Aninvestigation into english language learning strategies employed by non english major students at thai nguyen university of education thai nguyen university

THAI NGUYEN UNIVERSITY

SCHOOL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES

NGUYEN THI HANH PHUC

AN INVESTIGATION INTO ENGLISH LANGUAGELEARNING STRATEGIES EMPLOYED BY NON-ENGLISH MAJOR STUDENTS AT THAI NGUYEN

THAI NGUYEN UNIVERSITY

SCHOOL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES

NGUYEN THI HANH PHUC

AN INVESTIGATION INTO ENGLISH LANGUAGELEARNING STRATEGIES EMPLOYED BY NON-ENGLISH MAJOR STUDENTS AT THAI NGUYEN

ĐẠI HỌC THÁI NGUYÊN

Ngành: Ngôn ngữ AnhMã số: 8220201

Cán bộ hướng dẫn: TS Dương Đức Minh

THÁI NGUYÊN - 2021

STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP

I, Nguyen Thi Hanh Phuc, declare that the thesis entitled “An Investigation

into English Language Learning Strategies Employed by non-English majorStudents at Thai Nguyen University of Education-Thai Nguyen University” is

the results of my own research and has not been submitted to any other university orinstitution partially or wholly Except where the reference is indicated, no otherparts

of the work has been used without due acknowledgement in text of the thesis.

Appoved by SUPERVISOR

Duong Duc Minh, Ph.D.

Thai Nguyen, June 2021

Nguyen Thi Hanh Phuc

I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my supervisor, Dr Duong Duc Minhfor his invaluable guidance, correction, facilitation and encouragement in the writingof this thesis.

I wish to express my gratitude to the Dean, the Vice Dean and all the staff of theFaculty of Postgraduate Studies, School of Foreign Languages - Thai NguyenUniversity, for their priceless wisdom, encouragement, help and kindness during mystudy and writing this thesis.

Also, I am grateful to the lecturers and the students at Thai Nguyen University ofEducation, TNU for their immense help and participation.

Finally, I want to thank my family, my friends for their spirit, encouragement andtheir support Without them this thesis couldn’t have been accomplished.

1.1 Background to the study 1

1.2 Aims of the Study 2

1.3 Research Questions 3

1.4 Scope of the Study 3

1.5 Definitions of Terms 4

1.6 Significance of the Study 4

1.7 Outline of the Thesis 5

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 7

2.1 Theory of Good Language Learners 7

2.2 Language Learning Strategies 9

2.3 Characteristics of Language Learning Strategies 10

2.4 Classification of Language Learning Strategies 11

2.5 Oxford’s (1990) Language Learning Strategy Classification 13

2.6 Factors Affecting Language Learning Strategies Uses 17

2.6.1 Language Learning Strategy and Language Learning Experience 17

2.6.2 Language Learning Strategy and Gender 18

2.6.3 Language Learning Strategy and Major Field of Study 20

2.7 Summary 22

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY 24

3.1 Research Design 24

3.2 Subjects of the Study 25

3.3 Data Collection Instrument 25

3.4 Data Collection Procedures 28

3.5 Data Analysis Procedures 28

CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION 30

4.1 Findings of Research Question 1 30

4.2 Findings of Research Question 2 36

4.3 Discussion 40

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 44

5.1 Conclusions 44

5.2 Recommendations 45

5.3 Limitations of the Study 46

5.4 Suggestions for Further Study 47

REFERENCES 48APPENDICES IAPPENDIX A IAPPENDIX B IV

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

LLS: Language Learning Strategy LLSs: Language Learning Strategies EFL: English as a Foreign Language

TNUE: Thai Nguyen University of EducationTNU: Thai Nguyen University

SILL: Strategy Inventory for Language LearningL2: Second Language

M: Mean score

S.D.: Standard Deviation

SLA: Second Language Acquisition

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1: Characteristics of Language Learning Strategies ………… 10

Table 2.2: O’Malley and Chamot’s Classification of Learning Strategies 12Table 2.3: Oxford’s (1990) Language Learning Strategy Classification 14Table 3.1: Characteristics of the Respondents ……… 25

Table 4.1: Overall Language Learning Strategy Uses ……… 30

Table 4.2: Statistics for the SILL Categories ……… 31

Table 4.3: Statistics for Individual Strategy ……… 32

Table 4.4: Most Frequently Used Strategies ……… 35

Table 4.5: Least Frequently Used Strategies ……… 36

Table 4.6: Correlations Between Strategy Use and Students’ Gender,Major Field of Study, and Language Learning Experience ……….

37Table 4.7: Correlations Among the Three Factors ……… 38

Table 4.8: Significant Findings from the Separate One-way Analyses ofVariance on Strategy Use ……….

