Language Learning Strategy Use and English Proficiency of 

Language Learning Strategy Use and English Profi ciency of University Freshmen in Taiwan YING-CHUN LAI Chung Shan Medical University Taichung, Taiwan, Republic of China This stud

Language Learning Strategy Use

and English Profi ciency of

University Freshmen in Taiwan

YING-CHUN LAI

Chung Shan Medical University

Taichung, Taiwan, Republic of China

This study investigated language learning strategies used by 418 EFL learners in Taiwan and looked for relationships between learning strat-egy use and the patterns of strategy use based on language profi ciency The participants reported using compensation strategies most fre-quently and affective strategies least frequently The most frequently used individual strategies involved guessing intelligently and overcom-ing limitations in using English; the least used items involved speaking and writing to others in English The research results also showed that profi ciency level has a signifi cant effect on strategy choice and use The more profi cient learners used more learning strategies They used meta-cognitive strategies and cognitive strategies most frequently and mem-ory strategies least frequently The less profi cient learners, on the other hand, preferred social and memory strategies to cognitive and metacog-nitive strategies The research also analyzed individual strategy items,

fi nding that the strategies reported as used more frequently by the more profi cient learners were arranging and planning their learning; using analytical and reasoning skills; and practicing their pronunciation and speaking

Learning strategies play an important role in second/foreign language learning because they help learners develop language competence

in many ways (Oxford, 1990; Rubin, 1981) In the past decade, a growing body of research has focused on language learning strategies Language learning strategies are of interest not only for revealing the ways language learners apply learning strategies, but also for demonstrating how the use of strategies is related to effective language learning The assump-tion behind strategy research is that learning strategies are teachable (Chamot & Kupper, 1989; O’Malley & Chamot, 1990; Oxford, 1990)

It is believed that strategies used by successful learners may be learned

by less successful learners, and language instructors can assist the language learning process by helping learners develop appropriate strategies

LITERATURE REVIEW

Theoretical Basis of Language Learning Strategies

Research on language learning strategies began in the 1960s (O’Malley

& Chamot, 1990; Weinstein & Mayer, 1986) It was infl uenced by the

development of cognitive psychology (McLaughlin, 1987; O’Malley &

Chamot, 1990) Until the introduction of cognitive psychology, prior

research on second language learning and teaching focused mainly on

methods of teaching, instead of on learner characteristics and the

pro-cess of acquiring a second language (Wenden, 1987)

Cognitive learning theory (McLaughlin, 1987; Anderson, 1983, 1985)

and social/social cognitive models (Bandura, 1986; Vygotsky, 1978) have

provided rationales for the use and development of learning strategies

They are the two major theoretical frameworks from which the

“classi-fi cation” theories of second language learning strategies are derived

Among the various proposed classifi cation systems, the one developed

Oxford (1990) is considered to be very comprehensive Synthesizing

earlier classifi cation systems, Oxford subsumed strategies that had

appeared in literature over the preceding year into her taxonomy The

classifi cation discloses important factors about how learners

imple-ment learning strategies to learn and use a new language The strategy

classifi cation system showing two classes and six groups is presented in

Table 1

TABLE 1 Oxford’s (1990) Strategy Classifi cation System

1 Memory Strategies

Help learners store and retrieve new

information (e.g., applying images and

sounds, creating mental linkages)

1 Metacognitive Strategies Allow learners to control their own cognition (e.g., coordinating the planning, organizing, and evaluation of the learning process)

2 Cognitive Strategies

Applied by learners to better understand

and produce the target language

(e.g., summarizing, analyzing, reasoning)

2 Affective Strategies Refer to the methods that help learners to regulate emotions, motivation, and attitudes (e.g., taking emotional temperature, self-encouragement)

3 Compensatory Strategies

Used for overcoming defi ciencies in

knowledge of the target language

(e.g., guessing meanings from context,

using synonyms to convey meaning)

3 Social Strategies Include interaction with others through the target language (e.g., asking questions, cooperating with native speakers, becoming culturally aware)

Note This table is adapted from material in Oxford (1990), chapters 2 and 4, and diagrams on

pp 16–21, 38–39, 136–137

Theoretical Framework of the Study

The current study follows Oxford’s (1990) strategy classifi cation work The Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL), a strategy survey proposed by Oxford, is used to investigate learners’ strategy use Results of learners’ strategy use are analyzed using this system

