Chiến lược học ngoại ngữ trong đọc tiếng Anh tại trường THCS Đoàn Kết: Luận văn Thạc sĩ Khoa học Giáo dục

BỘ GIÁO DỤC VÀ ĐÀO TẠO TRƯỜNG ĐẠI HỌC SƯ PHẠM THÀNH PHỐ HỒ CHÍ MINH

Huỳnh Thị Kim Ngân

THE USE OF LANGUAGE LEARNING STRATEGIES

IN ENGLISH READING AT DOAN KET

SECONDARY SCHOOL:

AN INVESTIGATION

LUẬN VĂN THẠC SĨ KHOA HỌC GIÁO DỤC

Thành phố Hồ Chí Minh – 2021

BỘ GIÁO DỤC VÀ ĐÀO TẠO

TRƯỜNG ĐẠI HỌC SƯ PHẠM THÀNH PHỐ HỒ CHÍ MINH

Huỳnh Thị Kim Ngân

THE USE OF LANGUAGE LEARNING STRATEGIES

IN ENGLISH READING AT DOAN KET

SECONDARY SCHOOL:

AN INVESTIGATION

Chuyên ngành: Lý luận và phương pháp dạy học bộ môn tiếng Anh

Mã số: 8140111

LUẬN VĂN THẠC SĨ KHOA HỌC GIÁO DỤC

NGƯỜI HƯỚNG DẪN KHOA HỌC:

TS. PHẠM NGUYỄN HUY HOÀNG

Thành phố Hồ Chí Minh - 2021

LỜI CAM ĐOAN

Ngoại trừ những trường hợp được thừa nhận rõ ràng trong chú thích và

danh sách trích dẫn ở cuối bài, tôi xác nhận rằng tôi là tác giả duy nhất của luận

văn được gửi hôm nay với tên đề tài nghiên cứu:

The Use of Language Learning Strategies in English Reading at Doan

Ket Secondary School: An Investigation

Tôi xác nhận thêm rằng, luận văn này được viết theo sự hiểu biết của bản

thân người nghiên cứu, không chứa tài liệu nào đã từng xuất bản hoặc viết bởi

người khác trước đây, trừ việc có sự tham khảo và trích dẫn các nguồn tài liệu

phù hợp cho bản luận văn.

Tôi xin cam đoan luận văn này là một công trình nghiên cứu độc lập,

không là cơ sở cho bất kỳ một giải thưởng hay bằng cấp nào khác, những trích

dẫn nêu trong luận văn đều chính xác và trung thực.

Luận văn tuân thủ các yêu cầu của trường Đại Học Sư Phạm Thành phố

Hồ Chí Minh về Luận văn Thạc sĩ.

Statement of Authorship

Except where clearly acknowledged in footnotes, quotations and the

bibliography, I certify that I am the sole author of the thesis submitted today

entitled –

The Use of Language Learning Strategies in English Reading at Doan

Ket Secondary School: An Investigation

I further certify that to the best of my knowledge the thesis contains no

material previously published or written by another person except where due

reference is made in the text of the thesis.

The material in the thesis has not been the basis of an award of any other

degree or diploma except where due reference is made in the text of the thesis.

The thesis complies with the requirements of Ho Chi Minh City University

of Education for a MA thesis.

LỜI CẢM ƠN

Tôi xin bày tỏ lòng biết ơn đến những người đã ủng hộ tôi trong việc hoàn

thành luận văn này. Đầu tiên, tôi muốn gửi lời cảm ơn đến tất cả các nhà ngôn

ngữ học, các nhà nghiên cứu trên thế giới đã cho tôi nguồn tài liệu nghiên cứu

dồi dào, điển hình là các nghiên cứu từ Bà Oxford Rebecca cũng như một số

tài liệu khác của bà ấy có liên quan đến chủ đề về các chiến lược học ngôn ngữ

(Language Learning Strategies - LLS) đã giúp tôi hoàn thành nghiên cứu này,

và thông qua sự giải thích cụ thể đó để Hướng dẫn Chiến lược học ngôn ngữ

(LLSI) cho các em học sinh, giúp các em định hướng tốt trong tương lai. Đồng

thời, tôi muốn ghi nhận sự tham gia khảo sát của học sinh lớp sáu trong nghiên

cứu này, và xin chân thành cảm ơn sự sẵn sàng chia sẻ kinh nghiệm của tất cả

những người tham gia. Nhờ sự hỗ trợ nhiệt tình này mà việc thu thập dữ liệu

nghiên cứu đã hoàn thành và đạt được các kết quả khi phân tích dữ liệu về

phương diện lý thuyết lẫn thực tiễn.

Tiếp theo, tôi xin chân thành cảm ơn Hiệu trưởng nhà trường, các Ban

Lãnh Đạo các Phòng/ Khoa, Ban Quản Lý và các Chuyên viên của Phòng Sau

Đại Học - Trường Đại học Sư phạm Thành phố Hồ Chí Minh trong việc đào

tạo Thạc sĩ ngành “Lý luận và phương pháp dạy học bộ môn tiếng Anh”, cảm

ơn việc tuyển chọn những chuyên đề hay và phù hợp để đào tạo cho học viên,

cảm ơn đã cung cấp đầy đủ cơ sở vật chất - trang thiết bị tiện nghi và để học

viên có cơ hội học tập với những giảng viên có kinh nghiệm là các vị Giáo Sư,

Phó Giáo Sư, Tiến Sĩ Triết Học, Tiến Sĩ Giáo Dục hoặc các vị Tiến Sĩ đa lĩnh

vực đến từ nhiều trường đại học danh tiếng ở Việt Nam. Các vị ấy đã triển khai

nhiều đề tài nghiên cứu mang tính học thuật cao và vô cùng hữu ích cho học

viên cao học. Ngoài ra, các vị còn cung cấp cho học viên một số nhu cầu cần

thiết: từ tài liệu học tập/ bài giảng cho đến những kinh nghiệm thực tế có giá

trị, bổ trợ nhiều cho giai đoạn nghiên cứu đề tài luận văn Thạc sĩ của học viên

bao gồm cả luận văn này.

Nhân đây, tôi xin chân thành cảm ơn các bạn cùng khóa Thạc sĩ tại Trường

Đại học Sư phạm Thành phố Hồ Chí Minh với tinh thần hợp tác đã thảo luận

sôi nổi trong các chủ đề thuyết trình vì sự tiến bộ chung. Đặc biệt, tôi xin trân

trọng gửi ngàn lời cảm ơn sâu sắc đến người hướng dẫn luận văn cho tôi - PGS.

TS. Phạm Nguyễn Huy Hoàng đã nhiệt tình hướng dẫn, luôn hỗ trợ và chỉ bảo

để tôi có thể hoàn thành tốt luận văn này.

Bên cạnh đó, tôi cũng thầm cảm ơn Phật đã kết duyên lành cho tôi tiếp

xúc với các thiện hữu tri thức gần xa, đồng thời giúp tôi giải tỏa phiền muộn,

căng thẳng để tiếp tục phấn đấu học tập. Cảm ơn các thành viên trong gia đình

tôi đã yêu thương, động viên, và quan tâm để tôi tập trung học tập sau giờ làm

việc. Vậy nên, tôi xin cống hiến Luận văn Thạc sĩ này cho sự phát triển của

giáo dục cấp Trung Học Cơ Sở ở Việt Nam như một sự đền đáp của tôi, và để

làm tròn nghĩa vụ của một người công dân phục vụ cho đất nước - Đó cũng là

điều mà gia đình tôi luôn mong muốn. Tôi sẽ tranh thủ nạp đầy năng lượng cho

mình để chuẩn bị cho những nghiên cứu sâu hơn trong tương lai, tôi sẽ không

ngừng trau dồi năng lực bản thân để đóng góp cho sự phát triển của quê hương

đất nước. Có thể luận văn này không tránh khỏi những thiếu sót nên rất mong

nhận được nhiều góp ý nhằm cải thiện chất lượng nghiên cứu chuyên môn.

Nhiều người cống hiến nhiệt thành cho giáo dục thì chất lượng giáo dục Việt

Nam sẽ ngày một tốt hơn.

Acknowledgements

I would like to show my gratitude to a number of people for their support

over this thesis completion. First, I would say thanks to all the linguists and

researchers in the world giving me a great source of research materials,

typically Madam Oxford Rebecca and her related materials helping me fulfill

this study through the clear explanations of Language Learning Strategies

(LLS) and the future directions for Language Learning Strategy Instruction

(LLSI). Second, I would like to acknowledge the sixth graders’ participation in

this study, simultaneously to give my sincere thanks to those participants for

their willingness and experiences sharing. Thanks to their enthusiastic support,

the research data collection was timely completed and basically achieved the

validation of data analysis in theory and in practice.

Next, I am very grateful to the Headmistress, the Executive Members, the

Leader Boards and the Staff of Postgraduate Administrative Office Personnel

of Ho Chi Minh City University of Education opened the major course:

“Master of Arts in English Language Teaching”, that selected the best subjects

for teachers training, provided the classroom equipment and invited the most

experienced and famous lecturers – Professors, Associate Professors, Doctors

of Philosophy/ Education, Doctors of various fields, and several Visiting

Professors from the celebrated universities over the Vietnam country. These

noble Ph./ Ed. Doctors have implemented the exciting research meetings and

lectured plenty of helpful teaching subjects to us - the cohorts. Noticeably, they

have offered us some necessities: from the learning documentation to practical

experiences - whose useful lessons, set the highest value for the cohorts’ MA

study period and even for this thesis.

I hereby give my honest thanks to the academic friends in the same MA

course at Ho Chi Minh City University of Education, successfully cooperating

and ebulliently discussing the presentation topics. Notably, I still owe a special

thank you to my thesis instructor - Associate Professor Pham Nguyen Huy

Hoang for his enthusiastic guidance, assistance, and refinement to this MA

thesis.

In addition, my deep thanks are sent to the religious belief of Buddhism in

relieving my mind, recovering my self-control and striving for my

professionalism development; and many thanks to all my family members for

their love and encouragement for promoting my great learning effort after my

tired working-hours at DK School. Hence, I would like to dedicate this MA

thesis to the development of secondary education in Vietnam, as a debt repay

to my gratitude or as a citizen’s duty serving this country - This is also the only

thing that makes my family members satisfied the most. I will try to stay

healthy, more energetic and willing for further research in future so that I can

employ my qualifications in contributing to Vietnam education better and

better. Probably, this thesis does not avoid its shortcomings, I hope to receive

suggestions to improve the quality of research. The more fervent dedicators

throughout the years, the better quality of education for Vietnamese.

LỜI CAM ĐOAN

STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP

LỜI CẢM ƠN

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABBREVIATIONS

LIST OF TABLES

LIST OF FIGURES

ABSTRACT ..................................................................................................... 1

CHAPTER 1. BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY ...................................... 2

1.1. General context and secondary education in Vietnam ........................... 2

1.2. Rationale for the study ............................................................................ 4

1.3. Aim of the study ..................................................................................... 5

1.4. Research questions .................................................................................. 6

1.5. Background of the study ......................................................................... 6

1.6. Thesis overview ...................................................................................... 9

1.7. Chapter summary .................................................................................... 9

CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW .................................................... 11

2.1. Language learning strategies ................................................................ 11

2.1.1. Definitions of learning strategies ................................................... 11

2.1.2. Classification of learning strategies .............................................. 12

2.1.3. The factors related to learning strategies ...................................... 16

2.2. Significance of English reading strategy use at secondary schools ..... 19

2.2.1. Relevance of reading selection in English learning ....................... 19

2.2.2. Reading strategy instructions in secondary schools ...................... 20

2.3. Previous studies about language learning strategies ............................ 23

2.3.1. The highlights from the previous international studies ................. 24

2.3.2. Some domestic studies (in Vietnam) ............................................... 42

2.4. Research gap ......................................................................................... 49

2.5. Summary of literature review ............................................................... 51

CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY ............................................................... 54

3.1. The research objectives and research questions ................................... 54

3.2. Research methodology .......................................................................... 54

3.3. Research Setting ................................................................................... 56

3.4. Research sites and participants ............................................................. 57

3.5. Data collection ...................................................................................... 58

3.5.1. Samples collection .......................................................................... 58

3.5.2. Instruments for data collection ...................................................... 59

3.6. Data analysis ......................................................................................... 62

3.6.1. Credibility ....................................................................................... 63

3.6.2. Dependability ................................................................................. 64

3.6.3. Confirmability ................................................................................ 64

3.6.4. Transferability ................................................................................ 64

3.6.5. Analysis of research data ............................................................... 65

3.6.6. Language strategy use inventory ................................................... 66

3.7. Timeline for the study ........................................................................... 74

3.8. Chapter summary .................................................................................. 75

CHAPTER 4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ........................................... 76

4.1. Results ................................................................................................... 76

4.1.1. Students’ learning strategy use synthesized from the questionnaires

.................................................................................................................. 76

4.1.2. Results from focus interviews ......................................................... 79

4.1.3. Results from the comparison between total mean coefficient and

students’ scores in English course ........................................................... 80

4.2. Discussion of results ............................................................................. 83

4.3. Chapter summary .................................................................................. 87

CHAPTER 5. CONCLUSION ..................................................................... 88

5.1. Conclusion ............................................................................................ 88

5.1.1. Answer to the research question 1 ................................................. 88

5.1.2. Answer to the research question 2 ................................................. 89

5.1.3. Significance .................................................................................... 91

5.2. Implications .......................................................................................... 93

5.2.1. Limitations of the study .................................................................. 93

5.2.2. Suggestions ..................................................................................... 94

REFERENCES .............................................................................................. 97

APPENDICES ............................................................................................. 106

Appendix 1: Descriptions of learning strategies........................................ 106

Appendix 2: Diagram of the strategy system showing all the strategies ... 108

Appendix 3: Questionnaire on language learning strategies ..................... 110

Questionnaire on LLS in Vietnamese ................................... 112

Appendix 4: The questions for interviews ................................................. 114

Appendix 5: Focus interviews in details .................................................... 115

Appendix 6: Frequency statistics of students’ English marks ................... 116

Abbreviations

AFFECT Affective Strategies

COG Cognitive Strategies

COMPENS Compensation Strategies

DK School Doan Ket Secondary School

English as a foreign language EFL

English as a second language ESL

English for Specific Purposes ESP

Foreign language FL

Foreign language acquisition FLA

Interview INT

First language L1

Second language L2

Learning Strategies LS

LLS Language Learning Strategies

LLSI Language Learning Strategy Instruction

LLT Language Learning and Teaching

MEMORY Memory Strategies

METACOG Metacognitive Strategies

MOET Ministry of Education and Training

SLA Second language acquisition

SOCIAL Social Strategies

SPSS Statistical Package for the Social Sciences

STELLAR Strategies for English Language Learning and Reading

List of Tables

Table 3.1. Descriptive statistics of participants’ sex and age ......................... 59

Table 3.2. Statistics of students’ scores in English course ............................. 62

Table 3.3. Reliability statistics ........................................................................ 67

Table 3.4. Cronbach’s alpha reliability test of LLS use ................................. 67

Table 3.5. KMO and Bartlett's Test ................................................................ 68

Table 3.6. Communalities ............................................................................... 68

Table 3.7. Total variance explained ................................................................ 69

Table 3.8. Component matrixa ........................................................................ 69

Table 3.9. Correlations among students’ LLS ................................................ 70

Table 3.10. Correlations between students’ LLS and English scores ............. 71

Table 3.11. Model summaryb in multiple regression analyses ....................... 72

Table 3.12. ANOVAb for multiple regression analyses .................................. 72

Table 3.13. Coefficientsa for multiple regression analyses ............................. 73

Table 3.14. Residuals statistics for multiple regression analyses ................... 73

Table 3.15. Timeline for the Study ................................................................. 74

Table 4.1. Descriptive statistics of questionnaires .......................................... 77

Table 4.2. Descriptive statistics of the frequency of LLS use ........................ 78

Table 4.3. Descriptive statistics - Mean total of LLS ..................................... 81

Table 4.4. English marks - Statistics ............................................................... 81

Table 4.5. Report of the comparison between mean total and English marks (for

good students only) ......................................................................................... 82

List of Figures

Figure 2.1. Diagram of a strategy system: Overview (Oxford, 1990, p.16) ... 13

Figure 2.2. Diagram of a strategy system showing two classes, six groups and

19 sets (Oxford, 1990, p.17) ............................................................................ 15

Figure 2.3. Inter-relationships between direct and indirect strategies among the

six strategy groups (Oxford 1990, p.15) ......................................................... 16

Figure 2.4. Oxford Reading for Comprehension (Oxford, 2020) ................... 23

Figure 2.5. Key to understand the averages - SILL profile of results, Version

7.0 (Oxford 1990, p.300) ................................................................................. 66

ABSTRACT

This study evoked the theories of language learning strategies (LLS) in the

world, of which the most priority was Oxford’s (1990) and her latest orienting

students’ awareness of LLS afterwards. The investigation explored the use of

learning strategies of 176 Vietnamese sixth graders at Doan Ket Secondary

School through Oxford’s model of SILL. The 5-scale questionnaires were

curtailed and adapted to discover an important issue - a research gap after

testing the correlation between the frequency of LLS use and these students’

performance in English language reading, also the case with their reading skills.

Their use of LLS at a medium level indicated a necessity for more LLS

instruction (LLSI), specifically motivated English Reading Strategies - as a

foundation of other LLS among secondary school students; hereby, language

teachers can recognize the most suitable teaching methods to support the

students. Furthermore, this study also analyzed some factors related to LLS and

indicated how effective students’ LLS choice was. Transparently, the

classification after definitions of language learning strategies were presented in

literature review for easily applying a strategic language (e.g. English

language) to secondary education, creating a better learning environment, and

taking advantages of young students’ communicative competence in English.

The result of this study may be controversial because of the absurd indicators

of the analyzed research database. Nevertheless, the study remained showing

the significance of LLS use, first and foremost reading strategies which were

indispensable to English learning and teaching at secondary schools, and some

pedagogical implications regarding LLS instruction were later suggested

encouraging future research of LLS in different educational contexts.

Keywords: language learning strategies (LLS), English reading

strategies, LLS instruction, secondary school students’ LLS

CHAPTER 1. BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY

1.1. General context and secondary education in Vietnam

Language Learning and Teaching (LLT) has played an important role in a

society's intellectual development and Language Learning Strategies (LLS)

will decide the outcomes of language acquisition. People said that language

learning strategy is a major premise in the inspirational transmission during the

LLT process (English language). It became significant to researchers from the

1970s with the more direct and indirect factors related to learning strategies that

bring about the innovations of LLT, specifically directing our students towards

their own language learning strategies.

This study summarized the definitions and classification of learning

strategies from researchers, simultaneously explored students’ English

language learning strategies at secondary schools that most of those are still at

non-mature age and their consciousness remains ambiguous (e.g. the sixth

graders aged from 11-12). Unsurely, how other secondary schools in District 6

of Ho Chi Minh City have been – It may remain a general problem for some

Secondary Schools (also in District 6) as the following: Students at secondary

schools are so young that they always confuse with their learning styles and

learning ability, even some of them are ill-writing Vietnamese – the mother

language (L1), while others belong to Chinese nationality or the ethnic groups

Cham and Khmer, so the difficulty here is how can they follow a foreign

language – English language (some disable ones granted as priority students

from the Vietnamese government exclusive), the quality of English scoring at

Doan Ket school has been at low level in District 6 and at the lowest in the city.

Though the teachers have tried to adjust students’ English learning, their

learning results are not satisfactory.

Being apprehended from the previous researches together with the

existing conjuncture of this school, and as a practical illustration of the research

“The use of language learning strategies in English Reading at Doan Ket

Secondary School: An investigation”. This study was carried out to recognize

its feasibility and significance in students’ communicative competence

achievement or valued in learners’ foreign language acquisition (FLA). That

somehow innovated teachers’ LLT experiences through the reading strategy

instruction to these secondary school students based on the educational theories

and real situations. The definitions and classification of language learning

strategies, the related factors and the use of these learning strategies in foreign

language learning environments that emphasized the significance of secondary

education through this study – A transition phase between Primary School and

High School levels created a firm knowledge foundation for Tertiary Education

afterwards. The results of the previous studies indicated that the LLS use and

the reading strategy instruction needs starting as soon as possible whilst

Vietnam is at a span lower than other countries about the implementation due

to the waiting time of project testing and approval. Moreover, the complex form

of Vietnam education makes itself difficult to change or modify following an

entire system of each educational level. At present, this study is an

understanding of the existing situation of secondary education in Vietnam.

Hence, more and more LLS research will be acknowledged and applied through

the different levels of the learning environment.

As investigated for the latest research from ten years back, almost all

researches of LLS was implemented over the system of primary schools, high

schools, and tertiary education in the Vietnam country (e.g. years from 2011-

2020). However, Doan Ket Secondary School was the only one among other

schools in District 6 doing this LLS research, thus it may be representative for

the whole system of secondary education in Ho Chi Minh City. The strength of

qualitative and quantitative research tools allowed a reliable result in the DK

students’ LLS usage, then educators/ language teachers can recognize which is

needed to apply and to what extent for a modification or a change. From here,

this study revealed the real result of teaching at primary schools in Vietnam

affected secondary school student’s learning style, right after beginning a new

school year. The application of LLS in secondary education is essential to

promote the development of the teacher staff and students’ potential

competency at secondary schools in both theoretical and practical aspects.

1.2. Rationale for the study

As Rubin (1987, p.22) insisted “Language Learning Strategies are

strategies which contribute to the development of the language system which

the learner constructs and affects learning directly”. Oxford (1990, p.1) also

proved that “learning strategies are tools for active, self-directed involvement,

which enhance students’ learning and develop communicative competence”.

Standing in such a situation (i.e. explained in the Item 1.1. General context and

secondary education in Vietnam including DK Secondary School), the rationale

for this thesis adoption was firstly due to the practical situation of most

secondary schools - facing an out-of-date state, lacking an understanding of

learning strategies, and no strategy training to secondary school students, even

lacking dynamicality and creativity. Secondly, it was the same topic of LLS but

this research was conducted on learning EFL in a secondary school of District

6, Ho Chi Minh City without learning ESL like in high school education or any

educational type in Vietnam. Thirdly, being based on what was found in other

researches, journals, and in the literature review showed that learners should

use as many language learning strategies as possible; nevertheless, learners’

comprehensive ability is very important, their competence and language use

need to be reinforced in accordance with the existing educational context at

secondary schools in Vietnam. In doing so, learners need to acquire reading

skill first then reading strategy as a preparation for communicative competence.

This helps students at secondary schools self-regulate their learning attitude

sooner and intensify the use of Language 2 (L2) through reading – A new

learning method stressing the student-centered approach, not teacher-centered

approach (Graham, Woore, Porter, Courtney & Savory, 2020).

Correspondingly, the rationale of this research to be considered in priority in

English language learning and teaching at secondary schools in Ho Chi Minh

City.

1.3. Aim of the study

This research aimed at identifying the levels of strategy use among the

students at Doan Ket Secondary School, the correlation between the use of

language learning strategies and students’ performance in English reading.

Hence, both teachers and students may discover remarkable cases, secondary

school teachers can adjust the students’ learning environments assisting back

to the students or consulting education in case of any changes.

Furthermore, based on the research results from the 6-grade students at

Doan Ket Secondary School that educators or secondary school teachers may

discover these students’ more or less use of language learning strategies in

English reading to consider fine-tuning the balance use among their language

learning strategies (i.e. increasing or decreasing the frequency of LLS use,

types of LLS, if any LLS combination, etc.) or to make the informed decisions

regarding whether the procedures or proposals encourage students (which LLS

should be used by the students and which LLS should be trained), and instruct

these learners how to employ language learning strategies effectively,

specifically the use of English reading strategies.

1.4. Research questions

Derived from the above perspective, the researcher suggested the two

following research questions to obtain the aim and objectives of the study:

❶ What language learning strategies are most frequently used by

students at Doan Ket Secondary School?

❷ What is the correlation between these students’ use of learning

strategies and their performance in English Reading?

1.5. Background of the study

In the last decades, there were a large number of research journals over

the world that confirmed the roles of Learning Strategies in acquiring a FL/ SL,

specifically English language. Reading was proposed to be extremely important

among other language skills – complementing each other through the scanning

and skimming roles before. Nowadays, the development of language learning

and teaching theories are the issues that are beyond the level of teaching

practice. And teaching English through Instructed Language Learning

Strategies has much applied in the world, but still much limited in Vietnam.

There has been a great deal of considerable contribution from the language

researchers in the world (from the 2000s up to now inclusive) who have made

constant modifications for Language Learning Strategies (LLS). Vietnam has

also attained many worthy researches and journals posted on the pages of

International Reading Association or on others’, and the Vietnamese

researchers in multi-fields including education perspectives have been awarded

the valuable praises (e.g. several research journals from the 2011s to 2020 have

deserved to be posted on the TESOL Encyclopedia of English Language

Teaching, Arab World English Journal, Universal Journal of Educational

Research, International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications,

Indonesian Journal of English Language Teaching, Language Education in

Asia, etc.). Remarkably having applied Oxford’s first book “Language

Learning Strategies” (1990) so far, continuously following the advanced trends

of social language from her and her colleagues (1995, 2003, 2008, 2013, 2014,

2017, 2018, 2020).

Oxford (1990) defined and classified “Language Learning Strategies” as

a recipe of “what every teacher should know” in language teaching through the

use of direct strategies for learners’ performance of four language skills,

combining with the indirect strategies to be the most effective LLS users. As

stated in the aim and objectives, this study was to explore the DK school’s

existing circumstance affecting to DK students’ English learning results

through the effective methods - a recast from other researchers in and out

Vietnam. The reason for choosing Oxford (1990) in this study was that it

assured the requirements of secondary education research (learners can apply

English LLS quickly and easily at secondary schools). Any accomplishment of

LLS definition and classification is marked as a first step of the SLA process.

The basic merits of LLS still stand in the highest position throughout the years,

making a baseline for further research of LLS. A child who speaks a language

other than L1 going to school for the first time, that child has to learn the way

people learn a language other than their mother tongue (Ellis, 1997). When

learners know how to grasp or improve their language knowledge means that

they move to another step of SLA, then LLS will support their learning

directions.

The development of education has created exciting contests to academic

researchers, in which included the studies of LLS. Prominently, Madam

Oxford’s contribution to the LLS research now and then. Some modifications

and innovations were presented in Oxford (2013) emphasizing the self-

regulation model, and in Oxford (2017) on self-regulation in context based on

the former LLS under an experienced and persuasive way to the readers in the

world. However, this study did not enter for a deep research of LLS because

the DK students’ language skills were noticed at the beginning of this research

procedure on LLS in English reading. DK students have faced the difficulties

in English learning, still far from the FLA process. These students need LLS

instruction to have the best one for their language knowledge. Nevertheless,

they need more time to improve and prepare for the newer directions in future.

As Oxford, Lee, Snow, & Scarcella (1994, p.257) specified “the integration of

language skills in an international perspective” and enclosed “the five different

types of instructional designs” (called the five specific instructional models)

reserving these integrating language skills. In addition, many other researchers

have explored and examined some different types from the related factors

affecting learners’ language ability and language competence (e.g. Weinstein,

Husman & Dierking, 2000; Huong, 2015; Mai, 2017; Linh, 2019; Wolsey,

2020, Malang, 2020).

Thanks to the theoretical foundation prefabricated from the domestic and

international materials/ researches, this investigation of secondary school

students’ LLS partly explained their learning outcome during a whole school

year, and helped with making the future plans of next years. On the other hand,

it pointed out the role and strength of comprehensive reading in activating

students’ LLS and of LLS instruction. There still came many other aspects of

learners’ LLS, but this study mainly presented the practical learning situation

of the typical representative – only DK Secondary School students with their

frequency of LLS use. The researcher only analyzed some of the students’ most

frequently used LLS to remind the significance of LLSI to the students, as well

as how they performed their reading ability resulting in their learning reports at

school. This explained why the English reading strategy was chosen in this

study, and answered the reason for just skimming without deeply analyzing all

LLS (6 learning strategies as in Oxford’s model, 1990).

1.6. Thesis overview

The structures of this thesis consisted of five chapters. The initial chapter

described the general contexts of language learning and teaching, of secondary

education in Vietnam, and developed the research questions. Chapter 2

established the argumentative theories which are presented through the review

of the literature on: the language learning strategies (LLS), the significance of

LLS use in English reading at secondary school, and the previous studies about

LLS. The research gap was identified through the findings from the literature

review. Chapter 3 presented the methodology including the research objectives

and research questions, the research procedure of the study, the sites and

participants, and the research methods including data analysis in which was

developed based on the study background and the literature review. Chapter 4

synthesized the research context, results and discussed the findings of the study

in relation to the literature. Chapter 5 provided an overall picture of the research

content - made conclusions, and discussed implications including limitations of

the study and suggestions for future research.

1.7. Chapter summary

This chapter 1 was initiated by the Vietnam general contexts of language

learning and teaching, particularly at secondary education through the changing

trends and the LLS direction or orientation for an SLA/ FLA. The rationale for

the study in this chapter also explained some reasons for a true investigation of

DK 6-graders’ English LLS in District 6, Ho Chi Minh City. The benefits of

investigation stimulated the effectiveness of English language teaching and

learning at secondary education, based on reading comprehension ability and/

or reading competence. The aforementioned aim of this study was to identify

the frequency of LLS use to see the role of reading strategies in English

learning, and the correlation between the LLS employment and DK students’

English reading performance.

This chapter partly mentioned the contribution of in and out researches to

the innovations of language learning and teaching, specifically this study

proved that secondary school teachers have played a big role in both teaching

English language knowledge, consulting and/ or directing English LLS to the

students, properly adjusting the related factors to the students’ process of

language acquisition. The introduction of two research questions rightly

exposed the confronting problem of DK school students – their use of LLS in

English reading. Furthermore, this chapter 1 summed up the background of the

study based on the combination of the qualitative and quantitative research

methods to make the problems of this study explicable and understandable. The

free source of academic references has made several convenient conditions so

that the researcher can find out and decide her own choice of primary material

(Oxford’s, 1990) and secondary materials (Oxford’s and others’) among the

diversified sources of referential research. Thereby, the results of this study

were realized as a significant database of language learning strategies (LLS)

and language learning strategy instruction (LLSI) in order to improve or

readjust the existing educational circumstance in the DK school itself.

CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1. Language learning strategies

To answer the two research questions, the study made a joint lead back to

the nature of language. Noam Chomsky insisted “Language serves essentially

for the expression of thought” (Language and Responsibility, 1977). When

studying human language means approaching what some might call “the human

essence, the distinctive qualities of mind that are, so far as we know, unique to

man” (Language and Mind, 2000). Therefore, appropriate language learning

strategies make learners improve language proficiency as well as increase their

self-confidence (Oxford, 1990). Surely, learners' own language learning

strategies are essential in the process of language learning.

2.1.1. Definitions of learning strategies

As being collected from multisource, Language Learning Strategies (LLS)

is an academic term used to show learners’ language comprehensive processes

and referred to their conscious actions during those process. Language learning

strategies help learners with their effective language learning or usage. Many

linguists over the world have defined language learning strategies in various

ways:

 Rubin (1975, p.43) defined language learning strategies as “the

techniques or devices which a learner may use to acquire

knowledge”.

 Tarone (1981, p.290) defined learning strategies (LS) as “an attempt

to develop linguistic and sociolinguistic competence in the target

language to incorporate these into one's interlanguage competence”.

 O’Malley and Chamot (1990, p.1) illustrated learning strategies “as

special thoughts or behaviors that individuals use to help them

comprehend, learn, or retain new information”.

 Cohen (1998, p.4; cited in Selinker & Susan, 2008, p.439) deﬁned

language learning strategies as “processes which are consciously

selected by learners and which may result in action taken to enhance

the learning or use of a second or foreign language, through their

storage, retention, recall, and application of information about that

language”.

 Chamot (1998, p.2) demonstrated “Learning strategies are the

thoughts that students have and actions that they can take to assist

their comprehension, recall, production, and management of their

language learning”.

 Oxford (1990s, 1999, cited in Selinker & Susan, 2008, p.439) refered

to learning strategies as “Speciﬁc actions, behaviors, steps, or

techniques that students use to improve their own progress in

developing skills in a second or foreign language”.

Hence, learning strategies have been seen as special ways of information

processing that improve comprehension, learning, or retention of the

information and problem solving. Learning strategies are essential because they

enhance students’ learning and help develop their language communicative

competence.

2.1.2. Classification of learning strategies

Many linguists have had classification of learning strategies

homogeneously. The developmental process of learners always needs using

strategies: Learning Strategies and Communication Strategies. Learning

Strategies relating to input (processing, storage, and retrieval), were divided

into three such types as Cognitive, Metacognitive, and Socioaffective

Strategies (Chamot & Küpper, 1989; O’Malley, Chamot, & Küpper, 1989;

O’Malley, Chamot, Stewner-Manzanares, Küpper, & Russo, 1985).

Communication Strategies relating to output (how we express meanings) were

just with Avoidance Strategies and Compensatory Strategies. Strategies were

defined as to facilitate the learning tasks (Chamot 2005, p.112, cited in Brown,

2000). More descriptions of Learning Strategies can be seen in Appendix 1

(Descriptions of Learning Strategies, source: O’Malley's et al., 1985).

However, learning strategies can be grouped in other ways. Figure 2.1. -

Learning strategies by Oxford (1990) showed a classification clearly detailed

with two main classes: Direct Strategies and Indirect Strategies in which each

one included three categories (see Appendix 2 for Diagram of the Strategy

System showing all the Strategies).

Figure 2.1. Diagram of a strategy system: Overview (Oxford, 1990, p.16)

Direct strategies create the target language to learners while indirect

strategies support learners' language learning and use. Direct strategies include

memory, cognitive, and compensation strategies; indirect strategies consist of

metacognitive, affective, and social strategies. In this study, the researcher will

incline to Oxford’s definitions and classification of learning strategies.

Specifically, Oxford’s (1990) classification of learning strategies includes the

followings:

⮚ Memory strategies: “Memory strategies or mnemonics with four

sets of creating mental linkages, applying images and sounds,

reviewing, and employing actions that help learners retain new

information”. (p.38)

⮚ Cognitive strategies: “Cognitive strategies which learners

manipulate or transform the target language that involve practicing,

receiving and sending messages, analyzing and reasoning, and

creating structure for input and output”. (p.43)

⮚ Compensation strategies: “Compensation strategies enable learners

to comprehend or produce knowledge or the target language. They

have two sets of guessing intelligently in receptive skills (listening

and reading), and overcoming limitations in productive skills

(speaking and writing)”. (p.47)

⮚ Metacognitive strategies: “Metacognitive strategies are which

learners can manage their learning, including three sets of centering

our learning, arranging and planning our learning, and evaluating our

learning”. (p.136)

⮚ Affective strategies: “Affective strategies are the strategies relating

to learners' emotions, attitudes, and motivations in language learning.

They include three sets of lowering our anxiety, encouraging

ourselves, and taking our emotional temperature”. (p.140)

⮚ Social strategies: “Social strategies with the three sets are those

involving people and their social communication with three sets of

asking questions, cooperative learning, and empathy and each

included two elements inside”. (p.140)

Oxford’ s (1990) classification of learning strategies is depicted pretty

specific in the Diagram of a strategy system showing two classes, six groups

and 19 sets. To shorten what is included in each type of language learning

strategies in this diagram, please see the sub-items thrusted inside Figure 2.2.

Figure 2.2. Diagram of a strategy system showing two classes, six groups and 19 sets (Oxford, 1990, p.17)

Various language learning strategies lead to the different use among students is

inevitable, provided that teachers can encourage the learners to complete the

specific tasks or any learning situation easily in their language learning

processes. Oxford’s model has an appearance of a regular polygon with the

multangulars and interlacements themselves that seems to have a representation

for its strengths and weaknesses. This model shows the interrelationships

between direct and indirect strategies among the six strategy groups shows that

Direct Strategies and Indirect Strategies always support each other and it is sure

that the conflicts often happens the classification of learning strategies (see

Figure 2.3.).

Figure 2.3. Inter-relationships between direct and indirect strategies among the six strategy groups (Oxford 1990, p.15)

2.1.3. The factors related to learning strategies

Many arguable ideas about factors affecting language learning strategies

worldwide. Rubin (1975) soon stated that “a good language learner is a willing

and accurate guesser”. This person must grasp essential skills through three

variables: aptitude, motivation, and opportunities. Teachers are those who give

appropriate methods promoting the student's incorporative learning strategies

and help recognize their FLA. The general model from Spolsky (1989) about

second language learning was given in details that a language perspective

starting from the social context leads to attitude, and motivation. According to

Mohammad Rahimi (2008), “learners’ language learning strategies are affected

by the level of language proficiency, motivation, learning style and gender

strong effect on learners’ use of different types of strategies”. Salma Binti

Abdul Razak (2014) also stated the influential factors such as Motivation,

Gender, Levels of English proficiency, Age, and Socioeconomic status.

Besides that, a number of factors influence language learning strategies

into cognitive processes like “individual factors, learners’ belief, and affective

factors” (Ellis, 1997). Most remarkably, individual factors include age,

personality, motivation, experiences, cognition, and native language as every

person has one’s own hobby, personality and learning target. Learners need the

elements of autonomy, the experimental learning and centeredness during their

learning process. Learner autonomy is the right of a learner to

be independent and governs itself. It allows learners to do everything for a

production or a success, to initiate, to finish, to solve problems or to practice

language use every time and everywhere they want (Brown, 2000). Learners’

belief, and affective factors mixed among the practical values of their lives

under a variety of criteria. Experimental learning means taking learners'

immediate personal experience as a departure point and its nature of process is

“learning by doing”. Richards & Rodgers (2001) indicated that language

learning aims to achieve meaningful communication and even help reinforce

the second language acquisition (SLA). Learner centeredness links strongly

with communicative language teaching, and a key difference here depends on

information about learners or students, learners must be trained in the learning

strategies and the specialized fields they need for occupations and languages.

Next, teachers' roles in strategy training are the foremost factor that

influences students’ learning consciousness. Teachers are learning facilitators

with new roles and beliefs (Oxford 1990) as a language instruction for primary

schools. Traditionally, teachers should ensure teaching qualifications for the

roles as instructor, facilitator, observer, coordinator, etc. (Brown, 2001).

Moreover, new roles for teachers are not on any authority more, but on the

quality (i.e. providing more opportunities for student's practice) and good

relationship with learners. Planning, assessing, and teaching, planning lessons,

class observation, motivation for students, and classroom management are

considerable ones in “shaping good teaching practice” (Crookes, 2003). Thus,

teachers’ roles somehow indirectly affect a student's language learning

strategies - promoting student's good insights.

Finally, many other factors like problem orientation, action basis,

involvement beyond just cognition, direct and indirect support learning, degree

of observability, level of consciousness, teachability, flexibility, and influences

on strategy choice are important ones of language learning strategies (Oxford,

1990). Though there is a close relationship between one's language learning

style and preferred language learning strategies, LLS are different from

learning styles in which refer to a learner's “natural, habitual, and preferred

way(s) of absorbing, processing, and retaining new information and skills”

(Reid 1995, p.89). The bilingual children want to be good at reading strategies,

they must stand steady for orthographic and cognitive factors to develop the

basic reading skills of first language (L1) and second language (L2) because

reading is a complex skill. There is “a correlation between the basic reading

skills in L1 and L2, and children’s performance is under the cognitive factor”

– the working memory in different languages means the word-based reading

processes vary the orthographic regularity (Gholamain & Geva, 1999).

2.2. Significance of English reading strategy use at secondary schools

2.2.1. Relevance of reading selection in English learning

In consideration with language skills, reading is one of the two language

receptive skills, especially to the core force of Secondary Education. Koda

(2005) has analyzed fluent reading accomplished largely by word recognition,

a large vocabulary, knowledge of text structure and discourse organization. L1

reading processes influence on L2 reading development.

As Pressley & Afflerbach (1995) have shown, good readers engage in a

number of strategic activities at every stage (before, during, and after reading),

and then they may facilitate comprehension most. Reading the texts is also a

challenge in making a completely comprehensive meaning.

Traditionally, reading skill is recognized under such forms as previewing,

skimming, scanning, selective reading, and activating prior knowledge. Now,

reading becomes more diversified with intensive reading, extensive reading and

readers can skip over any strange or difficult words but still master the text’s

meaning.

Thus, lower secondary school students should be intensified reading skills

first. Teachers will train students LLS via in-class reading activities with the

designed multiple tasks. Relevance of reading skill selection in English

language learning here is that the two-purpose accomplishment: focusing

readers’ attention on the texts or reading process, and making students’

interactions with the text or easy assessing their performance.

In both theory and practice, Chyl, Kossowski, Wang, Dębska, Łuniewska,

Marchewka, Wypych, Bunt, Mencl, Pugh & Jednoróg (2021) emphasized that

reading in two contrasting languages (or more) makes the skilled readers’ brain

converge the print and speech activities. The correlation and intersection inside

learners’ brains are associated with visual word recognition for reading

strategies between L1 and L2 dissimilarly. This variation is just like the

transparency from grapheme to phoneme at the beginning of reading

acquisition. The earlier completed reading comprehension by children, the

quicker literacy readers, and the better writing skill they have. In this way, the

selection of reading skill in English learning is completely relevant to

secondary school students. These young students should read English as much

as possible in order to attain language skills or language areas soon.

2.2.2. Reading strategy instructions in secondary schools

Reading strategy instructions play a vital role in secondary schools. As

Williams (1981) assumed the seven factors in relation to students’ performance

in reading English as a second language: language environment, resources for

reading, attitude towards reading English, exposure to the mass media

(English), type of school, sex differences, and age. His assessments were based

on testing comprehension, vocabulary knowledge, and rate of reading for the

pupil participants and the scores from teachers, and head teachers. The result

said that it depended on the type of school and reading resources to determine

which factors influenced most on the best scores on the reading tests. His study

indicated that language environment correlated with learners’ English reading

performance while other variables including learning attitude, mass media, and

age affected on learners’ reading scoring, and sex was the least important.

Hence, these young learners need to know how to use reading strategies

matching with their reading intention in learning English at secondary schools.

Language reading comprehension as well as reading ability is a main tool

in the transitional process into planning reading strategies for FLA while a

series of other factors influence the reading ability of a learner years by.

“Reader's capability of meaning guessing and expression” will help evaluate

the text well, without impeding understanding (Pressley & Afflerbach, 1995).

Learner’s background knowledge is a major one in determining how

comprehensive a reader will be after a text (Koda, 2005). The overall average

correlation of L2 reading comprehension and language distance were

moderators for reading components out of the other investigated reading

component variables. Lopera Medina (2012) insisted the effect of students’

reading comprehension and reading strategy instruction helped them be more

self-confident, then enhanced their learning motivation. He reminded the

typology of reading strategies directing readers with the strategies they

concern. For instance, each strategy attached to readers’ intention such as

having a purpose, previewing, skimming, scanning, predicting, inferring,

cohesive devices, guessing word meaning, or background knowledge. All those

things express reading strategy instructions that enrich students’ knowledge

and language ability quickly.

Students should learn the way to plan a language reading strategy.

Language reading strategies often consist of multiple cognitive processes such

as decoding, vocabulary knowledge, syntactic processing, and metacognition

measured through reading subskills. The purpose of reading strategy is to

interact with others in languages, collect information components for maximum

reading comprehension (Jeon & Yamashita, 2014). Readers who are affected

by their strategy employment (cognitive strategies and planning strategies)

prefer to plan their own reading to facilitate their reading process or to improve

their reading skills for the extensive reading. During reading, learners can

paraphrase ideas by talking or writing, infer context meaning, and argue various

topics by their own words (Journal of Applied Learning & Teaching, Vol. 2,

No.1, 2019). This represents a successful reading strategy instruction offering

students self-confidence and activeness in learning English in secondary

schools.

