本研究由478位北台灣某私立大學二年級學生為研究對象，其學生來自該校外語學院、工學院、商學院、理學院、及文學院「大二英文」班級，所有學生皆為本地生，並在台灣學制下學習英文至少七到十三年，首先，這份研究探討學生的語文能力與學生使用教學策略的頻率的關係，其次，是老師的教學策略與學生的學習策略之間的關係，最後，此研究以Oxford (1990) 的學習策略問卷及以Oxford (1990)定義的學習策略為依據設計的教師教學策略問卷，本研究所參與的學生程度是依照GEPT的分數，以及該學校的能力分班，該研究會以量化與質化來分析資料。
    量化的研究顯示，所有參與GEPT分級的學生最常使用補償與社交學習策略，高以及中高GEPT學生傾向於補償、認知與後設認知策略，而低GEPT學生傾向於使用記憶策略，無論是哪一種GEPT分級的學生，他們最少使用的是情境策略，此結果也與學生依照學校的能力分班結果相同，學生的能力越高使用的教學策略也多，而學生的能力越低所使用的學習策略也少。根據本研究的結果顯示，學生的語言能力與學習策略使用的頻率是有正面的關係。參與本研究的老師無論教何種程度的學生最常使用的教學策略是記憶策略，教高與中高GEPT學生的老師傾向於記憶策略，而教低程度GEPT學生的老師傾向於補常與後設認知策略;因此，根據本研究的結果顯示，老師的教學策略與學生的學習策略並不完全符合。    
    質化方面以半結構式蒐集兩種採訪，一個是採訪老師們，而另一個是採訪小群體的學生，目的是了解他們對教學與學習策略的觀點跟使用策略頻率的評估；所有參與本研究的老師表示有在課堂上教學習策略，而最常訓練學生的教學策略是記憶與認知策略，大部分的參與研究的老師都認為他們的教學策略或者是方式可以帶給學生正面的學習影響，但不認為自己的教學策略應該跟學生的學習策略相符合，且大部分的老師並不清楚學生的學習策略，根據結果顯示，一半以上參與研究的老師不認為自己的教學策略應該符合學生的學習策略，也並不認為知道或不知道學生的學習策略是很重要的，即使所有的老師都清楚自己的教學策略，也知道教學策略會影響學生的學習成就，但他們認為自身的教學策略很難能跟學生的學習策略互相符合；參與測驗的學生表示他們的學習策略與老師的教學策略不需要跟老師符合，因為他們都有他們習慣的學習策略，根據結果顯示，本研究強調老師跟學生需要更了解教學策略與學習策略，以及老師與學生應彼此能針對教學與學習策略溝通，以及同步使用策略將有助於課堂上的教學與學習。

Four hundred and seventy-eight sophomores who were studying at a private university in Northern Taiwan participated in this study. They were recruited from various disciplines: Foreign Languages and Literatures, Business and Management, Engineering, Science, and Liberal Arts. All of the participants were native speakers of Mandarin Chines, born and raised in Taiwan. They had already learned English at least seven to thirteen years by the time of the study. The study aimed to investigate the relationship between firstly, learners’ proficiency level and their frequency of learning strategy use, and secondly, between teachers’ teaching strategies and students’ learning strategies. To this end, this study applied Oxford’s (1990) Strategy Inventory of Language Learning (SILL), and designed teachers’ teaching questionnaire in accordance with the definition of Oxford’s(1990) learning strategies. Students’ proficiency level was both measured by GEPT scores and the level assigned by the university’s internal system. The study adopted both qualitative and quantitative methods for the analysis of data.  
     In the quantitative data analysis, results show that all level of GEPT students tended to use compensation strategies and social strategies. High and intermediate of GEPT students preferred to use compensation, cognitive, and metacognitive strategies. However, lower GEPT students tended to use memory strategies most frequently. All level of GEPT students seldom used affective strategies. These results were also supported by those analyses based on students’ university level. Furthermore, higher proficiency level students generally applied all strategies more frequently than students of lower proficiency level. In short students’ language proficiency level positively correlated with student’s language learning strategy use, and high proficiency level’s students used more learning strategy than low proficiency level’s students, although the former were all very moderate (“sometimes”) strategy users. Results from teachers’ teaching strategies indicate that teachers regardless of the level of students they taught usually used memory strategies. Those teaching higher proficiency level students tended to use memory strategies while those teaching lower level students preferred to use compensation and metacogntive strategies. In this light, there seemed not be a completely match between teachers’ teaching strategies and students’ learning strategies. 
     The qualitative data for this study derived from two sets of interviews—one on teachers and one on a small group of students—to arrive at an insight to their perception and evaluation of strategies use. Interviews on teachers suggest that teachers teaching all levels of students deployed teaching strategies in class, and trained students to use memory strategies and cognitive strategies to learn. All teachers thought their teaching strategies can affect students’ learning positively. However, half of them thought their teaching strategies shouldn’t match those of students, and most teachers were not aware of students’ learning strategies. More importantly, they did not think it was always necessary or practical to teach learning strategies. Despite the realization that teaching strategies and equipping learners with learning strategies affect students’ learning achievement, they indicated that it was difficult to match between their teaching strategies with those of their students. The interviews of the students also reveal that these students believed that their learning strategies should not match teachers’ teaching strategies, as they already had developed their own learning strategies. These results strongly suggest that both teachers and students need to be informed more on the merits of teaching and acquiring learning strategies and it is even more productive if both teachers and students could negotiate and even synchronize their teaching and learning strategies in the classroom.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEGEMENTS……………………………………………..I
CHINESE ABSTRACT ………………………………………………II
ENGLISH ABSTRACT………………….……………..…………….IV
TABLE OF CONTEXTS……………………………………………VI
LIST OF TABLES..............................................VII............................. 
LIST OF FIGUAR................................................................VIII...............

Chapte
r One Introduction……………………………………………1
1.1	Background of the study ……………………………………………………………………………1
1.2	Purpose of the Study………………………………………………………..3
1.3	Research Questions ……………………………………………......................3
1.4	Significance of the Study………………………….………………………..4

Chapter Two Literature Review……………………………………….5
2.1 Overview…………………………………………………………….…..……5
2.2 The Definition of Language Learning Strategies (LLS)………………………….5
2.3 Efficacy of Language Learning Strategies in Classroom ………………………..9
2.4 Variables Affecting Learning Strategies ………………………………………….12
   2.4.1 Cultural Differences…………………………………………………………13
   2.4.2 Proficiency…….……………………………………………………………15
   2.5 Teaching Strategies and Their Correspondence with Those of Students……16

Chapter Three Methodology……………………………………………..19
3.1 Participants………………………………………………………………………..19
    3.1.1 Students………………………………………………………………………19
    3.1.2 Proficiency Level of the Students…………………………………………20
3.1.3Teachers…………………………………………………………………..22
3.2 Instruments ………………………………………………………………………..23
3.2.1 Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) Survey………………………………………………………………………………23
3.2.2 Background Questionnaires ………………………………………………24
3.2.3Teaching Strategies Survey…………………………………………………..25
3.2.4 Interview ………………………………………………………………26…… 3.3Procedure…………………………………………………………………………27
3.4 Data Analysis…………………………………………………………….…….29


Chapter Four Results ………………………………………………….30
4.1 Results……………………………………………………………………..……30
4.1.1 Results of research question 1…………………31………………………….
4.1.2 Results of research question 2……………………………………49……….
4.1.3 Results of research question 3…………………………………………59.....
4.1.4 Results of research question 4……………………………………72.………

Chapter Five Discussion ……………………………………………..82
5.1 Discussion of Research Question 1…………………………….……82……………
5.2 Discussion of Research Question 2…………………………………………84….
5.3 Discussion of Research Question 3…………………………….……………86…….
5.4 Discussion of Research Question 4………………….…………………87…………

Chapter Six Conclusion………………………………………………89…………
6.1 Summary of the Finding of the Study………………89………………
6.2 Significance and Implications of the Study……………………89…….
6.3 Limitations of the Study …………………………………90…………
6.4 Suggestions for Future Studies …………………90…………………..

