Language Learning Strategy Use; Does Critical Thinking Make a Difference?

English Literature and Language Review
ISSN: 2412-1703
Vol. 1, No. 6, pp: 48-55, 2015
URL: http://arpgweb.com/?ic=journal&journal=9&info=aims
*Corresponding Author
48
Academic Research Publishing Group
Language Learning Strategy Use; Does Critical Thinking Make a
Difference?
Abbas Ali Zarei* Associate Professor, Faculty of Humanities, Imam Khomeini International University, Qazvin, Iran
Fatemeh Karami Zarandi MA, Imam Khomeini International University, Qazvin, Iran
1. Introduction
Scholars and researchers in second and foreign language learning are interested in determining the effect of
strategy use on success in learning another language. Also, the vast literature on Language Learning Strategies (LLS)
points to a number of factors believed to correlate with learners’ use of LLSs either in ESL or EFL contexts.
Recently, language teaching has witnessed a gradual shift from teacher-centered to learner-centered education. In
line with this movement, instructional activities have gone across drastic changes, one of which is a need to provide
opportunities for learners to think critically. Over the last 20 years, a number of educators and psychologists (e.g.,
(Schafersman, 1991) have called for the inclusion of critical thinking skills in curriculum, since the major purpose of
education is believed to be teaching learners how to think critically in order to be effective and competent citizens in
the real world (Ido and Jones, 1991). Educational psychologists and researchers, such as (Thomas and Smoot, 1994),
have advocated critical thinking as a very crucial element of schooling and pedagogy in the 21st
century. Moreover,
Atkinson (1997) asserts that critical thinking has been mostly used for first language education in the United States,
but today its role in second and foreign language learning and teaching is of great significance, too. Thus, the present
study aims to investigate the effect of critical thinking on the choice of language learning strategies and to answer
the following questions:
1. Are there any significant differences among the effects of different levels of critical thinking on the choice
of memory strategies?
of cognitive strategies?
of compensation strategies?
of meta-cognitive strategies?
of affective strategies?
of social strategies?
Abstract: The present study was an attempt to investigate the effect of critical thinking level on Iranian EFL
learners’ choice of language learning strategies. The participants were 93 male and female B.A. level Iranian
students majoring in English language teaching and English translation at Imam Khomeini International
University in Qazvin; Zanjan University; and Kar non-profit University in Qazvin. Data were collected using the
Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL), and Peter Honey’s Critical Thinking Scale. The participants
were divided into three levels (High, Mid, Low) of critical thinking based on their scores on the critical thinking
questionnaire. The participants’ strategy use in the three groups was compared using six separate one-way
ANOVA procedures. The results showed that the level of critical thinking significantly influenced students'
choice of memory, cognitive, metacognitive and social strategies, but had no significant effect on the choice of
compensation and affective strategies. The findings of this study may have both theoretical and pedagogical
implications for learners, teachers, and syllabus designers.
Keywords: Critical thinking; Language learning strategies; Strategy use.

English Literature and Language Review, 2015, 1(6): 48-55
49
2. Literature Review
2.1. Language Learning Strategies
Over the last twenty years, there has been a burgeoning amount of research into language learning strategies, in
an attempt to discover which of the language learning strategies that students use are the most effective for the
particular type of language learning involved.
Many researchers and experts have defined language learning strategies from different points of view. Bialystok
(1978) defines language learning strategies as “optional means for exploiting available information to improve
competence in a second language” (p. 71). From a theoretical perspective, Rignery (1978) defines language learning
strategies as techniques, steps, and behaviors, which language learners apply to facilitate language learning. (Tarone,
1983) defines language learning strategies as "an attempt to develop linguistic and sociolinguistic competence in the
target language – to incorporate these into one's interlanguage competence” (p.67). There are various taxonomies of
language learning strategies proposed by researchers. (Bialystok, 1979; Naiman et al., 1978; Nisbet and
Shucksmith, 1986; O'Malley and Chamot, 1990; Oxford, 1990; Rubin, 1981; Stern, 1992). For instance, Chamot and
O'Malley (1987) studied the use of learning strategies by ESL learners in the US. Based on his research, language
learning strategies are divided into three main categories, metacognitive, cognitive, and socio-affective. According to
Oxford (1990), language learning strategies fall in two main categories, direct and indirect strategies. Direct
strategies are sub-divided into memory, cognitive and compensation strategies. Indirect strategies are further divided
into metacognitive, affective, and social strategies.