Every researcher has one’s arguments, and this study focused on

secondary school students’ LLS use and instruction, typically the reading

strategies were first employed to stimulate the use of other language skill

strategies and to motivate student’s language ability. Hence, the easiest starting

point is reading strategy instruction which focuses on much reading for

comprehension. Canale & Swain (1980) affirmed that “good readers also need

the support from other language skills and language areas” to identify four

dimensions of communicative competence: grammatical competence,

sociolinguistic competence, discourse competence, and strategic competence

when Oxford (1990) also claimed the main purpose of LLS use was on

communicative competence. However, it is difficult for DK Secondary School

students to have a competence of those by themselves if they do not receive

any LLS instruction or do not know a way to manage LLS. In relation to reading

strategies, secondary school readers employ them to match with their reading

objectives, the more they read English, the better the foreign language

knowledge they grasp. Evidently, English reading strategy instructions are

extremely necessary to the DK Secondary School students being with

unmatured thoughts. Oxford (2020) even suggested using reading strategies

through the comprehensive reading as a framework in “language teaching and

learning pathway” (see Figure 2.4) that may create the premises to their

autonomous learning in future. Secondary school students should be instructed

in English reading strategies to catch up with the social trends.

Figure 2.4. Oxford Reading for Comprehension (Oxford, 2020)

2.3. Previous studies about language learning strategies

This study aimed to recognize the significance of LLS use in students’

English competence achievement or FLA, somehow motivating LLS to use the

reading strategies more frequently among secondary school students to achieve

that aim. The study was based on collecting the educational theories from

previous studies and the real situation of DK school to justify the two research

questions.

The research of LLS use may be acknowledged and applied in different

levels according to the learning environments (i.e. school types, levels of

secondary school, school discipline, etc.). This investigation collected the

theories on LLS from the latest studies at various levels of education in the

world (e.g. primary schools, high schools, colleges, and tertiary education). The

practice showed the strength of LLS use, first and foremost reading strategies

through reading skills in LLT has never changed. This research followed

secondary school students’ cognitivist paradigm through the mental activities

determining the processes of English communicative competence. The research

analysis was started with the identification of secondary school students’

memory strategies, passing that way to their cognitive strategies, and coming

to metacognitive strategies. This thing was posed by the previous studies about

the reading strategies as well as learners’ attainment of language reading

comprehension through reading skills, some studies about ELT or LLT at other

levels of education. Besides that, the roles of language teachers in LLS and

reading strategy instructions have always been considered in educational

environments.

The diversification of LLS from Oxford (1990) and her associates have

been the most salient series among researchers creating the multi-controversial

waves of LLS. That also made changes of the viewpoint on LLS of learners

over the world; therefore, this study currently focused on her directions of LLS

(1990) as a primary material updating some new adaptations at present when

other researches were condensed as a secondary material referring for LLS

implications and suggestions in the existing education. The previous studies

have offered teachers, teacher educators, and researchers the former, current

and newest perspectives of LLS insights as the abundant samples available for

the successful application in Vietnam secondary education next stage.

2.3.1. The highlights from the previous international studies

Reading strategies have been much mentioned in previous studies because

of their great effectiveness in LLT, and ELT in this case. Cziko (1980)

compared language competence and reading strategies, a comparison of the

oral reading error between the first- and second- languages. The study

employed the variables of INT. group with seventh graders, who speak English

with intermediate and advanced levels in French in comparison to native

French students to check errors and to serve as indicators in contextual

language reading. There are several theories explaining how readers can infer

meaning from written language context; therefore, he proposed that it has been

classified into three following main groups: “bottom-up, top-down, and

interactive views of reading” (p.101). His explanation is rather clear about the

views of reading a language that can be temporarily summarized as below: A

bottom-up view is a way of deriving meaning through one process of one-way

information collection from the visual by another processing stage (e.g.

Bloomfield, 1942). A top-down view is another way of generating meaning

from the information of context through the cognitive process (e.g. a

constructive process of Ryan & Semmel, 1969). Interactive views that meaning

is taken by readers through the integrated use between the visual and contextual

information (i.e. the detailed reading models in Massaro 1975, Rumelhart

1976). Cziko indicated that the interactive strategy in reading was much

employed by native speakers at an advanced level and so did native French

speakers, in vice versa, less competent readers trend on bottom-up view and

make higher rates of errors. Generally, the use of LLS in English reading

comprehension was an effective one. Paris, Lipson, & Wixson (1983) denoted

reading strategies as “skills under consideration” because of a specific reading

situation. For any language, the reader’s competence level may be affected by

one’s language reading strategies. Attitudes and motivation are the main factors

to individual learners (Gardner, 1985). The higher motivation of the language

learners, the more variety of using language learning strategies (Oxford &

Nyikos, 1989). Learners are right-oriented and well-trained with appropriate

strategies will facilitate the learning (Chamot, 1987); help learners to

comprehend (O’Malley & Chamot, 1990); and make learner's learning easier,

faster, and more transferable (Oxford, 1990). O’Malley & Chamot (1990)

concluded that a language learner will succeed only if they can recognize their

own learning strategies. Therefore, the strategy instruction as a reciprocal

combination between teachers and students is the most effective way to both

good learning strategies and the successful learning and teaching. Prabhu

(1987, cited in Richard & Rodgers 2001) claimed that “this creates contexts in

which the learner's language learning ability is nurtured rather than making

systematics to teach language or Constructivism” (John Dewey 1913, cited in

Nunan 2004) involved in constructing learners' own knowledge through

experience and problem solving. Obviously, reading comprehension is a

psychological process that occurs in an invisible way. Kintsch (1998, p.4)

described comprehension occurring “when and if the elements that enter into

the process achieve a stable state” means the majority of related elements are

meaningful and defined that “comprehension” refers to both a set of empirical

phenomena and a theoretical construct” (p.209).

As mentioned the language teachers’ roles in LLT, remarkably English

language apprehension via reading strategies, Richards & Rodgers (2001)

claimed that teachers have helped facilitate learners’ learning process with

multiple activities and this influenced planning, implementing, and evaluating

English Language Teaching (ELT) in which learners must be competent in

speaking a FL/ SL. However, learners must have been good readers for

important information and reflection contents before being good English

speakers. And in so doing, the LLS use like reading strategies were quite

considerable, Koda (2005) emphasized reading strategies and claimed that

good learners must be accomplished with fluent reading by word recognition,

large vocabulary, knowledge of structure and discourse automatically.

Afflerbach, Pearson & Paris (2008) reminded that a century of research ago,

reading was defined as a reference to such specific skills as Bible reading,

understanding of directions/ questions about the texts. Now reading is

considered as a complex undertaking and an impressive achievement, and

Afflerbach et al. (2008) helped clarify the differences between reading skills

and reading strategies. Grabe (2009, p. 221) also reaffirmed, “Strategies are

cognitive processes that are open to conscious reflection but that may be on

their way to becoming skills”. Nolan Weil (2008) indicated the relationship

between learner's vocabulary, English background experiences, and their

academic reading skills. The more firmly the learner's foundation of first and

second language reading, the higher the learner's English reading abilities and

less on compensation strategies. The same journal by Ya-Ling Wu (2008)

mentioned the effect of language learning strategy use and which language

learning strategy made the proficient receptive skills. Higher proficiency EFL

students often use cognitive, metacognitive and social strategies. The use of

cognitive strategy strongly affects the listening and reading skills but the

memory strategies usage is not different among various students. Thereby, it is

found that most secondary school students have often used compensation

strategies though cognitive strategies have had stronger influences. The

enhancement of using LLS in reading English will create good conditions for

learner's reading and vocabulary examinations, in which included reading tests

with grammar, vocabulary and writing skills.

Some researchers have inclined to the success of learners on the use of

metacognitive strategies (Oxford, 1993; Wolsey, 2020). Many others have been

on how proficiency levels influence language learning strategies (Politzer,

1983; Oxford and Nyikos, 1989; Ehrman and Oxford, 1989; Oxford, 1993;

O’Malley et al., 1985; Chamot, O’Malley, Küpper and Impink-Hernandez,

1987). Ehrman & Oxford (1989) studied the effects of sex differences, career

choice, and psychological type on adult language learning strategies to see the

relationships between those characteristics of learners themselves and their

language learning performance, typifying good language students (e.g. the use

of four types of learning strategies: sex differences, career choice cognitive

style, and aspects of personality). Thereby, the two versions of Oxford's

Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) were taken in the two

contexts: one for English speakers who learn a new language and another for

the speakers of other languages learning English. They proposed that cognitive

styles were about the conceptualization of the world while the personality traits

were characterized by one’s learning environment, and LLS can be modified

via training. However, most researchers have emphasized the essential role of

language learning strategies. The study result showed that high proficient

learners frequently used compensation strategies but low proficient learners

used metacognitive strategies, followed by memory strategies and affective

strategies. Surely, most of the overseas research now and then has been

acknowledged all over the world and has brought big values to the educational

foundation of human beings from the forward directions. Therefore, each study

contributed to the most modern and effective teaching method of a language or

a field of major, leading the similar or opposite ideas to be unavoidable. Starting

from the earlier studies of the decade 1970s to now, it seems without changing

the unique role of “Reading Comprehension” – a baseline of other patterns or

elements. Besides the individual attitudes and motivation, the success in

language learning (bilingual or trilingual) of a person has been always nurtured

by that person’s comprehensive reading ability, LLS, and LLS instruction that

later on being represented via the salient study in LLS from Oxford (1990),

Oxford et al. and the others afterward. The researchers could recognize the

importance of LLS through the learner’s reading strategies or ability in which

one’s reading performance involved both mental and physical actions, as well

as that one’s use of LLS.

Language reading comprehension is a first success of a child. Berg, Paige,

& Lou (2012) identified the importance of fluent, expressive reading and

referred reading fluency as a successful element in learners’ literacy, especially

for elementary school students. There were two components of fluency: the

automaticity of word recognition and expressive oral reading that related to the

secondary school students’ overall reading proficiency. He detected the

relationship between “prosody and silent reading comprehension” in which the

majority of secondary school students did not reach at. Like this, reading is a

process for struggling readers: from initial reading (disfluent reading) to “deep”

reading (by repeated reading), later forming language fluency and reading

comprehension. Akkakoson (2013) investigated the relationship between L2-

based strategic reading instruction and Thai students’ English reading

achievement. There is a reciprocal relationship inside, if the reading strategies

to students are instructed, the student’s L2 or English learning process becomes

better. However, this FL reading context is researched in Thailand via the

experimental approach employing a pre-test/ post-test design in their daily

classrooms with diversified reading programs, and the students at low level of

reading competence were provided reading strategy instruction. An English

reading course took about 16 weeks under the two different approaches: one

uses a teacher-centered method (control group) and another uses a portfolio

(experimental group). As a result, the experimental group achieved effective

reading strategy use better than the rest of Thai university students. From here,

we can see the strength of learning strategies during the learner’s text reading

outside the classroom. This showed that the more effective language reading

strategies, the higher reading proficiency of students. However, Akkakoson

retained two limitations in its implications needed discussing: the use of

standardized tests for English reading comprehension measures, the use of

portfolios for student’s reading investigation.

Anyways, how students perform their reading comprehension ability will

describe how effective they use the strategies. According to Lai, Wilson,

McNaughton & Hsiao (2014), the Literacy Project has an impact on reading

comprehension and secondary school qualification. The quasi-experimental

design was employed in the study of that literacy project (e.g. a design-based

approach and classroom observations) which was implemented in seven

schools with low secondary school qualification rates. On the basis of teacher

and student surveys, the study stated that teachers themselves implement

suitable reading tests to their students, in which before that the literacy

intervention and literacy components through the reading strategies helped

improve secondary school students’ achievement, despite the implemented

selection being on the secondary schools with low qualification rates. Besides

the Literacy Project, the study also insisted the value of the Learning Schools

Model (LSM), the literacy skills may be attained by this support. Secondary

school students used comprehension strategies for vocabulary acquisition.

Instruction outside the classroom was a bit different from Primary school

because whenever students wanted to read a basic material (from simple to

complex texts), they just accessed an LSM available on the Internet. Generally,

the intervention of literacy across secondary schools has a concurrent

attainment in students’ reading contexts thanks to LSM. Therefore, teachers

need to design instruction on LSM effectively, collect and analyze the database

timely to easily make changes in reading teaching practice. Loh & Hu (2018)

explained STELLAR® as a contraction of “Strategies for English Language

Learning and Reading”, a national literacy program which was implemented

by the Ministry of Education in Singapore (MOE) in 2010 across primary

schools starting with Primary 1-students made premises for student’s secondary

school eligibility. STELLAR® uses random sampling in about ten primary

schools for 5 years, and there are two dimensions for the STELLAR®: The

designed program reflects materials and its teaching strategies, the

implementation was supported properly and timely. Dimension 1 had the aim

of intensifying student’s speaking ability and literacy skills, then promoting

their positive learning attitude (STELLAR, 2008). The harmonious

combination of reading and writing as an integrated skill in language learning

brings the strengths in primary education. For example, they used strategies

such as Shared reading (Holdaway, 1982); The language experience approach,

sustained silent reading; Supported reading; K‐W‐L (Know-Want to know-

Learned; Ogle, 1986). The used teaching strategies here are student‐centered in

which have a mutual interaction between teacher and students during the

teaching and learning time, otherwise aim to encourage students’ learning as

well as to strengthen their oral ability (MOE, 2012). Dimension 2 was being

started with the English curriculum of the nation and met its requirements,

language teachers were given development chances, schools can be in charge

of nominating two STELLAR® teacher mentors or STMs (e.g. for lower and

upper primary levels). Finally, STELLAR® offered the three future directions

for the educational implementation of students’ language skills after finishing

a primary level of 6 schooling years through the national Primary School

Leaving Examination (PSLE). These future directions include Critical

Components, Principled Adaptation, and Empowering Internal Change Agents.

Hereby, Vietnam may learn the same way to apply in elementary education as

a preparation to secondary education. None better than teachers, who should

know the program components, make changes for any material or curriculum,

coach and mentor other teachers for teaching professional development. The

ultimate goal is to stipulate student’s speaking and reading for the next upper

level of curriculum.

Reading strategy use and the application of reading programs in secondary

schools make language benefits in these students’ proficient achievement. Baye

(2018) had synthesized a quantitative research which highlighted “the

effectiveness of secondary school students’ reading programs, especially

programs for struggling readers” in the USA and UK. To do this experimental

research, the authors used random assignment (n = 62) or high-quality quasi-

experiments (n = 7) to evaluate outcomes of measuring reading programs. To

increase the positive outcomes, these reading programs were categorized into

group tutoring (from small to large), cooperative learning, whole-school

approaches (e.g. reforming teacher teams, and focusing on writing procedures).

The individuals’ learning effort created more positive impacts (e.g. the social

studies/science programs, structured strategies, and group/personalization

rotation for readers’ exciting struggles). Reading programs with an extra

resource and using technology somehow decides a student’s reading effect.

Nevertheless, the benefits from those programs are just a bit more effective than

the ones without resources, but secondary school student readers absorb mostly

from social and cognitive engagements more than from the additional reading.

In the U.S. educators concern students' reading performance in both middle and

high schools. As a result, they have found organizations specializing in

educational care. The National Center for Education Statistics (2016) itself

reported that secondary school students’ reading performance was not high. It

only took the proficient or above proficient rates for the eighth graders scored

at National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) with 34% and for the

12th grade level with 37% in 2015. Therefore, the problem here is that a strong

focus on reading strategies, via the multi-forms in different manifestations (e.g.

the insertional technology with pictures/visuals, cooperative learning, other

social engagements, etc.) to speed up students’ literacy proficiency and support

to other language skills or language areas, and Vietnam education may follow

their successful strategies.

The LLS application in reading comprehension has been at different levels

depending on the conditional areas or countries, but similar to a focus on

cognitive and metacognitive awareness in language apprehension. According

to Gunning & Oxford (2014), children’s LLS use and the effects of strategy

instruction brought success on oral interaction tasks among the sixth graders.

Despite the goal of detecting children’s oral interaction of competency

development, the theories of metacognition value the strategy instruction to

children and their language learning in any other skills. The research by Ter

Beek, Brummer, Donker, Anouk, & Marie-Christine Opdenakker (2018) has

provided learners with cognitive and metacognitive aspects through their

comprehensive reading from computer environments. This research used a mix

of quantitative and qualitative approaches to emphasize the digital

interventions (modern method) and the importance of applying these

mechanisms in teaching as well. Most studies concentrated on learning

products or a combination of learning processes because only when being

cognitive and metacognitive prefabrication with assistance from computers. All

have brought a positive effect on comprehensive reading output and created

learning motivation to students. There is a comparison between primary

education and secondary education. It is signified that the most important thing

to language learners is the regulatory learning skill for secondary education, in

which their self-learning and autonomous learning started taking shape at this

stage. While Parson (2015) before insisted that “teachers at primary level will

be the ones who regulate, direct and guide the student’s learning” because

mostly students at this age cannot be aware of their own learning. Therefore,

the journal concluded that secondary school students are much more authority

than primary school students. Researcher Irena Kuzborska (2018) noted his

research about Interactive Reading Strategies in which the outstanding factor

was metacognitive awareness as every reader’s ultimate aim. Metacognitive

awareness was defined as an involvement of cognitive knowledge and its

regulation and through this, readers’ cognitive knowledge could help them

meet the various situations in reading. Beyond that research, Oxford & Gkonou

(2018) also identified “culture, language, and learning strategies drawn

together to form a grand tapestry”. Consciously, learners with regulated

thoughts can benefit from their strategy employment, developing their specific

skills and general proficiency because whenever a learner is learning culture

and language means including one’s learning strategies. A recent research by

Wolsey (2020) assumed that “learners’ self‐assessment in reading helps

establish the suitable learning criteria themselves or adapt to the established

ones, then control over their learning better through metacognitive awareness

(e.g. the particular skills, learning strategies, or used language, multiple

learning tasks, etc.). As a natural force for the secondary education system and

as an advanced trend in language learning, these secondary school students

need directing and speeding up their learning cognition to become good

strategic readers.

The previous international studies have strongly considered both lower

and upper secondary education soon. Dubé, Bessette, Ouellet, Dufour, Paviel,

Bruchesi, Cloutier & Landry (2019) showed that teaching practices have

promoted the development of students’ reading skills in secondary schools.

This research used both quantitative and qualitative approaches with the main

purpose of assisting curriculum/ material designers, authoritative leaders,

pedagogical advisors/ teachers in making decisions for the results of teaching

practice adoption or adaptation. Literacy skills development has made changes

in secondary school students. Their study displayed the importance of the two

skills Reading and Writing. Dubé et al. claimed that a person who are good at

reading will intensify one’s writing styles and skill, and it synthesized the such

four objectives in the study as: (1) Establishing core knowledge to students for

the development of writing and reading texts; (2) Describing the teaching

practice contexts related to education (for example, school types); (3)

Analyzing the results or effects of literacy skills on students’ progress and

success; (4) Identifying what practices need transferring and what conditions

in the present context correspond to the respective education program. The

three steps in a sequence of teaching writing strategies as before reading (self-

questioning about text themes), during reading (analysis of text types/

structure), and after reading (summarizing) were mentioned to make reading

skill become the decisive factor in a student's learning process (Fagella-Luby

et al., 2007, also cited in this Chapter 5 of Dubé et al., 2019). Obviously,

reading is the initial considerable element in training programs or special

education, and particularly language classes in secondary schools. For this

reason, the need of teaching reading comprehension courses in all subjects at

secondary education is also increasing. All is synthesized to raise the

metacognition in each student individually, and students can be aware of their

thoughts in the learning process and easily comprehend the reading contents

they have done. That research compared the reading outcomes between the

middle grades (6-8) and the high school ones (9-12) to see that writing makes

positive effects on language reading contrary to several good reading programs

intensifying writing ability. Most programs of the middle grades have

concentrated on practices from teachers in regular classrooms, but reading

comprehension requires students to employ the multiple strategies flexibly.

People attach special importance to the high school performance rather than the

middle grades, then a course of both writing and reading is prepared for helping

12th graders with basic knowledge for the entrance tests in college. In short,

after this comparison, educators found ways to redesign the suitable programs

minimizing bias and maximizing a student’s replicability. Nazurty, Rustam,

Priyanto, Nurullaningsih, Anggia Pratiwi, Sarmandan, Akhmad Habibi, Amirul

Mukminin (2019) analyzed the English reading strategies, the types and

frequencies of these English reading strategies used by Indonesian language

education student teachers. The cognitive strategies were assessed through pre-

reading, while-reading, and post-reading. Gender partly influenced learners’

reading strategies category (female students used cognitive strategies, male

students used metacognitive strategies). Language student teachers in

Indonesia have adapted the previous studies strategies of English reading used

by Indonesian for struggling readers (OECD, 2015).

Reading is a foundation of other skills when reading strategies are an

initial of other LLS in language fluency and competency. Berdanier & Lenart

(2020) proposed the use of reading strategies and remembering from literature.

Reading literature is an efficient method and skimming literature is the valuable

one that readers should determine if literature is skimmed or read. Readers can

take advantage of retaining important textual information or at least predictable

relative terms in the literature contexts. Therefore, if there is no literacy

intervention in secondary school students’ learning programs, students cannot

afford to follow their other language skills during the language learning

process. Truly, the teaching quality likely varied within and across secondary

schools (Grossman, Loeb, Cohen, Hammerness, Wyckoff, Boyd & Lankford,

2010); thus, students’ learning attitudes and their engagement with them may

not be high. Silawi, Shalhoub-Awwad, Prior & Safra (2020) studied the

abilities of trilingual (Arabic, Hebrew, and English) in reading comprehension,

which related to reading comprehension across first, second, and third

languages. Comprehension monitoring was shared across two ways: the

languages of trilingual adults (domain-general) or language proficiency linkage

(language-specific). As a result, English was weaker than the other two because

of low proficient language and the underlying skills. In academic settings,

individuals applied a domain-general skill (i.e. linguistic and nonlinguistic

domains) in a similar manner. Comprehension monitoring might follow the

different proficiencies across languages (i.e. the less use of language, the lower

proficiency), so metacognitive monitoring in reading comprehension should be

bolstered by intervention programs for promoting not only in the L1, but in the

other languages used by multilinguals (i.e. calibration and its self-regulation

skills in learning). The cognitive and non‐cognitive factors have related to

adult‐age literacy skills afterwards or to the cause of low education and

unemployment in society (e.g. reading disability). It means the educational and

occupational outcomes are affected by childhood RD (c‐RD) (Kortteinen,

Eklund, Eloranta & Aro, 2020) when learning outcomes are based on learners’

language skills and LLS, specially reading strategies on the way to language

fluency and competency.

