Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Prepare for your exams
Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points to download
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Community
Ask the community for help and clear up your study doubts
Discover the best universities in your country according to Docsity users
Free resources
Download our free guides on studying techniques, anxiety management strategies, and thesis advice from Docsity tutors
This research paper explores the use of learning strategies by vietnamese students in an efl environment, focusing on speaking skills. It investigates the impact of factors like gender, proficiency, and learning environment on strategy choice and effectiveness. The study utilizes the s2r model of oxford (2011) to analyze the strategies employed by students and their relationship with various influencing factors. The paper contributes to the existing literature on language learning strategies, particularly in the context of efl learning in vietnam.
Typology: Thesis
1 / 26
This page cannot be seen from the preview
Don't miss anything!
This chapter presents an overview of the study, followed by the background of English learning and teaching in Vietnam. Then, the rationale of the study provides a brief description of the statement of the problem, a review of what has been established in the literature, and the research gaps. Based on the gaps to be filled, this chapter presents the research objectives, the research questions, the scope of the study, contributions to the field, and the organization of the study. The chapter ends with a summary of the important points. 1.1. Rationale of the study 1.1.1. English learning and teaching in Vietnam Since the economic reform, normally known as “ Đổi mới ”, English has grown rapidly and become the most important foreign language in Vietnam as Vietnam decided to open the door to the world (Hoang, 2018). Le (2020) even called this tendency an “English language fever” (p. 9). Then, with globalisation, English has been considered in Vietnam as a passport to success, or to have a better job (Hoang, 2018). Therefore, in 2008, the Vietnamese government initiated the National Foreign Language Project 2020 (NFLP, 2020), which was evaluated, revised in 2017 and extended to 2025, to expand English teaching and learning within the national scope, focusing primarily on “teacher development, curriculum revision, and textbook innovation” (Nguyen, 2018, p. 95). According to Le (2020 the goal of this roughly $500 million project is to increase English proficiency among all Vietnamese high school and university graduates by 2020 to provide them with a competitive advantage facing the economic difficulties presented by a globalized, multilingual, and multicultural world. Since then, English has been taught as a compulsory subject at many educational levels, including the primary, secondary, and tertiary levels. According to the Ministry of Education and Training (MOET, 2010), English was introduced to students in the third grade in 2010 as a compulsory subject. However, a gradual introduction was applied so that 70% of the third-grade students had English as an obligatory subject by 2015, and only by 2019, the number should be 100% (Le, 2020, p. 10). As a result, the EF English Proficiency Index (EF, 2017) showed the English proficiency improvement by Vietnamese people, gaining the 34th^ position among 80 countries on the list, and the 7th^ in the ranking of 20 Asian countries (Hashimoto, 2018).
1.3. Research questions This study, therefore, addresses the following research questions: RQ1. What self-regulated strategies are reportedly used by EFL students to learn English speaking skill? RQ2. What self-regulated speaking learning strategies and self-regulated speaking learning strategy groups are favoured the most and the least by EFL students? RQ3. How frequently are the self-regulated speaking learning strategies reportedly used by EFL students? RQ4. How the use of self-regulated speaking learning strategies is affected by factors, namely gender, majors, proficiency, previous English learning experience, and learning environment? 1.4. Scope of the study The scope of the current study is to investigate the self-regulated strategies that non-English major students of a university in Vietnam employ to learn their English speaking skill in an EFL context. The research bases itself on the S2R model of Oxford (2011), which is a hybrid model that incorporates both learning strategy and self- regulation, to find out the strategies used by the research participants, the frequency of use, and the relationship between the strategy use and the five factors, namely gender, majors, proficiency, previous English study experience, and learning environment. The study uses a sequential explanatory mixed-methods approach to achieve the research objectives by collecting both quantitative and qualitative data. The quantitative data is the focus of the current study, and the qualitative data helps to further understand the quantitative findings, and also brings more in-depth information to the study. 1.5. Significance of the study The first significance of the current study is that it brings about more understanding of the strategies used by Vietnamese EFL students to learn speaking skills. Moreover, as mentioned in 1.1.2., the learning strategies have been, normally, investigated in the classroom settings, omitting the important aspect that students learn by using and interacting with other speakers also outside the classroom, though “LLSs are widely believed to be culturally-situated, contextually-bound, and learner-specific”
