INTRODUCTION
Background to the study
In recent decades, global cultural, social, political, and technological shifts have prompted individuals to adapt to new demands, with language learning emerging as a crucial necessity As a result, people worldwide are increasingly pursuing the acquisition of a second or foreign language to effectively navigate these changes.
In Vietnam, English language education is crucial for the country's development over the next two decades, as highlighted by the National Foreign Language Project 2020 (NFL 2020), which reflects the government's commitment to integrating Vietnam into the global community Despite significant investments in teaching resources and facilities during the project's initial phase from 2008 to 2020, the anticipated outcomes have not been achieved Research indicates that the challenges in English learning in Vietnam are largely attributed to the learners themselves.
Successful English learners employ distinct strategy patterns compared to those who struggle To enhance learning outcomes, it is essential to identify these effective strategies, integrate them into the English curriculum, and provide training for less successful learners to utilize these techniques, ultimately fostering their success in language acquisition.
The limited research on learning strategies has resulted in a lack of information regarding the approaches used by Vietnamese students, especially those studying non-English majors at the tertiary level Consequently, the educational system faces challenges in effectively identifying and addressing the needs of these learners.
2 strategies failed to create a basis for a solid learning strategies among our students, and consequently, affecting their academic achievement
Research on language learning strategies (LLSs) primarily focuses on the techniques employed by effective language learners to acquire a second or foreign language These strategies encompass methods for storing and retrieving new information, as highlighted by Rubin (1987) LLSs are divided into receptive strategies, which involve understanding messages, and productive strategies, which pertain to communication (Brown, 1994; Chamot & Kupper, 1989) O'Malley et al (1985) classified LLSs into metacognitive, cognitive, and socio-affective categories, emphasizing the significance of metacognitive strategies for planning, directing, and monitoring learning Oxford (1990) further elaborated on the importance of these strategies in language acquisition.
The effectiveness of language learning significantly hinges on the learners' ability to acquire and utilize knowledge in practical communication settings This study aims to investigate the English language learning strategies (LLSs) employed by non-English major students at Thai Nguyen University of Education (TNUE), focusing on identifying the most and least utilized strategies Additionally, it explores the relationship between the use of these strategies and factors such as gender, major fields of study, and language learning experience.
Aims of the Study
This study explores the language learning strategies employed by non-English major students in a four-year bachelor program at Thai Nguyen University of Education Additionally, it investigates the potential relationships between factors such as gender, major field of study, and language learning experience, and their influence on the use of these strategies The research addresses a gap in existing studies focusing on the overall strategies utilized by EFL learners.
This research highlights the correlation between gender, major field of study, and language learning experience, providing valuable insights for curriculum specialists, teachers, and students The findings can aid curriculum developers in creating effective materials and textbooks for English language instruction Additionally, educators can leverage the diverse language learning strategies employed by students from various majors to design lesson plans that enhance learners' English proficiency This study also promotes awareness among learners regarding the strategies they commonly use and encourages the development of new techniques to improve their language acquisition Ultimately, it contributes to the limited literature on language learning strategies among EFL learners 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 Nguyen University of Education?
2 What is the relationship between students’ genders, major fields of study, language learning experience and their uses of language learning strategies?
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 from TNUE explored diverse fields, 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 various mountainous regions, predominantly in Northern Vietnam.
Definitions of Terms
In this study, Language Learning Strategies (LLSs) are defined as the observable and unobservable behaviors or thought processes employed by TNU students to improve their specific skills and overall knowledge in learning English.
The Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL), developed by Oxford in 1990, is a tool aimed at exploring learners' language learning strategies and assessing their frequency of use It includes two versions: version 5.1, which consists of 80 items tailored for native English speakers learning a foreign or second language (ESL learners), and version 7.0, which contains 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 with English in schools prior to university enrollment This study categorizes this experience into three distinct programs: a 3-year English program, a 7-year English program, and a third group consisting of students who either did not study English or studied different languages during high school.
Significance of the Study
Research on language learning strategies in Vietnam has primarily examined how various factors—such as social influences, individual learner characteristics, motivation, and educational context—affect learners' choices in employing strategies to acquire English Most studies have concentrated on Vietnamese learners of English as a foreign language (EFL), particularly analyzing the strategies used by both successful and unsuccessful academic language learners (Do and Nguyen, 2016; Nguyen, 2016) However, there remains a limited focus on the diverse range of factors impacting language learning strategies.
Gender, learning style, learners' perceptions of class size, field of study, ethnicity, and language proficiency significantly influence the language learning strategies employed by students in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) contexts Research by Minh (2012) and Dung highlights the importance of these factors, particularly among science-oriented students, in shaping their proficiency in EFL.
The findings of this study offer valuable insights for educators, language teachers, and 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 This can enhance their instructional approaches and better align with students' learning preferences For EFL learners, the study encourages awareness of their current strategies, guiding them toward selecting more effective learning techniques Additionally, understanding the relationship between language learning strategy usage and factors such as gender, fields of study, and learning experiences will inform curriculum development and instructional practices 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
6 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 suggests that teaching someone how to fish provides a lifelong benefit, similar to how language education should empower students Instead of merely giving answers, educators should focus on teaching students strategies to find solutions independently, ultimately enabling them to take charge of their own learning journey (Griffith, 2004).
Stern (1975) identified ten key language learning strategies that characterize effective language learners He emphasized that these learners are proactive in guessing meanings, eager to communicate, and comfortable with making mistakes They balance their focus on both language structure and meaning, seize every opportunity for practice, and actively monitor their own speech as well as that of others Notably, Stern highlighted "personal learning style" as the most crucial factor 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 with learning while others succeed By understanding the strategies employed by successful learners to tackle their challenges, it is anticipated that less successful learners can develop similar approaches to improve their language acquisition.
Research conducted in 2012 revealed that some learners excel in language acquisition regardless of the teaching methods employed, while others struggle to succeed This has led researchers to characterize effective language learners by their unique personal traits, learning styles, and strategies.
According to Rubin and Thompson (1994), effective language learners share several key characteristics They proactively seek opportunities to use the language and take responsibility for their own learning Additionally, they exhibit creativity by experimenting with grammar and vocabulary These learners are willing to take risks, viewing mistakes as valuable learning experiences that guide their ongoing improvement.
Effective language learners leverage their existing linguistic knowledge, including their first language, to facilitate the acquisition of a second language Additionally, they exhibit independence in their learning process, avoiding over-reliance on teachers or others By utilizing their time wisely and engaging in self-directed activities like extensive reading, they actively enhance their language skills.
Research by Oxford (2002) highlights the significance of learner training in language acquisition, emphasizing that effective learners not only recognize the strategies they use but also excel at selecting and adapting these strategies to suit various language tasks In contrast, less effective learners may possess a similar awareness and variety of strategies but struggle to apply them effectively Therefore, it is essential to go beyond mere awareness-raising in learner training to enhance the performance of language learners.
Language Learning Strategies
The concept of 'strategy' in language learning has been explored by various scholars, with Rubin (1975) defining learning strategies as techniques that aid knowledge acquisition O’Malley and Chamot (1990) describe these strategies as specific thoughts or behaviors that facilitate comprehension and retention of new information, noting that they can become habitual through practice Oxford (1990) expands on this by stating that learning strategies are actions taken by students to improve their learning experience, making it easier, faster, and more enjoyable She emphasizes that these strategies encompass a range of behaviors to enhance learning, storage, and retrieval of information While Ellis (1994) raises questions about whether learning strategies are purely behavioral or mental, Oxford views them primarily as behavioral, highlighting their tactical nature in completing learning tasks.
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 consensus on the definition of learning strategies in second language acquisition, leading to confusion about how they differ from other learner activities Discussions often intertwine learning, teaching, and communication strategies, applying them to similar behaviors Additionally, within the realm of learning strategies, there is significant ambiguity regarding the definitions of specific strategies and their hierarchical relationships.
In this study, LLSs (Learning Strategies) encompass both observable and unobservable behaviors or thought processes that TNU students utilize 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 The literature critiques the use of the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) due to its limitations in defining, quantifying, and categorizing strategy use (Oxford, 1990) Oxford (1990) provides a summary of the characteristics of language learning strategies (LLSs) that further explores these issues.
Table 2.1: Characteristics of Language Learning Strategies
1 Contribute directly and indirectly to learning
3 Problem oriented responding to the need
5 Expand the role of language teachers
1 Enhance language learning and develop competency
6 Behaviour which are amenable to change
7 Allow learners to become more self- directed
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 the learning process and can be categorized into observable actions and techniques, as well as unobservable cognitive aspects, according to Wenden and Oxford (1990) They emphasize that LLS are problem-oriented, activated when learners face challenges Lessard-Clouston (1997) highlights the importance of learner-generated strategies, while Oxford (1990) underscores the teacher's role in this dynamic This study aims to explore the behaviors and thought processes of TNUE students in learning English, guided by the characteristics proposed by Oxford.
Classification of Language Learning Strategies
In the study of language learning strategies (LLSs), numerous scholars have attempted to define and categorize these strategies However, many of these classifications tend to align closely with one another, showing little variation Since the outset of this research, Tarone has been a key figure in this discourse.
(1980) has shed a light in classifying LLSs, she suggested two kinds of strategies: the
“strategy of language use” and the “language learning strategy.” Within the “strategy of language use”, she identified two types of strategies: communication strategies and
In her 1980 study, Tarone defined communication strategy as a collaborative effort between two speakers to reach a mutual understanding when they lack shared meaning structures While her classification of strategies is logical, practical application often blurs the lines between them Consequently, Tarone's framework is effectively complemented by a robust classification of Language Learning Strategies (LLS), which focuses on the learner's objectives in employing these strategies.
Rubin's (1987) classification of Language Learning Strategies (LLS) identifies four types, including cognitive, metacognitive, social, and communicative strategies Communicative strategies involve learners actively engaging in conversations, conveying meaning, and seeking clarification during language practice with others In contrast, social strategies focus on creating opportunities for learners to utilize the language they have acquired.
O'Malley and Chamot (1990) introduced a new classification method for learning strategies based on Anderson's (1983) cognitive theory of information processing They categorized these strategies into three main subcategories: metacognitive strategies, cognitive strategies, and socio-affective strategies, as outlined in Table 2.2.
Table 2.2: O’Malley and Chamot’s Classification of Learning Strategies (cited from Ellis 1994, p.538)
Metacognitive strategies encompass executive functions that involve planning, monitoring, and evaluating the learning process, while cognitive strategies focus on the direct management of learning tasks In contrast, social/affective strategies pertain to how learners interact with peers and native speakers This classification system is more straightforward than Tarone’s (1980) approach Nevertheless, the most widely recognized and utilized classification in Second Language Acquisition (SLA) and Foreign Language Acquisition (FLA) research is Oxford's (1990) framework, which will be discussed further.
Oxford’s (1990) Language Learning Strategy Classification
In 1990, Oxford expanded the existing classification system of language learning strategies, building upon the work of earlier researchers This comprehensive classification has become widely utilized in the field, as noted by Ellis (1994) Wakamoto (2009) emphasized the significant impact of Oxford's six-strategy classification system on the study of language learning strategies.
14 strategy questionnaire she developed, is used globally up to the present years Her classification is presented in details in Table 2.3 below:
Table 2.3: Oxford’s (1990) Language Learning Strategy Classification
Are devices used by learners to make mental linkages to enable new information especially vocabulary to be retained by learner
Placing new words into context
Are used by learners to process language and accomplish tasks
Formally practicing with sounds and writing systems
Recognizing and using formulas and patterns
Using resources for receiving and sending messages
Compensation strategies Creating structure for input and output
Are used by learners to make up for their missing knowledge They include the use of gesture, rephrasing, asking for help and making guesses
Overcoming limitations in speaking and writing
Avoiding communication partially or totally
Adjusting or approximating the message
Are used by learners to plan, organize, evaluate and monitor their own language learning
Overviewing and linking with already known material
Delaying speech production to focus on listening
Arranging and planning your learning
Identifying the purpose of a language task
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 previous research by incorporating memory and compensation strategies, highlighting the interconnectedness of learning and communication strategies (Wakamoto, 2009) Furthermore, this classification is organized hierarchically into levels, offering a comprehensive and impressive framework that distinguishes it from other taxonomies of its time.
The Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL), developed by Oxford in 1990, encompasses six key categories that have been extensively utilized in research on language learning strategies This model serves as a foundational framework for scholars exploring effective language acquisition techniques.
This study adopts Oxford’s (1990) classification system to establish a comprehensive and theoretically grounded taxonomy of language learning strategies.
Factors Affecting Language Learning Strategies Uses
2.6.1 Language Learning Strategy and Language Learning Experience
Younger learners tend to use task-specific strategies in their learning, while older learners are more flexible and utilize generalized strategies According to Ehrman and Oxford (1989), this difference in strategy use is linked to the age and learning experience of the individuals.
Older learners tend to acquire grammar and vocabulary more quickly than younger learners due to their use of more complex and sophisticated learning strategies, although this advantage does not extend to pronunciation A modified version of the SILL survey was employed 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 consistently indicates a positive correlation between the duration of English study and the use of language learning strategies (LLS) Griffith (2003) found that LLS usage frequency is linked to student proficiency levels, while Oxford and Nyikos (1989) highlighted the significant impact of years of study on strategy utilization Khalil (2005) noted that university students employ more strategies than high school students, likely due to the greater demands of fluent communication in the target language Magno (2010) reported that among 302 Korean students, social and compensation strategies were most frequently used, whereas memory and cognitive strategies were less common Additionally, longer English study durations led to increased LLS usage Al-Buainain (2010) further explored the types and frequency of LLS employed by English majors at Qatar University, contributing to the understanding of strategy application in language learning.
A study involving 120 Arab students from the Department of Foreign Languages, spanning Years 1 to 4, revealed that participants frequently employed a variety of learning strategies The findings indicated a strong inclination towards metacognitive techniques, while affective strategies were utilized the least.
Research shows a positive correlation between the use of language learning techniques and proficiency in English, suggesting that increased years of study enhance the effectiveness of these strategies, despite the lack of statistically significant differences.
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) indicated that females tend to utilize more Social and Affective Strategies, a finding echoed by Kato (2005) in her study of 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 employ a broader range of strategies Rua (2006) further examined the impact of gender on language learning success, highlighting various factors such as LLS use, achievement, and motivation The findings suggest that gender-related variables significantly influence study progress, with girls' verbal intelligence often facilitating higher levels of language mastery.
Huerta et al (2012) acknowledged that numerous studies indicate female proficiency in first language acquisition and usage, yet findings regarding second language differences between male and female learners remain ambiguous Moreover, gender is widely regarded within the research community as a crucial factor influencing language learning.
A study by Zeynali (2012) on 149 Iranian students at the Institute of Tabriz revealed significant gender differences in the use of Language Learning Strategies (LLSs) The findings indicated that female learners utilized LLSs more frequently than their male counterparts, particularly favoring social and affective strategies This highlights the profound impact of individual and social variables on the language learning process.
Gender differences in Language Learning Strategy (LLS) use during English as a Foreign Language (EFL) studies can be attributed to various factors, including socialization, which influences both social behavior and cognitive development Traditionally, foreign language learning is perceived as a predominantly female domain, potentially affecting the motivation of male students (Rua, 2006) Neurobiological perspectives also provide insight, as research by Melville (2006) indicates that males and females engage different brain areas in the language learning process A large-scale study by Chang, Liu, and Lee (2007) involving 1,758 Taiwanese college students revealed significant gender-based differences in the use of cognitive, metacognitive, and social strategies, with females utilizing LLSs more frequently than males This finding aligns with previous research highlighting females' stronger social and verbal skills, as well as their greater adherence to academic and linguistic norms (Chang et al., 2007).
Research by Ghadessy (1998) on university students at Hong Kong Baptist University revealed notable gender differences in five out of six categories of Language Learning Strategies (LLSs), with the exception of Memory Strategies In contrast, Rahimi, Riazi, and Saif (2008) presented differing findings, indicating inconsistencies in the results regarding LLSs.
20 was no relationship between LLSs and gender in their research on Persian EFL learners
Nisbet, Tindall, and Arroyo (2005) found similar results in their study of 168 third-year English majors at Hanan University, China Similarly, Minh (2012) investigated learning strategy use among male and female science students in northern Vietnam and discovered no significant differences in their use of learning strategies, both overall and by individual strategies This underscores the necessity for further research into the relationship between gender and the use of learning strategies, as previously suggested by Bremner (1999).
2.6.3 Language Learning Strategy and Major Field of Study
Gu (2002) investigated the relationship between students' academic majors and their language learning strategies and outcomes among adult Chinese EFL learners The study involved participants from both Arts and Science disciplines, revealing that academic major was a less influential factor in language learning While Science students showed slightly better performance than Arts students, the latter significantly excelled in general proficiency tests Additionally, notable differences in language learning strategies were observed between the two groups.
In McMullen's 2009 study on language learning strategies (LLSs) among Saudi EFL students, data was collected from 165 participants across three universities during the 2007–2008 academic year, utilizing Oxford’s Strategy Inventory for Language Learning The study revealed that female students employed LLSs slightly more than their male counterparts, while students majoring in Computer Science demonstrated a higher usage of LLSs compared to those in Management Information Systems.
In a study conducted by Hằng (2008) in Vietnam, the vocabulary learning strategies utilized by high school students were examined, focusing on the impact of gender and academic major The research involved 67 male and female students majoring in Mathematics and English, who completed a questionnaire based on Oxford’s (1990) Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) The findings revealed no significant gender differences in vocabulary learning strategy choices However, English major students employed the strategies outlined in the questionnaire more frequently than their Mathematics counterparts.
Nguyen (2016) utilized the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) developed by Oxford (1990) to investigate the language learning strategy (LLS) usage among 140 students, comprising both English majors and non-English majors The study revealed that metacognitive strategies were the most commonly used, while compensation strategies were the least utilized Additionally, a significant difference in strategy use was identified between the English major and non-English major groups.
Summary
Language learning involves acquiring new knowledge and developing behaviors through cognitive mechanisms similar to other types of learning It includes the memorization and recognition of linguistic patterns, as well as the application of new language items in communication While unified curricula guide language study, individuals employ unique language learning strategies (LLS) that influence their approach to tasks Research has focused on identifying and classifying these strategies, exploring why students prefer certain LLS over others and which strategies enhance language learning effectiveness Among various classification systems, Oxford’s (1990) SILL toolkit is the most widely used for assessing LLS Factors such as age, gender, major field of study, and prior language learning experience significantly impact students' choice of language learning strategies.
In sum, this chapter has mainly examined significant aspects of language learning strategies and available research works on language learning strategies It starts with
This article explores the definitions and classifications of language learning strategies as established by previous researchers It also includes a comprehensive review of related literature and research on language learning strategies conducted in Vietnam and internationally, focusing on both English as a Second Language (ESL) and English as a Foreign Language (EFL) contexts.
METHODOLOGY
Research Design
Research design is the structured framework guiding how a study is organized and executed, encompassing the methods and strategies used to address the research question (McMillan & Schumacher, 1984) According to Burns and Grove (2003, p.195), a research design is essential for ensuring that the research problem is effectively investigated.
This study aims to identify the language learning strategies employed by non-English major students and explore the relationship between these strategies and factors such as gender, major field of study, language learning experience, and language proficiency level To achieve these objectives with maximum control over potential validity threats, a descriptive research design has been selected.
Descriptive research design entails a structured approach to data collection aimed at detailing the characteristics of a specific phenomenon According to Kumar (2011), this type of research focuses on gathering data without altering any variables, ensuring an objective representation of the subject under study.
The concept of 'fitness for purpose' highlights that the objectives of research dictate its methodology and design It is crucial for researchers to clearly define their research purposes and types, as well as to create a systematic plan for data collection, including who to gather data from, the methods to use, and the timing of collection Additionally, Cohen et al (2002) emphasize that researchers should establish their research purposes and questions prior to designing the research, as these elements are fundamental in shaping the methodology and overall research design.
Subjects of the Study
A study conducted at Thai Nguyen University of Education involved 380 second-year students, comprising 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, with 40 in Mathematics, 37 in Physics, 45 in Biology, and 31 in Chemistry Most participants hail from mountainous regions in Northern Vietnam and have varying English language learning experiences due to differing high school programs (3-year and 7-year) A detailed description of the participants is provided 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 Language Learning version 7.0 (SILL) which is considered to be more
26 comprehensive in accounting for strategies used by learners in addition to a demographic questionnaire (see Appendices A & B )
The demographic questionnaire included eight items focusing on students' gender, major field of study, and language learning experience It was carefully revised by the researcher and thesis advisor to ensure an efficient format that maximizes information collection while minimizing the time required from respondents Participants spent about three minutes completing the demographic questions.
The core component of the study is the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL), developed by Oxford in 1990 This widely utilized tool features a five-point Likert scale and comprises fifty multiple-choice statements Respondents rate each statement based on their frequency of occurrence, ranging from "never or almost never true of me" to "always or almost always true of me." The SILL is recognized globally as a leading summative rating scale for evaluating language learning strategies (Oxford & Burry-Stock, 1995).
In 1995, it was observed that the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) has undergone extensive reliability and validity checks due to its frequent use in research The SILL items are user-friendly and serve as an effective tool for measuring the diverse strategies employed by learners The questionnaire items are organized into specific categories for clarity.
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
These strategies are used for linking, analysing, and classifying new information with existing schemata Cognitive strategies are responsible for deep processing, forming
27 and revising internal mental models, and receiving and producing messages in the target language (e.g., repeating, getting the idea quickly, analysing, and taking notes)
Compensation strategies are essential for language learners to bridge knowledge gaps in the target language These strategies include switching to the mother tongue, utilizing contextual clues, seeking assistance, and employing synonyms When learners encounter difficulties due to limited proficiency, they rely on these techniques to enhance their comprehension and effectively communicate in the target language.
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 of the survey, it was translated into Vietnamese by two colleagues with Master of Arts degrees in English Each translator initially rendered the SILL into Vietnamese, followed by a collaborative discussion to reconcile differences and finalize the Vietnamese version of the SILL.
According to SPSS Cronbach’s alpha results, the internal reliability coefficient in the Vietnamese SILL for a total of 50 items was 92 which was very high In other words,
28 the questionnaire was proven to be a reliable instrument in investigating students’ language learning strategy use.
Data Collection Procedures
After obtaining approval from the Thai Nguyen University of Education’s Administration Board, the SILL survey was distributed to students across selected faculties to gather data To encourage honest feedback and alleviate any anxiety, students were given one week to complete the survey anonymously A total of 400 SILL copies were administered, with 380 valid responses received, resulting in a 95% response rate The data was categorized based on three 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 selected or short answers, while participants were instructed to mark responses that reflected their personal experiences on the SILL.
Data Analysis Procedures
Preliminary analyses indicated a normal distribution of the data Descriptive statistics, including mean, frequencies, range, and standard deviation, were employed to analyze demographic data and assess students' overall strategy patterns, highlighting the most and least utilized strategy items across six categories.
Data analysis for the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) was conducted using IBM SPSS version 20.0 for Windows, employing both descriptive and inferential statistics to address the research questions Composite scores for the six components of the SILL were calculated by averaging individual item scores Descriptive statistics were utilized to provide an overview of participants' language learning strategy (LLS) usage The interpretation of mean scores followed the scales established by Oxford & Burry-Stock (1995), categorizing usage as Low (1.0 to 2.4), Medium (2.5 to 3.4), and High (3.5 and above).
The study examined the range of language learning strategies (LLS) from 3.5 to 5.0, applying Pearson correlation tests to explore relationships between six LLS categories and various factors, including gender, major field of study, and language learning experience To assess significant differences in LLS usage among male and female students, as well as between those in natural sciences and social sciences, and among students in 3-year and 7-year English programs, ANOVA analysis was conducted.
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 is 3.09, indicating that learners employ language learning strategies at a moderate level across all types.
Table 4.1: Overall Language Learning Strategy Uses
According to Oxford's (1990) categories, non-English major students exhibit a moderate range of Language Learning Strategies (LLSs), with average usage scores ranging from 3.02 for cognitive strategies (M=3.06) to 3.29 for metacognitive strategies (M=3.29) The data presented in Table 2 demonstrates that all six learning strategies were utilized by students to varying degrees, indicating that every student engaged with LLSs across these categories at a moderate level.
Table 4.2: Statistics for the SILL Categories
The analysis of strategy use among six categories reveals minimal differences in mean scores, with memory and affective language learning strategies being the least utilized by respondents This indicates that most learners do not rely heavily on memorization for language acquisition Conversely, metacognitive strategies received the highest scores, followed closely by social language learning strategies.
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 learning strategies, moderate use of 41 strategies, and low use of five strategies The frequency of these strategies ranged from a mean score of 2.10 for connecting the sound of a new English word with an image to aid memory, to a mean score of 3.71 for reflecting on their progress in learning English.
Table 4.3: Statistics for Individual Strategy
I think of relationships between what I already know and new things I learn in English 3.1184 1.04474 Medium
I use new English words in a sentence so I can remember them 2.8658 96393 Medium
I connect the sound of a new English word and an image or picture of the word to help remember the word 2.1079 1.06339 Low
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 passage quickly) then go back and read carefully 3.0421 1.06432 Medium
I look for words in my own language that are similar to new words in English 3.2921 92827 Medium
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 3.0395 1.07060 Medium
To understand unfamiliar English words, I make guesses 3.1500 1.00978 Medium
When I can' t think of a word during a conversation in English, I use gestures 3.1289 98629 Medium
I make up new words if I do not know the right ones in English 2.8368 1.03486 Medium
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 2.9763 95931 Medium
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 3.3132 99568 Medium
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 Medium
I plan my schedule so I will have enough time to 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 2.9711 95917 Medium
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 3.0132 97045 Medium
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 3.0316 1.07946 Medium
If I do not understand something in English, I ask the other person to slow down or say it again 3.5500 1.14174 High
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 Medium Valid N (listwise)
The study on TNUE non-English major students revealed that the use of learning strategies was generally moderate, prompting the researcher to analyze both the most and least frequently employed strategies According to Tables 4.4 and 4.5, all four identified strategies were categorized within the high-use range, with mean scores between 3.55 and 3.71, indicating a close alignment in their usage levels.
Table 4.4: Most Frequently Used Strategies
I try to find as many ways as I can to use my English 3.6026 1.08892 High MET 30
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 key metacognitive strategies frequently utilized by learners include actively seeking opportunities to use English, paying attention during English conversations, and reflecting on their progress in learning the language Despite recognizing the importance of English, students in Vietnam, particularly at TNUE, continue to struggle with effective learning methods This challenge is compounded by a traditional focus on exam preparation, where an exam-oriented education system influences students to prioritize passing courses over genuine language acquisition Additionally, metacognition often remains outside the awareness of many learners, highlighting a gap in their educational approach.
36 system does not really promote initiative-taking, self-direction or self-regulation on the part of the students in learning as a whole
Table 4.5: Least Frequently Used Strategies
I connect the sound of a new English word and an image or picture of the word to help remember the word
I use rhymes to remember new English words 2.4211 1.16187 Low MEM 5
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
Five language learning strategies were identified as being used infrequently: associating the sound of new English words with images to aid memory, and utilizing rhymes to enhance the retention of new vocabulary.
I engage in English conversations, read for enjoyment, and maintain a language learning diary to express my feelings These strategies focus on memory techniques, particularly in pronunciation and vocabulary, which are commonly utilized by Vietnamese English learners.
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 analysis to examine the relationship between the use of Language Learning Strategies (LLS) and various factors, including students' gender, field of study, and language learning experience This statistical method helped determine both the strength and direction of the correlation between the frequency of strategy use and these three key variables.
The calculations aimed to reveal the nature and strength of the relationship between variables, indicating whether it is positive or negative As noted by Lan (2005, p.77), "Pearson correlations cannot be used when one of the two variables of interest is nominal (categorical), such as gender," although there are non-parametric correlation techniques suitable for nominal or ordinal variables It is essential to remember that while correlation illustrates relationships, it does not imply causation.
Table 4.6 highlights significant correlations between strategy use frequency across six categories and three factors, with the strongest correlation observed between metacognitive strategies and language learning experience at 21 Additionally, a notable correlation of 10 was found between overall strategy use and gender These findings indicate that students with more extensive English study experience are more likely to employ metacognitive strategies compared to those with less experience.
No correlations were found between students’ major field of study and strategies in 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 10** -.018 030
Gender Major field of study
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)
The Pearson correlation results indicate a significant correlation of 63 between gender and the major field of study 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
Gender Major field of study
Language Learning Experience Gender Pearson Correlation 1 634 ** -.086
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 study examines five factors, including overall strategy use and the use of six specific strategy categories, all 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 Overall Strategy Between Groups 010 1 010 039 844
Sum of Squares df Mean
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 ≥ 000).
Discussion
Research indicates that TNUE non-English majors utilize language learning strategies (LLSs) at a medium level, with four strategies employed at a high level and five at a low level The high-level strategies include MET 30, MET 32, MET 38, and SOC 45, while the low-level strategies are MEM 3, MEM 5, COG 14, COG 16, and AFF 43 This highlights the significance of LLSs for Vietnamese university students, as they not only aid in comprehending classroom lessons but also enhance language skills and expand knowledge beyond the classroom Previous studies have supported these findings (Green & Oxford, 1995; Kojic-Sabo & Lightbown).
In 1999, research identified three strategy categories with high usage, notably compensation strategies, which achieved an impressive mean score of 4.7 This suggests that students frequently employed these strategies to overcome gaps in their linguistic knowledge and address communication challenges The findings imply that the ESL context may offer more opportunities and a greater necessity for strategy utilization compared to the EFL context.
In an EFL context, students face limitations in their exposure to English, both in terms of time and opportunities for practice Additionally, there is often a lack of immediate need for communication in English, which hinders their learning experience These observations align with the findings of Minh (2012).
Research on language learning strategies (LLSs) has shown that female students often utilize certain strategies, particularly social ones, more frequently than males (Ehrman and Oxford, 1989; 1990; Oxford and Nyikos, 1989; Tercanlioglu, 2004; Ok, 2005) However, the current study's findings do not align with earlier studies that indicated a strong connection between gender and strategy use Some scholars, such as Carroll (1967) and Walker and Perry (1978), suggest that there are no significant gender differences in language learning strategies (Peng, 2001) The literature presents a mixed picture, with some studies confirming the relationship between gender and LLSs (Ehrman and Oxford, 1989; O’Malley and Chamot, 1990; Oxford, 1993), while others challenge it (Oxford and Nyikos, 1989; Kaylani, 1996).
Research has shown that females tend to utilize language learning strategies (LLSs) more frequently and diversely than males, as noted by Zeynali (2012) and earlier studies from 2007 However, Teh et al (2009) argued that while females predominantly engage in social LLSs, males exhibit a broader range of LLS usage This ongoing discussion is supported by findings from Huerta et al (2012) and Gardner & Lambert, highlighting the differing approaches to language learning between genders.
Research indicates that while females tend to excel in positive emotional aspects of language learning, males outperform in other areas However, a study by Huerta et al (2012) found that both genders exhibit similar patterns in language learning strategy (LLS) usage, suggesting that gender differences do not account for variations in LLS use across different study samples.
In the context of science-oriented students at tertiary level in Viet Nam, Minh’s
(2012) study also revealed a slight relationship between gender of students and their choices of strategy use However, he did find a minor significant difference in use of
Research indicates that female students utilize language learning strategies (LLS) more frequently than male students, highlighting a potential gender difference in language proficiency approaches However, theorizing the impact of gender on language learning is complicated by the cultural nuances associated with gender, which were not significantly addressed by participants during qualitative interviews This suggests that further investigation into the role of gender in foreign language acquisition is necessary Consequently, any findings related to gender's influence on LLS should be approached with caution, considering that additional sociodemographic and individual factors also play a critical role in determining LLS usage.
Research has shown that students from various academic disciplines employ different language learning strategies, with studies by Politzer and McGroarty (1985), Mochizuki (1999), Peacock and Ho (2003), and Minh (2012) highlighting that English majors utilize these strategies more extensively than their peers in other fields Additionally, recent findings indicate a significant disparity in strategy use between students in the natural sciences and those in the social sciences.
A factor which could possibly be drawn out to explain such significant differences as hypothesized by the researcher is the learning style Gardner and Miller (1999, p
Learning styles refer to the preferences learners have for acquiring a language, which can vary significantly between different fields of study For instance, students in natural sciences often approach their learning in a logical manner, while those in social sciences are more inclined to apply knowledge gained from textbooks and lectures This distinction highlights the diverse ways in which learners engage with language learning based on their academic disciplines.
Research indicates that individuals with extensive language learning experience tend to utilize metacognitive strategies more frequently, as shown by Pearson correlation results Supporting this, Kojic-Sabo and Lightbown (1999) highlighted that students with greater language learning backgrounds engage in more frequent and sophisticated strategy use.
Research indicates a strong correlation between language learning strategies (LLSs) and proficiency levels, as higher proficiency learners tend to employ more effective strategies compared to their lower proficiency counterparts (Gu & Johnson, 1996) This study reinforces the idea that the use of LLSs is closely linked to both language learning experience and overall achievement in language acquisition.
Research into language learning strategies reveals valuable insights, yet a unified framework remains elusive due to varying study contexts, research methods, and learner characteristics (Aljuaid, 2015) While participants in this study prioritized metacognitive learning strategies, the data does not conclusively link specific strategies to particular proficiency levels.