Appendices……………………………………………………………..109
Appendix A: Strategy Inventory of Language Learning (SILL) by Oxford (1990)109
Appendix B: Strategy Inventory of Language Learning (SILL) by Prof.楊乃冬109
             In Chinese Version…………………………………………………………………………….
Appendix C: Students’ Learning Strategy Background Questionnaires…………… 112
Appendix D: Teachers’ Teaching strategy Background Questionnaires…………….113
Appendix E: Interview for the teachers and the students ………………..120








LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Reliability of the SILL on Each Proficiency Level (GEPT)……………….32
Table 2 Descriptive Statistic for Strategies Use by All Participants…...…...………33
Table 3 Descriptive Statistic for Each Learning Strategies on Each GEPT Level of 
Students……………………………………………………………………..33
Table 4 Reliability of the SILL on Each Proficiency Level (GEPT)……..…….......34
Table 5 Number of Level One Student (GEPT) in various Disciplines…………….35
Table 6 Number of Level Two Student (GEPT) in various Disciplines…………….35
Table 7 Number of Level Three Student (GEPT) in various Disciplines………......35
Table 8 Descriptive Statistics for Each Learning Strategies on Each GEPT Level of
Students………………………………………………………………..……36
Table 9 The Rank of Each GEPT Level’s Learning Strategies…………………..…36
Table 10 Descriptive Statistics for All Strategies Use by Participants of Two GEPT
Proficiency Groups…………………………………………………..……37
Table 11 One-way ANOVA of Strategies Use by All Participants….. ………..……37
Table 12 Post Hoc Comparison Frequency of Strategies Use by Participants of Two 
Levels ……………………………………………………………….…..38
Table 13 Mixed- classes Level Number and GEPT Level’s Students’ number…….39
Table 14 Post Hoc Comparison of Different Level of Students in Strategies
Use………………………………………………………………….…....40
Table 15 Mixed-class Level Number and GEPT Level’s Students’ Number ………41
Table 16 Descriptive Statistics for the Strategies Use by Students of Different Level 
Based on University Criteria  ……………………………………….42
Table 17 The Rank of Each Strategies Use by Participants of Different Levels Based 
on University Criteria……………………………………………………42
Table 18 Comparison of Strategies Use by University Levels and GEPT 
Levels…………………………………………………….………..…….43
Table 19 Comparison of Strategies Use by University Levels and Two GEPT Levels 
(1 and 2 combined)……………………………………………………...44
Table 20 The Rank of Students of Different Levels in Each Strategies Group Based 
on University Criteria…………………………………………………....45
Table 21 Descriptive Statistics for All Strategies Use by Different Levels of Students 
Based on University Criteria……………………………………………..46
Table 22 One-Way ANOVA of strategies Use by All Participants. …………...........46
Table 23 One-Way ANOVA of Each Level Strategies Use by All Participants….....47
Table 24 One-Way ANOVA Comparing the Strategies Use by Three Levels Based on 
University Criteria…………………………………………………………48
Table25 Post Hoc Comparison of Three Levels Based on University Criteria in Each 
Strategies Use of Students…………………………………………………49
Table 26 University Class’s Level Teacher’s Number, and Disciplines……………50
Table 27 Descriptive Statistics for Teachers' Teaching Strategies...………………..51
Table 28 The Rank of Each Level’s Teaching Strategies ………………….……….51
Table 29 The Comparison of Teachers’ and Students’ Ranking of the Frequency of Each Strategies Use by GEPT………………………….……………...52
Table 30 Descriptive Statistics for Strategies Use by All Teachers……………….53
Table 31 The Comparison of Teachers’ and Students’ Ranking of the Frequency of Each Strategies Use by University Level …….………………………….54
Table 32 Rank of Each Level’s Teaching Strategy………………………………55
Table 33Same Teachers Teaching Different Classes of Students with Mixed GEPT Levels…………………………………………………………….………56
