How is the use of self-regulated speaking learning strategies affected by factors, namely gender, majors, proficiency, previous English learning experience, and learning environment?...1Nghiên cứu việc sử dụng chiến lược học nói của sinh viên học tiếng anh như một ngoại ngữ tại một trường đại học ở Việt NamNghiên cứu việc sử dụng chiến lược học nói của sinh viên học tiếng anh như một ngoại ngữ tại một trường đại học ở Việt NamNghiên cứu việc sử dụng chiến lược học nói của sinh viên học tiếng anh như một ngoại ngữ tại một trường đại học ở Việt NamNghiên cứu việc sử dụng chiến lược học nói của sinh viên học tiếng anh như một ngoại ngữ tại một trường đại học ở Việt NamNghiên cứu việc sử dụng chiến lược học nói của sinh viên học tiếng anh như một ngoại ngữ tại một trường đại học ở Việt NamNghiên cứu việc sử dụng chiến lược học nói của sinh viên học tiếng anh như một ngoại ngữ tại một trường đại học ở Việt NamNghiên cứu việc sử dụng chiến lược học nói của sinh viên học tiếng anh như một ngoại ngữ tại một trường đại học ở Việt NamNghiên cứu việc sử dụng chiến lược học nói của sinh viên học tiếng anh như một ngoại ngữ tại một trường đại học ở Việt NamNghiên cứu việc sử dụng chiến lược học nói của sinh viên học tiếng anh như một ngoại ngữ tại một trường đại học ở Việt NamNghiên cứu việc sử dụng chiến lược học nói của sinh viên học tiếng anh như một ngoại ngữ tại một trường đại học ở Việt NamNghiên cứu việc sử dụng chiến lược học nói của sinh viên học tiếng anh như một ngoại ngữ tại một trường đại học ở Việt NamNghiên cứu việc sử dụng chiến lược học nói của sinh viên học tiếng anh như một ngoại ngữ tại một trường đại học ở Việt NamNghiên cứu việc sử dụng chiến lược học nói của sinh viên học tiếng anh như một ngoại ngữ tại một trường đại học ở Việt NamNghiên cứu việc sử dụng chiến lược học nói của sinh viên học tiếng anh như một ngoại ngữ tại một trường đại học ở Việt NamNghiên cứu việc sử dụng chiến lược học nói của sinh viên học tiếng anh như một ngoại ngữ tại một trường đại học ở Việt NamNghiên cứu việc sử dụng chiến lược học nói của sinh viên học tiếng anh như một ngoại ngữ tại một trường đại học ở Việt NamNghiên cứu việc sử dụng chiến lược học nói của sinh viên học tiếng anh như một ngoại ngữ tại một trường đại học ở Việt NamNghiên cứu việc sử dụng chiến lược học nói của sinh viên học tiếng anh như một ngoại ngữ tại một trường đại học ở Việt NamNghiên cứu việc sử dụng chiến lược học nói của sinh viên học tiếng anh như một ngoại ngữ tại một trường đại học ở Việt NamNghiên cứu việc sử dụng chiến lược học nói của sinh viên học tiếng anh như một ngoại ngữ tại một trường đại học ở Việt NamNghiên cứu việc sử dụng chiến lược học nói của sinh viên học tiếng anh như một ngoại ngữ tại một trường đại học ở Việt NamNghiên cứu việc sử dụng chiến lược học nói của sinh viên học tiếng anh như một ngoại ngữ tại một trường đại học ở Việt NamNghiên cứu việc sử dụng chiến lược học nói của sinh viên học tiếng anh như một ngoại ngữ tại một trường đại học ở Việt NamNghiên cứu việc sử dụng chiến lược học nói của sinh viên học tiếng anh như một ngoại ngữ tại một trường đại học ở Việt NamNghiên cứu việc sử dụng chiến lược học nói của sinh viên học tiếng anh như một ngoại ngữ tại một trường đại học ở Việt NamNghiên cứu việc sử dụng chiến lược học nói của sinh viên học tiếng anh như một ngoại ngữ tại một trường đại học ở Việt NamNghiên cứu việc sử dụng chiến lược học nói của sinh viên học tiếng anh như một ngoại ngữ tại một trường đại học ở Việt NamNghiên cứu việc sử dụng chiến lược học nói của sinh viên học tiếng anh như một ngoại ngữ tại một trường đại học ở Việt NamNghiên cứu việc sử dụng chiến lược học nói của sinh viên học tiếng anh như một ngoại ngữ tại một trường đại học ở Việt NamNghiên cứu việc sử dụng chiến lược học nói của sinh viên học tiếng anh như một ngoại ngữ tại một trường đại học ở Việt NamNghiên cứu việc sử dụng chiến lược học nói của sinh viên học tiếng anh như một ngoại ngữ tại một trường đại học ở Việt NamNghiên cứu việc sử dụng chiến lược học nói của sinh viên học tiếng anh như một ngoại ngữ tại một trường đại học ở Việt NamNghiên cứu việc sử dụng chiến lược học nói của sinh viên học tiếng anh như một ngoại ngữ tại một trường đại học ở Việt NamNghiên cứu việc sử dụng chiến lược học nói của sinh viên học tiếng anh như một ngoại ngữ tại một trường đại học ở Việt NamNghiên cứu việc sử dụng chiến lược học nói của sinh viên học tiếng anh như một ngoại ngữ tại một trường đại học ở Việt NamNghiên cứu việc sử dụng chiến lược học nói của sinh viên học tiếng anh như một ngoại ngữ tại một trường đại học ở Việt NamNghiên cứu việc sử dụng chiến lược học nói của sinh viên học tiếng anh như một ngoại ngữ tại một trường đại học ở Việt Nam
INTRODUCTION
Rationale of the study
1.1.1 English learning and teaching in Vietnam
Since the economic reform known as “Đổi mới,” English has rapidly become the most important foreign language in Vietnam, often referred to as an “English language fever” (Le, 2020) With globalization, English is viewed as a passport to success and better job opportunities (Hoang, 2018) In response, the Vietnamese government launched the National Foreign Language Project 2020 (NFLP, 2020), revised in 2017 and extended to 2025, focusing on teacher development, curriculum revision, and textbook innovation (Nguyen, 2018) This approximately $500 million initiative aims to enhance English proficiency among high school and university graduates by 2020, equipping them to navigate a globalized, multilingual world Consequently, English has been made a compulsory subject at various educational levels, starting from third grade, with a goal of full implementation by 2019 (MOET, 2010; Le, 2020).
