An investigation into English language learning strategies employed by the first year english major students at school of foreign languages, Thai Nguyen university

T p chí Khoa h c Ngôn ng  và Văn hóaạ ọ ữ ISSN 2525­2674 T p 3, S  1, 2019ậ ố
AN INVESTIGATION INTO ENGLISH LANGUAGE
LEARNING STRATEGIES EMPLOYED BY THE FIRST YEAR
ENGLISH MAJOR STUDENTS AT SCHOOL OF FOREIGN
LANGUAGES, THAI NGUYEN UNIVERSITY
Nguyen Thi Dieu Ha*
Thai Nguyen University
Received: 29/08/2018; Revised: 27/09/2018; Accepted: 22/04/2019
Abstract: The study investigates language learning strategies (LLSs) employed by first
year English major students at School of Foreign Languages (SFL), Thai Nguyen
University (TNU) and examines differences in the use of LLSs among students with
different language learning experiences measured by years of learning English. Two data
collection instruments used are a questionnaire adapted from the Strategy Inventory for
Language Learning (SILL) (Oxford, 1990) and an interview. The study was conducted with
the participation of 100 first year English major students at SFL, TNU. The results of the
study indicate that all the LLSs were used by the 100 participants. In addition, there were a
number of variations in the employment of LLSs among students with different language
learning experiences. It was found that the more experienced students used LLSs much
more frequently than the less experienced ones.
Key words: Language learning, language learning experiences, language learning
strategies
1. Introduction 
In the era of integration and globalization, English has become an international means of
communication. English has been the dominant language in the fields of education, commerce,
tourism and many other aspects of life. In the field of education, English has been taught as one
of the compulsory subjects at all levels of education in many countries (Mai Lan Anh, 2010).
Due to the importance of English, plenty of research on English language teaching and learning
has been conducted. 
In Vietnam, English has affirmed its important position in different fields, especially in
education. However, most Vietnamese students learn English with the aim of finishing the
course or passing examinations. Few students find English interesting and learn English because
their interest because English is so difficult for them to learn and to love. According to an
investigation of Ho Chi Minh City Department of Science and Technology, 50 percent of
university graduates do not meet the requirements of English language skill and only 3 percent
of Vietnamese students have obtained international English certificates. One of the main reasons
for this is their lack of English language learning strategies. An abundance of research on
language learning strategies, therefore, have been carried out and a number of suggestions have
been given (Le Thanh Hoang (1999), Mai Lan Anh (2010), Mai Dang Phuong (2012)).
However, none of them was done at School of Foreign Language (SFL), Thai Nguyen
University (TNU). This study is, therefore, aimed at answering the following questions:
* Email: dieuha.sfl@tnu.edu.vn 
1
Journal of Inquiry into Languages and Cultures ISSN 2525­2674 Vol 3, No 1, 2019
1. What English language learning strategies are frequently employed by the first year 
English major students at School of Foreign Languages, Thai Nguyen University?
2. What are the differences in the students’ use of English language learning strategies 
due to English learning experience? 
2. Literature review 
2.1. Definition of language learning strategies
There have been numerous definitions of language learning strategies by different
researchers. According to Oxford, language learning strategies are “mental steps or operation
that learners use to learn a new language and to regulate their effort to do so” (Oxford, 1990, p.
7). O’Malley and Chamot (1990, p. 1) defined language learning strategies as “special thoughts
or behaviours that individuals use to help them comprehend, learn or retain new information”.
Language learning strategies are “operations employed by the learner to aid the acquisition,
storage, retrieve and use of information; specific actions taken by the learner to make learning
easier, faster, more enjoyable, more self-directed, more effective and more transferable to
situation” (Oxford (1990), p. 1). The definition by Oxford (1990) is used in the current study. 
2.2. Classification of language learning strategies
In Rubin’s (1987) viewpoint, there were three types of language learning strategies which
are learning strategies, communication strategies, and social strategies. These types of learning
strategies make direct or indirect contribution to learner’s learning process. 
The most notable classification of language learning strategies was given by Oxford
(1990). According to Oxford, there are 62 strategies which are divided into two main categories,
direct and indirect. Direct strategies consist of three subtypes of strategies: memory strategies,
cognitive strategies and compensation strategies. Indirect strategies include metacognitive
strategies, affective strategies and social strategies. Direct and indirect strategies work together
and assist language learners in different ways. While direct strategies help learners store,
recover information and even produce language, indirect strategies support and manage
language learning strategies without direct engagement. 
2.3. Studies on language learning strategy 
2.3.1. Studies on language learning strategy employment 
Bremner (1999) conducted a study in order to study the language learning strategies used
by a group of Hong Kong learners. The participants of the study were 149 students who were
attending a language and communication skill course at the City University of Hong Kong. The
researcher used a fifty-item questionnaire adapted from Oxford’s Strategy Inventory for
Language Learning (SILL) as a data collection instrument. The result showed a medium level of
strategies use by learners. In addition, compensation and metacognitive strategies were used
most frequently while memory strategies were least frequently used. 
Ratana (2007) investigated the English language problems and learning strategies of
thirty Thai students of Mahidol University. A questionnaire modified from Oxford’s (1990)
SILL was used as the instrument to collect the data for the research. The study result showed a
2
T p chí Khoa h c Ngôn ng  và Văn hóaạ ọ ữ ISSN 2525­2674 T p 3, S  1, 2019ậ ố
medium frequency use of strategies among participants. The thirty Thai students used
metacognitive the most frequently but in medium range, and compensatory strategies the least
frequently. 
Dhanapala (2007) explored the differences in language learning strategy use between
Japanese and Sri Lankan advanced English language students. The three data collection
instruments were a sixty-item strategy questionnaire modified from Oxford’s SILL, a
background questionnaire, and an English proficiency test. It was indicated from the study result
that Sri Lankan students employed strategies more often than the Japanese ones. The Sri Lankan
students gave the most preference to metacognitive strategies followed by cognitive strategies
and memory strategies. On the other hand, the Japanese students used compensation strategies
the most frequently and affective strategies the least. 
It is indicated from the previous study that the most common data collection instrument
was a strategy questionnaire adapted from Oxford’s (1990) SILL. The result of the studies
revealed that most participants showed a medium frequency use of language learning strategies.
In addition, the metacognitive strategies were the most frequently used. Compensation strategies
were also mentioned as being used frequently, followed by social strategies and cognitive
strategies. 
2.3.2. Studies on the relationship between language learning experience and language
learning strategy use
Purdie and Oliver (1999) carried out an investigation on language learning strategies
employed by bilingual-aged children from three main cultural groups: Asian (predominantly
Vietnamese or Chinese dialect speakers), European (children who spoke Greek and those who
identified themselves as speakers of Macedonian), and speakers of Arabic. The instrument for
collecting the data was a written questionnaire. The results pointed out that the students who had
been in Australia for a longer period of time (three or less year and four or more) obtained
significantly higher mean scores for Cognitive strategies and for Memory strategies. From the
findings of the study, it could be concluded that experience in studying a language can affect the
language learning strategy use. 
Khamkhien did a research on the factors affecting language learning strategy used by
Thai and Vietnamese EFL learners in 2010. The two main objectives of the study were to
determine the effects of three factors (gender, motivation and experiences in studying English)
on the choices of language learning strategies and to compare the roles of these factors and the
pattern of language learning strategy used by Thai and Vietnamese students. The study was
conducted with the participation of 136 undergraduate students (84 Thai and 52 Vietnamese
students). All the participants had no more than 4-months experience abroad and had at least 6
years of experience of learning English. The researcher used the 80-item Strategy Inventory for
Language Learning as the instrument of data collection. The result noted that along with
motivation and gender, language learning experiences had significant effects on the learners’
language learning employment. With regard to Thai students, cognitive and metacognitive
categories were used more frequently by those with additional experiences in studying English
in the language center and/or of going abroad than by the ones with no additional experiences.
3
Journal of Inquiry into Languages and Cultures ISSN 2525­2674 Vol 3, No 1, 2019
For Vietnamese students, the t-test showed that the participants without additional experience
reported higher use of memory category than the additional experience group. 
3. Methodology 
3.1. Participants 
The participants of the research were 100 first year English major students at SFL, TNU.
At the time of gathering the data for this study, they were in the second semester of the school
year 2017-2018. Most of them were from 18 to 20 years old and had learned English for 8 to 12
years. They had never been given any training in language learning strategies. The 20 students
for the face-to-face interview were randomly chosen from the 150 participants. 
3.2. The instruments
The questionnaire consists of two parts. Part I is designed by the researcher to collect the
participants’ background information. This part includes questions about name, age, gender,
class, major, years of studying English. Part II is adapted from the Strategy Inventory for
Language Learning devised by Oxford (1990) with a five point Likert-scale: (1) “never or
almost true for me”, (2) “usually not true of me”, (3) “somewhat true of me”, (4) “usually true
of me”, (5) “always or almost always true of me”. 
The interview asked the students questions about name, age, major, English learning
duration and their perceptions about language learning strategies. The purpose of the interview
is to have deeper understanding about the students’ use of language learning strategies. 
3.3. Procedure
Firstly, the questionnaire was distributed to the students by the researcher after an English
lesson. The researcher was with students during the time they filled the questionnaire to give
any necessary help such as explaining any new words or strategies in the questionnaire. It took
about 15 minutes for the participants to complete the questionnaire. 
Secondly, based on the result of the questionnaire, the researcher chose 20 students to
interview to check the reliability of the students’ answer in the questionnaire. While answering
the interview questions, the interviewees were given a copy of the questionnaire in order to
make sure that they would not forget any strategies. Then the researcher compared their answers
to the interview questions with their responses in the questionnaire.
The data elicited from the questionnaire were analyzed using Statistical Package for
Social Sciences (SPSS), version 22. Each question in the questionnaire was analyzed by
counting its mean. The interviews were recorded and then transcribed for categorizing and
summarizing. 
4. Findings and discussion
4.1. Discussion on the result of the questionnaire
4.1.1. Result of the questionnaire 
Use of overall strategies 
4
T p chí Khoa h c Ngôn ng  và Văn hóaạ ọ ữ ISSN 2525­2674 T p 3, S  1, 2019ậ ố
Table 1 reveals that the 100 participants used most strategy categories at “medium” level.
As can be seen from it, social strategies were the most frequently used among the six categories
(M = 3.49). The second highest rank was compensation strategies (M = 3.09), followed by
memory strategies (M = 2.90), affective strategies (M = 2.88), metacognitive strategies (M =
2.86) and cognitive strategies (M = 2.69). It is easily recognized that all the strategy categories
were in the same frequency level. No great disparity, therefore, could be seen among the
columns representing the six strategy categories in the table. 
Table 1. The subjects’ responses to the use of the six strategy categories
Strategy Category Number of students Mean SD Rank order of the usage
A: Memory 100 2.90 .847 3
B: Cognitive 100 2.69 .886 6
C: Compensation 100 3.09 .920 2
D: Metacognitive 100 2.86 .841 5
E: Affective 100 2.88 .883 4
F: Social 100 3.49 .852 1
Use of individual language learning strategies 
Table 2. Memory category descriptive statistics
Individual Strategy N MEAN SD
1. I think of relationships between what I already know and new 
things I learn in English.
100 2.35 .828
2. I use new English words in a sentence so I can remember them. 100 3.55 .835
3. I connect the sound of a new English word and an image or picture 
of the word to help me remember the word.
100 2.33 .930
4. I remember a new English word by making a mental picture of a 
situation in which the word might be used.
100 2.13 .994
5. I use rhymes to remember new English words. 100 2.83 .821
6. I use flashcards to remember new English words. 100 3.67 .876
7. I physically act out new English words. 100 3.22 .851
8. I review English lessons often. 100 3.81 .884
9. I remember new English words or phrase by remembering their 
location on the page, on the board, or on a screen sign.
100 2.25 .882
Table 2 shows that there were significant differences in the use of memory category
(items 1 to 9). The strategies used the most often were “I review English lessons often” (M =
3.81), “I use flashcards to remember new words” (M = 3.67), and “I use English words in a
sentence so that I can remember them” (M = 3.55). Five strategies were found to be in low use,
item 1 (M = 2.35), item 3 (M = 2.33), item 4 (M = 2.13), item 9 (M = 2.25) and item 5 (M =
2.83). 
5
Journal of Inquiry into Languages and Cultures ISSN 2525­2674 Vol 3, No 1, 2019
Table 3. Cognitive Category descriptive statistics
Individual Strategy N MEAN SD
10. I say or write new English words several times. 100 3.34 1.022
11. I try to talk like native English speakers. 100 2.67 .998
12. I practice the sounds of English. 100 3.55 .833
13. I use the English words I know in different ways. 100 2.13 .927
14. I start conversations in English 100 3.14 .948
15. I watch English language TV shows spoken in English or to go to 
movies spoken in English.
100 3.23 .834
16. I read for pleasure in English. 100 2.42 .838
17. I write notes, messages, letters, or reports in English. 100 1.88 .934
18. I first skim an English passage (read over the passage quickly) 
then go back and read carefully.
100 2.25 .875
19. I look for words in my own language that are similar to new words
in English.
100 3.11 .933
20. I try to find patterns in English. 100 1.25 .987
21. I find the meaning of an English word by dividing it into parts that
I understand.
100 3.01 .998
22. I try not to translate word-for-word. 100 3.67 .911
23. I make summaries of information that I hear or read in English. 100 2.05 .841.
Table 3 describes the means and standard deviations of cognitive strategies (items 10 to
23). As can be seen, the most frequently used strategy was item 22 - “I try not to translate word
for word” (M = 3.67) followed by item 12 - “I practice the sound of English” (M = 3.55). The
least frequently used strategies were item 20 - “I try to find pattern in English” (M = 1.25), item
17 - “I write note, messages, letter and reports in English” (M = 1.88), item 13 - “I use the
English words I know in different ways” (M = 2.13), item 18 - “I first skim an English passage
then go back and read carefully” (M = 2.25). The other strategies were used at medium level.
Table 4. Compensation Category descriptive statistics
Individual Strategy N MEAN SD
24. To understand unfamiliar English words, I make guesses. 100 3.23 .765
25. When I can’t think of a word during a conversation in English, I 
use gestures.
100 3.55 .898
26. I make up new words if I do not know the right ones in English. 100 3.12 .875
27. I read English without looking up every new word. 100 2.87 .987
28. I try to guess what the other person will say next in English. 100 2.07 .766
29. If I can’t think of an English word, I use a word or phrase that 
means the same thing.
100 3.67 .834
Table 4 gives the means and standard deviations of compensation strategies (items 24 to
29). Remarkable differences are found in the use of compensation strategies among the first
year students. Four out of six items got mean scores higher than 3 while two others got mean
6
T p chí Khoa h c Ngôn ng  và Văn hóaạ ọ ữ ISSN 2525­2674 T p 3, S  1, 2019ậ ố
score lower than 3. Item 29 -“If I can’t think of an English word, I use a word or phrase that
means the same thing” got the highest mean score (M = 3.67) followed by item 25 - “When I
can’t think of a word during a conversation in English, I use gestures” (M = 3.55). The two
items with lowest mean scores were item 28 - “I try to guess what other person will say next in
English” (M = 2.07) and item 27 - “I read English without looking up every new word”.
Table 5. Metacognitive Category descriptive statistics
Individual Strategy N MEAN SD
30. I try to find as many ways as I can to use my English. 100 2.09 .785
31. I notice my English mistakes and use that information to help me 
do better.
100 2.67 .899
32. I pay attention when someone is speaking English. 100 3.89 .874
33. I try to find out how to be a better learner of English. 100 2.86 .866
34. I plan my schedule so I will have enough time to study English. 100 3.25 .932
35. I look for people I can talk to in English. 100 3.45 .957
36. I look for opportunities to read as much as possible in English. 100 3.21 .923
37. I have clear goals for improving my English skills. 100 2.23 .982
38. I think about my progress in learning English. 100 2.05 .910
Table 5 describes the use of metacognitive strategies in learning English by the 100
participants. “I pay attention when someone is speaking English” (M = 3.89) was used the most
frequently. “I look for people I can talk to in English” (M = 3.45) ranked the second place
followed by “I plan my schedule so I will have enough time to study English” (M = 3.25) and
“I look for opportunities to read as much as possible in English” (M = 3.21). The least
exploited strategy was “I think about my progress in learning English” (M = 2.05) and “I try to
find as many ways as I can to use my English” (M = 2.09). 
Table 6. Affective Category descriptive statistics
Individual Strategy N MEAN SD
39. I try to rel