University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Taiwanese students' perceived English oral proficiency in relation to communication strategies

(USC Thesis Other)

Taiwanese students' perceived English oral proficiency in relation to communication strategies

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content TAIWANESE STUDENTS’ PERCEIVED ENGLISH ORAL PROFICIENCY IN
RELATION TO COMMUNICATION STRATEGIES

by

Ting-Yu Cheng

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In partial fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

December 2007

Copyright 2007 Ting-Yu Cheng

Acknowledgements
I express my special thanks to all members of my Dissertation Committee. I
thank Dr. Eugenia Mora-Flores, my Committee Chair for her consistent stimulation
and constructive feedback. I thank her for dedicating her time to review every one of
my dissertation drafts. Every time I was discouraged, she gave me encouraging word,
which poured new energy into my depressed soul. I thank Dr. Gigi Ragusa for her
cogent and helpful advice on all of my statistical analyses. English is my second
language, she showed me what academic English was like whenever I drifted away
from it. Without her support, I would not have been able to complete my dissertation
smoothly. I thank Dr. Michael Genzuk for his valuable critiques, suggestions for
improvement and his support to be one of my committee members at the last minute.
With respect to the data collection process, I would like to express my
appreciation to all students who participated in my survey, who were willing to share
their valuable experience regarding second language learning.
I would also like to offer my great appreciation to my parents and my brother
Shun-Sheng Cheng for being always supportive and encouraging. It gave me strength
to go through the hardest times. I also thank my friends Jerry Hsieh, Mikiya Mori,
Emi Kojima, Lin Lo and An-Chih Cheng (Angel) for being a source of inspiration and
sharing their experiences; it benefited me personally and professionally. A lasting
thank goes to Chia-lin Chang, for constantly convincing me that I was really capable
of accomplishing this dissertation. I have reached the goal of completing this
dissertation only because of the support from all of the above mentioned.

ii
Table of Contents

Acknowledgements ii

List of Tables v

Abstract vii

Chapter 1: Introduction
Theoretical Framework 3
Statement of the Problem 8
Specific Research Questions 9
Methodological Aim 10
Significance of the Study 11
Limitations of the Study 12
Conclusion 13
Definitions of Terms 15

Chapter 2: Literature Review
Introduction 17
Theories on Second Language Acquisition 18
Factors influencing Second Language Acquisition (SLA) 24
a) Importance of L1 Influence on L2 Acquisition 24
b) L2 Oral Proficiency Development 28
c) Cross Language Interference and Age Constraints 31
d) Socio-Cultural impact 37
e) Contextual Impact 42
Language Learning Strategies 47
Definitions 48
Types of learning strategies 50
Language learning Strategies and Spoken Communication Strategies 54
Dornyei and Scott’s Taxonomy 56
Ghaleb’s (2001) Taxonomy 57
The Classification of Communication Strategies 59
Summary 62

Chapter 3: Methodology
Overview of the Study 64
Research Questions 65
Design of the Study 66
Sample 66
Sampling Procedures 67
Research Instruments 68
69
iii
The Survey
The Pilot Study 72
Reliability and Content Validity 73
Limitations of the Design Process 74
Data Collection Procedures 74
Data Analysis 75
Data Analysis for Survey Part I and Part II 76
Data Analysis for Survey Part III 77
Conclusion 78

Chapter 4: Data Analysis
Demographic Features of the Sample 80
Factor Analysis for the Types of strategies Taiwanese students use 84
Figure 1 Scree Plot 85
Meaningful communication approach 88
Word utilizing approach 88
Play it safe approach 89
Summary and Synthesis of Communication Strategies 91
Correlational Analysis for the Self-report Oral Proficiency scores and
the three approaches
94
Oral Proficiency and Communication Strategy 95
Summary for Self-report Oral Proficiency Scores and
Communication Strategy
97
Personal Characteristics and Self-report Oral Proficiency 100
Personal Characteristics and Communication Strategy 102
Summary of Personal Characteristics and Communication Strategy 104

Chapter 5: Discussion
Implications 107
Recommendations for Practice 113
Recommendations for Future Research 116
Conclusion 117

Bibliography 120

Appendices
Appendix A Survey 127
Appendix B Approval of Research Involving Human Subjects 132
Appendix C Recruitment letter to Taiwanese Student Association (TSA) 134
Appendix D Script publicized in TSA newsletter 136
iv
List of Tables
Table 1 Eastern versus Western educational system

44
Table 2 Definition of Language Learning Strategies

48
Table 3 Rubin’s classification

51
Table 4 Oxford’s Diagram of the Strategy system Direct Strategies

52
Table 5 Oxford’s Diagram of the Strategy system Indirect Strategies

53
Table 6 Learning Strategies Taxonomic Classification

57
Table 7 Demographic Features of the Sample

80
Table 8 Distribution of Age of onset of learning English

81
Table 9 Distribution of Years of Studying English

83
Table 10 Distribution of Residence/Stay in the US

84
Table 11 Total Variance Explained by the Rotation of Three Factors
Extracted

87
Table 12 Rotated Factor Matrix for the Strategy Scores Placed in the
Common Space

90
Table 13 Simple PM Correlations between the Oral Proficiency Scores
and Each Strategy Group

94
Table 14 Strategy Items That Shows Positive Proportional Relationship
with Oral Proficiency

96
Table 15 Mean Differences in Oral Proficiency among Categories of
Each Demographic Factor

100

v
Table 16 Mean Differences in Total Strategy Scores among Categories
of Each Demographic Factor
103

vi
Abstract
Taiwanese students studying in the US have to be able to communicate fluently at a
level comparable to students whose first language is English. The ability to
communicate proficiently in English is difficulty for many foreign students from
Asian backgrounds. In an effort to be successful in their studies in the United States,
Asian students must develop communication strategies. Where there are few studies
that focus on the communication strategies of Asian students, even fewer studies exist
that differentiate between Asian cultures. This study sought to understand the
communication strategies that Taiwanese students use when they interact with native
English speakers during formal and informal interaction. This study specifically aims
to determine the means by which Taiwanese students enrolled in the graduate
programs at the University of Southern California communicate orally with English
native speakers. This study measured the students’ use of communication strategies to
enrich their verbal communication skills; it also measured their perceptions of their
oral proficiency and other personal characteristics.
Using a quantitative research design, communication strategies were correlated
to personal characteristics and oral proficiency to determine which communication
strategies were related to oral proficiency and whether personal characteristics of the
participants had any relationship to the use of communication strategies. A factor
analysis of the communication strategies was conducted to determine what form of
communication approach was preferred by the students. The variables were measured
using a Likert-scale questionnaire specifically designed for this study. Oral
proficiency was determined through a self-report scale wherein scores reflected the
oral proficiency level of students. The results indicate that there are three major
communication approaches that Taiwanese students use and prefer: Meaningful
vii
communication approach, Word utilizing approach and Playing it safe approach. The
approaches are composed of different communication strategies which may be
categorized as meaningful communication approach, word utilizing approach and
playing it safe approach, the results also indicate that communication strategies were
related to oral proficiency but was not related to personal characteristics. The most
preferred communication strategy to enhance second language learning is interacting,
and speaking with native English speaking students.
The implications of the findings of this study are important in developing
instructional approaches and methods in the teaching of second language learners.
The researcher recommends instructional approaches where teaching second language
learners to speak English should incorporate a more interactive approach; one where
students have more opportunities to engage in authentic communication with one
another.

viii
CHAPTER 1
Introduction
Learning to speak English fluently has always been a great challenge for Asian
students studying abroad. With an emphasis on oral communication between
professors and students in and outside of the classroom the need to develop English
speaking skills is paramount to their academic success. English is the vehicle through
which ideas and knowledge are exchanged. Asian students studying abroad see
English as a prerequisite to being an engaged and active participant in the learning
process. They understand that this includes the ability to be able to communicate
effectively with others. The lack of effective communication skills in speaking the
English language is seen as a disadvantage. . The goal is to be able to speak English at
a level of proficiency comparable to native English speakers.
The teaching styles of university professors favor whole group discussion in .
However most college students also tend to learn and retain more when a specific
lesson is discussed, dissected or challenged in class (VanDeWeghe, 2005). All of these
activities require that students should be able to competently communicate verbally
with their professors and peers, which means that without the ability to express their
ideas and views about a certain topic orally; they may miss out on important learning
opportunities. Research has shown that language learning strategies and
communication strategies can help learners to overcome difficulties encountered in
oral communication (Bialystock, 1978).
Students who seek to learn a second language are considered to have achieved
fluency when both formal and informal communication can occur within the second
language, as well as, transmission of information via written processes in the second
language. The delivery of successful second language skills to a student is heavily
1
dependent upon multiple factors that influence the overall context in which learning
occurs (Harrington, 2001; Fotos, 2004). Pedagogical theory in second language
acquisition according to Mackey (1999) strongly suggests that a student’s progress in
acquiring a second language is dependent not only upon proficiency in their native
language, prior experience, and the modes through which the second language is
taught, but progress is also dependent upon the situational variables in which written,
spoken, and conversational language experiences are provided (Brown, 2000).
A study on the relationship of speech perception and phonetics of children and
adults in the learning of second language found that factors such as prior exposure to
the language and availability of models of which seem disconnected from the scope of
the issue of second language acquisition as a whole was in fact directly relevant to the
methods through which the student approaches language acquisition (Brown, 2001;
Celce-Murcia, 2001; Fotos, 2004). Language learning strategies, for example, have
been shown to have a significant effect on the reading and language skills of students
while they engage in educational processes. Students attempting to learn a second
language differ dramatically in terms of the degree of immediacy and the extent to
which they acquire information based upon prior exposure to education in general and
strategies used to acquire their first language in particular. It has been found that the
delivery of a second language to the student is most successful when individualized
learning needs are taken into account (O’Malley & Valdez-Piece, 2003). However,
developing a specific, individualized educational plans for each student attempting to
learn a second language is resource-intensive; it is recommended that commonalities
be found within the acquisition of a second language in an attempt to optimize the
situational variables that affect the process of learning a second language (Fotos,
2004).
2
English is an important skill for academic achievement. Nowadays, a population
of 750 million people is using English for communication around the world. English
is regarded as the official language in 37 nations and the first language in more than
100 states (Wang, 2000). Owing to the importance of English world-wide, the
Taiwanese government started to emphasize English learning many years ago.
Students are obligated to take English courses for three years in intermediate school,
three years in high school, and four years in college. According to the Curriculum
Standards in Taiwan, one of the main objectives for students learning English in all
schools is to acquire the ability to communicate. The design of the curriculum puts
an emphasis on the development of communicative abilities. That is, for pupils in
Taiwan the development of their listening and speaking skills is more important than
those of reading and writing (Oladejo, 2003).
English as it is being taught in Taiwan attempts to empower students to be able
to communicate effectively. With the realization that the United States offer advanced
training and education, and the ability of its students to maximize their opportunities
for higher learning is when they are able to participate and have an enriching learning
experience (Chen, 1998). This study is directed towards identifying the
communication patterns of Taiwanese graduate students who have had previous
experience in learning English and to some degree have already mastered it. This
provides the framework for which prior experience and personal characteristics are
assumed to influence the communication patterns of Taiwanese graduate students
which provide a picture of the nature of second language acquisition.

Theoretical framework
Language is the symbol that each culture uses for communication and for the
3
transmission of knowledge, traditions, customs and norms. Moreover, language is also
the most varied and extensive social phenomena that reflects the differences between
each tribe, community, society and culture. Language as a medium of instruction and
learning also reflects the progress of that culture.
Albert Bandura (1986) in his social cognitive theory explains that individuals
learn through an integration of their personal mental states and their social
environment. Bandura (1986) said that self-efficacy is the individual’s perception of
his/her ability to accomplish a given task while modeling behavior facilitates learning.
Bandura further shares learning does not need to be an actual experience, but rather,
observing how other people behave and act would give the learner an idea of what
should be learned. Speaking is an overt behavior and by observing L1 learners speak
and use the language second language learners can learn how to speak the L2 more
fluently. Moreover, Bandura argued that a person's sense of self-efficacy would
influence his/her motivation to learn the language, if the person believes that he/she
can actually master speaking L2, then he/she would consciously try to speak the
language and practice it. But if one's sense of self-efficacy is very low, then he/she
would have little chance of mastering the language and hence would rely more on
shortcuts or just give up on trying to speak the language. Learning a second language
is complex and it is a skill wherein the environment, the exchange of ideas and the
person's sense of self-efficacy all contribute to the process.
According to Vygotsky’s (1986), language is social and the means by which
man becomes in contact with one another. One’s language also represents the cultural
values of the society. With the pressure of globalization and borderless societies, one
has to be able to relate and communicate with a variety of people in a given time. The
English language is dynamic and continues to evolve to accommodate more cultural
4
variations as more and more people are learning the language. How language is
acquired and how acquisition and learning is manifested are areas that need further
study to continue to understand how language is learned and the different aspects of
language from expressions, choice of words, meaning, and thought processes.
An emerging field in the study of language is that of developing a second
language. Second language learning refers to the process and the ability to learn a
foreign language which is different in form from the first language (Gitsaki, 1998).
This study attempts to explore and identify the process by which Taiwanese students
express mastery and competence of the English language through speaking it. Writing
and speaking is an entirely different process involving language, the difference lies in
that speaking is a closed loop wherein the conversation can only occur when there are
two individuals, the communicator and the recipient. Communicating verbally is
therefore a more immediate and spontaneous way of communicating than writing.
Writing is a communication strategy that is governed by grammar and language rules
more than oral communication. Writing in itself is a process that uses symbols to
express one’s ideas and thoughts in the form of letters and words and it is produced
through the use of print media (Isik, 2000). Writing in the second language is often
developed more easily than speaking a second language since writing is passive and
does not require immediate reproduction. Second language learners seem to feel more
competent at writing than in speaking English (Wang & Wen, 2002).
According to Chomsky (1978), language acquisition theories fall within 2
spectrums, he believes that language is an innate ability; it is part and parcel of who
we are as persons. The assumption is that the brain is hard wired to process and
produce language. Thus, whether a child is directly taught to speak or not, he will
develop language on his own. This is the case for the development of the native
5
language. On the other hand, this theory is not always applicable to the learning of a
second language. It is possible that learning a second language that is similar in form
to the native language can be accommodated by previous learning but learning
English when the native language has an entirely different alphabet and form must be
explained from a different theoretical orientation. This study follows the second
spectrum, the language acquisition theory (Freeman & Freeman, 2001), which says
that learning a second language is a series of progressive learning opportunities where
the learner moves from limited knowledge of the new language to a level of
proficiency similar to that of the native speaker.
According to Krashen & Terrell’s second language acquisition theory (1983),
there are 5 stages in acquiring a second language, the silent or receptive stage, the
early production stage, the speech emergence stage, the intermediate language
proficiency stage and the advanced language proficiency stage. Moreover, the theory
on the stages on second language acquisition say that the preproduction stage begins
from 0 to 6 months of instruction, early production extends from 6 months to 1 year;
speech emergence is evident between 1 and 3 years of L2 instruction, while
intermediate fluency is attained within 3 to 5 years and advanced fluency is evident
when the child has received 5 to 7 years of English instruction (Krashen & Terrell,
1983). This study is directed towards Taiwanese graduate students who have already
undergone almost 10 years of English language instruction, thus, it is presumed that
they are now in the advanced language proficiency stage. According to Krashen and
Terrell (1989), the last stage is marked by the attainment of near native fluency in
speaking the second language, thus the target group of this study were second
language learners who are able to use words and grammar comparable to their
same-age native speakers.
6
Consequently, a related theory that guides this research is that of Cummin’s
(1981) basic interpersonal communication skills (BICS) and the cognitive academic
language proficiency (CALP) which he identified as the two dimensions of language
that a second language learner must master. With respect to the phenomena under
study, the interaction referred to is that of informal classroom discussion which is a
mix of interpersonal communication skills and academic language proficiency, this
would mean that the two dimensions of language referred to by Cummin’s is present
in this study and hence can be taken as a single event. He (Cummin, 1981) also
distinguished between context embedded communication and context-reduced
communication. The theory says that second language learner’s communication
patterns are supported by behavioral manifestations such as gestures, pointing,
shrugging, use of hand signals and other mediums like note writing and phone
messages. These factors are also refereed to as communication strategies, which is the
means with which second language learners increase or make their messages more
comprehensible to the receiver.
According to Tarone (1980), communication strategies support the delivery of
the message in a particular context and are therefore immensely helpful to the group
of participants in this study. Communication strategies facilitate the learning and
proficiency of second language learners, although some scholars would say that not
all strategies are helpful. In this study, communication strategies are defined as the
methods in which the second language learner enhances their communication patterns.
This study further identifies most commonly used strategies that can have
implications for second language instruction.
In summary, this study follows the theoretical assumptions of second language
acquisition. It is assumed that Taiwanese students who have had 10 years or so of
7
English language instruction have developed their L2 to an advanced level of
proficiency. Hence, they are able to communicate in English; however, it is a fact that
some Taiwanese students have difficulty in their basic interpersonal communication
skills and their academic communication skills which is evident in class discussions
(Liu, 2004). Communication strategies have provided support for second language
learners and this study is conducted within the context of Taiwanese students’
experiences and communication behaviors in an American university where they are
categorized as second language learner. This study sought to determine what
communication strategies are used to enhance communication patterns of Taiwanese
students and which factors influence their proficiency when speaking English.

Statement of the problem
English education in Taiwan has always been an emphasis. In college, most text
books are in English and students are given ample opportunities to learn English in a
classroom setting. Nevertheless, after receiving ten years of English instruction in
Taiwan, students do not necessarily demonstrate a better oral proficiency when they
study abroad. Most people expect that college students are already fluent in speaking
English after the said mandatory training in English, but this is not always the case
(Holm & Dodd, 1996). Students with ten years of English learning do not necessarily
reach proficient language skill.
Moreover, it is very common for Taiwanese students to apply to graduate
schools in the United States. And Taiwanese students in the United States are required
to have the ability to use English as their second language (L2) in both formal and
informal settings. However, despite the seemingly prevalent development of English
prior to coming to the US and continuing their education in English, there still appears
8
to be a significant gap between the progress that Taiwanese students have made in
speaking English and the actual use of their knowledge of English in terms of
interpersonal communication. Although participation in literacy and in the listening
skill continues to improve, Taiwanese college students frequently fail to achieve a
native level proficiency in oral English communication.
Data on Chinese students and L2 proficiency is frequently acquired and utilized
in improving the conditions for language acquisition for students learning English as a
second language (Liu, 2001). Taiwanese students are often not included within these
or similar research efforts because it is presumed that studies about Chinese students
can be generalized to Taiwanese students because of their Chinese ancestry (Zhang,
2003). Indeed, data from studies and programs that have targeted Chinese students are
often extended to Taiwanese students, a process that suggests that the commonalities
between Taiwanese and Chinese students are close enough to make generalizations.
And very little research can be located that proves that geographic and language
similarities between Taiwanese and Chinese to indicate that pedagogical strategies
will fully take into account differences such as social and cultural norms.
Identification of the language acquisition skills of Taiwanese students will
help in diagnosing difficulties that hinder smooth communication and determine
appropriate pedagogical strategies that will better help Taiwanese students. If the
results indicate changes need to be made concerning the current delivery system of L2
education for the Taiwanese students, the results from the study will help to justify
changes to existing pedagogical methods.

Specific Research Questions
This dissertation intended to identify how the Taiwanese students under
9
study made use of communication strategies and how they perceived their oral
proficiency in L2 speaking as well as identifying student characteristics that would
contribute to the proficiency of L2 speaking. A series of research questions shall direct
this dissertation:
(1) How do Taiwanese students acquiring English as a second language mediate
production difficulties in oral English communication?
Secondary research questions shall likewise be utilized as a means of focusing the
research process:
(2) Is there significant difference between the use of communication strategies of L2
Taiwanese students?
(3) Is there significant relationship between L2 Taiwanese student’s perceptions of
oral proficiency and their choice of what communication strategies to use?
(4) Is there significant relationship between L2 Taiwanese student’s personal
characteristics and perception of their oral proficiency?
(5) Is there significant relationship between L2 Taiwanese student’s personal
characteristics and their choice of what communication strategies to use?
These research questions will help to better clarify the processes through which
Taiwanese students best respond to English communication.

Methodological Aim
This study is designed to explore and determine how communication strategies
are utilized by Taiwanese students in their verbal communication patterns and whether
their level of proficiency is affected by other factors. Thus, this study follows a
deductive design wherein communication is studied as a general phenomenon and
proceeds to examine the specific components of second language learning and
10
communication strategies. The measures used to define and identify communication
proficiency are quantitative using a survey and competency test designed by the
researcher. A quantitative analysis using regression and correlation between
communication strategies and the different factors affecting it was chosen as it would
be able to derive statistical evidence of the phenomena translated into concepts of
meaning, content and influencing factors. This study is aimed at filling a gap between
what has been studied on second language acquisition and putting the study of second
language learning in the context of the Taiwanese culture. The hypotheses to the
research questions are:
1) There is no significant difference in the use of communication strategies of L2
Taiwanese students.
2) There is no significant relationship between L2 Taiwanese student’s perceptions of
oral proficiency and their choice of what communication strategies to use.
3) There is no significant relationship between L2 Taiwanese student’s personal
characteristics and their perception of their oral proficiency.
4) There is no significant relationship between L2 Taiwanese student’s personal
characteristics and their choice of what communication strategies to use.

Significance of the Study
The purpose of the current research effort is to isolate distinctive
characteristics within Taiwanese students who are learning English as a second
language, with the intention of optimizing all situational variables to the extent where
L2 acquisition is facilitated. Doing so will therefore need to take into account
commonalities that are found within the Taiwanese student population, with an
emphasis on prior learning experiences and socio-cultural influences that impact the
11
learning process. If this is successfully achieved, it is theorized that a pedagogical
approach towards delivering English to Taiwanese students can be achieved in a way
that best enhances the likelihood of their achieving fluency.
The results of this study will help teachers and language scholars redirect
existing efforts in L2 education towards strategies that best target the unique needs of
the Taiwanese student population. This is therefore an important research effort not
only from the perspective of the Taiwanese student who would receive the benefits of
more exclusive L2 delivery strategies, but also for educators who need to improve the
quality of their instruction. Finally, this study’s methods can be applied to other
student populations (e.g.: Mexican, Haitian, etc.) as a means of further demonstrating
that distinctive socio-cultural groups acquire information through different expressive
processes.
Limitations of the Study
The limitations of the current research study are few. First, the research
design will likely involve a quantitative assessment of the perspectives of Taiwanese
students who have acquired English as a second language. It is assumed that the
Taiwanese students will in fact share commonalities that have impacted their learning
experiences. This is an assumption based upon existing information that has
demonstrated that such commonalities are indeed found within a given population.
However, it is not specifically recognized at the current time as to which
socio-cultural attributes have had the greatest impact upon these learning processes. It
is assumed that these attributes will manifest during the course of the data collection
process; it is not known whether most or all of the major attributes will be made
known, and this counts as a significant limitation.
Second, the presentation of the data is assumed to be relevant to the majority of
12
students who share similar traits to the target sample population. This may not be the
case; the fact that the students share the same nation of origin does not mean that they
share the same educational or socio-cultural background. It is possible that different
responses from multiple students may be an honest perspective on the part of the
subjects but may skew the researcher’s ability to formulate a specified pedagogical
methodology that targets all Taiwanese students. And finally, since the survey is
completed in English, this means that a subject can respond to the scale only if he/she
can read English. Conceptually speaking, oral proficiency and literacy should be
separate because there may be people who cannot read but speak well. However, this
drawback will not have huge effect on the study as the sample population has been
admitted to University of Southern California with a score of 550 (the total maximum
score is 677) in the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL).

Conclusion
Fluency in the English language is highly correlated with academic achievement
and assists students to have better job opportunities in a foreign environment (Bayliss
& Raymond, 2004). While most research studies have focused on the communicative
competence of primary and secondary students, little has been explored on how
Taiwanese college students select and implement communicative strategies in
authentic situations (King, 2000). Therefore, research is necessary within the
Taiwanese student population who continue to acquire English as a second language
in a college study abroad context. The purpose of this study aims to explore how
Taiwanese students made use of communication strategies and how they perceived
their oral proficiency in L2 speaking as well as identifying student characteristics that
would contribute to their proficiency of speaking L2.
13
This section explored and discussed the theoretical background of second
language acquisition and the context within which this study is conducted. In addition,
the purpose, aim, research questions and theoretical discussion of the study is found in
Chapter 1. Chapter 2 provides a discussion of the related literature on second
language learning and communication strategies, Chapter 3 presents the methodology
of the study and a brief description of the methodological controls of the study;
Chapter 4 contains the results and discussion of the study while Chapter 5 is where
the summary, conclusions and recommendations are found.

14

Definitions of Terms

Acculturation: The term is defined as “the process of becoming adapted to a new
culture” (cited by Ellis, 1985, p251) meaning language learning takes place in society
and becoming part of the target culture.
Acquisition vs. Learning: Acquisition refers to picking up a second language through
exposure whereas Learning refers to the conscious study of the language.
Target Language: A new language that is targeted or focus for second language
learning. Hence it is called target language. (Kreshen, 1981)
Age of Arrival (AOA): The age of arrival variable refers to the age at which an
immigrant arrive a new country and begins serious exposure of L2 (Johnson &
Newport, 1989).
Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills (BICS): Cummin (1981) uses the term
to refer to the kind of L2 proficiency that learners need in face-to-face interaction. It
involves the use of language in communicative tasks that are context-embedded and
relatively undemanding.
Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency (CALP): Cummin (1981) uses the term
to refer to the kind of L2 proficiency required to engage in academic study. It involves
the ability to produce messages which are cognitively demanding and conte-reduced.
First Language (L1): A language of first immersion and of primary use is usually
called L1 (Ellis, 1994).
Interlanguage: A term referring to the developing competence of a second language
learner, from an initial stage of limited knowledge to a final stage of almost complete
fluency. The learner creates an interlanguage using different learning strategies such
as language transfer, and simplification. (Selinker, 1972)
15
Language Learning Strategy: Any strategies that language learners use when they
try to learn a target language (Oxford, 1990).
Oral Proficiency: A system that enables a speaker to express himself/herself
effectively during oral conversation with his or her interlocutors of a target language.
Oral Communication: The use of spoken language, and the process of exchanging
information by mouth.
Pedagogical Approach: Refers to the framework and principles in teaching that
teachers support and adopt. The approach would then differ from each teacher as a
teacher has/her own set of philosophical beliefs that might contradict with others,
however the aim beneath each approach is to train students to develop skills needed
for higher education as such, verbal English is more difficult to practice when they
become old and uncooperative.
Phonological Awareness: The ability to identify that language is composed of sounds
and the understanding of the relationship of words in sentences, syllables, and
rhyming (Gottardo, 2001)
Second Language Acquisition: The subconscious or conscious processes by which a
language other than the mother tongue is learned in a natural or tutored setting. It
covers the development of phonology, lexis, grammar, morphology, and
programmatic knowledge (Ellis, 1994).
Second Language (L2): Any non-primary language for a speaker is usually called a
second language (Ellis, 1994). A non native speaker who speaks a second language
lives in a country where the second language is the primary means of communication.
The Critical Period: A hypothesis proposed by many researchers that there is a
critical time for successful second language learning. And that the acquisition device
atrophies with age (Lenneberg, 1967).
16
CHAPTER 2

Introduction
Second language (L2) speakers face many challenges incommunicating
through the second language, but one of the most difficult of these is to engage in
conventional oral, direct interaction with native speakers (Celce-Murcia, 2001). In a
face-to-face conversation, it is easier to identify problems in language competence
(e.g., pronunciation, vocabulary, etc.) than through other forms of
communication..These challenges make interaction with native speakers difficult but
a necessity for language development.
The ultimate goal for language learners is to successfully facilitate spoken
conversations between a second language speaker and a native speaker. There are,
however, multiple challenges that make it difficult to determine which methods will
best achieve this goal. Practice speaking, or exercises which emulate spoken
conversations, are frequently identified as an appropriate means of helping the L2
speaker acquire an understanding of what patterns and processes are best used in
native communication processes. Moreover, traits inherent within a given language
make it exceedingly difficult to merely transfer the existing approach used by a L2
speaker from his first language into the second language. Fluency in a primary
language is not necessarily a predicator of fluency in a second language;
communication processes can be effected significantly through the activities and
expectations associated within the speaker’s native language or the assumptions
inherent with the second language.
The patterns found within a given language are highly subjective and this
further impedes appropriate mastery of spoken communication. Some students with
native fluency may potentially master a second language more quickly and easily than
17
their peers, however, the effective use of learning strategies may help students even if
they are not fluent in their native language and achieve the ultimate goal of effective
conversational skills.
To better understand the myriad factors that are entailed in English
communication, this chapter will cover three main sections. The first section reviews
literature concerned with theories on second language acquisition. The second section
discusses various factors that influence second language acquisition: a) the
importance of L1 influence b) L2 oral development c) cross language interference and
age constraint d) types of difficulty Chinese students perceives in terms of
socio-cultural and e) contextual impact on second language learning. The last section
of this chapter categorizes different types of communication strategies students’ use
when using a second language for communication purposes.

Literature Review
Theories on Second Language Acquisition
Second language acquisition has always been a popular topic as bilingualism
becomes essential these days. Research in second language acquisition theory has
long been investigated in different fields such as linguistics, psychology, sociology
and neurolinguistics (Freeman & Freeman, 2001).Understanding key concepts of
second language acquisition helps teachers improve their classroom application in
serving linguistically diverse students (Fillmore & Snow, 2002).
Noam Chomsky (1972), the father of the nativist theory of modern linguistics
proposes what he calls a ‘language acquisition device’ (LAD) which refers to the
innate linguistic function that human beings are born with allowing language to be
developed in the same fashion as other biological functions. For the LAD to work, the
child needs to come into contact with the language. When the child is exposed to the
18
language, the experience acts as a trigger to activate the LAD. Acquiring a new
language is as easy as setting the parameters and deducting the grammatical principals
of the new language. Chomsky (1972) postulated that language is something that we
are born with and that the first language that the child is exposed to will be the
acquired language.
According to Krashen’s (1981) Acquisition-Learning theory, ‘acquired’ and
‘learned’ language are different. Acquiring a language is a subconscious process that
requires meaningful interaction in the target language whereas learning a language
involves a conscious process which results in conscious knowledge about the
language. Krashen also discusses the Comprehensible Input Hypothesis stating that
for acquisition to take place, the language input has to be “a little beyond” learner’s
current stage of competence (Krashen, 1981. p.103). That is, teachers need to have a
constant familiarity with student’s language development in order to provide level
appropriate input. Teachers can also provide comprehensible input by providing new
information that scaffolds on students’ prior knowledge (Sowers, 2000).The concept
was expanded upon by other researchers in several studies. According to Swain, not
only giving students the comprehensible input is important, but ample opportunities to
practice the new language in their competent level is equally crucial in second
language learning (Pica et al., 1989, 1996; Swain & Lapkin, 1995). Vygotsky (1986)
proposed a similar concept in his theory of learning called the Zone of Proximal
Development (ZPD) which refers to the distance between what the learner can do to
solve a problem independently and the need for an adult to support and guide the
student to accomplish a given task (Galloway, 2001). Scaffolding according to
Vygotsky is most effective when the teacher is able to identify the ZPD that the
learner is in and to provide the activities that give the learner the opportunity to
19
accomplish tasks on their own. In second language learning, students would benefit
from being able to practice the second language with the support of the teacher. The
teacher must know where a student is in their L2 development in order to provide the
proper language just above that the child can do on his own to have learning take
place. This is connected to both Vygotsky and Krashen’s emphasis on the role of
support providers and the level of comprehending language.
Krashen’s Affective Filter Hypothesis states that when the anxiety level of a L2
learner is raised “a mental block, caused by affective factors ... prevents input from
reaching the language acquisition device” (Krashen, 1985, p.100). Since interaction is
essential in learning and practicing a new language, it may cause anxiety. When
learner anxiety is high, it prevents the linguistic input from processing through the
learning device whereas when learner anxiety is low, it helps acquisition take place by
assisting learners in processing input through the LAD (Krashen, 1985). The
importance of emotion in language learning was first introduced by Dulay and Burt
(1977) in what they called the socio-affective filters which hinder the acquisition of
language. Krashen and Terell (1983) further expanded on the affective filter stating
that when negative emotions are high or there are negative attitudes towards the
second language, this blocks the language input. Students experiencing high level of
anxiety will subconsciously block language from being learned. On the other hand,
Gass and Selinker (2001) have added that second language learners may impose their
personal attitudes toward the second language into learning the second language.
When the attitudes are positive, the learner is most likely able to learn the language.
The affective Filter is further supported by other researchers asserting emotional state
impedes language learning (Dulay& Burt, 1977; Gass & Selinker, 1994; Krashen &
Terrell, 1983). While Krashen (1985) supports the notion of one-way comprehensible
20
input, where the learner received the language instruction, several interactionist argue
that two way communication wherein the learner both receives and is actively
processing language instruction.
Long and Robinson (as cited in Blake, 2000) suggests that through interaction
and negotiation, learners increase comprehensible input more easily. Some propose
that under certain conditions, conversational interaction assists second language
acquisition (Long 1996; Pica, 1994). Pica (1994) defines negotiation as “modification
and restructuring that occurs when learners and their interlocutors anticipate, perceive,
or experience difficulties in message comprehensibility” (p.495). Florez (1999)
further asserts that interaction helps second language acquisition through the process
of constructing, producing, receiving and processing information (p. 1). Lightbrown
and Spada (1999) build their definition of interaction from Vygotsky’s social
constructivist theory suggesting “when learners are given the opportunity to engage in
meaningful activities they are compelled to ‘negotiate for meaning’ that is, to express
and clarify their intentions, thoughts, opinions, etc., in a way which permits them to
arrive at a mutual understanding.“(p. 122). These researchers state that second
language proficiency is advanced when the learner has the opportunity to engage with
advanced speakers of the language. Those who support the interaction aspect of
language learning believe that two way communication offers the best platform in
which second language fluency is achieved. However this position only states that the
learner should be engaged in the learning and the practice of the new language, but it
does not prescribe the key factors that would lead to optimal learning and hence
mastery of the language. Moreover, a number of arguments against the myopic view
of interactionists to second language acquisition have been expressed succinctly by
other researchers.
21
Although interactionists focus on input, mere exposure to L2 is may not be
sufficient for language learning and fluency improvement. Many researchers also
consider language output as equally important as it enhances L2 learning and learner’s
interlanguage through oral interaction and negotiation of meaning (Ellis, 1985; Long,
1996; Pica, 1994; Swain, 1995). Learning a language is comprised of four
components: listening, speaking, reading and writing. In terms of their direction and
modality, listening and reading skills are defined as receptive, a channel to receive
information; whereas, speaking and writing are productive, generated by the learners.
Modality refers to the medium of the message which includes oral or written language
(Savignon, 1991). Oral skill requires learners to continuously produce verbal output to
pass on meaning, thus it is considered a productive skill. During this time, Swain
(1995) proposes a contradictory perspective such as the Comprehensible Output
Theory stating that output is critical in rendering input comprehensible (p.126). Swain
(2000) proposes that encouraging the learner to use the target language “pushes
learners to process language more deeply, with more mental effort than does input” (p.
99). In the process of producing output, learners can cognitively notice what they do
not know about a structure in L2 and consequently produce correct L2 representations.
Through this interaction process, learners encounter gaps, develop linguistic (and
metalinguistic) knowledge and co-construct the target language (Swain, 2000). In
addition, Florez (1999) describes the process of language acquisition through
constructing meaning, producing, receiving and processing information and
22
constructing meaning (Florez, 1999, p. 1). Swain (2000) stressed the processing of
information and meaning present in the act of L2 speaking. Thus, after receiving the
message, face to face interaction necessitates that the second language learner respond
to the other person in the same language, it is within this event that the knowledge of
the second language is tested and any mistakes can be adequately corrected since it
occurs in the here and now. Speaking is a productive process since the individual has
to produce comprehensible output in which certain rules and cultural inflections are
prevalent. Florez (1999) believed that the ability to speak in an L2 is an integration of
various processes that rests on the ability to process meaning and react using learned
language patterns and rules. Both Swain and Florez saw language acquisition through
processes and it gives a general idea on the importance that practice speaking
contributes to the process of L2 acquisition.
With the popularity of bilingualism, second language acquisition theories have
flourished to offer a way in which a second language can be acquired and learned.
From the nativist perspective of Chomsky to the process theory of Swain, it is evident
that language acquisition is measured by the fluency of the learner to communicate or
converse using the new language. Chomsky said that language development is innate,
thus a child does not need to be taught the language, one just has to present it and the
child will respond. Krashen was focused on the individual mental and affective
processes involved in learning a new language and differentiated it from language
acquisition which led us to the concept of interaction as the medium with which
speaking a new language is facilitated. In addition to the interactionists, came the
process theories that stressed the different modalities and processes involved in
language acquisition, again, speaking was the vehicle thorough which the learner is
confronted by his/her ability to comprehend and express ideas and thoughts using the
23
L2. The aforementioned theories serve as the theories in which this study is grounded.
Ultimately, the most observable and direct reflection of the mastery of a new language
is the proficiency in which the language can be expressed and spoken.

Factors influencing Second Language Acquisition (SLA)
Learning a second language does not occur in a vacuum, as with any other form
of learning, it is bound to be influenced and affected by factors such as previous
experiences and learning, as well as affective and cognitive expectations about the
language and the inherent differences in the language forms. In a review of literature
and studies, the following factors have been identified as variables that affect second
language acquisition.

a) Importance of L1 Influence on L2 Acquisition
Studies have shown a strong positive correlation between literacy in a native
language and learning English. The development of a children’s native language
proficiency is a strong predictor of their English language development (Clay, 1993;
Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998). Researchers (1998) have found that learning to speak
English should come prior to reading English (Hiebert, Pearson, Taylor, Richardson,
and Paris, 1998). Research has proven that oral language skills help promote
phonological awareness which is the ability to recognize sounds that make up spoken
language, this implied that when a learner is able to speak the second language, it
increases their knowledge of the different sounds associated with the new language
hence promoting better language acquisition. Data indicates that the development of
oral language skills help promote phonological awareness. Comprehension and the
ability to synthesize the sounds of the spoken language is called phonemic awareness,
24
this provides the key to the mastery and advancement of the learner in second
language learning, on the other hand, sound recognition in terms of speaking the
language is the basic step in which language learning is founded. Comprehension of
the phonics of a language provides a foundation for basic language comprehension by
through providing easily identifiable communication cues within auditory acquisition
of words, much as the patterns of alphabetical figures help to provide visual cues for
the acquisition of words. Research in English-language acquisition indicates that
effective oral language development can be best achieved through a foundation in
phonological awareness (Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998). Although these studies found
evidence that learning how to speak a second language before being able to read it is
advantageous, subsequent researchers have found evidence contrary to this claim. The
concept of transfer of literacy is the process by which the learner’s previous
knowledge and experience influences or affects the new knowledge. According to
Bernhardt and Kamil (1995), the cognitive skills that the student has learned and
mastered in L1 directly affect the learning of L2, such that reading and writing would
facilitate better reading and writing in L2. On the other hand, any difficulties
encountered in L2 are caused by a general language problem manifested in L1.
Current mainstreamed pedagogical approaches suggest that immersion and
submersion approaches of English-language acquisition without providing adequate
preparation is counterproductive. Gottardo (2002) reports a likely connection between
acquisition of the L1 and L2 languages, especially among younger students. This
supports the earlier findings that preparation for language through acquiring a set of
skills (e.g., phonological awareness) may precede any efforts to acquire a second
language outright. Gottardo (2002) also supports the point that English learners
acquire a second language more easily and more completely when the student has
25
phonological awareness of English first. This indicates that there may in fact be a
transfer of language acquisition skills from the first language to the second, which
will help facilitate L2 acquisition.
This does not imply that a student cannot attempt to learn a second language
while also learning their first language. In a research effort designed to test
phonological awareness and language acquisition, Gottardo (2002) surveyed 92
Spanish-speaking first graders and attempted to find correlations between
performance in Spanish (L1) and English (L2). Gottardo (2002) found that the
strongest predictors of success for English-word acquisition were found in the
phonological awareness of the students. Moreover, this seemed exclusive of language,
as the skills that were demonstrated in phonological awareness were manifest in both
the L1 and L2 language sets. The researcher concluded that it was highly probable
that phonics acquisition in one language facilitated phonics acquisition in another and
that phonics acquisition skills could be developed and continuously refined almost
regardless of the language in question.
Transfer of phonics acquisition as a predictor of language acquisition, however,
may have its disadvantages. Much as in the discussion of expectations that are
inherent in the L1 conversational processes, there are assumptions inherent in the L1
phonics processes that can be mistakenly transferred to the L2 language acquisition
approach. This is referred to as a negative transfer and it can interfere with the
appropriate acquisition and mastery of the second language (Bialystok, 2002).
Languages that bear multiple similarities in terms of phonologies make it easier for a
student to acquire and transfer appropriate information between these two languages,
a trait that is especially important for younger children learning a second language as
such commonalities increase the probability of improved positive transfer. For
26
example, the similarity between the Spanish and English autographic system make it
easier to master simultaneously for a younger student than languages with very
different orthographies, such as Cantonese and English (Gottardo, Yan, Siegel, &
Wade-Woolley, 2001).
Cummins (1981) also proposed that there were possible challenges found within
the two types of languages experienced by a younger student during the acquisition
phase of language research. Basic interpersonal communications skills (BICS) and
cognitive academic language proficiency (CALP) are used in different settings, and
Cummins (1981) suggested that as such the mastery of these two different forms of
communication processes may be in fact mastery of different languages, even when
nominally found within the same basic common language. He found that the average
student developed conversational fluency within two-to-five years, but that
developing fluency in more technical, academic language can take from four to seven
years (Cummins, 1981). This however has been questioned, as Thomas and Collier
(1997) found that near-native fluency in speaking the new language is achieved within
7 to 10 years of instruction and learning.
The body of research on the impact that the speaker’s comprehension of his or
her first language suggests that there are parallels found between the degree of L1
mastery and L2 mastery. Comprehension of a first language may directly translate to
ongoing acquisition of language, suggesting that persons with advanced educational
training or mastery of basic and advanced communications in L1 can help prepare the
learner for L2 acquisition. However, the presence of parallels does not mean that L1
mastery is sufficient preparation for L2 learning; interference may occur if there are
conflicts in the construction and execution of first and second languages, particularly
if these come from different language roots (e.g.: Latin and Mandarin Chinese).
27
Language mastery therefore needs to take into account variables such as language
development, and cognitive development (Robson, 1995).

b) L2 Oral Proficiency Development
Proficient oral language is essential to the academic success of second language
learners in a study abroad context. Development in spoken language plays a vital role.
When second language learners improve in their oral language proficiency, they are
more likely to use it, learn it and develop it further (Chesterfield, Chesterfield,
Hayes-Latimer, & Chavez, 1983). It is stated by linguist Barns and Seidlhofer that
“learning speaking involves developing subtle and detailed knowledge about why,
how and when to communicate, and complex skills for producing and managing
interaction such as asking question or obtaining in turn” (2001, p211). The
development of spoken language is not only producing language structure but also
includes word use, sentences, pronunciation and discourse. Current research suggests
that learning to speak a second language is similar to learning one’s first language,
and such skill develops over time (Hakuta, Butler, & Witt, 2000; Howard, Christian,
& Genesee, 2003; Lindholm-Leary, 2001; Thomas & Collier, 2002). Hakuta et al
(2000) in their cross sectional analysis reports that learners need more time to advance
from middle to upper level proficiency, whereas less time is required to progress from
beginner to middle level. In their study, students in grade 1, 3 and 5 increased in oral
proficiency from 1.75 to 4.35 to 4.80 (N=1,875). The report suggests an average of 3
to 5 years to achieve advanced level proficiency.
Some linguistic theorists posit that there is a critical period for the acquisition
of second language. Early work by Lenneberg (1967) investigates the Critical Period
Hypothesis. Lenneberg’s theory proposed brain lateralization at puberty as the
28
mechanism that closes down the brain’s ability to acquire language, though this has
since been widely disputed. His theory has been popular because of its clear
explanation of difficulties in second language learning after puberty. It explains why
we often see young children speak foreign languages naturally and we hear adult
learner’s foreign accent in speech. Similarly, Noam Chomsky’s (1972) ongoing
exploration into language acquisition suggests that there is a “language acquisition
device” that is expressed in children between the neonatal stages and the age of
thirty-six months. Chomsky (1968) suggested that the developing brain was
structured in a manner that would directly influence the acquisition of language.
Moreover, the brain was predisposed to comprehend language structure, such as
acquiring information on syntax and repetition, merely though observing language use
in context and through rudimentary experimentation.
Johnson and Newport (1989) conducted a study on native speakers of Korean
and Chinese who immigrated to the US at various ages. Subjects were asked to make
grammatical judgments about 276 English sentences. Half of the sentences were
designed to disregard the conventional rules about articles, gender agreement and verb
structures. Among the participants, seven subjects who had arrived between the age of
3 and 7 performed indistinguishably from native speakers of English. For the
prepubescent learners of English age of arrival was strongly correlated with the ability
to be grammatically correct in their writing and speaking skills, but for the adult
learners there was no significant correlation between age of arrival and grammatical
correctness. In other words, the optimal time for language acquisition is before a
certain age. And after which the ability declines, complete acquisition of a language
will not be possible. This probably explains why older children and adult learners
always have a degree of difficulty with grammar, word usage and pronunciation in a
29
foreign language no matter how long they learn it.
Appropriate development of spoken language skills does not merely indicate a
full comprehension of the language, or even the unique traits that are socio-culturally
embedded within the language in question (O’Malley & Valdez-Piece, 2003). The
development of spoken language skills also necessitates pragmatic comprehension
and execution, and an L2 speaker will find that many of the challenges that
confronted him while attempting to learn his first language are present in the second
language but are transformed or distorted in a significant way (Brown, 2000;
O’Malley & Valdez-Piece, 2003). Such transformation or distortion is
naturally-occurring and manifests from the personal preferences that the speaker uses
in word choice, selective application of grammar and syntax rules, as well as
socio-cultural influences such as accent and emphasis on certain concepts. These
areas of conversational communication therefore are not governed by the same
encompassing formalized rules present in other, more restrictive forms of
communication. While this is suggestive of a less-restrictive environment in which
to acquire language skills, problems emerge from a lack of governing markers that
may in fact provide a working structure that can be used to improve comprehension
(O’Malley & Valdez-Piece, 2003). Spoken language skills therefore develop at a
slower pace than do written skills or non-conversational dialogue (e.g., reading
speeches or prepared statements).
As appropriate mastery of a second language is accomplished when the L2
speaker can participate in spoken communication in varying contexts, this indicates
that spoken conversation needs to be prioritized in the pedagogy of second language
speakers. Increased English oral proficiency when helping a young student master
English as a second language will likely come about as a secondary trait of other
30
gains in English-language proficiency, such as mastery of phonics awareness and
continued exercises in vocabulary and spoken-word communication in staged
conversations (Chesterfield & Chesterfield, 1985).
It needs to be accepted that proficiency in a second language takes time,
moreso if the benchmark of success is spoken communication (Hakuta, Butler, & Witt,
2000). Assessing the effectiveness of strategies that help promote spoken
conversational dialogue is therefore of interest because of its applications in teaching
pedagogy. Current evidence suggests students acquiring English as a second
language typically require three-to-five years to achieve advanced proficiency in oral
English (Hakuta, Butler, & Witt, 2000). Differences in acquisition occur based upon
the age of the student and their previous level of educational achievement (Howard et
al., 2003).