Various researchers have studied factors such as awareness, gender,

aptitude, personality, affection, learning style and even language teaching

methods influencing the choice of language learning strategies (Oxford and

Nyikos, 1989; Ehrman and Oxford, 1989). As stated at the focus of this study,

many language researchers in the world (from the 2000s up to now) have

implemented the research domain on “Language Learning Strategies” in which

the foremost one (correctly admitted and reused from there on) was from

Oxford’s (1990), later Oxford’s (2013) as well as Oxford and her associates

(1995, 2003, 2008, 2014, 2017, 2018, 2020) and from some others. So far, there

have been three general features of these international studies: (1) The

innovative trends of sociolinguistics are forcing the alterability among

language researches but still keeping the nature of “Language reading

comprehension” without an obsoleting indication; (2) These studies may be

chosen to represent the researcher’s critical thinking of this study and stepped

in the common interests: “LLS use and instruction, especially Reading

Strategies”; (3) Oxford (1990) defined and classified “Six Language Learning

Strategies” but the users felt likely to center on learners’ cognitive and

metacognitive strategies most. And hence, the differences from the application

scope in the diverse dimensions among researchers are inevitable, that Oxford

(2013) raised the three dominances of LLS are cognitive, affective, and

sociocultural-interactive dimensions as the newest update later on. Weinstein,

Husman & Dierking (2000) proposed that students must attend to both the

learning skills and the learning motivation to attain self-regulation during their

process because the skills and learner’s will be the two decisive elements.

Weinstein et al. (2000) also included the three main aspects of self-regulated

learning including cognitive, metacognitive and motivation and explained the

definitions of them. Cognition is as an implication of learning strategies on

learners’ own process. Metacognition means that learners can regulate their

learning processes through the use of learning strategies to take their progress.

Motivation refers to a learner’s will to learn anything inside or outside the world

view (e.g. learn from texts). Depending upon vocabulary, grammar and content

knowledge, students can perform their language learning ability. Moreover,

students can assess their language understanding and use by self-checking the

available questions online under the digital aids (computer’s assistance). In

consequence, the mixed approach of quantitative and qualitative methods in

this journal indicated an effective classroom originating in stipulating students’

learning interest, together with employing computer environments to foster

their language skills. This itself affirmed the importance of technology

development and its application in any educational environment.

Some practical studies showed the related factors as a new trend in

language acquisition beside the concerns of LLS. Suwanarak (2019) employed

a mixed-methods research methodology and explored a repertoire of learning

strategies of Thai EFL students for their English learning achievement. It

highlighted the effects of strategy instruction on the students’ LLS awareness.

The correlation was identified via the learning strategy use and the English

learning achievement, different frequency of strategy usage with high and low

achievers of English language learning. Finally, some implications for the

pedagogical perspectives of EFL Thai teachers and students were chosen

suitably. From this perspective, it is found that Asian countries seem to have

similar problems in education and reading strategies may be the first of all skills

to be reinforced by students and teachers. Pellicer-Sánchez, Conklin &

Vilkaite-Lozdien (2020) examined the effect of pre-reading vocabulary

instruction on learners’ attention and vocabulary learning. They assessed

participants through the four conditions of pre-reading instruction, reading-

only, reading-baseline, and instruction-only. Learners’ attention was measured

by Eye-tracking amount on the vocabulary during reading. It resulted in pre-

reading instruction and text reading took learners’ learning progressive and

their vocabulary increased, over reading-only and instruction-only. The

targeted vocabulary was from form recognition, meaning recall, and meaning

recognition while cumulative reading was a predictor of scoring meaning

recognition, then pre-reading instruction facilitates word-to-text integration.

Wolsey’s recent research (2020) assumed that learners’ self‐assessment in

reading helps establish the suitable learning criteria themselves or adapt to the

established ones, control over their learning better through metacognitive

awareness (e.g. the particular skills, learning strategies, or used language,

multiple learning tasks, etc.). Malang (2020) identified the problems relevant

to LLS such as vocational college learners’ language learning strategy use, its

relationships with English proficiency and the instruction of self-directed

learning to improve learners’ language proficiency.

From the practice of previous studies, this study considers forming two

explicit tendencies of language learning strategies according to those studies:

(1) More use of LLS helps students with better reading performance; (2) Less

use of LLS makes students worse or no difference in reading performance. Each

one has their own strengths and weaknesses which are going to have further

discussion later in the final thesis of this chapter. Here, some given general

evidence towards these tendencies is not completely full, just as brief

explanations before entering a deeper research, and the more ideas will be

supplemented. Children should approach language reading soon as a first step

in the process of cognitive awareness. Cowan & Sarmad (1976) indicated that

Language reading performance of bilingual children differs under the types of

school and home language. This research used a quantitative approach to

examine the performance of bilingual children in reading Persian and English

at grades one, three and six through Means and Variance in multiple

comparisons among English reading comprehension and vocabulary, AN0VA

for bilingual schools (English reading). Their first objective here was to

investigate to what extent the bilingual children could learn to read English and

Persian languages under the different writing systems. Simultaneously, the next

objective determined to which extent the program types would contribute to the

bilingual children’s bilingual reading competence, and compare with the

monolingual children’s interaction at home language. Their competence

development in reading both languages makes dissimilarity between language

systems, thus it needed developing a separate reading strategy for each

language. Children can perform how much they understand about linguistics

they are using from the bilingual programs at the beginning time at school.

Moreover, the first home language is the main factor of developing children’s

reading ability that decides whether a child will use which language best (e.g.

English, Persian or any language). People discovered that children at grades

one and three (at primary schools) may be the initial step for the next level –

grade six (at secondary schools). Moreover, the language choice and

development of students also depend on the nature of designed bilingual

programs in the school system (this school emphasizes on English or another

language). One more time, it affirmed that types of school and home language

environment affected bilingual children’s reading performance. Hype (1972,

cited in Richards & Rodgers, 2001) and Oxford’s studies also demonstrated

learners’ communicative competence as the goal of LLT, therefore learners

must retain new information and skills (at least reading skill according to their

core vocabulary) and as a support to other language skills a student with

communicative competence must have knowledge and the ability for language

use. Oxford (1990) indicated the essential characteristics of language learning

strategies that contribute to both theories and practice. For example, a

contribution to the main goal of language learning: communicative

competence, self-directed, problem- oriented, etc. Selinker & Susan (2008,

p.440) stated that “learning strategies clearly involve internal mental actions,

but they may also involve physical actions as well”, “strategic learning involves

an overall goal - being proﬁcient in a SL/ FL”. However, the majority of former

researchers emphasized on LLS, mostly reading strategies represented in

reading outcome, the latter ones gradually based on learners’ language reading

ability to instruct LLS and help promote their language competence sooner.

Now, reading also develops its own strategies as a part of attaining a SL/ FL,

so reading strategy instruction is indispensable to an overall LLS though there

remain the limits in the implications such as using standardized tests for English

reading comprehension measure, or portfolios for students’ reading

investigation. People examined and insisted that among the LLS, the cognitive

and metacognitive strategies had the highest appreciation in the various

educational systems (primarily from Europe to Asia, e.g. USA, UK, France,

Indonesia, Thai, etc.). The reading programs have much support for learners’

STELLAR. Clearly, the two tendencies of language learning strategies of

secondary school students under these studies have explicitly presented the

strength of LLS use (mostly reading strategies), LLS choice and the application

modality in respective contexts. In common with the innovativeness, reading

strategies are as pioneers interacting with other LLS to make firm

interlacements during a person’s language learning process. Oxford (2013)

revised LLS and the LLS use on the specific language skills or language areas

that helped learners apply “the strategic self-regulation model”. Oxford (2017)

continued stating that self-regulation, agency, and related factors were

considered as the “soul of learning strategies” for language proficiency in the

twenty-first century, enhancing “self-regulation in context”. Therefore,

Oxford (2020) specifically suggested using reading strategies through the

comprehensive reading in LLT, posing the significance of LLS use and creating

the premises to students’ autonomous learning in future. As an inadequate

comparison, some following domestic studies can show how LLS or reading

strategies were used and applied in the educational contexts in Vietnam.

2.3.2. Some domestic studies (in Vietnam)

As Creswell (2012, p.376) defined, “Survey research designs are

procedures in quantitative research in which investigators administer a survey

to a sample or to the entire population of people to describe the attitudes,

opinions, behaviors, or characteristics of the population”. The majority of the

studies in Vietnam have emphasized ELT as a second language (SL) while this

study focused ELT as a foreign language (FL). As stated before, the research

population of this study was DK Secondary School representing the facts of the

most used LLS which influenced DK students’ performance in reading EFL

while other similar studies in Vietnam nearly focus on the other aspects in

teaching and learning ESL at such upper levels as high schools, colleges, and

tertiary education, neglecting Lower Secondary Education - the foremost basic

stage of children’s language learning process. Therefore, as a comparison of

LLS between Vietnam and other countries based on an evident synthesis of

Vietnamese researchers from after the 2000s on, expressing what the practical

studies on English language learning and teaching in Vietnam were and how

those studies of Vietnamese students were explored, that showed a common

feature for apprehending a foreign language over the world: reading strategies

have been employed throughout the countries and brought into the promotion

of learners’ foreign language ability. That language performance, specifically

the comprehensive reading may differ from country to country; nevertheless, it

was suggested applying suitably for educational sectors as value lessons to

Vietnam’s English LLT, especially that showed the significance of LLS choice

to see which of LLS should be most employed in the secondary schools in

Vietnam.

The studies in Vietnam have explored learners’ different perspectives of

English language; however, there was not a specialized sector in LLS research

only, but overall situations in ELT. Vietnam education also promoted the

strength of LLS and reading strategies in ELT; however, it was limited to LLS

research in Vietnam and what can be seen as the floating face of cases - the

random patterns of research (at universities or colleges). For instance, Nhon

(2011) identified the importance of teaching ESL/ EFL reading but that thing

could be optimum if using computers or applying techniques (e.g. CALL tools).

The enhancement of reading comprehension in Vietnam partly resolved the

difficulties in reading programs or reading software for academic students

especially for intermediate levels or freshman students. Minh & Intaraprasert

(2012) presented an exploratory study of the classification of language learning

strategy and used LLSI to help enhance the two main categories: specific

language skills and general language knowledge for the students in Vietnam

universities in the north. Strategy-oriented individual learners can achieve their

language learning purposes. Hoang (2013) explored the impact of LLS on

learners’ language learning and performance among Vietnamese EFL Tertiary

Students. The identification of LLS type, frequency as well as other related

patterns (gender, major, English proficiency, students and teachers’ perception,

attitudes and experiences, educational context) develop the principles for LLS,

supporting the current curriculum, promoting more opportunities of language

practice in the learning environment. Hung & Thao (2014) reviewed the

importance of Metacognitive Strategy Instruction in Vietnamese EFL Learners’

Reading Comprehension. They found that metacognitive strategies had a

positive correlation with learners’ reading comprehension, and metacognitive

strategy instruction could help these learners be more conscious in language

learning, particularly in reading comprehension, stimulated their conscious use

of other LLS. From here, it can be seen that most of the population of research

and considerations were the students at universities or colleges.

There were few studies on the English learning of lower and upper

secondary school students or high school students in Vietnam, and the majority

of these studies were the contextual patterns of research. The considerable

study on secondary school students of Mai (2017) explored and compared the

Informal of Language learning perspectives between Finnish and Vietnamese

pupils aged 11-13 in the differences from culture and the regional areas. These

comparative young learners’ perspectives performed their informal learning

experience as well as the importance of informal learning in their general

learning process. The pupils in both countries seemed similar to informal

learning activities outside their schools but their English contact differed

among the three groups of pupils (i.e. the Finnish pupils and Vietnamese pupils

from private schools, and the Vietnamese pupils in public school). It was

reported that Finnish pupils and Vietnamese pupils from the private schools

had more beneficial to their English proficiency development than the

Vietnamese pupils from the public school. This research justifies the

omnipresence of English in the world creating itself an ideal environment for

informal English learning and brings the most positive results in language

learning, especially English. There was not much research on LLS of high

school students but rather interesting. As Cong-Lem (2019) examined the use

of six LLS among Vietnamese tenth graders which resulted in employing LLS

at a medium level of frequency, metacognitive strategies were the most

frequently used strategies, and affective strategies were the least of LLS.

Moreover, gender was also considered an influential factor of students’ LLS.

Thus, it indicated a necessity of LLS choice and LLSI to all the high school

students. Phuc (2020) used the mixed method study to identify “reading

difficulties” and considered reading strategies as one of the necessary tools for

language learners to overcome those. Most of the participants were high school

English language learners in Thai Nguyen Province, using LLS at moderate

and high level. The results were concluded based on testing vocabulary and

reading for the learners and on finding out the correlated factors from culture

and psychology. That reaffirmed the aim of this study was to make use of

appropriate reading strategies for students’ reading ability improvement. The

research perspectives at high schools proved the suggestions for research on

secondary school students is necessary.

Language learning strategies (LLS) were much researched at the higher

levels of education, mainly at colleges or universities. Viet (2016) compared

Vietnamese English and non-English majors’ language learning strategies

(LLS) with their frequencies. Oxford’s SILL questionnaire (1990) was

employed as an instrument creating more information for Vietnamese students’

learning at public universities. The data analysis showed that students used six

groups of LLS in which metacognitive strategy group was used the most and

compensation strategy the least. The study supported providing a solid

educational background in Vietnam in general and contributed to the theories

of LLS in Asia in general. Giang & Tuan (2018) used quantitative research to

investigate the differences in students’ use of English language learning

strategies based on their English proficiency through the probability of

sampling methods (mainly EFL Freshmen). Since English has been a

compulsory subject in academics, these studies signify the effective choices of

language learning strategies will determine the success of language teaching

and learning beside the firm cooperation between teachers and students.

In another aspect, some related factors to English LLS were also explored

in Vietnam. Linh (2019) identified a new set of knowledge, skills, and strategies

as a reflective practice of education undergoing a transformation, in which

dialectical thinking has enhanced student’s cognitive capacities. The cognitive,

creative, and effective capacities are necessary for learners’ learning success

since they have been created during the process of thinking and problem

solving. In relation to Vietnamese culture, dialectical thinking becomes more

critical, challenging new social technologies and bringing the world to its

globalization. Linh (2019) suggested that “dialectical teaching” was necessary

in Vietnamese students because of their lack of essential skills to learn while

teachers were challenging their current teaching practices and changing their

existing beliefs. The study concluded that there existed three main perspectives

towards dialectical teaching in their potential contexts: receptivity,

ambivalence, and reluctance but it also recommended improving people’s

knowledge and teaching competencies for multi development, especially for

teacher education. In doing so, these pedagogical approaches must be

conformed to their social, ethical, and moral obligations. Language learning

strategies are always an endless research topic for study works, the old ones are

updated and spread over open future directions. Recently, Ngoc & Samad

(2020) reaffirmed students’ learning styles and their LLS at Vietnamese

Colleges. The passive learning styles as well as rote-learning knowledge among

students need a newer trend “learners’ awareness” means to create an

appropriate style for the contextual environment because it has depended on the

students’ personality and how they learn in groups. The result of changes may

be good conditions for the development of students’ flexibility in learning.

Even in higher education, Huong (2015) identified the types of motivation to

learn English in Vietnamese as well as the relationships between these

motivations and their English language proficiency (self-perceptions of

autonomy, competence). In addition, her study emphasized motivation was a

significant factor in learning a second language successfully (the same as

Dörnyei’s, 2009). From here, it proves that some related factors have affected

on LLS when the changes of LLS have been made in the research procedures

at different levels of education.

In brief, the domestic studies were a research synthesis emphasizing on

the ways of English language acquisition through LLS and related factors in

general, and most of these were on English language as a second language in

Vietnam without concentrating on a specific language learning strategy. The

presentation of previous studies conducted in Vietnam does not seem to be

consistent with those conducted in other countries, but shows the significance

of LLS research and future directions towards secondary education in Vietnam.

As mentioned in the beginning of literature review, the content of previous

studies depended on the physical necessity including the considerations of LLS,

reading strategy use in ESL/ EFL, language learning styles, learning

motivations, classification of language learning strategies as well as the impact

of LLS on students’ language apprehension in which the language learning

priority should center on metacognitive strategies. Depending on the previous

studies, this study motivated LLS use and instruction, enhancing a specific

language and/ or a general language knowledge to secondary school students.

However, the majority of researches done in Vietnam have often concerned

with the upper secondary school students, tertiary students and higher

education while only a few of those explored the research participants - Lower

secondary school students, just for a general perspective of language learning

without any specific LLS. Previous research has been a large, precious source

of knowledge to human beings’ social civilization. The domestic studies were

not completely disposed to explore LLS in Vietnam because of the sparse

research and research limitations; however, they indicated a unite direction in

ELT or LLT: using reading strategies to motivate students’ English ability and

their critical thinking through the cognitivist paradigm which started at

mnemonics for a language cognition and ended with metacognitive ability. The

domestic studies were a research synthesis on the styles of English

apprehension in Vietnam in comparison with other countries, posing

Vietnamese’ language aptitude or their FLA. Furthermore, these studies

contributed to justify the significance of LLS choice and LLSI in secondary

schools in Vietnam. Research materials have brought the good inspirations of

being looked out and exploring the world, specifically for the current language

learning next time. The findings of each research were a pleasure and a pride

of a researcher, a teacher, or an educator. The new ideal experiences may create

an invaluable property to national education. Any agreement or disagreement

contributes to the implications for educational sectors, especially for the

educational perspectives in Vietnam.

2.4. Research gap

Have any language learning strategies been used in secondary schools? or

have we had any strategy training for those? The answer remains unavoidably

discussable because everything depends on secondary school students’ level or

scope of language knowledge. However, that problem makes a query here in

this study is where the secondary school students take LLS from, under which

stereotype, and if they may be sure about the feasibility of their using LLS.

Many researchers in the world have implemented their studies of LLS in

the variety of educational forms looking at the problems from different angles

(Rubin, 1975; Tarone, 1981; O’Malley & Chamot, 1990; Cohen, 1998;

Chamot, 1998; Oxford, 1990s). However, the majority of researches have been

found on a large scale for high schools, tertiary education and others whereas

on the smallest scale for lower secondary school student participants in

Vietnam (Minh & Intaraprasert, 2012; Hoang, 2013; Hung & Thao, 2014;

Huong, 2015; Viet, 2016; Mai, 2017; Giang & Tuan, 2018; Cong-Lem, 2019;

Phuc, 2020). In addition, those researchers not only concentrated upon LLS but

on other related factors in ELT as well. A scatter of intercultural interweaving

among the researchers from multi-nations has made the LLS implicated in

various language skills or language areas a bit different from one another.

Vietnam has skipped one of decisive factors for the learners’ language learning

outcomes, the so-called learners’ awareness and learning styles of secondary

school students. Ellis (1997) stated that “learner beliefs and language learning

explores the variable nature of learner beliefs relating to learners’ proficiency

development. Both teachers and students do implication in ESL/ EFL

classrooms promoting the common goals of learning and teaching English,

reflecting the practical situation of education, and emphasizing the roles of

teachers during the students' learning processes”. Fulfilling the use of LLS in

English Reading as a link to another new step - attaining language proficiency

and learning achievement (Griffiths, 2003; Yang, 2007; Ya-Ling, 2008),

towards the communicative competence and support learning (Oxford, 1990).

Therefore, a significant gap of this research is that the language learning

strategies will determine the qualifications of secondary school students,

particularly the use of English reading strategies helps students be more

convenient in the transitional span from direct to indirect strategies during the

English language learning process. Initially, memory strategies through

mnemonics stipulate the use of more cognitive strategies among students, make

a foundation knowledge and further development of metacognitive strategies

to secondary school students, simultaneously offer the better conditions for

employing other LLS (e.g. indirect strategies like affective and social

strategies). Only when students can promote reading strategies, their learning

awareness becomes increased. As a result, students are going to integrate both

the language receptive and productive skills naturally. Apparently, this study

was intended for DK Secondary School as the research population at the

beginning time, the investigator was representing the facts in which the most

used LLS influencing DK students’ performance in reading EFL whereas other

similar studies in Vietnam nearly focused on the more widespread aspects in

teaching and learning ESL at the upper levels (e.g. high schools, colleges, and

tertiary education), and neglected the foremost basic stage of children’s

language learning process - “Lower Secondary Education”, the teenaged

children with gradually-formed personality. The students’ language knowledge

accumulation may be formidably derived from what they have achieved at

secondary education (e.g. teenagers), ramified over the other levels of

educational sectors, then orient all learning objects towards the long-life

learning strategies.

Briefly, there was a correlation between DK students' frequency of LLS

use and their learning achievement - performance in English reading, which

was also the case with reading skills. The gap is that the fact-findings of Doan

Ket Secondary School motivate the language teachers to improve the quality of

learning and teaching EFL, help secondary school students change the learning

viewpoints/ attitudes, quickly propose solutions for the existing problems in

this school, enhance students’ use of more reading strategies in particular, and

instruct these students the most appropriate LLS for better development at the

next stages. This study helps improve the so-called secondary school students’

awareness and their active learning for achieving English communicative

competence as a FL at secondary schools. Simultaneously, this study prepares

for the next success in other LLS through the basic use of comprehensive

reading as a framework bridging language skills, language areas or integrated

skills in language teaching and learning (Oxford, 2020).

2.5. Summary of literature review

Chapter 2 contained the core problem of this study including an overall

literature review of language learning strategies, the significance of the use of

LLS in English reading at secondary schools, the previous studies about LLS,

then found the research gap of this study. In the aspect of found, the chapter

recalled how LLS were defined, which types of LLS were classified, and the

factors related to LLS. In another aspect, it affirmed the significance of LLS

use in English reading at secondary schools, together with the relevance of

reading selection in language strategy instruction as well as the factors

influencing the use of English LLS.

In this chapter 2, the previous studies are about LLS quoted and analyzed

so that the researcher can find out the gap after reviewing, appraising the

research contents and resolving this research scope. On the basis of research

contents and scope, there are three noticeable highlights from the literature

review in common. Firstly, both domestic and international studies have had

the same direction in language acquisition and followed the most positive

tendency in a language learning and teaching so far: concentrating on reading

comprehension via reading strategies/ reading skills (Crizko, 1980; Paris et al.,

1983; Kintch, 1998; Nolan Weil, 2008; Nhon, 2011; Paige et al., 2012; Lai et

al., 2014; Hung & Thao, 2014; Baye, 2018; Dubé et al., 2019; Silawi, 2020;

Pellicer-Sánchez et al., 2020; Phuc, 2020, etc.) and especially on the trend of

comprehensive reading development supported by the new technology

nowadays (reading programs on computer, LSM, online learning, etc.).

Secondly, the identification of LLS definitions and classification has been

identical in researchers’ point of view (Akkakoson, 2013; Loh & Hu, 2018;

Nazurty et al., 2019; Suwanaraz, 2019; Berdanier & Lenart, 2020; etc.).

Thirdly, most researchers have updated the innovations in language learning

and teaching, thereby readers can acknowledge the necessity of LLS choice and

instruction to young learners (Minh & Intaraprasert, 2012; Hoang, 2013; Viet,

2016; Giang & Tuan, 2018; Cong-Lem, 2019).

In this Chapter 2, research gap is the most salient content of this chapter

after literature review - the practical findings of investigating DK 6-graders’

LLS in English reading comprehension, then the researcher can look backward

the causes affecting to these students’ learning outcomes were – the learners’

awareness, learning styles/ attitude, and educational environment. The study

summarized a following brief statement: besides the related factors, the

students’ less use of LLS and lack of LLSI in DK school have made itself

unsatisfactory to the low education quality. From the fact findings, DK school

should improve its situation completely (from teachers to students), made

beneficial implications on LLS for the development of English competence of

the DK students in particular, and even for the educational management in

general in future.

CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY

3.1. The research objectives and research questions

The objectives of this research are to help the students at Doan Ket

Secondary School recognize the significance of LLS in general, particularly the

use of English reading strategies via English comprehensive reading. Thanks

to the correlation test between the frequency use of LLS and students’ English

reading performance, the language teachers of this school can know to what

extent LLS should be applied, or at least support the students properly, instruct

them how to employ reading strategies effectively most through English

reading skills themselves. Furthermore, teachers let students see how helpful

reading strategies have been so that the students can later manage or employ

their own LLS better. As stated at the beginning, this study aimed to answer the

two following research questions:

❶ What language learning strategies are most frequently used

by students at Doan Ket Secondary School?

❷ What is the correlation between these students’ use of learning

strategies and their performance in English Reading?

3.2. Research methodology

This research was designed following a sequential coordination between

qualitative and quantitative approaches to take advantage of the research topic

under the form of open questions with the utmost care about Language

Learning Strategies in both its width and depth. Moreover, the study collected

the results from the empirical research and previous studies to discover a gap

of this study through an investigation.

Research methodology decided the tools for material collection. The use

of qualitative and quantitative research methods has made this study more valid

and inclined to be more descriptive. Before that, the researcher used Oxford’s

Strategy Inventory for Language Learning – SILL (Version 7.0) or called the

questionnaires on LLS to compute the mean coefficients and standard

deviations. Qualitative research solved the research question number 1 about

the frequency of learning strategy use, quantitative research was applied in

computing Cronbach’s alpha coefficient, variables for factor analysis,

regression analysis, and correlation analysis to increase the trustworthiness of

the study except piloting study because of convenient samples, and solved the

research question number 2 via other mean coefficients. Back to questionnaires,

one of instruments for data collection, the number of statements were just

reached at 26, not the same original quantity of 50 questions, they were

curtailed and translated into Vietnamese so that the sixth graders of Doan Ket

Secondary School students could easy understand and complete the

questionnaires most conveniently. The SILL form was widely employed by the

researchers in the world and even in Vietnam, so it’s known purpose was to

detect the most or least frequently used learning strategy among lower

secondary school students.

This investigation was estimated at the beginning of the new school year

and the survey procedure was implemented during a whole school year (e.g.

the school year 2019-2020). There were a total of 176 students (89 boys and 87

girls inclusive) in the entire grade 6 of Doan Ket Secondary School joining in

the questionnaire survey from the first to the seventh of July 2019. The study

chose only grade 6 participants because it is the first grade of the others in the

secondary school system - as a representative to the rest. These students needed

to choose the practical level of every language learning strategy on each survey

question by a stick (√). They answered no Yes/ No question but had to write

their names on, supplied some personal information in the form such as birth

year, sex, class and finished the questionnaire confidently so that the researcher

could synthesize and compare their learning strategy performance with their

English course scorecards. In another hand, the process of data collection was

also based on group interviews, and students’ English course scores measuring

DK students’ practical LLS use. Group interviews were divided into good- and

poor-groups asking the easy questions about how they used the reading

strategies and recording their answers/ ideas. The students’ scores were taken

from their English course with the four language skills inclusive. After the

process of data collection, the simple data analysis of Cronbach’s alpha

coefficient, factors, regression and correlation made this study more words to

express and manifest the results.

This research followed the cognitivist paradigm since the participants’

mental activities had determined how their processes of language learning

occurred and enclosed multiple interpretations. The qualitative and quantitative

approaches were complementary to each other in the research without

separating made this study similar to an empirical research. This research

inclined to the qualitative approach rather than quantitative one; therefore, it

justified much on the educational theories and real situations on LLS from

previous studies. The results of this investigation were then collected to

discover a significant gap which motivate students’ English competence

through reading strategies as well as their learning self-awareness.

3.3. Research Setting

Doan Ket is one of the Secondary Schools which is located in a difficult

position in district 6. Most students in this school are from various regions of

other provinces, some ethnic students Cham, Khmer, and majority of Chinese

people live selling food stalls around entering the school gate. The quantity of

students enrolling in the sixth grade was rather crowded, aged from 11-12 (non-

mature age, weak learning awareness, and difficult condition of living). They

were used to the learning styles at Primary Schools and some of them even

lacked ability of Vietnamese literacy. The school infrastructure and physical

conditions are not well-equipped. It is not easy for language teachers to manage

such 45-member classes without disturbing the quiet atmosphere of other

subject classes. They did not show any LLS in the English subject so how they

could follow a foreign language well. The quality of English scores at DK

school has been reported at low level in District 6 and the lowest in the city.

Though the teachers have tried to adjust students’ English learning, their

learning results are not satisfactory.

In the hope of improving the quality of English teaching and learning at

secondary schools, the feasibility and significance of this study supported

students’ communicative competence achievement as well as their FLA.

Simultaneously innovating English LLT at secondary schools via the LLS use

and instruction which enhance students’ language learning awareness. This

investigation emphasized the context of teaching and learning EFL in some

secondary schools in Ho Chi Minh City, where strategy instructions are not

adequately paid attention to some particular educational settings through the

exploration the frequency of strategy use and students’ performance in English

reading, motivated their English reading strategies next stages.

3.4. Research sites and participants

The location of this investigation was Doan Ket Secondary School

(District 6, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam). The investigation focused on the sixth

graders of Doan Ket school. The total participants consisted of 176 students (N

= 176) aged from 11 to 12 chosen as convenient samples. Almost all

participants are located with their families in the regions of and around District

6. These participants are Vietnamese but compulsory English learners at school

representing for the whole grade 6 of this school.

After an investigation, the secondary school teachers and the students

learning the English subject in the Districts of Ho Chi Minh City may have a

quick reference for their implications. The reasons for this choice are: (1) the

availability of secondary school teachers and students learning English in this

area (District 6 is not as strong as Districts 1 and 3 but it is larger, more

developed and dynamic than others in Ho Chi Minh City. Therefore, the

number of secondary schools is rather high, the opportunities and practical

needs for the attraction of students enrolling in intensive English classes are

greatest, the chance of innovations in English learning and teaching are most

noticeable); (2) the accessibility of data, the properly educational support from

the Ward leaders of District 6 People Committee about the situation of regional

students (e.g. easy updating educational information near the city center); and

(3) the familiarity of the investigator with this area make conditions for the

whole secondary education system in District 6 and Doan Ket Secondary

School convenient for this investigation (where the investigator is working in).

3.5. Data collection

3.5.1. Samples collection

The researcher did not use piloting study because she was quite accustomed

with the learning environment and students here. Immediately, the researcher

handed out 176 questionnaires to the students of available classes at DK

Secondary School as convenient samples. Samples were quickly done in class

after class, and when the students of each class finished the survey

questionnaires the investigator collected them again. As a result, all the

questionnaires were fulfilled in 2 weeks.

3.5.2. Instruments for data collection

The data collection included 3 steps: Questionnaire, Interviews and

Students’ scores in the English course in which each component will use

different forms for this study. Furthermore, this study also employed some

supplemental instruments for this investigation through the questionnaires such

as observation, interviews, video-recordings and results of previous studies.

The mixture of qualitative and quantitative research approaches was

implemented on the total 176 sixth grader participants including 89 males and

87 females aged 11-12 (nearly a whole grade 6). Table 3.1 described the

statistics of Doan Ket Secondary School students’ sex and age. Learners’ sex

was one of factors related to LLS as psychological type (Ehrman & Oxford,

1989) while this study found the influential element of age in secondary school

students’ cognitive process despite of not entering a research of multi-factors.

These student participants ticked on the point scales they chose in the

questionnaires, did focus group interviews from the teacher, checked English

marks later to analyze relationships. The aim of this investigation was to solve

the two research questions, and showed the results using some empirical

research. Qualitative research was employed to answer the first research

question, and quantitative research to answer the second research question.

Table 3.1. Descriptive statistics of participants’ sex and age

Sex

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid Male 50.6 50.6 50.6

49.4 49.4 100.0

89 Female 87 Total 176 100.0 100.0

Age

Valid 11 Frequency Percent 165 93.8 Valid Percent 93.8 Cumulative Percent 93.8

12 11 6.2 6.2

Total 100.0 176 100.0 100.0

The 3 steps of data collection were clearly described as the followings:

❖ Questionnaire (see Appendix 3 on LLS taken from Oxford 1990, with

some adaptations)

The questionnaire of this investigation was curtailed and adapted from

Oxford’s (1990) 50-statement model (Version 7.0). The 5-scale questionnaires

were adjusted to investigate secondary school students' questions about only

reading English (not about other skills). Moreover, the researcher employed the

result of questionnaires to measure students’ six LLS use in general and its

correlation with students’ learning achievement. The questionnaires were

translated into Vietnamese so that students could read the description and tick

the statements one by one for their appraisals (see Questionnaire on LLS in

Vietnamese). Students only indicated which degree the students had agreed or

disagreed to, finally they were going to put every stick on the scale points of

statements they decided to choose appropriately. There were total 26 statements

in the questionnaire with five scales of frequency for each strategy use:

1 = never or almost never true of me

2 = generally not true of me

3 = somewhat true of me

4 = generally true of me

5 = always or almost always true of me

The researcher collected the mean size coefficients from the total number

of samples (N = 176, as a representation of the whole grade 6) being divided

into 6 groups of LLS. The result of questionnaires was employed, combined

with focus interviews and English course scores to end the analysis of the

research database.

❖ Interviews (see Appendix 4 on the questions for interviews)

After the results from 5-scale questionnaires, the researcher carried out a

group interview to access some student participants by classifying them into

two groups of 6-graders (e.g. Good-grade group and Poor-grade group, 3

students of each, chosen convenient samples) and joining the given discussion

topic – the questions about their learning strategies.

The interviews (Focus group) were held in a small classroom of Doan Ket

Secondary School without exceeding a maximum of an hour. The questions

were really based on the questionnaires they had done before, the topic was for

why they used that type of language learning strategy, how they used it, and

what they felt (see Appendix 5 on Focus group interviews in details). They

could share the ideas of their language learning with one another in all language

skills/ areas they liked best, in their language reading skill the most - a basic

foundation skill for English fluency and accuracy. Some short dialogues were

recorded and analyzed carefully in Chapter 4. Results and Discussion as a

research material afterwards.

❖ Students’ scores in English course (see Appendix 6 on the frequency

statistics of students’ English marks)

Students’ scores were taken from English learning scores of the course

through the total formative assessments (the learning result of the whole year)

because secondary school students have not had a specific score for reading

skill or each language skill. School conditions and time did not allow the

researcher to test students’ reading skill separately, so it was more convenient

to employ these students’ scores in the English course available. The scoring

assessment was measured and divided into four groups: Good, Fair, Average,

and Poor (according to the regulated criteria of learning assessment). In

addition, students’ English scorecards had been done with Statistics Analysis

which was equivalent to those classifications: 8.0 marks through highest

(Good), 6.5 marks through 7.9 (Fair), 5.0 marks through 6.4 (Average), and

Lowest marks through 4.9 (Poor). Students can check looking at their learning

achievements through the English mark scores to try their best preparing for

the next school year when they are going up to Class 7 (see Table 3. 2.).

Table 3.2. Statistics of students’ scores in English course

Frequency Percent

Cumulative Percent

Valid Percent 38.6

38.6

Valid 8.0 marks through highest 68 6.5 marks through 7.9 55

31.2

69.9

31.2

29.0

98.9

29.0

5.0 marks through 6.4 51 Lowest marks through 4.9 2 Total

100.0

176

1.1 100.0

Consequently, the researcher compared every student participant’s scores

in English course with the total score mean from the questionnaire to detect if

a student has used which language learning strategies most or least. Finally,

teachers can train or consult students with the best English language learning

strategies soon.

3.6. Data analysis

Firstly, the researcher tested the trustworthiness of this study because it is

crucial to evaluating its merit (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). It is needful to establish

the trustworthiness because: truly enhancing the confidence in the findings (i.e.

credibility), showing the consistency of findings as well as its replication

efficiency (i.e. dependability), clarifying what extent the respondents shaped

the findings to a study without researcher biases (i.e. confirmability), and

showing that other contexts can apply the findings of this study (i.e.

transferability).

The subsections like credibility, dependability, confirmability and

transferability will discuss the procedures to retain the trustworthiness of the

study.

3.6.1. Credibility

The researcher has used a number of procedures to enhance its credibility.

This study also heightens the credibility of quantitative research in nature (e.g.

the frequently used LLS by DK students). The accurate use of research findings

requires an optimist result. By making the questionnaire statistics for

independent and dependent variables, factor analysis (EFA) and running

regression, this study has had a database for dependent and independent

variables. It is necessary for qualitative researchers to demonstrate the

credibility of the research (Creswell & Miller, 2000); therefore, another part of

this study using qualitative research also needs credibility by correlation

analysis (e.g. the correlation between students’ frequency of LLS use and their

performance in English achievement).

This study was implemented through the different instruments for

questionnaires such as observation, interviews, video-recordings and research

journals in which gave the various perspectives about the language learning

strategies use of Doan Ket students. Ending the observation and interviews, the

researcher can describe a complete synthesis of Doan Ket Secondary School

students’ existing situations.

3.6.2. Dependability

Dependability is an important milestone to emphasize the researcher’s

database, to which degree an interpretation of research procedure is made – the

degree to which it is able to solve the problems of instability or particularity

(Baxter & Eyles, 1997). It implies that if the research approaches/ procedures

are applied by others in similar research or yielded similar findings (Given &

Saumure, 2008).

Correspondingly, this study mixed the two research approaches into one

general picture of DK Secondary School students. Based on the basis of real

research materials, the results from this study are dependable and they may be

reused for the updated news of secondary education in District 6 (if necessary).

3.6.3. Confirmability

Jensen’s (2008a) confirmability here means the researcher’s results are

based on its objective purpose, not on the researcher’s bias. Confirmability

required a consideration of the critical self-reflection (Patton, 2002) by carrying

out this research under the forms of data collection, interpretation, and analysis.

Baxter & Eyles (1997) declared that confirmability concentrates on both the

investigator and the interpretations.

The teaching experiences at secondary schools, the motivations in English

teaching and learning, English books training, the practical conjunctures and

the perceptions of English language use in secondary schools in Vietnam might

have affected the data interpretation of this study, so the researcher made some

perspectives rather explicit contributing to the truthfulness of this research.

3.6.4. Transferability

According to Jensen (2008, p.887), transferability implies that a

qualitative study’s results “can be transferred to other contexts and situations

beyond the scope of the study context”. To enhance transferability, he proposed

paying much attention to the relationship between the study context and the

contextual boundaries of the findings. Therefore, the extent to qualitative

research describes the context that readers can decide whether the study’s

results can be transferred to that context. Transferability impulses a

comprehensive description of the study context, and the research data was

analyzed under the main instrument of data collection – SILL (questionnaires).

3.6.5. Analysis of research data

The data was analyzed according to Oxford’s (1990) definitions and

classification on language learning strategies, the research method here was the

qualitative research employing the theories and previous studies from the

linguists over the world and the five-point Likert Scale questionnaires with the

26 statements inside to answer the first research question about the frequency

of LLS use at DK school. As mentioned in the aforementioned parts, the use of

questionnaires helped the researcher identify which types of LLS the students

at Doan Ket Secondary School have used and how often they used those LLS.

The researcher then used 176 convenient samplings available and collected

their answers from the questionnaires handed out (e.g. N = 176, including 89

boys and 87 girls, nearly a whole grade 6). The 26-statement questionnaires

(translated in Vietnamese version) which were classified into only six groups

of language learning strategies (according to Oxford’s definitions on LLS):

1) Memory strategies (e.g. statements 2, 4, 5, 11)

2) Cognitive strategies (e.g. statements 3, 7, 14, 24)

3) Compensation strategies (e.g. statements 6, 9, 10, 15, 16)

4) Metacognitive strategies (e.g. statements 13,18, 19, 22, 23)

5) Affective strategies (e.g. statements 1, 17, 20, 21, 26) and

6) Social strategies (e.g. statements 8, 12, 25)

Next, the researcher took account of the mean coefficient of each student

upon every questionnaire in turns. Mean sizes decide whether the students have

used more or less LLS via the indicators to understand high, medium, or low

mean coefficients (see Figure 2.5). For example, if a student’s mean effect

equals 4, that student uses many LLS (at high level), and vice versa, if a

student’s mean equals 1.5 (at low level) signifies this person does less language

learning strategies, and the rest middle mean shows an average level. After

computing the total mean coefficient of each questionnaire, it could be

continuous with the mean of all questionnaires from the surveyed students.

Later on, this mean indicator was compared to students’ scores in English

courses per student.

Figure 2.5. Key to understand the averages - SILL profile of results, Version 7.0 (Oxford 1990, p.300)

3.6.6. Language strategy use inventory

CRONBACH’S ALPHA RELIABILITY TEST

Cronbach's Alpha shows that all the values of the Learning Strategy Use

are proved to be internally consistent and be accepted to join in the factor

analysis tests because they satisfy the three requirements proposed by the

Cronbach’s alpha reliability test as the followings: Firstly, α is 0.907 (excellent)

which is higher than the acceptable value 0.6 (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994).

Secondly, all Corrected Item-Total Correlation values are higher than the

standard of 0.3 (Nunnally, 1978). Finally, it is worth noticing that all

Cronbach's Alpha if Item Deleted of 6 items do not exceed more than the α of

0.907 (see Tables 3.3. & 3.4. for Cronbach's Alpha)

Table 3.3. Reliability statistics

Cronbach's Alpha

N of Items

.907

Table 3.4. Cronbach’s alpha reliability test of LLS use

Scale Mean if Item Deleted

Scale Variance if Item Deleted

Corrected Item- Total Correlation

Cronbach's Alpha if Item Deleted

Memory Strategy

16.6791

13.243

.655

.902

Cognitive Strategy

16.7117

12.219

.758

.888

Compensation Strategy

16.8870

12.543

.747

.890

Metacognitive Strategy

16.7188

11.895

.823

.878

Affective Strategy

16.9052

12.277

.777

.885

Social Strategy

17.1355

12.256

.700

.897

Table 3.4. above was the scales for testing Cronbach’s Alpha Reliability

of LLS use with Scale Mean if Item Deleted, Scale Variance if Item Deleted,

Corrected Item-Total Correlation, and Cronbach's Alpha if Item Deleted.

FACTOR ANALYSIS TEST

Factor analysis is a method of data reduction in which the underlying

unobservable variables are observed and reflected if there are enough adaptable

conditions for a Correlation Analysis for these LLS. Results from the below

tables have indicated that all factors in findings are necessary to be explained

the impacts of English LLS and meaningful to be considered for Factor

Analysis Test of Strategy Use Factors because the figures satisfy the four

requirements of the test (see Tables 3.5, 3.6, 3.7, and 3.8 for Factor Analysis):

(1) KMO value is 0.898 (between 0.5 and 1.0)

(2) Barlett Sig. is 0.000 which is lower than 5%, this means that the

figures are relevant to the analysis.

(3) The cumulative eigenvalues are 68.4 % (higher than 50%)

(4) Factor loading values are all higher than 0.3

Table 3.5. KMO and Bartlett's Test

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy .898

Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi-Square 636.195

df 15

Sig. .000

Table 3.6. Communalities

Initial Extraction

Memory Strategy 1.000 .569

Cognitive Strategy 1.000 .705

Compensation Strategy 1.000 .689

Metacognitive Strategy 1.000 .787

Affective Strategy 1.000 .725

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Social Strategy 1.000 .628

Table 3.7. Total variance explained

Initial Eigenvalues

Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings

Component Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative %

4.104

68.405

68.405 4.104

68.405

77.943

.572

9.538

.448

7.469

85.411

.346

5.773

91.184

.307

5.116

96.301

.222

3.699

100.000

Table 3.8. Component matrixa

Component 1

Metacognitive Strategy .887

Affective Strategy .851

Cognitive Strategy Compensation Strategy .840 .830

Social Strategy .793

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis

(a.1 components extracted.)

