ISSN: 2226-6348
Open access
Awareness of students’ LLS is highly useful for teachers to make informed decisions in their teaching practice. Although numerous researchers on LLS have been done, there has been no research comparing Malaysian students’ LLS in online lessons and face-to-face lessons. It is of great importance to explore this because the practice of incorporating blended learning that combines both online and face-to-face lessons has been on the rise. As such, this study explored Malaysian students’ language learning strategies during both online and face-to-face lessons. Mixed-method research approach was employed in which the first is a 5-point Likert scale survey questionnaire that was adapted from Oxford’s (1990) SILL questionnaire. 60 upper form ESL students were selected through convenience sampling to respond to the questionnaire. Aside from that, semi-structured interviews were carried out on 6 respondents from the questionnaire survey in order to obtain comprehensive responses from the participants. The research instrument aims to answer two research questions; 1) What are the language learning strategies used by Malaysian ESL learners in online classrooms? 2) What are the language learning strategies used by Malaysian ESL learners in face-to-face classrooms? The data was analysed using IBM SPSS Statistics version 27 and the findings were analysed descriptively by interpretation of mean scores and standard deviation. The findings suggest that students mostly use metacognitive and cognitive skills in both online and face-to-face classrooms. However, students use more direct learning strategies including memory and compensation strategies in online classrooms. Whereas, in face-to-face classroom, students generally lean more towards indirect learning strategies such as affective and social strategies. These findings implied that both online and face-to-face classrooms allow students to employ different learning strategies which can be beneficial for their language development. Hence, learning and teaching instructions that include both traditional and technologically enhanced ESL lessons would positively impact students. Future research of wider scale that includes diverse populations particularly from the quantitative view point would greatly help in adding onto the findings of this research.
Albiladi, W. S., & Alshareef, K. K. (2019). Blended learning in English Teaching and Learning: A review of the current literature. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 10 (2), 232 -238.
Ali, A., Zaman, A., & Khan, F. A. (2018). Language learning strategy use and English language proficiency. Global Social Sciences Review, 3(2), 439-453.
http://dx.doi.org/10.31703/gssr.2018(III-II).01
Ansari, M. S. (2015). Speaking Anxiety in ESL/EFL Classrooms: A Holistic Approach and Practical Study. International Journal of Educational Investigations, 2(4), 38–46.
Bonk, C. J., & Graham, C. R. (2012). The handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives,local designs. John Wiley & Sons.
Caplan, E. (2020). What are the most spoken languages in the world? Retrieved on 23rd November 2022 https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/most-popular-languages-in-the-world.html
Cohen, A. D. (1998). Strategies in learning and using a second language. Longman.
Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (4th Ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson. (59-79)
Creswell, J. C., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches (5th Ed.). Los Angeles: SAGE.
Eggers, J. H., Oostdam, R., & Voogt, J. (2021). Self-regulation strategies in blended learning environments in higher education: A systematic review. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 37(6), 174-192. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.6453
Ghulamuddin, N. J. A., Tengku Intan Suzila Tengku Sharif, & Rahman, Z. A. (2022). Stem students' English language learning strategies and underlying factors pertaining to open distance learning. Journal of Nusantara Studies
(JONUS), 7(2), 81-102. https://doi.org/10.24200/jonus.vol7iss2pp81-102
Griffiths, C. (2008). Strategies and good language learners. In C. Griffiths (Ed.), Lessons from good language learners (pp. 83–98). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Hoq, M. Z. (2020). E-Learning during the period of pandemic (COVID-19) in the kingdom of Saudi Arabia: An empirical study. American Journal of Educational Research, 8(7), 457-464. Doi: 10.12691/education-8-7-2.
Nguyen, H., & Terry, D. R. (2017). English learning strategies among EFL learners: A narrative approach. IAFOR Journal of Language Learning, 3(1), 4-19.
Oxford, R. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. Newbury House.
Powell, K. C., & Kalina, C. J. (2009). Cognitive and social constructivism: Developing tools for an effective classroom. Education, 130(2), 241-250.
Surucu, L., & Maslakci, A. (2020). Validity and reliability in quantitative research. Business & Management Studies: An International Journal, 8(3), 2694-2726.
Rao, P. S. (2019). The role of English as a global language. Research Journal of English. 4 (1), 65- 79.
Weinstein, C., & Mayer, R. (1986). The teaching of learning strategies. In M.C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Teaching, (3rd Ed). Macmillan.
Zhou, Y., & Wei, M. (2018). Strategies in technology-enhanced language learning. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 8(2), 471–495.
https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2018.8.2.13
Zuraidah, M. D., & Mardziah, H, A. (2019). The reform of English language education in Malaysia – Free Malaysia Today. Kementerian Pendidikan.
https://www.moe.gov.my/en/menumedia/printed-media/newspaper-clippings/ reform-of-english-language-education-in-malaysia-free-malaysia-today-22-mei-2019
In-Text Citation: (Kamaruzaman et al., 2023)
To Cite this Article: Kamaruzaman, S. S. S., Azmi, N. N., Zulkflee, Z., Prakas, J., & Maniam, M. (2023). Language Learning Strategy: Comparison of Online and Face-to-Face ESL Classrooms. International Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education and Development, 12(2), 511–527.
Copyright: © 2023 The Author(s)
Published by Human Resource Management Academic Research Society (www.hrmars.com)
This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this license may be seen at: http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode