View
0
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
Ref. code: 25605921040159VLQ
THE SURVEY OF LANGUAGE LEARNING STRATEGIES OF
HIGH SCORING AND LOW SCORING STUDENTS OF AN
INTERNATIONAL PROGRAM IN A UNIVERSITY
BY
MISS NAPATIDA PRISSANANUNTAKUL
AN INDEPENDENT STUDY PAPER SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL
FULFILMENT OF
THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF ARTS IN CAREERS ENGLISH FOR
INTERNATIONAL COMMUNICATION
LANGUAGE INSTITUTE
THAMMASAT UNIVERSITY
ACADEMIC YEAR 2017
COPYRIGHT OF THAMMASAT UNIVERSITY
Ref. code: 25605921040159VLQ
THE SURVEY OF LANGUAGE LEARNING STRATEGIES OF
HIGH SCORING AND LOW SCORING STUDENTS OF AN
INTERNATIONAL PROGRAM IN A UNIVERSITY
BY
MISS NAPATIDA PRISSANANUNTAKUL
AN INDEPENDENT STUDY PAPER SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL
FULFILMENT OF
THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF ARTS IN CAREERS ENGLISH FOR
INTERNATIONAL COMMUNICATION
LANGUAGE INSTITUTE
THAMMASAT UNIVERSITY
ACADEMIC YEAR 2017
COPYRIGHT OF THAMMASAT UNIVERSITY
Ref. code: 25605921040159VLQ
i
Independent Study Paper Title THE SURVEY OF LANGUAGE LEARNING
STRATEGIES OF HIGH SCORING AND LOW
SCORING STUDENTS OF AN
INTERNATIONAL PROGRAM IN A
UNIVERSITY
Author Miss Napatida Prissananuntakul
Degree Master of Arts
Major Field/Faculty/University Career English for International Communication
Language Institute
Thammasat University
Independent Study Paper Advisor Rangsiya Chaengchenkit, Ph.D.
Academic Year 2017
ABSTRACT
Researchers have tried to find way for students to learn more effectively. In
1990, Oxford’s language learning strategies became well-known for the use of six
types of strategies: Memory, Cognitive, Compensation, Meta-cognitive, Affective and
Social. This study aimed to find the difference in strategies usage between high
scoring and low scoring students in an international program in a university. From a
total of 36 people, 29 questionnaires were returned. Fifteen of the participants were
the low scoring students and fourteen were the high scoring students based on TU-
GET scores. The participants who had scores lower than 650 were counted as the low
scoring students and with scores higher than 650 were counted as high scoring
students. A SILL questionnaire adapted from Oxford (1990)—Containing 36 items
were used. Frequency, mean and standard deviation were used to analyse the data
using of SPSS program. The results showed that the high-scoring students used Meta-
Cognitive strategies the most followed by Cognitive strategies, Social strategies,
Compensation strategies, Memory strategies and Affective strategies. For the low-
scoring students, the most used strategies were Meta-Cognitive strategies,
Compensation strategies, Memory strategies, Social strategies, Cognitive strategies
Ref. code: 25605921040159VLQ
ii
and Affective strategies. Both groups used the same strategies at the highest and
lowest levels, but they differed in numerical ranks from 2 to 5.
Keywords: Language learning strategies, High score, Low score, International
program
Ref. code: 25605921040159VLQ
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This independent study paper could not be completed without Rangsiya
Chaengchenkit, Ph.D., my advisor. She gave me good and very clear suggestions in
doing this paper. I felt like I could do better when I follow her advice and suggestions.
I would like to thank God that he is always with me and help me finish this
paper although I cannot see him; my mum, Mrs. Aree Prissananuntakul, that gave me
time and encouragement to follow my dream; my sister, J’ Ying, for mental, physical
and financial support; and my church, RMC BKK that prayed for me any time I
needed support.
I would like to thank P’ Fun and P’ Won, administrators in CEIC who are
always nice, fun and helpful. I want to thank my close friends, Jeng and Phil who
always encouraged me. I want to also thank all the teachers at LITU that I studied
with--; your knowledge gave me the ideas for doing this research. I would also like to
thank Ajarn Mark Zentz for helping me proof-read my paper.
Thanks also go to all the participants that did the questionnaires for me so I
had raw data to analyse. Thanks, are also extended to all my friends and the staff of
CEIC at Thammasat University. I am really blessed to study in this faculty.
Miss Napatida Prissananuntakul
Ref. code: 25605921040159VLQ
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ABSTRACT i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iii
LIST OF TABLES vi
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Background of the Study 1
1.2 Research Questions 1
1.3 Research Objectives 2
1.4 Definition of Terms 2
1.5 Significance of the Study 3
1.6 Limitations of the Study 3
CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE 4
2.1 Background of Language Learning Strategies 4
2.2 The six main types of Language Learning Strategies of Oxford. 5
2.2.1 Direct Strategies 5
2.2.2 Indirect Strategies 5
2.3 Related Research about Language Learning Strategies. 6
CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOTY 8
3.1 Participants 8
3.2 Materials 8
3.3 Procedures 11
3.4 Data Analysis 11
Ref. code: 25605921040159VLQ
v
CHAPTER 4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 12
4.1 Results 12
4.1.1 General Information about the Participants 12
4.1.1.1 Age 12
4.1.1.2 Gender 12
4.1.1.3 TU-GET Scores 13
4.1.2 Results related to research questions 13
4.1.2.1 The Results of Using Memory Strategies. 14
4.1.2.2 The Results of Using Cognitive Strategies. 15
4.1.2.3 The Results of Using Compensation Strategies. 17
4.1.2.4 The Results of Using Meta-cognitive Strategies. 18
4.1.2.5 The Results of Using Affective Strategies. 20
4.1.2.6 The Results of Using Social Strategies. 21
4.1.2.7 The Total Usage of Language Learning Strategies. 22
4.2 Discussion 23
CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 25
5.1 Conclusion 25
5.1.1 What are the language learning strategies of high-scoring-
and low-scoring students? 25
5.1.2 How are the language learning strategies of high-scoring-
students similar and different from that of low-scoring-
students? 25
5.2 Recommendations 27
REFERENCES 28
APPENDIX 30
BIOGRAPHY 38
Ref. code: 25605921040159VLQ
vi
LIST OF TABLES Tables Page
2.1 Language Strategies by Oxford 5
4.1 Age 12
4.2 Gender 12
4.3 TU-GET Score 13
4.4 TU-GET Low and High Scores 14
4.5 Memory Strategies Usage 14
4.6 Cognitive Strategies Usage 16
4.7 Compensation Strategies Usage 17
4.8 Meta-cognitive Strategies Usage 19
4.9 Affective Strategies Usage 20
4.10 Social Strategies Usage 21
4.11 The Overall Strategies Usage 22
Ref. code: 25605921040159VLQ
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the Study
English is a world language. Mufwene stated that after World War II, English
started to be the medium for everyone in the world to communicate. After the splitting
of the Soviet Union, English became even more powerful (Mufwene, 2010). Knowing
English is more valuable than money at present. People are willing to pay as much as
they can to have good ability in English.
In the 21st century, there are many online classrooms that people can enroll in,
and resources of learning are easy to access. Although students know that being better
in English will enable them to get better jobs—and some spend extra time in studying
English, they never improve as much as they expect.
As a teacher, the researcher noticed that many students really wanted to be
better in English, but they still could not. Many think that to be exposed to the target
language as much as one can-- will be the answer—but there are still other aspects
that learners should know.
The concept of language learning strategies (or LLS) was developed by Rubin
and Stern in 1975. They believe that ‘Students are the only ones who can actually do
the learning’ and Nyikos and Oxford affirm this by stating that ‘learning begins with
learners.’ (Oxford, 1993 as cited in Griffiths 2004).
In this research, researcher will focus on language learning strategies used by
a group of students in an English program. They were first-year students who had
studied for one to two semesters and they must use English to pass an entrance exam,
namely, the TU-GET.
1.2 Research Questions
1.2.1 What are the language learning strategies of high-scoring and low-
scoring students?
Ref. code: 25605921040159VLQ
2
1.2.2 How are the language learning strategies of high-scoring students similar
and different from that of low-scoring students?
1.3 Research Objectives
1.3.1 To investigate the language learning strategies of high-scoring and low-
scoring students.
1.3.2 To examine the similarities and differences in language learning
strategies used by high-scoring and low-scoring students.
1.4 Definition of Terms
1.4.1 First language means the language that people use when they start to
learn how to speak. For this study, the first language is Thai.
1.4.2 Target language means languages that people want to learn to speak
which is not their first language. For this study, the target language is English.
1.4.3 Participants mean first-year students in academic year 2017 in an
international program in this university.
1.4.4 High-scoring students mean students who had a university English
exam score higher than 650 on the entrance test or during study in the
program.
1.4.5 Low-scoring students mean students who had a university English
exam score lower than 650 on the entrance test or during study in the program.
1.4.6 TU-GET means Thammasat University General English Test. It is the
entrance test used when students want to apply for some programs at
Thammasat University.
1.4.6 SILL stands for Strategies Inventory for Language Learning invented by
Oxford (1990). It contains questions with a Likert scale of 1 to 5. The results
show what language learning strategies are used most and at which level.
Ref. code: 25605921040159VLQ
3
1.5 Significance of the study
1.5.1 This study can help to students to improve language learning strategies
by themselves.
1.5.2 This study can help teachers to adjust or adapt their teaching to fit the
students in terms of particular strategies.
1.6 Limitations of the study
The participants were only first-year students in academic year 2017.
Ref. code: 25605921040159VLQ
4
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
2.1 Background of Language Learning Strategies
Human beings are eager to seek more knowledge. It makes them feel safer
when they think their knowledge is wide enough to cover the things that they will do.
As well as knowing languages, since we have the Internet, access to languages seems
to be easier. The internet reveals the world that people in one place never knew
before.
The language that was used on the Internet for the first time was English. Now
every language plays an important role in communication between people from one
place to another. However, local languages still cannot substitute for English. In 2013,
English was the main language used on websites around 80% followed with German
4.5% and Japanese 3.1% (Zuckerman,2013). In 2018, of English usage was 52.3%
follow by Russian (6.3%), German (6.2%), Spanish (5.3), Japanese (5.2), and many
more (W3techs, 2018). English is still the main language that most people use on the
Internet by a wide margin.
In the 19th century, English became the world’s language—but people struggle
to learn English. In 1975, the notion of language learning strategies was first
introduced by Rubin (Rubin, 1975). In 1987, Wenden defined language learning
strategies as ‘Learning Strategies are the various operations that learners use in order
to make sense of their learning’ (Wenden, 1987). In 1990, Oxford explained language
learning strategies as ‘steps taken by students to enhance their own learning’ (Oxford,
1990). She separated the strategies into two categories: direct and indirect.
Language learning strategies in Oxford cited 11,761 times in Google Scholar.
This means they are popular strategies that many researchers used to help students
learn.
Direct strategies in Oxford are divided into three types and each type is also
divided into minor types. However, this paper will focus on only the six main types.
Ref. code: 25605921040159VLQ
5
2.2 The six main types of language learning strategies of Oxford.
Direct Strategies Indirect Strategies
1. Memory 1. Meta-cognitive
2. Cognitive 2. Affective
3. Compensation 3. Social
Table 2.1: Language Learning Strategies by Oxford
2.2.1 Direct Strategies
The first type of direct strategies is memory strategies. They are
techniques to use for remembering more effectively--, for example, creating
link between words in L2 with words in L1, using images and sound to help
memorization, reviewing new words and using the word often to remember
the word.
The second type is cognitive strategies. They are used for helping
learners to use the goal language or task correctly using their processes--, for
example, to reason, to analyze, to note, to summarize, to synthesize, to outline,
to reorganize information to progress in knowledge construction.
The last one is compensation strategies. They are used by students to
fix the missing knowledge in the target language because of the lack of
vocabulary--, for instance, guess words from the situation in listening and
reading, using synonyms, talking around to predict the missing words in
speaking and writing and using sign language or pause words in speaking.
2.2.2 Indirect Strategies
The first type, meta-cognitive strategies, are used by students to help
them coordinate the step of learning overall--, for instance, identifying one’s
own style choices and learning, planning for the target language task,
gathering and organizing materials, arranging a learning area and time table,
monitoring faults, evaluating achievement, Evaluate advancement of any type
of learning strategy.
Ref. code: 25605921040159VLQ
6
The second type of indirect strategies is affective strategies, which are
techniques to enable students to handle their feelings, mindsets and values--,
for example, identifying one’s own mood and nervousness level, talking about
emotions, rewarding themselves achievement, using deep breathing or
encouraging themselves.
And the last type, social strategies, are activities that learners use to
find a chance to be exposed to the environment where practicable (Hardan,
2013). These activities include asking questions to get identification, asking to
clarify the messing up point, asking for help in doing language assignments,
talking in L2 language with others, as well as exploring culture and society of
native speakers.
2.3 Related Researches about Language Learning Strategies.
Thangpatipan (2014) surveyed the language learning strategies used by high-scoring and low-scoring students in an English program in a high school in
Chanthaburi province in academic year 2015. Her subjects were 40 students, all
female, aged between 12-15 years old. She separated them between high-scoring and
low-scoring by their GPA in English over two semesters. If the students had a GPA of
3.5 or above, she counted them as high-scoring students. If students had a GPA lower
than 2.0, she counted them as low-score students. There were 22 high-scoring
students 18 low-scoring students. She also used the SILL.
The result showed that the strategies that were most used were meta-cognitive,
followed by memory strategies, social strategies and the last one was affective
strategies. All were used at the medium level. The high-scoring students mostly used
meta-cognitive strategies and the low-scoring students mostly used memory
strategies. She also found that high-scoring students used all six types strategies,
which was more than poor learners. Her finding on high-scoring students’ usage of
meta-cognitive strategies was in accordance with O’Malley and Chamot’s results in
1990 (as cited in Thangpatipan, 2014).
Ref. code: 25605921040159VLQ
7
Qing (2013) surveyed language learning strategies used by EFL learners at a
school in Bangkok. Her subjects were selected randomly: two classes were from
junior high school and another two classes were from senior high school. She
distributed 200 questionnaires but received only 159 completed questionnaires. The
questionnaires were SILL. She used the SPSS program to calculate the answers.
It was found that strategies used at high to low levels in all groups were meta-
cognitive, compensatory, social, affective, memory and cognitive strategies. The
results showed that general students mostly used meta-cognitive strategies. When
comparing high proficiency and low proficiency students, the high proficiency ones
used more strategies than the lower ones.
Kunasaraphun (2015) studied English learning strategy and proficiency levels
of the 300 first year students at Suan Sunandha Rajabhat University in Bangkok,
Thailand divided into three groups according to their proficiency levels, i.e., basic,
intermediate and advanced, using SSRUIC papers and interview tests. SILL was used.
Kunasaraphun used SPSS and Anova to calculate the results.
The results showed that meta-cognitive, social, cognitive, affective,
compensation and memory Strategies were used, and the most frequently used was
meta-cognitive strategies. These strategies had a high level of usage while the other
strategies were used at a medium level. Also, high proficiency students used English
learning strategies more often than any other levels. She stated that her findings could
imply that English language teaching has been developed to prepare for the AEC
(Kunasaraphun, 2015).
Tirabulkul (2005) conducted research on the language learning strategy of
students in an MA TEFL Program at Thammasat University. Her subjects were 57
students in MA TEFL program in batch 6 and 7 amount 57 people.
The results showed that the most students used meta-cognitive strategies
followed by compensation, social, cognitive and affective. The least used was
memory strategies. The level of use was all at the high and medium level and no
strategies were used at the low level.
Ref. code: 25605921040159VLQ
8
CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This survey aimed to determine the English language learning strategies used
by first-year students in an English master’s degree program at a university in
Thailand.
