Tài liệu The relationship between language learning motivation and language learning strategy use of vietnamese employees at honda company, vietnam

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES FACULTY OF POST - GRADUATE STUDIES ******************* HOÀNG THỊ HOA THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LANGUAGE LEARNING MOTIVATION AND LANGUAGE LEARNING STRATEGY USE OF VIETNAMESE EMPLOYEES AT HONDA COMPANY, VIETNAM MỐI QUAN HỆ GIỮA ĐỘNG LỰC HỌC NGÔN NGỮ VÀ VIỆC SỬ DỤNG CHIẾN THUẬT HỌC NGÔN NGỮ CỦA NHÂN VIÊN NGƯỜI VIỆT CÔNG TY HONDA, VIỆT NAM M.A. MINOR PROGRAMME THESIS Field: English Teaching Methodology Code: 60140111 HANOI - 2016 VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES FACULTY OF POST - GRADUATE STUDIES ******************** HOÀNG THỊ HOA THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LANGUAGE LEARNING MOTIVATION AND LANGUAGE LEARNING STRATEGY USE OF VIETNAMESE EMPLOYEES AT HONDA COMPANY, VIETNAM MỐI QUAN HỆ GIỮA ĐỘNG LỰC HỌC NGÔN NGỮ VÀ VIỆC SỬ DỤNG CHIẾN THUẬT HỌC NGÔN NGỮ CỦA NHÂN VIÊN NGƯỜI VIỆT CÔNG TY HONDA, VIỆT NAM M.A. MINOR PROGRAMME THESIS Field: English Teaching Methodology Code: 60140111 Supervisor: Tô Thị Thu Hương, PhD HANOI - 2016 DECLARATION I hereby declare that my thesis submitted for the Faculty of Post-Graduate Studies, University of Languages and International Studies, Vietnam National University, apart from the help recognized, is my own work. Also, this paper has not been submitted to any other formal course of study. Hanoi, 2016 Ho ng Thi Hoa i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to send my thank you to many individuals for their invaluable help during the conduct of the research. First and foremost, I would like to express my profound gratitude to my supervisor, Dr. To Thi Thu Huong, who gave me enthusiastic instructions, precious support and critical feedback on the construction of the study. This has always been one of decisive factors in the completion of this thesis. Second, I also wish to thank all the doctors and lecturers of the Faculty of Postgraduate Studies, University of Foreign Languages and International Studies, Vietnam National University, Hanoi for their valuable lectures, which are partly applied in this study. Next, I would like to send my deep sense of thanks to Vietnamese employees at Honda Co., Vietnam for their cooperation and the valuable information they provided in my research field. Furthermore, I would like to give my heartfelt thanks to my family and friends, especially my boyfriend, Thanh Nguyen, and my best friend, Sao Bui, who have always been helpful to me throughout the research. Last but not least, I thank almighty the graders and readers for their interests, evaluation and feedback on this thesis. ii ABSTRACT This research aims to investigate the correlation between language learning motivation and language learning strategy use by Vietnamese employees at Honda company. To seek answers for the issue, a questionnaire was conducted to collect the answers from 120 Vietnamese employees at Honda company. The first section of the questionnaire was about how often the students used instructed strategies in learning English and found out whether these students use any other strategies than instructed ones, and the second section was created to collect information about the participants‟ motivation level. The data were then analyzed and presented in the forms of frequency, percentage and charts and tables. The results indicated that all the instructed strategies were used by the majority of the respondents and the participants also applied some other strategies that could be considered belonging to memory and social groups in their English learning, and among the four types of motivation, their reported instrumental motivation was of the highest level. Importantly, the study found a significant, positive, and moderate correlation between motivation and language learning strategy use. Moreover, different types of motivation are shown to have different correlations with strategy use. Finally, the significant contributions of integrative and intrinsic motivation to strategy use were revealed, which went beyond the correlational analysis for the relationship as often observed in other studies. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................... ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................. iv LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................... vi LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................... vii CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................... 1 1.1. The statement of problem and rationale for the study .................................... 1 1.2. Significance of the study ......................................................................................... 3 1.3. Objectives of the study and research questions ........................................................ 4 1.4. Method of the study ................................................................................................ 5 1.5. Organization of the study ........................................................................................ 5 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW............................................................................ 6 2.1. Language learning strategies ................................................................................... 