The Use of Language Learning Strategies by Chinese TFL University Students

จตรลดาวรรณ ศรสนทรไท Jitladawan Srisunthornthai

Abstract The objective of this study is twofold: (1) to identify language learning strategies employed

by Chinese university students; and (2) to analyze the language learning strategies chosen as a result of different proficiency levels. The sample group was 9 Chinese students majoring in Thai Language and Culture program,school of Liberal Arts, Mae FahLuang University, Chiang Rai Province. The research instrument of this study is an interview form concerning learners’ language strategies. Group interviewswere employed to collect data. It was found that Chinese university students employed social/affective, cognitive, andmetacognitive strategies respectively. With regard to different proficiency levels and the use of language learning strategies, high proficiency students used social/affective strategies more frequentlythan low proficiency students, whereas low proficiency students employed cognitive strategies and metacognitive strategies more than high proficiency students. Male students obviously used metacognitive strategies more than female students; nevertheless, female students used the social/affective strategy more than male students. It is suggested that teachers should take proficiency level and gender into their consideration. This information will be beneficial for designing and developing content, instructional language materials and activities that suit learners’ need.

Keywords: Language learning strategies, Thai as a foreign language (TFL), Chinese students

บทคดยอ

งานวจยครงนมวตถประสงค2 ขอ คอ (1) เพอระบกลวธการเรยนรภาษาทนกศกษาจนใช และ(2) เพอวเคราะหกลวธการเรยนรภาษาของนกศกษาจนทมระดบความสามารถทางภาษาแตกตางกน กลมตวอยางคอนกศกษาจนจ านวน 9 คนทศกษาหลกสตรภาษาและวฒนธรรมไทย ส านกวชาศลปศาสตร มหาวทยาลยแมฟาหลวง จงหวดเชยงราย เครองมอทใชในการวจยครงน คอ แบบสมภาษณเกยวกบกลวธการเรยนรของผ เรยน ผวจยใชการสมภาษณกลมในการเกบรวบรวมขอมลผลการวจยพบวา นกศกษาจนใชกลวธดานสงคม-จตพสย มากทสด รองลงมาคอกลวธดานความรความเขาใจ และกลวธอภปญญาตามล าดบ สวนการเลอกใชกลวธการเรยนรภาษาของนกศกษาทมระดบความสามารถทางภาษาแตกตางกน พบวา นกศกษาทมระดบความสามารถทางภาษาสงใชกลวธดานสงคม-จตพสยมากกวานกศกษาทมระดบความสามารถทางภาษาต า สวนนกศกษาทมระดบความสามารถทางภาษาต าใชกลวธความรความเขาใจและกลวธอภปญญามากกวานกศกษาทมระดบความสามารถทางภาษาสง นอกจากนยงพบวานกศกษาชายใชกลวธอภปญญามากกวานกศกษาหญง สวนนกศกษาหญงใชกลวธดานสงคม - จตพสยมากกวานกศกษาชายงานวจยนเสนอแนะวา ผ สอนควรค านงถงเรองระดบความสามารถและเพศของ

ผ เรยนดวย ซงขอมลเหลานจะเปนประโยชนตอการออกแบบและการพฒนาเนอหา เอกสารประกอบการสอน และกจกรรมทเหมาะสมกบผ เรยนตอไป ค ำส ำคญ : กลวธการเรยนรภาษา, ภาษาไทยในฐานะภาษาตางประเทศ, นกศกษาจน

Introduction Language learning is a natural phenomenon; it occurs even without intervention (Genesee, 2000). In language learning, even second or foreign language learning, learners possibly encounter the difficulty more or less because the process of learning a non-native language is far more difficult and much less likely to end in complete mastery/fluency(Mackey, 2006).

Language learning strategy (from here onwards, LLS) is defined by many scholars. O’Malley, & Chamot (1990) stated that learning strategies are special ways of processing information that enhance comprehension, learning, or retention of the information.Oxford (1990) referred to learning strategies as specific actions, behaviors which progress in developing skills in a second or foreign language. Cohen (1998) further added: those processes which are consciously selected by learners and which may result in actions taken to enhance the learning or use of a second or foreign language, through the storage, retention, recall, and application of information about that language. Similarly, Schunk (2004) mentioned that learning strategy isa systematic plan oriented toward regulating academic work and producing successful task performance.In sum, language learning strategies are systematic processes or techniques selected by learners to enhance their understanding when they studya second/foreign language.

According to Grenfell, & Macaro (2007), the arrival of LLS research formed part of a fundamental shift of perspective in thinking about the processes of language learning. Until the 1970s, language learning was seen essentially as a psychological phenomenon. By the last decade of the twentieth century, two of the most influential LLS books (O’Malley, & Chamot, 1990; Oxford, 1990a) were hitting the market.

O’Malley, & Chamot (1990) set LLS research within a cognitive framework on the basis of Anderson’s work and this provided a theoretical background to much LLS research of the 1980s. They classified learning strategies into three categoriesas followed.

Metacognitive strategy refers to the strategy dealing with selective attention, planning, monitoring, and evaluating those cognitive processes.

- Selective attention means focusing on special aspects of learning tasks, as in planning to listen for key words or phrases.

- Planningmeans planning for the organization of either written or spoken discourse.

- Monitoringmeans reviewing attention to a task, comprehension of information that should be remembered, or production while it is occurring.

- Evaluation means checking comprehension after completion of a receptive language activity, or evaluating language production after it has taken place.

Cognitive strategy refers to the actual processing of language in the brain. It is comprised of eight subgroup: rehearsal, organization, inferencing, summarizing, deducing, imagery, transfer, and elaboration.