Table34 Comparison of Teacher A’s Teaching Strategies with the Strategies of 
Students of GEPT Level 2, GEPT Level 3 students, and the Entire Class in 
Two Level 2 Classes ……………………………………………………57
Table 35 Comparison of Teacher B’s teaching Strategies with the Strategies of 
Students of GEPT Level 2, GEPT Level 3 students, and the Entire Class in 
one Level 2 and one Level 3 Classes …………………………………58
Table 36 Comparison of Teacher C’s Teaching Strategies with the Strategies of 
Students of GEPT Level 2, GEPT Level 3 students, and the Entire Class in 
Two Level 1 Classes ………………………………………………….59
Table 37 Number of Teachers Teaching Different Level s of Classes Based on 
University Criteria………………………………………………………..61
Table 38 RQ1: Did you use any teaching strategy in general English (II)? ………..62
Table 39 Teaching Strategies for Each Level of Teachers……………………….…62
Table 40: Q2: Do You Adjust Your Teaching Strategies According to Your Students’   
Proficiency? …………………………………………………………….63
Table 41. The Reasons Teachers Adjust Their Teaching Strategy for Different Level 
of Students.................................................................................................64
Table 42. RQ3: Do You Know if the Students in Your Class Use Any Learning 
Strategies?..................................................................................................65
Table 43 The Reasons Teachers Knew of Did not Know of Students’ Learning 
Strategy…………………………………………………………………..66
Table 44 RQ4: Do You Teach Your Students Learning 
Strategies?.………………………………………………..……………..67
Table 45 The Learning Strategies Teachers Taught to Their Students……………...68
Table 46. The Reasons Teachers Taught Strategies to Their Students……………...68
Table 47 Q5: Do You Actively Match Your Teaching Strategy to Students’ Learning 
Strategy? Or Change Your Teaching Strategies to Match Students’ Learning 
Strategies? ………………………………………………………………69
Table 48 The Reasons for Teachers to Match or not to Match with Students’ 
Strategies………………………………………………………………….70
Table 49 RQ6: Now You Know Your Class Students’ Learning Strategy. Will You 
Change Your Teaching Strategies, or Ask Students to Follow Your 
Strategies? ………………………………………………………......…..71
Table 50 The Reasons Teachers Would Change Their Strategies for Students…….72
Table 51..Q7: Whether Knowing Your Learners’ Strategies Use Would Influence the 
Way You Teach…………………………………………………………….73
Table 52 The Reasons for Knowing or Not Knowing Students’ strategies on One’s 
Teaching…………………………………………………………………..74
Table 53 The Number of interviewees in Each GEPT Level…………………..…..75
Table 54 Q1: What kinds of learning strategies do you usually use? 
The frequency of GEPT level of students used.………………………….75
Table 55. Q2: Do You Think Your Teachers Used Any Strategies in Class?............76
Table 56 The Strategies Students Think Teachers Used in Class………………......77
Table 57 Q3: Are Teachers’ Strategies Effective for You?.........................................78
Table 58 The Reasons Students Think Their Teachers’ Strategies Were Effective…78
Table 59 The Reasons Students Think Teachers’ Strategies Were Not Effective…..79
Table 60 Q4: Do You Think Teachers’ Teaching Strategy Match Your Way of Learning?………………………………………………………………...80
Table 61 The Reasons Students Think Teachers’ Teaching Strategy Match Their Way of Learning…………………………………………………………..…..80
Table 62 The Reasons Students Think Their Teachers’ Strategies Did Not Match Theirs……………………………………………………………………81
Table 63 Q5: Do you think teacher should teach you learning strategies? ………..81
Table 64 The Reason Students Think Their Teachers Should Teach Them Learning Strategies ………………………………………………………………..82
Table 65 The Reasons Students Think Their Teachers Should Not Teach Learning Strategies…………………………………………………………………82



