INTRODUCTION
Background to the study
In recent decades, the world has experienced significant cultural, social, political, and technological transformations, prompting individuals to adapt to these changes One of the most crucial adaptations has been the necessity of language learning, which has become an integral part of daily life As a result, people globally are increasingly seeking to learn a second or foreign language to effectively navigate and respond to these evolving demands.
In Vietnam, English language education is recognized as crucial for the nation's development over the next two decades, with the National Foreign Language Project 2020 (NFL 2020) reflecting the government's commitment to global integration Despite significant investments in teacher training and educational resources during the project's initial phase (2008-2020), the anticipated outcomes have not been achieved Research indicates that the challenges in learning English in Vietnam primarily stem from the learners themselves.
Research indicates that successful English learners employ distinct strategy patterns compared to those who struggle To enhance the effectiveness of English education, it is essential to identify these strategies, integrate them into the curriculum, and provide training for less successful learners to adopt these techniques, ultimately fostering their success in language acquisition (Chamot, Barnhardt, El-Dinary, & Robbins, 1999; Wharton, 2000).
The lack of comprehensive research on learning strategies has resulted in insufficient information regarding the methods used by Vietnamese students, especially those who are non-English majors at the tertiary level As a result, the educational system's attempts to identify effective learning strategies have not established a strong foundation for student learning, ultimately impacting their academic performance.
Research on language learning strategies (LLSs) primarily focuses on the techniques effective learners use to acquire a second or foreign language These strategies encompass methods for storing and retrieving new information, as well as receptive strategies for understanding messages and productive strategies for communication O'Malley et al (1985) classified LLSs into metacognitive, cognitive, and socio-affective categories, highlighting the significance of metacognitive strategies, which involve planning, directing, and monitoring learning processes Oxford (1990) further elaborated on the importance of these strategies in language acquisition.
This study explores the language learning strategies (LLSs) utilized by non-English major students at Thai Nguyen University of Education (TNUE) to enhance their language competence It emphasizes the significant role learners play in improving their language skills by effectively acquiring and applying their knowledge in real-life communication The research aims to identify the most and least commonly used LLSs among these students, while also examining the relationship between LLS usage and various factors such as gender, field of study, and language learning experience.
Aims of the Study
This study investigates the language learning strategies employed by non-English major students at Thai Nguyen University of Education and explores the relationship between factors such as gender, major field of study, and language learning experience Given the limited research on the strategies used by EFL learners and their correlation with these factors, the findings can provide valuable insights for curriculum specialists, educators, and students Curriculum developers can utilize this information to create effective materials and textbooks for English instruction, while teachers can design lesson plans that incorporate diverse language learning strategies tailored to students' majors Additionally, this research aims to raise learners' awareness of their existing language learning strategies and encourage the development of new techniques, thereby contributing to the existing literature on EFL strategies in Vietnam.
Research Questions
With the aforementioned aims, the study attempted to answer the following two research questions:
1 What language learning strategies are used by non-English major students at Thai
2 What is the relationship between students’ genders, major fields of study, language learning experience and their uses of language learning strategies?
Scope of the Study
This study utilizes Oxford's (1990) Strategy Inventory of Language Learning (SILL) to identify patterns in language learning strategies among TNUE students It explores how these strategies vary based on students' gender, fields of study, and language learning experience.
A study involving 380 second-year bachelor students at TNUE examined various fields of study, gender, and language learning experiences Among the participants, 227 students were enrolled in social sciences, including Literature, History, and Kindergarten Education, while 153 focused on natural sciences, such as Mathematics, Physics, Biology, and Chemistry The students hailed from diverse mountainous regions, predominantly in Northern Vietnam.
Definitions of Terms
Language learning strategies (LLSs) are the behaviors and thought processes employed by TNU students to improve their English language skills and overall knowledge These strategies can be both observable and unobservable, playing a crucial role in enhancing the language learning experience.
The Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL), developed by Oxford in 1990, is a tool used to explore and evaluate the frequency of language learning strategies among learners It consists of two versions: version 5.1, which includes 80 items tailored for native English speakers learning a foreign or second language (ESL learners), and version 7.0, comprising 50 items designed for non-native English speakers learning English as a second or foreign 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.
The language learning experience encompasses the length of time students engage in English studies prior to university enrollment This research categorizes these experiences into three distinct groups: a 3-year English program, a 7-year English program, and a third category for those who either did not study English or pursued other languages during high school.
Significance of the Study
Research on language learning strategies in Vietnam has primarily examined the interplay between various factors—such as social influences, individual learner characteristics, motivation, and educational contexts—and their impact on English language acquisition Most studies have focused on Vietnamese learners of English as a foreign language (EFL), particularly analyzing the strategies employed by both successful and unsuccessful academic learners (Do and Nguyen, 2016; Nguyen, 2016) However, there is a lack of attention to factors like gender, learning styles, perceptions of class size, fields of study, ethnicity, and language proficiency, which may also influence the use of language learning strategies among science-oriented students (Minh, 2012; Dung).
The findings of this study offer valuable insights for educators and language learners at Thai Nguyen University and across Vietnam Educators can utilize these results to refine their teaching methods by identifying effective and ineffective learning strategies employed by students For EFL learners, the study encourages self-awareness regarding their current strategies, guiding them to adopt more effective techniques for language acquisition Additionally, understanding the relationship between language learning strategy use and factors such as gender, field of study, and learning experiences will enhance pedagogical approaches and inform curriculum development at Thai Nguyen University.
