REGISTER JOURNAL – Vol 13, No 02 (2020), pp.

231-256
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18326/rgt.v13i2.231-256
p-ISSN: 1979-8903; e-ISSN : 2503-040X

A Study of Language Learning Strategy Use among

Indonesian EFL University Students

Agus Rianto
English Education Department, Faculty of Teacher Training and Education,
Universitas Borneo Tarakan, Tarakan City, 77123, Indonesia

Email: riant2@hotmail.com
DOI: 10.18326/rgt.v13i2.231-256

Submission Track:
Received: 03-08 -2020
Final Revision: 13-10-2020
Available Online: 01-12-2020

Copyright © 2020 Agus Rianto

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0

International License.

Abstract
This study investigated the use of language learning strategies among 329 Indonesian
undergraduate students in their English as foreign language learning. The Strategy
Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) Version 7.0 for ESL/EFL learners developed by
Oxford was employed to measure the students’ EFL learning strategies based on gender,
study program, and English proficiency differences. A descriptive analysis and an
independent t-test were used to analyze the collected data. The findings showed that the
female, the social science, and the higher English proficiency students used overall language
learning strategies more frequently in their EFL learning. Metacognitive was the strategy
category most used by the students and compensation was the least used one. The memory,
cognitive, metacognitive, affective, and social strategy categories were used at a high level
and the compensation strategy category, at a moderate level. Although there were
significant differences in the use of overall strategy and strategy categories between males
and females and between social science and science students, no significant differences
were found in use between students with lower and higher English proficiency. The
findings had several practical implications in the process of EFL learning, especially in the
higher education context.
Keywords: language learning strategy; English proficiency; gender; SILL; study programs

231
Agus Rianto

INTRODUCTION
The use of appropriate language learning strategies is believed to be one of
the factors that can help achieve the goal of foreign language learning. Studies
have confirmed that language learning strategies help students become more
effective in the classroom and encourage the development of more efficient
mastery of the target language use (al-Qahtani, 2013; Oxford, 2016; Wong &
Nunan, 2011).
The present study adopted Oxford’s (1990) Strategy Inventory for
Language Learning (SILL) as its instrument to measure EFL learning strategies
of Indonesian university students based on their gender, study program, and
English proficiency differences. The main reason for choosing this inventory
accounts for its high reliability and the fact that it is a widely employed
instrument in investigating the use of language learning strategies for EFL
students (Oxford and Burry-Stock, 1995). Within Oxford’s (1990) framework,
the six categories of language learning strategies are classified into two
taxonomic sets, namely direct and indirect strategies. Direct language learning
strategies, which include memory, cognitive, and compensation strategies,
require mental processes to receive, maintain, store, and take words or other
aspects of the target language. Indirect language learning strategies that consist
of metacognitive, affective, and social strategies are more about learning
organizations through activities that allow students to regulate thoughts and
feelings. Oxford has recently reviewed her strategy categories and developed a
model with four different strategy categories, namely cognitive, affective,
sociocultural-interactive, and meta-strategies. Meta-strategies consist of
metacognitive, meta-affective, and meta-sociocultural-interactive strategies
(Griffith and Oxford, 2014; Oxford, 2016). In this study, language learning
strategies were defined in line with the concepts put forward by Oxford—as
processes and actions that were consciously used by language learners to help
learn or use language more effectively.
Various studies on language learning strategies have aimed at identifying
the strategies frequently used by language learners. In comparing the use of
direct and indirect strategies on vocabulary learning of EFL Iranian high school
students, Taghinezhad, Azizi, Shahmohammadi, Kashanifar, & Azadikhah

232 REGISTER JOURNAL – Vol 13, No 02 (2020)

 A Study of Language Learning Strategy ….

(2016) found that students at the upper secondary level tended to opt for more
indirect than direct language learning strategies and teaching students about
indirect learning strategies proved beneficial for students at the middle to the
upper level. Teachers were advised to help students organize their ideas,
negotiate their daily events and experiences, and discuss their feelings with
each other while learning in class. Meanwhile, in a study conducted with pre-
intermediate students in an Iranian university, Naeimi & Foo (2015) found that
students who used direct strategies outperformed those who opted for indirect
strategies in vocabulary learning. The use of direct strategies at the pre-
intermediate level led the students to higher achievement vocabulary storage in
reading comprehension. Teachers were encouraged to implement direct
language learning strategies in the early stages of vocabulary learning because
it was practically effective. These studies have emphasized the importance of
implementing appropriate language learning strategies in helping students
achieve their foreign language learning goals.
Some researchers have reported students' preferences in using language
learning strategies and factors influencing their strategy choices in their EFL
learning. Overall, the most commonly adopted strategies were metacognitive,
compensation, and cognitive. However, Chamot (2004) argued that different
strategy preferences were influenced by different cultural contexts. Chinese and
Singaporean students reported higher use of social strategies and lower use of
affective strategies than European students. Yang (2007) found that
compensation was the strategy most often used by Chinese students for its
ability to provided learners with a great opportunity to guess meanings even
with limited grammar and vocabulary knowledge. In addition, Shmais (2003)
reported that memory strategies were most widely used by students who
majored in English at a Palestinian university and compensation strategies
were the least used strategy because it was linked to the culture and education
system. It was mentioned that in Palestine students had limited opportunities
to use functional practice strategies, especially in large classes because passing
exams and answering questions directly related to the specified textbook
represented the main focus. As a result, students were reluctant to use
compensation strategies. A study by Lengkanawati (2004) revealed that the use
of memory strategies that were not sensitive to EFL students was an indication

REGISTER JOURNAL – Vol 13, No 02 (2020) 233

Agus Rianto

that it was a cultural habit. For example, according to Australian students,

remembering difficult words was an ineffective learning strategy while
Indonesian students claimed to have a habit of learning to memorize. Besides
cultural differences, several important factors that influenced the choice of
language learning strategies were age, the nature of assignments, and course
methodology (Suesca Torres & Torres Pérez, 2017). These studies have
identified that the cultural context and education system were the factors that
influenced the choice of students' language learning strategies. Further studies
need to explore other factors that might also influence the selection of students’
language learning strategies including gender, study program, and level of
language proficiency because findings from such studies can help create an
effective process of foreign language learning.

