Following the presentation (chapter 4) and discussion (chapter 5) of the results of this study on the LLS use of Vietnamese-speaking learners of English in a tertiary EFL setting, it should be clear that these results do not offer evidence in support of any of the hypotheses proposed in response to the four research questions that informed the study (see chapter 1). Specifically, the learners did not report using memory LLSs significantly more frequently than affective LLSs; there was no significant correlation between overall LLS use and language proficiency; there was no significant difference between males and females in terms of how frequently they use LLSs; and learners who had been exposed to more English instruction outside of school did not use LLSs significantly more frequently.
These findings were surprising given that the hypotheses are all based on the findings of a wealth of previous studies in the field, and the research design of the study is also very similar to that of the most prominent studies in the field. Chapters 4 and 5 offered in-depth discussions of possible reasons for this lack of evidence in support of the hypotheses, referring to, amongst other things, characteristics of the data collection instruments, the influence of other variables, and the specific context in which the study was conducted.
98
6.2 Limitations
The fact that many of the findings of this study remain inconclusive and that the hypotheses underlying the research questions are not supported could in part be due to a number of limiting factors in this study. The first restriction regards the nature of the research method used to collect LLS data in this study. As mentioned in Chapter 3 and briefly discussed in the previous chapter, there are a number of disadvantages to using self-report questionnaires as LLS data collection instruments (see table 3.1 for a summary of these), not least of all the fact that the SILL does not assess context- specific and task-specific LLSs.
Two limitations of the study brought about by time constraints are the relatively small sample size and the use of a single data collection instrument to investigate LLS use. A larger sample size may have yielded more comprehensive results regarding LLS use and this variable’s correlation with language proficiency, especially in terms of the grouping of low, medium and high frequency LLS users – recall from Chapter 4 that the low LLS use groups had fewer than eight learners in five of the six LLS categories. Moreover, two or more research instruments, including at least one qualitative data collection instrument, may have been useful to verify the participants’ responses to the items on the SILL-V and to identify LLSs not assessed by the SILL-V.
Further limitations involve the use of the participating learners’ EOC results as a measure of their language proficiency. For practical reasons, the students’ final examination results were used, but a more accurate reflection of their language proficiency might have been attained by including their MCAs and overall scores, or by employing a standardised language proficiency assessment method, such as the TOEFL or the so-called “IELTS” (International English Language Testing System) tests. One of the advantages of using a standardised assessment method is that it renders the results more comparable to previous and future investigations, in this setting as well as cross-culturally, due to the fact that these assessments are commonly used around the world.
99
6.3 Strengths
Despite the limitations referred to in the previous section, the study reported here has a number of strengths as well and does contribute to the field of LLS research. Firstly, due to the sample size of 102 participants, the findings of this study represent a relatively robust cross-section of learners’ LLS use in this setting. Given the detailed presentation of learners’ LLS use provided in this thesis, the study can be said to have contributed significantly to the extremely limited body of research regarding the LLS use of Vietnamese-speaking learners in an academic EFL context.
The findings regarding the participants’ overall and by-category usage may prove to be quite meaningful. The relatively high frequency of social LLS use and low utilisation of memory LLSs is significant in itself as it challenges the enduring stereotype that Asian learners, and especially those from CHCs, are passive, quiet and submissive students favouring rote learning (Shi 2006: 122). Furthermore, these findings indicate that these students are perhaps trying to break away from the enduring traditional teaching methods they would have experienced in Vietnamese schools and are perhaps embracing a more communicative approach to teaching and learning. Whether the students’ learning styles and strategies are slowly evolving towards what is traditionally seen as a more Western concept of education and learning, remains to be seen.
These findings are also significant when viewed in the light of Vietnam’s rapid economic development and liberalisation. It may be that the changing views on education and learning are in part a reflection of the developing nature of Vietnam and the growing influence of Western culture on this industrialising country. Nisbett et al. (2005: 105) highlight the effect of previous education experience and the prevailing educational philosophy in a culture on LLS use; however, the contradicting nature of the social and memory LLS outcomes of this study raises the question of whether LLS use is more context-specific, with institutional pedagogy and learning settings being more influential than the role of cultural traditions and the enduring education system in a country (Gan 2009: 53).
Although the homogeneous nature of this group of learners limits the generalisability of the findings, it is also a strong point of this research. The participants’ uniformity in terms of age and cultural background has, in a sense, neutralised the differentiating influence of these variables, allowing the
100
researcher to focus on the variables under investigation without having to be concerned about the undesired effects which may be caused by including participants from different cultural backgrounds and age groups.
The fact that LLS use was not found to differ significantly by gender is significant in its own right. These results question the importance of the role of gender in LLS use, at least in the Vietnamese tertiary EFL context. Although other investigations have reported a similar lack of correlation in this type of setting, the current study does add to the growing body of research regarding LLSs and gender, and calls for more comprehensive investigations into the relationship between these two variables. Recall, for example, the suggestion that the effect of gender might be better investigated by considering individual LLSs within LLS categories.
While the results of the study failed to support the hypothesis that students with more exposure to English outside of the formal school setting use more LLSs, they are still noteworthy in terms of additional exposure to English. More specifically, the study confirmed the popularity of studying at English language learning centres in Vietnam, with over three quarters of the participants who replied that they had received instruction outside of school having studied at such institutions. Again, this demand for additional language instruction could be seen as a reflection of the country’s growing economic prosperity and the increasing importance Vietnamese place on being able to speak English. L2 learning research would benefit from future studies which examine Vietnamese-speaking learners’ beliefs regarding language learning and the importance of English.
This study also provides researchers and teachers with a deeper insight into Vietnamese-speaking learners’ LLS use, if not in general, at least in this specific context. These Vietnamese-speaking EFL learners have indicated that they are relatively high strategy users and are generally aware of the range of LLSs at their disposal. Hopefully, this study will also increase teachers’ awareness of the phenomenon of LLS use, the range of different LLSs that are at learners’ disposal and the potential value of increasing learners’ awareness of these different LLSs, maybe also teaching them which LLSs seem to be most appropriate for specific tasks. This should also increase learner autonomy and facilitate language learning.
101