The Relationship Between Language Profi ciency and

Strategy Use

Early research on language learning strategies attempted to identify strategies used by successful learners These earlier “good language learner” studies provided lists of strategies used by successful language learners in terms of their characteristics These studies suggested that successful second language learners tend to use strategies, such as taking advantage of practice opportunities, monitoring language production, attending to meaning, practicing communication in the language, active involvement in the learning process, being specifi c in language tasks, and seeing and developing language as a system (Naiman, Frohlich, Stern, & Todesco, 1978; Rubin, 1975; Stern, 1975) These characteristics of suc-cessful language learners have generally been validated by follow-up

“good language learner” studies as well as subsequent research that pared learners of different profi ciency levels

Since the initial attempts at good language learner studies, able research has been devoted to understanding learning strategies with the specifi c target of identifying the relationship between profi ciency and strategies Much of the research literature has studied how successful and less successful learners use learning strategies to study foreign/sec-ond languages and what distinguishes these two groups of learners Studies have revealed that differences of strategy use between success-ful and less successful learners were found in number, range, frequency, and broad categories of strategy use In addition, it is suggested that awareness of task demands and metacognitive knowledge regarding strat-egy selection are major distinctions between successful and unsuccessful learners (Abraham & Vann, 1987; Chamot, Küpper, & Impink-Hernandez, 1988; Khaldieh, 2000; O’Malley & Chamot, 1990)

Even though the fi ndings of strategy studies are slightly inconsistent, results regarding how successful learners use and learn a second/foreign language could be generalized as follows:

Successful learners effectively use a greater number, and a higher

•

frequency, of learning strategies (Bruen, 2001; Chamot et al., 1988; Green & Oxford, 1995; Griffi ths, 2003; Kim, 2001; Park, 1997; Wharton, 2000)

These learners are aware of strategy use (Chamot & Kupper, 1989;

•

Khaldieh, 2000; O’Malley & Chamot, 1990)

The learners use strategies in a purposeful and active manner

depending on the demands of the learning situations and the

lan-guage tasks (Abraham & Vann, 1987; Chamot et al., 1988; Chamot &

El-Dinary, 1999; Khaldieh, 2000; O’Malley & Chamot, 1990)

Cognitive and metacognitive strategies are critical to effective

learn-•

ing due to the fact that they are related to higher level of language

profi ciency (Abraham & Vann, 1987; Bruen, 2001; Green & Oxford,

1995; O’Malley & Chamot, 1990; Park, 1997; Peacock & Ho, 2003;

Wharton, 2000); these two strategies are also often used together to

support each other (O’Malley & Chamot, 1990)

A considerable amount of empirical research has provided evidence that

there is a positive relationship between language profi ciency and the use of

language learning strategies The majority of studies clearly showed that

suc-cessful learners used a larger number of strategies, and used them more

fre-quently than did less successful learners (e.g., Bruen, 2001; Chamot et al.,

1988; Chen 2002; Green & Oxford, 1995; Griffi ths, 2003; Wharton 2000)

Some studies, however, only partially supported the claim that there is a

positive association between the number of strategies used and language profi

-ciency (e.g., Abraham & Vann, 1987; Khaldieh, 2000); some studies even

indicated just the opposite (e.g., Chen, 1990; Phillips, 1991) Other

research-ers even found that, similar to successful learnresearch-ers, unsuccessful learnresearch-ers also

actively use and apply a great number and variety of strategies, but in a

dif-ferent manner (Abraham & Vann, 1987; Chamot et al., 1988; Chamot &

Kupper, 1989; Vandergrift, 1997; Vann & Abraham, 1990) These

unsuccess-ful learners, however, usually fail to choose and make use of the most

appro-priate or effi cient strategies (Abraham & Vann, 1987; Chamot et al., 1988;

Chamot & El-Dinary, 1999; Vandergrift, 1997; Vann & Abraham, 1990)