2.2. Critical Thinking
The term ‘critical thinking’ has been the subject of much debate in recent years. Psychologists and language
methodologists have difficulty offering a precise definition of critical thinking. That’s why Halonen (1995) states
that ‘‘critical thinking scholarship is in a mystified state. No single definition of critical thinking is widely accepted”
(p. 75). So, many definitions of critical thinking exist in the literature which seem to have areas of overlap.
Norris and Ennis (1989) define CT as “reasonable and reflective thinking that is focused upon deciding what to
believe and do” (p.3). From another perspective, Schafersman (1991) describes it as the scientific method used by
ordinary people in the ordinary world. Jacobs et al. (1997) define CT as ‘‘the repeated examination of problems,
questions, issues, and situations by comparing, simplifying, and synthesizing information in an analytical,
deliberative, evaluative, decisive way’’ (p. 20). In a similar vein, Levy (1997) defines critical thinking as “an active
and systematic cognitive strategy to examine, evaluate, understand events, solve problems, and make decisions on
the basis of sound reasoning and valid evidence” (p. 236). Bensley (1998) defines it as ‘‘reflective thinking
involving the evaluation of evidence relevant to a claim so that a sound conclusion can be drawn from the evidence”
(p.5). Pithers and Soden (2000) state that critical thinking includes a number of abilities such as identifying a
problem and the assumptions on which it is based, focusing on the problem, analyzing, understanding and making
use of inferences, inductive and deductive logic, and judging the validity and reliability of assumptions and sources
of data. Diestler (2001) believes that critical thinking is the utilization of particular criteria to assess reasoning and
making decisions. Halpern (2003) defines critical thinking as “the use of those cognitive skills or strategies that
increase the probability of a desirable outcome….thinking that is purposeful, reasoned, and goal oriented” (p.6). For
MatDaud and Husin (2004), CT basically “relates to one's conscious effort in deciding what to do or to believe by
focusing one's thought on it” (p.479).
A number of researchers have shown interest in the field of critical thinking and language learning strategies.
Nikoopour et al. (2011) conducted a study to discover the relationship between critical thinking and language
learning strategies among Iranian EFL learners. They found that cognitive, metacognitive, and social learning
strategies had a relationship with critical thinking, while memory, compensation, and affective learning strategies
had no relationship with critical thinking.
In another study, Mall-Amiri and Ahmadi (2014) explored the relationship between EFL learners’ critical
thinking, and metacognitive strategies. The results showed a significant and positive relationship between EFL
learners’ critical thinking and metacognitive strategies. Moreover, Nosratinia et al. (2014) investigated the
relationship between EFL learners' language learning strategies and critical thinking. Running multiple regressions,
they found that memory strategies, social strategies, metacognitive strategies, and compensation strategies were the
best predictor of critical thinking.
Despite the above-mentioned studies, there seems to be a paucity of research as to whether and to what
extent EFL learners’ level of critical thinking can influence their choice of language learning strategies. The present
study aims to partially fill this gap.
3. Method
3.1. Participants
The participants of the present study initially included 118 male and female Iranian B.A. level students majoring
in Teaching English and English Translation at Imam Khomeini International University; Zanjan University; and
Kar non-profit University. The age of the participants ranged from 19 to 32. A general proficiency test (Michigan
Test of English Language Proficiency, MTELP) was administered to homogenize the participants’ level of English
language proficiency. After the administration of the MTELP and taking the results into account, the number of

50
participants was reduced to 93. 25 participants were excluded from the study because they had a different level of
proficiency.
3.2. Instruments
The following instruments were used for the purpose of data collection:
A. Michigan Test of English Language Proficiency (MTELP): to homogenize the participants, the MTELP was
administered. MTELP is one of the popular tests for measuring ESL or EFL learners' level of language proficiency.
The 100–item multiple-choice test has three parts, containing 40 grammar items, 40 vocabulary items, and reading
passages followed by 20 comprehension questions.
B. Oxford's Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL): with 50 items on a 5-point Likert scale from 'Never'
to 'Always'. The questionnaire comprises six categories:
1- Memory strategies which have nine items.
2- Cognitive strategies containing fourteen items.
3- Compensation strategies which included six items.
4- Meta-cognitive strategies including nine items.
