CHAPTER 10 Out-of-Class EFL Language Learning Strategies Used by Omani Students Ali Al-Bulushi and Ali Al-Issa ABSTRACT F oreign language learning is a complex process determined by several explicit and implicit factors and strategies. The literature on the ield has highlighted the importance of foreign language strategies in improving learners’ command of the target language and has shown that learners employ different strategies to foster their learning of a target language. Today, English as a foreign language (EFL) learners in Oman and elsewhere are surrounded more than ever by various out-of-class English sources that can potentially inluence their English language learning, but which may have negative implications for EFL policy implementation in the country. This study investigates the use of out-of-class strategies by Omani EFL learners as a means to identify means of formulating the ELT policy. A 33-item questionnaire was developed, validated, piloted and e-mailed to all Sultan Qaboos University (SQU) irst year students to investigate their perceptions 271 about the strategies they employed when they were at school and which they thought had helped them improve their English. Analysis of the data showed that participants adopted certain passive/receptive and active/productive strategies that were counter to the ELT policy in Oman. The indings have implications for teacher practices and roles and for the EFL policy in the Omani and other similar EFL contexts. English in Oman English, the only oficial foreign language in the Sultanate of Oman, receives considerable political, economic and legislative attention and support from the government. It has institutionalized domains like business, education and the mass media (Al-Busaidi, 1995). According to Al-Issa (2002, 2007a) people in Oman learn English for communicative purposes. A functional knowledge of English is important for traveling to non-Arabic speaking countries, socializing and integrating with non-Arabic speaking tourists and residents in Oman, pursuing undergraduate and postgraduate education inland or abroad, inding a white-collar job, conducting business, acquiring information in science and technology, and engaging in intercultural communication and understanding. The English necessary for fulilling these purposes is thus the variety of English known as Standard English (S.E.). It is most widely accepted as a national norm and encompasses grammar, vocabulary and spelling. It is taught at school and used by intellectuals, educated and professional users of English, including but not limited to, writers, journalists, lawyers, politicians, diplomats, professors, and medical doctors. However, there are other varieties and sources of English language in Oman that have imposed themselves strongly on the linguistic scene locally and globally and exposed learners to non-standard English. This could be against the language policy in the country. Examples of these sources are ilms, songs, the Internet and phone text messages. Admittedly, the spread of these sources is too powerful to limit or contain or even resist at the present time. 272 Furthermore, the English language has become a “glocal” language (Crystal, 1997). This refers to English as becoming a global language, yet rooted in the local contexts of its users. Bilingualism in English has been growing rapidly and immensely, and English in its current status is increasingly becoming the world’s language and nobody’s language (Al-Issa, 2002). This has paved the way for the millions of non-native English language users round the world to code mix and code switch between their native languages and English, which has resulted in the birth of different varieties of non-standard English. Strevens (1992) thus argues that English is inherently a borrowing and an Anglicizing language. Ever since its earliest beginnings it has been part of the nature of the English language to incorporate ideas, concepts, and expressions from other societies and to make them part of English (p.31). English Language Teaching in Oman English is the only oficial foreign language taught in public and private schools in Oman. While it is taught from kindergarten in the private schools, it is taught from Grade One in public schools after the introduction of the Basic Education System (BES) over a decade ago. English is also taught for general and speciic purposes in all public and private higher education institutions. In fact, it is the medium of instruction in all science-based disciplines in higher education institutions. However, Moody (2009) writes “although there has been signiicant investment in English language teaching (ELT) in Arabian Gulf countries, most professionals agree that results have been disappointing” (p. 99). Moody attributes this partly to students’ evident communicative inadequacy. Karmani (2005) describes ELT in the Gulf Cooperation Council Countries (GCCC) as a “crisis”. Students exiting Grade 12 in Oman, for example, suffer from various linguistic deiciencies (Al-Issa, 2002, 2007b). However, despite updated teacher training programs, some English teachers 273 in Oman are main contributors to the low English level of students exiting Grade 12 due to their ineficient classroom practices (Al-Issa, 2002; Al-Issa & Al-Bulushi, 2012) as a large proportion of them lack adequate training, lack familiarity with communicative language teaching (CLT), teach traditionally, teach for exam purposes, and lack the ability to critically relect on their experiences and to exploit the school instructional environment to help attend to their students’ language needs and interests. Such teachers come from different academic, training, social and cultural backgrounds, which according to Al-Issa (2009, 2010) and Al-Issa and Al-Bulushi (2012), has negatively impacted ELT policy implementation in Oman. Baldauf and Luke (1990) emphasize that the teachers’ professionalism is central for effective language education policy implementation since they are the sole interpreters of the curriculum. Dove (1986) argues that teachers are most free from interference in the classrooms, which makes them the sole interpreters of the curriculum for the learners, and which also makes it very dificult for the authority to control their determination to manipulate policy implementation. Rationale This research attempts to investigate the out-of-class English language learning strategies Omani Sultan Qaboos University (SQU) irst year students employed at school to help them compensate for the weaknesses in the ELT system and fulill certain personal interests and needs. The approach, provides a different direction and perspective about investigating the implementation of ELT policy in an EFL context like Oman’s. It is thus important to stress that a signiicant proportion of the literature on outof-class foreign language learning strategies (see for instance, Pickard, 1996; Hyland, 2004; Shen, Tseng, Kuo, Su & Chen, 2005), reached conclusions about students focusing on and improving their receptive language skills at the expense of their productive ones, which defeats the orientation of the ELT policy in Oman towards communicative language teaching, which entails Oman and many other similar contexts around the world. 274 In addition, having highlighted the crucial role of English language teachers in Oman as powerful agents of the ELT policy implementation, it becomes important to bring to the attention of such teachers what aspects of the ELT policy in Oman are being disturbed and the signiicant role they can play to inluence positive implementation of the policy. Research Questions This study aims to answer to the following research question: What are the perceived out-of-class language learning strategies used by Omani freshmen enrolled at SQU? Methodology Subjects A total of 1142 irst year SQU students completed an online questionnaire. They were all enrolled in different colleges at the university. Regardless of the college they belonged to, these students would fall under two main categories: English language foundation program students and credit courses students. The former were studying non-credit English language courses before commencing their degree programs, whereas the latter passed the exit test and so were exempted from the foundation program. It is worth noting here that the medium of instruction used in all science-related majors at the colleges is English. Instrument Rigours identiication of out-of-class strategies that EFL students use is an almost impossible task to be carried out empirically especially in relation to a big sample. Students usually use various types of out-of-class strategies that make supervising students during the employment of such strategies an attainable task. Following other researchers such as Shen et al., (2005), Pickard (1996) and Hyland, (2004) who investigated this area, we decided to elicit the respondents reported use of out-of-class language learning strategies using a 33-item questionnaire (see the appendix). It contained closed items 275 each of which required the respondent to identify his/her level of frequency in practising the stated out of class strategy. Open-ended items were also included allowing participants to elaborate on their responses to these items. The questionnaire was emailed to 1142 students. The data was analysed via the SPSS program. Results and Discussion The results are reported below in item numbers, statements and means. They are grouped under seven main clusters. However, it is important to point out that items 32 and 33, which deal with practicing English when traveling to English