Background questionnaire

Another data collection instrument used in this study is a background questionnaire designed to determine the participants’ gender and length of English study, if any, outside of secondary and high school (see Appendix A, questions 7-14). While some questions regarding background were optional, such as questions about the student’s age, name, and previous place and method of English instruction, the questions regarding English learning experience and gender were compulsory so as to address research questions four and five (repeated above at the beginning of section 3.2) about the relationship between LLS use and these variables. The questionnaire was developed to be highly structured, so as to provide another form of quantifiable data which can be easily analysed and correlated with the LLS data. Thus, students could only choose between certain close-ended options, except for one open-ended question, the answer to which was not necessary for the data analysis but only of interest to create a more general understanding of the students’ English learning backgrounds and to inform the discussion of the results in Chapter 5. An example of two of the questions is given below. If the student answered “Yes” for question 12, question 13 would drop down. This question was specifically designed with five options so as to correlate with the five-point Likert scale of the SILL-V.

Figure 1. Example of SILL-V background question 12. Have you studied English outside of secondary/high school? Yes

No 13.

How long have you studied English outside of secondary/high school?

1) 0-6 months 2) 6-12 months 3) 1-2 years 4)2-4 years

54

3.3 Participants

As can be seen from previous research discussed in Chapter 2, numerous LLS investigations have been conducted in East Asia and South-East Asia. Many of these studies have been in tertiary EFL environments and many have analysed language performance or proficiency in terms of LLS use (see, for example, Mingyuan 2001; and Qingquan, Chatupote and Teo 2008). To this researcher’s knowledge, very few LLS investigations in tertiary EFL environments have been conducted in Vietnam. Nguyen’s (2009) study, mentioned in section 2.3.4, investigated the writing LLSs used by a small group of successful and less successful Vietnamese-speaking learners in Vietnam, while Khamkhien’s (2010) research involved Vietnamese-speaking university learners in Thailand. To this researcher’s knowledge, no studies analysing the relationship between students’ overall LLS use and language proficiency in Vietnam have been published to date. Thus, the choice of participants and setting for the research reported in this thesis should add original insights to the growing body of LLS research being conducted in countries across the world.

As previously mentioned, participants in this study were all students studying in a ten-week upper- intermediate course in the academic English pathways program at an international university in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. A vast majority of the students study in the English pathways program with the aim of entering the university’s tertiary programs, most of which offer business and finance degrees and diplomas. It is generally believed in Vietnam that the students who attend this university come from wealthy backgrounds, due to the high study fees and because scholarships and student loans are not common practises in Vietnam (Huynh 2012). To illustrate, the course fees for a ten- week EAP course at the university are nearly double the average annual income per capita in Vietnam, with many students completing three or four such courses a year before being eligible to enter the university diploma or degree programs (RMIT International University Vietnam 2012; and International Monetary Fund 2012). Through interviews with numerous students at this university regarding their reasons for studying here, DeBrot (2012) reported that, although perceptions are shifting, the Confucian paradigm of education still prevails. That is, high scores in exams are the key to future status and earning power. Furthermore, all of the interviewed students believed the primary reason for studying was to gain the relevant qualifications and skills to obtain high-earning

55

jobs, although other societal factors, such as family pressure and expectations, and practical considerations, such as chosen career type, were also mitigating factors.

Since the economic reforms brought about by the Vietnamese policy of Doi Moi (Renovation) of the late 1980s and early 1990s, English has been taught as a foreign language at secondary and high school level. Khamkhien (2010: 71) observes that English is the most common foreign language taught in Vietnam and “has become a passport to a better paid job ... in many enterprises”. This partly accounts for the proliferation of English language teaching centres throughout the country, especially in the capital city Hanoi and the economic capital of Ho Chi Minh City. Thus, it was expected that the majority of the students who participated in the study would have received English instruction in a formal educational setting from lower secondary school (grades six to nine) through high school (grades ten to twelve), as set out by the Vietnamese Ministry of Education and Training (2006). Some of the participants had received instruction in English from an earlier age, in a formal English learning setting at primary school (which students generally start at age six), by attending English centres, through private tutors, or by attending international schools with some of, or the entire, curriculum being provided in English.

In total, there were 102 participants in the study – with an even number of males (51) and females (51). The demographics related to gender and age are presented in Table 3.4. The average age of the 74 participants who reported their age (which was optional) was 19.43 years, with a maximum age of 26 and a minimum age of 18. The average age at which the participants in this study started learning English was 10.7 years, with a minimum age of four and a maximum age of 19.

56

Table 3.4 Participants’ age and gender (where indicated by participants) Gender Age N 40 Mean 19.58 Std. Deviation 1.500 Minimum 18 Male Maximum 26 N 34 Mean 19.26 Std. Deviation .666 Minimum 18 Female Maximum 21 N 74 Mean 19.43 Std. Deviation 1.195 Minimum 18 Total Maximum 26