According to the EF English Proficiency Index (2017), Vietnamese individuals have shown significant improvement in English proficiency, ranking 34th out of 80 countries globally and 7th among 20 Asian nations (Hashimoto, 2018).
The Vietnamese educational system remains heavily exam-oriented, curriculum-overloaded, and teacher-centered, as highlighted by Nguyen (2013) Despite the passage of five years, challenges in English teaching and learning persist, including a lack of authentic English-speaking environments and qualified teachers Additionally, insufficient classroom resources and conditions hinder effective learning Teachers struggle to implement their training in practical settings, leading to a disconnect between the communicative approach of teaching and traditional grammar-focused evaluations Furthermore, there are growing concerns regarding the early introduction of English in the third grade (Hoang).
In a teaching and learning environment, achieving a student-centered classroom can be challenging Consequently, it is essential for students to adopt effective learning strategies and take charge of their own learning to become proficient learners.
1.1.2 The research theoretical context and the need for this study
Students learning foreign languages must develop the four essential skills: listening, speaking, reading, and writing, to effectively use the language for various purposes Speaking is often the most challenging skill for EFL students to master, as it necessitates extensive practice and a supportive language environment both in and out of the classroom (Nguyen, 2010) This aligns with the view that speaking is paramount, as it reflects linguistic fluency and integrates other knowledge forms (Ur, 1996) In today's global context, teaching speaking should focus on enhancing students' communicative abilities, enabling them to express themselves confidently and adhere to social and cultural norms in diverse communicative situations (Nguyen, 2010).
Typically, EFL students learn to speak primarily in classroom settings (Su,
In 2012, it was noted that students have limited opportunities to practice speaking English in class, relying heavily on their teachers and classmates for support Additionally, both students and teachers often lack access to a natural English-speaking environment outside of school To develop strong speaking skills, students must employ effective learning strategies, which research has shown to be crucial According to Oxford (1990), these strategies significantly enhance learners' language proficiency, self-confidence, and motivation.
About forty years ago, the first studies were carried out to investigate how language was learned by good language learners such as Rubin (1975), Stern
Research has demonstrated that successful language learners adopt specific learning styles and strategies (Duong, 2012) Studies by Chamot (2001), Cohen (1998), O’Malley (1987), and Oxford (1990) indicate that utilizing language learning strategies (LLSs) can enhance language acquisition across all proficiency levels, with advanced learners employing more metacognitive strategies Additionally, investigations by Ellis (1997) and Oxford and Nyikos (1989) sought to identify effective strategies used by proficient learners to assist those with less success Interestingly, Porte (1988) found that even poor language learners employed strategies for vocabulary acquisition that closely mirrored those of their more successful counterparts.
Numerous researchers worldwide have conducted studies on language learning strategies (LLSs) for various reasons and objectives Among them, Griffiths explored the connection between the use of these strategies and language proficiency, highlighting their significance in effective language acquisition.
(2003), Intaraprasert (2000), Oxford and Nyikos (1989), and Prakongchati, (2007) while others, including Oxford, Nyikos, and Ehrman (1988), Tran (1988), Yang
Recent studies, including those by Aljuaid (2015), Khamkhien (2010), Duong (2012), Nguyen (2013), and Tam (2013), have explored the differences in learning strategies between males and females and examined the influence of various factors such as gender, second language proficiency, socioeconomic status, majors, learning style, learning experience, and motivation on the use of language learning strategies (LLSs) However, the findings across these studies have shown significant variability.
In Vietnam, most research on language learning strategies (LLSs) primarily examines their general usage or explores the connection between strategy use, gender, and proficiency levels (Duong, 2012; Le, 1999; Nguyen, 2013; Nguyen & Ho, 2013) However, significant factors such as socioeconomic status, exposure to the target language, and the learning environment remain largely overlooked in these studies.
Research on language learning strategies (LLSs) has expanded to examine their impact on various language skills, including vocabulary, reading, writing, listening, speaking, and pronunciation In Vietnam, studies have highlighted the effectiveness of these strategies in enhancing vocabulary (Nguyen, 2014; Vu, 2016), listening (Ngo, 2015; Ngo, 2019), and reading comprehension (Nguyen & Trinh, 2011) However, there remains a significant gap in research focused on the application of strategies for improving speaking skills in Vietnam, indicating an area that requires further exploration.
Many researchers have confused strategies for learning to speak with strategies for communication, leading to a limited focus on speaking learning strategies (SLSs) compared to communication strategies Su (2012) noted that "LLS research has focused more on speaking strategies rather than strategies for learning to speak" in EFL contexts The study concluded that effective speaking skills require learners to seek resources beyond the classroom, highlighting the importance of utilizing opportunities for language practice in real-world settings Consequently, it is essential to explore the learning strategies employed to speak English both in and out of the classroom.
Duong (2012) highlighted that research on strategies for English as a Foreign Language (EFL) learners is still in its early stages, especially in Vietnam.
Recent research has shifted focus from language learning strategies to self-regulation due to criticisms regarding the definitions, categorizations, and reliability of data collection instruments related to language learning strategies (Dửrnyei, 2005; Tseng et al., 2006) Critics argue that the term "language learning strategy" is vague and inconsistent, leading to the conclusion that existing surveys are neither accurate nor reliable (Rose, 2011) In response, Dửrnyei (2005) proposed replacing the term with "learning strategy," emphasizing self-regulation This shift has led to the introduction of various self-regulation models by different researchers.
Research has evolved from earlier language learning strategies (LLS) to concepts like strategic learning and self-regulation, addressing previous criticisms (Rose, 2012) Despite facing its own critiques, self-regulation and strategy research are complementary, with self-regulation focusing on initial motivations and strategy research examining outcomes (Gao, 2006, as cited in Rose, 2011) Future studies should integrate both concepts for a comprehensive understanding (ibid) This integration has been recognized by researchers like Rose (2011) and Oxford (2011) However, in Vietnam, there is a notable lack of studies exploring self-regulation, particularly those that combine self-regulation with strategy use.
Research aims
This study investigates the types of Self-Regulated Learning Strategies (SRSLSs) utilized by EFL students at a Vietnamese university, both in classroom settings and beyond Additionally, it seeks to explore the relationship between various factors and the use of SRSLSs The findings aim to provide valuable insights into these strategies and their influencing variables.
This study aims to investigate the self-regulated strategies utilized by EFL students for enhancing their English speaking skills, focusing on the frequency of these strategies employed both in classroom settings and during independent learning outside of school.
(2) to find out if these five factors, namely gender, majors, proficiency,previous English language learning experience, and learning environment,affect the use of those strategies.
Research questions
This study, therefore, addresses the following research questions:
RQ1 What self-regulated strategies are reportedly used by EFL students to learn English speaking skills?
RQ2 What self-regulated speaking learning strategies and self-regulated speaking learning strategy groups are favoured the most and the least by EFL students?
RQ3 How frequently are the self-regulated speaking learning strategies reportedly used by EFL students?
RQ4 How is the use of self-regulated speaking learning strategies affected by factors, namely gender, majors, proficiency, previous English learning experience, and learning environment?
Scope of the study
This study aims to explore the self-regulated strategies employed by non-English major students at a university in Vietnam to enhance their English speaking skills within an EFL context Grounded in Oxford's Strategic Self-Regulated (S2R) Model (2011), which integrates learning strategies and self-regulation, the research identifies the strategies utilized by participants, their frequency of use, and their correlation with factors such as gender, major, proficiency, prior English study experience, and learning environment The S2R Model categorizes self-regulated learning strategies into six groups: Metacognitive, Cognitive, Meta-affective, Affective, Meta-Sociocultural-Interactive, and Sociocultural-Interactive strategies Employing a sequential explanatory mixed-methods approach, the study first gathers quantitative data, followed by qualitative data to deepen the understanding of the quantitative results and provide comprehensive insights into the research findings.
Significance of the study
The first significance of the current study is that it brings about more understanding of the strategies used by Vietnamese EFL students to learn speaking skills
The current study aims to explore learning strategies utilized by EFL learners both in and out of the classroom, addressing a gap in existing research that typically focuses solely on classroom settings Recognizing that language learning strategies (LLSs) are context-bound, culturally positioned, and learner-specific (Nguyen, 2013), this investigation seeks to enhance the understanding of how diverse learning environments impact students' language acquisition By examining these strategies in various contexts, the study hopes to contribute valuable insights to the existing literature on EFL learning.
This study aims to enhance the existing literature on strategic employment by exploring its relationship with various internal factors, such as gender, academic majors, language proficiency, and previous English learning experiences, as well as external factors like the learning environment Notably, previous English learning experience and learning environment have been identified in the literature as areas that have received insufficient attention.
Unlike previous studies conducted by teachers within their own classrooms, this research distinguishes itself by adopting a researcher's perspective to gather and analyze data.
The study emphasizes the necessity of utilizing qualitative data instruments to gather detailed insights into the strategies employed by students in learning English, rather than generalizing findings from a single study to diverse learning contexts.
The study validates Oxford's (2011) model of strategic self-regulation while also making a methodological contribution through the adaptation of existing tools to create a questionnaire aimed at exploring strategic self-regulation learning strategies (SRLSs) for English speaking This instrument is anticipated to be a valuable resource for data collection in future research endeavors.
Structure of the study
This thesis is structured into five chapters: Introduction, Literature Review, Methodology, Results and Discussion, and Conclusion.
Chapter 1: Introduction provides the rationale of the study After that, the research objectives and research questions are given Some expected contributions of the study are also included in this part.
Chapter 2: Literature Review examines the related literature on LLSs and
This study provides a theoretical foundation by exploring various learning theories and definitions of language learning, along with classifications of language learning strategies (LLSs) and self-directed learning strategies (SLSs) It also reviews previous research on LLSs and SLSs conducted globally and in Vietnam, highlighting the factors that influence the use of these strategies.
Chapter 3: Methodology describes the methodology that was applied in the research This part includes the research approach and design, the description of research participants and context, the data collection instruments, the procedure, and the data analysis Ethical consideration is also discussed in this chapter.
Chapter 4: Results and Discussions begins with a description of the quantitative data collection validation After that, results and discussions of the data are presented in three different sections, including quantitative results and discussions, qualitative results and discussions, and merging of the two sets of data.
Chapter 5: Conclusion gives an end to the research by making a summary of the main findings, the implications for students, teachers, and the institution, and the contributions of the study to the existing literature In the end, limitations were given, based on which some recommendations for future studies were outlined.
Summary
This chapter introduces the study by examining the current state of English teaching and learning in Vietnam, highlighting the theoretical context and the necessity of the research It outlines the research objectives that form the foundation for the research questions and discusses the anticipated contributions of the study The chapter concludes by detailing the overall structure of the research.
LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter reviews literature on language learning strategies (LLSs), speaking learning strategies (SLSs), and self-regulated learning strategies (SRLSs) to provide a theoretical framework for the current study It begins with an overview of learning theories and a summary of prior research on effective language learners and their strategies Definitions and classifications of LLSs, SRLs, and SLSs are discussed, along with a review of international studies on EFL learners from countries like Poland, Mexico, China, Malaysia, Korea, and Indonesia Additionally, the chapter highlights previous research on the EFL strategies of Vietnamese students to identify research gaps Finally, it analyzes studies to uncover factors influencing the strategies employed by learners.
This study is grounded in the Social Constructivism approach, particularly the work of Vygotsky (1978), emphasizing that learning should be self-regulated and driven by students through interaction with their diverse learning environments (Nguyen, 2013) Focusing on strategies to enhance speaking skills, it highlights the necessity for students to seize opportunities for interaction to improve their speaking abilities (Gani et al., 2015) By positioning students at the center of their language learning, the study advocates for the use of learning strategies that foster cognitive self-construction Consequently, numerous studies have been conducted globally to explore the learning strategies utilized by students in various contexts.
Constructivism theory emphasizes the individual's role in learning, viewing it as a cognitive process where learners actively build and integrate new information into their existing knowledge (Pritchard, 2008) Rooted in cognitive and developmental psychology, key figures like Piaget and Vygotsky contributed distinct yet similar approaches to Constructivism (Schunk, 2012; Nguyen, 2013) Learning is seen as a learner-driven, context-situated process (Bredo, 2006, as cited in Schunk, 2012) Piaget's cognitive constructivism highlights cognitive-developmental processes influenced by biological maturation, environmental experiences, and equilibration, which facilitates conflict resolution through assimilation and accommodation (Schunk, 2012) In contrast, Vygotsky's social constructivism underscores knowledge construction through collaborative interactions within a sociocultural context, introducing concepts like the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) and scaffolding to enhance cognitive growth (Vygotsky, 1978; Pritchard, 2008) Despite their differences, both theorists emphasize the active role of learners in the knowledge creation process, reinforcing the significance of sociocultural settings in shaping learning strategies (Nguyen, 2013; Oxford, 2017).
Constructivism emphasizes the importance of transitioning from teacher-centered to student-centered pedagogy, where students actively engage in their learning and teachers act as facilitators, co-learners, and guides (Harmer, 2007, cited in Le & Nguyen, 2022) In Vietnam, significant efforts have been undertaken to implement this shift in teaching and learning dynamics within classrooms, as highlighted by Hoang.
(2018) that English teaching in Vietnam was moved from student-centered to student-centered, in which the teacher became a facilitator in the learning process.
This study emphasizes the principles of Social Constructivism, highlighting the crucial role of learners in acquiring and constructing knowledge through interaction and scaffolding within their learning environment It focuses on how self-regulation enables learners to enhance their speaking skills by engaging in cooperative activities within a sociocultural context.
Speaking is defined as the process of constructing and conveying meaning through verbal and non-verbal symbols across various contexts (Chaney, 1998) This interactive nature of speaking is further emphasized by scholars such as Brown (1994), Burns and Joyce (1997), and Luoma (2004), highlighting its complexity and significance in communication.
Speaking is an active process of meaning-making that involves the production, reception, and processing of information (2015) As an output skill, speaking not only assesses a speaker's language proficiency but also reflects their content knowledge and the way they articulate their thoughts (Nguyen, 2010).
Understanding speaking proficiency requires examining the underlying abilities that define it, as these competencies are structured and interrelated (Torky, 2006) Various speaking taxonomies have been developed, often from a communicative perspective, emphasizing that speaking is primarily for communication This study adopts the communicative competence model proposed by Scarcella and Oxford (1992), which identifies four key elements of communicative competence: grammatical competence, sociolinguistic competence, discourse competence, and strategic competence The relationship between speaking competences and their sub-skills is illustrated in the accompanying figure.
Figure 2 1: Skills underlying speaking proficiency
(Scarcella and Oxford, 1992, cited by Torky, 2006, p 154)
According to the model, learners should try to have the four types of competences to have speaking proficiency First, grammatical competence requires
(including register, speech acts, intonation)
Use of communication strategies (for example, gestures, circumlocution, topic selection) when words are unknown; use of conversation strategies management
Coherence in speech requires students to master grammar, possess a sufficient vocabulary, and articulate their words clearly Additionally, sociolinguistic competence is essential, as learners must effectively use language in different contexts by adjusting their register, employing appropriate speech acts, and using intonation Furthermore, discourse competence involves creating coherence and cohesion in their speech Lastly, strategic competence encompasses the use of gestures, managing interruptions, seeking clarification, and selecting topics, which help speakers navigate challenges and effectively complete speaking tasks.
Becoming a proficient English speaker is challenging for EFL students due to various obstacles in their speaking activities However, by employing effective learning strategies, they can successfully navigate these difficulties and enhance their speaking skills.
To become a competent English speaker, learners must effectively apply specific learning strategies, as highlighted by Hedge (2000) Consequently, numerous studies have focused on identifying the strategies employed by good language learners (GLL) to provide valuable insights and suggestions for enhancing language proficiency among less successful learners.
The significance of language learning strategies gained traction following Rubin's 1975 study on Good Language Learners (GLL), as highlighted by Hajar (2019) and Oxford et al (2014) Rubin identified three key factors that contribute to successful language acquisition: aptitude, motivation, and opportunity.
A Good Language Learner (GLL) is characterized by their willingness to take risks in guessing and making accurate predictions, coupled with a strong desire to communicate effectively They embrace the learning process, often making mistakes as a part of their growth, and demonstrate a readiness to focus on language form Additionally, GLLs actively practice and monitor their own speech as well as that of others, all while maintaining an emphasis on understanding meaning.
In the article "What Can We Learn from the Good Language Learner?" by Stern (1975), it is highlighted that good language learners (GLL) employ effective strategies such as experimenting, planning, and organizing the new language systematically They engage in progressive revision, seek meaning, practice regularly, and utilize the language in authentic communication Additionally, GLL self-monitor their progress, create a distinct reference system for the target language, and cultivate the ability to think in that language.
Subsequent studies indicate that less successful learners can benefit from adopting the strategies utilized by Good Language Learners (GLLs), who have demonstrated the use of more effective learning techniques (Naiman et al., 1975; Oxford, 1989; Stern, 1975; Vann and Abraham, 1990) According to Chamot (2001), as referenced in Hajar, these findings highlight the importance of strategic learning in enhancing language acquisition.
METHODOLOGY
This chapter outlines the research methodology employed in the study, highlighting a sequential explanatory mixed-method design It details the sampling strategy, research context, and participant selection, followed by an overview of data collection methods, data analysis techniques, and ethical considerations.
The study is guided by the following research questions:
RQ1 What self-regulated strategies are reportedly used by EFL students to learn English speaking skills?
RQ2 What self-regulated speaking learning strategies and self-regulated speaking learning strategy groups are favoured the most and the least by EFL students?
RQ3 How frequently are the self-regulated speaking learning strategies reportedly used by EFL students?
RQ4 How is the use of self-regulated speaking learning strategies affected by factors, namely gender, majors, proficiency, previous English learning experience, and learning environment?
In my research study, I adopted a pragmatism worldview, which emphasizes understanding actions and their consequences rather than solely focusing on methodologies This approach allowed me to address the specific problems related to the SRSLSs utilized by participants and their strategic use in various contexts By employing both quantitative and qualitative data, I implemented a mixed-methods approach to effectively answer the research questions.
In recent years, the mixed-methods approach has gained popularity in social and health sciences, combining both quantitative and qualitative research to address complex problems According to Creswell (2012), this approach involves gathering, evaluating, and integrating qualitative and quantitative data within a single study or across multiple studies to enhance understanding of the research issue The primary advantage of mixed methods lies in its ability to leverage the strengths of both research types while minimizing their weaknesses, thereby providing a comprehensive and nuanced perspective on the research problem.
In mixed-methods research, it is crucial for researchers to consider key characteristics such as timing, weighting, and mixing (Creswell, 2009) Timing involves deciding whether to collect quantitative and qualitative data concurrently or sequentially Weighting refers to determining the priority of each research type, whether to emphasize one over the other or treat them equally Additionally, researchers must be mindful of how and when to mix the data, as Creswell (2009) notes that mixing can involve merging, keeping separate, or combining the two types of data in various ways (pp 207-208).
This study chose the mixed methods approach and explanatory sequential design for several reasons which are discussed in the following sections.
3.1.4 Rationale for the choice of mixed-method approach and the sequential explanatory design
In conducting research, the research design is crucial since it is a scientific systematic plan that the researcher uses to study and understand a problem (Aljuaid,
The research design selected for this study is a mixed methods approach, which is advantageous for guiding the researcher in determining the necessary data to collect, identifying the appropriate sources, and establishing the timing and methods for data collection and analysis.
Recent literature indicates that the predominant approach in language learning strategy (LLS) research has been quantitative, primarily utilizing questionnaires such as Oxford's Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) from 1990, which has faced criticism from subsequent researchers To address these concerns, a mixed-methods approach may be more suitable Gao (2004) emphasized the need to move beyond an overreliance on surveys and adopt a more qualitative, context-sensitive approach to LLS research Additionally, Rose et al (2018) examined how LLS studies have evolved in response to past criticisms, revealing a continued preference for quantitative designs while also noting a growing inclination toward qualitative methods They advocate for studies in diverse contexts to employ sample-specific data collection techniques and in-depth qualitative methods for a more nuanced understanding of language learning strategies.
The current study employed a mixed-methods approach to gain a comprehensive understanding of the research problem, responding to the growing call among researchers for the integration of qualitative methods Oxford (2011) emphasized the importance of utilizing both quantitative and qualitative methods to collect and validate language learning strategy (LLS) data Additionally, Zohrabi (2013) noted the rising popularity of mixed-method approaches, highlighting that these methods effectively leverage the strengths of both quantitative and qualitative techniques while minimizing their limitations.
The research design was shaped by the study's objectives and questions, focusing on identifying the types and frequency of speaking strategies employed by students learning English Additionally, it aimed to explore the relationship between these strategies and factors such as gender, majors, proficiency, prior English learning experiences, and learning environments Consequently, an explanatory mixed-methods research approach was deemed the most appropriate for this study.
The study employed a two-phase sequential timing approach, beginning with quantitative data collection through surveys to address the primary research questions This was followed by qualitative data collection via in-depth interviews with select survey participants, aimed at enhancing the understanding of the quantitative findings Emphasis was placed on the quantitative data, which examined the types and frequency of strategies students used to learn spoken English, as well as the relationship between these strategies and factors such as gender, majors, proficiency, prior English learning experience, and learning environment Data integration occurred during the interpretation and discussion phases, with qualitative participants chosen based on quantitative results, and the interview protocol tailored to delve deeper into students' strategies for learning to speak English as a foreign language.
In conclusion, this study adopts a pragmatism worldview and employs an explanatory sequential mixed methods research methodology Initially, a quantitative approach provides an overview of student usage of SRSLSs, followed by a qualitative method that delves deeper into the findings from the quantitative phase.
The current study employs a sequential explanatory mixed methods research design, utilizing quantitative methods to explore the strategies students use for learning to speak English, the frequency of SRSLSs (strategies for speaking and listening skills), and the impact of factors such as gender, proficiency level, major, prior English learning experience, and learning environment on SRSLSs usage Following this, qualitative methods are implemented to further enrich and clarify the quantitative findings.
This study employed a survey to effectively gather data on students' use of Student Response Systems (SRSLSs) and to explore the relationships between SRSLS usage and various factors In this research, SRSLS usage served as the dependent variable, while independent variables included gender, academic majors, proficiency levels, prior English learning experiences, and learning environments.
Interviews were conducted to gather in-depth insights into students' use of Self-Regulated Learning Strategies (SRSLSs) during speaking activities, both in and out of the classroom, aiming to enhance the qualitative data for the research Aljuaid (2015) suggests that this method supports data triangulation Additionally, students were questioned about the influence of factors such as gender, major, proficiency, prior English learning experiences, and learning environments on their choice of SRSLSs.
In the following sections, the steps to design and conduct the study and how to ensure the validity and reliability of the whole study are presented.
Ivankova and Creswell (2009) outline eight essential steps for conducting a mixed-methods study The following table details how these steps have been applied in the current research.
Table 3 1: Eight steps of a mixed-methods study Steps What should be done What has been done in the current study
Step 1 Determine if the mixed methods study is the best choice.
After evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of quantitative and qualitative research, I concluded that employing mixed methods can mitigate the limitations of each approach, enhancing our understanding of research issues Additionally, the timeline allowed for the integration of both quantitative and qualitative research methodologies.
Step 2 Choose a specific mixed-methods design.
I chose the explanatory sequential mixed methods design due to several reasons presented in section 3.1.3 The timing, weighing, and mixing of the data were also considered.
Step 3 Write a mixed-methods purpose statement in detail.
I wrote detailed statements of the purpose of each quantitative and qualitative phase, which helped decide the research site and sample for each phase.
Step 4 Write up the specific research questions.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
This chapter presents the findings of a study conducted with ESPD students at the University, addressing the research questions outlined in Chapter Three The data was collected using two methods: a questionnaire administered to 379 EFL students and semi-structured interviews with ten selected participants For clarity, the findings from each data collection method are reported and discussed separately, before being integrated in the final section of the chapter.
This section reports on the SLS use in relation to the research questions (RQs).
RQ1 What self-regulated strategies are reportedly used by EFL students to learn English speaking skills?
RQ2 What self-regulated speaking learning strategies and self-regulated speaking learning strategy groups are favoured the most and the least by EFL students?
RQ3 How frequently are the self-regulated speaking learning strategies reportedly used by EFL students?
RQ4 How is the use of self-regulated speaking learning strategies affected by factors, namely gender, majors, proficiency, previous English learning experience, and learning environment?
4.1.1 RQ1 What self-regulated strategies are reportedly used by EFL students to learn English speaking skills?
To answer the first research question, preliminary descriptive statistics for the mean and standard deviation of the data obtained from the Self-regulatedEnglish speaking strategy scale were computed.
Table 4 1: Speaking learning strategies identified from the questionnaire
MAS1 18 I notice if I am tense or nervous when I am speaking English 379 1 5 4.12 614
25 I intentionally have a combination of both positive (i.e., why I want to learn to speak English) and "threat" strategies (i.e., what will happen if I don't keep trying).
MAS5 22 I organize my speaking content carefully so that
MAS4 21 I look for resources to reduce my anxiety in
MAS7 24 I implement my plan to calm myself down before I have to make a presentation 379 1 5 4.09 597
MAS3 20 I consider steps I can take to lower anxiety about doing speaking activities in English 379 1 5 4.09 589
MAS2 19 My goal is to find something valuable in the speaking lessons so that I can feel motivated 379 1 5 4.09 561
23 I arrange for ways to minimize disruptions that annoy and upset me while I try to learn to speak
CS1 11 I brainstorm aloud with a small group what we know about the topic before a speaking task 379 1 5 3.93 851
16 Before a speaking task, I organize my ideas, starting with the main categories and going to the details.
CS5 15 In my notebook I categorize words by their features (e.g., nouns, verbs) and/or topics 379 1 5 3.91 842
CS4 14 Before a speaking task, I put ideas in a logical order 379 1 5 3.89 843
CS3 13 I try to apply the grammar rules I learned when
17 I synthesize the main points of what I have learned about the topic from multiple sources before a speaking task.
CS2 12 I mentally scan what I already know about the topic before a speaking task 379 1 5 3.89 842
MCS2 2 I plan my schedule so I will have enough time to study speaking English 379 1 5 3.78 836
7 When practicing speaking English, I remind myself of my plan to focus on pronunciation, intonation, and inherent messages.
MCS4 4 I search for online resources to improve my learning to speak English 379 1 5 3.74 865
MCS3 3 I have clear goals for improving my English speaking skills 379 1 5 3.74 922
6 I organize my learning materials so that I can have effective use of them for my learning to speak
5 I look for additional resources so I can know the exact speaking contexts in which the words or phrases are used.
MCS8 8 While practicing speaking English, I focus on pronunciation, intonation, and inherent messages 379 1 5 3.71 922
MCS9 9 When I prepare to do a speaking task, I think about whether I've done something similar before 379 1 5 3.70 919
MCS10 10 I evaluate my learning strategies to choose the most suitable for my level of proficiency 379 1 5 3.69 930 MCS1 1 I focus on my goal of learning to speak English 379 1 5 3.63 985
AS3 28 I purposefully try to avoid negative thoughts or feelings while doing a speaking task 379 1 5 3.27 897
MSIS3 33 I look for places where I can find people to talk to in English 379 1 5 3.26 863
AS1 26 I talk to someone I trust about my attitudes and feelings concerning speaking English 379 1 5 3.26 849
MSIS1 31 I look for opportunities to practice my English speaking with other people online 379 1 5 3.25 816
SIS3 38 If I don't know a word, I use gestures to signify the word physically 379 1 5 3.25 883
SIS1 36 If I do not understand something in English, I ask the other person to slow down or say it again 379 1 5 3.25 839
AS5 30 I give myself a reward or treat when I do well in an English-speaking task 379 1 5 3.22 891
35 I check how well I am imitating the native speaker, especially in terms of accent, posture, and stance.
SIS5 40 I imitate how a native person communicates with the young, the old, and the opposite sex 379 1 5 3.21 894
34 When I try to speak English, I consciously choose a combination of tactics to improve my fluency.
AS4 29 Telling myself it's OK to feel anxious about a speaking task helps me feel calmer 379 1 5 3.19 899
39 I imitate the nonverbal language (e.g., accent or body language) of native speakers during a conversation in English.
MSIS2 32 I look for people I can talk to in English 379 1 5 3.13 863
AS2 27 I use deep breathing as a way to relax before a speaking task 379 1 5 3.13 904
SIS2 37 If I don’t know the right vocabulary, I try to explain my idea in other words or phrases 379 1 5 3.12 890
The study analyzed 40 self-regulated speaking strategies among 379 students, revealing mean scores that ranged from 3.12 to 4.12 The data indicated that all participants utilized various L2 speaking strategies across six categories defined by Oxford (2011), albeit to varying extents Notably, the Meta-affective strategies were the most frequently employed, followed by Cognitive and Metacognitive strategies The remaining strategy groups were also used, but with less frequency and consistency.
4.1.2 RQ2 What self-regulated speaking learning strategies and self-regulated speaking learning strategy groups are favoured the most and the least by EFL students?
In Table 4.1, the top three strategies based on mean scores are item 18, MAS1, with a score of 4.12, indicating that students are most aware of their tension when speaking English Following closely is item 25, MAS8, with a mean score of 4.11, highlighting the importance of balancing positive motivations and perceived threats in learning Item 22, MAS5, ranks third with a mean of 2.11, showing that organizing speaking content helps reduce nervousness Conversely, the lowest-ranked strategy is item 37, SIS2, with a mean score of 2.12, suggesting students are less inclined to explain their ideas when lacking vocabulary Items 27 (AS2) and 32 (MSIS2) also have low mean scores of 2.13, indicating a general disfavor for these strategies among students.
According to the data presented in Table 4.2, students showed a clear preference for the Meta-affective strategy group, which received the highest mean score of 4.10 Following this, the Cognitive and Metacognitive strategy groups scored 3.90 and 3.72, respectively The Cognitive and Meta-SI strategy groups shared a mean score of 3.21, while the SI strategy group had the lowest mean at 3.20, indicating only a slight difference from the groups above Consequently, the SI strategy category is identified as the least favoured among students.
Table 4 2: Mean scores of the strategy groups
In the current study, the Meta-affective strategy group emerged as the most preferred choice among participants This contrasts with previous research utilizing Oxford's S2R Model (2011), where the Meta-affective strategy was not favored by participants (Koksal & Dundar, 2017; Seker, 2015).
Contrary to the findings of the current study, Habók and Magyar (2018) reported that participants utilized meta-affective strategies the least, with the Meta-SI strategy group being the most frequently employed According to Oxford (2017), meta-affective strategies focus on managing emotions through planning, organizing, monitoring, and evaluating to alleviate anxiety and foster positive feelings Vietnamese learners often face emotional challenges, such as apprehension and a fear of losing face, which may explain their higher reliance on meta-affective strategies to navigate these difficulties (Tomlinson & Bao, 2004) In the current study, Cognitive and Metacognitive strategies ranked as the second and third most frequently used, contrasting with Seker's findings where these were the least utilized.
(2015) In Koksal and Dundar (2017), Cognitive was also the least employed strategy group.
Sociocultural-interactive (SI) strategy group was the least used by 379 participants of this study, a little bit lower than the Affective and Meta-SI strategies.
Sociocultural-interactive (SI) strategies, as defined by Oxford (2011), are essential for learners to engage in communication, seek assistance, and sustain social interactions when faced with knowledge gaps Although this strategy group was the least utilized, it remains significant due to its moderate frequency of use The limited opportunities for English communication, particularly during the Covid-19 pandemic, may explain this trend.
4.1.3 RQ3 How frequently are the self-regulated speaking learning strategies reportedly used by EFL students?
Table 4.3 illustrates the overall strategy use reported by students, indicating a mean frequency score of 3.64, which suggests a high frequency of strategy use among 379 students in the ESPD program at the University This finding contrasts with numerous studies conducted in Vietnam, where participants typically reported medium strategy use (Dang, 2012; Nguyen & Ho, 2013; Vu, 2016; Le, 2017; Ngo, 2019a; Ngo, 2019b) Additionally, similar studies in other EFL contexts, such as those by Gani et al (2015) and Azmi (2012), also reported medium strategy use The higher level of strategy use in this study may be attributed to the teaching and learning methods employed in the ESPD, which encourage students to take charge of their learning, resulting in a greater degree of self-regulation.
Table 4 3: Frequency of students’ overall strategy use
Regarding the frequency of use of strategies in six main categories, Table 4.4 shows the application of all strategies to learn speaking skills by ESPD students at the University
Table 4 4: Frequency of use of strategies in the six main categories
Meta-affective Strategies 379 4.10 46 High use
Meta-sociocultural- interactive (Meta-SI)
All students reported utilizing various learning strategies at high or medium levels, with no strategy group marked as "Never or almost never true of me." Additionally, they employed a diverse range of techniques to enhance their English-speaking skills, as evidenced by the frequency of strategy usage reflected in the table.
In a study involving 379 participants, three strategy groups demonstrated high usage: Meta-affective, Cognitive, and Metacognitive strategies Conversely, the Affective, Meta-SI, and SI strategy groups were categorized as medium use These findings contrast with the results of Habók and Magyar (2018), which indicated that all strategy groups in their research were reported to be used moderately.
Regarding individual strategies, the following table shows the frequency of use of each strategy.
Table 4 5: Frequency of use of all the strategies
MAS1 18 I notice if I am tense or nervous when I am speaking English 379 4.12 614 High use
25 I intentionally have a combination of both positive (i.e., why I want to learn to speak
English) and "threat" strategies (i.e., what will happen if I don't keep trying).
MAS5 22 I organize my speaking content carefully so that I feel less nervous 379 4.11 577 High use
MAS4 21 I look for resources to reduce my anxiety in
English-speaking activities 379 4.10 585 High use
MAS7 24 I implement my plan to calm myself down before I have to make a presentation 379 4.09 597 High use
MAS3 20 I consider steps I can take to lower anxiety about doing speaking activities in English 379 4.09 589 High use
MAS2 19 My goal is to find something valuable in the speaking lessons so that I can feel motivated 379 4.09 561 High use
23 I arrange for ways to minimize disruptions that annoy and upset me while I try to learn to speak English.
CS1 11 I brainstorm aloud with a small group what we know about the topic before a speaking task 379 3.93 851 High use
16 Before a speaking task, I organize my ideas, starting with the main categories and going to the details.
CS5 15 In my notebook I categorize words by their features (e.g., nouns, verbs) and/or topics 379 3.91 842 High use CS4 14 Before a speaking task, I put ideas in a logical order 379 3.89 843 High use
CS3 13 I try to apply the grammar rules I learned when I speak English 379 3.89 846 High use
17 I synthesize the main points of what I have learned about the topic from multiple sources before a speaking task.
CS2 12 I mentally scan what I already know about the topic before a speaking task 379 3.89 842 High use
MCS2 2 I plan my schedule so I will have enough time to study speaking English 379 3.78 836 High use
7 When practicing speaking English, I remind myself of my plan to focus on pronunciation, intonation, and inherent messages.
MCS4 4 I search for online resources to improve my learning to speak English 379 3.74 865 High use
MCS3 3 I have clear goals for improving my English speaking skills 379 3.74 922 High use
6 I organize my learning materials so that I can have effective use of them for my learning to speak English.
5 I look for additional resources so I can know the exact speaking contexts in which the words or phrases are used.
MCS8 8 While practicing speaking English, I focus on pronunciation, intonation, and inherent messages 379 3.71 922 High use
9 When I prepare to do a speaking task, I think about whether I've done something similar before.
MCS10 10 I evaluate my learning strategies to choose the most suitable for my level of proficiency 379 3.69 930 High use
MCS1 1 I focus on my goal of learning to speak
AS3 28 I purposefully try to avoid negative thoughts or feelings while doing a speaking task 379 3.27 897 Medium use
MSIS3 33 I look for places where I can find people to talk to in English 379 3.26 863 Medium use
AS1 26 I talk to someone I trust about my attitudes and feelings concerning speaking English 379 3.26 849 Medium use
MSIS1 31 I look for opportunities to practice my
English speaking with other people online 379 3.25 816 Medium use
SIS3 38 If I don't know a word, I use gestures to signify the word physically 379 3.25 883 Medium use
SIS1 36 If I do not understand something in English, I ask the other person to slow down or say it again 379 3.25 839 Medium use
AS5 30 I give myself a reward or treat when I do well in an English-speaking task 379 3.22 891 Medium use
35 I check how well I am imitating the native speaker, especially in terms of accent, posture, and stance.
SIS5 40 I imitate how a native person communicates with the young, the old, and the opposite sex 379 3.21 894 Medium use
34 When I try to speak English, I consciously choose a combination of tactics to improve my fluency.
AS4 29 Telling myself it's OK to feel anxious about a speaking task helps me feel calmer 379 3.19 899 Medium use
39 I imitate the nonverbal language (e.g., accent or body language) of native speakers during a conversation in English.
AS2 27 I use deep breathing as a way to relax before a speaking task 379 3.13 904 Medium use
MSIS2 32 I look for people I can talk to in English 379 3.13 863 Medium use
SIS2 37 If I don’t know the right vocabulary, I try to explain my idea in other words or phrases 379 3.12 890 Medium use
Table 4.5 reveals that 25 strategies are classified as high use, 15 as medium use, and none as low use Notably, all high-use strategies fall under the Metacognitive (MCS), Cognitive (CS), and Meta-affective strategy categories, while medium-use strategies are categorized into Affective (AS), Meta-SI (MSIS), and SI strategies (SIS) Furthermore, the prevalence of all eight meta-affective strategies underscores their effectiveness in addressing students' affective challenges in learning English speaking The high frequency of cognitive and metacognitive strategies also highlights their significance, aligning with findings from previous research by O’Malley and Chamot (1990), Oxford (1990), Wharton (2000), Wahyuni (2013), Le (2017), and Ngo (2019b).
In the Meta-affective strategy group, the most frequently used strategy was MAS1, which focuses on self-awareness of tension or nervousness while speaking English, with a mean score of 4.12 Among cognitive strategies, CS1, which involves brainstorming aloud in small groups about the topic before a speaking task, ranked highest with a mean score of 3.93 Additionally, the most utilized metacognitive strategy was MCS2, emphasizing the importance of planning study schedules to ensure adequate time for practicing English speaking, with a mean score of 3.78.
Recent findings indicate that strategies from the Meta-SI and SI groups were employed with medium frequency, with items 37 and 27 recording the lowest mean scores of 2.12 and 2.13, respectively This trend can be attributed to the challenges faced by students in Vietnam in accessing English native speakers, particularly during the Covid-19 pandemic when online classes became the norm Similar results were reported in Le's study (2017), which noted a low usage of social strategies due to limited opportunities for interaction with native speakers Additionally, research in Indonesia by Azmi (2012) and Mistar et al (2014) corroborated these findings, highlighting that students often refrain from using English in social settings, primarily due to a lack of communication opportunities.
A study involving 379 participants from the ESPD at the University demonstrated a high overall frequency of self-regulated learning strategies (SRSLSs) used for learning English Among these, the Meta-affective category emerged as the most favored, with all its strategies ranking high in usage, while the Social Interaction (SI) category was the least utilized The findings align with some previous research while contradicting others, highlighting the necessity to avoid over-generalizing results and to consider the unique complexities of each learning context (Rose, 2012, p 146).
4.1.4 RQ4 How is the use of self-regulated speaking learning strategies affected by factors, namely gender, majors, proficiency, previous English learning experience, and learning environment?
4.1.4.1 Self-regulated speaking learning strategy (SRSLS) use and gender
Table 4.6 presents quantitative data on the self-regulated strategies employed by male and female students to enhance their English speaking skills The findings reveal that both genders utilized a range of strategies across all six categories, with a notable preference for Meta-affective strategies, which had mean values of M=4.13 for males and M=4.09 for females, indicating a high frequency of use Additionally, both groups demonstrated significant engagement with Metacognitive (M=3.70 for males, M=3.72 for females) and Cognitive strategies (M=3.90 for both) Affective, Meta-SI, and SI strategies were used at a medium level, while the SI strategy group was the least favored by both genders Notably, males tended to employ more Meta-affective and Affective strategies, whereas females showed a slightly higher frequency in Metacognitive and SI strategies.