- Rehearsal means repeating the names of items or objects to be remembered. - Organization means grouping and classifying words, terminology, or

concepts according to their semantic or syntactic attributes. - Inferencing means using information in text to guess meanings of new

linguistic items, predict outcomes, or complete missing parts. - Summarizing means intermittently synthesizing what one has heard to ensure

the information has been retained. - Deducing means applying rules to the understanding of language. - Imagery means using visual images (either generated or actual) to understand

and remember new verbal information. - Transfer means using known linguistic information to facilitate a new

learning task. - Elaboration means linking ideas contained in new information, or integrating

new ideas with known information. Social/affective strategy refers to all those means of dealing with affective

and social aspects in language learning situations: co-operation, questioning for clarification, self-talk.

- Co-operation means working with peers to solve a problem, pool information, check notes, or get feedback on a learning activity.

- Questioning for clarification means eliciting from a teacher or peer additional explanation, rephrasing, or examples.

- Self-talk means using mental redirection of thinking to assure oneself that a learning activity will be successful or to reduce anxiety about a task.

Oxford (1990) provided a classification scheme for strategies. Language learning strategies were divided into two main groups: direct strategies and indirect strategies. There are three strategies in the former group that directly involve the target language. All direct strategies require mental processing of the language. These strategies are memory strategy, cognitive strategy, and compensation strategy. The latter contains three strategies: metacognitive strategy, affective strategy, and social strategy. They support and manage language learning without (in many instances) directly involving the target language.

Literature review Oxford’s classification of language learning strategies is mostly used in LLS

research in various countries e.g.China, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Japan, Oman, Palestine, Philippines, Qatar, Saudi Arabia,Taiwan, and Thailand. LLS research on EFL learners from these countries can be divided into three main areas: Middle East Asia (Oman, Palestine, Qatar, Saudi Arabia), Southeast Asia (Indonesia, Philippines, Thailand), and East Asia (China, Hong Kong, Japan, Taiwan) by usingthe Strategies Inventory of Language Learning (SILL) questionnaire as a research instrument to identify language learning strategies used by EFL learners. In terms of Middle East Asia, the highest frequency ismetacognitive strategies and the lowest frequency is memory strategies (Al-Buainain, 2010;Alhaisoni, 2012; Khalil, 2005; Radwan, n.d.). As for Southeast Asia, a different result of LLS use is found. Metacognitive strategies are the highest (Cabaysa,

& Baetiong, 2010, Orawee Pannak, & Thanyapa Chiramanee, 2011; Rasida Saiyarin,& Apinya Chaythong, 2011) followed by compensation strategies (Amarawadee Tappoon, 2012; Magno, 2010). Regarding East Asia, the highest frequency is compensation strategies and the lowest frequency is memory strategies (Tsan, 2008; Wei, 2009; Zhao, n.d.). Interestingly, Wu (2008)used O’Malley and Chamot’s taxonomy and found that social/affective LLS were found to be more popular than metacognitive LLS and cognitive LLS among the participants.

In conclusion, on the basis of Oxford’s taxonomy, metacognitive strategies are found as the most frequently used by EFL learners (Al-Buainain, 2010; Alhaisoni, 2012; Cabaysa, & Baetiong, 2010; Radwan, n.d.; Rasida Saiyarin, & Apinya Chaythong, 2011) and memory strategies are the least frequently used as found in many studies (Alhaisoni, 2012; Radwan, n.d.; Rasida Saiyarin, & Apinya Chaythong, 2011; Wei, 2009; Zhao, n.d.). These studies also examine variables that influence the choice of language learning strategies used, for example, proficiency level (Al-Buainain, 2010; Alhaisoni, 2012; Cabaysa, & Baetiong, 2010; Ghani, 2003; Magno, 2010; Orawee Pannak, & Thanyapa Chiramanee, 2011; Radwan, n.d.; Rasida Saiyarin, & Apinya Chaythong, 2011), gender (Alhaisoni, 2012; Amarawadee Tappoon, 2012; Ghani, 2003; Radwan, n.d.; Wei, 2009), and fields of study (Amarawadee Tappoon, 2012; Tsan, 2008).

Whereas numerous LLS research on English as a Foreign Language(EFL) has beenconducted, LLS studies on Thai as a second/foreign language have been rare. There are only two relevant pieces of research: Chairuak (2006) and Somnam, Sriwattanapong, Jiansampimon, & Yan (2009). Oxford’s taxonomy is used as the analysis framework. Chairuak (2006) studied the learning styles and learning strategies of foreigners studying Thai as a foreign language. The samples of this study were 100 foreigners (50 Asians and 50 Westerners) studying Thai as a foreign language in Chiang Mai. The results revealed thatAsians tended to have introverted learning styles while Westerners tended to have extroverted learning styles. Both groups demonstrated a preference for visual learning. In terms of language learning strategies, Asians almost always utilized social and compensation learning strategies, occasionally utilized cognitive learning strategies and almost never utilized memory learning strategies. On the other hand, Westerners almost always utilized social and compensation learning strategies, often utilized metacognitive learning strategies and occasionally utilized cognitive learning strategies. Somnam, et al. (2009)studied learning style and learning strategy of 121 Chinese students studying Thai as a Foreign Language at the university in upper north region of Thailand (Chiangmai Rajabhat University, Chiang Rai Rajabhat University, Lampang Rajabhat University, Payap University, Chiang Mai University, Yonok University, Lampang Inter-Tech College, The Far Eastern University). The results showed that cognitive strategies are used most often, followed by affective strategies, compensation strategies third, social strategies fourth, memory strategies fifth, and finally metacognitive strategies.

Due to the expansion and development of ASEAN Economic Community (AEC), the need for Thai speakers is increasing with the growth of investment, the tourism industry, and business. Consequently, Thai language is selected as the crucial

tool for learners to serve this changebecause“students possessing Thai language skills are able to apply for various jobs within the Thai public and private sector” (Royal University of Phnom Penh, 2013). At present, Thai language courses both non-degree and degree are offered at many institutions in ASEAN member countries, e.g. Cambodia (Institute of Foreign languages, Royal University of Phnom Penh), Malaysia (Universiti Sains Malaysia), Philippines (Department of Linguistics, University of the Philippines-Dillman), Singapore (National University of Singapore), Union of Myanmar (University of Foreign Languages, Yangon), andVietnam (College of Foreign Languages, Hue University), so as to develop the human resources needed for regional competitiveness.