(Nguyen, 2013, p. 17). Therefore, the current study’s investigation of learning strategies both inside and outside the classroom can, hopefully, make some contribution to the existing literature, bringing more information on the role of the learning environment surrounding EFL learners. Furthermore, the study also can help to extend the literature on the strategy employment in its relationship with different factors, including both internal factors (e.g., gender, majors, proficiency, and previous English learning experience), and external ones (e.g., learning environment). Particularly, two factors such as previous English learning experience and learning environment were shown in the literature to receive little attention. Another contribution is that many of the previous studies were carried out by teachers in their teaching environment with their students, this study is different for its author will stand and analyse things from the point of view of a researcher. Moreover, relating to the methodology, the study helps to confirm the importance of applying more qualitative data instruments to collect more in-depth information on the strategies used by students to learn English instead of generalising the findings of one study to other students in other learning contexts. Last but not least, the study contributes to validating the model of strategic self- regulation of Oxford (2011) and also makes a methodological contribution by the adaptation of existing instruments to construct a questionnaire used to investigate the SRLSs to learn to speak English. Hopefully, the instrument can serve as a useful data collection instrument for future research. 1.6. Structure of the study This thesis is structured into five chapters: Introduction, Literature review, Methodology, Results and discussion, and Conclusion. 1.7. Summary This chapter serves as a general introduction to the whole study. It firstly overviews the English teaching and learning situation in Vietnam and then presents the research theoretical context and the need for this study. After that, the research objectives are presented as the base for the research questions. Some expected contributions of the study are also included in this part. Finally, the chapter concludes with the structure of the whole study.
defined speaking as an active method of creating meaning through information production, reception, and processing. The speaking skill is an output skill that helps to evaluate what speakers know (in terms of both language ability and content knowledge) and how they express the things they know (Nguyen, 2010). Moreover, the key to comprehending the nature of speaking is to examine it in terms of the underlying abilities, or competencies, which define speaking proficiency, and these fundamental abilities have a structure, consisting of various parts and interacting and interrelating with one another in some way (Torky, 2006). Then, different speaking taxonomies were constructed, many of which chose a communicative viewpoint and assumed that speaking is primarily employed for communication (ibid). This study chose the communicative competence model of Scarcella and Oxford (1992), cited by Torky (2006), in which speaking comprises four elements in communicative competence, including grammatical competence, sociolinguistic competence, discourse competence, and strategic competence. However, becoming a competent English speaker is not an easy task because EFL students face many difficulties in their speaking learning and speaking activities (Basalama, Bay, & Abubakar, 2020). Therefore, if they know and use adequate learning strategies, they can manage to overcome those difficulties (Basalama et al., 2020; Lingga, Simanjuntak, & Sembiring, 2020; Prabawa, 2016). In addition, according to Hedge (2000), an English learner must understand how to apply strategies to learn to speak English if he/she wants to become a competent speaker. For these reasons, many studies have been conducted to find out the strategies used by good language learners (GLL) with the aim of giving suggestions about ways to improve language proficiency to less successful learners. 2.3. Good language learners (GLL) Language learning strategies began to be paid more attention to after the study conducted by Rubin (1975) about GLL (Hajar, 2019; Oxford et al., 2014). As a result, Rubin found three important variables that helped the learner to be successful, including “aptitude, motivation, and opportunity”. From the review on studies, GLL is an active learner who is always willing to learn and practice by applying language knowledge to every possible communication both inside out outside the classroom and being aware of his/her own language development. Moreover, effective learner self-regulates his/her
own study by trying to employ positive learning strategies to solve his/her learning difficulties. Previous studies, therefore, suggested that less successful learners should learn from those strategies employed by GLLs in order to become more efficient learners. 2.4. Key concepts 2.4.1. Definitions 2.4.1.1. Language learning strategy (LLS) and Self-regulated learning strategy (SRLS) definitions There have been so many different ways to define LLSs. However, many studies concluded that the learning strategy concept is “fuzzy” (Ellis, 1994 as cited in Oxford, 2017, p. 33) and that there is a “lack of definitional and conceptual consensus” (ibid). Therefore, Dörnyei (2005) even suggested canceling all the studies on language learning strategies because there is no strategy existing and the concept of learning strategy may be better replaced by that of “self-regulation”. Dörnyei (2005) stated that self-regulation refers to how actively the individuals participate in their own learning, citing Zimmerman and Risemberg (1997) that self-regulation puts stress on the learners’ “strategic efforts to manage their own achievement through specific beliefs and processes” (p. 191). Since then, many researchers have paid more attention to the notion of self-regulation, e.g., Fuente et al., 2015; Nodoushan, 2012; Oxford, 2011, 2017; Rose,
However, the literature of four decades of research on the issue shows that strategies do exist and are good friends of language learners. Memory, for example, was proven to have helped many learners to achieve their study goals (Oxford, 1990). In addition, as cited by Oxford (2017), Pawlak (2011) stated that “Dörnyei’s criticism was based on many overgeneralizations”. Moreover, Rose (2012) said that the conceptualization of self-regulation made by Dörnyei was “as fuzzy as the strategy concept” (p. 34). Therefore, he called for a combination of both self-regulation and learning strategies into a framework in order to have a more understanding about the issue. As a result, in a later work, he reported that there have been some studies that had made integration of the notions of self-regulation and “existing paradigms of strategies”, e.g. Oxford, 2011 (Rose, 2018, p. 152).
regulated strategies, from now on, it adopts the term self-regulated speaking learning strategy (SRSLS) instead of SLS for those strategies employed by the target participants. 2.4.2. Classifications This study used the S2R model newly developed by Oxford (2011). In the model, “self-regulated learning strategies have been specified as deliberate, goal-directed attempts to control and manage the foreign language learning process” (Habók & Magyar, 2018, p. 2). Language learners can control and manage their learning process by using those metastrategies appropriately due to their needs and the learning contexts/ situations, which is the characteristic of self-regulation. In the S2R model, there are six types of learning strategies, including Metacognitive, Cognitive, Meta-affective, Affective, Meta-Sociocultural-Interactive (Meta-SI), and Sociocultural-Interactive (SI) strategies. Figure 2.1: Dynamic interaction of strategies and metastrategies for L2 learning in the S2R model
2.4.3. LLS and SRL assessment tools There are various strategies for learning a language divided into sub-systems due to the specific purposes of the author. Nevertheless, some taxonomies have been used more frequently than others due to different reasons. From the literature review, it is noted that Oxford’s taxonomy, her SILL, and her latest S2R model have been favored to be chosen in much recent research on the language learning strategies or the self-
regulated language learning strategies used in different contexts and by different individuals. The present study, therefore, chose to apply the new hybrid model of Oxford (2011) as a base and adapted the SILL (Oxford, 1990) and other two newly developed scales which were based on the S2R model of Oxford (2011) to have the most appropriate research instrument for investigating the SRSLSs of the target population. The instrument will be checked through EFA for initial item deletion, CFA for model fit, and, lastly, Cronbach’s Alpha for reliability (Hinkin, 1998). 2.5. Learner variables There are many factors affecting the use of LLSs. According to Oxford (1990), these factors are “degree of awareness, stage of learning, task requirements, teacher expectations, age, sex, nationality/ ethnicity, general learning style, personal traits, motivation level and purpose for learning the language” (p. 13). Ellis (1994) believes that the choice of strategies depends on each individual and also on situational factors. The individual factors include “beliefs about language learning, affective states, learning experience and learner factors such as age, aptitude, learning style, and motivation” while situational factors, also known as social or contextual factors, “take into account the learning situation and the learner’s environment” (Ellis, 1994, cited in Szyszka, 2017, p. 35). Another researcher, Lee (2010), as cited in Aljuaid (2015), makes a list of factors that can affect the choice of strategies, including age, sex, attitude, motivation, aptitude, learning stage, task requirements, teacher expectation, learning styles, individual differences, cultural differences, language learning-related beliefs, and overall language proficiency. In her study, Griffiths (2003) also adds other variables namely anxiety, self-efficacy, and self-esteem, which are all individual factors. For this study, due to the research gaps revealed from the literature review, five factors were chosen to be investigated to find out their relationship with the choice of learning strategies used by Vietnamese students to learn to speak English. They are of two types of variables: individual learner variables (internal factors) and teaching and learning variables (external factors). Some of them have been mostly used by researchers such as gender, proficiency, and majors while others have not been paid enough attention including previous learning experience and learning environment. In sum, the use of LLSs depends on many variables coming from the learners themselves and also the teaching and learning condition/ environment. According to the
This chapter aims to discuss the research methodology used in the current study. Firstly, the chapter focuses on the research design of the study, which is a sequential explanatory mixed method. Then, it presents the sampling strategy, research context, and selection of participants. The last sections provide information on the methods for data collection, data analysis, and ethical considerations. 3.1. Research approach 3.1.1. Research questions restated The study is guided by the following research questions, which were modified a little bit after the decision of employing the notion SRSLSs in place of SLSs (see section 2.3.2). RQ1. What self-regulated strategies are reportedly used by EFL students to learn the English speaking skill? RQ2. What self-regulated speaking learning strategies and self-regulated speaking learning strategy groups are favoured the most and the least by EFL students? RQ3. How frequently are the self-regulated speaking learning strategies reportedly used by EFL students? RQ4. How the use of self-regulated speaking learning strategies is affected by factors including gender, majors, proficiency, previous English learning experience, and learning environment? 3.1.2. Researcher’s pragmatic worldview For my research study, I applied the pragmatism worldview, which is defined as a philosophy that “arises out of actions, situations, and consequences rather than antecedent conditions (as in postpositivism)”, and, therefore, researchers highlight the study problem and employ all approaches available to comprehend it rather than concentrating on methodologies (Creswell & Creswell, 2018, p. 332). The present study focused on the SRSLSs used by the research participants and their use of strategies in relation with different variables, therefore, the pragmatism worldview was the most appropriate. By applying this worldview, I focused on the research problems, and to understand the problems, I chose to use both quantitative and qualitative data. As a result, the mixed-methods approach was used to answer the research questions.
3.1.3. Mixed methods approach This study chose the mixed methods approach and explanatory sequential design for several reasons which are discussed in the following sections. 3.1.4. Rationale for the choice of sequential explanatory mixed-method approach The study at hand uses the pragmatism worldview and the research methodology is explanatory sequential mixed methods. The quantitative method is used to have a general view of the use of SLSs by the students. Then, the qualitative method follows to expand on the findings of the first method. 3.2. Research design The research design of the current study was the sequential explanatory mixed method. To be more detailed, a quantitative method stranded for answering the research questions on the categories of strategies that students reported using in learning to speak English, the frequency in SLSs use, and finding if gender, level of proficiency, majors, previous learning experience, and learning environment had influences on the use of SLSs. Then, the qualitative method was used to deepen the quantitative results. Figure 3.1: Current research design diagram
Research Design^ Mixed Methods Approach
Data Collection Methods
Quantitative Data Collection
Qualitative Data Collection
Instruments
Questionnaires
Semi-Structure interviews
Data Analysis
Descriptive and Inferential Statistics (SPSS)
Thematic Analysis
Findings (^) Quantitative findings + Qualitative findings) Merging of Findings’ Interpretation
nonprobability sampling for both quantitative and qualitative phases for two main reasons. First, it was hard for me to choose individuals who were representative of the target population, therefore, I had to study those who voluntarily consent to be studied (Creswell, 2012). Second, I did not aim to generalise the findings to the population. Therefore, it is suggested by Creswell (2012) that nonprobability sampling, and more specifically, convenience sampling, was the most appropriate quantitative sampling strategy. In relation to qualitative sampling, due to the study’s objective of using the qualitative phase to get rich and in-depth information and not to have generalization, non-probability was the most appropriate. Therefore, the interviewees were chosen from the survey’s participants, who accepted to take part in the qualitative data collection that followed. 3.4. Data collection instruments 3.4.1. Data collection instruments The data-gathering methods employed in this mixed-methods study consist of:
The final version of the SRESLSQ consists of:
Scale validation Before using the data collected for the data analysis, the adapted questionnaire was validated to have valid construct and reliability. Following recommendations by Hinkin (1998), I based myself on the following analyses to provide validity evidence for the scales in the current study: (a) inter-item correlation analysis; (b) exploratory factor analysis (EFA); (c) confirmatory factor analysis (CFA); and (d) reliability check by Cronbach Alpha. In addition, any items flagged for deletion from these quantitative
Self-regulated English speaking learning strategy questionnaire (SRESLSQ)
English learner variables (3 0 items)
English speaking learning strategies ( 40 items)
Affective strategies (0 5 items)
Meta-affective strategies ( 08 items)
English learning environment (2 5 items)
Metacognitive strategies ( 10 items)
Cognitive strategies ( 07 items)
Meta-SI strategies ( 05 items)
Sociocultural- interactive strategies (0 5 items)
participants completed the questionnaire anonymously and the names of the interviewees were coded. Then, in all stages of the study, the confidentiality of the participants and their information/ opinions was kept seriously.
4.1. Integrated quantitative and qualitative results The section is dedicated to presenting the integrated results of both quantitative and qualitative data so that readers can understand how the qualitative data can help expand the quantitative results. The integration is also presented in terms of its response to the research questions. RQ1. What self-regulated strategies are reportedly used by EFL students to learn English speaking skill? From the quantitative data, it was concluded that the participants used a wide range of strategies to learn to speak English because they reported using all the strategies listed. This can be implied also from the qualitative data when there were many strategies given by the interviewees. According to the response in the qualitative data collection, some new strategies were given. Also, they asserted the use of technology in the search for online resources to learn to speak, including some apps namely Speakpeak and Cambly, and online programs such as Youtube, and TikTok. Many of the respondents showed to have additional contact with native speakers and English speakers as a means of improving their English speaking. As a result, the ESPD students showed to have used many strategies of all kinds to help them tackle their learning difficulties. They are strategies to help the students to have different kinds of competences, e.g., strategic competence, grammatical competence, or sociolinguistic competence, in order to improve their speaking proficiency. Another implication from the results is that the ESDP students are highly self-regulated in their learning. RQ2. What self-regulated speaking learning strategies and self-regulated speaking learning strategy groups are favoured the most and the least by EFL students?
The data showed that the most favoured strategy group was the Meta-affective while the least preferred one was the SI group of strategies. Accordingly, item 18, MAS ‘I notice if I am tense or nervous when I am speaking English’ was reported to be mostly used by the learners while item 37, SIS2 ‘If I don’t know the right vocabulary, I try to explain my idea in other words or phrases’ had the lowest mean score, which means that it was the least favoured strategy. RQ3. How frequently are the self-regulated speaking learning strategies reportedly used by EFL students? According to the quantitative data collection, three groups of strategies, including Meta-affective, Cognitive, and Meta-cognitive, were used with high frequency, with the mean scores of 4.10, 3.90, and 3.72 respectively. The other three groups, namely Affective, Meta-SI, and SI strategies, received a medium frequency of use with the mean scores of 3.21, 3.21, and 3.20 respectively. In general, the students of the ESPD showed to have a high frequency of strategy use (M=3.64). These findings revealed that the investigated students have developed a high level of strategy use, which means that they have had a high awareness of their problems and the ways to deal with the problems. This fact suggested that they are highly self-regulated in their learning to speak English. After that, the qualitative data were collected to have a more in-depth understanding of the issue. All the respondents stated to have used a variety of strategies to deal with a number of difficulties in their speaking learning. The reason for this relied on the fact that all of them showed their awareness of the difficulties in learning to speak English, and what they should do. Therefore, they have tried to use a combination of strategies in their learning. Some even showed an advance in strategy employment because they are not using those that were no longer appropriate. When asked about the most employed strategy group, seven out of ten interviewees chose the Metacognitive, Cognitive, or Meta-affective strategy group. This result was similar to that revealed by the quantitative data.
RQ4. How the use of self-regulated speaking learning strategies is affected by factors, namely gender, majors, proficiency, previous English learning experience, and learning environment?
The quantitative data collection and analysis have shown many facts about the differences in the use of SRSLSs due to the five investigated variables. The findings in
