The favored language learning strategies of Islamic university EFL learners

Abstract

Despite the existence of many studies about language learning strategies (LLS) around the world, little work has been reported on the LLS use of Islamic university students from a qualitative perspective. Thus, to fill this empirical gap, this study is aimed to explore the LLS use and choice by learners studying at an Islamic university in Indonesia. This study employed a qualitative approach by interviewing 18 learners who would become teachers of English as a Foreign Language (EFL). They have been interviewed about the ways or strategies when they are learning English. The data gained from the interviews were analyzed by thematic analysis. The findings demonstrated that learners reported using the strategies which are classified into six LLS categories (memory, cognitive, compensation, metacognitive, affective, and social strategies) in learning English. However, most strategies reported by the learners were categorized into metacognitive strategies. Another significant finding is that several strategies such as practicing strategies (practicing four language skills; listening, speaking, reading, and writing), watching TV/ English Movies, memorizing, and using the internet were mostly reported by learners in improving their English skills. This study is beneficial for the classroom practice of teachers in enhancing their teaching methodology by knowing learners’ learning strategies to make it easier for the teachers to design the learning activities. Furthermore, this study is also beneficial for novice EFL learners in which the strategies in this study could be models for them.

Full text

47 | Studies in English Language and Education, 8(1), 47-64, 2021
P-ISSN 2355-2794
E-ISSN 2461-0275
The Favored Language Learning
Strategies of Islamic University EFL
Learners
Alfian*
English Education Department, Graduate Program, Universitas Islam Negeri Sulthan
Thaha Saifuddin Jambi, Jambi 36124, INDONESIA
Abstract
Despite the existence of many studies about language learning strategies (LLS)
around the world, little work has been reported on the LLS use of Islamic
university students from a qualitative perspective. Thus, to fill this empirical gap,
this study is aimed to explore the LLS use and choice by learners studying at an
Islamic university in Indonesia. This study employed a qualitative approach by
interviewing 18 learners who would become teachers of English as a Foreign
Language (EFL). They have been interviewed about the ways or strategies when
they are learning English. The data gained from the interviews were analyzed by
thematic analysis. The findings demonstrated that learners reported using the
strategies which are classified into six LLS categories (memory, cognitive,
compensation, metacognitive, affective, and social strategies) in learning
English. However, most strategies reported by the learners were categorized into
metacognitive strategies. Another significant finding is that several strategies
such as practicing strategies (practicing four language skills; listening, speaking,
reading, and writing), watching TV/ English Movies, memorizing, and using the
internet were mostly reported by learners in improving their English skills. This
study is beneficial for the classroom practice of teachers in enhancing their
teaching methodology by knowing learners’ learning strategies to make it easier
for the teachers to design the learning activities. Furthermore, this study is also
beneficial for novice EFL learners in which the strategies in this study could be
models for them.
Keywords: Learning strategies, EFL, language learners, language skills,
practicing.
* Corresponding author, email: alfian@uinjambi.ac.id
Citation in APA style: Alfian. (2021). The favored language learning strategies of Islamic university
EFL learners. Studies in English Language and Education, 8(1), 47-64.
Received August 27, 2020; Revised November 30, 2020; Accepted December 4, 2020; Published
Online January 3, 2021
https://doi.org/10.24815/siele.v8i1.17844

Alfian, The favored language learning strategies of Islamic University EFL Learners | 48
1. INTRODUCTION
Research has confirmed that the success of language learning is significantly
impacted by the factors associated mostly with the learners themselves (Lamb, 2004;
Rubin et al., 1982). Rubin et al. (1982) emphasize that “you, the language learner, are
the most important factor in language learning” (p. 1). This assertion emphasizes the
significant role of the learners in finding their way by developing positive attitudes to
learning, and thus be successful learners. These positive ways or attitudes of the
learners are best identified via their choices and use of language learning strategies
(LLS), which, in turn, are defined as the behaviors, ways, steps, or actions taken by
learners to enhance their learning of another language (Chamot, 2004; Cohen, 2011;
Grainger, 2012; Griffiths, 2003; Oxford, 1990, 2016). Research has constantly shown
that varieties and appropriate choice and use of LLS assist learners to be successful,
independent language learners (Griffiths, 2003; Ni et al., 2008; Rubin, 1987; Yılmaz,
2010).
Since LLS is considered as one of the critical factors affecting learning outcomes
and success in language learning, it likewise develops independent learners. Experts
in language learning have been investigating the strategies used by language learners
for several decades around the world (Gerami & Baighlou, 2011; Habók & Magyar,
2018; Lin et al., 2017; Park, 2005; Rao, 2016; Thomas & Rose, 2018). Within the
Indonesian context of EFL learning, several studies of LLS (Alfian, 2016; Alfian,
2018; Annurahman et al., 2013; Hapsari, 2019; Lengkanawati, 2004; Mattarima &
Hamdan, 2011; Mistar, 2001; Santihastuti, & Wahjuningsih, 2019; Setiyadi, 2004;
Wahyuni, 2013; Yusuf, 2012) have been conducted. These studies have provided a
useful contribution to the body of knowledge related to language learning within the
Indonesian context. However, most studies reported above focused on the quantitative
design in which the data was collected through a survey using the Strategy Inventory
for Language Learning (SILL) questionnaire. LLS use and choice of students from the
qualitative approach has not received widespread attention from language learning
strategy researchers in Indonesia, particularly concerning prospective English
language teachers of Islamic Universities. Moreover, there have been insufficient
studies that explore Islamic university EFL learners. The majority of studies on LLS
have focused on junior and senior high school students (Alfian, 2016; Amir, 2018;
Mistar & Umamah, 2014; Pradita, & Nindita, 2019). In filling these gaps, this present
paper documents the use and choice of LLS from the qualitative perspective of 18
prospective English language teachers at an Islamic university context in Indonesia.
Specifically, this study has attempted to find the answers to the following
research questions:
1. What categories of language learning strategies are mostly used by students in
improving their English?
2. What specific strategies are mostly chosen by students in improving their English?
This current study is expected to fill up the gap in the previous studies since the
findings may provide a deeper understanding of how learners experienced English
learning. Knowing the way or strategies of the learners will make it easier for teachers
to design the learning activities to meet the need of the learners.

