THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LANGUAGE LEARNING STRATEGIES AND ENGLISH PROFICIENCY OF 4TH YEAR STUDENTS AT FELTE,ULIS, VNU

This discrepancy among weaker learners and stronger learners in second language acquisition stems from the cognitive, affective, and socio-cultural factors to which the learners are impo

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES

ĐOÀN THỊ THU PHƯƠNG

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LANGUAGE LEARNING STRATEGIES AND ENGLISH

ULIS, VNU Mối quan hê ̣ giữa chiến lươ ̣c ho ̣c tâ ̣p ngôn ngữ và trình đ ộ tiếng Anh của sinh viên năm thứ 4 khoa Sư Phạm Tiếng

Anh, trường Đại học Ngoại Ngữ - ĐHQGHN

M.A COMBINED PROGRAMME THESIS

Major: English Teaching Methodology Major code: 60 14 10

Hanoi - 2012

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES

ĐOÀN THỊ THU PHƯƠNG

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LANGUAGE LEARNING STRATEGIES AND ENGLISH

ULIS, VNU Mối quan hê ̣ giữa chiến lươ ̣c ho ̣c tâ ̣p ngôn ngữ và trình đ ộ tiếng Anh của sinh viên năm thứ 4 khoa Sư Phạm Tiếng

Anh, trường Đại học Ngoại Ngữ - ĐHQGHN

M.A COMBINED PROGRAMME THESIS

Major: English Teaching Methodology Major code: 60 14 10

Supervisor: Dr Đỗ Tuấn Minh

Hanoi - 2012

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1 Statement of the problem and rationale for the study 1

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

2.2.2 The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages 20 2.3 Language learning strategies and English proficiency 24

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY

v

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.2 The correlation between students‟ language learning strategies and their

4.3 Key strategies and potential factors affecting strategy use 48

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION

APPENDICES I

Systems (cited in Hsiao & Oxford, 2002, p.170) 17 Table 2.4 The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages

(CEFR) 21 Table 2.5 Common Reference Levels: global scale 22 Table 4.1 Average reported frequency of language learning strategy use by both groups of students 36 Table 4.2 Average reported frequency of language learning strategy use for the basic group, the proficient group and both groups of students 39 Table 4.3 High average reported frequency of language learning strategy use for the basic group, the proficient group and both groups of students 42 Table 4.4 Average reported frequency of language learning strategy use

dominated by proficient group 44 Table 4.5 Average reported frequency of language learning strategy use

dominated by basic group 46 Table 4.6 Language learning strategies and English proficiency 46

2

Table 4.7 Comparison between strategies used by students with the highest and the lowest Ielts scores 48 Table 4.8 Comparison between strategies used by proficient students with low frequency level of strategy use and basic students with high frequency level of strategy use 57

3

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS/ ACRONYMS

SILL Strategy Inventory for Language Learning IELTS International English Language Testing System

4

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1 Statement of the problem and rationale for the study

“Give a man a fish and he eats for a day Teach him how to fish and he eats for a lifetime” (Wenden, 1985, cited in Griffiths, 2003, p.1) In the context

of language learning and teaching, this saying may mean that if students are provided with answers, they can solve the problem immediately; but if they are taught strategies to figure out the answers themselves, they can face with any problem now and then, or “they may be empowered to manage their own learning” (Griffiths, 2003, p.1) Aware of the significance of the “How” rather than the “What”, recent research in second language acquisition has swerved attention from the products of language learning to the processes in which learning takes place (Oxford, 1990) The potential relationship between how students perform the task sand how successful they solve the tasks was explored

in Rubin (1975) and Stern (1975) Later, scholars such as Oxford (1990), Wenden (1991), Cohen (1998) and Chamot (2004) have also suggested that learners might be able to learn language more effectively thanks to the use of learning strategies

The concept of using strategies to facilitate the learning process is not new In secondary school, for example, the researcher was instructed to remember the phrase OSSACOMP, which indicates the order of adjectives before a noun (O-opinion, S-size, S-shape, A-age, C-color, O-origin, M-material, P-purpose) There have existed other general learning strategies given by almost teachers, such as listening to music, watching movies in English, highlighting main ideas, summarizing the lesson, etc However, all these strategies do not

5

make sense without the implementation of learners Gage and Berliner (1992, p.302, cited in Griffiths, 2003, p.4) suggests that the effectiveness of such strategies may require the learner to be “more active cognitively” than a learner who is less strategically involved in the task Under the cognitive perspective, language learners are considered as “an active participant in the learning process, using various mental strategies in order to sort out the system of the language to

be learnt” (Williams and Burden, 1997, p.13, cited in Griffiths, 2003, p.3) To put it simple, learners hold great responsibility for carrying out learning strategies successfully, contributing to the language development Nevertheless, according to Larsen-Freeman (2001), the contribution of learners to the learning process is still underestimated This is the another reason, which triggers the researcher to investigate more about what strategies learners employ and how they do with those strategies to achieve success

