Chapter 1

The Problem and Its Background

Introduction

In the present time, keeping pace with the innovations in language education has

been one of the major challenges of teachers and learners of English as a second language

(ESL). The pressing demand to produce linguistically competent students preoccupies the

minds of educators and researchers around the globe. Evidently, this predicament

transpires best in every classroom where English is taught as the major means of

communication for commerce, science, and technology.

Unfortunately, second language learners view English as a stressful course subject

compared to others primarily because of the anxiety factors related to the acquisition of a

second language (Nandakumar & Rathina, 2017). Such issue has risen to a contextualized

study on language anxiety. The construct pertains to the disruptive feelings of

nervousness, weariness, apprehension, and discomfort subjectively experienced by a

second language learner when asked to perform activities like public speaking,

discussions, writing compositions and the likes (Merç, 2011; Salim, Subramaniam, & Ali

Termizi, 2017). In the Philippines, learning and teaching materials, the medium of

instruction in most of the subject areas, educational guides, and even the curriculum are

dominated by the English language; undeniably, issues regarding learning language poses

an alarming threat to the very foundation of education.

Feelings of fear and anxiousness in learning second language are not just

experienced inside the classroom but also outside (Humphries, 2011). It is further argued
 2

that learners with apprehension when performing language-related activities are less

competent in communication. The superficial understanding of the average language

teacher that to speak in front of the class, to participate in everyday recitation, to compose

technical written texts are just simple endeavors which learners can easily comply with

reflect their disorientation of the issue. Learners with apprehension with their receptive

and productive skills see these activities differently compared to how educators address

them. It is noteworthy that such conditions be taken seriously in order to find possible

solutions.

One of the reasons for this anxious language experience is the absence of a

definite learning pattern or method that will assure the confidence of second language

users. Tam (2013) noted that language learning strategies (LSS), as learning mechanisms,

have been the subject of several researches having practical implications to language use.

These strategies underscore the need to establish specific and identifiable practices that,

in theory, will motivate learning and acquisition. There are several language learning

strategies models that have caught the attentions of several researchers here and abroad in

search of a framework that will suit the needs of the learners. One of these is the model of

Oxford that specifies the tactics and techniques that are utilized by learners to directly

and indirectly cope with the challenges and conditions in learning necessary skills

(Gharbavi1 & Mousavi, 2012). It provides diverse sets of behaviors and thought patterns

that describe the processes and procedures by which a learner makes sense of the context

of acquisition. The strategies under this model are substantial as subjects for study.

Essentially, one must also note that second language users vary on their learning

styles, levels of intelligence, personalities, and preferences which might be related to the
 3

strategy of their choice. This is true in the study of Sadeghy & Mansouri (2014) as they

observed that some learners did not perform similarly, even though, having applied

similar methods of strategies. The said condition suggests that individual differences on

several facets must be considered. Since that every modern classroom applies the

principles of student-centered approach there is an unquestionable need to focus the

limelight on the aspects possessed by every pupil.

Currently, the country continuously implements the K-12 Education program that

has added two additional years in the secondary level with specific tracks from which

learners can choose from, viz: Academic, Sports, Technical Vocational Livelihood, and

Arts and Design tracks. One of the strands under the Academic Track is the General

Academic Strand (GAS) that caters learners who are still undecided of which educational

program to take in the tertiary level. Undoubtedly, the investigation on the preparedness

of these students for a higher education level is timely and substantial. Their mastery and

their means of gaining proficiency are crucial variables to explore since the academe

institutionalized the paramount use of the English language in most of academic

endeavors.

In the same manner, as the new curriculum revolutionized the current system of

education, challenges in providing practical research and innovation conventions,

immersion programs, and school-based fora become the avenues of higher educational

pursuits of the senior high school students. Unquestionably, the academic pressure of

such activities will require considerable mastery in advanced levels of listening, reading

spoken and written communication skills. Determining practical strategies in language

learning in order to cater the growing needs of our grade 11 and 12 learners in the K12
 4

Education Program is a necessity that must not be neglected. To relieve the anxiety and to

determine suitable strategies in the acquisition of second language are some of the

measures that educators must take to ensure that learners are able to cope up with the

sweeping demands of globalization.

Given the abovementioned issues and problems, this study explored the second

language language strategies utilized by these learners and their impact to the level of

language anxiety and self-perceived proficiency.

Significance of the Study

The findings may provide information beneficial to the following individuals:

Curriculum Developers. The results of the study may inspire curriculum

developers integrate significant and relevant strategies with the existing ones to provide

various means for learning a second language. Programs may be inspired by approaches,

methods and strategies investigated by the study.

Teachers. The findings of the study may inform them of the different language

learning strategies that they can utilize in the classroom with sensitivity to the different

needs of the students. It may give light on the significant psychological conditions that

affect the performance of second language learner and may also provide possible actions

in response to the challenges of learning.

Pupils. The strategies that the language teachers employ may cause great impact

on the performance of the learners. These may help the learners cope with or conquer the

anxiety in learning a language and improve proficiency. Self-driven learning may be

imbibed as they realize the importance of strategies as mechanism for learning.

 5

Future Researchers. The results of this study may also be useful to future

researchers for this may serve as a valuable piece of literature. This may inspire them to

conduct experimental investigations on the effectiveness of the different sets of language

learning strategies.

Theoretical/Conceptual Framework

The study is anchored on the principle of communicative language teaching

(CLT) which is a linguistic tradition that refers to the grammatical and social knowledge

on how and when to use specific items in grammar, phonology, syntax, morphology and

others with great emphasis on context. This body of knowledge brought communicative

competence in the mainstream of research. It holistically views a language user's

competence or abilities to utilize language on definite levels and aspects. Communicative

competence can be fully realized by an in-depth study of its major components namely:

linguistic, discourse, sociocultural, and strategic. Succinctly, this paper focused on

strategic competence (Lasala, 2014).

Strategic competence pertains to the ability of a language user to resolve issues

and problems that arise upon acquisition and learning with the use of certain methods or

techniques. It is a vital part of communicative competence since it facilitates the other

three components. The flow of communication, the use of specific linguistic codes and

items, and, processing cultural differences and similarities that must be integrated in

discourse are some of the conditions in which a language user cannot help but apply

certain communication strategies for successful interlocution such as avoidance,

interpretation, transcription, asking for help, adjustments, intended inattentive behaviors,

 6

euphemism, correction, repetition, hesitation, guessing, etc. (Xia, 2014). Cascallar and

Henning (2011) recognizes this component as a set of device used in order to resolve

communication break downs as well as maintain effective communication. Authentic

communication suffers from internal and external barriers, but language users can

compensate by utilizing specific techniques to sustain spontaneity.

Lasala (2014) revealed that Filipino secondary senior student respondents were

given "acceptable" remarks in their use of strategic devices on oral and writing

performances. To develop communicative competences is a complex process since it

requires so much from the learners as well as from the teachers; yet, it is very vital that

every language classroom welcomes and motivates the practice of these competences

especially the strategic factor.

Also, the paper is founded on the self-efficacy theory that highlights the belief

that a person has his own evaluation of capabilities which helps him realize certain

objectives (Goulao 2014). It asserts that the perception of one's skills and abilities

presumably reflect the actual performance and affect other behaviors. Bandura, as cited

by Ahmad & Safaria (2013), argues that persons with high self-efficacy can accomplish a

task with effectiveness and success by planning things out. This is due to the fact that

they have identified outlooks on the outcomes of their work. The theory generally posits

that an individual with low levels of stress and anxiety but remarkably optimistic of his

perceptions regarding his abilities tend to do better in class compared to the ones with

opposite dispositions.

The study postulated that language learning strategies affect significantly

language anxiety and self- perceived proficiency. Figure 1 presents the conceptual model
 7

of the study that was utilized in evaluating the implication of language learning strategies

on the language anxiety and proficiency of the Grade 12 learners. Language learning

strategies were determined in terms of memory strategies, cognitive strategies,

compensation strategies, metacognitive strategies, affective strategies, and social

strategies. While, language anxiety and language proficiency were assessed based on

degree or intensity.