49 | Studies in English Language and Education, 8(1), 47-64, 2021
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Defining Language Learning Strategies (LLS)
Most experts agree that the term of LLS represents steps or actions or ways taken
by learners to enhance their learning of another language (e.g., Chamot, 2004; Cohen,
2011; Griffiths, 2003; Oxford, 1990, 2016). Therefore, language learning strategies
can be defined as the ways, actions, or steps used consciously by students when
learning a language in order to be able to use the language. LLS represents one of the
most significant aspects of language learning “especially important for language
learning because they are tools for active, self-directed movement, which is essential
for developing communicative competence” (Oxford, 1990, p. 1).
LLS also helps learners to “facilitate the acquisition, storage, retrieval or use of
information and increase self-confidence” (Khosravi, 2012, p. 2123). Thus, it is closely
related to successful learning (Grenfell & Macaro, 2007). Research on LLS has shown
that using and choosing appropriate learning strategies improve potentially overall
achievement or improvement in a specific skill area and language proficiency (Ni et
al., 2008; Rubin, 1987). In addition, employing specific LLS will help the learners to
accomplish their language learning goals (Norton, 2016). Finally, a productive
student-centered learning environment can be created by using LLS (Gursoy, 2010).
This learning environment would encourage students to be independent or autonomous
learners – learners who are taking control of their learning (Benson, 2011; Dickinson,
1995; Yurdakul, 2017).
2.2 LLS Category
Given the importance of LLS, experts in language learning strategies have
achieved the classification of LLS in many ways, and there is no agreement on one
classification. Rubin (1987) categorized learning strategies into three types, these
types, in turn, affect learning both directly and indirectly and are consequently referred
to as direct and indirect strategies. Rubin (1987) has categorized cognitive and
metacognitive as direct strategies but has categorized communication and social
strategies as indirect strategies. These strategies were then developed by Oxford
(1990). However, Ellis (1994) has differentiated only two types of language learning
strategies. First, some strategies that focus on a learner’s mastery of the linguistic
content of the target language, similar to cognitive strategies. Second, some strategies
that focus on the learner’s developing communicative competence as a skilled speaker,
reader, and writer are supported via metacognitive strategies, such as consciously
searching for practice opportunities. These categories are different from those of
Chamot and O’Malley (1994) and Chamot (2004) who categorize LLS into three
groups, metacognitive strategies, cognitive strategies, and social/affective strategies.
Another category that is used mostly in current research is a category proposed
by Oxford (1990). Like the category proposed by Rubin, Oxford has placed the
strategies into two categories, namely, direct and indirect strategies. However, there is
a difference between Oxford’s and Rubin’s direct strategies. Oxford divided direct
strategies into three sub-strategies, namely memory strategies, cognitive strategies, and
compensation strategies, while Rubin’s direct strategies consist of cognitive and

Alfian, The favored language learning strategies of Islamic University EFL Learners | 50
metacognitive. Indirect strategies are divided into three sub-strategies, namely
metacognitive strategies, affective strategies, and social strategies (see Figure 1).
Figure 1. The classification of LLS (adapted from Oxford, 1990, p. 16).
If Oxford’s model is compared with that of Chamot and O’Malley (1994), it is
noticeable that the social/affective strategies of Chamot & O’Malley (1994) originated
from two categories of Oxford: affective and social. Oxford has also added more
strategies in these two categories. Oxford’s (1990) classification provided more
comprehensive strategies (Chang, 2011; Ellis, 1994) and the strategies are elaborated
clearly, in greater detail (Tamada, 1996). This LLS classification has been employed
for three decades, and the strategy category is still used until today (Griffiths &
Incecay, 2016; Oxford, 2016; Shawer, 2016). According to Habók & Magyar (2018),
Oxford has revisited the strategy categories by developing them into four strategy
categories: metastrategies, cognitive, affective, and sociocultural-interactive. The
metastrategies are divided into metacognitive, meta-affective, and meta-sociocultural-
interactive strategies (Griffith & Oxford, 2014; Oxford, 2016). However, Oxford did
not provide a detailed explanation of the new strategy classification. Therefore, the
current study on LLS relied on the original taxonomy of LLS (Habók & Magyar,
2018), which has been used as the basis for the Strategy Inventory for Language
Learning (SILL) questionnaire. This SILL has been widely employed by researchers
around the world (Alfian, 2018; Alhaysony, 2017; Fithriyah et al., 2019; Santihastuti
& Wahjuningsih, 2019; Suwanarak, 2019).
2.3 Studies on LLS
Studies on the use of the six noted categories of LLS using SILL around the
world displayed different results in accordance with the contexts of the studies.
Muniandy and Shuib (2016) found that metacognitive strategies were used at the
highest frequency among the other five strategies when they conducted a study in
Malaysia. Similarly, Javid et al. (2013) who conducted a study at a Saudi Arabia
university found that metacognitive strategies were the most used. This finding
supported Radwan’s (2011) study at Sultan Qaboos University in Oman, wherein it
was noted that metacognitive strategies were the most used. According to Oxford
(1990), this favored use of metacognitive strategies indicated autonomous learners -
the leaners who can manage and control their own learning (Benson, 2011; Dickinson,
1995; Gursoy, 2010) and student-centered learning in which participants were guided
by the skills of arranging, planning, monitoring and evaluating (Oxford, 1990).

