The relationship between language learning motivation and language learning strategy use of vietnamese employees at honda company, vietnam

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF POST - GRADUATE STUDIES
*******************

HOÀNG THỊ HOA

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
LANGUAGE LEARNING MOTIVATION AND LANGUAGE
LEARNING STRATEGY USE OF VIETNAMESE EMPLOYEES
AT HONDA COMPANY, VIETNAM
MỐI QUAN HỆ GIỮA ĐỘNG LỰC HỌC NGÔN NGỮ VÀ VIỆC SỬ DỤNG
CHIẾN THUẬT HỌC NGÔN NGỮ CỦA NHÂN VIÊN NGƯỜI VIỆT
CÔNG TY HONDA, VIỆT NAM

M.A. MINOR PROGRAMME THESIS

Field: English Teaching Methodology
Code: 60140111

HANOI - 2016


VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF POST - GRADUATE STUDIES
********************

HOÀNG THỊ HOA

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN

LANGUAGE LEARNING MOTIVATION AND LANGUAGE
LEARNING STRATEGY USE OF VIETNAMESE EMPLOYEES
AT HONDA COMPANY, VIETNAM
MỐI QUAN HỆ GIỮA ĐỘNG LỰC HỌC NGÔN NGỮ VÀ VIỆC SỬ DỤNG
CHIẾN THUẬT HỌC NGÔN NGỮ CỦA NHÂN VIÊN NGƯỜI VIỆT
CÔNG TY HONDA, VIỆT NAM

M.A. MINOR PROGRAMME THESIS

Field: English Teaching Methodology
Code: 60140111
Supervisor: Tô Thị Thu Hương, PhD

HANOI - 2016


DECLARATION
I hereby declare that my thesis submitted for the Faculty of Post-Graduate
Studies, University of Languages and International Studies, Vietnam National
University, apart from the help recognized, is my own work. Also, this paper has
not been submitted to any other formal course of study.

Hanoi, 2016

Ho ng Thi Hoa

i


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to send my thank you to many individuals for their invaluable
help during the conduct of the research.
First and foremost, I would like to express my profound gratitude to my
supervisor, Dr. To Thi Thu Huong, who gave me enthusiastic instructions, precious
support and critical feedback on the construction of the study. This has always been
one of decisive factors in the completion of this thesis.
Second, I also wish to thank all the doctors and lecturers of the Faculty of
Postgraduate Studies, University of Foreign Languages and International Studies,
Vietnam National University, Hanoi for their valuable lectures, which are partly
applied in this study.
Next, I would like to send my deep sense of thanks to Vietnamese employees
at Honda Co., Vietnam for their cooperation and the valuable information they
provided in my research field.
Furthermore, I would like to give my heartfelt thanks to my family and
friends, especially my boyfriend, Thanh Nguyen, and my best friend, Sao Bui, who
have always been helpful to me throughout the research.
Last but not least, I thank almighty the graders and readers for their interests,
evaluation and feedback on this thesis.

ii


ABSTRACT
This research aims to investigate the correlation between language learning
motivation and language learning strategy use by Vietnamese employees at Honda
company.
To seek answers for the issue, a questionnaire was conducted to collect the
answers from 120 Vietnamese employees at Honda company. The first section of
the questionnaire was about how often the students used instructed strategies in
learning English and found out whether these students use any other strategies than

instructed ones, and the second section was created to collect information about the
participants‟ motivation level. The data were then analyzed and presented in the
forms of frequency, percentage and charts and tables. The results indicated that all
the instructed strategies were used by the majority of the respondents and the
participants also applied some other strategies that could be considered belonging to
memory and social groups in their English learning, and among the four types of
motivation, their reported instrumental motivation was of the highest level.
Importantly, the study found a significant, positive, and moderate correlation between
motivation and language learning strategy use. Moreover, different types of
motivation are shown to have different correlations with strategy use. Finally, the
significant contributions of integrative and intrinsic motivation to strategy use were
revealed, which went beyond the correlational analysis for the relationship as often
observed in other studies.

iii


TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................... ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................. iv
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................... vi
LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................... vii
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................... 1
1.1.

The statement of problem and rationale for the study .................................... 1

1.2. Significance of the study ......................................................................................... 3
1.3. Objectives of the study and research questions ........................................................ 4
1.4. Method of the study ................................................................................................ 5

1.5. Organization of the study ........................................................................................ 5
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW............................................................................ 6
2.1. Language learning strategies ................................................................................... 6
2.1.1. Definitions and characteristics of language learning strategies .......................... 6
2.1.2. Classification of learning strategies .................................................................. 7
2.1.3. The role of language learning strategies in language learning and teaching..... 12
2.2. Motivation in language learning ............................................................................ 13
2.2.1. Definitions of motivation ............................................................................... 13
2.2.2. Types of motivation in language learning ....................................................... 14
2.3. Language learning strategies and motivation in language learning ........................ 17
3.3.1. Data collection instrument .............................................................................. 22
3.4. Data analysis procedure ........................................................................................ 26
4.1. The range of language learning strategies used by Vietnamese employees at Honda
Company, Vietnam. ..................................................................................................... 29
4.1.1. Memory strategies .......................................................................................... 29
4.1.2. Cognitive strategies ........................................................................................ 31
4.1.3. Compensation strategies ................................................................................. 32
4.1.4. Metacognitive strategies ................................................................................. 34
4.1.5. Affective strategies ........................................................................................ 36
4.1.6. Social strategies ............................................................................................. 37
4.2. The Vietnamese employees‟ dominant types of motivation for English language
learning. ...................................................................................................................... 41
iv


4.2.1. Integrative motivation .................................................................................... 42
4.2.2. Instrumental motivation ................................................................................. 43
4.2.3. Resultative motivation ................................................................................... 45
4.2.4. Intrinsic motivation ........................................................................................ 47
4.3. The correlation between students‟ use of LLSs and their types of motivation in

English learning........................................................................................................... 48
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION ........................................................................................ 52
APPENDICES ................................................................................................................... I
APPENDIX 1 ................................................................................................................. I

v


LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

Co.: company
EFL: English as foreign language
LS: learning strategy
LSs: learning strategies
LLS: language learning strategy
LLSs: language learning strategies
MA: Master of Arts

vi


LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Frequency of using memory strategies .................................................... 29
Figure 2: Frequency of using cognitive strategies .................................................. 31
Figure 3: Frequency of using compensation strategies ........................................... 33
Figure 4: Requency of using metacognitive strategies ........................................... 35
Figure 5: Frequency of using affective strategies ................................................... 37
Figure 6: Frequency of using social strategies ....................................................... 38
Figure 7: The percentage of regular use of the most and the least popular strategies

................................................................................................... …………………39
Figure 8: The students' integrative motivation ....................................................... 42
Figure 9: The students' instrumental motivation..................................................... 44
Figure 10: The students' resultative motivation ...................................................... 45
Figure 11: The students' intrinsic motivation ......................................................... 48

vii


CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1.The statement of problem and rationale for the study
That well-paid attention to the second language learners and their learning
instead of teachers and teaching methods in the recent decades by researches has
been an indispensable and meaningful educational renovation that provides more
comprehensive perception on second language education for both teachers and
learners. The studies of second language learning and their effectiveness that started
to be focused prominently since the second half of the twentieth century (Ellis,
2003). This is well-known when various researches have been launched and they
concentrated on how learners deal with their own learning and what makes good
language learners. The prominent contributions to this field can be known as the
studies by Stern in 1975, Oxford in 1990, and Griffiths in 2003. These researchers
made it clearer that a lot of responsibility for the second language learning‟s
effectiveness and success is on students themselves with their ability to take
advantage of opportunities for learning.
Moreover, the strategies and techniques that language learners exploit to
acquire the language and solve challenges in their language learning have been a
thriving area of research, especially in L2.Since Rubin and Stern (1970) revealed in
their works that the use of language learning strategies (LLSs) was beneficial for
second language learning. Bialystok (1978, p. 71) also agreed that learning strategies
were the “optimal means for exploiting available information to improve competence

in a second language”. Later, in 1990, in her work, Oxford found that students can
self-study effectively if using LLSs. In addition, the use of language learning
strategies leads to better proficiency or achievement in mastering the target
language (Lee, 2003; O‟Malley and Chamot, 1990; Rahimi et at., 2008; Griffiths,
2003; Hong, 2006; Oxford, 1993).
Besides, the variables affecting language learning strategy use were also taken
into consideration by several scholars. Those factors might consist of degree of

1


awareness, age, sex, nationality, learning style, personality traits, motivation, learning
context, language teaching method and language proficiency (Zare & Nooreen, 2011;
Khamkhien, 2010; Rahimi, et al. 2008; Chemot, 2004; Griffiths, 2003; Hong-Nam
and Leavell, 2007; Green and Oxford, 1995; Ehrman and Oxford, 1989).Concerning
this field, Taguchi (2002) found that “the most influential factors were gender,
English proficiency and motivation” among a number of learner and social factors in
both Japan and Australia contexts. In another work by Khamkhien (2010) which
studied three factors affecting students‟ choice of LLS, motivation is the most
significant (followed by experience in studying English and gender). In additions,
the number of studies on the relationship between motivation and LLS use was
modest. What is more, the approaches to motivation were not consistent and
comprehensive in these studies despite the development of research on motivation
field. Most of the previous studies emphasized on the relationship between
motivation level and LLS use without paying attention to motivation types. In
addition, one can notice that although the correlation between motivation and the use
of LLSs were discussed to some extent (Al-Qahtani, 2013; Khamkhien, 2010; Lau &
Chan, 2003; Liu et al., 2014; Mochizuki, 1999; Oxford & Nyikos, 1989), little was
known about the predictive power of motivation in explaining LLS use of EFL
learners.

At Honda company context, there has never had any researches of language
learning carried out. Moreover, since 2015, Honda Motor Co. announced widely that
they are to make English the official language by around 2020, which means if any
employees who cannot use English will be fired. Simultaneously, all Honda staff
members will be helped to take part in free English classes at the company in order to
enhance their English skills. These mean the learning and teaching context of the
company staff members have undergone some changes. Due to the above reasons,
this paper would take a deeper look at the relationship between motivation and the
use of LLSs, and the researcher decided to work with the case of Vietnamese
employees at Honda company in Vinh Phuc, Vietnam, who are having extra classes

2


of English skills at their company which may lead to students‟ clearer motivation
for learning English.
In additions, in the context of Honda, the researcher did not choose to
investigate the relationship between gender and LLSs because the majority of
Vietnamese employees at Honda are male, so it may meet difficulties in collecting
respondents in proportion. Besides, almost all Vietnamese staffs at Honda graduated
from universities of technical fields, or economic, and law, etc. As a result, their
proficiency of English is quite the same at elementary, pre-intermediate and
intermediate levels, which may give unvalued results if investigating the correlation
between English proficiency and the use of LLSs. Thus, this study was conducted
with an aim at expanding the understandings about the relationship between
motivation and LLSs use, especially on the role of motivation types in explaining and
predicting the L2 learners‟ LLS use.
In short, being aware of the rather new teaching and learning situation, the
gap in research and the possibility of Vietnamese employees' increasing motivation
at Honda to learning English, the researcher designed this study to investigate the

relationship between the use of language learning strategy and their motivation
for learning English of Vietnamese employees at Honda company, Vietnam.
1.2. Significance of the study
As a study on the relationship between LLS use and motivation for learning
English of Vietnamese employees at Honda Vietnam for learning English, this work
would be of benefit for the target population, their English teacher and other
researchers interested in the field.
In the first place, this study is conducted with a hope to provide Vietnamese
employees at Honda Vietnam, to some extent, with knowledge of LLSs and
encourage them to use these LLS in appropriate ways to enhance their language
learning effect. In additions, the research results would allow participants to know
more their current use of LLS, their motivation in their learning English at present
and importantly, the correlation between these two elements is expected to be

3


concerned by learners and taken into their consideration. Then, students may have
some changes in their choice of LLSs that are useful to their language learning and
adjust their attitudes to their study actively and positively, so that their learning is
more interesting and effective.
As for their English teachers, they could base on the results of this work to
further understand their students‟ use of LLS and their motivation. After that,
teachers can encourage and guide students to use LLS more effectively.
Furthermore, they can even change the way of teaching or giving tasks, so that it is
more compatible and constructive for their students‟ motivation. The adjustments in
course content or orientation could also be made for betterment.
Last but not least, regarding the researchers who are interested in the same or
related field, the researcher hope this paper could work as a reliable source of
reference and a basis for them to develop their works from.

1.3. Objectives of the study and research questions
This study was conducted with an aim of exploring the relationship between
motivation and instructed LLSs use by Vietnamese employees at Honda co,
Vietnam, especially the role of motivation types in explaining and predicting the L2
learners‟ LLS use. To fulfil this aim, firstly, this study focused on identifying the
extent of the use of trained LLSs of Vietnamese employees at Honda Vietnam in
learning English. Secondly, motivation types of respondents towards learning
English were investigated. After that, this paper explored the relationship between
respondents‟ use of LLS and their motivation for English learning.
In a nut shell, the study reported in this the thesis aims at answering three
questions below:
1. What is the range of instructed language learning strategies used by
Vietnamese employees at Honda Vietnam?
2. What are Vietnamese employees‟ dominant types of motivation for
English language learning?

4


3. In what way does Vietnamese employees‟ use of language learning
strategies correlate with their types of motivation for learning English?
1.4. Method of the study
The methods employed in this study to find out the answers to the proposed
research questions are both qualitative and quantitative analyses.
Quantitative analysis used in the process of data collection and analysis,
which was conducted at Honda Company, Vietnam. The instrument was a
questionnaire that includes fifty-statements of LLSs developed from the fiftystatement strategy inventory version 7.0 by Oxford (1989) and an adapted list of
nineteen items related to motivation types. Following the phase of data collection is
data analysis to give the results for each research question and the topic of the
study.

Besides, with an aim at providing an understanding of the field for readers
and a philosophy for the study, the researcher carried out to review, compare and
evaluate a large amount of literature on LLSs and motivation by experts worldwide.
These materials were then applied to construct the instrument and compare the
findings with the results of previous studies.
Hopefully, this study could release meaningful and beneficial findings on the
relationship between learners‟ use of language learning strategies and their
motivation, so that certain contribution to Vietnamese employees‟ English learning
at Honda Vietnam could be made.
1.5. Organization of the study
The study consists of 5 chapters
Chapter 1: Introduction of the research
Chapter 2: Literature review (Other researches on this topic are discussed)
Chapter 3: Methodology (the way the researcher collected the data as well as
analysis them is showed)
Chapter 4: Findings and discussion (features in learners‟ use)
Chapter 5: Conclusion

5


CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1. Language learning strategies
2.1.1. Definitions and characteristics of language learning strategies
To be considered as one of the most vital elements contributing to learners‟
success in language acquisition, language learning strategies defined and
characterized by a variety of scholars in the related field. Early on, according to
Tarone (1983), LLS as “an attempt to develop linguistic and sociolinguistic
competence in the target language – to incorporate these into one‟s inter-language
competence” (p.67).Rubin (1987) later wrote that LLS “are strategies which

contribute to the development of the language system which the learners construct
and affect learning directly” (p.22). The learning strategies also have been defined
by O‟Malley and Chamot (1990:1) as “special ways of processing information that
enhance comprehension, learning, or retention of information”. In line with
them, Scarcella & Oxford (1992) mentioned LLS as “specific actions, behaviors,
steps, or techniques – such as seeking out conversation partners, or giving oneself
encouragement to tackle a difficult language task- used by students to enhance their
own learning”. Obviously, a change of what is emphasized in these definitions can
be clearly seen that it shifts from finding out what they learn to how and why
learners learn (Wenden 1991:11). Also, it is vital to note that although there is a
notorious relationship between leaner‟s language learning style and his or her
preferred LLS, LLS are distinct from learning styles, which refer to learner‟s
“natural, habitual, and preferred ways of absorbing, processing, and retaining new
information and skills” (Reid, 1995, p.viii). Ellis (1994, p. 532-533) affirmed that
“[s]trategies refer to both general approaches and specific actions or techniques
used to learn an L2”, and strategy use can be behavioral or mental, visible or
invisible. This definition was consistent with the ideas of many other scholars in the
field, especially those of O‟Malley and Chamot (1990) and Oxford (1989, 2001).
Concerning whether strategy use necessitates consciousness or not, Ellis (1994),
Oxford (2001), and Grabe (2009) agreed that learners make use of learning strategies

6


intentionally until they can implement them skillfully and automatically. Above all,
there was a consensus among these researchers that strategies affect directly and
indirectly on learning process, exerting positive influence on students‟ task solving,
language skill development, language proficiency, communicative competence,
learning autonomy, self-confidence, and aiming at making the process of learning
easier and more feasible (Al-Qahtani, 2013; Dreyer & Oxford, 1996; “Author 2”,