3.1 Participants
The participants were first-year students in a master’s degree program which
had 36 people. To pass the entrance exam, participants had to have a TU-GET score
at 550. Those with TU-GET scores higher than 650 were categorized as high-scoring
students and those below the score of 650 were low-scoring students.
3.2 Materials
The material was divided in two parts:
I. The first part: demographic information such as gender, income, etc.
II. The second part: The Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (or
SILL) version 7.0 divided into six parts A, B, C, D, E, F and a total of 36
questions.
The Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (or SILL) version 7.0 of Oxford
(Oxford, 1989) was adapted for collecting data. From the original 50 items, a total of
36 items with six items representing each type were used.
Oxford invented a test called the Strategies Inventory for Language Learning
which can identify which strategies people use and how often they use them. Firstly,
she mentioned that she wanted teachers to help their learners learn (Oxford, 1990). In
this research, it will be used with students who already know their styles but want to
try new strategies, so they can learn English better.
Ref. code: 25605921040159VLQ
9
The questionnaire was made in one version but in two languages, the original
English with Thai translations under it. The answers were written in separate columns
for convenience in collecting data.
The answers were based on a 5-points Likert scale which was:
l. Never or almost never true of me (Never).
2. Usually not true of me (Rarely).
3. Somewhat true of me (Sometimes).
4. Usually true of me (Usually).
5. Always or almost always true of me (Always).
The questionnaire was divided in to six parts but does not
mention the name of the strategies on the paper (see Appendix). They
were as follows:
Part A: Memory strategies.
Part A was items 1-6. This investigated whether students used
techniques to remember more efficiently or not. Examples are ‘I think
of relationships between what I already know and new things I learn in
English.’ or ‘I use new English words in a sentence, so I can remember them’.
Part B: Cognitive strategies.
Part B contained items 7-12. This investigated whether
students used strategies to help them employ the target language or
task by using their own process, for example, ‘I say or write new
English words several times.’ or ‘I try to talk like native English speakers’.
Ref. code: 25605921040159VLQ
10
Part C: Compensation strategies
Part C was items 13 – 18. This examined if students could
compensate for missing knowledge in the target language due to the
lack of vocabulary. Example questions are, ‘To understand unfamiliar
English words, I make guesses.’ and ‘When I can’t think of a word during a conversation in English, I use gestures’.
Part D: Meta-cognitive strategies
Part D was items 19-24. It explored if students used strategies
to coordinate the learning process by centering, arranging, planning
and evaluating their learning (Harden, 2015). Example questions are, ‘I
try to find as many ways as I can to use my English.’ and ‘I notice my English mistakes and use that information to help me do better.’
Part E: Affective strategies
Part E was items 25 - 30. It investigated whether students had
techniques to help them with their emotions, attitudes, motivations and
values. For example, ‘I try to relax whenever I feel afraid of using
English.’ or ‘I encourage myself to speak English even when I am
afraid of making a mistake.’
Part F: Social strategies
Part F was items 31-36, and it investigated if students used
activities to seek opportunities to be exposed to an environment in
which they can practice English as much as possible. Example
questions are, ‘In a conversation, if I do not understand some English
words, I ask the other person to slow down or repeat again.’ and ‘I ask
a favor to native English speakers to correct me when I talk’.
Ref. code: 25605921040159VLQ
11
3.3 Procedures
The questionnaires were given to 36 students in March and April 2018.
Most of the students returned them on the same day or the following week. A total of
29 were collected.
3.4 Data Analysis
The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences or SPSS was used to
calculate the descriptive statistics. The tables combine frequency, means and
standard deviation from the answers of the participants. Frequency refers to
how often the participants used each strategy and at which level. The means is
the average score of everyone in the group. The standard deviation refers to
how the information was dispersed in each group of participants. The ranges
of the means (X̅) were interpreted as:
1.00 - 2.49 = use at low level
2.50 - 3.49 = use at medium level
3.59 – 5.00 = use at high level (Oxford, 1990 as cited in Tam,
2013).
Ref. code: 25605921040159VLQ
12
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Results
4.1.1 General information about the participants
4.1.1.1 Age
The age of the participants varied. They can be divided into
five groups: ‘21-25’, ‘26-30’, ‘31-35’, ‘36-40’ and ‘41-45’. The
highest age group was ‘21-25’ followed with ‘26-30’, which were 34.5
and 31% respectively.
Age (years) Number of Students Percent (%)
21-25 10 34.5
26-30 9 31
31-35 3 10.3
36-40 6 20.7
41-45 1 3.4
Total 29 100 Table 4.1: Age
4.1.1.2 Gender
More participants were females more than males. Females were
79.3% whereas males were only 20.7%.
Gender Number Percent (%)
Male 6 20.7
Female 23 79.3
Total 29 100
Table 4.2: Gender
Ref. code: 25605921040159VLQ
13
4.1.1.3 TU-GET Score
The researcher divided the TU-GET scores into seven groups:
were ‘400-440’, ‘500-540’, ‘550-590’, ‘600-640’, ‘650-690’, ‘700-
740’ and ‘850-890’. Participants may have taken the test more than one
time, but the researcher chose the latest score that the participants
received. The TU GET scores were as follows:
TU-GET Score Number of Students Percent (%)
400-440 1 3.4
500-540 4 13.8
550-590 5 17.2
600-640 5 17.2
650-690 9 31
700-740 4 13.8
850-890 1 3.4
Total 29 100 Table 4.3: TU-GET Score
The scores varied. The score received most was ‘650-690’ by 9
people or 31% followed with ‘550-590’ and 600-640’ with 5 people or
17.0%
The score of 650 was the mean because most people got this
score Those who received the TU-GET score higher than 650 were
counted as high scoring and those with less than 650 were counted as
low scoring.
4.1.2 Results related to the research questions
The high scorers and low scorers as below:
Ref. code: 25605921040159VLQ
14
Group Number of Participants Percent (%)
Low Score 15 51.7
High Score 14 48.3
Total 29 100
Table 4.4: TU-GET Low and High Scores
The low-scoring students were 51% or 15 people and the high-scoring were 48.3% or 14 people.
4.1.2.1 The Results of Using Memory Strategies.
Table 4.5: Memory Strategies Usage
For Memory Strategies, the most frequently used by the high-scoring
students was item 1 ‘I think of relationships between what I already know and new
Never Rarely Sometimes
Usually Always X S.D Level Rank
2 4 5 4
13.30% 26.70% 33.30% 26.70%
1 6 2 5
7.10% 42.90% 14.30% 35.70%
2 7 6 -
13.30% 46.70% 40%
2 7 3 2
14.30% 50% 21.40% 14.30%
1 4 8 2
6.70% 26.70% 53.30% 13.30%
1 4 2 4 3
7.10% 28.60% 14.30% 28.60% 21.40%
1 4 8 2
6.70% 26.70% 53.30% 13.30%
1 1 5 5 2
7.10% 7.10% 35.70% 35.70% 14.30%
2 3 8 2 -
13.30% 20% 53.30% 13.30%
1 3 6 3 1
7.10% 21.40% 42.90% 21.40% 7.10%
1 2 9 3
6.70% 13.30% 60% 20%
3 6 5
21.40% 42.90% 35.70%
Level of Memory Strategies UseItems
1) I think of relationships between what I already know and new things I learn in English.
Low Score
High Score
- 3.73 1.03
- 3.79 1.05
High
High
Medium
6) I remember new English words or phrases by remembering their position on the page, on the board, or on a street sign.
4) I remember a new English word by making a mental picture of a situation in which the word might be used.
Low Score
High Score
5) I review English lessons often.
Low Score
High Score
2) I use new English words in a sentence so I can remember them.
