International Journal of Social Science And Human Research

ISSN(print): 2644-0679, ISSN(online): 2644-0695

Volume 06 Issue 05 May 2023
DOI: 10.47191/ijsshr/v6-i5-25, Impact factor- 6.686
Page No: 2722-2729

A Study on Writing Strategies used by Students of Different

Levels of Proficiency at A University in Vietnam
NGUYEN THI NHUNG
Dai Nam University - Hanoi

ABSTRACT: The primary purpose of the study was to measure the use of writing strategies of participants. The secondary
purpose aims at finding out strategies mostly used by high level of proficiency students compared those of level of proficiency at
different stages of writing, namely before, during and after the writing assignment. The study was conducted among 137 English
majored students. The findings reveal that before writing high proficiency students used strategies more often than the other two
groups, namely medium and low levels of proficiency. The mean of before writing strategies uses were M=3.48; M=2.30; M=1.98
respectively. The mean of during writing strategies uses were M=3.36; M=3.03; M=2.57 respectively. The mean of after writing
strategies uses were M=3.55; M=1.99; M=2.06 respectively. Among the group of Before Writing Strategy (BWS), Students with
high proficiency level often discuss what they were going to write with other students or with teacher before they write (M=3.86).
The figure for low level of proficiency students was M=1.50. The high level students also do extra study outside the classroom to
improve his/her writing (M=3.86), while the low level students was M= 1.32. The high level students reported that they think of
the relationships between what they already know and new things that they learn (M=3.71). The use of this strategy for low level
students were only M=1.68. Among the group of During Writing Strategy (DWS), students with low proficiency use native
language first and then translate it into English most often (M= 3.86). The high proficiency students did not use this strategy while
writing (M=1.57). The low proficiency students also reported that they used dictionary a lot when they write (M=3.25), the figure
for high proficiency students was only M=1.29). Another strategy that was employed by most low level students was “I use a
grammar book to check things I am not sure about when I write” (M=3.97) while the high level students used this strategy at low
frequency (M= 1.29). Among the group of After Writing Strategy (AWS), students with high proficiency reported that they often
go back to his/her writing to edit the grammar, vocabulary, spelling, and punctuation. (M=3.81) compared with M=2.80 of low
proficiency students. High proficiency students also often record the types of errors he/she has made so he/she does not keep
making the same (M=3.80), while the figure for low proficiency students were M= 1.20.
KEYWORDS: writing strategies, before writing strategies, during writing strategies, after writing strategies

INTRODUCTION
Background to the study
Writing plays an important role in all stages of life from early education to college and beyond. It allows students to communicate
ideas, develop creativity and critical thinking, and build confidence. Effective writing skills contribute to academic success and
are considered a useful asset in the workplace. Regardless of the efforts endeavoured to the written communication, writing in a
foreign language classroom has long been considered a challenge for most language learners. In addition to linguistic knowledge,
the socio-cultural nature of writing, involving prior knowledge, knowledge of genre and register, and cultural expectations may in
fact hinder attempts to transfer competence in first language writing to another language (Hyland, 2003).
Research in teaching writing has developed many approaches. When writing is used as a support skill in the language
classroom it is usually approached from a teaching orientation which is product centered, meaning that the teacher will
immediately correct any mistakes in grammar and language form, therefore, not giving learners the opportunity to attend to their
own weaknesses with either form or in conveying meaning. This approach not only ignores how meaning is developed, but it also
fails to recognize that the writer, regardless of purpose or form, must go through a number of stages before producing a final text
(Hyland, 2003).
It is the process approach which proposes that, since experienced writers go through the cognitive stages of planning,
composing and revising in a manner that is recursive, so too should those hoping to improve their ability to write. The process
approach encourages students to plan and draft and, as a consequence of revising, of deliberating over the extent to which the draft
effectively conveys meaning, or in response to peer or teacher feedback, they may need to re-plan or re-draft what they have
written (Flower and Hayes, 1981). However, one of the shortcomings of process writing, as identified by Swales (1990), is that it