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, coding scheme, 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.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Theory of Good Language Learners
An old proverb states, “Give a man a fish and he eats for a day; teach him how to fish and he eats for a lifetime.” In the context of language teaching and learning, this suggests that providing students with answers may solve immediate problems, but equipping them with strategies to find answers independently empowers them to take control of their own learning (Griffith, 2004).
Stern (1975) identified ten key language learning strategies that define effective language learners He emphasized that these learners are eager to communicate, unafraid of making mistakes, and adept at guessing meanings They focus on both the structure and meaning of the language, seize every opportunity to practice, and actively monitor their own speech as well as that of others Notably, Stern ranked "personal learning style" as the most important characteristic based on his observations.
1 A personal learning style or positive learning strategies
2 An active approach to the learning task
3 A tolerant and outgoing approach to the target language and empathy with its speakers
4 Technical know-how about how to tackle a language
5 Strategies of experimentation and planning with the object of developing the new language into an ordered system of revising this system progressively.
8 Willingness to use the language in real communication
9 Self-monitoring and critical sensitivity to language use
10 Developing the target language more and more as a separate reference system and learning to think in it.
Research on effective language learners reveals insights into why some students struggle while others succeed By analyzing the strategies employed by successful learners to address their challenges, it is anticipated that less successful learners can adopt similar approaches to improve their own learning outcomes.
Research conducted in 2012 revealed that some learners excel in language acquisition regardless of the teaching methods employed, while others struggle to succeed Consequently, studies have characterized effective language learners by their unique personal traits, learning styles, and strategies.
According to Rubin and Thompson (1994), effective language learners exhibit several key characteristics They proactively seek opportunities to use the language and take responsibility for their own learning These learners demonstrate creativity by experimenting with grammar and vocabulary, and they embrace risks, using their mistakes as valuable lessons for improvement Additionally, they leverage their existing linguistic knowledge, including their first language, to facilitate the acquisition of a second language Independence is another hallmark of good language learners, as they do not rely solely on teachers or others for guidance Instead, they wisely manage their time and engage in independent activities, such as extensive reading, to enhance their language skills.
According to Oxford (2002), effective language learners not only recognize the strategies they use but also excel at selecting and adapting these strategies to meet the specific demands of various language tasks In contrast, less effective learners may be aware of different strategies and utilize a similar number, yet they struggle to apply them effectively This highlights the necessity of learner training that goes beyond mere awareness, emphasizing the importance of developing skills to employ strategies efficiently for improved language learning outcomes.
Language Learning Strategies
The concept of 'strategy' in language learning has been extensively explored by various scholars Rubin (1975) defined learning strategies as techniques that learners utilize to acquire knowledge O’Malley and Chamot (1990) expanded on this by describing language learning strategies as specific thoughts or behaviors that aid individuals in processing information, comprehension, and retention They noted that while these strategies can be employed intentionally, they may also become habitual through practice Oxford (1990) further contributed to this discourse, emphasizing the importance of understanding these strategies in the language learning process.
Learning strategies are essential steps that students adopt to improve their educational experience According to a more specific definition, these strategies encompass actions that make learning easier, faster, more enjoyable, self-directed, effective, and applicable to new situations They involve a blend of behaviors that aid learners in acquiring, storing, and retrieving information Oxford (1990) describes learning strategies as the specific tactics individuals employ to accomplish learning tasks While Ellis (1994) raises questions about whether learning strategies are purely behavioral, mental, or a mix of both, Oxford (1989) primarily views them as behavioral in nature.
Mayer (1986) describe them as both behavioural and mental To sum up, O’Malley et al (1985) describe language learning strategies as follows:
There is a lack of agreement on the definition of learning strategies in second language acquisition and how they differ from other learner activities Discussions often intertwine learning, teaching, and communication strategies, applying them to similar behaviors Additionally, within the category of learning strategies, there is significant confusion regarding the definitions of specific strategies and their hierarchical relationships.
In this study, LLSs (Learning Strategies) are defined as the behaviors and thought processes, both observable and unobservable, that TNU students employ to improve their specific skills and overall knowledge in learning the English language.
Characteristics of Language Learning Strategies
Tseng et al (2006) highlight the definitional ambiguity surrounding learning strategies, which cannot be strictly categorized as behavioral, affective, or cognitive This has led to criticism of the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) regarding its effectiveness in defining, quantifying, and classifying strategy use (Oxford, 1990) Oxford (1990) provides a summary of the characteristics of Language Learning Strategies (LLSs), emphasizing the need for clearer definitions and applications in research.
Table 2.1: Characteristics of Language Learning Strategies
1 Contribute directly 1 Contribute to 1 Enhance language and indirectly to communicative learning and develop learning competence competency
2 Observable and 2 Observable and 2 Visible or unseen unobservable unobservable 3 Involve information
Problem oriented responding to the need
Are problem oriented Are action based Expand the role of language teachers Can be taught
4. and memory Learner generated deliberate steps
5 Deplorable and 7 Allow learners to automatized become more self-
6 Behaviour which are directed amenable to change 8 Often used consciously
9 Involve in any aspects, not just cognitive
10 Are influenced by a variety of factors
As can be seen from Table 2.1, Wenden (1987), Lessard-Clouston (1989) and Oxford
Language Learning Strategies (LLS) enhance learning and can be categorized as observable actions or unobservable cognitive processes Wenden and Oxford emphasize that LLS are problem-oriented, utilized when challenges arise Lessard-Clouston (1997) highlights the learner's active role in generating strategies, while Oxford (1990) emphasizes the teacher's influence This study adopts Oxford's (1990) framework to explore TNUE students' behaviors and thought processes in learning English.
Classification of Language Learning Strategies
In the study of language learning strategies (LLSs), various scholars have proposed classifications, yet many of these approaches yield similar categorizations without significant innovation Tarone (1980) made a notable contribution by distinguishing between two primary types of strategies: the "strategy of language use" and "language learning strategy." Within the "strategy of language use," she further categorized them into communication strategies and production strategies Tarone defined communication strategies as the collaborative effort of two interlocutors to establish meaning when their understanding does not align While her classification provides a logical framework, the practical application reveals challenges in differentiating the two categories Overall, Tarone's classification offers a comprehensive understanding of LLSs, emphasizing the learner's intent in employing these strategies.
Rubin's (1987) classification of language learning strategies (LLS) includes four types: cognitive strategies, metacognitive strategies, social strategies, and communicative strategies Communicative strategies focus on how learners engage in conversations, convey meaning, and seek clarification while practicing a language with others In contrast, social strategies emphasize the opportunities learners have to use the language in various contexts.
O’Malley and Chamot (1990) introduced a novel classification method for learning strategies based on Anderson’s (1983) cognitive theory, which examines how learners process new information They categorized these strategies into three primary subcategories: metacognitive strategies, cognitive strategies, and socio-affective strategies, as illustrated in Table 2.2.
Table 2.2: O’Malley and Chamot’s Classification of Learning Strategies (cited from Ellis 1994, p.538)
Grouping Note-taking Deduction Recombination Imagery
Metacognitive strategies, as outlined in Table 2.2, involve executive functions such as planning for learning, monitoring comprehension, and evaluating performance post-activity In contrast, cognitive strategies focus on managing specific learning tasks directly related to the material Additionally, social/affective strategies pertain to how learners interact with peers and native speakers While this classification system is clearer than Tarone’s (1980) approach, the most widely recognized framework in second language acquisition (SLA) and foreign language acquisition (FLA) research is Oxford's (1990) classification, which will be discussed further.
Oxford’s (1990) Language Learning Strategy Classification
In 1990, Oxford expanded the existing classification system of language learning strategies, creating a comprehensive framework that has become widely utilized by researchers (Ellis, 1994) Wakamoto (2009) emphasized the significant impact of Oxford's work, noting that her six-category strategy classification system and accompanying questionnaire continue to be used globally today Detailed information about her classification can be found in Table 2.3 below.
Table 2.3: Oxford’s (1990) Language Learning Strategy Classification
A Direct Strategies Memory Strategies Creating mental linkage
Are devices used by learners to make mental linkages to enable new information especially vocabulary to be retained by learner.
Grouping Associating/elaborating Placing new words into context Applying images and sounds Using imagery
Representing sounds in memory Reviewing well
Are used by learners to process language and accomplish tasks.
Repeating Formally practicing with sounds and writing systems
Recognizing and using formulas and patterns
Recombining Practising naturalistically Receiving and sending messages Getting the idea quickly
Using resources for receiving and
sending messages Analyzing and reasoning Reasoning deductively Analyzing expressions Analyzing contrastively (across languages) Translating
TransferringCreating structure for input and output
Are used by learners to make up Taking notes for their missing knowledge They Summarizing include the use of gesture, Highlighting rephrasing, asking for help and making guesses
Overcoming limitations in speaking and writing
Switching to mother tongue Getting help
Using mime or gestures Avoiding communication partially or totally
Selecting the topic Adjusting or approximating the message Coining words
B Indirect Strategies Metacognitive strategies Centering your learning
Are used by learners to plan, organize, evaluate and monitor their own language learning.
Overviewing and linking with already known material
Paying attention Delaying attention Delaying speech production to focus on listening
Arranging and planning your learning Finding out about language
Organizing Setting goals and objectives
Identifying the purpose of a language task
Planning for a language task Seeking practice opportunities Evaluation your learning Self-monitoring
Self-evaluating Lowering your anxiety
Are used by learners to deal with their emotions, motivations and
Using progressive relaxation/ deep breathing/meditation
Learning Strategies Substrategies attitudes when learning English Using music
Discussing your feelings with someone else
Refer to how learners use language learnt to interact and learn from others.
Asking for clarification or verification
Cooperating with proficient users of the new language
Becoming aware of others’ thoughts and feelings
Oxford's (1990) classification of learning strategies stands out from earlier models by incorporating memory and compensation strategies, acknowledging the interconnected nature of learning and communication strategies (Wakamoto, 2009) Furthermore, this classification is hierarchically organized into levels, presenting a comprehensive and impressive framework that differentiates it from other taxonomies of its time.
The Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL), developed by Oxford in 1990, consists of six key categories that have been extensively utilized in language learning strategy research Oxford’s model provides a thorough and theoretically sound taxonomy of language learning strategies Consequently, this study will adopt Oxford’s classification system as the foundation for categorizing language learning strategies.
Factors Affecting Language Learning Strategies Uses
2.6.1 Language Learning Strategy and Language Learning Experience
Research indicates that younger learners tend to use task-specific strategies, while older learners utilize more generalized and flexible approaches to learning According to Ehrman and Oxford (1989), adults often employ more complex and sophisticated strategies, which contributes to their faster initial acquisition of grammar and vocabulary compared to younger learners, although this advantage does not extend to pronunciation A modified version of the SILL survey was utilized in a study involving 502 students from three secondary schools in Hong 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.
Research indicates a strong correlation between the duration of English study and the use of language learning strategies (LLS) Griffith (2003) highlighted that LLS usage frequency is linked to student proficiency levels, while Oxford and Nyikos (1989) emphasized the significant role of study duration on strategy application Khalil (2005) found that university students employed more strategies than high school students, likely due to the increased demands of fluency in the target language Additionally, Magno (2010) revealed that among 302 Korean students, social and compensation strategies were the most utilized, whereas memory and cognitive strategies were less common The study also affirmed that longer English study periods lead to more frequent use of LLS.
(2010) investigated the kind and frequency of LLS use among English majors atQatar University in another research.
A study involving 120 Arab students from the Department of Foreign Languages, spanning Years 1 to 4, revealed that participants frequently employed various learning strategies The findings indicated a predominant use of metacognitive techniques among the students, while affective strategies were utilized the least.
The research demonstrates a positive correlation between the use of language learning techniques and the level of English proficiency, as measured by years of study Specifically, individuals with more years of English education tend to employ successful learning strategies, although the differences observed were not statistically significant.
2.6.2 Language Learning Strategy and Gender
Numerous studies have explored the relationship between language learning strategies (LLSs) and gender, revealing significant differences in their usage Research by Green and Oxford (1995) highlighted that females tend to utilize more Social and Affective Strategies Similarly, Kato (2005) found this trend among Japanese EFL students Teh et al (2009) suggested that these differences stem from females being less competitive and more cooperative, leading them to favor social-based strategies, while males tend to employ a broader range of strategies.
A study conducted in 2006 examined the impact of gender on language learning success, specifically analyzing language learning strategies (LLS), achievement levels, attitudes, motivation, and perceptions of second language (L2) study The findings suggest that various gender-related factors influence the progress of male and female learners Notably, girls tend to exhibit higher verbal intelligence and aptitude, which contributes to their ability to attain greater mastery in language learning.
Research indicates that while female proficiency in first language acquisition is well-documented, the differences in second language (L2) learning between genders remain ambiguous Gender is widely acknowledged as a crucial factor influencing the language learning process A study by Zeynali (2012) on 149 Iranian students revealed significant gender differences in the use of language learning strategies (LLSs), with female learners employing LLSs more frequently than their male counterparts, particularly in social and affective strategies.
Gender differences in the use of language learning strategies (LLSs) during English as a Foreign Language (EFL) studies can be attributed to various factors, including socialization and cognitive development, which influence male and female behaviors differently The perception of foreign language study as a predominantly female domain may reduce motivation among male students (Rua, 2006) Neurobiological research suggests that males and females engage different brain regions for language learning and grammar processing (Melville, 2006) A large-scale study by Chang, Liu, and Lee (2007) involving 1,758 Taiwanese college students revealed significant gender-based differences in cognitive, metacognitive, and social strategies, with females utilizing LLSs more frequently than males This aligns with prior findings that highlight females' superior social and verbal skills, as well as their greater adherence to academic norms (Chang et al., 2007).
Research on language learning strategies (LLSs) has shown inconsistent results regarding gender differences Ghadessy (1998) found significant gender disparities in five out of six categories of LLSs among university students at Hong Kong Baptist University, with the exception of Memory Strategies Conversely, Rahimi, Riazi, and Saif (2008) reported no correlation between LLSs and gender in their study of Persian EFL learners.
A study by Nisbet, Tindall, and Arroyo (2005) involving 168 third-year English majors at Hanan University in China revealed similar findings to those of Minh (2012), who explored the use of language learning strategies (LLSs) among male and female science-oriented students in northern Vietnam Minh's research indicated no significant differences in LLS usage across both categories and individual strategies based on gender This highlights the necessity for further investigation into the relationship between gender and the variation in LLS usage, as suggested by previous studies, including Bremner (1999).
2.6.3 Language Learning Strategy and Major Field of Study
Gu (2002) investigated the relationship between academic majors and language learning strategies among adult Chinese EFL learners using a language learning questionnaire The study included students from Arts and Science disciplines Results indicated that academic major had a limited impact on learning outcomes, with science students showing slightly better performance than arts students, though not significantly Conversely, arts students demonstrated significantly higher scores on general proficiency tests Additionally, notable differences in language learning strategies were observed between the two groups.
In a study by McMullen (2009) examining language learning strategies (LLSs) among Saudi EFL students, data was gathered from 165 participants across three universities during the 2007–2008 academic year Utilizing Oxford’s Strategy Inventory for Language Learning, the research revealed that female students employed LLSs more frequently than their male counterparts, with Computer Science majors also demonstrating a higher usage of these strategies compared to Management Information Systems students.
In a study conducted by Hằng (2008) in Vietnam, the vocabulary learning strategies of high school students were examined, focusing on the influence of gender and academic major The research involved 67 male and female students specializing in Mathematics and English, utilizing a questionnaire based on Oxford’s (1990) SILL to gather data Findings revealed no significant gender differences in vocabulary learning strategy preferences However, English major students were found to employ the strategies outlined in the questionnaire more frequently than their Mathematics counterparts.
In a study conducted by Nguyen (2016), the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) developed by Oxford (1990) was utilized to analyze the language learning strategies (LLS) of 140 students, comprising both English majors and non-English majors The results revealed that metacognitive strategies were the most commonly used, while compensation strategies were the least utilized Additionally, a notable difference in strategy use was identified between the English major and non-English major groups.
In a comprehensive study conducted by Nguyen (2013), the learning strategy (LLS) deployment among Vietnamese tertiary students was examined, involving 564 participants from both English and non-English majors The researcher utilized a self-developed questionnaire to assess students' strategies for mastering the four key language skills: speaking, listening, reading, and writing The results revealed a significant correlation between the frequency of LLS usage and the participants' self-assessed language abilities across all skills Notably, English majors demonstrated a considerably higher level of LLS utilization compared to their non-English major peers.
Summary
Language learning involves acquiring new linguistic knowledge and developing communication skills through cognitive processes similar to other forms of learning Each individual approaches foreign language acquisition uniquely, despite following standardized curricula These personalized approaches are known as language learning strategies (LLS), which have been extensively researched to identify and classify various methods Understanding the preferences for certain LLS and their effectiveness in enhancing language learning is crucial, with Oxford's classification system being the most widely recognized in the field.
The SILL toolkit, introduced in 1990, serves as a comprehensive assessment and analysis tool utilized in various studies related to Language Learning Strategies (LLSs) It takes into account individual characteristics such as students' age, gender, major field of study, and prior language learning experiences, all of which significantly influence their choice of language learning strategies.
This chapter provides an overview of key language learning strategies and the existing research surrounding them It begins by exploring definitions and classifications established by previous researchers Following this, it reviews relevant literature and studies on language learning strategies conducted in Vietnam and internationally, encompassing both ESL and EFL contexts.
METHODOLOGY
Research Design
Research design is the systematic framework for planning and executing a study, encompassing the procedures and techniques used to address the research problem or question (McMillan & Schumacher, 1984) According to Burns and Grove (2003), it serves as a blueprint that guides researchers in effectively gathering and analyzing data to achieve their objectives.
This study aims to identify the language learning strategies employed by non-English major students and examine the relationship between these strategies and factors such as gender, major field of study, language learning experience, and language proficiency level To achieve maximum control over variables that could affect the validity of the findings, a descriptive research design has been selected to align with the specific objectives of the research.
Descriptive research design involves a structured process for data collection, aiming to describe the characteristics of a specific phenomenon without manipulating variables According to Kumar (2011), this approach focuses on gathering data to provide a clear understanding of the subject being studied.
The concept of 'fitness for purpose' emphasizes that the objectives of research directly influence its methodology and design Therefore, it is crucial for researchers to clearly define their research purposes and types, as well as to create a systematic plan for data collection, detailing the sources, methods, timing, and analysis of the data According to Cohen et al (2002), establishing research purposes and questions prior to designing the study is essential, as these elements guide the overall research methodology and framework.
Subjects of the Study
A study conducted at Thai Nguyen University of Education involved 380 second-year students, with 269 females and 111 males, highlighting a higher female representation Participants included 227 students from social science departments—80 in Literature, 77 in History, and 70 in Kindergarten Education—and 153 from natural science departments, comprising 40 in Mathematics, 37 in Physics, 45 in Biology, and 31 in Chemistry Originating from mountainous areas in Northern Vietnam, most students had prior English education in high school, although their experiences varied due to different English programs (3-year and 7-year) Detailed participant information can be found in Table 3.1.
Table 3.1: Characteristics of the Respondents
Note Due to rounding errors, percentages may not equal 100%.
Data Collection Instrument
This study used a Vietnamese translation of Oxford’s (1990) Strategy Inventory for comprehensive in accounting for strategies used by learners in addition to a demographic questionnaire (see Appendices A & B ).
The demographic questionnaire comprised eight items focused on students' gender, major field of study, and language learning experience It was carefully revised by the researcher and thesis advisor to efficiently collect essential information while minimizing the time required from respondents Participants spent approximately three minutes completing the demographic questions.
The core component of the questionnaire is the Oxford (1990) EFL version of the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) This inventory utilizes a five-point Likert scale and is administered in a paper-and-pencil format It comprises fifty multiple-choice statements that respondents can evaluate based on the following scale: 1) never or almost never true of me, 2) usually not true of me, 3) somewhat true of me, 4) usually true of me.
5) always or almost always true of me The SILL appears to be one of the most widespread summative rating scales most often used around the world to assess the use of language learning strategies (Oxford & Burry-Stock, 1995) Oxford and Burry-Stock (1995) also noted that due to intensity of use in research, the SILL seems to be extensively checked for reliability and validity and in many several ways The items in SILL are easily responded to and is an efficient measurement of varied strategies used by learners The categorisation of items in the questionnaire is presented as follows:
These strategies are used for entering new information into memory storage and for retrieving it when needed for communication: e.g., grouping, representing sounds in memory, structured reviewing, using physical response.
Cognitive strategies play a crucial role in linking, analyzing, and classifying new information with existing knowledge frameworks They facilitate deep processing, the formation and revision of internal mental models, and effective communication in the target language through techniques such as repetition, quick comprehension, analysis, and note-taking Additionally, compensation strategies enhance language learning by addressing gaps in knowledge and skills.
Compensation strategies are essential for language learners to bridge gaps in their knowledge, enabling them to guess meanings and utilize gestures effectively These strategies include switching to the mother tongue, leveraging contextual clues, seeking assistance, and employing synonyms By using these techniques, learners can enhance their comprehension of the target language, particularly when their proficiency is limited.
These strategies are techniques used for organizing, planning, focusing, and evaluating one’s own learning: e.g., linking new information with already known information, seeking practice opportunities, and self-monitoring.
E Affective strategies (6 items); 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, and 44 are used for handling feelings, attitudes and motivations: e.g., lowering anxiety by the use of music, encouraging oneself, and discussing feelings with others Affective factors, such as emotion, attitude, motivation and values, influence learning in an important way. Three sets of strategies are included in this group: lowering anxiety, self- encouragement, and taking own’s emotional temperature.
F Social strategies (6 items); 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, and 50 are used for facilitating interaction by asking questions and cooperating with others in the learning process: e.g., asking for clarification, cooperating with others, and developing cultural understanding.
To facilitate student comprehension, the survey was translated into Vietnamese by two colleagues from the researcher's faculty, both of whom hold Master of Arts degrees in English Each translator initially worked on their own version of the SILL, after which they collaborated to reconcile differences and finalize the Vietnamese translation.
According to SPSS Cronbach’s alpha results, the internal reliability coefficient in the the questionnaire was proven to be a reliable instrument in investigating students’ language learning strategy use.
Data Collection Procedures
After obtaining permission from the Administration Board of Thai Nguyen University of Education, the SILL survey was distributed to students from selected faculties to gather data To ensure honest responses, students were given one week to complete the survey anonymously, alleviating any potential intimidation they might feel if required to provide their names A total of 400 copies of the SILL were administered by the researcher.
A total of 380 valid copies of the questionnaire were collected, achieving a remarkable 95% response rate The data was categorized based on three key dimensions: gender, major field of study, and language learning experience Classroom instructors guided participants on how to complete the survey, which included a demographic questionnaire requiring either selection or short answers Additionally, participants were instructed to indicate their applicable responses on the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL).
Data Analysis Procedures
Initial analyses indicated that the data followed a normal distribution Descriptive statistics, including mean, frequencies, range, and standard deviation, were employed to examine demographic data and assess students' overall strategy patterns This included identifying the most and least utilized strategy items by students across six distinct categories.
Data analysis for the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) was conducted using IBM SPSS version 20.0, employing both descriptive and inferential statistics to address the research questions Composite scores for the six SILL components were calculated by averaging individual item scores, and descriptive statistics provided insights into participants' language learning strategy (LLS) usage Mean scores were interpreted according to Oxford & Burry-Stock (1995), categorizing LLS use as Low (1.0-2.4), Medium (2.5-3.4), or High (3.5-5.0) Pearson correlation tests examined relationships between LLS categories and variables such as gender, field of study, and language learning experience ANOVA analysis was performed to assess significant differences in LLS employment among male and female students, as well as between those in natural sciences versus social sciences, and between students in 3-year versus 7-year English programs.
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
Findings of Research Question 1
4.1.1 The Overall Language Learning Strategies
Table 4.1 reveals that the average score for language learning strategies among learners is 3.09, indicating a moderate usage of various strategy types across the board.
Table 4.1: Overall Language Learning Strategy Uses
According to Oxford's (1990) categories, non-English major students exhibit a varied average use of Language Learning Strategies (LLSs), ranging from 3.02 for cognitive strategies (COG, M=3.06) to 3.29 for metacognitive strategies (MET, M=3.29) The frequency of use across all six learning strategies demonstrates that students engaged with each strategy to differing extents, as indicated by the minimum and maximum values in Table 2 This highlights that all students utilized LLSs across the six categories proposed by Oxford.
Table 4.2: Statistics for the SILL Categories
Deviation Interpretation Memory Category 380 0 3.0606 64517 Medium
The analysis of strategy use among six categories reveals minimal variation in mean scores (Table 4.2) Notably, memory and affective language learning strategies are the least utilized by respondents, indicating that most learners do not rely heavily on memorization for language acquisition Conversely, metacognitive strategies receive the highest scores, followed closely by social language learning strategies, highlighting their prominence in effective language learning practices.
4.1.2 The Individual Language Learning Strategy
Results from Table 4.3 below show that among 50 LLSs suggested by Oxford’s
In 1990, TNUE students exhibited a high usage of four strategies, moderate use of 41 strategies, and low use of five strategies for learning English The frequency of these strategies ranged from a mean of 2.10 for connecting the sound of new English words with images to aid memory, to a mean of 3.71 for reflecting on their progress in learning the language.
Table 4.3: Statistics for Individual Strategy
I think of relationships between what I already
Interpretati -on know and new things I learn in English.
I use new English words in a sentence so I can remember them.
I connect the sound of a new English word and an image or picture of the word to help remember the word
I remember a new English word by making a mental picture of a situation in which the word might be used
I use rhymes to remember new English words 2.4211 1.16187 Low
I use flashcards to remember new English words 3.3947 94267 Medium
I physically act out new English words 2.9684 1.04215 Medium
I review English lessons often 3.0974 96290 Medium
I remember new English words or phrases by remembering their location on the page, on the board, or on a street sign
I say or write new English words several times 3.3158 1.09219 Medium
I try to talk like native English speakers 3.1474 94401 Medium
I practice the sounds of English 3.3395 1.04668 Medium
I use the English words I know in different ways 3.0447 1.01732 Medium
I start conversations in English 2.3632 1.15716 Low
I watch English language TV shows spoken in
English or go to movies spoken in English 3.0000 1.10885 Medium
I read for pleasure in English 2.2921 1.26926 Low
I write notes, messages, letters, or reports in English 2.8000 98912 Medium
I first skim an English passage (read over the
Interpretati -on passage quickly) then go back and read carefully
I look for words in my own language that are similar to new words in English.
I try to find patterns in English 2.9316 1.10673 Medium
I find the meaning of an English word by dividing it into parts that I understand 2.9763 1.09543 Medium
I try not to translate word-for-word 3.0816 1.05579 Medium
I make summaries of information that I hear or read in English.
To understand unfamiliar English words, I make guesses.
When I can' t think of a word during a conversation in English, I use gestures.
I make up new words if I do not know the right ones in English.
I read English without looking up every new word 3.0579 1.11919 Medium
I try to guess what the other person will say next in
If I can' t think of an English word, I use a word or phrase that means the same thing.
I try to find as many ways as I can to use my
I notice my English mistakes and use that information to help me do better.
I pay attention when someone is speaking English 3.5658 1.01253 High
I try to find out how to be a better learner of English 3.5079 1.03625
I plan my schedule so I will have enough time to
Interpretati -on study English 3.1342 1.08498 Medium
I look for people I can talk to in English 3.3816 1.08925 Medium
I look for opportunities to read as much as possible in English 3.2684 92833 Medium
I have clear goals for improving my English skills 3.1053 1.12982 Medium
I think about my progress in learning English 3.7105 1.15244 High
I try to relax whenever I feel afraid of using English 3.2763 1.01179 Medium
I encourage myself to speak English even when I am afraid of making a mistake.
I give myself a reward or treat when I do well in
I notice if I am tense or nervous when I am studying or using English.
I write down my feelings in a language learning diary 2.3895 1.14555 Low
I talk to someone else about how I feel when I am learning English.
If I do not understand something in English, I ask the other person to slow down or say it again.
I ask English speakers to correct me when I talk 3.2763 1.00393 Medium
I practice English with other students 2.9026 1.19519 Medium
I ask for help from English speakers 3.2184 1.09070 Medium
I ask questions in English 3.0421 1.05186 Medium
I try to learn about the culture of English speakers 3.0105 1.02728 MediumValid N (listwise)
The study analyzed the strategies employed by TNUE non-English major students, revealing that their overall usage was moderate The researcher focused on identifying the most and least frequently used strategies to understand the findings better According to Tables 4.4 and 4.5, all four strategies were categorized within the high-use range, with mean scores between 3.55 and 3.71, indicating a close similarity in their frequency of use.
Table 4.4: Most Frequently Used Strategies
I try to find as many ways as I can to use
I pay attention when someone is speaking
I think about my progress in learning
If I do not understand something in
English, I ask the other person to slow down or say it again.
In the current study, three metacognitive strategies frequently used by learners include exploring various ways to utilize English, paying close attention when others speak English, and reflecting on their progress in learning the language Despite recognizing the significance of English, students in Vietnam, particularly at TNUE, continue to struggle with effective study methods due to a persistent exam-oriented education system that prioritizes passing courses over genuine language acquisition This traditional focus often hinders students' awareness of metacognition, as the educational framework does not encourage initiative, self-direction, or self-regulation in their learning processes.
Table 4.5: Least Frequently Used Strategies
I connect the sound of a new English
-ion Note word and an image or picture of the word to help remember the word
I use rhymes to remember new English words
I start conversations in English 2.3632 1.15716 Low COG 14
I read for pleasure in English 2.2921 1.26926 Low COG 16
I write down my feelings in a language learning diary 2.3895 1.14555 Low AFF 43
In contrast, five language learning strategies were identified as being used infrequently among Vietnamese English learners: associating new English words with images, using rhymes for memorization, initiating conversations in English, reading for enjoyment, and maintaining a language learning diary to express feelings Notably, two of these strategies focus on memory techniques related to pronunciation and vocabulary, which are essential for effective language acquisition.
Findings of Research Question 2
4.2.1 Correlations Between Language Learning Strategy Use and Students’ Gender, Major field of Study, and Language Learning Experience
The researcher employed Pearson correlation calculations to examine the relationship between the use of Language Learning Strategies (LLS) and three key factors: students' gender, their major field of study, and their language learning experience This statistical method helped determine both the strength and direction of the correlation between the frequency of strategy use and these variables.
The calculations aim to reveal the direction and strength of the relationship between variables According to Lan (2005, p.77), Pearson correlations are not applicable when one variable is nominal, such as gender; however, non-parametric correlation techniques can be used in such cases It's important to note that while correlation indicates relationships, it does not imply causality.
Table 4.6 illustrates that the strongest correlations in strategy use among the six categories relate to metacognitive strategies and language learning experience (r = 21) and overall strategy use and gender (r = 10) The findings indicate that students with more extensive English study experience are likely to employ more metacognitive strategies compared to their peers Additionally, no significant correlations were observed between students' major fields of study and their use of strategies across the six categories.
Table 4.6: Correlations Between Strategy Use and Students’ Gender, Major Field of Study, and Language Learning Experience
Gender Major field of study
Language Learning Experience Overall Strategy Pearson Correlation
Major field Pearson Correlation 634 ** 1 -.141 ** of study Sig (2-tailed) 000 - 006
Gender Major field of study
Language Learning Experience Compensation Pearson Correlation 050 -.007 011
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
The Pearson correlation results indicate a significant relationship between gender and major field of study, with a correlation coefficient of 63 This suggests that male and female students utilize distinct strategies when engaging with natural sciences or social sciences These findings will be further explored in the subsequent ANOVA tests.
4.2.2 Correlations Among the Three Factors
Table 4.7: Correlations Among the Three Factors of study Learning
Gender Major field of study
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
The analysis of variance (ANOVA) aims to determine the statistically significant effects of independent variables on students' strategy use This includes examining both overall strategy use and the specific strategy categories, with all five factors evaluated through one-way ANOVA.
Table 4.8: Significant Findings from the Separate One-way Analyses of Variance on Strategy Use
Sum of Squares df Mean
Square F Sig. Metacognitive Within Groups
According to Table 4.8, no statistical significances were found on the students’ overall strategy uses, uses of strategies in six categories and the three factors (p ≥
Discussion
Research indicates that non-English major students at TNUE utilize language learning strategies (LLSs) at a medium level overall Notably, four strategies were employed at a high level, while five strategies were used at a low level This analysis underscores the significance of LLSs in the Vietnamese educational context, highlighting their role not only in helping students comprehend classroom material but also in enhancing language skills and broadening linguistic knowledge beyond the classroom Previous studies have supported these findings, emphasizing the importance of effective language learning strategies.
In a study conducted in 1999, three strategy categories were identified as frequently used, with compensation strategies achieving a notably high mean score of 4.7 This indicates that students often employed these strategies to overcome gaps in their linguistic knowledge while facing communication challenges The findings suggest that the ESL context offers more opportunities and a greater necessity for strategy use compared to the EFL context, where students experience limited exposure to English and fewer chances for immediate communication These conclusions align with Minh's (2012) research, reinforcing the differences in strategy utilization between ESL and EFL learners.
Research on language learning strategies (LLS) indicates that female students often utilize certain strategies more frequently than male students, particularly social strategies (Ehrman & Oxford, 1989; Tercanlioglu, 2004) However, recent findings contradict previous studies, showing no significant relationship between gender and strategy use (Carroll, 1967; Walker & Perry, 1978; Peng, 2001) The literature presents a mixed view on gender differences in LLS usage, with some studies affirming a connection (Ehrman & Oxford, 1989; O'Malley & Chamot, 1990; Oxford, 1993) while others suggest otherwise, highlighting the complexity of this area of research.
Research indicates that females tend to utilize Language Learning Strategies (LLSs) more frequently and diversely than males (Kaylani, 1996; Ching-Yi et al., 2007; Zeynali, 2012) However, Teh et al (2009) suggested that while females predominantly employ social LLSs, males exhibit a broader range of LLS usage Additionally, studies by Huerta et al (2012) and Gardner & Lambert (1972) revealed that females score higher on positive affective variables associated with language learning, whereas males excel in other areas Despite these findings, Huerta et al (2012) noted that the overall use of LLSs by both genders is generally comparable, indicating that gender differences alone cannot account for variations in LLS usage in specific research contexts.
In the context of science-oriented students at tertiary level in Viet Nam, Minh’s
A 2012 study indicated a slight correlation between students' gender and their choice of language learning strategies (LSS) It found that female students utilized specific strategies more frequently than their male counterparts, highlighting a minor yet significant difference in strategy use The complexity of theorizing the impact of gender on language proficiency and LSS is partly due to the cultural dimensions associated with gender, as cultural differences are often nuanced and intricate.
The participants in the qualitative interviews did not significantly consider the influence of gender on their learning, indicating a need for further investigation in this area Therefore, any conclusions drawn about the effect of gender on foreign language learning and the use of Learning Strategy Systems (LSS) should be approached with caution It is essential to also consider additional sociodemographic and individual factors to fully understand the determinants of Learning Strategy (LLS) use.
There are a number of research studies that have explored language learning strategies used by students from different fields of study (e.g Politzer and McGroarty,
Research indicates that English major students employ a greater variety of language learning strategies compared to their peers in other disciplines (Mochizuki, 1999; Peacock and Ho, 2003; Minh, 2012) Additionally, findings from the current study reveal a notable difference in strategy use between students in the natural sciences and those in the social sciences A potential explanation for these differences may lie in the varying learning styles of the students, as suggested by Gardner and Miller (1999).
Learning styles refer to the preferences individuals have for how they engage with language learning Students in natural sciences typically approach learning in a logical manner, while those in social sciences often emphasize the application of knowledge gained from textbooks and lectures This distinction highlights the varying approaches to learning across different academic disciplines.
Research indicates that learners with extensive language learning experience tend to utilize metacognitive strategies more frequently, as demonstrated by the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) Kojic-Sabo and Lightbown (1999) found a correlation between frequent and detailed strategy use and higher achievement levels Similarly, Gu and Johnson (1996) concluded that learners with greater proficiency employed more language learning strategies compared to those with lower proficiency.
In short, the results found in this study showed a correspondence in terms of the relationship between LLSs and their language learning experience which closely related to proficiency and achievement.
Research into language learning strategies reveals valuable insights about successful and unsuccessful learners; however, the resulting framework lacks unity This inconsistency may stem from diverse study contexts, varying research methods, and the differing characteristics of language learners (Aljuaid, 2015) While participants in this study prioritized metacognitive learning strategies, the data remains inconclusive regarding the association of specific strategies with particular proficiency levels.