39

The present research focused on identifying language learning strategies used by agroup of 380 non-English major students studying English at Thai NguyenUniversity of Education, TNU The Vietnamese version of Oxford's (1990) StrategyInventory for Language Learning SILL (version 7.0) was used as the main tool tocollect data The SPSS (version 20) was employed to analyse the data Thedescriptive study conducted demonstrated that students used all the learningstrategies, but at different frequency rates This result shows that non-English majorstudents use language learning strategies at the moderate level in all six categoriesproposed by Oxford’s (1990) and there are no particular preferences in students’utilization of LLSs, since they drew on the entire set of strategy types The overallanalysis of the participants’ SILL scores did not take into consideration student’sgender, major field of study and language learning experience There are somecorrelations between student’s language learning experience and LLS inmetacognitive strategies category but these correlations are not statisticallydifferent From the findings of the present investigation, some implications wasdrawn for language learners, educators and language teachers.

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

This chapter presents a background to the study followed by the aims and thesignificance of the study Then, research questions are stated and the limitations tothe study are presented along with the definitions of terms.

1.1 Background to the study

During the last couple of decades, the world has been concerned with cultural,social, political and technological changes In order to keep up with those changes,people have had to meet the needs created by all these changes Language learningis one of the most important needs and it has become an essential component inpeople’s lives People all over the world are trying to learn a second, or a foreignlanguage in order to cope with these changes.

In Vietnam, English language education has been identified as the key factor for thedevelopment of the country in the next 20 years The National Foreign LanguageProject 2020 (NFL 2020) has been considered a strong determination of thegovernment in the process of deep and large scale integration of Vietnam into theworld However, the immense investment in teachers and teaching facilities in thefirst phase of the Project (2008-2020) does not seem to bring what had beenexpected Many studies have shown that the failure of the learning English inVietnam lies in the learners themselves.

Research has also shown that successful learners of English have different strategypatterns than their less successful counterparts There is a need to specify thesestrategies, incorporate them into the English curriculum and train less successfullearners on making use of them in order to help them become successful learners(Chamot, Barnhardt El-Dinary, & Robbins, 1999; Wharton, 2000).

Due to the immature development of in-depth research of learning strategies, therehas always been poor or absence of information on the kind of learning strategiesadopted by the Vietnamese students particularly for non-English major students attertiary level Hence, the efforts of the educational system to identify learners’

strategies failed to create a basis for a solid learning strategies among our students,and consequently, affecting their academic achievement.

In most of the research on language learning strategies (LLSs), the primary concernhas been on identifying what good language learners do to learn a second or foreignlanguage Like general learning strategies, English language learning strategiesinclude those “techniques that learners use to remember what they have learnt - theirstorage and retrieval of new information” (Rubin, 1987, p.19) LLSs also includereceptive strategies which deal with receiving the message and productive strategieswhich relate to communication (Brown, 1994; Chamot & Kupper, 1989) LLSs havebeen classified into several different ways O'Malley et al (1985, pp 582-584)categorized strategies into “metacognitive, cognitive and socio-affective” Theyfound that most importance was given to the metacognitive strategies, that is thosethat have planning, directing or monitoring Oxford (1990) indicated that LLSs are“steps taken by the learners in order to improve language training and developlanguage competence” (p.27) It is clear that the improvement of language learningdepends so much on the learners, i.e how they acquire and retrieve what they learntin order that they can use that knowledge in their real communicative practices.With the desire to clarify the most and least of English LLSs used by non-Englishmajor students at Thai Nguyen University of Education (TNUE) and the relationshipbetween LLS used and some factors, i.e, gender, major fields of study and languagelearning experience The researcher decided to carry out the study on the topic “Aninvestigation into English language learning strategies employed by non-Englishmajor students at Thai Nguyen University of Education – Thai Nguyen University”.

1.2 Aims of the Study

Firstly, the study aimed at examining the language learning strategies that are usedby non-English major students who are following a four-year bachelor program atThai Nguyen University of Education The second aim of the study was toinvestigate the relationship (if any) between some factors such as gender, majorfield of study, language learning experience and the uses of language learningstrategies Since the number of studies that examine the overall strategies usedby EFL learners and

correlation with gender, major field of study and language learning experience arescarce, the finding from this research can provide useful pedagogical information tocurriculum specialist, in addition to teachers and students Curriculum specialistscan use these finding in developing materials and textbook for English languageinstruction Educators and language teachers can also benefit from differentlanguage learning, the strategies used by students of different majors in designinglesson plans that consider training learners on these strategies and helping theirstudents become better learners of English Furthermore, this study would helplearners become aware of language learning strategies they often use and developother learning strategies that might assist them in their language learning It mightalso contribute to the scarce literature concerning language learning strategies usedby EFL learners in Vietnam.

Nguyen University of Education?

2 What is the relationship between students’ genders, major fields of study,language

learning experience and their uses of language learning strategies?

1.4 Scope of the Study

The present study uses Oxford’s (1990) Strategy Inventory of Language Learning(SILL) to uncover certain patterns, and to examine the ways in which a group ofTNUE students employ language learning strategies then investigate these languagelearning strategies according to students’ gender, major fields of study and languagelearning experience.

The study was conducted with 380 students of different fields of study, gender andlanguage learning experience at TNUE All these students were at their second yearof the four-year bachelor program 227 students study social sciences (Literature,History, and Kindergarten Education), and 153 their counterpart study natural

sciences (Mathematics, Physics, Biology, and Chemistry) These students comefrom different mountainous areas of Vietnam, mostly from the North of Vietnam.

1.5 Definitions of Terms

Language learning strategies: LLSs in the present study refers to behaviours or

thought processes whether observable or unobservable, or both, that TNU studentsgenerate and use to enhance their specific skills or general knowledge in learning theEnglish language.

The Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL): refers to an instrument which

has been developed by Oxford (1990) It is designed to investigate learners’ languagelearning strategies and to assess the frequency of use of language learning strategies.The SILL has two versions including version 5.1 (80 items) and version 7.0 (50items) Version 5.1 is designed to gather information about how native-speakingEnglish students learn a foreign or second language (ESL learners) and version 7.0 isdesigned for non-native speakers of English who are learning English as a second orforeign language (EFL learners).

Major field of study: refers to students of social science studies such as, Literature,

History and Kindergarten Education The natural sciences studies such as,Mathematics, Physics, Biology, and Chemistry.

Language learning experience: refers to the duration which students study English

at schools before they enter university In this study, it is devided into 3-yearEnglish program; 7-year English program and others (did not study English orstudied other languages at high school).

1.6 Significance of the Study

In Vietnam, language learning strategy research has focused on the relationshipbetween factors (e.g., social factors, learners’ individual characteristics, motivation,and an educational context, among many others) and how these factors contribute tolanguage learners’ decisions to employ their language learning strategies inacquiring the English language Most of the studies on language learning strategiesnormally conducted with Vietnamese learners of English as a foreign language(EFL), these research works mostly put the focused on how successful andunsuccessful academic language learners used strategies to learn language (Do andNguyen, 2016; and Nguyen 2016) Only a few studies have given attention to a

gender, learning style, learners’ perception of the class size, field of study, ethnic andlanguage proficiency that can contribute to learners’ language learning strategy usein relation to EFL proficiency with (science-oriented) students (Minh, 2012 andDung,

The results obtained from the present study may provide some implications for botheducators, language teachers and language learners at the tertiary level in Vietnam ingeneral and Thai Nguyen University in particular Teachers may use the results as aguide to instruct or to avoid the learning strategies that their students are or are notusing, so that this may help teachers develop their teaching styles and pick up theappropriate strategies to serve their students’ ways of learning For EFL learners, theresults of this study may help EFL learners to recognize the strategies they are usingand lead them to select more appropriate techniques for learning The understandingof any existing the relationship between language learning strategy use reported byTNUE students and the factors including gender, fields of study, and languagelearning experiences, will invariably provide insights to facilitate pedagogicalimplications for instruction and curriculum development in Thai Nguyen university.

1.7 Outline of the Thesis

As required, the paper will have such main parts as follows:

Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION, presents statement of the problem and

rationale for the study, aims, scope, significance, and outline of the study.

Chapter 2: LITERATURE REVIEW, clarifies theoretical background and

related studies relevant for the research.

Chapter 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY, elicits information related to

research questions, research methods, data collection, data procedure, codingscheme, and data analysis.

Chapter 4: FINDINGS AND DISSCUSION is the main part of the study

and will be divided into two subsections, correspondent to two research questions.First, the extent to which language games influence students’ speaking ability is

reported Subsequently, students’ attitudes towards the use of this strategy is displayed.

Chapter 5: CONCLUSION, summarizes essential findings, provides some

linguistic and pedagogical implications, and gives suggestions for further studies.

Besides, there should be REFERENCES and APPENDICES if any at the

end of the research.

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

This chapter introduces to the theories of the good language learners then presentsdefinitions of LLSs, characteristics and how they are classified into categories Therelationship between LLSs and some factors such as genders, major fields of study,language learning experience and some methods used in investigating the LLS willalso be covered in this chapter The chapter ends by presenting surveys by previousresearch methodologies in investigating the language learning strategies.

2.1 Theory of Good Language Learners

There is an old proverb which states: “Give a man a fish and he eats for a day Teachhim how to fish and he eats for a lifetime” Applied to the language teaching andlearning field, this proverb might be interpreted to mean that if students are providedwith answers, the immediate problem is solved But if they are taught the strategiesto work out the answers for themselves, they are empowered to manage their ownlearning (Griffith, 2004).

