Language Learning Strategies of Vietnamese EFL Fre

Arab World English Journal (AWEJ) Volume 9. Number 3. September 2018 Pp.
61-83
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.24093/awej/vol9no3.5
Language Learning Strategies of Vietnamese EFL Freshmen
Bui Thi Kieu Giang

Center for Foreign Languages and Applied Infomatics
Thai Nguyen University of Agriculture and Forestry
Quyet Thang Commune, Thai Nguyen City, Vietnam
Vu Van Tuan
English Faculty B1
Hanoi University of Business and Technology
Vinh Tuy Ward, Hai Ba Trung Dist, Ha Noi City, Vietnam
Abstract
This quantitative research aims to investigate the language learning strategies used by Vietnamese
EFL freshmen, and to examine the differences in the students’ use of English language learning
strategies according to their English proficiency. A total of 124 first year students from Hanoi
University of Business and Technology were selected as the respondents using probability
sampling methods. All the participants learned English as a compulsory academic subject. The
data collection instruments of the study were questionnaires adapted from Language Strategy Use
Inventory by Andrew D. Cohen, Rebecca Oxford, and Julie C. Chi (2005). The major findings of
the study showed that the success of language teaching and learning are determined by the effective
choices of language learning strategies. The findings of the study benefit for not only the teachers
being aware of students’ learning styles and language choice, but also the students cooperating
firmly with their teachers to master the effective language learning strategies.
Keyword: Language Learning Strategies (LLSs), English as a second language (ESL), English as
a foreign language (EFL), Second Language Acquisition (SLA), Second Language (L2).
Cite as: Giang ,B.T.K.,& Tuan,V.V. (2018). Language Learning Strategies of Vietnamese EFL
Freshmen. Arab World English Journal, 9 (3), 61-83.
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.24093/awej/vol9no3.5
61
Arab World English Journal (AWEJ) Volume 9. Number 3. September 2018
Language Learning Strategies of Vietnamese EFL Freshmen Giang & Tuan
1. Introduction
Language is the most important and meaningful tool among people. People use one language to
exchange with each other. In fact, a few languages are spoken commonly by million people
whereas many other languages are used by particular people. Currently, English is regarded as an
international language fluently used by 1.5 billion speakers worldwide, (Sawe, 2017). Thus,
English is taught as either foreign language or a second language (L2) at all levels of the
educational system in many countries in the world. Many researches have been done on second
language acquisition (SLA) in general and English learning in particular. Moeller and Catalano
(2015) state that ‘foreign language learning and teaching refer to the teaching or learning of a
nonnative language outside of the environment where it is commonly spoken” (p. 327). In fact,
learners may have different ways of acquiring L2, many researches have shown the importance of
language learning strategies for learners who want to be successful at SLA. Language learning
strategies (LLSs) are likened as a means that learners need them for the acquisition, storage, use
of information, retrieval, and enhance learners’ self-confidence.
The term “language learning strategies” can be interpreted by Oxford (2002, p. 124) as
“specific actions, behaviors, steps, or techniques that students (often intentionally) use to improve
their progress in developing second language (L2) skills”. LLSs direct English as a second
language (ESL)/English as a foreign language (EFL) learners to get improved in their language
proficiency development in their own way. The term “language proficiency”, or in other word
“linguistic proficiency” means that an ESL/EFL learner has a good command of using English. As
shown in the studies on LLSs such as Oxford (2003), Kato (2005), Lee and Heinz (2016), and
other authors, the results confirmed that ESL/EFL learners have employed a variety of LLSs to get
advanced in learning English, and the extent of their use is not too low. In fact, it is necessary for
EFL/ESL learners to adapt LLSs because learning approach is changing day after day in order to
keep up with the social development.
Vietnam has implemented many innovated policies in order to update school leavers with
a good command of foreign languages, especially English competence. To improve the foreign
language ability of Vietnamese learners, the Ministry of Education and Training (MOET) launched
National Foreign Languages Project scheme, period 2008-2020 with the focus on teaching mainly
English as a second language, not as a foreign language. Although the government has invested a
lot of effort and money in improving the quality of SLA, the result has not come up with the
expectation of the whole society. In fact, there is a strong practical bias in finding effective methods
on improving the teaching SLA. Not many studies have been done on LLSs until now. In other
words, there is a shift from teacher-centered teaching to learner-centered teaching, the role of LLSs
has not got much attention in terms of SLA in the Vietnamese educational system. From this
situation, the study is conducted on English language learning strategies used by first year students
at Hanoi University of Business and Technology (HUBT). This study clarifies the frequency of
English LLSs used by first year students and the possible link between their strategy use and
language proficiency based on their first semester GPAs. The findings of this study would
contribute to help students not only at HUBT scale but also other universities choose appropriate
LLSs in SLA.
2. Literature Review
Arab World English Journal 62
www.awej.org
ISSN: 2229-9327
2.1 An overview of Second Language Acquisition.

SLA is the process of acquiring a second or foreign language. The concept “SLA” dates back to
approximately the second half of the twentieth century. SLA refers to the systematic study of how
people learn a second language (L2). The word “second” may refer to any language that is not
learners’ mother tongue. Besides, “second” is not intended to contrast with “foreign”, any language
out of learners’ mother tongue that is used is called “second” language acquisition no matter where
the context happens. In other words, any language other than mother tongue learners try to acquire
in any circumstance is defined as SLA (Rod, 2003 p.3). Take the following idea for the clarification
of the importance for our understanding SLA. When we study human language, we are
approaching what some might call the human essence, the distinctive qualities of mind that are, so
far as we know, unique to [humans].
(Chomsky, 2006, p.88)
It is quite surprised with the distinction of Krashen (1982) when he diffirenciated the two terms
“acquisition” and “learning”, in spite of the fact that they refer to the action to “master” a language.
His viewpoint was that these two terms are dissimilar from each other, and they are classified into
two different systems namely, the “acquired” system and the “learnt” system. According to his
opinions, acquisition refers to the subconcious process of studying the language while learners are
not conciously aware of grammatical rules of the language. Futhermore, learning a language means
“knowing the rules, being aware of them, and being able to talk about them” (p.10). Krashen
concludes that “the acquired system” or acquisition is more effective than “the learned system” or
learning. One more approach to the SLA was done by Grass and Selinder (2008), they investigated
aspects of SLA, and their study tried to find out the reason why only some learners are likely to
achieve native-like proficiency in more than one language. Although many SLA authors have put
much attention to the SLA, more studies have been going on with the fact that new genres of
language learning and teaching have appeared together with the international integration.
2.2 Language learning strategies

The definitions of LLSs in L2 or foreign languages has not come to a common agreement even
though the studies of LLSs dates back to 1970s, remarkably by Rubin (1975). He defines that LLSs
are the devices or techniques that are necessary for ESL/EFL learners to use to acquire knowledge
(Rubin, 1975, p.43). From this point onward, more studies on LLSs have been carried out with
different viewpoints namely, Stern (1975), Hosenfeld (1976), Naiman, Frohlich, Stern, and
Todesco (1978), Cohen and Aphek (1980), Bialystok (1981). Noticeably, O’Malley and Charmot
(1990) defined the LLSs as the special thoughts or behaviours that individuals use to help them
comprehend, learn to retain new information. In the same year and some years later, Oxford (1990,
1993, 1993) came up with his viewpoints which have been popularly cited until now in the research
of LLSs as follows:
… language learning strategies - specific actions, behaviours, steps, or techniques

that students (often intentionally) use to improve their progress in the developing L2
skills. These strategies can facilitate the internalization, storage, retrieval, or use of
the new language. Strategies are tools for the self-directed involvement necessary for
developing communicative ability.
(Oxford, 1992/1993, p. 18).

www.awej.org
ISSN: 2229-9327
In comparison with Oxford’s opinions, O’ Malley and Chamot (1990, p. 1) consider LLSs as the
special thought or behavior whereas Oxford (1990) viewed LLSs as steps that learners use to
enhance their own learning. Some years later, Chamot (2005, p. 112) stated that strategies are most
often conscious and goal-driven especially in the beginning stages of tackling an unfamiliar
language task. Some researchers proposed to replace the term “strategy” to “self-regulation” such
authors as Dornyei and Skehan (2003), Tseng, Dornyei, and Schmitt (2006), Gao (2007), … To
defend their viewpoints, Tseng, Dornyei, and Schmitt (2006) propose a “conceptual approach
highlights the importance of the learners’ innate self-regulatory capacity” (p. 79). Besides, Gao
(2006) came up with a study entitled “Has language learning strategies research come to an end?”
(pp. 615-620) in which he concludes that learners’ strategy complemented well the potential
advance of self-regulation in language learning research.
The replacement of these terms, however, has not been supported by many researchers. It
has been reflected in renewed conferences, workshops, and publications on the strategy subject.
Remarkably, Cohen and Macaro (2007), Griffths (2008, 2013), Oxford (2011), Rose (2012),
Oxford and Macaro (2014), Dornyei and Ryan (2015) and ongoing authors have contributed their
opinions on the disagreement of the two terms shifted. Take some authors’ viewpoints for example.
Rose (2012) argues that “movements towards self-regulation are not incompatible with language
learning strategies” (p. 92). Griffths (2013) put it “the slippery strategy concept hangs on
tenaciously and refuses to be so easily dismissed” (p. 6). More recently, Dornyei & Royan (2015)
confirm that “neither self-regulation nor learning strategy has to become a casualty of the
controversy, caught in the cross-fire of the various arguments” (p. 169).
2.3 Learning Styles

Learning style is also substituted by other names as cognitive style or cognitive strategy (Richards
and Schmidt, 2010). Learning styles are the general approaches – for instance, visual, analytic,
auditory or global – which learners apply in acquiring a L2 language or in any other subject
(Oxford, 2003). Dunn & Griggs (1988) state that “Learning style is the biologically and
developmentally imposed set of characteristics that make the same teaching method wonderful for
some and terrible for others” (p. 3). According to Richards and Schmidt (2010), several different
learning styles are often referred to
1. Analytic versus global refers to whether the learner focuses on the details or concentrates on
the main idea or big picture.
2. Visual versus auditory versus hands-on or tactile refers to different sensory preferences in
learning.
3. Intuitive/random versus concrete/sequential learning refers to a difference between thinking
in an abstract or nonsequential way versus a focus on concrete facts or a preference to
approach learning in a step by step, organized fashion. (p. 331).
Although there are many style aspects to be influential to L2 learning, Ehrman and Oxford (1990)
mentioned 9 major dimensions. Of which 4 strong associations with L2 language are discussed in
this study, namely sensory preferences, personality types, desired degree of generality, and
biological differences.

www.awej.org
ISSN: 2229-9327
2.4 Research studies on the relationship between language learning strategy and language
proficiency
Kitakawa (2008) investigated the patterns of strategy used by Japanese university learners of
English. He concluded that the more frequent use of LLSs learners employ, the higher proficiency
they get. However, Chamot (2005) did a research on language learning strategy invention studies,
the author had different viewpoints by claiming that strategy instruction decided the development
of learner mastery and autonomy, and increases teacher expertise. Astonishingly, in the same year,
Deanna, Evie, and Alan (2005) carried out their research on LLSs and English proficiency of
Chinese students by comparing between Oxford’s (1990) Strategy Inventory for Language
Learning (SILL) and an institutional version (ITP) of the Test of English as a Foreign Language
(TOEFL). Their findings revealed that there is no significant differences between males and
females on eight measures of learning strategy preferences and language proficiency.
Very recently, Shyr, Feng, Zeng, Hsieh, and Shih (2017) investigated the relationships
between LLSs and achievement goal orientations in Taiwanese engineering students taking an EFL
class. The findings revealed that there is a significant correlation between LLSs and achievement
goal orientations. The study highlighted the results that the influence of the LLSs on the learners
are not equal to all instruments (SILL) in their study.
Method
3.1 Design of the study
This study was explored through quantitative research methodology. It was designed to investigate
which English learning strategies were frequently used by 124 Hanoi University of Business and
Technology (HUBT) first year students and examined whether there was a difference between
students’ English learning strategy use and their language proficiency. This research combined
two types of research design, survey design and correlational design together (Creswell, 2005).
The survey design allows finding out which English language learning strategies has been used
most popularly and less popularly by the first year HUBT EFL students. Besides, the correlational
design analyzes the differences in the use of English language strategies by multi-level students at
HUBT.
3.2 Research Instrument

According to Dörnyei (2010), the main attraction of questionnaires is their unprecedented
efficiency in terms of researcher time, researcher effort, and financial resources. Using
questionnaires for students in the current survey, the researcher aimed to elicit the frequency of
the students’ self-reported strategy use by allowing them to show their own judgment. In this study,
a probability sampling method was chosen for selecting respondents. 124 respondents were
shortlisted. After collecting the data, the next step was to analyze the data using IBM SPSS
software to deal with the raw data, basing on the questionnaire and rating score of EFL learners,
the researchers explained the more and less popular choices of English language learning strategies
used by the first year HUBT students.
4 Findings and Discussion

4.1 The background of the respondents involving the survey.
www.awej.org
ISSN: 2229-9327
The table 4.1 shows the sample population of the respondents between male and female EFL
freshmen. From the table, it reveals that 52.4% of male respondents compared with 47.6% female
ones seems to be acceptable figures. The relatively equal distribution based on genders can lead to
high reliability, which contributes to the better significance for the later of the study.
Table 4.1: Distribution of Respondents Based on Gender

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Male 65 52.4 52.4 52.4
Female 59 47.6 47.6 100.0
Total 124 100.0 100.0
There are 4 levels involved in the years of respondents learning English. The table 4.2 states that
all respondents have spent a long time studying English. Particularly, 84.7% respondents have
learnt English for 11 to 15 years, only 15.3% respondents have spent longer years studying English
– 16 to 20 years, no respondents have acquired English for less than 11 years. This data may denote
that EFL freshmen have gone through many LLSs until the time of doing this survey so that they
can give more reliable findings.
Table 4.2: Distribution of Respondents Based on Years of Learning English
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid 11 to 15 years 105 84.7 84.7 84.7
16 to 20 years 19 15.3 15.3 100.0
Total 124 100.0 100.0
In order to investigate the relationship between English Grade Point of First semester of the
respondents, the researcher consulted the respondents on 5 levels of Vietnamese Marking Scales.
The table 4.3 shows that the majority of the respondents passed their English subject, however,
58.9% of the respondents got the average scale as shown in the table, following that 25% for good
level, 10.5% for above good level, and small number 5.6% for excellent level. These figures depict
the reverse fact that the respondents have spent many years of learning English, but their results
are not persuasive or otherwise very disappointed.
Table 4.3: Distribution of Respondents Based on English Grade Point of First Semester
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid From 5.0 to 6.9 grades (average) 73 58.9 58.9 58.9
From 7.0 to 7.9 grades (good) 31 25.0 25.0 83.9
From 8.0 to 8.9 grades (above 13 10.5 10.5 94.4
good)
From 9.0 to 10 grades (excellent) 7 5.6 5.6 100.0
Total 124 100.0 100.0
Concerning with the poor results of English Grade Point, the table 4.4 investigated whether the
respondents studied other foreign languages affected English subject. The finding pointed out that

www.awej.org
ISSN: 2229-9327
91.9% of the respondents studied English, only 8.1% studied other languages. These figures denote
that the number of studying other foreign languages rather than English may not have an effect on
the poor results of the respondents in terms of LLSs.
Table 4.4: Distribution of Respondents Based on Studying Other Languages

Valid
Frequency Percent Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Yes 10 8.1 8.1 8.1
No 114 91.9 91.9 100.0
Total 124 100.0 100.0
4.2 Language Strategy Use Inventory

4.2.1 Cronbach’s Alpha Reliability Test
Cronbach’s Alpha Reliability Test of Listening Strategy Use
The figures in table 4.5 show that all values of the Listening Strategy Use are proved to be
internally consistent and could be accepted to participate into the factor analysis test because they
satisfy the three requirements proposed by the Cronbach’s alpha reliability test as follows:
First of all, α is 0.982 (excellent) which is higher than the acceptable value 0.7
Secondly, all Corrected Item-Total Correlation values are higher than the standard of 0.3
Finally, it is worth noticing that all Cronbach's Alpha if Item Deleted of 26 items do not exceed
more than the α of 0.982.
Table 4.5: Reliability Test of Listening Strategy Use
Scale
Scale Mean if Variance if Corrected Item- Cronbach's Alpha if
Item Deleted Item Deleted Total Correlation Item Deleted
Listening Strategy Use Q1 57.31 338.621 .657 .982
Listening Strategy Use 57.43 330.767 .902 .981
Q10
Q11
Q12
Q13

www.awej.org
ISSN: 2229-9327

Q14
Q15
Q16
Q17
Q18
Q19
Q20
Q21
Q22
Q23
Q24
Q25
Q26
Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficient = 0.982
Cronbach’s Alpha Reliability Test of Vocabulary Strategy Use
The same analysis as Listening Strategy Use is shown in the table 4.6. Generally, the values met
the three requirements proposed by the Cronbach’s alpha reliability test. The Cronbach’s Alpha
Coefficient is 0.789 which seems to be acceptable for the consideration.
Table 4.6: Reliability Test of Vocabulary Strategy Use

Scale Corrected Item-
Scale Mean if Variance if Total Cronbach's Alpha
Item Deleted Item Deleted Correlation if Item Deleted
Vocabulary Strategy Use Q27 42.60 25.755 .437 .774

www.awej.org
ISSN: 2229-9327
Cronbach’s Alpha Reliability Test of Speaking Strategy Use

Eighteen items of the Speaking Strategy Use shown in the table 4.7 satisfy the three requirements
proposed by the Cronbach’s alpha reliability test. In terms of Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficient, the α
is 0.941, which is the highest value that secures the reliability of the findings.
Table 4.7: Reliability Test of Speaking Strategy Use

Scale Mean if Scale Variance if Corrected Item- Cronbach's Alpha
Item Deleted Item Deleted Total Correlation if Item Deleted
Speaking Strategy Use 38.94 103.671 .745 .937
Q45
Q46
Q47
Q48
Q49
www.awej.org
ISSN: 2229-9327

Q50
Q51
Q52
Q53
Q54
Q55
Q56
Q57
Q58
Q59
Q60
Q61
Q62
Cronbach’s Alpha Reliability Test of Reading Strategy Use

The test results from the table 4.8 show that all the requirements for tesing the reliability of the
findings are satisfied. The α is 0.952, which is also highly appreciated for the research findings.
From the findings in the table 4.8, it can be concluded that all values of the Reading Strategy Use
are shown internal consistence and these values could be accepted to participate into the factor
analysis test.
Table 4.8: Reliability Test of Reading Strategy Use

Scale Mean Cronbach's
if Item Scale Variance if Corrected Item- Alpha if Item
Deleted Item Deleted Total Correlation Deleted
Reading Strategy Use Q63 25.44 65.175 .667 .951

www.awej.org
ISSN: 2229-9327

Cronbach’s Alpha Reliability Test of Writing Strategy Use

Looking at the table 4.9, it can be seen that all the values are worth taking for consideration for the
reliability test of writing strategy use. The high value of α, 0.964, states that this figure is
satisfactory for the analysis compared with 0.7 suggested in statistics.
Table 4.9: Reliability Test of Writing Strategy Use

Corrected Item- Cronbach's
Scale Mean if Scale Variance if Total Alpha if Item
Item Deleted Item Deleted Correlation Deleted
Writing Strategy Use 20.27 47.176 .893 .958
Q75
Q76
Q77
Q78
Q79
Q80
Q81
Q82
Q83
Q84
Cronbach’s Alpha Reliability Test of Translation Strategy Use

The last thing mention here is the table 4.10 which shows the finding results of the Reliability Test
of Translation Strategy Use. The same situation like the other test results in this study comes up
with the internal consistence of the values of the test. Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficient (0.936)
denotes that this figure is the highest value recommendation.
Table 4.10: Reliability Test of Translation Strategy Use

www.awej.org
ISSN: 2229-9327
Cronbach's
Scale Mean if Scale Variance Corrected Item- Alpha if Item
Item Deleted if Item Deleted Total Correlation Deleted
Translation Strategy Use 11.80 13.691 .824 .922
Q85
Q86
Q87
Q88
Q89
Q90
4.2.2 Factor Analysis Test

Factor analysis is a method of data reduction which does this by seeking underlying unobservable
(latent) variables that are reflected in the observed variables (manifest variables). Results from
these tables have indicated that all factors in the findings are proved to be necessary to explain the
impacts that English LLS are meaningful to be considered for analysis because the figures satisfy
the four requirements of the test as follows:
(1) KMO value is between 0.5 and 1.0
(2) Barlett Sig. is 0.000 which is lower than 5%, this mean that the figures are relevant to the
analysis.
(3) The cumulative eigenvalues are all higher than 50%
(4) Factor loading values are all higher than 0.30
Table 4.11: Factor Analysis Test of Listening Strategy Use Factor
KMO and Bartlett's Test
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .968
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi-Square 3493.934
df 325
Sig. .000
Total Variance Explained

Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings
Componen % of Cumulativ
t Total Variance e% Total % of Variance Cumulative %
1 17.990 69.191 69.191 17.990 69.191 69.191
2 .805 3.098 72.289
3 .718 2.761 75.050
4 .600 2.307 77.357

www.awej.org
ISSN: 2229-9327
5 .569 2.188 79.544

6 .538 2.068 81.612
7 .463 1.780 83.392
8 .428 1.647 85.039
9 .397 1.528 86.567
10 .373 1.436 88.003
11 .356 1.368 89.370
12 .314 1.209 90.580
13 .287 1.103 91.683
14 .273 1.050 92.733
15 .254 .976 93.708
16 .241 .927 94.636
17 .237 .912 95.547
18 .200 .768 96.315
19 .186 .715 97.030
20 .167 .641 97.671
21 .127 .487 98.158
22 .114 .437 98.594
23 .106 .407 99.002
24 .095 .367 99.368
25 .089 .342 99.711
26 .075 .289 100.000
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Component Matrixa
Component
1
Listening Strategy Use Q1 .677
www.awej.org
ISSN: 2229-9327

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.a
a. 1 components extracted.
Table 4.12: Factor Analysis Test of Vocabulary Strategy Use Factor

df 153
Sig. .000

% of
Component Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total Variance Cumulative %
1 4.069 22.606 22.606 4.069 22.606 22.606
2 3.061 17.005 39.611
3 1.514 8.414 48.025
4 1.360 7.558 55.583
5 1.060 5.891 61.474
6 .915 5.084 66.558
7 .883 4.905 71.464
8 .789 4.384 75.848
9 .704 3.910 79.758
10 .598 3.325 83.083
11 .573 3.181 86.264
12 .478 2.658 88.922
13 .448 2.490 91.411
14 .409 2.270 93.681
15 .360 1.998 95.679
16 .344 1.913 97.592
17 .275 1.527 99.119
18 .159 .881 100.000
Component Matrixa
Component
1
Vocabulary Strategy Use Q27 .458

www.awej.org
ISSN: 2229-9327

Table 4.13: Factor Analysis Test of Speaking Strategy Use Factor

df 153
Sig. .000

% of
Component Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total Variance Cumulative %
1 9.103 50.575 50.575 9.103 50.575 50.575
2 1.088 6.042 56.617
3 .877 4.871 61.488
4 .822 4.565 66.053
5 .788 4.380 70.433
6 .743 4.130 74.564
7 .616 3.420 77.984
8 .549 3.049 81.033
9 .540 3.000 84.033
10 .454 2.521 86.554
11 .417 2.314 88.868
12 .393 2.183 91.051
13 .351 1.948 92.998
14 .308 1.710 94.709
15 .293 1.630 96.339
www.awej.org
ISSN: 2229-9327
16 .249 1.382 97.720

17 .225 1.249 98.969
18 .186 1.031 100.000
Component Matrixa
Component
1
Speaking Strategy Use Q45 .783
Table 4.14: Factor Analysis Test of Reading Strategy Use Factor

df 66
Sig. .000

Component Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative %
1 7.888 65.733 65.733 7.888 65.733 65.733
2 .762 6.352 72.085
3 .581 4.839 76.925
4 .502 4.184 81.108
5 .464 3.867 84.975
6 .407 3.388 88.363
7 .350 2.918 91.282
8 .305 2.544 93.825
www.awej.org
ISSN: 2229-9327
9 .268 2.231 96.056

10 .186 1.547 97.603
11 .160 1.332 98.936
12 .128 1.064 100.000
Component Matrixa
Component
1
Reading Strategy Use Q63 .715
Extraction Method: Principal Component
Analysis.a
Table 4.15: Factor Analysis Test of Writing Strategy Use Factor

df 45
Sig. .000

% of Cumulative
Component Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total Variance %
1 7.585 75.847 75.847 7.585 75.847 75.847
2 .440 4.397 80.244
3 .411 4.108 84.352
4 .346 3.460 87.812
5 .316 3.157 90.969
6 .297 2.967 93.936
7 .186 1.856 95.793
8 .169 1.691 97.483
9 .135 1.353 98.837
10 .116 1.163 100.000

www.awej.org
ISSN: 2229-9327

Component Matrixa
Component
1
Writing Strategy Use Q75 .917
Extraction Method: Principal Component

Analysis.a
Table 4.16: Factor Analysis Test of Translation Strategy Use Factor

df 15
Sig. .000

Componen Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings
t Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative %
1 4.546 75.773 75.773 4.546 75.773 75.773
2 .437 7.279 83.052
3 .338 5.631 88.683
4 .295 4.920 93.603
5 .219 3.646 97.249
6 .165 2.751 100.000
Component Matrixa
Component
1
Translation Strategy Use Q85 .881
www.awej.org
ISSN: 2229-9327

4.2.3 Comparison between Gender and Language Learning Strategies

The table 4.17 reveals the test results about the difference between gender and 6 factors. From the
Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances, it is concluded that there is a difference between male or
female EFL first year students in using LLS for vocabulary as Sig. (0.29). However, when
considering the t-test equality of means, the findings shows that there is no difference between
male and female EFL freshmen as Sig. (0.201>0.05). Except for the Vocabulary Language
Strategy, other language strategies such as Listening, Speaking, Reading, Writing, and Translation
show the internal consistence between Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances and t-test for
Equality of Means. It means that there are no differences between male or female EFL first year
students in choosing language learning strategies. This finding is the same as the study carried by
Deanna, Evie, and Alan (2005).
Table 4.17 Comparison between Gender and Language Learning Strategies

Levene's Test for
Equality of
Variances t-test for Equality of Means
F Sig. t df Sig. (2-tailed)

Listening Equal variances .191 .663 -1.479 122 .142
assumed
Equal variances -1.486 122.000 .140
not assumed
Vocabulary Equal variances 4.889 .029 -1.267 122 .208
assumed
not assumed
Speaking Equal variances .096 .757 -.848 122 .398
assumed
Equal variances -.850 121.570 .397
not assumed
Reading Equal variances .058 .810 -1.411 122 .161
assumed
not assumed
Writing Equal variances .164 .686 -1.444 122 .151
assumed
not assumed
Translation Equal variances 2.268 .135 -1.695 122 .093
assumed

www.awej.org
ISSN: 2229-9327

not assumed
4.2.4 English Grade Point First Semester and Language Learning Strategies
The table 4.18 reveals the relationship between the English Grade Point First Semester and LLS.
The analysis shows that only Vocabulary Language Strategy is not affected the results of EFL
freshmen’s semester school report. The other language strategies highly influence the results of
the first semester, which is similar in the other studies by Kitakawa (2008), Shyr, Feng, Zeng,
Hsieh, and Shih (2017).
Table 4.18: Comparison between English Grade Point First Semester and Language Learning Strategies
Sum of Mean
Squares df Square F Sig.
Listening Between 5.598 3 1.866 3.725 .013
Groups
Within Groups 60.110 120 .501
Total 65.708 123
Vocabulary Between .472 3 .157 1.750 .161
Groups
Total 11.273 123
Speaking Between 3.457 3 1.152 3.373 .021
Groups
Total 44.444 123
Reading Between 5.814 3 1.938 3.963 .010
Groups
Total 64.500 123
Writing Between 6.211 3 2.070 3.743 .013
Groups
Total 72.589 123
Translation Between 4.382 3 1.461 2.818 .042
Groups
Total 66.579 123
5 Concludions
The findings of the current study reflected the real situation of English language learning strategies
applied by the first year HUBT students. As a result, the results could make known to the teachers
about their students’ English leaning strategy preference, produce an effective plan for strategy
training in their English teaching class. The findings would raise the students’ awareness about
LLS, promote them to construct and adjust their language strategies, and sketch out the suitable
activities for applying English learning strategies.

www.awej.org
ISSN: 2229-9327
From the result of the study, it is advisable for both the teachers and students to
acknowledge the students’ strategy preference in order to determine the students’ strengths and
weaknesses in English learning. The teachers cooperate with their students to decide which LLSs
are best for their students to improve and how their students could master the LLSs. Besides, using
the best LLSs encourage the students to become more independent and flexible in applying task-
appropriate strategies to enhance the effectiveness of their learning.
So as for the students to become aware of the importance of choosing the best LLSs for
them, the teachers are advisable to launch many activities for their students involve such as forums,
workshop, English competitions or even camping trips to English speaking communities.
According to Oxford (1990), language learning strategies are considered as teachable. The more
LLSs are trained, the more successful the students gain by mastering their learning styles and
strategies.
During the class time, the teacher may introduce many practical activities to take explicit
and implicit strategy instructions into the regular lessons. It is only the teachers who understand
which language learning strategies are suitable for different students. The study shows that both
male and female students apply LLSs in their second language acquisition, otherwise, their first
semester school report or particularly English Grade Point is firmly related to their learning styles
and language strategies. The teachers’ tasks are to encourage them to develop the relevant LLSs
and adjust the factors or strategies they have not done well.
It is noticeable that students’ background plays an important role for the teachers to get to know
before expecting to introduce the instructions in the target language. The teachers are advisable to
know clearly about their students’ learning styles, learning goals or perception to the target
language. Generally speaking, the success of LLSs are trained under the cooperation between the
teachers and the students.
About the Authors

First Author: Bui Thi Kieu Giang, PhD is a qualified teacher at Center for Foreign Languages
and Applied Informatics – Thai Nguyen University of Agriculture and Forestry – Thai Nguyen
University, Thai Nguyen City, Vietnam. She has published many researches regarding the English
Language Teaching Methodology. https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2743-4055
Second Author: Vu Van Tuan, PhD is a teacher at English Faculty B1 - Hanoi University of
Business and Technology, Hanoi City, Vietnam. Until now he has had many papers researching
English Language Teaching. He is trying to put himself forward with many studies in the near
future. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3066-7338
References
Benjamin, E. S. (2017). Most Popular Languages In The World. Retrieved April, 25th 2017 from
http://www.worldatlas.com/articles/most-popular-languages-in-the-world.html
Bialystok, E. (1981). The role of conscious strategies in second language proficiency. The Modern
Language Journal, 65, 24-35.
Cresswell, J. W. (2005). Educational research: planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and
qualitative research. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
www.awej.org
ISSN: 2229-9327
Cohen, A. & Aphek, E. (1980). Retention of second language vocabulary over time: Investigating
the role of mnemonic associations. System, 8, 221-235.
Chamot, A. U. (2005). The Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach (CALLA): An
update. In P.A.
Cohen, A. & Macaro, E. (2007). Learner strategies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Deanna L. N, Evie R. T, and Alan A. (2005). Language Learning Strategies and English
Proficiency of Chinese University Students. Retrieved Spring 2005 from
http://web.pdx.edu/~fischerw/courses/advanced/methods_docs/pdf_doc/wbf_collection/03
51_0400/0399_FLA_2005_Strategies_China_Nisbet.pdf
Dörnyei, Z., & Ryan, S. (2015). The psychology of the language learner revisited. New York:
Routledge.
Dörnyei Z. & P. Skehan, (2003). Individual differences in second language learning. In Doughty
and M. Long (eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition. Oxford: Blackwell.
Dunn. R. & Griggs S. A. (1988). Learning Style: Quiet Revolution in American Secondary
Schools. Reston, Va.: National Association of Secondary School Principals.
Grass, S. & Selinker, L. (2008). Second language acquisition: an introductory course (3rd ed.).
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Retrieved November 12, 2011 from http://books.google.com
Gao, X. (2006). Has language learning strategy research come to an end? A response to Tseng,
Dornyei and Schmitt. Applied Linguistics 28(4), 615-620.
Griffiths, C. (2008). Strategies and good language learners. In C. Griffiths (Ed.), Lessons from
good language learners (pp. 83-98). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Griffiths, C. (2013). The strategy factor in successful language learning. Bristol: Multilingual
Matters.
Hosenfeld, C. (1976). Learning about learning: Discovering our students’ strategies. Foreign
Language Annals, 9, 117-129.
Kato, S. (2005). How language learning strategies affect English proficiency in Japanese
university students. Journal of the faculty of Human Studies, Bankyo Gakuin University,
7(1).
Kitakawa, A. (2008). An Experimental Study of Language Learning Strategies: Particular Focus
on the Patterns of Strategy Use by Japanese University Learners of English. Iwate
University Repository: Bulletin of Graduate School of Humanities and Social Sciences, 17,
149-169.
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon
Press.
Lee, J. Heinz, M. (2016) English Language Learning Strategies Reported By Advanced
Language Learners. Retrieved 2nd quarter 2016 from
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1096670.pdf.
Moeller; Aleidine K. & Catalano; Eresa. (2015). Foreign Language Teaching and Learning.
Faculty Publications: Department of Teaching, Learning and Teacher Education. 200.
Retrieved June 05th, 2015 from http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/teachlearnfacpub/200
Naiman, N; Frohlich, M.; Stern, H., & Todesco, A. (1978). The good language learner. Toronto:
The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.
Noam C. (2006). Language and mind (3rd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
O’Malley, J.M. & A.U. Chamot. (1990). Learning strategies in Second Language Acquisition.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
www.awej.org
ISSN: 2229-9327
Oxford, R. (1990a). Language Learning Strategies: What Every Teacher Should Know. New
York: Newbury House.
Oxford, R. (1990b). Styles, strategies, and aptitude: Connections for language learning. In T.S.
Parry & C.W. Stansfield (Eds.), Language Aptitude Reconsidered (pp. 67-125). Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Oxford, R. (1992/1993). Language learning strategies in a nutshell: Update and ESL suggestions.
TESOL Journal, 2(2), 18-22.
Oxford, R. L. (2002). Language learning strategies in a Nutshell: Update and ESL Suggestions.
In: Rechards, T.C & Renandya, W.A (eds.), Methodology in Language Teaching: An
Anthology of Current Practice (pp.124-132). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Retrieved December 14. 2011 from http://books.google.com
Oxford, R.L., (2003). Language Learning Strategies: An overview. GALA. Retrieved from
http://web.ntpu.edu.tw/~language/workshop/read2.pdf
Oxford, R. (2011). Teaching and researching language learning strategies. Harlow: Pearson
Longman.
Oxford, R., & Griffiths, C. (Eds). (2014). Language learning strategy research in the twenty-first
century: Insights and innovations [Special issue]. System, 43.
Richards, J., & Schmidt, R. (2010). Dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistics (4th
ed.). Harlow: Longman.
Richard-Amato & M.A. Snow (Eds.), Academic success for English language learners:
Strategies for K-12 mainstream teachers (pp. 87-101). White Plains, NY: Longman.
Rose, H. (2012). Reconceptualizing strategic learning in the face of self-regulation: Throwing
language learning strategies out with the bathwater. Applied Linguistics, 33, 92-98.
Rod E. (2003). Second Language Acquisition. Oxford University Press.
Rubin, J. (1975). What the “good language learner” can teach us. TESOL Quarterly, 9, 41-51.
Stern, H. (1975). What can we learn from the good language learner? Canadian Modern
Language Review, 34, 304-318.
Tseng, W. T., Dörnyei, Z., & Schmitt, N. (2006). A new approach to assessing strategic learning:
The case of self-regulation in vocabulary acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 27(1), 78-102.
Wen-Jye S.; Hung-Yun F.; Li-Wen Z.; Ying-Ming H.; Chia-Yu S. (2017). The Relationship
between Language Learning Strategies and Achievement Goal Orientations from
Taiwanese Engineering Students in EFL Learning. Retrieved 24 August 2017 from
http://www.ejmste.com/The-Relationship-between-Language-Learning-Strategies-and-
Achievement-Goal-Orientations,76660,0,2.html#references

www.awej.org
ISSN: 2229-9327

Language Learning Strategies of Vietnamese EFL Fre

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Language Learning Strategies of Vietnamese EFL Fre

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Language Learning Strategies of Vietnamese EFL Fre

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Arab World English Journal (AWEJ) Volume 9. Number 3. September 2018 Pp.

Language Learning Strategies of Vietnamese EFL Freshmen

Bui Thi Kieu Giang

2.1 An overview of Second Language Acquisition.

2.2 Language learning strategies

… language learning strategies - specific actions, behaviours, steps, or techniques

Arab World English Journal 63

2.3 Learning Styles

Arab World English Journal 64

3.2 Research Instrument

4 Findings and Discussion

Table 4.1: Distribution of Respondents Based on Gender

Table 4.2: Distribution of Respondents Based on Years of Learning English

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Arab World English Journal 66

Table 4.4: Distribution of Respondents Based on Studying Other Languages

4.2 Language Strategy Use Inventory

Table 4.5: Reliability Test of Listening Strategy Use

Arab World English Journal 67

Listening Strategy Use 57.46 332.511 .875 .981

Table 4.6: Reliability Test of Vocabulary Strategy Use

Vocabulary Strategy Use Q28 42.76 27.453 .393 .779

Vocabulary Strategy Use Q29 42.65 26.166 .374 .779

Vocabulary Strategy Use Q30 42.81 27.783 .328 .782

Vocabulary Strategy Use Q31 42.64 26.461 .306 .785

Arab World English Journal 68

Vocabulary Strategy Use Q32 42.73 25.270 .528 .767

Vocabulary Strategy Use Q33 42.98 27.585 .275 .785

Vocabulary Strategy Use Q34 42.88 28.237 .200 .789

Vocabulary Strategy Use Q35 43.04 26.348 .463 .773

Vocabulary Strategy Use Q36 43.10 27.444 .270 .786

Vocabulary Strategy Use Q37 42.97 27.625 .245 .787

Vocabulary Strategy Use Q38 43.02 27.105 .357 .780

Vocabulary Strategy Use Q39 42.97 26.617 .402 .777

Vocabulary Strategy Use Q40 43.09 26.651 .400 .777

Vocabulary Strategy Use Q41 43.09 26.699 .439 .775

Vocabulary Strategy Use Q42 42.94 26.753 .361 .780

Vocabulary Strategy Use Q43 43.12 25.928 .457 .772

Vocabulary Strategy Use Q44 43.03 26.812 .386 .778

Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficient = 0.789

Cronbach’s Alpha Reliability Test of Speaking Strategy Use

Table 4.7: Reliability Test of Speaking Strategy Use

Speaking Strategy Use 39.02 105.626 .709 .937

Cronbach’s Alpha Reliability Test of Reading Strategy Use

Table 4.8: Reliability Test of Reading Strategy Use

Arab World English Journal 70

Reading Strategy Use Q70 25.49 63.764 .758 .948

Cronbach’s Alpha Reliability Test of Writing Strategy Use

Table 4.9: Reliability Test of Writing Strategy Use

Cronbach’s Alpha Reliability Test of Translation Strategy Use

Table 4.10: Reliability Test of Translation Strategy Use

Arab World English Journal 71

4.2.2 Factor Analysis Test

Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi-Square 3493.934

Total Variance Explained

Arab World English Journal 72

5 .569 2.188 79.544

Listening Strategy Use Q20 .794

Table 4.12: Factor Analysis Test of Vocabulary Strategy Use Factor

Total Variance Explained