Aninvestigation into english language learning strategies employed by non english major students at thai nguyen university of education thai nguyen university

THAI NGUYEN UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES

NGUYEN THI HANH PHUC

AN INVESTIGATION INTO ENGLISH LANGUAGE
LEARNING STRATEGIES EMPLOYED BY NON-ENGLISH
MAJOR STUDENTS AT THAI NGUYEN UNIVERSITY OF
EDUCATION – THAI NGUYEN UNIVERSITY

M.A THESIS
Field: English Linguistics
Code: 8220201

THAI NGUYEN - 2021


THAI NGUYEN UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES

NGUYEN THI HANH PHUC

AN INVESTIGATION INTO ENGLISH LANGUAGE
LEARNING STRATEGIES EMPLOYED BY NON-ENGLISH
MAJOR STUDENTS AT THAI NGUYEN UNIVERSITY OF
EDUCATION – THAI NGUYEN UNIVERSITY

M.A THESIS
(APPLICATION ORIENTATION)
Field: English Linguistics
Code: 8220201

Supervisor: Duong Duc Minh, Ph.D

THAI NGUYEN - 2021


ĐẠI HỌC THÁI NGUYÊN
TRƯỜNG NGOẠI NGỮ

NGUYỄN THỊ HẠNH PHÚC

TÌM HIỂU CÁC CHIẾN LƯỢC HỌC TẬP MÔN TIẾNG
ANH CỦA SINH VIÊN KHÔNG CHUYÊN TRƯỜNG ĐẠI
HỌC SƯ PHẠM – ĐẠI HỌC THÁI NGUYÊN

LUẬN VĂN THẠC SĨ
(Định hướng ứng dụng)

Ngành: Ngôn ngữ Anh
Mã số: 8220201
Cán bộ hướng dẫn: TS. Dương Đức Minh

THÁI NGUYÊN - 2021


STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP

I, Nguyen Thi Hanh Phuc, declare that the thesis entitled “An Investigation
into English Language Learning Strategies Employed by non-English major
Students at Thai Nguyen University of Education-Thai Nguyen University” is
the results of my own research and has not been submitted to any other university or

institution partially or wholly. Except where the reference is indicated, no other parts
of the work has been used without due acknowledgement in text of the thesis.

Appoved by SUPERVISOR

Thai Nguyen, June 2021

Duong Duc Minh, Ph.D.

Nguyen Thi Hanh Phuc

i


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my supervisor, Dr. Duong Duc Minh
for his invaluable guidance, correction, facilitation and encouragement in the writing
of this thesis.
I wish to express my gratitude to the Dean, the Vice Dean and all the staff of the
Faculty of Postgraduate Studies, School of Foreign Languages - Thai Nguyen
University, for their priceless wisdom, encouragement, help and kindness during my
study and writing this thesis.
Also, I am grateful to the lecturers and the students at Thai Nguyen University of
Education, TNU for their immense help and participation.
Finally, I want to thank my family, my friends for their spirit, encouragement and
their support. Without them this thesis couldn’t have been accomplished.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP ........................................................................................ i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...................................................................................................ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS..................................................................................................... iii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................................ v
LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................ vi
ABSTRACT.........................................................................................................................vii
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1

1.1. Background to the study ...................................................................................1
1.2. Aims of the Study .............................................................................................2
1.3. Research Questions ..........................................................................................3
1.4. Scope of the Study ............................................................................................3
1.5. Definitions of Terms.........................................................................................4
1.6. Significance of the Study .................................................................................4
1.7. Outline of the Thesis ........................................................................................5
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................... 7

2.1. Theory of Good Language Learners ................................................................7
2.2. Language Learning Strategies ..........................................................................9
2.3. Characteristics of Language Learning Strategies ...........................................10
2.4. Classification of Language Learning Strategies .............................................11
2.5. Oxford’s (1990) Language Learning Strategy Classification ........................13
2.6. Factors Affecting Language Learning Strategies Uses ..................................17

iii

2.6.1. Language Learning Strategy and Language Learning Experience .............17
2.6.2. Language Learning Strategy and Gender ....................................................18
2.6.3. Language Learning Strategy and Major Field of Study ..............................20
2.7. Summary.........................................................................................................22
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................... 24