c) Cross Language Interference and Age Constraints
Many researchers examined the concept of critical period in second language
acquisition. In other words, does first language acquisition (L1) and second language
acquisition (L2) go through similar process or does age effects the nature of second
language acquisition? This line of investigation therefore challenges the earlier
assumption that critical period’s effects language development. A number of the
recent researches are presented in detail in order to determine whether age could be an
intervening factor in second language acquisition and whether the process of
acquiring L1 is similar to the learning of L2. This dissection would lead to the
identification of variables to be examined in the present study.
Flege, Bohn and Jang (1997) report a study on the role of English language
experience in relation to vowel production and vowel perception. The study involved
31
speakers of German, Spanish, Mandarin and Korean with different vowel inventories.
Subjects were assigned to different groups according to their length of residency in
the United States and they were examined through acoustic measurement wherein
they were tested on how familiar and accurate they are in identifying the sounds and
words in L2. Findings from the study indicated that, subjects who stayed longer in the
country produced higher accuracy of English vowels. Since vowels in L1 and L2 are
related, the effect of L1 background in how non-natives produce and perceive English
vowels provides an important indication of the speed and difficulty with which L2
learners can master the second language. For example, Fledge et al. (1997) predict
that Korean native speakers encounter greater difficulty than German native speakers
in producing English vowel /i/ and /I/, as they were taught to distinguish these vowels
on temporal cues. Korean native speakers are also expected to perceive or produce
greater difficulties than German native speakers in accurately pronouncing the vowel
sound / / and / /. Whereas Spanish native speakers are expected to have the least
difficulty in distinguishing / / - / /, if they are able to identify English / /
equivalent to Spanish /a/. It was unpredictable in determining if Mandarin speakers
could distinguish / / and / / due to multiple vowel categories in Mandarin. The
study supports the view that experienced non-native English speakers perform better
vowel production and, cross language differences exists in their phonological
inventories. This implies that L1 knowledge does generalize to L2 to some extent.
Zhang (2005) finds that there are comparative analysis properties common
between Chinese and English that can be used to facilitate comprehension, in which
the perception of “interlanguage competence” is supported through the abilities of
certain language learning students to acquire language despite the lack of a common
language origin. In a study of Chinese students learning English as a second language,
32
Zhang (2005) suggested that the contrastive analysis hypothesis (CAH) can be used as
a means of assessing language comprehension between comparative language
learning processes. Canadian students who were fluent in Chinese as their first
language appeared more likely to acquire English as a second language in instances in
which the context of these L1 and L2 processes can be contrasted, a process that
appears to facilitate language acquisition due to allowing the student to make
generalities between familiar language processes and unfamiliar language processes
such as the production of alphabet sounds in English which is different from Chinese.
Zhang (2005) does note that students using CAH still encounter conflict in reconciling
effective language but that these are manageable if assistance is provided.
Flege, Yeni-Komshian and Liu (1999) examined the concept of critical period
in second language acquisition. Critical period hypothesis was evaluated under three
methods using the “discontinuity test” as the first method assuming that L2 learners
achieve better outcomes at the initial stage of a critical period. The second method is
the “pre/post correlation test” measuring correlation between age of arrival (AoA) in
the US and L2 performance. The last method using “matched subgroup” verifies
factors correlated to AOA influencing L2 learning and L2 performance. The study
involved 240 native Korean speakers varying in AOA for English, with a mean of 15
years in length of residency in the United States. Participants were given a
grammaticality judgment test similar to the one used by Johnson and Newport (1989)
to assess their knowledge of morphosyntax. Each set of sentences were intended “to
evaluate a different morphosyntactic structure or rule” (Flege et al, 1999, p.83).
Participants were also rated by English native speakers for their degree of foreign
accent, repeating English sentences following an aural model. A designed
questionnaire was also implemented to assess learner language background as well as
33
relevant aspects of language experience. Two sets of results were found in this study.
First, learner’s level of achievement in pronunciation is closely related to age of initial
exposure to the second language. They claimed that, even for children, the later in life
the first exposure to a second language, the greater the degree of foreign accent.
Secondly, the relationship between AOA and ultimate achievement is modulated by
L1-L2 pairing (p.98). The first finding suggests no independent influence of AOA on
grammaticality judgment test, which indicates older L2 learners can achieve
equivalent proficiency to young learners with extensive exposure to L2 language.
That is, older learners acquire second language differently from young learners, and
this accounts for the relationship between AOA and ultimate achievement. In addition,
results indicate no direct effect of AOA on grammar learning (Flege et al. 1999). Thus,
one may conclude there is strong correlation between age and the ability to produce a
native speech accent in a second language. Flege et al (1999) refers this as a failure to
perceive foreign speech sounds and as a result of learning their L1 phonological
inventory. In short, the discontinuity test shows no evidence of nonlinearity in the
foreign accent rating near the end of the critical period. In the pre/postcorrelation test,
significant correlation was shown between AOA and L2 performance for learners
who began L2 exposure before critical period, at the age of 12. Finally, Flege et al
(1999) also interprets that increase in AOA leads to increase in the L1 phonetic
system. At the same time, it changes the way L1 and L2 phonological system interact
within each other. This study contradicts the earlier results of the studies on critical
period and L2 proficiency, the researchers found that age of arrival was only
correlated to foreign accent while it was not related to proficiency scores, that is
although the earlier the child is exposed to L2, the more they are able to speak it in the
same manner as native L2 speakers, however, older L2 learners can achieve the same
34
grammatical proficiency as early L2 learners. This means that critical periods may not
adequately explain the differences in the rate of L2 learning and proficiency. Brown
(2006) argues that pronunciation is not the only indicator of proficiency, some people
may not have the correct native pronunciation when speaking the second language but
this does not mean that they are less proficient in effective communication, this
observation was demonstrated through the “Henry Kissinger Effect”, the great
secretary of state had a very distinct German accent but was considered one of the
most eloquent speakers of American English.
Birdsong and Molis (2001) also conducted a study using Johnson and
Newport’s (1989) methods to examine the effect of the age factor on the level of
ultimate attainment in second language acquisition. To yield a broader understanding
of such evidence, Birdson and Molis (2001) replicated the J&N89 study with identical
aspects of the initial experiment, except with speakers of languages other than Korean
and Chinese that was originally sampled. Participants were 61 native Spanish
speakers with varied age of arrival with a mean of 10 years in length of residency in
the United States. Results showed that a number of subjects over 20 years of age
performed native like proficiency, which indicates older learners can indeed learn
second language well, and sometimes, even to a high level, similar to native speakers.
The result also suggest one’s native language has a large impact on the relationship of
AOA and ultimate attainment and outcomes of L2 acquisition also relies on L2 use.
This study is a follow-up to the previous Johnson and Newport (1989) study but
instead of using Korean and Chinese participants, Spanish was tested. The findings
indicated that adult L2 learners with fewer number of years in the country were able
to speak like a native speaker regardless of age. However, the results could have been
influenced by the cultural aspects of the participants in the two studies, Korean and
35
Mandarin is very different from English, while Spanish basically uses the same
alphabet and is much more similar in form to English.
Best, McRoberts and Godell (2001) report on issues involved in L2 phonemic
categorization using one of the dominant approaches named Perceptual Assimilation
Model (PAM). This model predicted that L1 language experience determines the
behavior of nonnative listeners. Similarly, L2 learners confronted with L2 sound
contrasts such as the presentation of nonnative phonetic items would lead to difficulty
in phonetic awareness. The participant’s identification of the contrasts revealed the
same assimilation pattern as the discrimination test. Therefore it confirms the
predictions made by the PAM hypothesis that L2 learners demonstrate the ability to
correctly identify nonnative sounds when they have adequate L1 listening and
speaking skills which helps in the process of assimilating nonnative sounds to L2
learning. This study also suggests a native like performance on a discrimination task
can be achieved in cases with no exposure to the language. This helps to support the
view that both successes and failures to learn the speech sounds of a new language
depend on the transfer from one’s first language. Best et al (2001) did a thorough
investigation in accounting for the initial state for L2 learners; however, further
research needs to address the area of “proposed differences in perception of
phonological, phonetic, and nonlinguistic information in non-native speech” (p.792).
The current direction of research on second language acquisition endeavors to
identify the factors which contribute or impede the acquisition of an L2, thus
sophisticated measures have been designed. But an instrument is only good if it
answers the research question on hand. This study wanted to establish whether
learning a new language or having no previous contact or experience to any second
language would result in the same discrimination score. This would then mean that L1
36
and L2 processes are similar. However, this study showed that children who had no
previous contact or experience to any foreign language identified their speech sound
correctly in the same rate that they identified foreign speech sounds. The implies that
previous learning does interfere with present learning.

d) Socio-Cultural impact
Yeh and Inose (2002) investigated the most common problems of adolescents
(junior high and high school students) from China, Japan and Korea in terms of their
second language learning. These students, from immigrant populations were assessed
on their coping strategies based on specific problems in acclimating to American
learning environments. The researchers found that communication (language
difficulties) was the most notable problem for Chinese, Japanese and Korean students,
and many of these children applied a similar strategy: seeking out peer group support
to reduce stress related to communication difficulties (Yeh and Inose, 2002). This
underscores the role that language plays in the educational experiences of Chinese
learners. The language barrier between a learner and their general peer group can
influence their views of the learning experience and can shape the way they approach
the learning process. At the same time, many of the students also experienced
difficulties because of differences in cultural values, variations in cultural perspectives,
and differences in educational approaches that influence their experiences (Yeh and
Inose, 2002). Language difficulty is the most crippling factor for Asian students when
they come to the country for higher education and better opportunities. It is expected
that a difficulty in expressing ideas and thoughts would result in poor academic
performance, not to mention the possible effects it has on the self-confidence and
self-esteem of the student. The difficulty may in fact lie not on the inability of the
37
Asian students to learn English but because the language is so different from their
native language. For these nations, language symbolizes identity and cultural
distinctions which is absent from conventional English. In Chinese and Japanese
cultures, for example, the use of different language components is representative of
differentiations in society and culture and is a defining characteristic of determining
regional adaptations. A closer analysis of the morphology of the different components
of a particular language has given the theorists a framework from which they could
identify the different elements that comprised the language. Thus, they are more able
to distinguish the particular segment of the language that corresponds to its cultural
orientation.
Huang (1998) considered the nature of language processing and the implications
for non-English language speakers, in particular, Chinese speakers. Like Yeh and
Inose (2002), Huang (1998) also relates the difficulties in the learning experiences of
Chinese students, but the outcomes of their study reflect the impact of communication
differences. The two studies conducted by Huang (1998) suggest that communication
variances impact their ability to encode and integrate information being learned.
"Both Study 1 and Study 2" indicate that one of the causes for students’ learning
difficulties in their second language-speaking classroom is the non-automatization of
the language used in the classroom, or in other words, the non-automatization of their
symbol system for encoding information (Huang, 1998, p. 8). Non-automatization of
L2 use meant that the brain does not automatically process the information in the
same way as a L1. The second language learners has to actively and consciously
process the information presented to them before they could respond, this involved
identifying the meaning of the word or sentence and then choosing from their
repertoire of responses the most appropriate response. This further supports the
38
assertions of Yeh and Inose (2002) regarding the breadth of the impact of
communication (language) differences. Because of the correlation between culture
and the defining characteristics of interactions, it is evident that understanding
indirectness as it relates to culture requires an understanding of the standard
components of linguistic representations and the commonality of structures as they
relate to representations of culture. Language is an automatic behavior, when we are
asked a question; we respond in kind, sometimes we do not think about why we speak
or why we choose certain words because native speakers already have a repertoire of
phrases and words used to respond to certain questions and statements. This kind of
automatic response set is absent in L2 learners which means that while they receive
the information they have to process it in their minds before they are able to give a
comprehensible answer.
Wang (1999) outlines a case study of the learning experiences of two Chinese
students at a major university in the United States. Central to the assessment of the
experiences of these two students is their cross-cultural learning experiences (Wang,
1999). This study focuses on the cultural differences that exist for these students,
including views of their educational experience, daily life experiences, and their
interactions with educators and peers (Wang, 1999). This study focuses on one central
supposition asserted by the researcher: “These students came from a country that is so
far away from the United States in distance, culture, political system, and language.
Culture shock becomes inevitable.” (Wang, 1999, p 1). This case study methodology
provides an analytical approach for assessing the experiences, coping strategies used
with insufficient language, and conflicts for these Chinese students. Results show that
students experience frustrations in cross-cultural learning that is caused by
communication difficulties and cultural differences in teacher student relationship
39
which involved different assumptions. The case study concludes that educators can
help students to overcome learning difficulties by understanding their cultures and
learning styles, as well as providing interactive teacher-student relationship. This case
study’s focus was on the issue of culture shock for the Chinese students which in fact
was found to be what caused the frustration of the students in their educational
experience in the US. Although, to some degree culture shock can account for the
difficulties that they experience, it is a generalized term that could mean just anything
under the realm of cultural differences. On the other hand, language is a much more
tangible factor since it is the means by which they communicate with other people in
a different culture. Caution should also be given in generalizing the results of this
study because it is a case study, and although case studies have their methodological
strengths, they are also limited in scope and findings.
Sun and Chen (1997) also related the cultural issues that Chinese students face in
the University setting. In their empirical study, the researchers considered factors like
language differences, cultural differences, and struggles that occur because of
cross-cultural learning. One element that should be recognized in the study by Sun
and Chen (1997) is that the Chinese learners were older than typical college students,
some were married, and their cultural values were very different. Perceptions of goals
in the learning environment and their assessment of cultural manifestations were all
elements of this study. Result indicates that limited English proficiency, lack of
cultural awareness and lack of experience in handling university environment were
major difficulties perceived by all participants. Like Wang (1999), Sun and Chen
(1997) specifically considered the issue of culture shock and the struggle of Chinese
students in the American university system.
Naijian and Rentz (1996) also considered the issue of culture and cultural
40
adaptation as it influences the learning process for students in the university setting.
Like Sun and Chen (1997), Naijian and Rents (1996) suggest that the success of
acculturation, of intercultural adaptation, may be a determinant of greater educational
attainment in American graduate programs for students from the People's Republic of
China. Acculturation can be defined as: “the modification of the culture of a group or
individual as a result of contact with a different culture” (Psychology Glossary, 2002).
This definition of acculturation is often utilized as a means of assessing the process of
acculturation for immigrant communities. In countries like the United States, where
there is a large dominant culture, the process of acculturation takes on different
characteristics, and varies significantly depending on the continuity of a specific
immigrant subculture. For Chinese studying in the United States, and for the Asian
American subculture as a whole, the issue of cultural adaptation is clearly an element
influencing smooth educational achivement.
Naijian and Rentz (1996) argue: “International students from the People’s
Republic of China may face particular challenges, different from those experienced by
other Asian students” (p. 321). The factors that influence their educational experience
include a lack of financial security, poor language skills, major cultural differences,
and social isolation. Intercultural adaptation, then, is viewed as a major element in
determining positive gains for these students.
Xia (2000) examines the cultural struggles of Chinese graduate assistants in the
educational setting, stating some conflicts over acculturation, value differences and
the influence of language. Though many Chinese graduate assistants demonstrate high
performance in the educational setting, their communication and cultural skills require
some assessment in terms of their performance. Xia (2000) argues that there is a
speaking conflict between Chinese graduate students and American learners that can
41
have a negative impact on views of their performance.

e) Contextual Impact
Since teaching and learning styles in the American classroom tend to be student
oriented with flows of discussion and natural communication, Asian students are more
likely to experience conflict within the classroom (Lacina, 2001).Due to the
significance of interaction in classroom settings, speaking competence is crucial.
Asian students value quietness in class strongly influenced by Confucianism. They
tend not to speak, and appear uncomfortable given a speech. They rarely express
opinions and seldom ask a question even though they do not understand, which leads
them to take a passive role in classroom activities without much engagement (Lim,
2003). Lin (2002) outlines a study of Chinese graduate students participating in
American university social science programs. This study is based on the supposition
that variations exist in the learning experiences of Chinese learners when compared to
American learners in American programs. This study focuses on the possibility that
Chinese graduate students, students who had met a high level of educational
achievement in China, may struggle in American schools because of differences in the
educational environment. The link between this study and Aper and Currey’s
assessment of learners in the university environment underscores the need for some
sense of acculturation as a component of the learning experience. On the other hand
the Chinese student’s expectations of what their university experience would be is
also a factor that could frustrate them, when they view academic achievement and
performance in terms of their personal orientation, then it would naturally be different,
other factors such as learning style, intelligence, study habits and field of
specialization; however, were not investigated by the study and which calls for future
42
investigation.
One of the central problems with this issue is that few research studies have been
conducted to address the environmental and educational factors influencing the
education of Chinese graduate students. Lin (2002) writes: “Among Chinese students,
there is little research done to analyze the distinctions among students from different
disciplines. Studies assumed that students from the People’s Republic of China are
supposed to have the same experiences as those of other international students” (p. 3).
In addition to their struggles in the teaching environment, many Chinese students in
this study noted a lack of peer support, a lack of an understanding of American
learners, and problems with acculturation in the educational setting.
While the college environment can be viewed as a problematic place for some
Asian students, Aper and Currey (1996) suggest that student work programs can have
beneficial outcomes for Chinese or Asian students, and that this is directly related to
their interactions with others in an authentic setting. Their methods are based on the
study of a population of 139 Asian students, and the use of a questionnaire format to
consider their views related to work experiences (Aper and Currey, 1996). The
researchers suggest that the language skills of the students who had work experience
improved in this environment, while their outcomes in terms of projecting student
achievement found no positive or negative correlations with work experience (Aper
and Currey, 1996).
A number of studies considered the difference in difficulty level of adapting to a
foreign environment for Chinese learners, with a focus on the struggles for Asian
students in comparison to other immigrant communities (Inoue, 1999; See also Wang,
1999). Chan (1999) also considered the nature of the student in the American learning
environment, with a focus on the issue of learner style. Chan (1999) writes “there has
43
also been a renewed interest in Western management expertise and techniques by the
Chinese with increasing emphasis on higher level learning for managers” (p. 294).
This has set the stage for the desirability of Western learning environments for
Chinese learners, but has also brought into question the correlation between the
American learning environment and learner styles (Chan, 1999). This is similar to the
views presented by Pinheiro (2001) regarding the correlation between the American
learning environment and the comparative view of different immigrant populations in
this environment. Yet, in terms of teaching Chinese students, professors will want to
also keep in mind that culturally, Chinese students may want to focus on the concrete
as opposed to the abstract and delve into particulars as opposed to universals (Chan,
1999). The implementation of English classes is a good idea but bilingual classes are
likely impractical at the graduate level. Yet, while it is true that the language issue
need to be addressed, learning style is something that one will want to consider.
Things like modesty, maintaining face, possessing a good work ethic and the
preservation of cultural heritage are all important things to keep in mind when
evaluating what is important in teaching Chinese students (Chan, 1999). Table 1
provides a comparison of differences between Eastern versus Western educational
systems.

Table 1. Eastern versus Western educational system
USA East Asia

Main purpose
1. Focus on individual
2. Develop individual's full
potential
3. Transmitter of cultural
heritage
1. Focus on loyal citizenry
2. Develop literate citizenry
3. Helps select future leaders
4. Transmitter of past
cultural heritage
44
Table 1 : Continued.

Instruction mode
1. Learner centered
2. Stresses understanding,
application and ability
3. Use of educational
psychology
4. Learner active
1. Teacher centered
2. Stresses recall of facts
3. Examinations as
motivator
4. Use of rote learning
5. Learner passive

Curricular orientation
1. Present-future oriented
2. Development of whole
person
3. Social interaction
promoted
1. Past-present oriented
2. Strict exams to develop
academic knowledge
3. Concepts first then
skills
Source: Adapted from Yee (1989) as cited in The Chinese Learner-A Question of Style

The cultural differences between the educational system of east Asia from that
of the west is concentrated on the emphasis between what education is for and how it
should be delivered. In east Asia, education is valued as a means of attaining success,
progress and pride, it also means being able to provide more for the family and to be
of service to the country, thus students expect to be taught everything that they need to
learn by mentors and teachers who are experts in their fields. In the west, education is
also valued but not so much as an accomplishment, it serves to further the career and
plans of the individual and it is in no way tied to nationalism unless they are trained to
serve the country. The students in the west believe that discovery, inquisitiveness and
experimentation is the best way to learn and gain knowledge, while the east tend to
follow what has been accepted and established and try to find meaning in it. When
viewed in this way, it is safe to say that the educational philosophy of the west is a
world apart from Asia, but what has been left out in this discussion is the ability of
Asian students to be resilient. Because Asian students have more at stake in their
quest for higher education, they exert more effort to comply and learn in a very
45
different setting. Most Asian students if not in the top of their class are consistently
high achievers, which mean that despite the language difficulty and the differences in
educational approach, Asian students still thrive.
Zhang (1999) also related a comparative view of students, but compared the
experiences and cognitive development of US and Chinese students in the university
setting. This study, which has more to do with cognition than with environment, does
focus on the progression of environmental factors that can influence learning in a
cross-cultural setting. In essence, Zhang relates Perry’s (1970) theory that cognition
and individual forms of reasoning develop across content domains is applicable to a
comparative view of US and Chinese learners. The researcher, though, found that
Perry's theory was more applicable with American learners, and that it "could not be
generalized to Chinese culture" (p. 432).Gloria and Ho (2003) consider the issue of
environment as it may impact learning variations for American and Asian American
learners. These researchers specifically consider the issues for Asian American
undergraduate students, and the factors that influence academic persistence including
beliefs about education, values, motivations and social expectations. This study does
not consider the specific issues of Asian immigrant students, but instead for Asian
American students, suggesting that educational attainment and differences in
experiences relate to the educational environment, as well as to cultural and social
expectations. The problem with generalizing Asian American learning experiences to
Asian students is that the two groups differ in their degree of acculturation. Asian
American students have already been acculturated in the American way and culture,
thus they would have less difficulty than Asian students.
Over the past two decades, the increase in immigration to the United States has
led to concerns over the adaptations that populations make when they enter the
46
country as a part of the acculturation process. Individuals from non-Western countries
often demonstrate the greatest difficulty in social acculturation and research suggests
that this may be a reason for increased learning problems for individuals in the
university setting. The formalized setting of the university demands a high degree of
comprehension on the part of all students, where the requirements of advanced
academic engagement entail immediate acquisition and processing of data relevant to
the subject at hand, as well as information taken from past experiences or contextual
obligations on the part of the students (Zhouh, 2003). These findings stress that L2
students in a non-native post-secondary educational setting must develop high levels
of comprehension in order to facilitate participation and academic achievement.
Comprehension however is dependent on language skills and the processing of
meaning and contextual clues, which is severely handicapped if a student has not
attained a degree of mastery and proficiency of L2.
The study of language acquisition and the varied theories and concepts that have
spawned over the years about the topic have given us different perspectives in the
understanding of language. At the same time, the reality of bilingualism have also led
to the development of theories that explain how new languages are acquired and
learned. Much of the process by which second language learning occurs is aided by
instruction whether in informal or formal settings. Likewise the development of the
second language learner in terms of mastery and proficiency in the new language was
also examined and have led to the concept of language learning strategies.

