CONCLUSION, DISCUSSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.2 DISCUSSIONS
5.1.2.2 All participants considered that English proficiency was positively correlated with English learning strategies, which was consistent with the analysis results of the SILL questionnaire. They believe that good English proficiency helps to master and use more learning strategies to help English learning.
5.1.2.3 Learning English in the Thai environment and culture seems to have significantly helped their English expression, listening and speaking. Compared with China, they have a more diverse social network, with more international students from different linguistic and cultural backgrounds. They also want to understand the culture and thinking logic behind the English language and acquire knowledge more comprehensively.
5.1.2.4 Individual personality also has an impact on English learning. It seems that cheerful and lively people prefer to express themselves, which is helpful for language expression and oral English, especially in the cross-cultural background, which is more conducive to their learning. For quiet people under the cross-cultural background, whether they are active or passive, they will have more opportunities to contact English. As long as they have a good attitude towards English learning and work hard, their learning will also help, but their progress will be slower.
“What are the Chinese students' engagements using Oxford’s Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) in English learning at Rangsit University, Thailand?”
According to the research, Chinese students in Rangsit University have a high frequency of using Oxford ’ s Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) in English learning. The lowest frequency was memories strategies, which were in the medium frequency, while other strategies were high. Compensation strategies were the most frequently used, followed by social, metacognitive, cognitive, and affective strategies. The findings aligned with Charoento (2016), who investigated 392 Thai undergraduates at a public university in Bangkok, Thailand. The findings showed that the strategies most used by learners were compensation strategies.
Furthermore, Rismayana (2017) reported that metacognitive strategies and social strategies were used with high frequency; Di Carlo (2016) studied the language learning strategies used by 69 students learning Spanish in the college teaching center, and the results showed that affective strategies and memory strategies were proved to be the least used, which is consistent with the results of this study. On the contrary, the results of this study also contradict some previous results (e.g. Rismayana, 2017;
Phusum & Sucaromana, 2020), which reported that compensation strategies were the least frequently used strategies. The researchers considered that when Chinese students learn English in a Thai environment, they have to communicate in English whether they want to or not and use gestures and body language to supplement their English expressions, thus increasing their use of compensatory and social strategies.
5.2.2 Responses to Research Question 2
“Is there any statistically significant mean difference in English proficiency across education level groups by Chinese students in English learning at Rangsit University, Thailand?”
Education level for English Proficiency level is significant at 0.05 level (F=4.815, P =0.012). The comparison result of average score of groups with obvious difference is "Doctor >bachelor"; Doctor > master ". To respond to the Research Question 2, different education level samples all show significant differences in English Proficiency level.
5.2.3 Responses to Research Question 3 and research hypothesis
“Are there any differences in using of six strategies of Oxford’s Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) for Chinese students in English learning at Rangsit University, Thailand?”
“The different English proficiency level Chinese students use Oxford’s Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) differently at Rangsit University, Thailand.”
The survey shows that there are differences in SILL among samples with different English levels. The results showed significant differences in language learning strategy use in SILL, Memory Strategies, Cognitive Strategies and Compensation Strategies. There were no significant differences in Metacognitive Strategies, Affective Strategies and Social Strategies. These findings are consistent with those of Rismayana (2017), who investigated the correlation between language learning strategies and language proficiency level among English department students at the Universitas Negeri Makassar (UNM) and concluded that there is a correlation between language learning strategies and language proficiency. Nevertheless, Rardprakhon (2016) compared language learning strategies used among English academic achievement levels by 163Thai engineering freshmen. The results showed no difference between language learning strategies and high, medium, and low achievers. Therefore, the researcher considered that language proficiency level could affect language learning strategies, but other factors may also affect it.
In order to supplement and expand the analysis results of the SILL questionnaire, the influence of context and individual personality on the use of
language learning strategies was briefly discussed in the interview. According to the interview results and the learning strategies in SILL, they also used the Internet to help them with their English learning. The use of the Internet has increased the popularity of English education or learning for all students. The use of the Internet provides more access to English learning materials. It allows students to interact with the content (Rardprakhon, 2016). The context in Thailand also has an impact on their English learning. Compared with China, they can use and contact English more.
Moreover, personality is also of great help to English learning, especially in the international context. A lively personality and like to communicate with people is very conducive to their English learning. Rardprakhon (2016) also believed that learning strategies do not function independently but are directly related to learners' potential learning styles and other variables related to learners' personalities.