LIST OF FIGURE

Figure 1: Procedure of the Study ………………………………………………….28

Ali, G. M., Mohammad, R. A., & Manuchehr, A. (2012). The effect of 
    teaching cognitive and metacognitive strategies on EFL 
students’ reading comprehension across proficiency levels. 
Procedia- Social and Behavioral Science, 46, 3757-3763. 
Beck, C. R. (2001). Matching teaching strategies to learning style 
     preferences. The Teacher Educator, 37 (1), 1-15.
Bialystok, E. (1978). A theoretical model of second language 
learning. Language Learning, 28, 69-83.	
Brue, J. (2001). Strategies for success: profiling the effective learner 
     of German. Foreign Language Annals, 34, 216-225. 
Chamot, A. U.,& Kupper, L. (1989). Learning strategies in foreign 
     language instruction. Foreign Language Annals, 22, 13-24.
Chamot, A.U., Kupper, L. & Impink-Hernandez, M. V. (1988). A study of learning 
strategies in foreign language instruction: findings of the longitudinal study. 
MacLean, VA: Interstate Research Associates. 
Chang. C.H. (2012). EFL learning strategy use of Taiwanese university EFL learners  
            Language and Literature,Vol.1,1-23.
 Cook, J. (2002). The role of dialogue in computer-based learning and observing learning: An evolutionary approach to theory. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 5. 
Dunn, R., DeBello, T., Brennan, P., Krimsky, J., & Murrain, P. (1981). Learning style researchers define differences differently. Educational Leadership, 38, 372–375.
Dreyer, C., & Oxford, R. L. (1996). Learning and other predicators of ESL proficiency among Afrikaans speakers in South Africa. In Rebecca. L. Oxford (Ed.), Language learning strategies around the world: Cross- cultural perspectives . (Technical Report # 13) (99. 61-74). Honolulu: University of Hawai’i. Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center. 
Ellis, G., & Sinclair, B. (1989). Learning to learn English learner’s book : A 
course in learner training. Cambridge: CPU.
Fewell, N. (2010). Language Learning strategies and English language proficiency: An investigation of Japanese EFL university students. TESOL Journal, 2, 159-174.
Flaitza, J., Feyten, C., Fox, S., & Mukherjee, K. (1995). Raising general 
   awareness of language learning strategies: A little goes a long 
Way. Hispania, 78(2), 337-348.
Friedman, P., & Alley, R. (1984). Learning styles: applying the 
    principles. Theory and Practice, 23, 77-81.
Gleason, H. S. Jr. (1961). An introduction to descriptive linguistics. 
New Delhi India: Oxford and IBH Publishing Company.
Green, J.M. & Oxford, R. L. (1995). A closer look at learning 
     strategies, L2 proficiency, and gender. TESOL Quarterly, 29 (2), 
     261-297.
Griffiths, G. (2003). Patterns of language learning strategy use. 
System, 31, 367-383.
Horwitz, E. (1988). The beliefs about language learning of beginning 
     university foreign language students. The Modern Language 
Journal, 72(3), 283-294.
Huang, I-C. (2015). Language learner strategies and English proficiency of college freshmen in Taiwan: A mixed-methods study. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 24, 737-741.
Kim, K. H. (2001). Language learning strategies, learning style, and 
     beliefs about language learning of Korean university students. 
     Journal of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistic, 5, 
     31-46. 
Kuo, M. M., & Lai, C. C. (2006). Linguistic across culture: The 
     impact of culture on second language learning. Journal of 
Foreign Language Instruction,1,1-9.
Lai, Y. C. (2009). Language learning strategy use and English 
      proficiency of university freshman in Taiwan. TESOL 
Quarterly, 43, 255-280.
Lee, L. K. (2010). An overview of language learning strategies. 
      ARECLS,7, 132-152. 
Levine, A., Reves, T., & Leaver, B. L. (1996). Relationship between languages 
learning strategies and Israeli versus Russian cultural-educational factors. In Rebecca L. Oxford (Ed.), Language learning strategies around the world: Cross- cultural perspective. (Technical Report#13) (pp. 35-45). Honolulu: University of Hawai’i, Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center.  
Mabasa, L. T., & Lumadi, T. Z. (2016). Teaching strategies for 
       improving reading and writing in English first additional 
       language for men and women. Gender and Behavioriour, 
14(2), pp. 7849-7494. 
MacIntyre, P. D. (1994). Toward a social psychological model of 
      strategy use. Foreign Language Annals, 27 (2), 185-195.
Naiman, N., Frohlich, M., Stern, H. H., & Todesco, A. (1978). The 
good language learner. Toronto: OISE Press.
Nidbey, D. L., Tindall, E. R., & Arroyo, A. A. (2005). Language learning strategies and English proficiency of Chinese university students. Foreign Language Annals, 38, 100-107.
Nira, H., Rachel, B., & Etty, S. (2001). Exemplary university 
      teachers: knowledge and beliefs regarding effective teaching. 
      Dimensions and Strategies, 72(6),699-729. 
