







































English Language Teaching Educational Journal   E-ISSN 2621-6485 

Vol. 4, No. 1, 2021, pp. 49-60  49 

        10.12928/eltej.v4i1.3489                               http://journal2.uad.ac.id/index.php/eltej/index           eltej@pbi.uad.ac.id 

EFL students’ perspectives on the employment of language 

learning strategies 

Tham My Duong a,1,*, Hang Thi Thu Nguyen b,2 

a Ho Chi Minh City University of Economics and Finance (UEF), 141-145 Dien Bien Phu Street, Ward 15, Bình Thạnh District, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam 
b Pham Phu Thu High School, 425-435 Gia Phu, Ward 3, District 6, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. 
1 thamdm@uef.edu.vn*; 2 hangntt.168t@ou.edu.vn 

* corresponding author 

 

A R T I C L E  I N F O 

 

ABST RACT   

 

 

Article history 

Received 20 January 2021 

Revised 31 March 2021 

Accepted 20 April 2021 

 It is widely acknowledged that language learning strategies (LLSs) are 
beneficial to learners’ academic achievements, learner autonomy, and 
motivation; however, it is indicated that Vietnamese students, particularly 
high school students, have found it hard to employ LLSs. This paper aims 
at exploring language learning strategies used by high school students and 
underlying reasons at a high school located in Ho Chi Minh City. The 
study involved 238 EFL high school students in responding to a closed-
ended questionnaire and twenty of them in answering the semi-structured 
interview questions. The quantitative data collected from the 
questionnaire were processed by SPSS version 25.0 in terms of 
descriptive statistics, and the qualitative data were analyzed by the 
content-based approach. The results of the study indicated the EFL high 
school students’ moderate use of LLSs. Remarkably, metacognitive 
strategies were the most commonly used category, compared to memory 
strategies – the least employed category. The findings may serve as a 
guideline for EFL teachers on facilitating high school students' English 
language learning. It is also hoped that the results of this study may 
contribute to the literature about English language learning strategies in 
EFL contexts. 

 

 

This is an open-access article under the CC–BY-SA license. 

    

 

 

Keywords 

contribution 

language learning strategies  

frequency  

high school students  

Vietnamese EFL context 

 

 

 

 

How to Cite: Duong, T. M., & Nguyen, H. T. T. (2021). EFL students’ perspectives on the employment of 
language learning strategies. English Language Teaching Educational Journal, 4(1), 49-60. 
doi.org/10.12928/eltej.v4i1.3489 

1. Introduction  

It is undeniable that the active use of language learning strategies (LLSs), language aptitude, and 
learner motivation play a pivotal role in optimizing the language learning process (e.g., Hardan, 2013; 
Nguyen, 2013; Tran, 2012; Tran & Nguyen, 2020, 2021). Aljuaid (2015) discovered remarkable 
benefits for EFL learners who make use of strategies in learning foreign languages, e.g., making 
learners’ language learning efficient, self-conducted, and motivating, enabling them to be responsible 
and independent in using a language, and gaining higher Grade Point Average (GPA) than those with 
lower use of strategies. As LLSs are regarded as one of the most indispensable factors in improving 
learners’ academic achievement, it is crucial to help learners utilize LLSs during the foreign language 
process (e.g., Bui & Vu, 2018; Griffiths & Cansiz, 2015; Lee et al., 2011; Lee & Heinz, 2016; Tran 
& Tran, 2021). In other words, if students are provided with LLSs, they are able to control their 
learning.  

file:///C:/Users/MuhammadWildan/Downloads/10.12928/eltej.v4i1.3489
http://journal2.uad.ac.id/index.php/eltej/index
mailto:thamdm@uef.edu.vn
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5341-5918
http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.12928/eltej.v4i1.3489&domain=pdf


50 English Language Teaching Educational Journal  E-ISSN 2621-6485 

 Vol. 4, No. 1, 2021, pp. 49-60 

 Duong & Nguyen (EFL students’ perspectives on the employment of language learning strategies) 

LLSs are defined with different perspectives. Cohen (2014) viewed LLSs as techniques for 
learners’ knowledge acquisition and target language competence development. In another aspect, 
LLSs are a particular form of learners’ observable behavior employed by learners when they cope 
with language learning difficulties. Furthermore, Oxford (1990) has provided quite a comprehensive 
definition of LLSs, which are “specific actions taken by learners to make learning easier, faster, more 
enjoyable” (p. 8) in internalizing knowledge learned, and then applying it in real situations.  

With reference to the classification of LLSs, Oxford (1990) proposed a framework showing a 
distinction between direct and indirect strategies with six major sub-categories. Direct strategies, 
including cognitive, memory, and compensation strategies, refer to specific ways to use a language, 
while indirect strategies involving affective, metacognitive, and social strategies support language 
learning. Turning to the details, cognitive strategies are assumed to deal with a target language 
directly, e.g., taking notes, organizing ideas, and exercising activities, whereas memory strategies are 
composed of activities relating to storing and/or retrieving linguistic elements such as making mental 
connections by using pictures and sounds to enable learners to remember lessons. Learners use 
compensation strategies to substitute strategies associated with making a guess, switching into their 
mother tongue, or using gestures for the lack of linguistic knowledge. With regard to the indirect 
strategy group, metacognitive strategies consist of making a plan, identifying learning objectives, and 
assessing learners’ learning performance. Meanwhile, affective strategies are related to feelings and 
affection, and social strategies concerning social cooperation with others may help better language 
learners’ understanding, practice a target language in real situations, and experience new cultures. 

As far as the previous studies on the use of language learning strategies are concerned, Qingquan 
et al. (2008) endeavored to examine differences in the LLS use by the first-year students at a Chinese 
university. The findings indicated that the high achievers employed a wider range of LLSs at a higher 
level and more various types of LLSs than the low achievers did. In another EFL context, Osman and 
Manan (2010) conducted a survey with 20 successful and 20 less successful language students from 
an urban school in Ipod, Perak, to explore the most frequently used strategies and any differences in 
LLS use between the successful learners and the less successful ones. Furthermore, it was shown that 
affective, compensation, and metacognitive strategies used at a moderate level were preferred by the 
participants.  

In the context of Vietnam, Ngo (2019) employed the SILL questionnaire constructed by Oxford 
(1990) to assess the LLS use of 83 Vietnamese tenth graders. The findings demonstrated that these 
high school students employed a variety of LLSs at a moderate level. It was also indicated that 
metacognitive strategies were the most used, whereas affective strategies were the least used. At the 
tertiary level, Duong (2020) aimed to investigate resource management strategies (RMSs) used by 
non-English majors. A closed-ended questionnaire was administered to 177 students in a TOEIC class. 
The findings revealed that the students often used these strategies during their English learning 
process. More importantly, the study discovered a positive relationship between the frequency of 
RMSs and academic achievement. Meanwhile, Duong and Intaraprasert (2012) discovered a two-
group classification, namely specific language skills with 43 strategies and general language skills 
with 11 strategies. This study involved 30 students from six universities in northern Vietnam in 
responding to the one-on-one interview. Vo and Duong (2020) conducted a study addressing 
metacognitive strategies at a Ho Chi Minh City-based college with the participation of 243 non-
English majors. The instruments included a closed-ended questionnaire and semi-structured 
interviews. It was indicated that the participants recognized the importance of metacognitive strategies 
in their English learning. However, significant differences between their perceptions and actual use 
of metacognitive strategies were found in this study. The study of Henno (2012) examined the 
relationship between Vietnamese learners’ LLS use and their language proficiency. The results 
collected from the self-report questionnaire and the participants’ course assessment reports showed 
that there were no relationships between the LLS use and their academic achievements. Also, no 
significant differences in terms of types and frequency of LLS between male and female learners were 
found.    

It is the significance of LLSs in language education that various aspects of LLSs have been 
explored worldwide. In the context of Vietnam, however, there have been only a few studies in which 
high school students take part as research participants. At the research site – Pham Phu Thu high 
School, it is observed that students are unlikely to apply LLSs to facilitate their learning. Therefore, 
the research aims at identifying high school students’ actual use of LLSs at Pham Phu Thu high 



E-ISSN 2621-6485 English Language Teaching Educational Journal 51 
 Vol. 4, No. 1, 2021, pp. 49-60 

 Duong & Nguyen (EFL students’ perspectives on the employment of language learning strategies) 

School. The research question is formulated based on this research objective.” To what extent do the 
students at Pham Phu Thu high school employ language learning strategies (LLSs)?” The preliminary 
findings of the present study probably bring some theoretical and practical contributions towards 
facilitating students’ learning through the employment of LLSs.   

2. Method 

2.1. Participants 

The research involved 238 out of 1700 students attending grades 10, 11, and 12 at a high school in 
Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. At first, forty-five respondents from six classes (i.e., two classes from 
each grade) were conveniently selected, i.e., the researchers chose those who were approachable and 
willing to take part in the study. However, only 238 responses were recorded because thirty-two 
students did not send their responses via Google Forms. As for the demographic information, the 
participants were in their fifteenth to eighteenth and had been studying English as a foreign language 
for at least seven years. It is noteworthy that most of the participants have not experienced official 
guidance in LLSs. 

2.2. Instruments 

The data of this study were collected through a closed-ended questionnaire and semi-structured 
interview. Firstly, the questionnaire was adapted from Oxford’s (1990) classification of language 
learning strategies as this is supposed to be “the most comprehensive classification” (Ellis, 1994, p. 
539). The questionnaire containing six parts, namely memory strategies, cognitive strategies, 
compensation strategies, metacognitive strategies, affective strategies, and social strategies, was 
constructed based on a five-point Likert scale (1=strongly disagree, 2=disagree, 3=neutral, 4=agree, 
and 5=strongly agree). The mean scores were interpreted based on Ali and Paramasivam’s (2016) 
classification of levels as follows: 1 - 2.4 (low level), 2.5 - 3.4 (moderate level), and 3.5 - 5 (high 
level). 

Secondly, individual semi-structured interviews were conducted since interviews allow for a more 
thorough exploration of issues. The interview questions focusing on the participants’ opinions on LLS 
employment in their English language learning were developed based upon the questionnaire. The 
interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed for data analysis. The participants were labeled 
according to gender and grade, e.g., M5-G11 refers that the fifth student is male and in grade 11.  

To increase reliability and validity of the instruments, the questionnaire and the interviews were 
translated into the Vietnamese language to ensure that the participants could understand it at ease. The 
researchers cross-checked the accuracy of the translated versions then. Furthermore, the questionnaire 
was tested through Cronbach’s alpha to make sure the reliability of the questionnaire. Particularly, 
Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for the strategy categories were found from .70 to .92. This means that 
the questionnaire items were reliable enough to collect data. Finally, two experts were invited to check 
either linguistic issues or the content of the instruments.   