Stern (1975) was the first person who produced a list of ten language learningstrategies which he believed to be characteristic of good language learners Hesuggests that ‘good language learners’ ‘willingly and accurately guess, want tocommunicate, are uninhibited about mistakes, focus on both structure and meaning,take advantage of all practice opportunities, and monitor their own speech and thatof others’ At the top of the list, from his own observation he put “personal learningstyle” (p.311) All the features of a good language learners are presented below:

1 A personal learning style or positive learning strategies2 An active approach to the learning task

3 A tolerant and outgoing approach to the target language and empathy with itsspeakers

4 Technical know-how about how to tackle a language

5 Strategies of experimentation and planning with the object of developing the newlanguage into an ordered system of revising this system progressively.

6 Constantly searching for meaning

Rubin and Thompson (1994) also asserted that, there are a few characteristics thatare possessed by good language learners Some of the main characteristics of goodlanguage learners are; good language learners find their own opportunity to use thelanguage and be responsible for their own learning Next, they are also creative andexperiment with grammar and words Good language learners are also willing totake risks and also make errors work for them and not against them They will usethe errors that they have made earlier as a guidance to improvise their currentlearning On the other hand, good language learners also use their linguisticknowledge including knowledge of the first language, in learning a secondlanguage Another important characteristic of good language learners is beingindependent They do not rely solely to the teacher or others in order to learn alanguage They will make use of their time wisely and use independent actions toenhance their learning such as extensive reading.

Apart from those generally acknowledged attributes of ‘good language learner’, anargument made by Oxford (2002) about another comparison in strategy use betweeneffective learners and less effective ones reveals the importance of learner training.She states that successful learners are not only aware of what strategies they use, butalso skilled at selecting those working together more efficiently and tailoring themto the demands of different language tasks In contrast, the less effective learners areill- equipped at employing the strategies in a high-performing manner, although theyare reported to be actually not inferior in the awareness of strategy use as well asthe number of strategies used Based on Oxford’s findings, it is reasonable to claimthat the value of learner training should not stay at the consciousness-raising level.

2.2 Language Learning Strategies

According to Griffith (2004), the term ‘strategy’ has been used by many prominent

writers (such as Rubin, 1975; O’Malley et al, 1985; Oxford, 1990) and Rubin (1975)

is one of the earliest researchers in the field provided a broad definition of learning strategies as “the techniques or devices which a learner may use to acquire

knowledge” (p.43) Similarly, O’Malley and Chamot (1990, p.1) viewed

language learning strategies as “the special thoughts or behaviours of processing information that individuals use to help them comprehend, learn, or retain new information” They observed that strategies may be used intentionally, but they can also become habitual and mechanical with practice Oxford (1990, p.1) claimed that “learning strategies are steps taken by students to enhance their own learning” She suggested a more specific definition of learning strategies as “specific actions taken by the learner to make learning easier, faster, more enjoyable, more self-directed, more effective, and more transferable to new situations” (p.8) She defined learning strategies as a combination of behaviours used by the learners to assist them in better learning, storing and recovering information Oxford (1990) also considered learning strategies to consist of the particular tactics that an individual used to complete a learning task Although Ellis (1994) sees LLSs as open to question whether learning strategies are recognized as behavioural, mental, or a combination of both Oxford (1989), on the other hand, appears to see them as basically behavioural, whereas Weinstein and

Mayer (1986) describe them as both behavioural and mental To sum up, O’Malleyet al (1985) describe language learning strategies as follows:

There is no consensus on what constitutes a learning strategy in second languagelearning or how these differ from other types of learner activities Learning,teaching and communication strategies are often interlaced in discussions oflanguage learning and are often applied to the same behaviour Further, evenwithin the group of activities most often referred to as learning strategies; thereis considerable confusion about definitions of specific strategies and about thehierarchic relationship among strategies (p 22).

From the discussion above, in the present investigation, LLSs refer to behaviours orthought processes whether observable or unobservable, or both, that TNU studentsgenerate and use to enhance their specific skills or general knowledge in learning theEnglish language.

2.3 Characteristics of Language Learning Strategies

Tseng et al (2006, p.95) note that the concept of learning strategies suffers fromdefinitional fuzziness, as the strategies cannot be definitely classified as behavioural,affective, or cognitive in nature Specific emphasis in this literature includescriticism for the application of the SILL as it is applied in the characteristics,quantification and categorization of strategy use (Oxford, 1990) Following is thesummary of characteristics of LLSs by Oxford (1990).

Table 2.1: Characteristics of Language Learning Strategies

Wenden (1987)Oxford (1990)Lessard-Clouston(1997)

1 Contribute directly 1 Contribute to 1 Enhance languageand indirectly to communicative learning and develop

2 Observable and 2 Observable and 2 Visible or unseen

Problem orientedresponding to theneed

Are problem orientedAre action based Expand the role of language teachersCan be taught

and memory Learner generated deliberate steps

Wenden (1987)Oxford (1990)Lessard-Clouston(1997)

5 Deplorable and 7 Allow learners to

self-6 Behaviour which are directedamenable to change 8 Often used

consciously9 Involve in any

aspects, not justcognitive

10 Are influenced by avariety of factors11 Support learningdirectly /indirectly12 Are flexible

As can be seen from Table 2.1, Wenden (1987), Lessard-Clouston (1989) andOxford

(1990) agree that LLS enhance learning and can be both observable which includethe actions and techniques, or unobservable which include the memory andcognitive aspects Furthermore it also shows that both Wenden and Oxford feel thatLLS are problem-oriented and are applied when a problem exists Indescribing LLSs characteristics, Lessard-Clouston’s (1997) places learners asplaying a greater role (that is being learner-generated), whereas Oxford’s (1990)places teachers as having a greater role Therefore, in the present study, theresearcher follows characteristics suggested by Oxford’s (1990) to investigateTNUE students’ behaviours and though processes in learning the English language.

2.4 Classification of Language Learning Strategies

In the field of LLSs study, language learning strategies have been defined andclassified by many scholars in the field However, most of these attempts to classifylanguage learning strategies reflect more or less the same categorizations oflanguage learning strategies without any major changes From the very beginning,Tarone (1980) has shed a light in classifying LLSs, she suggested two kinds ofstrategies: the “strategy of language use” and the “language learning strategy.”Within the “strategy of language use”, she identified two types of strategies:communication strategies and

production strategies Tarone (1980) defined communication strategy as “a mutualattempt of two interlocutors to agree on a meaning in situations where requisitemeaning structures do not seem to be shared” (p.419) Although her divisionbetween strategies makes sense as a classification method, in practice it isdifficult to distinguish the two Therefore, Tarone’s (1980) classification is well-explained with a sound classification of LLS, which draws on the learner’spurpose in using strategies.

Rubin’s (1987) classification on LLS divides into four types, however besides the cognitive strategies, metacognitive strategies, and social, she also adds communicative strategies between them The communication strategies employed by learners when they practice their language with others, it covers participating in a conversation, getting meaning across and clarifying Whereas social strategies deal with opportunities to use the language that learners have.

O’Malley and Chamot (1990) proposed a new method of classification a few yearslater They employed Anderson’s (1983) cognitive theory, which discussed howlearners processed new information Consequently, they classified strategiesaccording to the level of processing information into three main subcategories:metacognitive strategies, cognitive strategies and socio-affective strategies as inTable 2.2 below:

Table 2.2: O’Malley and Chamot’s Classification of Learning Strategies (citedfrom Ellis 1994, p.538)

 Advance organizers Directed attention Selective attention Self-management Advance preparation Self-monitoring Delayed production Self-evaluation

Cognitive  Repetition

 Resourcing

Directed physical responseTranslation

Grouping Note-takingDeductionRecombinationImagery

Auditory representationKey word

Contextualization Elaboration

Social/Affective  Cooperation

 Question for clarification

As can be seen in Table 2.2, metacognitive here describes executive functionstrategies that require planning for learning, thinking about the learning process as itis taking place, monitoring of one’s production or comprehension, and evaluatinglearning after an activity is completed Cognitive strategies are limited to morespecific learning tasks involving more direct management of the learning materialitself Social/affective strategies, on the other hand, concern the ways in whichlearners elect to interact with other learners and native speakers Thisclassification system is clearer than Tarone’s (1980) classification system However,the classification that has gained the most popularity and is the most commonly usedone in SLA/FLA research and practice is that of Oxford (1990) which will bepresented below.

2.5 Oxford’s (1990) Language Learning Strategy Classification

In 1990, Oxford has expanded the classification system based on previous

researchers’ classification Oxford’s classification is regarded as the most comprehensive classification and has been used by many researchers (Ellis 1994) Wakamoto (2009) affirmed, Oxford’s contribution to the study of language learning strategies is enormous, since the six scheme strategy classification system she proposed, and the

strategy questionnaire she developed, is used globally up to the present years Her classification is presented in details in Table 2.3 below:

Table 2.3: Oxford’s (1990) Language Learning Strategy ClassificationLearning StrategiesSubstrategies

A Direct Strategies

Memory Strategies  Creating mental linkage

Are devices used by learners tomake mental linkages to enablenew information especially vocabulary to be retained by learner.

Placing new words into contextApplying images and sounds Using imagery

Semantic mappingUsing keywords

Cognivtive strategies

Representing sounds in memoryReviewing well

Using actionPractising

Are used by learners to processlanguage and accomplish tasks.

sending messages Analyzing and reasoning Reasoning deductively Analyzing expressions Analyzing

contrastively (across languages)Translating

Creating structure for input and output

Learning StrategiesSubstrategies

Are used by learners to make up  Taking notes

for their missing knowledge They  Summarizing

include the use of gesture,  Highlightingrephrasing, asking for help and

Overcoming limitations in speaking andwriting

Switching to mother tongueGetting help

Using mime or gestures

Avoiding communication partially ortotally

Selecting the topic

Adjusting or approximating the messageCoining words

Using a circumlocution or synonym

B Indirect Strategies

Metacognitive strategies  Centering your learning

Are used by learners to plan, organize, evaluate and monitortheir own language learning.

Overviewing and linking with alreadyknown material

Paying attentionDelaying attention

Delaying speech production to focus onlistening

Arranging and planning your learningFinding out about language

Identifying the purpose of a languagetask

Planning for a language task Seeking practice opportunitiesEvaluation your learningSelf-monitoring

Lowering your anxiety

Are used by learners to deal withtheir emotions, motivations and

 Using progressive relaxation/ deepbreathing/meditation

Learning StrategiesSubstrategies

attitudes when learning English.  Using music

 Using laughter

 Encouraging yourself

 Making positive statements

 Taking risks wisely

 Rewarding yourself

 Taking your emotional temperature

 Listening to your body

 Using a checklist

 Writing a language learning diary Discussing your feelings with someone

Social Strategies

Refer to how learners use language learnt to interact andlearn from others.

 Asking questions

 Asking for clarification or verification

 Asking for correction

 Cooperating with others

 Cooperating with peers

 Cooperating with proficient users of thenew language

In sum, these six categories which underlie the Strategy Inventory for LanguageLearning (SILL) are used by Oxford (1990) and later scholars for a great deal ofresearch in the language learning strategy field In addition, Oxford’s model outlines

a comprehensive, multilevelled, and theoretically well-conceived taxonomy oflanguage learning strategies For these reasons, the classification of languagelearning strategies in this study will be based on Oxford’s (1990) classificationsystem.

2.6 Factors Affecting Language Learning Strategies Uses

2.6.1 Language Learning Strategy and Language Learning Experience

In terms of age that is also related to the extent of learning experience, younglearners have been observed to employ task-specific strategies while older learnersemploy generalized strategies more flexibly Ehrman and Oxford (1989, p.1)reported that “adults use more complex and sophisticated strategies” It explains whyolder learners generally learn grammar and vocabulary faster initially than youngerlearners and not so in pronunciation A modified version of the SILL surveyinstrument was used in a research of 502 students from three secondary schools inHong Kong (Leung & Hui,

2011) Results showed that, the average of strategy usage was in the medium scale.The three most frequently used categorical strategies were compensative,metacognitive and affective.

LLS analysis has repeatedly shown a positive relationship between the length ofEnglish study and the usage of strategies Griffith (2003) found a connectionbetween the frequency of LLS usage and student level in his research Similarly,Oxford and Nyikos (1989) discovered that the number of years spent studying hasan important impact on the use of learning strategies When Khalil (2005)compared university students to high school students, he discovered that universitystudents used more strategies than high school students This may be due to theadditional demands placed on fluent learners when speaking in the target language.Magno (2010) conducted a study in which 302 Korean students completed theStrategy Inventory for Language Learning Overall, the social and compensationcategories were the most frequently used, while the memory and cognitivecategories were the least frequently used Furthermore, the length of time spentstudying English had a big impact on the use of LLS, with people who had beenstudying English for a long time using these strategies most frequently Al-Buainain

(2010) investigated the kind and frequency of LLS use among English majors atQatar University in another research.

The participants were 120 Arabs from the Department of Foreign Languages whorepresented a range of learning grades (Years 1-4) According to the findings,students used learning strategies on a frequent to medium frequency They tended touse metacognitive techniques but least use affective strategies.

In general, the findings indicate a positive relationship between language learningtechnique usage and learning level (years of studying English) The more yearsspent learning English, the more successful the strategy use even though thedifferences were not statistically relevant.

2.6.2 Language Learning Strategy and Gender

Many previous studies have investigated the correlation between LLSs and gender,and significant differences have been reported by most studies focusing on therelationship between LLSs and gender For example, Green and Oxford (1995)found that females use more Social and Affective Strategies Kato (2005) obtainedthe same result in her study examining a group of Japanese EFL (English as ForeignLanguage) students Understanding the differences in LLS use between males andfemales has been suggested by Teh et al (2009) and lies in the fact that females areless competitive and more cooperative than males, and they show more interest insocial activities Therefore, females rely more heavily on social-based strategies,while males are found to employ a wider variety of strategies (Teh et al., 2009) Rua(2006) studied the role of gender in language learning success by focusing on LLSuse, achievement, attitudes, motivation and opinions regarding L2 study Theresearcher’s findings imply that there are a number of variables related to genderaffecting males’ and females’ study progress For instance, girls’ verbal intelligence,that is, aptitude, has always been regarded as enabling them to reach higher levels oflanguage learning mastery.

Huerta et al, (2012) admitted that there is a wide range of studies that show femaleproficiency in the first language acquisition and use; however, the results on theL2 differences between male and female learners are much less clear In addition,gender is unanimously recognized in the research community as being a critical

individual and social variable producing a profound effect on the languagelearning process Zeynali (2012) studied gender differences in the use of LLS inIranian students By studying 149 learners at the Institute of Tabriz, the researcherfound a significant difference in LLS use Female learners displayed a tendencyto use LLSs more often than male learners, and used social and affective LLSsmore often than males.

Overall, the gender differences in LLS use during EFL studies can be explained in anumber of ways One of the essential factors determining this difference maybe thesocialization of males and females, which is something that affects both socialbehaviour and cognitive development Moreover, the study of a foreign language istraditionally seen as primarily a female subject, which may diminish the motivationand rigour of male students (Rua, 2006) Additional explanations for the differencein the use of LLSs take neurobiological perspectives Melville (2006) provideda neurobiological explanation for the reasons males and females use LLSsdifferently She stated that boys and girls have been found to use different parts oftheir brains for the language learning process, and for processing aspects ofgrammar In 2007, Chang, Liu, and Lee (2007) performed a large-scale study inTaiwan to identify the impact of gender on LLS choice during EFL studies Theirsample comprised 1,758 Taiwanese college students from different educationalestablishments ANOVA and t-test analyses showed that statistically significantgender-based differences were noted for cognitive, metacognitive and socialstrategies, as well as for overall LLS use Studies in different populations that usedthe same approaches yielded similar outcomes as this one did (Rua, 2006) Femalesused LLSs more often than males did, which was consistent with prior research andsuppositions regarding the stronger social skills, verbal skills, and greater conformityto academic and linguistic norms observed among females in the educationalcontext (Chang et al., 2007).

The results however were not always consistent Ghadessy (1998) investigated agroup of university students in the Hong Kong Baptist University She reportedthere was a significant gender difference in five of the six categories of LLSs,

except Memory Strategies Rahimi, Riazi, and Saif (2008), on the contrary,claimed there

was no relationship between LLSs and gender in their research on Persian EFLlearners.

Nisbet, Tindall, and Arroyo (2005) also obtained similar results in their study, whichexamined 168 third-year English majors at Hanan University in China In line withthese findings, Minh (2012) when investigating the differences in LLSs use betweenmale and female students who are science-oriented at universities in the north ofVietnam, he found that there were no significant differences in using LLSs both incategories and individual strategies Therefore, there is a need to further investigatethe correlation between the variation in the use of LLSs and gender, which wasrecommended in previous studies (Bremner 1999).

2.6.3 Language Learning Strategy and Major Field of Study

Gu (2002) examined how students’ academic major is related to language learningstrategies and learning results of a group of adult Chinese EFL learners in theChinese EFL context using language learning questionnaire The academic major ofthe students in his study included Arts and Science The findings showed thatacademic majors were found to be a less potent background factor Science studentsslightly outperformed arts students (though insignificantly), but arts studentssignificantly outperformed science students on general proficiency test Strategydifferences were also found between arts and science majors.

The similar findings also found in McMullen (2009) when he investigated the use oflanguage learning strategies and determined if gender and academic major had anyeffect on the use of LLSs by Saudi EFL students inside the Kingdom of SaudiArabia Data was collected during the academic year 2007–2008 from three sampleuniversities in Saudi Arabia using Oxford’s Strategy Inventory for LanguageLearning as the instrument 165 participants in the study were all enrolled in similarFreshman English composition courses and totaled 71 male students and 94 femalestudents The results of ANOVA (analysis of variance) tests showed that femalestudents used slightly more LLSs than male students, and Computer Sciencestudents used slightly more LLSs than Management Information Systems students.

In Vietnam, Hằng (2008) carried out a study to explore vocabulary learningstrategies which high school students employed, and the choice of strategies use inrelation to their gender and majors 67 male and female high school studentsmajoring in Mathematics and English participated in her study Questionnaireadopted from Oxford’s (1990) SILL was administered to the students to collect datafor the study The results of the study showed that there was no significantdifference in the choice of strategies use in learning vocabulary in terms of gender.Furthermore, the results also indicated that the English major students made use ofstrategies introduced in the questionnaire more frequently than the Mathematicsstudents.

Nguyen (2016) employed the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) byOxford (1990) to examine the LLS use of 140 English major and non-English majorstudents The findings showed that metacognitive strategies were most frequentlyemployed, whereas compensation strategies were the least applied strategies Asignificant difference was also found between the two groups of participants,English versus non-English major groups.

