Stem Students’ English Language Learning Strategies and Underlying Factors Pertaining to Open Distance Learning

Abstract

Background and Purpose: The COVID19 pandemic challenges on learning necessitate the understanding of students’ Language Learning Strategies (LLS). Studies on science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) students’ English LLS is scarce. The objectives of the study are to examine the LLS employed by STEM students learning English as a second language (ESL) in a public university (PU) in Malaysia and to investigate the LLS underlying factors pertaining to the open distance learning (ODL).
 
 Methodology: This study was designed as survey research, employing the quantitative approach to gather data. The Strategy Inventory of Language Learning (SILL) questionnaire was administered to 250 engineering undergraduates as respondents, who were chosen using a purposive sampling method. Data were analyzed descriptively using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 21.0. The Principal Component Analysis (PCA) with varimax rotation was conducted to determine the construct validity. PCA appropriateness was suggested by the inter-item correlation.
 
 Findings: The compensation, metacognitive and cognitive learning strategies were the most frequently used strategies while the memory and affective strategies were the least. The PCA added vital information like the memory strategy corresponds to the metacognitive strategy. The cognitive strategy concept of ‘practice,’ may demand a revisit to some traditional grammar learning methods. There are also demands for social-emotional factors to be considered. ODL has imposed bigger demands too.
 
 Contributions: The findings may assist ESL educators to boost STEM students’ self-monitoring behavior, to plan and coordinate their own learning process. PCA’s ‘Self-Awareness’ concept revealed that policy makers need to conduct more training to ensure executions run smoothly.
 
 Keywords: English, Language Learning Strategies (LLS), Open Distance Learning (ODL), Science Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM).
 
 Cite as: Nurul Jannah, A. G., Tengku Intan Suzila, T. S., & Zainurin, A. R. (2022). STEM students’ English learning strategies and underlying factors in relation to issues in open distance learning. Journal of Nusantara Studies, 7(2), 81-102. http://dx.doi.org/10.24200/jonus.vol7iss2pp81-102

Language Learning Strategies Used by Malaysian ESL Students to Improve English Communication: A Systematic Literature Review

“…An additional noteworthy discovery reveals that metacognitive strategies are being utilised more frequently by male students than by female students (Sani & Ismail, 2021). In the context of further research, the findings of studies conducted by Othman et al (2022), Zamani et al (2023), Dawi and Hashim (2022), Ghulamuddin et al (2022), Jais et al (2022), Kamaruzaman et al (2023), Zahidi and Ong (2023), Ramalingam et al (2022), Vimalakshan and Aziz (2021), Chanderan and Hashim (2022) collectively suggest that people tend to use more metacognitive and cognitive techniques than social and affective strategies.…”

“…In terms of study design, most of the reviewed studies are quantitative in nature using survey questionnaires (n = 16) (Adan & Hashim, 2021;Aziz & Shah, 2020;Chanderan & Hashim, 2022;Dawi & Hashim, 2022;Omar et al, 2020;Ghulamuddin et al, 2022;Hanafiah et al, 2021;Jais et al, 2022;John et al, 2021;Lim et al, 2021;Min et al, 2021;Nair et al, 2021;Ooi et al, 2021;Sani & Ismail, 2021;Vimalakshan & Aziz, 2021;Zamani et al, 2023) The qualitative studies (n = 6) comprise of literature review (Aziz & Kashinathan, 2021;Kathirvel & Hashim, 2020;Kehing & Yunus, 2021;Ramalingam et al, 2022), focus group interview (Othman et al, 2022), interview, and observation (Zahidi & Ong, 2023). Meanwhile, only one study (n = 1) uses a mixed-methods approach in study design (Kamaruzaman et al, 2023).…”

Language Learning Strategies Used by ESL/EFL Learners: A Systematic Review (2019 – 2023)

“…Freshmen students (Chanderan & Hashim, 2022) Malaysian Engineering students (Ali, 2022;Ghulamuddin et al, 2022) Prep Year Turkish EFL students (Ates & Yayli, 2022) Non-English Chinese Students (Zhang et al, 2019) Pre-undergraduates & Pre-Masters Bangladeshi EFL students (Aktar & Strong, 2019) Saudi Arabian EFL learners (Al-Khaza'leh, 2019: Rahman, 2020Almusharraf & Bailey, 2021) 7 Thai & Vietnam EFL students (Tieocharoen & Rimkeeratikul, 2019) Thai EFL students (Pongsukvajchakul, 2021;Sukying, 2021) Taiwan EFL students (Berg et al, 2021) Turkish EFL students (Tomak & Seferoğlu, 2021) Peru EFL students (Fernandez Marpartida, 2021) Chilean EFL students (Montaño-González & Cancino, 2020) Indonesian EFL students (Daflizar et al, 2022) Freshmen medical Palestinian EFL students (Shehadeh & Dwaik, 2022) Chinese students at Thai university as EFL learners (Zou & Lertlit, 2022) Algerian EFL Master's students (Ziani, 2022) Spanish EFL students (Zambrana, 2020) Others ( 1…”

Jordanian English language educators’ perceived readiness for virtual learning environment

“…Consequently, professional development emerges as a paramount priority in equipping educators with the requisite knowledge and skills to adapt to the transformed landscape of learning, where the roles of both learners and teachers have undergone profound shifts. This transformation in pedagogy has been acknowledged as a cornerstone within the realm of language teaching and the professional development of language educators [ 14 ].…”