5- Affective strategies which have six items.
6- Social strategies which included six items.
C. Peter Honey’s Critical Thinking Scale: To study learners' critical thinking beliefs, a critical thinking
questionnaire adapted from Naieni (2005) was employed. The scale was originally developed by Honey (2000). The
questionnaire was improved and adapted for Iranian EFL learners. Moreover, the reliability of the scale was reported
to be 0.86 (Naieni, 2005). The questionnaire consists of 30 items using a 5-point Likert scale. Students were asked to
read items and select an option ranging from never to always depending on their critical thinking beliefs.
3.3. Procedure
To achieve the purpose of the study, the following procedure was followed. First, 118 participants with the
afore-mentioned characteristics were selected. Next, the Michigan Test of English Language proficiency was given
to the participants in order to homogenize them and make sure that there were no significant differences among the
participants in terms of their proficiency level. They had 45 minutes to complete this test.
In the second stage, the strategy and critical thinking questionnaires were given to all the participants. The
allotted time for completing these questionnaires was 40 minutes. During the administration of the questionnaires, if
the participants had any question, the researcher would answer them. To homogenize the participants, their scores on
the general proficiency test were summarized, and the mean and standard deviation were computed. The scores of
those who had achieved more than one standard deviation away from (above or below) the mean were excluded from
all subsequent analyses. The obtained data were summarized, analyzed and prepared for further statistical analyses.
3.4. Data Analysis
Having administered the tests and gathered the data, we employed six separate one-way ANOVA procedures to
analyze the obtained data and to answer each of the research questions.
4. Results and Discussion
4.1. Investigation of the First Research Question
The first research question sought to see whether there are any significant differences among the effects of
different levels of critical thinking on the choice of memory strategies. To this end, the participants were divided into
three equal groups of high, medium, and low levels of critical thinking based their scores on the critical thinking
questionnaire. A one-way ANOVA procedure was run to see the effect of the level of participants' critical thinking
on their choice of memory strategies. Table 1 shows the result of the descriptive and test statistics. Based on Table 1,
the high group has the highest mean (  = 19.42), followed by the medium group (  = 17.55), and the low group (
 = 16.23). Moreover, the F-value is significant (F (2, 90) = 4.34, p> .05). This means that there are significant
differences among the three critical thinking groups in the choice of memory strategies. Meanwhile, the index of the
strength of association (ω2
= 0.06) shows that 6% of the total variance in the dependent variable (memory strategy
use) is accounted for by the independent variable (critical thinking). This means that the remaining 94% is left
unaccounted for.

51
Table-1. Descriptive and Test Statistics for the ANOVA on Critical Thinking and Memory Strategies
To locate the differences among the three groups, the post hoc Scheffe test procedure was used, yielding the
following results:
Table -2. Post Hoc Multiple Comparisons for Critical Thinking Level in the Choice of Memory Strategies
(I) Critical
Thinking
(J) Critical
Thinking
Mean Difference
(I-J)
Sig. 95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound Upper Bound
High
High
Mid 1.871 .234 -.84 4.58
Low 3.194*
.016 .48 5.90
Mid Low 1.323 .481 -1.39 4.03
*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.
Table 2 shows that only the difference between the high group and the low group means is statistically
significant.
4.2. Investigation of the Second Research Question
To investigate the effect of critical thinking level on the choice of cognitive strategies, the second ANOVA was
run. Table 3 shows the result of the descriptive and test statistics. Based on Table 3, the high group has the highest
mean (  = 36.03), followed by the medium group (  = 30.84), and the low group (  = 30.16). Moreover, the F-
value is significant (F (2, 90) = 9.22, p < .05). So, the differences among the three critical thinking groups in the
choice of cognitive strategies are significant. Meanwhile, the index of the strength of association (ω2
= 0.15) shows
that 15% of the total variance in the dependent variable (cognitive strategy use) is accounted for by the independent
variable (critical thinking).
Table-3. Descriptive and Test Statistics for the ANOVA on Critical Thinking and Cognitive Strategies
To locate the differences among the three groups, the post hoc Scheffe test procedure was used, showing the
following results:
Table -4. Post Hoc Multiple Comparisons of Critical Thinking Level in the Choice of Cognitive Strategies
(I) Critical
Thinking
(J) Critical
Thinking
Mean
Difference (I-J)
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
High
High
Mid 5.194*
.003 1.47 8.92
Low 5.871*
.001 2.15 9.59
Mid Low .677 .903 -3.04 4.40
Table 4 shows that the difference between the high and the medium groups is statistically significant, and so is
the difference between the high and low group means. However, the difference between the means of the medium
and low groups is statistically insignificant.