Memory Strategy .755

CORRELATION ANALYSIS

This study analyzed the mean size coefficients among LLS to identify if

there was any of six independent variables - strategies of language learning

strategies correlated with or without correlations with the dependent variable -

English proficiency, then decided to run Multiple Regression for this further

analysis or to conclude whether the LLS employed by the sixth graders met this

study or not. Surprisingly, correlation appeared to be the strongest among LLS

altogether in case of LLS combination, but only one of the six variables had a

slight correlation with students’ English proficiency – Compensation strategy

(see Table 3.9. and Table 3.10. for Correlation Analysis). The variation of

variables in direct or inverse proportion is not significant, but in what ways the

students apprehend English language.

Table 3.9. Correlations among students’ LLS

Memory Strategy

Cognitive Strategy

Compensation Strategy

Metacognitive Strategy

Affective Strategy

Social Strategy

Pearson Correlation

.540**

.577**

.541**

.496**

.630**

Memory Strategy

Sig. (2-tailed)

.000

176

Pearson Correlation

176 .637**

176 .741**

176 .652**

176 .578**

Cognitive Strategy

Sig. (2-tailed)

.000

176

Pearson Correlation

176 .540** .000 176 .630**

176 .688**

176 .599**

176 .564**

Compensation Strategy

Sig. (2-tailed)

.000

176

Pearson Correlation

176 .637** .000 176 .741**

176 .577**

176 .737**

176 .629**

Metacognitive Strategy

Sig. (2-tailed)

.000

176

Pearson Correlation

176 .652**

176 .541**

176 .688** .000 176 .599**

176 .674**

Affective Strategy

Sig. (2-tailed)

.000

176

Pearson Correlation

176 .578**

176 .496**

176 .564**

176 .737** .000 176 .629**

Social Strategy

Sig. (2-tailed)

.000

176

176 .674** .000 176

176

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Table 3.10. Correlations between students’ LLS and English scores

Memory

Cognitive

Compensation

Metacognitive

Affective

Social

English

Strategy

Marks

Memory

Pearson

.540**

.630**

.577**

.541**

.496**

.090

Strategy

Correlation

Sig. (2-tailed)

.000

.233

176

Cognitive

Pearson

.540**

.637**

.741**

.652**

.578**

.133

Strategy

Correlation

Sig. (2-tailed)

.000

.080

176

Compensation

Pearson

.630**

.637**

.688**

.599**

.564**

.160*

Strategy

Correlation

.000

Sig. (2-tailed)

.034

176

Metacognitive

Pearson

.577**

.741**

.688**

.737**

.629**

.134

Strategy

Correlation

Sig. (2-tailed)

.000

.075

176

Affective

Pearson

.541**

.652**

.599**

.737**

.674**

-.007

Strategy

Correlation

Sig. (2-tailed)

.000

.929

176

Social Strategy Pearson

.496**

.578**

.564**

.629**

.674**

.047

Correlation

Sig. (2-tailed)

.000

.534

176

English Marks Pearson

.090

.133

.160*

.134

-.007

.047

Correlation

Sig. (2-tailed)

.233

.080

.075

.929

.534

.034

176

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

MULTIPLE REGRESSION ANALYSES

The result of the questionnaires was affirmed by multiple regression

analysis. First, after analyzing the Coefficient Correlation (R) as the association

there was one independent variable left with the dependent variable, and the

square multiple regressions (R2=0.026) was seen lower than 0.5 (this made

difficulties as the other indicators were excluded out of the analysis process,

thus inferring at an acceptable level but not 100% of assertion). Second, the

researcher needed a mixture between the research hypotheses and the fact of

changes in measuring the simultaneous correlation of LLS. Third, the

researcher measured secondary school students’ English reading performance

(via the scores in English course without separating language skills due to lack

of school conditions) to see the partial effect of every LLS use, particularly just

noted the impact of reading strategies on their English proficiency (see Tables

3.11., 3.12., 3.13, and 3.14 on Multiple Regression Analyses).

Table 3.11. Model summaryb in multiple regression analyses

Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate Durbin- Watson

a. Predictors: (Constant), Compensation Strategy b. Dependent Variable: English Marks

1 .160a .026 .020 1.4525 1.697

Table 3.12. ANOVAb for multiple regression analyses

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

9.634 1 9.634 4.566 .034a

367.113 174 2.110

a. Predictors: (Constant), Compensation Strategy b. Dependent Variable: English Marks

1 Regression Residual Total 376.747 175

Table 3.13. Coefficientsa for multiple regression analyses

Unstandardized Coefficients

Standardized Coefficients

Collinearity Statistics

Beta

Tolerance VIF

Std. Error

Sig.

Model 1 (Constant)

6.433

.459

14.010

.000

.287

.134

.160

2.137

.034

1.000 1.000

Strategy

a. Dependent Variable: English Marks

Compensation

Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation

Predicted Value

6.720

7.868

7.386

.2346

176

Residual

-4.0814

2.4778

.0000

1.4484

176

Std. Predicted Value

-2.838

2.054

.000

1.000

176

Std. Residual

-2.810

1.706

.000

.997

176

a. Dependent Variable: English Marks

Table 3.14. Residuals statistics for multiple regression analyses

Based on the general descriptive statistics of LLS across participants, this

study was focused more in LLS and reading strategy instructions for students’

English proficiency, especially low proficient learners. However, the multiple

regressions analysis (R) was unable to run in joints because of its unexplainable

predictors and limitation of research time without repeating the factors analysis.

Consequently, the presentation of results was collected from the focus

interviews and the comparison between total mean coefficient and students’

scorecards in English course as a replacement of this multiple regressions

analysis. Therefore, the unexplainable indicators in this study were considered

absurd factors as expressed in the abstract.

3.7. Timeline for the study

The investigation was started at the beginning of the school year

(September 2019). It took a nine-month span to finish the investigation at the

end of the school year (July 2020, an exceptional time of COVID-19 pandemic

inclusive) through Questionnaire, Interviews, and Document research as

mentioned above.

Table 3.15. Timeline for the Study

Milestones

Timing

Learning plan August 2018

Draft of research proposal December 2019

Complete research proposal March 2020

Initial seminar March 2020

Submit Research Methodology August 2020

Data collection September 2019 – July 2020

Submit Results of Questionnaire August 2020

Submit Results of Interview August 2020

Submit Discussion September 2020

Submit Revision of Literature Review -Research

Submit Literature Review September 2020

Methodology - Research Results - Discussion

November 2020

Submit Introduction - Conclusion November 2020

Draft thesis December 2020

Submit final thesis April 2021

3.8. Chapter summary

This chapter restated the research objectives and research questions,

presented the approach to the research - research methodology. The chapter

also described research setting, research sites and participants. It provided the

procedures of data collection including samples collection and instruments for

data collection, justified the process of data analysis which characterize the

trustworthiness of the study and language strategy use inventory. Finally, the

chapter sketched the timeline for the study.

The approach to this investigation was from DK students’ LLS use. The

mixed methodology design was used to collect data (quantitative and

qualitative). The research setting, research sites and participants were described

to understand the current situation of Doan Ket Secondary School. The samples

were collected in a simple way as convenient samples, and the instruments for

collecting data included questionnaires, focus interviews, and students’ scores

in English course. Questionnaires were used to assess the 6-grade students’

opinions on the English LLS used in class when the interviews carried on

through the researcher’s observations were used to explore what deep meanings

behind participants’ responses on English LLS. Students’ scores in English

course representing students’ English learning achievement indicated its

correlation with students’ LLS use, especially these students’ reading strategy

use. A description of data analysis was begun with the trustworthiness of the

study including credibility, dependability, confirmability, and transferability to

augment this thesis validation. The study ended with the timeline visualizing

an overall research.

The next chapter presents and discusses the results obtained from students

through questionnaires and interviews.

CHAPTER 4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1. Results

4.1.1. Students’ learning strategy use synthesized from the questionnaires

Students’ use of learning strategies was synthesized from the

questionnaires. The use of learning strategies by DK Secondary School

students were measured via the five-point Likert Scale together with other tools

on the SPSS 16.0 Software. This scale included the five levels (from 1 to 5)

equivalent to the components enclosed as stated in the research analysis (Item

3.2). The questionnaire based on Oxford’s definitions with the 26 disordered

statements classified into six groups of learning strategies: Memory strategies,

Cognitive strategies, Compensation strategies, Metacognitive strategies,

Affective strategies, and Social strategies. Furthermore, the questionnaire was

also curtailed and applied according to the three levels of using learning

strategies from Oxford (1990): 3.5 – 5.0 (high); 2.5 – 3.4 (average); 1.0 – 2.4

(low). After testing Frequency and Descriptive Statistics, the total group mean

of learning strategies has M≈3.4 and SD≈0.7 and it concludes that the sixth

graders of Doan Ket School have used language learning strategies at a medium

level.

This 26-item questionnaire was checked on the SPSS 16.0 Software for its

Statistics description. Before certifying the questionnaire information, the

check-up activities with no missing data are implemented to be sure of that

database (see Table 4.1.). The 176 participants (included 89 boys and 87 girls)

spread the point scales from 1 to 5 (e.g. 1 for minimum, and 5 for maximum)

equivalent to the components enclosed (from Strategy-C1 to Strategy-C26).

These high mean coefficients (M>=2.63) indicate that most participants agree

with the content of questionnaires, hence 100% of this database is valid. In

addition, all Standard Deviations of the questionnaires are always at high level

(SD>1) means that the feedback from participants are multiform and various at

the different stages of LLS, and that Standard Deviations usually fluctuate

around the mean coefficients.

Table 4.1. Descriptive statistics of questionnaires

Minimum Maximum Mean

Std. Deviation

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

3.52 3.86 3.43 3.61 3.34 3.09 3.68 3.16 3.53 3.67 3.31 2.84 3.07 3.44 3.59 2.73 3.73 3.74 3.49 3.30 2.63 3.73 3.41 3.44 3.22 3.34

1.146 1.099 1.139 1.195 1.273 1.255 1.038 1.210 1.176 1.154 1.277 1.288 1.251 1.189 1.173 1.349 1.124 1.141 1.166 1.359 1.452 1.226 1.192 1.254 1.223 1.272

C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10 C11 C12 C13 C14 C15 C16 C17 C18 C19 C20 C21 C22 C23 C24 C25 C26 Valid N (listwise)

176 176 176 176 176 176 176 176 176 176 176 176 176 176 176 176 176 176 176 176 176 176 176 176 176 176 176

This study employed correlational research design to identify the

relationship between variables in which Cronbach’s Alpha, Factor Analysis

Test, and Multiple Regression Analysis were also tested for this study. There

were six independent variables - strategies of language learning strategies by

Oxford (1990) (as predictors) and one dependent variable - English proficiency

(as criterion). From the LLS-English proficiency correlation, it was referred to

the related factors of the learning outcomes of DK students such as students’

LLS use, especially the choice and use of reading strategies changing these

students’ learning awareness themselves.

The most frequently used learning strategies and the least

frequently used:

Besides the total mean by the descriptive statistics command, the mean

indicators in each group of learning strategies are at different levels (E.g. Mean

effect sizes is from 3.0 to higher than 3.0 up) and as an evidence to affirm the

sixth-graders did use the language learning strategies casually but in a

following sequence: Memory Strategy, Cognitive Strategy, Metacognitive

Strategy, Compensation Strategy, Affective Strategy, and Social Strategy (see

Table 4.2.).

Table 4.2. Descriptive statistics of the frequency of LLS use

N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation

Memory Strategy

176

1.00

5.00 3.5284

.77499

Cognitive Strategy

176

1.00

5.00 3.4957

.86292

Metacognitive Strategy

176

1.00

5.00 3.4886

.86288

Compensation Strategy

176

1.00

5.00 3.3205

.81754

Affective Strategy

176

1.00

5.00 3.3023

.83768

Social Strategy

176

1.00

5.00 3.0720

.90844

Valid N (listwise)

176

Thus, it proclaimed their most frequently used learning strategy was the

memory strategy with M≈3.53 and SD=0.77 through the strategy “I read and

write new English words every day to remember them easily” (M=3.86 and

SD≈1.1) (Sentence 2) and “I remember a new English word by reading and

writing in papers many times” (M=3.6 and SD≈1.2) (Sentence 4). Next,

Cognitive Strategy had M≈3.5 and SD=0.86 with the strategy “I often review

my English lessons” (M=3.68 and SD=1) (Sentence 7). In contrast, their least

used learning strategy was Social Strategy with M=3.0 and SD=0.9; for

example, the strategy “I sometimes read English stories with my classmates in

class” had the lowest frequency in Social Strategy (M=2.8 and SD=1.2)

(Sentence 12). The next one was “I write down my feelings in a personal diary

after reading a text.” (M=2.6 and SD=1.4) (Sentence 21) in Affective strategy.

4.1.2. Results from focus interviews

As stated in the research procedure, the interviews were carried out in two

groups of interviews (e.g. Good-grade group and Poor-grade group, 3 students

of each, chosen convenient samples) participating in the given discussion topic-

the questions about their learning strategies. After that, the questioning

interviews of LLS were found to reaffirm the reasons for choosing and using

any type of language learning strategies, how they used it, and what they felt.

They shared the ideas of their language learning as followings:

 The good-grade group said, “We like reading and speaking a lot,

because these are the two main elements of all language skills. We all

know that learning a language needs to grasp as much vocabulary as

possible, and reading comprehension will be a tool of our English

learning. We read a lot to have a large source of vocabulary

knowledge, then employ vocabulary to speak English well (i.e. reading

comic books, English books, or reference books, etc.). We read and

write vocabulary at every English lesson, then utilize these new words

for our exercise accomplishment. Sometimes, we practice English with

our friends - partners. For these things, we think we become good

students in our class and feel happy”. That showed the good learning

styles and the confidence in English of these students.

 At the same point, the students in the poor-grade group admitted the

role of vocabulary for reading comprehension, however, their learning

results were not very good because of their lack of basic English

knowledge leading to other problems in learning English. They

explained, “This is due to our “laziness” leading to our lower

proficiency in English. Though we are not good students, we like

listening and speaking English to foreigners so that we can improve

our English language ability (For instance, we sometimes go to the Ho

Chi Minh city center to meet and communicate with some foreigners)”.

That showed a change inside these students’ personality and learning

attitude – a more active way of English learning for next school year.

Hence, both two groups certified an important thing: English language

proficiency has been made by learning and practicing English every day. The

basic problem was how they learned a language and in case of difficulties, who

would help them - a teacher or themselves that was associated with LLS use,

especially reading strategies in which English reading skills were done as a

basic foundation for reaching English fluency and accuracy.

4.1.3. Results from the comparison between total mean coefficient and

students’ scores in English course

Right after the reliability test, the researcher found the regression running

could not help explain the correlation between the learning strategies and

students’ English marks clearly, thus a replacement by the comparison between

total mean coefficient of LLS and students’ English scorecards was more

appropriate. Table 4.3. indicated the Mean total of LLS M=3.36 (calculated

from the mean coefficients of six LLS), taking this mean coefficient to compare

with students’ English marks in the course to detect any correlation in students’

English performance.

Table 4.3. Descriptive statistics - Mean total of LLS

Minimum Maximum Mean

Mean Total Valid N (listwise)

1.00

5.00

3.3679

N 176 176

Std. Deviation .69795

Continuously, when making a partially statistical analysis from students’

English scores (different groups of proficiency), it is found that there have been

68 good-grade students of the total 176 (occupies 38.6 %), 55 fair students of

the total 176 (occupies 31.2 %), 51 average students of the total 176 (occupies

29 %) and 2 poor-grade ones of the total 176 (occupies 1.1 %). The 3.5 is for

the lowest point in English and 10.0 is for the highest one (see Table 4.4.).

Table 4.4. English marks - Statistics

Valid Missing

N Mean Std. Deviation Minimum Maximum 176 0 7.386 1.4673 3.5 10.0

Table 4.5. revealed the reciprocal relationship between the Mean Total of

LLS and students’ English scorecards when making a comparison of them

(comparison for good students only). The analysis represented that Reading

Language Strategy alone was not completely affected by the results of lower

secondary school students (i.e. semester school reports). To get good points,

students must set up their learning objectives clearly (which language learning

strategies are highly appreciated). Good students always get high scores in their

language learning while poor-grade students often confuse it with English

language performance as well as with the assessment forms from teachers.

Table 4.5. Report of the comparison between mean total and English marks (for good students only)

Mean Total

English marks

Mean

Std. Deviation

3.5229

1.22347

3.2056

.09821

8.1

2.8951

.56877

8.2

3.4383

.73664

8.3

3.6326

.61718

8.4

4.0852

.84233

8.5

4.4250

.16892

8.6

2.6611

1.43953

8.7

3.2176

.63119

8.8

3.7102

.59406

8.9

3.5537

.06974

3.5500

.56400

9.1

3.5315

.81150

9.2

3.4315

.50579

9.3

2.5764

.14339

9.4

4.1417

1.21387

9.5

3.7630

.67481

9.6

3.5667

9.7

3.9028

9.8

3.1806

9.9

3.6042

.50480

3.5165

.73370

Total

An interesting finding here is that the majority of good students have

utilized Metacognitive strategies at the highest level so far, followed by

Cognitive strategies, and Memory strategies that proclaims these students’ high

proficiency of English. Conversely, poor-grade students use less language

learning strategies, Memory Strategy and Cognitive Strategy are their two least

used strategies, even the rote learning is something difficult to these students.

Being related to students’ cognition, whether they have any – It depends.

However, those students’ cognitive manifestation is dominated by their

negligent or unwilling learning style. In the learning process, they also used

Metacognitive strategies but not much that they were controlled by Affective

strategies and Compensation strategies. For this reason, poor-grade students

have lower proficiency in English than the good-grade. It means that cognition

determines the true value of a learner, and this depends on what a student’s

leaning awareness is. Therefore, good students can become more excellent

under the various forms of LLS setting, planning and management at school.

4.2. Discussion of results

The sequence of the first research question shows that the sixth graders of

Doan Ket Secondary School have used language learning strategies with a

medium rate, in which the memory strategy and cognitive strategy were most

frequently used. This study partly coincides with Cong-Lem’s research (2019)

about the identification of six language learning strategies (LLS), but there are

some differences among student participants (e.g. his tenth grader participants

were of the levels of frequency as well as the most or least frequently used

strategies). Simultaneously, it insists on the effects of LLS instruction

(Suwanarak, 2019). The result of this study presents a dispensable for LLS

instruction, particularly reading strategies instruction to low secondary school

students supporting the participants use these LLS actively without waiting for

any outside impact.

The outcome of the second research question indicates the correlation

between the DK secondary school students’ use of learning strategies and their

performance in English reading. The piece of evidence is that the memory and

cognitive strategies were the two most frequently used ones during their

learning process. Good students who did use these two strategies more

successfully than average and poor ones, thus this result is partially coincidental

to Ehrman and Oxford (1989) about “cognitive style and aspects of

personality”. It stated that “students are influenced by their cognition for

learning motivations”; however, that research was just for adults (e.g. high

school students up). In the case of Doan Ket students, they are too young to

have the best LLS themselves; nevertheless, they can first use the easiest

learning strategy - “Memory strategy” to help themselves overcome the

learning content. The cause of a rate distinction between the good and the poor-

grade students in the school is the cognition and memorizing ability of learning

a second language among them, that improve a student’s English reading skill

and decide that one’s language achievement. It means that good-grade students

can self-recognize and choose themselves a suitable language learning strategy

while the others get poor grades because they lack appropriate language

learning strategies or do not care about the learning outcomes. This fact is

identical to Baye (2018)’s research mentioned in the above literature that the

programs of the secondary education have focused on teachers’ instruction, and

language reading comprehension always requires the flexible learning

strategies from students. The more they read, the more mnemonic knowledge

in the heads stipulating an existing brainstorm. A student’s learning cognition

will upgrade this cognition to be metacognitive one and create more wills for

one’s future direction or self-assess for long-term learning strategy orientation.

Hence, “Metacognitive strategy” is the most important among LLS because of

its natural language apprehension through learners’ awareness.

Besides that, the students were not aware of the effect of English reading

strategies offering them to be more passive or timid to their language skills/

areas that related to reading skills while comprehensive reading is one of the

receptive skills before touching productive skills (Park-Oh, 1994). As a result,

they have not been confident enough to employ English learning strategies, or

they randomly use the reading strategies at the lowest level because they do not

know how literacy proficiency has affected the qualification of reading

comprehension. Another cause is that these students were not well-trained with

any program of language learning strategies. They still retain the learning

customs from the primary schools forgetting they need changing in a newer

environment - “Lower Secondary School”. Griggs & Dunn, 1984; Renzulli &

Smith, 1984 claimed that “learners can quickly enhance their academic

achievement, attitudes and behavior in the both levels of primary and secondary

school”. Nevertheless, teachers can help “stretch their students’ learning styles

by giving them some trial learning strategies” and vice versa to increase

language proficiency, teachers can instruct the students how to use learning

strategies relevantly.

Nevertheless, when making a statistical analysis from students’ English

scorecards, it was found 68 Good-grade students of the total 176 (occupying

38.6 %), 55 fair students of the total 176 (occupying 31.2 %), 51 average

students of the total 176 (occupying 29 %) and 2 poor-grade ones of the total

176 (occupying 1.1 %). In relation to the number of 68 good-grade students,

they attained the minimum score of 8.0 and the maximum score of 10.0, thus

the average computation for this student group’s English marks was equivalent

to 8.9. This quantity 38.6 % of good-grade students was quite successful in their

comprehensive reading achievement by using the language learning strategies

themselves. The most frequently used LLS of this 68 good-student group were

metacognitive, cognitive, and memory strategies, which the metacognitive

stood in the first position with the mean coefficient M=3.7 and the standard

deviation SD=0.8. Inversely, the number of poorest students was 2 attaining

both minimum and maximum score of 3.5 as a witness for students’

unconsciousness and no consideration in learning activities. The cognitive and

memory strategies were the two ones with lowest mean coefficient (both had

the lowest mean coefficient of M=3.1 and the standard deviation fluctuates

from 0.5 to 0.8, SD=0.8). However, it is not necessary that all strategies lead to

learning success (Oxford et al., 2014).

