Ref. code: 25605921040159VLQ

THE SURVEY OF LANGUAGE LEARNING STRATEGIES OF

HIGH SCORING AND LOW SCORING STUDENTS OF AN

INTERNATIONAL PROGRAM IN A UNIVERSITY

BY

MISS NAPATIDA PRISSANANUNTAKUL

AN INDEPENDENT STUDY PAPER SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL

FULFILMENT OF

THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE DEGREE OF

MASTER OF ARTS IN CAREERS ENGLISH FOR

INTERNATIONAL COMMUNICATION

LANGUAGE INSTITUTE

THAMMASAT UNIVERSITY

ACADEMIC YEAR 2017

COPYRIGHT OF THAMMASAT UNIVERSITY

Ref. code: 25605921040159VLQ

THE SURVEY OF LANGUAGE LEARNING STRATEGIES OF

HIGH SCORING AND LOW SCORING STUDENTS OF AN

INTERNATIONAL PROGRAM IN A UNIVERSITY

BY

MISS NAPATIDA PRISSANANUNTAKUL

AN INDEPENDENT STUDY PAPER SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL

FULFILMENT OF

THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE DEGREE OF

MASTER OF ARTS IN CAREERS ENGLISH FOR

INTERNATIONAL COMMUNICATION

LANGUAGE INSTITUTE

THAMMASAT UNIVERSITY

ACADEMIC YEAR 2017

COPYRIGHT OF THAMMASAT UNIVERSITY

Ref. code: 25605921040159VLQ

i

Independent Study Paper Title THE SURVEY OF LANGUAGE LEARNING

STRATEGIES OF HIGH SCORING AND LOW

SCORING STUDENTS OF AN

INTERNATIONAL PROGRAM IN A

UNIVERSITY

Author Miss Napatida Prissananuntakul

Degree Master of Arts

Major Field/Faculty/University Career English for International Communication

Language Institute

Thammasat University

Independent Study Paper Advisor Rangsiya Chaengchenkit, Ph.D.

Academic Year 2017

ABSTRACT

Researchers have tried to find way for students to learn more effectively. In

1990, Oxford’s language learning strategies became well-known for the use of six

types of strategies: Memory, Cognitive, Compensation, Meta-cognitive, Affective and

Social. This study aimed to find the difference in strategies usage between high

scoring and low scoring students in an international program in a university. From a

total of 36 people, 29 questionnaires were returned. Fifteen of the participants were

the low scoring students and fourteen were the high scoring students based on TU-

GET scores. The participants who had scores lower than 650 were counted as the low

scoring students and with scores higher than 650 were counted as high scoring

students. A SILL questionnaire adapted from Oxford (1990)—Containing 36 items

were used. Frequency, mean and standard deviation were used to analyse the data

using of SPSS program. The results showed that the high-scoring students used Meta-

Cognitive strategies the most followed by Cognitive strategies, Social strategies,

Compensation strategies, Memory strategies and Affective strategies. For the low-

scoring students, the most used strategies were Meta-Cognitive strategies,

Compensation strategies, Memory strategies, Social strategies, Cognitive strategies

Ref. code: 25605921040159VLQ

ii

and Affective strategies. Both groups used the same strategies at the highest and

lowest levels, but they differed in numerical ranks from 2 to 5.

Keywords: Language learning strategies, High score, Low score, International

program

Ref. code: 25605921040159VLQ

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This independent study paper could not be completed without Rangsiya

Chaengchenkit, Ph.D., my advisor. She gave me good and very clear suggestions in

doing this paper. I felt like I could do better when I follow her advice and suggestions.

I would like to thank God that he is always with me and help me finish this

paper although I cannot see him; my mum, Mrs. Aree Prissananuntakul, that gave me

time and encouragement to follow my dream; my sister, J’ Ying, for mental, physical

and financial support; and my church, RMC BKK that prayed for me any time I

needed support.

I would like to thank P’ Fun and P’ Won, administrators in CEIC who are

always nice, fun and helpful. I want to thank my close friends, Jeng and Phil who

always encouraged me. I want to also thank all the teachers at LITU that I studied

with--; your knowledge gave me the ideas for doing this research. I would also like to

thank Ajarn Mark Zentz for helping me proof-read my paper.

Thanks also go to all the participants that did the questionnaires for me so I

had raw data to analyse. Thanks, are also extended to all my friends and the staff of

CEIC at Thammasat University. I am really blessed to study in this faculty.

Miss Napatida Prissananuntakul

Ref. code: 25605921040159VLQ

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ABSTRACT i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iii

LIST OF TABLES vi

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Background of the Study 1

1.2 Research Questions 1

1.3 Research Objectives 2

1.4 Definition of Terms 2

1.5 Significance of the Study 3

1.6 Limitations of the Study 3

CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE 4

2.1 Background of Language Learning Strategies 4

2.2 The six main types of Language Learning Strategies of Oxford. 5

2.2.1 Direct Strategies 5

2.2.2 Indirect Strategies 5

2.3 Related Research about Language Learning Strategies. 6

CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOTY 8

3.1 Participants 8

3.2 Materials 8

3.3 Procedures 11

3.4 Data Analysis 11

Ref. code: 25605921040159VLQ

v

CHAPTER 4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 12

4.1 Results 12

4.1.1 General Information about the Participants 12

4.1.1.1 Age 12

4.1.1.2 Gender 12

4.1.1.3 TU-GET Scores 13

4.1.2 Results related to research questions 13

4.1.2.1 The Results of Using Memory Strategies. 14

4.1.2.2 The Results of Using Cognitive Strategies. 15

4.1.2.3 The Results of Using Compensation Strategies. 17

4.1.2.4 The Results of Using Meta-cognitive Strategies. 18

4.1.2.5 The Results of Using Affective Strategies. 20

4.1.2.6 The Results of Using Social Strategies. 21

4.1.2.7 The Total Usage of Language Learning Strategies. 22

4.2 Discussion 23

CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 25

5.1 Conclusion 25

5.1.1 What are the language learning strategies of high-scoring-

and low-scoring students? 25

5.1.2 How are the language learning strategies of high-scoring-

students similar and different from that of low-scoring-

students? 25

5.2 Recommendations 27

REFERENCES 28

APPENDIX 30

BIOGRAPHY 38

Ref. code: 25605921040159VLQ

vi

LIST OF TABLES Tables Page

2.1 Language Strategies by Oxford 5

4.1 Age 12

4.2 Gender 12

4.3 TU-GET Score 13

4.4 TU-GET Low and High Scores 14

4.5 Memory Strategies Usage 14

4.6 Cognitive Strategies Usage 16

4.7 Compensation Strategies Usage 17

4.8 Meta-cognitive Strategies Usage 19

4.9 Affective Strategies Usage 20

4.10 Social Strategies Usage 21

4.11 The Overall Strategies Usage 22

Ref. code: 25605921040159VLQ

1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of the Study

English is a world language. Mufwene stated that after World War II, English

started to be the medium for everyone in the world to communicate. After the splitting

of the Soviet Union, English became even more powerful (Mufwene, 2010). Knowing

English is more valuable than money at present. People are willing to pay as much as

they can to have good ability in English.

In the 21st century, there are many online classrooms that people can enroll in,

and resources of learning are easy to access. Although students know that being better

in English will enable them to get better jobs—and some spend extra time in studying

English, they never improve as much as they expect.

As a teacher, the researcher noticed that many students really wanted to be

better in English, but they still could not. Many think that to be exposed to the target

language as much as one can-- will be the answer—but there are still other aspects

that learners should know.

The concept of language learning strategies (or LLS) was developed by Rubin

and Stern in 1975. They believe that ‘Students are the only ones who can actually do

the learning’ and Nyikos and Oxford affirm this by stating that ‘learning begins with

learners.’ (Oxford, 1993 as cited in Griffiths 2004).

In this research, researcher will focus on language learning strategies used by

a group of students in an English program. They were first-year students who had

studied for one to two semesters and they must use English to pass an entrance exam,

namely, the TU-GET.

1.2 Research Questions

1.2.1 What are the language learning strategies of high-scoring and low-

scoring students?

Ref. code: 25605921040159VLQ

2

1.2.2 How are the language learning strategies of high-scoring students similar

and different from that of low-scoring students?

1.3 Research Objectives

1.3.1 To investigate the language learning strategies of high-scoring and low-

scoring students.

1.3.2 To examine the similarities and differences in language learning

strategies used by high-scoring and low-scoring students.

1.4 Definition of Terms

1.4.1 First language means the language that people use when they start to

learn how to speak. For this study, the first language is Thai.

1.4.2 Target language means languages that people want to learn to speak

which is not their first language. For this study, the target language is English.

1.4.3 Participants mean first-year students in academic year 2017 in an

international program in this university.

1.4.4 High-scoring students mean students who had a university English

exam score higher than 650 on the entrance test or during study in the

program.

1.4.5 Low-scoring students mean students who had a university English

exam score lower than 650 on the entrance test or during study in the program.

1.4.6 TU-GET means Thammasat University General English Test. It is the

entrance test used when students want to apply for some programs at

Thammasat University.

1.4.6 SILL stands for Strategies Inventory for Language Learning invented by

Oxford (1990). It contains questions with a Likert scale of 1 to 5. The results

show what language learning strategies are used most and at which level.

Ref. code: 25605921040159VLQ

3

1.5 Significance of the study

1.5.1 This study can help to students to improve language learning strategies

by themselves.

1.5.2 This study can help teachers to adjust or adapt their teaching to fit the

students in terms of particular strategies.

1.6 Limitations of the study

The participants were only first-year students in academic year 2017.

Ref. code: 25605921040159VLQ

4

CHAPTER 2

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

2.1 Background of Language Learning Strategies

Human beings are eager to seek more knowledge. It makes them feel safer

when they think their knowledge is wide enough to cover the things that they will do.

As well as knowing languages, since we have the Internet, access to languages seems

to be easier. The internet reveals the world that people in one place never knew

before.

The language that was used on the Internet for the first time was English. Now

every language plays an important role in communication between people from one

place to another. However, local languages still cannot substitute for English. In 2013,

English was the main language used on websites around 80% followed with German

4.5% and Japanese 3.1% (Zuckerman,2013). In 2018, of English usage was 52.3%

follow by Russian (6.3%), German (6.2%), Spanish (5.3), Japanese (5.2), and many

more (W3techs, 2018). English is still the main language that most people use on the

Internet by a wide margin.

In the 19th century, English became the world’s language—but people struggle

to learn English. In 1975, the notion of language learning strategies was first

introduced by Rubin (Rubin, 1975). In 1987, Wenden defined language learning

strategies as ‘Learning Strategies are the various operations that learners use in order

to make sense of their learning’ (Wenden, 1987). In 1990, Oxford explained language

learning strategies as ‘steps taken by students to enhance their own learning’ (Oxford,

1990). She separated the strategies into two categories: direct and indirect.

Language learning strategies in Oxford cited 11,761 times in Google Scholar.

This means they are popular strategies that many researchers used to help students

learn.

Direct strategies in Oxford are divided into three types and each type is also

divided into minor types. However, this paper will focus on only the six main types.

Ref. code: 25605921040159VLQ

5

2.2 The six main types of language learning strategies of Oxford.

Direct Strategies Indirect Strategies

1. Memory 1. Meta-cognitive

2. Cognitive 2. Affective

3. Compensation 3. Social

Table 2.1: Language Learning Strategies by Oxford

2.2.1 Direct Strategies

The first type of direct strategies is memory strategies. They are

techniques to use for remembering more effectively--, for example, creating

link between words in L2 with words in L1, using images and sound to help

memorization, reviewing new words and using the word often to remember

the word.

The second type is cognitive strategies. They are used for helping

learners to use the goal language or task correctly using their processes--, for

example, to reason, to analyze, to note, to summarize, to synthesize, to outline,

to reorganize information to progress in knowledge construction.

The last one is compensation strategies. They are used by students to

fix the missing knowledge in the target language because of the lack of

vocabulary--, for instance, guess words from the situation in listening and

reading, using synonyms, talking around to predict the missing words in

speaking and writing and using sign language or pause words in speaking.

2.2.2 Indirect Strategies

The first type, meta-cognitive strategies, are used by students to help

them coordinate the step of learning overall--, for instance, identifying one’s

own style choices and learning, planning for the target language task,

gathering and organizing materials, arranging a learning area and time table,

monitoring faults, evaluating achievement, Evaluate advancement of any type

of learning strategy.

Ref. code: 25605921040159VLQ

6

The second type of indirect strategies is affective strategies, which are

techniques to enable students to handle their feelings, mindsets and values--,

for example, identifying one’s own mood and nervousness level, talking about

emotions, rewarding themselves achievement, using deep breathing or

encouraging themselves.

And the last type, social strategies, are activities that learners use to

find a chance to be exposed to the environment where practicable (Hardan,

2013). These activities include asking questions to get identification, asking to

clarify the messing up point, asking for help in doing language assignments,

talking in L2 language with others, as well as exploring culture and society of

native speakers.

2.3 Related Researches about Language Learning Strategies.

Thangpatipan (2014) surveyed the language learning strategies used by high-scoring and low-scoring students in an English program in a high school in

Chanthaburi province in academic year 2015. Her subjects were 40 students, all

female, aged between 12-15 years old. She separated them between high-scoring and

low-scoring by their GPA in English over two semesters. If the students had a GPA of

3.5 or above, she counted them as high-scoring students. If students had a GPA lower

than 2.0, she counted them as low-score students. There were 22 high-scoring

students 18 low-scoring students. She also used the SILL.

The result showed that the strategies that were most used were meta-cognitive,

followed by memory strategies, social strategies and the last one was affective

strategies. All were used at the medium level. The high-scoring students mostly used

meta-cognitive strategies and the low-scoring students mostly used memory

strategies. She also found that high-scoring students used all six types strategies,

which was more than poor learners. Her finding on high-scoring students’ usage of

meta-cognitive strategies was in accordance with O’Malley and Chamot’s results in

1990 (as cited in Thangpatipan, 2014).

Ref. code: 25605921040159VLQ

7

Qing (2013) surveyed language learning strategies used by EFL learners at a

school in Bangkok. Her subjects were selected randomly: two classes were from

junior high school and another two classes were from senior high school. She

distributed 200 questionnaires but received only 159 completed questionnaires. The

questionnaires were SILL. She used the SPSS program to calculate the answers.

It was found that strategies used at high to low levels in all groups were meta-

cognitive, compensatory, social, affective, memory and cognitive strategies. The

results showed that general students mostly used meta-cognitive strategies. When

comparing high proficiency and low proficiency students, the high proficiency ones

used more strategies than the lower ones.

Kunasaraphun (2015) studied English learning strategy and proficiency levels

of the 300 first year students at Suan Sunandha Rajabhat University in Bangkok,

Thailand divided into three groups according to their proficiency levels, i.e., basic,

intermediate and advanced, using SSRUIC papers and interview tests. SILL was used.

Kunasaraphun used SPSS and Anova to calculate the results.

The results showed that meta-cognitive, social, cognitive, affective,

compensation and memory Strategies were used, and the most frequently used was

meta-cognitive strategies. These strategies had a high level of usage while the other

strategies were used at a medium level. Also, high proficiency students used English

learning strategies more often than any other levels. She stated that her findings could

imply that English language teaching has been developed to prepare for the AEC

(Kunasaraphun, 2015).

Tirabulkul (2005) conducted research on the language learning strategy of

students in an MA TEFL Program at Thammasat University. Her subjects were 57

students in MA TEFL program in batch 6 and 7 amount 57 people.

The results showed that the most students used meta-cognitive strategies

followed by compensation, social, cognitive and affective. The least used was

memory strategies. The level of use was all at the high and medium level and no

strategies were used at the low level.

Ref. code: 25605921040159VLQ

8

CHAPTER 3

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This survey aimed to determine the English language learning strategies used

by first-year students in an English master’s degree program at a university in

Thailand.

3.1 Participants

The participants were first-year students in a master’s degree program which

had 36 people. To pass the entrance exam, participants had to have a TU-GET score

at 550. Those with TU-GET scores higher than 650 were categorized as high-scoring

students and those below the score of 650 were low-scoring students.

3.2 Materials

The material was divided in two parts:

I. The first part: demographic information such as gender, income, etc.

II. The second part: The Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (or

SILL) version 7.0 divided into six parts A, B, C, D, E, F and a total of 36

questions.

The Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (or SILL) version 7.0 of Oxford

(Oxford, 1989) was adapted for collecting data. From the original 50 items, a total of

36 items with six items representing each type were used.

Oxford invented a test called the Strategies Inventory for Language Learning

which can identify which strategies people use and how often they use them. Firstly,

she mentioned that she wanted teachers to help their learners learn (Oxford, 1990). In

this research, it will be used with students who already know their styles but want to

try new strategies, so they can learn English better.

Ref. code: 25605921040159VLQ

9

The questionnaire was made in one version but in two languages, the original

English with Thai translations under it. The answers were written in separate columns

for convenience in collecting data.

The answers were based on a 5-points Likert scale which was:

l. Never or almost never true of me (Never).

2. Usually not true of me (Rarely).

3. Somewhat true of me (Sometimes).

4. Usually true of me (Usually).

5. Always or almost always true of me (Always).

The questionnaire was divided in to six parts but does not

mention the name of the strategies on the paper (see Appendix). They

were as follows:

Part A: Memory strategies.

Part A was items 1-6. This investigated whether students used

techniques to remember more efficiently or not. Examples are ‘I think

of relationships between what I already know and new things I learn in

English.’ or ‘I use new English words in a sentence, so I can remember them’.

Part B: Cognitive strategies.

Part B contained items 7-12. This investigated whether

students used strategies to help them employ the target language or

task by using their own process, for example, ‘I say or write new

English words several times.’ or ‘I try to talk like native English speakers’.

Ref. code: 25605921040159VLQ

10

Part C: Compensation strategies

Part C was items 13 – 18. This examined if students could

compensate for missing knowledge in the target language due to the

lack of vocabulary. Example questions are, ‘To understand unfamiliar

English words, I make guesses.’ and ‘When I can’t think of a word during a conversation in English, I use gestures’.

Part D: Meta-cognitive strategies

Part D was items 19-24. It explored if students used strategies

to coordinate the learning process by centering, arranging, planning

and evaluating their learning (Harden, 2015). Example questions are, ‘I

try to find as many ways as I can to use my English.’ and ‘I notice my English mistakes and use that information to help me do better.’

Part E: Affective strategies

Part E was items 25 - 30. It investigated whether students had

techniques to help them with their emotions, attitudes, motivations and

values. For example, ‘I try to relax whenever I feel afraid of using

English.’ or ‘I encourage myself to speak English even when I am

afraid of making a mistake.’

Part F: Social strategies

Part F was items 31-36, and it investigated if students used

activities to seek opportunities to be exposed to an environment in

which they can practice English as much as possible. Example

questions are, ‘In a conversation, if I do not understand some English

words, I ask the other person to slow down or repeat again.’ and ‘I ask

a favor to native English speakers to correct me when I talk’.

Ref. code: 25605921040159VLQ

11

3.3 Procedures

The questionnaires were given to 36 students in March and April 2018.

Most of the students returned them on the same day or the following week. A total of

29 were collected.

3.4 Data Analysis

The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences or SPSS was used to

calculate the descriptive statistics. The tables combine frequency, means and

standard deviation from the answers of the participants. Frequency refers to

how often the participants used each strategy and at which level. The means is

the average score of everyone in the group. The standard deviation refers to

how the information was dispersed in each group of participants. The ranges

of the means (X̅) were interpreted as:

1.00 - 2.49 = use at low level

2.50 - 3.49 = use at medium level

3.59 – 5.00 = use at high level (Oxford, 1990 as cited in Tam,

2013).

Ref. code: 25605921040159VLQ

12

CHAPTER 4

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1 Results

4.1.1 General information about the participants

4.1.1.1 Age

The age of the participants varied. They can be divided into

five groups: ‘21-25’, ‘26-30’, ‘31-35’, ‘36-40’ and ‘41-45’. The

highest age group was ‘21-25’ followed with ‘26-30’, which were 34.5

and 31% respectively.

Age (years) Number of Students Percent (%)

21-25 10 34.5

26-30 9 31

31-35 3 10.3

36-40 6 20.7

41-45 1 3.4

Total 29 100 Table 4.1: Age

4.1.1.2 Gender

More participants were females more than males. Females were

79.3% whereas males were only 20.7%.

Gender Number Percent (%)

Male 6 20.7

Female 23 79.3

Total 29 100

Table 4.2: Gender

Ref. code: 25605921040159VLQ

13

4.1.1.3 TU-GET Score

The researcher divided the TU-GET scores into seven groups:

were ‘400-440’, ‘500-540’, ‘550-590’, ‘600-640’, ‘650-690’, ‘700-

740’ and ‘850-890’. Participants may have taken the test more than one

time, but the researcher chose the latest score that the participants

received. The TU GET scores were as follows:

TU-GET Score Number of Students Percent (%)

400-440 1 3.4

500-540 4 13.8

550-590 5 17.2

600-640 5 17.2

650-690 9 31

700-740 4 13.8

850-890 1 3.4

Total 29 100 Table 4.3: TU-GET Score

The scores varied. The score received most was ‘650-690’ by 9

people or 31% followed with ‘550-590’ and 600-640’ with 5 people or

17.0%

The score of 650 was the mean because most people got this

score Those who received the TU-GET score higher than 650 were

counted as high scoring and those with less than 650 were counted as

low scoring.

4.1.2 Results related to the research questions

The high scorers and low scorers as below:

Ref. code: 25605921040159VLQ

14

Group Number of Participants Percent (%)

Low Score 15 51.7

High Score 14 48.3

Total 29 100

Table 4.4: TU-GET Low and High Scores

The low-scoring students were 51% or 15 people and the high-scoring were 48.3% or 14 people.

4.1.2.1 The Results of Using Memory Strategies.

Table 4.5: Memory Strategies Usage

For Memory Strategies, the most frequently used by the high-scoring

students was item 1 ‘I think of relationships between what I already know and new

Never Rarely Sometimes

Usually Always X S.D Level Rank

2 4 5 4

13.30% 26.70% 33.30% 26.70%

1 6 2 5

7.10% 42.90% 14.30% 35.70%

2 7 6 -

13.30% 46.70% 40%

2 7 3 2

14.30% 50% 21.40% 14.30%

1 4 8 2

6.70% 26.70% 53.30% 13.30%

1 4 2 4 3

7.10% 28.60% 14.30% 28.60% 21.40%

1 4 8 2

6.70% 26.70% 53.30% 13.30%

1 1 5 5 2

7.10% 7.10% 35.70% 35.70% 14.30%

2 3 8 2 -

13.30% 20% 53.30% 13.30%

1 3 6 3 1

7.10% 21.40% 42.90% 21.40% 7.10%

1 2 9 3

6.70% 13.30% 60% 20%

3 6 5

21.40% 42.90% 35.70%

Level of Memory Strategies UseItems

1) I think of relationships between what I already know and new things I learn in English.

Low Score

High Score

- 3.73 1.03

- 3.79 1.05

High

High

Medium

6) I remember new English words or phrases by remembering their position on the page, on the board, or on a street sign.

4) I remember a new English word by making a mental picture of a situation in which the word might be used.

Low Score

High Score

5) I review English lessons often.

Low Score

High Score

2) I use new English words in a sentence so I can remember them.

Low Score

High Score

3) I connect the pronunciation sound of a new English word to an image or a picture of the word to help remember the

Low Score

High Score

- 3.73

Medium

0.8

3.43 1.09 Medium

3.29 1.33 Medium

High

High

-

- 3.43 1.09

- 3.73

0.8

5

Medium

Medium

0.9

1.04

0.79

4

3

Medium

Medium- - 2.93 1.14High Score

Low Score

2.67

3

2.93

1

1

1

1

4

3

2

2

2

- 3.27 0.7

Ref. code: 25605921040159VLQ

15

things I learn in English’; the mean was 3.79, at a high level. The lowest score is

in item 6 ‘I remember new English words or phrases by remembering their position

on the page, on the board, or on a street sign’; the mean was 2.93, at a medium

level.

The most frequently used strategies of the low-scoring students were

three items: item 1, ‘I think of relationships between what I already know and

new things I learn in English’, item 3, ‘I connect the pronunciation sound of a

new English word to an image or a picture of the word to help remember the

word.’ and item 4, ‘I remember a new English word by making a mental

picture of a situation in which the word might be used.’ The means was equal

for 3.73, which is at high level. The least used item was item number 5, ‘I

review English lessons often’; the mean was 2.67, which is at a medium level.

The level of usage of items 3 and 4 between the low and high-scoring

groups were different. For item 3, ‘I connect the pronunciation sound of a new

English word to an image or a picture of the word to help remember the

word.’, the level of usage of the low-scoring students was high while that of

the high-scoring students was medium. Also, for the item 4, ‘I remember a

new English word by making a mental picture of a situation in which the word

might be used.’, the level of usage of the low scoring students was high while

the level of usage of the high-scoring students was low.

4.1.2.2 The Results of Using Cognitive Strategies.

Ref. code: 25605921040159VLQ

16

Table 4.6: Cognitive Strategies Usage

For Cognitive Strategies, the most frequently used for high-scoring

students were in item number 8, ‘I try to talk like native English speakers’; the

mean was 4.21, at a high level. The least used items were item number 7, ‘I say

or write new English words several times’ and item number 12, ‘I make

summaries of information that I hear or read in English’. The mean was 3.14,

which still at medium level.

The low-scoring students used item 8, ‘I try to talk like native English

speakers’ most frequently for 3.80 at a high level. And the least frequently used

was item number 12, ‘I make summaries of information that I hear or read in

English’ The mean was 2.93, at a medium level.

There were differences in item 9, 10, 11. For item 9, ‘I read English

magazine or novel in my spare time.’, low-scoring students used the strategy

Never RarelySometi

mesUsually Always X S.D Level Rank

2 6 7

13.30% 40% 46.70%

4 4 6

28.60% 28.60% 42.90%

1 3 8 3

6.70% 20% 53.30% 20%

2 7 5

14.30% 50% 35.70%

2 3 4 6

13.30% 20% 26.70% 40%

2 5 2 4

14.30% 35.70% 14.30% 28.60%

1 3 4 5 2

6.70% 20% 26.70% 33.30% 13.30%

1 4 6 3

7.10% 28.60% 42.90% 21.40%

3 3 8 1

20% 20% 53.30% 6.70%

2 4 7 1

14.30% 28.60% 50% 7.10%

6 4 5

40% 26.70% 33.30%

3 6 5

21.40% 42.90% 35.70%

ItemsLevel of Cognitive Strategies Use

7) I say or write new English words several times.

Low Score

- 3.33 0.72 3

High Score

- Medium

8) I try to talk like native English speakers.

Low Score

3.8 1.01 1

High Score

- 4.21 0.7 1

High-

-

9) I read English magazine or novel in my spare time. (*High Score missing

Low Score

2.93 1.1 5

High Score

3.62 1.12 High

-

-

Medium

10) I first skim an English passage (read over the passage quickly) then go back and read carefully.

Low Score

3.27 1.163 4

High Score

3.79 0.9-

11) I look for words in my own language that has similar meaning to new words in English.

Low Score

3.47 0.91 2

High Score

3.5 0.85

- Medium

- High 4

12) I make summaries of information that I hear or read in English.

Low Score

- 2.93 0.88

High Score

- 3.14 0.77

-

- Medium

High

5

- Medium

- 3.14 0.86 5

5

High 2

3

Medium

Medium

Ref. code: 25605921040159VLQ

17

at a medium level while the high -scoring students used the strategy at a high

level. The difference was 0.69, which is quite high. For item 10, ‘I first skim

an English passage (read over the passage quickly) then go back and read

carefully.’, low-scoring students used the strategy at a medium level, but the

high-scoring students used it at a high level. For item 11, ‘I look for words in

my own language that have similar meanings to new words in English.’, the

low-scoring students used this at a medium level while the high-scoring

students used it at a high level.

4.1.2.3 The Results of Using Compensation Strategies.

Table 4.7: Compensation Strategies Usage

For the level of the use of Compensation Strategies, high-scoring

students used item 14, ‘When I can’t think of a word during a conversation in

Never RarelySometi

mesUsually Always X S.D Level Rank

1 1 4 7 2

6.70% 6.70% 26.70% 46.70% 13.30%

7 4 3

50% 28.60% 21.40%

1 2 7 5

6.70% 13.30% 46.70% 33.33%

1 4 5 3

7.10% 28.60% 35.70% 21.40%

1 7 5 1 1

6.70% 46.70% 33.33% 6.70% 6.70%

5 5 5 1 1

35.70% 35.70% 35.70% 7.10% 7.10%

2 7 5

13.30% 46.70% 33.33%

5 3 4 5

35.70% 21.40% 28.60% 35.70%

1 1 7 5 1

6.70% 6.70% 46.70% 33.33% 6.70%

5 3 5 3 1

35.70% 21.40% 35.70% 21.40% 7.10%

2 4 8 1

13.30% 26.70% 53.50% 6.70%

5 5 7 3

35.70% 35.70% 50% 21.40%

ItemsLevel of Compensation Strategies Use

13) To understand unfamiliar English words, I make guesses.

Low Score

3.53 1.06 2

High Score

- 2

High

- High3.71 0.82

5

High Score

Medium

Medium

1

High Score

- 3.79 0.89 1

- High

High

17) I try to guess what the other person will say next in English.

Low Score

3.27 0.96

High Score

2.86 1.17

14) When I can’t think of a word during a conversation in English, I use gestures.

Low Score

4 1.06

16) I read English articles without looking up the meaning of every new word. (*Both missing 1)

Low Score

-

High Score

15) I make up new words if I do not know the right ones in English.

Low Score

2.6 0.98

3

-

3

High

2.57 1.09 5

3.21 0.68 4

3.54 1.05

1

Low 4

High 218) If I can’t think of an English word, I use idioms or phrasal words that mean the same thing.

Low Score

0.833.53

High Score

- 3.79 0.97

Medium

-

Medium

-

High

Ref. code: 25605921040159VLQ

18

English, I use gestures’ and item 18, ‘If I can’t think of an English word, I use

idioms or phrasal words that mean the same thing’ at the same level at 3.7,

which is a high level. The least used item was in number 15, ‘I make up new

words if I do not know the right ones in English’ for 2.60, at a medium level.

The highest use of the low-scoring students is also number 14, ‘When I

can’t think of a word during a conversation in English, I use gestures’; the

mean was 4.00, which a high level and the highest of low is scoring students

for all 36 items. The least used was item number 15, ‘I make up new words if I

do not know the right ones in English’ for 2.57 which is at a medium level.

The differences were seen in item 16, 17. Item 16, ‘I read English

articles without looking up the meaning of every new word.’, low-scoring

students used the strategy at a medium level while the high-scoring students

used the strategy at a high level. For item 17, ‘I try to guess what the other

person will say next in English’, low- scoring students used the strategy at a

medium level while the high-scoring used it at a low level. This was the only

item that the high-scoring used at a lower level than the low scorers.

4.1.2.4 The Results of Using Meta-cognitive Strategies.

Ref. code: 25605921040159VLQ

19

Table 4.8: Meta-cognitive Strategies Usage

The level of using Meta-Cognitive strategies was the highest for high-

scoring students on item 24, ‘I think about my progress in learning English’. The

mean was 4.36 at a high level and the highest for all 36 items. The lowest item

was 22, ‘I plan my schedule, so I will have enough time to study English’; the mean

was a 3.23, at a medium level.

The low-scoring students chose item 24 as well, ‘I think about my

progress in learning English’--; the mean was 3.87, which is at a high level.

The least used strategy was in item 22, ‘I plan my schedule, so I will have

enough time to study English’. The mean was 2.7,3 which is at a medium

level.

The difference was item 23, ‘I look for opportunities to read as much

as possible in English’--; the low scorers used this at a medium level and the

high scorers used it at a high level.

Never RarelySometi

mesUsually Always X S.D Level Rank

4 2 5 4

26.70% 13.30% 33.30% 26.70%

3 8 3

21.40% 53.50% 21.40%

1 1 4 6 3

6.70% 6.70% 26.70% 40% 20%

2 9 3

14.30% 64.30% 21.40%

2 2 8 3

13.30% 13.30% 53.50% 20%

4 4 6

28.60% 28.60% 42.90%

1 6 5 2 1

6.70% 40% 33.30% 13.30% 6.70%

1 2 4 5 1

7.10% 14.30% 28.60% 35.70% 7.10%

1 3 6 3 2

6.70% 20% 40% 20% 13.30%

2 2 6 4

14.30% 14.30% 42.90% 28.60%

2 2 7 4

13.30% 13.30% 46.70% 26.70%

2 5 7

14.30% 35.70% 50%

20) I notice my English mistakes and use that information to help me do better.

Low Score

3.6 1.121

ItemsLevel of Meta-cognitive Strategies Use

19) I try to find as many ways as I can to use my English.

Low Score

3.6 1.18 High 3

High Score

- - 4 0.68 High 4

High Score

- 4.07 0.62 3

21) I try to find out how to be a better learner of English.

Low Score

3.8 0.94

High Score

4.14 0.864-

6

23) I look for opportunities to read as much as possible in English.

Low Score

3.13 1.12 Medium

High Score

3.86 1.03 High

22) I plan my schedule so I will have enough time to study English. (*High Score missing

Low Score

2.73 1.03

High Score

3.23

24) I think about my progress in learning English.

Low Score

- 3.87 0.99

High Score

- 1

-

High

- High

- High

-

5

1

4

Medium 5

2

2

3

High

-

- 4.36 0.74

Medium1.1

High

High

Ref. code: 25605921040159VLQ

20

4.1.2.5 The Results of Using Affective Strategies.

Table 4.9: Affective Strategies Usage

For Affective Strategies, the high-scoring students chose item 26, ‘I

encourage myself to speak English even when I am afraid of making a

mistake’ at the highest for 4.14. The least chosen strategy is item 29, ‘I write

down my feelings in a language learning diary.’ The mean was 1.71, at a low

level. This was also the lowest in all 36 items.

The low-scoring students chose item 25, ‘I try to relax whenever I feel

afraid of using English’, which is 3.93, at a high level. The low level of

strategy use was item 29 ‘I write down my feelings in a language learning

diary.’ The mean was 2.13 at a low level.

In this strategy, the level of using of high-scorers, item 26, was more

than 4.0, which was very high and was the second ranked from 4.36, which

Never RarelySometi

mesUsually Always X S.D Level Rank

1 4 5 5

6.70% 26.70% 33.30% 33.30%

1 3 7 3

7.10% 21.40% 50% 21.40%

2 1 8 3

13.30% 6.70% 53.50% 20%

1 10 3

7.10% 71.40% 21.40%

2 6 5 2

13.30% 40% 33.30% 13.30%

8 3 3

53.50% 21.40% 21.40%

1 3 6 1 4

6.70% 20% 40% 6.70% 26.70%

1 3 4 2 2

7.10% 21.40% 28.60% 14.30% 14.30%

4 5 6

26.70% 33.30% 40%

7 4 3

50% 28.60% 21.40%

3 3 7 1 1

20% 20% 46.70% 6.70% 6.70%

8 5 1

53.50% 35.70% 7.10%

2

ItemsLevel of Affective Strategies Use

25) I try to relax whenever I feel afraid of using English.

Low Score

- 3.93 0.96 1

High Score

- 3.86 1.02 High

1

27) I give myself a reward or treat when I do well in English.

Low Score

- 3.47 0.91 Medium 3

26) I encourage myself to speak English even when I am afraid of making a mistake. (*Low Score missing1)

Low Score

3.86 0.95 High 2

High Score

3

28) I notice if I am tense or nervous when I am studying or using English. (*High Score missing 2)

Low Score

3.27 1.28 Medium 4

High Score

3.08 1.24

High Score

- - 3.64 0.84 High

4

29) I write down my feelings in a language learning diary.

Low Score

2.13 0.834 Low 6

High Score

1.71 0.82 Low 6- -

1.12 5

5- Medium

Medium

2.57 0.85

30) I talk to someone else about how I feel when I am learning English.

Low Score

High Score

-

2.6

4.14

High

High

-

- -

Medium

0.53- -

Ref. code: 25605921040159VLQ

21

was in Meta-cognitive strategies. The difference was in item 27, ‘I give myself

a reward or treat when I do well in English.’ The low-scoring students used

this item at a medium level while the high-scoring students used this at a high

level.

4.1.2.6 The Results of Using Social Strategies.

Table 4.10: Social Strategies Usage

For Social Strategies, the high-scoring students used item 36 the

highest, ‘I try to learn about the culture of English speaking countries.’, the mean

was 4.00, at a high level. Item 33 was the least used, ‘I practice English with

other students.’ The mean was 3.07, at a medium level.

The low-scoring students chose item 31 the highest, ‘In a conversation, if I do not understand some English words, I ask the other person to slow down or

repeat again.’ The mean was 3.60, at a high level. The least used item was

Never RarelySometi

mesUsually Always X S.D Level Rank

2 4 7 2

13.30% 26.70% 46.70% 13.30%

1 5 7 1

7.10% 35.70% 50% 7.10%

1 2 5 5 2

6.70% 13.30% 33.30% 33.30% 13.30%

3 4 6 1

21.40% 28.60% 42.90% 7.10%

3 3 3 3 3

20% 20% 20% 20% 20%

1 3 5 4 1

7.10% 21.40% 35.70% 28.60% 7.10%

1 1 4 6 2

6.70% 6.70% 26.70% 40% 13.30%

2 7 4 1

14.30% 50% 28.60% 7.10%

1 4 4 4 2

6.70% 26.70% 26.70% 26.70% 13.30%

3 6 4

21.40% 42.90% 28.60%

1 4 3 4 3

6.70% 26.70% 20% 26.70% 20%

4 6 4

28.60% 42.90% 28.60%

ItemsLevel of Social Strategies Use

31) In a conversation, if I do not understand some English words, I ask the other person to slow down or repeat again.

Low Score

- 3.6 0.91 1

High Score

- 3.57 0.76 High 2

High

32) I ask a favor to native English speakers to correct me when I talk.

Low Score

3.33 1.11 Medium 3

High Score

- 3.36 0.929 3

33) I practice English with other students. (*Low Score missing1)

Low Score

3 1.5 Medium

High Score

3.07 1.07 Medium

34) I ask for help from English speakers.

Low Score

3.5 1.09 High

High Score

3.29 0.82 Medium

35) I ask questions in English.

Low Score

3.13 1.19 Medium

High Score

36) I try to learn about the culture of English speaking countries.

Low Score

3.27 1.28 Medium

High Score

- 4 0.78 High 1

Medium

-

-

-

4

- 3.14 0.77 Medium 5

4

5

2

6

6

Ref. code: 25605921040159VLQ

22

number 33, ‘I practice English with other students.’ The mean was 3.00 at a

medium level.

The highest score for the high-scorers was 4, which is very high while

the highest mean of the low scorer was only 3.60, which is very different. The

lowest use of this strategy for both high scoring and low-scoring students was

quite similar at 3.07 and 3.00--, only a 0.07 difference and both still at the

medium level. It can be said that both groups of students used this strategy at a

medium to high level.

From item 34 and 36, there were differences. For item 34,’ I ask for

help from English speakers.’--; low-scoring students used this at a high level

while the high-scoring students used this at a medium level. For item 36, ‘I try

to learn about the culture of English speaking countries.’, low-scoring students

used it at a medium level and high-scoring students used it at a high level. The

level of the high scorers reached 4.0 which is very high and more than the low

scorers’ usage by 0.73.

4.1.2.7 The Total Usage of Language Learning Strategies.

Strategies Use

Low-Scoring Students High-Scoring Students

X̅ S.D. Rank Level X̅ S.D. Rank Level

Memory 3.34 0.59 3 Medium 3.30 0.72 5 Medium

Cognitive 3.29 0.7 5 Medium 3.61 0.49 2 High

Compensation 3.36 0.61 2 Medium 3.37 0.47 4 Medium

Meta-Cognitive 3.45 0.85 1 Medium 3.94 0.5 1 High

Affective 3.21 0.63 6 Medium 3.17 0.47 6 Medium

Social 3.30 0.73 4 Medium 3.40 0.52 3 Medium

Overall 3.33 0.51 Medium 3.45 0.43 Medium

Table 4.11: The Overall Strategies Usage

The table above combines all the usage in all the strategies. As we can

see, the high scorers used Meta-Cognitive (3.94) most frequently. This was

followed by Cognitive (3.61), Social (3.40), Compensation (3.37), Memory

(3.30) and Affective Strategies (3.17) respectively.

Ref. code: 25605921040159VLQ

23

The low scorers used Meta-Cognitive (3.45), Compensation (3.36),

Memory (3.34), Social (3.30), Cognitive (3.29) and Affective Strategies (3.21)

respectively.

Although the first and the last may be Meta-cognitive and Affective

Strategies, the overall level of usage was different; the high scorers used at

3.94 while the low- scoring used for 3.45, a difference of 0.49. For cognitive

strategies, the low-scoring students used these at a medium level at 3.29 and

the high-scoring students used them at a high level at 3.61. The difference was

0.32.

4.2 Discussion

For the overall picture, it can be said that the high-scoring students used all the

strategies at a medium to high level while the low-scoring students used strategies at a

medium level. None of the students used any strategy at a low level. Oxford and

Nyikos (1989) suggested that ‘Good language learners use a variety of learning

strategies. Kayaoğlu (2013) also suggested that ‘learners proficient in a foreign

language use a greater range of strategies compared to poor learners’.

In 1995, Green and Oxford showed that ‘the successful language learners used

more high-level strategies than less successful learners’ (as cited in Kayaoğlu, 2013). Griffith (2003) also suggests that the higher level of the students is, the higher the

frequency of strategy use. Both groups of students used more strategies and at a

higher level than students in primary schools (Thangpatipan, 2014), secondary schools (Qing, 2013) and the university level (Kunasaraphun, 2015).

The use of these strategies in both groups was also more frequent and higher

than in Tirabulkul’s (2005) study done with students at the master’s level, with the

highest level at 2.94 (Meta-cognitive strategies) and the lowest level at 1.92 (Memory

Strategies). In this study, the highest level was Meta-cognitive with 3.94 and the

lowest level was 3.17 for high-scoring students.

The results suggest that language learning strategies have been passed down

through generations with no clue of how to use them to use them in their daily life.

Ref. code: 25605921040159VLQ

24

Oxford and Nyikos (1989) suggest that ‘Better language learners generally use

strategies appropriate to their own stage of learning, personality, age, purpose for

learning the language’. This accords with O'Mally et al. (1985), who found that

‘students used a variety of learning strategies but typically used more familiar

strategies and applied them to discrete‐point rather than integrative tasks’.

Ref. code: 25605921040159VLQ

25

CHAPTER 5

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This chapter includes the conclusion of the study and the recommendations for further research.

5.1 Conclusions

This section provides the conclusion of the study. This study aimed to answer

the two research questions as follows:

5.1.1 What are the language learning strategies of high-scoring and low-

scoring students?

In answer to the first research question, it was found that the high-

scoring students used Meta-Cognitive strategies most frequently. This was followed

by Cognitive, Social, Compensation, Memory and Affective strategies, respectively.

The low-scoring students used Meta-Cognitive strategies most frequently. This was

followed by Compensation, Memory, Social, Cognitive and Affective strategies

respectively.

5.1.2 How are the language learning strategies of high-scoring students

similar and different from that of low-scoring students?

For the second research question, there were similarities and

differences between the two groups as below:

With regard to Memory Strategies, the similarity of both groups was in

item 1,2,5 and 6. Item 1 was used at a high level and 2,5,6 were used at a medium

level. The differences were in item 3 and 4 that they were used by the low scorers at a

medium level but by high scorers at a high level. The means of low scorers and high

scorers were 3.34 and 3.30, respectively.

For Cognitive Strategies, the similarity between both groups was

items 7,8,12. Item number 8 was used in the high level and item numbers 7 and 12

were used at a medium level. The difference was in items 9, 10 and 11 as all the items

were used at a medium level for the low-scoring students but used at a high level by

Ref. code: 25605921040159VLQ

26

the high-scoring students. The mean of low-scoring students was 3.29 and the mean

of high-scoring was 3.61.

For Compensation Strategies, the similarity was in items 13, 14, 15 and 18.

For items 13, 14, 18, both groups used them a high level while item 15 was used at a

medium level. The difference was in item 16 and 17. For item 16, the low scores used

this item at a medium level while the high scorers used this item at a high level. For

item 17, the low scorers used this item at a medium level and the high scorers used

this item at a low level. The means of low-scoring to high-scoring were 3.36 to 3.37,

respectively.

For Meta-cognitive Strategies, the similarity of both groups was quite high as

both groups had the same level of using strategies for 5 items those were item 19, 20,

21, 22 and 24. Items 19, 20, 21, 24, both groups used these strategies at a high level.

For item 22, both groups used it at a medium level. For item 23, both groups

answered differently, the low-scoring students used this strategy at a medium level

while the high-scoring students used this strategy at a high level. This strategy was

chosen most by both groups and was ranked number 1 in both groups. The means

from low scorers to high scorers were 3.45 to 3.94, respectively.

For Affective Strategies, the similarity between the high-scoring and low-

scoring students was in item 25, 26, 28, 29 and 30. This showed the most varied usage

levels in all categories. They varied from low to high. Low level usage was seen on

item 29, medium level usage was seen on item 28 and 30 and high level usage was

seen in item 25 and 26. The difference was on item 27 that the low scoring students

used this at a medium level, but the high-scoring students used it at a high level. The

overall mean of the low scorers was 3.21 and the high scorers was 3.17. This was the

only strategy that the mean of the high scorers was lower than the low scorers.

For the last one, Social Strategies, the similarity between each group were in

item 31, 32, 33 and 35. Item 31 was the only item that both groups used at a high

level. For item 32, 33 and 35, both groups used these at a medium level. The

differences were item number 34 and 36. The item 34 was the only one item that the

low scorers used more than the high scorers. The low scorers used this item at 3.50

Ref. code: 25605921040159VLQ

27

and the high scorers used this at 3.29. For item number 36, the low scorers used this at

a medium level while the high scorers used this at a high level. The means of the low-

scoring and high-scoring students were 3.30 and 3.40, respectively.

In addition, for the overall means, it was found that the high-scoring students

used all six strategies at a medium to high level while the low-scorers used all

strategies at a medium level only. None of the students use these six strategies at a

low level, which accords with Naiman et al.’s finding in 1976 that good learners

seemed to use more strategies than the poorer ones. (Naiman et al., 1976 as cited in

Hardan, 2013).

Naiman et al. (1996) asserts that ‘For any degree of mastery of a language, the

learner must go through certain mental processes beside the conscious strategies and

techniques’ similarly, Park (1997) suggests that schools should provide the language

learning strategies training for students.

5.2 Recommendations

Regarding research in this field in the future, here are some suggestions based

on this study.

5.2.1. Longitudinal study should be done with one group and to measure the

differences after teaching the strategies.

5.2.2 Additional questions can be made based on the six strategies for students

to clarify what they would like to do. Then, after the survey they can adapt these

strategies.

5.2.3 In-depth interviews can be conducted, to find which strategies are

suitable for students.

Ref. code: 25605921040159VLQ

28

REFERENCES

Chamot, A. U. (2004). Issues in Language Learning Strategy Research and Teaching.

Electronic Journal of Foreing Language Teaching, 14-16.

Griffiths, C. (2003). Patterns of language learning strategy use. System, 31(3), 367-

383.

Griffiths, C. (2004). Language-learning Strategies: Theory and Research. AIS St

Helens, Centre for Research in International Education.

Hardan, A. A. (2013). Langauage Learning Strategies: A General Overview.

ScienceDirect, 1712-1726.

Kayaoğlu, M. N. (2013). Poor and Good Learners' Language Beliefs and Their

Influence on Their Language Learning Strategies Use. Novitas-ROYAL, 7(1).

Kunasaraphun, K. (2015). English Learning Strategies and Proficiency Level of the

First Year Students. ScienceDirect, 1853-1858.

Lee, C. K. (2010). An Overview of Language Learning Strategies. ARECLS, 132-152.

Makarchuk, D. (2017). Variations in Learning Strategy Use Among Good, Average

and Poor EFL Learners. ENGLISH TEACHING (영어교육), 72(1), 25-47.

Melchers, G., & Shaw, P. (2013). World Englishes. Routledge

Mufwene, S. S. (2010). Globalization, global English, and world English (es): Myths

And facts. The handbook of language and globalization, 29-55.

Naiman, N. (Ed.). (1996). The good language learner (Vol. 4). Multilingual Matters.

O'malley, J. M., Chamot, A. U., Stewner‐Manzanares, G., Russo, R. P., & Küpper, L.

(1985). Learning strategy applications with students of English as a second

language. TESOL quarterly, 19(3), 557-584.

Oxford, R., & Nyikos, M. (1989). Variables affecting choice of language learning

strategies by university students. The modern language journal, 73(3), 291-

300.

Ref. code: 25605921040159VLQ

29

Oxford, R. L. (1990). Languge Learning Strategies: What Every Teacher Should

Know. USA: Heinle & Heinle.

Oxford, R. L. (2003). Language Learning Styles and Strategies: An Overview.

Learning Styles & Strategies, 1-25.

Park, G. P. (1997). Language learning strategies and English proficiency in Korean

university students. Foreign language annals, 30(2), 211-221.

Qing, Y. Y. (2013). A Survey Study of Language Learning Strategies Used by EFL

Learners At Santirat Wittayalai School, Bangkok, Thailand. Bangkok:

Thammasat University.

Rubin, J. (1975). What the" good language learner" can teach us. TESOL quarterly,

41-51.

Tam, K. C. H. (2013). A study on language learning strategies (LLSs) of university

students in Hong Kong. Taiwan Journal of Linguistics, 11(2), 1-42.

Thangpatipan, K. (2014). A Survey Stydy of Langauge Learning Strategies Used By

Thai High School Students in An English Program. Bangkok: Thammasat

University.

Tirabulkul, N. (2005). A Study of Langauge Learning Strategies of Students in MA

Program For TEFL Program Thammasat University. Bangkok: Thammasat

University.

Wenden, A. (1987). Conceptual background and utility. Learner strategies in

language learning, 5, 3-13.

W3techs. (17 May 2018).Accessed from W3techs- Web Technology Surveys:

https://w3techs.com/technologies/overview/content_language/all

Zuckerman, E. (2013, July 20). English is no longer the language of the web.

Retrieved from https://qz.com/

.

Ref. code: 25605921040159VLQ

APPENDIX

Ref. code: 25605921040159VLQ

31

APPENDIX QUESTIONAIRES IN ENGLISH AND THAI

A Survey Study of Language Learning Strategies Used by a master’s Degree Program in English

These questionnaires are adapted and selected from Strategies Inventory for

Language Learning (or SILL) of Oxford (1990). It will be divided into two parts

which general information of the participants are and the 36 of Language Strategies

questions. The answer will be in the separated table will have the scale from 1-5

which o’1’ is the least use and ‘5’ is the most use.

Ref. code: 25605921040159VLQ

32

Part 1 General Information

Please answer these questions. กรุณาตอบคําถามตอ่ไปนี ้

1.What is your age? อาย ุ_____________________________________

2.What is your gender? เพศMale/ชาย Female/หญิง

3.How long have you been studying English? จํานวนปีท่ีเรียนภาษาองักฤษ หรือ ท่านเรียน

ภาษาองักฤษเป็น ระยะเวลา(choose one, don’t use both)_____________________year(s)/

ปี__________________month(s)/เดือน

4. Have you ever been to an English-speaking country? ท่านเคยไปประเทศท่ีต้องพดูภาษาองักฤษ

หรือไม ่

Yes/เคย No/ไมเ่คย

5. From question no. 5, if yes, stay for how long? จากข้อ 5 หากคําตอบของท่านคือเคย หรือ หากท่าน

ตอบวา่เคย (choose one , don’t use both) ท่านอยูท่ี่ตา่งประเทศเป็นเวลา_______________month(s)/

เดือน_______________________year(s)/ปี

6. Do you use English in your daily life? ท่านใช้ภาษาองักฤษส่ือสารในชีวติประจําวนัหรือไม ่

Yes/ ใช้ No/ไมใ่ช้

7.From question no. 6, if yes, where? จากข้อ 6 หากคําตอบของท่านคือใช้ ท่านมีโอกาสใช้ภาษาองักฤษ

ท่ีใด

School of University/ ท่ีโรงเรียนหรือมหาวทิยาลยั Workplace/ ท่ีทํางาน

Friend (s)/มีเพ่ือนเป็นชาวตา่งประเทศ มีแฟนหรือคูส่มรสเป็นชาว

ตา่งประเทศ/spouse

Other/ อ่ืนๆ ______________________________________________________

Ref. code: 25605921040159VLQ

33

8. From question no. 6, how many hours per week that you communicate in English.จากข้อ 6

เฉล่ียแล้วท่านพดูภาษาองักฤษตอ่สปัดาห์เป็นจํานวน __________________________(hours)ชัว่โมง

9. What is your TU-GET score when entering to CEIC? คะแนน TU-GET ของท่านเม่ือสอบเข้า

คือ_________________________

10. If you have a chance to test TU-GET again, what is the score at the present? คะแนน TU-

GET ของท่านลา่สดุคือ_______________________

11. What is your self-rating? คณุคดิวา่ตวัเองเก่งภาษาองักฤษหรือไม ่

Yes/ใช่ No/ไมใ่ช ่

12.What is your GPA? so far? ท่านได้เกรดเฉล่ียเท่าไหร่ในปัจจบุนั

My GPA. is/ ฉนัได้เกรดเฉล่ียอยู่ท่ี____________

Part 2 Questionnaire

Please complete this questionnaire.