Critical
Thinking
N Mean Std.
Deviation
95% Confidence Interval
for Mean
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
Memory
Strategies
High
Mid
Low
31
31
31
19.42
17.55
16.23
4.588
4.081
4.169
17.74
16.05
14.70
21.10
19.05
17.76
F= 4.34 Sig. = .016 ω2
= 0.06
Critical
Thinking
N Mean Std.
Deviation
for Mean
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
Cognitive
Strategies
High
Mid
Low
31
31
31
36.03
30.84
30.16
6.580
5.675
5.336
33.62
28.76
28.20
38.45
32.92
32.12
F= 9.22 Sig. = .000 ω2
= 0.15

52
4.3. Investigation of the Third Research Question
The third ANOVA was used to investigate the effect of critical thinking level on the choice of compensation
strategies. Table 5 presents the result of the descriptive and test statistics. Based on Table 5, the high group has the
highest mean (  = 14.03), followed by the low group (  = 12.65), and the medium group (  = 12.26).
However, the F-value is insignificant (F (2, 90) = 2.00, p > .05). Therefore, the differences among the three critical
thinking groups in the choice of compensation strategies are not significant.
Table-5. Descriptive and Test Statistics for the ANOVA on Critical Thinking and Compensation Strategies
4.4. Investigation of the Fourth Research Question
To see the effect of critical thinking level on the choice of meta-cognitive strategies, the fourth ANOVA was
run. Table 6 contains the result of the descriptive and test statistics. Based on Table 6, the high group has the highest
mean (  = 26.87), followed by the low group (  = 21.87), and the medium group (  = 21.19). Moreover, the F-
value is significant (F (2, 90) = 8.96, p<.05). The findings indicate that there are significant differences among the
three critical thinking groups in the choice of meta-cognitive strategies. Meanwhile, the index of the strength of
association (ω2
= 0.14) shows that 14% of the total variance in the dependent variable (metacognitive strategy use) is
accounted for by the independent variable (critical thinking). This means that the remaining 86% is left unaccounted
for.
Table-6. Descriptive and Test Statistics for the ANOVA on Critical Thinking and Metacognitive Strategies
following results:
Table-7. Post Hoc Multiple Comparisons for Critical Thinking Level in the Choice of Metacognitive Strategies
(I) Critical
Thinking
(J) Critical
Thinking
Mean
Difference (I-J)
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
High
High
Mid 5.677*
.001 2.03 9.32
Low 5.000*
.004 1.35 8.65
Mid Low -.677 .899 -4.32 2.97
Table 7 shows that the mean difference between the high and medium groups is statistically significant, and so
is the difference between the means of the high and low groups. However, the difference between the medium and
low groups is statistically insignificant.
4.5. Investigation of the Fifth Research Question
The fifth ANOVA was conducted to see the effect of critical thinking level on the choice of affective strategies.
Table 8 shows the result of the descriptive and test statistics. Based on Table 8, the F-value is insignificant (F(2, 90) =
3.64, p > .05). These findings indicate that there are no significant differences among the three critical thinking
groups in the choice of memory strategies.
Critical
Thinking
N Mean Std.
Deviation
for Mean
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
Compensation
Strategies
High
Mid
Low
31
31
31
14.03
12.26
12.65
4.021
2.594
4.176
12.56
11.31
11.11
15.51
13.21
14.18
F= 2.00 Sig. = .140
Critical
Thinking
N Mean Std.
Deviation
for Mean
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
Metacognitive
Strategies
High
Mid
Low
31
31
31
26.87
21.19
21.87
4.500
6.258
6.355
25.22
18.90
19.54
28.52
23.49
24.20
F= 8.96 Sig. = .000 ω2
= 0.14

53
Table-8. Descriptive and Test Statistics for the ANOVA on Critical Thinking and Affective Strategies
4.6. Investigation of the Six Research Question
Finally, the sixth ANOVA was run to investigate the effect of critical thinking level on the choice of social
strategies. Table 9 contains the result of the descriptive and test statistics. Based on Table 9, the F-value and the
significance level (F(2, 90) = 5.83, p < .05) suggest that the differences among the three critical thinking groups in the
choice of social strategies are statistically significant. Meanwhile, the index of the strength of association (ω2
= 0.09)
shows that 9% of the total variance in the dependent variable (social strategy use) is accounted for by the
independent variable (critical thinking).
Table-9. Descriptive and Test Statistics for the ANOVA on Critical Thinking and Social Strategies
following results:
Table-10. Post Hoc Multiple Comparisons for Critical Thinking Level in the Choice of Social Strategies
(I) Critical
Thinking
(J) Critical
Thinking
Mean
Difference (I-J)
Lower
Bound
Upper Bound
High
High
Mid 1.323 .469 -1.34 3.99
Low 3.613*
.005 .95 6.28
Mid Low 2.290 .107 -.37 4.95
Table 10 shows that only the difference between the high and the low groups is statistically significant.
4.7. Discussion
One of the findings of the present study was that critical thinking significantly influenced the use of memory,
cognitive, meta-cognitive and social strategies. This result lends support to some previous studies (e.g., (Mall-Amiri
and Ahmadi, 2014; Nikoopour et al., 2011; Nosratinia et al., 2014; Zarei and Gilanian, 2014). Nikoopour et al.
(2011) study reported a statistically significant correlation between language learning strategies and critical thinking.
They found that cognitive, metacognitive, and social strategies had a relationship with critical thinking. Moreover,
Mall-Amiri and Ahmadi (2014) findings showed a significant and positive relationship between EFL learners’
critical thinking and metacognitive strategies. Also, Nosratinia et al. (2014) investigated the relationship between
EFL learners' language learning strategies and critical thinking. They reported that memory, social, and
metacognitive strategies were the best predictors of critical thinking. Similarly, Zarei and Gilanian (2014) found that
cognitive and social strategies were the best predicators of critical thinking.
In addition, these findings partially support those of Hosseini et al. (2012), who showed a positive relationship
between EFL readers’ critical thinking ability and metacognitive and cognitive reading strategy use.
The results of the present study are also compatible with some non-L2 studies that explain the connection
between metacognition and critical thinking (Halpern, 1998; Nickerson, 1994). Also, the results are in line with
those of Magno (2010), suggesting that the factors of metacognition are significantly related to the factors of critical
thinking. The findings also accord with those of Choy and Cheah (2009), who reported a positive correlation
between metacognition and critical thinking.
At the same time, the findings of the present study contradict a number of previous studies. The findings of this
study are to some extent different from those of Nikoopour et al. (2011), who found no relationship between
memory strategies and critical thinking. The results also contradict some aspects of Zarei and Gilanian (2014)
Critical
Thinking
N Mean Std.
Deviation
for Mean
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
Affective
Strategies
High
Mid
Low
31
31
31
12.06
9.71
9.52
4.049
4.189
4.170
10.58
8.17
7.99
13.55
11.25
11.05
F= 3.64 Sig. = .30
Critical
Thinking
N Mean Std.
Deviation
for Mean
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
Social
Strategies
High
Mid
Low
31
31
31
14.81
13.48
11.19
3.825
4.146
4.629
13.40
11.96
9.50
16.21
15.00
12.89
F= 5.83 Sig. = .004 ω2
= 0.09

54
findings, which showed that compensation and affective learning strategies were significant predictors of critical
thinking.
The similarities and differences between the results of the present study and those of the above-mentioned
studies might be partially attributed to the following factors.
The first possible factor contributing to these findings may be learners' level of proficiency. The present study
only focused on B.A. level students majoring in translation and TEFL who were roughly at intermediate level of
proficiency. Several previous studies such as Peacock and Ho (2003), Anderson (2002), Rahimi et al. (2008) and
Pannak and Chiramanee (2011) have shown that a high level of proficiency is associated with an increased use of
both direct and indirect strategies.
Another possible factor can be gender differences. In the present study, gender differences were not taken into
account, but previous studies on language learning strategies like Oxford (1990), Wharton (2000), Bozinovic and
Sindik (2011), and Zeynali (2012) have emphasized gender differences among the participants in the choice
language learning strategies. Also with regard to critical thinking, although, some studies show that gender cannot
predict individuals’ critical thinking skills, it is suggested that women sometimes feel that critical thinking “is
synonymous with ‘male logic’, a thought process they find adversarial uncomfortable, and alienating” (Browne et
al., 1989). It has also been found that men are more analytical than women (Facione et al., 1994) and generally
score higher in critical thinking skill tests (Leach and Good, 2011). So, gender may be a potential factor for the
existing differences between the results of the present study and those of previous ones.