and non-Arabic speaking countries for tourism and adding comments about any other out-of-class English language activities they have been engaged in respectively are open-ended questions and are reported in numbers. Cultural Contact Table 1 Acquiring English through cultural contact N Statement 1 I read English poems 2 I write English poems 3 I read English stories 4 I write English stories 5 I write my personal diary in English 276 N 1142 M SD 1.42 .660 1142 1.27 .602 79.9 13.9 5.2 1.1 1142 2.48 .808 10.9 40.4 38.6 10.1 1142 1.51 .733 61.3 27.8 9.3 1.7 1142 1.74 .894 50.7 29.9 13.9 5.5 1.68 .739 Never Rarely Often 66.5 25.3 7.4 Always 0.8 This cluster (items 1-5) seeks information pertinent to the effort the participants make to acquire English through contact with cultural aspect of the target language. The grand mean of this cluster is 1.68, which is the lowest amongst all clusters as illustrated in table 1 above. However, the third item, which is associated with reading stories, obtained the highest mean (2.48) amongst the ive items. This is an indication of the importance of reading for pleasure as represented in reading stories to some of the participants as a tool for acquiring the target language. The remaining items – reading poems and writing poems, stories and diaries are also considered by some participants as signiicant strategies for acquiring the target language. However, they are not as highly valued as reading stories. This is perhaps due to the fact that the structure of English poetry is different from Arabic poetry and so possibly less appealing to learners. Audio/Video Media As table 2 shows, this cluster (items 6-12) has a higher grand mean (2.43) than the last one. Apart from item 8, which has a low mean (1.64) the rest of the items have a comparatively high mean. Table 2 Acquiring English through audio/video media N Statement N M SD Never Rarely Often Always 6 I watch the news in English 1142 2.14 .827 22.9 46 25.7 5.4 7 I watch different 1142 documentaries in English 2.52 .894 12.7 37.5 34.9 15 8 I watch different 1142 cooking programs in English 1.64 .879 58.2 24.5 12.4 4.8 277 9 I watch different 1142 entertainment programs in English 10 I watch different 1142 sports programs in English 1142 11 I watch different movies in English 12 I listen to different songs in English 1142 2.79 .946 9.6 29.2 34.2 26.9 2.05 .990 37.4 30.5 22.6 9.5 3.36 .848 3.7 13.5 25.9 56.9 2.54 1.125 24 24.5 24.7 26.8 2.43 .929 In fact, item 11, on watching movies, has the highest mean amongst all seven items. Next to watching movies comes watching entertainment programs, such as quiz programs, This is followed by listening to songs and watching documentaries, the news and sports programs, which some students perceive to be helpful for target language acquisition. These programs, which embody culture and present different language genres, are broadcast on different free-toair Arabic and English medium channels. In other words, with the introduction of cable TV and satellite channels, the concept of TV and visual broadcasting has evolved and brought with it ininite exposure to the English-speaking world. However, it is important to stress that the quality and variety of English language that ilms and songs offer to learners of EFL is counter to standard English the ELT policy in Oman stresses. Different phrases and sentences used in ilms and songs use grammar inaccurately, for example, which can have its negative implications for the students’ English language acquisition and development. Coarse or street language that is used in many of these ilms can also transmit to learners a socially and culturally inappropriate and unacceptable aspect of the target language’s culture. 278 In addition, by listening to songs and watching ilms, learners are activating one language skill – listening – which may not serve the communicative language learning (CLL) process. CLL advocates genuine interactive use of the target language through engaging as many of the four skills in social meaningful encounters as possible. This is especially the case when bearing in mind the different purposes for learning English in Oman and the neighboring countries. Technology Table 3 Acquiring English through technology N Statement 1142 2.31 .959 13 I access general websites in English on the Internet to improve my language Never Rarely Often 22.1 38.5 26.2 Always 1142 2.07 .913 14 I access English language learning websites on the Internet to improve my language 30.6 39.4 22.2 7.7 15 I send and receive email 1142 2.32 .911 messages in English 19.9 39.8 29.5 10.9 16 I use English for 1142 1.73 .923 chatting on the Internet 54.2 24.3 15.8 5.7 1142 1.78 1.079 58.8 17 I use social network websites such as Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn in English 17.6 10.5 13 18 I participate in