6 2.1.1. Definitions and characteristics of language learning strategies .......................... 6 2.1.2. Classification of learning strategies .................................................................. 7 2.1.3. The role of language learning strategies in language learning and teaching..... 12 2.2. Motivation in language learning ............................................................................ 13 2.2.1. Definitions of motivation ............................................................................... 13 2.2.2. Types of motivation in language learning ....................................................... 14 2.3. Language learning strategies and motivation in language learning ........................ 17 3.3.1. Data collection instrument .............................................................................. 22 3.4. Data analysis procedure ........................................................................................ 26 4.1. The range of language learning strategies used by Vietnamese employees at Honda Company, Vietnam. ..................................................................................................... 29 4.1.1. Memory strategies .......................................................................................... 29 4.1.2. Cognitive strategies ........................................................................................ 31 4.1.3. Compensation strategies ................................................................................. 32 4.1.4. Metacognitive strategies ................................................................................. 34 4.1.5. Affective strategies ........................................................................................ 36 4.1.6. Social strategies ............................................................................................. 37 4.2. The Vietnamese employees‟ dominant types of motivation for English language learning. ...................................................................................................................... 41 iv 4.2.1. Integrative motivation .................................................................................... 42 4.2.2. Instrumental motivation ................................................................................. 43 4.2.3. Resultative motivation ................................................................................... 45 4.2.4. Intrinsic motivation ........................................................................................ 47 4.3. The correlation between students‟ use of LLSs and their types of motivation in English learning........................................................................................................... 48 CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION ........................................................................................ 52 APPENDICES ................................................................................................................... I APPENDIX 1 ................................................................................................................. I v LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS Co.: company EFL: English as foreign language LS: learning strategy LSs: learning strategies LLS: language learning strategy LLSs: language learning strategies MA: Master of Arts vi LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Frequency of using memory strategies .................................................... 29 Figure 2: Frequency of using cognitive strategies .................................................. 31 Figure 3: Frequency of using compensation strategies ........................................... 33 Figure 4: Requency of using metacognitive strategies ........................................... 35 Figure 5: Frequency of using affective strategies ................................................... 37 Figure 6: Frequency of using social strategies ....................................................... 38 Figure 7: The percentage of regular use of the most and the least popular strategies ................................................................................................... …………………39 Figure 8: The students' integrative motivation ....................................................... 42 Figure 9: The students' instrumental motivation..................................................... 44 Figure 10: The students' resultative motivation ...................................................... 45 Figure 11: The students' intrinsic motivation ......................................................... 48 vii CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1.1.The statement of problem and rationale for the study That well-paid attention to the second language learners and their learning instead of teachers and teaching methods in the recent decades by researches has been an indispensable and meaningful educational renovation that provides more comprehensive perception on second language education for both teachers and learners. The studies of second language learning and their effectiveness that started to be focused prominently since the second half of the twentieth century (Ellis, 2003). This is well-known when various researches have been launched and they concentrated on how learners deal with their own learning and what makes good language learners. The prominent contributions to this field can be known as the studies by Stern in 1975, Oxford in 1990, and Griffiths in 2003. These researchers made it clearer that a lot of responsibility for the second language learning‟s effectiveness and success is on students themselves with their ability to take advantage of opportunities for learning. Moreover, the strategies and techniques that language learners exploit to acquire the language and solve challenges in their language learning have been a thriving area of research, especially in L2.Since Rubin and Stern (1970) revealed in their works that the use of language learning strategies (LLSs) was beneficial for second language learning. Bialystok (1978, p. 71) also agreed that learning strategies were the “optimal means for exploiting available information to improve competence in a second language”. Later, in 1990, in her work, Oxford found that students can self-study effectively if using LLSs. In addition, the use of language learning strategies leads to better proficiency or achievement in mastering the target language (Lee, 2003; O‟Malley and Chamot, 1990; Rahimi et at., 2008; Griffiths, 2003; Hong, 2006; Oxford, 1993). Besides, the variables affecting language learning strategy use were also taken into consideration by several scholars. Those factors might consist of degree of 1 awareness, age, sex, nationality, learning style, personality traits, motivation, learning context, language teaching method and language proficiency (Zare & Nooreen, 2011; Khamkhien, 2010; Rahimi, et al. 2008; Chemot, 2004; Griffiths, 2003; Hong-Nam and Leavell, 2007; Green and Oxford, 1995; Ehrman and Oxford, 1989).Concerning this field, Taguchi (2002) found that “the most influential factors were gender, English proficiency and motivation” among a number of learner and social factors in both Japan and Australia contexts. In another work by Khamkhien (2010) which studied three factors affecting students‟ choice of LLS, motivation is the most significant (followed by experience in studying English and gender). In additions, the number of studies on the relationship between motivation and LLS use was modest. What is more, the approaches to motivation were not consistent and comprehensive in these studies despite the development of research on motivation field. Most of the previous studies emphasized on the relationship between motivation level and LLS use without paying attention to motivation types. In addition, one can notice that although the correlation between motivation and the use of LLSs were discussed to some extent (Al-Qahtani, 2013; Khamkhien, 2010; Lau & Chan, 2003; Liu et al., 2014; Mochizuki, 1999; Oxford & Nyikos, 1989), little was known about the predictive power of motivation in explaining LLS use of EFL learners. At Honda company context, there has never had any researches of language learning carried out. Moreover, since 2015, Honda Motor Co. announced widely that they are to make English the official language by around 2020, which means if any employees who cannot use English will be fired. Simultaneously, all Honda staff members will be helped to take part in free English classes at the company in order to enhance their English skills. These mean the learning and teaching context of the company staff members have undergone some changes. Due to the above reasons, this paper would take a deeper look at the relationship between motivation and the use of LLSs, and the researcher decided to work with the case of Vietnamese employees at Honda company in Vinh Phuc, Vietnam, who are having extra classes 2 of English skills at their company which may lead to students‟ clearer motivation for learning English. In additions, in the context of Honda, the researcher did not choose to investigate the relationship between gender and LLSs because the majority of Vietnamese employees at Honda are male, so it may meet difficulties in collecting respondents in proportion. Besides, almost all Vietnamese staffs at Honda graduated from universities of technical fields, or economic, and law, etc. As a result, their proficiency of English is quite the same at elementary, pre-intermediate and intermediate levels, which may give unvalued results if investigating the correlation between English proficiency and the use of LLSs. Thus, this study was conducted with an aim at expanding the understandings about the relationship between motivation and LLSs use, especially on the role of motivation types in explaining and predicting the L2 learners‟ LLS use. In short, being aware of the rather new teaching and learning situation, the gap in research and the possibility of Vietnamese employees' increasing motivation at Honda to learning English, the researcher designed this study to investigate the relationship between the use of language learning strategy and their motivation for learning English of Vietnamese employees at Honda company, Vietnam. 1.2. Significance of the study As a study on the relationship between LLS use and motivation for learning English of Vietnamese employees at Honda Vietnam for learning English, this work would be of benefit for the target population, their English teacher and other researchers interested in the field. In the first place, this study is conducted with a hope to provide Vietnamese employees at Honda Vietnam, to some extent, with knowledge of LLSs and encourage them to use these LLS in appropriate ways to enhance their language learning effect. In additions, the research results would allow participants to know more their current use of LLS, their motivation in their learning English at present and importantly, the correlation between these two elements is expected to be 3 concerned by learners and taken into their consideration. Then, students may have some changes in their choice of LLSs that are useful to their language learning and adjust their attitudes to their study actively and positively, so that their learning is more interesting and effective. As for their English teachers, they could base on the results of this work to further understand their students‟ use of LLS and their motivation. After that, teachers can encourage and guide students to use LLS more effectively. Furthermore, they can even change the way of teaching or giving tasks, so that it is more compatible and constructive for their students‟ motivation. The adjustments in course content or orientation could also be made for betterment. Last but not least, regarding the researchers who are interested in the same or related field, the researcher hope this paper could work as a reliable source of reference and a basis for them to develop their works from. 1.3. Objectives of the study and research questions This study was conducted with an aim of exploring the relationship between motivation and instructed LLSs use by Vietnamese employees at Honda co, Vietnam, especially the role of motivation types in explaining and predicting the L2 learners‟ LLS use. To fulfil this aim, firstly, this study focused on identifying the extent of the use of trained LLSs of Vietnamese employees at Honda Vietnam in learning English. Secondly, motivation types of respondents towards learning English were investigated. After that, this paper explored the relationship between respondents‟ use of LLS and their motivation for English learning. In a nut shell, the study reported in this the thesis aims at answering three questions below: 1. What is the range of instructed language learning strategies used by Vietnamese employees at Honda Vietnam? 2. What are Vietnamese employees‟ dominant types of motivation for English language learning? 4 3. In what way does Vietnamese employees‟ use of language learning strategies correlate with their types of motivation for learning English? 1.4. Method of the study The methods employed in this study to find out the answers to the proposed research questions are both qualitative and quantitative analyses. Quantitative analysis used in the process of data collection and analysis, which was conducted at Honda Company, Vietnam. The instrument was a questionnaire that includes fifty-statements of LLSs developed from the fiftystatement strategy inventory version 7.0 by Oxford (1989) and an adapted list of nineteen items related to motivation types. Following the phase of data collection is data analysis to give the results for each research question and the topic of the study. Besides, with an aim at providing an understanding of the field for readers and a philosophy for the study, the researcher carried out to review, compare and evaluate a large amount of literature on LLSs and motivation by experts worldwide. These materials were then applied to construct the instrument and compare the findings with the results of previous studies. Hopefully, this study could release meaningful and beneficial findings on the relationship between learners‟ use of language learning strategies and their motivation, so that certain contribution to Vietnamese employees‟ English learning at Honda Vietnam could be made. 1.5. Organization of the study The study consists of 5 chapters Chapter 1: Introduction of the research Chapter 2: Literature review (Other researches on this topic are discussed) Chapter 3: Methodology (the way the researcher collected the data as well as analysis them is showed) Chapter 4: Findings and discussion (features in learners‟ use) Chapter 5: Conclusion 5 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1. Language learning strategies 2.1.1. Definitions and characteristics of language learning strategies To be considered as one of the most vital elements contributing to learners‟ success in language acquisition, language learning strategies defined and characterized by a variety of scholars in the related field. Early on, according to Tarone (1983), LLS as “an attempt to develop linguistic and sociolinguistic competence in the target language – to incorporate these into one‟s inter-language competence” (p.67).Rubin (1987) later wrote that LLS “are strategies which contribute to the development of the language system which the learners construct and affect learning directly” (p.22). The learning strategies also have been defined by O‟Malley and Chamot (1990:1) as “special ways of processing information that enhance comprehension, learning, or retention of information”. In line with them, Scarcella & Oxford (1992) mentioned LLS as “specific actions, behaviors, steps, or techniques – such as seeking out conversation partners, or giving oneself encouragement to tackle a difficult language task- used by students to enhance their own learning”. Obviously, a change of what is emphasized