Several attempts were made to explain these controversial or opposing

fi ndings Oxford and Cohen (1992) speculated that less effective learners

used more language strategies than did effective learners because of advanced

learners’ automatization of their language learning strategies Another

explanation offered by Cohen (1998) was that higher profi ciency learners

were able to complete language tasks by using fewer consciously selected

strategies whereas lower profi ciency learners kept trying different strategies,

and thus ended up using more strategies These rationales may partly clarify

the contradictions found in the research In general, these researchers held

that the total number and frequency of strategies used are not necessarily

the sole indicators of how successful learners will be at any language task

Overall, research has validated that there is a relationship between guage learning strategies and language profi ciency Furthermore, consider-able empirical research has provided evidence that the use of effective learning strategies is related to higher levels of language profi ciency As to whether there are certain strategy patterns or specifi c strategy types that asso-ciate with effective learners, no common consensus has yet been reached The following assertions might provide possible explanations As Rubin (1975) stated, strategy use may vary across cultures; therefore, there might not be a certain strategy or a particular pattern that is effective for all learn-ers, tasks, and learning situations Moreover, such factors as settings, language tasks, classifi cation schemes, elicitation methods, and language assessing instruments that are involved in strategy studies are also various and might cause diffi culties when comparing and generating fi ndings across studies Even though research has provided evidence that more profi cient lan-guage learners make better use of language learning strategies, the exact nature of the strategy cause and effect is controversial With the notion that there might be a mutual relationship between strategy use and lan-guage profi ciency, some researchers (e.g., Bremner, 1999; Green & Oxford 1995; McIntyre, 1994; Rees-Miller, 1993) have stressed a need for caution when looking at the association between these two variables Rees-Miller asserted that there is no particular direction in this causal relationship Green and Oxford, as well as McIntyre, further suggested that strategies are both the cause and outcome of improved language profi ciency

A great deal of effort has been made to investigate learner strategies; however, the majority of past studies have been conducted among mixed groups of learners with different backgrounds and learning experiences

in the United States What seems to be lacking is information regarding strategy use of English learners in other cultural and linguistic contexts Various factors are assumed to affect the choice of language learning strategies As Oxford and Nyikos (1989) pointed out, learner variables, such as cultural background, national origin, and language teaching method, have a strong infl uence on learners’ strategy use Generalization

of the fi ndings of strategy studies to other cultural/linguistic groups needs to be handed with caution The current study extends the work on learning strategies into the context of college freshmen in Taiwan, which has not received much attention, with a focus on examining the relation-ship between language profi ciency and strategy choice

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

This study investigates language learning strategies used by English as

a Foreign Language (EFL) learners in Taiwan and looks for relationships between learning strategy use and the patterns of strategy use based on language profi ciency Additionally, the study compares the learner strategy

use with that of other studies using similar research methodology Knowing

how to make use of appropriate strategies while learning a target language

would help students make their learning more effective This study would

provide language teachers and researchers with a greater understanding

of the ways learners learn The fi ndings could further assist language

teach-ers in developing and implementing strategy training in second/foreign

language curricula Training students in the use of learning strategies

would maximize their potential and contribute to their autonomy

strategy use? What patterns of variation in language learning

strate-gies (overall strategy use, strategy use by SILL categories, and strategy

use at the individual item level) exist, if any, between the high-, mid,

and low-level learners?

METHOD

Participants

A total of 418 students were drawn from a population of entering

fresh-men enrolled in the Freshman English for Non-Majors (FENM) program

at Tunghai University in Taiwan Tunghai University, established in 1955,

is the oldest private university in Taiwan The university contains seven

colleges, with an enrollment of approximately 15,000 students

The FENM course is required of most freshman students The English

placement test used to place all non-English major freshmen into a

fresh-man English course is administered at the beginning of the fi rst semester

of study Only those having scores within the top 10% on the test could

choose to take either English or another foreign language course There

were 106 classes with a total number of approximately 3,000 students when

the study was carried out The students in the sample have been divided

into fi ve divisions (Science, Social Science, Engi neering & Agriculture,

Management, and Arts) based on their majors, and they have been

fur-ther placed into three course levels, high-, mid, or low-level classes, based

on the scores (criterion-referenced interpretation) they earned on the

test There was no certain score range for each level that was applied across

the fi ve divisions The score ranges which separated the students into

three profi ciency groups were provided by the Placement Test

The sample of this study consisted of students from the College of Management This division was chosen for two reasons First, it has a larger student population with about an equal proportion of male and female students Second, the placement test score of this group of stu-dents had a wider range of scores and normal distribution

