Non - English majors’ employment of autonomous English lexical learning strategies

 Thao Quoc Tran. Journal of Science Ho Chi Minh City Open University, 10(3), 43-54 43 
Non-English majors’ employment of autonomous English lexical 
learning strategies 
Thao Quoc Tran1* 
1Ho Chi Minh City University of Technology (HUTECH) 
*Corresponding author: tq.thao@hutech.edu.vn 
ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT 
DOI:10.46223/HCMCOUJS.
soci.en.10.1.540.2020 
Received: 09/06/2020 
Revised: 17/06/2020 
Accepted: 29/06/2020 
Keywords: 
autonomy, English, non-
English majors, strategy, 
lexical language strategy 
The lexicon is one of the most core elements in a language 
system, so acquiring/learning it is a must-do job for ESL/EFL 
learners. Nevertheless, whether ESL/EFL learners can employ 
English lexical learning strategies (LLS) autonomously or not has 
concerned researchers and educators in different contexts. This 
study, therefore, endeavors to explore the use of autonomous 
English LLS by non-English majors at a technical Ho Chi Minh 
City-based university in Vietnam. It involved 200 students in 
answering a closed-ended questionnaire and ten students in semi-
structured interviews. The results revealed that research 
participants sometimes utilized LLS autonomously in English 
language learning. Among five groups of autonomous English 
LLS, participants sometimes tended to use more determination 
strategies than other groups of social, cognitive, and metacognitive 
strategies and memory strategies. Additionally, the results showed 
that females utilized English LLS more autonomously than males. 
The findings imply that technical students, especially male 
students, seemed not to focus much on English LLS. 
1. Introduction 
Researchers (e.g., Benson, 2001; Duong, 2014; Duong & Seepho, 2013; Gremmo & Riley, 
1995; T. Q. Tran & L. C. H. Nguyen, 2020; T. Q. Tran & T. G. Nguyen, 2017; Tran & Vo, 2019) 
have paid much attention to the development of learner autonomy as an alternative approach in 
education in general and in language learning in particular. Hence, ESL/EFL teachers in different 
contexts are aware of the importance of learner autonomy (Cotterall, 2000), and believe that 
developing learner autonomy to ESL/EFL learners can be effective in assisting learners to learn 
independently (O’Malley & Chamot, 1990). 
It is agreed that the lexicon is a vital factor in English language teaching and learning. If 
one does not have enough lexicons to express his ideas in communication, one may not succeed 
in conversations (McCarthy, 1992). Likewise, the lexicon is the core component in a language 
system, so mastering lexicon can help learners enhance their language skills (Richards & 
Renandya, 2002). Hence, a learning lexicon is extremely essential because it can help learners to 
enhance their English language skills effectively. Accordingly, learners should be introduced to 
lexical learning strategies (LLS) and encouraged to undertake independent learning both inside 
and outside the classroom. 
44 Thao Quoc Tran. Journal of Science Ho Chi Minh City Open University, 10(3), 43-54 
In Vietnam, the English language is one of the compulsory subjects to be learned at 
different levels of education. It is observed, nonetheless, that while some students are motivated 
and eager to delve themselves into learning English at different times, many are still struggling in 
learning it effectively. This can be derived from their ability to learn independently (e.g., Duong, 
2014; Duong & Seepho, 2013; Nguyen, 2013; Tran & Duong, 2018). It is further noticed that a 
large proportion of students cannot use English well although they have learned English for years. 
One of the possible reasons for that is they lack lexicons. They learn English lexicons by 
memorizing a long list of lexicons provided by their teachers (Nguyen, 2013). This study, 
therefore, attempts to explore the use of autonomous English LLS by technical non-English majors 
at a Ho Chi Minh City based higher institution. The following research questions are formed: 
1. How do non-English majors at a higher institution use English LLS autonomously? 
2. Do male students use English LLS differently from their female counterparts? If yes, 
how? 
2. Literature review 
LLS are variously defined. Intaraprasert (2005) has defined that LLS are a set of techniques 
to broaden lexical knowledge. Similarly, Naveh, Kafipour, and Scoltani (2011) have defined that 
LLS are strategies used to learn lexicons independently. Within the scope of this study, LLS are 
understood as techniques utilized by language learners to learn lexicons easily. 
LLS are extremely vital in learning a language as learners can get various benefits from 
LLS. Nation (2001) believes that learners can grasp a great number of lexicons by using LLS. In 
addition, when learners are aware of LLS, they can deal with unknown words effectively. Besides, 
autonomous learners are seen to learn lexicons effectively (Gu & Johnson, 1996). As learners 
cannot learn all lexicons provided in language classes, they have to look for other useful ways to 
master language lexicons effectively. 
Different classifications of LLS have been found in the body of literature. Schmitt (1997) 
has grouped LLS is into two main categories, viz. discovery strategies and consolidating strategies. 
The former consists of determination and social strategies while the latter comprises social, 
memory, cognitive, and metacognitive strategies. Both groups by Schmitt (1997) include social 
strategies as they can be used for various purposes. Meanwhile, Intaraprasert (2005) classifies LLS 
into three main categories, namely Strategies to Discover the Meaning of New Vocabulary Items, 
Strategies to Retain the Knowledge of Newly Learned Vocabulary and Strategies to Expand the 
Knowledge of Vocabulary Items. Autonomous learners tend to employ different types of LLS (T. 
Q. Tran & T.G. Nguyen, 2017) which can fall in Schmitt’s (1997) taxonomy of LLS or 
Intaraprasert’s (2005) classification of LLS. For this study, the Schmitt’s (1997) taxonomy of LLS 
is mainly relied on for theoretical foundation as it is comprehensive and suitable for the aims of 
this study. 
Prior studies have indicated that different aspects of LLS have been explored in different 
contexts. Significantly, Khalifa and Shabdin (2016) studied the impact of LLS on secondary school 
students’ learner autonomy development in Libya. Pre-test/post-test and logbooks were used to 
collect data. The results showed that experimental group participants outperformed in autonomous 
lexical learning. Another study was conducted by Sedighi and Tamjid (2016) who explored the 
correlation between LLS and learner autonomy of Iranian EFL learners. This study involved 82 
sophomore and junior students at Tabriz Azad University in answering two sets of questionnaires. 
It was found that students’ use of LLS was positively correlated with their autonomy. Recently, 
Besthia (2018) investigated Indonesian university students’ use of LLS. 74 students were 
 Thao Quoc Tran. Journal of Science Ho Chi Minh City Open University, 10(3), 43-54 45 
answering the 40-item questionnaire. The findings indicated that students used Determination 
Strategies the most and Social Strategies the least. In the context of Vietnam, several studies (e.g., 
Le, 2018; Luu, 2001; Pham, 2010; Trinh & Trinh, 2019) relevant to LLS have been conducted. 
Pham (2010) investigated first-year students’ LLS use a university in Hanoi. There were 421 
students from different majors answering the questionnaire. It was found that participants used 
LLS at a medium level, and students from different majors did not use LLS significantly 
differently. Le (2018) researched on students’ use of academic LLS at a university. There were 
132 students taking part in answering a questionnaire. The results showed that participants tended 
to employ online dictionary and applications more often than cognitive strategies. Trinh & Trinh 
(2019) did a study on LLS used by the English majored students at Tra Vinh University. It involved 
40 third-year students in answering the questionnaire. The results indicated that participants used 
strategies relevant to autonomy and dictionary most frequently while they employed guessing and 
social strategies the least. In brief, it is noticed that different studies have examined the LLS use 
in different contexts; nonetheless, the focus of autonomous use of LLS is not much explored yet. 
Therefore, this study is carried to explore the use of autonomous English LLS by non-English 
majors at a technical university in Ho Chi Minh City. 
3. Research methodology 
3.1. Research context and participants 
This mixed-methods study was carried out at a higher institution in Ho Chi Minh City, 
which is mainly a technical university. Students at this university have to learn different courses 
of English within the first two years in their tertiary program, and the total number of credits of 
English courses they have to take is 18. 
Two-hundred second-year students were purposively sampled from different majors to take 
part in this study. The number of 88 male students accounts for 44% (88 participants) while that 
of female students is responsible for 56% (122 participants). Nearly 70% (137) of participants 
allocated less than one hour each day to self-studying English lexicons, but only 2% (4) of 
participants spent two hours on lexical learning daily. In addition, 34 participants (17%) and 25 
participants (12.5%) spared about one hour and from one to two hours daily respectively to learn 
English lexicons. Ten students from 200 participants were purposively invited for semi-structured 
interviews. 
3.2. Research instruments 
The questionnaire and semi-structured interviews were employed for data collection. The 
closed-ended questionnaire which was adapted from Schmitt’s (2010) study consists of two parts: 
Part A asking for respondent’s background information; Part B consisting of 34 items grouped into 
the five strategies: determination strategies (5 items), social strategies (5 items), memory strategies 
(10 items), cognitive strategies (7 items) and metacognitive strategies (6 items). The five-point 
Likert-scale (from 1=never to 5=always) was employed. The questionnaire was translated into 
Vietnamese to make sure that respondents did not meet any language difficulty in responding to 
the questionnaire. Regarding the reliability of the questionnaire, Cronbach’s alpha was .82 for the 
whole questionnaire. This means that the questionnaire was very reliable. 
The semi-structured interview was employed to get in-depth information and cross-check 
the data gained from the questionnaire. It includes five main questions which were designed based 
on the research aims. All the interview questions were also translated into students’ mother tongue 
so that interviewees could express their answers fully. 
46 Thao Quoc Tran. Journal of Science Ho Chi Minh City Open University, 10(3), 43-54 
3.3. Procedures for data collection and analysis 
Concerning data collection, after the questionnaire and interview had been piloted, two 
hundred copies of questionnaires were administered to students in person. Respondents spent 
around 20 minutes on finishing the questionnaire. Then, ten students were invited for a face to face 
interviews. Each interview took place around 20 minutes. All interviews were recorded for later 
transcription. 
Regarding data analysis, there were two types of data: quantitative data and qualitative 
data. The former was analyzed using SPSS in terms of mean score, standard deviation, and 
Independent T-test, while the latter was analyzed utilizing the content analysis approach. The 
interval scores of the five-point Likert scale were interpreted as 1.00 – 1.80: Never; 1.81 – 2.60: 
Seldom; 2.61 – 3.40: Sometimes; 3.41 – 4.20: Often; 4.21 – 5.00: Always. The interviewees were 
coded as S1, S2 to S10. 
4. Results and discussion 
4.1. Results 
4.1.1. Non-English majors’ use of autonomous English LLS 
It is seen from Table 1 that the overall mean score of non-English majors’ use of autonomous 
English LLS is 2.83. To put it another way, the participants sometimes employed English LLS 
Among five groups of English LLS, Determination strategies was recognized to be the most 
frequently used (G1, M = 3.14, S.D. = .64), followed by Metacognitive strategies (G5, M = 2.82, 
S.D. = .72), Social strategies (G2, M = 2.80, S.D. = .63) and Cognitive strategies (G4, M = 2.69, 
S.D. =.62). Memory strategies was the least used English LLS (G3, M = 2.67, S.D. = .60). 
Table 1 
Non-English majors’ use of autonomous English LLS 
No. 
N=200 
M SD 
G1 Determination strategies 3.14 .64 
G2 Social strategies 2.80 .63 
G3 Memory strategies 2.67 .60 
G4 Cognitive strategies 2.69 .62 
G5 Metacognitive strategies 2.82 .72 
 Overall 2.83 .44 
Note: M: Mean; SD: Standard Deviation 
Source: Data analysis result of the research 
Specifically, Table 2 indicates that participants often used a bilingual dictionary for 
learning lexicons (Item 4, M = 4.55, SD = .75). In addition, they sometimes guessed the lexical 
meanings by using available pictures and objects (Item 3, M = 3.06, SD = 1.06), or by analyzing 
the structure of the lexicons (Item 1, M = 2.82, SD = 1.19), or by guessing the lexical meanings 
from contexts (Item 2, M = 2.81, SD = 1.17). However, monolingual dictionary was rarely 
exploited (Item 5, M = 2.46, SD = 1.10). This means that participants sometimes utilized 
determination strategies to learn lexicons. 
 Thao Quoc Tran. Journal of Science Ho Chi Minh City Open University, 10(3), 43-54 47 
Table 2 
Non-English majors’ use of autonomous English LLS in terms of Determination strategies 
No. Determination strategies 
N=200 
M SD 
1 I guess the lexical meanings by analyzing the structure of words 
(e.g., prefixes, roots, or suffixes). 
2.82 1.19 
2 I guess lexical meanings from contexts. 2.81 1.17 
3 I guess the lexical meanings from contexts through available pictures 
and objects. 
3.06 1.21 
4 I use a bilingual dictionary to find out the lexical meanings. 4.55 .75 
5 I use a monolingual dictionary to check the lexical meanings. 2.46 1.10 
Note: M: Mean; SD: Standard Deviation 
Source: Data analysis result of the research 
The qualitative findings supported the quantitative ones. Participants preferred 
determination strategies to learn lexicons. For example: 
I am not well aware of LLS, but I like using a dictionary to look up the lexical meanings. (S2) 
I often use a dictionary in my cellphone to look up the meanings and pronunciation of new 
words. (S4) 
Results in Table 3 indicate that the participants often asked teachers for L1 translation (Item 
6, M = 3.98, SD = 1.15) and asked classmates for meaning (Item 8, M = 3.67, SD =1.17). However, 
they seldom asked the teacher for paraphrases or synonyms (Item 7, M = 2.31, SD = 1.15), studied 
lexical meanings through group work (Item 9, M = 2.06, SD =.96) and interacted with native 
speakers to construct lexical meanings (Item 10, M = 1.99, SD =.95). 
Table 4 
Non-English majors’ use of autonomous English LLS in terms of Social strategy 
No. Social strategy 
N=200 
M SD 
6 I ask teachers for L1 translation. 3.98 1.15 
7 I ask teachers for paraphrases or synonyms. 2.31 1.15 
8 I ask classmates for meaning. 3.67 1.17 
9 I study lexical meanings through group work. 2.06 .96 
10 I interact with native speakers. 1.99 .95 
Note: M: Mean; SD: Standard Deviation 
Source: Data analysis result of the research 
48 Thao Quoc Tran. Journal of Science Ho Chi Minh City Open University, 10(3), 43-54 
Similar to the quantitative results, the qualitative findings revealed that participants used 
social strategies in learning lexicons. 
When I am not sure of the meaning of new words, I ask my friends, English teachers 
and even foreign friends. (S1) 
I often talk to my classmates to check the meaning of new words because it is more 
convenient for me. (S6) 
Results in Table 4 present that participants often “read lexicons aloud when studying them” 
(Item 19, M = 3.58, SD =1.18), but they sometimes “use physical action in lexical learning” (Item 
20, M = 3.20, SD = 1.20), “link newly-learned lexicons to previous personal experience” Item 11, 
M = 3.14, SD = .98), “connect newly-learned lexicons to previous-learned ones” (Item 12, M = 
2.91, S.D. =1.47), “associate the lexicons in their synonyms or antonyms” (Item 13, M = 2.64, SD 
= 1.06) and “group lexicons together to study them” (Item 16, M = 2.61, SD = 1.18). In addition, 
participants seldom “study the spelling of a lexicon” (Item 18, M = 2.41, SD = 1.19), “employ the 
keyword method to study lexicons” (Item 17, M = 2.22, SD = 1.11), “employ semantic maps to 
learn lexicons” (Item 14, M = 2.02, SD = .88) and “connect pictures, flashcards or real objects 
with lexicons” (Item 15, M = 1.98, SD = 1.02). 
Table 5 
Non-English majors’ use of autonomous English LLS in terms of Memory strategies 
No. Memory strategies 
N=200 
M SD 
11 I link newly-learned lexicons to previous personal experience. 3.14 .98 
12 I connect newly-learned lexicons to previous-learned ones. 2.91 1.47 
13 I associate the lexicons in their synonyms or antonyms. 2.64 1.06 
14 I employ semantic maps to learn lexicons. 2.02 .88 
15 I connect pictures, flashcards, or real objects with lexicons. 1.98 1.02 
16 I group lexicons to study them. 2.61 1.18 
17 I employ the keyword method to study lexicons. 2.22 1.11 
18 I study the spelling of a lexicon. 2.41 1.19 
19 I read lexicons aloud when studying them. 3.58 1.18 
20 I use physical action in lexical learning. 3.20 1.20 
Note: M: Mean; SD: Standard Deviation 
Source: Data analysis result of the research 
As seen from Table 5, participants sometimes “highlight lexicons [they] want to learn” 
(Item 27, M = 3.61, SD = 1.40), “repeat the lexicon with its meaning many times” (Item 22, M = 
3.11, SD = 1.40), “keep a lexicon notebook” (Item 21, M = 2.85, SD = 1.18) and write the lexicons 
with their meaning many times (Item 23, M = 2.74, SD = 1.07). Nevertheless, they seldom “take 
notes in class” (Item 24, M = 2.35, SD = 1.26), “write lexicons with meanings on stickers” (Item 
25, M = 2.34, SD = 1.22) and “write lexicons on the board in [their] room” (Item 26, M = 1.84, 
SD = .99). 
 Thao Quoc Tran. Journal of Science Ho Chi Minh City Open University, 10(3), 43-54 49 
Table 6 
Non-English majors’ use of autonomous English LLS in terms of Cognitive strategy 
No. Cognitive strategies 
N=200 
M SD 
21 I keep a vocabulary notebook. 2.85 1.18 
22 I say the word with its meaning repeatedly. 3.11 1.40 
23 I write the word with its meaning repeatedly. 2.74 1.07 
24 I take notes in class. 2.35 1.26 
25 I write vocabulary items with meanings on papers and stick them on 
physical objects. 
2.34 1.22 
26 I write vocabulary items with meanings on papers and stick them on 
the wall in my room. 
1.84 .99 
27 I highlight new words. 3.61 1.40 
Note: M: Mean; SD: Standard Deviation 
Source: Data analysis result of the research 
Findings from the qualitative data showed that interviewees employed this group of 
strategies in lexical learning. 
I highlight lexicons I want to learn because this way can help me learn new words 
quickly. (S4) 
I try to repeat new words or write them many times so that I can remember them well. (S7) 
It can be seen in Table 6, respondents often learnt lexicons through English songs (Item 
28, M = 4.19, SD = 1.06), but they sometimes learnt lexicons from “playing English games” (Item 
31, M = 3.38, SD = 1.19), “websites for lexical learning” (Item 34, M = 2.71, SD = 1.26), “doing 
English lexical tests” (Item 32, M = 2.52, SD = 1.14