online English discussion forums 19 I send SMS in English N M SD 13.2 1142 1.47 .762 66.6 22 8.8 2.5 1142 2.57 .805 7.9 39.4 40.2 12.5 2.03 .907 This cluster (items 13-19) seeks information pertinent to the amount of 279 sophisticated technology used by the participants to help them to develop their English. Items 19, 15, 13 and 14 which deal with texting messages from a cellular phone, e-mailing, accessing general websites on the Internet and accessing English language learning websites on the Internet respectively, has a relatively higher mean within this cluster than the other four items. Nevertheless, this cluster has a lower grand mean (2.03) than the previous cluster (2.43), possibly due to slow Internet connection or its unavailability in various parts of the interior and remote regions of the Sultanate. Different writers and researchers emphasized the role of computers in positively impacting second language learning and acquisition (Al-Kahtani, 1999; Al-Mamari, 2007; Davies & Pearse, 2000; Ismaiel, Almekhlai, & Al-Mekhlafy, 2010; Keane, 2002; Kiam, 2003; Savignon, 2002; Tsai, 2003; Velazquez-Torres, 2006; Warschauer & Kern, 2000; Wiburg & Butler-Pascoe, 2002), positively inluencing students’ motivation, interest, and conidence (Al-Mamari, 2007), and in enhancing critical and relective thinking (Thadphoothon & Jones, 2004). Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL) can provide practice and feedback and the opportunity to make mistakes in a risk free environment (Butzin, 1992). It allows learners to work at their own pace and address individual weaknesses (Bruder, 1993). The use of computers also allows students to take more responsibility for their own learning as “technology can transform instruction from a situation in which teachers deliver and transmit information to passive students to one in which students discover learning for themselves” (Solomon, 1988, p. 327). On the other hand, chatting on the Internet, using social networks such as Facebook and Twitter, and participating in online English discussion forums have a comparatively lower mean, but are considered signiicant for acquiring English by some students, although what the language students encounter is often non-standard English, which could have a detrimental effect on the students’ language accuracy. The same applies to items 15, 16 and 19, where 280 students often use abbreviations and symbols and code mix and code switch between Arabic and English to put their message across to the receiver. Use of such English has its dangers to the students’ target language acquisition and development as it stresses use of fragmented English which can conlict with the language they are being exposed to at school and through other sources which use S.E. with this kind of structurally poor and sometimes contextually inappropriate language. Fun and Entertainment Table 4 Acquiring English through fun and entertainment N Statement N M SD 25.6 Often 22.2 Always 1142 24.7 Rarely 20 I play different video games (e.g., PlayStation, Nintendo) 2.53 1.138 Never 21 I play different online/ofline computer games in English 1142 2.45 1.074 22.8 32.3 22.4 22.5 22 I play board games like Scrabble, Bingo, Word Jam, etc. in English 1142 1.59 63 21.2 10 5.9 .892 27.6 2.19 1.034 This cluster includes items about acquiring English through playing games. A considerable number of the participants considered games, which involve sophisticated audio/video technology, as a signiicant source of acquiring English. This is evident in the relatively high mean for items 20 and 21 compared to the mean for item 22 on playing board games. On the whole, playing games in English was believed by participants as a means to help them develop their language when they are in stress-free 281 contexts, while being engaged in an exciting competition, and enjoying what they are doing (Kim, 1995; Larcabal, 1992; Lee, 1979; Uberman, 1998; Wright, Betteridge, & Buckby, 1984). However, one can argue that the three types of games have a limited contribution to the students’ language acquisition, as they involve more listening and reading at a word level only, while lacking any verbal interaction. In other words, the amount of input this strategy stresses exceeds the amount of output, which is counter to the CLT approach and philosophy, which equally value the four language skills and their integration for the target language development. Print Materials Table 5 Acquiring English through print materials N Statement N M SD 44.3 32.7 Always 1142 13.4 Often I read different newspapers and magazines in English .832 Rarely 23 2.39 Never 24 I read English language learning books & software 1142 2.22 .942 25.7 37.3 26.8 10.2 25 I read books about different subjects in English 1142 2.13 .910 27.8 39.9 24.2 8.1 2.24 .894 9.5 This cluster, which seeks