With regard to institutions in Thailand, Mae Fah Luang University at Chiang Rai province is one of the educational institutions that realize the importance of Thai language for international students especially in the Greater Mekong Subregion (GMS). Therefore, a bachelor’s degree in Thai language and Culture has been offered since 2007 to cultivate both Thai language skills (listening, speaking, reading, and writing) and Thai cultural knowledge for non-Thai learners.

As for research on LLS in Mae Fah Luang University (MFU), the study of Hathaikan Iamla-ong (2013) focusing on Thai students studying English as a foreign language (EFL) was solely found. The purpose of this study was to investigateEnglish language learning problems and language learning strategies used by 396 MFU students. The results showed that the fewest problems were found in listening, reading, international communication, speaking, sociocultural knowledge, and writing respectively. With regard to LLS, the most frequently used strategies were metacognitive, social, compensation, cognitive, memory, and affective respectively. However, there is no research on LLS use of Chinese students studying Thai language as a second language in Mae Fah Luang University. Consequently, there should be greater attention directed toward research in this field so as to improve and develop learning and teaching Thai as a second/foreign language.

Research questions 1. What language learning strategies are employed by Chinese university

students majoring in Thai Language and Culture? 2. Are there any differences in language learning strategies choices due to

different proficiency levels?

Objectives of the study 1. To identify learning strategies employed by Chinese university students

majoring in Thai Language and Culture 2. To analyzethe language learning strategies choicesas a result of different

proficiency levels

Limitation of the study There are 20 Chinese students majoring Thai Language and Culture program, School of Liberal Arts, Mae Fah Luang University; however, 9 Chinese students were able to take part in the group interview. Therefore, the result of this study will be based on the information gained from these students.

Research methodology Participants The participants in this study were9 Chinese university students, consisting of

3 males and 6 females, enrolled in 1005241 Introduction to Thai Writing course, a major required course for second year students of Thai Language and Culture program,during the first semester of academic year 2008-2010, majoring in Thai Language and Culture, Mae Fah Luang University, Chiang Rai province, Thailand. These participants were divided into two groups: high proficiency students (Chinese students whose grade of 1005241 course are A, B+, and B) and low proficiency students (Chinese students whose grade of 1005241 course are C+, C, D+, and D) as shown in Table 1. Their age ranged from 19 to 23 years old at the time of data collection.

Table 1 Distribution of participants by proficiency level and gender

Gender Proficiency

Female Male Total

High proficiency 4 2 6 Low proficiency 2 1 3

Total 6 3 9

Instrument Group interviews were conducted to collect data in this study. The questions

consisted of five main topics: 1) Background information; 2) Learning strategies; 3) Problems & solutions; 4) Self-reflection; and 5) Teaching (See the interview guide for students in Appendix A).

Data collection To collect data, the interviews were carried out in Thai. The group interview

took about one hour and was recorded by SONY IC Recorder ICD-MS515 with the consent of participants.

Data analysis Recordings were transcribed, and qualitative data were categorized and analyzed

based on O’Malley, & Chamot’s (1990) taxonomy. There are three learning strategies: metacognitive strategies, cognitive strategies, and social/affective strategies. Content Analysis methodwas used to analyze the qualitative data and demonstrate Chinese university students’ use of language learning strategy in each category.

Findings The use of Thai language learning strategies of Chinese university students

The findings revealed that social/affective strategies was themost frequent, followed bycognitive strategies, and metacognitive strategies respectively as shown in Table2.

Table2The use of language learning strategies of Chinese university students

Rank Strategies Frequency Percentage

1 Social/affective 58 38.7 2 Cognitive 57 38.0 3 Metacognitive 35 23.3

Total 150 100.0

The use of language learning strategy will be exemplified as shown below. 1. Social/affective strategies

It was revealed that social/affective strategies of questioning for clarification, co-operation, and self-talk were used.

Table 3 The use of social/affective strategies of Chinese university students

Rank Social/affective LLS Frequency Percentage

1 Questioning for clarification 38 63.8 2 Self-talk 17 29.3 3 Co-operation 4 6.9

Total 58 100.0

From Table 3, it is demonstrated that Chinese university students used

questioning for clarification with the highest frequency (63.8%), followed by self-talk (29.3%), and co-operation (6.9%).

1.1 Questioning for clarification This is the process of eliciting from a teacher or peer an additional

explanation, rephrasing, or examples (O’Malley, & Chamot, 1990). The examples (1) to (3) are exemplified as follows:

Example

(1) “When I chat with my Thai friend, sometimes I face some problems or I don’t know how I have to say. I will ask Chinese senior students.” (Student 2, Female, High proficiency)

(2) “If I do not understand the lessons, I will ask for help from Thai friends.”

(Student 8, Male, Low proficiency) (3) “When I have some problems about the exercise, I can ask my teacher.” (Student

7, Female, Low proficiency)

Above examples indicated that Chinese students frequently employed this strategy by asking Chinese senior students, Thai friends,or even teacher to give them more explanation and increase their understanding

1.2 Self-talk It is defined that using mental redirection of thinking to assure oneself that

a learning activity will be successful or to reduce anxiety about a task (O’Malley, & Chamot, 1990).

Example (4) “When I found that the lesson is interesting, I think I should

pay more attention to it.” (Student 1, Female, High proficiency) (5) “I will reward myself if I have some progress in Thai writing.” (Student 8,

Female, High proficiency) To decrease anxiety, some Chinese students used mental techniques

such as self-talk to make them feel competent to do the learning task such as giving more attention to the content that match their interest and rewarding themselves when they gained a better result.

1.3 Co-operation This involved working with peers to solve a problem, pool information,

check notes, or get feedback on a learning activity (O’Malley, & Chamot, 1990). Example

(6) “When the teacher and I talk together and there are some errors, the teacher will correct and explain it to me.” (Student 4, Male, High proficiency)

This example showed that co-operation between students or teachers is commonly found to check a learning task or get feedback on oral or written performance.

2. Cognitive strategies

Cognitive strategies LLS of rehearsal, elaboration, imagery, inferencing, transfer, and summarizing were employed in this study. Table 4 The use of cognitive strategies of Chinese university students

Rank Cognitive LLS Frequency Percentage

1 Rehearsing 48 84.2 2 Elaboration 2 3.5 Imagery 2 3.5 Inferencing 2 3.5 Transfer 2 3.5 3 Summarizing 1 1.8

Total 57 100.0

From Table 4, rehearsing was the most used (84.2%), followed by elaboration (3.5%), imagery (3.5%), inferencing (3.5%), and transfer (3.5%). Summarizing (1.8%) was the least used.

2.1 Rehearsing This strategy means repeating the names of items or subjects to be remembered

(O’Malley, & Chamot, 1990). Examples are as follows: Example

(7) “I have to check many times to increase the accuracy of writing because sometimes I don’t know if it is correct or not. I have to recheck it after doing something. If I found errors, I would correct them.” (Student 1, Female, High proficiency)

(8) “The more I practice, the more I remember vocabulary.” (Student 4, Male, Low proficiency)

(9) “I have to remember the meaning of that word when I write. I have to speak and write at the same time.”(Student 7, Female, Low proficiency)

Interestingly, this frequently-used strategy was selected by 7 of 9 students in order to practice the language needed for assignments. Examples (7) to (8) demonstrated that Chinese students had to practice their writing skill by doing again and again when they did the exercises or assignments. And for example (9), this student used unique technique in order to remember the accurate spelling of each word.

2.2 Elaboration This is about linking ideas contained in new information, or integrating new

ideas with known information (O’Malley, &Chamot, 1990). Example

(10) “I have to compare Thai language and Chinese language, relate different parts, and frequently practice to be able to remember.” (Student 7, Female, Low proficiency)

Example (10) indicated that this student compared Thai and Chinese language to find out similarities and/or differences to enhance their comprehension when they study Thai language.

Imagery

Imagery means using visual images (either generated or actual) to understand and remember new verbal information (O’Malley, &Chamot, 1990). This strategy was used by only two Chinese students in order to understand and remember new information:

Example (11) “If some Chinese or Thai words are difficult to write, I will draw some

pictures to easily remember.”(Student 1, Female, High proficiency)

(12) “When I study ‘Thai for Tourism’, the real visual images and situations are the things that I want to experience.” (Student 9, Female, Low proficiency)

Examples (11) showed that when student encountered some writing problems, she used pictures to clarify and increase her understanding and example (12) indicated that ‘learning by doing’ is the good way for student to easily remember new information or experience.

Inferencing This is defined as using information in the text to guess meanings of new

items, predict outcomes, or complete missing parts (O’Malley, & Chamot, 1990). Example

(13) “I sometimes guess when I read.” (Student 1, Female, High proficiency; Student

4, Male, High proficiency)

Due to insufficient language competence of students, they have to guess meanings of new items by using information in the text to complete the missing parts as illustrated in example (13).

Transfer Transfer is defined as using what is already known about language to assist

comprehension or production (O’Malley, & Chamot, 1990). Example

(14) “Firstly, I have to think in Chinese when I create a Thai sentence. Then transferit into Thai.”(Student 1, Female, High proficiency; Student 7, Female, Low proficiency)

Example (14) displayed that when Chinese students do language tasks, it is common for them to select Chinese as a pattern to express their idea and then transfer into Thai to create an output.

2.3 Summarizing Summarizing is intermittently synthesizing what one has heard to ensure the

information has been retained (O’Malley, & Chamot, 1990). Example

(15) “I pay attention to pronunciation and listening. Then I summarize high

consonant and vowel in the table.” (Student 6, Male, High proficiency) For example (15), noticeably, only one student chose this strategy by

grouping Thai consonants and vowels in order to gainbetter understanding.

3. Metacognitive strategies Metacognitive strategies of evaluation, monitoring, and planning were found

in this study.

Table 5 The use of metacognitive strategies of Chinese university students

Rank Metacognitive LLS Frequency Percentage

1 Evaluation 18 51.4 2 Monitoring 14 40.0 3 Planning 3 8.6

Total 35 100.0

Table 5 showed that Chinese university students most frequently used

evaluation (51.4%), followed by monitoring(40.0%), and planning (8.6%). 3.1 Evaluation It is defined as checking comprehension after completion of a receptive

language activity, or evaluating language production after it has taken place (O’Malley, & Chamot, 1990).

Example (16) “When I use some vocabulary or write a sentence, I feel that it is not

natural to use Thai language.” (Student 7, Female, Low proficiency) (17) “When I have a dictation, I notice that the easier some words are,

the more I make mistakes.” (Student 9, Female, Low proficiency) According to example (16) and (17), Chinese students used this strategy

to evaluate themselves how well they have succeeded in a writing task to improve their learning approach.

3.2 Monitoring

It is directly involvedin reviewing attention to a task, comprehension of information that should be remembered, or production while it is occurring (O’Malley, & Chamot, 1990).

Example (18) “When I know the topic of assigned writing task, the easiest thing is having an

idea. But how to select the suitable word for each context to

express my idea is the most difficult thing.” (Student 6, Male, High

proficiency) (19) “I encountered some problems about spelling, silent letters,

and tones.” (Student 9, Female, Low proficiency)

As shown in example (18) and (19), Chinese students employed this strategy in checking their written production while it was taking place.

3.3Planning This strategy is about planning for the organization of either written or

spoken discourse (O’Malley, & Chamot, 1990). Noticeably, only one student said planning is necessary and useful for her study:

Example (20) “The teacher should distribute learning materials before studying so that we have

a better understanding or we have to read before studying.” (Student 3,

Female, High proficiency) This student in example (20)showed thatpreparing herself in readiness

isimportantand necessary thing to formulate her own study.

Language learning strategies choice as a result of different proficiency level It was found that the high proficiency group used social/affective strategies more than the low proficiency group. On the other hand, the low proficiency group employed cognitive strategies and metacognitive strategies more than the high proficiency group as illustrated in Table6. Table6 Language learning strategies employed by High (H) and Low (L) proficiency groups

Figure 1 Language learning strategy use between High and Low proficiency groups

Metacognitive Cognitive Social/affective

3.0

5.2

7.5

5.7

8.7

4.3

Mea

n

LLS use between High and Low proficiency groups

High proficiency

Low proficiency

Proficiency LLS

High proficiency Low proficiency

f Percent Mean S.D. f Percent Mean S.D.

1. Metacognitive 18 51.4 3.0 3.4 17 48.6 5.7 5.1

2. Cognitive 31 54.4 5.2 4.3 26 45.6 8.7 5.5

3. Social/affective 45 77.6 7.5 4.2 13 22.4 4.3 2.5

Table6demonstrated that low proficiency students clearly used cognitive strategies and metacognitive strategies more than high proficiency students. In terms of cognitive strategies, means for low proficiency students and high proficiency students were 8.7 and 5.2. As for metacognitive strategies, means for low proficiency students and high proficiency students were 5.7 and 3.0 respectively. High proficiency students, on the other hand, employed social/affective strategies more than low proficiency students. With regard to social/affective strategies, means for high proficiency students and low proficiency students were 7.5 and 4.3.

Since research on Thai language learning strategies of Chinese students and gender difference has not been found, this study will also examine the use of language learning strategies between female and male students. Table7 Language learning strategies employed by Female (F) and Male (M)students

Gender Strategies

Female Male

f Percent Mean S.D. f Percent Mean S.D.

1. Metacognitive 28 80.0 4.7 4.5 7 20.0 6.8 2.4

2. Cognitive 36 63.2 6.0 4.1 21 36.8 7.0 5.7

3. Social/affective 44 75.9 7.3 3.7 14 24.1 4.7 3.9

Figure 2 Language learning strategy use between Female and Male students

Table7 showed thatfemale students obviously usedsocial/affective strategies more than male students. Means for females and males were 7.3 and 4.7. In other words, males utilized metacognitive strategies more than females. Means for males and females were 6.8 and 4.7 respectively. Regardingcognitive strategies, males employed these

Metacognitive Cognitive Social/affective

4.7

6

7.36.8 7

4.7

Mea

n

LLS use between Female and Male students

Female

Male

strategies slightly different than females. Means for males and females were 7.0 and 6.0 accordingly. Discussion

For overall strategy use, the most frequent language learning strategies used by Chinese university students majoring in Thai Language and Culture is social/affective strategies, followed by cognitive strategies, and metacognitive strategies respectively. Chinese university students mostly used social/affective strategiesin which the learner either interacts with another person in order to assist learning, as in cooperation or asking questions for clarification, or uses some kind of affective control to assist learning tasks (O’Malley, & Chamot, 1990). A similar result is found in Wu Man-fat’s (2008) study, social/affective strategies were found to be more popular than metacognitive LLSs and cognitive LLSs among Chinese ESL Learners in Hong Kong. Nonetheless, Somnam, et al. (2009) found that Chinese students studying Thai as a Foreign Language at the university in the upper north region of Thailand used cognitive strategies most frequently and used metacognitive strategies the least. Different results are also found in other studies (Al-Buainain, 2010; Alhaisoni, 2012; Cabaysa, & Baetiong, 2010; Radwan, n.d.; Rasida Saiyarin, & Apinya Chaythong, 2011), it is revealed that metacognitive strategies are the most commonly used. When compare the frequency of social/affective to cognitive strategies (See Table 2), it is nearly equal. It possibly implied the collaboration between learning inside and outside the classroom to develop language proficiency. Besides putting effort to understand various types of content, finding a chance to practice to gain real-world experience is selected such as speaking to Thai friends, asking Thai teachers, and communicating with other native Thai speakers.

Based on the findings, use of social/affective strategiesis the most popular for Chinese students when studying Thai language. Questioning for clarification, especially, is the most frequently used technique by Chinese students. Data from the interviews showed that when Chinese students had to encounter the hindrance of learning Thai, the majority of Chinese students decided to ask both native Thai speakers (Thai teachers and Thai students) and non-native Thai speakers (Chinese students)in order to acquireadditional information and better comprehension as one student said, “I am really happy when I do an exercise in the classroom and I can ask the teacher instantly to clarify my question.” Consequently, Chinese students may be categorized as dependent learners or group-oriented learners because they must rely on someone or something else for support as another said, “I don’t like to read a book or do homework alone. It is better if I do such things with my friends.” It can be assumed that ‘Confucian Heritage Cultural Background’ (CHCB) has directly influenced the learning style of Chinese students. Wong (2012) explained that the Confucian way is a way of learning to be human. We can actually envision the Confucian perception of human self-development, based upon the dignity of the person. As a result, Chinese students in Confucian-heritage culture classrooms mainly focus on academic achievement, diligence in academic pursuits, and the significance of education for personal improvement and moral self-cultivation (Watkins, & Biggs, 1996 cited in Rao, &Chan, 2009).

The results implied the relationship between proficiency and LLS use and the relationship between gender and LLS use. The former is more proficient students used social/affective strategy more frequently than less proficient students. The latter is females employed social/affective strategies more than males, whereas males utilized metacognitive strategies more than females. Each topic will be discussed as follows.

