Duc V. Le

Thu Dau Mot University, Vietnam

DOI : https://doi.org/10.58806/ijsshmr.2026.v5i6n38

Google Scholar Download Pdf
ABSTRACT

This study investigates the systemic divergence in Language Learning Strategy (LLS) deployment between specialist and non-specialist undergraduate cohorts within the regional higher education landscape of Vietnam. Grounded in Oxford’s (1990) six-dimensional strategy taxonomy, the research utilizes a quantitative, cross-sectional comparative design to examine an exploratory sample of N = 100 students (n = 50 English majors; n = 50 non-English majors) at a university in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. Data were generated using a localized, 18-item version of the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) administered via a digital interface. Independent samples t-tests reveal statistically significant strategic stratifications across five analytical dimensions (p < .001). English majors display high-frequency usage of indirect metacognitive (M = 3.85) and social (M = 3.75) strategies, reflecting proactive, autonomous, and communication-driven language management. Conversely, non-English majors rely predominantly on reactive compensation (M = 3.78) and memory (M = 3.55) mechanisms to address immediate vocabulary and comprehension gaps within exam-oriented environments. Descriptive analyses show that target language proficiency (76%) and academic specialization (70%) act as the primary structural drivers mediating strategy deployment. While both groups engage heavily with informal digital media, explicit pedagogical interventions remain critically underutilized among non-majors. These findings underscore the urgent necessity for differentiated instructional design, advocating for the systematic integration of explicit metacognitive strategy training such as the CALLA framework and the creation of low-risk, extracurricular immersion spaces to foster long-term communicative competence and learner autonomy among non-specialist tertiary students.

KEYWORDS:

Oxford’s taxonomy; SILL questionnaire; EFL pedagogy; learner autonomy; metacognitive training; tertiary education policy; CALLA framework

REFERENCES
1) R. W. (1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1(3), 185–216. https://doi.org/10.1177/135910457000100301

2) Chamot, A. U. (2005). Language learning strategy instruction: Current issues and research. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 25, 112–130. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190505000061

3) Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). SAGE Publications.

4) Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford University Press.

5) Gloria, d. S., & Galvez, E. P. (2025). The impact of watching English shows on enhancing English language acquisition among undergraduate students. Arab World English Journal, 16(3), 407–425. https://dx.doi.org/10.24093/awej/vol16no3.25

6) Green, J. M., & Oxford, R. L. (1995). A closer look at learning strategies, L2 proficiency, and gender. TESOL Quarterly, 29(2), 261–297. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587625

7) Huynh, H. T. (2024). Teaching metacognitive strategies in reading through CALLA to non-English major students in a Vietnamese university. Vietnam Journal of Education, 8(1), 18–28. https://doi.org/10.52296/vje.2024.282

8) Ngoc, D., & Nhung, V. (2022). Metacognitive reading strategies used by English-majors at a university in Vietnam. VNU Journal of Foreign Studies, 38(5), 180–196. https://doi.org/10.25073/2525-2445/vnufs.4872

9) Nguyen, H. T. M., Phan, T. D. Q., & Le, M. D. (2019). Teachers’ professional learning in the context of language education reforms. Building Teacher Capacity in English Language Teaching in Vietnam, 1(1), 80–98.

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

11) Phan, T. L. A., Huynh, T. C., & Vo, V. V. (2023). An exploratory study of learning strategies differences between English majors and non-English majors. HNUE Journal of Science: Educational Sciences, 68(3), 17–30. https://doi.org/10.18173/2354-1075.2023-0058

12) Rubin, J. (1975). What the "good language learner" can teach us. TESOL Quarterly, 9(1), 41–51. https://doi.org/10.2307/3586011

13) Tham, D. (2020). First-year English majors’ use of autonomous learning strategies. VNU Journal of Science: Education Research, 36(3), 52–60. https://doi.org/10.25073/2588-1159/vnuer.4439

14) Thao, T., & Long, N. (2020). The use of self-regulated language learning strategies among Vietnamese English-majored freshmen: A case study. VNU Journal of Science: Education Research, 36(1), 50–63. https://doi.org/10.25073/2588-1159/vnuer.4331

15) Vo, V. V., Phan, T. L. A., & Huynh, T. C. (2023). Language learning strategies employed by non-English majors at Nong Lam University, Vietnam. Vietnam Journal of Education, 7(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.52296/vje.2023.248

16) Wong, L. L. C., & Nunan, D. (2011). The learning styles and strategies of effective language learners. System, 39(2), 144–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2011.05.004

Cite this Article:Le, D. V. (2026). Language Learning Strategy Deployment Among English and Non-English Majors: A Comparative Analysis at A Vietnamese University. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE HUMANITY & MANAGEMENT RESEARCHS, 5(6), 1705-1714. https://doi.org/10.58806/ijsshmr.2026.v5i6n38

VOlUME 05 ISSUE 06 June 2026