Socio-cultural differences could be another reason for differences between the results of the present study and
the above studies. For instance, O'Malley and Chamot (1990) found that Asian students prefer to use strategies
involving rote memorization and language rules. At the same time, as the participants of the present study were
Iranian learners, they seem to have fewer opportunities to raise their awareness of affective learning strategies and
gain better control over emotions, attitudes and motivations related to language learning.
5. Conclusion
The present study attempted to investigate the effect of critical thinking on the choice of memory, cognitive,
compensation, meta-cognitive, affective and social strategies of Iranian EFL learners. The results showed that the
level of critical thinking significantly influenced students’ choice of memory, cognitive, meta-cognitive and social
strategies, but had no significant effect on the choice of compensation and affective strategies. In this regard, strategy
training and helping learners improve their critical thinking may have a mutual positive effect, and hence boost EFL
learning. Meanwhile, the findings of the present study may have implications for learners, teachers, and materials
developers. Learners should be given more opportunities to develop their critical thinking in the process of language
learning. Moreover, teachers are recommended to create an educational environment in which learners’ critical
thinking skills can be encouraged and nourished in the classroom. This way, teachers can find new and better ways
of introducing learning strategies to the students. In addition, materials developers are suggested to plan a curriculum
which includes more activities which contribute to developing critical thinking.
Reference
Anderson, N. J. (2002). The role of metacognition in second language teaching and learning. ERIC Digest: 3-4.
Atkinson, D. (1997). A critical approach to critical thinking in TESOL. TESOL Quarterly, 31(1): 71-94.
Bensley, D. A. (1998). Critical thinking in psychology: A unified skills approach. Brooks/Cole: Pacific Grove CA.
Bialystok, E. (1978). A theoretical model of second language learning. Language Learning, 28(1): 69-83.
Bialystok, E. (1979). The role of conscious strategies in second language proficiency. Modern Language Journal,
65(1): 24-35.
Bozinovic, N. and Sindik, J. (2011). Gender differences in the use of learning strategies in adult foreign language
learners. Metodicki Obzori, 11(6): 17-32.
Browne, M., Kubasek, K.and Harris, A. (1989). The challenge to critical thinking posed by gender-related and
learning styles research. Professional and Organizational Development Network in Higher Education:
Chamot, A. U. and O'Malley, J. M. (1987). The cognitive academic language learning approach: A bridge to the
mainstream. TESOL Quarterly, 21(2): 227-49.
Choy, S. C. and Cheah, P. K. (2009). Teacher perceptions of critical thinking among students and its influence on
higher education. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 20(2): 198-206.
Diestler, S. (2001). Becoming a critical thinker: A user friendly manual. 3rd edn: Prentice-Hall: Upper Saddle
River, NJ.
Facione, P. A., Sanchez, C. A.and Facione, N. C. (1994). Are college students disposed to think? : California
Academic Press: US.
Halonen, J. S. (1995). Demystifying critical thinking. Teaching of Psychology, 22(1): 75–81.
Halpern, D. F. (1998). Teaching critical thinking for transfer across domains: Dispositions, skills, structure training,
and metacognitive monitoring. American Psychologist, 53(4): 449–55.
Halpern, D. F. (2003). Thought and knowledge: An introduction to critical thinking. 4th edn: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates: Mahwah, New Jersey.
Honey, P. (2000). Critical Thinking questionnaire. http://www.PeterHoneyPublications.com

55
Hosseini, E., Bakhshipour Khodaei, F., Sarfallah, S.and Dolatabadi, H. (2012). Exploring the relationship between
critical thinking, reading comprehension and reading strategies of English university students. World
Applied Sciences Journal, 17(10): 1356-64.
Ido, L. and Jones, B. F. (1991). Educational value and cognitive instruction: Implication for Reform. The North
Central Regional Educational Laboratory: New Jersey.
Jacobs, P. M., Ott, B., Sullivan, B., Ulrich, Y.and Short, L. (1997). An approach to defining and operationalizing
critical thinking. Journal of Nursing Education, 36(10): 19–22.