In fact, some learners acquire knowledge more quickly and efficiently than others This discrepancy among weaker learners and stronger learners in second language acquisition stems from the cognitive, affective, and socio-cultural factors to which the learners are imposed during the language learning process (Nisbet et al., 2005) Among these factors, learning strategies stands out

as a subjective factor They have become a means of achieving learners‟ autonomy in the process of language learning (Oxford, 1990; Benson and Voller,

1997 as cited in Rahimi et al., 2004) Valuable work has been and continues to

be done on learning strategies; however, existing research has mostly focused on learners‟ strategies use in second language contexts (Rihami, 2004) In English

as a foreign language (ELT) contexts, research on language learning strategies has mainly been conducted in South East Asia, especially China (Nisbet et.al,

6

2005; Feng 2010; Wu, 2010), but has not been widely studied in Vietnamese contexts This creates the motivation for the researcher to conduct a study on language learning strategies by Vietnamese students in a Vietnamese context

A great body of research confirms the relationship between learners‟ language learning strategies and their English proficiency (Park, 1997; Dreyer and Oxford, 1996; Peacock and Ho, 2003; Nisbet et al., 2005; Adbullah and Seyyed, 2012) However, there has been conflict in the scholars‟ opinion regarding the learning strategies used by good language learners and bad language ones Some claims that good language learners use particular strategies – which can hardly be found in bad language learner‟s cases – to assist them in mastering new language skills (O‟Malley, Chamot, Stewner-Manzaranes, Russo and Küpper, 1985, p.557-558 cited in Saricoban & Saricaoglu, 2008) However, Hişmanoğlu (2000) claims that bad language learners may use the same language learning strategies as the good ones without becoming successful This study is, therefore, conducted to compare the status quo concerning the relationship between proficiency and language learning strategy use in Vietnam with that in other countries

For the four main reasons, further research into the language learning strategy use of language learners in Vietnamese context, specifically fourth-year students at the Faculty of English Language Teacher Education, University of Languages and International Studies, Vietnam National University – those who specialize in the English language for at least four years and are expected to become teachers – is needed The researcher, therefore, has decided to conduct

an investigation into the relationship between this group of students‟ language learning strategies and their English proficiency This study is a step in the

7

direction of checking whether there is a correlation between learners‟ language learning strategies and their language proficiency level

1.2 Aims and objectives of the study

This study serves four main purposes Firstly, it aims to investigate the frequency of language learning strategies used by fourth-year students at FELTE, ULIS, VNU and then figure out whether there is a particular set of language learning strategies used by basic learners and proficient learners Moreover, the study is expected to check whether there is a correlation between students‟ language learning strategies and their English proficiency Finally, it is supposed to investigate the English language strategy use on the individual scale regarding students‟ strategies to overcome studying difficulties and students‟ stance on the factors which may influence their choice of strategies

This research paper, therefore, strives to address the four main questions:

1 How frequently are language learning strategies used by fourth- year students at FELTE, ULIS, VNU?

2 To what extent does the reported frequency of language learning strategy use vary between Basic Group and Proficient Group?

3 In what way do students’ language learning strategies correlate with their English proficiency (if any)?

4 Which strategies do individual students consider most effective and what factors may affect their choice of strategy use?

8

1.3 Scope of the study

As a broad area of language research, language learning strategy has been identified as having relationship with many factors such as learners‟ language proficiency, learning styles, learning outcome, learning motivation and other learners‟ differences Within the limitation of a thesis paper, this study investigates the frequency of language learning strategy use by fourth-year students at FELTE, ULIS, VNU To move a further step, students are divided into basic and proficient groups; therefore, patterns of strategy use by students at different proficiency level are indicated In addition, the possibility of a correlation between students‟ proficiency level and their strategy use is checked Last but not least, the study elaborates on individual students‟ use of strategies to cope with studying difficulties as well as students‟ opinion on what may affect their option of language strategy use

1.4 Organization of the study

The first chapter has demonstrated a brief background in theory and practice concerning the topic of learners‟ language learning strategies Also, it has stated clear purposes and scope of this study including four research questions An overview of the rest of the paper is displayed below:

Chapter 2 – Literature review – provides the background of the study, including definitions and classification of the key concept “learning strategies”, definitions of language proficiency, overview of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR), and a brief summary of research on the relationship between language learning strategy and English proficiency

Chapter 5 – Conclusion – summarizes the major findings, the contributions, the limitations of the research as well as some suggestions for further studies

Following this chapter are the References and Appendices

10

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Learning strategies

2.1.1 Definition of learning strategies

There is obviously no general agreement in the field of second language acquisition regarding the appropriate definitions of learning strategies As stated

in O‟Malley et al (1985), the language learning strategy field has been characterized by „confusion‟ and „no consensus‟:

There is no consensus on what constitutes a learning strategy in second language learning or how these differ from other types of learner activities Learning, teaching and communication strategies are often interlaced in discussions of language learning and are often applied to the same behavior Further, even within the group of activities most often referred to as learning strategies, there is considerable confusio n about definitions of specific strategies and about the hierarchic relationship among strategies

(O‟Malley et al., 1985, p.22)

Oxford (1990, p.49) also acknowledges that there is no complete consensus on what strategies are; how many strategies exist; how they should be defined and classified; and whether it is likely to establish a scientifically validated hierarchy of strategies In other words, each researcher has developed his/ her unique framework of defining and classifying learning strategies

Most researchers define learning strategies as learners‟ actions and/ or

behaviors to facilitate the learning process In reality, different terms namely

“techniques, devices, steps, operations, ways, methods, thoughts .” have been employed; however, the researcher in this study condenses this variety into two

11

terms: “actions” and “behaviors” The most general definition of learning strategies is suggested by Rubin (1975) as “the techniques or devices which a learner may use to acquire knowledge” (p.43) Apart from being used to ease the knowledge acquisition, strategies are defined as a set of processes or steps for storing and utilizing the already acquired information (Dansereau, 1978, cited in Olga, 2003, p.4) In addition, Wenden (1998) states that learning strategies are

“mental steps or operations that learners use to learn a new language and to regulate their efforts to do so” (p.18) More specifically, Richards and Schmidt (2002, cited in Olga, 2003) define learning strategies as “the different ways in which learners try to understand the grammar, meanings and uses, and other aspects of the language they are learning” (p.9) Some scholars utilize the term

„behaviors‟ to define learning strategies Rigney (1978 cited in Rahimi et al.,

2004, p.33), for instance, regards learning strategies as “the often conscious steps and behaviors used by learners to enhance acquisition” Similarly, Weinstein and Mayer (1986, cited in Olga, 2003, p.10) describe learning strategies as

“behaviors or thoughts that a learner engages in during learning that are intended

to influence the learners‟ encoding process” (p.315) Later, Mayer (1988) claims that learning strategies are “behaviors of a learner that are intended to influence how the learner processes information” (p.11) in order to better handle it O‟Malley and Chamot share the same idea regarding learning strategies as:

“the special thoughts or behaviors that individuals use to help them comprehend, learn,

or retain new information Learning strategies are special ways of processing information that enhance comprehension, learning, or retention of the information.”

(O‟Malley and Chamot, 1990, p.1)

12

Oxford developed her own framework concerning the definitions of learning strategies Oxford (1985) and Oxford and Crookall (1989) stated that whatever names are given (techniques, devices, steps, ways, behaviors, or actions), the aims of learning strategies are to facilitate the learning process by assisting the learners to learn, solve problems and develop study skills Later, Oxford (1990) considers learning strategies as specific behaviors or thought processes that students use to enhance their own language learning Scarcella and Oxford, (1992 cited in Hsiao & Oxford, 2002) specifies language learning strategies as

“specific actions, behaviors, steps, techniques [or thoughts] – such as seeking out conversation partners, or giving oneself encouragement to tackle a difficult language task – used by students to enhance their own learning” (p.63) Again in Oxford (2001), learning strategies are characterized as:

“ operations employed by the learner to aid the acquisition, storage, retrieval and use

of information; specific actions taken by the learner to make learning easier, faster, more enjoyable, more self-directed, more efficient, and more transferable to new situations.”

(Oxford, 2001, p.166)

In this study, the researcher adopt the definition given by Oxford (2001) that

learning strategies are mental operations used by learners to aid the acquisition,

storage, retrieval, and use of information; and specific actions taken by learners

to facilitate their learning process This definition includes both internal

thoughts (under cognitive view) and external demonstrations (under pedagogical view) in learners‟ process of implementing their language learning strategies in order to facilitate their academic performance

13

2.1.2 Classification of learning strategies

There have existed nearly as many models of learning strategy classification as have the definitions of learning strategies Some scholars may,

to some extent, share the same approach towards the classification of learning strategies; however, each created his/ her unique hierarchy of learning strategies Throughout the history of researching learning strategies, various models of categorizing learning strategies have been developed, as follows:

Classification of strategies (1975-1985)

Rubin (1975, 1981) 1 Direct learning strategies:

Clarification/verification, monitoring, memorization, guessing/inductive reasoning, deductive reasoning & practice

2 Indirect learning strategies:

Creating practice, production & communication opportunities (1975) Later called (1981) Creating opportunity to practice and use of production tricks (Clavel 2005: 41)

Stern (1975) His ten-strategy list included:

10 Internalization strategy (Stern 1987:414)

Naiman et al (1978) 1 Active involvement in learning by identifying and determining

the learning environment;

2 Awareness of language as a system;

3 Awareness of language as a means of communication and interaction;

4 Acceptance of the affective demands of second language and coping with them;

14

5 Extension and revision of the second language system by inferencing and monitoring (Nambiar 2009:134)

McLaughing (1978) 1 „acquisitional heuristics‟

e.g overgeneralization, hypothesis-testing, and simplification

Rigney (1978) 1 System-assigned strategies

2 Student-assigned strategies Detached

Embedded Rubin & Thompson

(1983)

The good learners have the following characteristics:

 find their own way

 organize information about language

 are creative and experiment with language

 make their own opportunities and find strategies for getting practice in using the language inside and outside the

classroom

 learn to live with uncertainty and develop strategies for making sense of the target language without wanting to understand every word

 use mnemonics (rhymes, word associations, etc to recall what has been learned)

 help them in comprehension

 learn to make intelligent guesses

 learn chunks of language as wholes and formalized

15

routines to help them perform „beyond their competence‟

 learn production techniques (e.g techniques for keeping a conversation going)

 learn different styles of speech and writing and learn to vary their language according to the formality of the situation

(Nunan 2003)

Table 2.1 Classification of learning strategies (1975-1985) (Olga, 2003, p.7)

Considering strategies as techniques or devices for learners to acquire knowledge, Rubin (1975) classifies learning strategies in terms of processes that have both direct and indirect impact on language learning Then, both Rubin (1975) and Stern (1975) propose a list of 10 language learning strategies that depicts the characteristics of successful language learners

Basing on Stern‟s strategies, Naiman et al (1978, cited in Olga, 2003, p.4) propose five major strategies including factors concerning the significant influence of the learning environment on learners‟ active involvement in learning the second language (L2); the awareness of L2 as a linguistic system; and tool for communication and interaction; the affective requirements of L2 learning; and the need for L2 extension and revision

Unlike this, Bialystok (1978, cited Olga, 2003, p.4) creates a framework

of two primary strategies, namely „formal strategies‟ and „functional strategies‟ The former deal with conscious learning of accurate linguistic forms and the latter are related to language use Which strategies are employed depends on learners‟ proficiency level, the knowledge needed to develop the task, the complexity of the task, and learners‟ unique qualities

16

Dansereau (1978, 1985, cited in Olga, 2003) divide learning strategies into

„primary strategies‟ (better handling the materials) and „support strategies‟ (improving internal psychological conditions and the learning environment to facilitate the implementation of primary strategies) Meanwhile, Rigney (1978) categorizes learning strategies into „system-assigned‟ and „student assigned‟ The first refer to strategies provided by the instructional materials itself while the second involve the strategies used by learners as their own choice Rigney also differentiates between „detached‟ and „embedded‟ learning strategies, which exist in accordance with „system-assigned‟ and „student-assigned‟ The

„detached‟ ones are broadly utilized in different learning activities, whereas the

„embedded‟ ones are specifically associated with specific learning tasks and required to fulfill the task

Rubin and Thompson (1983, cited in Olga, 2003, p.5) again proposes learning strategies characteristic of successful language learners, who can independently seek and choose their actions relevant to the learning tasks and display more various behaviors than less proficient learners Olga (2003, p.8) claims that the aforementioned classifications shares three aspects, particularly

linguistic aspects (e.g „semantic strategy‟ or „awareness of language as a

system‟ or „learn chunks of language as whole formalized routines to help them

perform beyond their competence); cognitive and meta-cognitive aspects (e.g

„formal practicing of the language‟, „inferencing‟, „letting the context help them

in comprehension‟ and „creating practice opportunities‟, „planning strategy‟,

„concentration strategies‟, respectively); social aspects (e.g „awareness of

language as a means of communication and interaction‟ and „production

tricks‟); and affective aspects (e.g „empathetic strategy‟, „acceptance of the

Classification of strategies (1983-1990)

Carver (1984) 1 Strategies for coping with TL rules (neutral with regard to

production or reception)

2 Strategies for receiving performance

3 Strategies for producing performance

4 Strategies for organizing learning

(1984:125) Oxford (1985) Based on Dansereau (1978) and Rubin (1981), she proposes:

3 Socio-affective e.g cooperation, asking for clarification

(Hismanoglu 2000; O‟Malley and Chamot 1990) Weinstein and

Mayer (1986)

1 Basic rehearsal strategies

2 Complex rehearsal strategies

18

3 Basic elaboration strategies

4 Complex elaboration strategies

5 Basic organizational strategies

6 Complex organizational strategies

Monitoring: self-monitoring

Evaluation: self-evaluation

2 Cognitive Strategies Resourcing, repetition, grouping, deduction, imagery, auditory representation, keyword method, elaboration, transfer, inferencing, note-taking, summarizing, recombination, and translation

3 Social Mediation Question for clarification and cooperation

(O‟Malley and Chamot 1990:119-120) Oxford (1990) 1 Direct language learning strategies

 Memory strategies: Creating mental linkages, applying images and sounds, reviewing well, employing action

 Cognitive strategies: Practicing, receiving and sending messages, analyzing and reasoning, creating structure for input and output

 Compensation strategies: Guessing intelligently, overcoming limitations in speaking and writing

2 Indirect language learning strategies

 Metacognitive strategies: Centering your learning, arranging and planning your learning, evaluating your learning

 Affective strategies: Lowering your anxiety, encouraging yourself, taking your emotional temperature

 Social strategies: Asking questions, cooperating with others, empathizing with others

Table 2.2 Classification of strategies (1983 – 1991) (Olga, 2003, p.13)

Carver (1984) emphasizes learning reception and learning performance, and proposes four types of learning strategies, that is, 1 Strategies for coping

19

with TL rules, 2. Strategies for receiving performance, 3 Strategies for producing performance, and 4 Strategies for organizing learning Similar to Dansereau (1987), Oxford (1985) divides learning strategies into Primary strategies and Support strategies On the other hand, O‟Malley et al (1985) suggested a categorization including „Metacognitive strategies‟ which assist learners in regulating and self-evaluating their learning process, „Cognitive strategies‟ which directly concerns manipulating information to enhance learning, and „Socio-affective strategies‟ which help learners to cooperate and control emotions Basing on O‟Malley et al (1985), O‟Malley & Chamot (1990) proposes three major strategies (i.e metacognitive strategies, cognitive strategies and social mediation) with the same functions but clearer explanation (mentioned in Table 2) Differently, Wenden (1991) classifies learning strategies not only under cognitive perspective but also under pedagogical perspective; therefore learning strategies are divided into cognitive strategies and self-management strategies Another well-known learning strategy taxonomy was created by Oxford (1990) which divides learning strategies into direct strategies (cognitive, memory and compensation strategies) and indirect strategies (metacognitive, affective and social strategies) This categorization is, to some extent, similar to the one of Rubin (1981) in that they both classify language learning strategies basing on their direct/ indirect contribution to language learning However, Hsiao and Oxford (2002) states that Rubin‟s classification has overlapping in strategies This classification system “failed to produce mutually exclusive categories, i.e., some strategies appeared in more than a single grouping” (Russo, 1985, p.32 cited in Hsiao and Oxford, 2002) The

Direct Compensation Strategies Direct Cognitive Strategies Direct Cognitive Strategies

Indirect Social Strategies Direct Comprehension Strategies

Note This comparison is not always clear-cut For example, Rubin‟s direct

guessing/ inductive inferencing and indirect production tricks could be classified

as direct cognitive strategies and indirect compensation strategies in Oxford, respectively (Rubin, 1981; Oxford, 1990)

Table 2.3 A Comparison of Rubin’s and Oxford’s Strategy Classification

Systems (cited in Hsiao & Oxford, 2002, p.170)

To conclude, the taxonomy given by Oxford (1990) was adopted in this study because it is „perhaps the most comprehensive classification of learning strategies to date” (Codina, 1988, cited in Olga 2003, p.23) In this taxonomy,

learning strategies are classified into two main group: „Direct strategies‟

(memory strategies, cognitive strategies and compensation strategies) which

“involve direct learning and use of the subject matter” (Oxford, 1990, p.12) and

“require mental processing of the language” (Oxford ,1990, p.37), and „Indirect strategies‟ ( metacognitive strategies, affective strategies and social strategies)

which “support and manage language learning without (in many instances) directly involving the target language” (Oxford ,1990, p.135)

21

2.2 Language proficiency

2.2.1 Definition of language proficiency

As stated in Farhady (1982), language proficiency is supposed to be “one

of the most poorly defined concepts in the field of language testing” (p.116) The traditional view of proficiency has entailed considering it as “little more than grammar and lexis” (Harley, Allen, Cummins and Swain, 1990, cited in Griffiths, 2003, p.34) However, Brière (1972, cited in Farhady 1982, p.116) points out that the parameters of language proficiency are not easy to identify Brière states:

The term „proficiency‟ may be defined as: the degree of competence or the capability

in a given language demonstrated by an individual at a given point in time independent

of a specific textbook, chapter in the hook, or pedagogical method

(Brière 1972, p.332)

This definition‟s complexity results from the use of such unspecified terms as

competence, capability, demonstrated, and individual Farhady (1982) figures

out competence may refer to “linguistic, socio-cultural, or other types of competence”; capability may include “the ability of the learner to recognize,

comprehend, or produce language elements (or a combination of them)”; demonstration of knowledge may be in either the written or the oral mode; and

individual may refer to “a language learner as listener, speaker, or both”

Brumfit (1984) also gives a quite general definition regarding proficiency as “the maximally effective operation of the language system so far acquired by the student” (p.543, as cited in Adbullah & Seyyed 2012, p.112) The “operation of the language system” here could refer to the use of language in both written and spoken form

22

Within the learner-centered communicative approach, language proficiency has been added a different layer of meaning Clark (1972, cited in Farhady 1982, p.116), for instance, defines language proficiency as the language learner‟s ability

… to use language for real-life purposes without regard to the manner in which that competence was acquired Thus, in proficiency testing, the frame of reference … shifts from the classroom to the actual situation in which the language is used

Clark (1972, p.5)

This definition brings about a different approach towards the function of language proficiency tests, that is, the use of language in real-life situations Hymes (1972, cited in Griffiths, 2004) also introduced a model of language proficiency called “communicative competence”, which means the ability to convey and interpret meaning Griffiths (2004) states that basing on this model, Canale and Swain (1980) and Canale (1983) divided communicative competence

into three and later four separate components: “ grammatical competence (which

relates to the learner‟s knowledge of the vocabulary, phonology and rules of the

language), discourse competence (which relates to the learner‟s ability to connect utterances into a meaningful whole), sociolinguistic competence (which relates to the learner‟s ability to use language appropriately) and strategic

competence (which relates to the learner‟s ability to employ strategies to

compensate for imperfect knowledge)” (p.40) According to Adbullah & Seyyed (2012), phonology, vocabulary, and grammar bore the definition of proficiency Richards (1978, cited in Adbullah & Seyyed, 2012, p.116) claimed that “the definition of proficiency bears semantic, discourse, and sociolinguistic elements Hence, one definition of language proficiency besides grammatically well-

23

formed rules bears speech act rules, language functions; and context” In this way, the definition of language proficiency has been broadened, including not only the ability to use grammar correctly but also the ability to use language appropriately in real-life contexts

2.2.2 The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR)

Throughout the history of language proficiency classification and/ or assessment, there have existed different guidelines used to describe proficiency levels of foreign language learners In Vietnamese context, the currently best-known

system is The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages

(CEFR) – which is also utilized in this study to define the language proficiency

http://www.cambridgeesol.org/about/standards/cefr.html, the CEFR takes an indispensable role in language and education policy, not only within Europe, but also worldwide with its growing relevance for language testers and examination boards The CEFR aids the assessment of language proficiency levels and the interpretation of language qualifications The CEFR describes language ability

on a scale of levels from A1 for beginners up to C2 for most proficient learners This facilitates those involved in language teaching and testing (learners, teachers, teacher trainers, etc.) to see the level of different qualifications

24

Table 2.4 The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages

(CEFR)

25

One of the purposes of the Framework is to describe the levels of proficiency required by existing standards, tests and examinations with a view to facilitating comparisons between different systems of qualifications Correspondingly, the Descriptive Scheme and the Common Reference Levels have been established, including Description Issues and Measurement Issues A (Basic User), B (Independent User) and C (Proficient User) can be sub-categorized as follows:

These sub-categories are “globally” represented in the following table, which helps convey the meaning of this system to non-specialist users and provide teachers and educators with orientation points:

Table 2.5 Common Reference Levels: global scale Proficient

User

C2 Can understand with ease virtually everything heard or read Can summarize information from different spoken and written sources, reconstructing arguments and accounts in a coherent presentation Can express him/herself spontaneously, very fluently and precisely, differentiating shades of meaning even in more complex situations

26

C1 Can understand a wide range of demanding, longer texts, and recognize implicit meaning Can express him/herself fluently and spontaneously without much obvious searching for expressions Can use language flexibly and effectively for social, academic and professional purposes Can produce clear, well-structured, detailed text on complex subjects, showing controlled use of organizational patterns, connectors and cohesive devices

Independent

User

B2 Can understand the main ideas of complex text on both concrete and abstract topics, including technical discussions in his/her field of specialization Can interact with a degree of fluency and spontaneity that makes regular interaction with native speakers quite possible without strain for either party Can produce clear, detailed text on a wide range of subjects and explain a viewpoint

on a topical issue giving the advantages and disadvantages

of various options

B1 Can understand the main points of clear standard input on familiar matters regularly encountered in work, school, leisure, etc Can deal with most situations likely to arise whilst traveling in an area where the language is spoken Can produce simple connected text on topics which are familiar or of personal interest Can describe experiences

27

and events, dreams, hopes and ambitions and briefly give reasons and explanations for opinions and plans

Basic User A2 Can understand sentences and frequently used expressions

related to areas of most immediate relevance (e.g very basic personal and family information, shopping, local geography, employment) Can communicate in simple and routine tasks requiring a simple and direct exchange of information on familiar and routine matters Can describe

in simple terms aspects of his/her background, immediate environment and matters in areas of immediate need

A1 Can understand and use familiar everyday expressions and very basic phrases aimed at the satisfaction of needs of a concrete type Can introduce him/ herself and others and can ask and answer questions about personal details such

as where he/she lives, people he/she knows and things he/she has Can interact in a simple way provided the other person talks slowly and clearly and is prepared to help

2.3 Language learning strategies and English proficiency

Oxford (2003b) claims that the use of language learning strategies is demonstrably connected with student achievement and proficiency (Pressley & Associates, 1990) Many studies have proved the relationship between language learning strategy use and language proficiency levels

28

A small to moderate correlation between language learning strategies use and English proficiency was also found in Park (1997), which was conducted among 332 Korean students learning English as a foreign language Their language proficiency was measured by a practice version of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL) and their use of language learning strategies were derived from Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) developed by Oxford (1989) Results indicated that cognitive and social strategies were more predictive of TOEFL scores than other strategies Park also recommended that further studies should be conducted in other Asian cultures to determine whether the above-mentioned patterns of strategy use are unique to Korean students or similar to other Asian students

Dreyer and Oxford (1996) reported a strong correlation between learning strategies and proficiency among learners in the ESL setting of South Africa, where English is recognized as an official language Proficient learners used cognitive strategies, compensation strategies and metacognitive strategies more than less proficient learners, whereas social strategies were more popular among the less proficient learners

Bremner (1999, cited in Radha, 2009, p.139) investigated the strategy use

of a group of undergraduates in Hong Kong and reported that proficient learners were in favor of cognitive strategies while less proficient learners, on the other hand, catered for more affective strategies

Peacock and Ho (2003) investigated the relationship between the use of language learning strategies and the proficiency level among 1,006 English for Academic Purposes students in eight different majors in Hong Kong High

29

correlations between the use of cognitive and metacognitive strategies and high

language proficiency levels were reported whereas compensation strategies were

mainly favored by low-proficiency students Likewise, when investigating

strategy use and proficiency among learners in Taiwan, Lai (2005, cited in

Radha, 2009, p.139) had the same findings, adding that proficiency level has

significant effect on strategy choice and use

Griffiths (2003) utilized SILL questionnaire by Oxford (1990) to

investigate the frequency of language learning strategy use by 348 learners

studying English at a private school in New Zealand and discovered a significant

relationship between language learning strategies and proficiency Interviews

also revealed some useful insights regarding the use of „core‟ strategies, „plus‟

strategies, and „base‟ strategies by individuals

Nisbet et al (2005) also reported a statistically significant correlation

between learning strategies and English proficiency when researching the

relationship between these two variables among 168 third-year Chinese

university students, who major in English Similar to Park (1997), Nisbet et al

(2005) encouraged a closer examination of the relationship between language

learning strategies and proficiency, and the possible interplay of learner autonomy across diverse cultural settings

Adbullah and Seyyed (2012), while investigating the relationship between

language learning strategies and language proficiency levels of 90 university

students majoring in TEFL at Payame-Noor Universities of Khoramshar and

"failed to apply strategies appropriately to the task at hand" This study, consequently, expects to find out whether a specific set of language learning strategies exists among 4th year students at FELTE

3.2 Data collection instruments

Two data collection methods, i.e questionnaires, and interviews, were combined to provide reliable and valid data for this study In addition, an IELTS examination paper was employed to gauge the English proficiency level of students

32

3.2.1 Ielts Test

A “standard” IELTS test was utilized in this study to assess students‟ English proficiency level The term “standard” means an Ielts-format test with components taken from Ielts preparation materials This test was designed and conducted by FELTE, ULIS as a graduation examination for the whole fourth-year students Students‟ performance in all skills was gauged by lecturers from FELTE, ULIS Before the examination day, all the lecturers who would participate as interviewers and assessors had been trained to mark writing samples and had interviewed voluntary candidates in a mock Ielts speaking test Therefore, the reliability of the result from this test can be assured, at least on the national scale

3.2.2 Questionnaires

The researcher, with a view to identifying the language strategies used by fourth-year students at FELTE, ULIS, made use of Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) developed by Oxford (1989) including 50 items with

a 5-point Likert type scale (Never or almost never true of me, Usually not true of

me, Somewhat true of me, Usually true of me, Always or almost always true of me) These items are divided into six parts measuring six types of learning

strategies: metacognitive, compensation, affective, cognitive, memory and social Each part consists of items mentioning strategies used by language learners such as “I say or write new words in English several times” or “ I look for words in my own language that are similar to new words in English several times” The original version of SILL (Oxford, 1989) was not translated into Vietnamese to avoid unexpected misunderstanding especially when technical

33

terms are wrongly interpreted In addition, all participants are major in the English language; therefore, there is less likelihood that confusion or misunderstanding will occur

In general, the usefulness of questionnaires in investigating learners‟ language learning strategies has been proved by numerous previous studies including Green & Oxford, 1995; Rahimi, 2004; Jie & Xiaoqing, 2006; and Saricoban & Saricaoglu, 2008 The researcher in this study also chose a self-report questionnaire as the primary data collection instrument because “it is quite labor-intensive in construction and analysis The knowledge needed is controlled

by the questions; therefore it affords a good deal of precision and clarity” (McDonough, 1997, p.171) Additionally, since this type of data is “amenable to qualification” (Nunan, 1992, p.143, cited in Griffiths, 2003, p.56), and less affected by the researcher‟s interpretation, a relatively objective findings concerning students‟ language learning strategies will be drawn On a general scale, Gass & Mackey (2007, p.148) emphasized that

questionnaires allow researchers to gather information that learners are able to report about themselves, such as their beliefs and motivations about learning, or their reactions to classroom instruction and activities – information that is typically not

available from production data alone

On a particular scale, Oxford (1992, p.33, cited in Griffiths 2003, p.56) asserted that

Strategy questionnaires have certain advantages They are quick and easy to administer, may be the most cost-effective mode of strategy assessment, and are almost completely non-threatening when administered using paper and pencil (or computer) under conditions of confidentiality Moreover, many students discover a

of adding qualitative dimension to the quantitative data obtained from the questionnaires, which is necessary to “capture the richness of learners‟ constructions” Additionally, both Nunan (1989) and McDonough (1997) assert that interviews can be used in an “ancillary” role, perhaps as a checking mechanism to gauge data gathered from other sources Therefore, semi-structured interviews were deployed as the second data collection tool in this study Semi-structured interviews were chosen because they allow for greater flexibility (e.g changing the order of questions); for more extensive follow-up of responses (e.g asking some more in-depth questions); and for richer interactions (e.g extending the length of the interview) rather than interviews armed with entirely pre-coded questions Specifically, the interviews were conducted in Vietnamese to elaborate on the vague information collected from the questionnaires and elicit more in-depth information about learning strategies used by the students

35

To sum up, different data collection methods (i.e questionnaires and interview), accompanied with a “standard” Ielts test were combined to address the four research questions in the interests of completeness of description,

greater accuracy and sensitivity of interpretation

3.3 Procedures of data collection

Procedure of conducting and assessing the Ielts test

All fourth-year students at FELTE attended the Ielts test Listening, Reading and Writing tests were conducted in one day, and the speaking test was implemented on the next day Students‟ performance in all four tests was assessed by lecturers at FELTE, ULIS (including the researcher) Listening, Reading and Writing papers underwent two checking rounds in the interests of precise marking Students‟ speaking performance was gauged by two lecturers instead of one The test scores were stored in the Faculty Office and then obtained by the researcher with the permission of the Head of FELTE The test scores in Excel format was put into order from the lowest scores to the highest scores Students with scores 2.6 - 4.0 and students with scores 6.5 - 7.8 were chosen as subjects of this study

Questionnaire procedure

The SILL was first piloted among two colleagues of the researcher and three fourth-year students Basing on their recommendations, two details were added to the SILL In item 6 “I use flashcards to remember new English words”, two students did not understand the term “flashcards”; therefore, a footnote explaining the term was added in the SILL There was also confusion about the term “patterns” in item 20 “I try to find patterns in English” concerning the

36

domain of “patterns”: Are they grammatical patterns, semantic patterns or others? After discussing with two colleagues and consulting the supervisor, the researcher decided to add one more word into item 20 that is “I try to find

grammatical patterns in English” After the final version of SILL was

completed, questionnaires were delivered to 105 students (those who scored from 2.6 to 4.0 and those who scored from 6.5 to 7.8) through emails with the assistance of the monitors in 22 groups Unfortunately, only 87 out of 105 students responded the questionnaire There responses were collected and then divided into 2 groups: Basic Group and Proficient Group

Interview procedure

9 out of 87 participants were selected to be interviewed The interviewers include 3 male students and 6 female students They were chosen according to the following criteria:

 2 proficient students (both female) with the highest Ielts score in comparison with 2 basic students (one male + one female) with the lowest Ielts score (CASE 1)

 3 proficient students (one male + two female) with the reported frequency

of language learning strategy use of less than 3.0 in comparison with 2 basic students (one male + one female) with the reported frequency of language learning strategy use of more than 3.4 (CASE 2)

For case 1, the researcher hopes to find the differences between the most proficient students and the most basic students within the study‟s setting One male student with one of the highest Ielts scores was requested for the interview;