In terms of different proficiency levels and LLS use, it is found that low proficient students used overall LLS more frequently than high proficient students. Contrary to the result of many studies (Alhaisoni, 2012; Cabaysa, & Baetiong, 2010; Orawee Pannak, & Thanyapa Chiramanee, 2011; Radwan, n.d.; Rasida Saiyarin, & Apinya Chaythong, 2011), these findings indicated that high proficient students employed overall LLS more than low proficient students. The different result may stem from unequal number of students between high and low proficient students. For the use of each category, this study found that the high proficiency group used social/affective strategies more than the low proficiency group. Additionally, low proficiency students used cognitive strategies and metacognitive strategies more than high proficiency students. This result is congruent with the study of Radwan (n.d.). Moreover, most research drew the dissimilar conclusion that more proficient learners use a wider range of strategies than less proficient learners (Alhisoni, 2012; Cabaysa, & Baetiong, 2010; Ghani, 2003; Orawee Pannak, & Thanyapa Chiramanee, 2011; Rasida Saiyarin & Apinya Chaythong, 2011). From in-depth interview, it is demonstrated that high proficiency learners mainly focus on finding a chance to speak or exchange their opinion with Thais in order to enhance their listening and speaking skills in daily life. Interestingly, some high proficiency learners seek the suitable approaches to meet their preferred learning style as demonstrated: “If I write ‘โทรศพท’ (‘’means ‘telephone’

in English), I will read it to myself and pronounce“” in order to remembercorrect

silent letters.” This unique strategy is the way to help them understand the orthography

of the word and write each word more accurately. Low proficiency learners, on the contrary, have to handle many problems such

as language barriers. Hou (2008) exemplified that the more proficient learners usually have better knowledge of grammar, while low proficiency learners struggle with both grammar and language skills and they try to distribute their attention to each area accordingly. Some low proficiency learners act as independent learners. They prefer to complete their learning tasks individually. The data, furthermore, showed that one of low proficiency learners undertookhis learning as rote learning orlearning using repetition, by memorizing information more than understanding as demonstrated in the interview: “In my opinion, memorizing is the best way to study Thai language.”This implies that learners memorized new information as isolated facts and there is no attempt to link them to existing concepts and knowledge (Rao, & Chan, 2009).According to this result, it might be described that low proficiency students have to concentrate on the learning process in order to reach a satisfactory outcome. They may lack the confidence to talk to a Thai teacher or Thai students because of their unclear pronunciation or inadequate knowledge of Thai language.

For this part, teachers should provide opportunities for both low and high proficiency students to exchange their Thai language learning problems and solutions and to reflect their attitude and/or motivation about learning Thai as a second/foreign language.Creating a group interview, making a portfolio, writing a diary, or working together with others are all potential opportunities. Furthermore, teachers should introduce them to the concept of language learning strategies, suggest why they are useful for learning, and train them to serve a valuable outcome. This activity will lead both teachers and students to consider the importance of language learning strategies and how to use them practically and appropriately with their learning style.

Regarding gender difference and LLS use, as figure 2 displayed, female students used overall strategies more than male students. The same result is found in Ghani (2003) and Wei (2009). However, the study of Amarawadee Tappoon (2012) discovered that male students employed the overall language learning strategies more than female students. For the use of each category, the result of this study showed that male students utilized metacognitive strategies remarkably more than female students. And female students used the social/affective strategy more than male students. Similar result of Alhaisoni (2012) and Wei (2009) is also shown that female students' use of social strategy was also very frequent. On the other hand, Radwan (n.d.) investigated that male students used more social strategies than female students. And Khalil (2005) concluded that females in general are better at planning and managing their learning than are males.According to the result of this study, it can be said that gender difference possibly affectsthe language learning strategies choices as O’Brien (2008) discovered that gender differences in brain structures and hormones contribute to these behaviors.

Based upon geography of the brain, the brain divides into two hemispheres, the left and right. They are joined by a complex web of nerve connections known as the corpus callosum (Field, 2003). Many men are sharply left-brain dominant. Men’s brains, more specifically organized and with fewer connections, enable men to focus more intensely and not be as confused by excess information. They are often less socially adept and are more task-oriented thinkers than females (Rucker, 2010). Females seem to have language functioning in both sides of the brain because the corpus callosum is thicker in women, enabling them to use both the right and left sides of the brain in a more connected way than men do. The activity across both hemispheres of the brain may result in the strong language skills typically displayed by females (Denckla, 2005; Rucker, 2010). Noticeably, females employed the social/affective strategy more than male students. Rucker (2010) explains this behaviorby stating that since women tend to be more evenly balanced between left and right-brain processing, they are purported to have better communication skills and emotional intelligence than men. They, therefore, tend to be group-oriented and apt to find solutions by talking through issues.

As fundamental information about the brain is further explored, it can be suggested that language teachers can employ the results of brain research as an essential device to improve teaching techniques and for potentially training and developing students toward faster learning and greater retention of information. As Genesee (2000) concluded, by understanding how the brain learns naturally, language teachers may be

better able to enhance their effectiveness in the classroom. Teachers may select topics for group discussion between male and female students to exchange opinions about preferred learning style, learning strategy, and learning environment in order to organize suitable instructional approaches and activities. When teachers and learners have a chance to discuss something relating to their experience with teachers, learners can share their experience with teachers and also know the correct use of language when the teacher guides them. In this case, learners will receive new information that they can adopt in their real life. As one of the male students in this study said, “When I talk to the teacher and classmates, I will know how to use vocabulary more correctlybecause the teacher will also tell me which are correct or incorrect.” This is consistent with the suggestion of Genesee (2000): Students’ vocabulary acquisition can be enhanced when it is embedded in real-world complex contexts that are familiar to them. For example, diary writing, the mechanics of spelling to students’ meaningful use of written language, is suggested as a communicative channel for learnersto express their ideas through the use of words and sentence structure, and learn the writing process. This is in line with one of the female students who explained, “When I write the diary, I will write the word and sentence more carefully because the teacher gave mefeedback about misspelling and inaccurate word ordermany times.”For teachers, they will knowthe strengths and weaknesses of each student and then give feedback to students for better language performance. Conclusion

The results of this research undoubtedly illustrated the role and cooperation of both language teachers and language learners. Since every student is unique, teachers should try tounderstand the learning style of their Chinese students of both high/low proficiency and female/male students in order to appropriately elect teaching strategies, course content, material, and activities for learners. Recommendations for teaching Thai as a foreign language for Chinese students are as follows:

1. Based on the findings, teacher should provide knowledge about LLS to students because they may lack or overlook this importance information that can assist or increase their learning proficiency.

