Research On The Relationship Of Language Learning Strategies And CET4Achievements Of Non-english Majors

With the study emphasis on learners, not on teachers, studies concerning learners’individual differences are found to influence learning outcomes. Through the research on theforeign language learning process, there has been close relationship between students’achievements and their learning strategies. The aim of CET4is to evaluate students’ Englishabilities objectively and correctly, and to improve the college English teaching. The studentsparticipating in this study are junior students of Northeast Normal University. They comefrom six different departments. The instrument used in this study is the translated version ofthe questionnaire Strategies Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) designed by Oxford(1990). The other instrument used is SPSS19.0which is used to do some advancedstatistical analysis such as T-test, correlation and multiple regression analysis. The followingresearch findings are yielded:1. Memory strategies and metacognitive strategies are closelyrelated to CET-4scores. At the same time; we also find the metacognitive strategies have thesignificant relationship with the CET4sores in the present study. The results show that thememory strategies and the metacognitive strategies can be of help to the students’ CET4scores, but it does not mean that it is the most effective strategy.2. There are no significantdifferences of using strategies between male and female students. Female students use morecompensation strategies than male students.3. Among the different majors, there aresignificant differences in using memory strategies and cognitive strategies between thestudents who learn Chinese and geography. The students who learn history and geographyhave significant difference in using social strategies. However, the author has found thatthough the biology majors get the highest CET4scores, they do not use more learningstrategies. But the geography majors, who get the lowest CET4scores, also behave this way.4. The difference in metacognitive, cognitive and affective strategies is significant. And thestudents of the high score group have advantage in the use of strategies except compensationstrategies. This shows that, on the whole, the good learners are better at using strategies toadjust their learning and they have a positive attitude towards language learning. The studentsof the low score group get the highest score when using compensation strategies and thelowest score when using metacognitive strategies. In the end, pedagogical implicationsyielded from the above findings are discussed, and also the limitations of the present study.