Gender effects on strategic competencea survey study on compensatory strategies in a CLIL context

  1. María Basterrechea Lozano
  2. María Martínez-Adrián
  3. Francisco Gallardo-del-Puerto
Revista:
Elia: Estudios de lingüística inglesa aplicada

ISSN: 1576-5059

Año de publicación: 2017

Número: 17

Páginas: 47-70

Tipo: Artículo

DOI: 10.12795/ELIA.2017.I17.03 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAcceso abierto editor

Otras publicaciones en: Elia: Estudios de lingüística inglesa aplicada

Objetivos de desarrollo sostenible

Resumen

La investigación en el campo de la adquisición de segundas lenguas ha demostrado que las mujeres frecuentemente son mejores aprendices que los hombres (Pavlenko & Piller, 2008). También muestran tener mejor actitud y mayor motivación (Spolsky, 1989). Sin embargo, estas diferencias se desdibujan en metodologías orientadas al significado, tales como el Aprendizaje Integrado de Contenidos y Lenguas Extranjeras (AICLE) (Fernández Fontecha & Canga Alonso, 2014). En cuanto a la competencia estratégica, se han llevado a cabo pocos estudios sobre el efecto del género en el uso de las estrategias de aprendizaje (Ehrman & Oxford, 1989) y menos aún en el uso de estrategias compensatorias (Kocoglu, 1997). Por otro lado, no existen estudios que aborden el efecto del género en el uso de estrategias compensatorias en alumnado AICLE. Este estudio analiza la existencia de diferencias de género en alumnado de 5º y 6º de Educación Primaria en cuanto a cantidad y tipo de estrategias preferidas según un cuestionario sobre el uso de estrategias compensatorias (adivinar el significado de una palabra, mimo, creatividad morfológica, uso del diccionario, predicción, parafraseo, préstamo, calco, adaptación, evitación y petición de ayuda). En cuanto al uso general, no se encontraron diferencias estadísticamente significativas entre los dos grupos, en la línea de estudios anteriores que apuntan a que las diferencias de género desaparecen en contextos AICLE. En cuanto al tipo de estrategias, las mujeres muestran una tendencia a evitar contestar si no están seguras, mientras que los hombres prefieren adivinar y se sienten más cómodos ante la ambigüedad. Las mujeres también recurren al préstamo, como garante de que el mensaje se transmite sin ambigüedad, a diferencia de los hombres, que prefieren predecir, son más valientes, y se arriesgan más durante la comunicación (véase Oxford & Ehrman, 1988).

€ Ver financiación

Información de financiación

The authors would like to acknowledge the grants awarded by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness (FFI2012-32212) and (FFI2016-74950-P), the University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU) (UFI 11/06) and the Basque Government (IT904-16).