Language Learning Strategies
Language learning strategies are generally categorized as cognitive,
metacognitive, and socioaffective strategies (O’Malley & Chamot, 1990; Oxford,
47
1990). Among the three strategies, cognitive (e.g., translating, analyzing) and
metacognitive (e.g., planning, organizing) strategies are mostly used by second
language learner (O'Malley & Chamot, 1990).Little research has been done on
socioaffective strategies because learners lack familiarity in paying attention to their
own feelings and social relationships as part of the L2 learning process (Oxford,
1990).Various researchers support the notion that good language learners use L2
learning strategies effectively to accomplish the goal of communicative competence,
they select and apply strategies to deal with difficulties and they can explain why and
how they implement such strategies (Bialystock, 1978; Chamot, 1993; Chamot &
Küpper, 1989).

Definition
Considerable research attempts to define the term “Language Learning Strategy”,
for example, according to Oxford (1990) it is “specific actions by the learner to make
learning easier, faster, more enjoyable, more self directed, more effective, and more
transferable to new situations” (p8). Using Ellis (1994) and other research, Table 2
comprises definitions of language learning strategies.

Table 2. Definition of Language Learning Strategies
1. Stern 1983
In our view strategy is best reserved for general tendencies
or overall characteristics of the approach employed by the
language learner, leaving techniques as the term to refer to
particular forms of observable learning behavior.
2. Weinstein and Mayer
1986
Learning strategy are the behaviors and thoughts that a
learner engages in during learning that are intended to
influence the learners encoding process
3. Chamot 1987
Learning strategies are techniques, approaches or

48
Table 2 : Continued.

deliberate actions that students take in order to facilitate
the learning, recall of both linguistic and content area
information
4. Rubin 1987
Learning strategies are strategies which contribute to the
development of the language system which learner
constructs and affect learning directly.
5. Oxford 1989
Learning strategies are behaviors or actions which learners
use to make language learning more successful,
self-directed and enjoyable.
6. Oxford 1990:8
1. The strategy concept […] has come to mean a plan, step,
or conscious action toward achievement of an objective.
2. They are specific actions taken by the learner to make
learning easier, faster, more enjoyable, more self-directed,
more effective, and more transferable to new situations.
7. O’Malley and Chamot
1990:1
The special thoughts or behaviors that individuals use to
help them comprehend, learn or retain new information.
8. Stern, 1992
Learners consciously engage in activities to achieve certain
goals and learning strategies can be regarded as broadly
conceived intentional directions and learning techniques
9. Ellis 1994:533
For research purposes, strategies can be defined as
production sets that exist as declarative knowledge and are
used to solve some learning problem.
10. Cohen 1998:4
[Learning strategies are] processes which are consciously
selected by learners and which may result in action taken
to enhance the learning or use of a second or foreign
language, through the storage, retention, recall and
application of information about the language.
11. Cohen 2003:278
1. Strategies are specific behaviors that learners select in
their language learning and use.
2. Language learning [Cohen’s italics] strategies are the
conscious or semi-conscious thoughts and behaviors used
by the learners with the explicit of improving their
knowledge and understanding of a target language.
Source:Definitions 1-5: Ellis (1994, p531),definitions 6-12: Personal,primary research

49
The table traces the progression of the definition of learning strategies from a
general to a more specific definition. But what is consistent with all of the definitions
is the mention of learning strategies as behaviors, feelings, thoughts and methods that
assist in the learning of a new concept and language. Meanwhile, learning strategies
have also been identified as conscious and unconscious in nature, saying that a person
may not be aware that he/she is using a strategy. By definition learning strategies are
considered as helpers or aids in the development of language or any other subject of
interest. However, in recent years learning strategies have now been defined as an aid
in language learning especially in L2. Similarly, the definitions describe what a
strategy is but it does in no way limit what can be considered a strategy thus leading
to another debate on the different types of learning strategies.

Types of learning strategies
Other than the definition of learning strategies, there are different types of
language learning strategies (LLS). First, LLS are learner generated; this refer to the
methods taken by the language learner to be able to communicate with other L2
learners or L1 speakers. Second, LLS enhance language learning and help develop
language competence, as reflected in the learner’s skills in L2 listening, speaking,
reading, or writing the L2. Third, LLS may be visible (behaviors, steps, techniques,
etc.) or unseen (thoughts, mental processes). Fourth, LLS involve information and
memory (vocabulary knowledge, grammar rules, etc.). In addition to developing
students’ communicative competence, LLS are important because research suggests
that training students to use LLS can help them become better language learners.
Researchers have also come up with different types of classifications in the
learning strategy system (Cohen, 1998; Ellis, 1994; O’Malley & Chamot, 1990;
Oxford 1990; Rubin, 1987). Most of these classifications reflect more or less the same
50
categorizations. First, Rubin’s classification (1987) involves three types of strategies:
learning, cognitive and metacognitive strategies. Under the classification of learning
strategies, there are two subgroups: the cognitive and the metacognitive strategies.
Cognitive learning strategies are steps required in problem-solving, whereas
metacognitive learning strategies are used to regulate language learning.
Communication strategies refer to strategies used when speakers need to clarify
meaning. Social strategies are implemented when social action takes place. Rubin’s
classification is summarized in Table 3:

Table 3. Rubin’s classification (1987)

1. Learning strategies

i) Cognitive Learning Strategies
1. Clarification/Verification
2. Deductive Reasoning
3. Guessing/Inductive/Inferencing
4. Memorization
5. Monitoring
6. Practice

ii) Metacognitive Learning Strategies
1. choosing and prioritizing
2. setting goals
3. planning learning strategies

2. Communication strategies

Strategies needed to overcome a
misunderstanding or when difficulties in
understanding occur during the
communication process.
3. Social strategies

Emerge on the surface when social
action takes place and knowledge is
practiced.
Source Rubin (1987, p23-29)
51
Rubin (1987) attempted to provide a comprehensive list of learning strategies
and their different subtypes, but he failed to adequately identify learning strategies
that occur during communication and social interaction. Rubin (1987) was able to
delineate a number of cognitive and metacognitive learning strategies but failed to
adequately identify communication and social strategies, it could be said that the same
learning strategies can be used in communication and social situations.
Oxford’s system of language learning strategies (1990) divides language learning
strategies into two categories: direct which consist of memory, cognitive and
compensation strategies and indirect which includes metacognitive, affective and
social strategies. Memory strategies are used for information storage; cognitive
strategies are used for making sense of one’s learning and compensation strategies are
when learners use it to overcome gaps in communication. Similar to Rubin’s
classification, Oxford’s metacognitive strategies are also used to regulate language
learning. Affective strategies are related to learner’s emotional state and social
strategies help learners increase interactions with the target language. Table 4 presents
the summary of Oxford’s Diagram of the Strategy system (p.16):

Table 4. Oxford’s Diagram of the Strategy system – Direct Strategies

1. Memory strategies
For remembering and retrieving new
information.
2. Cognitive strategies
Useful for understanding and recalling
new information-important functions in
the process of becoming competent in
using the new language.
3. Compensation strategies
Aid learners in overcoming knowledge
gaps and continuing to communicate
authentically; help communicative
competence to blossom.
52
Source: Oxford (1990:16)
Direct strategies as identified by Oxford (1990) refer to the strategies that have an
immediate role in the production of language and learning. However, instead of
identifying what specific memory strategies are, it only described what a memory
strategy can be, as well as the other cognitive and compensation strategies. One would
notice that memory and cognitive strategies are almost similar in thought and would
confuse the reader to consider what a memory strategy is and when it becomes a
cognitive strategy. In the same light, Oxford (1990) also described the indirect
strategies as metacognitive, affective and social. Metacognitive was defined as
beyond the cognitive, which falls short in adequately identifying what it is.
Metacognition involves thinking about one’s own thinking. It is a cognitive process
and is directed towards critically thinking about what has been learned and processed.
Affective strategies was also described as self-confidence enhancers, which is actually
an indirect strategy since a person who does not have confidence to use a new concept
or language will not do so, it is almost similar to the affective theory by Krashen
(1989) on language acquisition.

Table 5. Oxford’s Diagram of the Strategy system – Indirect Strategies

1. Metacognitive strategies
Beyond the cognitive, help learners to
regulate their own cognition and to
focus, plan and evaluate their own
process as they move toward
communication.
2. Affective strategies
Develop the self-confidence and
perseverance needed for learners to
involve themselves actively in
language learning, a requirement for
attaining communicative competence.
53
Table 5: Continued.
3. Social strategies
Provide increased interaction and more
empathetic understanding, two qualities
necessary to reach communicative
competence.
Source: Oxford (1990:16)
Language learning strategies are highly diverse among students acquiring a
second language. Cook (2001) finds that students find some strategies better suited to
their language acquisition needs than others; linguistic problems are often subject to
avoidance strategies or are integrated into other areas that the student is able to fully
comprehend, thus mitigating the negative impact of comprehensive failure in one area
of language. Even those L2 students who appear proficient have adapted these
coping strategies, and unconsciously alter or adapt inter and intra lingual strategies in
communication, particularly in the areas of phonological, morphological, syntactical,
and basic discourse. These coping strategies are not manifested in the student’s native
language, thus suggesting that their use is an original adaptation developed by the
student specifically to achieve the purpose of improving L2 communication skills
without reducing the perceived degree of comprehension enjoyed by the student.
These L2 strategies can be classified as follows: (a) systems related to successful
language learners (Rubin, 1975); (b) systems based on psychological functions
(O’Malley & Chamot, 1990); (c) systems dealing with linguistics such as guessing,
language monitoring, formal and functional practice (Bialystok, 1981) and (d)
systems related to separate language skills (Cohen, 1990)

Language learning Strategies and Spoken Communication Strategies

Larry Selinker, who introduced the concept of interlanguage (1972) initiated
the early development of communication strategies when he identified the second
54
language learner’s linguistic behaviors referred to as learner language. However,
Selinker (1972) did not go into detail about the nature of these strategies. Rubin (1975)
further identified the strategies of successful language learners from the “good
language learner” studies in the early seventies. Rubin (1975) found that good L2
learners were good guessers, willing to communicate and not afraid to commit
mistakes, observe and analyze patterns in L2 production, monitor their own speech
and are attentive to the meaning of the words used in speaking Later in the eighties,
Varadi (1973/1980) first discussed a systematic analysis of strategic language
behavior that particularly deals with message adjustment. He concludes that second
language learners replace optimal meaning with the adjusted meaning, that is,
replacement of meaning made by paraphrase or circumlocution (Vardasi, 1983, p.92)
Numerous studies about language learning strategies (LLS) or
communication strategies (CS) were carried out, the distinction between LLS and CS
was not clearly identified until Tarone (1977) proposed the taxonomy of CS which is
still considered the most important typology that is product oriented in the field as
most of other taxonomies have been developed from it. Tarone (1981) defined
learning strategy as “an attempt to develop linguistic and sociolinguistic competence
in the target language – to incorporate these into one’s interlanguage competence”
(p.290) In another word, learning strategies relate to input, processing and retrieval of
information. The goal of learning strategies is to learn the target language. Whereas,
communication strategies relate to output expressing ourselves, deliver messages to
others as Tarone defined communication strategies as a way ”to compensate for some
deficiency in the linguistic system, and focus on exploring alternate ways of using
what one does know for the transmission of a message without necessarily
considering situational appropriateness” (p.287).
55

Dornyei and Scott’ s Taxonomy
A number of researchers have tried to devise taxonomy of communication
strategies wherein each author focuses on their own interpretation of communication
strategies. Dornyei and Scott (1997) presented in their review of different
communication strategies a comprehensive list of the present and previous
communication strategies taxonomy in order to determine the similarities and
differences between the communication strategies found in the research literature.
Dornyei and Scott (1997) had also enriched the existing taxonomy with their own
conceptualizations of direct strategies such as use of similar-sounding words, use of
all-purpose words, mumbling and feigning understanding.

Ghaleb’ s (2001) Taxonomy
Due to the fluid and changing nature of language, earlier taxonomies for
communication strategies have been found to be inapplicable to the present use of
language, especially when second language learners use their own language or
English in communicating with English language native speakers. During an
exploratory study of the communication strategies employed by non-English speakers
in communicating with English native speakers, it was found that a number of
strategies were used which was identified in terms of its function in the
communication process. Ghaleb reported that the communication strategies employed
can be broadly classified under L1 appeal for help, L1 ignorance acknowledgment
strategy, L1 optimal meaning and L1 retrieval strategies. It was also found that among
the strategies used, a subgroup emerged which was L2 based and has been referred to
as ignorance acknowledgment. The communication strategies as identified by Ghaleb
56
are presented in Table 6. L1 is designated to refer to strategies that use the native
language to supplement the communication process while L2 based strategy refers to
the use of the second language factors. Table 6 presents the learning strategies
taxonomic classification:

Table 6. Learning Strategies Taxonomic Classification
L1-Based Strategies
1. Literal translations:
This mean the use of the native
speaker’s literal translation of the
difficult word or phrase used in L1
conversation.
2. Language switch:
This refers to the tendency of the
speaker to use words or phrases from
their own native language and use it
within the second language
conversation when they are unable to
find the right second language word
to express their ideas.
This group can be divided into:
a. L1 slips and immediate
insertion: When second
language learners speak in the
target language, they were
observed to insert words from
the native tongue
unintentionally or
unconsciously.
b.L1 appeal for help: a second
language learner engaged in a
conversation with either a
native speaker of the target
language or someone who is
L2-Based Strategies
1. Avoidance Strategies
a. Message abandonment: In
communicating with second
language speakers, the second
language learner may stop in
mid sentence and discontinue
the sentence due to a second
language word difficulty.
b. Topic avoidance: When a
second language learner has
some difficulty with a certain
topic or has problems with
language structures in the target
language, they tend to avoid or
reduce their messages so as not
to use or deal with the difficult
word or language structure.
2. Word coinage
Language is very flexible and
sometimes people may create a
new word that is not used in the
second language by supposedly
applying a second language rule
that is not appropriate to the new
word.
3. Circumlocution
This means that a in order to
57
Table 6: Continued.
also a second language learner
will make use of the native
language to appeal for
confirmation on help from the
other person.
c. L1 optimal meaning strategy:
there are some instances when
words from other cultures
become integrated into the
native language and hence are
used to substitute for the
second language word used in
communicating which is also
acceptable to the second
language target.
d.L1 retrieval strategies: In some
instances, second language
learners may know the correct
second language word but
needs time to retrieve it from
memory. Thus, they may end
up using the native word while
they wait for the moment to
remember the exact word.
e.L1 ignorance
acknowledgment strategy:
When a second language learner
does not know what the word is
or what is meant by the other
person, the learner may just use
their native language and say
they do not know the new word.
express an idea or thought in the
second language, the second
language learner may use words
to describe, illustrate or give
examples of a specific word.
4. Self-correction/Restructuring
A second language learner may
be overly anxious and conscious
of their ability to speak the
second language and hence will
constantly correct their use of
words until they get the right
word.
5. Approximation
This refers to the use of words
that are almost similar to the
target word and which is an
approximate replacement to the
target word and used to complete
the sentence.
6. Mumbling
An often used trick to get away
with speaking the second
language is to mumble the words
or to speak inaudibly which
makes it difficult for the listener
to identify the correct word.
7. L2 appeal for help
This is what happens when a
second language learner directly
asks a native second language
speaker for help in clarifying
their messages or choice of
words.
8. Self-repetition

58
Table 6: Continued.

This is evident when a second
language learner repeats a word
or a phrase in a single sentence
after saying it the first time in
order to appear as stressing a
particular word or phrase
9. Use of similar sounding words
There are words that may sound
alike but have entirely different
meanings; a second language
learner may resort to the use of
an unrelated word but sounds
like the intended word or may
even actually create a word that
may sound like the word that is
being sought.
10. Use of all-purpose words
In order to avoid difficulties or
mistakes in communicating,
second language learners may
have to use general or
all-purpose words such as plants
to refer to flowers and trees. This
makes it safe for non-second
language speakers to pretend to
know the language very well.
11. Ignorance acknowledgement
This is resorted to when a second
language speaker in all honesty
declares that they don know
anything about a particular topic
or word, or when they are asked
to respond to certain things that
they really don’t know

59
The Classification of Communication Strategies
As early as the 1970’s, language researchers have been concerned about the
process by which second language learners study and learn the target language and
what coping strategies they used to successfully communicate using the second
language. The strategies with which second language learners used to communicate
with limited second language ability and vocabulary was later called communication
strategies (CS). Of the first scholars to research second language acquisition, Tarone
(1977) was the first to propose a classification system of the kind of communication
strategies used by second language learners. He categorized the said CS into five
broad areas which are avoidance, paraphrase, borrowing, appeal for assistance and
mime.
Avoidance according to Tarone’s system of classification can either be topic
avoidance or message abandonment. In topic avoidance, the second language learner
veers away from topics that they are not familiar with while message abandonment
says that a person may not complete a sentence because he/she has nothing to
complete it. Paraphrasing is the ability to translate into one’s personal awareness the
sentence or idea when communicating with other people. Paraphrasing may take the
form of approximation, word coinage and circumlocution. In approximation, the
second language learner may use a similar word to the target word although it is not
exactly the same in meaning. Word coinage means that a learner may develop a new
word which becomes easily accepted by the person but which is really not a valid
word. In circumlocution, the second language learner describes or explains a behavior
or thought instead of identifying what is the object of the sentence. According to
Tarone’s system of classification, borrowing can either be literal translation or
language switch. Borrowing is to essentially borrow a word or phrase from the native
60
language to supplement the second language message either using a literal translation
or directly using a native word without translating it. Appealing for assistance means
that the second language learner asks for help from other people in order to complete
the sentence or use the appropriate term. Mime occurs when the learner resorts to the
use of non-verbal techniques to elaborate on their sentence or message. This could be
in the form of emotional expression such as frowning when angry or to enrich a
certain word like shrugging the shoulders to say I don’t know.
Due to Tarone’s work on classifying the communication strategies of second
language learners, many researchers then joined the bandwagon and proposed new
taxonomies. But upon closer inspection, Tarone’s work led to the proliferation of the
attention towards second language acquisition. Other researchers also developed their
own taxonomies but all built upon Tarone’s work wherein newer observations where
added to the list and other categories were further refined.
Similarly, Coder (1981) developed his own taxonomy and aside from the five
aspects, he includes message adjustment strategies and resource expansions strategies.
The message adjustment strategies were found to be similar to risk avoidance, when
people are asked to share something using the second language, they avoided the
possibility of failing by adjusting their ability to what they are capable of. With
resource expansion strategies, the individual take the risk of not being able to
communicate effectively with the others but will do so and seek help from other
concerned members.
Faerch and Kasper (1983) in their book ‘Strategies in Interlanguage
Communication’ prescribe that the classification of communication strategies should
be based on the function of the strategy, whether as an avoidance behavior or
achievement behavior. In avoidance behavior, the second language learner tries to
61
avoid situations or speaking to people while achievement behavior is to face the
problem and derive clear actions towards its resolution. Integrating these two
categories with the previous observation revealed that reduction strategies like
avoiding or switching are avoidance behavior oriented and achievement strategies are
actually achievement behavior oriented. Second language learners who try to avoid
difficult situations or language difficulties, easily develop a separate strategy to deal
with the issue or they can adopt the goal of the other party. Bialystok (1990) said that
a second language learner may only benefit from this model of classification if they
are able to correctly identify those who are avoidance oriented and achievement
oriented. It was made known that achievement strategies include L1-based,
Interlanguage-based, cooperative and non-verbal strategies.
Over the last 40 years, language acquisition studies have tried to establish and
find evidence of what language is and how it is acquired, learned and developed. It
has been accepted that language learning is affected by individual characteristics,
cultural orientation, previous experiences, instructional method and delivery, and
actual practice of the second language production in written or verbal form. Further
studies must investigate how these factors affect second language learners and their
proficiency in the second language. Moreover, communication strategies have played
an integral role in the study of language acquisition and the effective use of
communication strategies have led to better second language competence, hence, it is
important to determine what kind of communication strategies are used by second
language learners in an effort to integrated these practices into second language
instruction.

62
Summary
In this chapter, a history of language learning strategy and communication
strategy studies was reviewed. Speaking is among the most fundamental of human
skills, primarily because of the frequency in which verbal communication is used as a
means through which ideas are transferred. The productive characteristics of speaking
require the development of communicative skills that are distinctive from
conventional spoken or written word skills (Bygate, 2001). Yet because of the overall
frequency to which speaking and communication occur, it is rarely appreciated how
difficult and how complex the processes of straightforward communication can be for
the parties involved. In order to identify how the Taiwanese students made use of
communication strategies and how they perceived their oral proficiency in speaking
L2 as well as identifying student characteristics that would contribute to the
proficiency of speaking L2, Chapter 3 will present the methods and the procedures
that were used for collecting and analyzing data for testing hypotheses.

63
CHAPTER 3
Methodology
Overview of the Study
Oral communication is a process that is developed into the child during the
acquisition process of a first language. Acquiring a second language will necessitate
learning another set of skills relating to oracy; articulation and fluency are determined
not merely by the innate skills of the speaker, but also are communicated via
distinctive processes embedded within the second language.
Most second language (L2) speakers of English experience these problems, but
the research indicated that persons with a first language (L1) from an Asian
background are more likely to experience severe challenges in attempting to master
English. Educators who sought to engage students in strategies that help promote
improved oracy therefore would benefit from inquiry into teaching methods, and
pedagogical strategies that enhance the students’ basic comprehension of English and
promote improved oracy. Additionally, it would be extremely beneficial if educators
could draw upon teaching strategies that have proven effective in delivering improved
English skills to persons with L1 backgrounds in Asian languages.
In an effort to help isolate the most effective teaching strategies, this paper
explored the learning strategies that graduate Taiwanese students have taken in their
efforts to develop their oral English skills. This chapter identified the methodology
used to assess these self-reporting strategies and deconstructed them in the search for
commonalities or for distinctive techniques unique to a single student, but may be
useful in an L2 communication setting. This chapter presents the identification of a
quantitative survey-based research approach, provide a description of the data
64
collection process and instruments, in the end, this chapter will help the reader
understand the strategies used by the current study.

Research Questions
The purpose of the current research effort is to isolate distinctive
characteristics of Taiwanese students who are learning English as a second language,
with the intention of optimizing all situational variables to the extent where L2
acquisition is facilitated. In Chapter I, a set of research questions was set forth to be
investigated in this study. The principle research question is:
How do Taiwanese students acquiring English as a second language mediate
production challenge in oral English communications?
Secondary research questions shall likewise be utilized as a means of focusing
the research process, as these serve to enhance the purpose put forth by the first
research question. The hypotheses used in this study are:

1) Taiwanese graduate student’s reported oral proficiency is more likely to be
associated with the time spent with native speakers.
2) Taiwanese graduate student’s reported oral proficiency is not associated with
spending time with native speakers.
3) Taiwanese graduate student’s reported oral proficiency is more likely to be affected
by the number of years spent in studying English.
4) Taiwanese graduate student’s reported oral proficiency is not affected by the
number of years they spent studying English.
(5) Taiwanese graduate student’s personal characteristics are associated with their oral
proficiency and use of communication strategies.
65
(6) Taiwanese graduate student’s personal characteristics are not associated with their
oral proficiency and use of communication strategies

Design of the Study
This study was designed as a quantitative assessment of preferences. This
study is based from the survey forms which is the core database of research for the
current study. The data will be collected and reported in table form for improved
readability and accessibility for a larger readership. The Likert-type survey is
considered the most applicable form of research tool for the current study design as it
allows for the respondent’s personal preferences to be reflected in the response, thus
indicating the degree to which the respondent perceives the accuracy and/or
importance of the topic of the question in learning English. Additionally, the
Likert-type survey can be administered with a minimal overall investment of time and
resources on the part of both the respondent and the researcher.
During the fall semester in academic year of 2006, surveys were distributed to
graduate Taiwanese students admitted to USC. Respondents were graduate Taiwanese
student who were part of the Taiwanese Student Association (TSA). Respondents
answered survey questions voluntarily. All information for the analysis was derived
from the survey data were then computed using statistical program SPSS 13.0
(Statistical Package for the Social Sciences).