O’Malley, J. M., & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning strategies in 
     language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 
O’ Malley, J. M., Chamot, A. U., Stewner-Manzanares, G., Kupper, L., 
     & Russo, R. (1985). Learning strategies used by beginning and 
     intermediate ESL students. Language Learning, 35,21-46.
O’Maley, J. M., Chamot, U. A., Stewner-Manzanares, G., Russo, R. P., & Kupper, 
L.(1985). Learning strategy application with students of English as a second 
language. TESOL Quarterly, 19,557-84. 
Ouyang, O. C.(2011). Influence of English proficiency on 
     postgraduate students’ use of language learning strategies. 
     Sino-US English Teaching,8(12), 766-772.
Oxford, R. L. (2016).  Teaching and researching language learning strategies: self- 
regulation in context. (2nd Ed). Routledge.
Oxford, R. L. (Ed.) (1996). Language learning strategies around the world: Cross-
cultural perspectives. Manoa, HI: University of Hawaii. 
Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every 
    teacher should know. Boston, MA: Heinle.
Oxford, R, L., & Nyikos, M. (1989). Variables affecting choice of 
     language learning strategies by university students. The 
Modern Language Journal, 73, 291-300.
Oxford, R, L., & Crookall, D.  (1989). Research on language learning 
     strategies: method, findings, and instructional uses. The 
Modern Language Journal, 73, 403-419. 
Oxford, R. L., & Green, J. M. (1995). Comments on Virginia 
    LoCastro's "Learning Strategies and Learning Environments": 
    Making sense of learning strategy assessment: Toward a higher 
    standard of research accuracy. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 166-174. 
Park, G. (1997). Language learning strategies and English proficiency 
     in Korean university students. Foreign Language Annuals, 30, 
     211-221. 
Phillips, V. (1991). A look at learner strategy use and ESL 
     proficiency. The CATESOL Journal, 57-68. 
Pooja, K., & Sushil, K. S. (2015). Effectiveness of selected teaching 
strategies in relation to the learning style of secondary school 
students in India. Interchange,46(3),pp289-312. 
Pressley, M., Goodchild, F., Goodchild, F., Fleet, J., & Zajchowski, R. ( 1989). The 
challenges of classroom strategy instruction. Elementary School Journal, 89, 
301-342.
Purdie, H., & Hattie, J. (1996). Culture differences in the use of strategies for 
self-regulated learning. SAGE Journals,33,845-871.
Rigney, J.W. (1978). Learning strategies: A theoretical perspective. Academic Press, New York.
Rubin, J. (1975). What the “Good language learner” can teach us. 
     TESOL Quarterly, 9, 41-51. 
Rubin, J. (1981). Study of cognitive processes in second language 
     Learning. Applied Linguistics, 2, 117-131. 
Rubin, J., & Thompson, I. (1982). How to become a more successful 
     language learner. Boston MA: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
Salahshour, F., Sharifi, M., & Salahshour, N. (2013). The relationship 
     between language learning strategy use, language proficiency 
     level and learner gender. Procedia-Social and Behavioral 
Stern, H.H. (1975). What Can We Learn From The good language 
learner? Canadian Modern Language Review, 31, 304-318.
Thiyagu, K. (2015). Models of teaching. In Manichander Thammishetty 
(Eds).Educational Technology (pp.107-168). India:Laxi Book
 publication.
     Sciences,70, 634-643.
Trigwell, K. Prosser, M. &Waterhouse, F. (1999). Relations Between Teacher’s  
     Approaches to Teaching Approaches to Teaching and Students’ Approaches to 
     Learning. Higher Education,37,57-70.
Rivera-Mills, S.,V. & Luke, P. (2007). Empowering students with 
      language learning strategies: A critical review of current 
issues. Foreign Language Annals,40, 535-548. 
Tulbure, C. (2012). Investigating the relationships between teaching 
     strategies and learning styles in higher education, Acta 
Didactica Hapocensi,5, 65-74.  
Vijayalakshmi, K. S. (2009). Teaching strategies: present practices and 
future directions. In R.P. Singh., & Rana, G. (Eds).Teaching 
Strategies. New Delhi India:APH Publishing Corporation.  
 Weinstein, C.E., & Mayer, R.E. (1986). The teaching of learning 
strategies. In M. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching 
(pp. 315-327). New York, NY: Macmillan.
Weinstein, C. E., Husman, J., & Dierking, D. R. (2000). Self- regulation 
interventions with a focus on learning strategies.In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, 
& M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self- regulation (pp. 727-747). San Diego, 
CA: Academic Press. 
Wenden, A. L. (1987). Conceptual background and utility. In A. L. 
Wenden & J.Rubin (Eds.), Learner strategies in language learning, 
(pp.3-13). London: Prentice Hall International. 
Wharton, G. (2000). Language learning strategy use of bilingual foreign language learners in Singapore. Language Learning,  50, 203-243.