in these definitions can be clearly seen that it shifts from finding out what they learn to how and why learners learn (Wenden 1991:11). Also, it is vital to note that although there is a notorious relationship between leaner‟s language learning style and his or her preferred LLS, LLS are distinct from learning styles, which refer to learner‟s “natural, habitual, and preferred ways of absorbing, processing, and retaining new information and skills” (Reid, 1995, p.viii). Ellis (1994, p. 532-533) affirmed that “[s]trategies refer to both general approaches and specific actions or techniques used to learn an L2”, and strategy use can be behavioral or mental, visible or invisible. This definition was consistent with the ideas of many other scholars in the field, especially those of O‟Malley and Chamot (1990) and Oxford (1989, 2001). Concerning whether strategy use necessitates consciousness or not, Ellis (1994), Oxford (2001), and Grabe (2009) agreed that learners make use of learning strategies 6 intentionally until they can implement them skillfully and automatically. Above all, there was a consensus among these researchers that strategies affect directly and indirectly on learning process, exerting positive influence on students‟ task solving, language skill development, language proficiency, communicative competence, learning autonomy, self-confidence, and aiming at making the process of learning easier and more feasible (Al-Qahtani, 2013; Dreyer & Oxford, 1996; “Author 2”, 2005; Ellis, 1994; Matsumoto, Hiromori, & Nakayama, 2013; Moya, 2014; Nisbet, Tindal, & Arroyo, 2005; O‟Malley & Chamot, 1990; Oxford, 1990; Oxford, 2001; Oxford & Scarcella, 1992). Regarding the LLS literature, this study now mentions a number of basic characteristics of language learning strategies that published in 2005 by Jacet (cited in Kitakawa, 2008, p.151). First of all, LLS help learners to study language easier and contribute language acquisition (competence and performance). Secondly, LLS are “what learners can use consciously according to need and then allow them to become more responsible and self-directed. Some LLS are behavioral (and, therefore, observable) while other are mental (and, therefore, not observable). Also, some LLS contribute directly while other contributes indirectly on inter-language development. The fifth is LLS are not distinguished by being good or not and just have effectual way and non-effectual way. LLS allow students to properly use the strategies with appropriate guidance. Finally, LLS use varies as a result of learner‟s internal factors (sex, age, belief, aptitude, purpose, learning stage, cultural background, intelligence) and external factors (target language, task, environment, etc)”. 2.1.2. Classification of learning strategies Through the years, a number of researchers released the systems of language learning strategies in their own way. LLS are defined and classified in different way from each other. Therefore, this field of LLS is controversial (Oxford, 1990). The researchers on this field have not been shared the same view. As a result, the quantity and classification of LLS are “inevitable” (Oxford, 1990). 7 In 1971, Rubin investigated the strategies used by “good language learners” when learning a second language with an aim to apply this to “poor language learner”. Naiman et al. (1976) agreed with researchers earlier on the significance of learners‟ strategies to their learning process. A new point is they identify “good” and “poor” language learners and they found out that “poor” language learners appeared to use a smaller number and range of strategies than “good” learners. It was believed that good language learners are “willing and accurate guessers; have a strong drive to communicate; are often uninhibited; are willing to make mistakes; focus on form by looking for patterns and analyzing; take advantage of all practice opportunities; monitor their speech as well as that of others; and pay attention to meaning”, and the students‟ process was under direct or indirect influence of LSs (Rubin, 1975).The female expert came to her latest classification in 1987 with three main groups of strategies that make a direct or indirect contribution to students‟ language learning: „learning strategies‟ (with „metacognitive strategies‟ and „cognitive strategies‟ as subclasses), „communication strategies‟, and „social strategies‟. Among strategies included in the system, only cognitive ones directly affect learning, while the rest indirectly. However, Ellis (1986) argued that successful use of communication strategies may prevent language learning, for example, being excel at guessing meaning may prevent the desire for learning. Another prominent way of categorizing LLS belonged to O‟Malley and Chamot (1990) with three main types, namely cognitive (applying a particular technique to a specific task, for example repeating, summarizing, note-taking, reasoning and analyzing), meta-cognitive (related to the learning process, for example organizing, evaluating, planning and monitoring) and socio- affective (involving oneself and others, for example co-operating with peers and seeking clarification). O‟Malley and Chamot (1990) emphasized the cognitive strategy is the best one “repetition as the most frequently used strategy” and gave those classed as meta-cognitive a special consideration, maintaining that “students without metacognitive approaches are essentially learners without direction or opportunity to 8 plan their learning, monitor their progress, or review their accomplishments and future learning directions”. It can be seen that the meta-cognitive and cognitive strategies correspond roughly with Rubin‟s. However, there was an addition of the social ones, which essentially acknowledged the importance of interactional strategies in language learning (Griffiths, 2004). Basing on the predecessors‟ works, Oxford tried to develop a taxonomy that discussed before in other researches in more detail, which was considered "the most comprehensive classification of learning strategies to date” (Ellis, 1994). She divided these strategies into two main classes, direct and indirect, which are further subdivided into six categories (cognitive strategy that allows learners to understand and produce the target language in different means, memory strategy that helps learners to store and retrieve new information later, and compensation that provides learners the means to communicate although their knowledge is limited (Oxford, 1990) under the direct class; meta-cognitive, affective, and social under the indirect class).Meta-cognitive strategies allow students to control their cognition and their own learning, affective strategies relates to regulate learners‟ emotion, motivation, and behaviors, and social strategies that permit learners study through interaction with others. Following is the table contains detail information of specific strategies of each group. 9 Table 1: Oxford‟s (1990) language learning strategy taxonomy Major groups of strategies Primary strategies Secondary strategies A. Creating mental linkages B. Applying images and sounds C. Reviewing well D. Employing action A. Practicing B. Receiving and sending II. Cognitive messages (entail conscious ways of C. Analyzing and handling the target language) reasoning D. Creating structure for input and output III. Compensation A. Guessing intelligently (enable learners to B. Overcoming communicate despite limitations in speaking and knowledge limits) writing A. Centering learning I. Metacognitive B. Arranging and planning (facilitate students‟ control of learning their cognition, their own C. Evaluating learning learning) I. Memory (help learners to store new language information and retrieve this later) DIRECT STRATEGIES (require mental processing of the language) INDIRECT STRATEGIES (support indirectly the process of learning) II. Affective (control and regulate emotion, motivation, and behaviors) III. Social (improve social interaction with other people) A. Lowering anxiety B. Encouraging oneself C. Taking emotional temperature A. Asking question B. Cooperating with others C. Empathizing with others It is observable that Oxford‟s (1990) system was more specific than previous ones in terms of primary strategies and more general in terms of secondary ones. Especially, a difference from earlier inventories is that Oxford emphasis on affective and social strategies. This seems to match with her assertion when mentioning to six 10 fundamental strategies in language learning as “tools for active, self-directed involvement, which is essential for developing communicative competence”. Although there are differences of approaches and emphases, the strategies that are discussed and classified by researchers are similar to some extent. Particularly, three types of cognitive, memory and compensation given by Oxford correspond to that by O‟Malley‟s cognitive group. These strategies are mental and physical actions affecting their learning input directly. Also, O‟Malley and Oxford have the same kind of meta-cognitive strategies as mentioned earlier. Finally, social-affective strategies by O‟Malley seem to almost cover two groups of affective and social strategies of Oxford. The advantage of Oxford‟s classification in comparison with others is that the list could cover all other particular actions or activities in language learning; therefore, the system has been considered a very comprehensive, detailed and systematic taxonomy of strategies (Brown, 2007; Ellis, 1994). More importantly, based on this taxonomy, Oxford (1989) created the Strategy Inventory of Language Learning (SILL), which is a questionnaire on how students use the LLSs in their language learning. The version for speakers of other languages learning English of the SILL (Oxford, 1989) has been widely employed by researchers in the field, and it served as the instrument of this study as well. Concerning previous studies, several have investigated the frequency of using LLS by L2 learners, but the findings were different across studies. For example, metacognitive and cognitive strategies were revealed to be the most frequently used in Al-Hebaishi (2012), Al-Qahtani (2013), and Chand (2014). In the meantime, Hayati (2015) found the students made use of metacognitive and memory strategies the most. Differently, in Mochizuki (1999), Oxford and Ehrman (1995), compensation group was used the most often by L2 students. However, the inconclusive findings were understandable because the participant samples had different characteristics (different study levels, different learning settings, to name but a few), and it has been acknowledged that learning strategies were likely to be affected by many factors, which would be discussed later in this paper. 11