information related to reading specialized and nonspecialized print materials like books, newspapers and magazines to enrich one’s target language repertoire, has a more or less similar grand mean to the previous cluster. Item 23, dealing with reading English newspapers and magazines in one’s free time, has a slightly higher mean than the other two items on reading English language learning books and using software and reading books about 282 different topics in English respectively. There are over 100 titles of English medium magazines and newspapers in the market dealing with various topics, which provide the participants with a wide range of choices to select from. It is, thus, good to see that reading in English is still appreciated as a contributor to knowledge acquisition by many of these young participants. Extra-Curricular Activities Table 6 Acquiring English through extra-curricular activities N Statement 26 I participate in English language activities at the university such as those organized by different students’ societies. N M SD 1142 1.56 .910 1142 2.40 .978 27 I used to participate in English language activities at my school such as the school radio and writing wall journals. Never 60.4 27.1 Rarely 26.4 28.2 Often Always 10 3.2 22.3 22.4 1.98 .944 This is yet another cluster that has a relatively low grand mean when compared to the other clusters as Table 6 illustrates. However, participation in school activities such as school radio and writing wall journals (item 27) has a higher mean than item 26 dealing with participating in English language activities at the University such as those organized by different students’ groups. This difference in the mean between the two items could be attributed to the fact that the school community is less complicated and smaller than its university counterpart. While the University can host more than 15,000 students, the largest school in Oman hosts less than 10% of this accommodation capacity. 283 Moreover, life at the University is structured differently than it is at school. The participants in this study were university irst year students, which might, therefore, require more time for them to discover and understand how things work at their new and comparatively complex environment. Face-to-Face Contact Table 7 Acquiring English through face-to-face contact N Statement Never Rarely 1142 2.43 .780 10.2 30 I use English with native 1142 2.71 .944 and non-Arabic speakers when I meet them. 28 I use English at home. 29 I use English with my friends. 31 I use English with my teachers outside the classroom. N M SD 1142 2.19 .786 1142 3.26 .897 Often Always 45.1 36.6 8.1 8.8 37.3 28.5 25.5 4.9 16.1 27.1 51.8 18.7 48.3 28.2 4.7 2.64 .851 This cluster (items 28-32) sought information about using English in faceto-face contacts. It is interesting to see this cluster has a grand mean of 2.64. While items 28-30 dealing with use of English at home, with one’s friends, and with native and non-Arabic speakers respectively, has a relatively high mean, item 31 dealing with speaking English with one’s teacher has the highest mean (3.26). This difference in the mean might be attributed to the fact that the participants perceive their teachers as specialized and competent English language users, who can use the language accurately and luently and, hence have a positive impact on the participants’ language acquisition. In addition, students’ contact always extends beyond the classroom especially when engaged with the numerous language activities and tasks that demand some face-to-face interaction with the teachers. 284 Besides, teachers often encourage their students to practice their spoken English with different people in different places, given the crowded classrooms and in most cases insuficient time allocated to ELT on the national curriculum. It is also interesting to see some of the participants, who can be described as “good” and “successful” (Nunan, 1991; Robin, 1975), creating genuine communication and interaction amongst themselves at home and outside it with their friends and other visiting and resident individuals to practice and develop their English (Myers, et al., 2005). This is a relection of the participants’ conidence in their language abilities, motivation and desire and will to take risks (Robin, 1975) to practice the target language on the one hand, and the spread of English and its maintenance in the Omani society and formulating positive perceptions towards its uses and values on the other hand. It is also interesting to ind that 135 of the participants used English when traveling abroad. While Malaysia comes at the top of the non-Arabic speaking destinations, the U.K. is the most visited English-speaking country. The U.S.A. is another example of an English-speaking country visited by some of these participants. Other visited countries included Thailand, Singapore, France, Italy, India and Sri Lanka. In fact, most of these countries are tourist-attraction destinations during the summer holiday. It seems that mingling with other cultures and native or non-Arabic speakers presents an important opportunity for these learners to practice their English for communicative and authentic purposes such as tourism. Conclusion The results reveal that the participants use a variety of strategies and sources to improve their English. However, most of these strategies are receptive or passive and involve listening and reading, which largely echoes the indings of other studies in the ield (Pickard, 1996; Hyland, 2004; Shen et al., 2005; Marefat & Barbari, 2009). 285 While this is normal in an EFL context like Oman’s, teachers need to encourage, guide, direct, advice and help their students to improve their productive or active language capacity through adopting strategies that engage them in using the productive skills of the target language. The literature on EFL shows that language input is important for enriching one’s linguistic repertoire. However, language output is equally essential; especially if we bear in mind that the participants in this study have joined SQU to pursue their undergraduate education and naturally want to join the job market after graduation to earn a living. Learning English to acquire knowledge of science and technology, pursue education and ind a white-collar job are some of the fundamental purposes the literature on ELT policy and planning discusses. Besides, some of the participants in this research needed to use English language for interlingual purposes, given the status and uses and values of English in Oman. Perhaps one of the strengths of this study is bringing to the forefront the importance of a strategy such as using English in face-to-face situations, which has the highest mean (2.64), and which emphasizes the powerful role of language as a fundamental tool for social interaction. Face-to-face communication engages students in genuine and meaningful interactive contexts that require them to draw on their receptive and productive knowledge of the target language, take initiatives, and use more than one skill at the same time to receive and send messages. Hence, one can argue that ELT teachers in any EFL context are responsible for creating opportunities for their students to help them practice their written and spoken English outside (and inside) the classroom. Communicatively competent language users are thus those who have equal adequacy in receptive and productive skills. This is best achieved through adopting a balanced range of out-of-class EFL learning strategies. This is especially true if we bear in mind that schools in Oman, the GCCC, some parts of the Arab World and other non-Arabic speaking countries have been equipped with advanced educational technology and access to the Internet, which allows for practicing the target language meaningfully and interactively and to some extent in an 286 enjoyable and stress-free environment by accessing English language learning websites on the Internet to improve their language. By doing so, teachers are encouraging the combination of two different but complementary and signiicant out-of-class strategies for their students to help them maximize their language acquisition and learning opportunities. Teachers, further, need to encourage, motivate, guide and direct their students to read and write poetry and stories, as these genres of English language are rich in culture and language and help students acquire standard English. It is true that the cultural contact strategy has the lowest mean (1.68), however, various writers acknowledged the importance of reading in general and reading literary texts in particular as signiicant for the target language improvement. In their response to the open-ended item, which asks the participants to add any comments about any other out-of-class activities to improve their English, almost half of the responses focused on participating in English language debates, competitions and mixing with native speakers of English. All three strategies give speaking and listening a distinct edge over writing and reading. It is important, therefore, that teachers design activities for their students, which promote student-centeredness and active and meaningful participation and interaction to engage them in using the language productively. Textbooks do not always provide this and reliance on textbooks limits language input and output and discourages creativity (Al-Issa, 2007a). One of the signiicant indings of this study is the use of English by most participants with their teachers, friends, and with native speakers of English and non-Arabic speakers. It will be worthwhile to review the Basic Education System (BES), which was introduced as a reform project just over a decade ago, from two different but complementary angles. First, examine what EFL strategies the new curriculum (English For Me) focuses on. Second, investigate the roles the English language teachers are playing in the BES ELT classroom, since they are supposed to be different from the ones they played prior to the introduction of the BES in 1997 due to changes in the overall ELT philosophy in Omani schools, which is geared more towards CLT. 287 References Al-Busaidi, K. (1995). English in the Labour Market in Multilingual Oman with Special Reference to Omani Employees. Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Exeter. Al-Issa, A. (2002). An Ideological and Discursive Analysis of English Language Teaching in the Sultanate of Oman. Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Queensland, Australia. Al-Issa, A. (2005). The place of the English language culture in the Omani ELT system – An ideological perspective. Language, Culture & Curriculum, 18 (4), pp. 258-270. Al-Issa, A. (2007a). An ideological discussion of the implications of implementing a “lexible” syllabus for ESL policy in Sultanate of Oman. RELC (Regional Language Centre) Journal, 38 (2), 199-215. Al-Issa, A. (2007b). English Language Teaching at the College of Law – Muscat, Sultanate of Oman: Analyzing Needs & Understanding Problems. Asian Journal of English Language Teaching, 17, 65-86. Al-Issa, A. (2009). Omani ELT school curriculum: Policy & practice. Paper presented in the Oman Annual International ELT Conference, The Language Centre, Sultan Qaboos University, Muscat, Oman. Al-Issa, A. (2010). ELT transformations in Oman: A critical perspective. Paper presented in TESOL Arabia Conference, Zayed University, Dubai, United Arab Emirates. Al-Issa, A., & Al-Bulushi, A. (2011). English Language Teaching Reform in Sultanate of Oman: The Case of Theory and Practice Disparity. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 1-36. doi: 10.1007/s10671-011-9110-0 Al-Mamari, A. (2007). The Effect of Teaching EFL Online on the Achievement and Attitudes of Grade 11 Students. Unpublished MA Dissertation, Sultan 288 Qaboos University, Muscat, Oman. Baldauf, R. B., & Luke, A. (1990). Language Planning and Education in Australasia and the South Paciic. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Bassnett, S. & Grundy, P. (1993) Language through Literature. London: Longman. Benson, P. (2001). Teaching and Researching Autonomy in Language Learning. London: Longman. Bruder, I. (1993). What’s new in textbooks? Electronic Learning, 13(1), 14. Butzin, S. M. (1992). Integrating technology into the classroom: Lessons from the Project Child Experience. Phi Delta Kappan, 74(4), 330-333. Cohen, A. (1998). Strategies in Learning and Using a Second Language. London: Longman. Collie, J. and Slater, S. (1987) Literature in the Language Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Crystal, D. (1997). English as a Global Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dove, L. (1986). Teachers and Teacher Education in Developing countries. Kent: Croom Helm. Elyas, T. (2008). The attitudes and the impact of the American English as a global language within the Saudi education system. Novitas Royal 2 (1), 28-48. Gan, Z., Humphreys, G., & Hamp-Lyons, L. (2004). Understanding successful and unsuccessful EFL students in Chinese universities. The Modern Language Journal, 88(2), 229-244. Ghosen, I. (2002) Four good reasons to use literature in primary school ELT. ELT Journal, 56 (2), 172-178. 289 Hurd, S., & Lewis, T. (Eds.). (2008). Language Learning Strategies in Independent Settings. Second Language Acquisition. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Hyland, F. (2004). Learning autonomously: Contextualizing out-of-class English language learning. Language Awareness, 13(3), 180-202. Karmani, S. (2005). English, ‘Terror’, and Islam. Applied Linguistics, 26(2), 262-276. Kim, L. (1995). Creative games for the language class. English Teaching Forum, 33(1), 35-36. Krashen, S. (2003). Dealing with English fever. Selected papers from the twelfth international symposium on English teaching. English teachers’ Association/ROC, Taipei. Taipei: Crane Publishing Company. Larcabal, R. (1992). The role of games in language acquisition. English Teaching Forum, 30(2), 28-29. Lee, W. (1979). Language Teaching Games and Contests. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Marefat, F., & Barbari, F. (2009). The Relationship between out-of-class language learning strategy use and reading comprehension Ability. Porta Linguarum, 12, 91-106. Moody, J. (2009). Englishes and Literatures-in-English in a Globalised World. Paper presented at the 13th International Conference on English in Southeast Asia, Singapore. Myers, S., Martin, M., & Knapp, J. (2005). Perceived instructor in-class communicative behaviors as a predictor of student Participation in out of class communication. Communication Quarterly, 53(4), 437-450. Naiman, N., Frohlich, M., Stern, H., & Todesco, A. (1976). The good language learner. Research in Education (Vol. 7). Toronto: The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. . 290 Nunan, D. (1991). Language Teaching Methodology : A Textbook for Teachers. New York: London : Prentice Hall. O’Malley, J. M., & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning Strategies in Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. O’Malley, J. M., Chamot, A. U., Stewner-Manzanares, G., Russo, R. P., & Kupper, L. (1985). Learning strategy applications with students of English as a Second Language. TESOL Quarterly, 19(3), 557-584. Oxford, R. (1990). Language Learning Strategies: What Every Teacher Should Know. New York: Newbury House. Pearson, N. (2004). The Idiosyncrasies of out-of-Class Language Learning: A Study of Mainland Chinese Students Studying English at Tertiary Level in New Zealand. Paper presented at the Independent Learning Conference, Melbourne, Australia. Pickard, N. (1996). Out-of-class language learning strategies. . English Language Teaching Journal, 50, 150-159. Robin, J. (1975). What the “good language learner” can teach us. TESOL Quarterly, 9, 41-51. Shen, L., Tseng, C., Kuo, S., Su, Y., & Chen, M. (2005). A preliminary study of college students’ out-of-class English learning activities. Chia-NAN Annual Bulletin, 31, 464-475. Solomon, J. (1988). The Signs of Our Time. Los Angeles: Jeremy P. Tarcher. Stern, H. (1992). Issues and Options in Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Strevens, P. (1992). English as an international language: Directions in the 1990s. In B. Kachru (Ed.), The Other Tongue: English Across cultures (2nd edition) (pp. 27-47). Chicago: University of Illinois Press. 291 Suh, J. S., Wasansomsithi, P., Short, S., & Majid, N. A. (1999). Out-of- Class Learning Experiences and Students’ Perceptions of Their Impact on Conversation Skills. Research Report. (Vol. ERIC document no. ED433715): Eric Clearinghouse on Language and Linguistics. Thadphoothon, J., & Jones, J. (2004). Enhancing Critical Thinking in Language Learning through Computer-Mediated Collaborative Learning: Some Preliminary Findings. Paper presented at the IASCE Conference, Singapore. Uberman, A. (1998). The use of games for vocabulary presentation and revision. English Teaching Forum, 36(1), 20-27. Wenden, A., & Rubin, J. (1987). Learner Strategies in Language Learning. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Wright, A., Betteridge, D., & Buckby, M. (1984). Games for Language Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 292 Appendix (1) Often Rarely Statement Never Out-of-Class English Language Learning Strategies How often do you do the following in your free time? I read English poems. I write English poems. I read English stories. I write English stories. I write my personal diary in English. I watch the news in English. I watch different documentaries in English. I watch different cooking programs in English. I watch different entertainment programs in English. I watch different sports programs in English. I watch different movies in English. I listen to different songs in English. I access general websites in English on the Internet to improve my language. I access English language learning websites on the Internet to improve my language. I send and receive email messages in English. I use English for chatting on the Internet. I use social network websites such as Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn in English. I participate in online English discussion forums. 293 I send SMS in English. I play different video games (e.g., PlayStation, Nintendo). I play different online/ofline computer games in English. I play board games like Scrabble, Bingo, Word Jam, etc. in English. I read different newspapers and magazines in English. I read English language learning books & software. I read books about different subjects in English. I participate in English language activities at the university such as those organized by different students’ societies. I used to participate in English language activities at my school such as the school radio and writing wall journals. I use English at home. I use English with my friends. I use English with native and non-Arabic speakers when I meet them. I use English with my teachers outside the classroom. I practiced English when I travelled to Yes / No English and non-Arabic speaking countries (If ‘yes’, indicate duration and number for tourism. of times) Please add any other comments about any Open-ended other out-of-class English language activities you have been engaged in. 294