Toward Strategic EFL Learners: A Correlational Study Between Proficiency Level and Grammar Learning Strategies

3Citations
Citations of this article
18Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Gaining competency in a foreign language is a challenging task, but learners can make progress in their language-learning endeavors by implementing suitable techniques and strategies when learning different language skills. With the aid of these strategies, students can improve their understanding and communicative application of different language skills effectively. Grammar learning strategies (GLSs) are a critical aspect of language learning, as they enable learners to refine the rules and practices of the target language. By investing in effective GLSs, foreign language learners can become more successful in the long run. Therefore, the present study aims to explore GLSs that Saudi EFL learners use and consider effective. To achieve this objective, the current study employed a mixed-method approach to examine a cohort of 102 Saudi EFL learners. These students were both high and low achievers. They were provided with an Arabic-translated version of Pawlak's (2018) Grammar Learning Strategy Inventory (GLSI). Collected data were analyzed quantitatively and qualitatively. The study concluded that high achievers employ a greater variety of grammar learning strategies compared to low achievers. The two groups agreed on prioritizing two types GLSs which are cognitive GLSs that enhance grammar comprehension and production and GLSs that address corrective feedback. However, they differed in the utilization of other types of strategies. This implies the need for further investigation of EFL low achievers to diagnose the drawbacks of their use of GLSs in order to fully take advantage of these strategies.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Khalil, S. M. (2024). Toward Strategic EFL Learners: A Correlational Study Between Proficiency Level and Grammar Learning Strategies. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 15(6), 1951–1958. https://doi.org/10.17507/jltr.1506.20

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free