Gender and Use of Language Learning Strategies

Various studies have examined the use of language learning strategies
based on gender differences. The results of these studies have mixed
conclusions; while some research results have shown differences in language
learning strategy use between female and male students, other research studies
have reported opposite findings. In a study involving Turkish students, Tezcan
and Deneme (2015) found significant differences in the overall language
learning strategies used by the students. The study found that female students
resorted to more language learning strategies compared to their male counter-
parts. Similarly, in investigating language learning strategies (LLS) used by
Saudi EFL students (66 males, 68 females), Alhaysony (2017) found that female
students used more LLS than male students, although the difference was not
significant. However, research by Hakan et al. (2015) found a significant
difference only in the compensation strategies, which were more widely used
by male students compared to their female counterparts. In addition, in a study
of 56 pre-university students, Kiram et al. (2014) found that females used more
strategies than males for all language learning strategies, except for com-
pensation strategies, where these strategies were more dominant among
males. However, further tests revealed that there were only significant
differences in the use of cognitive and social strategies based on gender.

234 REGISTER JOURNAL – Vol 13, No 02 (2020)

 A Study of Language Learning Strategy ….

On the other hand, other studies found no differences in the use of

language learning strategies based on gender. In a study on Malaysian students,
Kashefian-Naeeini and Maarof (2010) found no significant differences in all
gender-based language learning strategies even though women were more
likely to use memory, metacognitive and affective strategies than men. Nguyen
and Godwyll (2010) also revealed no significant differences in the use of
language learning strategies based on gender even though women have a
higher tendency to use more language learning strategies. In addition, in a study
on Turkish students, Kayaoğlu (2012) found that there were no significant
differences in the use of overall language learning strategy among male and
female science students, although significant differences were found in the use
of individual language learning strategies.
These studies have revealed that the influence of gender has produced
various findings in the use of LLS. However, research focusing on gender
influence on the choice of LLS among Indonesian students remains limited.
Such research is of key importance as it can help create an effective foreign
language learning process. What makes this study different from previous
research is the investigation of the level of LLS used by Indonesian students in
EFL learning based on gender differences.

Academic Programs and Use of Language Learning Strategies

An academic program has been considered by researchers as one of the
factors influencing students in the selection of language learning strategies. In a
study examining the relationship between academic programs and the use of
language learning strategies among Chinese students, Rao (2005) found that
students from the social science program employed language learning
strategies with a greater frequency than students from the science program on
the overall and the individual strategies. Using the Strategy Inventory for
Language Learning (SILL) developed by Oxford (1990), the study revealed that
5 strategy items related specifically to English learning were used more
frequently by social science students, while 4 strategy items clearly related to
logical analysis and associations were more often used by science students. In
addition, in a study investigating strategies of learning English as a foreign
language at the Faculty of Technical Sciences, University of Novi Sad, Šafranj

REGISTER JOURNAL – Vol 13, No 02 (2020) 235

Agus Rianto

(2013) found that university majors influenced the use of students’ language
learning strategies. The students from the industrial management major used
the resourceful independent strategies more often than the students from the
other two majors examined, electrical engineering and graphic and design
engineering. Also, the industrial management students used the functional
practice strategies significantly more often than the Electrical Engineering
students, but not significantly more often than the graphic and design
engineering students. In other studies, Chamot et al. (1987) and Oxford &
Nyikos (1989) reported that academic majors were shown to have a
statistically significant effect on the choice of language learning strategies, with
the students from humanities/social/education majors using independent
strategies and functional practice (authentic language use) strategies more
often than the students from other majors. In a previous study, Politzer &
McGroarty (1985) found that specification fields such as engineering/science
vs. social science/humanities significantly influenced students on strategy
choices in learning English as a second language, with engineering students
tending to avoid strategies that were considered positive for getting
communicative language proficiency. However, slightly contradictory results
were found by Gu (2002) that despite differences in strategies in the arts and
science majors, academic majors did not become strong background factors in
influencing the use of language learning strategies.
Although there were inconsistent results, these studies in general revealed
that there was a relationship between study programs and students’ selection
of language learning strategies. Students from humanities/social/education
programs are more likely to use language learning strategies and choose
independent and functional practice strategies than students from other
programs. These results indicate that certain types of language learning
strategies might be more appropriate for students from certain study
programs. Further research needs to explore this issue because the use of
appropriate language learning strategies is believed to have a positive effect on
the achievement of language learning. Research that focuses on this issue is
scarce, and for the context of learning English as a foreign language in
Indonesia, this was the first research study conducted.

236 REGISTER JOURNAL – Vol 13, No 02 (2020)

 A Study of Language Learning Strategy ….