Leach, B. and Good, D. (2011). Critical thinking skills as related to university students’ gender and academic
discipline. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 1: 100-06.
Levy, D. A. (1997). Tools of critical thinking: Meta-thoughts for psychology. Allyn & Bacon: Boston.
Magno, C. (2010). The role of metacognitive skills in developing critical thinking. Metacognition Learning, 5(2):
137-56.
Mall-Amiri, B. and Ahmadi, Z. (2014). The relationship between EFL learners’ critical thinking, and metacognitive
strategies. International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World (IJLLALW), 5(1):
488-505.
MatDaud, N. and Husin, Z. (2004). Developing critical thinking skills in computer-aided extended reading classes.
British Journal of Educational Technology, 35(4): 477-87.
Naieni, J. (2005). The effects of collaborative learning on critical thinking of Iranian EFL learners (Unpublished
master’s thesis). Islamic Azad University: Central Tehran, Iran.
Naiman, N., Frohlich, M., Stern, H. H.and Todesco, A. (1978). The good language learner: Research in education.
Institute for Studies in Education: Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Nickerson, R. S. (1994). The teaching of thinking and problem solving. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Thinking and
problem solving. Academic Press: New York. 409-49.
Nikoopour, J., Farsani, M.and Nasiri, M. (2011). On the relationship between critical thinking and language learning
strategies among Iranian EF learners. Journal of Technology and Education, 3 (3): 195-200.
Nisbet, J. and Shucksmith, J. (1986). Learning strategies. Routledge and Kegan Paul: London.
Norris, S. and Ennis, R. (1989). Evaluating critical thinking. Thinking Press & Software: Pacific Grove, CA.
Nosratinia, M., Ghanbari Asiabar, M.and Sarabchian, E. (2014). Exploring the relationship between Iranian EFL
learners' language learning strategies and critical thinking. International Journal of Language Learning and
Applied Linguistics World (IJLLALW), 5(2): 335-45.
O'Malley, J. M. and Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning strategies in second language acquisition. Cambridge
University Press: Cambridge.
Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. Newbury House: New York.
Pannak, O. and Chiramanee, T. (2011).'Language learning strategies used by first year students at Thaksin
University, Songkhla campus, Thailand'.3rd International Conference on Humanities and Social Sciences.
Peacock, M. and Ho, B. (2003). Student language learning strategies across eight disciplines. International Journal
of Applied Linguistics, 13(2): 179–200.
Pithers, R. T. and Soden, R. (2000). Critical thinking in education: A review. Educational Research, 42: 237–49.
Rahimi, M., Riazi, A.and Saif, S. (2008). An investigation into the factors affecting the use of language learning
strategies by Persian EFL learners. CJAL, 11(2): 31-60.
Rignery, C. W. (1978). Learning strategies: A theoretical perspective. In H. F. O’Neil, Jr. (Ed), Learning strategies.
Academic Press: New York. 165–205.
Rubin, J. (1981). Study of cognitive processes in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2): 117-31.
Schafersman, R. (1991). An introduction to critical thinking. http://www.Freeinquiry.com/critical-thinking.html
Stern, H. H. (1992). Issues and options in language teaching. Oxford University Press: Oxford.
Tarone, E. (1983). Some thoughts on the notion of communication strategy. In C. Faerch & G. Kasper (Eds.),
Strategies in interlanguage communication. Longman: London. 61-74.
Thomas, G. and Smoot, G. (1994). Critical thinking: A vital work skill. Trust for Educational Leadership, 23: 34-38.
Wharton, G. (2000). Language learning strategy use of bilingual foreign language learners in Singapore. Language
Learning, 50(2): 203-44.
Zarei, A. A. and Gilanian, M. (2014). On the relationship between cognitive self-regulated learning and language
learning strategies. Journal of Social Issues & Humanities, 2(12): 200-09.
Zeynali, S. (2012). Exploring the gender effect on EFL learners’ learning strategies. Theory and Practice in
Language Studies, 2(8): 1614-20.

Language Learning Strategy Use; Does Critical Thinking Make a Difference?

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Similar to Language Learning Strategy Use; Does Critical Thinking Make a Difference? (20)

More from English Literature and Language Review ELLR (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Language Learning Strategy Use; Does Critical Thinking Make a Difference?