The students from the College of Management could decide tarily on whether they would like to participate in this study There were

volun-505 copies of the questionnaire distributed and 433 returned, providing

a response rate of 86% Incomplete questionnaires, as well as naires from repeaters and foreign students were removed from the analy-sis, leaving a fi nal sample size of 418

Demographic Information Regarding the Sample

The participants in this study included 418 freshmen from the College

of Management enrolled in the FENM program, with a total of 18 classes The subjects were 45% male and 55% female, and ranged in age from 18–22 As shown in Table 2 , the low-level group consisted of 79 students with scores ranging from 19–50; the midlevel group consisted of 237 stu-dents with scores ranging from 51–74; and the high-level group consisted

of 102 students with scores ranging from 75–91

Instrumentation

The English Language Placement Test

The English Language Placement Test has been used to measure the English profi ciency of freshmen at Tunghai University since 1994 The test is designed to assess the students’ English competence in relation to other students The three sections of the test are listening, grammar, and reading The test measures students’ ability to listen and understand spo-ken English, read and understand English reading passages, and recog-nize correct English grammar usage No published validity and reliability information is available

TABLE 2 Distribution of Students by Profi ciency Level

The placement test has served as an indication of students’ English

profi ciency for two major reasons First, the English subject test of the

national college entrance exam is considered to be less comprehensive

than the university’s placement test because it does not include a

listen-ing section, which is considered important for the program emphasis

Second, other than the entrance exam English test scores, college

appli-cants can provide their high school English grades and other English

profi ciency test scores as the proof of their English ability Without

stan-dard evaluation criteria, it is diffi cult to place the students into the most

appropriate level in the curriculum

The SILL

Data of self-reported language learning strategy use were gathered

using Oxford’s (1990) Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL)

Version 7.0 (ESL/EFL) The SILL is a Likert-scaled measurement that

presents of a set of strategies for language learning across skills The

5-point scale ranges from 1 “never or almost never” to 5 “always or almost

always.” The questionnaire has 50 strategy items: Items 1–9 are memory

strategies, Items 10–23 are cognitive strategies, Items 24–29 are

compen-sation strategies, Items 30–38 are metacognitive strategies, Items 39–44

are affective strategies, and Items 45–50 are social strategies Reliability

for the SILL (Oxford, 1990) is high across many cultural groups with

Cronbach’s alpha for internal consistency 0.93–0.98 (Oxford &

Burry-Stock, 1995)

In this study, the SILL was presented in Chinese to the participants to

ensure that possible failure to understand the instructions or questions

would not affect the responses The researcher used Liao’s (2000)

Chinese version SILL, which yielded a Cronbach alpha value of 0.96

(Liao, 2000) Using the responses from the current participants, the

reli-ability of SILL, as determined by Cronbach’s alpha, was 0.93

RESEARCH DESIGN

A number of learner variables, such as language profi ciency, national

origin, and fi eld of specialization, have been found to be strongly

relat-ed to learning strategy choice (Oxford & Nyikos, 1989) The current

study confi ned itself to one of the learner variables—language profi

-ciency It examined how performance level affects the choice of language

learning strategy In this survey study, language profi ciency level was

set as the independent variable, and learning strategy use was set as

the dependent variable The dependent variable was subdivided into

the following three areas: the mean score of the entire SILL, the mean

scores of each of the six SILL strategy categories (memory, cognitive, compensation, metacognitive, affective, and social), and the mean scores

of the 50 individual SILL items

Data Collection Procedure

In the beginning of the fall semester, the researcher explained the purpose of the study and the data collection procedures to the course instructors via e-mail and/or telephone The participants were informed

by their instructors about the nature of this survey thereafter

Data of self-reported language learning strategy use was collected

dur-ing the fi rst 2 weeks of the semester The General Instructions to

Administra-tors of the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL), which is presented

in Oxford’s (1990) Language Learning Strategies: What Every Teacher Should

Know , was used as the survey guidelines Prior to the administration of

the survey, the researcher gave each instructor in charge of the class a copy of the guidelines Of the 18 classes, 17 course instructors adminis-tered the survey to students in their classes; the researcher administered one class with the course instructor present The survey was adminis-tered during regular class time

RESULTS

Research Question 1

General Trends and Patterns for the Entire Group

Mean scores of the entire SILL, the six subcategories of SILL, and the individual SILL items were calculated for the entire group as well as for each profi ciency group According to Oxford (1990, p 300), mean scores that fall between 1.0 and 2.4 are defi ned as “low” strategy use, 2.5 and 3.4

as “medium” strategy use, and 3.5 and 5.0 as “high” strategy use These categories of ratings were theoretically and arithmetically chosen The participants reported a medium frequency for the mean strategy use on the entire SILL (M = 2.84, SD = 0.48) as well as the six categories

of the SILL (see Table 3 ) Among the six strategy categories, the pants reported using compensation strategies most frequently and affec-tive strategies least frequently (see Table 3 ) Analyzing the use of the individual strategy items for the entire group, it was found that the most-used strategies were those that involved guessing intelligently and over-coming limitations in using English, whereas the least-used items were those that involved speaking and writing to others in English

Research Question 2

Signifi cant variation in mean strategy use across the entire SILL as well

as in the six categories of the SILL in relation to profi ciency level was

determined by using ANOVA The Scheffe posthoc test was used to see

where among the groups any signifi cant differences lay χ 2 tests were used

to check all SILL items for signifi cant variation by profi ciency level These

statistical procedures were similar to the ones used in Green and Oxford’s

(1995) study This process of analysis allows for a direct comparison with

data from previous SILL studies

Variation in Use of the Entire SILL and the Six Strategy Categories

The ANOVA tests revealed that profi ciency level had a signifi cant effect

on frequency of strategy use across the entire SILL ( p < 0.001) (see

Table 4 ), as well as all six strategy categories ( p < 0.001) (see Table 5 )

Such a positive variation suggested greater strategy use for a higher

pro-fi ciency levels

As shown in Table 5 , the higher level students reported using the SILL

learning strategies more frequently than the lower level students did

The posthoc Scheffe test indicated that for the cognitive, compensation,

metacognitive, and social strategy categories, high-level students used

these strategies signifi cantly more often than midlevel and low-level

stu-dents, and midlevel students used these strategies signifi cantly more

often than low-level students ( p < 0.05) As to the memory and affective

strategy categories, the posthoc Scheffe test revealed that the low-level

TABLE 4 Variation in Use of the Entire SILL for Students with Different Profi ciency Levels

TABLE 5 Summary of Variations in Use of Six Strategy Categories for Students with Different

Profi ciency Levels

Note ** p < 0.001

students used these strategies less often than midlevel and high-level

stu-dents ( p < 0.05), but no signifi cant differences occurred between the

high-level and midlevel students ( p > 0.05)

As can be seen in Table 5 , for all three profi ciency groups, the most- used strategy category was compensation The category of metacognitive strategy, which was ranked as the second most frequently used among the high-level and the midlevel students, was reported as infrequently used (ranked fi fth) among the low-level students Differences of strategy use were found when comparing the high-level group to the low-level group The high-level students reported using metacognitive strategies and cog-nitive strategies more frequently and using memory strategies the least frequently The low-level students, on the other hand, preferred social and memory strategies to cognitive and metacognitive strategies

Variation in Use of Individual Strategies

Mean scores of the individual SILL items were calculated for each of the three profi ciency groups Similarities with regard to popular individ-ual strategy items (ranking) were found among the three groups The results showed that these three groups shared 8 of the 10 most-used strat-egies The two most frequently used strategies for all three profi ciency groups were Item 24 (To understand unfamiliar English words,

I make guesses); and Item 29 (If I can’t think of an English word, I use a word or a phrase that means the same thing) They were both compensa-tion strategies

Another similarity among the three groups was that all three groups of students tended to avoid using certain specifi c strategies These least used items were primarily related to practicing English by making use of new language input and constant writing They were Item 2 (I use new English words in a sentence so I remember them), Item 7 (I physically act out new English words), Item 16 (I read for pleasure in English), Item 17

(I write notes, messages, letters, or reports in English), Item 23 (I make

summaries of information that I hear or read in English), Item 26

(I make up new words if I do not know the right ones in English), Item

34 (I plan my schedule so I will have enough time to study English), and

Item 43 (I write down my feelings in a language learning diary) These

strategies were reported by the participants as of low use with mean scores

lower than 2.5

There were also differences in the use of individual strategies among

the three groups Item 32 (I pay attention when someone is speaking

English), a popular metacognitive strategy favored by both the high-level

and midlevel group with high frequency usage (M = 3.88 and 3.46,

respec-tively), was used by the low-level group with relatively lower frequency

(M = 2.84) In addition, among the 10 most popular strategies of the

high-level group, there were 2 used less frequently by the low-level group

These were Item 32 (I pay attention when someone is speaking English)

and Item 12 (I practice the sounds of English) Other strategies that

dis-tinguished the more and less profi cient students included Item 10 (I say

or write new English words several times), Item 19 (I look for words in my

own language that are similar to new words in English), Item 21 (I fi nd

the meaning of an English word by dividing it into parts that I

under-stand), Item 22 (I try not to translate word-for-word), Item 27 (I read in

English without looking up every new word), and Item 33 (I try to fi nd

out how to be a better learner of English) The high-level students

reported using these strategies with higher frequency (mean higher than

3.5), whereas the low-level students reported using them with relatively

lower frequency (mean lower than 3.0) Of these eight strategies, fi ve are

in the cognitive strategy category and two are in the metacognitive

strat-egy category These eight strategies contain the following three learning

aspects: centering, arranging, and planning one’s learning; using

analyz-ing and reasonanalyz-ing skills; and practicanalyz-ing the sounds and speakanalyz-ing skills

The χ 2 tests indicated that 42 of the 50 SILL items demonstrated

statis-tically signifi cant differences in frequency of strategy use by profi ciency

level The strategies which varied signifi cantly by profi ciency level are

listed in Table 6 in descending order for the observed χ 2 value Of the 42

items that showed signifi cant variation, 41 were classifi ed as having

posi-tive variation because of their clear stair-step patterns None of the SILL

items demonstrated negative variation

An example of the regular (stair-step) pattern classifi ed as positive is

shown in the stacked bar graphs in Figure 1 For each bar (profi ciency

level), the black areas represent the proportion of students responding

(1) “never true” or (2) “generally not true” to the item, the white areas

represent the proportion of students responding (3) “sometimes true” to

the item, and the gray areas represent the proportion of students

respond-ing (4) “generally true” or (5) “always true” to the item With Item 12

% high use (4 or 5)

χ 2

High Mid Low

22 COG I try not to translate word-for-word 56 31 6 60.22

36 MET I look for opportunities to read as much as

possible in English.

32 MET I pay attention when someone is speaking English 68 49 25 51.99

18 COG I fi rst skim an English passage (read over the

passage quickly) then go back and read carefully.

31 MET I notice my English mistakes and use that

information to help me do better.

10 MEM I say or write new English words several times 56 41 22 31.82

29 COM If I can’t think of an English word, I use a word or

a phrase that means the same thing.

17 COG I write notes, messages, letters, or reports in English 8 3 0 26.45

38 MET I think about my progress in learning English 41 24 17 26.14

50 SOC I try to learn about the culture of English speakers 43 27 17 24.99

45 SOC If I do not understand something in English, I ask

the other person to slow down or say it again.

37 MET I have clear goals for improving my English skills 45 34 19 23.84

35 MET I look for people I can talk to in English 18 8 4 23.80

3 MEM I connect the sound of a new word and an image or

picture of the word to help me remember the word.

33 MET I try to fi nd out how to be a better learner of English 57 49 30 22.24

11 COG I try to talk like native English speakers 44 27 17 21.94

39 AFF I try to relax whenever I feel afraid of using English 47 39 27 21.47

40 AFF I encourage myself to speak English even when

I am afraid of making a mistake.

42 AFF I notice if I am tense or nervous when

I am studying or using English.

24 COM To understand unfamiliar English words, I make guesses 74 62 54 20.77

30 MET I try to fi nd as many ways I can use my English 36 21 18 18.57

27 COM I read in English without looking up every new word 58 46 29 18.12

23 COG I make summaries of information that

I hear or read in English.

1 MEM I think of relationship between what I already

know and new things I learn in English.

19 COG I look for words in my own language that

are similar to new words in English.

47 SOC I practice English with other students 10 10 8 16.70

20 COG I try to fi nd patterns in English 28 21 11 15.65

25 COM When I can’t think of a word during a conversation in

English, I use gestures.

15 COG I watch English language TV shows spoken in

English or go to movies spoken in English.

4 MEM I remember a new English word by making a mental

picture of a situation in which the word might be used.