2005; Ellis, 1994; Matsumoto, Hiromori, & Nakayama, 2013; Moya, 2014; Nisbet,
Tindal, & Arroyo, 2005; O‟Malley & Chamot, 1990; Oxford, 1990; Oxford, 2001;
Oxford & Scarcella, 1992).
Regarding the LLS literature, this study now mentions a number of basic
characteristics of language learning strategies that published in 2005 by Jacet (cited
in Kitakawa, 2008, p.151). First of all, LLS help learners to study language easier
and contribute language acquisition (competence and performance). Secondly, LLS
are “what learners can use consciously according to need and then allow them to
become more responsible and self-directed. Some LLS are behavioral (and,
therefore, observable) while other are mental (and, therefore, not observable). Also,
some LLS contribute directly while other contributes indirectly on inter-language
development. The fifth is LLS are not distinguished by being good or not and just
have effectual way and non-effectual way. LLS allow students to properly use the
strategies with appropriate guidance. Finally, LLS use varies as a result of learner‟s
internal factors (sex, age, belief, aptitude, purpose, learning stage, cultural
background, intelligence) and external factors (target language, task, environment,
etc)”.
2.1.2. Classification of learning strategies
Through the years, a number of researchers released the systems of language
learning strategies in their own way. LLS are defined and classified in different way
from each other. Therefore, this field of LLS is controversial (Oxford, 1990). The
researchers on this field have not been shared the same view. As a result, the
quantity and classification of LLS are “inevitable” (Oxford, 1990).

7


In 1971, Rubin investigated the strategies used by “good language learners”
when learning a second language with an aim to apply this to “poor language
learner”. Naiman et al. (1976) agreed with researchers earlier on the significance of

learners‟ strategies to their learning process. A new point is they identify “good”
and “poor” language learners and they found out that “poor” language learners
appeared to use a smaller number and range of strategies than “good” learners. It
was believed that good language learners are “willing and accurate guessers; have
a strong drive to communicate; are often uninhibited; are willing to make mistakes;
focus on form by looking for patterns and analyzing; take advantage of all practice
opportunities; monitor their speech as well as that of others; and pay attention to
meaning”, and the students‟ process was under direct or indirect influence of LSs
(Rubin, 1975).The female expert came to her latest classification in 1987 with three
main groups of strategies that make a direct or indirect contribution to students‟
language learning: „learning strategies‟ (with „metacognitive strategies‟ and
„cognitive strategies‟ as subclasses), „communication strategies‟, and „social
strategies‟. Among strategies included in the system, only cognitive ones directly
affect learning, while the rest indirectly. However, Ellis (1986) argued that successful
use of communication strategies may prevent language learning, for example, being
excel at guessing meaning may prevent the desire for learning.
Another prominent way of categorizing LLS belonged to O‟Malley and
Chamot (1990) with three main types, namely cognitive (applying a particular
technique to a specific task, for example repeating, summarizing, note-taking,
reasoning and analyzing), meta-cognitive (related to the learning process, for
example organizing, evaluating, planning and monitoring) and socio- affective
(involving oneself and others, for example co-operating with peers and seeking
clarification). O‟Malley and Chamot (1990) emphasized the cognitive strategy is the
best one “repetition as the most frequently used strategy” and gave those classed as
meta-cognitive a special consideration, maintaining that “students without metacognitive approaches are essentially learners without direction or opportunity to

8


plan their learning, monitor their progress, or review their accomplishments and

future learning directions”. It can be seen that the meta-cognitive and cognitive
strategies correspond roughly with Rubin‟s. However, there was an addition of the
social ones, which essentially acknowledged the importance of interactional
strategies in language learning (Griffiths, 2004).
Basing on the predecessors‟ works, Oxford tried to develop a taxonomy that
discussed before in other researches in more detail, which was considered "the most
comprehensive classification of learning strategies to date” (Ellis, 1994). She
divided these strategies into two main classes, direct and indirect, which are further
subdivided into six categories (cognitive strategy that allows learners to understand
and produce the target language in different means, memory strategy that helps
learners to store and retrieve new information later, and compensation that
provides learners the means to communicate although their knowledge is limited
(Oxford, 1990) under the direct class; meta-cognitive, affective, and social under
the indirect class).Meta-cognitive strategies allow students to control their
cognition and their own learning, affective strategies relates to regulate learners‟
emotion, motivation, and behaviors, and social strategies that permit learners study
through interaction with others.
Following is the table contains detail information of specific strategies of each
group.

9


Table 1: Oxford‟s (1990) language learning strategy taxonomy
Major groups of
strategies

Primary strategies

Secondary strategies

A. Creating mental linkages
B. Applying images and
sounds
C. Reviewing well
D. Employing action
A. Practicing
B. Receiving and sending
II. Cognitive
messages
(entail conscious ways of
C. Analyzing and
handling the target language) reasoning
D. Creating structure for
input and output
III. Compensation
A. Guessing intelligently
(enable learners to
B. Overcoming
communicate despite
limitations in speaking and
knowledge limits)
writing
A. Centering learning
I. Metacognitive
B. Arranging and planning
(facilitate students‟ control of
learning
their cognition, their own
C. Evaluating learning

learning)
I. Memory
(help learners to store new
language information and
retrieve this later)

DIRECT
STRATEGIES
(require mental
processing of the
language)

INDIRECT
STRATEGIES
(support indirectly
the process of
learning)

II. Affective
(control and regulate
emotion, motivation, and
behaviors)
III. Social
(improve social interaction
with other people)

A. Lowering anxiety
B. Encouraging oneself
C. Taking emotional
temperature

A. Asking question
B. Cooperating with others
C. Empathizing with others

It is observable that Oxford‟s (1990) system was more specific than previous
ones in terms of primary strategies and more general in terms of secondary ones.
Especially, a difference from earlier inventories is that Oxford emphasis on affective
and social strategies. This seems to match with her assertion when mentioning to six

10


fundamental strategies in language learning as “tools for active, self-directed
involvement, which is essential for developing communicative competence”.
Although there are differences of approaches and emphases, the strategies that are
discussed and classified by researchers are similar to some extent. Particularly, three
types of cognitive, memory and compensation given by Oxford correspond to that
by O‟Malley‟s cognitive group. These strategies are mental and physical actions
affecting their learning input directly. Also, O‟Malley and Oxford have the same
kind of meta-cognitive strategies as mentioned earlier. Finally, social-affective
strategies by O‟Malley seem to almost cover two groups of affective and social
strategies of Oxford. The advantage of Oxford‟s classification in comparison with
others is that the list could cover all other particular actions or activities in language
learning; therefore, the system has been considered a very comprehensive, detailed
and systematic taxonomy of strategies (Brown, 2007; Ellis, 1994). More importantly,
based on this taxonomy, Oxford (1989) created the Strategy Inventory of Language
Learning (SILL), which is a questionnaire on how students use the LLSs in their
language learning. The version for speakers of other languages learning English of
the SILL (Oxford, 1989) has been widely employed by researchers in the field, and it
served as the instrument of this study as well.

Concerning previous studies, several have investigated the frequency of using
LLS by L2 learners, but the findings were different across studies. For example,
metacognitive and cognitive strategies were revealed to be the most frequently used
in Al-Hebaishi (2012), Al-Qahtani (2013), and Chand (2014). In the meantime,
Hayati (2015) found the students made use of metacognitive and memory strategies
the most. Differently, in Mochizuki (1999), Oxford and Ehrman (1995),
compensation group was used the most often by L2 students. However, the
inconclusive findings were understandable because the participant samples had
different characteristics (different study levels, different learning settings, to name but
a few), and it has been acknowledged that learning strategies were likely to be
affected by many factors, which would be discussed later in this paper.

11


2.1.3. The role of language learning strategies in language learning and
teaching
Obviously, the definitions and classifications mentioned above revealed
some roles of LLS. LLS facilitate positively the language learning process as they
are used to “enhance comprehension, learning, or retention of information”
(O‟Malley and Chamot (1990:1). Sharing the same view, Oxford (2001) claims the
role of LLS that is to “aid acquisition”, “make learning easier, faster, more
enjoyable, more self-directed, more effective and more transferable to new
situation”.
In addition, the positive impacts of LLS is also pointed out in the relationship
between learners‟ language proficiency and language strategy use that proved in the
findings of Nisbet et al (2005) and Oxford‟s report on South Africa learners in
1996.
Considering communicative approaches, Oxford (1990) claimed the role of
LLS in help “communicative competence” to be improved, LLS as “tools for active,

self-directed involvement which is essential for developing communicative
competence” (1990, p.1).
LLS also plays a significant role on enhancing language skill (Fedderholddt,
1997). Each type of strategies helps to improve certain skills such as monitoring and
regulating their own learning (meta-cognitive), learning and exploiting materials
(cognitive) and asking other speakers to correct mistakes (social/ effective).
Obviously, these skills are of necessary to the growth of learners‟ independence and
autonomy (Fedderholdt, 1997) and thanks to them, students also have able to
become better language learners (Lessard-Clouston,1997).
In addition, the suitable use of LLS could lead to students‟ “greater selfconfidence” in classrooms, self-study and real-life communication (Oxford &
Scarcella, 1992, p.63).
Moreover, LLS are considered as valuable clues that provide language
teachers a general picture of how their students handle, evaluate the situation, plan,

12


choose appropriate skills with an aim to understand, and digest language input
presented in the classroom. As a result, teachers have plan to train and adjust their
students in order that they can learn more effectively.
Generally, LLS become a significant part in students‟ language proficiency,
skills,

achievement,

communicative

competence,

learning

autonomy

and

confidence. Besides, these strategies also help language teaching to be more
effective. Indeed, LLS have overwhelming power to language learning and
teaching.
2.2. Motivation in language learning
2.2.1. Definitions of motivation
Unlike the exploration of LLS, motivation is put into research with a stable
base right from the start thanks to careful and thorough studies of influential authors
such as Gardner and his colleagues such as Lambert. Nevertheless, the
controversy of conceptualizing motivation can be still not evaded.
Being one of the pioneering researchers in this field, Gardner (1985) proposed
neatly three constituents of motivation namely „effort‟, „desire‟, and „attitudes‟ to
learning activity. By ‘effort’, the scholar meant time for language learning and the
drive of the learner. Next, by ‘desire’, the students‟ degree of the want to improve
their language proficiency was referred to. Finally, ‘attitudes’ showed the learners‟
emotional behaviors or reactions in their process of learning. Meanwhile, Brownthe behaviorist (2000) later claims that motivation simply is “the anticipation of
reward”; it concerns mainly learners‟ effort and decisions. According to Ahåt (2013),
Deci and Ryan (1985), Dörnyei and Skehan (2003), Gardner and Lambert (1972),
Gardner and Masgoret (2003), Hashemian and Soureshijani (2011), Khodadady and
Khajavy (2013), Wigfield (2000), and Yu (2013), motivation plays a prominent role
in L2 learning and achievement; more specifically, the motivated students could
recognize their goals, exert more effort to handle the tasks, have more aspiration and
less anxiety, enjoy learning activities, draw lessons from success and failure, exploit

13

LLSs as an effective tool to reach the goals, and are likely to achieve higher foreign
language proficiency than the unmotivated.
Considering the definition of motivation, Harmer (1991,p.3) proposes it is
regarded as “internal drive” that forces learners to do something. Sharing the same
perspective, Brown (2000, p.160) also claims the “internal drive” pushing people to
do to gain. Similarly, Atkinson (cited in Arnorld, 2000, p.13) considered motivation
“a cluster of factors that “energize” the behaviors and give it “direction””.
Later on, in 2003, Dornyei- a famous figure in the field, defined motivation
as a process of “the dynamically changing cumulative arousal in a person” that
concerns the reasons that promote someone‟s action, how long they will keep that
action, and how they are willing to make effort in order to pursue it. Dornyei‟s
concept of motivation also matches with his construct of three phases of motivation,
that are choice motivation (pre-actional stage), executive motivation (actional stage)
and motivational retrospection (post-actional stage where learners analyze actional
phase) (2003). Dornyei‟s mindset have some similarities to Wlodwoski‟s although
the latter‟s view dated back to 1985.
In his research, in 1994, Ellis also confirmed that motivation has a significant
influence on the degree to which language learners last their learning, the types of
behavior they apply, and their actual achievement. This was reemphasized with his
idea in 2003: “motivation involves the attitudes and affective states that influence
the degree of effort that learners make to learn an L2” (p.75)
In general, although there is a variety of different definition of motivation,
the authors‟ conceptualization mentioned earlier shared the same view, that
motivation makes learners‟ spirit stronger and direct their action and carry out their
goal in learning language.
2.2.2. Types of motivation in language learning
Defining motivation types also garnered a lot of attention. Gardner (1983),
Gardner and Lambert (1972) posited that there were two types of motivation in
language learning: integrative versus instrumental motivation. The former refers to

14


the reasons mainly related to the learners‟ identification with the society (Gardner,
1983) or their desires and willingness to explore more about the culture of the region
using the target language, to connect more with the community and people speaking
that target language or to be a member of that society (Gardner and Lambert, 1972,
Saville-Troike, 2006). Similarly, Wilkins (1972) suggested that an integratively
motivated language learner wants to “know more of the culture and values of the
foreign language group…to make contact with the speakers of the languages…to
live in the country concerned” (p. 184). A typical illustration is the act of learning
French of many English speaking Canadians (Ellis, 2003). In contrast, the latter is
derived purely from practical reasons or non-interpersonal purposes such as
admission requirements, business opportunity or job promotion (Gardner & Lambert,
1972; Saville-Trike, 2006).For example, when a leaner study to “pass an
examination to use it in one's job, to use it in holiday in the country, as a change
from watching television, because the educational system requires it”, (s)he is
instrumentally motivated (Wilkins, 1972, p.184)
While both motivation types were theorized to be essential elements of
success, Csizer and Dörnyei (2005), Yu (2013) found integrative motivation the more
powerful contributor to success in L2 learning. Nonetheless, Dörnyei (1990), Gupta
and Woldemariam (2011), Lukmani (1972), Rehman et al. (2014), Warden and Lin
(2000), Yu (2014) showed that in EFL contexts where learners have few
opportunities to using the foreign language or interact with foreigners, instrumental
motivation was more important and students were motivated more strongly by
instrumental reasons than integrative one. Thus, it is understandable when a learner
with an instrumental reason such as a need to get promotion, read document of
related-field in target language or necessary qualifications is more interested in
learning English in some contexts like Vietnam.

Other researchers, later on, raised another well-known categorization which
differentiated between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Specifically, according to
Self-Determination Theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985), learning motivation‟s types are

15


categorized “based on the different reasons or goals that give rise to an action” that
are intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Whilst intrinsic motivation means “doing
something because it is inherently interesting or enjoyable‟, extrinsic motivation
refers to “doing something because it leads to a separable outcome” such as having
good grades, or receiving compliments from others (Deci & Ryan, 1985, p. 55).
Sharing the same view to Deci & Ryan, Harmer (1994) defines intrinsic
motivation in related to elements appeared within a class, while extrinsic motivation
includes affected factors exterior of class such as a need to pass the examinations,
hope to get reward, or able to get a vacation in the future. In addition, intrinsic
motivation refers to learners‟ attitude, belief, needs and personal elements. In this
case, the students will still learn willingly and voluntarily what they consider as
worth and essential (Arnold, 2000). On the contrary, extrinsic motivation derives
from each individual and involved in external forces or outcome such as grade or
teacher that help to shape learner‟s behaviors and push the learner to engage in
learning activity. In general, intrinsic and extrinsic motivation are not mutually
exclusive, but mutualize each other. In reality, almost people study English because
of both types of motivation. As for Harmer (1991, p.4), he saw both integrative and
instrumental motivations as extrinsic motivation.
In Deci and Ryan‟s opinion (1985), being extrinsically motivated could do
some harm to learning. That is, when the rewards or even the punishment disappear,
there is a high chance of losing motivation in students. However, some researchers
indicated that extrinsic motivation is effective for those with little motivation.
Concerning intrinsic type, Lightbown and Spada (1999) agreed that it brings no

harmful effects because the needs derive from inside. This motivation type was also
considered the underlying factor in L2 learning success (Baleghizadeh & Rahimi,
2011; Grabe, 2009; Guthrie & Wigfield, 2000; Liu et al., 2014).
Another type was discussed by Ellis (2003, p. 75): „resultative motivation’.
All above sorts of motivation have been identified based on the assumption that
motivation stimulates language learning and contributes to achievement; however, in

16