Language Proficiency and Use of Language Learning Strategies

Language proficiency is believed to have a role in the selection of language
learning strategies used by students. Various studies have specifically
investigated the use of LLS among students with different levels of English
proficiency. In general, English proficiency is measured among others through
self-ratings, results of proficiency and achievement tests, and scores of English
courses (Habók & Magyar, 2018). In a recent study examining the use of LLS
among Indonesian high school students with different English proficiency
levels, Sartika, Santihastuti, and Wahjuningsih (2019) revealed that meta-
cognitive was the strategy most often used by more efficient students, whereas
cognitive was the strategy most often used by less efficient students. The study
also showed that more efficient students used overall strategies more
frequently than less efficient students. This was an indication that the more
efficient students had the ability to plan clear goals, control, review, and
evaluate their learning than their counterparts, who were more focused on the
way they thought, memorized, summarized, and repeated learning. Another
recent study by Abdul-Ghafour and Alrefaee (2019) identified the use of
language learning strategies between higher and lower-achieving students in a
Yemeni university. The study found that the strategies more often used by the
high-achieving students were metacognitive, compensatory, and cognitive
while those less frequently used by these students were affective, memory, and
social. Meanwhile, the strategies more often used by low-achieving students
were metacognitive and affective and those less frequently used by these
students were cognitive, social, and memory. In a study identifying what
language learning strategies were often used by EFL undergraduates at a state
university in Thailand, Charoento (2016) revealed that students who had
higher English language skills used the most metacognitive strategies, while
those who had lower English language skill used the most social strategies. In
addition, al-Qahtani (2013) who investigated the use of LLS among applied
medical science undergraduates in Saudi Arabia found that high English
achieving students mainly opted for cognitive strategies. A Study of Taiwanese
EFL students revealed that English proficiency significantly influenced the use
of language learning strategies, with high-level students using strategies more

REGISTER JOURNAL – Vol 13, No 02 (2020) 237

Agus Rianto

often than low-level students especially for cognitive, metacognitive, and social
strategies (Rao, 2016). Furthermore, Magogwe and Oliver (2007) discovered
that the basic difference in the use of language learning strategies between
these students was that more successful students not only used certain
strategies significantly more often, but they also chose the most adequate
strategy depending on the goals their assignment.
It can be concluded from these studies that English proficiency plays a role
in the selection of language learning strategies and that students with higher
English proficiency used more language learning strategies than those with
lower English proficiency. Preferences in the use of language learning strategies
possessed by students with different English skills need to be further inves-
tigated in different contexts. Studies with such a focus are highly recommended
to be carried out in Indonesia to complement the lack of empirical data and
literature specifically related to the use of language learning strategies among
students in a higher education context.

Research Questions
Although various studies have examined the use of language learning
strategies among EFL students, the literature revealed very limited data on the
use of language learning strategies among Indonesian university students. The
main motivation of this study was to respond to the literature deficit mainly
related to the use of LLS by Indonesian EFL students in the higher education
context. Therefore, this study was carried out to investigate the following
research questions:
1. Which group of Indonesian university students based on gender, study
programs, and English proficiency used overall language learning
strategies more frequently in their EFL learning?
2. Which strategy categories were the most and the least used by the
students?
3. What were the levels of the students’ language learning strategy use?
4. Were there significant differences in the use of language learning
strategies based on gender, study programs, and English proficiency?

238 REGISTER JOURNAL – Vol 13, No 02 (2020)

 A Study of Language Learning Strategy ….

RESEARCH METHOD
Participants
Respondents of this study were Indonesian native speakers who learned
English as a foreign language at the Universitas Borneo Tarakan, Indonesia. Of
the 340 students who filled out the questionnaire, 329 were taken as the final
respondents after 11 were rejected because there were values missing in their
responses. They consisted of 147 males and 182 females. The students were
enrolled in 16 study programs and for the purpose of this research they were
categorized into two groups—the social science students (53%) and the
science students (47%). In addition, measured through scores obtained in an
English test, a total of 246 respondents were categorized into lower English skill
students and 83 were into higher English skill students.
Instruments
The Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) for ESL/EFL learners
developed by Oxford (1990) was used to assess the respondents’ language
learning strategy use. The questionnaire was organized into six strategy groups
(Parts A-F) categorized according to Oxford's original identification and
classification system. Part A (memory strategies) consists of strategies used to
store, remember, and retrieve information. These strategies reflect very simple
principles, such as organizing things in sequence, making associations, and
reviewing them. Consisting of 9 items, these strategies are divided into four
sets: creating mental links, applying images and sounds, reviewing well, and
employing actions. Part B (cognitive strategies) consists of mental processes in
learning a new language ranging from repetition, expression analysis to
summation, with all its variations. Cognitive strategies are united by a general
function of manipulation or transformation of the target language by students.
This strategy category is the largest strategy group in SILL, which includes 14
items related to practice and in-depth processing that students use to analyze
new information and monitor understanding. Part C (compensation strategies)
consists of strategies that allow students to use a new language for
understanding or production even though there are limitations in knowledge.
These strategies have 6 items, which include guessing the meaning from
context and using gestures or synonyms to convey meaning when language is

REGISTER JOURNAL – Vol 13, No 02 (2020) 239

Agus Rianto

limited. Compensation strategies are grouped into two sets: smart guessing in
listening and reading, and overcoming limitations in speaking and writing. Part
D (metacognitive strategies) consists of actions that go beyond pure cognitive
devices and which provide ways for students to coordinate their own learning
processes. These strategies consist of 9 items that can be grouped into three
sets: centralizing learning, organizing and planning learning, and evaluating
learning. Part E (affective strategies) consists of affective factors such as
emotions, attitudes, motivations, and values. These strategies help students
gain control over these factors. Consisting of 6 items, these strategies are
grouped into three main sets: anxiety reduction, self-impulse, and gifts. Part F
(social strategies) is connected to the communication process that occurs
between and among people. These strategies consist of 6 items including asking
questions, collaborating with peers, and becoming culturally aware. High
reliability coefficient for SILL (from 0.85 to 0.98), as reported by Oxford and
Burry-Stock (1995), has made it the most widely used instrument in
investigating the use of language learning strategies for EFL students was the
main reason why it was used in this study.
Procedure
To assess the use of the respondents’ language learning strategies, SILL—
which included gender and study program information—was given to the
students outside of their lecture hours. The students were informed that the
personal information they provided was solely for research purposes and
therefore confidentiality was fully guarded. They were also informed that they
would find statements about learning English and to read each statement
carefully. They were asked to answer in terms of how well the statements
described them, not how they should be, or what other people were doing.
There were no right or wrong answers to the statements. Respondents were
instructed to circle the numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5.
To measure their use of language learning strategies, the respondents
were asked to circle the numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 which indicated how true each
statement was to them. The five-point Likert scale is developed by Oxford.
Number l (Never or almost never true of me) means that the statement is very
rarely true to respondents. Number 2 (Usually not true of me) means that the