2.3. Data Collection 

Because this study was carried out in the stage of the pandemic COVID-19 outbreak, all the 
students were not present at the research site. As a result, the SILL questionnaire was designed online 
via Google Forms and delivered to the surveyed participants via students’ regular contact. In 
particular, most of the teachers have been using Zalo – a popular social network in Vietnam to contact 
their students, so the researchers asked the teachers-in-charge to send the link to the participants. After 
that, twenty students were invited for the individual interviews through Zalo at their convenience. 
Each interview lasted between 5 and 10 minutes, depending on the participants’ responses.  

2.4. Data Analysis 

The quantitative data collected from the questionnaire were analyzed using the SPSS software 
version 25.0. Specifically, descriptive statistics (i.e., Mean & Standard Deviation) were processed to 
examine the overall preference of LLSs among the high school students. Six SILL categories were 
further analyzed for detailed information. Following this, the qualitative data gained from the 
interview were analyzed based on the content analysis approach with three main steps, namely 



52 English Language Teaching Educational Journal  E-ISSN 2621-6485 

 Vol. 4, No. 1, 2021, pp. 49-60 

 Duong & Nguyen (EFL students’ perspectives on the employment of language learning strategies) 

familiarizing with and organizing the data, coding and recoding the data, and interpreting and 
representing the results.  

3. Findings and Discussion 

3.1. Findings  

Six LLS categories were statistically analyzed in terms of mean and standard deviation. It is also 
noted that the mean scores were ranked in descending order. 

Overall, it is observed from Table 1 that the participants employed LLSs at a medium level 
(M=2.89, SD=0.80). The metacognitive strategies were identified as the most common strategy 
category (M=3.16; SD=0.86). Next, compensatory occupied second place with quite a high mean 
score (2.97, SD=0.81). This was followed by cognitive strategies (M=2.87, SD=0.73) and social 
strategies (M=2.83, SD=0.96). Meanwhile, affective and memory strategies were found as the least 
used strategies with quite low mean scores of 2.76 (SD=0.72) and 2.72 (SD=0.69), respectively.  

Table 1.  Descriptive Statistics for Six LLS Categories 

Category Level n=238 

M SD 
Metacognitive strategies Moderate 3.16 0.86 

Compensation strategies Moderate 2.97 0.81 

Cognitive strategies Moderate 2.87 0.73 

Social strategies Moderate 2.83 0.96 

Affective strategies Moderate 2.76 0.72 

Memory strategies Moderate 2.72 0.69 

Average Moderate 2.89 0.80 

To gain an insight into the LLS employment among the surveyed students, the descriptive statistics 
for each category, together with the qualitative data gained from the semi-structured interview, is 
presented in Table 2. 

Table 2.  Metacognitive Strategies 

Category Item Level 
n=238 

M SD 

Metacognitive 
strategies 

(METS) 

METS3. I attentively listen to someone when he/she is 

speaking English. 

High 3.66 1.04 

METS4. I explore ways to learn English better. High 3.61 1.11 

METS2. I try to recognize mistakes to use English better. High 3.60 0.98 

METS8. I set learning goals clearly to improve my English 

language skills. 

Moderate 3.00 1.16 

METS7. I seek any opportunities to read English texts. Moderate 2.99 1.13 

METS9. I think about my English learning progress. Moderate 2.95 1.16 

METS5. I make a study plan to arrange a time for studying 

English properly. 

Moderate 2.92 1.06 

METS1. I try to look for different methods to learn 

English. 

Moderate 2.90 1.09 

METS6. I try to approach people that I can communicate 

with within English. 

Moderate 2.85 1.18 

Among the nine metacognitive strategies, the high school students tended to pay attention to what 
one is talking about in English, discover better methods to learn English, and learn from mistakes. 
Statistically, the mean scores of these strategies, which were 3.66, 3.61, and 3.60, respectively, were 
at a high level. The remaining strategies of the metacognitive category were used at a moderate level, 
and there were no significant differences in terms of frequency among those strategies. 



E-ISSN 2621-6485 English Language Teaching Educational Journal 53 
 Vol. 4, No. 1, 2021, pp. 49-60 

 Duong & Nguyen (EFL students’ perspectives on the employment of language learning strategies) 

The interviewees provided reasons for their substantial choice of metacognitive strategies, such as 
showing their respect to speakers, improving their English pronunciation and comprehension. 
Moreover, they were aware of the role of the English language in the digital era and attempted to 
discover effective ways to improve their English. 

“I am trying to find the most appropriate methods to learn English such as joining 
English speaking clubs, reading English materials extensively, and talking with 
classmates outside the classroom.” (M5-Y11) 

“Although I have made lots of mistakes, I keep talking in English as much as 
possible.” (F1-G12) 

“At first, English was one of the subjects I did not like. Then my English teacher 
advised me to make a plan to learn it. Day by day, my English skills have improved. 
Now, I am really into this subject.” (F13-G11) 

The number-one strategy in compensatory strategies in Table 3 was making guesses when the 
participants dealt with unfamiliar words (M=3.36, SD=1.02). Besides, they made an attempt to guess 
what a speaker is going to say in English (M=2.81, SD=1.17). Apart from guessing, non-verbal 
communication was considered a useful compensatory strategy because they employed this strategy 
at the second rank when they failed to figure out a proper word during an English conversation 
(M=3.18, SD=1.10). 

