)

• •

Review English texts I have learned. Review my notes of English class before examinations.

Category 11: Interpretation Guessing (12 items)

• • • • • • • • • • • •

18

Pay attention to what pronouns refer to during reading. Guess the meaning of new words by considering their contexts. Guess what people mean by reading their expressions and movements when watching an English movie. When I listen to English, I pay attention to the stressed words or phrases in order to comprehend the sentence. Use the title of an English article to help understand that article. When somebody speaks English, I guess what he/she will say according to what he/she has said. When I talk with somebody in English, I pay attention to his/ her expressions to check if he/she can follow me. When I read an English article, I imagine the scene described in the article in order to memorize what I have read. Memorize meanings of words by using prefixes and suffixes. Pay attention to English speaker’s tones. Pay attention to the beginning and end of each paragraph in my English reading. Use my background knowledge to comprehend English articles.

TESOL QUARTERLY