240 REGISTER JOURNAL – Vol 13, No 02 (2020)

 A Study of Language Learning Strategy ….

statement is true less than half the time. Number 3 (Somewhat true of me)
means that statement is true half the time. Number 4 (Usually true of me)
means that statement is true more than half the time. Number 5 (Always or
almost always true of me) means that the statement is always true to
respondents. To find out levels of use of the language learning strategies, this
study employed a scale of strategy usage developed by Oxford (1990) which
consists of three levels: high usage (mean scores of 3.5-5.0), moderate usage
(mean scores of 2.5-3.4), and low usage (mean scores of 1.0- 2.4). To find out
the gender and academic programs of the respondents, this study added two
items in the SILL, each asking about the study program and the gender. To
determine the respondents’ English proficiency, this study used scores of a
paper-based English test consisting of listening comprehension, structure and
written expression, and reading comprehension. This test was administered by
the university’s language center. Based on the test scores obtained, the students
were grouped into two categories: lower English skills (those with the English
test scores of less than 460) and higher English skills (those with the English
test scores of 460 and above). This categorization of English proficiency was in
accordance with what was determined by the university.
Data Analysis
This research used descriptive and quantitative methods. The Statistical
Package for Social Sciences (SPSS, version 14.0) for Microsoft Windows was
used to help analyze the data collected. The descriptive analysis was carried out
to answer the first, second, and third research questions. In addressing the first
research question, the mean scores of the overall strategy use were compared.
To answer the second research question, the mean scores of each strategy
category were compared and ranked. To address the third research question,
the mean scores of each strategy category were classified using the Oxford’s
scale of strategy usage. Finally, an independent t-test with a p-value of 5%
(0.05) was performed to address the fourth research question.

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

This study sought to examine language learning strategies used by
Indonesian university students in their EFL learning based on gender, study

REGISTER JOURNAL – Vol 13, No 02 (2020) 241

Agus Rianto

programs, and English proficiency. Specifically, the examination was focused on

the use of the overall strategy, the use of the strategy categories, levels of the
strategy use, and differences in the strategy use based on gender, study
programs, and English proficiency.
Strategy Use by Gender
The analysis of language learning strategies use by gender was focused on
the overall strategy use, the strategy category use, levels of the strategy use, and
differences in the strategy use between the male and the female students.
Results of the descriptive analysis on language learning strategy use by gender
are reported in Table 1.

Table 1. Descriptive Analysis of Language Learning Strategy Use by Gender

Strategy Strategy
Strategy Category Gender Mean S.D
Use Level Use Rank
Memory Male 3.66 .46 High 4
Female 3.82 .44 High 4
Cognitive Male 3.55 .53 High 5
Direct
Female 3.67 .47 High 5
Compensation Male 3.23 .61 Moderate 6
Female 3.28 .62 Moderate 6
Metacognitive Male 3.95 .57 High 1
Female 4.09 .48 High 1
Affective Male 3.70 .61 High 3
Indirect
Female 3.89 .56 High 3
Social Male 3.90 .53 High 2
Female 4.03 .53 High 2
Male 3.66 .41 High
Overall Strategy Use
Female 3.80 .36 High

Table 2. Results of t-Test for Strategy Use by Gender

Strategy Category t df Sig. (2-tailed)
Memory -3.15 327 .00*
Direct Cognitive -2.29 327 .02*
Compensation -.81 327 .42
Metacognitive -2.40 285 .02*
Indirect Affective -2.40 327 .00*
Social -2.35 327 .02*
Overall Strategy Use -3.18 327 .00*
*Differences were significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)

242 REGISTER JOURNAL – Vol 13, No 02 (2020)

 A Study of Language Learning Strategy ….

The female students used more language learning strategies than the male
students in their EFL learning as indicated by the mean scores of the overall
strategy use (male = 3.66; female = 3.80). Metacognitive, social, and affective
were the strategy categories more frequently used by both the male and the
female students, while memory, cognitive, and compensation were the strategy
categories less frequently used by these two groups of students. Both the male
and the female students used, at a high level, the memory, cognitive, meta-
cognitive, affective, and social strategy categories and, at a moderate level, the
compensation strategy category. The levels of strategy use were determined
according to the Oxford’s scales: high usage (mean scores of 3.5-5.0), moderate
usage (mean scores of 2.5-3.4), and low usage (mean scores of 1.0-2.4).
The female students had greater mean scores than the male students for
the overall strategy use and the strategy category use. As reported in Table 2,
results of the independent t-test with a p-value of 0.05 showed that significant
differences were found between the male and the female students for the
overall strategy use and for five of the six strategy category use (memory,
cognitive, metacognitive, affective, and social). However, there was no
significant difference between the male and the female students for the use of
the compensation strategy category. These findings were compatible with
those of the previous studies on language learning strategies, which indicated
that female students used more language learning strategies than male
students (Alhaysony, 2017; Tezcan & Deneme; 2015). Overall, the female
students in this study tended to be more concerned with the learning process
and actions to help them learn or use English more effectively. An explanation
of this finding could be for most Indonesian female learners, failure in English
learning seems to be something very embarrassing and they have a high
expectation that they must be successful. The results of this study also revealed
that metacognitive, social, and affective were the strategy categories that were
more often used by both the male and the female students, with high-level
usage. Oxford (1990) classifies these three strategy categories as indirect
strategies, meaning that although they are not directly involved in language
learning, they can support direct learning strategies and manipulate language
learning. This finding indicated that in learning English as a foreign language,