Table 3.  Compensation Strategies 

Category Item Level 
n=238 

M SD 

Compensation 

strategies (COMS) 

COMS1. I try to guess unfamiliar English words. Moderate 3.36 1.02 

COMS2. When I fail to figure out an English word, non-

verbal communication is used. 

Moderate 3.18 1.10 

COMS6. When I fail to figure out an English word, a word 

or phrase that has a similar meaning is replaced. 

Moderate 3.05 1.17 

COMS5. I make a guess about what someone will say in 

English. 

Moderate 2.81 1.17 

COMS3. I make up new English words when I do not 

remember the right ones.  

Moderate 2.74 1.18 

COMS4. I do not look up every word when I do not know 

the meaning in an English text. 

Moderate 2.65 1.06 

The qualitative data gained from the interviews confirmed the above-mentioned quantitative 
results. The interviewees reported that guessing was the most common strategy they used in case they 
were struggling with unknown words. According to M13-G11, his teacher taught him how to make a 
guess based on a speaker’s behavior and intonation, and prior knowledge when he dealt with difficult 
words in spoken communication. Meanwhile, M17-G11 preferred using non-verbal communication 
(e.g., movement of hands, facial expression, body language, eye contact, etc.) to overcome 
breakdowns in communication. 

Of the fourteen cognitive strategies in Table 4, practicing was a frequent cognitive strategy reported 
by the participants. More specifically, watching English language TV shows in English headed the 
list with the highest mean score (M=3.29, SD=1.11), making it slightly more frequent than practicing 
English pronunciation (M=3.27, SD=1.04) and using the English words in different ways (M=3.20, 
SD=1.05). However, they showed hesitation in initiating a conversation in English (M=2.38, 
SD=1.21) and reading extensively (M=2.29, SD=1.02).  

Qualitatively, the interviewed participants were likely to be reluctant to start a conversation in 
English as they had little chance to do so (F4-G12 & M6-G11), or they were not good at getting their 
ideas across (F1-G12). Most of the interviewees would rather watch English TV shows, movies or 
listen to English music than read books or newspapers in the target language.   

“I do not read the newspaper or magazine in English for pleasure, instead I watch 
English movies or listen to US-UK music. In my opinion, this way is easy for me to 



54 English Language Teaching Educational Journal  E-ISSN 2621-6485 

 Vol. 4, No. 1, 2021, pp. 49-60 

 Duong & Nguyen (EFL students’ perspectives on the employment of language learning strategies) 

learn English, and I can relax. If I like any song or movie, I can remember the 
words, the structures easier and longer.” (F4-G12) 

“I read bilingual books. However, I prefer watching movies or music videos in 
English or joining a chat room to communicate with foreigners. Accordingly, they 
can help me to correct my spelling mistakes, and I practice my speaking skill.” (M5-
G11) 

Table 4.  Cognitive Strategies 

Category Item Level 
n=238 

M SD 

Cognitive 

strategies 

(COGS) 

COGS6. I watch movies/ TV shows in English to practice 

English language skills. 

Moderate 3.29 1.11 

COGS3. I practice pronunciation by reading English words 

aloud. 

Moderate 3.27 1.04 

COGS4. I use new words in different ways. Moderate 3.20 1.05 

COGS1. I learn new words by saying or writing them 

repeatedly. 

Moderate 3.19 0.99 

COGS13. I try not to use the word-by-word translation 

approach. 

Moderate 3.14 1.16 

COGS9. I first read through an English text and then reread it 

carefully. 

Moderate 3.10 1.25 

COGS2. I try to speak native-like English. Moderate 2.91 1.15 

COGS10. I relate words in my mother tongue to those in 
English. 

Moderate 2.90 1.09 

COGS14. I summarize the information I have listened to or 

read in English. 

Moderate 2.85 1.08 

COGS11. I try to identify English patterns to memorize the 
lessons. 

Moderate 2.65 1.17 

COGS12. I try to understand an English word by dividing it 

into smaller parts. 

Moderate 2.55 1.13 

COGS8. I practice producing writing pieces, e.g., messages, 
notes, reports, or emails in English. 

Moderate 2.41 1.04 

COGS5. I start a conversation in English. Low 2.38 1.21 

COGS7. I read English texts extensively. Low 2.29 1.07 

Finally, all of the six social strategies in Table 5 obtained medium-level mean scores, ranging from 
3.10 to 2.50. These strategies included asking interlocutors to slow down (M=3.30, SD=1.23), 
initiating questions in English (M=2.88, SD=1.12), practicing English with other students (M=2.84, 
SD=1.12), exploring native speakers’ cultures (M=2.81, SD=1.27), and asking native speakers for 
correction and help (M=2.64, SD=1.29; M=2.50, SD=1.22). 

Table 5.  Social Strategies 

Category Item Level 
n=238 

M SD 

Social 
strategies 

(SOCS) 

SOCS1. In case of misunderstanding something in English, I 

ask my speaking partner to slow it down or repeat it. 

Moderate 
3.30 1.23 

SOCS5. I try to make questions in English. Moderate 2.88 1.12 

SOCS3. I practice English with my classmates. Moderate 2.84 1.12 

SOCS6. I explore native speakers’ cultures before talking 

with them. 