51 | Studies in English Language and Education, 8(1), 47-64, 2021
Another study demonstrated that students also chose additional strategies that
assisted with their learning. For example, Alhaysony (2017) who undertook a study in
Saudi Arabia, found that cognitive (translating and analyzing) strategies were used at
a high frequency by the learners. Similarly, Suwanarak (2019) who conducted a study
in Thailand also found that the learners used cognitive strategies as the most, which
shows that learners choose these strategies when dealing with learning activities and
new information. While Lan (2005) found that the participants used affective strategies
at a high-frequency level, indicating that this strategy category was often used. Another
study by Park (2005) also found that Korean learners were in favor of compensation
strategies, and this was similar to Yang (2007) who conducted a similar study in Korea.
The high use of compensation strategies indicated that learners liked guessing,
rephrasing, and using gestures in their learning process (Muniandy & Shuib, 2016).
Within the Indonesian context of LLS studies, most previous studies have argued
that the use of memory strategies among the Indonesian learners was at high frequency
(Lengkanawati, 2004; Setiyadi, 2004). Current studies on LLS have a very contrasting
view of what has been argued by Lengkanawati (2004) and Setiyadi (2004). Most of
the current studies within the Indonesian context found that metacognitive strategies
were mostly employed by the learners (Alfian, 2018; Annurahman et al., 2013;
Mattarima & Hamdan, 2011; Santihastuti & Wahjuningsih, 2019). Mattarima and
Hamdan (2011), who undertook a study on LLS by surveying 170 high school students
in Indonesia, found that the learners used metacognitive strategies at a high frequency,
and memory, cognitive, compensation, affective, and social strategies were at a
medium frequency, with compensation strategies the least used.
In another study, Annurahman et al. (2013) investigated the LLS use of 201
college students learning English by using SILL. They found that the uses of
metacognitive strategies were at a high frequency and memory strategies were the least
used. This finding is similar to Alfian (2018) who found that successful learners
employ metacognitive strategies while unsuccessful learners are indicated to use
affective strategies. Similarly, Santihastuti and Wahjuningsih (2019) found that the
most frequent strategy used by successful learners were metacognitive strategies which
means that successful learners can plan their learning, have clear goals, control,
review, and evaluate their own learning. These findings contrasted greatly with the
statement that Indonesian learners often use memory strategies. A study by Yusuf
(2012) found that Indonesian learners were eager to practice and communicate and use
a variety of strategies, such as watching movies, practicing, memorizing, listening to
the radio, and reading books (Gani et al., 2015).
All of the LLS studies above reported the results of the study from the
quantitative study using SILL as the instrument of data collection. Several studies
using SILL indicated similar findings, while some other studies demonstrated different
findings. This means that there are inconsistent findings related to the LLS choice
among the participants. Thus, it is very urgent to undertake a qualitative study to
compare the findings with the quantitative one. Moreover, because LLS is dynamic
and complex, a qualitative approach is considered to be more appropriate in doing a
study on LLS (Nguyen & Terry, 2017). This current study provides the language
learning strategy from the qualitative side by investigating the most favorable
strategies use and choice among EFL learners at an Islamic university. More
specifically, it investigates the most favorable strategies used by prospective English
teachers.

Alfian, The favored language learning strategies of Islamic University EFL Learners | 52
3. METHOD
3.1 Research Design
The purposes of this study are to explore LLS categories reported by students in
improving their English and also to explore the specific strategies that are mostly
chosen by students in improving their English. Thus, this research employed a
qualitative approach. A qualitative design was employed because LLS is dynamic and
complex in nature, and the qualitative approach is considered to be more appropriate
in conducting a study on LLS (Nguyen & Terry, 2017). The qualitative approach was
used to get a deeper understanding of the LLS used (Mukminin et al., 2018).
3.2 Participants
There were 18 participants who are prospective English teachers that
participated in this study. The participants were chosen purposefully from an Islamic
university in Jambi, Indonesia. They were selected based on the assumption that they
were knowledgeable about the ways and strategies in learning English because they
have studied English for years. It is commonly assumed that the longer the learners
learn English, the more strategies were developed.
3.3 Instruments and Procedures of Data Collection
The instrument used to collect the data was the interview guide. The guide for
developing the interview questions was based on the theory of LLS in general and the
relevant literature. The interview was conducted face to face, which allowed the
researcher to motivate each respondent and to clarify the information from the
respondents in more detail (McMillan & Schumacher, 2006). The interview was
conducted in the Indonesian language (Bahasa Indonesia) to allow participants to
express their ideas clearly, and it was conducted in the researcher’s office within the
university grounds. Each interview lasted approximately 30 minutes and was digitally
recorded. The interviews started with a light conversation about the participants’
studies. This was to make the participants feel more comfortable (Cohen, 2011).
3.4 Data Analysis
The interviews consisted of data related to the strategies that the students had
used. These data were analyzed by following the three main steps: data analysis
preparation, main data analysis, and reporting of the data analysis (Creswell, 2012;
Creswell & Clark, 2011; Ivankova & Stick, 2007). The first step was data analysis
preparation. The participants’ interviews were transcribed; the transcripts were then
sent to each participant for confirmation of their comments and responses; the
procedure, thus represented through member checking (Creswell, 2012; Lincoln &
Guba, 1985). This was done to maintain the validity of the study (Creswell, 2012;
Meriam, 2009). After conducting the member checking, the transcripts of the interview
were translated into English for the main analysis.
The second step was the main analysis. The transcripts were analyzed by using
“inductive and deductive” analysis (Patton, 2002, p. 453). In the inductive analysis,

53 | Studies in English Language and Education, 8(1), 47-64, 2021
the researcher employed open coding (Patton, 2002; Saldana, 2009; Strauss & Corbin,
1998) for obtaining the words/phrases that indicated LLS usage; this was done by
developing a matrix table as a codebook
After conducting inductive analysis, deductive analysis, which involved
analyzing the data according to the framework of the study (Patton, 2002; Yin, 2014)
was carried out. In this step, all the LLS codes were further analyzed using Oxford’s
LLS Taxonomy, given that it represented the framework of this study. Thus, in the
deductive stage, the table matrix of Oxford’s Taxonomy of LLS was developed.
The third step of data analysis was to report the results of the analysis. In
reporting the analysis results, the verbatim quotes from the interview were included in
order to provide a “rich and thick description” (Creswell, 2003, p. 196). The quotes or
excerpts from the interviews were used to emphasize or illustrate the learners’ rationale
in choosing the strategies. The quotes of phrases or sentences were incorporated into
the analysis to characterize the individual responses and to highlight the participants’
general views.
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Use of Strategies by the Learners
The participants reported that they use a wide variety of language learning
strategies when learning English. The analysis of the interviews demonstrated that
overall, approximately 59 strategies were used. These strategies have been categorized
into six main headings as per the LLS taxonomy, summarized in Figure 1. These
findings are significant because it provides evidence that the participants used a wide
variety of strategies. These variations reported in the interviews were an indication that
the participants were aware of many strategies for learning English.
Figure 2. The number of strategies emerging from interviews.
As can be seen from Figure 1, two of the essential strategy categories, namely,
cognitive and metacognitive, were reported by most participants. This shows that
metacognitive and cognitive strategies were a major focus for them. In contrast with
517 718 75
59
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Number of Strategies in Each Category

Alfian, The favored language learning strategies of Islamic University EFL Learners | 54
the metacognitive and cognitive strategy categories, social and memory strategy
categories were reported to be the least used. Social and memory strategies reflected
similar numbers of strategy items. For example, the social strategies category, relating
to how learners coped when interacting with other learners or other English speakers,
was only reflected in the five strategies from this category, as reported in the
interviews.
Similar to social strategies, the memory strategies category, relating to how
learners stored and retrieved information related to the new language, demonstrated
that only five strategies emerged from the interviews. Compensation and affective
strategy use categories also revealed similar numbers in the interview data.
Compensation strategies, which enabled learners to overcome limited knowledge,
were only revealed in seven key strategies. Similarly, affective strategies, relating to
student feelings when learning a new language, were only revealed in seven key
strategies.
As elaborated above, a wide variety of preferred strategy use was evident in the
interview data. This demonstrated that the participants in this study were active
strategy users; these results also indicated that the participants’ positions as
prospective English teachers make them aware of the importance of English (Alfian,
2018). Besides a wide variety of strategies, the participants reported strategy items that
are connected to all six of the identified strategy categories, with the metacognitive
category revealing the highest number of users. The findings of the current study were
consistent with the findings of several previous studies (e.g. Alfian, 2018; Alnujaidi,
2017; Annurahman et al., 2013; Fithriyah et al., 2019; Habók & Magyar, 2018) which
also indicated that metacognitive strategies were the most frequently used by the
learners. This shows that the learners highlighted skill in the overall management of
the learning process. This included strategies such as planning, thinking, monitoring,
and evaluating in learning (Griffith, 2003; Oxford, 1990).
4.2 Choice of Strategies by the Learners
4.2.1 Practicing
Practicing English skills (speaking, listening, reading, and writing) was a
strategy reported by all participants. One of the most popular practice strategies,
reported by all participants, was related to practicing speaking skills. This strategy was
deemed popular because it related well to the participants’ perceptions of the important
function of language as communication. Participants felt that language needed to be
practiced orally. The other reason why ‘practicing speaking’ was reported by most
participants was its relationship to additional, diverse ways of practicing speaking. The
participants reported that there are many ways in which they practiced their speaking.
They practiced their speaking with their peers, face to face or by using electronic
devices, such as mobile phones; they communicated with their teachers in the
classroom, or they engaged in conversations with native speakers. For example, the
participant practiced his speaking skills by making conversation with friends, face to
face, and by conversing with his teacher; he also used English when he spoke to friends
on the telephone.

55 | Studies in English Language and Education, 8(1), 47-64, 2021
The following is an excerpt from the interview with the participant (I refers to
Interviews and P refers to Participant).
I1 “I am a person who is brave to start speaking. If I make a mistake, I pretend not to know, or I just
ignore it. I like people who like to practice English like my friend, AL. I ask him to speak English.
I try my ability. I also speak English with my lecturers like Ms. AM. If I speak English with more
proficient people, if I make mistakes in speaking, she can correct my English. For example, I say
pree for free. So, I know my mistake in pronouncing the word”. (P1)
This participant has indicated that she kept speaking, even if she made mistakes.
She was not afraid of making mistakes when speaking. She believed that mistakes
could help her learning by raising awareness of spelling and/or pronunciation. In
adopting this approach, she was using a combination of affective strategies that
included encouraging her to take risks. Besides, the use of ‘practice strategies’ was
considered an excellent way to identify grammatical mistakes when using language.
This participant can be categorized as a good language learner who was not inhibited
and was willing to initiate conversation and take risks in conversation (Rubin, 1975).
Although the participant in I1 demonstrates that she was brave enough to speak
English, she was, however, an exception. Most of the participants in this study declared
that they were not brave enough to start a conversation in English because they felt
shy and worried that their friends might laugh at them if they made any mistakes. This
finding again confirmed a previous finding within the Indonesian context, which
indicated that Indonesian learners are shy about practicing their English (Exley, 2005;
Lengkanawati, 2004; Suryanto, 2013).
Another practicing strategy is ‘practicing listening’. It was an important strategy
because it encompassed other important sub-strategies in language learning, such as
‘using resources strategies’, ‘watching TV’, ‘listening to the radio’, and ‘identifying
different kinds of listening material strategies’. For example, participants listened to
songs and conversations; they watched movies via YouTube or TV, and these
strategies helped improve their listening. They also found listening materials via the
use of media resources that could be downloaded from the internet. Below is a sample
excerpt from an interview that indicated the use of media.
I2 “I start listening to the English conversation in the podcast that I download them from (the)
internet. I also often listen to the radio, which has a humor program in (on) it. It is very often that
there is a tip for improving our conversation in (on) the radio, so I like it very much...”. (P7)
The excerpt in I2 demonstrates how listening skill development can be
accommodated using media, be it via iPods or listening to the radio, as well as the
internet. This language learning could be categorized through authentic learning
materials for ESL (English as a Second Language) (Rao, 2006).
‘Practicing reading’ was also a strategy item reported by most of the participants.
Although reading is listed in the metacognitive strategy category in the SILL, it is also
a strategy that describes a plan for including reading practice. As such, it can also be
categorized as a cognitive strategy, given that it involves practicing via reading online,
and includes reading magazines and newspapers. Two examples from the data have
provided evidence of participant engagement in the reading of different kinds of
materials, including newspapers, books, or comics.