กรุณาตอบรายการตอ่ไปนี ้

1. means Never or almost never true of me 1.หมายถึง ฉนัไมเ่คยหรือฉนัแทบจะไมค่อ่ยได้ทําสิง่นี ้

2. means Usually not true of me 2. หมายถึง ฉนัทําสิง่นีน้้อย

3. means Somewhat true of me 3. หมายถึง ฉนัทําสิง่นีบ้้างปานกลาง

4. means Usually true of me 4. หมายถึง ฉนัทําคอ่นข้างบอ่ย

5. means Always or almost always true of me. 5. หมายถึง ฉนัทําสิง่นีเ้ป็นประจํา

ข้อ Items/ รายการ 1 2 3 4 5

1. - I think of relationships between what I already know and new things I learn in English. - ฉนัคดิถึงความสมัพนัธ์ระหวา่งสิง่ท่ีฉนัรู้อยู่แล้วกับสิง่ใหมท่ี่ได้เรียนรู้ใน

ภาษาองักฤษ

Ref. code: 25605921040159VLQ

34

2. - I use new English words in a sentence so I can remember them. - ฉนัใช้ศพัท์ภาษาองักฤษคําใหม่ในประโยคทนัทีเพ่ือให้จําคําศพัท์ได้

3. - I connect the pronunciation sound of a new English word to an image or a picture of the word to help remember the word. - ฉนัเช่ือมโยงเสียงของคําใหมก่บัภาพหรือรูปเพ่ือให้ฉนัจํามนัได้

4. - I remember a new English word by making a mental picture of a situation in which the word might be used. -ฉนัจําภาษาองักฤษคําใหมโ่ดยการจําลองสถานการณ์ ท่ีจะได้ใช้คํา ๆนัน้

5. - I review English lessons often. -ฉนัทบทวนบทเรียนภาษาองักฤษบอ่ย ๆ

6. - I remember new English words or phrases by remembering their position on the page, on the board, or on a street sign. - ฉนัจําคําใหมห่รือวลีใหม่ในภาษาองักฤษได้โดยการจําวา่มนัอยู่ตรงไหน ใน

หนงัสือ บนกระดาน หรือปา้ยจราจร

7.

- I say or write new English words several times. - ฉนัพดูหรือเขียนศพัท์ภาษาองักฤษใหม่ๆ ซํา้หลายๆครัง้

8. - I try to talk like native English speakers. - ฉนัพยายามจะพดูเหมือนเจ้าของภาษา

9. - I read English magazine or novel in my spare time. - ฉนัอ่านนิยายหรือนิตยสารภาษาองักฤษในช่วงท่ีมีเวลาวา่ง

10. - I first skim an English passage (read over the passage quickly) then go back and read carefully. - ฉนัอ่านแบบสกิม (อ่านแบบจบัใจความผ่านๆ) ก่อน แล้วคอ่ยอ่านอย่าง

ละเอียดอีกที

11. - I look for words in my own language that has similar meaning to new words in English. - ฉนัมองหาคําในภาษาของฉนัท่ีมีความหมายตรงหรือคล้ายคลงึกบัคําศพัท์ใน

ภาษาองักฤษ

Ref. code: 25605921040159VLQ

35

12. - I make summaries of information that I hear or read in English. - ฉนัสรุปข้อมลูท่ีฉนัได้ยินหรืออ่าน เป็นภาษาองักฤษ

13. - To understand unfamiliar English words, I make guesses. - ฉนัพยายามจะเข้าใจคําภาษาองักฤษท่ีไมคุ่้นเคย ด้วยการเดา

14. - When I can’t think of a word during a conversation in English, I use gestures. - ในการสนทนาเป็นภาษาองักฤษเม่ือฉนันึกถึงคําศพัท์ไมอ่อก ฉนัจะใช้ท่าทาง

ในการส่ือสารแทน

15. - I make up new words if I do not know the right ones in English. - ฉนัสร้างคําศพัท์ขึน้มาใหม ่ ถ้าฉนัไมรู้่วา่จะใช้คําไหนดีในภาษาองักฤษดี

16. - I read English articles without looking up the meaning of every new word. - ฉนัอ่าน โดยท่ี ไมต้่องหาความหมายของศพัท์คําใหม่ๆทกุคํา

17. - I try to guess what the other person will say next in English. - ฉนัพยายามคดิลว่งหน้า ว่าอีกคนจะพดูประโยคตอ่ไปวา่อย่างไร ใน

ภาษาองักฤษ

18. - If I can’t think of an English word, I use idioms or phrasal words that mean the same thing. - ถ้าฉนัคดิถึงคําในภาษาองักฤษไมอ่อก ฉนัจะใช้คําหรือวลีท่ีคล้ายคลงึกนั

19. - I try to find as many ways as I can to use my English. - ฉนัพยายามทกุทาง เท่าท่ีจะเป็นไปได้ ท่ีจะใช้ภาษาอังกฤษ

20. - I notice my English mistakes and use that information to help me do better. - ฉนัสงัเกตข้อผดิพลาดในภาษาองักฤษของฉนั และใช้ข้อมลูนัน้เพ่ือช่วยให้ฉนั

ใช้ภาษาองักฤษได้ดีขึน้

21. - I try to find out how to be a better learner of English. - ฉนัพยายามหาหนทางวา่ จะทําอย่างไรให้ฉนัเรียนภาษาองักฤษได้ดีขึน้

Ref. code: 25605921040159VLQ

36

22. - I plan my schedule so I will have enough time to study English. - ฉนัวางตารางงานของฉนั เพ่ือจะได้มีเวลามากพอท่ีจะศกึษาภาษาองักฤษ

23. - I look for opportunities to read as much as possible in English. - ฉนัมองหาทกุโอกาสท่ีจะได้อ่านเป็นภาษาองักฤษ

24. - I think about my progress in learning English. - ฉนัคดิเก่ียวกับ ความก้าวหน้าของฉนัในการเรียนรู้ภาษาองักฤษ

25. - I try to relax whenever I feel afraid of using English. - ฉนัพยายามผอ่นคลาย ทกุครัง้ท่ีเม่ือฉนัเร่ิมกลวัในการใช้ภาษาองักฤษ

26. - I encourage myself to speak English even when I am afraid of making a mistake. - ฉนัพยายามให้กําลงัใจตนเอง แม้กระทัง่เวลาท่ีฉนักลวัจะพดูภาษาองักฤษผิด

27. - I give myself a reward or treat when I do well in English. - ฉนัให้รางวลัตวัเอง เวลาทําสิง่ใด ๆเก่ียวกับภาษาองักฤษได้ดี

28. - I notice if I am tense or nervous when I am studying or using English. - ฉนัสงัเกตตวัเอง วา่ฉนัเครียดหรือกงัวลหรือไม ่ตอนท่ีเรียนหรือใช้ภาษาองักฤษ

29. - I write down my feelings in a language learning diary. - ฉนัจดบนัทึกความรู้สกึเก่ียวกบัการเรียนภาษาในไดอาร่ีเฉพาะ

30. - I talk to someone else about how I feel when I am learning English. - ฉนัคยุกบัคนอีกคนวา่ฉนัรู้สกึอย่างไร เวลาท่ีเรียนภาษาองักฤษ

31. - In a conversation, if I do not understand some English words, I ask the other person to slow down or repeat again. - ถ้าฉนัไมเ่ข้าใจอะไรในภาษาองักฤษ ฉนัขอให้คนๆนัน้พดูช้าลงหรือพดูซํา้อีก

ครัง้หนึ่ง

32. - I ask a favor to native English speakers to correct me when I talk. - ฉนัขอให้เจ้าของภาษาองักฤษ (หรือคนท่ีใช้ภาษาองักฤษเป็นภาษาแม)่ ช่วย

แก้ให้ฉนัเวลาท่ีฉนัพดูภาษาองักฤษ

Ref. code: 25605921040159VLQ

37

33. - I practice English with other students. - ฉนัฝึกพดูภาษาองักฤษกบันกัเรียนคนอ่ืน ๆ

34. - I ask for help from English speakers. - ฉนัขอความช่วยเหลือจากเจ้าของภาษาองักฤษ

35. - I ask questions in English. - ฉนัถามคําถามเป็นภาษาองักฤษ

36. - I try to learn about the culture of English speaking countries. - ฉนัพยายามเรียนรู้เก่ียวกับวฒันธรรมประเทศท่ีใช้ภาษาองักฤษเป็นภาษาหลกั

Ref. code: 25605921040159VLQ

38

BIOGRAPHY

Name Miss Napatida Prissananuntakul

Date of Birth September 4, 1978

Educational Attainment 2004: Bachelor of Fine and Applied Arts (Drama),

Thammasat University

Work Position Assistant to a business owner.

Aree Shop, Ang Thong.