REGISTER JOURNAL – Vol 13, No 02 (2020) 243

Agus Rianto

the male and the female students preferred strategies that managed learning
through activities that facilitated them in organizing their thoughts and feelings
such as centralizing learning, organizing and planning learning, and evaluating
learning (metacognitive strategies); anxiety reduction, self-impulse, and gifts
(affective strategies); asking questions, collaborating with peers, and becoming
culturally aware (social strategies). Another interesting finding in this study
was that the males and the females used the least the compensation strategy
category, meaning that these two groups of students did not like learning
activities that allowed them to use new languages for understanding or
production such as guessing the meaning from context and using gestures or
synonyms to convey ideas. This was likely due to the limited knowledge they
had in English such as in listening, reading, speaking and writing.
Strategy Use by Study Programs
The analysis of language learning strategy use by study programs was
focused on the use of the overall strategy, the use of the strategy categories,
levels of the strategy use, and differences in the strategy use between the social
science and the science students. Results of the descriptive analysis on language
learning strategy use by study programs are reported in Table 3.

Table 3. Descriptive Analysis of Strategy Use by Study Programs

Study Strategy Strategy

Strategy Category Mean S.D
Program Use Level Use Rank

Memory Social Science 3.82 .43 High 4

Science 3.67 .48 High 4
Social Science 3.70 .46 High 5
Direct Cognitive
Science 3.52 .54 High 5
Social Science 3.25 .63 Moderate 6
Compensation Science 3.27 .61 Moderate 6
Social Science 4.12 .47 High 1
Metacognitive
Science 3.92 .56 High 1
Social Science 3.87 .57 High 3
Indirect Affective
Science 3.73 .60 High 3
Social Science 4.03 .52 High 2
Social Science 3.91 .54 High 2
Social Science 3.80 .37 High
Overall Strategy Use Science 3.67 .39 High

244 REGISTER JOURNAL – Vol 13, No 02 (2020)

 A Study of Language Learning Strategy ….

The social science students had higher mean scores than the science
students for the use of the overall strategy and for the use of the memory,
cognitive, metacognitive, social, and affective strategy categories. Overall, the
students from the social science programs used more language learning
strategies than the students from the science programs in their EFL learning as
indicated by the mean scores of the overall strategy use (social science = 3.80;
science = 3.67). Metacognitive, social, and affective were the strategy categories
used more frequently by both the social science and the science students, while
memory, cognitive, and compensation were the strategy categories used less
frequently by these two groups of students, although higher mean scores were
obtained by the social science students. The students from both the social
science and the science programs used the memory, cognitive, metacognitive,
affective, and social strategy categories at a high level and the compensation
strategy category at a moderate level. As reported in Table 4, results of the
independent t-test with a p-value of 0.05 showed that significant differences
were found between the social science students and the science students for the
use of the overall strategy and for the use of memory, cognitive, metacognitive,
and affective strategy categories. No significant differences were found for the
use of compensation and social strategy categories.

Table 4. Results of t-Test of Strategy Use by Study Programs

Strategy Category t Df Sig. (2-tailed)
Memory 3.20 327 .00*
Direct Cognitive 3.21 327 .00*
Compensation -.34 327 .74
Metacognitive 3.33 300 .00*
Indirect Affective 2.06 327 .04*
Social 2.01 327 .05
Overall Strategy Use 3.00 327 .01*
*Differences were significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)

This finding is in accordance with what was found by Rao (2005)—that

the students from social science programs employed more language learning
strategies than the students from science programs. Further analysis in this
study showed that significant differences were found in the use of the cognitive,

REGISTER JOURNAL – Vol 13, No 02 (2020) 245

Agus Rianto

metacognitive, and affective strategy categories between students from the two
programs. These results indicated that compared to their counterparts from
science programs the students from the social science programs were more
involved in learning English activities aiming to store, remember, and retrieve
information and in language learning activities that involved practice and in-
depth processing to analyze new information and monitor understanding. In
addition, the students from social science programs tended to choose learning
strategies that provided ways for them to coordinate their own learning
processes and that involved affective factors such as emotions, attitudes,
motivations, and values.
This is also consistent with the findings found by Chamot et al. (1987) and
Oxford & Nyikos (1989) that the students from humanities/social/education
majors opted for independent strategies and functional practice (authentic
language use) strategies more often than the students from other majors. The
independent strategies included the independent use of foreign language
materials to memorize words and sentences such as lists of related words,
fabricating sentences and exercises, using mnemonics, complicated sentences,
using tape recorders and independent use of certain metacognitive actions such
as planning, self-testing or self-gift. These strategies are the same as the items
18, 19, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 and 29 in the SILL. The functional practice strategies
required language practice in a natural environment outside the classroom
such as watching foreign language films, finding native speakers for conver-
sation, imitating native speakers, starting a foreign language conversation, and
reading authentic material in a new language. These strategies are similar to the
items 10, 11, 15, 30, 31, 32, 35, 37 and 38 in the SILL.
The difference in the use of strategies between the two groups of students
seems to be caused by the preferences of students’ learning methods. Students
who enter the learning environment in higher education are generally aware of
their preferences about how to be involved in the learning process. Usually, the
development of such preferences specifically comes from the learning
approaches they adopt in everyday learning. Social science students are more
closely related to language learning than science students. This is evidenced by
the findings in Rao's (2005) study about 5 strategy items related specifically to

246 REGISTER JOURNAL – Vol 13, No 02 (2020)

 A Study of Language Learning Strategy ….