Alfian, The favored language learning strategies of Islamic University EFL Learners | 56
I3 “For improving reading, I read the book loudly at home. I like to read a linguistics book for difficult
ones. But, reading for enjoyment, I often read comics. I read comics online or through the
internet...”. (P1)
I4 “Reading, I said that I mostly read English books and I also like to read novels, comics or any
other materials written in English or English lesson books that can improve my English, but I think
the one which helps me improve my English is (a) storybook. I also often read newspapers, such
as The Jakarta Post…”. (P4)
The last practicing language skill is ‘practicing writing’ which has proved
another popular strategy link reported by most participants. The participants noted
practicing their writing through diary entries, written messages, and email messages
in English when chatting with friends; this included participation via social media. The
data have indicated that this strategy was vital because it helped implement a variety
of activities that provided enjoyable learning:
I5 “I like to tell my story in the diary. I also like to write important events in the diary”. (P8)
The practice strategies elaborated above represent the most reported strategies.
This cognitive strategy category included strategies related to how students acquired
knowledge and produced a new language (Griffith, 2003; Oxford, 1990). The practice
strategy has proven significant because it is one of the sub-strategies in the cognitive
category, thereby supporting the findings of other studies in which “practicing the
sound of English, practicing reading, practicing with other students” were likewise
noted in the SILL strategies used. These strategies were all used at a high-frequency
level (Alfian, 2016; Alfian, 2018; Annurahman et al., 2013; Gani et al., 2015). These
findings are essential because practicing is one of the characteristics of good language
learners, according to Rubin (1975). Rubin et al. (1982) also found that good language
learners find opportunities to practice and they practice a lot. Practicing is an important
part of many learning activities, such as speaking with peers, reading books, writing
in English, and listening to the radio (Oxford, 1990). Furthermore, the ‘practicing
strategy’ use, identified in this study, is also important because it was reported by most
participants, thereby supporting the findings of Amir (2018), and Pradita and Nindita
(2019). Yang (2007) emphasized that through practicing the learners become familiar
with the strategies.
4.2.2 Watching TV and movies
‘Watching TV and movies’ were visual strategies, also reported by most
participants. Eight participants said that they focused on visual learning aids in the
cognitive strategy category. This strategy finding is important because watching TV
or movies not only improve participant knowledge of English in general, in the realms
of vocabulary, listening, and pronunciation, but it also provides entertainment via an
interesting way of learning about the culture of English-speaking countries.
In this study, many participants reported that watching movies helped improve
their vocabulary and listening comprehension, as well as their pronunciation.
Illustrations of the participant’s voice, concerning the efficacy of this strategy, are:
I6 “I watch English movies, and I watch the same movie many times, and I try to find the difficult
word, I write in my bedroom, toilet, door and I memorize them…”. (P3)

57 | Studies in English Language and Education, 8(1), 47-64, 2021
This finding is similar to Gani et al. (2015) who found that practicing was the
most often used by learners. The high use of this strategy, in this study, is also similar
to the findings of Lunt (2000) and Parmawati and Inayah (2019). They argued that
learners improved their learning skills, especially pronunciation, by watching TV.
Luckily, nowadays, watching TV and watching movies can be done via both
technology and media, thereby making the strategy more available and more
accessible. This is also confirmed in the high use of the internet by all participants in
this study (for using the internet strategy below).
4.2.3 Using the Internet
‘Using the internet’ is one of the key strategies, mostly reported by the
participants in the LLS findings. ‘Using the internet’ was viewed as an important
strategy, in the context of this study, because it covered many other strategies and it
has proved most popular in recent times, as a new media option. Many strategies are
associated with using the internet, such as ‘downloading material from websites’,
‘practicing listening online’, and ‘watching movies.’ One of the most used strategies
reported was ‘watching movies’, as presented above. Access to this strategy was also
available through the internet.
Another popular strategy, ‘downloading English material’, was also accessible
via the internet. There were many kinds of English materials that could be downloaded
from the internet, such as podcasts, reading materials, and test materials for exercise
practice. Below are excerpts from the interviews.
I7 “I always download (the) audio from the British Council website. From this material, I listen to it.
At the beginning, I use (a) script, and I listen again without using (the) script”. (P4)
Another strategy that could be accessed through the internet was ‘practicing
listening online’. For example, P6 practiced her listening on a certain website. Below
is a relevant excerpt from the interview.
I8 “I like browsing the internet. There are a lot of sites for us to practice our listening. There is a
facility that we can play and record and answer the questions. I like to do that one (play and
record)”. (P6)
The popularity of the use of the internet for practicing listening was further
supported as the most used strategy, ‘practicing listening’, as presented in section
Practicing (practicing listening above).
Besides the strategies associated with internet use in findings, using the internet
was the most used strategy for many participants in this study. These, in turn, have
validated the findings of other studies in which strategies relating to the internet were
identified at the high-frequency use level. This is because the internet has been
classified as a way to provide an array of means and it brings a huge change to learning
(Ming et al., 2012) whereby language learners can improve their language learning
through authentic learning materials for ESL (Rao, 2006).

Alfian, The favored language learning strategies of Islamic University EFL Learners | 58
4.2.4 Guessing meaning
‘Guessing the meaning’ proved a popular strategy used by the participants. This
strategy is also an “overcoming limitation strategy”, a sub-strategy in the
compensation strategy category that participants used before using a dictionary. The
guessing strategy has been considered useful because it allowed participants to
overcome any existing, limited knowledge of vocabulary, especially in reading by
guessing the meaning of unknown words or vocabulary. In guessing the meaning of
unknown words, this strategy combined with other sub-strategies, such as ‘using
context clues’ - ‘looking at the word before or after the unknown word or looking at
the rest of the sentence’ - ‘avoiding translating word by word’ in comprehending the
text. For example, the following participants have noted using context clues when
guessing the word meaning and this was done by looking at the previous sentence or
by developing an understanding of the gist:
I9 “If there is (a) difficult word that I do not understand in (the) reading, I look at the previous
sentence. I do not look up the meaning directly, but I try to guess the meaning. However, if we
cannot guess it or I really do not know the meaning, then we need to look it up in the dictionary.
But I try to relate the word with the previous or the last sentence, so (that) we can know the
meaning”. (P4)
I10 “I often read paragraph by paragraph, one or two paragraphs, and I translate it. We do not translate
word by word. It will make the meaning different. So, we translate by trying to match with the
sentence or using context clues because English has many meanings”. (P15)
These participants tried to understand the meaning of the words by avoiding
word-by-word translation. They used context clues by looking at the previous sentence
or by gauging the gist, which is categorized as compensation strategies. This has been
confirmed by the finding of studies using SILL in which guessing was often used with
high frequency to assist with understanding unfamiliar words (Alfian, 2018).
Similarly, this finding supported the finding of the study by Yang (2007), who found
that the learners often employed compensation strategies. The high use of
compensation strategies indicated that learners like guessing, rephrasing, and using
gestures in their learning process (Muniandy & Shuib, 2016). This also shows that the
participants in this study have emulated the characteristics of good readers who “rely
on contextual clues (preceding or following context), vocabulary analysis, and
grammar, to interpret unknown words” (Cohen, 1991, p. 116).
4.2.5 Memorizing
‘Memorizing’ is one of the strategies in the memory category that was reported
by nine participants who used these strategies. There are several reasons why this
strategy proved very important and why a number of participants employed it. A
possible explanation for using this memorization strategy is that the participants use
‘memorization’ via a multipurpose approach; this includes rote memorization and
keeping words in mind more effectively by making combinations with other strategies.
For example, P3 used ‘memorizing’ strategies to learn new vocabulary. This
participant reported that he found vocabulary easier to remember if he watched
movies; this approach enabled him to look for the meaning of words in the movie
dialogue and the visual actions; this outcome, in turn, helped him understand. Besides,

59 | Studies in English Language and Education, 8(1), 47-64, 2021
he used a rote memorization technique so that he could remember the new vocabulary.
This meant that this participant used three of the identified strategies, namely,
‘watching movies’, ‘writing vocabulary’, and ‘rote memorization’, and these, in turn,
were a combination of memory and cognitive strategies. P33 had the following points
to make about the use of these strategies:
I11 “I watch English movies, and I watch the same movie several times, and I try to find the difficult
words. I write in my bedroom; toilet door and I memorize them”. (P3)
Another reason given by the participants for using memorization strategies was
related to the learning context; as learners, they found that memorization improved
confidence. The participants cited in the excerpts above believed that memorization
helped them to improve their English. Memorization also helped them remember the
vocabulary needed in examinations. In Indonesia, passing examinations drives the
need for memorization; this finding is further supported by studies conducted by Rao
(2004). The popularity of these strategies among Indonesian and Asian learners was
also evident in the findings of several other studies about LLS (Lee & Oxford, 2008;
Lengkanawati, 2004; Politzer & McGroarty, 1985).
5. CONCLUSION
The finding of this study indicated that EFL learners used a variety of strategies
in improving their English. The most frequently used strategies were metacognitive
and cognitive strategies, which indicated that they plan, monitor, and evaluate their
learning. In addition, the choice of metacognitive and cognitive strategies showed that
the students were eager to practice their English. In line with metacognitive and
cognitive strategies, the learners mostly employed practicing strategies or practiced
their English skills, they also watched TV and browsed the internet. This shows that
the learners were aware of their learning and the availability of learning resources.
This shows that the learners were aware of their learning and the availability of
learning resources.
This study reported new findings from the qualitative perspectives that
contribute to a better understanding of LLS choice by prospective EFL who is studying
at an Islamic university in Indonesia. It provides a small picture, which is presented to
add to LLS use knowledge but not intended to be generalized. The findings of this
investigation also contribute to the international body of LLS by presenting a snapshot
of LLS choice in an Indonesian context. A growing number of studies contribute to
the general understanding of the LLS pattern used in the international context, but not
to understand the strategy used by Islamic university learners. The study implies for
the learners that they need to see the availability of learning resources and seek the
opportunity to practice the language intensively.
Students at the center of this investigation are representing a group of
experienced learners. Considering that they are still concerned with finding ways and
strategies to learn English, even though they showed that they use a wide range of
strategies, it is plausible to question if the strategies that they use are employed
correctly and effectively. Therefore, further research investigating LLS from other
language learning contexts should be conducted to support or contrast the results of
this study.

