Mohammad R. Alnufaie<\/strong> Ibrahim H. Alzahrani<\/strong> This study attempts to replicate Pawlak\u2019s (2018) Grammar Learning Strategy Inventory (GLSI). It explores the use of GLSI by Saudi students of English as a Foreign Language (EFL) in their college preparation year. The re-emergence of GLSI after a long period of neglect is a significant development in Language Learning Strategies. Consequently, due to the shortage of GLSI studies in Arab countries, this study was conducted. Participants were assessed using the GLSI with its four categories of metacognitive, cognitive, affective, and social strategies. 419 EFL students participated in this study. The findings generally showed a high use of grammar strategies in all four categories of GLSI among EFL learners. As a result, a strong, positive, and significant correlation was found between all the categories of strategies. Furthermore, students\u2019 Grade Point Average (GPA) did not appear to affect their use of GLS.<\/p>\n Keywords<\/em><\/strong>: grammar learning strategies, grammar learning strategy inventory, EFL learners, GPA, Saudi Arabia<\/p>\n As argued by Pawlak (2018), the field of Language Learning Strategies (LLS) has witnessed quick and massive progress in almost all language skills (reading, writing, listening, speaking, and vocabulary) except for grammar. Researchers in LLS have neglected Grammar Learning Strategies (GLS) for a long time. This gap in the literature urges more studies to be conducted. One of the early calls for more research on GLS was by Anderson (2005), who emphasized the lack of studies investigating LLS used by second language (L2) learners to learn grammar and understand its elements (cited in Pawlak, 2018). In addition, Oxford, Lee, and Park (2007) investigated GLS and called for a more developed theory of GLS. From their perspective, if Vandergrift (1997) named listening strategies the \u201cCinderella of strategies\u201d because of the lack of studies in that area, \u201ca \u2018Second Cinderella\u2019 remains yet unexplored: grammar strategies\u201d (p. 117). They state that the reason behind neglecting GLS is the impact of the communicative language teaching approach that recently dominated the grammar learning and teaching field. Pawlak (2009) stressed the importance of identifying and describing GLS used by L2 learners while learning grammar. Like other LLS, Pawlak asked for more understanding of the effectiveness of GLS, examining the impact of training on them and knowing factors that affect their use. In her volume, Oxford (2011) believes that \u201cgrammar strategies have had very little attention. In fact, they have garnered the least interest and concern of any area of L2 learning strategies\u201d (p. 256). Similarly, Oxford (2017) pointed out that GLS have gained the slightest interest and concern compared to other LLS. This lack of studies indicates that research on GLS was and still is in its infancy (Pawlak, 2013, 2018). Consequently, this shortage of studies in this area is one of the motives for conducting this study.<\/p>\n Grammar Learning Strategy Inventory (GLSI) was used in the present study to measure GLS use among EFL students in Saudi Arabia and to examine its relationship with learners\u2019 success. GLSI, developed by Pawlak (2018), was a new methodological instrument designed to measure GLS use in a way similar to those used to measure general LLS (i.e., Oxford\u2019s (1990) Strategy Inventory for Language Learning or Cohen\u2019s et al. (2002) Language Strategy Use Survey). GLSI was developed to categorize GLS under the general LLS categories of metacognitive, cognitive, social, and affective strategies. Deploying this inventory in a Saudi context is an attempt to discover whether Arab students use GLS and to what extent. In addition, it is essential to consider grammar-translation and communicative language approaches when teaching English grammar as a foreign language in the Saudi context. Thus, using GLS in this mixed-approach grammar instruction context is an exciting study. Consequently, teachers might better understand how English language learners deal with grammar learning in this situation. If necessary, teachers may be able to adjust their teaching approaches so that appropriate grammar instruction is delivered.<\/p>\n Oxford et al. (2007), one of the first to attempt a definition of GLS, defined it as a set of \u201cactions and thoughts that learners consciously employ to make language learning and language use easier, more effective, more efficient, and more enjoyable\u201d (p. 117). Their definition is derived from the general definition of LLS, which has been debated for years due to the absence of a unified theoretical foundation (see Cohen, 2007). It emphasized some essential characteristics of a strategy, including activity, consciousness, and goal-directedness (Griffiths, 2013).<\/p>\n Another attempt to define GLS was provided by Cohen and Pinilla-Herrera (2010), who constructed a learner strategy website to control Spanish grammar and defined GLS as \u201cdeliberate thoughts and actions that students consciously employ for learning and getting better control over the use of grammar structures\u201d (p. 64). In a more precise way, Oxford (2017) defined GLS as \u201cteachable, dynamic thoughts and behaviors that learners consciously select and employ in specific contexts to improve their self-regulated, autonomous L2 grammar development for effective task performance and long-term efficiency\u201d (p. 244). In this definition, the importance of the context of practicing GLS is stressed since learners with different mother tongues and educational and cultural backgrounds may practice GLS differently (Pawlak, 2018). Another characteristic of this definition is learning the grammar of a second language (L2), a more specific goal than the general LLS definition\u2019s goal of learning a second language.<\/p>\n After this brief of GLS definitions, GLS use cannot be isolated from grammar learning and instruction. Learning grammar can be explicit or implicit. Explicit learning is \u201ca conscious process and is generally intentional as well\u201d (Ellis, 2009, p. 7). According to Hulstijn (2002), explicit learning is \u201ca conscious, deliberative process of concept formation and concept linking\u201d (p. 206). Consciousness represents one of the most essential characteristics of LLS, although the degree of consciousness is not always constant (Cohen, 2007). Therefore, in explicit grammar learning, students are provided with grammatical rules and practice them in many examples (Larsen-Freeman, 2001). On the other hand, implicit learning, \u201clearning without any metalinguistic awareness, takes place without intentionality or awareness\u201d (Ellis, 2009, p. 7). However, researchers debate that any learning process should include a degree of consciousness (see Ellis, 1995; Schmidt, 1995). In this type of learning, examples are given to learners where learners should infer the grammatical rule. If consciousness is absent in implicit learning, GLSs are unlikely to exist (Oxford et al., 2007) due to the nature of strategies that demand a degree of attention. Oxford et al. (2007) introduce grammar instruction in four modes: implicit mode, which includes a focus on meaning and a focus on form modes; and explicit mode, which includes inductive mode and deductive mode. These four modes are compared based on whether 1) meaning or form is the primary focus; 2) the target form is explicitly or implicitly stressed; 3) the target form is emphasized or otherwise highlighted; 4) grammatically correct rules are provided or not; 5) learners are told to impose the grammatically correct rules. As explained below, this theoretical framework for grammar instruction has helped classify GLS.<\/p>\n Since GLS is still in its infancy, researchers such as Oxford et al. (2007) and Pawlak (2009, 2013) attempted to classify GLS. Oxford et al. (2007) classified GLS into three categories based on the theoretical framework of grammar instruction referred to above. The first category includes strategies used by learners who are oriented to meaning but occasionally shift attention to form (implicit learning), such as \u201cI notice (or remember) structures that are repeated often in the text.\u201d The second category includes strategies used by learners oriented to explicit-inductive learning, such as \u201cI write down structures on note cards so that I can think about how they work.\u201d The third category includes strategies used by learners oriented to explicit-deductive learning, such as \u201cI make up new sentences using the rule.\u201d According to Pawlak (2013), this classification has limitations, such as excluding the learner\u2019s point of view and its inability to follow the categories found in leading strategy classifications (e.g., metacognitive, cognitive, affective, and social strategies).<\/p>\n Pawlak has devoted most of his work to GLS, focusing on establishing proper GLS classification and creating more effective instruments to measure GLS use among L2 learners. From his point of view, there is a need for a developed categorization for GLS that is comprehensive and truly reflects what learners do when learning grammar structures. This was represented in Pawlak\u2019s research (2009, 2013), where he believes that a proper GLS taxonomy should: \u201c1- build upon existing classifications of LLS; 2- draw upon a current classification of methodological options in teaching TL forms; 3- be informed by research findings, however scant and partial these might be\u201d (Pawlak, 2013, p. 202). He classified GLS into four broad categories (metacognitive, cognitive, affective, and social strategies) following Cohen and D\u00f6rnyei (2002), who proposed a classification that was initially a compromise of previous classifications by O\u2019Malley and Chamot (1990) and Oxford (1990). Metacognitive strategies master grammar learning through planning, monitoring, organizing, and evaluating, for instance, \u201cI schedule grammar reviews in advance\u201d and \u201cI have specific goals and objectives in learning grammar.\u201d Cognitive strategies involve mental actions and processes that take place in the brain at the time of learning grammar.<\/p>\n This category of cognitive strategies is divided into 4 subcategories as follows: (1) GLSs that are used to assist the production and comprehension of grammar in communication tasks such as \u201cI try to use specific grammar structures in communication (e.g., telling a story)\u201d and \u201cI compare my speech and writing with that of more proficient people to see how I can improve\u201d; (2) GLSs that are used to develop explicit knowledge of grammar such as \u201cI pay attention to rules provided by the teacher or coursebook\u201d and \u201cI try to understand every grammar rule\u201d; (3) GLSs that are used to develop implicit knowledge of grammar such as \u201cI use newly learned rules to create new sentences (to write about my plans)\u201d and \u201cI listen to and read texts containing many examples of a grammar structure\u201d; and (4) GLSs that are used to deal with corrective feedback on errors in the production of grammar such as \u201cI listen carefully for any feedback the teacher gives me about the structures I use\u201d and \u201cI pay attention to teacher correction when I do grammar exercises and try to repeat the correct version.\u201d<\/p>\n Affective strategies deal with emotions and motivation while learning grammar, for example, \u201cI try to relax when I have problems with understanding or using grammar structures\u201d and \u201cI encourage myself to practice grammar when I know I have problems with a structure.\u201d Social strategies require communication with others in L2; for instance, \u201cI ask the teacher to repeat or explain a grammar point if I do not understand\u201d and \u201cI try to help others when they have problems with understanding or using grammar.\u201d Pawlak\u2019s taxonomy of grammar strategies is essential and considered a reference for other researchers in the field of GLS for some reasons. First, it benefited from previous classifications that received much criticism and development (e.g., Cohen & D\u00f6rnyei, 2002; O\u2019Malley & Chamot, 1990; Oxford, 1990; Oxford et al., 2007). Also, it harmonized with the most agreed categorization of LLS among researchers in the field, which includes metacognitive, cognitive, affective, and social strategies. In addition, it has resulted in a vital instrument to measure GLS, a considerable advancement in the field of LLS in general and in GLS in particular.<\/p>\n Regarding studies investigating GLS use, Pawlak (2009) evaluated the use of GLS by university students specializing in English using the theoretical scheme provided by Oxford et al. (2007). His study showed a high frequency of overall strategy use (M= 3.49). A mean score of 3.59 was obtained when using implicit strategies, followed by a mean score of 3.46 for explicit-deductive strategies and a score of 3.42 when using explicit-inductive strategies. In another study on high school students in China, Zhou (2017) measured students\u2019 use of GLS through a questionnaire survey and interview. The results showed that the mean score of the overall strategy use was 2.8, which means that students sometimes use these strategies (as per Oxford\u2019s interpretation, 1990). Cognitive strategies recorded the highest frequency, with a mean of 3.4. Metacognitive strategies ranked second with a mean of 3.0, and social\/affective strategies ranked third at 2.86. In addition, there was no correlation between GLS and English grammar achievement. Cahyani et al. (2022) studied GLSI use among undergraduate students in Indonesia. The findings showed high use of all categories of strategies (metacognitive, cognitive, affective, and social strategies) within low achievers (M<\/em>= 3.80, 3.61, 3.65, 3.90 consecutively), middle achievers (M<\/em>= 3.77, 3.71, 3.70, 3.93 successively) and high achievers (M<\/em>= 4.25, 3.90, 3.87, 4.0 consecutively). Moreover, high achievers used metacognitive strategies, whereas low and middle achievers mostly used social strategies.<\/p>\n In another GLSI study, Nakachi (2021) examined GLS among English-major university students in central Japan. The results showed a medium to high use of GLS, where the overall mean of GLS use was 3.06. Cognitive strategies dealing with corrective feedback (M<\/em>= 3.44, and those dealing with the production and comprehension of grammar (M<\/em>= 3.43) were the most frequently used strategies. However, affective strategies were the least used (M<\/em>= 2.50). Zarrinabadi et al. (2021) examined the links between GLS and language mindset among L2 and third language (L3) learners. The GLSI by Pawlak (2018) was used to measure GLS. The results of GLS use in the four categories showed that the L3 learners had higher mean scores than L2 learners. In more detail, metacognitive strategies ranked first as the most used, cognitive strategies in second place, affective strategies in third place, and social strategies as the least used in fourth place. The findings of these studies indicate inconsistency in strategy use among students, which might be attributed to the nature of GLS as they might be culturally and linguistically induced (Oxford et al., 2007).<\/p>\n This study uses Pawlak\u2019s (2018) Grammar Learning Strategy Inventory (GLSI) to assess the grammar learning strategies used by English language learners at an English language institute in Saudi Arabia. An exploratory-quantitative approach was used to determine which strategies were most and least used and their correlations with students\u2019 grades.<\/p>\n As part of this study, EFL students enrolled in an English Language Institute at an Industrial College in Saudi Arabia are asked about their English language grammar learning strategies. Based on GLSI, this study aims to identify various grammar learning strategy categories and their correlations with students\u2019 GPA. By answering the research questions below, we hope to identify strategies to facilitate our students\u2019 learning process while receiving English grammar instruction.