English learning being used more frequently by social science students

compared to science students, while 4 strategy items more often used by
science students were clearly related to logical analysis and associations.
The application of curriculum in the Indonesian education system seems
to be another reason of differences in the use of language learning strategies
between the social science and the science students. In general, social science
students in Indonesia are burdened with a relatively smaller number of
academic jobs than science students. This allows social science students to use
more time to learn English. In contrast, aside from the nature of the disciplines,
science students seem to have more homework and experiments to complete
their main studies. Such contrast could make a big difference in the use of
language learning strategies. This explanation is in accordance with Rao’s
(2005) qualitative findings that social science students often used time-
consuming strategies such as summarizing new English material, previewing
English lessons and reviewing English lessons more often than science
students.
Strategy Use by English Proficiency
The analysis of language learning strategy use by English proficiency was
focused on the use of the overall strategy, the use of strategy categories, levels of
the strategy use, and differences in the strategy use between the students with
lower English skills and the students with higher English skills. Results of the
descriptive analysis on language learning strategy use by English proficiency
are reported in Table 5.
The mean score of the overall language learning strategy use obtained by
the students with higher English skills (3.76) was slightly higher than that of the
students with lower English skills (3.73), indicating that the higher English skill
students used the overall language learning strategies slightly more often than
the lower English skill students in their EFL learning. For the students with
higher English skills, the strategy categories more frequently used were social
(4.02), metacognitive (3.97), and affective (3.85), while the strategy categories
less frequently used were compensation (3.29), cognitive (3.62), and memory
(3.82). For the students with lower English skills, the strategy categories more
frequently used were metacognitive (4.04), social (3.96), and affective (3.79),

REGISTER JOURNAL – Vol 13, No 02 (2020) 247

Agus Rianto

while the strategy categories less frequently used were compensation (3.25),
cognitive (3.62), and memory (3.73). Both the students with higher and lower
English skills used, at a high level, the memory, cognitive, metacognitive,
affective, and social strategy categories and, at a moderate level, the com-
pensation strategy category.

Table 5. Descriptive Analysis of Strategy Use by English Proficiency

English Strategy Strategy
Strategy Category Mean S.D
Proficiency Use Level Use Rank
Memory Lower Skills 3.73 .46 High 4
Higher Skills 3.82 .44 High 4
Direct Cognitive Lower Skills 3.62 .52 High 5
Higher Skills 3.62 .45 High 5
Compensation Lower Skills 3.25 .62 Medium 6
Higher Skills 3.29 .58 Medium 6

Metacognitive Lower Skills 4.04 .52 High 1

Higher Skills 3.97 .55 High 2
Affective Lower Skills 3.79 .60 High 3
Indirect
Higher Skills 3.85 .56 High 3
Social Lower Skills 3.96 .53 High 2
Higher Skills 4.02 .53 High 1

Overall Strategy Use Lower Skills 3.73 .40 High

Higher Skills 3.76 .36 High

Table 6. Results of t-Test of Strategy Use by English Proficiency

Strategy Category t Df Sig. (2-tailed)
Memory -1.67 327 .10
Direct Cognitive -.06 327 .95
Compensation -.56 327 .57

Metacognitive 1.11 327 .27

Indirect Affective -.85 327 .40
Social -.92 327 .36

Overall Strategy Use -.67 327 .51

The students with higher English skills obtained greater mean scores for
the memory, compensation, affective, and social strategy categories than the
students with lower English skills. For the metacognitive strategy category,
both groups of students got the same mean score, while for the cognitive
strategy category the students with lower English skills obtained higher mean

248 REGISTER JOURNAL – Vol 13, No 02 (2020)

 A Study of Language Learning Strategy ….

scores than their counterparts with higher English skills. However, as reported
in Table 6, the results of the independent t-test with a p-value of 0.05 showed
no significant differences between the two groups of students in the use of the
six strategy categories and in the use of the overall strategies.
In general, this finding is not different from the results of the studies
carried out previously (Oxford & Burry-stock, 1995; Sartika, Santihastuti, and
Wahjuningsih, 2019; Oxford, 1993; Yu, 2003), which indicated that students
with higher language skills used more language learning strategies than those
with lower language skills. However, the results of further analysis in this study
found no significant differences in the use of all the strategy categories. This
finding indicated that both the higher and the lower English skill students had
the ability to plan clear goals, control, review, and evaluate their English
learning as well as to focus on the way they thought, memorized, summarized,
and repeated learning.
In addition, this study revealed that the students with higher English skills
used the most the social strategy category, while the students with lower
English skills used the most the metacognitive strategy category. This finding
indicated that the students with higher English skills tended to prefer English
learning activities that were connected to the communication processes such as
asking questions, collaborating with peers, and becoming culturally aware.
Meanwhile, the students with lower English skills tended to prefer English
learning techniques that organized, focused, and evaluated their own learning.
A more interesting finding in this study was that these two groups of students
most rarely used the compensation strategy category, meaning that both the
students with higher and lower English skills tended to dislike learning
activities that allowed them to use new languages for understanding or
production such as guessing or using movements even though to overcome the
deficiencies and gaps in their current language knowledge.