Financiadores

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Admiraal, W., Westhoff, G., & de Bot, K. (2006). Evaluation of bilingual secondary education in the Netherlands: Students’ language proficiency in English. Educational Research and Evaluation, 12, 75-93. https://doi. org/10.1080/13803610500392160
  • Bacon, S. M. (1992).The relationship between gender, comprehension, processing strategies, and cognitive and affective response in foreign language listening. The Modern Language Journal, 76, 160-178. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1992.tb01096.x
  • Bacon, S. M., & Finnemann, M. (1992). Sex differences in self-reported beliefs about foreign language learning and authentic oral and written input. Language Learning, 42, 471-495. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1992. tb01041.x
  • Baker, S. C., & MacIntyre, P. D. (2000). The role of gender and immersion in communication and second language orientations. Language Learning, 50, 311-341. https://doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.00119
  • Benenson, J. F., Markovits, H., Fitzgerald, C., Geoffroy, D., Flemming, J.,Kahlenberg, S. M., & Wranghan, R. W. (2009). Males’ greater tolerance of same-sex peers. Psychological Sicence, 2(2), 184-190. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02269.x
  • Cabrejas Peñuelas, A. B. (2012). The writing strategies of American university students: Focusing on memory, compensation, social and affective strategies. ELIAEstudios de Lingüística Aplicada, 12, 77-113.
  • Dalton-Puffer, C. (2007). Discourse in content-and-language-integrated learning (CLIL) classrooms. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/ lllt.20
  • Ehrman, M., & Oxford, R. (1989). Effects of sex differences, career choice, and psychological type on adult language learning strategies. The Modern Language Journal, 73(1), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1989. tb05302.x
  • Fernández Fontecha, A., & Canga, Alonso, A. (2014). A preliminary study on motivation and gender in CLIL and non-CLIL types of instruction.
  • International Journal of English Studies, 14(1), 21-36. https://doi. org/10.6018/ijes/14/1/156681
  • Gardner, R. C. (1985). Social Psychology and Second Language Lerning: The Role of Attitudes and Motivation. London: Edward Arnold.
  • Gass, S., & Varonis, E. (1986). Sex differences in nonnative speaker-nonnative speaker interactions. In R. R. Day (Ed.), Talking to learn: Conversation in second language acquisition (pp. 327-351). Rowley, MA: Newbury House Publishers.
  • Graham, S. (1997). Effective Language Learning. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
  • Henry, A. (2009). Gender differences in compulsory school pupils’ L2 selfconcepts: A longitudinal study. System, 37, 177-193. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.system.2008.11.003
  • Heras, A., & Lasagabaster, D. (2015). The impact of CLIL on affective factors and vocabulary learning. Language Teaching Research, 19(1), 70-88. https:// doi.org/10.1177/1362168814541736
  • Hong-Nam, K., &Leavell, A. G. (2006). Language learning strategy use of ESL students in an intensive English learning context. System, 34, 399-415. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2006.02.002
  • Jexenflicker, S. & Dalton-Puffer, C. (2010). The CLIL potential: Comparing the writing of CLIL and non-CLIL students in higher colleges of technology. In C. Daton-Puffer, T. Nikula, & U. Smit (Eds.), Language use and language learning in CLIL classrooms (pp. 169-190). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/aals.7.09jex
  • Jiménez Catalán, R. (2003). Sex differences in L2 vocabulary learning strategies. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 13(1), 54-77. https://doi. org/10.1111/1473-4192.00037
  • Kaivanpanah, S., Yamouty, P., & Karami, H. (2011). Examining the effects of proficiency, gender, and task type on the use of communication strategies. Porta Linguarum, 17, 79-93.
  • Kellerman, E., Bongaerts, T., & Poulisse, N. (1987). Strategy and system in L2 referential communication. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Second language acquisition in context (pp. 100-112). London: Prentice-Hall.
  • Kocoglu, Z. (1997). The role of gender on communication strategy use. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, 31. Orlando, FL. [Available online. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_ storage_01/0000019b/80/16/c1/75.pdf]
  • Lai, H. (2010). Gender effect on the use of communication strategies. English Language Teaching, 3(4), 28-32. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v3n4p28
  • Lasagabaster, D. (2008). Foreign language competence in content and language integrated courses. The Open Applied Linguistics Journal, 1(1). https://doi. org/10.2174/1874913500801010030
  • Lasagabaster, D. (2011). English achievement and student motivation in CLIL and EFL settings. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 5, 3-18. https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2010.519030
  • Lasagabaster, D., & Sierra, J. M. (2009). Language Attitudes in CLIL and Traditional EFL Classes. International CLIL Research Journal, 1(2), 4-17.
  • Llinares García, A., & Whittaker, R. (2010). Writing and speaking in the history class: A comparative analysis of CLIL and first language contexts. In C. Dalton-Puffer, T. Nikula, & U. Smit (Eds.), Language use and language learning in CLIL classrooms (pp. 125-144). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/aals.7.07lli
  • Martínez-Adrián, M., Gallardo-del-Puerto, F., & Basterrechea, M. (In press) On self-reported use of communication strategies by CLIL learners in primary education. Language Teaching Research. Prepublished August, 16, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168817722054
  • O’Malley, J.M., & Chamot, A.U. (1990). Learning strategies in second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi. org/10.1017/CBO9781139524490
  • Oxford, R.L. (1989). Use of language learning strategies: a synthesis of studies with implications for strategy training. System,17, 235-247. https://doi. org/10.1016/0346-251X(89)90036-5
  • Oxford, R.L., & Ehrman, M.E. (1988). Psychological type and adult language learning strategies: A pilot study. Journal of Psychological Type,16, 22-32.
  • Oxford, R., & Nyikos, M. (1989). Variables affecting choice of language learning strategies by university students. The Modern Language Journal, 73(3), 291-300. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1989.tb06367.x
  • Oxford, R., Nyikos, M., & Ehrman, M. E. (1988). Vive la difference? Reflections on sex differences in use of language learning strategies. Foreign Language Annals, 21(4), 321-9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.1988.tb01076.x
  • Pavlenko A., & Piller, I. (2008). Language education and gender. In S. May & N. H. Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education (pp. 57-69). New York: Springer Science+Business Media LLC. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-0-387-30424-3_5
  • Politzer, R. (1983). An exploratory study of self-reported language learning behaviors and their relation to achievement. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 6, 54-68. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100000292
  • Poulisse, N. (1990). The use of compensatory strategies by Dutch learners of English. Dordrecht: Foris.
  • Prieto, G., & Delgado, A. R. (1999). The role of instructions in the variability of sex-related differences in multiple-choice tests. Personality and individual differences, 27(6), 1067-1077. https://doi.org/10.1016/S01918869(99)00049-5
  • Purdie, N., & Oliver, R. (1999). Language learning strategies used by bilingual school-aged children. System, 27: 375-38. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0346251X(99)00032-9
  • Reid, J. (1987). The learning style preferences of ESL students. TESOL Quaterly, 21(1), 87-111. https://doi.org/10.2307/3586356
  • Roquet, H., Llopis, J., & Pérez-Vidal, C. (2016). Does gender have an impact on the potential benefits learners may achieve in two contexts compared: formal instruction and formal instruction+ content and language integrated learning? International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 19(4), 370-386. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2014.992389
  • Schmitt, N. (1997).Vocabulary learning strategies. In N. Schmitt & P. McCarthy (Eds.), Vocabulary. Description, acquisition and pedagogy (pp. 199-228). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Salahshour, F., Sharifi, M., & Shalahshour, N. (2013). The relationship between language learning strategy use, language proficiency level and learner gender. Procedia. Social and Behavioral Sciences, 70, 634-643. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.01.103
  • Spolsky, B. (1989). Conditions for second language learning: introduction to a general theory. Oxford University Press, USA.
  • Sunderland, J. (2000). Issues of language and gender in second and foreign language education. Language Teaching, 33(4), 203-223. https://doi. org/10.1017/S0261444800015688
  • Taguchi, T., Magid, M., & Papi, M. (2009). The L2 motivational self system among Japanese, Chinese and Iranian learners of English: A comparative study. In Z. Dörnyei & E. Ushioda (Eds.), Motivation, language identity and the L2 self (pp. 66–97). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
  • Tarone, E. (1977). Conscious communication strategies in interlanguage: A progress report. In H. D. Brown, C. A. Yorio, & R. C. Crymes (Eds.), On TESOL 77: teaching and learning english as a second language: trends in research and practice (pp. 194-203). Washington D.C.: TESOL.
  • Vandergrifi, L. (1997). The comprehension strategies of second language French listeners: A descriptive study. Foreign Language Annals, 20(3), 387-409. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.1997.tb02362.x
  • Yılmaz, C. (2010). The relationship between language learning strategies, gender, proficiency and self-efficacy beliefs: a study of ELT learners in Turkey. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2): 682-687. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.084
  • Yule, G., & Tarone, E. (1990). Eliciting the performance of strategic competence. In R. Scarcella, E. Andersen & S. Krashen (Eds.), Developing communicative competence in a second language (pp. 179-184). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet