Background to the study
Language learning strategies (LLSs) are essential tools that enhance the language acquisition process, as they have been shown to significantly improve learners' performance Research indicates that learners who are knowledgeable about and effectively utilize these strategies tend to achieve better outcomes compared to those who do not engage with them.
Language learning strategies (LLSs) play a crucial role in enhancing learners' autonomy and can be applied across all four language skills and various language areas, including grammar Grammar learning strategies (GLSs) specifically aid students in improving their grammar skills by encouraging self-directed and active involvement in their learning process The effective use of GLSs is linked to improved grammar mastery and increased self-confidence among learners, highlighting their significance in grammar education.
Moreover, Oxford (1990) mentioned that one of the factors influencing strategy choice was gender (p 13) Supporting this perspective, Brown (2007, p
136) considered gender to be a significant variable in strategy use, both in the case of teaching and learning grammar in English language teaching
The study at HUTECH aimed to investigate how students actively enhance their English grammar learning Lecturers at the university are encountering challenges in identifying effective teaching strategies for grammar Additionally, they are in the process of developing an assessment system for the English grammar course, highlighting the need for this research.
Statement of the problem
Achieving fluency in English grammar is a common goal among students; however, varying English proficiency levels often arise due to their diverse backgrounds from rural areas of Vietnam and differing learning strategies (Ellis, Rod, 2006) Consequently, without appropriate grammar learning strategies, students may struggle to effectively learn English grammar.
Non-major English students often face challenges in mastering grammar due to several factors While they recognize the importance of grammar strategies, they struggle with effectively applying these techniques in their studies Additionally, the variety of learning strategies can be overwhelming, as not all students are aware of which methods are most accessible or beneficial Furthermore, gender differences may influence learning styles, highlighting the need for students to understand this aspect of their education.
While numerous studies on grammar learning strategies exist in various contexts, there is a notable lack of literature specifically addressing these strategies in Vietnam, particularly at HUTECH.
The researcher is interested in examining whether there are differences in grammar-learning strategies between successful and unsuccessful students, as learning strategy use is a key factor in distinguishing students' proficiency levels, according to Oxford (1990 et al.).
Successful students tend to utilize effective learning strategies more consistently, leading to improved performance in language acquisition compared to their less successful peers Consequently, this research aims to explore the differences in English grammar learning between successful and unsuccessful students, with a focus on gender influences.
HUTECH students exhibit diverse English learning styles influenced by their varying backgrounds and proficiency levels, which hampers their adaptation to the university learning environment To meet university requirements, students must quickly master English, leading to challenges in applying grammar rules across different language skills Consequently, the researcher initiated this study to identify the specific grammar-related difficulties encountered by non-English major students in their English learning journey.
The above problems led to the researcher’s decision to conduct the current study to explore how non-English students at HUTECH employ strategies in learning English grammar.
Aims of the study
This study focused on the significance of grammar strategies in enhancing students' understanding of English grammar, particularly among non-English major students at HUTECH It aimed to explore how these strategies impact their grammar learning process.
+ to discover which strategies are most frequently used, and
This study aims to investigate the differences in grammar learning strategies based on English proficiency levels and gender among non-English major students The findings will provide valuable insights that can enhance the teaching and learning of English grammar at HUTECH.
Research questions
To achieve the above objectives, this study attempted to address two research questions as follows:
1 How strategies do non-English majored students at HUTECH mostly employ in learning English grammar?
2 Does the use of grammar learning strategies vary in terms of English proficiency levels and gender?
Scope of the study
This study focuses on grammar learning strategies among non-English majored students at Ho Chi Minh University of Technology (HUTECH), specifically within the faculties of Hospitality and Culinary, Information Technology, and Business Administration While English grammar is a widely researched area, this investigation narrows its scope to the strategies employed by students with varying English backgrounds, most of whom have previously studied English in secondary and high school The findings aim to provide insights into the current state of English grammar learning among these students at HUTECH.
Significance of the study
This study aims to explore the strategies employed by non-English major students in learning English grammar, highlighting its practical and theoretical significance Upon completion, it will serve as a valuable resource for HUTECH teachers, offering insights into effective grammar teaching strategies.
The study enhances teachers' professionalism in designing learning activities and serves as a valuable resource for university syllabus developers It provides administrators of general English courses with effective strategies for creating suitable syllabi Additionally, students will identify their challenges in learning grammar and develop a stronger interest in the subject This research equips students with meaningful grammar strategies to enhance their English skills Ultimately, it also broadens the researcher's knowledge and experience in educational research.
This study aims to serve as a valuable reference for future research on the same topic, while also enhancing the current understanding of the subject matter through its findings.
Definitions of key terms
Language learning strategies are essential activities and routines employed by learners to enhance their language acquisition process These techniques aim to improve the ability to use a second language effectively, facilitating better comprehension and communication skills.
Grammar learning strategies are the activities or ways which the students use to learn English grammar
Non-English majored students at HUTECH are individuals pursuing degrees in various fields such as IT, Business Administration, Civil Engineering, and Banking and Finance, where English is a mandatory subject in their curriculum.
Organization of the thesis
The current thesis includes 5 chapters as follows:
Chapter 1 serves as an introductory overview of the thesis, establishing the study's context It effectively outlines the background, articulates the problem statement, and defines the aims and objectives Additionally, it presents the research questions, delineates the scope, emphasizes the significance of the study, clarifies key terms, and organizes the thesis structure.
Chapter 2 of this literature review establishes the theoretical foundation for learning strategies, particularly focusing on grammar learning strategies It also examines previous studies relevant to the research problems and outlines the conceptual framework guiding the study.
Chapter 3 outlines the research methodology utilized in this study, detailing the study's location, the population involved, and the stages of data collection It also identifies two primary instruments used for data gathering: questionnaires and interviews.
Chapter 4: Results and Discussions summarizes the data obtained from questionnaires and interviews, addressing the study's research questions The findings are presented in a structured manner, followed by a scientific analysis that discusses the implications of the results.
Chapter 5 Conclusion: This last chapter summarizes the main findings of the study and provides the implications, limitations and recommendations for further research
This chapter begins by outlining the definitions and categories of learning strategies, followed by a discussion on the definitions and classifications of General Learning Strategies (GLSs) The third section focuses on strategies-based instruction, while the final part reviews previous research on Language Learning Strategies (LLSs) and GLSs.
Teaching and Learning English Grammar
Teaching English grammar
Teaching English grammar effectively requires an understanding of diverse learning styles and student proficiency levels An effective grammar teaching method enhances learners' comprehension and self-confidence by highlighting their strengths However, teaching grammar can be challenging, as traditional methods often lead to student boredom (Al-Mekhlafi, 2011) Some educators may neglect direct grammar instruction, opting instead to focus on reading and writing, which can help students pass tests and develop a foundational understanding of grammar concepts.
Grammar is essential for language, serving as the framework that allows words to be combined into meaningful expressions Mastering English grammar is crucial for learners, as it enables them to construct sentences correctly and effectively communicate Without a solid understanding of grammatical rules, learners struggle to use words appropriately and convey their thoughts clearly.
Teaching grammar is a highly debated and often misunderstood aspect of language education While some educators are indifferent, many develop a strong fixation on grammar instruction Successfully teaching English grammar to students is a challenging task that can elevate a teacher's status The effectiveness of grammar teaching methods varies based on the instructor, the students in the classroom, and the requirements of the educational system, with each approach having its own merits and criticisms.
Recent research highlights the critical role of grammar in second language acquisition, prompting a reevaluation of its significance in language education (Utari, 2017; Ji, 2018) Language teaching professionals recognize that effective grammar instruction is essential for successful language learning Various student-related factors, including motivation, attitude, educational background, experience, and learning styles, significantly influence the selection of teaching strategies (Ezzi, 2012; Adhikari, 2017; Liu & Shi, 2007).
Teaching grammar effectively requires integrating it with other classroom activities, fostering a more engaging learning environment for students Empirical studies, such as those by Harly & Swain (1984) and Lapkin, Hart & Swain (1985), emphasize the importance of focusing on meaning rather than solely on grammar accuracy The book "Teaching Grammar in the Second Language Room" critiques traditional grammar-based methods, highlighting the growing need for enhanced communication skills in foreign language education.
Learning English grammar
Research on English grammar learning strategies (GLSs) has been conducted globally to explore their usage frequency, their correlation with language proficiency and gender, as well as their overall effectiveness However, there is a notable lack of studies focusing on GLSs in Vietnam.
O'Malley and Chamot (1990) define language learning strategies in the context of English grammar as actions that learners take to enhance their language acquisition These strategies may involve selecting new information, analyzing it during encoding, evaluating the learning process, and ensuring successful outcomes Additionally, Oxford (1990) further elaborates on the concept of learning strategies, emphasizing their importance in facilitating effective language learning.
Learning strategies are techniques utilized by learners to enhance the acquisition, storage, retrieval, and application of information These specific actions aim to make the learning process easier, faster, more enjoyable, self-directed, effective, and applicable to new situations.
Traditional grammar teaching methods remain favored by many seasoned educators, despite the lack of effective grammar instruction in language lessons While there is substantial knowledge regarding effective language learning, these insights are often absent from teacher training programs and school curricula Consequently, educators tend to spend excessive time on repetitive practices with only slight modifications.
Mastering English grammar enhances students' skills and accuracy, promoting fluency and facilitating international communication (Ellis, 1996) Effective strategies for learning grammar include focusing on accuracy, fluency, restructuring, and practicing tenses To successfully learn English, students must develop four essential skills: reading, writing, speaking, and listening Receptive skills, such as reading and listening, are crucial as they involve absorbing and comprehending information.
Utilizing cooperative groups and peer guidance in English as a Lingua Franca (ELF) classes is highly effective, especially when students have varying levels of English proficiency This approach encourages learners to read and discuss stories while identifying grammatical concepts within the narratives Success in this method depends significantly on teachers' creativity and their skill in weaving grammar instruction seamlessly into all aspects of the English language classroom.
Given the mixed empirical evidence, caution is warranted when asserting a positive correlation between strategy use and achievement McDonough (1999) emphasized the complexity of this relationship, noting that the frequency and quality of strategy use do not straightforwardly correlate with language proficiency Consequently, further research is essential to establish positive links between strategy use and achievement across different contexts.
Research on the relationship between gender and language learning has garnered significant interest from scholars This section of the study will review recent findings on Gender Language Strategies (GLSs) from a gender perspective to address the objectives of this research.
Research indicates that gender significantly influences strategy choice in both learning and communication contexts (Oxford, 1990; Brown, 2007) Specifically, studies have shown that men and women employ different listening strategies, highlighting the importance of gender as a variable in strategic approach (Bacon, 1992).
Fard (2010) emphasized the importance of grammar learning strategy instruction (GLSI) in enhancing learners' use of grammar strategies and their structural knowledge development He suggested that teachers can alleviate grammar learning challenges by incorporating practices related to the strategies taught Consequently, Fard advocated for the integration of grammar learning strategies within the EFL educational framework, highlighting the necessity for explicit instruction of these strategies in regular classroom settings for EFL learners.
Research indicates that gender differences exist in the use of learning strategies, with many studies showing that females tend to utilize learning strategies more frequently than males However, some studies find no significant differences between genders in this regard, while others suggest that males may employ certain types of learning strategies more than females Given these inconclusive findings, additional research is needed in diverse settings and learning environments to better understand these gender dynamics in learning strategy use.
The role of grammar in language acquisition
Grammar has consistently been a crucial element in English language teaching and learning The Grammar Translation Method emphasizes the significance of grammar instruction (Brown, 2001; Richards & Rodgers, 2001), while the Direct Method approaches grammar inductively to enhance learners’ language skills (Thornbury, 1999) The Audio-lingual Method further underscores grammar by focusing on drilling basic patterns and memorizing dialogue structures (Brown, 2001; Richards & Rodgers, 2001) In the context of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT), grammar retains its importance, with Long (1991) advocating for the focus-on-form approach to grammar instruction The ongoing debate surrounding grammar teaching—explicit versus implicit and deductive versus inductive—highlights its enduring relevance in English education Overall, the evolution of English teaching methods reaffirms that grammar instruction remains a vital component.
Language learning strategies (LLS)
Definitions of learning strategies
Language learning strategies have been defined in various ways by researchers, with Rubin (1975) describing them as techniques that learners can effectively utilize to enhance their English learning experience According to Rubin, the successful acquisition of English relies significantly on the learners' application of these strategies O’Malley and Chamot also support this perspective, emphasizing the importance of strategic learning in language acquisition.
Language learning strategies (LLS) are defined as specific actions taken by learners to enhance their language acquisition process According to Oxford (1990), these strategies involve selecting and analyzing new information, evaluating learning outcomes, and fostering confidence in successful learning Additionally, learning strategies are operations employed by learners to facilitate the acquisition, storage, retrieval, and application of information, making the learning experience easier, faster, more enjoyable, self-directed, effective, and applicable to new situations.
Grammar remains a vital component in the widely adopted Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) approach In 1991, Long highlighted the importance of grammar instruction through his focus-on-form approach, emphasizing its necessity in language education The debate surrounding grammar teaching continues, particularly regarding explicit versus implicit and deductive versus inductive methods Overall, the review of English teaching and learning confirms that grammar instruction is still regarded as a crucial element in effective language education.
This section reviews research findings on English grammar learning in EFL and ESL contexts, highlighting the significance of grammar in language acquisition Numerous studies have been conducted to identify the Grammar Learning Strategies (GLSs) used by EFL learners and to assess the impact of these strategies on their learning outcomes.
Taking the same view, Oxford (2001) argues that the use of such strategies can account for up to 61% of the variability in English language proficiency scores, and
Chamot (2004) states that differences between more competent language learners are found in various strategies used, strategies used for tasks and relevant strategies for tasks
Oxford (1990) outlined the scope of strategy training in language learning, emphasizing key aspects such as various linguistic functions utilized in and out of the classroom, the significance of both group collaboration and individual effort, the trade-off between accuracy and fluency, the fear of making errors, the distinction between learning and acquisition, and the differences in learning a language compared to other subjects.
Incorporating learning strategy training into educational programs is essential for effective learning, as highlighted by the significance of Learning and Study Strategies (LLSs) in English language teaching Strategies-based instruction fosters learner autonomy by emphasizing the importance of understanding and effectively implementing these strategies For learners to benefit, they must recognize the value of the strategies and find them manageable Additionally, teachers can enhance their effectiveness by understanding the factors that contribute to student success and creating an environment that supports the development of successful learning strategies.
To effectively implement strategies-based instruction in language classrooms, it is essential to identify learners' potential strategies, integrate language learning strategies (LLSs) into communicative language courses, and offer additional support outside of class.
According to Oxford (1990), many educators favor explicit training for language learners, focusing on the "how to" of language study This approach aims to make language learning more meaningful, enhance collaboration between students and teachers, and provide learners with insights into their language learning options Additionally, it encourages the development and practice of strategies that promote self-reliance in language acquisition.
In conclusion, despite the various definitions proposed by researchers, they all converge on a common theme: Language Learning Strategies (LLSs) are designed to enhance and facilitate the learning process effectively.
Categories of language learning strategies
In 1990, Oxford categorized learning strategies into two primary classes: direct and indirect strategies, each comprising six strategy groups based on learners' communicative competence Direct strategies focus on engaging with the new language through memory strategies for information retention, cognitive strategies for understanding and producing language, and compensation strategies that enable language use despite limited knowledge Conversely, indirect strategies are aimed at overall learning management and include metacognitive strategies for process coordination, affective strategies for emotional regulation, and social strategies for collaborative learning.
Figure 2.1: Diagram of the Strategy System (Oxford, 1990, p 21)
According to Oxford (1990), memory strategies can be categorized into four subcategories: establishing mental connections through grouping and associating, applying images and sounds using techniques like semantic mapping and keyword usage, effective review strategies for structured retention, and utilizing actions with physical or sensory responses along with mechanical techniques.
The cognitive strategy category is divided into four subcategories, each with specific strategies aimed at enhancing learning These include training techniques such as repetition, formalizing sound and writing systems, and recognizing formulas and models Additionally, strategies for incorporating and practicing naturalistic communication involve receiving and sending messages effectively, utilizing quick ideas, and employing analytical thinking Key methods such as deductive reasoning, expression analysis, and translation are essential for processing input and output Furthermore, effective note-taking, summarizing, and highlighting are vital strategies for organizing information and enhancing comprehension.
The compensation strategy category is divided into two sub-categories, each with unique strategies Key techniques include utilizing linguistic signals and various indices for smart guessing To overcome communication barriers, individuals may switch to their native language, seek assistance, employ exploratory gestures, or avoid partial and total communication Additionally, they can select specific subjects, adjust messages, create new words, and use circumlocution or synonyms to enhance understanding.
Metacognitive strategies, the fourth category of learning strategies, are essential for enhancing focus and organization in language acquisition This category is further divided into three subcategories, which include techniques like overviewing material and connecting new information with prior knowledge Key strategies involve planning and organizing learning tasks, setting specific goals, and engaging in self-monitoring and self-assessment These approaches are crucial for effectively managing language tasks such as listening, reading, speaking, and writing, ultimately fostering a more structured and evaluative learning process.
Affective strategies, crucial for managing anxiety, are categorized into three subcategories, each with unique techniques These include methods to alleviate anxiety like progressive fatigue, deep breathing, meditation, music, and laughter Encouragement strategies involve making positive statements, embracing risks, and rewarding oneself Additionally, emotional awareness is fostered through strategies such as listening to your body, utilizing checklists, maintaining language learning journals, and sharing feelings with others.
The social strategy category is divided into three subcategories: asking questions, collaborating with others, and empathizing with others Asking questions involves strategies like seeking clarification or confirmation Collaborating with others includes working with peers and engaging with new language users Empathizing with others focuses on developing cultural understanding and recognizing the thoughts and feelings of those around us.
Oxford's research indicates that despite the numerous categories of Language Learning Strategies (LLSs), these strategies significantly enhance students' learning and proficiency Additionally, the experiences of many instructors suggest that the aforementioned strategy system is an effective tool for evaluating these strategies.
Importance of language learning strategies
Since the mid-1970s, language teaching methodology has increasingly centered on the learner, emphasizing the exploration of how they process, store, retrieve, and utilize language This shift has led to a focus on understanding the strategies language learners employ to enhance their language competence, highlighting the significance of research on Language Learning Strategies (LLSs).
According to Oxford (1990), learning strategies play a crucial role in English language teaching and learning for two main reasons Firstly, they serve as effective tools for self-study, particularly in enhancing communicative abilities Secondly, learners who employ suitable learning strategies tend to exhibit greater confidence and efficiency in their learning processes In summary, language learning strategies are vital for improving learners' self-directed learning, boosting their communicative competence, and increasing their overall proficiency and self-confidence.
Holec (1981) emphasized that effective use of learning strategies enhances self-directed learning among learners This led to the emergence of strategy instruction, a vital element in the language learning process referred to as “learning how to learn” (Weaver & Cohen, 1997) Research on learning strategies and their instruction is crucial for understanding how to approach language acquisition across various contexts (White, 2008, p.8).
The growing popularity of Language Learning Strategies (LLSs) is attributed to their significant impact on education, both in classroom settings and beyond These strategies provide valuable information that benefits both educators and students, ultimately enhancing the language learning process (Grenfell & Macaro, 2007).
In conclusion, LLSs are an integral part, and they are becoming widely recognized throughout education in general and language teaching and learning in particular.
Grammar learning strategies (GLSs)
Definitions
Despite the lack of extensive definitions for Grammar Learning Strategies (GLSs), they play a crucial role in enhancing grammar mastery, as highlighted by Oxford (1990) GLSs are specific steps that grammar learners utilize to facilitate their learning process, promoting active and self-directed engagement When learners adopt effective GLSs, they are more likely to improve their grammar skills and boost their self-confidence in language learning.
According to Oxford (1990), language learning strategies (LLSs) encompass a broad definition, which is further refined by Oxford, Rang, and Park (2007) They describe grammar learning strategies (GLSs) as deliberate actions and thoughts that learners use to enhance the ease, effectiveness, enjoyment, and efficiency of grammar acquisition and application.
Pawlak (2009) outlines six distinct features of Griffiths' grammar learning strategies, highlighting their active and conscious nature These strategies are optional tools that learners select to engage in goal-oriented activities, ultimately aimed at enhancing the grammar learning process By employing these strategies, learners can effectively manage and facilitate their grammar acquisition.
In general, GLSs are something helpful in facilitating grammar learning process and aid the grammar learning process more effectively and successfully.
Categories of grammar learning strategies
Grammar learning strategies (GLSs) are categorized in various ways by researchers, with Oxford (1990) identifying two main classes: direct and indirect strategies Direct strategies encompass memory, cognitive, and compensation strategies, while indirect strategies include metacognitive, affective, and social strategies, each further divided into subgroups O’Malley and Chamot (1990) also classified GLSs into three primary categories: metacognitive, cognitive, and socio-affective strategies Cognitive strategies involve direct analysis and problem-solving steps, metacognitive strategies focus on planning and evaluating learning processes, and social/affective strategies pertain to learner interactions with peers and native speakers.
Defending the importance of grammar learning strategies, Broady and Dwyer
(2008) drew the considerable attention to the learners’ strategies in grammar, and emphasized the necessity of putting grammar-focused strategies into action, i.e grammar learning strategy learning and teaching
The second category of General Learning Strategies (GLSs) focuses on enhancing explicit inductive second language learning by enabling learners to identify patterns and rules from input data This approach includes engaging in classroom discussions aimed at discovering rules, formulating and testing hypotheses regarding the functioning of target structures, and consulting with more proficient peers to verify the accuracy of rule interpretations.
The final category of grammar learning strategies (GLSs) focuses on explicit deductive learning, where students apply rules in various tasks assigned by the teacher This includes previewing lessons to pinpoint key grammar structures, paying close attention to the rules outlined by the teacher or course materials, and memorizing the transformations of these structures.
According to Pawlak (2009), the classification of GLSs is a useful point of departure for investigating GLSs However, Pawlak emphasized that categorizing
GLS according to instructional modes adopted a teacher-centered rather than a learner-oriented perspective, and ignored the existing taxonomies of strategies.
Previous studies on language learning strategies
Numerous studies have explored various aspects of language learning strategies, including the frequency of grammar learning strategy usage and the impact of these strategies on different language skills and areas across diverse contexts globally, including Vietnam.
In a study conducted by Oh (1992) involving 59 EFL students at a Korean university, it was found that overall strategy usage was at a medium level The metacognitive strategy category was utilized frequently, while compensation, affective, and social strategies were employed at a medium level In contrast, cognitive and memory strategies were used less frequently, indicating varying levels of strategy adoption among the students.
In a study conducted at a public university in Turkey, Tilfarliogly (2005) created a 43-item questionnaire to investigate grammar learning strategies among 425 EFL students The research aimed to examine the relationship between the use of these strategies and student achievement However, the findings revealed no significant correlation between the employment of grammar learning strategies and academic success.
Riazi and Rahimi (2005) conducted a study on 220 Iranian EFL learners to examine their use of language learning strategies, focusing on six categories: memory, cognitive, compensation, metacognitive, affective, and social, along with 50 individual strategies identified by Oxford (1990) The findings revealed that these learners were "medium" strategy users overall, utilizing metacognitive strategies most frequently, followed by cognitive, compensation, and affective strategies at a medium frequency, while memory and social strategies were used less frequently.
Wharton (2000) examined the self‐reported language learning strategy use of
678 university students learning Japanese and French as foreign languages in
A recent study conducted in Singapore explored the use of 80 language learning strategies among bilingual participants from a multicultural background, differing from previous SILL studies ANOVA was employed to examine the relationships between background variables and overall strategy use, revealing significant findings related to motivation, self-rated proficiency, and the language studied, with motivation notably interacting with the language Additionally, chi-square analysis assessed strategy use by proficiency and gender, indicating that learners with higher proficiency utilized more strategies, while men were found to use certain strategies significantly more often than women.
Tilfarlioğlu (2005) explored how language learners consciously enhance their English grammar learning through various strategies The study focused on students at the University of Gaziantep's prep school, examining the connection between their chosen grammar learning strategies and their foreign language achievement Findings indicated that there was no significant difference in the use of grammar learning strategies between high and low-performing language learners.
Another study investigating the strategy use of Korean students is Park (1997)
A study conducted with Korean university students revealed that all strategy groups were utilized at a moderate level, with metacognitive strategies being the most frequently employed This was followed by compensation, memory, cognitive, social, and affective strategies in descending order of usage.
In a study conducted by Gurata (2008) at Middle East Technical University, 176 Turkish EFL learners were examined to identify the grammar learning strategies they employed Data was gathered using a 35-item questionnaire focused on grammar learning strategies (GLSs) The findings indicated that these learners recognized the significance of mastering English grammar and utilized a diverse range of strategies in their grammar learning process.
In an experimental study conducted by Gimeno (2002), cognitive and metacognitive learning strategies were employed to teach grammar points The findings indicated that the group receiving learning strategy instruction demonstrated a greater improvement in grammar skills compared to the control group.
Politzer and McGroarty (1985) discovered a weak correlation between the use of learning strategies and grammar ability, with no significant impact of individual strategies on academic achievement Similarly, Mullins (1992) found limited significant relationships between strategy use, as measured by the SILL, and participants' performance on grammar-based entrance examinations and placement tests Additionally, Tilfarliogly conducted research on grammar learning strategies (GLSs) at a public university in Turkey, further exploring the effectiveness of these strategies in educational settings.
In 2005, a 43-item grammar learning strategy questionnaire was developed and administered to 425 EFL students to investigate the link between the use of grammar learning strategies (GLSs) and student achievement However, the study conducted by Tilfarliogly revealed no significant correlation between the use of GLSs and academic success.
In a study by Peacock and Ho (2003) involving 1,006 university students from Hong Kong, it was found that participants exhibited a medium level of strategy use The compensation category emerged as the most frequently employed strategy, followed by cognitive and metacognitive strategies, with social, memory, and affective strategies used less often.
Shamis (2003) conducted a study on the strategy use among Arab EFL English majors in Palestine, revealing that participants employed strategies at a moderate level The findings indicated that metacognitive strategies were utilized most frequently, while compensation strategies were the least commonly used.
The following table summarizes the results of the studies reviewed above to give a general picture of the pattern of LLSs use among EFL learners
Table 2.1 Summary of the results of the studies investigating LLSs use
The highest strategy category used
The lowest strategy category used
Noguchi, 1991 Japanese Medium Memory and cognitive Social
Chang, 1991 Chinese Medium Compensation Affective
Green, 1991 Puerto Rican Medium Metacognitive Affective and memory
Oh, 1992 Korean Medium Metacognitive Cognitive and memory Yang, 1994 Taiwanese Medium Compensation Other categories Merrifield, 1996 French Medium Compensation Affective
Park, 1997 Korean Medium Metacognitive Affective
Bremner, 1999 Hong Kongers Medium Compensation Affective
Wharton, 2000 Singapore Medium Social Affective
Hong Kongers Medium Compensation Memory and Affective
Shamis, 2003 Palestinian Medium Metacognitive Compensation
The reviewed studies, primarily conducted in Asia with EFL learners, reveal that participants view themselves as moderate users of learning strategies Notably, metacognitive and compensation strategies emerged as the most commonly employed, whereas affective and memory strategies were utilized the least.
Numerous researchers globally and in Vietnam have investigated the utilization of Language Learning Strategies (LLSs) and their impact on various language skills and areas.
Conceptual framework of the study
This research identifies two main categories of language learning strategies (LLSs): direct strategies and indirect strategies The direct strategies encompass memory, cognitive, and compensation strategies, while the indirect strategies consist of metacognitive, affective, and social strategies Additionally, as outlined by Oxford (1990), grammar strategies are classified into three primary groups: metacognitive strategies, cognitive strategies, and socio-affective strategies.
Based on the literature reviewed in earlier sections, the researcher has developed a conceptual framework for the study, illustrated in the diagram below.
Figure 2.2 Conceptual Framework of the study (Oxford, 1990)
This chapter outlines the methodology of the study, beginning with the research design, followed by the research site where data was collected It then details the sample characteristics and sampling methods used for participant selection Additionally, the chapter describes the research instruments utilized for data collection, culminating in an overview of the data collection and analysis procedures.
Research design
This study employs a mixed-methods approach, integrating both qualitative and quantitative research techniques (Cresswell, 2009) To address the research questions, a comprehensive collection of quantitative and qualitative data was conducted The study meticulously selected and designed instruments to effectively control and manipulate the variables under investigation By utilizing questionnaires, this research aimed to explore respondents' characteristics and perspectives on language and language learning (Brown, 2001, p 2).
In addition, the researcher carried out interviews to collect qualitative data from the students in the university to support the data collected from the questionnaire.
Research site
Ho Chi Minh City University of Technology (HUTECH) serves as the research site for this thesis, featuring 18 divisions, including both faculties and institutes The university employs over 1,200 permanent and visiting instructors, with more than 200 of them specializing in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) HUTECH operates across five campuses, with two located on Dien Bien Phu Street, one on Ung Van Khiem Street, and two in Saigon.
High Tech Park prioritizes English training to enhance the quality of labor for national modernization and industrialization At HUTECH, students can study English as either a major or a non-major Non-English majored students, particularly those in fields such as Business Administration, Banking and Finance, Hospitality, and Information Technology, engage in six English courses starting in their first year.
At HUTECH, non-English majors students have to study English from level
To graduate, students must achieve an IELTS score of 5.5, necessitating effective teaching methods at all levels of general English Many students struggle with English grammar due to a lack of understanding and application of learning strategies This research aims to assist teachers in developing essential strategies for improving grammar instruction, ultimately enhancing student outcomes in English language proficiency.
The debate surrounding grammar instruction in high schools highlights two perspectives: one advocates for its role in correcting students' existing grammatical errors, while the other emphasizes the need to consolidate prior knowledge among seniors Both viewpoints recognize the significance of formal characteristics, particularly standard written English, in grammar education Additionally, there is a shared concern that grammar teaching is currently being overlooked in high school curricula.
Sample and Sampling
This study explored the use of Grammar Learning Strategies (GLSs) among first-year students at HUTECH, driven by the researcher’s observation that students at this level tend to prioritize grammar due to their focus on general English studies.
1 and English 2) before attending classes of English for specific purpose At the time of conducting this study, the participants would finish their English 2 course in
Blaxter, Hughes, and Tight (2010) identify various sampling strategies, which are categorized into probability and non-probability sampling (p 169) This study utilized non-probability sampling, specifically convenience sampling, to select participants from three classes Out of 137 students initially involved, 130 completed and returned the questionnaires, as some were not returned or were incomplete The demographic details of the respondents are presented in the table below.
Table 3.1 Demographic information of respondents
5 Last semester’s result of English
A total of 130 first-year students from the Hospitality and Culinary, Information Technology, and Business Administration departments participated in the study The participants, aged between 19 and 21, consist of 34% males and 66% females Nearly all students have over seven years of English language education from their secondary and high school experiences.
The English proficiency levels of students were determined by their end-of-course exam scores, as indicated in their completed questionnaires Students who achieved a first-semester English score of 7.0 or higher were classified as having a high level of English proficiency, totaling 48 students.
7%), and those who had the scores of below 7.0 were called and coded students with low English proficiency level (82 students = 63%) (See Table 3.1).
Research instruments
Questionnaire
Brown (2001) highlighted the importance of strategies-based instruction in the classroom, focusing on effective methods for teaching these strategies One key approach he discussed is the implementation of a strategy inventory, with Oxford’s Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) being identified as the most effective and comprehensive tool for this purpose.
The Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL), developed by Oxford in 1990, features a comprehensive questionnaire that assesses the use of fifty language learning strategies across six key categories These categories include memory strategies for information retention, cognitive strategies for language comprehension and production, compensation strategies to bridge knowledge gaps, metacognitive strategies for learning coordination, affective strategies for emotional regulation, and social strategies for collaborative learning The SILL utilizes a five-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (never or almost never true of me) to 5 (always or almost always true of me), to quantify participants' language learning strategy usage.
Creating questionnaires is convenient for the researcher, as colleagues who are English teachers at HUTECH readily provide suggestions and insights The questionnaire is structured around six categories of grammar learning strategies, encompassing a total of 35 items These categories include memory strategies, cognitive strategies, compensation strategies, metacognitive strategies, affective strategies, and social strategies.
“I connect the sound of a new English word and an image or picture of the word to help me remember the word”
“I physically act out new English words”
“I use the English words I know in different ways”
“I make up new words if I do not know the right ones in English”
“I try not to translate word-for-word”
These sentences are not applicable because they are not related to learning English grammar We can use this questionnaire in learning English vocabulary
Skimming an English passage initially allows for a quick overview, followed by a more detailed and careful reading This approach enhances reading skills, though it does not pertain to English grammar.
While the sentences provided focus on enhancing English speaking skills, they do not contribute to learning English grammar Effective grammar learning requires a different approach that emphasizes structure, rules, and usage rather than conversational strategies like using gestures or predicting responses.
“I look for people I can talk to in English”
“I talk to someone else about how I feel when I am learning English”
The questionnaire began with an introductory section outlining the study's objectives and included a thank-you message to encourage participant engagement It was structured into three primary sections.
In part I were required to give their demographic information, including their classes, majors, ages, genders and their last semester’s result of English as well as their estimated English levels
In Part II, students responded to questions regarding strategies for learning English grammar, utilizing a Likert Scale to gather their feedback The questionnaire aimed to assess various approaches and preferences among students in mastering grammar concepts.
Questions 1 to 7 are used to ask about students’ memory strategies
Questions 8 to 16 are used to ask about students’ cognitive strategies
Questions 17 to 19 are used to ask about students’ compensation strategies
Questions 20 to 27 are used to collect information about students’ metacognitive strategies
Questions 28 to 30 are used to asked about affective strategies and the last from 31 to 35 are about social strategies
This study utilized a questionnaire to explore students' use of grammar learning strategies (GLSs) and to identify any significant differences in their application The questionnaire comprised two sections: the first gathered participants' background information, including their name, age, years of English learning, and proficiency level The second section featured 35 questions regarding GLSs, adapted from Oxford’s (1990) Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) specifically for EFL/ESL learners.
Oxford created an innovative questionnaire designed to assess the quantitative use of General Learning Strategies (GLSs) among subjects The original Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) utilized a five-point Likert scale and was based on self-reporting The items within this questionnaire were categorized into six distinct language GLSs, with each item offering five possible responses.
Never or almost never true of you
Usually not true of you
Always or almost true of you
The Strategy Inventory for Language Learning assigns scores based on the frequency of strategy use, indicating that more frequently utilized strategies receive higher scores, as demonstrated in the table below.
Table 3.2 Frequency of strategy use and corresponding scores in SILL
Frequency of Students’ Strategy Use Scores
Never or almost never true of you
Usually not true of you
Always or almost true of you
This study utilized a questionnaire to explore perspectives on Grammar Learning Strategies (GLSs) It comprised two main sections: the first collected background information such as name, age, gender, years of English learning, and proficiency level The second section featured 35 Likert-scale questions, grouped into six categories of Language Learning Strategies (LLSs), focusing on participants' attitudes toward GLSs.
This part aimed to elicit from the students which strategies they used in learning English grammar and which strategies they used most frequently in each grammar learning strategy use
To explore students' General Learning Strategies (GLSs), the researcher conducted a study using a modified version of the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL), tailored specifically for HUTECH students to effectively assess their use of GLSs.
The study utilized a questionnaire akin to the original SILL, featuring five response options for each item: "Never or almost never true of you," "Usually not true of you," "Sometimes true of you," "Usually true of you," and "Always or almost true of you." Each response corresponded to a score that quantified the frequency of strategy use, mirroring the scoring system of the original SILL.
Interview
The study utilized interviews to gain deeper insights into individuals' opinions and to validate data obtained from questionnaires To refine the interview questions, feedback was sought from my supervisor, professional colleagues, and language students Interviews are beneficial for focusing on specific issues and generating substantial data in a short timeframe (Cohen, Manion, and Morrison, 2000) According to Dawson (2009), interviews are effective for exploring particular information In this research, the interviews aimed to complement the questionnaire data, employing a semi-structured format to delve into students’ strategies The interview was crafted based on relevant literature and research objectives, consisting of 13 questions divided into two sections: A) the interviewees’ background and B) inquiries about students’ GLSs.
Data collection procedure
In May 2020, data collection for the study took place during students' leisure time, ensuring they could focus on the questionnaire The surveys were distributed during break time, and all questionnaires were completed by students in a single day, taking approximately 20 minutes to finish.
On May 27th, 2020, at 8:00 AM, I conducted interviews with five respondents in classroom B05.07 at Ho Chi Minh University of Technology I provided clear instructions regarding the study's purpose and the expected duration for answering questions The interviews took place during the break between lessons, allowing students ample time to respond I carefully recorded their answers on paper and expressed my gratitude to the participants The interviews were also recorded to ensure the completeness and accuracy of the data collected.
Data analysis procedure
The analysis of data collected from the questionnaire was conducted using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 20 The quantitative data were categorized, tabulated, and interpreted to align with the study's objectives Descriptive statistics, specifically Mean and Standard Deviation, were utilized to assess the frequency of learning strategies employed by HUTECH participants in English GLSs.
The frequency of using GLSs was assessed using a five-point Likert scale, ranging from "never true" to "always true." The mean (M) scores were categorized, with a score of 1.00 to 1.80 indicating a very low level of frequency (VL).
Rarely true/ low level of frequency (L) (M=1.81-2.60);
Sometimes true/ medium of frequency (M) (M=2.61-3.40);
Often true / high level of frequency (H) (M=3.41-4.20);
Always true/ very high level of frequency (VH) (M=4.21-5.00)
To investigate the differences in the use of Goal-Setting Strategies (GLSs) among learners, descriptive statistics such as mean scores and standard deviations were analyzed Additionally, Independent Sample T-tests and one-way ANOVA were utilized to assess variations in learning strategies between high and low English proficiency groups, as well as across genders The T-test specifically measured the significance of mean differences at a two-tailed 0.05 level (p < 0.05), providing insights into how proficiency and gender influence English grammar learning strategies.
For data collected from the interviews, “content analysis” was employed The interviewees were coded as S1 to S5.
Reliability and validity
According to Brown (2001), reliability refers to the consistency with which a questionnaire measures its intended constructs (p 144) Ensuring both reliability and validity is crucial for effective questionnaire usage, as these aspects significantly influence research methodology In this study, Cronbach’s Alpha was utilized to assess reliability, and the questionnaire was translated into Vietnamese to ensure participant comprehension during the survey The reliability and validity metrics of the questionnaire are detailed in the table below.
Table 3.3 Reliability and validity of questionnaire
The Cronbach's alpha for the internal consistency of Likert-scale items was found to be 0.895, indicating a high level of reliability that exceeds the acceptable threshold of 0.70 for research purposes, as noted by Fraenkel and Wallen.
The methods of data analysis in relation to the research questions and instruments for the whole study were summarized in Table 3.4
Table 3.4 Methods of data analysis in relation to the research questions and instrument
Research questions Instruments Data analysis
RQ1 What strategies do non-
HUTECH mostly employ in learning English grammar?
RQ2 Does the use of grammar learning strategies vary in terms of proficiency levels and gender?
Introduction
This chapter reports and interprets the findings of the research, analyzing data collected from both questionnaires and interviews The study addresses two research questions, with questionnaire results presented in tables followed by their interpretations Interview data is included to support the quantitative findings The second section engages in a discussion of the data gathered from both the questionnaire and semi-structured interviews.
Results of the study
Students’ use of strategies in learning grammar
4.2.1.1 Frequency of individual memory strategy use
The memory strategy use was composed of seven items (Items 1 to 7) The results of this category are presented in the table below
Table 4.1 Descriptive Statistics of the use of individual memory strategies
I remember a new grammar structure by thinking of its location in the book (e.g in the picture or in the dialogue), in my notebook, or on the board
3 I remember a new grammar structure by thinking of the context/situation it was used in
4 I translate new grammar rules into Vietnamese for better understanding
I write one or two sentences using the new grammar structure so that I can remember the structure
5 I draw formulas, charts or grids for the new grammar structures I learn
When I learn a new grammar structure, I try to associate it with other structures that I already know
6 I review the grammar structures I have learnt regularly
The analysis of student responses reveals that the use of grammar learning strategies (GLSs) at HUTECH ranged from medium to high frequency, with mean scores between 2.93 and 3.60 Notably, students excelled in remembering new grammar structures by recalling their location in the textbook (M = 3.60) and considering the context (M = 3.48), both of which were employed frequently In contrast, other strategies (items 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6) were utilized at a medium frequency, with mean scores ranging from 2.93 to 3.09.
The students taking part in the interview admitted that the memory strategy was useful and important for learning They also reported some reasons for that:
The memory strategy enables me to quickly learn and effectively apply grammar points to exercises, allowing me to connect new concepts with previously learned ones This approach not only enhances my understanding but also reinforces my memory, making it an invaluable tool in my language learning process.
4.2.1.2 Frequency of individual cognitive strategy use
Cognitive category included nine individual strategies from questions 8 to 16 Table 4.2 demonstrated the students’ frequency of the nine individual cognitive strategies use
Table 4.2 Descriptive Statistics of the use of individual cognitive strategies
16 When I see a new grammar structure, I try to infer the rules from the structure
15 When I see a new grammar structure, I examine the parts of that structure
9 I do grammar exercises at home 130 3.33 876
When I learn a new grammar rule, I try to classify it under a group of similar things (e.g verbs, tenses, etc.)
When I learn a new grammar structure, I compare it with my own language by thinking of its equivalent in my native language
10 I try to practice a new grammar structure in speaking
When I see a new grammar structure, I use the context/situation, the dialogue, or the picture to understand its meaning
8 I say a new grammar structure to myself several times
12 I write emails, letters or compositions to practice the newly learnt grammar structures
The data indicates that the average responses to the items range from 2.89 to 3.67 It is evident that all six individual strategies within the metacognitive category were utilized by the students, albeit at varying frequencies.
In language learning, various strategies are employed to enhance grammar comprehension and usage Among them, writing emails or letters to practice newly learned grammar structures (M=2.89) and repeating new structures to oneself (M=3.00) are commonly utilized Additionally, learners often leverage context, dialogues, or images to grasp the meaning of new grammar structures (M=3.04) Practicing these structures in speaking (M=3.13) and comparing them with equivalents in one's native language are also effective strategies Furthermore, doing grammar exercises at home (M=3.33) is frequently reported, while examining the components of new grammar structures is another valuable approach.
“When I see a new grammar structure, I try to infer the rules from the structure” were employed at a high level of frequency (M= 3.60) and (M= 3.67)
The interview data revealed that students commonly employed various strategies for learning grammar, with several positive remarks highlighting their effectiveness.
After school, I consistently engage in grammar exercises to enhance my skills I enjoy incorporating grammar points into my spoken sentences, and I make an effort to understand the reasons behind their use in specific contexts.
4.2.1.3 Frequency of individual compensation strategy use
In the compensation strategy category there are three items from items 17 to
19 The result of this category is presented in the table below
Table 4.3 Descriptive Statistics of the use of individual compensation strategies items N Mean SD
17 To understand grammar better, I read the grammar books translated into Vietnamese
19 While writing or speaking if I am not sure of a grammar structure, I try to use another structure
18 I use my own language to write grammar rules 130 3.08 939
The data presented indicates that the mean scores for the strategies range from 3.08 to 3.38, reflecting a medium level of frequency in their use Notably, strategy 17, which involves reading grammar books translated into Vietnamese, achieved the highest mean score of 3.38 In contrast, strategy 18, which pertains to writing grammar rules in one's own language, recorded the lowest mean score of 3.08.
Aligning with quantitative data, qualitative data were used to prove students’ use of compensation strategies In the interview, students showed their opinions:
To enhance my understanding of grammar, I frequently refer to Vietnamese-English grammar books to reinforce new concepts I create Vietnamese notes that correspond to English grammar points, which aids in my learning process Additionally, I strive to translate the meanings of these grammar points into Vietnamese for better comprehension.
4.2.1.4 Frequency of individual metacognitive strategy use
In the metacognitive strategy category, there were eight items (from items 20 to 27) The results of this category are presented in the table below
Table 4.4 Descriptive Statistics of the use of individual metacognitive strategies
I examine the mistakes, which my teacher has marked in a written assignment, and try to correct them
23 I always realize that good learners usually know a lot of grammar
24 I preview the grammar points that will be covered before coming to class
25 I look for opportunities to learn grammar as much as possible
22 I pay attention to the grammar rules when I speak 130 2.79 1.097 or write
20 I think about the situations in which I can use the newly learnt grammar structures
27 I always think that I will improve in learning grammar
26 I determine the grammar points that I have trouble with and make an effort to improve them
The data indicates that student responses to the strategies ranged from a mean score of 2.40 to 3.09 Specifically, strategy 26, which involves identifying challenging grammar points for improvement, was the least utilized (M=2.40), while strategy 21, focusing on correcting teacher-marked mistakes in written assignments, was the most frequently employed (M=3.09) Overall, the analysis reveals that metacognitive strategies were utilized at a moderate level, with students showing limited engagement with individual memory strategies.
The qualitative data were used to show students’ metacognitive strategies In the interview, students gave some comments as follows:
In every new lesson, I prepare grammar points and practice a variety of exercises I create scenarios to apply these new grammar concepts effectively, and I make an effort to identify and correct my own mistakes.
4.2.1.5 Frequency of individual affective strategy use
The affective strategy category consisted of three items of items 28 to 30 The result of this category was presented in the table below
Table 4.5 Descriptive Statistics of the use of individual affective strategies
28 I motivate myself to overcome the fear of making grammar mistakes
30 I write down the notes of the structures, meanings and usages of the new grammar points during the lectures
29 I encourage myself to speak English even when I am afraid of making grammar mistakes
The data indicates that students utilized various grammar learning strategies (GLSs), with mean scores ranging from 2.88 to 3.89 Notably, item 28, which states "I motivate myself to overcome the fear of making grammar mistakes," received the highest mean score of 3.89, indicating a strong usage among students In contrast, items 29 and 30 were employed at a medium level, with mean scores of 2.88 and 3.23, respectively.
There were some interesting findings from the interview Here are some examples:
To enhance my language skills, I intentionally incorporate some grammatical errors in my spoken sentences to better express my thoughts and emotions Additionally, I decorate my room with numerous notes on grammar points as a constant reminder of my learning journey I also motivate myself to overcome the fear of making mistakes when conversing with friends or teachers, fostering a more confident approach to communication.
4.2.1.6 Frequency of individual social strategy use
In the social strategy category there were five items including questions from 31 to
35 The results of this category are presented in the table below
Table 4.6 Descriptive Statistics of the use of individual social strategies
33 I study and practice grammar with my friends 130 3.79 978
34 If I do not understand my teacher’s explanation of grammar, I ask my friends for help
32 I ask English speakers or teacher to correct grammar mistakes
35 I study and practice grammar with my friends 130 2.96 866
31 If I do not understand my teachers’ explanation of the grammar points, I ask them to repeat it
The data indicates that the average responses to the questions range from 2.67 to 3.79 Notably, items 33 and 34 were the most utilized by participants, with means of 3.79 and 3.60, respectively In contrast, items 31, 32, and 35 were employed at a moderate frequency, with means of 2.67, 3.01, and 2.96.
The data collected from the interview also demonstrated students’ social strategies in learning grammar Here are some examples from the interview:
I regularly compare my grammar exercise results with friends and engage in conversation practice after learning new grammar points Additionally, I reach out to my teachers via email for detailed explanations of these concepts.
GLSs used at a high level of frequency
According to the mean values presented in Table 4.7, the frequency of students' use of GLSs was assessed, identifying the most and least frequently employed strategies The top seven strategies, which fall within the generally true range of 3.5 to 3.89, represent the most commonly used among the 35 items in the questionnaire.
Table 4.7 Most frequently-used strategies
28 I motivate myself to overcome the fear of making grammar mistakes 3.89 926
33 I study and practice grammar with my friends 3.79 978
16 When I see a new grammar structure, I try to infer the rules from the structure
7 I remember a new grammar structure by thinking of its location in the book (e.g in the picture or in the dialogue), in my notebook, or on the board
15 When I see a new grammar structure, I examine the parts of that structure
34 If I do not understand my teacher’s explanation of grammar, I ask my friends for help
3 I remember a new grammar structure by thinking of the context/situation it was used in
The strategies outlined in Table 4.7 reveal that seven frequently utilized approaches encompass affective, social, cognitive, and memory categories, specifically including one affective strategy, two social strategies, two cognitive strategies, and two memory strategies.
The use of the six categories of GLSs
Table 4.8 Descriptive Statistics of the whole strategy use and the 6 strategy categories
The analysis reveals that Affective strategies have the highest mean score of 3.33 among the six categories of General Learning Strategies (GLSs), followed closely by Compensation and Cognitive strategies, both at 3.25 Social strategies scored 3.21, while Memory strategies had a mean of 3.17 Metacognitive strategies recorded the lowest mean score of 2.81 Overall, the mean scores for these strategies range from 2.81 to 3.33, indicating that non-English majored students at HUTECH utilize all six categories of GLSs at a medium frequency level.
In summary, research findings indicate that non-English major students utilized the six categories of General Learning Strategies (GLS) with medium frequency, while they employed seven strategies from the affective, social, cognitive, and memory categories at a high frequency.
Differences of Grammar Learning Strategy Use in Terms of
Research question 2 attempted to discover whether the use of strategies in learning English grammar varies in terms of proficiency levels and gender
4.2.4.1 Low and high English proficiency groups’ use of grammar learning strategies
To investigate the differences in the use of grammatical learning strategies (GLSs) between low and high English proficiency groups, descriptive statistics were employed The mean scores for each strategy utilized by both groups were calculated, with the findings detailed in Table 4.9 in Appendix D.
The analysis presented in Table 4.9 indicates that the mean scores of high proficiency level groups and low proficiency level groups show only slight differences across all strategies For instance, in item 1, the high proficiency group's mean score is 3.22, compared to 2.91 for the low proficiency group Likewise, for question 29, the mean score for the high proficiency group is 3.00, while the low proficiency group has a mean of 2.84, highlighting minimal variation between the two groups.
To determine if the minimal difference in means between the high proficiency level group and the low proficiency level groups was statistically significant, a t-test was conducted (refer to Table 4.10 in Appendix D).
Table 4.10 indicates that the t-test values exceeded the critical value of t = 1.960 (df = infinity, p = 0.05) The specific t-test values that surpassed the tabulated threshold are detailed in the accompanying table.
Table 4.11 T-test values were larger than the tabulated value
Items t df Sig (2-tailed) Mean
The difference of the t-test values from Table 4.11 was statistically significant
The study revealed a significant difference between low and high proficiency English level groups regarding items 1, 2, 3, 4, 19, 21, and 24 (df 128, p0.05), suggesting that gender does not influence the use of most general learning strategies among students.
The questionnaire data were quantitatively analyzed, yielding results that address the research questions These findings are compared with previous studies and thoroughly discussed in the subsequent section.