Low Score
High Score
3) I connect the pronunciation sound of a new English word to an image or a picture of the word to help remember the
Low Score
High Score
- 3.73
Medium
0.8
3.43 1.09 Medium
3.29 1.33 Medium
High
High
-
- 3.43 1.09
- 3.73
0.8
5
Medium
Medium
0.9
1.04
0.79
4
3
Medium
Medium- - 2.93 1.14High Score
Low Score
2.67
3
2.93
1
1
1
1
4
3
2
2
2
- 3.27 0.7
Ref. code: 25605921040159VLQ
15
things I learn in English’; the mean was 3.79, at a high level. The lowest score is
in item 6 ‘I remember new English words or phrases by remembering their position
on the page, on the board, or on a street sign’; the mean was 2.93, at a medium
level.
The most frequently used strategies of the low-scoring students were
three items: item 1, ‘I think of relationships between what I already know and
new things I learn in English’, item 3, ‘I connect the pronunciation sound of a
new English word to an image or a picture of the word to help remember the
word.’ and item 4, ‘I remember a new English word by making a mental
picture of a situation in which the word might be used.’ The means was equal
for 3.73, which is at high level. The least used item was item number 5, ‘I
review English lessons often’; the mean was 2.67, which is at a medium level.
The level of usage of items 3 and 4 between the low and high-scoring
groups were different. For item 3, ‘I connect the pronunciation sound of a new
English word to an image or a picture of the word to help remember the
word.’, the level of usage of the low-scoring students was high while that of
the high-scoring students was medium. Also, for the item 4, ‘I remember a
new English word by making a mental picture of a situation in which the word
might be used.’, the level of usage of the low scoring students was high while
the level of usage of the high-scoring students was low.
4.1.2.2 The Results of Using Cognitive Strategies.
Ref. code: 25605921040159VLQ
16
Table 4.6: Cognitive Strategies Usage
For Cognitive Strategies, the most frequently used for high-scoring
students were in item number 8, ‘I try to talk like native English speakers’; the
mean was 4.21, at a high level. The least used items were item number 7, ‘I say
or write new English words several times’ and item number 12, ‘I make
summaries of information that I hear or read in English’. The mean was 3.14,
which still at medium level.
The low-scoring students used item 8, ‘I try to talk like native English
speakers’ most frequently for 3.80 at a high level. And the least frequently used
was item number 12, ‘I make summaries of information that I hear or read in
English’ The mean was 2.93, at a medium level.
There were differences in item 9, 10, 11. For item 9, ‘I read English
magazine or novel in my spare time.’, low-scoring students used the strategy
Never RarelySometi
mesUsually Always X S.D Level Rank
2 6 7
13.30% 40% 46.70%
4 4 6
28.60% 28.60% 42.90%
1 3 8 3
6.70% 20% 53.30% 20%
2 7 5
14.30% 50% 35.70%
2 3 4 6
13.30% 20% 26.70% 40%
2 5 2 4
14.30% 35.70% 14.30% 28.60%
1 3 4 5 2
6.70% 20% 26.70% 33.30% 13.30%
1 4 6 3
7.10% 28.60% 42.90% 21.40%
3 3 8 1
20% 20% 53.30% 6.70%
2 4 7 1
14.30% 28.60% 50% 7.10%
6 4 5
40% 26.70% 33.30%
3 6 5
21.40% 42.90% 35.70%
ItemsLevel of Cognitive Strategies Use
7) I say or write new English words several times.
Low Score
- 3.33 0.72 3
High Score
- Medium
8) I try to talk like native English speakers.
Low Score
3.8 1.01 1
High Score
- 4.21 0.7 1
High-
-
9) I read English magazine or novel in my spare time. (*High Score missing
Low Score
2.93 1.1 5
High Score
3.62 1.12 High
-
-
Medium
10) I first skim an English passage (read over the passage quickly) then go back and read carefully.
Low Score
3.27 1.163 4
High Score
3.79 0.9-
11) I look for words in my own language that has similar meaning to new words in English.
Low Score
3.47 0.91 2
High Score
3.5 0.85
- Medium
- High 4
12) I make summaries of information that I hear or read in English.
Low Score
- 2.93 0.88
High Score
- 3.14 0.77
-
- Medium
High
5
- Medium
- 3.14 0.86 5
5
High 2
3
Medium
Medium
Ref. code: 25605921040159VLQ
17
at a medium level while the high -scoring students used the strategy at a high
level. The difference was 0.69, which is quite high. For item 10, ‘I first skim
an English passage (read over the passage quickly) then go back and read
carefully.’, low-scoring students used the strategy at a medium level, but the
high-scoring students used it at a high level. For item 11, ‘I look for words in
my own language that have similar meanings to new words in English.’, the
low-scoring students used this at a medium level while the high-scoring
students used it at a high level.
4.1.2.3 The Results of Using Compensation Strategies.
Table 4.7: Compensation Strategies Usage
For the level of the use of Compensation Strategies, high-scoring
students used item 14, ‘When I can’t think of a word during a conversation in
Never RarelySometi
mesUsually Always X S.D Level Rank
1 1 4 7 2
6.70% 6.70% 26.70% 46.70% 13.30%
7 4 3
50% 28.60% 21.40%
1 2 7 5
6.70% 13.30% 46.70% 33.33%
1 4 5 3
7.10% 28.60% 35.70% 21.40%
1 7 5 1 1
6.70% 46.70% 33.33% 6.70% 6.70%
5 5 5 1 1
35.70% 35.70% 35.70% 7.10% 7.10%
2 7 5
13.30% 46.70% 33.33%
5 3 4 5
35.70% 21.40% 28.60% 35.70%
1 1 7 5 1
6.70% 6.70% 46.70% 33.33% 6.70%
5 3 5 3 1
35.70% 21.40% 35.70% 21.40% 7.10%
2 4 8 1
13.30% 26.70% 53.50% 6.70%
5 5 7 3
35.70% 35.70% 50% 21.40%
ItemsLevel of Compensation Strategies Use
13) To understand unfamiliar English words, I make guesses.
Low Score
3.53 1.06 2
High Score
- 2
High
- High3.71 0.82
5
High Score
Medium
Medium
1
High Score
- 3.79 0.89 1
- High
High
17) I try to guess what the other person will say next in English.
Low Score
3.27 0.96
High Score
2.86 1.17
14) When I can’t think of a word during a conversation in English, I use gestures.
Low Score
4 1.06
16) I read English articles without looking up the meaning of every new word. (*Both missing 1)
Low Score
-
High Score
15) I make up new words if I do not know the right ones in English.
Low Score
2.6 0.98
3
-
3
High
2.57 1.09 5
3.21 0.68 4
3.54 1.05
1
Low 4
High 218) If I can’t think of an English word, I use idioms or phrasal words that mean the same thing.
Low Score
0.833.53
High Score
- 3.79 0.97
Medium
-
Medium
-
High
Ref. code: 25605921040159VLQ
18
English, I use gestures’ and item 18, ‘If I can’t think of an English word, I use
idioms or phrasal words that mean the same thing’ at the same level at 3.7,
which is a high level. The least used item was in number 15, ‘I make up new
words if I do not know the right ones in English’ for 2.60, at a medium level.
The highest use of the low-scoring students is also number 14, ‘When I
can’t think of a word during a conversation in English, I use gestures’; the
mean was 4.00, which a high level and the highest of low is scoring students
for all 36 items. The least used was item number 15, ‘I make up new words if I
do not know the right ones in English’ for 2.57 which is at a medium level.
The differences were seen in item 16, 17. Item 16, ‘I read English
articles without looking up the meaning of every new word.’, low-scoring
students used the strategy at a medium level while the high-scoring students
used the strategy at a high level. For item 17, ‘I try to guess what the other
person will say next in English’, low- scoring students used the strategy at a
medium level while the high-scoring used it at a low level. This was the only
item that the high-scoring used at a lower level than the low scorers.
4.1.2.4 The Results of Using Meta-cognitive Strategies.
Ref. code: 25605921040159VLQ
19
Table 4.8: Meta-cognitive Strategies Usage
The level of using Meta-Cognitive strategies was the highest for high-
scoring students on item 24, ‘I think about my progress in learning English’. The
mean was 4.36 at a high level and the highest for all 36 items. The lowest item
was 22, ‘I plan my schedule, so I will have enough time to study English’; the mean
was a 3.23, at a medium level.
