Two short lists for measuring the use of specific strategies when learning languages

Previous studies have examined associations between learner variables and selective use
of language learning strategies. The typical approach has involved collation of responses
to items in terms of conceptually defined strategies and strategy types (e.g.,
metacognitive, cognitive, and social-affective). Yet, preconceived links between items, strategies,
and types of strategies in typical item inventories are questionable in nature; specifically, item
design procedures have imposed methodological limitations on this approach. Moreover, the
relative number of items and strategies used to measure types of strategies limits direct
comparisons. In one version of a language learning strategies test, for example, Liyanage (2004)
collated 20 items for 7 strategies thought to be metacognitive learning strategies, 34 items for 15
strategies thought to be cognitive strategies, and 9 items for 4 strategies thought to be socialaffective
strategies. One outcome of this disparity in items per strategy type is to render
measures of metacognition more reliable than measures of social-affective strategies. The
current study reports the outcome of using factor analytic techniques to re-examine data collected
in two previous studies (Liyanage, 2004; Liyanage, Birch, & Grimbeek, 2004). Data from four
ethnic groups yielded two contrasting and statistically acceptable short lists for measuring specific
strategies used to learn languages.