3.1. Research Design .............................................................................................24
3.2. Subjects of the Study ......................................................................................25
3.3. Data Collection Instrument ............................................................................25
3.4. Data Collection Procedures ............................................................................28
3.5. Data Analysis Procedures ...............................................................................28
CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION ................................................................. 30

4.1. Findings of Research Question 1....................................................................30
4.2. Findings of Research Question 2....................................................................36
4.3. Discussion.......................................................................................................40
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................... 44

5.1. Conclusions ....................................................................................................44
5.2. Recommendations ..........................................................................................45
5.3. Limitations of the Study .................................................................................46
5.4. Suggestions for Further Study ........................................................................47
REFERENCES .................................................................................................................... 48
APPENDICES ....................................................................................................................... I
APPENDIX A ........................................................................................................................ I
APPENDIX B ......................................................................................................................IV

iv

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

LLS:

Language Learning Strategy

LLSs:

Language Learning Strategies

EFL:

English as a Foreign Language

TNUE:

Thai Nguyen University of Education

TNU:

Thai Nguyen University

SILL:

Strategy Inventory for Language Learning

L2:

Second Language

M:

Mean score

S.D.:

Standard Deviation

SLA:

Second Language Acquisition

v


LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 2.1: Characteristics of Language Learning Strategies …………..

10

Table 2.2: O’Malley and Chamot’s Classification of Learning Strategies

12

Table 2.3: Oxford’s (1990) Language Learning Strategy Classification

14

Table 3.1: Characteristics of the Respondents ………………………….

25

Table 4.1: Overall Language Learning Strategy Uses …………………..

30

Table 4.2: Statistics for the SILL Categories ………………………….

31

Table 4.3: Statistics for Individual Strategy …………………………….

32

Table 4.4: Most Frequently Used Strategies ……………………………

35

Table 4.5: Least Frequently Used Strategies …………………………..

36

Table 4.6: Correlations Between Strategy Use and Students’ Gender,

37

Major Field of Study, and Language Learning Experience …………….
Table 4.7: Correlations Among the Three Factors …………………….

38

Table 4.8: Significant Findings from the Separate One-way Analyses of

39

Variance on Strategy Use …………………………………….

vi


ABSTRACT

The present research focused on identifying language learning strategies used by a
group of 380 non-English major students studying English at Thai Nguyen University
of Education, TNU. The Vietnamese version of Oxford's (1990) Strategy Inventory
for Language Learning SILL (version 7.0) was used as the main tool to collect data.
The SPSS (version 20) was employed to analyse the data. The descriptive study
conducted demonstrated that students used all the learning strategies, but at different
frequency rates. This result shows that non-English major students use language
learning strategies at the moderate level in all six categories proposed by Oxford’s
(1990) and there are no particular preferences in students’ utilization of LLSs, since
they drew on the entire set of strategy types. The overall analysis of the participants’
SILL scores did not take into consideration student’s gender, major field of study and
language learning experience. There are some correlations between student’s
language learning experience and LLS in metacognitive strategies category but these
correlations are not statistically different. From the findings of the present
investigation, some implications was drawn for language learners, educators and
language teachers.

vii


CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

This chapter presents a background to the study followed by the aims and the
significance of the study. Then, research questions are stated and the limitations to
the study are presented along with the definitions of terms.
1.1. Background to the study
During the last couple of decades, the world has been concerned with cultural, social,
political and technological changes. In order to keep up with those changes, people
have had to meet the needs created by all these changes. Language learning is one of
the most important needs and it has become an essential component in people’s lives.
People all over the world are trying to learn a second, or a foreign language in order
to cope with these changes.
In Vietnam, English language education has been identified as the key factor for the
development of the country in the next 20 years. The National Foreign Language
Project 2020 (NFL 2020) has been considered a strong determination of the
government in the process of deep and large scale integration of Vietnam into the
world. However, the immense investment in teachers and teaching facilities in the
first phase of the Project (2008-2020) does not seem to bring what had been expected.
Many studies have shown that the failure of the learning English in Vietnam lies in
the learners themselves.
Research has also shown that successful learners of English have different strategy
patterns than their less successful counterparts. There is a need to specify these
strategies, incorporate them into the English curriculum and train less successful
learners on making use of them in order to help them become successful learners
(Chamot, Barnhardt. El-Dinary, & Robbins, 1999; Wharton, 2000).
Due to the immature development of in-depth research of learning strategies, there
has always been poor or absence of information on the kind of learning strategies

adopted by the Vietnamese students particularly for non-English major students at
tertiary level. Hence, the efforts of the educational system to identify learners’

1


strategies failed to create a basis for a solid learning strategies among our students,
and consequently, affecting their academic achievement.
In most of the research on language learning strategies (LLSs), the primary concern
has been on identifying what good language learners do to learn a second or foreign
language. Like general learning strategies, English language learning strategies
include those “techniques that learners use to remember what they have learnt - their
storage and retrieval of new information” (Rubin, 1987, p.19). LLSs also include
receptive strategies which deal with receiving the message and productive strategies
which relate to communication (Brown, 1994; Chamot & Kupper, 1989). LLSs have
been classified into several different ways. O'Malley et al (1985, pp. 582-584)
categorized strategies into “metacognitive, cognitive and socio-affective”. They
found that most importance was given to the metacognitive strategies, that is those
that have planning, directing or monitoring. Oxford (1990) indicated that LLSs are
“steps taken by the learners in order to improve language training and develop
language competence” (p.27). It is clear that the improvement of language learning
depends so much on the learners, i.e. how they acquire and retrieve what they learnt
in order that they can use that knowledge in their real communicative practices.
With the desire to clarify the most and least of English LLSs used by non-English
major students at Thai Nguyen University of Education (TNUE) and the relationship
between LLS used and some factors, i.e, gender, major fields of study and language
learning experience. The researcher decided to carry out the study on the topic “An
investigation into English language learning strategies employed by non-English
major students at Thai Nguyen University of Education – Thai Nguyen University”.
1.2. Aims of the Study

Firstly, the study aimed at examining the language learning strategies that are used
by non-English major students who are following a four-year bachelor program at
Thai Nguyen University of Education. The second aim of the study was to investigate
the relationship (if any) between some factors such as gender, major field of study,
language learning experience and the uses of language learning strategies. Since the
number of studies that examine the overall strategies used by EFL learners and
2


correlation with gender, major field of study and language learning experience are
scarce, the finding from this research can provide useful pedagogical information to
curriculum specialist, in addition to teachers and students. Curriculum specialists can
use these finding in developing materials and textbook for English language
instruction. Educators and language teachers can also benefit from different language
learning, the strategies used by students of different majors in designing lesson plans
that consider training learners on these strategies and helping their students become
better learners of English. Furthermore, this study would help learners become aware
of language learning strategies they often use and develop other learning strategies
that might assist them in their language learning. It might also contribute to the scarce
literature concerning language learning strategies used by EFL learners in Vietnam.
1.3. Research Questions
With the aforementioned aims, the study attempted to answer the following two
research questions:
1. What language learning strategies are used by non-English major students at Thai
Nguyen University of Education?
2. What is the relationship between students’ genders, major fields of study, language
learning experience and their uses of language learning strategies?
1.4. Scope of the Study
The present study uses Oxford’s (1990) Strategy Inventory of Language Learning
(SILL) to uncover certain patterns, and to examine the ways in which a group of

TNUE students employ language learning strategies then investigate these language
learning strategies according to students’ gender, major fields of study and language
learning experience.
The study was conducted with 380 students of different fields of study, gender and
language learning experience at TNUE. All these students were at their second year
of the four-year bachelor program. 227 students study social sciences (Literature,
History, and Kindergarten Education), and 153 their counterpart study natural
sciences (Mathematics, Physics, Biology, and Chemistry). These students come from
different mountainous areas of Vietnam, mostly from the North of Vietnam.
3


