Communication Strategy Use and Proficiency Level of ESL Learners

Full text

THE JOURNAL OF ASIA TEFL
Vol. 14, No. 1, Spring 2017, 162-170
http://dx.doi.org/10.18823/asiatefl.2017.14.1.11.162
162
The Journal of Asia TEFL
http://journal.asiatefl.org/
e-ISSN 2466-1511 © 2004 AsiaTEFL.org. All rights reserved.
Communication Strategy Use and Proficiency Level of ESL Learners
Su-Hie Ting
Universiti Malaysia Sarawak, Malaysia
Megawati Soekarno
Universiti Malaysia Sarawak, Malaysia
Phooi-Yan Lee
Polytechnic Kuching, Malaysia
Introduction
Strategic competence is the ability to use verbal and nonverbal communication strategies “to
compensate for breakdowns in communication due to limiting conditions in actual communication or to
insufficient competence in one or more areas of communicative competence” (Canale, 1983, p. 12). The
two main perspectives on communication strategies have been the psycholinguistic framework (Faerch &
Kasper, 1980, 1983a, 1983b, 1984), which focuses on problem-solving, and the interactional framework
(Tarone, 1980, 1981), which focuses on joint negotiation of meaning. Clennell (1994, 1995) proposed
three discourse strategies which advert breakdowns in communication: lexical repetition, tonicity and
topic fronting. Ting and her co-researchers integrated Clennell’s (1994, 1995) discourse strategies with
the two main frameworks to determine their relevance to ESL learners. Their findings show the
usefulness of lexical repetition in conveying a variety of meanings (Soekarno & Ting, 2016; Ting & Kho,
2009; Ting, Musa, & Sim, 2013; Ting & Phan, 2008; Ting & Sim, 2013).
Self-reports have been a relatively unexplored data source on communication strategy use because
most researchers have kept to the mainstream interest in actual strategy use. There are some validity
issues related to self-report questionnaires on communication strategy use (Nakatani, 2006, pp. 152-153).
For example, Politzer’s (1983) items did not focus on “actual strategy use in a real learning task” and his
subsequent study did not use a “unified psychological construct” (Politzer & McGroarty, 1985). Similarly,
Huang and Van Naerssen (1987) included “learning strategies unrelated to oral communication” but
Cohen, Weaver, and Li (1998) excluded “interactional aspects of communication”. Some recent studies
(Kaivanpanah, Yamouty, & Karami, 2012; Ugla, Adnan, & Abidin, 2013) used Dörnyei and Scott’s
(1995) inventory, but no information is available on its reliability. To deal with the criticism that self-
reports might not reflect actual strategy use, Nakatani (2006) designed the Oral Communication Strategy
Inventory (OCSI) and asked Japanese ESL learners to perform a simulated conversation task before
giving them the OCSI. The findings on actual and reported strategy use are almost consistent (Nakatani,
2010). Nakatani (2010) also correlated both sets of data with oral communicative ability, as measured by

Su-Hie Ting, Megawati Soekarno & Phooi-Yan Lee The Journal of Asia TEFL
Vol. 14, No. 1, Spring 2017, 162-170
163
a Secondary Level English Proficiency test, a well-established standardised test used in Japan to measure
the ability to understand spoken and written English. Significant correlations between oral communicative
ability and actual strategy use were found for response for maintenance strategies (e.g., shadowing) and
signals for negotiation. The Cronbach alpha value for the strategies to cope with speaking problems was
0.86. A validated self-report questionnaire such as the OCSI is useful for needs analysis before
communication strategy training.
So far, Nakatani’s (2006, 2010) OCSI has been used in only strategy training studies. Metcalfe and
Noom-Ura (2013) found that high proficiency learners reported significantly higher use of social-
affective, fluency-oriented negotiation for meaning and circumlocution, while low proficiency learners
reported significantly higher use of message abandonment. Shangarffam and Zand (2012) concluded that
linguistically, interpersonally, and intrapersonally intelligent students used more speaking strategies.
Communication strategy training is usually carried out without prior needs analysis (Dörnyei, 1995;
Dörnyei & Thurrell, 1991; Mesgarshahr & Abdollahzadeh, 2014). In order for the OCSI to be useful as a
diagnostic instrument prior to designing communication strategy training to suit a particular group of
learners, it needs to be tested with more groups of learners.
This study investigates self-reports of communication strategy use by Malaysian ESL learners with
different levels of proficiency in English.
Method
The participants were 130 Malaysian ESL learners from English classes taught by the first two
researchers. Group 1 consisted of 29 diploma students pursuing health care service studies and culinary
studies at two private colleges. They have average to weak proficiency in English based on their English
grades in the Sijil Pelajaran Malaysia (translated as Malaysian Certification of Education) examination,
which is conducted at the end of their secondary education. Group 2 consisted of 52 linguistics students
from a non-research intensive university. Based on their band scores on the Malaysian University English
Test (MUET), they were comprised of limited users (Band 2) and social users of English (Band 3). Group
3 consisted of 49 students in an English proficiency course from the same university as Group 2. Among
the three groups, Group 3 was the most proficient because the English course was for students with at
least Band 4 in the MUET, and Group 1 had the lowest proficiency level.
The questionnaire on communication strategy use was adapted from Nakatani’s (2006) OCSI – the
section on strategies for coping with speaking problems. To Nakatani’s 32 items, three categories of
strategies were added. Firstly, two items on L1-based strategies were incorporated from Tarone (1980,
1981), as it is common for Malaysian ESL learners to resort to Malay when facing difficulties (Ting &
Phan, 2008; Ting & Kho, 2009; Ting & Sim, 2013). Secondly, the meaning negotiation category was
expanded to include a comprehension check, confirmation check and clarification request, which are
important in interactional discourse (Tarone, 1980, 1981). The third addition was the information transfer
category, encompassing three discourse strategies (Clennell, 1995) which resembled some items in
Naktani’s fluency-oriented category.
Some items in the original OCSI were deleted for a tighter focus. In our view, the accuracy-oriented
strategies did not fit into Canale’s (1983) construct of strategic competence, which is inclined towards
fluency. Strategies that focused on intentions were also omitted: socio-affective strategies to control
anxiety and attempts to think in English. This is because the self-repair strategies (Nakatani, 2006, 2010)
and paraphrasing (Tarone, 1980, 1981) capture manifestations of attempts to think in English. In addition,
some categories were renamed. Nakatani (2010) had “message reduction and alteration strategies” (which
included L1-based strategies) and “message abandonment strategies”. We renamed them as “L1-based
strategies” and “message reduction strategies”. The internal consistency of the questionnaire was high
with a Cronbach alpha value of 0.825.
For the data analysis, a one-way between-subjects ANOVA was conducted to determine whether the

Su-Hie Ting, Megawati Soekarno & Phooi-Yan Lee The Journal of Asia TEFL
Vol. 14, No. 1, Spring 2017, 162-170
164
three groups are significantly different in their use of communication strategies. For those with significant
differences, post hoc t-test comparisons using the Bonferroni correction were also run to identify the
aspects in which they differed.
Results and Discussion
Table 1 shows that there were no significant differences between group means as determined by a one-
way ANOVA for message reduction and appeal for help. The use of these three categories of strategies
was not affected by the participants’ English proficiency. The values of the means for individual
strategies show that the more proficient groups (G2 and G3) were more likely to reduce the message or
replace the original message with another when they faced difficulties in expressing their ideas, compared
to the less proficient group (G1). In comparison, the less proficient students tended to give up or leave a
message unfinished and to appeal for help. Although a trend could be seen, the differences between the
groups were not significant and the frequency in which these strategies were used were between
occasional and frequent (Likert scale 3 and 4).
TABLE 1
Frequency of Type of Communication Strategies Used by ESL Learners
Communication Strategies G1
n=29
G2
n=52
G3
n=49
ANOVA Results
F Sig. Multiple
comparison
(Bonferroni)
A Non-verbal strategies 3.60 4.03 4.16 6.842 .002 G1-G2*
G1-G3*
G2- G3
1 I try to make eye-contact when I am talking. 3.86 4.06 4.31 3.154 .046 G1-G2
G1-G3*
G2- G3
2 I use gestures and facial expressions if I can’t
express myself.
3.52 4.04 4.00 4.594 .012 G1-G2*
G1-G3*
G2- G3
3 I pay attention to the listener’s reaction while
I’m speaking.
3.41 4.00 4.18 5.609 .005 G1-G2*
G1-G3*
G2- G3
B Information transfer strategies 3.50 4.00 4.00 7.440 .001 G1-G2*
G1-G3*
G2- G3
4 I try to speak clearly and loudly to make myself
heard.
3.62 4.19 4.10 12.807 .000 G1-G2*
G1-G3*
G2- G3
5 I change my tone on some words to show that
they are more important.
3.41 4.21 4.22 3.008 .053 G1-G2
G1-G3
G2- G3
6 I repeat some words with rising/falling tones
when I’m speaking.
3.39 3.79 3.88 0.630 .534 G1-G2
G1-G3
G2- G3

Su-Hie Ting, Megawati Soekarno & Phooi-Yan Lee The Journal of Asia TEFL
Vol. 14, No. 1, Spring 2017, 162-170
165
7 I announce the topic before giving details (e.g.
My sister, she likes cakes).
3.45 3.69 3.61 9.499 .000 G1-G2*
G1-G3*
G2- G3
8 I repeat what I want to say until the listener
understands
3.62 3.87 3.88 0.876 .419 G1-G2
G1-G3
G2- G3
C Meaning negotiation strategies 3.61 3.80 3.93 4.582 .012 G1-G2*
G1-G3*
G2- G3
9 I ask others to explain when I do not understand
something. (Clarification Request)
4.03 4.00 4.20 3.490 .033 G1-G2
G1-G3*
G2- G3
10 I ask the listener directly if he/she understood
what I was saying. (Comprehension Check)
3.38 3.73 3.90 3.221 .043 G1-G2
G1-G3
G2- G3
11 I reword what others say to check if I have
understood something correctly. (Confirmation
Check)
3.41 3.60 3.94 .762 .469 G1-G2
G1-G3
G2- G3
12 I repeat what others say to show that I have
understood important issues. (Confirmation
Check)
3.62 3.67 3.84 3.939 .022 G1-G2
G1-G3*
G2- G3
D Paraphrase (self-repairing) 3.67 4.21 4.36 7.690 .001 G1-G2*
G1-G3*
G2- G3
13 I use other ways of explaining if I can’t express
myself.
3.66 4.02 4.14 13.284 .000 G1-G2*
G1-G3*
G2- G3
14 I give examples if the listener doesn't
understand what I am saying.
3.62 4.23 4.39 1.249 .290 G1-G2
G1-G3
G2- G3
15 I use words which are familiar to me. 3.72 4.38 4.55 2.250 .110 G1-G2
G1-G3
G2- G3
E L1-based strategies 3.70 3.92 4.05 8.226 .000 G1-G2*
G1-G3*
G2- G3
16 I translate directly from another language when
I can’t communicate well.
3.62 3.67 4.00 1.813 .167 G1-G2
G1-G3
G2- G3
17 I mix words from another language when I can’t
communicate well.
3.79 4.17 4.10 15.900 .000 G1-G2*
G1-G3*
G2- G3
F Message reduction 3.26 3.20 3.37 .933 .396 G1-G2
G1-G3
G2- G3
18 I reduce the message and use simple
expressions.
3.31 3.81 4.13 9.273 .000 G1-G2*
G1-G3*

Su-Hie Ting, Megawati Soekarno & Phooi-Yan Lee The Journal of Asia TEFL
Vol. 14, No. 1, Spring 2017, 162-170
166
G2- G3
19 I replace the original message with another
when I can’t say what I have to say.
3.32 3.67 3.73 1.864 .159 G1-G2
G1-G3
G2- G3
20 I leave a message unfinished because of
language difficulty.
3.18 2.90 2.90 0.906 .407 G1-G2
G1-G3
G2- G3
21 I give up when I can’t make myself understood. 3.21 2.40 2.71 5.328 .006 G1-G2*
G1-G3
G2- G3
G
22
Appeal for help
I ask other people to help when I can’t
communicate well.
4.03 3.81 3.84 0.591 .555 G1-G2
G1-G3
G2- G3
H
23
Time-gaining strategies
I use fillers (well, let me see…) to give myself
time to think.
3.62
3.77
4.02
2.436 .092 G1-G2
G1-G3
G2- G3
Mean 3.56 3.81 3.97 6.628 .002 G1-G2
G1-G3*
G2- G3
Notes.
*Significant difference at p < 0.05
5-point Likert scale: 1 for Almost Never, 3 for Sometimes and 5 for Always
There were significant differences between group means as determined by a one-way ANOVA for five
categories of communication strategies: (a) non-verbal strategies [F(2,129)=6.842, p=.02]; (b)
information transfer strategies [F(2,129)=7.440, p=.01]; (c) meaning negotiation strategies
[F(2,129)=4.582, p=.12]; (d) paraphrasing [F(2,129)=7.690, p=.01]; and (e) L1-based strategies
[F(2,129)=8.226, p=.00]. Posthoc t-test comparisons using the Bonferroni correction showed that for
most strategies in these five categories, G1 was significantly different from G2 and G3. The group means
showed that generally G1, the less proficient group, reported lower frequency in using these strategies
than the more proficient groups (G2 and G3). The means for G1 tended to be closer to 3 (sometimes using
a particular strategy), whereas the means for G2 and G3 were closer to 5 (always using a particular
strategy). For these five categories, the patterns of strategy use by the three groups will be described next.
Firstly, non-verbal strategy. G1, the less proficient group, did not make eye-contact or pay attention to
the listener’s reaction as much as the other two groups when they were talking. G1 also did not use
gestures and facial expressions as frequently as the other two groups when they could not express
themselves. Non-verbal strategies do not require the use of additional language resources; yet it is the
proficient learners who capitalised on non-verbal strategies. Similar findings were obtained by Nakatani
(2006); the high proficiency group (M=4.31) reported using non-verbal strategies more frequently when
they were speaking than the low proficiency group (M=3.83).
For the category of information transfer strategies, the three groups of participants were similar in their
frequency of changing tone to show the salience of words, repeating words with rising/falling tones, and
repeating what they wanted to say until the listener understood. However, G1 reported significantly less
frequent attempts to speak clearly and loudly to make themselves heard, and they were also less likely to
announce the topic before giving details, compared to G2 and G3. Announcing the topic before providing
details is labelled as topic fronting by Clennell (1995) and can avert communication breakdowns because
the topic alerts listeners to details that follow. The more proficient groups were better at using the full
range of information transfer strategies. In other studies on Malaysian ESL learners, the findings also
showed better ability among the proficient ESL learners in using stress to facilitate information transfer.

Su-Hie Ting, Megawati Soekarno & Phooi-Yan Lee The Journal of Asia TEFL
Vol. 14, No. 1, Spring 2017, 162-170
167
For example, Ting and Sim (2013) reported that English teacher trainees used stress more than any other
strategy (41.09% of 2,913 strategies) when they discussed coursework assignments. The same pattern was
observed in the oral presentations of this group of English teacher trainees (51.52% of 1,935 strategies)
(Ting, Musa, & Sim, 2013). In contrast, the less proficient healthcare trainees in Soekarno and Ting’s
(2016) study hardly used stress (7.69% of 845 strategies). Stress and topic fronting do not require
additional linguistic resources, but it is the proficient ESL learners who maximised the use of these
information transfer strategies.
Thirdly, the usage of meaning-negotiation strategies was significantly different between G1 and G3 for
the other two strategies. The more proficient group (G3) was more likely to ask others to explain when
they did not understand something (clarification request) or to repeat what others said to show that they
have understood important issues (confirmation check), compared to G1. The more proficient group made
more frequent use of meaning negotiation strategies, indicating better awareness of communication as a
jointly negotiated process. This is an area that can be addressed in communication strategy training
because studies (Lam & Wong, 2000; Nakatani, 2010; Naughton, 2006) have shown that it is easier
for learners to learn meaning negotiation strategies than lexical strategies.
Fourthly, G1, the less proficient group, was significantly less inclined to use other means to explain
when they could not express themselves, compared to G2 and G3. This involves restructuring of
utterances, which requires a better command of the language, compared to giving examples and using
familiar words, which G1 could do as much as the other two groups. Naughton (2006) considers
paraphrasing as a lexical strategy, which makes a high cognitive demand on learners.
Finally, the L1-based strategy that differentiates the participants was mixing words from another
language when they could not communicate well; G1 reported using this strategy significantly less
frequently than either G2 or G3. It seems that the two more proficient groups used all possible strategies
to achieve their communicative goals, including L1-based strategies. As a result, they were less likely to
leave messages unfinished or give up compared to G1. High proficiency learners do not abandon their
repertoire of L1-based communication strategies but build on it to include L2-based strategies (Liskin-
Gasparro, 1996).
Conclusion
The study showed that the more proficient groups reported a higher frequency of using communication
strategies than the less proficient group, with the exception of appeal for help and message abandonment.
This concurs with other findings using Nakatani’s (2006) OCSI (Metcalfe & Noom-Ura, 2013;
Shangarffam & Zand, 2012). Using Dörnyei and Scott’s (1995) inventory, Kaivanpanah, Yamouty, and
Karami (2012) found that language proficiency has significant effects on the use of literal translation,
self-repetition, feigning understanding and guessing. In the present study, the proficient ESL learners
were intent on getting their message across whether by using verbal or non-verbal strategies. Among the
verbal strategies were those that required linguistic resources (paraphrasing and L1-based strategies) and
those that did not (information transfer and meaning negotiation strategies). In fact, they also reported
more frequent use of L1-based strategies, time-gaining strategies, and even message reduction strategies,
which have been linked to low proficiency learners in research on actual strategy use (e.g., Liskin-
Gasparro, 1996; Ting & Phan, 2008; Ugla, Adnan, & Abidin, 2013). We would conclude, like Nakatani
(2010, p. 128), that more proficient ESL learners have greater “awareness of using strategies to fill
communication gaps and negotiate meaning to enhance mutual understanding”.
However, these findings are based on self-reports of strategy use. Studies of actual strategy use have
produced opposite results, that is, learners with better proficiency used fewer strategies to convey
information (Bialystok & Frohlich, 1980; Labarca & Khanji, 1986; Liskin-Gasparro, 1996; Poulisse &
Schils 1989; Ting & Phan, 2008). So far, findings from studies using reported and actual strategy use
have concurred on the tendency of less proficient learners to use less effective communication strategies

Su-Hie Ting, Megawati Soekarno & Phooi-Yan Lee The Journal of Asia TEFL
Vol. 14, No. 1, Spring 2017, 162-170
168
such as message reduction, topic avoidance and mime (Uztosun & Erten, 2014). In future research, it
would be worthwhile to examine the correspondence between reported and actual strategy use to develop
a more accurate instrument for profiling communication strategy use for designing communication
strategy training programmes that are suited to the specific needs of target groups. The focus should be on
information transfer and meaning negotiation strategies which do not require additional linguistic
resources and therefore can be learnt by the less proficient ESL learners more easily.
The Authors
Su-Hie Ting (corresponding author) is an associate professor of sociolinguistics at the Faculty of
Language and Communication Studies, Universiti Malaysia Sarawak. She graduated from the University
of Queensland with a Ph.D in Applied Linguistics in 2001 and has since published on language choice
and identity, strategic competence and academic writing.
Faculty of Language and Communication Studies
Universiti Malaysia Sarawak
94300 Kota Samarahan, Sarawak, Malaysia
Tel: +60 82581760
Email: suhieting@unimas.my
Megawati Soekarno is a doctoral candidate at the Faculty of Language and Communication Studies,
Universiti Malaysia Sarawak. Her research interest is in communication strategies and occupational
English.
Faculty of Language and Communication Studies
Universiti Malaysia Sarawak
94300 Kota Samarahan, Sarawak, Malaysia
Tel: +60 168202918
Email: megsoekarno@gmail.com
Phooi-Yan Lee graduated with a Masters of Arts (Applied Linguistics) in 2014 from Universiti
Malaysia Sarawak and is teaching English at Polytechnic Kuching, Sarawak. Her research interests lie in
Chinese identity, language planning and choice of medium of instruction.
General Studies Department
Polytechnic Kuching Sarawak
Matang Road, 93050 Kuching, Sarawak, Malaysia
Tel: +60-082845 596
Email: dianalpy@yahoo.com
References
Bialystok, E., & Frohlich, M. (1980). Oral communication strategies for lexical difficulties. Interlanguage
Studies Bulletin – Utrecht, 5, 3-30.
Canale, M. (1983). From communicative competence to communicative language pedagogy. In J.
Richards & R. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and communication (pp. 2-27). London: Longman.
Clennell, C. (1994). Investigating the use of communication strategies by adult second language learners:
A case for trusting your own judgment in classroom research. TESOL Journal, 3, 32-35.
Clennell, C. (1995). Communication strategies of adult ESL learners: A discourse perspective. Prospect,
10(3), 4-20.

Su-Hie Ting, Megawati Soekarno & Phooi-Yan Lee The Journal of Asia TEFL
Vol. 14, No. 1, Spring 2017, 162-170
169
Cohen, A. D., Weaver, S. J., & Li, T. Y. (1998). The impact of strategies-based instruction on speaking a
foreign language. In A. D. Cohen (Ed.), Strategies in learning and using a second language (pp.
107-156). Essex, UK: Longman.
Dörnyei, Z. (1995). On the teachability of communication strategies. TESOL Quarterly, 29(1), 55-85.
Dörnyei, Z., & Scott, M. L. (1995). Communication strategies: An empirical analysis with retrospection.
In J. S. Turley & K. Lusby (Eds.), Proceedings of the twenty-first annual symposium of the
Deseret Language and Linguistics Society (pp. 155-168). Provo, UT: Brigham Young University.
Dörnyei, Z., & Thurrell, S. (1991). Strategic competence and how to teach it. ELT Journal, 45(1), 16-23.
Faerch, C., & Kasper, G. (1980). Processes and strategies in foreign language learning and
communication. Interlanguage Studies Bulletin – Utrecht, 5, 47-118.
Faerch, C., & Kasper, G. (1983a). Plans and strategies in interlanguage communication. In C. Faerch & G.
Kasper (Eds.), Strategies in interlanguage communication (pp. 20-60). London: Longman.
Faerch, C., & Kasper, G. (1983b). On identifying communication strategies in interlanguage production.
In C. Faerch & G. Kasper (Eds.), Strategies in interlanguage communication (pp. 210-238).
Harlow: Longman.
Faerch, C., & Kasper, G. (1984). Two ways of defining communication strategies. Language Learning,
34(1), 45-63.
Huang, X. H., & van Naerssen, M. (1987). Learning strategies for oral communication. Applied
Linguistics, 8, 287-307.
Kaivanpanah, S., Yamouty, P., & Karami, H. (2012). Examining the effects of proficiency, gender, and
task type on the use of communication strategies. Porta Linguarium, 17, 79-93.
Labarca, A., & Khanji, R. (1986). On communication strategies: Focus on interaction. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 8, 68-79.
Lam, W., & Wong, J. (2000). The effects of strategy training on developing discussion skills in an ESL
classroom. ELT Journal, 54(3), 245-255.
Liskin-Gasparro, J. E. (1996). Circumlocution, communication strategies, and the ACTFL proficiency
guidelines: An analysis of student discourse. Foreign Language Annals, 29(3), 317-330.
Mesgarshahr, A., & Abdollahzadeh, E. (2014). The impact of teaching communication strategies on EFL
learners’ willingness to communicate. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 4(1),
51-76.
Metcalfe, J., & Noom-Ura, S. (2013). Communication strategy use of high and low proficiency learners
of English at a Thai university. LEARN Journal: Language Education and Acquisition Research
Network, 6(1), 68-89.
Nakatani, Y. (2006). The effects of awareness-raising training on oral communication strategy use. The
Modern Language Journal, 89(1), 76-91.
Nakatani, Y. (2010). Identifying strategies that facilitate EFL learners’ oral communication: A classroom
studying using multiple data collection procedures. The Modern Language Journal, 94(1), 116-
136.
Naughton, D. (2006). Cooperative strategy training and oral interaction: Enhancing small group
communication in the language classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 90(2), 169-184.
Politzer, R. L. (1983). An exploratory study of self-reported language learning behaviors and their
relation to achievement. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 6, 54-67.
Politzer, R. L., & McGroarty, M. (1985). An exploratory study of learning behaviours and their
relationships to gains in linguistic and communicative competence. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 103-123.
Poulisse, N., & Schils, E. (1989). The influence of task and proficiency-related factors on the use of
compensatory strategies: A quantitative analysis. Language Learning, 39, 15-48.
Shangarffam, N., & Zand, A. (2012). Iranian foreign language learners’ multiple intelligences. The
Iranian EFL Journal, 1(1), 310-328.
Soekarno, M., & Ting, S. H. (2016). Strategy use in monologues and dialogues during communication
strategy training. Apples - Journal of Applied Language Studies, 10(1), 5-26.

Su-Hie Ting, Megawati Soekarno & Phooi-Yan Lee The Journal of Asia TEFL
Vol. 14, No. 1, Spring 2017, 162-170
170
Tarone, E. (1980). Communication strategies, foreigner talk and repair in interlanguage. Language
Learning, 30(2), 417-431.
Tarone, E. (1981). Some thoughts on the notion of communication strategy. TESOL Quarterly, 15(3),
285-295.
Ting, S. H., & Kho, T. P. (2009). Gender and communication strategy use in learning English as a second
language. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 157(1), 93-108.
Ting, S. H., Musa, M. K., & Sim, J. S. E. (2013). Advanced ESL learners’ use of communication
strategies during oral presentations. In S. Ibrahim, N. A. Adzmi, & M. W. Omar (Eds.), TESSHI
2012 chapters on humanities and social sciences (pp. 117-135). Kedah, Malaysia: UiTM Kedah
Press.
Ting, S. H., & Phan, G. Y. L. (2008). Adjustment in communication strategy use to interlocutor’s
language proficiency. Prospect (Australian TESOL Journal), 23(1), 28-36.
Ting, S. H., & Sim, S. E. (2013, July 2-3). Communication strategy use in oral academic discussions.
Paper presented at SOLLs.INTEC 2013, Cyberjaya, Malaysia.
Ugla, R. L., Adnan, N. I., & Abidin, M. J. Z. (2013). Study of the communication strategies used by Iraqi
EFL students. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education, 2(1), 44-50.
Uztosun, M. S., & Erten, İ. H. (2014). The impact of English proficiency on the use of communication
strategies: An interaction-based study in Turkish EFL context. Journal of Language and Linguistic
Studies, 10(2), 169-182.