2. Teachers should give the opportunities to high/low proficiency and female/maleChinese students tomake a discussion concerning their Thai language learning problems and solutions/strategies, reflect their attitude and/or motivation about learning Thai as a second/foreign language through various kinds of activities and assignments: portfolio, diary, work individually or in group, face-to-face communication with teacher in order that they can receive some useful feedback from teachers and friends.

3. Teachers should try to use the concept of metacognition1for promoting learners’ competence because it is an effective tool for students to comprehend themselves and develop their learning as Chiengkul (2004) suggested: metacognition

1(Psychology) higher-order thinking that enables understanding, analysis, and control of one’s cognitive

processes, especially when engaged in learning (Metacognition, n.d.).

concept is the way to improve learning ability by understanding one’s thinking, strengths, weaknesses concerning skills and activities of oneself; and managing and controlling cognitive process and use of one’s skills to be more effectively.

4. Teachers should take attitude and motivation of learners into consideration because the learner’s attitudes towards speakers of the language being learned and motivation to learn L2 also account for success or failure in L2 learning (Ketvalee Porkaew, 2004). Consequently, teachers should find suitable ways to enhance learners’ positive attitude involving their learning by crucially considering each learner’s proficiency and learning style as Dörnyei (2009) proposed that teacher skills in motivating learners should be seen as central to teaching effectiveness.

5. Teachers should employ the results of brain research as a supporting tool to have a better understanding about gender differenceand to increase the potential of learners. Since neuroscience can help researchers to delineate possible developmental pathways to proficiency, enabling educators to differentiate instruction to accommodate a wider range of individual differences (Hinton, Miyamoto, & Della-Chiesa, 2008).

When concentrating on above recommendations, teachers can gain Chinese students’ opinion, observe their language performance, and provide them some advantageous comments which lead to Thai language development. For Chinese students, they should be open when they have a chance to share ideas about learning strategies in Thai language learning or conduct assigned tasks. Apart from knowing the LLS use of their classmates or practicing Thai language performance, it is hopeful that high/low proficiency and female/maleChinese students will get more beneficial information when teachers instruct them about this topic in order to adopt selective learning strategies, adapt to their learning style, and apply proper approaches to their learning.Hence, the choice of LLSwill suit the needs of Chinese learners and they are able to select LLS according to learning tasks or situation more effectively. It can be summed up that when Chinese learners increase their awareness of LLS use, they will experience deeper language learning.

Acknowledgement

I would like to sincerely express my highest gratitude and deepest appreciation to Assistant Professor Dr.Phanintra Teeranon and Associate Professor Dr.Sorabud Rungrojsuwan for useful advice and valuable guidance in this research.

References

Al-Buainain, H. (2010). Language learning strategies employed by English majors at

Qatar University: Questions and queries. Asiatic, 4(2), 92-120. Alhaisoni, E. (2012). Language learning strategy use of Saudi EFL Students in an

intensive English learning context. Asian Social Sciences, 8(13), 115-127. Amarawadee Tappoon. (2012). Language learning strategies used by Thailand's

Technical College students. Paper presented at the 4th International Conference on Language and Communication on December 13-14, 2012.

Cabaysa, C. C. &Baetiong, L. R. (2010). Language learning strategies of students at different levels of speaking proficiency. Education Quarterly, 68(1), 16-35.

Chairuak, W. (2006).Learning styles and learning strategies of foreigners studying Thai as a foreign language. Unpublished master’s thesis, Chiang Mai University, Thailand. (In Thai)

Chiengkul, W. (2004).Deep learning, fast learning, effective use of the brain. Nonthaburi: National Institute for brain-based Learning (NBL). (In Thai).

Cohen, A. D. (1998). Strategies in learning and using a second language. London: Longman.

Denckla, M.B. (2005). How male and female brains differ.Retrieved on September 25, 2013, from http://www.webmd.com

Dörnyei, Z. (2009). Motivation in second and foreign language learning. Language Teaching, 31(3), 117-135. Retrieved on March 28, 2014, from http://www.zoltandornyei.co.uk/uploads/1998-dornyei-lt.pdf

Field, J. (2003). Psycholinguistics: a resource book for students. London; New York: Routledge.

Genesee, F. (2000). Brain research implications for second language learning. Retrieved on March 7, 2014, from http://www.cal.org/resources/digest/digest_pdfs/0012-genesee-brain.pdf

Ghani, M. (2003). Language learning strategies employed by L2 learners. Journal of Research (Faculty of Languages & Islamic Studies), 4, 31-36.

Grenfell, M. &Macaro, E. (2007). Claims and critiques. In Cohen A. D., & Macaro, E. Magnan (Ed.), Language learner strategies: Thirty years of research and practice (pp. 9-28). Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.

Hathaikan Iamla-ong. (2013). Language learning problems & language learning strategies of MFU students. MFU Connexion, 2(1), 58-91.

Hinton, C., Miyamoto, K., & Della-Chiesa, B. (2008). Brain research, learning and emotions: implications for education research, policy and practice. European Journal of Education, 43(1), 87-103. Retrieved on March 7, 2014, from http://www.udesa.edu.ar/files/programas/NEUROCIENCIAS/Brainresearch_learning_and_emotions_Hinton.pdf

Hou, C. (2008). Language learning strategy use of Chinese ESL students in an intensive English learning context. Retrieved on October 17, 2013, from http://www.ohio.edu/linguistics/workingpapers/2008/hou_2008.pdf

KetvaleePorkaew. (2004). The roles of attitude and motivation in second and foreign language learning. Language Institute Journal, 2, 69-76.

Khalil, A. (2005). Assessment of language learning strategies used by Palestinian EFL learners. Foreign Language Annals, 38(1), 108-119.

Mackey, A. (2006). Second language acquisition. In R. Fasold & J. Conner-Linton (Eds.), An introduction to language and linguistics (pp. 433-464). Cambridge, UK; New York: Cambridge University.