Sample
The goal of this study was to explore the common communication problems of
Taiwanese graduate students in their informal and formal interaction with native
English speakers. In this context, it was also desired to determine the types and
66
frequency of use of communication strategies they use. To effectively investigate the
study’s research questions, an appropriate population will need to be determined. This
study included 2006 Taiwanese international graduate students currently studying at
University of Southern California (USC). These participants were part of the
Taiwanese Student Association (TSA). These learners are ones who have studied
English in the Taiwanese educational system for several years (3 years in intermediate,
3 years in high school and 4 years in the university), but still have perceived a certain
level of difficulty when they communicated in English. They are speakers of English
as a second language and they have passed the admission requirement and met the
minimum English proficiency of Test of English as Foreign Language (TOEFL)
scores of five hundred fifty (550). For the above reason, this particular group is
selected. All members of the sample population are informed of the purpose of the
study on the survey. The data per individual respondent was presented in the study
anonymously.
Sampling Procedures
The researcher sent a letter to the USC's director of TSA (Taiwanese Student
Association) explaining the purpose of the study through electronic mail. The
researcher requested the director to help her publicize an online survey on the TSA
newsletter for a period of twelve weeks. A brief script to all TSA members explaining
the purpose of the study and the online survey were also attached in the email to the
TSA director. Students could access the survey online if they are interested in the
study. All the participants volunteered to finish the survey. The inclusion criteria for
the study was that the first language of the student must be Mandarin and the student
must have begun to study and acquire English as a second language beginning at
seven years of age or older. The criteria were included in the cover letter of the survey,
67
only those who met the criteria were encouraged to proceed with the survey. Thus, it
is assumed that all of the participants who volunteered in the survey were Mandarin
native speakers and had studied English at seven years old or older. Seven was
designated as the determining criteria based on the theory of Noam Chomsky (1968)
in his discussion of the plasticity associated with ease of language acquisition have
peaked by the age of five as “language acquisition device” (Chomsky, 1968). This
indicated that any effort to acquire a second language would occur after the subject
has already established a foundation of L1 skills.

Research Instruments
The Likert-type survey is a weighted survey that enabled the respondent to
qualify personal preferences based upon strength of opinion. The use of this type of
survey is not to point out singularities but instead to help identify isomorphic
processes, opinions, and beliefs that are shared among the survey respondents. The
Likert-type survey is not implemented when the respondents are being assessed in
terms of known data and facts, but rather it is implemented when there is a need to
identify commonalities in attitudes and perceived experiences.
The survey, contained three parts with 45 questions, it was designed
specifically for the study. The majority of these questions are Likert-type items based
on a 5-point scale. The questions were focused on the 1) respondent’s self-assessed
oral proficiency and 2) their use of learning strategies. Other questions asked for
demographic information, such as their initial age exposed to English learning and
their length of residency in an English speaking country. The survey took
approximately 15 minutes to complete.
As a result, the Likert-type survey was applicable in the current study as the
68
goal of the study was to test self-reporting behaviors on production of oral
communication in English. The students were asked to provide personal observations
concerning strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and outcomes inherent in the
mastery of English as a second language. Additionally, the Likert-type survey were
meant to provide weighted opinions regarding the perceived effectiveness of the
communication strategies when correlated by age of language acquisition, and
educational background in five background questions designed to see whether the
sample population can be segmented by non-self-perceived background issues.

The Survey
The survey contained three parts and 45 questions; it was designed
specifically for this study. In Part I of the survey, seven questions contained a
self-reporting demographic data that can be used to isolate correlates between the
student’s background and various aspects of L2 learning. Questions were: gender, age
group, approximate age when English language training was begun, number of years
learning English, and length of residency in the English-Speaking country. These
factors were examined in relation to both oral proficiency and communication
strategies in the data analyses. The 12-item scale for rating participant’s English oral
proficiency was in Part II. In this section, participants self-assessed their own verbal
actions in relating to oral communication based on a 5 point Likert scale. Part III
consisted of 18 questions that examined the different types of communication
strategies participants implemented when speaking English. The third part of the
survey was designed to measure the three key areas of Rubin’s (1987) classification
for learning strategies as reported in the Literature Review. The questions in the
Likert-type survey were used to measure learning strategies, communication strategies,
69
and social strategies.
The survey questionnaire was developed by the researcher based on the
existing literature review and the identified variables in the study. Part 2 followed the
20-item oral proficiency scale developed by Kiyoshi Nakanoko (2004). The
questionnaire was divided into three parts, Part 1 measured personal characteristics,
Part 2 measured oral proficiency and Part 3 assessed use of communication strategies.
Such scale is chosen because to the present researcher’s best knowledge, no adequate
oral proficiency scale has been proposed in the field in order to measure advanced
oral tasks in a university setting. In addition, as the population of the present study
needed to be international Taiwanese students studying abroad with advanced
speaking competence, such scale helped to provide participants a simple criterion by
which they could conveniently assess their own proficiency level. Part III consisted of
the identification of the communication strategies composed by Tarone’s proposed
categorization in Some thoughts on the notions of communication strategies (1981).
Questions were constructed and developed by the present researcher for the purpose
of this study.
The communication strategy items were developed according to the most
common examples identified in the literature and based on Ghaleb’s taxonomic
classification using the L1 based strategy and L2 based strategy categorization. The
communication strategy items were designed to reflect several forms and types of
communication strategies based on the existing literature. The classification system of
communication strategies abound in literature and it provided description of the
different kinds of communication strategies. The researcher simply categorized each
item in the questionnaire based on the definition of that communication strategy.
Accordingly, the most used classification system was the one developed by Ghaleb.
70
The L1 based strategy include literal translation, language switch which could either
be L1 appeal for help and L1 slips and immediate insertion, L1 optimal meaning
strategy, L1 retrieval strategies and L1 ignorance acknowledgement. L2 based
strategy include avoidance strategies, word coinage, circumlocution, self-correction,
approximation, mumbling, L2 appeal for help, self-repetition, use of similar sounding
words, use of all purpose words and ignorance acknowledgement. However, items
that did not fit with any of the existing forms of communication strategies were
classified according to its dominant themes or source.
The communication strategies in the present research are classified as follows:
1. Literal translation (item 1; I translate directly from my mother tongue when I
have difficulties expressing certain meaning in English),
2. Approximation (item 2; When I cannot think of an English word, I use another
word phrase, or sentence that meaning the same to express idea.),
3. Use of all purpose words (item 3; I use certain words, fixed phrases or
sentences when I speak English, item 4; I use general terms rather than
specific words e.g., “vegetables” for “cabbage”; “relative” for “aunt” etc).
4. L2 appeal for help (item 5; If I have difficulties expressing what I want to say,
I ask help from another person).
5. Language switch (item 6; When I can’t think of an appropriate expression of a
word or sentence, I describe it in another way).
6. Avoidance (item 7; I avoid unknown words or unfamiliar topics when I talk in
English, item 9; use short and simple sentences to make conversation go
smoothly).
7. Message adjustment (item 8; I ask questions or direct the conversation to a
topic in order to be involved)
71
8. Word coinage (item 10; When I can’t think of an appropriate expression of a
word or sentence, I make up my own word, item 17; I use familiar words in
different combinations to make new sentences)
9. Appeal for assistance (item 11; I try to spend more time with native English
speakers)
10. Self-repetition (item 12; I say expressions repeatedly to practice them, item 14;
I practice the sounds of English).
11. Self-restructuring (item 13; I imitate the way native speakers talk).
12. Self correction (item 15; I notice my errors in speaking English and find out
the reason for them, item 16; I worry about making errors when I speak
English.

The Pilot Study
To test the reliability of the survey, a pilot study was conducted during the fall
semester in the academic year of 2006. The survey was pilot tested by eight students
from USC campus during the same period prior to the actual data gathering process.
The pilot test was conducted in order to make sure all wording and instructions were
clearly presented. Suggestions were collected from the participants and were adopted
to revise the original copy when necessary. Pilot test participants included students
from any language background who is not a native English speaker. However, for the
purpose of this study the target research group would only include the international
Taiwanese students. The pilot study was implemented for one time only.
The results of the pilot study indicated that some of the items in the
questionnaire was ambiguous and had grammatical errors. All of the participants had
difficulty in understanding the instructions for Part 3, hence the questionnaire was
72
edited and proofread by an expert in the field. Part 1 contained some redundant items
and this was replaced by items that helped establish the background of the participants
in terms of learning English prior to coming to the states. Part 2 was the least
problematic in the questionnaire; most of which were typographical.
The content validity of an instrument refers to the extent to which the
instrument measures the domain content it purports to measure. It is also referred to as
face validity; this is an important aspect of the instrument to consider as it determines
whether the instrument has fully measured all the domains of the specific variables
under study. The content validity of the research instrument was established through
the pilot test and difficulties that the test participants encountered in accomplishing
the questionnaire. Moreover the instrument was presented to a number of Taiwanese
graduate students to determine whether they agreed with the items in the
questionnaire and whether it was accurately constructed to elicit the behavior or
responses that the study would like to measure and understand. Part 1 and Part 3 were
the parts where content validity was established as it has been researcher-designed
and hence have not yet undergone any validity measures.

Reliability and Content Validity
The reliability and content validity of the Part 2 of the questionnaire which measured
the oral proficiency of the participants were established in the original study by
Nananoko’s (2004). The Chronbach alpha of the reliability of the scale was .9057
which indicates high reliability. The construct validity of the scale was also
established using the method proposed by De Jong and Glas (1987). It was
determined that 15 items have high validity scores, while 3 items did not have the
same high validity scores but nonetheless showed a wide difference with the scores of
73
the other group, only 1 item failed the validity test and was then modified to suit the
content of the rest of the items.

Limitations of the Design Process
The foremost problem in the attempt to measure preferences and observations
via a quantitative method was based on the very nature of quantitative analysis:
personal data such as personal experiences and opinions formed that are based on
experience, are qualitative in nature (Babbie, 2004). This indicated that a qualitative
research method through which self-reporting observations were successfully
reviewed and identified would be better suited to the goals of this study. However,
the Likert-type survey method was the best applicable research tool that helped isolate
preferences, thus indicating that quantitative processes could be applied to what was
traditionally an area of study that was subjected to a qualitative approach (Patton,
1990).

Data Collection Procedures
After the research proposal was approved, the researcher then proceeded to the
data gathering phase of the research project. The data gathering procedure were as
follows:
1. A letter was sent to the director of the TSA in order to solicit their help in the
collection of the data through its newsletter.
2. Upon the approval of the TSA director, the survey questionnaire was
circulated in the group’s newsletter for a period of 2 weeks.
3. Those who volunteered to participate in the survey were asked to complete a
3-part questionnaire and were instructed to email it back to the researcher.
74
4. The researcher gathered the completed surveys for a period of three weeks and
a total of 104 questionnaires were returned.
5. The researcher tallied and collated the responses of the participants.
6. The collated data was then run on a statistical analysis program in order to
determine the results which answered the research questions.

Data Analysis
The data analysis in this study focused on the investigation of the Taiwanese
student’s oral communication difficulties in relation to their use of English learning
strategies.To examine the research questions, data analysis was conducted in two
steps. In the first step, the validity and the reliability of the questionnaire items were
examined. This was done through assuming that the respondents’ were honest during
the Likert-type survey and represented their personal opinions and perspectives to the
best of their ability.
All items on the survey were compiled based upon two key traits necessary to
the successful completion of the research goal. First it was necessary to identify the
degree of familiarity that the respondent had to L2, and this was done through an
assessment of the personal background of the participants, since English was taught in
Taiwan schools even in elementary school, this would mean that on average,
Taiwanese graduate students have had contact with English as a second language for
10 or more years. Thus, factors like age of onset of studying English, years spent in
studying English, years in an American school and the like was measured. It should be
noted that no results based upon gender were anticipated, but the question was
included to help isolate the commonalities and themes among responses. Second, the
75
questions were based upon topics taken from the Literature Review and were
presented in a form that allowed for self-reporting of personal experience and
observations.
The responses were categorized in order to analyze the data. The categories
were derived from the commonalities and differences of the responses based on the
reviewed taxonomies of communication strategies. The responses were initially
analyzed using an open system where responses were tested according to its content.
After the initial data categorization and coding, it was tested against the existing
taxonomies used by previous researchers. It was determined that majority of the
responses were parallel to the existing taxonomy of communication strategies. Thus,
the succeeding data analysis used the categories that were established for this study.
The responses under each category were tested for homogeneity and whether the
response was correctly identified to belong to a certain category, this was conducted
by the researcher inspecting the contextual clues present in each response. The
self-report data and personal experiences were subjected to inferential statistics while
the participant characteristics were analyzed using descriptive statistics aided by the
Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS13.0).

Data Analysis for Survey Part I and Part II
Part I of the survey asked all respondents their background information and
this included their length of studying L2, when they first came to America, what age
they started using L2 and age and gender. These demographic factors formed the basis
of the qualities of the group of respondents in anticipation of the possibility of the
effects that these characteristics might have on oral proficiency and use of
communication strategies. The demographic data was reported using descriptive
76
statistics and presented such in a frequency table. Part II of the survey assessed the
respondent’s level of oral proficiency and points for each item was totaled and was
taken as the index of the participant’s level of oral proficiency.

Data Analysis for Survey Part III
Part III of the survey measured the type and frequency of the communication
strategies used by the participants, in order to determine what communication
strategies was related to personal characteristics (Part I) and oral proficiency (Part II),
an analysis of the communication strategies was undertaken in several angles. Using
multiple regressions R’s the communication strategies were tested against that of the
respondent’s oral proficiency index level (Part II) to establish the relationship between
the use of communication strategies and perception of oral proficiency. In order to
determine whether the use of communication strategies was influenced by the
personal characteristics of the respondents (Part I), the data was subjected to a
one-way ANOV A. Lastly, Pearson moment correlation “r” was also done to analyze
the relationship of oral proficiency to each communication strategy item to explore
whether a positive or negative relationship exists between specific items and of oral
proficiency scores.
Factor analysis based on multiple-factor was conducted as follow. First, the
principle component method was employed. The principle component method is a
method in which factors are extracted from the matrix of correlations between all
pairs of relevant variables in a way that the sum of the squares of the factor loadings
of these variables on a factor to extract is the maximum (Harman, 1960). For this
study, each of the strategy was seen as one variable to be placed in a correlation
77
matrix for conducting a principle component computation. In order to determine how
many prominent factors should be extracted from the correlation matrix, a scree test
was administered. In the scree test, ordered factors (e.g., factor 1, factor 2) were
presented on the x-axis and eigenvalues on the y-axis on the plotted graph (Childs,
1990). The point was visually inspected beyond which the slope of the graph becomes
a dull-angled, straight line. The number of factors to a point next to that point should
be extracted as meaningful factors. This point is the very first point from which a plot
is straightened out. Based on the greatest eigenvalue, loadings of the greatest factor
were computed. Based on the second greatest root, loading of the second greatest
factor was also computed. Such procedure was repeated until the researched decided
that enough variance in the correlation matrix has been explained by extracted factors.
The one-way ANOVA established the causality between personal
characteristics and preferred use of communication strategies. Since each
characteristic contained 2 or more sublevels while the data was gathered from a single
group of respondents and was not compared to another group, then the one-way
ANOV A was the appropriate statistical tool to use as it identifies the differences of
means for each sublevel in each category. The PM correlation coefficient was used to
determine the relationship of communication strategy items to that of oral proficiency
scores. By doing so it would show whether a person’s actual oral proficiency is
related to a particular strategy which might have been missed by the factor analysis
since it was tested using the communication strategies categories.
Conclusion
Assessment of effective communicating strategies for L2 was done through
voluntary self-reporting of personal experiences in a Likert-type survey distributed
among 100 potential respondents. The data reflected subject’s learning strategies,
78
communication strategies, and social strategies with the purpose of creating a focused
quantitative profile of strategies that have proved effective in promoting L2 mastery
among native Taiwanese speakers.

79
CHAPTER 4

Data Analysis

Communicating with others using a second language is very different from
being able to read or write a foreign language. Many students required to learn
English as a second language often have mastered reading and grammar skills but
cannot adequately speak the second language especially if it is used as the primary
means of communicating with others. Research has found that when faced with the
difficulty of expressing ideas and thoughts in L2, foreign students resort to
communication strategies. This study specifically investigated how Taiwanese
students made use of communication strategies and how they self-reported their oral
proficiency in speaking L2 as well as identifying student characteristics that would
contribute to the proficiency of speaking L2. This chapter presents the result of the
statistical analysis of the gathered data in this study and attempts to answer the
research questions of this paper.

Results
Demographic Features of the Sample
Before a detailed report on the results of data analysis is given, several
demographic characteristics of the sample are presented based on the respondents’
answers to the five demographic items of the survey (Table 6).

Table 7 Demographic Features of the Sample (N = 102)

Category Frequency Percent
Gender

Female
Male
55
47
53.9
46.1
80
Table 7: Continued
Age 20s
30s
40s
39
43
16
38.3
42.2
15.7
As noted by Table 7, a total of 102 participants took part in this study and
majority of the participants of the study are female in their 30’s. Of all the participants,
55 (53.9%) were female and 47 (46.1%) were male. Quantitative methods require that
the research establish that the variables under study are representative of the
population; hence the importance of demographic data of gender and age identifies
the population with which the participants came from. This is important information
in the present study as it helps control the outcomes of the data analysis and provides
a general overview of the characteristics of the participants of the study and
establishes whether the results can be generalized to the greater population
represented in the study.
Table 8 (below) illustrates the distribution of age ranges at which participants
started learning English. The age of onset of learning English refers to the specific age
at which they were formally instructed in school to study English. Taiwanese schools
had adopted the teaching of English beginning in elementary school but since the age
range for this study is wide, it must be taken into account that not all may have started
it in elementary school.

Table 8 Distribution of Age of onset of learning English
Range Frequency Percent
Onset of English Language Learning 5 and younger
6-8
9-11
12-14
15 and older
5
8
22
54
13
4.9
7.8
21.6
52.9
12.7
81
Table 8 illustrates that that majority of the participants started learning English
at 12 to 14 years old. Among the 102 participants, 5 (4.9%) began their study at 5
years old or younger, 8 (7.8%) began studying between the age of 6-8 years old, 22
(21.6%) began their study between the ages of 9-11 years old, 54 (52.9%) began
studying English between the ages of 12-14 years old, and 13 (12.7%) began studying
English at age 15 or older. This means that English instruction for these participants
had probably been through their local educational system wherein speaking L2 may
not be heavily stressed and which has been practiced intermittently. Previous learning
has been demonstrated to affect new learning, thus if the participants have participated
in English instruction since they were in grade school, then they are more likely to
demonstrate better proficiency and fluency as compared to those who have only
studied the language recently. However, prior instruction does not necessarily mean
that speaking the language had been practiced, public schools or schools that teach
English as an L2 language do not necessarily require students to speak English at all
times. Thus whether onset of learning English have any effect to present English
fluency needs to be determined.
Also, participants reported the number of years that they have been working
with English in the survey. Years of study referred to the number of years that the
participant has been studying English, as an academic requirement or as a personal
effort to improve his/her command of the language, again, this may differ variably for
each participant. Table 9 illustrates the distribution for number of years participants
were working with English.

82
Table 9 Distribution of Years of Studying English

Range Frequency Percent
Years of Study >1 year
1-3 years
4-6 years
7-10 years
< 10 years
1
22
23
16
40
1.0
21.6
22.5
15.7
39.2

One percent (1.0%) reported studying English for less than 1 year, 22 (21.6%)
worked with English between 1-3 years, 23 (22.5%) worked with English between 4-6
years, 16 (15.7%) studied English between 7-10 years, and finally 40 (39.2%)
reported studying English for more than 10 years. The majority of the participants had
been working with English for more than 10 years. This means that they may have
been doing their studies and professional capacities in English. Learning does not
exist in a vacuum. This would mean that learning is a process and it often takes a long
time to master any skill or knowledge, often as much as 7 years. According to
Krashen (1981), language learning is a conscious process that is marked by the
comprehension or understanding of certain language input which facilitates the
learning of grammatical rules of the language. The decay of learning tells us that
knowledge or skills that have not been brought to conscious awareness will eventually
be forgotten, thus participants who have started studying English while they were in
grade school and have stopped there will not be expected to have the same fluency
and oral proficiency as those who have studied the language for 10 years or more.
Therefore, it is important to determine whether the years spent in studying English
affects the participant’s oral proficiency.
Lastly, the length of stay in the United States is illustrated in Table 10
(below). Length of stay in the US was designed to determine the number of years the
83
participants had been in the US, which would tell the degree of exposure that the
participant has to the second language and it would also indicate the amount of time
they had actually been speaking English.

Table 10 Distribution of Residence/Stay in the US

Range Frequency Percent
Length of Stay in US >6 months
7-12 months
1-2 Years
2-3 Years
3-4 Years
4-5 Years
5-6 Years
3
5
14
19
14
21
26
2.9
4.9
13.7
18.6
13.7
20.6
25.5

As noted by Table 10, the majority of participants, 61 (59.8%), reported being
in the US for 3 years or more. Participants also reported on their mastery of Mandarin
Chinese. Overall, the sample reported a high mastery, M = 4.41, SD = 1.11.
Additionally, participants were asked if it is important to master your native language,
M = 3.81, SD = 1.23. The majority of the participants had been in the country for
more than 3 years which would mean that they have had adequate opportunity and
experience to use L2 in their interactions with other people. The mentioned data
category was important for it falls under the factor ‘demographic features’.

Factor Analysis for the Types of strategies Taiwanese students use
The researcher has chosen to use factor analysis with a goal of explaining the
underlying relationships of the phenomenon being studied. According to Harshman
(1970), an explanatory factor analysis “seeks to discover good estimates of the
structure of true underlying influences that are responsible for the observed data
84
relationships” (p.3). The explanatory factor analysis is used in this study since the aim
is to determine whether there are any relationships between the strategies used by the
participants and their self-reported oral proficiency and provide a quantitative
explanation for this phenomenon.
A principal components factor analysis with varimax rotation was used to test
the dimensionality of the communication strategies measure in part 3 of the survey.
The scree plot was included (Figure 1) to illustrate the significance of the factors. The
scree plot method allowed the researcher to identify the underlying factors that
dominated in terms of communication strategies presented in the survey. The goal was
to isolate major approaches in the use of communication strategies. Factors with
eigenvalues on the sharp descent of the slope of the scree plot were deemed as factors.

Figure 1. Scree Plot
17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Component Number
4
3
2
1
0
Eigenvalue
Scree Plot

From visually interpreting, the scree plot (Figure 1), it was determined that 3
85
factors were derived from the communication strategies measure. The first factor
included survey items 2, 5, 6, 11, 13, 15, and 18 had an eigenvalue of 3.67 and
explained 21.6% of the variance. The second factor included survey items 8, 10, 12,
16, and 17 had an eigenvalue of 2.11 and explained 12.4% of the variance. The final
factor included survey items 1, 3, 4, 7, and 9 had an eigenvalue of 1.65 and explained
9.5% of the variance.
The scree plot illustrates that through the process of visual discrimination, the
explanatory analysis of the item questionnaire for the use of communication strategies
revealed three dominant approaches which were subjected to another rotation in order
to determine which themes were stable. The process of elimination using scree plot
answered the research question what communication strategies was associated with
the participant’s oral proficiency.
The factor analysis of the communication strategies used by L2 Taiwanese
students revealed that three trait factors were significant that each item in the survey
could fall under. The three general communication approaches were found to be
statistically meaningful: meaningful communication approach, word utilizing
approach and playing it safe approach. Since the survey was designed to generate
behavioral manifestation of oral communication, the responses were also indicative of
how the learner approached the task of using L2 rather than the content of their
responses. Accordingly, the identified factors are referred to as approaches. The scree
plot and the rotation of the identified factors illustrated that the approaches
participants have for communication strategy was dependent on the context in which
an event occurred.
Table 11 presents the major three factors that emerged as the result of the
explanatory factor analysis. Included in the table represents the total of the rotated
86
sum of squares as well as the percentage of variance between the three approaches.
The table provides an evidence of the underlying factors present in the items used in
the survey in terms of communication strategies.

Table 11
Total Variance Explained by the Rotation of Three Factors Extracted
Rotation Sums of
Squared Loadings
Factor Total % of Variance Cumulative %
1. Meaningful
Communication Approach
3.966 22.03 22.03
2. Word Utilizing Approach 2.162 12.01 34.04
3. Playing it safe approach 1.679 9.33 43.37

The results of the factor analysis revealed that there are three dominant
approaches that classify the items in the communication strategies instrument. The
most salient factor is in the attribution of meaning to the words, phrases and sentences
used by the participants. This approach has been associated with most of the
communication strategy items reported by the participants and therefore is the most
common and unifying factor for the strategies as used by the participants of the study.
Based on the results of the factor loadings, the following discussion of the
dominant approaches were presented to attest to the observation that language for L2
learners is both a stressor and an empowering tool to get things done. Subscales for
the survey emerged because of the factor analysis. These include (1) Meaningful
communication approach (2) Word utilizing approach (3) Playing it safe approach.
The identified subscales are described with their associated item analyses in the
section that follows.

87
(1) Meaningful communication approach
Subscale (Factor 1) is interest in meaningful communication approach with a
sum of square of 3.966 indicates that the participants in their oral proficiency ratings
had a preference for meaningful communication approach. This communication
approach is manifested when the participants are unable to say what they want using
L2, wherein, they may use item 2- approximation (using words synonymous to the
appropriate word), item 5 - appeal for help (help from native speakers) and item 6 -
language switch (using other words if L2 word is not accessible). As demonstrated by
the factor analysis, the survey participants report that in order to learn how to
communicate meaningfully with their L1 associates, they must spend more time with
them (item 11-appeal for assistance) so they would be able to imitate how native
speakers speak (item 13- self restructuring) and are conscious of their mistakes to find
out ways to correct it (item 15- self correction). The approach favored by the
respondents in increasing their oral proficiency in L2 is that of being able to express
meaningful sentences that native speakers will not have difficulty understanding. It
can also be said that oral proficiency in L2 may increase with their constant use of the
language just as how native speakers use it. As noted from Table 10, Meaningful
communication approach accounted for 22.03% of the variance among the items for
part 3 of the survey.

(2) Word utilizing approach
Subscale (Factor 2) is word utilization approach with a sum of square of
2.162 indicates that participants’ oral proficiency is exercised by using L2 words as
they understand it and participants focus on utilizing the L2 words that they are
familiar with and has mastered. In this approach, the participants’ ratings provided
88
evidence to indicate that the participants usually employ message adjustment (item 8 -
questioning or directing the conversation to something they are familiar with).
Similarly, participants emphasize that their oral proficiency strategy is to say L2
words repeatedly (item 12, self-repetition) and to practice it constantly. Moreover,
whenever participants are faced with the inability to produce the most appropriate
word to say what they mean, they make up their own word (item 10 - word coinage).
Word utilization approach concerns using L2 words rather than using the most
apt L2 word to express thoughts and emotions. When speaking L2, the respondents
often worry about being wrong (item 16 - paraphrase) and that they tend to use
familiar words repeatedly and combine these with other or new words (item 17 - word
coinage).
Factor 2 in terms of a communication strategy is to be able to use L2 words when
speaking or expressing ideas, not much emphasis is given to the literal meaning of the
words but rather utilization of the words revolve around being able to communicate.
Factor 2 has a variance of 12.01% for the items in the part 3 surveys which tests the
strategy used in oral proficiency.

(3) Playing it safe approach
Subscale (Factor 3) is playing it safe approach with a sum of square of 1.679
indicates that the strategy used in developing oral proficiency of the respondents is
through using words and expressions that they have mastered of which they are
confident in using, hence fewer chances of error. This also indicates that they try to
process the message of the sentences or words in their own native tongue and respond
to it accordingly. It can be observed that for this factor, items like translating directly
from their mother tongue that they cannot adequately express in L2 (item 1-literal
89
translation) as proof of this approach. This factor also involved using fixed sentences
and phrases that have been learned by the participants to at least be able to express
themselves. This is categorized as approximation as the participant actually
approximates the old sentences and phrases in communicating instead of learning new
sentences. Playing it safe approach is also manifested in the participant’s use of
general terms than specific words when speaking (item 4-use of all purpose word) and
in the avoidance of unfamiliar topics or not using unknown words when speaking L2
(item 7, avoidance). Lastly, playing it safe approach is favored in the use of short and
simple sentences in order to ensure the smooth conversation (item 9- message
avoidance). Playing it safe approach indicates that oral proficiency of L2 speakers is
isolated to the use of familiar, safe from errors and commonly used sentences or
phrases which means that verbal abilities is limited to some extent. The factor is
responsible for the variance of 9.33% among the part 3 items.
Table 12 (below) presents the detailed factor scores for each item in the part 3
of the survey which respondents answered to indicate the most commonly used
strategy in increasing oral proficiency of L2.

Table 12
Rotated Factor Matrix for the Strategy Scores Placed in the Common Space (with
factor loading of .300 or less suppressed)

Factor
Strategy 1
Meaningful
communication approach
2
Word utilizing approach
3
Playing it safe approach
1 .537
2 .681

90
Table 12: Continued.
3 .391 .685
4 .714
5 .410 .313
6 .344 .614
7 .561
8 .421 .355
9 .458
10 .576
11 .377
12 .716
13 .649 .381
14 .717
15 .738
16 .316 .307
17 .481 .536
18 .306 .337

Table 12 presents the factor loadings for each communication strategy item.
The table indicates which items fall under which approach based on the factor loading
values. The results are used to explore and determine the relationship of the
communication strategies to that of the three approaches and lend itself to a more
in-depth study.

Summary and synthesis of Communication Strategies
Communication strategies are varied and sometimes highly specific to the person,
however, assuming that the participants had learned a working knowledge of English,
then it is possible that they had used the said strategies in different situations and
verbal exchange.
The participants of this study completed the questionnaire that measured the
frequency of the kind of communication strategies that had been employed in the
91
speaking of English. Communication strategies had been defined and categorized by
various researchers and scholars, what remains true for all is that language
development and learning is a mix of psychology, culture and physiology (Freeman &
Freeman, 2001). Communication strategies are the methods of which non-English
speaking learners resort to when they are unable to express their thoughts, ideas and
feelings in L2. The first question in this dissertation study is focused on the kind of
strategies that would have a major association to that of the participant’s self report
oral proficiency.
The first factor indicates that this group under study favor making use of
meaningful communication approach by using meaningful phrases, searching for the
correct word and be able to communicate in the language as well. Research had
demonstrated that communication strategies can be divided into several parts. The
items in this factor include using synonymous words and asking other people for help,
this shows the participants practical side as well as the need to be able to express
correctly the things they want to through oral communication. The group also
emphasized the importance of interacting constantly with their L2 peers so they would
learn the accent and the manner of speaking of the target language. Research has
revealed that constant interaction with L1 native speakers and workers would greatly
improve the oral proficiency of the participants (Florez, 1999). There are other
communication strategies available but some learners prioritize what they find to be
effective in their own point of view. Meaningful phrases are important in high school
and being able to belong to the in-group, all of which has much less role in graduate
studies. The need to contribute to class discussions and interact critically with their
mentors has made it important for students to learn the language and be able to speak
it adequately.
92
The second identified factor is called word utilization approach which is
essentially the use of L2 words in expressing ideas using the literal meaning of the
phrase rather than understanding the appropriate use of the word. The results of the
factor analysis demonstrate that participants are more inclined to describe words, to
familiarize words and practice it and to use the same words over and over. The strict
adherence of the group to the literal meaning and use of L2 words can stem from the
Taiwanese educational system of emphasizing rote learning and the adherence to rules
(Lim, 2003). In reality, speaking English like that of L1 speakers is not bounded by
the grammatical rules of English and that there are a number of words that could
mean the same thing but gives different intensity, description and feelings to the
sentence or phrase. Basically the items in this factor point to the inability of the
participants to make use of own problems monitoring as identified by Cook (2001).
The third factor is called playing it safe approach or more easily put is the
avoidance of the opportunities for learning and using English. The items that loaded
under this factor include avoiding the use of unfamiliar words, the use of
generalizations rather than specific words and using short simple sentences. The
results clearly point out the avoidance that participants have for L2 words they do not
know about. Research has revealed however that interacting actively and making
mistakes along the way improves the ability of the person to communicate in the
second language. The use of avoidance as a communication strategy had been
observed most of the time in those who do not feel that they have the confidence to
speak in English. However, since the factor has the smallest variance, it can be
assumed that the need to avoid communicating in English is not often readily resorted
to.
The question on determining what communication strategy is being used by
93
Taiwanese students and which has been favored by the group under study has been
answered through this analysis. The results revealed different values for all of the
items are indicated and we observe that the group highly favors those strategies that
had been thought to them rather than those they had come to know in their
conversation with other speakers.

Correlational Analysis for the Self-report Oral Proficiency Scores and the three
approaches
Further analysis of the data from the communication strategies used by the
respondents and its relationship to oral proficiency, the two items were correlated to
test whether a specific approach was related to oral proficiency. Table 13 that follows
presents the correlation between the oral proficiency scores and the strategy
approaches identified in the factorial analysis of the part 3 of the survey. The
following tables illustrated the detailed correlation coefficients of the three
approaches to self-reported oral proficiency mastery.

Table 13
Simple PM Correlations between the Oral Proficiency Scores and Each Strategy
Group with the Factor Loadings of .300 or Larger Include as Predictors

Correlation Significance
1. Meaningful communication approach .202* .045
2. Word utilizing approach -.169 .092
3. Playing it safe approach .338** .001
Note. *p < .05, ** p < .01

As stated earlier, the approaches identified comprised of Meaningful
communication approach, Word utilizing approach and Playing it safe approach. The
correlation coefficients for the first approach is .202 at 0.05 level of confidence with
94
a .045 significance which means that for this group, oral proficiency scores increases
as they use this approach but the relationship is limited in the sense that it is typical of
the general population. This would mean that most people, whether L2 learners or not,
generally monitor their speaking skills and how they deliver sentences and words
correctly. With the playing it safe approach, the correlation coefficient is .338 at 0.01
level of confidence and a significance of .001 which has a higher correlation than the
first approach. The significance of the oral proficiency score to that of approach used
is almost nonexistent. On the other hand, the second approach has -.169 correlation
at .092 significance level which results in a negative correlation between the
word-utilizing approach and oral proficiency.
The results of the correlational analysis show that there is a relationship between
the kind of approaches employed and reported oral proficiency scores. It can be
detremined that when a student uses meaningful communication approach, oral
proficiency improves, while playing it safe approach does not necessarily have an
impact on the oral proficiency scores. A decrease in the use of word utilizing
approach is correlated to an increase in oral proficiency scores.

Oral Proficiency and Communication strategies
In an effort to identify the specific communication strategy that was positively
correlated to self-report oral proficiency scores, the detailed table of survey items and
the corresponding correlation values was inspected.
Table 14 presents the correlation coefficients of strategy items from the survey
found to have a positive relationship to reported oral proficiency scores. It is evident
that spending more time with native English speakers (r = 0.30) can positively affect
oral proficiency, this is followed by using another word or phrase similar in meaning
95
in order to express ideas (r = 0.27). Describing expressions or words to aid the
expression of thoughts (r = 0.27) can also aid in the mastery of speaking in English.
Imitating native speakers when they talk (r = 0.24) and practicing the sounds of
English ( r = 0.23) also helps the facilitation of oral proficiency. Lastly, results reveal
that being conscious of one’s errors while speaking English and finding ways to
correct the errors (r = 0.24) also have a positive influence on reported oral proficiency.

Table 14
Strategy Items That Shows Positive Proportional Relationship with Oral Proficiency

Item r p
2) When I cannot think of an English word, I use another
word phrase, or sentence that meaning the same to
express idea.
0.27 .007
6) When I can’t think of an appropriate expression of a
word or sentence, I describe it in another way.
0.27 .005
11) I try to spend more time with native English speakers. 0.30 .003
13) I imitate the way native speakers talk. 0.24 .015
14) I practice the sounds of English. 0.23 .022
15) I notice my errors in speaking English and find out the
reason for them.
0.24 .017

The results (Table 14) indicate that a combination of metacognition, sound
production and self-monitoring assists in the mastery of oral proficiency. These results
lend support to the widely used practice of using native speakers as mentors for L2
learners. Krashen (2003) has reported that students generally perform better when
they are given comprehensible input and they have teachers who give them the
opportunity to encounter English words as it is spoken and to be able to monitor it
through the rules of grammar. Additionally, being able to recognize and identify the
96
sounds and pronunciation of the words and then using it in sentences and speaking it
more often while being conscious of one’s mistakes facilitates the learning of second
languages.
Among 17 survey items, only one strategy item (item 4 “I use general terms
rather than specific words.”) was found to have a negative correlation with reported
oral proficiency. Using general terms rather than specific words had a correlation of
-0.33, which means that the more a second language learner use general terms, the
lower the oral proficiency. Results also reveal that mastery of oral proficiency of the
English language would entail the ability and the knowledge of using specific words
to express ideas meaningfully and more appropriately.
Moreover, 10 items in the survey have been found to have no relationship to
reported oral proficiency based on the correlational analysis. From the result, it is
evident that a strategy which does not consciously utilize the different aspects of the
English language does not impact oral proficiency. Strategies include translating
directly from the mother tongue (r = -0.19) making up words (r = 0.08) and asking
help from another person (r = 0.12) is an elementary way of learning the language,
literal translation is not effective as each language differs in syntax and structure. Per
the correlational analysis as a strategy, making up words or asking someone else
removes the learner from the opportunity to actively be engaged in the production of
the language. Other items such as “saying expressions repeatedly”, “using fixed
words”, and “using simple and short sentences” indicate the constricted mastery of the
words.

Summary for Self-report Oral Proficiency Scores and Communication Strategy
In summary, the correlational analysis procedures revealed that language is
97
constantly being evaluated and the mastery of one language may influence the ability
to master the second language. However, previous experiences and learning come into
the picture in the assessment of one’s oral proficiency. A person may say that he/she
can understand a foreign language but cannot fully speak it. Taiwanese students can
be assumed to feel the same. In order to determine whether the level of mastery or
proficiency that a person has is related to their ability to speak and their use of
strategies in communicating English, a correlational analysis was implemented.
The correlation of the scores of self-reported oral proficiency and the
communication strategy had revealed that there is little relationship with Meaningful
communication approach and Play it safe approach while a negative relationship
exists for Word utilizing approach. Based on the significance of the values, it was
found that Word utilizing approach had the highest value. This means that the use of
Word utilizing approach can significantly indicate the progress at which the L2 learner
is experiencing. A previous research study had found that Word utilizing approach can
be quantified in terms of how the word has been modified and used, thus it can be
generalizations or simply coining words to refer to a certain L2 word (Adamson &
Regan, 1991) Avoidance as a strategy was determined to be counterproductive since it
limits the interaction of the person and hence the ability to develop their oral
proficiency. Lastly, the correlation value is not very high (p=.301) and it can be
deduced that a relationship may exist at some point for communication strategy and
oral proficiency but it cannot be adequately said that communication strategy
approaches causes the rise of oral proficiency scores and vice versa.
Oral proficiency was measured using a quantitative analysis and scores for each
participant were given and correlated to their self-report on the use of communication
strategy. The results have again showed that oral proficiency is smaller in values and
98
that the ability to speak well is not the same as using communication strategies. The
question of whether oral proficiency has a relationship with preferred communication
strategy failed to establish statistical proof of the relationship although to some degree
a relationship do exists. The results support the assumption of Hakuta, Butler and
Witt, (2000) that the ability to speak and the conscious awareness of strategies to
enable the person to deal with the difficulty of interacting with others are difficult and
involve two completely different things.
In an effort to identify the specific communication strategy that was positively
correlated to self-report oral proficiency scores, the detailed table of survey items and
the corresponding correlation values was inspected. The items found to have the
highest correlation to oral proficiency were spending more time with native speakers,
use of similar in meaning words and describing the words. The results support the
early research that a powerful means of mastery of speaking English is through
interacting with the same age and same interest person but is a native speaker of the
L2. Substitution of words and describing it is similar to the categories as identified by
Rubin (1987). This study revealed that spending more time with native speakers, use
of similar in meaning words and describing the words indicate a progress in the
learning of the language since this are all L1 based strategies (Ghaleb, 2002) The top
three positive correlation communication strategies in this study is indicative of a
progression of the learning of the language. The ability to monitor one’s oral
communication ability reflects a certain mastery as proposed by Krashen (1981) in his
natural order hypothesis. Effective communication takes more than just the ability to
talk. It also involves the use of one’s mental faculties in the choice of words, the
ability to make the other person understand what one is saying and vice versa.
The research question on whether communication strategies used by Taiwanese
99
graduate students is associated with oral proficiency has been answered in this
discussion. It has been found that spending time with native speakers is associated
with competency in one’s oral communication patterns. The second research question
on whether any personal characteristic significantly affected their oral proficiency is
discussed below.

Personal Characteristics and Self-report Oral Proficiency

A person’s perception of the mastery of speaking English and the previous
experiences that the second language learner has may provide an influencing factor on
the ability to speak English. In order to identify the demographic conditions which
may contribute to the reported oral proficiency levels of the participants, a separate
one way ANOV A (Table 15) was conducted to test which conditions would have
significant to effect to reported oral proficiency.

Table 15
Mean Differences in Oral Proficiency among Categories of Each Demographic Factor
That were Revealed by one way ANOV A (N=102)
Demographic
Factor
Category N M
(Combined)
SD SE F P
Gender Male
Female
47
55
48.94
50.42
12.93
11.74
1.89
1.58
F
1,101
= 0.37 0.55
Age 10s
20s
30s
40s
4
39
43
16
61.00
51.72
49.35
43.13
13.98
11.24
12.15
12.20
6.99
1.80
1.85
3.05
F
3,101
= 3.23 0.03
Age of onset
of English
Learning
<5 years
6-8
9-11
12-14
>15 years
5
8
22
54
13
53.40
54.75
54.50
46.33
51.31
16.59
8.15
12.77
12.22
8.40
7.42
2.88
2.73
1.66
2.32
F
4,101
= 2.51 0.05

100
Table 15: Continued.
Years of
Study
1-3
4-6
7-10
10 or
more
22
23
16
40
43.05
45.65
49.44
56.32
9.83
12.27
8.96
11.57
2.10
2.56
2.24
1.83.
F
3,100
= 7.05 0.00
Length of
Stay in US
< 6 mos
7-12 mos
1-2 yrs
2-3 yrs
3-4 yrs
5-6 yrs
6-7 yrs
3
5
14
19
14
21
26
44.33
44.00
44.07
44.89
53.07
48.43
57.31
5.51
14.54
9.84
12.62
12.64
8.88
12.11
3.18
6.50
2.63
2.90
3.38
1.94
2.37
F
6,101
= 3.63 0.01

From Table 15 it is evident that years of study (F
3,100
=7.05) had the greatest effect on
reported oral proficiency, thus the longer a student stays in the US, the better are
his/her chances of learning English. It is reasonable to assume that a longer stay
would mean greater opportunity to interact with native speakers, to build relationships
and to spend more time in learning the language. Language is a cultural symbol which
can only be fully explained by a mixture of social and cultural factors. As such, the
second highest factors was length of stay in the US (F
6,101
= 3.63), again the longer
the stay, the more consistent the need to learn and speak the language per participants
report. Age showed a value of F
3,101
= 3.23 which means that age can affect the ability
of a person to learn a language, from the detailed mean values, it is illustrated that
those who are in their teen’s have better command of the language. The age of onset
of learning the language (F
4,101
= 2.51) did not reveal significant effect. Gender (F
1,101

= 0.37) did not have statistical significant effect in this analysis. The results suggest
that learning a second language earlier in life would prepare the person for more
complex learning. This implies that learning to speak a second language is similar to
101
learning one’s first language, and such skill develops over time (Thomas & Collier,
2002). A study has revealed that procedural learningof a second language may
decrease as the learner becomes older, the study reported that the inability to learn the
steps involved in language production may decrease the proficiency in the second
language (Ullman, Corkin, Coppola, Hickok, Growden & Koroshetz, 1997).
It had been observed that some people begin their study of English earlier and
this significantly allows them to develop their L2 skills more than the normal
requirement for communicating with L1 workers. Thus, this study purports to reveal
personal characteristics including gender, age of learning L2 and length of stay in the
country can contribute to the increase of oral proficiency scores in this sample group.
The results demonstrated that years of study had the highest f value for oral
proficiency. This was followed by length of stay in the USA, which basically means
that the longer the person learns English and stays in the country, had been proven to
contribute significantly to the mastery of oral proficiency. These results support the
critical period theory of language development (Flege, Yeni-Komshian & Liu, 1999),
if the child is asked to learn a language well past the critical stage, then they might
expect to exert more effort and have greater difficulty learning L2.

Personal Characteristics and Communication Strategy
Language acquisition and learning is influenced by a number of factors which
may include native language proficiency, language exposure, goals, motivation and
kind of classroom environment (Skehan, 1989).
An individual’s personal characteristics also influence the kind of
communication strategies that is used by the individual (Adger, Kalyanpur, Peterson,
& Bridger, 1995). How a person thinks will invariably affect what aids he/she will
102
adopt in the process of communicating with others for example, a person who has not
been in the country for long would adopt avoidance strategies more than others.
In order to determine which learner characteristics are closely associated with
oral proficiency, a one way ANOV A of each personal characteristic and reported oral
proficiency scores was tested for the study. Table 16 (below) is the statistical table of
analysis of variance values and associated descriptive statistics.

