【正文】 sent writer agrees with Oxford’s classification (1990). She constructed a questionnaire entitled “Strategy Inventory for Language Learning” (SILL), which the present writer used in the investigation. The SILL has been developed from Oxford’s fairly exhaustive list of strategies and has bee popular for finding levels of strategy use through being applied in a variety of learning environments. According to Green and Oxford (1995), studies using the SILL has chosen are as follow: firstly, it is characterized by its prehensiveness. It covers all the main aspects of learning strategies. Oxford’s work uses a very wide definition of strategy including almost any decision taken in the process of language learning. It is useful to have memory, cognitive, metacognitive, social and affective strategies grouped together in one test to make learners aware of the plex strategies that can be exploited to aid their learning. Secondly, this focused attention on strategies provides an interest and promote many insights into what they and others do in order to facilitate learning. Some students might have never talked about their learning, and not all students have a full understanding of how they learn English and what they should do to achieve success. Students often expect teachers to have a good knowledge of this. To some extent, their need to see teachers providing this information is satisfied. The SILL makes learning strategies explicit and in some ways makes the plex task of learning a foreign language seems more accessible. Then she categorized these strategies into primary and secondary strategy types. After performing a number of statistical analyses on the SILL, Oxford (1990)presented a revised framework of learning strategies in which she classified learning strategies as having a direct or an indirect impact on learning a language.(see ) : Oxford’s Classification Direct strategies Strategies strategies Learning strategies Strategies Indirect 1. Metacognitive strategies Strategies strategies 3. social strategies Here are the detailed introductions of the six learning strategies: Memory strategies, sometimes we called them mnemonics, have been existed for thousands years. For instance, in ancient times, in order to remember a long speech, orators divided it into several parts and each part linked a certain room of a house or temple, and then “taking a walk” from room to room. The highly specific purpose of using memory strategies during the language learning process is helping student to store the new information. Cognitive strategies can assist language learners to understand and produce the language by numerous different means. They play an important role in language learning process. Compensation strategies allow language learners to make up the limitations of the language knowledge, such as vocabulary, during the process of prehension and production. Guessing intelligently in listening and reading and overing limitations in speaking and writing are the main sets in pensation strategies. Metacognitive strategies enable learners to control their cognition in order to coordinating the learning process through manipulating centering, arranging, planning, and evaluating. Affective strategies help to regulate emotions, attitudes and motivations. The use of affective strategies enables learners to adjust themselves and manage their emotions and attitudes. Moreover, it also can maintain the best psychical condition of learning. Affective strategies include lowering anxiety and encouraging. Social strategies can help students learn through the munication with others, including asking questions and cooperating with others. Each strategy type was further represented by three subtypes were then represented by a number of individual strategies. Oxford’s taxonomy is interesting for a few reasons. It is the first to explicitly indicated directionality in term of impact on language learning and to provide a hierarchical anization of strategies into levels, making it more than just a list. Second, this taxonomy is extremely prehensive and again intuitively appealing. Finally, Oxford’s taxonomy is unique in that it made no distinction between strategies that were invoked in both language and language use. The Relationship between Strategy Use and Learning Proficiency So far there are series of studies, which have sought to investigate the relation of students’ learning strategies use to their individual learning achievement. There are two kinds of correlational studies: the relation between frequency of strategy use and language proficiency, and the relation between specific strategies and L2 proficiency. An abundance of research has been conducted to find out whether the frequency of strategy use influences language proficiency, but no consistent picture has emerged so far. In the studies conducted in a variety of geographical and cultural settings, “students who were better in their language performance generally reported higher levels of overall strategy use and frequent use of a greater number of strategy categories” (Green and Oxford, 1995). A recent study by Wharton (2020) further supports the finding of the studies. Using the SILL, Wharton examined the selfreported learning strategy use of 678 university students learning Japanese and French as foreign language in Singapore. The result showed the learners with higher language proficiency use more learning strategies than the others. Another area is the link between choice of strategies and learning achievement. Politzer and McGroarty(1985), for example, looked at the rela