(1) how learners approach learning, both in and out of classrooms, and (2) the kinds of strategies and cognitive processing they use in second language acquisition

Of the many individual learner differences belief, affective states, learner factors, learning experience and situational and social factors target language, setting, task performed, gen

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION I.1 Statement of the problem and rationale for the study

Along with the appearance of the Cognitive view of learning, which regards language learning as a dynamic, creative process and the learners as active strategy users and knowledge constructors, many researchers have shifted their focus of attention from teaching methods to learners (Chamot, A.U & O’Malley, J M., 1994)

Quite a large amount of research literature have paid attention to (1) how learners approach learning, both in and out of classrooms, and (2) the kinds of strategies and cognitive processing they use in second language acquisition (O’Malley, J M

& Chamot, A.U., 1995)

The first studies on “good language learner” were initiated by Rubin (1975) and Stern (1975) Research results suggested that the “good language learner” might be doing something special that we could all learn from From these very first initiatives, more and more researchers have come to recognize the significance of special learner techniques or strategies in second language acquisition Bialystock (1978: 71) states in his study that learning strategies are “optimal means for exploiting available information to improve competence in a second language” Therefore, language learning strategies are beneficial for those who hope to improve his language skills in a better way Oxford (1989) considers learning strategies as one of the “most important variables influencing performance in a second language” (p.238) His research findings also recommend that “better strategies improve language performance.” (Oxford, 1989: 238)

In recent years, the study of learning strategies has seen an “explosion of activity” (Skehan, 1991: 285 cited in Ellis, 1999:529) In discussing the nature and significance of learning strategies, researchers have affirmed that “research findings on learner strategies can be used as a basis for planning more effective instructional practice” (O’Malley& Chamot, 1995:viii) Lessard-Clouston (1997:3) also agreed that language learning strategies “contribute to the development of the communicative competence of the students” They are tools for active, self- directed involvement needed for developing L2 communicative ability

So far, the role of learning strategies and the effects of learner’s choice of learning strategies on learning outcomes have been confirmed Several studies have also attempted to find out the relationship between language learning strategy choice and other factors like age, gender, motivation, language learning experiences, etc

Of the many individual learner differences (belief, affective states, learner factors, learning experience) and situational and social factors (target language, setting, task performed, gender) that determine learners’ choice of learning strategies, gender has been recognized as “a profound” choice on strategy choice (Oxford & Nyiko, 1989: 545) Swann (1992) also asserted that “gender differences may have implications for Second language learning, teaching and assessment” (cited in Ah Shehadah, 1999: 256)

However, the body of research on the relationship between gender differences and language learning strategies is still quite limited Studies that are applicable to Vietnamese situation are even harder to find This research was, therefore, carried out with the hope of providing an insight into the relationship However, due to the limited time and scope of the study, the researcher only chose to work with a small sample of 72 English learners Through the process of carrying out the research study, we hope to find the answers to the following questions:

Research questions:

What are the EFL learning strategies employed by the students?

Is there a significant difference in the frequency of EFL learning strategy used by the male and female students?

Together with answering these two questions, the researcher hopes to find out some implications for teachers in order to better support students of both genders in their study

I.2 Aims and objectives of the study

To find out common strategies used by a group of –EFL learners in Hanoi, Vietnam

To determine if male and female students use similar language learning strategies

To find out how teachers can help both male and female students use their learning strategies effectively

I.3 Scope of study

Concerning the types of strategies:

The intent of data collection is to obtain information on all types of strategies The researcher does not choose to focus on one specific category of strategy (metacognitive strategies, cognitive strategies, etc.) or on a specific strategy (self- monitoring, etc.)

Concerning the focus on language skills

In fact, the focus of research on learning strategies might be on all four language skills (listening, speaking, reading and writing) or on one or more language modalities (listening, speaking, reading, writing or some combination of these) However, in this research, we chose to focus on all the four skills because many of the language learning tasks and activities are crossed modalities Respondents were asked to describe their strategies in general in second language acquisition Only gender differences in language learning strategies were taken into consideration

Target population

The research will be carried out on 72 second year students at a university in Hanoi

Of these 72 students, there are 27 male students and 45 females They are from 19

to 21 years of age Most of them have studied English for at least five years (3 years

at upper- secondary school and 2 years at university) These students are confident, dynamic, and lively They have high motivation for their study

I.4 Methods of study

Questionnaires

In this research, Oxford’s Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL)- version 7.0 (Oxford, 1990) was chosen to investigate learners’ use of learning strategies This particular framework was adopted for its comprehensiveness and high reliability (Oxford, 1996a) A questionnaire consisting of 50 statements was designed based on Oxford’s framework to measure students’ level of English learning strategy use The items were grouped according to the six categories in Oxford's (1990) strategy classification systems: (a) memory strategies, (b) cognitive

strategies, (c) comprehension strategies, (d) metacognitive strategies, (e) affective strategies, and (f) social strategies

Students responded individually on a 1 to 5 scale For each statement, they had to decide whether the statement is (1)“Never true of me”; (2)“Usually not true of me”, (3) “Somewhat true of me”, (4) “Usually true of me” or (5) “Always true of me”

The whole set of questionnaire was translated into Vietnamese, piloted and carefully edited before being delivered to the students

Informal Interviews

Researchers have suggested that students are “more motivated to response in an interview because they are pleased to have someone take a personal interest in their learning processes” (O’Malley & Chamot, 1995: 94) In this research, informal interview was carried out after the questionnaires had been collected, data from questionnaires had been processed and the researcher had got an overall picture of the situation The core purpose of the interview was to get more insights into the issue, elaborate on students’ answers in the questionnaires and clarify some prominent points

I.5 Overview of the rest of the paper

The research study is divided into four main chapters Chapter one: review the literature concerning gender differences in language learning, language learning strategies, as well as gender differences in language learning strategies and give rationale for the study Chapter two describes and justifies the research methods, participants, as well as the methods of data collection and analysis Chapter three is devoted to analyzing and discussing the data collected Finally, in the last chapter-

chapter four, some recommendations are offered concerning how knowledge of language learning strategies in general and gender differences in language learning

in particular can facilitate teachers in helping students become better strategy users and more independent learners

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW

II.1 Overview about gender differences in language learning

II.1.1 Gender differences in L1 learning

In the field of language-learning research, the question of gender differences is the one that has received relatively little attention This is partly because it is taken as

an established fact that girls are superior to boys in language ability The differences are purported to stem from biological distinctions in the lateralization of function between the hemispheres of the brain (McGlone, 1980)

This is supported by the study of neuroscientists from Georgetown University Medical Center As for them, boys and girls use different parts of their brains to process some basic aspects of grammar Their study suggests that girls mainly use a system that is based around memorizing words and associations between them, whereas boys rely primarily on a system that governs the rules of language (Meville, 2006) This study also confirms that differences between males and females may be an important factor in these cognitive processes

Mccoby and Jacklin (1974) also conclude that by adolescence, girls are better in both receptive and productive verbal tasks and in both higher-level tasks (verbal analogies, comprehension of difficult material, creative writing) and lower-level tasks (fluency measures, like producing as many words as possible ending in ion)

Moreover, socially speaking, it is supposed that teachers, who think girls are better than boys in language, will spend more time on it with the girls, and the girls will probably live up to the teachers’ expectations (Wang, 2006) However, this position has occasionally been challenged

II.1.2 Gender difference in L2 learning

Several studies have discussed gender differences in L2 learning First of all, a number of studies based on self-report learning (Bacon, 1992; Ehrman & Oxford, 1989; Zoubir-Shaw & Oxford, 1995) have suggested that males and females demonstrated different preference for knowing or guessing the meaning of words

in context Zoubir-Shaw and Oxford (1995) found that males reported more often than females that “not knowing the meaning of a word impeded their thinking process or their progress” (cited in Wang, 2006: 10) Females, however, reported using significantly more compensation strategies, such as guessing and learning from context, than the males did

Bacon’s (1992) study investigates the strategies that learners use when listening to authentic L2 texts of two levels of difficulty She found that, though all learners reported made some reference to English translation while listening to both L2 texts, men reported doing so were of a larger number than women, especially with the more difficult passage The male participants’ self-reports of the strategies they used included the following: “Basically, I tried to translate as much Spanish into English as possible,” and “I have a dictionary in my head When I hear a word, I leaf through my head really fast to see if I can find out what it means in English” (cited in Wang, 2006: 11) Women investigated, by contrast, used such top-down strategies as inferring or guessing the meaning from context and bypassing English,

no matter how difficult they found the passage

In general, whether the differences are biological or the product of socialization, findings in L2 learning support the notion that there are differences in how males and females learn a L2

II.2 Overview of language learning strategies

II.2.1 Definition of language learning strategies

Looking at how language learners learn the language, several attempts have been made to define the concept of language learning strategies However, this has never been an easy task Concerning the concept of learning strategies, it is still controversial as to whether they are general approaches or specific actions and techniques; whether they are behavioural or mental or both; whether they are conscious and intentional or unconscious, etc

One of the first ideas of learning strategies was offered by Tarone (1980b) He distinguishes between production strategies, communication strategies and learning strategies Tarone (1980b) considers the first two of these “strategies of language use”, and refers to learning strategies as "an attempt to develop linguistic and sociolinguistic competence in the target language." (cited in Ellis, 1999: 530) However, as Tarone himself can observe, these distinctions are not easily applied as

it is often hard to tell the learners’ intention for learning, whether they are driven by the desire to learn or the desire to communicate (Ellis, 1999)

Unlike Tarone, Stern (1983) makes the distinction between “strategies” and

“techniques” He uses the term learning strategies to refer to “general tendencies or overall characteristics of the approach employed by the language learner”, leaving techniques to describe “particular forms of observable learning behaviours” (cited

in Ellis, 1999: 531) This is rather confusing as what Stern (1983) refers to as

“techniques” is actually what other researchers normally refer to as “strategies”

As for Chamot (1987), all techniques, approaches and actions can be included in the concept of learning strategies: “learning strategies are techniques, approaches, or

deliberate actions that students take in order to facilitate the learning, recall of both linguistic and content area information.”

Concerning the behavioural or mental nature of learning strategies, Weinstein & Mayer (1986) use the notion to refer to both “behaviours and thoughts that a learner engages in during learning that re intended to influence the learner’s encoding process.” (1986: 315), whereas for Oxford (1989), language learning strategies are “behaviours or actions which learners use to make language learning more successful, self- directed and enjoyable.” (Oxford, 1989 cited in Ellis, R., 1999: 531)

Richards and Platt (1992) also agree to include both behaviours and thoughts in the concept However, they put further emphasis on the “intentional” nature of such behaviours and thoughts According to them, learning strategies are

"intentional behavior and thoughts used by learners during learning so as to better help them understand, learn, or remember new information" (p.209) This seems to

be a continuance of Chamot’s idea of “deliberate actions”

Stern (1992) also focuses on learners’ conscious engagement in the learning process

by stating that "the concept of learning strategy is dependent on the assumption that learners consciously engage in activities to achieve certain goals and learning strategies can be regarded as broadly conceived intentional directions and learning techniques" (p 261)

In fact, it is hard to come up with the exact number of definitions of language learning strategies offered by researchers It is even more challenging to find one which is helpful to all research purposes In the hope of finding a solution to this confusion, Ellis, R (1999) offers a new approach to defining learning strategies He characterizes the main characteristics of learning strategies in the following list:

1 Strategies refer to both general approaches and specific actions or techniques used to learn an L2

2 Strategies are problem oriented- the learner deploys a strategy to overcome some particular learning problem

3 Learners are generally aware of the strategies they use and can identify what they consist of if they are asked to pay attention to what they are doing/ thinking

4 Strategies involve linguistic behaviour (such as requesting the name of an object) and non- linguistic (such as pointing at an object so as to be told its name)

5 Linguistic strategies can be performed in the L1 and in the L2

6 Some strategies are behavioural while others are mental Thus some strategies are directly observable, while others are not

7 Some strategies contribute indirectly to learning by providing learners with data about the L2 which they can then process, while others may contribute directly (for example, memorization strategies directed at specific lexical items or grammatical rules)

8 Strategy use varies considerably as a result of both the kind of task the learner is engaged in and individual learner preferences

(Ellis, 1999: 532-533)

This list offered by Ellis, R can be considered “one of the best approaches to defining learning strategies” up to now (Ellis, 1999: 532) Moreover, these

characteristics of learning strategies also lend themselves well in the context of our study Therefore, through out this study; the term “learning strategies” or “language learning strategies” will be used with reference to the characteristics mentioned above

II.2.2 Classification of learning strategies

Rubin’s (1975) and Rubin’s (1981) classification

In making lists of strategies and other features presumed to be essential for all

"good language learners", Rubin (1975) suggests that: good language learners are willing and accurate guessers; have a strong drive to communicate; are often uninhibited; are willing to make mistakes; focus on form by looking for patterns and analyzing; take advantage of all practice opportunities; monitor their speech as well as that of others; and pay attention to meaning However, these characteristics are rather desultory Little effort was made to classify the strategies into more general categories

Rubin’s (1981) first comprehensive category classifies learning strategies into two primary groups: strategies that directly affect learning (Cognitive Learning Strategies) and strategies that contribute indirectly to learning (Metacognitive Learning Strategies) These two primary categories are further subsumed into sub-groups as follows:

Table 1 Classifications of learning strategies in second language acquisition

Primary

strategy

classification

Representative secondary strategies

Monitoring • Correct errors in own/ other’s

pronunciation, vocabulary, spelling, grammar, style

Memorization • Takes notes of new items, pronounces

out loud, finds a mnemonic, writes items repeatedly

Guessing/ inductive inferencing

• Guesses meaning from key words, structures, pictures, context, etc

Deductive reasoning

• Compares native/ other language to target language

• Creates situation with native speaker

• Initiates conversation with fellow students

• Spends time in language lab, listening to

TV, etc

Production tricks • Uses circumlocutions, synonyms or

cognates

• Uses formulaic interaction

• Contextualizes to clarify meaning

Communication strategies and Social strategies are also mentioned in his later classification (Rubin, 1987) However, he considers learning strategies, communication strategies and social strategies three different types of strategies used by learners that contribute directly or indirectly to language learning Rubin’s (1987) reason for excluding communication strategies and social strategies from learning strategies is that:

Communication Strategies: “are less directly related to language learning since their focus is on the process of participating in a conversation and getting meaning across or clarifying what the speaker intended Communication strategies are used by speakers when faced with some difficulty due to the fact that their communication ends outrun their communication means or when confronted with misunderstanding by a co-speaker.”

Social strategies: “are those activities learners engage in which afford them opportunities to be exposed to and practise their knowledge Although these strategies provide exposure to the target language, they contribute indirectly

to learning since they do not lead directly to the obtaining, storing, retrieving, and using of language.” (Rubin & Wenden, 1987:23-27)

O’Malley and Chamot’s (1990) taxonomy

Basing on cognitive theory and their own research with second language learning strategies, O’Malley & Chamot (1990) built up The Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach (CALLA) to develop the academic language skills of limited English proficient (LEP) students According to them, learning strategies can be classified into three types (Chamot & O’Malley, 1987; O’Malley et al., 1985b; O’Malley & Chamot, 1990)

Metacognitive strategies, which involve executive processes in planning for learning, monitoring one’s comprehension and production, and evaluating how well one has achieved a learning objective;

Cognitive strategies, in which the learner interacts with the material to be learned

by manipulating it mentally (as in making mental images, or elaborating on previously acquired concepts or skills) or physically (as in grouping items to be learned in meaningful categories, or taking notes on important information to be remembered)

Social affective strategies, in which the learner either interact with another person

in order to assist learning, as in cooperation or asking questions for clarification,

or uses some kind of affective control to assist a learning task

More specific description of the CALLA is presented in the table that follows:

Table 2: Learning strategies taught in the cognitive academic language learning

approach (CALLA)

Metacognitive strategies

Advance organization Previewing the main ideas and concepts of the material

to be learned, often by skimming the text for the organizing principles

Advance preparation Rehearsing the language needed for an oral or written

task

Organizational planning Planning the parts, sequence, and main ideas to be

expressed orally or in writing

Selective attention Attending to or scanning key words, phrases, linguistic

markers, sentences, or types of information

Self- monitoring Checking one’s comprehension during listening or

reading, or checking one’ oral or written production while it is taking place

Self- evaluation Judging how well one has accomplished a learning

task

Self- management Seeking or arranging the conditions that help one learn,

such as finding opportunities for additional language or content input and practice

Cognitive strategies

Resourcing Using reference materials such as dictionaries,

encyclopedias, or textbooks

Grouping Classifying words, terminology, numbers, or concepts

according to their attributes

Note- taking Writing down key words and concepts in abbreviated

verbal, graphic, or numerical form

Summarizing Making a mental or written summary of information

gained through listening or reading

Deduction Applying rules to understand or produce language or

solve problems

Imagery Using visual images (either mental or actual) to

understand and remember new information or to make

a mental representation of a problem

Auditory representation Playing in back of one’s mind the sound of a word,

phrase, or fact in order to assist comprehension and recall

Elaboration Relating new information to prior knowledge, relating

different parts of new information to each other, or

making meaningful personal associations with the new information

Transfer Using what is already known about the language to

assist comprehension or production

Inferencing Using the information in the text to guess meanings of

new items, predict outcomes, or complete missing parts

Social and affective strategies

Questioning for

clarification

Eliciting from a teacher or peer additional explanation, rephrasing, examples, or verification

Cooperation Working together with peers to solve a problem, pool

information, check a learning task, or get feedback on oral or written performance

Self- talk Reducing anxiety by using mental techniques that make

one feel competent to do the learning task

This work of O’Malley and Chamot (1990) has made an important contribution to our knowledge of learning strategies It has once again helped to confirm that much

of the recent work in this area has been underpinned by a broad concept of language learning strategies that goes beyond cognitive processes to include social and affective strategies

Stern's (1992) Classification of Language Learning Strategies

According to Stern (1992:262-266), there are five main language learning strategies These are as follows:

• Management and Planning Strategies

• Cognitive Strategies

• Communicative - Experiential Strategies

• Interpersonal Strategies

• Affective Strategies

a Management and Planning Strategies

These strategies are related with the learner's intention to direct his own learning A learner can take charge of the development of his own programme when he is helped by a teacher whose role is that of an adviser and resource person That is to say that the learner must:

• decide what commitment to make to language learning

• set himself reasonable goals

• decide on an appropriate methodology, select appropriate resources, and monitor progress,

• evaluate his achievement in the light of previously determined goals and expectations ( Stern 1992:263)

c Communicative - Experiential Strategies

Communication strategies, such as circumlocution, gesturing, paraphrase, or asking for repetition and explanation are techniques used by learners so as to keep a conversation going The purpose of using these techniques is to avoid interrupting the flow of communication (Stern 1992:265)

d Interpersonal Strategies

They should monitor their own development and evaluate their own performance Learners should contact with native speakers and cooperate with them Learners must become acquainted with the target culture (Stern 1992: 265-266)

e Affective Strategies

It is evident that good language learners employ distinct affective strategies Language learning can be frustrating in some cases In some cases, the feeling of

strangeness can be evoked by the foreign language In some other cases, L2 learners may have negative feelings about native speakers of L2 Good language learners are more or less conscious of these emotional problems Good language learners try to create associations of positive affect towards the foreign language and its speakers

as well as towards the learning activities involved Learning training can help students to face up to the emotional difficulties and to overcome them by drawing attention to the potential frustrations or pointing them out as they arise (Stern 1992:266)

Oxford's (1990) Classification of Language Learning Strategies

Oxford (1990) built on earlier classifications with the hope of including virtually every strategy previously mentioned in the literature in her taxonomy She sees the aim of language learning strategies as being oriented towards the development of communicative competence She divides language learning strategies into two main classes, direct and indirect, which are further subdivided into 6 groups The strategies are organized into a hierarchical diagram as follows:

Figure 1: Diagram of a strategy system: Overview (from Oxford, 1990: 16)

Direct strategies

Indirect strategies

In Oxford's system, cognitive strategies are the mental strategies learners use to make sense of their learning, memory strategies are those used for storage of information, and compensation strategies help learners to overcome knowledge gaps to continue the communication Metacognitive strategies help learners to regulate their learning Affective strategies are concerned with the learner's emotional requirements such as confidence, while social strategies lead to increased interaction with the target language

Oxford's taxonomy of language learning strategies is shown more specifically in the following table

Table 3: Oxford’s Language Learning Strategy System (Oxford, 1990: 17)

Type Primary strategies Secondary strategies

DIRECT

STRATEGIES

I Memory A Creating mental linkages

B Applying images and sounds

C Reviewing well

D Employing action

II Cognitive A Practising

B Receiving and sending messages strategies

C Analysing and reasoning

D Creating structure for input and output

III Compensation strategies

A Guessing intelligently

B Overcoming limitations in speaking and writing

INDIRECT

STRATEGIES

I Metacognitive Strategies

A Centering your learning

B Arranging and planning your learning

C Evaluating your learning

II Affective Strategies

A Lowering your anxiety

B Encouraging yourself

C Taking your emotional temperature

III Social Strategies

A Asking questions

B Cooperating with others

C Emphathising with others

Table 4: Comparing Oxford’s (1990), Chamot & O’Malley’s (1990) taxonomy

and Stern’s (1992) taxonomy

Oxford (1990) Chamot & O’Malley (1990) Stern (1992)

Metacognitive strategies Metacognitive strategies Management and planning

Cognitive strategies Cognitive strategies

It is observable that the three taxonomies proposed bear some basic similarities The difference between Oxford’s (1990) taxonomy and the other ones lies in that she classified her heterogeneous strategies into more specific categories (Ehrman et al., 2003) In comparing Oxford’s (1990) and other taxonomies, Ellis (1999) also

considered it “the most comprehensive classification of learning strategies to date” (p 539); and as Ellis stated: “the organization of specific strategies into a hierarchy

of levels and the breadth of the taxonomy (Oxford’s taxonomy) is impressive” (Ellis, 1999: 539) It might have been for these reasons that Oxford’s (1999) taxonomy was considered superior than others and has been used widely by other researchers

For its comprehensiveness and convenience in the data analysis process, this taxonomy of Oxford (1990) has been chosen to be the basis of our research study This taxonomy and the questionnaires based on it will serve as a source of data collection for the research study

II.2.3 Role of learning strategies in language learning

Looking at the relationship between learning strategies and learning outcomes, Ellis (1999) confirmed that the “mediating role” of learning strategies is somewhat inevitable The choice of learning strategies would influence learners’ rate of acquisition and the ultimate level of achievement Learners’ success and their level

of L2 proficiency would, in turn, have effect on learners’ choice of learning strategies

Figure 2: The relationship between learning strategies and learning outcomes

Other research studies have also helped to support Ellis’s confirmation

As for Oxford (1990:1), language learning strategies " are especially important for language learning because they are tools for active, self-directed movement, which is essential for developing communicative competence."

Both O’Malley & Chamot (1990) and Lessard-Clouston (1997) also agree with Oxford (1990) on the point that language learning strategies contribute to the development of the communicative competence of the students They are tools for active, self- directed involvement needed for developing L2 communicative ability

Bialystock (1978: 71) states in his model that learning strategies are “optimal means for exploiting available information to improve competence in a second language” Therefore, the language learner capable of using a wide variety of language learning strategies appropriately can improve his language skills in a better way Metacognitive strategies improve organization of learning time, self-monitoring, and self-evaluation Cognitive strategies include using previous knowledge to help solve new problems Social/ affective strategies include asking native speakers to correct their pronunciation, or asking a classmate to work together on a particular language problem Developing skills in these areas can help the language learner build up learner independence and autonomy whereby he can take control of his own learning

In addition to improving learners’ language competence, communicative competence and learners’ autonomy, appropriate use of language learning strategies

is also reported to “result in … greater self- confidence in many instances” (Oxford, R.L.& Scarcella, R.C., 1992:63)

In reviewing current issues and research in language learning strategy instruction, Chamot (1995) also emphasized two major reasons for the significance of language learning strategies in language teaching Firstly, by examining the strategies used

by second language learners during the language learning process, educators and researchers can gain insights into the metacognitive, cognitive, social, and affective processes involved in language learning The second reason supporting research into language learning strategies is that less successful language learners can be taught new strategies, thus helping them become better language learners (Grenfell

& Harris, 1999)

Generally speaking, several studies in the field have agreed on the powerful impact

of learning strategies on the learning and teaching of foreign and second language Good choice and use of learning strategies would help learners become more independent and autonomous as well as improve learners’ language competence and communicative competence An insight into the learners’ learning process would Being aware of learners’ process of learning, teachers can better support their learners

II.2.4 Factors affecting students’ strategy choice

Important as learning strategies are, different researchers have worked to identify the contributing factors to learners’ choice of learning strategy

Bialystok (1981b) and Wenden (1987a) seem to agree on the effect of learners’ beliefs about language learning on their choice of strategies They find out that learners who emphasize the importance of learning tend to use cognitive strategies that help them to understand and remember specific items of the language, whereas learners who emphasize the importance of using the language employ few learning strategies Instead, they rely on communication strategies Learners who stress personal factors do not manifest any distinct pattern of strategy use

Learner factors such as age, aptitude, motivation, personality types, etc have also been reported as contributing factors Age emerges as a clear factor affecting the way strategies are used Studies by Oxford (1989), O’Malley and Chamot(1990) all support that children’s strategies are often simple, while older learners’ strategies are more complex and sophisticated Oh (1992) and Touba (1992) also propose that adult learners demonstrate higher use of metacognitive strategies for planning, organizing, and evaluating their own L2 learning than younger learners Others studies by Krashen, Long, Scarcella (1979), Hoefnagel- Hohle (1978), Olsen and Samuels (1973) also suggest the effect of learner’s age on the rate of second language learning, the process of second language acquisition and second language achievement

In comparison with age, aptitude does not appear to be as strongly related to strategy use However, Skehan (1989) and Leino (1982) have also noted some observable influence of aptitude on language learning strategy choice Their findings reveal that learners with higher conceptual level are better at describing their strategies than learner with low conceptual levels Oxford (1989) also claim that “it is likely that a strong relationship exists between the individual’s use of learning strategies and the individual’s learning style”, but he also admits that little research has examined the relationship (cited in Ellis, 1999: 541)

Oxford and Nyikos (1989), in a study of students of foreign languages in universities in the United States, find that “the degree of expressed motivation was the single most powerful influence on the choice of language learning strategies” (cited in Ellis, 1999: 542) The study also highlight that highly motivated learners use more strategies related to formal practice, functional practice, general study, and conversation/ input elicitation than poorly motivated learners However, it was until the mid- 1990s that the systematic study of the interrelationship between L2 motivation and language learning strategy use was initiated by Richard Schmidt, Peter MacIntyre and their colleagues (e.g MacIntyre, 1994; MacIntyre and Noels,

1996; Schmidt, Boraie & Kassabgy, 1996) Building on these research results, Schmidt and Wantanabe (2001) investigate the topic by obtaining data from over 2,000 university students in Hawaii They find evidence that motivation affects strategy use; and in general, cognitive and metacognitive strategies are most affected by motivation and the least affected strategy type is social strategies

Respecting the relationship between personality types and strategy choice, Ehrman (1990) suggests that “each personality trait is associated with “assets” and

“liabilities” where language learning is concerned” (cited in Ellis, 1999:542) He also takes the extroverts as an example They are credited with a willingness to take risks (an asset) but with dependency on outside stimulation and interaction It is, therefore, expected that extroverts should report greater use of affective and visualization strategies However, a research finding by Ehrman also shows that introverts reported significantly greater use of strategies that involved searching for and communicating meaning than did extroverts This suggests that if there are important kinks between personality types and strategy choice, they remain to be demonstrated

Learner’s personal background or learner’s level of proficiency is also reported to have close relationship with learner’s choice of learning strategies Most researchers have agreed that more proficient learners employ a wider range of strategies more efficiently than less proficient learners (Green & Oxford, 1995; Kaylani, 1996; Lan & Oxford, 2003; Oxford, 1996; Oxford & Ehrman, 1995; Philips, 1991) Ehrman (1990) and Chamot et al (1987) find the differences in both the range and the frequency of strategies use between learners of different levels, favoring professional linguists and learners with higher level of proficiency Research in Asia, such as in Thailand (Mullins, 1992), in Japan (Watanabe, 1990), and in Korea (Kim, 2000; Lee, 2000; Lee & Oh, 2001; J Park, 2001; Y Park, 1999; Yoon, Won, & Kang, 2001), also show strong, positive correlations between strategy use and EFL proficiency However, O’Malley et al.’s (1985a) study among high school students found the

opposite This may have been due to the fact that interview with beginners were conducted in their mother tongues, while those with more advances students were carried out in the second language

Besides the individual learner differences mentioned above, learners’ choice of learning strategies have also been reported to be affected by situational factors such as the target language, learner’s majors, the task that students are required to perform, the setting in which learning takes place and social factors such as gender, etc

Both Chamot et al (1987) and Politzer (1983) suggest that learning some languages results in greater strategy use than learning others Chamot et al (1987) find that students of Russian reported greater strategy use than students of Spanish Politzer (1983) reports that students of Spanish use fewer strategies than those of French and German Oxford (1989), however doubted this, reasoning that this may have been due to the fact that more able students elected to study the languages less commonly taught in schools in the US

Academic majors are also reported to affect students’ use of learning strategies Generally speaking, students majoring in humanities used more and a wider range

of strategies than those majoring in science/engineering in several studies (e.g., Lee, 1994; Park, 1999) Dreyer and Oxford (1996) and Oxford and Nyikos (1989) also show significant influences of university majors on students’ strategy use

Research studies have also found some differences between language learning strategies used by learners in a classroom and in a more natural setting Chamot et

al (1988), for example, reported that their classroom learners mentioned social and affective strategies infrequently while Wong- Fillmore (1976; 1979) reported extensive use of social strategies by young learners in a play situation This might

be because the kind of interaction that takes place in many classrooms affords little

opportunity for the use social strategies (Ellis, 1999) Moreover, there may also be differences in strategy use according to whether the classroom setting is a second or foreign language one It is reported that the FL students rely on cognitive strategies (in relation to metacognitive and social-affective strategies) to a lesser extent than the ESL students (Chamot et al., 1987 & O’Malley et al., 1985a)

A series of studies by O’Malley and Chamot and their associates also suggested that task type might have effect on strategy used It is suggested that ESL learners used highest frequency of strategies for vocabulary learning tasks and oral skills The lowest frequencies were for listening comprehension, inferencing, making an oral presentation, and engaging in operational communication (O’Malley et al., 1985a) Chamot et al (1987) and Chamot et al (1988) also provided evidence to show that task type had a marked influence on learner’s choice of both cognitive and metacognitive strategies Generally speaking, specific tasks may predispose learners

to use particular strategies, but they can not predetermine the actual strategies that will be used

Studies which have examined the relationship between gender and strategy use have come to mixed conclusions Ehrman and Oxford (1989) and Oxford and Nyikos (1989) discovered distinct gender differences in strategy use The study by Green and Oxford (1995) came to the same conclusion Ehrman and Oxford’s (1990) study, however, failed to discover any evidence of differing language learning strategy use between the sexes It might be concluded, perhaps, that, although men and women do not always demonstrate differences in language learning strategy use, where differences are found women tend to use more language learning strategies than men

Though there are still different conclusions about the relationship between gender and language learning strategies, previous literature has supported the point that

gender can have a significant impact on how students learn a language; and gender remains an important factor affecting language learning strategies

II.3 Overview of gender differences in L2 learning strategies

Regarding the general use of language learning strategies, Green and Oxford (1995) reveal that 15 out of 50 strategies on the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL; Oxford, 1990) show differences between women and men in terms of strategy use, with women using those more frequently, while only one strategy was used more often by men than women Zimmerman and Martinez-Pons (1990) also discover that girls use metacognitive strategies, such as goal-setting, planning, keeping records, and monitoring, more than boys

Lan and Oxford’s (2003) study with the Taiwanese Children’s SILL also show significant differences in strategy use between girls and boys The differences are present for 11 out of 50 strategies, with these differences in favor of greater strategy use by girls

Chang, Liu & Lee’s (2007) study with 1993 students including freshmen, sophomores, juniors and seniors at Taiwanese colleges also revealed significant differences between male and female learners in overall strategy use with male learners presented less frequently in using overall strategy than did female learners However, according to the results of six subcategories of Language Learning Strategies, significant differences did not exist in the use of memory strategies, compensation strategies, and affective strategies by gender; whereas significant differences existed in the use of cognitive strategies, metacognitive strategies, and social strategies Female learners reported using cognitive strategies, metacognitive strategies, and social strategies more often than did male learners These findings of gender differences in Chang, Liu & Lee’s research were in accordance with previous research studies (Ehrman & Oxford, 1989; Green & Oxford, 1995;

Kaylani, 1996; Noguchi, 1991; Nyikos, 1990; Oxford, 1993; Oxford & Ehrman, 1993; Oxford & Nyikos, 1989; Politzer, 1983; Sy, 1994 & 1995; Willing, 1988; Yang, 1992& 1994) According to Oxford (1993), one possible explanation might

be related to female’s social skills, stronger verbal skills, and greater conformity to academic and linguistic norms

In their study, Bacon and Finnemann (1992) also find that women use more

“private/ non- oral mode” in language learning than men For example, they rely on their L1 to make the L2 meaningful, rehearsing in their head before they spoke, guessing at what might be going on, etc

In contrast to these significant gender differences, there are also studies showing a less clear distinction in strategy use between males and females (Dadour & Robbins, 1996; Oh, 1996; Park, 1999) Kaylani (1996) found out that girls are different from boys in terms of strategy use, not because of only gender, but because of gender in relation to proficiency

Moreover, Tercanlioglu (2004) in a quantitative data analysis on gender differences

in language learning strategies used by foreign language learners in a Turkish University, report significant gender differences, favouring males in students’ strategy use These differences are pronounced in two scales of the inventory namely: students’ perceived use of all their mental processes and their satisfaction

in their organizing and evaluating their learning of the Foreign Language The result from this study is not consistent with previous studies of Oxford & Nyikos (1989), Green & Oxford (1995) This, the author explained by referring to the influence of learners’ cultural background and of the educational setting in Turkish society

Young and Oxford’s (1997) study on the strategies used by native English-speaking learners of Spanish also find no significant differences between males and females

in their use of local strategies

In summary, there are conflicting findings across the studies cited It is still controversial as to whether the differences between male and female learners’ choice of strategies are significant and whether males or females are more frequent strategy users, etc

II.4 Fitness of the study in the research area

So far, careful study of recent literature has been carried out The review has, first

of all, helped to clarify the concept of language learning strategy and what it comprises It has also confirmed the contribution of language learning strategy to learners’ language learning process More importantly, it has helped the researcher

to recognize and highlight the core factors affecting learners’ choice of language learning strategy, with gender as the “profound choice” on strategy choice

As we are moving toward a more learner-centered education, the understanding of individual learner differences in general and of gender differences in learning in particular is of great importance Proper adjustment and adaptation from the side of the teachers and effective training on the learners on such issues would probably be beneficial

Though more and more searchers are paying attention to this relationship between gender differences and language learning strategy choice, there still exist a lot of contradictions in the research results Moreover, most of the studies have been carried out in Western countries Despite the researcher’s strenuous efforts, not a single study on this issue has been identified in Vietnamese context

This study is, therefore, carried out with the hope of discovering how gender influences the choice of language learning strategies among a group of Vietnamese students Through this study, the researcher also hopes to provide an insight into this issue It is expected that this research studies will be of great interest and benefit to teachers as well as SLA researchers

CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

With the major objective of eliciting information about the differences in frequency

of language learning strategies used by students of different genders, this research employed both qualitative and quantitative approach The present chapter offers detailed description of the research approaches, the participants, the specific methods of data collection, data analysis, as well as the specific procedure of the research Justification for the use of such approaches, procedures and methods is also presented Hopefully, the chapter can provide readers with both a clear picture

of how the research was carried out and rationale for each practice

III.1 Research approach

In this study, both quantitative and qualitative approaches were employed to collect data for the research work

In defining quantitative research, Hopkins (2000) claims that quantitative research

is a methodology that aims to determine the relationship between one thing (an independent variable) and another (a dependent variable) in a population

As for Burns & Grove, quantitative method is “a formal, objective, systematic process in which numerical data are utilized to obtain information about the world" (Burns and Grove cited in Cormack, 1991:140)

Information and findings, then, can be generalized to a larger population, and direct comparisons can be made between two corpora, so long as valid sampling and significance techniques have been used Thus, quantitative analysis allows us to discover which phenomena are likely to be genuine reflections of the behaviour of a language or variety, and which are merely chance occurrences (Schmied, 1993)

O’Malley and Chamot (1995) also emphasize that the quantitative date is “far more manageable and easier to analyze” (p 94)

With such characteristics, the quantitative approach lent itself well to the research’s aims of finding out the relationship between genders and learning strategies of language learners

However, as O’Malley and Chamot (1995) states, quantitative methods like questionnaires “fail to provide the depth of information yielded in interviews” (p 94) The picture of the data which emerges from quantitative analysis is, hence, less rich than that obtained from qualitative analysis

Therefore, in this research study, qualitative research was also used in order to triangulate the data collected from quantitative research and help researchers to get some insights into the issues With the multiple data collection procedures, hopefully, the research findings would be more valid and reliable

III.2 Participants

The research was carried out among 72 students at a public university in Hanoi, Viet Nam Of these, 27 are males and 45 are females They were second- year students majoring in financing and banking

These students were chosen from 400 students in a department basing on their good scores in their entrance exam to university, their results of the language proficiency test and their IQ test at the beginning of the school year The group of student was selected to be the target population of this research firstly because of the relative number of males and females in the group More importantly, they showed rather identical features in age, major, proficiency as well as motivation level, etc Therefore, the research can, to some extent, eliminate the effects of other

contributing features and focus on the relationship between gender and language learning strategies

Students were from 19 to 21 years of age Most of them had studied English for at least five years (3 years at upper- secondary school and 2 years at university) Some particular students had studied English for nine years (four years at lower- secondary school, three years at upper- secondary school and two years at university) However, informal talks with these students revealed that the way all of them had studied at secondary school was a passive one with most of the time spent

on memorizing English rules, doing grammar exercises, translating sentences from English to Vietnamese and vice versa

Moreover, the researcher’s personal working experience with these students suggested that most of them were confident, self-motivated and lively They had high motivation for their study in general and studying English in particular

These students had to study English intensively in the first year of university with

20 hours of classroom study per week In these 20 hours, 8 hours were spent on the New Cutting Edge- Intermediate textbook to help students become familiar with everyday language use; 12 hours were spent on providing students with necessary skills and language knowledge to function well in the TOEFL PBT test at the end of the first year Besides English language lessons, students did not receive any other training in learning skills or strategies

Teachers of the programme were both those from the English Department of this university and those from other universities in Hanoi teaching under a short- term contract with the present university The researcher’s experience working with these teachers revealed that all of them are between twenty five and thirty five years old They were young and dynamic

The objective of the programme was that after one year of basic language training, students would be able to function well in academic environment, i.e listening to Economics lectures, solving problems and taking Economics tests in English etc The standardized TOEFL PBT test at the end of the first year was one of the requirements from the university to make sure that students were qualified for the course and could continue with the next stage of the programme

III.3 Methods of data collection

Questionnaires

Questionnaire research seems to be very popular among educational researchers in general and ELT research in particular (Cohen & Manion, 1989) This is because, although it is quite labour- intensive in construction and analysis, the researcher can benefit from several advantages:

• The knowledge needed is controlled by the questions; therefore it affords a good deal of precision and clarity

• Data can be gathered in different time slots: all at once in a class,

in the respondents’ own time as long as it is easy to return, at convenience when a suitable respondent happens to come along, and in different locations at different times; but in all of these the data is comparable; the questions are the same and the format is identical

(McDonough & McDonough, 1997)

O’Malley& Chamot, 1995: 94) also state that: questionnaires help “delimit the responses to information that is relevant” and “simplify data manipulation” since computers can be used for data coding and analysis

However, questionnaires also have some disadvantages Firstly, questionnaires have the bad reputation of being unreliable because sometimes the informants are just careless in responding There is also likelihood that students do not remember strategies that they have used in the past They may claim to use strategies that in fact they do not use, or may not understand the strategy descriptions in the questionnaire items Moreover, questionnaires are standardized so it is often hard to elaborate on informants’ answers or offer any further explanations and clarification

on the points in the questions that participants might misinterpret Students’ unwillingness to answer the questionnaires and the low rate of return are also other drawbacks of this method

Being aware of these drawbacks, the researcher took careful steps in carrying out the research survey (the specific process of compiling, piloting, recompiling and delivering the questionnaires will be discussed in more details in the next part of the chapter) Hopefully this can help minimize the shortcomings of questionnaires and ensure the reliability and validity of the data:

Oxford’s Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) - version 7.0

In this research, Oxford’s Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) - version 7.0 was adapted for 80 second- year students of National Economic University The reason for the researcher choosing Oxford’s (1990) taxonomy is that it is “perhaps the most comprehensive classification of learning strategies to date” (Ellis, 1994: 539) The taxonomy has also been widely used by ELT researchers Its reliability is reported as high across many cultural groups (Oxford, 1996a)

The questionnaires consisted of 50 statements designed to measure students’ level

of English learning strategy use The items were grouped according to the six categories in Oxford's (1990) strategy classification systems: (a) memory strategies, (b) cognitive strategies, (c) comprehension strategies, (d) metacognitive strategies, (e) affective strategies, and (f) social strategies

Students responded individually on a 1 to 5 scale For each statement, they had to decide whether that statement is (1) “Never true of me”; (2) “Usually not true of me”, (3) “Somewhat true of me”, (4) “Usually true of me” or (5) “Always true of me”

For the convenience of the respondents and the researcher’s purpose of getting the most accurate information about students’ language learning strategies, the whole questionnaire was translated into Vietnamese

Piloting and revising the questionnaire

The questionnaire was piloted with another group of students at intermediate level

to test whether the wordings used in the questionnaires were understandable to students or not

The researcher also asked other two students to proof- read the questionnaires and highlight the points that they did not understand The researcher, then, worked closely with these two students, clarified the ambiguous statements and paraphrased the statements in a more understandable way For potentially ambiguous statements, the researcher asked students to explain how they understood the points Changes were then made to the wording of the questionnaire to make sure it would be comprehensible to the respondents