Most people learn English as a SL/ FL to direct their future careers, so

reading comprehension is the first important skill of all (Dubé et al., 2019).

Being good at reading strategies help learners create their critical thinking, set

up their own language learning or develop the target programs. After the

research, it requires Vietnamese students with learning styles and LLS (Ngoc

& Samad, 2020). According to this study, there is no difference on students’

sex when the rate of male and female do not influence the student’s learning

results but it depends on students’ awareness in language learning. The

learners’ LLS use has a direct correlation with their language learning

achievement, in this case is English language. The correlation appeared

strongly only if language learners plan the LLS choice, LLS use for English

competency themselves. In short, this discussion part mentions the practical

situation of Doan Ket Secondary School students in particular and contributes

the positive opinions to the teenage learners on a general perspective of English

learning in Vietnam.

4.3. Chapter summary

The chapter synthesized the results from questionnaires, interviews and

some discussion of results. The DK students’ most frequently used learning

strategy was the Memory Strategy, followed Cognitive Strategy, their least

used learning strategy was Social Strategy, the lowest frequency in Social

Strategy. The correlation between the frequency of LLS use and English

proficiency explained the existing situation of DK students’ competency. The

use of language learning strategies in English reading has offered learners a

sense of self-awareness and helped make their own language progress. LLS and

learning consciousness are extremely necessary to secondary school students,

and especially valuable to a secondary school teacher's English language

professional development. Many programs related to reading strategies have

also much supported in creating the attractive readings on paper materials or

online readings with multiple styles, that helps most students feel excited or

interested in English reading contents.

All the aforementioned things discussed the significance of LLS use,

particularly reading strategies in English teaching and learning, also the case of

English reading skill. It proved the effectiveness of learning strategy choices

which have had several certain impacts on learners’ language competency. LLS

must be the major premise for learning English successfully in educational

environments, leading learners towards a future desire.

CHAPTER 5. CONCLUSION

This chapter presents the study’s conclusion as a reaffirmation of the two

framed research questions as well as its significance. Moreover, this chapter 5

also discusses some limitations of the study and simply ends with suggestions.

5.1. Conclusion

In the consideration of the aforementioned research questions via the

combination of quantitative and qualitative approaches, the quantitative

research inclined to test the use of English language learning strategies and the

qualitative result was signified through the correlation between the frequency

of learning strategy use and how students performed English Reading, that

showed students’ high and low English proficiency.

5.1.1. Answer to the research question 1

What language learning strategies are most frequently used by students at

Doan Ket Secondary School?

The investigation indicated the following result: Doan Ket Secondary

School students frequently used the memory strategy most and the social

strategy least among language learning strategies. In that way, the LLS

classification before LLSI of the investigation was somehow the same

viewpoint as Minh & Intaraprasert (2012), Ngoc & Samad’s (2020) research

on LLS with “rote-learning knowledge” incurred from memory strategy. An

exception of the DK good-grade students with metacognitive strategy best

which had a similar part to Cong-Lem (2019) on LLS use and metacognitive

strategies, to Wolsey’s (2020) research on metacognitive awareness and

learners’ self-assessment.

Their frequently used LLS were memory strategy, only good students did

metacognitive strategies, representing that good students were able to use more

reading strategies to memorize things than others. This research question

showed the necessity of LLS, typically reading strategies, and LLSI at Doan

Ket Secondary School – as a stereotype of the secondary education system in

such difficult areas. Reading strategies have been of vital importance in

language learning.

Furthermore, an attachment between this study and the previous studies

exposed that students’ age also plays an influential role during the learning

process of students. For instance, these surveyed 6-graders are still young (e.g.

aged 11-12) so their frequently used LLS were Memory strategy, only good

students did Metacognitive strategies. This represents good student’s learning

needs and desires, the well-qualified students at every educational level. The

practical situation is that these good students’ qualifications can be upgraded

the following school years provided that they keep their learning attitude at a

pace whilst the normal ones cannot catch up with the language content from

their classes resulting in low quality. But up to a new stage of their age (e.g.

High school), they gradually recognize the value of LLS and come back to the

former learning. In this case, they may attain their need of completing language

programs, and take progress beyond their threshold or recede into the

background knowledge. Thus, this study is rather relevant to the educational

implications of other research from Baye (2018), Dubé et al. (2019), etc. about

LLS for secondary school students in general.

5.1.2. Answer to the research question 2

What is the correlation between these students’ use of learning strategies

and their performance in English Reading?

The study helps recognize the correlation between the students’ use of

learning strategies and their performance in English Reading - English

proficiency. The students’ LLS use has positively correlated with their learning

achievement, and also the case with reading skills. Thus, this study motivates

the reading strategies among secondary school students. The students who have

good reading strategies mean they can use their reading skills to perform

English comprehension well. The result of this study indicated the LLS choice,

LLS instruction, and even the student’s awareness affect students’ English

achievement very much. From this perspective, language reading is essential to

the effective learning achievement, as Pellicer-Sánchez et al. (2020)’s

examination on reading effectiveness and reading instruction. Through that

correlation, it has made the value of LLS in reading language comprehension,

and in struggling readers (Nazurty et al., 2019). The learners, whose practice

reading every day makes their brains activate strongly. In general, secondary

school students should use more reading strategies and even other LLS because

the more the variety of language learning strategies to be used, the more the

active learning among students; the less language learning strategies to be

trained, the less effective the students’ language learning.

After the result of this study, teachers can draw out the suitable courses

for the learners properly and help them achieve the targeted learning outcomes

as Malang’s (2020) research on English proficiency-instruction relationship for

learners’ language proficiency. In short, learners sometimes meet difficulties in

learning a language (English). These ones should overcome difficult reading

tasks (Phuc’s, 2020), meaning that learners should improve English reading

first to support other language skills during their learning process. Otherwise

these language learners can step in the next higher level of self-regulation in

context later (Oxford, 2017) and easily adapt to Oxford’s strategic self-

regulation model of language learning (Oxford, 2013). Consequently, learners

gradually know how to set up or at least choose their own learning strategies to

be successful members someday.

In conclusion, this study existed some absurd indicators in analyzing

research database but remained showing the significance of LLS use, first and

foremost reading strategies which were indispensable to English learning and

teaching at secondary schools, and some pedagogical implications regarding

LLS instruction were later suggested encouraging future research of LLS in

different educational contexts.

5.1.3. Significance

This study is theoretically and practically significant. Specifically, the

investigation of English LLS in the Vietnamese context (Doan Ket Secondary

School) contributes to the understanding of this approach deeply. The

investigation helped explore whether the learning outcomes of secondary

school students were found in other contexts (which LLS can be expected to

use most and what new issues emerged if any LLSI).

In a theoretical aspect, this study contributes to a critique and/ or a

reflection of a secondary school mechanism for pedagogic changes and

enhancement of educational quality. Particularly, it also contributes to the

academic research field based on the review of literature, finding out the most

effective learning resolutions for the DK Secondary School students in

Vietnam, raising these students’ awareness and continuously contributing to

academic research fields.

In a practical aspect, this study helps clarify what is necessary for

secondary school students’ effective learning outcomes and what impedes their

reflection and active learning. Previously, a few studies on some LLS in

Vietnam have been conducted but the majority of the students was at high

schools, tertiary/ higher education. It seems no plan for secondary education

research, therefore the conditions for beginner students at lower secondary

school have not been identified. This study identified several related factors to

students’ LLS use, mainly English reading strategies. The study detected the

correlation among LLS at DK School and considered DK school as a

representative for an entire lower secondary education. Besides that, good

teaching methodologies have contributed to the learner’s reading strategies

through language reading comprehension, and the well-chosen learning

strategies emphasize much on learner-centeredness.

This study explored a real result of the DK students’ LLS use and some

other results inferred from this perspective, that helped both language teachers

and students recognize the role of LLS use, LLSI so that the participants

themselves can decide which LLS to be applied or modified. Obviously, this

study also revealed the students’ learning result at the primary schools in

Vietnam affected the 6-grade student’s learning style. The application of LLS

in secondary education is essential to improve the quality of English learning

and teaching in DK school in specific and in the entire secondary education in

general. The encouragement of LLS, especially the reading strategies on

students’ English learning will bring to the language learning success,

promoting their English communicative competence or a potential competence.

Another identification from English scorecards is that the quantity of

good-grade students in DK school was not high because of lacking LLS. This

showed that learner’s comprehensive reading achievement has correlated with

the LLS choice, LLS instruction, and additionally learner’s awareness. In spite

of the largely used LLS of students may somehow be different among

Secondary Schools, High Schools, Tertiary Education, or even Higher

Education, most language studies affirmed the two identical tendencies of

language learning strategies: “The more use of LLS, mostly with reading

strategies among students, the better reading performance they are.

Conversely, the less use of reading strategies, the worse reading performance

of students get”. Nevertheless, it also depends on the language competency of

students in each school to identify if they themselves can set up the suitable

LLS in their learning environments or if they need an LLSI at school.

In summary, this study provides theoretical and practical implications on

the valuable guidelines for language learning satisfaction, if the intervention is

to be considered for promoting the improvement of English language learning

and teaching at the DK school thanks to English reading strategies. All of the

above are the messages for secondary school students from this study. The

experiences among studies about students’ learning styles infers an optimum

solution for the sixth-grade participants at DK School is to make a rhythmical

combination between learning styles and learning strategies, creating a

harmonious relationship to both teachers’ teaching quality and students’

English language ability (at the different levels of education as the earlier

explanations).

5.2. Implications

5.2.1. Limitations of the study

The study has several limitations. First, the observation time was so long

(up to the whole school year with the two semesters, plus Covid-19 time off).

Students had to spend their learning time, learning activities and join in the

survey questionnaires at the end of the school year. Second, the questionnaires

were only implemented once at that time to discover if these students have used

any language learning strategies or not, and which learning strategies they have

used. Hence, the student participants did not have a chance to change their own

learning strategies at present after being recognized by the teacher/ researcher

(can only alter their English LLS next school year, if any). Third, the scattered

questionnaires were for the sixth graders, not for other grades (i.e. not for the

population of Grade 7, Grade 8, Grade 9), so the researcher does not have

enough findings for the entire secondary system at a Secondary School, just

inferring from merely one representative for a whole. Finally, as mentioned

before, the location of the investigation was at Doan Ket Secondary School –

one of the secondary schools in District 6, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam.

And from the prospect of the DK school, the researcher may infer the

similar results to the rest of secondary schools in other places in Ho Chi Minh

City (i.e. no real experiences in other schools). However, the investigation

merely focused on the use of language learning strategies from students’

performance in reading English, neither on any of the rest language skills nor

other related factors. Thereby, the study may suggest some appropriate

implications during or after their learning process.

5.2.2. Suggestions

Together with the technologies and the applied principles in language

teaching, the proposals on reading strategies get diversified making learners’

English language reading easier and more convenient. Surely, an FL can be

acquired by practicing English reading every day under different activities.

Language 1 (L1) competency has been the prerequisite in English

comprehensive reading, intensifying learner’s comprehensive ability and

helping learners acquire English language sooner. Reading strategies are

usually suggested and employed in diverse contexts for FLA. L1 competency

(Vietnamese) can supported to transcode L2 (English) into learners’ L1

successfully for an easy understanding during a language learning program and

vice versa (e.g. L1 has been translated into L2 in use during the learners’

process of language acquisition).

It was suggested that reading strategies as the vital ones in English

language learning because where a memorization was depending on the reading

strategy use and literature remembering. Continuously, this study contributed

to the development of secondary school teacher staff and students; therefore,

the language teachers also notice the practical situations of every school

environment to make LLS choices, especially encourage practicing as many

reading strategies as possible, use other LLS appropriately to support English

learning, and raise the learning motivations in each student for better foreign

language development (English). Something acceptable to students’ informal

learning activities from different cultures, in which reading strategies as an

initial direction among LLS and applicable for secondary school students.

This study stirred up the need for applying reading strategies as well as

instructing LLS to secondary school students which created a trend of flexible

combination in the process of English apprehension. In comparison with

Oxford (1990), the later studies from Oxford (2003, 2013, 2017) ever presented

that the frequent use relates to the style preferences and positive outcomes from

its learning strategy use, thus secondary school students should employ as many

reading strategies as they can. Next, these students should actively coordinate

their learning styles and their own LLS to acquire a FL because of the

difference from these students’ proficiency levels and needs. In this way of

matching, secondary school students can quickly enhance their academic

achievement, learning attitudes and behavior. Teachers can help extend their

students’ learning styles through some trial LLS or instruct the students how to

use learning strategies relevantly to increase English proficiency as well. LLS

instruction or any support in teaching learning EFL will bring unexpectedly

positive effects for English proficiency in general and for reading competence

in particular since the significance of English reading strategies via

comprehensive reading. Therefore, another suggestion is the complete support

from language teachers that helps develop students’ comprehension strategies

and skills or obtain the learning outcomes, simultaneously motivate students’

language communicative competence at every step of the teaching and learning

following Oxford’s strategy direction (2020).

Thanks to the recognition of LLS use and its correlation with the students’

English achievement, secondary school teachers can timely intervene and do

training programs for the students as well as improve students’ English

language ability through the reading strategies instruction. Inversely, students

can identify the necessary objectives of language skills, the way to employ

reading strategies and other LLS in order to respond to other language skills/

areas and prepare for their English language competency in future. To sum up,

the English LLS use, especially reading strategies as well as the LLS instruction

to secondary school students are really essential in the current context of

education. This study cultivates students’ awareness on LLS, motivates their

self-study ability, or to promote their autonomous learning afterwards that can

be expressed in the Vietnamese proverb as the following:

“Có chí thì nên.”

(translated into English as: “Where there is a will, there is a way.”)

REFERENCES

Afflerbach, P., Pearson, P. D., & Paris, S. G. (2008). Clarifying Differences Between Reading Skills and Reading Strategies. International Reading Association. DOI:10.1598/RT.61.5.1 ISSN: 0034-0561 print/ 1936-2714 online. The Reading Teacher, 61(5), pp. 364-373.

Akkakoson, S. (2013). The relationship between strategic reading instruction, student learning of L2-based reading strategies and L2 reading achievement. Journal of Research in Reading. Volume 36, Issue 4, 2013, pp. 422-450. ISSN 0141-0423. DOI:10.1111/jrir.12004. Copyright ©2013 UKLA. Published by Blackwell Publishing, 9600 Garsington Road. USA.

Baxter, J., & Eyles, J. (1997). Evaluating qualitative research in social geography: Establishing “rigour” in interview analysis. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 22(4), 505-525.

Berg, M. V., Paige, R. M., & Lou, K. H. (2012). Student Learning Abroad: What Our Students Are Learning, What They’re Not, and What We Can Do About It? Stylus Publishing. LLC. Sterling, Virginia.

Bloomfield, L. (1942). Linguistics and reading. Elementary English Review

19.125-130, 183-186.

Brown, H. D. (2000). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching (4th

Edition). A Pearson Education Company. Longman.

Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by Principle: An Interactive Approach to

Language Pedagogy. San Francisco: Longman.

Canale, M. & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical Bases of Communicative Approaches to Second Language Teaching and Testing. Applied Linguistics, 1 (1), 1-47.

Chamot, A. U. (1998). Teaching Learning Strategies to Language Students. One of a series of modules for the Professional Preparation of Teaching Assistants in Foreign Languages. Center for Applied Linguistics. The George Washington University. Washington DC.

Chomsky, N. (1977). Language and Responsibility. Based on conversations

with Mitsou Ronat (1976). Published in French in 1977.

Chomsky, N. (2000). Language and Mind. Cambridge University Press (Third

Edition).

Chyl, K., Kossowski, B., Wang, S., Dębska, A., Łuniewska, M., Marchewka, A., Wypych, M., Bunt, M. V. D., Mencl, W., Pugh, K., & Jednoróg, K. (2021). The brain signature of emerging reading in two contrasting languages. Neuro Image, Volume 225, 2021, 117503, ISSN 1053-8119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2020.117503

Cowan, J. R. & Sarmad, Z. (1976). Reading Performance of Bilingual Children according to Type of School and Home Language. Vol. 26, No.2.

Cong-Lem, N. (2019). Language learning strategies among Vietnamese EFL High School students. Indonesian Journal of English Language Teaching, 14(1), May 2019, pp. 55-70.

Creswell, J. W., & Miller, D. L. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative

inquiry. Theory into Practice, 39(3), 124-130.

Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.

Crookes, G. (2003). A Practicum in TESOL. Professional Development through Teaching Practice. Cambridge Language Education. Series Editor: Jack C. Richards, Cambridge University Press.

Cziko, G. A. (1980). Language Competence and Reading Strategies: A Comparison of First- and Second- Language Oral Reading Error. Vol. 30, No.1, Illinois University.

Dörnyei, Z. (2009). Individual differences: Interplay of learner characteristics and learning environment. In N. C. Ellis & D. Larsen-Freeman (Eds.), Language as a complex adaptive system (pp. 230-248). Oxford, Wiley - Blackwell.

Dubé, F., Bessette, L., Ouellet, C., Dufour, F., Paviel, M. J., Bruchesi, O., Cloutier, É., & Landry, M. (2019). Teaching Practices that Promote the Development of Reading Skills in Inclusive Secondary Schools. Chapter 5: From Reading-Writing Research to Practice (p.74-87). First Edition. Edited by Sophie Briquet-Duhazé and Catherine Turcotte. © ISTE Ltd 2019. Published by ISTE Ltd and John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Ehrman, M. & Oxford, R. (1989). Effects of Sex Differences, Career Choice, and Psychological Type on Adult Language Learning Strategies. © 1989 The Modern Language Journal, 73, i (1989). 0026-7902/89/0001/001.

Ellis, R. (1997). Second Language Acquisition. Oxford University Press.

Story-structure instruction: pedagogy strategy

Faggella-Luby, M., Schumaker, J. B., & Deshler, D. D. (2007). “Embedded learning in heterogeneous secondary literature classes”. Learning Disability Quarterly, 30(2), 131-147.

Gholamain, M., & Geva, E. (1999). Orthographic and Cognitive Factors in The Concurrent Development of Basic Reading Skills in English and Persian. Language Learning, 49 (2), 183–217.

https://doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.00087

Giang, B. T. K., & Tuan, V. V. (2018). Language Learning Strategies of Vietnamese EFL Freshmen. Arab World English Journal, 9(3), 61-83. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.24093/awej/vol9no3.5.

Given, L. M., & Saumure, K. (2008). Trustworthiness. In L. M. Given (Ed.), The Sage encyclopedia of qualitative research methods (pp. 896-897). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Grabe, W. (2009). Reading in a second language: Moving from theory to

practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Graham, S., Woore, R., Porter, A., Courtney, L., & Savory, C. (2020). Navigating the Challenges of L2 Reading: Self-Efficacy, Self- Regulatory. Reading Strategies, and Learner Profiles. The Modern Language Journal, 0, 0, (2020). DOI: 10.1111/modl.12670. 0026- 7902/20/1–22 $1.50/0. ©National Federation of Modern Language Teachers Associations.

Griffiths, C. (2003). Patterns of language learning strategy use. System;

31:367-383.

Griggs, S. A., & Dunn, R. S. (1984). Selected case studies of the learning styles preferences of gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 28(3), 115-119. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698628402800304

Grossman, P., Loeb, S., Cohen, J., Hammerness, K., Wyckoff, J., Boyd, D., & Lankford, H. (2010). Measure for measure: The relationship between measures of instructional practice in middle school English language arts and teachers’ value-added scores (NBER Working Paper 16015). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. Doi:10.3386/w16015.

Gunning, P. & Oxford, R. L. (2014). Children learning strategy use and effects of strategy instruction on success in learning ESL in Canada. (2014) Elsevier Ltd. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2013.12.012

100

Hoang, N. T. B. (2013). English learning strategies of Vietnamese tertiary students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Tasmania, Australia. Retrieved from http://eprints.utas.edu.au/17105/1/Front-Nguyen-Thesis-_2013.pdf

Holdaway, D. (1982). Shared book experience: Teaching reading using

favorite books. Theory into Practice, 21, 293–300.

Hung, D. M. & Thao, N. T. P (2014). Vietnamese EFL learners' reading instruction.

comprehension affected via metacognitive strategy International Journal for Research in Education, 3(5).

Huong, N. T. (2015). An investigation into students’ motivation to learn English in higher education in Vietnam. BA., MA Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Faculty of Education Queensland University of Technology.

Jensen, D. (2008a). Confirmability. In L. M. Given (Ed.), The Sage encyclopedia of qualitative research methods (pp. 113). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Jensen, D. (2008). Transferability. In L. M. Given (Ed.), The Sage encyclopedia of qualitative research methods (pp. 887). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Koda, K. (2005). Insights into Second Language Reading. New York. Cambridge University Press. Doi: 10.1017/CB09781139524841.

Lai, M. K., Wilson, A., McNaughton, S., & Hsiao, S. (2014). Improving Achievement in Secondary Schools: Impact of a Literacy Project on Reading Comprehension and Secondary School Qualification. New Zealand Reading Research Quarterly, 49(3) pp.305–334. Doi: 10.1002/rrq.73. Auckland University. ©2014 International Reading Association.

Lee, K. R., & Oxford, R. (2008). Understanding EFL learners’ strategy use

and strategy awareness. Asian EFL Journal, 10(1), 7-32.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA:

Sage.

Linh, B. T. N. (2019). Perceptions of Vietnamese teachers towards incorporating dialectical thinking: A transformational model of curriculum and pedagogy. A Doctoral thesis.