Alfian, The favored language learning strategies of Islamic University EFL Learners | 60
REFERENCES
Alfian, A. (2016). The application of language learning strategies of high school
students in Indonesia. Indonesian Journal of English Education, 3(2), 140-157.
Alfian, A. (2018). Proficiency level and language learning strategy choice of Islamic
University learners in Indonesia. TEFLIN Journal, 29(1), 1-18.
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.
Alnujaidi, S. (2017). Factors influencing college level EFL students’ language learning
strategies in Saudi Arabia. International Journal of English and Linguistics,
7(1), 69-84.
Amir, M. (2018). Language learning strategies used by junior high school EFL
learners. Language and Language Teaching Journal, 21(1), 94-103.
Annurrahman, Kurniawati, T., & Ramadhiyanti, Y. (2013). Exploring Indonesian
college students’ strategies in learning English language. Arab World English
Journal, 4(3), 317 -330.
Benson, P. (2011). Teaching and researching autonomy (2nd ed.). Routledge.
Chamot, A. U. (2004). Issues in language learning strategy research and teaching.
Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 1(1), 14-26.
Chamot, A. U., & O’Malley, J. M. (1994). The CALLA handbook: Implementing the
cognitive academic language learning approach. Addison-Wesley Publishing
Company.
Chang, C. (2011). Language learning strategies profile of university foreign language
majors in Taiwan. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 8(2), 201-
215.
Cohen, A. D. (1991). Feedback on writing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,
13(02), 133-159.
Cohen, A. D. (2011). Strategies in learning and using a second language (2nd ed.).
Longman.
Creswell, J. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches (2nd ed.). Sage.
Creswell, J. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting and evaluating
quantitative and qualitative research (4th ed.). Pearson Education, Inc.
Creswell, J., & Clark, V. L. P (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods
research. Sage.
Dickinson, L. (1995). Autonomy and motivation a literature review. System, 23(2),
165-174.
Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford University Press.
Exley, B. (2005). Learner characteristics of ‘Asian’ EFL students: Exceptions to the
‘norm’. In J. Young (Ed.), Pleasure, passion, provocation: AATE/ALEA
Conference 2005 (pp. 1-15). Australian Literacy Educators Association.
Fithriyah, Kasim, U., & Yusuf, Y. Q. (2019). The language learning strategies used by
learners studying Arabic and English as foreign languages. Dirasat: Human and
Social Sciences, 46, 310-21.
Gani, S. A., Fajrina, D., & Hanifa, R. (2015). Students’ learning strategies for
developing speaking ability. Studies in English Language and Education, 2(1),
16-28.

61 | Studies in English Language and Education, 8(1), 47-64, 2021
Gerami, M. H., & Baighlou, S. M. G. (2011). Language learning strategies used by
successful and unsuccessful Iranian EFL students. Procedia - Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 29(0), 1567-1576.
Grainger, P. (2012). The impact of cultural background on the choice of language
learning strategies in the JFL context. System, 40(4), 483-493.
Grenfell, M. & Macaro, E. (2007). Language learner strategies: Claims and critiques.
In A. D. Cohen, & E. Macaro (Eds.), Language learner strategies: 30 years of
research and practice (pp. 9-28). Oxford University Press
Griffiths, C. (2003). Patterns of language learning strategy use. System, 31(3), 367-
383.
Griffiths, C., & Incecay, G. (2016). New directions in language learning strategy
research: Engaging with the complexity of strategy use. In C. Gkonou, D. Tatzl,
& S. Mercer (Eds.), New directions in language learning psychology (pp. 25-
38). Springer.
Griffith, C., & Oxford, R. (2014). The twenty-first century landscape of language
learning strategies: Introduction to this special issue. System, 43, 1-10.
Gursoy, E. (2010). Investigating language learning strategies of EFL children for the
development of a taxonomy. English Language Teaching, 3(3), 164-175.
Habók, A., & Magyar, A. (2018). The effect of language learning strategies on
proficiency, attitudes and school achievement. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1-8.
Hapsari, A. (2019). Language Learning Strategies in English Language Learning: A
Survey Study. Journal of English Teaching Studies, 1(1), 58-68.
Ivankova, N. V., & Stick, S. L. (2007). Students’ persistence in a distributed doctoral
program in educational leadership in higher education: A mixed methods study.
Research in Higher Education, 48(1), 93-135.
Javid, C. Z., Al-Thubaiti, T. S., & Uthman, A. (2013). Effects of English language
proficiency on the choice of language learning strategies by Saudi English-major
undergraduates. English Language Teaching, 6(1), 35-47.
Khosravi, M. (2012). A study of language learning strategies used by EFL learners in
Iran: Exploring proficiency effect on English language learning strategies.
Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 2(10), 2122-2132.
Lamb, M. (2004). It depends on the students themselves’: Independent language
learning at an Indonesian state school. Language, Culture and Curriculum,
17(3), 229-245.
Lan, R. L. (2005). Language learning strategies profiles of EFL elementary school
students in Taiwan [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. The University of
Maryland.
Lee, K. R., & Oxford, R. (2008). Understanding EFL learners’ strategy use and
strategy awareness. Asian EFL Journal, 10(1), 7-32.
Lengkanawati, N. S. (2004). How learners from different cultural backgrounds learn a
foreign language. The Asian EFL Journal, 1(1), 2-8.
Lin, C. H., Zhang, Y., & Zheng, B. (2017). The roles of learning strategies and
motivation in online language learning: A structural equation modeling analysis.
Computers & Education, 113, 75-85.
Lincoln, Y. Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic enquiry. Sage.
Lunt, D. H. (2000). The learning strategies of adult immigrant learners of English:
Quantitative and qualitative perspectives [Unpublished doctoral dissertation].
The University of Melbourne.