1.5. Definitions of Terms
Language learning strategies: LLSs in the present study refers to behaviours or
thought processes whether observable or unobservable, or both, that TNU students
generate and use to enhance their specific skills or general knowledge in learning the
English language.
The Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL): refers to an instrument which
has been developed by Oxford (1990). It is designed to investigate learners’ language
learning strategies and to assess the frequency of use of language learning strategies.
The SILL has two versions including version 5.1 (80 items) and version 7.0 (50 items).
Version 5.1 is designed to gather information about how native-speaking English
students learn a foreign or second language (ESL learners) and version 7.0 is designed
for non-native speakers of English who are learning English as a second or foreign
language (EFL learners).
Major field of study: refers to students of social science studies such as, Literature,
History and Kindergarten Education. The natural sciences studies such as,
Mathematics, Physics, Biology, and Chemistry.
Language learning experience: refers to the duration which students study English at
schools before they enter university. In this study, it is devided into 3-year English

program; 7-year English program and others (did not study English or studied other
languages at high school).
1.6. Significance of the Study
In Vietnam, language learning strategy research has focused on the relationship
between factors (e.g., social factors, learners’ individual characteristics, motivation,
and an educational context, among many others) and how these factors contribute to
language learners’ decisions to employ their language learning strategies in acquiring
the English language. Most of the studies on language learning strategies normally
conducted with Vietnamese learners of English as a foreign language (EFL), these
research works mostly put the focused on how successful and unsuccessful academic
language learners used strategies to learn language (Do and Nguyen, 2016; and
Nguyen 2016). Only a few studies have given attention to a variety of factors such as
4


gender, learning style, learners’ perception of the class size, field of study, ethnic and
language proficiency that can contribute to learners’ language learning strategy use
in relation to EFL proficiency with (science-oriented) students (Minh, 2012 and Dung,
2018).
The results obtained from the present study may provide some implications for both
educators, language teachers and language learners at the tertiary level in Vietnam in
general and Thai Nguyen University in particular. Teachers may use the results as a
guide to instruct or to avoid the learning strategies that their students are or are not
using, so that this may help teachers develop their teaching styles and pick up the
appropriate strategies to serve their students’ ways of learning. For EFL learners, the
results of this study may help EFL learners to recognize the strategies they are using
and lead them to select more appropriate techniques for learning. The understanding
of any existing the relationship between language learning strategy use reported by
TNUE students and the factors including gender, fields of study, and language
learning experiences, will invariably provide insights to facilitate pedagogical

implications for instruction and curriculum development in Thai Nguyen university.
1.7. Outline of the Thesis
As required, the paper will have such main parts as follows:
Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION, presents statement of the problem and
rationale for the study, aims, scope, significance, and outline of the study.
Chapter 2: LITERATURE REVIEW, clarifies theoretical background and
related studies relevant for the research.
Chapter 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY, elicits information related to
research questions, research methods, data collection, data procedure, coding scheme,
and data analysis.
Chapter 4: FINDINGS AND DISSCUSION is the main part of the study
and will be divided into two subsections, correspondent to two research questions.
First, the extent to which language games influence students’ speaking ability is

5


reported. Subsequently, students’ attitudes towards the use of this strategy is
displayed.
Chapter 5: CONCLUSION, summarizes essential findings, provides some
linguistic and pedagogical implications, and gives suggestions for further studies.
Besides, there should be REFERENCES and APPENDICES if any at the
end of the research.

6


CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

This chapter introduces to the theories of the good language learners then presents

definitions of LLSs, characteristics and how they are classified into categories. The
relationship between LLSs and some factors such as genders, major fields of study,
language learning experience and some methods used in investigating the LLS will
also be covered in this chapter. The chapter ends by presenting surveys by previous
research methodologies in investigating the language learning strategies.
2.1. Theory of Good Language Learners
There is an old proverb which states: “Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Teach
him how to fish and he eats for a lifetime”. Applied to the language teaching and
learning field, this proverb might be interpreted to mean that if students are provided
with answers, the immediate problem is solved. But if they are taught the strategies
to work out the answers for themselves, they are empowered to manage their own
learning (Griffith, 2004).
Stern (1975) was the first person who produced a list of ten language learning
strategies which he believed to be characteristic of good language learners. He
suggests that ‘good language learners’ ‘willingly and accurately guess, want to
communicate, are uninhibited about mistakes, focus on both structure and meaning,
take advantage of all practice opportunities, and monitor their own speech and that of
others’. At the top of the list, from his own observation he put “personal learning
style” (p.311). All the features of a good language learners are presented below:
1. A personal learning style or positive learning strategies
2. An active approach to the learning task
3. A tolerant and outgoing approach to the target language and empathy with its
speakers
4. Technical know-how about how to tackle a language
5. Strategies of experimentation and planning with the object of developing the new
language into an ordered system of revising this system progressively.
6. Constantly searching for meaning

7

7. Willingness to practice
8. Willingness to use the language in real communication
9. Self-monitoring and critical sensitivity to language use
10. Developing the target language more and more as a separate reference system
and learning to think in it.

(Stern, 1975, p.68).
Based on some research on good language learner studies, it can be seen that the
results provide some answers regarding to the question why some students fail or
probably have some serious learning problems while the others were capable to face
them. By discovering how successful language learners produce some strategy to
overcome their learning problems, it is hoped the less successful learners can also
produce some strategy to overcome their learning problems. According to Zare
(2012), research findings have identified that certain learners seemed to be good
language learners regardless of the teaching methods or techniques used by the
teachers while the rest does not have the ability to be successful. Thus researches had
described good language learners in terms of personal characteristics, styles and
strategies.
Rubin and Thompson (1994) also asserted that, there are a few characteristics that are
possessed by good language learners. Some of the main characteristics of good
language learners are; good language learners find their own opportunity to use the
language and be responsible for their own learning. Next, they are also creative and
experiment with grammar and words. Good language learners are also willing to take
risks and also make errors work for them and not against them. They will use the
errors that they have made earlier as a guidance to improvise their current learning.
On the other hand, good language learners also use their linguistic knowledge
including knowledge of the first language, in learning a second language. Another
important characteristic of good language learners is being independent. They do not
rely solely to the teacher or others in order to learn a language. They will make use

of their time wisely and use independent actions to enhance their learning such as
extensive reading.

8


Apart from those generally acknowledged attributes of ‘good language learner’, an
argument made by Oxford (2002) about another comparison in strategy use between
effective learners and less effective ones reveals the importance of learner training.
She states that successful learners are not only aware of what strategies they use, but
also skilled at selecting those working together more efficiently and tailoring them to
the demands of different language tasks. In contrast, the less effective learners are illequipped at employing the strategies in a high-performing manner, although they are
reported to be actually not inferior in the awareness of strategy use as well as the
number of strategies used. Based on Oxford’s findings, it is reasonable to claim that
the value of learner training should not stay at the consciousness-raising level.
2.2. Language Learning Strategies
According to Griffith (2004), the term ‘strategy’ has been used by many prominent
writers (such as Rubin, 1975; O’Malley et al, 1985; Oxford, 1990) and Rubin (1975)
is one of the earliest researchers in the field provided a broad definition of learning
strategies as “the techniques or devices which a learner may use to acquire knowledge”
(p.43). Similarly, O’Malley and Chamot (1990, p.1) viewed language learning
strategies as “the special thoughts or behaviours of processing information that
individuals use to help them comprehend, learn, or retain new information”. They
observed that strategies may be used intentionally, but they can also become habitual
and mechanical with practice. Oxford (1990, p.1) claimed that “learning strategies
are steps taken by students to enhance their own learning”. She suggested a more
specific definition of learning strategies as “specific actions taken by the learner to
make learning easier, faster, more enjoyable, more self-directed, more effective, and
more transferable to new situations” (p.8). She defined learning strategies as a
combination of behaviours used by the learners to assist them in better learning,

storing and recovering information. Oxford (1990) also considered learning strategies
to consist of the particular tactics that an individual used to complete a learning task.
Although Ellis (1994) sees LLSs as open to question whether learning strategies are
recognized as behavioural, mental, or a combination of both. Oxford (1989), on the
other hand, appears to see them as basically behavioural, whereas Weinstein and
9


Mayer (1986) describe them as both behavioural and mental. To sum up, O’Malley
et al. (1985) describe language learning strategies as follows:
There is no consensus on what constitutes a learning strategy in second language
learning or how these differ from other types of learner activities. Learning,
teaching and communication strategies are often interlaced in discussions of
language learning and are often applied to the same behaviour. Further, even
within the group of activities most often referred to as learning strategies; there
is considerable confusion about definitions of specific strategies and about the
hierarchic relationship among strategies (p. 22).

From the discussion above, in the present investigation, LLSs refer to behaviours or
thought processes whether observable or unobservable, or both, that TNU students
generate and use to enhance their specific skills or general knowledge in learning the
English language.
2.3. Characteristics of Language Learning Strategies
Tseng et al (2006, p.95) note that the concept of learning strategies suffers from
definitional fuzziness, as the strategies cannot be definitely classified as behavioural,
affective, or cognitive in nature. Specific emphasis in this literature includes criticism
for the application of the SILL as it is applied in the characteristics, quantification
and categorization of strategy use (Oxford, 1990). Following is the summary of
characteristics of LLSs by Oxford (1990).
Table 2.1: Characteristics of Language Learning Strategies

Wenden (1987)
1. Contribute directly
and indirectly to
learning
2. Observable and
unobservable
3. Problem oriented
responding to the
need
4. Specifications/techniq
ues

Oxford (1990)
1. Contribute to
communicative
competence
2. Observable and
unobservable
3. Are problem oriented
4. Are action based
5. Expand the role of
language teachers
6. Can be taught
10

1.

2.
3.
4.

Lessard-Clouston
(1997)
Enhance language
learning and develop
competency
Visible or unseen
Involve information
and memory
Learner generated
deliberate steps


Wenden (1987)

Oxford (1990)

Lessard-Clouston
(1997)

5. Deplorable and
automatized
6. Behaviour which are
amenable to change

7. Allow learners to
become more selfdirected
8. Often used
consciously
9. Involve in any

aspects, not just
cognitive
10. Are influenced by a
variety of factors
11. Support learning
directly /indirectly
12. Are flexible
As can be seen from Table 2.1, Wenden (1987), Lessard-Clouston (1989) and Oxford
(1990) agree that LLS enhance learning and can be both observable which include
the actions and techniques, or unobservable which include the memory and cognitive
aspects. Furthermore it also shows that both Wenden and Oxford feel that LLS are
problem-oriented and are applied when a problem exists. In describing LLSs
characteristics, Lessard-Clouston’s (1997) places learners as playing a greater role
(that is being learner-generated), whereas Oxford’s (1990) places teachers as having
a greater role. Therefore, in the present study, the researcher follows characteristics
suggested by Oxford’s (1990) to investigate TNUE students’ behaviours and though
processes in learning the English language.
2.4. Classification of Language Learning Strategies
In the field of LLSs study, language learning strategies have been defined and
classified by many scholars in the field. However, most of these attempts to classify
language learning strategies reflect more or less the same categorizations of language
learning strategies without any major changes. From the very beginning, Tarone
(1980) has shed a light in classifying LLSs, she suggested two kinds of strategies: the
“strategy of language use” and the “language learning strategy.” Within the “strategy
of language use”, she identified two types of strategies: communication strategies and

11


production strategies. Tarone (1980) defined communication strategy as “a mutual

attempt of two interlocutors to agree on a meaning in situations where requisite
meaning structures do not seem to be shared” (p.419). Although her division between
strategies makes sense as a classification method, in practice it is difficult to
distinguish the two. Therefore, Tarone’s (1980) classification is well-explained with
a sound classification of LLS, which draws on the learner’s purpose in using
strategies.
Rubin’s (1987) classification on LLS divides into four types, however besides the
cognitive strategies, metacognitive strategies, and social, she also adds
communicative strategies between them. The communication strategies employed by
learners when they practice their language with others, it covers participating in a
conversation, getting meaning across and clarifying. Whereas social strategies deal
with opportunities to use the language that learners have.
O’Malley and Chamot (1990) proposed a new method of classification a few years
later. They employed Anderson’s (1983) cognitive theory, which discussed how
learners processed new information. Consequently, they classified strategies
according to the level of processing information into three main subcategories:
metacognitive strategies, cognitive strategies and socio-affective strategies as in
Table 2.2 below:
Table 2.2: O’Malley and Chamot’s Classification of Learning Strategies (cited
from Ellis 1994, p.538)
Category