<\/p>\n The present study\u2019s participants were 419 male Saudi EFL college students involved in a general English program that adopted the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) in their college preparation year. They represented four levels of English proficiency as follows: A1 (N=6<\/em>), A2 (N=4<\/em>), B1 (N<\/em>=82), and B1+ (N<\/em>= 327). The English program, with its four levels, is required for the participants to pursue their undergraduate studies as English is the language of instruction in the institute. It is a one-year program divided into four quarters where students start at A1 and finish at B1+. Each level includes reading, writing, listening, speaking skills, and grammar. Students have a separate vocabulary course only in A1 and A2. During eLearning lessons, students are provided with computers and internet access in the language labs. Teachers inform the participants of the study and participation conditions. The participants were asked to participate in the study voluntarily, and their consent was verbally taken. They were informed that their information was confidential and that they could withdraw from the study if they wished to. The participants could access the survey in class or complete it later online via Blackboard, through which the questionnaire link was posted. There was no reward for voluntary participation. The survey received 516 responses. Ninety-seven incomplete questionnaires were discarded after ten days, leaving 419 participants with complete data.<\/p>\n To conduct the present study, Pawlak\u2019s GLSI (2018) was utilized to measure students\u2019 GLS use for the following reasons: 1- it is a specialized inventory designed to measure GLS after a long period of absence; 2- although it is still not widely used, it is the only valid and reliable GLS inventory that has been tested (Pawlak, 2018); 3- it is in parallel with previous LLS inventories that consisted of the primarily agreeable strategy classification to include metacognitive, cognitive, affective and social strategies (Cohen & D\u00f6rnyei, 2002; O\u2019Malley & Chamot, 1990; Oxford, 1990); 4- it includes GLS that develop explicit and implicit knowledge of grammar which is in harmony with the present study\u2019s context of grammar teaching approaches. The inventory included 70 items, which were divided into four categories: metacognitive strategies (8 items), cognitive strategies (50 items), affective strategies (7 items), and social strategies (5 items). The 70 items were translated from English into Arabic and put on the Blackboard for students to complete during their e-learning classrooms. A five-point Likert scale was used in the inventory where 1 (it does not apply to me at all) and 5 (it perfectly applies to me) consecutively refer to the low and high use of the GLS.<\/p>\n Since the research questions were primarily quantitative, Qualtrics was used to collect the data. Using this platform made it easy and accessible to construct and share the questionnaires electronically. Using Qualtrics, data reliability was also increased by flagging and filtering responses that can be bots or cheaters. Data analysis for descriptive statistics was conducted using SPSS software.<\/p>\n As part of the descriptive analysis, we utilized three distinct data analysis methods to describe the frequency and mean of grammar learning strategies utilized by the participants: frequency tables, measures of central tendency, and measures of correlations and regression. Additionally, we employed standard deviation to grasp the variability of the scores. Moreover, we conducted a correlation analysis among the categories included in the GLSI. The descriptive results of the GPA and usage of grammar learning strategies were also compared.<\/p>\n Table 1 below shows the descriptive statistics and the reliability measure of the scales and the subscales in the instrument (GLSI) initially designed by Pawlak (2018). It is very clear from the Table that the scales, the subscales, and the entire research instrument are highly reliable measures of grammar strategies. The value of Cronbach\u2019s alpha for the entire instrument is \u03b1 = .97. Consequently, we can confidently infer from the means of the responses that the participants have almost a high level of strategy use when learning grammar. In addition, the most used are the cognitive strategies that deal with corrective feedback on errors in grammar production (M<\/em>= 3.78). Then comes the group of cognitive strategies used in communication tasks (M<\/em>= 3.69). The third group of grammar strategies used in learning grammar is the group of social strategies (M<\/em>= 3.63). After that, metacognitive strategies come in fourth place (M=<\/em> 3.52). On the other hand, the least used groups of grammar strategies are, respectively, affective strategies (M<\/em>= 3.46), cognitive grammar strategies for developing explicit knowledge (M<\/em>= 3.47), and cognitive grammar strategies for developing implicit knowledge (M<\/em>= 3.48).<\/p>\n Table <\/strong>1<\/strong>. Means, standard deviations, level of strategy use, and Cronbach alpha values (<\/strong>N<\/strong> = 419) for the scales and subscales included in the GLSI<\/strong><\/p>\n
\nEnglish Language Institute, Royal Commission for Jubail and Yanbu, Saudi Arabia
\n<dr.nufaie![\"atmark\"](\"http:\/\/www.tesl-ej.org\/atmark.png\")
gmail.com><\/p>\n
\nEnglish Language Institute, Royal Commission for Jubail and Yanbu, Saudi Arabia
\n<ibrahim.hanashgmail.com><\/p>\nAbstract<\/h3>\n
Literature Review<\/h3>\n
Methodology<\/h3>\n
Research Questions<\/h4>\n
\n
Participants<\/h4>\n
Instrument<\/h4>\n
Data Collection and Analysis<\/h4>\n
Results<\/h3>\n
RQ1: What is the level of use of grammar strategies among EFL college students?<\/h4>\n
RQ2 What are the most and least used GLS by EFL college students?<\/h4>\n
![](\"https:\/\/tesl-ej.org\/ej108\/a6pix\/image1.png\")