Nguyen (2013) also carried out a large-scale research to examine Vietnamesetertiary students’ LLS deployment A total number of 564 participants, bothEnglish- and non-English major students, were recruited for the study purposes Aself-developed questionnaire was developed by the researcher, inquiring aboutstudents’ strategies for learning four language skills, i.e., speaking, listening,reading and writing The findings indicated a significant relation between thefrequency of LLS use and participants’ self-rated language abilities for all fourskills Students who majored in English had a significantly higher level of LLSemployment compared to their non- English major counterparts.

In finding the impact of metacognitive strategies on learners’ readingcomprehension ability of health sciences students and technical sciences studentswas examined in Do and Nguyen’s study (2014) Sixty-four college students wererandomly split into two groups, i.e., treatment and control group While treatmentgroups received metacognitive instruction in their reading class, the control group

did not Participants were administered reading pre and posttest as well asresearcher’s self-developed

metacognitive reading strategies The results showed that the experimental groupoutperformed their counterparts in the control group in regard to the posttest readingachievement and in the level of awareness in employing metacognitive strategies.In summary, previous studies addressing EFL learners’ employment of languagelearning strategies in Vietnam is still limited and primarily employ self-developedquestionnaires Further research is necessitated to provide more insights into theLLS employment among high school EFL learners, especially in Vietnam, in orderto inform relevant stakeholders (Lem, 2019).

2.7 Summary

Learning in its most general sense represents acquisition of new knowledge anddevelopment of new behaviours Language learning takes place according to similarcognitive mechanisms as other learning, and it refers to acquisition of new linguisticinformation, memorization and recognition of certain language patterns, and learningto apply the new language items in communication situations All individuals learnforeign languages in their own way, even though there are certain unified curriculaby which students study The individual choices regarding approaching certainlanguage learning tasks are referred to as students’ language learning strategies(LLS), and there has been extant research on identifying and classifying LLSs, aswell as understanding what makes students prefer some LLS to others, andwhat LLS contribute to more effective language learning There are a number ofclassification systems put forward to date, but the most commonly used is Oxford’s(1990) SILL toolkit, a comprehensive assessment and analysis tool that has beenapplied across a range of LLSs related studies Individual characteristics onwhich LLS choice depends are considered to be the students’ age, gender, majorfield of study and language learning experience determining prior languagelearning (and general educational) experiences.

In sum, this chapter has mainly examined significant aspects of language learningstrategies and available research works on language learning strategies It starts with

a discussion on how previous researchers defined and classified language learningstrategies This was followed by a review of related literature and research works onlanguage learning strategies that have been conducted in both Vietnam and othercountries in both ESL and EFL contexts.

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY

This chapter presents the methodology used in this study It includesconsiderations of the research design proposed for the study, the sampling methodand selections of participants, and an overview of the research instruments used inthe research Data collection, data analysis tools and ethical considerations will alsobe presented.

3.1 Research Design

Research design refers to the way a study is planned and conducted, the proceduresand techniques employed to answer the research problem or question (McMillan &Schumacher, 1984) Burns and Grove (2003, p.195) also define a research design as“a blueprint for conducting a study with maximum control over factors that mayinterfere with the validity of the findings” The objectives of this research are toidentify the language learning strategies used by non-English major students, and toidentify the relationship between their language learning strategy use and theirgender, major field of study, language learning experience and language proficiencylevel For these reasons, the research design chosen to suit the individual purposesand objectives of the present study is the descriptive research design.

In descriptive research design, data collection is carried out in a structured process.Kumar (2011) argues that the goal of descriptive research is to describe thecharacteristics of a selected phenomenon and involves the collection of data withoutmanipulation of variables Since the research design is governed by the notion of‘fitness for purpose’, and the purposes of the research determine the methodologyand design of the research Therefore, when conducting research, it is very importantto specify the purposes and types of research as well as to design a systematic planof gathering the data from whom, how and when to collect the data, and how toanalyze and interpret the data obtained Cohen et al., (2002) suggest that researchpurposes and questions should be determined by researchers before setting aresearch design because of both of the research purposes and research questionsspecify the methodology and design of the research.

3.2 Subjects of the Study

This study was conducted at the Thai Nguyen University of Education 380 studentsparticipated in the study, 269 were females and 111 were males In general, thisreflects the fact that female students’ numbers exceed male students’ numbers at theuniversity There were 227 participants from Social science departments (80students of Literature, 77 students of History and 70 students of KindergartenEducation) 153 students from Natural science departments (Mathematics 40,Physics 37, Biology 45 and Chemistry 31) All the participants are second yearstudents They come from mountainous areas in the North of Vietnam Almost ofthese students had learned English at high schools However, they followeddifferent English programs (3-year and 7-year program) so their language learningexperiences are varied A description of the participants can be seen in Table 3.1below:

Table 3.1: Characteristics of the Respondents

Note Due to rounding errors, percentages may not equal 100%.

3.3 Data Collection Instrument

This study used a Vietnamese translation of Oxford’s (1990) Strategy Inventory forLanguage Learning version 7.0 (SILL) which is considered to be more