IJSSHR, Volume 06 Issue 05 May 2023 www.ijsshr.in Page 2722

A Study on Writing Strategies used by Students f Different Levels of Proficiency at A University in Vietnam
puts too much emphasis on the cognitive processes of writing with too little regard given to the social forces, which help to shape
a text. This weakness provides the ideal entry point for considering the use of the genre approach, in conjunction with process.
This approach holds that writing is not simply an outcome of internal processes, but is also determined by purpose and context. So
all writing is done with a purpose in mind, whether it is to write a postcard, a love letter, a newspaper article, or a university essay,
and these various purposes influence the overall structure and features of a text such as coherence (Harmer 2004).
Over the years, research on the process approach in teaching writing across education levels and genres has resulted in
many studies promoting more attention to the writing strategies in teaching writing (Brown, 2001; Hyland, 2003; Matsuda, 2003).
Studies on the use of writing strategies have revealed their significant importance in determining learners’ success in a writing
course (Kim, 2020; Mastan et al., 2017; Raoofi et al., 2017). It is often argued that the how and when learners employ these
strategies are the reflection of their competence as writers. Therefore, it is understandable that there have been some suggestions
to promote their use in language classrooms. Some studies even encourage the benefit of implementing instruction that encourages
students’ use of writing strategies. Among these studies are the ones conducted by (Mastan et al., 2017).
Statement of problem
Language learning strategies have been proved to be indicators for successful language learners. Those who manage well with
appropriate strategies deal with uncertainties effectively such as uncertainty about the requirements of a task, uncertainty about
how to express their ideas or uncertainty about their own ability to do either. As Hyland (2003) comments, one of the problems for
speakers of other languages is that they are learning to write while learning the language. The employment of strategies in general
and of academic writing in particular has been neglected or even ignored especially by low level of proficiency learners. In the
field of second/foreign language teaching and learning, the interests of practitioners and researchers have been geared to the
language learning strategies selection and adoption of successful language learners. The suggestion that a good language learner
may have some special strategies that others could learn from was initially introduced by Rubin (1975). Language learning
strategies are believed to enhance in whole or in part the current situation of academic writing which is considered hinders or
challenges for students at universities in Vietnam.
Purposes of research
As indicated by research studies, language learning strategies play a crucial role in facilitating language learning (Griffiths, 2013;
Oxford, 2003, 2017). Learners use language learning strategies to regulate or control their learning (Wenden, 1991). Self-
regulation refers to the degree to which individuals are active participants in their own learning (Dörnyei and Skehan, 2003), and
Winne (1995) also includes strategies as one of the means used by learners to regulate their own learning. The first purpose of this
paper is to explore the use of language learning strategies among students of English majored at Dai Nam University (DNU).
Secondly, the study attempts to determine writing strategies used by high proficiency students in comparison with that of low
proficiency students.
Research questions
With the above stated purposes, the paper addresses the following research questions
- What levels of learning strategy do DNU students use during their academic writing?
- What strategies are mostly used by high proficiency students compared with low proficiency students?
Significance of the study
Theoretically, the findings of the study would reconfirm the benefits of learning strategies for language learners. Practically, the
research results could be used as references for students and lecturers to adjust their learning and teaching academic writing more
effectively.

LITERATURE REVIEW
Academic writing at universities
Writing is a complex process, and most of the research literature recognizes the difficulty it poses for students. Carroll, 2002 and
Soiferman, 2012 claim that “effective writing skills are important for academic success but not all students enter university with
these skills.” Academic writing is like trying to hold a slippery fish: you know it is there and it has actual, real consistency, but it
is very hard to pin down and actually describe it in clear, uncontested terms. Lillis (1999) explained that “academic writing is
‘mysterious’”, and that it is commonly misunderstood by students and lecturers. The history of academic writing does not make it
easier to find a tangible definition (Spack 1988; Horowitz 1986; Liebman-Kleine 1986). Thaiss and Zawacki (2006) reasoned that
the concept academic writing is “used imprecisely yet almost always for what the user regards as a precise purpose; e.g.,
commonly by teachers in explaining what they want from students.” Furthermore, they contended that abstract definitions of
academic writing are abundant and there are “differences in standards and expectations among disciplines and among teachers”
(Thaiss & Zawacki 2006). Students need to be made aware of and able to use the basic rhetoric, linguistic aspects, form and the
cognitive processes involved in academic writing at their specific level of education. Hofstee (2006) proposed that academic

IJSSHR, Volume 06 Issue 05 May 2023 www.ijsshr.in Page 2723

A Study on Writing Strategies used by Students f Different Levels of Proficiency at A University in Vietnam
writing has the following characteristics: clarity, accuracy, brevity, simplicity, and focus, whereas Thaiss and Zawacki (2006)
listed the characteristics as follows: attention to the topic of study and reflective thought about it, that reason dominates emotion,
and that an academic writer should display analytic ability. The main aim of writing about academic writing is to illustrate the
competencies and skills that students are expected to master at tertiary level. The responsibility of the writing teacher is to expose
students to various writing strategies which “include combinations of activities such as outlining, drafting, or free writing”
(Lavelle & Bushrow 2007; Spack 1988) based on their level of general and academic writing experience.
Language learning strategies (LLS)
Research on LLS has increased significantly since the 1970s. Areas of research interest include how learners go about learning
something, what makes learners successful at learning something, and why some people are more effective at learning than others.
LLS as Williams and Burden (1997) point out, investigating learning strategies (LSs) will answer these questions. Research
suggests that training learners to use LLS can help them to become successful language learners and that is what make LLS are
important. LLS enable learners to take more responsibility and to improve their progress in developing L2 skills. In other words,
LSs are procedures that facilitate learning tasks (Chamot, 2005). They also enable learners to become autonomous, lifelong
learners and independent, (Little, 1991). LLS represent steps that learners take to manage their learning and achieve their goals.
They LLS are important for SL/FL learning and teaching because they develop learning autonomy and language competence and
are tools for active, self-directed involvement. Effective LLS can also help “unsuccessful” learners to realise why they are
“unsuccessful”, and assist learners to plan their learning (Brown, 1994; Chamot, 1999; Gregersent, 2001). They also help teachers
plan their teaching (Oxford, 1990; Cohen, 1998; Murat, 2000; Kumaravadivelu, 2003).
Writing strategies used by proficient learners
Writing and speaking belong to productive skills. However, they are not similar in terms of production. Writing includes thinking,
drafting and revising, which requires an individual’s specialized skills (Brown, 2001). As writing is a language skill, a person
must learn what and how to write and apply certain grammatical rules in writing. A person’s language capability is reinforced
when thoughts or ideas are expressed through writing (Xia, 2011). Carroll (1997) disclosed that successful language learning
depends on several factors. A human’s intelligence is needed in learning. A person must have an understanding of grammatical
rules and usage of language elements. A person needs spend much time, patience, & effort in learning a language. Importantly, a
person must know what and how to use certain and suitable strategies in language learning. Oxford (2003) defined language
learning strategies as “specific behaviors or thought processes that students use to enhance their L2 learning.” A strategy will be
useful if it is practicable to language tasks and suits a learner’s learning style preferences. Meanwhile, a learner can effectively use
and link it with other strategies. Outside of the language learning field, research comparing experts to novices indicates that
experts use more systematic and useful problem-solving and wider range of strategies. A similar finding occurs with more
successful language learners as compared to less successful ones. Better language learners generally use strategies appropriate to
their own stage of learning, personality, age, purpose for learning the language and type of language (Oxford and Nyikos, 1989).
Ellis (1994) summarizes the results of various "good language learner studies" into five major aspects of successful language
learning. The first aspect of successful language learning is a concern for language form. Researchers found that good language
learners treat language as a system by making effective cross-lingual comparisons, analyzing the target language, and using
reference books. Good language learners also pay attention to meaning, searching for it in the L2 data they are exposed to and
trying to engage in real communication by seeking out opportunities for natural language use. Thirdly, good language learners
show active involvement in language learning. Rather than developing dependence upon the teacher, they take charge of their own
learning by identifying and pursuing goals and by trying to introduce new topics into conversations. The fourth characteristic
concerned their metacognitive awareness of the learning process. Successful language learners are thoughtful and aware of
themselves, make conscious decisions and follow their own preferred learning style. These are the learners who have the ability to
write effectively about their language learning because they have a well-developed meta-language with which to do it. Finally,
Ellis concluded that successful learners are flexible and appropriately use learning strategies, demonstrating the ability to choose
those that were appropriate for particular tasks.

METHOD
Participants
The participants in this study consist of 137 second year students of English majored at Dai Nam University (DNU). These
students have been studying academic writing for the second semester. Convenience sampling was used to select participants.
These consist of 21 high level of proficiency students, which is accounted for 15.3%; 56 medium level of proficiency (40.9%),
and 60 low proficiency students (43.8%). The level of proficiency of the students is calculated by their writing results obtained
from the previous end-of-semester test (year 2021-2022). Details of the participants can be found in the Table 1 below.

IJSSHR, Volume 06 Issue 05 May 2023 www.ijsshr.in Page 2724

A Study on Writing Strategies used by Students f Different Levels of Proficiency at A University in Vietnam
Table 1. Levels of Proficiency
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
High level 21 15.3 15.3 15.3
Medium level 56 40.9 40.9 56.2
Valid
Low level 60 43.8 43.8 100.0
Total 137 100.0 100.0
Research instruments
A quantitative descriptive research design was employed to answer the research question. Data were collected through a self-
perceived writing strategy survey adapted to suit the teaching and learning practice at DNU. The inventory consists of 30 items
(10 items for before writing strategies, 10 items for during writing strategies and 10 for after writing strategies). The rating bases
on a 5-point Likert scale (1: never; 2: rarely; 3: sometimes; 4: often and 5: most often). (See appendix).

FINDINGS
For the first research question “What levels of learning strategy do DNU students use during their academic writing?” the
descriptive statistic which is conducted to measure the levels of the uses of before writing strategies among the participants
reveals that high proficiency students used strategies more often than the other two groups. The mean of before writing strategies
uses were M=3.48; M=2.30; M=1.98 respectively. The mean of during writing strategies uses were M=3.36; M=3.03; M=2.57
respectively. The mean of after writing strategies uses were M=3.55; M=1.99; M=2.06 respectively. Details were in the Table 2
below.

Table 2. The uses of writing strategies by level of proficiency

Level of Proficiency Before WritingDuring WritingAfter Writing
strategies Strategies Strategies
Mean 3.48 3.63 3.55
High level N 21 21 21
Std. Deviation .458 .390 .346
Mean 2.30 3.03 1.99
Medium level N 56 56 56
Std. Deviation .670 .565 .294
Mean 1.98 2.57 2.06
Low level N 60 60 59
Std. Deviation .250 .310 .326
Mean 2.92 2.34 2.26
Total N 137 137 136
Std. Deviation .706 .574 .639

For the second research question “What strategies are mostly used by high proficiency students compared with low proficiency
students?” The findings are as followed;

- Among the group of Before Writing Strategy (BWS)

Students with high proficiency level often discuss what they were going to write with other students or with teacher before they
write (M=3.86). The figure for low level of proficiency students was M=1.50. The high level students also do extra study outside
the classroom to improve his/her writing (M=3.86), while the low level students was M= 1.32. The high level students reported
that they think of the relationships between what they already know and new things that they learn (M=3.71). The use of this
strategy for low level students were only M=1.68. Details can be found in the Table 3 below.

Table 3. Before Writing Strategies used by and low proficiency students

Level of Proficiency N Mean Std. Dev.
I consider the task or assignment and instructions carefullyHigh level 21 3.43 1.028
before writing. Low level 60 1.80 .708
I review my class notes, hand-outs, and assignmentHigh level 21 3.52 .928
requirements before beginning to write Low level 60 1.00 .000
I discuss what I am going to write with other students or myHigh level 21 3.86 .854

IJSSHR, Volume 06 Issue 05 May 2023 www.ijsshr.in Page 2725

A Study on Writing Strategies used by Students f Different Levels of Proficiency at A University in Vietnam
teacher. Low level 60 1.50 .504
High level 21 3.43 .746
I brainstorm and write down ideas before I begin to write.
Low level 60 1.62 .940
High level 21 3.24 .995
I make plans and notes in my native language before writing.
Low level 60 2.88 1.075
High level 21 3.86 .910
I do extra study outside the classroom to improve my writing.
Low level 60 1.32 .930
I think of the relationships between what I already know and High level 21 3.71 .902
new things that I learn. Low level 60 1.68 .770
I notice vocabulary related to a topic that I will write about and High level 21 3.33 1.111
try to remember the words. Low level 60 1.38 .490
High level 21 3.38 .973
I make an outline or plan in English.
Low level 60 2.42 1.476
I use a dictionary to check things I am not sure about before I High level 21 3.33 .966
write. Low level 60 2.38 1.617

- Among the group of During Writing Strategy (DWS)

Students with high proficiency reported that they make up new words if they do not know the right ones in English when they are
writing (M=4.43) compared with M=1.98 of low proficiency students. High proficiency students also often used the strategy of
editing ideas while writing (M=3.81), while the figure for low proficiency students were M= 2.98. On the other hand, the strategy
of using native language first and then translate it into English was used most often (M= 3.86). The high proficiency students did
not use this strategy while writing (M=1.57). The low proficiency students also reported that they used dictionary a lot when they
write (M=3.25), the figure for high proficiency students was only M=1.29). Another strategy that was employed by most low level
students was “I use a grammar book to check things I am not sure about when I write” (M=3.97) while the high level students
used this strategy at low frequency (M= 1.29). Details of the comparisons can be found in the Table 4 below.

Table 4. During Writing Strategies used by high and low proficiency students
Level of Proficiency N Mean Std. Dev.
I use my background knowledge (world) knowledge to help High level 21 3.52 1.078
me develop my ideas. Low level 60 2.77 1.140
I like to write in my native language first and then translate it High level 21 1.57 .926
into English. Low level 60 3.68 1.000
High level 21 3.67 .483
I edit for content (ideas) as I am writing.
Low level 60 1.97 .712
High level 21 3.81 .873
I edit for organization as I am writing.
Low level 60 2.98 .813
High level 21 3.57 1.028
I like to change, or make my ideas clearer as I am writing.
Low level 60 2.05 1.096
I use a dictionary to check things I am not sure about when I High level 21 1.29 .956
write. Low level 60 3.25 .437
I use a grammar book to check things I am not sure about High level 21 1.62 1.024
when I write. Low level 60 3.97 .748
If I can’t think of an English word, I use a word or phrase that High level 21 3.62 1.024
means the same thing. Low level 60 1.70 .462
I make up new words if I do not know the right ones in High level 21 4.43 .676
English when I am writing. Low level 60 1.98 1.112
High level 21 3.24 .995
I encourage myself by telling myself that I can do well.
Low level 60 1.85 .860

- Among the group of After Writing Strategy (AWS)

After writing, students with high proficiency reported that they often go back to his/her writing to edit the grammar, vocabulary,
spelling, and punctuation. (M=3.81) compared with M=2.80 of low proficiency students. High proficiency students also often
record the types of errors he/she has made so he/she does not keep making the same (M=3.80), while the figure for low
proficiency students were M= 1.20. They also reported that “I make notes or try to remember feedback I get so I can use it the
IJSSHR, Volume 06 Issue 05 May 2023 www.ijsshr.in Page 2726
A Study on Writing Strategies used by Students f Different Levels of Proficiency at A University in Vietnam
next time I write” (M=3.71), the compared figure for low proficiency students with this strategy was only M=1.68). High
proficiency students often go back to his/her writing to revise the content and make his/her ideas clearer after writing (M=3.57).
The low proficiency students did not do this very much (M=1.67). Details of the comparisons can be found in the Table 5 below.

Table 5. After Writing Strategies used by high and low proficiency students
Level of Proficiency N Mean Std. Dev.
I go back to my writing to revise the content and make my ideasHigh level 21 3.57 1.076
clearer. Low level 60 1.67 .951
High level 21 3.52 .814
I go back to my writing to revise and improve my organization.
Low level 60 1.20 .403
I go back to my writing to edit the grammar, vocabulary, High level 21 3.81 .750
spelling, and punctuation. Low level 60 2.80 1.117
High level 21 3.43 .746
I use a dictionary after I finish writing a draft.
Low level 60 2.78 .691
High level 21 3.38 1.024
I use a grammar book after I finish writing a draft.
Low level 60 2.00 1.008
I discuss my work with other students to get feedback on how I High level 21 2.90 1.300
can improve it. Low level 60 1.30 .462
I discuss my work with my teacher to get feedback on how I canHigh level 21 3.38 1.117
improve it. Low level 60 2.12 1.195
I evaluate others students’ writing and give them feedback on High level 21 3.57 1.207
how they can improve it. Low level 60 2.77 .673
I make notes or try to remember feedback I get so I can use it the High level 21 3.71 .956
next time I write. Low level 59 1.68 .955
I record the types of errors I have made so I do not keep making High level 21 3.80 .889
the same types of errors. Low level 59 1.20 .406

CONCLUSION
The findings of the study reveal that strategies play important roles in enhancing the academic writing performance for the
students at Dai Nam University. Those who employ less strategies or applying the inappropriate strategies before, while and after
their writing often receive low achievements in academic writing at university in general and in Dai Nam University in particular.
The high level proficiency students often employ cognitive and meta-cognitive in their writing, while low proficiency students
waited more time in looking for words in dictionary while writing. These students also spent less time practising writing outside
classroom and in their free time. It is suggested that university lecturers should pay more attention to the teaching of appropriate
strategies for low proficiency students so that they can improve their academic writing at university.

REFERENCES
1) Brown, H. D. (1994). Principles of language learning and teaching (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall
Regents.
2) Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy (2nd edition). Addison
Wesley Longman.
3) Carroll, L. A. (2002). Rehearsing new roles: How college students develop as writers. Carbondale and Edwardsville:
Southern Illinois University Press.
4) Chamot, A. (1999). Children's learning strategies in language immersion classrooms. The Modern Language Journal,
83(3), 319-339.
5) Chamot, A. (2005). Language learning strategy instruction: Current issues and research. Annual Review of Applied
Linguistics, 25, 112-130.
6) Cohen, A. (1998). Strategies in learning and using a second language. London: Longman.
7) Dörnyei, Z. and Skehan, P. (2003) Individual differences in second language learning. In C. Doughty and M. Long (eds.),
Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Blackwell, 589–630
8) Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
9) Flower, L., and Hayes, J. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32,
365–87.

IJSSHR, Volume 06 Issue 05 May 2023 www.ijsshr.in Page 2727

A Study on Writing Strategies used by Students f Different Levels of Proficiency at A University in Vietnam
10) Gregrsent, T. (2001). Can foreign language learning strategies turn into crutches? A pilot study on the use of strategies by
successful and unsuccessful language learners. Revista Signos, 34(49), 101-111.
11) Griffiths, C. (2013). The strategy factor in successful language learning. Multilingual Matters.
12) Hyland, K. (2003). Second Language Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
13) Harmer, J. (2004). How to Teach Writing. Essex: Pearson Education.
14) Hofstee, E. (2006). Constructing a Good Dissertation: A Practical Guide to Finishing a Masters, MBA or PhD on
Schedule. Johannesburg, South Africa: EPE.
15) Horowitz, D. (1986). What Professors Actually Require: Academic Tasks for the ESL Classroom. TESOL Quarterly,
20(3), 445-462.
16) Kim, H. (2020). Profiles of undergraduate student writers: Differences in writing strategy and impacts on text quality.
Learning and Individual Differences, 78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2020.101823
17) Kumaravadivelu, B. (2003). Beyond methods: Macrostrategies for language teaching. New Haven: Yale University
Press.
18) Lavelle, E. & Bushrow, K. 2007. Writing Approaches of Graduate Students. Educational Psychology, 27(6), 807-822.
19) Liebman-Kleine, J. (1986). Two Commentaries on Daniel M. Horowitz’s “Process, Not Product: Less Than Meets the
Eye”: In Defense of Teaching Process in ESL Composition. TESOL Quarterly, 20(4), 783-788.
20) Lillis, T. (1999). Whose Common Sense? In Jones, C., Turner, J., & Street, B.V. (eds). Students’ Writing in the
University, 127-147. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Benjamins.
21) Matsuda, P. K. (2003). Second language writing in the twentieth century: A situated historical perspective. In Exploring
the dynamics of second language writing (pp. 15–34). Cambridge University Press.
22) Mastan, M. E. B., Maarof, N., & Embi, M. A. (2017). The Effect of Writing Strategy Instruction on ESL Intermediate
Proficiency Learners’ Writing Performance. Journal of Educational Research and Review, 5(5), 71–78.
23) Murat. H. (2000). Language learning strategies in foreign language learning and teaching. The Internet TESL Journal,
3(8), http://iteslj.org/Articles/Hismanoglu-Strategies.html retrieved on 8/12/2016.
24) Oxford, R. (2003). Language learning styles and strategies: Concepts and relationships. IRAL, 41(1), 271-278.
25) Oxford, R. (2011). Teaching and researching language learning strategies. Routledge.
26) Oxford, R. (2017). Teaching and Researching Language Learning Strategies: Self-Regulation in Context (2nd edition).
Routledge.
27) Raoofi, S., Binandeh, M., & Rahmani, S. (2017). An Investigation into Writing Strategies and Writing Proficiency of
University Students. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 8, 191. https://doi.org/10.17507/jltr.0801.24
28) Rubin, J. (1975). What the “good language learner” can teach us. TESOL Quarterly, 9(1), 41–51.
29) Skehan, P. (2003). Individual Differences in Second Language Learning. London: Edward Arnold.
30) Soiferman, L. K. (2012). “University and high school are just very different”: Student perceptions of their respective
writing environments in high school and first-year university (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from
http://mspace.lib.umanitoba.ca
31) Spack, R. 1988. Initiating ESL Students into the Academic Discourse Community: How Far Should We Go? TESOL
Quarterly, 22(1), 29-51
32) Swales, J. (1990). Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
33) Thaiss, C. & Zawacki, T. (2006). Engaged Writers, Dynamic Disciplines: Research on the Academic Writing Life.
Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook, Heinemann.
34) Wenden, A.L. (1991). Learner strategies for learner autonomy. Englewood Cliffs, NJ; London: Prentice Hall.
35) Williams, M. & Burden, R. (1997). Psychology for language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
36) Winne, P. (1995) Inherent details in self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 30, 173–187.
37) Xia, C. (2011). Learners’ Strategies in English Writing. Sino-US English Teaching, 8(4), 221-226.

APPENDIX
Use of Learning Strategies
Please rate your use of each learning strategy below on a scale from 1 to 5. Circle your choice.
1= never
2= rarely
3= sometimes
4= often
5= most often

IJSSHR, Volume 06 Issue 05 May 2023 www.ijsshr.in Page 2728

 A Study on Writing Strategies used by Students f Different Levels of Proficiency at A University in Vietnam
Before Writing Strategies Rating
1. I consider the task or assignment and instructions carefully before writing.     
2. I discuss what I am going to write with other students or my teacher.     
3. I brainstorm and write down ideas before I begin to write.     
4. I make plans and notes in my native language before writing.     
5. I make an outline or plan in English.     
6. I do extra study outside the classroom to improve my writing.     
7. I think of the relationships between what I already know and new things that I learn.     
8. I notice vocabulary related to a topic that I will write about and try to remember the words.     
9. I use a dictionary to check things I am not sure about before I write.     
10. I use a grammar book to check things I am not sure about before I write.     

During Writing Strategies

11. I use my background knowledge (world) knowledge to help me develop my ideas.     
12. I like to write in my native language first and then translate it into English.     
13. I edit for content (ideas) as I am writing.     
14. I edit for organization as I am writing.     
15. I like to change, or make my ideas clearer as I am writing.     
16. I use a dictionary to check things I am not sure about when I write.     
17. I use a grammar book to check things I am not sure about when I write.     
18. If I can’t think of an English word, I use a word or phrase that means the same thing.     
19. I make up new words if I do not know the right ones in English when I am writing.     
20. I encourage myself by telling myself that I can do well.     

After Writing Strategies

21. I go back to my writing to revise the content and make my ideas clearer.     
22. I go back to my writing to revise and improve my organization.     
23. I go back to my writing to edit the grammar, vocabulary, spelling, and punctuation.     
24. I use a dictionary after I finish writing a draft.     
25. I use a grammar book after I finish writing a draft.     
26. I discuss my work with other students to get feedback on how I can improve it.     
27. I discuss my work with my teacher to get feedback on how I can improve it.     
28. I evaluate others students’ writing and give them feedback on how they can improve it.     
29. I make notes or try to remember feedback I get so I can use it the next time I write.     
30. I record the types of errors I have made so I do not keep making the same types of errors.     
31. I read the feedback from my previous writing and use this feedback in my next writing.     

There is an Open Access article, distributed under the term of the Creative Commons
Attribution–Non Commercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0)
(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits remixing, adapting and
building upon the work for non-commercial use, provided the original work is properly cited.

IJSSHR, Volume 06 Issue 05 May 2023 www.ijsshr.in Page 2729