The low-scoring students chose item 24 as well, ‘I think about my
progress in learning English’--; the mean was 3.87, which is at a high level.
The least used strategy was in item 22, ‘I plan my schedule, so I will have
enough time to study English’. The mean was 2.7,3 which is at a medium
level.
The difference was item 23, ‘I look for opportunities to read as much
as possible in English’--; the low scorers used this at a medium level and the
high scorers used it at a high level.
Never RarelySometi
mesUsually Always X S.D Level Rank
4 2 5 4
26.70% 13.30% 33.30% 26.70%
3 8 3
21.40% 53.50% 21.40%
1 1 4 6 3
6.70% 6.70% 26.70% 40% 20%
2 9 3
14.30% 64.30% 21.40%
2 2 8 3
13.30% 13.30% 53.50% 20%
4 4 6
28.60% 28.60% 42.90%
1 6 5 2 1
6.70% 40% 33.30% 13.30% 6.70%
1 2 4 5 1
7.10% 14.30% 28.60% 35.70% 7.10%
1 3 6 3 2
6.70% 20% 40% 20% 13.30%
2 2 6 4
14.30% 14.30% 42.90% 28.60%
2 2 7 4
13.30% 13.30% 46.70% 26.70%
2 5 7
14.30% 35.70% 50%
20) I notice my English mistakes and use that information to help me do better.
Low Score
3.6 1.121
ItemsLevel of Meta-cognitive Strategies Use
19) I try to find as many ways as I can to use my English.
Low Score
3.6 1.18 High 3
High Score
- - 4 0.68 High 4
High Score
- 4.07 0.62 3
21) I try to find out how to be a better learner of English.
Low Score
3.8 0.94
High Score
4.14 0.864-
6
23) I look for opportunities to read as much as possible in English.
Low Score
3.13 1.12 Medium
High Score
3.86 1.03 High
22) I plan my schedule so I will have enough time to study English. (*High Score missing
Low Score
2.73 1.03
High Score
3.23
24) I think about my progress in learning English.
Low Score
- 3.87 0.99
High Score
- 1
-
High
- High
- High
-
5
1
4
Medium 5
2
2
3
High
-
- 4.36 0.74
Medium1.1
High
High
Ref. code: 25605921040159VLQ
20
4.1.2.5 The Results of Using Affective Strategies.
Table 4.9: Affective Strategies Usage
For Affective Strategies, the high-scoring students chose item 26, ‘I
encourage myself to speak English even when I am afraid of making a
mistake’ at the highest for 4.14. The least chosen strategy is item 29, ‘I write
down my feelings in a language learning diary.’ The mean was 1.71, at a low
level. This was also the lowest in all 36 items.
The low-scoring students chose item 25, ‘I try to relax whenever I feel
afraid of using English’, which is 3.93, at a high level. The low level of
strategy use was item 29 ‘I write down my feelings in a language learning
diary.’ The mean was 2.13 at a low level.
In this strategy, the level of using of high-scorers, item 26, was more
than 4.0, which was very high and was the second ranked from 4.36, which
Never RarelySometi
mesUsually Always X S.D Level Rank
1 4 5 5
6.70% 26.70% 33.30% 33.30%
1 3 7 3
7.10% 21.40% 50% 21.40%
2 1 8 3
13.30% 6.70% 53.50% 20%
1 10 3
7.10% 71.40% 21.40%
2 6 5 2
13.30% 40% 33.30% 13.30%
8 3 3
53.50% 21.40% 21.40%
1 3 6 1 4
6.70% 20% 40% 6.70% 26.70%
1 3 4 2 2
7.10% 21.40% 28.60% 14.30% 14.30%
4 5 6
26.70% 33.30% 40%
7 4 3
50% 28.60% 21.40%
3 3 7 1 1
20% 20% 46.70% 6.70% 6.70%
8 5 1
53.50% 35.70% 7.10%
2
ItemsLevel of Affective Strategies Use
25) I try to relax whenever I feel afraid of using English.
Low Score
- 3.93 0.96 1
High Score
- 3.86 1.02 High
1
27) I give myself a reward or treat when I do well in English.
Low Score
- 3.47 0.91 Medium 3
26) I encourage myself to speak English even when I am afraid of making a mistake. (*Low Score missing1)
Low Score
3.86 0.95 High 2
High Score
3
28) I notice if I am tense or nervous when I am studying or using English. (*High Score missing 2)
Low Score
3.27 1.28 Medium 4
High Score
3.08 1.24
High Score
- - 3.64 0.84 High
4
29) I write down my feelings in a language learning diary.
Low Score
2.13 0.834 Low 6
High Score
1.71 0.82 Low 6- -
1.12 5
5- Medium
Medium
2.57 0.85
30) I talk to someone else about how I feel when I am learning English.
Low Score
High Score
-
2.6
4.14
High
High
-
- -
Medium
0.53- -
Ref. code: 25605921040159VLQ
21
was in Meta-cognitive strategies. The difference was in item 27, ‘I give myself
a reward or treat when I do well in English.’ The low-scoring students used
this item at a medium level while the high-scoring students used this at a high
level.
4.1.2.6 The Results of Using Social Strategies.
Table 4.10: Social Strategies Usage
For Social Strategies, the high-scoring students used item 36 the
highest, ‘I try to learn about the culture of English speaking countries.’, the mean
was 4.00, at a high level. Item 33 was the least used, ‘I practice English with
other students.’ The mean was 3.07, at a medium level.
The low-scoring students chose item 31 the highest, ‘In a conversation, if I do not understand some English words, I ask the other person to slow down or
repeat again.’ The mean was 3.60, at a high level. The least used item was
Never RarelySometi
mesUsually Always X S.D Level Rank
2 4 7 2
13.30% 26.70% 46.70% 13.30%
1 5 7 1
7.10% 35.70% 50% 7.10%
1 2 5 5 2
6.70% 13.30% 33.30% 33.30% 13.30%
3 4 6 1
21.40% 28.60% 42.90% 7.10%
3 3 3 3 3
20% 20% 20% 20% 20%
1 3 5 4 1
7.10% 21.40% 35.70% 28.60% 7.10%
1 1 4 6 2
6.70% 6.70% 26.70% 40% 13.30%
2 7 4 1
14.30% 50% 28.60% 7.10%
1 4 4 4 2
6.70% 26.70% 26.70% 26.70% 13.30%
3 6 4
21.40% 42.90% 28.60%
1 4 3 4 3
6.70% 26.70% 20% 26.70% 20%
4 6 4
28.60% 42.90% 28.60%
ItemsLevel of Social Strategies Use
31) In a conversation, if I do not understand some English words, I ask the other person to slow down or repeat again.
Low Score
- 3.6 0.91 1
High Score
- 3.57 0.76 High 2
High
32) I ask a favor to native English speakers to correct me when I talk.
Low Score
3.33 1.11 Medium 3
High Score
- 3.36 0.929 3
33) I practice English with other students. (*Low Score missing1)
Low Score
3 1.5 Medium
High Score
3.07 1.07 Medium
34) I ask for help from English speakers.
Low Score
3.5 1.09 High
High Score
3.29 0.82 Medium
35) I ask questions in English.
Low Score
3.13 1.19 Medium
High Score
36) I try to learn about the culture of English speaking countries.
Low Score
3.27 1.28 Medium
High Score
- 4 0.78 High 1
Medium
-
-
-
4
- 3.14 0.77 Medium 5
4
5
2
6
6
Ref. code: 25605921040159VLQ
22
number 33, ‘I practice English with other students.’ The mean was 3.00 at a
medium level.
The highest score for the high-scorers was 4, which is very high while
the highest mean of the low scorer was only 3.60, which is very different. The
lowest use of this strategy for both high scoring and low-scoring students was
quite similar at 3.07 and 3.00--, only a 0.07 difference and both still at the
medium level. It can be said that both groups of students used this strategy at a
medium to high level.