CONCLUSION
This study examined the use of language learning strategies among
Indonesian university students in their EFL learning based on gender, study
programs, and English proficiency. As far as gender was concerned, the female

REGISTER JOURNAL – Vol 13, No 02 (2020) 249

Agus Rianto

students used more language learning strategies than the male students in their
EFL learning. Metacognitive was the strategy category the most used by both
the male and the female students, while compensation was the strategy
category the least used by these two groups of students. Both the male and the
female students used, at a high level, the memory, cognitive, metacognitive,
affective, and social strategy categories and in moderate level the compensation
strategy category. Significant differences were found between the male and the
female students for the use of the overall strategy and for the use of the
memory, cognitive, metacognitive, affective, and social strategy categories. No
significant difference was found between the male and the female students for
the use of compensation strategy category.
With regard to study programs, the social science students used more
language learning strategies than the science students in their EFL learning.
Metacognitive was the strategy category the most used by both the social
science and the science students, while compensation was the strategy category
the least used by these two groups of students. The students from both the
social science and the science programs used, at high level, the memory,
cognitive, metacognitive, affective, and social strategy categories and in
moderate level the compensation strategy category. Significant differences
were found between the social science students and the science students for the
use of the overall strategy and for the use of the memory, cognitive, meta-
cognitive, and affective strategy categories. No significant differences were
found for the use of the compensation and social strategy categories.
In relation to English proficiency, the students with higher English
proficiency used the overall language learning strategies slightly more often
than the students with lower English proficiency in their EFL learning. For the
higher English skill students, the strategy category most frequently used was
social and the least frequently used was compensation. For the lower English
skill students, the strategy category most frequently used was metacognitive
and the least frequently used was compensation. Both the students with higher
and lower English skills used in high level the memory, cognitive,
metacognitive, affective, and social strategy categories and in moderate level
the compensation strategy category. No significant differences were found

250 REGISTER JOURNAL – Vol 13, No 02 (2020)

 A Study of Language Learning Strategy ….

between the two groups of students in the use of the six strategy categories and
in the use of the overall strategies.
This study has several practical implications in the process of learning
foreign languages in the classroom, especially at the higher education level. The
existence of preferences in the use of language learning strategies pushes to the
fore the need to give students further opportunities to practice a variety of
strategies that suit different teaching tasks and activities. Students from science
study programs may require more explicit instructions and practices in
memory strategies and compensation strategies such as using a mnemonic tool
to learn new vocabulary and guess meaning from context. While students of
social science may need more practice in using language learning strategies
related to logical analysis and associations such as finding meaning by dividing
words into sections and connecting new material to what is already known.
Another implication is directly related to students, instructors, and
developers of language learning syllabi. Students need to increase their
awareness about the functions and use of the language learning strategy so that
they are encouraged to choose and use strategies that are more appropriate at
various stages of learning their target language. More importantly, awareness
must also be built by language teachers as they need to recognize the significant
role of using various strategies and other important factors to help their
students in the language learning process. Awareness like this will help
language teachers respect individual differences among language learners and
thus can lead them towards applying learner-centered classes. For designers of
syllabi and material developers, they must be aware of the importance of
incorporating learning strategies into syllabi, textbooks, assignments and
activities that not only require the development of learning strategies but also
provide opportunities to use these strategies. Finally, as this study’s finding
showed variations in the use of strategies by students, a further explanation of
this variation can be facilitated by further studies that focus on the influence of
other individual variables on the strategy use such as motivation, attitudes,
personality types, and learning styles.

REGISTER JOURNAL – Vol 13, No 02 (2020) 251

Agus Rianto

Acknowledgements
This study was supported by the Universitas Borneo Tarakan Grant.[rgt]

REFERENCES

Abdul-Ghafour, M. & Alrefaee.Y. (2019). The Relationship between language

learning strategies and achievement among EFL University Students. ALR
Journal 3(3), 64-83.
Alhaysony, M. (2017). Language learning strategies use by Saudi EFL students:
the effect of duration of English language study and gender. Theory and
Practice in Language Studies 7(1), 18–28.
Al-Qahtani, M. F. (2013). Relationship between English language, learning
strategies, attitudes, motivation, and students’ academic achieve-
ment. Education in Medical. Journal. 5(3), 19–29.
Chamot, A., O’Malley, J., Kupper, L., & Impink-Hernandez, M. (1987). Study of
learning strategies in foreign language instruction: First year report. Rosslyn,
Va.: Interstate Research Associates.
Charoento, M. (2016). Individual learner differences and language learning
strategies. Contemporary Educational Researches Journal, 7(2), 57-72.
Cohen. A. D. (1998). Strategies in learning and using a second language. London:
Longman.
Davut, N. (2019). Language learning strategies: A comparative study of young and
adolescent Cambodian learners. International Journal of Language and
Literary Studies, 1(2), 34-45.
Dawadi, S. (2017). Language learning strategies profiles of EFL learners in Nepal.
European Journal of Educational and Social Sciences, 2 (2), 42 – 55.
Goh, C.C.M. & Foong, K.P. (1997). Chinese ESL students’ learning strategies: A
look at frequency, proficiency, and gender. Hong Kong Journal of Applied
Linguistics, 2(1), 39-53.
Griffith, C., and Oxford, R. (2014). The twenty-first century landscape of language
learning strategies: introduction to this special issue. System, 43, 1–10. doi:
10.1016/j.system.2013.12.009
Gu, Y. (2002). Gender, academic major, and vocabulary learning strategies of
Chinese EFL learners. RELC Journal, 33, 35-54.

252 REGISTER JOURNAL – Vol 13, No 02 (2020)

 A Study of Language Learning Strategy ….

Habók A and Magyar A (2018). The effect of language learning strategies on

proficiency, attitudes and school achievement. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1-8
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02358
Halbach, A., (2000). Finding out about students' learning strategies by looking at
their diaries: a case study. System, 28(1), 85-96.
Hismanoglu, M. (2000). Language learning strategies in foreign language learning
and teaching. The Internet TESL Journal, 6(8), 1-6.
Ho, A. P., Ng, L. L. (2016). Gender-based differences in language learning strategies
among undergraduates in a Malaysian public university. Issues in Language
Studies, 5(2). 1-17. https://doi.org/10.33736/ils.1631.2016
Kashefian-Naeeini, S., Maarof, N. (2010). Language learning strategies used by ESL
university students. International Journal of Learning,17(8), 47-61.
Kayaoğlu, M. N. (2012). Gender-based differences in language learning strategies
of science students. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 9(2), 12-24.
Kiram, J. J., Sulaiman, J., Swanto, S., Din, W. A. (2014). The relationship between
English language learning strategies and gender among pre-
university students: An overview of UMS. In W. Z. Wan Zin, S. C. Dzul-
Kifli,F.A. Razak & A. Ishak (Eds.). AIP Publishing. doi: 10.1063/1.4882532
Lengkanawati, N.S. (2004). How learners from different cultural backgrounds
learn a foreign language. Asian EFL Journal, 6(1), 1-8.
Liu, D. (2004). EFL proficiency, gender and language learning strategy use among
a group of Chinese technological institute English majors. ARECLS-E Journals,
1, 20-28.
Magogwe, J. M., Oliver, R. (2007). The relationship between language learning
strategies, proficiency, age, and self-efficacy beliefs: a study of language
learners in Botswana. System, 35, 338–352. doi: 10.1016/j.system.2007.
01.003
Naeimi, M. & Chow Voon Foo, T. (2015). Vocabulary acquisition through direct
and indirect learning strategies. English Language Teaching, 8(10), 140-150.
Nguyen, N., Godwyll, F. (2010). Factors influencing language-learning strategy use
of English learners in an ESL Context. Mid-Western Educational Researcher,
23(4), 7-13.
Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language strategies: What every teacher should know.
Newbury House Publishers.

REGISTER JOURNAL – Vol 13, No 02 (2020) 253

Agus Rianto

Oxford, R. L. (1993). Instructional implication of gender differences in language

learning styles and strategies. Applied Language Learning, 4, 65-94.
Oxford, R. L. (2016). Teaching and Researching Language Learning Strategies: Self-
Regulation in Context. New York, NY: Routledge.
Oxford, R. L., & Burry-Stock, J. A. (1995). Assessing language learning strategies
worldwide with the ESL/EFL version of the strategy inventory for language
learning (SILL). System, 23(1), 1-23.
Oxford, R. L., & Nyikos, M. (1989). Variables affecting choice of language learning
strategies by university students. Modern Language Journal, 73, 291-300.
Oxford, R. L., Ehrman, M. E., & Nyikos, M. (1988). Vive la difference? Reflections on
sex differences in use of language learning strategies. Foreign Language
Annals, 24, 321-329.
Oxford, R.L, Cho, Y., Leung, S., & Kim, H.J. (2004). Effect of the presence and
difficulty of task on strategy use: An exploratory study. IRAL, International
Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 42(1), 1-47.
Panggabean, C.I.T., & Kesuma, I. (2017). Language learning strategies of high
proficiency students in their oral presentation at English language education
of PGRI Ronggolawe University Tuban. OKARA: Jurnal Bahasa dan Sastra,
11(2), 205-214.
Politzer, R., & McGroarty, M. (1985). An exploratory study of learning behaviors
and their relationship to gains in linguistic and communicative competence.
TESOL Quarterly, 19, 103-124.
Rachmawati, Y. (2013). Language learning strategies used by learners in learning
speaking. Journal of English and Education, 1(2),124-131.
Rao, Z. (2005). Gender, academic major, and chinese students’ use of language
learning strategies: Social and educational perspectives. The Journal of Asia
TEFL, 2, 115-138.
Šafranj, J. (2013). Strategies of learning English as a foreign language at Faculty of
Technical Sciences. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 93, 775 – 782
Sartika, D. H. M., Santihastuti, A., Wahjuningsih, E. (2019). The learning strategies
used by EFL students in learning English. IJEE (Indonesian Journal of English
Education), 6(1), 10-20.
Shmais, W. A. (2003). Language learning strategy use in Palestine. TESL-EJ, 7(2),
3-21.

254 REGISTER JOURNAL – Vol 13, No 02 (2020)

 A Study of Language Learning Strategy ….

Suesca Torres, F., & Torres Pérez, A. (2017). Analysis of language

learning strategies used by two groups of students of differing age
range. Enletawa Journal, 9(2), 55-72.
Sumarni, S., & Rachmawaty, N. (2019). Gender differences in language learning
strategies. Ethical Lingua: Journal of Language Teaching and Literature, 6(1),
13-22.
Taghinezhad, A., Azizi, M., Shahmohammadi, S., Kashanifar, F.S., Azadikhah, M.
(2016), Comparing the Effects of Direct and Indirect Learning Strategies on
Iranian EFL Learners’ Vocabulary Learning, Journal of Applied Linguistics
and Language Research, 3(1), 133-143
Tanjung, F.Z. (2018). Language learning strategies in English as a foreign language
classroom in Indonesian higher education context. LLT Journal (21), 50-68.
Tezcan, S., Deneme, S. (2015). A study on language learning strategy use of young
Turkish learners. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 7(1), 42-48.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.17507/jltr.0701.05
Wong, L. L. C., and Nunan, D. (2011). The learning styles and strategies of effective
language learners. System 39, 144–163.
Wulandari, B. A. (2018). An evaluation of language learning strategies used by
english students. IJEE (Indonesian Journal of English Education), 5(1), 16-25.
Yang, M. N. (2007). Language learning strategies for junior college students in
Taiwan: Investigating ethnicity and proficiency. Asian EFL Journal, 9(2), 35-
57.
Yu, L. (2003). Learning strategies and their relationship to listening
comprehension-A report on Non-English majors in a medical university in
China. Teaching English in China, 26(4), 3-11.

REGISTER JOURNAL – Vol 13, No 02 (2020) 255

Agus Rianto

This page is intentionally left blank

256 REGISTER JOURNAL – Vol 13, No 02 (2020)