Table 16
Mean Differences in Total Strategy Scores among Categories of Each Demographic
Factor That were Revealed by one way ANOV A (N=102)
Demographic
Factor
Category N M SD SE F P
Gender Male
Female
47
53
44.26
44.51
7.36
7.31
1.07
1.00
F
1,99
= 0.03 0.87
Age of onset
of English
Learning
<5 years
6-8
9-11
12-14
>15 years
5
8
20
54
13
39.22
41.88
45.15
44.56
46.08
9.60
9.02
6.59
7.31
6.03
4.29
3.18
1.47
1.00
1.67
F
4,99
= 1.11 0.36
Years of
Study
1-3
4-6
7-10
10 or more
20
23
16
40
42.50
42.83
46.12
45.60
6.00
6.77
6.95
8.18
1.34
1.41
1.74
1.29
F
3,98
= 1.48 0.23
Length of
Stay in US
< 6 month
7-12 month
1-2 yrs
2-3 yrs
3-4 yrs
5-6 yrs
6-7 yrs
3
5
12
19
14
21
26
47.33
41.40
44.67
43.10
46.79
46.95
42.08
13.27
2.30
6.99
5.18
7.10
7.37
8.18
7.67
1.03
2.02
1.19
1.90
1.61
.161
F
6,99
= 1.45 0.19

Table 16 presents the ANOV A results of personal characteristics of the L2
students and possible effects. These results revealed in the table show that
103
demographic characteristics do not have significant effect on the kind of strategies
used in oral production. Years of studying and working with English (F
3,98
= 1.48)
had the highest value but was still not statistically significant, followed by length of
stay in the US (F
6,99
= 1.45) did not also influenced the kind of strategies used. This
means that gender, number of years learning the language and the age at which
instruction began did not determine any preference as to the kind of strategy
employed in learning and command of the language. The mean values for each
category is too similar with insignificant variances which means that the responses
were loosely distributed. Therefore, preference for a certain strategy was not
connected to any demographic characteristic in this student population.

Summary of Personal Characteristics and Communication Strategy
Contextual factors abound in the process of second language learning
(Adger, Kalyanpur, Peterson, & Bridger, 1995). Personal characteristics may
influence the type of communication strategies utilized by the learner. An individual’s
personal characteristics also influence the kind of communication strategies that is
used by the individual. How a person thinks will invariably affect which aids he/she
will adopt in the process of communicating with others. For example, a person who
has not been in the country for long would adopt avoidance strategies more than
others.
Communication strategy has been found to be effective in communicating
effectively with L2 speakers and learners. The interaction for this group basically
happen in the classroom to determine which personal characteristic contribute to the
choice of using communication strategies or not. The results in the t-test and the
corresponding f values for each of the personal characteristics demonstrate that there
104
is no effect or relationship between the participants’ personal characteristics and use
of communication strategies. The f values are quite small, an indication that the
personal characteristics does not effect the choice of communication strategies. It
seems that almost all of the participants have employed all of the identified strategies
and that the responses may have been too similar and hence the variances had been
too small. The results showed that the choice of what communication strategy to use
is not dependent on the personal characteristics of the L2 learner. Bialystok (1982) in
a similar study found that there is a conscious mechanism in the use of
communication strategies, and it is more dependent on the context of the interaction
than the personal characteristics of the learner, so that even if the person had worked
with English for the past 10 years, he or she may choose to use one or the other
communication strategy to suit the needs of the situation or it is the one favored by the
person.
One research question for this dissertation asks whether the personal
characteristics affect oral proficiency and communication strategy had been found to
have different results. Personal characteristics were found to influence oral
proficiency while it does not affect the choice of communication strategies.

Summary
This chapter provided the results and discussions of the study and in doing so
attempted to answer the research questions put forth in the first chapter of this study.
The findings have shown that the participants are composed of male and female, have
more than 10 years of experience in English and stayed in the community for the last
4 years. The factorial analysis of the items on the survey questionnaire identified 3
major common themes, the meaningful communications approach, the word
105
utilization approach and the playing it safe approach. From the dominant themes
underlying communication strategies, it was found that the communication strategy
that is used and preferred by the participants was speaking in English with native
speakers. On the other hand, perception of oral proficiency was related to personal
characteristics indicating that the individual’s belief of his/her ability to speak English
may be influenced by his/her previous experiences. However, personal characteristics
did not affect the choice of communication strategies; thus, the use of communication
strategies is not dependent on previous learning and experiences but rather is context
and content specific.
This chapter discussed the statistical findings of the present study and how it
answers the research questions of the study. Based on the results of the study, the next
chapter provides the theoretical discussion of the implications of the findings of the
result as it relates to second language learning of Taiwanese students and to second
language acquisition in general.

106
CHAPTER 5

Discussion

Many L2 English speaking Asian students have faced the challenge of not
being able to communicate effectively with L1 speakers of English via oral
communication. In higher education such as post-graduate training and masters’
degrees, it is important that L2 learners have an excellent command of English. This
study has identified the different strategies that Taiwanese students employ in
speaking English (L2) as well as the different situational and personal factors that
influence their ability to speak the language. This chapter presents the implications
from the results of this study as well as recommendations and conclusions derived
from the study’s findings.

Implications
Being a second language learner in the US country is a challenge, in the sense
that learning cannot be adequately expressed, knowledge cannot be demonstrated in
appropriate terms and ideas or innovations cannot be fully shared to the academic
community who are primarily native English speakers. One way to be successful in
the academic world and to get the most out of one’s training and education is to be
able to express and share one’s ideas, conceptualizations and theories effectively. This
can only be completed if the L2 learner has mastered the language and is able to speak
it like native L1 speakers. On the other hand, this is a difficult feat to achieve, if not
almost impossible especially if the L2 learner has just arrived in the United States
with minimal training in speaking English. But since human nature is ingenious and
107
we try to compensate for what we lack, it has been observed and documented by
previous researchers that foreign L2 learners have resorted to the use of
communication strategies (Cummins, 1981), this refer to the ways L2 learners try to
communicate with other people despite the limited English words they have mastered
or with the very basic English language speaking ability that they have.
The findings of this study are three-fold. First is the finding that most
Taiwanese students try to interact and communicate more with native speakers in
order to learn how to speak like a native speaker. The second finding is that personal
characteristics such as length of stay in the country and number of years spent
learning English do not influence the choice of which communication strategy to use,
but it influenced their perception of oral proficiency in English. Lastly, oral
proficiency was not statistically correlated to communication strategy but a certain
relationship between the two variables was demonstrated. To some degree one’s
perception of his/her ability to speak English well is not dependent on the use of
communication strategies per the statistical analyses. These results maybe true only
for Taiwanese students who have had training in English before they came to the
country and those who are proficient in the language, as they have passed the basic
language requirement needed for higher education in America.
This study revealed that the primary preferred communication strategy of L2
learners is interacting and communicating with native speakers of the language. The
implications of this result point to the possibility of the truth in the nature of the
human mind in the acquisition of language. Theories that espouse the development of
language as rooted in the human brain and are developed as a means of survival and
socialization lends evidence to the importance that L2 learners place on the need to
interact with native speakers to be able to effectively master the language. Language
108
has been thought of as a vehicle of cultural transfer as Vygotsky (1986) has posited.
The subtle inflections in voice, tone, pronunciation, stress, accent and even the choice
of words carry with it the cultural values of the group of whom the language had
originated. The participants in the study had found it beneficial to learn English as the
native speakers speak it, hence the need to constantly practice speaking the language
with native speakers. This also implies that learning a language is multi-faceted, it is
not enough that a person has learned the grammar rules of the language, the
vocabulary of the language, the correct pronunciation of the words, the basic
sentences of the language, or to be able to write and express one’s ideas using the
language.
Speaking is an entirely different skill related to the knowledge of the language
but is more dependent upon the ability to think and express ideas using the English
language, which is not given much importance in the conceptualization of language
acquisition and development. Another vital implication of this result is that mastery of
speaking a new language may only be developed fully in the context of interaction. It
is evident that to be able to speak a new language, one must interact with someone
who is a native speaker of that language or one that has mastered the language and
speaks it as well as the native speaker. Albert Bandura (1986) says that individuals
learn vicariously, when native speakers communicate, the L2 learners observe and
learn from them. Through the interaction process, the L2 student learns the accent, the
correct words, the basic, as well as, idiomatic expressions that may seem confusing
for L2 learners. The learning process is characterized by modeling, vicarious learning
and actual experience which are faster and more effective than learning it by rote or
through coaching (Bandura, 1986). When an L2 learner practices speaking English
with a fellow L2 learner, the tendency is for them to inject their own native words to
109
the conversation, which in effect defeats the purpose of learning how to speak English
correctly (Cummins, 1981).
Furthermore, communication is a process, whereby the measure of its
effectiveness is when a person is able to express his/her ideas in a manner
comprehensible to another speaker of the language. The important aspect of the
communication process is whether the message has gotten across from point A to
point B. According to the language acquisition theory of Freeman and Freeman
(2001), learning a second language involves a progression of stages wherein the L2
learner starts from limited knowledge of the language to fluency. When an L2 learner
interacts with a native speaker, if he/she is not able to express his/her ideas in words
that the native speaker can understand and recognize as English, then the L2 speaker
has not communicated at all. But since it is important that the native speaker
understand the message, the L2 learner has to work hard to be able to speak the
language, hence learning is facilitated (Freeman & Freeman, 2001).
Language is second nature to man, and often times, the original language
learned as a child will take primary hold of the language capabilities of the person as
he/she gets older. Learning English as a second language therefore can be affected by
the first language and when faced with difficulties, the normal reaction is to use the
first language to translate the second language (Chomsky, 1968). This demonstrates
the capabilities of the human mind to accommodate language learning, including the
learning of abstract concepts and logic, and the speed and ease at which language is
learned.
One’s self report of oral proficiency in a second language has been found in
this study to be related to personal characteristics and was not significantly related to
the choice of communication strategies. It is important to note that perception of oral
110
proficiency refers to the extent to which a person believes that he/she can adequately
speak and understand the second language. Personal characteristics such as length of
stay in the country and the age at which students begun learning English was related
to the perception of oral proficiency, while, the level of oral proficiency did not
influence the choice of communication strategies. This result points to the importance
of learning another language early in life. Most of the participants in the study have
had formal training in English as required by the Taiwanese educational system;
however, the process has been limited in terms of speaking English. The inability to
give more emphasis to speaking skills is important because current language
curriculums are focused on learning the language academically, rules of grammar,
sentence construction, vocabulary, spelling and etc. which are undoubtedly important,
but is limited when it comes to English speaking skills (Krashen & Terrell, 1983).
From the results, it is obvious that the group has felt that they have already spent
years learning and working with English that they are already proficient in it orally.
The implication is that L2 learners who believe that they are already orally proficient
in English may stop learning the language since the knowledge they have of the
language can suffice for their immediate needs. Therefore, the L2 student may resort
to the use of communication strategies to get his/her message across. One’s perception
of how proficient one is in speaking English is subjective in all accounts (Bandura,
1986) if the person construes oral proficiency as the ability to speak the language and
does not consider whether the communication process was adequately completed.
While it is true that the years spent in this country can help in the learning of the
language and mastering it, there are also people from other countries that have refused
to speak the language even if they do understand it. This would lend support to the
contention that learning a language takes as much concentration, focus and effort as
111
learning problem-solving skills. If a person desires to learn English, he/she may
personally seek out the opportunities at which he/she can learn it, while those who do
not find importance in learning it and believe that their minds are not capable of
learning a second language would simply ignore it. This leads to the issue of critical
periods in the learning of language. CPH theory states that learning a language should
occur before puberty (Chomsky, 1968); however, it seems inconsistent because as
demonstrated, language learning depends on factors not at all related to age, but the
person’s willingness to learn a language.
The communication strategies used and the self report of oral proficiency did
not have a statistical relationship in this study; however, the two are related to some
extent. It stands to reason that one who feels that he/she is proficient in speaking the
language would naturally use the language in communicating with others whether it is
required or not. However, the various communication strategies may be used
interchangeably and did not identify which strategy indicate a higher level of
proficiency or not, it seemed that when a person can speak in short English sentences,
or to be able to use the appropriate words to express their needs and thoughts then it is
presumed that one has mastered the skill and using communication strategies is a
staple in the ability to speak English. The implication of this finding is that learning
how to speak a second language or any language for that matter; the learning process
is fluid, constantly moving, changing in shape and focus and is affected by factors like
the availability of opportunities at which the language can be used, the materials that
facilitate the learning and the kind of interactions that an L2 learner may have in the
course of the learning process. Thus, even if an L2 learner feels he/she is proficient in
speaking English, it would not mean that he/she would not resort to the use of
communication strategies. Speaking effectively is about being able to put into words
112
the ideas or feelings that a person has, and this involves the ability to choose the most
appropriate words to convey the message within a given context. L2 learners who
can adequately speak the language, but lack a large expressive vocabulary may end up
describing the word one wants to elaborate on or asking people to help them find the
right word in situations when their vocabulary repertoire is deficient (Krashen &
Terrell, 1983). All of these instances point out that the use of communication
strategies is a function of the context of the interaction, such that an L2 student who
cannot find the right word may substitute it with a word close in meaning to the
original word if the exchange of ideas is formal and academic, L2 students in a casual
and informal interaction may instead invent a word.
Learning a second language is indeed more complex and takes a large amount
of determination and conscious awareness than native language development.
Language as a means of communicating orally and not in written form is very
different from knowledge of the structure of the second language (Isik, 2000). There
are many forms of interaction, but the most important of which is verbal and overt
communication, speaking places the speaker in the here and now, interaction is in real
time and authentic, thus the need for improvisation and communication strategies.

Recommendations for Practice
The significance of this study is that it provides the data needed for the design
and development of a language learning program geared towards the mastery of
English speaking skills for L2 learners. The findings of this study have shown that
perceptions of oral proficiency is subjective and not an accurate indicator of how
skillfully the L2 learner can express his/her ideas in English. In addition, factors such
as years of study, years of residency in the United States and mastery of native
113
language influence the perception of oral proficiency, while oral proficiency does not
influence which communication strategy is used, however, the most preferred
communication strategy is to interact with native English speakers in order to learn
how to speak the language properly.
A significant discovery in this study is that communication strategies continue
to be used even if the person feels he/she is proficient in the language. This would
mean that communication strategies do not negatively influence the learning process
of the L2 learner but rather it serves as the indication of development of the L2. For
example, avoiding unfamiliar words or topics is the most basic strategy to cope with
the difficulty in expressing one’s ideas, while being able to use words similar in
meaning when one’s vocabulary is limited demonstrates a conscious awareness of
learning how to speak English. Educators should incorporate the use of
communication strategies in their instruction and skill building exercises to bring
greater emphasis to the speaking behavior rather than memorizing and learning the
responses to “good morning or good evening”. This brings into focus the ways in
which a second language is being taught in non-native English regions, which is based
on rote memorization and parrot-like imitation of sentences and words rather than
learning the language through authentic communication in varying contexts. It is
recommended that this traditional approach be modified to accommodate the ability to
consciously think of what and how to express ideas and feelings in English. Activities
can be developed wherein the L2 learner must practice speaking with a native English
speaker for long periods of time using only English. This would force the L2 learner
to really use English and at the same time exercises his/her interpersonal skills.
It was also observed that speaking English is different from writing it, the
grammar rules in spoken languages are lenient, pronunciations and choice of words
114
are largely dependent on the culture and geographical location of the L2 learner, and
thus it is not adequate that learning English grammar rules and vocabulary will lead to
effective communication skills. Conversational English is not as formal as written
English ; it is casual, full of emotional expression and direct to the point, thus L2
learners who have learned English only in books and work sheets will not be able to
accurately speak English the way it is spoken by native speakers. This should be
given emphasis in the learning of second language. Instructors should be those who
are native English speakers. L2 learners are often the object of laughter, teasing and
embarrassments because of the way they speak English. Teachers must establish
learning environments where the L2 speaker feels safe trying out language and
making errors. In addition, educators can support L2 speakers by providing
opportunities for student interaction to facilitate oral language development.
It is also recommended that speaking English be taught in schools as early as
preschool, since the brain is more receptive to language accommodation, the child can
learn to express himself/herself in English and at the same time learn how to
communicate in his/her mother tongue. Although, there are different results on the
critical period theory of language development, it is also true that children are better
equipped at learning language than adults. However, as demonstrated by this study, it
takes conscious awareness, word discrimination and other mental processes to be able
to effectively communicate and speak English, which younger children cannot
accomplish. Thus, learning to speak English as an L2 should be a skill taught in the
early years and developed throughout their academic careers, which basically means
from preschool to college, all the while maintaining one’s L1. The learning process
can be integrated in every subject and does not need to be a separate subject since
English speaking skills develop more in experiential and actual interactions.
115
For language development practitioners, it is recommended that they seek to
know more about communication strategies and how to be able to utilize it in
determining the steps or the development in the learning of a second language. In this
way, measures to enhance or develop language learning can be identified and applied
to other fields. Further, it is necessary to continue to engage in research in the area of
language learning and development as a cultural and social process.

Recommendations for Future Research
The results of the study have pointed out the interrelationships of several
variables and to the degree that one is related to the other. Future research on
communication strategies should also consider the differences and the emerging
themes in the kind of strategies used and how it is used by the speakers. It has been
found that communication strategies are dependent on situational factors rather than
the level of mastery of the English language, hence research should be done on what
types of strategies are utilized in what situations. In doing so, speaking English as a
skill can be studied more closely as it can be measured and categorized rather than
just say that speaking is a human trait. This would also lead to a new direction in the
study of language development and bring more focus on how the environment and
one’s field of interactions influence the ability to speak English.
In addition, it is recommended that future researchers conduct a comparative
study on the use of communication strategies in the second language learners between
Asian students and those coming from Europe who are not English speakers. This
would enable the identification of the differences and similarities in the acquisition of
language and provides evidence on whether language acquisition is universal or
culturally dependent. Another point to explore in future research is how learning
116
English and speaking it in the same way as native speakers transmit culture and the
symbolisms associated with the language. This would be in the realm of social
psychology and would give valuable information on how language affects and
influences the relationship and interactions of people of different cultures and
orientations.

Conclusion
This study sought to determine the kinds of communication strategies
employed by Taiwanese second language students and the personal characteristics that
might influence the use of communication strategies and their perceptions of oral
proficiency. The results of this study found that interacting with a native English
speaker is the most preferred strategy used by Taiwanese L2 students in order to learn
how to speak English comparable to native speakers of English. It was also found that
Taiwanese L2 students have rated themselves highly in oral proficiency both in
English and the mother tongue. However, the degree of proficiency in oral skills is not
related to the use of communication strategies, but personal characteristics do affect
perception of oral proficiency. Similarly, it was found that L2 learners often resort to
communications strategies when needed in a given situation, it was found that
communication strategies are a function of the context of the interaction or situation
and not a negative influence to the process of learning.
Based on the derived findings of the study, it is concluded that communication
strategies are a key factor in the learning of a second language, despite the
complexities of mastering a foreign language, it is an important aspect and resource
that should be shared. It is also concluded that communication strategies are
dependent on the situations at which is was manifested, for example, an L2 student
117
who wishes to impress a date but ran out of words would just describe it through his
actions, while some may simply grab a greeting card. It is also evident that
communication strategies are used more often by those who have difficulty or are
slow in word discrimination than those who have a very elementary learning of what
to say in social interactions.
It is also concluded that self reported oral proficiency is not a measure of
mastery of communicating in English. One may possibly believe that one can
understand and agree that spending enough time and years studying with native
English speakers and learning English at a young age has increased their
self-perception of their mastery and ability to communicate in English but it does not
mean that do not usecommunication strategies. It is also concluded that personal
characteristics of the L2 student significantly influences his/her perception of his/her
speaking abilities. It has been customary for many of us to equate quantity with
quality, thus spending more than the usual years in working with English is equated to
the mastery of the English language even if it is not the case. The teaching of English
is mandatory in Taiwan, thus most of the participants have already had a basic
knowledge of English and how to use it. But to think critically with it and use it
effectively is not given much weight.
Finally, it is concluded that self report oral proficiency and communication
strategies are not related statistically, but causally they were able to share some degree
of similarities. Thus, it can be said that one’s oral proficiency would probably lead to
a better understanding of how communication strategies affect the individual and the
quality of their interactions.
The limitations of this study include the use of several and long questionnaires
to measure self report oral proficiency and communication strategies as well as
118
establish the demographic data of the participants. The research result is highly
quantitative since all of the analysis made is based on the statistical tools which
analyzed the research data. Thus, in effect, the generalizations derived from this study
may only be applicable to Taiwanese students currently in the United States pursuing
a masters degree or any higher education and who have passed the required admission
English exam (TOEFL), thus a future study may take into account identifying
different Asian groups in the country and increasing the sample size of the current
study.

119
Bibliography

Adamson, H. & Regan, V . (1991). 'The acquisition of community norms by Asian
immigrants learning English as a second language: a preliminary study'. Studies
in Second Language Acquisition 13, 1:1-22.

Adger, C., Kalyanpur, M., Peterson, D., & Bridger, T. (1995). Engaging Students:
Thinking, Talking, Cooperating. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Ali, I. (2000). The role of input in second language acquisition: More comprehensible
input supported by grammar instruction or more grammar instruction? ITL:
Review of Applied Linguistics, 129, 225-274.

Bayliss, D. & Raymond, P. (2004). The Link between Academic Success and L2
Proficiency in the Context of Two Professional Programs. Canadian Modern
Language Review, 61;1, 29-51.

Bernhardt, E. & Kamil, M. (1995). Interpreting relationships between L1 and L2
reading: Consolidating the linguistic threshold and the linguistic
interdependence hypothesis. Applied Linguistics, 16(1), 15–33

Bialystok, E. (1978). A theoretical model of second language learning. Language
Learning, 28, 69-83.

Bialystok, E. (1981). The role of conscious strategies in second language proficiency.
Modern Language Journal, 65, 24-35.

Bialystok, E. (2002). Acquisition of literacy in bilingual children: A framework for
research. Language Learning, 52 (1), 159-199.

Blake, R. (2000). Computer mediated communication: A window on L2 Spanish
interlanguage. Language Learning and Technology, 4(1), 120 - 136.

Bygate, M. (2001). Speaking. In R. Carter & D. Nunan (Eds). The Cambridge guide
to teaching English to speakers of other languages (pp. 14-20). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press

Brown, C. (2000). The interrelation between speech perception and phonological
acquisition from infant to adult. In J. Archibald (Ed.). Second Language
Acquisition and Linguistic Theory. Oxford: Blackwell.

Brown, H. (2000). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. (Fourth Edition).
New York: Pearson ESL.

120
Brown, H. (2007). Principles of language learning and teaching 4
th
ed. White Plains,
NY : Pearson Longman.

Chen, J. (1998). Taiwan college students' metamotivation in learning English. In J.
Katchen & Y . Liung (Eds.), The Proceedings of the Seventh International
Symposium on English Teaching (pp.241-252). Taiwan: The Crane Publishing.

Childs, R. (1990). Legal Issues in Testing. Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on
Tests, Measurement, and Evaluation, American Institutes for Research.

Celce-Murcia, M. (2001). Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language.
New York: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.

Chamot, A.U., & Kupper. L. (1989). Learning Strategies in foreign language
instruction. Foreign Language Annals, 22, 13-24.

Childs, R. (1990). Legal Issues in Testing. Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on
Tests, Measurement, and Evaluation, American Institutes for Research.

Chomsky, N. (1972). Language and Mind. New York, NY: Harcourt Brace
Jovanovich Inc.

Clay, M. (1993).Reading Recovery in English and other languages. Keynote address
presented at the West Coast Literacy Conference, Palm Springs, CA.

Cook, V . (2001). Second Language Learning and Language Teaching. Amold
publication: London

Dulay, H. & M. Burt (1977) "Remarks on creativity in language acquisition." In M.
Burt, H. Dulay, and M. Finnochiaro (Eds.), Viewpoints on English as a Second
Language. New York: Regents, pp. 95-126.

Dulay, H. & Burt, M. (1977). Remarks on creativity in language acquisition.
Viewpoints on English as a Second Language, New York: Regents.

Ellis, R. (1985). Understanding second language acquisition. Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press

Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R. C., & Strahan, E. J. (1994).
Evaluating the use of Exploratory Factor Analysis in Psychological Research,
Psychological Methods, 4, 272-299.

121
Fillmore, L.W., & Snow, C.E. (2000). What teachers need to know about language.
Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics, ERIC Clearinghouse on
Languages and Linguistics. Retrieved March 24, 2006, from
www.cal.org/ericcll/teachers/teachers.pdf

Freeman, D.E., & Freeman, Y.S. (2001). Between worlds: Access to second language
acquisition (2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Fillmore, L.W., & Snow, C.E. (2000). What teachers need to know about language.
Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics, ERIC Clearinghouse on
Languages and Linguistics. Retrieved March 25, 2006, from
www.cal.org/ericcll/teachers/teachers.pdf

Florez, M. A. C. (1999). Improving adult English language learners’ speaking skills.
Washington, DC: Clearinghouse for ESL Literacy Education. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED435204)

Fotos, S. (2004). New perspectives on call for second language classrooms. New York:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Galloway,C. M. (2001). Vygotsky's Constructivism. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging
perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved August 24, 2007,
from http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/

Gass, S., & Selinker, L. (2001). Second langauge acquisition: an introductory course.
2nd ed. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Gitsaki, C. (1998) Second Language Acquisition Theories: Overview and Evaluation.
Journal of Communication and International Studies 4; 2:89-98.

Gottardo, A., Yan, B., Siegel, L. S., & Wade-Woolley, L. (2001). Factors related to
English reading performance in children with Chinese as a first language: More
evidence of cross-language transfer of phonological processing. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 93 (3), 530-542.

Harman, H. (1960). Modern Factor Analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Harrington, M. (2001). Sentence processing. In M. H. Long & J. C. Richards (Eds.),
Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 91-124). London: Cambridge
University Press.

Harshman, R. A. (1970). Foundations of the PARAFAC procedure: Models and
conditions for an - explanatory multimodal factor analysis. UCLA Working
Papers in Phonetics, 16, 1- 84. (University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, Michigan,
No. 10,085).
122

Hiebert, E. H., Pearson, P.D., Taylor, B.M., Richardson, V ., Paris, S.G. (1998). Every
child a reader: Applying reading research to the classroom. Center for the
Improvement of Earl Reading Achievement. Ann Arbor, MI: University of
Michigan School of Education.

Johnson, J. S. & Newport, E. L. (1989). Critical period effects in second language
learning: The influence of maturational state on the acquisition of English as a
Second Language. Cognitive Psychology, 21, 1/89, 60-99
Krashen, S.D. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning.
New York, NY: Pergamon Press.

Krashen, S. D. (1981). Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition.
English Language Teaching Series. London: Prentice-Hall International (UK) Ltd

Kreshen S. (1985). The Input Hypothesis. London: Longman

Krashen, S. (2003). Explorations in Language Acquisition and Language Use: The
Taipei Lectures. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Kreshen, S. & Terrell, T.D. (1983), The Natural Approach: Language acquisition in
the classroom. London: Prentice Hall Europe.

Krashen, S. D. & Terrell, T. (1983). The natural approach: Language acquisition in the
classroom. Hayward, CA: Alemany Press.

Lacina, J. (2001). Cultural kickboxing in the ESL classroom: Encouraging active
participation. The Internet TESL Journal, 7(10), 1-3. Retrieved October 6, 2001,
from http://iteslj.org/Techniques/Lacina-Kickboxing

Lim, H.Y. (2003). Successful classroom discussions with adult Korean ESL/FL
learners. The Internet TESL Journal, 11(5), 1-3. Retrieved May 12, 2003, from
http://iteslj.org/Techniques/Lim-AdultKoreans.html

Lenneberg, E. H.. 1967. Biological Foundations of Language. New York: John Wiley
Wiley.

Long, M. H. (1996). The role of linguistic environment in second language
acquisition. In W. C. Richie &T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of research on
language acquisition, Vol. 2: Second language acquisition (pp. 413-468). New
York: Academic Press.

Liu, J. (2001). Constructing Chinese faces in American classrooms. Asian Journal of
English Language Teachings. 11, 1-18.

123
Liu, Q. (2004). Seizing the Day: Chinese Students’ Use of the English-speaking
Environment to Improve their English Communicative Competence. MA
Dissertation. School of Languages and International Education, University of
Canberra.

Mackey, A. (1999). Input, interaction and second language development: An empirical
study of question formation in ESL. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,
21;4, 557-581.

Newmark, L. (1966) “ How not to interfere with language learning." Language
Learning: The Individual and the Process. International Journal of American
Linguistics 40: 77-83. Providence University, Taiwan.

Oladejo, J. (2003). Towards a cohesive national language education policy in Taiwan.
In D. V . Rau, F. Y . Wang, & O. M. H. Chen (Eds.), Proceedings of 2003
International Conference on English Teaching and Learning in the Republic of
China (pp. 203-214).

O’Malley, M. & Chamot, A. (1990). Learning strategies in second language
acquisition. New York: Cambridge University Press.

O’Malley, M. & Valdez-Piece, L. (2003). Authentic Assessment for English Language
Learners (Revised Edition). New York: Addison Wesley Publishing Company.

Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language Learning Strategies: What every teacher should
know. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.

Pica, T., Holliday, L., Lewis, N., & Morgenthaler, L. (1989). Comprehensible output
as an outcome of linguistic demands on the learner. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 11(1), 63–90.

Pica, T. (1994). Research on negotiation: What does it reveal about second-language
learning conditions, processes, and outcomes? Language Learning, 44, 493-527

Pica, T., Lincoln-Porter, F., Paninos, D., & Linnell, J. (1996). Language learners’
interaction: How does it address the input, output, and feedback needs of L2
learners? TESOL Quarterly, 30(1), 59–84.

Robson, A. (1995). The assessment of bilingual children. In M.K. Verma, K.B.
Corrigan, & S. Firth (Eds.), Working with bilingual children: Good practice in
the primary classroom. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.

Rubin, J. (1975). What the "good language learner" can teach us. TESOL Quarterly, 9,
41-51.

124
Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. IRAL, 10, 209-231.

Skehan, P. (1989). Individual Differences in Second-language Learning. London:
Edward Arnold.

Snow, C., Burns, S., & Griffin, P. (Eds.). (1998). Preventing Reading Difficulties in
Young Children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Sowers, J. (2000). Language arts in early education. Albany, NY: Delmar/Thomson
Learning.

Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook
& G. Seidhofer (Eds.), Principles and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in
honor of H. G. Widdowson (pp. 125-144). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes they
generate: A step towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 16(3),
371–391.

Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition
Through collaborative dislogue. In J. Lantolf (ed) Sociocultural Theory and
Second Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 97-114

Taylor, B. (1975) "The use of overgeneralization and transfer learning strategies by
elementary and intermediate students in ESL." Language Learning 25: 73-107.

Thomas, W. & Collier, V . (1997). School effectiveness for language minority students.
Washington: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education - Resource
Collection Series Number 9. Retrieved August 24, 2007 from
http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/pubs/resource/effectiveness.

Ullman, M., Corkin, S., Coppola, M., Hickok, G., Growden, J., & Koroshetz, W.
(1997). A neural dissociation within language: Evidence that the mental
dictionary is part of declarative memory and that grammatical rules are processed
by the procedural system. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 9: p.289-299.

VanDeWeghe, R. (2005). Discussion-based approaches, student understanding, and
student achievement. English Matters, 94; 5: 99-102.

Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and Language. Boston, MA: MIT Press.

Wang, W. & Wen, Q.(2002). L1 Use in the L2 Composing Process: An Exploratory
Study of 16 Chinese EFL Writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 11; 3,
225-46.

125
Zhang, L. (2003). Research into Chinese EFL learner strategies: Methods, findings
and instructional issues. RELC Journal, 34; 3: 284 - 322.

126

Appendix A

SURVEY

Purpose: The purpose of this survey is to investigate Taiwanese/Chinese students’
English oral communication and their use of communication strategies. Each of your
answer is of crucial importance and is used for research only. Please answer the
following questions based on your personal experience. Thank you very much for
your help and your precious contribution.

PART I: Background Questions (Check all that apply)

1) Gender
[ ] Male [ ] Female
2) Age group
A. 10’s B. 20’s C. 30’s D. 40’s
3) Approximate age when you began to study English?
A. 5 or younger B. 6 – 8 C. 9 – 11 D. 12 – 14 E. 15 or older
4) Number of years actively working with English:
[ ] Less than one [ ] 1 – 3 [ ] 4 – 6 [ ] 7 – 10 [ ] 10 or more
5) How long have you lived in the U.S?
A. Less than 6 months B. 7 – 12 months C. 1 – 2 years
D. 2 – 3 years E. 3 – 4 years F. 5 – 6 years
G. 7 years or more

5 indicates strongly agree
4 indicates somewhat agree
3 indicates disagree nor agree
2 indicates somewhat disagree
1 indicates strongly disagree
6) I have strong speaking skills in my native language of Mandarin.
[ ] 1 [ ] 2 [ ] 3 [ ] 4 [ ] 5
7) I believe it is necessary to master a native language prior to attempting to
learn a second language.
[ ] 1 [ ] 2 [ ] 3 [ ] 4 [ ] 5

127

PART II: Oral performance
Listed below are a number of statements about a person’s behaviors relating to
English oral proficiency. Please read each statement, and circle the response (4, 3, 2, 1,
0) that best applies to you on the scale given just under each statement.

4 means that the statement is true almost always.
3 means that the statement is true more than half the time
2 means that the statement is true about half the time
1 means that the statement is true less than half the time
0 means that the statement is very rarely true.

(1) I speak English fluently in daily informal conversations (e.g., casual talk with
native English speakers).
Your answer: 4 3 2 1 0
(2) I speak English fluently in daily FORMAL conversations (e.g., business talk
on phone).
Your answer: 4 3 2 1 0
(3) I come up with my word I want to use in an English conversation.
Your answer: 4 3 2 1 0
(4) I use a precise word rather than a general word to mean something when I
speak English.
Your answer: 4 3 2 1 0
(5) I annoy native English speakers because my English speech is too slow for
them.
Your answer: 4 3 2 1 0
(6) I make use of short and simple sentences to talk fluently when I speak
English.
Your answer: 4 3 2 1 0
(7) I control person, number, and agreement completely when I speak English.
Your answer: 4 3 2 1 0
(8) I control pronouns completely when I speak English.
Your answer: 4 3 2 1 0
(9) I control the English tense system completely when I speak English.
Your answer: 4 3 2 1 0
(10) I understand native English speakers when they are talking rapidly to each
128
other.
Your answer: 4 3 2 1 0

(11) I understand MOST conversations in an American movie without subtitles.
Your answer: 4 3 2 1 0

4 means that the statement is true almost always.
3 means that the statement is true more than half the time
2 means that the statement is true about half the time
1 means that the statement is true less than half the time
0 means that the statement is very rarely true

(12) I understand a subtle meaning implied in a native English speaker’s short
comment aimed at me.
Your answer: 4 3 2 1 0
(13) I understand an idiom when it appears in a native English speaker’s talk
(e.g., “hit a song”, “hand over first”).
Your answer: 4 3 2 1 0
(14) I can make a case on a ‘hot’ media topic by using an abstract argument (e.g.,
social issues, politics, and economy).
Your answer: 4 3 2 1 0
(15) I can cut in on an ongoing conversation among native English speakers with
ease and courtesy.
Your answer: 4 3 2 1 0
(16) I initiate and lead a conversation with a native English speaker.
Your answer: 4 3 2 1 0
(17) I can express anger in a manner accepted in the American culture when I
speak English.
Your answer: 4 3 2 1 0
(18) I smoothly respond to a native English speaker’s sudden comment or joke.
Your answer: 4 3 2 1 0
(19) I smoothly avoid answering a sensitive question asked of me by a native
English speaker.
Your answer: 4 3 2 1 0
(20) I use slang as I speak English with local people.
Your answer: 4 3 2 1 0
129

Part III: Types of learning strategies concerning speaking skills

1) I translate directly from my mother tongue when I have difficulties expressing
certain meaning in English.
[ ] always [ ] often [ ] sometimes [ ] seldom [ ]never
2) When I cannot think of an English word, I use another word phrase, or
sentence that meaning the same to express idea.
[ ] always [ ] often [ ] sometimes [ ] seldom [ ]never
3) I use certain words, fixed phrases or sentences when I speak English.
[ ] always [ ] often [ ] sometimes [ ] seldom [ ]never
4) I use general terms rather than specific words (e.g., “vegatables” for “cabbage”;
“relative” for “aunt” etc)
[ ] always [ ] often [ ] sometimes [ ] seldom [ ]never
5) If I have difficulties expressing what I want to say, I ask help from another
person (e.g., native speaker, teachers, friends or use a dictionary)
[ ] always [ ] often [ ] sometimes [ ] seldom [ ]never
6) When I can’t think of an appropriate expression of a word or sentence, I
describe it in another way.
[ ] always [ ] often [ ] sometimes [ ] seldom [ ]never
7) I avoid unknown words or unfamiliar topics when I talk in English.
[ ] always [ ] often [ ] sometimes [ ] seldom [ ]never
8) I ask questions or direct the conversation to a topic in order to be involved.
[ ] always [ ] often [ ] sometimes [ ] seldom [ ]never
9) I use short and simple sentences to make conversation go smoothly.
[ ] always [ ] often [ ] sometimes [ ] seldom [ ]never
10) When I can’t think of an appropriate expression of a word or sentence, I
make up my own word.
[ ] always [ ] often [ ] sometimes [ ] seldom [ ]never
11) I try to spend more time with native English speakers.
[ ] always [ ] often [ ] sometimes [ ] seldom [ ]never
12) I say expressions repeatedly to practice them.
[ ] always [ ] often [ ] sometimes [ ] seldom [ ]never
13) I imitate the way native speakers talk.
[ ] always [ ] often [ ] sometimes [ ] seldom [ ]never
14) I practice the sounds of English.
130
[ ] always [ ] often [ ] sometimes [ ] seldom [ ]never
15) I notice my errors in speaking English and find out the reason for them.
[ ] always [ ] often [ ] sometimes [ ] seldom [ ]never
16) I worry about making errors when I speak English.
[ ] always [ ] often [ ] sometimes [ ] seldom [ ]never
17) I use familiar words in different combinations to make new sentences.
[ ] always [ ] often [ ] sometimes [ ] seldom [ ]never
18) I know what is a “communication strategy” or “learning strategies”.
[ ] always [ ] often [ ] sometimes [ ] seldom [ ]never

131
Appendix B
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
UNIVERSITY PARK INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD
FWA 00007099

Review of Research Involving Human Subjects
C E R T I F I C A T I O N N O T I C E

Date: Tue Nov 21 11:49:40 2006
Principal Investigator: Ting-Yu Cheng
Faculty Advisor: Eugenia Mora-Flores
Co-Investigators:

Project Title: Taiwanese students' English Oral Proficiency in relation to
learning strategies in a university setting. (Oral English
Communication)
USC UPIRB #UP-06-00368
The University Park Institutional Review Board has reviewed the information you
submitted pertaining to the above proposal at its meeting of N/A and has:
___ Approved Study Educ Psych SocWk Socio Bus Annen
___ Approved the Designated Review ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___
___ Claim of Exemption Certified
___ Approved continuation
___ Approved amendment
X Certified under the review by the designee; exemption: - 45 CFR 46.101 (b) (2 )
(Certified without conditions on 11/21/2006)
Conditions of Exemption:
Please note: This Claim of Exemption Certification Notice is valid for the life of
the study unless otherwise noted. An application for Continuing Review of a
Claim of Exemption is not necessary unless there are changes to the study. In
132
which case, an amendment to the original Claim of Exemption must be
submitted to the UPIRB for review and certification.
NOTE: The IRB must review all advertisements and/or recruiting materials. Serious
adverse events, amendments and/or changes in the protocol must be submitted to the
UPIRB for approval. Changes may not be implemented until you have received the
Board’s approval. Exception: changes involving subjects’ safety may be implemented
prior to notification to the UPIRB.
Please be advised that, per federal regulations, the IRB will be monitoring adherence
to approved research protocols. The oversight process does not end with approval of a
proposal. We appreciate your understanding of our collaborative efforts to maintain
the integrity of our human subjects’ research approval processes and procedures to
ensure continuous quality improvement and academic excellence at USC.
Principles To Be Followed By Principal Investigators:
As the Principal Investigator, you have ultimate responsibility for the conduct of the
study, the ethical performance of the project, the protection of the rights and welfare
of human subjects, and strict adherence to any stipulations imposed by the USC
UPIRB. You must abide by the following principles when conducting your research:
1. Perform the project by qualified personnel according to the approved protocol.
2. Do not implement changes in the approved protocol or consent form without
prior USC UPIRB approval (except in a life-threatening emergency, if
necessary to safeguard the well-being of human subjects).
3. If written consent is required, obtain the legally effective written informed
consent from human subjects or their legally responsible representative using
only the currently approved USC-UPIRB stamped consent form.
4. Promptly report all undesirable and unintended, although not necessarily
unexpected adverse reactions or events, that are the result of therapy or other
intervention, within five working days of occurrence. All fatal or
life-threatening events or events requiring hospitalization must be reported to
the USC UPIRB in writing within 48 hours after discovery.
5. No subjects may be identified, contacted, recruited, or enrolled until the
University finalizes the contract with the sponsor.
Scott Maul, Ph.D., IRB Staff
133
Appendix C

Recruitment letter to Taiwanese Student Association (TSA)

To whom it may concern:

My name is Ting-Yu Cheng. I am an Education Doctoral student at the University of
Southern California and currently conducting research with respect to Taiwanese
students’ English oral communication. My dissertation title is “Taiwanese students’
English Oral Proficiency in relation to communication strategies in a university
setting”, a preliminary investigation to find out some factors that enhance English oral
communication.

As you may have realized, Taiwanese students often have more trouble
communicating orally with native English speakers even if they have been learning
English for over 10 years. And this often effect student academic achievement when
they study abroad.

The reason I am choosing this topic for my dissertation is that some research indicates
that good English learners use good strategies to learn English. Thus, getting to know
such good strategies by research and making them known to the public, would benefit
those people who had difficulty in English oral communication with native speakers.
If these people know how to use certain strategies effectively, they will have a less
hard time communicating in English and become good English speakers.

In order to further discover and identify significant gap between the progress that
Taiwanese students make in spoken English, I sincerely ask your permission in
helping me to publicize my survey link through TSA newsletter for a period of eight
weeks.

With your permission, I will have a website link (from surveymonkey.com) to allow
participants access. Students’ decisions to participate in this study are voluntary. For
those who agree to participate in this study, they will be invited to fill out anonymous
survey. The survey is designed to (1) explore common difficulties Taiwanese students
perceived in the area of English communication (2) types of communication strategies
Taiwanese students use when communicating orally with native speakers and (3) the
distribution of adopting different types of communication strategies in oral
performance. All response will be held in the strictest confidentiality.
134

Your assistance is crucial to future English learners in diagnosing difficulties that
hinder smooth communication, and help teachers to determine appropriate
pedagogical strategies that will better assist Taiwanese students. It will be very much
appreciated if you can grant permission to my study. For any questions, please feel
free to contact me. Hope to hear from you soon.

Ting Y u Cheng
Ed.D. Student
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
Email:tingyuch@usc.edu
Fax: 457-9590

135
Appendix D

Script to be publicize in the TSA newsletter

Dear TSA members,

My name is Ting-Yu Cheng. I am an Education Doctoral student at USC and currently
conducting research investigating English oral communication and learner’s use of
communication strategies. Research shows that good English learners use good
strategies to learn English. Thus, getting to know good strategies by research and
making them known to the public, would benefit those people who had hard time in
English oral communication with native speakers.

In connection to the study, I have designed an survey and I am looking for people to
participate in answering the questions. It will take fewer than 15 minutes to answer all
questions. All you have to do is circle appropriate choices.

The participation is absolutely voluntary. However, answering the questions might
help you to recognize some of the things you need to do to be a good English speaker.
Your answers will be very valuable to identify good English communication strategies.
Please find the survey by clicking the attachment in this letter.

Thank you very much for your time.

Ting Y u Cheng
Ed.D. Student
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
Email:tingyuch@usc.edu
Fax: 457-9590

136

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Taiwanese students studying in the US have to be able to communicate fluently at a level comparable to students whose first language is English. The ability to communicate proficiently in English is difficulty for many foreign students from Asian backgrounds. In an effort to be successful in their studies in the United States, Asian students must develop communication strategies. Where there are few studies that focus on the communication strategies of Asian students, even fewer studies exist that differentiate between Asian cultures. This study sought to understand the communication strategies that Taiwanese students use when they interact with native English speakers during formal and informal interaction. This study specifically aims to determine the means by which Taiwanese students enrolled in the graduate programs at the University of Southern California communicate orally with English native speakers. This study measured the students' use of communication strategies to enrich their verbal communication skills

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

The role of music in the English language development of Latino prekindergarten English learners

PDF

Factors associated with second language anxiety in adolescents from different cultural backgrounds

PDF

The perceived effectiveness of dual language programs at the middle school level

PDF

Homework beliefs and practices of middle school teachers in relation to structure-based standards for the English language development content area

PDF

Teachers’ perceptions of strategies and skills affecting learning of gifted 7th graders in English classes

PDF

Instructional proficiency strategies for middle school English language learners

PDF

The effects of a series of after school family writing workshops on students' writing achievement and attitudes

PDF

Narrowing the English learner achievement gap through teacher professional learning and cultural proficiency: an evaluation study

PDF

English-learner representation in special education: impact of pre-referral interventions and assessment practices

PDF

Exploring the effects of media on the self-concepts and achievement of African American high school students

PDF

The relationship between students’ feelings of belonging to their campus community and racial ethnic identification in undergraduate university students

PDF

Critical features for teaching the five-paragraph essay to middle school Chinese speaking English learners

PDF

Exploring the promise of multicultural literature: a case study exploring the impact of the use of mulitucultural literature on the engagement of students from diverse backgrounds

PDF

On-site impacts of Title I and Title III grant flexibility

PDF

Writing across the curriculum: exploring promising practices in two California charter schools

PDF

A father, a son, and a storybook: a case study of discourse during storybook reading

PDF

When parents become students: An examination of experiences, needs, and opportunities which contribute to student parent engagement in community college

PDF

Persistence among low income community college students

PDF

African American engineering students at River City Community College: Factors that improve transfer to four-year engineering degree programs

PDF

What factors influence student persistence in the community college setting?

Asset Metadata

Creator Cheng, Ting-Yu (author)

Core Title Taiwanese students' perceived English oral proficiency in relation to communication strategies

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 12/11/2007

Defense Date 10/31/2007

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag communication strategies,OAI-PMH Harvest,perceived oral proficiency

Place Name California (states), Los Angeles (city or populated place), University of Southern California (geographic subject), USA (countries)

Language English

Advisor Mora-Flores, Eugenia (committee chair), Genzuk, Michael (committee member), Ragusa, Gisele (committee member)

Creator Email tingyuch@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m975

Unique identifier UC1398331

Identifier etd-Cheng-20071211 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-595591 (legacy record id),usctheses-m975 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Cheng-20071211.pdf

Dmrecord 595591

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Cheng, Ting-Yu

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Repository Name Libraries, University of Southern California

Repository Location Los Angeles, California

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu