【正文】 iven to the metacognitive strategies (., those that have planning, directing or monitoring). Oxford (1990a) indicated that LLSs, are steps taken by the learners in order to improve language training and develop language petence. Moreover, she divided the strategies into direct and indirect involving information, memory behaviors, vocabulary knowledge, grammar rules, thought and mental processes.Research into language learning strategies began in the 1960s. Particularly, development in cognitive psychology influenced much of the research done on language learning strategies. In most of the research on language learning strategies, the primary concern has been on identifying what good language learners report they do to learn a second language (Rubin, 1987).Rubin classified strategies in term of processes contributing directly or indirectly to language learning. In addition, O39。 Kupper, 1989。 Thompson 1994). Good learners, according to them, can find their own way by taking charge of their learning, organizing their language information and making their own opportunities for practicing using the language. In addition, they use linguistic knowledge and contextual cues to help them in prehension while learning a foreign language.Research has also shown that factors other than language proficiency exert influence on the strategies that the language learners select and use. For example, gender was one factor that has been explored by many researchers. In many EFL strategy frequency studies involving gender, the results have usually favored females as more frequent users of strategies (for instance, Green, 1992。 Oxford, 1993). Among the other factors that affect strategy use and have been researched are cultural background (Oxford amp。 Kupper, 1989).Materials and MethodsSubjectsThe population of students majoring in English at the time of the study was 120 students divided into 30 males and 90 females. The total number of the students who were available during the distribution of the questionnaire was 99 students.The 99 students who participated in this study were all English majors enrolled at AnNajah National University in Palestine. There were 19 males and 80 females. All the subjects had studied English formally for 8 years and were to plete 84 credit hours (63 as required and 21 as elective courses) as part of their Bachelor Degree39。 BurryStock, 1995). Many previous measures were not adopted for many studies because they lacked reliability and validity data. The SILL uses a 5 Likertscale for which the learners are asked to indicate their response (1,2,3,4,5) to a strategy description such as I try to find patterns in English. The researcher didn39。 Cognitive strategies (14 items) are used for linking new information with existing schemata and for analyzing and classifying it. Cognitive strategies are responsible for deep processing, forming and revising internal mental models and receiving and producing messages in the target language (., repeating, getting the idea quickly, analyzing and taking notes). Affective strategies (6 items) are used for handling feelings, attitudes and motivations. (., lowering anxiety by use of music, encouraging oneself and discussing feelings with others). 2= I seldom do this。s alpha for Reliability was ().Procedure and Data CollectionThe questionnaires distributed by the researcher were in Arabic. They were given out during students39。 3. Compensation strategies (COM)。 and 7. Others strategies (OTH) which include a group of 10 different strategies items that the researcher added to the above six strategy groups on Oxford39。 Memory and Metacognitive in favor of Metacognitive strategies Metacognitive and Social in favor of Metacognitive strategies * COM10SOC4. 52OTH5. 7MEM12. 11COG13. 30MET20. 57OTH21. 10COG28. 16COG29. 35MET36. 28COM37. 40AFF44. 2MEM45. 46SOC52. 20COG53. 53OTH60. 6MEM* MEM= Memory。 AFF= Affective。.28Results related to the third question: Is there any significant difference between strategy use and proficiency?Language proficiency was examined as reflected by three individual variables: university average, level of learning and selfefficacy. University average . The students were classified into two groups according to their University general point averages (GPA)。Sum ofSquaresDf MeanSquareFSig.ABetween Groups.331Total BBetween Groups.238Total CBetween Groups.462Total DBetween Groups.024.676Total EBetween Groups.389Total FBetween Groups.549Total GBetween Groups.310Total TotscoreBetween Groups.643.149Total Scheff233。s posthoc test indicated that there were significant differences between means of Memory strategies according to learning level in favor of the sophomores. This indicates that sophomores use more Memory strategies (Table 9).The results also indicated significant differences in means of Cognitive strategies in favor of the juniors (Table 10), and differences in Social strategies in favor of the sophomores and the juniors (table11). Finally, there were significant differences in means of Others strategies in favor of the sophomores (Table 12). [9]Table 9 Scheff233。Table 10 Scheff233。.32.36 *Jun..44 * .29Jun..238Within Groups96.73396.93096.354969696.30696s posthoc showed that there is a significant difference at (p = ) on Cognitive strategies between very good and good in favor of very good. However, there is no signifi