From item 34 and 36, there were differences. For item 34,’ I ask for
help from English speakers.’--; low-scoring students used this at a high level
while the high-scoring students used this at a medium level. For item 36, ‘I try
to learn about the culture of English speaking countries.’, low-scoring students
used it at a medium level and high-scoring students used it at a high level. The
level of the high scorers reached 4.0 which is very high and more than the low
scorers’ usage by 0.73.
4.1.2.7 The Total Usage of Language Learning Strategies.
Strategies Use
Low-Scoring Students High-Scoring Students
X̅ S.D. Rank Level X̅ S.D. Rank Level
Memory 3.34 0.59 3 Medium 3.30 0.72 5 Medium
Cognitive 3.29 0.7 5 Medium 3.61 0.49 2 High
Compensation 3.36 0.61 2 Medium 3.37 0.47 4 Medium
Meta-Cognitive 3.45 0.85 1 Medium 3.94 0.5 1 High
Affective 3.21 0.63 6 Medium 3.17 0.47 6 Medium
Social 3.30 0.73 4 Medium 3.40 0.52 3 Medium
Overall 3.33 0.51 Medium 3.45 0.43 Medium
Table 4.11: The Overall Strategies Usage
The table above combines all the usage in all the strategies. As we can
see, the high scorers used Meta-Cognitive (3.94) most frequently. This was
followed by Cognitive (3.61), Social (3.40), Compensation (3.37), Memory
(3.30) and Affective Strategies (3.17) respectively.
Ref. code: 25605921040159VLQ
23
The low scorers used Meta-Cognitive (3.45), Compensation (3.36),
Memory (3.34), Social (3.30), Cognitive (3.29) and Affective Strategies (3.21)
respectively.
Although the first and the last may be Meta-cognitive and Affective
Strategies, the overall level of usage was different; the high scorers used at
3.94 while the low- scoring used for 3.45, a difference of 0.49. For cognitive
strategies, the low-scoring students used these at a medium level at 3.29 and
the high-scoring students used them at a high level at 3.61. The difference was
0.32.
4.2 Discussion
For the overall picture, it can be said that the high-scoring students used all the
strategies at a medium to high level while the low-scoring students used strategies at a
medium level. None of the students used any strategy at a low level. Oxford and
Nyikos (1989) suggested that ‘Good language learners use a variety of learning
strategies. Kayaoğlu (2013) also suggested that ‘learners proficient in a foreign
language use a greater range of strategies compared to poor learners’.
In 1995, Green and Oxford showed that ‘the successful language learners used
more high-level strategies than less successful learners’ (as cited in Kayaoğlu, 2013). Griffith (2003) also suggests that the higher level of the students is, the higher the
frequency of strategy use. Both groups of students used more strategies and at a
higher level than students in primary schools (Thangpatipan, 2014), secondary schools (Qing, 2013) and the university level (Kunasaraphun, 2015).
The use of these strategies in both groups was also more frequent and higher
than in Tirabulkul’s (2005) study done with students at the master’s level, with the
highest level at 2.94 (Meta-cognitive strategies) and the lowest level at 1.92 (Memory
Strategies). In this study, the highest level was Meta-cognitive with 3.94 and the
lowest level was 3.17 for high-scoring students.
The results suggest that language learning strategies have been passed down
through generations with no clue of how to use them to use them in their daily life.
Ref. code: 25605921040159VLQ
24
Oxford and Nyikos (1989) suggest that ‘Better language learners generally use
strategies appropriate to their own stage of learning, personality, age, purpose for
learning the language’. This accords with O'Mally et al. (1985), who found that
‘students used a variety of learning strategies but typically used more familiar
strategies and applied them to discrete‐point rather than integrative tasks’.
Ref. code: 25605921040159VLQ
25
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This chapter includes the conclusion of the study and the recommendations for further research.
5.1 Conclusions
This section provides the conclusion of the study. This study aimed to answer
the two research questions as follows:
5.1.1 What are the language learning strategies of high-scoring and low-
scoring students?
In answer to the first research question, it was found that the high-
scoring students used Meta-Cognitive strategies most frequently. This was followed
by Cognitive, Social, Compensation, Memory and Affective strategies, respectively.
The low-scoring students used Meta-Cognitive strategies most frequently. This was
followed by Compensation, Memory, Social, Cognitive and Affective strategies
respectively.
5.1.2 How are the language learning strategies of high-scoring students
similar and different from that of low-scoring students?
For the second research question, there were similarities and
differences between the two groups as below:
With regard to Memory Strategies, the similarity of both groups was in
item 1,2,5 and 6. Item 1 was used at a high level and 2,5,6 were used at a medium
level. The differences were in item 3 and 4 that they were used by the low scorers at a
medium level but by high scorers at a high level. The means of low scorers and high
scorers were 3.34 and 3.30, respectively.
For Cognitive Strategies, the similarity between both groups was
items 7,8,12. Item number 8 was used in the high level and item numbers 7 and 12
were used at a medium level. The difference was in items 9, 10 and 11 as all the items
were used at a medium level for the low-scoring students but used at a high level by
Ref. code: 25605921040159VLQ
26
the high-scoring students. The mean of low-scoring students was 3.29 and the mean
of high-scoring was 3.61.
For Compensation Strategies, the similarity was in items 13, 14, 15 and 18.
For items 13, 14, 18, both groups used them a high level while item 15 was used at a
medium level. The difference was in item 16 and 17. For item 16, the low scores used
this item at a medium level while the high scorers used this item at a high level. For
item 17, the low scorers used this item at a medium level and the high scorers used
this item at a low level. The means of low-scoring to high-scoring were 3.36 to 3.37,
respectively.
For Meta-cognitive Strategies, the similarity of both groups was quite high as
both groups had the same level of using strategies for 5 items those were item 19, 20,
21, 22 and 24. Items 19, 20, 21, 24, both groups used these strategies at a high level.
For item 22, both groups used it at a medium level. For item 23, both groups
answered differently, the low-scoring students used this strategy at a medium level
while the high-scoring students used this strategy at a high level. This strategy was
chosen most by both groups and was ranked number 1 in both groups. The means
from low scorers to high scorers were 3.45 to 3.94, respectively.
For Affective Strategies, the similarity between the high-scoring and low-
scoring students was in item 25, 26, 28, 29 and 30. This showed the most varied usage
levels in all categories. They varied from low to high. Low level usage was seen on
item 29, medium level usage was seen on item 28 and 30 and high level usage was
seen in item 25 and 26. The difference was on item 27 that the low scoring students
used this at a medium level, but the high-scoring students used it at a high level. The
overall mean of the low scorers was 3.21 and the high scorers was 3.17. This was the
only strategy that the mean of the high scorers was lower than the low scorers.
For the last one, Social Strategies, the similarity between each group were in
item 31, 32, 33 and 35. Item 31 was the only item that both groups used at a high
level. For item 32, 33 and 35, both groups used these at a medium level. The
differences were item number 34 and 36. The item 34 was the only one item that the
low scorers used more than the high scorers. The low scorers used this item at 3.50
Ref. code: 25605921040159VLQ
27
and the high scorers used this at 3.29. For item number 36, the low scorers used this at
a medium level while the high scorers used this at a high level. The means of the low-
scoring and high-scoring students were 3.30 and 3.40, respectively.
In addition, for the overall means, it was found that the high-scoring students
used all six strategies at a medium to high level while the low-scorers used all
strategies at a medium level only. None of the students use these six strategies at a
low level, which accords with Naiman et al.’s finding in 1976 that good learners
seemed to use more strategies than the poorer ones. (Naiman et al., 1976 as cited in
Hardan, 2013).
Naiman et al. (1996) asserts that ‘For any degree of mastery of a language, the
learner must go through certain mental processes beside the conscious strategies and
techniques’ similarly, Park (1997) suggests that schools should provide the language
learning strategies training for students.
5.2 Recommendations
Regarding research in this field in the future, here are some suggestions based
on this study.
5.2.1. Longitudinal study should be done with one group and to measure the
differences after teaching the strategies.
5.2.2 Additional questions can be made based on the six strategies for students
to clarify what they would like to do. Then, after the survey they can adapt these
strategies.
5.2.3 In-depth interviews can be conducted, to find which strategies are
suitable for students.
Ref. code: 25605921040159VLQ
28
REFERENCES
Chamot, A. U. (2004). Issues in Language Learning Strategy Research and Teaching.
Electronic Journal of Foreing Language Teaching, 14-16.
Griffiths, C. (2003). Patterns of language learning strategy use. System, 31(3), 367-
383.
Griffiths, C. (2004). Language-learning Strategies: Theory and Research. AIS St
Helens, Centre for Research in International Education.
Hardan, A. A. (2013). Langauage Learning Strategies: A General Overview.
ScienceDirect, 1712-1726.
Kayaoğlu, M. N. (2013). Poor and Good Learners' Language Beliefs and Their
Influence on Their Language Learning Strategies Use. Novitas-ROYAL, 7(1).
Kunasaraphun, K. (2015). English Learning Strategies and Proficiency Level of the
First Year Students. ScienceDirect, 1853-1858.
Lee, C. K. (2010). An Overview of Language Learning Strategies. ARECLS, 132-152.
Makarchuk, D. (2017). Variations in Learning Strategy Use Among Good, Average
and Poor EFL Learners. ENGLISH TEACHING (영어교육), 72(1), 25-47.
Melchers, G., & Shaw, P. (2013). World Englishes. Routledge
Mufwene, S. S. (2010). Globalization, global English, and world English (es): Myths
And facts. The handbook of language and globalization, 29-55.
Naiman, N. (Ed.). (1996). The good language learner (Vol. 4). Multilingual Matters.
O'malley, J. M., Chamot, A. U., Stewner‐Manzanares, G., Russo, R. P., & Küpper, L.
(1985). Learning strategy applications with students of English as a second
language. TESOL quarterly, 19(3), 557-584.
Oxford, R., & Nyikos, M. (1989). Variables affecting choice of language learning
strategies by university students. The modern language journal, 73(3), 291-
300.
Ref. code: 25605921040159VLQ
29
Oxford, R. L. (1990). Languge Learning Strategies: What Every Teacher Should
Know. USA: Heinle & Heinle.
Oxford, R. L. (2003). Language Learning Styles and Strategies: An Overview.
Learning Styles & Strategies, 1-25.
Park, G. P. (1997). Language learning strategies and English proficiency in Korean
university students. Foreign language annals, 30(2), 211-221.
Qing, Y. Y. (2013). A Survey Study of Language Learning Strategies Used by EFL
Learners At Santirat Wittayalai School, Bangkok, Thailand. Bangkok:
Thammasat University.
Rubin, J. (1975). What the" good language learner" can teach us. TESOL quarterly,
41-51.
Tam, K. C. H. (2013). A study on language learning strategies (LLSs) of university
students in Hong Kong. Taiwan Journal of Linguistics, 11(2), 1-42.
Thangpatipan, K. (2014). A Survey Stydy of Langauge Learning Strategies Used By
Thai High School Students in An English Program. Bangkok: Thammasat
University.
Tirabulkul, N. (2005). A Study of Langauge Learning Strategies of Students in MA
Program For TEFL Program Thammasat University. Bangkok: Thammasat
University.
Wenden, A. (1987). Conceptual background and utility. Learner strategies in
language learning, 5, 3-13.
W3techs. (17 May 2018).Accessed from W3techs- Web Technology Surveys:
https://w3techs.com/technologies/overview/content_language/all
Zuckerman, E. (2013, July 20). English is no longer the language of the web.
Retrieved from https://qz.com/
.
Ref. code: 25605921040159VLQ
APPENDIX
Ref. code: 25605921040159VLQ
31
APPENDIX QUESTIONAIRES IN ENGLISH AND THAI
A Survey Study of Language Learning Strategies Used by a master’s Degree Program in English
These questionnaires are adapted and selected from Strategies Inventory for
Language Learning (or SILL) of Oxford (1990). It will be divided into two parts
which general information of the participants are and the 36 of Language Strategies
questions. The answer will be in the separated table will have the scale from 1-5
which o’1’ is the least use and ‘5’ is the most use.
Ref. code: 25605921040159VLQ
32
Part 1 General Information
Please answer these questions. กรุณาตอบคําถามตอ่ไปนี ้
1.What is your age? อาย ุ_____________________________________
2.What is your gender? เพศMale/ชาย Female/หญิง
3.How long have you been studying English? จํานวนปีท่ีเรียนภาษาองักฤษ หรือ ท่านเรียน
ภาษาองักฤษเป็น ระยะเวลา(choose one, don’t use both)_____________________year(s)/
ปี__________________month(s)/เดือน
4. Have you ever been to an English-speaking country? ท่านเคยไปประเทศท่ีต้องพดูภาษาองักฤษ
หรือไม ่
Yes/เคย No/ไมเ่คย
5. From question no. 5, if yes, stay for how long? จากข้อ 5 หากคําตอบของท่านคือเคย หรือ หากท่าน
ตอบวา่เคย (choose one , don’t use both) ท่านอยูท่ี่ตา่งประเทศเป็นเวลา_______________month(s)/
เดือน_______________________year(s)/ปี
6. Do you use English in your daily life? ท่านใช้ภาษาองักฤษส่ือสารในชีวติประจําวนัหรือไม ่
Yes/ ใช้ No/ไมใ่ช้
7.From question no. 6, if yes, where? จากข้อ 6 หากคําตอบของท่านคือใช้ ท่านมีโอกาสใช้ภาษาองักฤษ
ท่ีใด
School of University/ ท่ีโรงเรียนหรือมหาวทิยาลยั Workplace/ ท่ีทํางาน
Friend (s)/มีเพ่ือนเป็นชาวตา่งประเทศ มีแฟนหรือคูส่มรสเป็นชาว
ตา่งประเทศ/spouse
Other/ อ่ืนๆ ______________________________________________________
Ref. code: 25605921040159VLQ
33
8. From question no. 6, how many hours per week that you communicate in English.จากข้อ 6
เฉล่ียแล้วท่านพดูภาษาองักฤษตอ่สปัดาห์เป็นจํานวน __________________________(hours)ชัว่โมง
9. What is your TU-GET score when entering to CEIC? คะแนน TU-GET ของท่านเม่ือสอบเข้า
คือ_________________________
10. If you have a chance to test TU-GET again, what is the score at the present? คะแนน TU-
GET ของท่านลา่สดุคือ_______________________
11. What is your self-rating? คณุคดิวา่ตวัเองเก่งภาษาองักฤษหรือไม ่
Yes/ใช่ No/ไมใ่ช ่
12.What is your GPA? so far? ท่านได้เกรดเฉล่ียเท่าไหร่ในปัจจบุนั
My GPA. is/ ฉนัได้เกรดเฉล่ียอยู่ท่ี____________
Part 2 Questionnaire
Please complete this questionnaire.
กรุณาตอบรายการตอ่ไปนี ้
1. means Never or almost never true of me 1.หมายถึง ฉนัไมเ่คยหรือฉนัแทบจะไมค่อ่ยได้ทําสิง่นี ้
2. means Usually not true of me 2. หมายถึง ฉนัทําสิง่นีน้้อย
3. means Somewhat true of me 3. หมายถึง ฉนัทําสิง่นีบ้้างปานกลาง
4. means Usually true of me 4. หมายถึง ฉนัทําคอ่นข้างบอ่ย
5. means Always or almost always true of me. 5. หมายถึง ฉนัทําสิง่นีเ้ป็นประจํา
ข้อ Items/ รายการ 1 2 3 4 5
1. - I think of relationships between what I already know and new things I learn in English. - ฉนัคดิถึงความสมัพนัธ์ระหวา่งสิง่ท่ีฉนัรู้อยู่แล้วกับสิง่ใหมท่ี่ได้เรียนรู้ใน
ภาษาองักฤษ
Ref. code: 25605921040159VLQ
34
2. - I use new English words in a sentence so I can remember them. - ฉนัใช้ศพัท์ภาษาองักฤษคําใหม่ในประโยคทนัทีเพ่ือให้จําคําศพัท์ได้
3. - I connect the pronunciation sound of a new English word to an image or a picture of the word to help remember the word. - ฉนัเช่ือมโยงเสียงของคําใหมก่บัภาพหรือรูปเพ่ือให้ฉนัจํามนัได้
4. - I remember a new English word by making a mental picture of a situation in which the word might be used. -ฉนัจําภาษาองักฤษคําใหมโ่ดยการจําลองสถานการณ์ ท่ีจะได้ใช้คํา ๆนัน้
5. - I review English lessons often. -ฉนัทบทวนบทเรียนภาษาองักฤษบอ่ย ๆ
6. - I remember new English words or phrases by remembering their position on the page, on the board, or on a street sign. - ฉนัจําคําใหมห่รือวลีใหม่ในภาษาองักฤษได้โดยการจําวา่มนัอยู่ตรงไหน ใน
หนงัสือ บนกระดาน หรือปา้ยจราจร
7.
- I say or write new English words several times. - ฉนัพดูหรือเขียนศพัท์ภาษาองักฤษใหม่ๆ ซํา้หลายๆครัง้
8. - I try to talk like native English speakers. - ฉนัพยายามจะพดูเหมือนเจ้าของภาษา
9. - I read English magazine or novel in my spare time. - ฉนัอ่านนิยายหรือนิตยสารภาษาองักฤษในช่วงท่ีมีเวลาวา่ง
10. - I first skim an English passage (read over the passage quickly) then go back and read carefully. - ฉนัอ่านแบบสกิม (อ่านแบบจบัใจความผ่านๆ) ก่อน แล้วคอ่ยอ่านอย่าง
ละเอียดอีกที
11. - I look for words in my own language that has similar meaning to new words in English. - ฉนัมองหาคําในภาษาของฉนัท่ีมีความหมายตรงหรือคล้ายคลงึกบัคําศพัท์ใน
ภาษาองักฤษ
Ref. code: 25605921040159VLQ
35
12. - I make summaries of information that I hear or read in English. - ฉนัสรุปข้อมลูท่ีฉนัได้ยินหรืออ่าน เป็นภาษาองักฤษ
13. - To understand unfamiliar English words, I make guesses. - ฉนัพยายามจะเข้าใจคําภาษาองักฤษท่ีไมคุ่้นเคย ด้วยการเดา
14. - When I can’t think of a word during a conversation in English, I use gestures. - ในการสนทนาเป็นภาษาองักฤษเม่ือฉนันึกถึงคําศพัท์ไมอ่อก ฉนัจะใช้ท่าทาง
ในการส่ือสารแทน
15. - I make up new words if I do not know the right ones in English. - ฉนัสร้างคําศพัท์ขึน้มาใหม ่ ถ้าฉนัไมรู้่วา่จะใช้คําไหนดีในภาษาองักฤษดี
16. - I read English articles without looking up the meaning of every new word. - ฉนัอ่าน โดยท่ี ไมต้่องหาความหมายของศพัท์คําใหม่ๆทกุคํา
17. - I try to guess what the other person will say next in English. - ฉนัพยายามคดิลว่งหน้า ว่าอีกคนจะพดูประโยคตอ่ไปวา่อย่างไร ใน
ภาษาองักฤษ
18. - If I can’t think of an English word, I use idioms or phrasal words that mean the same thing. - ถ้าฉนัคดิถึงคําในภาษาองักฤษไมอ่อก ฉนัจะใช้คําหรือวลีท่ีคล้ายคลงึกนั
19. - I try to find as many ways as I can to use my English. - ฉนัพยายามทกุทาง เท่าท่ีจะเป็นไปได้ ท่ีจะใช้ภาษาอังกฤษ
20. - I notice my English mistakes and use that information to help me do better. - ฉนัสงัเกตข้อผดิพลาดในภาษาองักฤษของฉนั และใช้ข้อมลูนัน้เพ่ือช่วยให้ฉนั
ใช้ภาษาองักฤษได้ดีขึน้
21. - I try to find out how to be a better learner of English. - ฉนัพยายามหาหนทางวา่ จะทําอย่างไรให้ฉนัเรียนภาษาองักฤษได้ดีขึน้
Ref. code: 25605921040159VLQ
36
22. - I plan my schedule so I will have enough time to study English. - ฉนัวางตารางงานของฉนั เพ่ือจะได้มีเวลามากพอท่ีจะศกึษาภาษาองักฤษ
23. - I look for opportunities to read as much as possible in English. - ฉนัมองหาทกุโอกาสท่ีจะได้อ่านเป็นภาษาองักฤษ
24. - I think about my progress in learning English. - ฉนัคดิเก่ียวกับ ความก้าวหน้าของฉนัในการเรียนรู้ภาษาองักฤษ
25. - I try to relax whenever I feel afraid of using English. - ฉนัพยายามผอ่นคลาย ทกุครัง้ท่ีเม่ือฉนัเร่ิมกลวัในการใช้ภาษาองักฤษ
26. - I encourage myself to speak English even when I am afraid of making a mistake. - ฉนัพยายามให้กําลงัใจตนเอง แม้กระทัง่เวลาท่ีฉนักลวัจะพดูภาษาองักฤษผิด
27. - I give myself a reward or treat when I do well in English. - ฉนัให้รางวลัตวัเอง เวลาทําสิง่ใด ๆเก่ียวกับภาษาองักฤษได้ดี
28. - I notice if I am tense or nervous when I am studying or using English. - ฉนัสงัเกตตวัเอง วา่ฉนัเครียดหรือกงัวลหรือไม ่ตอนท่ีเรียนหรือใช้ภาษาองักฤษ
29. - I write down my feelings in a language learning diary. - ฉนัจดบนัทึกความรู้สกึเก่ียวกบัการเรียนภาษาในไดอาร่ีเฉพาะ
30. - I talk to someone else about how I feel when I am learning English. - ฉนัคยุกบัคนอีกคนวา่ฉนัรู้สกึอย่างไร เวลาท่ีเรียนภาษาองักฤษ
31. - In a conversation, if I do not understand some English words, I ask the other person to slow down or repeat again. - ถ้าฉนัไมเ่ข้าใจอะไรในภาษาองักฤษ ฉนัขอให้คนๆนัน้พดูช้าลงหรือพดูซํา้อีก
ครัง้หนึ่ง
32. - I ask a favor to native English speakers to correct me when I talk. - ฉนัขอให้เจ้าของภาษาองักฤษ (หรือคนท่ีใช้ภาษาองักฤษเป็นภาษาแม)่ ช่วย
แก้ให้ฉนัเวลาท่ีฉนัพดูภาษาองักฤษ
Ref. code: 25605921040159VLQ
37
33. - I practice English with other students. - ฉนัฝึกพดูภาษาองักฤษกบันกัเรียนคนอ่ืน ๆ
34. - I ask for help from English speakers. - ฉนัขอความช่วยเหลือจากเจ้าของภาษาองักฤษ
35. - I ask questions in English. - ฉนัถามคําถามเป็นภาษาองักฤษ
36. - I try to learn about the culture of English speaking countries. - ฉนัพยายามเรียนรู้เก่ียวกับวฒันธรรมประเทศท่ีใช้ภาษาองักฤษเป็นภาษาหลกั
Ref. code: 25605921040159VLQ
38
BIOGRAPHY
Name Miss Napatida Prissananuntakul
Date of Birth September 4, 1978
Educational Attainment 2004: Bachelor of Fine and Applied Arts (Drama),
Thammasat University
Work Position Assistant to a business owner.
Aree Shop, Ang Thong.
Recommended