Moderate 2.81 1.27 

SOCS2. I ask native speakers to correct my mistakes when 

necessary. 

Moderate 2.64 1.29 

SOCS4. I need help from native speakers when I have 

communication breakdowns. 

Moderate 2.50 1.22 



E-ISSN 2621-6485 English Language Teaching Educational Journal 55 
 Vol. 4, No. 1, 2021, pp. 49-60 

 Duong & Nguyen (EFL students’ perspectives on the employment of language learning strategies) 

When being asked reasons for the infrequent use of social strategies, most of the interviewees 
admitted that anxiety and learning habits were the common causes.  

“I dare not approach native speakers, even my English teachers because I am not 
confident about my English skills.” (M3-G12) 

“I prefer learning alone, so when I have learning problems, I just deal with them 
on my own. I do not ask anyone for help. I think it is not a good way, but I am 
familiar with that.” (M6-G11) 

For effective strategies in Table 6, the surveyed students usually encouraged themselves to speak 
English, although they were worried about making mistakes (M=3.16, SD=1.15), notice if they were 
tense or nervous when using English (M=3.12, SD=1.12), and tried to lower their anxiety (M=3.06, 
SD=1.08). Noticeably, they did not note down their feelings relating to English language learning in 
the diary (M=1.81, SD=1.02). 

Table 6.  Affective Strategies 

Category Item Level 
n=238 

M SD 

Affective 

strategies 

(AFFS) 

AFFS2. I make an effort to speak English despite the fear 

of making mistakes. 

Moderate 3.16 1.15 

AFFS4. I notice whether or not I am under pressure while I 

am using English. 

Moderate 3.12 1.12 

AFFS1. I endeavor to relax when I feel worried about using 

English. 

Moderate 3.06 1.08 

AFFS3. I reward myself for doing English tasks well. Moderate 2.76 1.20 

AFFS6. I share my feelings with my classmates in my 

learning process. 

Moderate 2.68 1.24 

AFFS5. I jot down my feelings in a learner diary. Low 1.81 1.02 

The informants reported that they made a great effort to speak up despite their fear. However, most 
of them did not write down their daily experiences in a diary due to learning habits and low level of 
proficiency.  

“I do not know what I should write in the diary. I am not good at literature or 
writing in both languages. Moreover, I am not confident in my vocabulary size and 
grammatical structures to write in English.” (F1-G12) 

“I see no point in writing a diary. I am not a person who likes to write a diary even 
in either English or Vietnamese. If I want to practice my writing skills, I will write 
an essay with a particular topic.” (M7-G10) 

“I prefer sharing with my friends how I feel and find solutions together to writing 
down my thoughts.” (F15-G11) 

Top of the list in the memory category in Table 7 was reviewing English lessons regularly 
(M=3.06, SD=0.90). Linking the previous knowledge and new things while studying (M=2.98, 
SD=0.93) came next, followed by learning new vocabulary by relating them to pictures and places 
(M=2.96, SD=1.07; M=2.82, SD=1.19; M=2.76, SD=1.08). Remarkably, the high school students 
used flashcards to learn new vocabulary at a low level (M=2.06, SD=1.13).  

The results from the interview also confirmed that reviewing English lessons regularly was 
employed by almost all the interviewed participants. Therefore, this strategy is regarded as one of the 
best ways to enhance language knowledge as well as all language skills, e.g., listening, reading, 
speaking, and writing. As one informant (M7-Y10) said, “memory strategies helped to create a habit 
of using new vocabulary, and I can also use them for a long term.” Outside the classroom, they tried 
to remember new vocabulary, grammatical points, and expressions in different ways.  

“I always note down the new vocabulary during the lesson or when I find out new 
words in English movies and music. Then I put them around my house. I also use 



56 English Language Teaching Educational Journal  E-ISSN 2621-6485 

 Vol. 4, No. 1, 2021, pp. 49-60 

 Duong & Nguyen (EFL students’ perspectives on the employment of language learning strategies) 

new words in the conversation with my friends, so I can remember them longer.” 
(F4-G12) 

“I sometimes make connections between new vocabulary with the real subjects and 
situations. Imagination helps me a lot in learning English.” (M5-G11) 

When being asked about the reason for the low use of applying these strategies, the participants 
revealed that they seldom learned English using flashcards because of the following reasons. 

“It is not an effective way for me as we actually do not have enough flashcards for 
many topics especially for discrete subjects.” (M7-G10) 

“Sometimes, I want to change the way of studying new words, and I will use this 
way. Nevertheless, I also need to write down to remember the words. In my opinion, 
this way is not as effective as writing down repeatedly.” (M14 – G11) 

“I have no idea about flashcards, it seems a strange way to learn new words for 
me. My teachers never explain to us how to use it.” (F6-G12). 

Table 7.  Memory Strategies 

Category Item Level 
n=238 

M SD 

Memory 

strategies 

(MEMS) 

MEMS8. I review English lessons frequently. Moderate 3.06 0.90 

MEMS1. I try to connect the prior knowledge with new 

knowledge in English. 

Moderate 
2.98 0.93 

MEMS3. I link the image or picture of a word to memorize 

the new lexical item. 

Moderate 
2.96 1.07 

MEMS4. I acquire a new word by relating a mental picture to 

a practical situation. 