Magno, C. (2010). Korean students' language learning strategies and years of studying English as predictors of proficiency in English. TESOL Journal, 2, 39-61.

Metacognition.(n.d.). Retrieved on March 31, 2014, from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/metacognition?s=t

O’Brien, G. (2008). Understanding ourselves: Gender differences in the brain. Retrieved on September 25, 2013, from http://www.columbiaconsult.com

O’Malley, J. M., & Chamot, A.U. (1990). Learning strategies in second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Orawee Pannak, & Thanyapa Chiramanee. (2011). Language learning strategies used by first year students at Thaksin University, Songkhla Campus, Thailand. Paper presented at the 3rd International Conference on Humanities and Social Sciences on April 2, 2011 Faculty of Liberal Arts, Prince of Songkla University.

Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.

Oxford, R. L. (1990a). Language learning strategies and beyond: A look at strategies in the context of styles. In S. S. Magnan (Ed.), Shifting the instructional focus to the learner (pp. 35-55). Middlebury, VT: Northeast Conference on the Teaching of Foreign languages.

Radwan, A. A. (n.d.). Effects of L2 proficiency and gender on choice of language learning strategies by university students majoring in English. Asian EFL Journal, 115-163. Retrieved on March 31, 2013, from http://asian-efl-journal.com/PDF/March-2011-aar.pdf

Rao, N., & C. K. K., Chan. (2009). Moving beyond paradoxes: Understanding Chinese learners and their teachers. In C. K. K. Chan (Ed.), Revisiting the Chinese learners changing contexts, changing education (pp. 3-32). Retrieved on October 15, 2013, from http://f3.tiera.ru/1/genesis/655-59/656000/3843ef245d65b6a2160a6e6408365c95

Rasida Saiyarin, & Apinya Chaythong. (2011). Language learning strategies used by Students at different proficiency levels. Paper presented at the 3rd International Conference on Language and Communication on December 15-16, 2011.

Royal University of Phnom Penh. (2013). Thai language short course. Retrieved on March 7, 2014, from http://www.rupp.edu.kh/center/thai/?page=introduction

Rucker, M. (2010). 9 Differences between the male and female brain. Retrieved on September 25, 2013, from http://www.brainfitnessforlife.com

Schunk, D.H. (2004). Learning theories: an educational perspective. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson / Merrill / Prentice Hall.

Somnam S., Sriwattanapong J., Jiansampimon S., and Yan, N. (2009). Learning style and language learning strategies of Chinese students studying Thai as a foreign language at university of upper north region. FEU Academic Review, 2(2), December 2551 – May 2552, 80-87. (In Thai)

Tsan, Shu-Chuan. (2008). Analysis of English learning strategies of Taiwanese students at National Taiwan Normal University. Educational Journal of Thailand, 2(1), 84-94.

Wei, T. (2009). English language learning strategies of first year Chinese students at Yunnan Normal University. Unpublished master's thesis, Burapha University, Thailand.

Wong, S. K. (2012). Confucianism, Chinese history, and society. Hackensack, NJ: World Scientific Pub.

Wu Man-fat, M. (2008). Language learning strategy use of Chinese ESL learners of Hong Kong-Findings from a qualitative study. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 5(1), 68-83.

Zhao, J. (n.d.). Language learning strategies and English proficiency: A study of Chinese undergraduate programs in Thailand. Retrieved on March 31, 2013 from http://www.journal.au.edu/scholar/2009/pdf/JuanZhao28-32.pdf

Appendix A, Interview guide for students

Topic Questions

1. Background information 1.1 Name-surname 1.2 Hometown 1.3 How long have you studied Thai language? 1.4 What is your purpose of studying Thai language? 1.5 What is your favorite language skill? (Listening, Speaking, Reading, Writing) 1.6 What are the most difficult and the easiest language skills for you? Why?

2. Learning strategies 2.1 What any Thai language subjects do you study? 2.2 Suppose the teacher assigned you to do some tasks, how do you proceed or manage such assignments? 2.3 How do you make understanding of lessons? 2.4 How do you prepare/manage yourselffor pre-study, during study and post-study?

3. Problems and solutions 3.1 What level are your writing skills? (very good, good, fair, to be improved) Why do you evaluate at that level? 3.2 What are your problems writing Thai? 3.3 What are the most difficult and the easiest things in Thai writing? 3.4 How do you solve such writing problems?

4. Self-reflection 4.1 What are the strengths and weakness of your writing? 4.2 What are your strategies to make your writing skillbetter? 4.3 Compared to other classmates, what do you think about yourself?

5. Teaching 5.1 What are the strengths and weakness of this teaching method? 5.2 What is your suggestion about content, activities, exercises?

Appendix B, Example of the calculation of each learning strategy

No. Examples Categories

Meta Cog Soc/aff

1 I will read the lessons before I go to class. (Meta > Planning)

2 I pay attention to pronunciation and listening. Then I summarize high consonant and vowel in the table. (Cog > Summarizing)

3 I will ask the teacher when I do not understand. (Soc/aff> Questioning for Clarification)

4 Sometimes I have to guess meanings of some words when I read the text. (Cog >Inferencing)

5 I have to practice writing every day. (Cog > Rehearsal)

6 When I write a Thai sentence, I have to think in Chinese first and then translate into Thai. (Cog > Transfer)

7 I feel good when I study and talk with the teacher because I will know more real-life vocabulary. (Soc/aff> Cooperation)

8 I am happy when I do the exercise in the classroom because I can ask the teacher or my friends instantly. (Soc/aff> Questioning for Clarification)

9 If I want to remember the word “”(“newspaper” in English), I have to write it

many times. (Cog > Rehearsal)

10 I have some problems when I write vocabulary. Although I often practice, misspellings will occur when I write in class. (Meta > Evaluation)

Total 2 5 3

Percentage 20 50 30

Notes: Meta (Metacognitive strategies), Cog (Cognitive strategies), Soc/aff

(Social/affective strategies)