Alfian, The favored language learning strategies of Islamic University EFL Learners | 62
Mattarima, K., & Hamdan, A. R. (2011). Understanding students` learning strategies
as an input context to design English classroom activities. International Journal
of Psychological Studies, 3(2), 328-348.
McMillan, J. H., & Schumacher, S. (2006). Research in education. Pearson Education.
Meriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation.
Jossey - Bass.
Ming, T. S., Mahmud, N., & Abd Razak, N. (2012). The use of wireless technology in
UKM: Challenges faced and its impact on English language learning. 3L:
Language, Linguistics, Literature®, 18(1), 129 -143.
Mistar, J. (2001). English learning strategies of Indonesian university students across
individual differences. Asian Journal of English Language Teaching, 11, 19-44.
Mistar, J. & Umamah, A. (2014). Strategies of learning skill by Indonesian learners of
English and their contribution to speaking proficiency. TEFLIN Journal, 25(2),
203-216.
Mukminin, A., Haryanto, E., Sutarno, S., Sari, S. R., Marzulina, L., Hadiyanto, H., &
Habibi, A. (2018). Bilingual education policy and Indonesian students’ learning
strategies. Elementary Education Online, 17(3), 1204-1223.
Muniandy, J., & Shuib, M. (2016). Learning styles, language learning strategies and
fields of study among ESL learners. Malaysian Journal of ELT Research, 12(1),
1-19.
Nguyen, H., & Terry, D. R. (2017). English learning strategies among EFL Learners:
A narrative approach. IAFOR Journal of Language Learning, 3(1), 4-19.
Ni, Q., Chatupote, M., & Teo, A. (2008). A deep look into learning strategy use by
successful and unsuccessful students in the Chinese EFL learning context. RELC
Journal, 39(3), 338 - 358.
Norton, B. (2016). Identity and language learning: Back to the future. TESOL
Quarterly, 50(2), 475-479.
Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know.
Newbury House Publisher.
Oxford, R. L. (2016). Teaching and researching language learning strategies: Self-
regulation in context. Routledge.
Park, S. H. (2005). Language learning strategies and the relationship of these
strategies to motivation and English proficiency among Korean EFL students
[Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Kansas.
Parmawati, A., & Inayah, R. (2019). Improving students’ speaking skill through
English movie in scope of speaking for general communication. Eltin Journal,
Journal of English Language Teaching in Indonesia, 7(2), 43-53.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Sage.
Politzer, R. L., & McGroarty, M. (1985). An exploratory study of learning behaviors
and their relationship to gains in linguistic and communicative competence.
TESOL Quarterly, 19(1), 103-123.
Pradita, I., & Nindita, J. N. (2019). Language learning strategies: A cross sectional
survey of vocational high school students. ELT Echo: The Journal of English
Language Teaching in Foreign Language Context, 4(2), 131-137.
Radwan, A. A. (2011). Effects of L2 proficiency and gender on choice of language
learning strategies by university students majoring in English. Asian EFL
Journal, 13(1), 114-162.

63 | Studies in English Language and Education, 8(1), 47-64, 2021
Rao, Z. (2004). Language learning strategies used by non-English majors in a Chinese
university: individual and cultural factors [Unpublished doctoral dissertation].
The University of South Australia.
Rao, Z. (2006). Understanding Chinese students’ use of language learning strategies
from cultural and educational perspectives. Journal of Multilingual and
Multicultural Development, 27(6), 491-508.
Rao, Z. (2016). Language learning strategies and English proficiency: interpretations
from information-processing theory. The Language Learning Journal, 44(1), 90-
106.
Rubin, J. (1975). What the “good language learner” can teach us. TESOL Quarterly,
9(1), 41-51.
Rubin, J. (1987). Learner strategies: Theoretical assumptions, research history and
typology. In A. Wenden & J. Rubin (Eds.), Learner strategies in language
learning (pp. 15-30). Prentice-Hall International.
Rubin, J., Thompson, I., & Sun, H. (1982). How to be a more successful language
learner. Heinle & Heinle.
Saldana, J. (2009). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Sage.
Santihastuti, A., & Wahjuningsih, E. (2019). The learning strategies used by EFL
students in learning English. Indonesian Journal of English Education, 6(1), 10-
20.
Setiyadi, A. B. (2004). Redesigning language learning strategy classifications.
TEFLIN Journal, 2(15), 230-245
Shawer, S. F. (2016). Four language skills performance, academic achievement, and
learning strategy use in preservice teacher training programs. TESOL Journal,
7(2), 262-303.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory-
procedures and techniques. Sage.
Suryanto. (2013). The student-teacher relationships in the process of English language
teaching and learning in Indonesia [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Flinders
University of South Australia.
Suwanarak, K. (2019). Use of learning strategies and their effects on English language
learning of Thai adult Learners. 3L: Language, Linguistics, Literature®, 25(4),
99-120.
Tamada, Y. (1996). The relationship between Japanese learners’ personal factors and
their choices of language learning strategies. Modern Language Journal, 80(2),
120-131.
Thomas, N., & Rose, H. L. (2018). Do language learning strategies need to be self-
directed? Disentangling strategies from self-regulated learning. TESOL
Quarterly, 53(1), 248-257.
Wahyuni, S. (2013). L2 speaking strategies employed by Indonesian EFL tertiary
students across proficiency and gender [Unpublished doctoral dissertation].
University of Canberra. https://researchprofiles.canberra.edu.au/
Yang, M. N. (2007). Language learning strategies for junior college students in
Taiwan: Investigating ethnicity and proficiency. Asian EFL Journal, 9(2), 35-
57.
Yılmaz, C. (2010). The relationship between language learning strategies, gender,
proficiency and self-efficacy beliefs: a study of ELT learners in Turkey.
Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 682-687.

Alfian, The favored language learning strategies of Islamic University EFL Learners | 64
Yin, R. K. (2014). Case Study Research: Design and Methods (5th ed.). Sage
Publications.
Yurdakul, C. (2017). An investigation of the relationship between autonomous
learning and lifelong learning. International Journal of Educational Research
Review, 2(1), 15-20.
Yusuf, S. (2012). Language learning strategies of two Indonesian young learners in
the USA. International Journal of English Linguistics, 2(4), 65-72.