Metacognitive

Cognitive

12

Subcategories
Advance organizers
Directed attention
Selective attention
Self-management
Advance preparation
Self-monitoring
Delayed production
Self-evaluation
Repetition
Resourcing


Category















Social/Affective

As can be seen in Table 2.2, metacognitive

Subcategories
Directed physical response
Translation
Grouping
Note-taking
Deduction
Recombination
Imagery
Auditory representation
Key word
Contextualization
Elaboration
Transfer
Inferencing
Cooperation
Question for clarification
here describes executive function

strategies that require planning for learning, thinking about the learning process as it
is taking place, monitoring of one’s production or comprehension, and evaluating

learning after an activity is completed. Cognitive strategies are limited to more
specific learning tasks involving more direct management of the learning material
itself. Social/affective strategies, on the other hand, concern the ways in which
learners elect to interact with other learners and native speakers. This
classification system is clearer than Tarone’s (1980) classification system. However,
the classification that has gained the most popularity and is the most commonly used
one in SLA/FLA research and practice is that of Oxford (1990) which will be
presented below.
2.5. Oxford’s (1990) Language Learning Strategy Classification
In 1990, Oxford has expanded the classification system based on previous researchers’
classification. Oxford’s classification is regarded as the most comprehensive
classification and has been used by many researchers (Ellis 1994). Wakamoto (2009)
affirmed, Oxford’s contribution to the study of language learning strategies is
enormous, since the six scheme strategy classification system she proposed, and the

13


strategy questionnaire she developed, is used globally up to the present years. Her
classification is presented in details in Table 2.3 below:
Table 2.3: Oxford’s (1990) Language Learning Strategy Classification
Learning Strategies

Substrategies

A. Direct Strategies
Memory Strategies
 Creating mental linkage
Are devices used by learners to
 Grouping

make mental linkages to enable
 Associating/elaborating
new information especially
 Placing new words into context
vocabulary to be retained by
 Applying images and sounds
learner.
 Using imagery
 Semantic mapping
 Using keywords
 Representing sounds in memory
 Reviewing well
 Using action
Cognivtive strategies
 Practising
Are used by learners to process
 Repeating
language and accomplish tasks.
 Formally practicing with sounds and
writing systems
 Recognizing and using formulas and
patterns
 Recombining
 Practising naturalistically
 Receiving and sending messages
 Getting the idea quickly
 Using resources for receiving and
sending messages
 Analyzing and reasoning
 Reasoning deductively

 Analyzing expressions
 Analyzing contrastively (across
languages)
 Translating
 Transferring
Compensation strategies
 Creating structure for input and output
14


Learning Strategies
Are used by learners to make up
for their missing knowledge. They
include the use of gesture,
rephrasing, asking for help and
making guesses.

Substrategies





Taking notes
Summarizing
Highlighting
Overcoming limitations in speaking and
writing
 Switching to mother tongue
 Getting help

 Using mime or gestures
 Avoiding communication partially or
totally
 Selecting the topic
 Adjusting or approximating the message
 Coining words
 Using a circumlocution or synonym
B. Indirect Strategies
Metacognitive strategies
 Centering your learning
Are used by learners to plan,
 Overviewing and linking with already
organize, evaluate and monitor
known material
their own language learning.
 Paying attention
 Delaying attention
 Delaying speech production to focus on
listening
 Arranging and planning your learning
 Finding out about language
 Organizing
 Setting goals and objectives
 Identifying the purpose of a language
task
 Planning for a language task
 Seeking practice opportunities
 Evaluation your learning
 Self-monitoring
 Self-evaluating

Affective Strategies
 Lowering your anxiety
Are used by learners to deal with
 Using progressive relaxation/ deep
their emotions, motivations and
breathing/meditation
15