Moderate 
2.82 1.19 

MEMS9. I memorize a new word or a phrase by locating its 

place such as on the page, on the board, or on a street sign. 

Moderate 
2.76 1.08 

MEMS7. I physically enact a new English word. Moderate 
2.66 1.20 

MEMS2. I put new English words in a sentence to remember 

them. 

Moderate 
2.63 1.01 

MEMS5. I remember new vocabulary using rhymes. Moderate 
2.58 1.08 

MEMS6. I learn new vocabulary through flashcards. 
Low  2.06 1.13 

 

3.2. Discussion  

It can be seen that the overall mean score of LLS use was 2.88, which indicates the students’ 
moderate use of LLSs. Furthermore, they used most of the LLSs at a medium level, ranging from 2.72 
to 3.16. This finding is consistent with those found in Nguyen et al. (2012), Nguyen and Jang (2016), 
Ngo (2019), who also found out that Vietnamese learners moderately used LLSs. In other words, the 
high school students have not fully exploited LLSs to enhance their learning outcomes. It may be 
because the majority of the participants have not taken any LLS-related courses yet, which leads to 
the reluctance to use these strategies in their learning process.    

In terms of six categories listed in Oxford’s (1990) SILL, metacognitive strategies were the high 
school learners’ first priority. This result is supported by the previous studies (e.g., Kunasaraphan, 
2015; Nguyen, 2007; Nguyen et al., 2012; Tabeti, 2017; Vo & Duong, 2020). However, this finding 
contradicts Ngo’s (2015) conclusion that metacognitive strategies were not used as frequently as social 
and affective strategies. More specifically, Duong et al. (2019) found out that cognitive and affective 
listening learning strategies were the most commonly used while metacognitive and social strategies 
and compensation and memory strategies were used at moderate and low levels, respectively. It is 
assumed that when metacognitive strategies were the first choice for managing their learning process, 
the high school students became more aware of their own English language learning because they had 
an obvious target. More specifically, Βρεττού (2011) affirmed that this awareness helps learners hold 



E-ISSN 2621-6485 English Language Teaching Educational Journal 57 
 Vol. 4, No. 1, 2021, pp. 49-60 

 Duong & Nguyen (EFL students’ perspectives on the employment of language learning strategies) 

positive attitudes towards their learning, identify learning objectives, create a study plan, self-evaluate 
their learning performance, and seek opportunities to practice the target language, which may lead to 
life-long learning (Duong, 2015).  

On the contrary, memory strategies were in the last place on the list, which means the students 
used this category least of all. The result is in line with Oxford’s (1990) viewpoint that “even though 
memory strategies can be useful to enhance English learning, the students simply do not use memory 
strategies” (p. 40). Memory strategies are essential in the language learning process since a lot of 
knowledge needs to be acquired. In a similar vein, Hong-Nam and Leavell’s (2006) study conducted 
in the context in which college students had various cultural as well as linguistic backgrounds showed 
that the college students used metacognitive strategies as the first priority, compared to affective and 
memory strategies, which were the least employed ones. However, this finding is different from 
Nguyen and Ho’s (2013) results indicating that affective and memory strategies were preferred by the 
female students while compensation and social strategies were preferably selected by the male 
counterparts. This finding probably arises from the gender difference, which is excluded from the 
focus of the present study.  

The top three strategies frequently used by high school students include paying attention when 
someone is speaking in English, finding out how to be a better learner of English, and noticing English 
mistakes. This means that the high school participants paid a lot of attention to look for opportunities 
to enrich the vocabulary and improve pronunciation and become better language learners. These 
findings are similar to those found in some previous studies (e.g., Nguyen et al., 2012; Ngo, 2019; 
Phan & Tran, 2020). Meanwhile, the high school students seldom wrote down their daily experiences 
in a diary, used flashcards to memorize new English lexical items, read extensively, and initiate a 
conversation in English. Despite the benefits of free reading and writing activities, these activities 
were not viewed as the favorite strategies among Vietnamese high school students. In fact, Ngo (2019) 
also discovered that extensive reading and writing tasks were not usually employed by the participants 
to develop their language proficiency. Writing in English is known as the most challenging skill for 
either Vietnamese EFL learners or other EFL learners. The low frequency in writing English of EFL 
learners may be attributed to the insufficient practice of freewriting activities even though the free 
reading experience is of great advantage to language learners such as developing vocabulary size, 
reading comprehension, spelling, and writing. 

4. Conclusion 

The research was carried out to scrutinize the frequency of LLSs employed by Vietnamese high 
school students. The results of the study demonstrated that the students utilized the six categories of 
LLSs at a medium level. Particularly, the metacognitive strategies were identified as the most 
commonly used category, whereas the memory strategies were selected least. It can be inferred that 
the Vietnamese high school learners seemed to be aware of the importance of learning English, thus 
applying strategies to facilitate their own learning; however, the frequency of LLSs is not high.   

Based on the findings of this research, some pedagogical implications are made as follows. It is 

assumed that LLSs may contribute to learner autonomy development and teaching methodology 

enhancement. To achieve the effective use of language learning strategies, LLSs should be introduced 

in each language lesson because learning strategies are teachable. It is suggested that language 

teachers should consider the following steps for applying LLSs in a language classroom. First, the 

teaching context consisting of learners’ behavior, learning goals, and learner motivation should be 

analyzed by language teachers. Moreover, teachers are supposed to clarify, demonstrate and exemplify 

possible strategies, organize discussions in groups or the whole class about LLSs, and integrate the 

hands-on strategies into everyday lessons in a typical LLS-based classroom. It is advisable to give 

learners a lot of opportunities to enact the new strategies through language assignments and counsel 

them to flexibly use LLSs in various contexts. Finally, language teachers should notice the influence 

of students’ use of strategies on their academic achievements. Teachers are expected to provide 

learners with a chance to choose LLSs for their learning practices and to guide them how to be 

autonomous learners through evaluating their own progress. 

 



58 English Language Teaching Educational Journal  E-ISSN 2621-6485 

 Vol. 4, No. 1, 2021, pp. 49-60 

 Duong & Nguyen (EFL students’ perspectives on the employment of language learning strategies) 

Declaration 
Author contribution : The first author was in charge of most of the sections. The second author 

collected the data and searched for some previous studies relating to the 

topic. 

Funding statement : The research is funded under no research project. 

Conflict of interest : The authors declare no conflict of interest. 

Additional information : No additional information is available for this paper. 
 

REFERENCES 

Ali, H. H., & Paramasivam, S. (2016). Language learning strategies across proficiency levels among EFL pre-

university students. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 3(4), 135–148. 

Aljuaid, H. T. (2015). Language learning strategies used by a group of Saudi Arabian EFL learners (Doctoral 

dissertation, Griffith University, Queensland, Australia). Retrieved from https://research-

repository.griffith.edu.au/bitstream/handle/10072/366841/Aljuaid_2015_02Thesis.pdf?sequence=1  

Bρεττού, Α. (2011). Patterns of language learning strategy use by Greek-speaking young learners of English 

(Doctoral Dissertation, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece). Retrieved from 

https://thesis.ekt.gr/thesisBookReader/id/24616#page/1/mode/2up  

Bui, G. T. K., & Vu, T. V. (2018). Language learning strategies of Vietnamese EFL freshmen. Arab World 

English Journal, 9(3), 61–83. https://doi.org/10.24093/awej/vol9no3.5 

Cohen, A. D. (2014). Strategies in learning and using a second language. New York: Routledge. 

https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315833200 

Duong, T. M. (2015). A portfolio-based learner autonomy development model in an EFL writing course 

[Doctoral dissertation, Suranaree University of Technology]. Retrieved from 

http://sutir.sut.ac.th:8080/sutir/handle/123456789/5967  

Duong, T. M. (2020). The correlation of non-English majors’ use of resource management strategies with their 

academic achievement. VNU Journal of Science: Education Research, 36(4), 86–95. 

https://doi.org/10.25073/2525-2445/vnufs.4341 

Duong, T. M., Tran, T. T. H., Tran, T. Q. (2019). Eleventh graders’ actual use of English learning strategies at 

Duong Van Duong high school. VNU Journal of Foreign Studies, 35(1), 114–130.   

Duong, M. D., & Intaraprasert, C. (2012). Language learning strategies employed by EFL science-oriented 

university students in Vietnam: An exploratory study. International Jounal of Scientific and Research 

Publications, 2(4), 232–236. 

Ellis, R. (1994). A theory of instructed second language acquisition. In N. Ellis (Ed.), Implicit and explicit 

learning of languages. Academic Press. 

Griffiths, C. (2013). The strategy factor in successful language learning. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. 

https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847699428 

Griffiths, C., & Cansiz, G. (2015). Language learning strategies: A holistic view. Studies in Second Language 

Leaning and Teaching, 5(3), 473–493. https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2015.5.3.7 

Hardan, A. A. (2013). Language learning strategies: A general overview. Procedia – Social and Behavioral 

Sciences, 106¸1712–1726. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.12.194 

Henno, K (2012). The relationship between the language learning strategy use and language proficiency of 

Vietnamese-speaking learners of English as a foreign language [Master’s dissertation, Stellenbosch 

University]. Retrieved from http://scholar.sun.ac.za/handle/10019.1/71839  

Hong-Nam, K., & Leavell, A. G. (2006). Language learning strategy use of ESL students in an intensive 

English learning context. System, 34(3), 399–415. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2006.02.002 

Kunasaraphan, K. (2015). English learning strategy and proficiency level of the first year students. Procedia - 

Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1853–1858. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.07.246 

https://research-repository.griffith.edu.au/bitstream/handle/10072/366841/Aljuaid_2015_02Thesis.pdf?sequence=1
https://research-repository.griffith.edu.au/bitstream/handle/10072/366841/Aljuaid_2015_02Thesis.pdf?sequence=1
https://thesis.ekt.gr/thesisBookReader/id/24616#page/1/mode/2up
https://doi.org/10.24093/awej/vol9no3.5
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315833200
http://sutir.sut.ac.th:8080/sutir/handle/123456789/5967
https://doi.org/10.25073/2525-2445/vnufs.4341
https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847699428
https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2015.5.3.7
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.12.194
http://scholar.sun.ac.za/handle/10019.1/71839
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2006.02.002
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.07.246


E-ISSN 2621-6485 English Language Teaching Educational Journal 59 
 Vol. 4, No. 1, 2021, pp. 49-60 

 Duong & Nguyen (EFL students’ perspectives on the employment of language learning strategies) 

Lee, J., & Heinz, M. (2016). English language learning strategies reported by advanced language learners.  