Loh, J., & Hu, G. (2018). STELLAR® (Strategies for English Language Learning and Reading). The TESOL Encyclopedia of English Language Teaching. Edited by John I. Liontas. © 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

101

2018 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. DOI:

Lopera Medina, S. (2012). Effects of Strategy Instruction in an EFL Reading Comprehension Course: A Case Study. Vol. 14, No.1, April 2012. ISSN 1657-0790.

Published 10.1002/9781118784235.eelt0938.

Mai, T. P. (2017). Exploring Young Learners' Informal Learning of English Language: A comparative Study on the Perspectives of 11-13-year-old pupils in Finland and Vietnam. Master’s thesis in Education.

Malang, H. Y. (2020). The Relationship between Language Learning Strategies used by Vocational Students and Level of Proficiency. E- Journal of Linguistics Vol. 14, No.1, January 2020, pages: 128-136. Print ISSN: 2541-5514 Online ISSN: 2442-7586. https://doi.org/10.24843/e-jl.2020.v14.i01.p013

Massaro, D. W. (1975). Primary and secondary recognition in reading. In Massaro, D. W. (ed.), Understanding Language. New York: Academic Press.

Minh, D. D & Intaraprasert, C. (2012). Language Learning Strategies Employed by EFL Science-oriented University Students in Vietnam: An Exploratory Study 2012. International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, Volume 2, Issue 4, (1-5), April 2012. ISSN 2250-3153.

Nazurty, Rustam, Priyanto, Nurullaningsih, Anggia Pratiwi, Sarmandan, Akhmad Habibi, Amirul Mukminin (2019). Learning Strategies in Reading: The Case of Indonesian Language Education Student Teachers. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 7(11), 2536-2543. DOI: 10.13189/ujer.2019.071133.

Ngoc, T. T. N., & Samad, A. A. (2020). A Qualitative Case Study into Exploring the Learning Styles and Learning Strategies of Non-English Major Vietnamese College Students. Universal Journal of Educational Research 8(1A): 76-86. DOI:10.13189/ujer.2020.081311

Nhon, D. T. (2011). “Exploring CALL Options for Teaching EFL in Vietnam” Theses, Dissertations, and Other Capstone Projects. Paper 273. http://cornerstone.lib.mnsu.edu/etds

Nunan, D. (1999). Second language teaching and learning. Boston: Heinle &

Heinle.

Nunan, D. (2004). Task-Based Language Teaching. Cambridge Language

Teaching Library. Cambridge University Press.

102

Nunnally, J. (1978). Psychometric Methods. 2nd Edition. McGraw-Hill. New

York.

Nunnally, J. C. & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). The Assessment of Reliability.

Psychometric Theory, 3, 248-292.

OECD. (2015). Pisa 2015 result in focus. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org:

http://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisa-2015-results-in-focus.pdf

O’Malley, J. M., Chamot, A. U., Stewner-Manzanares, G., Russo, R. P., & Kupper, L. J. (1985). Learning strategy applications with students of English as a second language. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 557-584. Doi.org/10.2307/3586278

O’Malley, J. M. & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning Strategies in Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ogle, D. M. (1986). K‐W‐L: A teaching model that develops active reading of

expository text. The Reading Teacher, 39, 564-70.

Oxford, R. (1985). A New Taxonomy of Second Language Learning Strategies.

Washington: ERIC Clearinghouse.

Oxford, R. (1989). The role of styles and strategies in second language learning. ERIC Digest. ERIC clearinghouse and linguistic Washington DC.

Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should

know. New York: Newbury House Publishers.

Oxford, R. L. (1990). “Missing link: Evidence from Research on Language Learning Styles and Strategies” in Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics 1990. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

Oxford, R. L., Lee, D. C., Snow, M. A. & Scarcella, R. C. (1994). Integrating the language skills. System, Volume 22, Issue 2, Pages 257-268. ISSN 0346-251X. Doi.org/10.1016/0346-251X (94)90061-2.

Oxford, R. & Burry-Stock, J. (1995). Assessing the use of language learning strategies worldwide with the ESL/EFL version of the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL). University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL, USA, System, 23, 1-23.

Oxford, R. L & Ehrman, M. E. (1995). Adults language learning strategies in an Intensive foreign language program in the United State. System. Vol.23, No.3, pp. 359-386. University of Alabama, Foreign Service Institute, U.S.A.

103

Oxford, R. L. (2003). Language Learning Styles and Strategies: An Overview.

GALA 2003.

Oxford, R. L. (2017). Teaching and researching language learning strategies:

Self-regulation in context (2nd Ed.). New York: Routledge.

Oxford, R. L., & Gkonou, C. (2018). Interwoven: Culture, language, and

learning strategies. Doi:10.14746/ssllt.2018.8.2.10

Oxford, R. L., & Amerstorfer, C. M. (Eds.). (2018). Language learning strategies and individual learner characteristics: Situating strategy use. New York: Bloomsbury.

Oxford, R. L. (2020). Oxford Reading for Comprehension. Oxford University

Press. Retrieved from https://www.oup.com.au/primary/comprehension/oxford-reading-for- comprehension

Park-Oh, Y. Y. (1994). Self-Regulated Strategy Training in Second-Language Reading: Its Effects on Reading Comprehension, Strategy Use, Reading Attitudes, and Learning Styles of College ESL Students. Unpublished dissertation, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL.

Paris, S. G., Lipson, M. Y., & Wixson, K. (1983). Becoming a strategic reader.

Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8, 293-316.

Parson, T. (2015). The school class as a social system. In J. H. Ballantine, & J.Z. Spade (Eds.). School and Society. A sociological approach to education. California, United States: Sage Publication.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand

Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Pellicer-Sánchez, A., Conklin, K., & Vilkaite-Lozdien, L. (2020). The Effect of Pre-reading Instruction on Vocabulary Learning: An Investigation of L1 and L2 Readers’ Eye Movements. E-Language Learning 0:0, August 2020, pp. 1-42 1 ©2020 The Authors. Language Learning published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Language. Learning Research Club, University of Michigan. DOI: 10.1111/lang.12430

Phuc, N. T. H. (2020). A Study on Reading Strategies Used by Vietnamese High School English Language Learners. Thai Nguyen University of Education, Thai Nguyen, Vietnam. http://dx.doi.org/10.29322/IJSRP.10.06.2020.p10231

Reid, J. M. (1995). The Learning Style Preferences of ESL students. TESOL

Quarterly 21:87-111.

104

Renzulli, J. S., & Smith, L. H. (1984). Learning style preferences: A practical approach for classroom teachers. Theory into Practice, 18, 44-50

Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2001). Approaches and Methods in Language

Teaching (Second edition). Cambridge University Press.

Rubin, J. (1975). What the “Good Language Learner” Can Teach Us. TESOL Quarterly, Vol. 9, No.1 (Mar., 1975), pp. 41-51. DOI: 10.2307/3586011. Published by: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc. (TESOL)

learning

Rubin, J. (1987). Learner strategies: Theoretical assumptions, research history and typology. In A. Wenden & J. Rubin (Eds.), Learner strategies in (pp. 15-30). Englewood, NJ: Prentice/Hall language International.

Rumelhart, D. E. (1976). Toward an interactive model of reading. In Dornic,

S. (ed.), Attention and Performance VI. New York: Academic Press.

Ryan, E. B., & M. I. Semmel. (1969). Reading as a constructive language

process. Reading Research Quarterly 5. 59-83.

Silawi, R., Shalhoub-Awwad, Y., Prior, A., & Safra, E. J. (2020). Monitoring of Reading Comprehension Across the First, Second, and Third Language: Domain-General or Language-Specific? Language Learning 00:0, xxxx 2020, pp. 1-7 1. ©2020 Language Learning Research Club, University of Michigan. DOI:10.1111/lang.12410.

Silva, A. B. (2016). Action learning: lecturers, learners, and managers at the Center of Management Education. In: M. T. Lepeley, E. V. Kimakovitz & B. Roland (Orgs.). Human Centered Management in Executive Education: Global Imperatives, Innovation and New Directions. (pp. 126-139). London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Susan, M. G., & Selinker G. L. (2008). Second Language Acquisition. An

Introductory (Third edition, Routledge).

Suwanarak, K. (2019). Use of Learning Strategies and their Effects on English Language Learning of Thai Adult Learners 3 L: The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies - Vol.25(4): 99 – 120. http://doi.org/10.17576/3L-2019-2504-07

STELLAR. (2008). The STELLAR vision. Retrieved from

www.stellarliteracy.sg/

Tarone, E. (1981). Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages. Some Thoughts on the Notion of Communication Strategy. Inc. (TESOL). TESOL Quarterly. Vol.15, No.3, September1981.

105

Ter Beek, M., Brummer L., Donker, Anouk S., & Opdenakker, Marie-Christine J. L. (2018). Supporting secondary school students’ reading comprehension in computer environments: A systematic review. Wiley. Journal of computer assisted learning. ©2018 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. DOI: 10.1111/jcal.12260.

Viet, N. T. (2016). Exploring Language Learning Strategies of Vietnamese University English and Non-English Majors 1. Language Education in Asia, 2016, 7(1), 4-19. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.5746/LEiA/16/V7/I1/A02/Nguyen

Weil, Nolan. (2008). Vocabulary Size, Background Characteristics, and Reading Skill of Korean Intensive English Students. The Asian EFL Journal Quarterly, Conference Proceedings Volume 10(4): 26-59.

Weinstein, C. E., Husman, J., & Dierking, D. R. (2000). Self-regulation interventions with a focus on learning strategies. In MY. Boekaert, P. R. Pintrich, & Zeidner (Eds.). Handbook of self-regulation. California, United States: Academic Press.

Ya-Ling W. (2008). Language Learning Strategies Used by Students at Different Proficiency Levels. The Asian EFL Journal Quarterly, Conference Proceedings Volume 10(4): 75-95.

Yang, M. N. (2007). Language Learning Strategies for Junior College Students in Taiwan: Investigating Ethnicity and Proficiency. The Asian EFL Journal, 9(2): 35-57.

Yang, N. D. (1999). The relationship between EFL learners' beliefs and

learning strategy use. System, 27(4), 515-535.

106

APPENDICES

(Source: O’Malley et al., 1985; cited in Brown, 2000)

APPENDIX 1: DESCRIPTIONS OF LEARNING STRATEGIES

107

DESCRIPTIONS OF LEARNING STRATEGIES (CONTINUED)

(Source: O’Malley et al., 1985; cited in Brown, 2000)

108

(Source: Oxford, 1990, pp.18-19)

APPENDIX 2: DIAGRAM OF THE STRATEGY SYSTEM SHOWING ALL THE STRATEGIES

109

(Source: Oxford, 1990, pp.20-21)

DIAGRAM OF THE STRATEGY SYSTEM SHOWING ALL THE STRATEGIES (CONTINUED)

110

APPENDIX 3: QUESTIONNAIRE ON LANGUAGE LEARNING

STRATEGIES

This questionnaire aims to identify the language learning strategies you use

and how often you use these strategies. The statements in this questionnaire describe

possible language learning strategies. Please read each statement and indicate the

degree to which you agree or disagree. Use a checkmark (√) for the following scales

to stand for the frequency of using that strategy

1= never or almost never true of me

2= generally not true of me

3= somewhat true of me

4= generally true of me

5= always or almost always true of me

(Strategy Inventory for Language Learning – SILL)

Never true 1

Generally not true 2

Somewhat true 3

Generally true 4

Always true 5

STRATEGIES

I think of the reasons I learn English.

I read and write new English words every day to remember them easily.

I try to read English words anywhere I see.

I remember a new English word by reading and writing in papers many times.

I also try to remember new words through singing along with English songs.

I also learn new words through reading Newspapers, Magazines, and English story books.

I often review my English lessons.

I learn new English words/ phrases by remembering my class activities and reading them out loud.

I sometimes read and write several English sentences.

111

Never true 1

Generally not true 2

Somewhat true 3

Generally true 4

Always true 5

STRATEGIES

I try to read English fluently.

I only use the English words I know.

I sometimes read English stories with my classmates in class.

I write notes, messages and jokes in English and read them again.

I try to imitate patterns in English after reading a material.

I try to translate the reading passages.

I read English without looking up every new word.

I pay attention when my teachers/ friends are reading English.

I have clear aims to improve my reading skill.

I plan my timetable to have enough time for English learning.

I am nervous when I am doing a reading and writing test in English.

I write down my feelings in a personal diary after reading a text.

If I don’t understand something in English, I look up the dictionary and repeat it after the phonetics and meaning.

I read the important grammar points on the internet to correct my mistakes.

I often practice English by reading a lot of things.

I ask questions in English in class.

I sometimes read about the culture of English speakers.

(Adapted from Oxford, 1990)

112

QUESTIONNAIRE ON LLS IN VIETNAMESE

PHIẾU KHẢO SÁT VỀ CHIẾN LƯỢC HỌC TIẾNG ANH

Các em Học sinh thân mến!

Hiện nay, chúng tôi đang nghiên cứu đề tài về Chiến lược học Tiếng Anh của học sinh

trường THCS Đoàn Kết nhằm phục vụ tốt hơn cho việc dạy và học trong thời gian tới.

Mong các em dành chút ít thời gian đọc từng câu trong Bảng câu hỏi dưới đây, và cho

biết mức độ đồng ý hoặc không đồng ý của các em về các chiến lược học đó bằng cách

đánh dấu (√) vào câu mà mình chọn theo cấp độ như sau:

1 = Không bao giờ hoặc gần như không bao giờ đúng đối với tôi

2 = Nói chung không đúng đối với tôi

3 = Hơi đúng đối với tôi

4 = Nói chung đúng đối với tôi

5 = Luôn luôn hoặc gần như luôn luôn đúng đối với tôi

I. THÔNG TIN CÁ NHÂN

Họ và tên: …………………………………… Nam/Nữ: … Ngày sinh: ………… Lớp: 6/…

II. CÂU HỎI KHẢO SÁT (đánh dấu √ vào câu mà mình chọn)

Không bao giờ đúng 1

Nói chung không đúng 2

Hơi đúng 3

Nói chung đúng 4

Luôn luôn đúng 5

CHIẾN LƯỢC HỌC

Tôi nghĩ về các lý do tôi học tiếng Anh.

1 2 Đọc và viết từ vựng tiếng Anh giúp tôi dễ nhớ từ.

Tôi cố gắng đọc từ tiếng Anh ở bất cứ nơi nào tôi nhìn thấy.

3

4

Tôi ghi nhớ từ vựng mới bằng cách đọc và viết ra giấy nhiều lần.

Tôi cố gắng ghi nhớ từ mới qua lời các bài hát tiếng Anh.

5

6

Tôi học từ mới thông qua việc đọc Báo, Tạp chí, và sách truyện viết bằng tiếng Anh.

Tôi thường ôn lại bài học tiếng Anh của mình.

7

113

Không bao giờ đúng 1

Nói chung không đúng 2

Hơi đúng 3

Nói chung đúng 4

Luôn luôn đúng 5

CHIẾN LƯỢC HỌC

8

Tôi thuộc từ/câu bằng cách nhớ lại các hoạt động trong lớp học và đọc chúng to lên.

Tôi thỉnh thoảng tự đọc và viết một số câu bằng tiếng Anh.

9 10 Tôi cố gắng đọc tiếng Anh cho lưu loát.

11 Tôi chỉ sử dụng những từ tiếng Anh mà tôi biết.

12 Tôi đôi khi đọc truyện bằng tiếng Anh với bạn bè trong lớp.

13 Tôi ghi chú lại các hoạt động, những lời đùa bằng tiếng Anh

rồi sau đó đọc lại chúng.

14 Tôi cố gắng làm theo những mẫu câu tiếng Anh sau khi được

đọc qua.

15 Tôi cố gắng phiên dịch bài đọc sang nghĩa tiếng Việt.

16 Tôi đọc Tiếng Anh không tra cứu nghĩa của từng từ mới.

17 Tôi rất chú ý lúc thầy cô/bạn bè tôi đọc tiếng Anh.

18 Tôi có mục tiêu cải thiện kỹ năng đọc cho mình.

19 Tôi sắp xếp thời gian để học tiếng Anh.

20 Tôi lo lắng mỗi khi làm bài kiểm tra đọc viết tiếng Anh.

21 Tôi viết lại cảm nghĩ của mình vào nhật ký sau khi đọc qua

một bài đọc nào đó.

22 Nếu chưa hiểu nghĩa của một từ nào đó trong tiếng Anh, tôi

tra từ điển, nghe phát âm và đọc lại từ đó nhiều lần.

23 Tôi đọc qua các điểm ngữ pháp quan trọng trên mạng

Internet để sửa lỗi cho mình.

24 Tôi thường thực hành tiếng Anh bằng cách đọc nhiều thứ.

25 Tôi hỏi các câu hỏi bằng tiếng Anh khi học ở lớp.

26 Tôi thỉnh thoảng đọc hiểu về văn hóa của những người nói

tiếng Anh.

Chúng tôi cam đoan rằng Phiếu khảo sát này không làm ảnh hưởng gì đến các em.

Chân thành cảm ơn các em đã tham gia cuộc khảo sát này!

114

APPENDIX 4: THE QUESTIONS FOR INTERVIEWS

NO.

QUESTIONS

REMARKS

1 What English skill of all do you like best? Why?

2

How is your reading ability? (or What do you think about Reading skill?)

The questions

are the

3

Why do (not) you use this learning strategy (sentences 7, 10 or 12, 25)?

sentences

related to the

4 How many times do you read the words to remember them?

learning

strategies

5

When reading English words, do you read alone or with your friends?

taken

from the

6 How do you feel about this learning strategy?

surveyed

questionnaires

7

The learning strategies (sentences 2 or 4) are good for your English learning, why don’t you use them? / or Why don’t you read a lot? (to the poor-grade group)

8 After this interview, which learning strategy will you apply?

115

APPENDIX 5: FOCUS INTERVIEWS IN DETAILS

(Interviewing good-grade and poor-grade groups)

ANSWERS QUESTIONS

POOR-GRADE GROUP

Student 1: I only like speaking.

Student 2: I like reading.

1. What English skill of all do you like best? Why?

Student 3: (no answer)

2. What do you think about Reading skill?

3. Why do (not) you use this learning strategy (sentences 7, 10 or 12, 25)?

Student 1: I don’t read, I like speaking to foreigners. Student 2: Reading helps me know something new in the world. Student 3: It’s good to read, but I don’t read English. Student 1: I don’t care English subject. Student 2: I am not good at English, I just like music. Student 3: I don’t know.

Student 1: I sometimes read words. Student 2: I read the vocabulary and reading texts in my lessons. Student 3: I seldom read the words.

4. How many times do you read the words to remember them?

GOOD-GRADE GROUP Student 1: I like reading and Speaking because reading is good. Student 2: I like reading too, because I have read English stories a lot. Student 3: I like reading because it has helped me understand the lesson contents Student 1: I think it’s important. Student 2: Reading helps me improve my knowledge. Student 3: I think it’s important to read a lot. Student 1: Because it helps me improve my reading and other skills. Student 2: Because it helps me understand the story’s content. Student 3: Because it helps me remember my lessons. Student 1: I read words many times. Student 2: I usually read the words and read stories. Student 3: I read and write the words many times in the papers to remember them. Student 1: I read alone and sometimes read with my friends. Student 2: I read alone

5. When reading English words, do you read alone or with your friends?

Student 1: I read English words chorally in my class. Student 2: I read English words in my class Student 3: Yes, read chorally.

6. How do you feel about this learning strategy?

Student 3: I read English words in my class with friends Student 1, 2, 3: It is good for me (the same answer)

7. Why don’t you use the such learning strategies 2, 4? or Why don’t you read a lot?

Student 1, 2, 3: Reading strategy (the same answer)

Student 1, 2, 3: Yes, it is good (the same answer) Student 1: I don’t have time to read, I am busy. Student 2: I learn other subjects and do the housework. Student 3: I am lazy. Student 1, 2, 3: Reading strategy (the same answer)

8. After this interview, which learning strategy will you apply?

116

APPENDIX 6: FREQUENCY STATISTICS OF STUDENTS’

ENGLISH MARKS

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

1.1 2.3 3.4 1.7 1.1 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.1 1.7 2.8 2.3 2.3 .6 2.8 1.7 3.4 1.1 2.8 .6 1.7 2.3 1.1 1.1 2.3 1.7 2.8 1.1 1.7 4.0 3.4 2.3 1.1 2.3 2 4 6 3 2 3 3 3 2 3 5 4 4 1 5 3 6 2 5 1 3 4 2 2 4 3 5 2 3 7 6 4 2 4 1.1 2.3 3.4 1.7 1.1 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.1 1.7 2.8 2.3 2.3 .6 2.8 1.7 3.4 1.1 2.8 .6 1.7 2.3 1.1 1.1 2.3 1.7 2.8 1.1 1.7 4.0 3.4 2.3 1.1 2.3 1.1 3.4 6.8 8.5 9.7 11.4 13.1 14.8 15.9 17.6 20.5 22.7 25.0 25.6 28.4 30.1 33.5 34.7 37.5 38.1 39.8 42.0 43.2 44.3 46.6 48.3 51.1 52.3 54.0 58.0 61.4 63.6 64.8 67.0 Valid 3.5 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 6.7 6.8 6.9 7.0 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6 7.7 7.8 7.9 8.0 8.1 8.2

117

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

69.9 74.4 76.1 77.3 79.0 80.7 82.4 84.1 86.4 88.1 89.8 90.9 92.0 97.2 97.7 98.3 98.9 100.0 2.8 4.5 1.7 1.1 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 2.3 1.7 1.7 1.1 1.1 5.1 .6 .6 .6 1.1 100.0 5 8 3 2 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 2 2 9 1 1 1 2 176 8.3 8.4 8.5 8.6 8.7 8.8 8.9 9.0 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 9.5 9.6 9.7 9.8 9.9 10.0 Total 2.8 4.5 1.7 1.1 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 2.3 1.7 1.7 1.1 1.1 5.1 .6 .6 .6 1.1 100.0