Journal of International Education Research, 12(2), 67–76. https://doi.org/10.19030/jier.v12i2.9629 

Lee, K. R., Kim, S., Kim, S., & Lee, Y. (2011). English language learning strategy instruction in Korean 

English textbooks for middle school students’ self-regulated learning. Modern English Education, 12(1), 

177–201. 

Ngo, L. C. (2019). Language learning strategies among Vietnamese EFL high school students. Indonesian 

Journal of English Language Teaching, 14(1), 55–70. https://doi.org/10.25170/ijelt.v14i1.1418 

Nguyen, H. T. B. (2013). English learning strategies of Vietnamese tertiary students. [Master’s dissertation, 

University of Tasmania]. Retrieved from https://eprints.utas.edu.au/17105/2/Whole-Nguyen-Thesis-

_2013.pdf  

Nguyen, T. N., & Ho, T. L. (2013). A comparison on the use of language learning strategies by male and female 

Vietnamese tertiary students of non-English majors. Language in India, 13(4), 185–210. 

Nguyen, T. D., Trinh, H. T., & Huynh, M. T. (2012). Language learning strategies used by non-English major 

freshman at Can Tho University. CTU Journal of Science, 23b, 42–49. 

Nguyen, T. B., & Jang, S. (2016). Strategic English learning and proficiency among vietnamese tertiary 

learners: Beyond passive stereotypes. The International Journal of Learning in Higher Education, 24(1), 

19–34. https://doi.org/10.18848/2327-7955/CGP/v24i01/19-34 

Osman, H., & Manan, N. A. A. (2010). A study of language learning strategies (LLS) used by ESL learners of 

an Urban secondary school in Perak. Constructing Contemporary Malaysia: Insight from Research Effort. 

Perak: UfoRIA UiTM Perak. 

Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. New York: Newbury 

House. 

Oxford, R., & Griffiths, C. (Eds). (2014). Language learning strategy research in the twenty-first century: 

Insights and innovations. System, 43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2013.12.009 

Phan, G. T., & Tran, T. Q. (2020). Tertiary English-majored students’ perceptions toward the role of 

pronunciation in English language learning and their practicing strategies. VNU Journal of Social Sciences 

and Humanities, 6(2), 266-280. https://doi.org/10.33100/jossh6.2.PhanGiaThinh-TranQuocThao 

Qingquan, N., Chatupote, M., & Teo, A. (2008). A deep look into learning strategy use by successful and 

unsuccessful students in the Chinese EFL learning context. RELC Journal, 39(3), 338–358. 

https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688208096845 

Tabeti, S. (2017). Assessing language learning strategy use: the case of the 1st year EFL students at the 

University of Mascara (Doctoral dissertation, University of Tlemcen, Tlemcen, Angeria). Retrieved from 

http://dspace.univ-tlemcen.dz/bitstream/112/11093/1/tabti-soumia.pdf  

Tran, T. Q. (2012). Language learning strategies in foreign language teaching and learning. Japan TESOL 

Journal, 3. 

Tran, T. Q., & Duong, T. M. (2013). The attitudes towards English language learning  and use of self-

regulated learning strategies among college non-English majors. International Journal of Scientific and 

Research Publications, 3(7). 

Tran, T. Q., & Nguyen, C. H. L. (2020). The use of self-regulated language learning strategies among 

Vietnamese English-majored freshmen: A case  study.  VNU Journal of Science: Education Research, 

36(1), 1–10.  https://doi.org/10.25073/2588-1159/vnuer.4331 

Tran, T. Q., & Nguyen, C. H. L. (2021). English-majored students’ motivation in English  language 

learning and their use of reading strategies: Research perspectives. VNU Journal of Foreign Studies, 37(1), 

109–119. https://doi.org/10.25073/2525-2445/vnufs.4661 

Tran, T.Q., & Tran, T.N.P. (2021). Vietnamese EFL high school students' use of self-regulated language 

learning strategies for project-based learning. International Journal of Instruction, 14(1), 459–474. 

https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2021.14127a 

https://doi.org/10.19030/jier.v12i2.9629
https://doi.org/10.25170/ijelt.v14i1.1418
https://eprints.utas.edu.au/17105/2/Whole-Nguyen-Thesis-_2013.pdf
https://eprints.utas.edu.au/17105/2/Whole-Nguyen-Thesis-_2013.pdf
https://doi.org/10.18848/2327-7955/CGP/v24i01/19-34
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2013.12.009
https://doi.org/10.33100/jossh6.2.PhanGiaThinh-TranQuocThao
https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688208096845
http://dspace.univ-tlemcen.dz/bitstream/112/11093/1/tabti-soumia.pdf
https://doi.org/10.25073/2588-1159/vnuer.4331
https://doi.org/10.25073/2525-2445/vnufs.4661
https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2021.14127a


60 English Language Teaching Educational Journal  E-ISSN 2621-6485 

 Vol. 4, No. 1, 2021, pp. 49-60 

 Duong & Nguyen (EFL students’ perspectives on the employment of language learning strategies) 

Vo, T. T. T, & Duong, T. M. (2020). Non-English majors’ perceptions and use of metacognitive strategies at 

a Vietnamese EFL context. TNU Journal of Science and Technology, 225(12), 131–138. 

https://doi.org/10.34238/tnu-jst.3703 

 

 

 

 

https://doi.org/10.34238/tnu-jst.3703