Language Language Leaning

Learning Strategies Anxiety

 memory strategies
 cognitive strategies
 compensation
strategies Self-perceived
 metacognitive Language Proficiency
strategies
 affective strategies
 social strategies
Figure 1. Conceptual Model of the Study

Statement of the Problem

The research aimed to assess the impact of language learning strategies on the

language anxiety and proficiency of the Grade 12 General Academic Strand (GAS)

students in the Municipality of Hagonoy, Bulacan:

Specifically, the study sought to answer the following questions:

1. How can the language learning strategies of the learners be described in terms

of:

1.1. memory strategies;

 8

1.2. cognitive strategies;

1.3. compensation strategies;

1.4. metacognitive strategies;

1.5. affective strategies; and,

1.6. social strategies?

2. What is the level of language learning anxiety of the learners in terms:

1.1 English as a second language classes; and,

1.2. mainstream classes?

3. What is the level of self-perceived language proficiency of the learners in terms

of:

3.1. reading;

3.2. speaking;

3.3. listening;

3.4. writing; and,

3.5. grammar?

4. Do language learning strategies impact significantly on language learning

anxiety?

5. Do language learning strategies impact significantly on the overall learners’

perceived language proficiency?

6. What pedagogical implications may be drawn from the findings of the study?

Hypotheses of the Study

The following hypotheses were tested at .05 level of significance:

 9

“Language learning strategies do not have significant impact on the language

anxiety of the learners.”

“Language learning strategies do not have significant impact on the students’

perceived language proficiency.”

Definition of Terms

The following terms were defined operationally for common understanding:

Language Learning Strategies. These refers to the sets of actions and behaviors

taken by a language learner in order to facilitate learning. This study will utilized the

classification of Oxford (1990) which includes memory strategies, cognitive strategies,

compensation strategies, affective strategies, social strategies, and metacognition

strategies.

Language Learning Anxiety. This refers to the condition of fear, anxiousness,

nervousness, and pressure experienced by a language learner whenever apprehended by

tasks and activities that involve language.

Respondents. The term refers to the 302 Grade 12 General Academic Strand

(GAS) students of the public high schools in the Municipal ity of Hagonoy, Bulacan.

Self-Perceived Language Proficiency. In this study, this refers to the confidence

of the learners on their mastery of the second language in terms of reading, listening

speaking, writing and grammar.

 10

Scope and Delimitation of the Study

The focus of the study was the assessment of the language learning strategies'

impact on the level of language anxiety and perceived proficiency of the learners.

Language learning strategies were assessed in terms of the following: memory, cognitive,

metacognitive, affective, and social strategies.

The language learning anxiety of the students was measured in terms of their

negative perceptions, feelings, and attitudes towards the learning and utilization of the

second language in English as a second language and mainstream environments. On the

other hand, the self-perceived language proficiency was quantified in terms of the

learners' perception of how capable they are on the four general macro skills and

grammar of English.

The respondents of the study were the General Academic Strands (GAS) students

of the public high schools in the Municipality of Hagonoy, Bulacan.

 11

Chapter 2

Review of Related Literature

This section of the study presents the review of related literature and studies on

local and foreign sources which will add more relevance and depth of the research study.

Language Learning Strategies

The spectrum on the early development of second language (L2) learning and

teaching had favored the cause of the traditional and the theorist. Conversely, compliance

to the conventional rules of grammar and the description of linguistic properties were the

highlights of language education. Learners were viewed as passive recipients of

knowledge and were not the forefront players in the process. However, in the advent of

communicative language teaching and functionalism, a new era of linguistic culture had

emerged and dawned the pragmatic approach to the acquisition of second language. As a

result, researchers became interested on the individuality and social relations of learners,

while their attitudes, self-concept, self-efficacy, learning styles, learning strategies,

multiple intelligences among others became the subjects and points of studies

(Mohammadi, Biria, Koosha & Shahsavari, 2013).

One of the prominent innovations that has been given highlights is the language

learning strategies (LLS) research. Language learning strategies refer to the specific

behaviors, thoughts, beliefs, emotions or patterns that that facilitate the acquisition or

learning of new knowledge. (Russel, 2010; Sadeghy & Mansouri, 2014; Noormohamadi,

2009; Magno, 2010). There are several models of language learning strategies that have
 12

paved several channels for a more practical experience of a language. Wu (2010) revealed

that learners showed favorable attitude towards strategies in a communicative language

teaching (CLT) classroom. Learners with more successful rate of acquiring a language

employ large varieties of strategies though with some reservations.

In the recent years, it was argued whether language learning strategies were

observable behaviors or unobservable thought processes or both. Liang (2009) cited

several disagreeing researches by pointing out the discrepancies in their specification of

the nature of these strategies. The awareness of strategy use among learners is another

disputed subject. There is yet to clear the distinction on the conscious and the

subconscious use of ‘tactics' on conditions of learning.

The language learning strategies classification of Oxford is of prominent

importance to several researches since it provides them with comprehensive and precise

sets of strategies that can easily be distinguished one from the other. (Rafteri & Salawi,

2012; Zare, 2012; Liu, 2010). There are two classes that divide this model: direct and

indirect. Direct strategies refer to the behavior or process of thoughts that lead to direct

learning and usage of subject matter or a new item in language. These are comprised of

memory, cognitive and compensation strategies. On the other hand, indirect strategies are

endeavors that cause indirect contributions yet considered significant in learning. These

include metacognitive, affective, and social strategies. Each of these categories is

subdivided to ones that are more detailed. Further, Oxford, as cited by Liu (2010) defined

these key terms as follow:

 13

Cognitive strategies refer to the skills that directly manipulate and transform

language based on the needs of the learner, e.g., argumentation, analysis, taking down

notes, functional practice in naturalistic settings, formal practice with structures sounds,

etc. Memory strategies are tactics that specifically aid the learner store and specific and

definite pieces of information as foundational units. Speaking drills, cloze testing, show-

cards, mnemonics, etc., are examples of this category. While, compensation strategies

pertain to behaviors used to compensate or make up for communication breakdown, e.g.,

finding context clues to understand an unfamiliar word, draw inferences based on the

sensory data, associate words with synonyms or antonyms, etc.

Metacognitive strategies refer to the act of planning, organizing, and evaluating

one's experience of language. These behaviors are utilized to have control over the

process of learning. Affective strategies are the techniques that help learners manage their

emotions, motivations, and attitudes about learning a language. Examples of these

strategies are positive self-concept and optimistic self-talk related. On the other hand,

social strategies are the actions that involve other people in the process of learning a

language. Examples are questioning, cooperating with peers, and developing empathy.

Upon determining the preferred language learning strategies of college students,

Du (2012) singled out compensatory strategies and metacognition strategies among

others as the most endorsed set of behaviors or thought patterns to language learning.

This suggested that these kinds of learners were able to apply compensatory actions to

overcome challenges and at the same time managing their learning. Furthermore,

cognitive strategies and social strategies were the least of their choice. This might imply

that they seldom try to manipulate language use and learn language through social means.
 14

However, Tam (2013) observed that memory strategies and anxiety-reducing

strategies were the least used among the university learners in Hong Kong. It is further

argued in the study that these learners were not into memorization and continuous

practice but keen to opportunities where they could use English in a conscious manner.

Similarly, Mohammadi, Biria, Koosha, & Shahsavari (2013) found out that

memorization and affective behaviors in learning a language were the least popular

among learners of English. While, metacognitive strategies and compensatory strategies

stand out of the rest implying that the "executive control" over language learning has

greater value and importance. In the observation of Wu (2010), English Foreign

Language students are often in use of memory strategies like memorization of words,

phrases, grammatical rules, and sentence structures yet the successful application of

knowledge in real life is questionable.

There are also reported cases in which second language learners do not

significantly utilize strategies in learning, whether consciously and subconsciously. Ruba,

Habiba, Amir, Aslam & Kiran (2014) has asserted that such circumstances exist because

students are not aware of the specific categories of language learning strategies and they

do not have the avenue to get acquainted with any of its classifications. The study also

points out that the attitude of the learners towards learning these strategies are factors to

consider. Ruba, et al. discovered in their inventory of learning strategy use among

university students that there were diverse attitudes towards the techniques utilized in SL

learning. Stability in the consistency of strategy used was put into a challenge for it was

also found out that there was difficulty in the inculcation of these strategies.
 15

In general, language learning strategies does not help learn a language but also aid

the gain of knowledge to other subject areas such as mathematics, sciences, and social

studies. Succinctly, when learners discover how to learn, they can respond independently

to several conditions and situations that involve language in appropriate ways (Lee,

2010). Since English prevails in most of our formal studies, it is a paramount need for a

pupil to overcome the difficulties that he or she experiences in receiving new pieces of

information that are linguistically challenging.

Language Learning Anxiety

The apprehension of a learner to the experience of language learning must not be

neglected. Their negative attitudes towards the second language are important subjects of

study (Mahmot, Martin, & Masangya, 2013). No one can discount the need to check the

perceptions of the new generation on English since a pupil's point of view might

influence language learning.

Educators, specifically language teachers, must have the bird's eye view of the

students' anxiety towards learning a language (Lucas, Miraflores, & Go 2011). There

might be variations as to how one experience anxiousness, nervousness, apprehension,

pressure and stress that is why teachers must lay out plans or activities that might

mitigate such attitudes. It is further suggested that specific strategies may be of aid to the

learners' adaptation to the conditions of language anxiety.

Language learning anxiety is proven to have debilitating effects on the

performance and productivity of English as a second language learners. Guimba & Alico,

(2015) has investigated the demotivation tendency of anxiety over the reading
 16

comprehension of Filipino Grade 8 students. The results show that reading anxiety is a

reality, underscoring the influence of the affective domain to the cognition of pupils even

if in formal setups. This suggests that while the students try to gain mastery in reading

they experience anxiety in the course of their study.

Unfortunately, language teachers do not pay attention to the possible impact of

language anxiety experienced by their pupils since such condition is discrete and is most

of the time an unobservable phenomenon. There is a need for these debilitating anxieties

or emotional distress to be put into the limelight for the development of language comes

at a staggering rate. These predicaments must be carefully investigated and overcome for

the learners to realize their potentials in communicative skills. (Mohammadi, et al.,

2013).

Kayao Ğlu & SaĞlamel (2013) discovered that difficulties in some aspects of

language (i.e. grammar, vocabulary, and written outputs), challenges in cognition (i.e.

fear of committing failures in front of others, pressure of exams, fear of committing

embarrassing errors in communication, lack of self-esteem), the teachers' roles,

competence and personality are influential factors of language anxiety. Conversely, it can

be inferred that apprehension towards language learning can be attributed not only to

internal causes but also on external.

Learners of English among university learners usually experience moderate or

average level of anxiety (Chanprasert and Wichadee 2015; Salim, Subramaniam, &

Termizi 2017; & Shabani 2012). Hence, these learners are experiencing moderate

apprehension, nervousness, and fear whenever asked to perform tasks related to language.

However, at the other end of the spectrum, language learning anxiety can be viewed as a
 17

point of motivation and encouragement. Learners have learned to adjust to their fears and

apprehension.

Mamhot, Martin & Masangya (2013) noted that there is a tendency for English as

a second language learners to have "Fear of Negative Evaluation" as well as "General

Feeling of Anxiety." Accordingly, such perceptions significantly affect the performance

or outputs of the pupils. Clear manifestations of anxiety hinder the receptive and the

productive skills resulting in poor academic achievement. Demotivating conditions

cannot be eradicated and resolved completely. It is the role of the teacher in the classroom

to lessen the effects of the language anxiety.

Perceived Language Proficiency

Several researchers reveal that the quality of education in the Philippines is

deteriorating. Results of different achievement and board examinations provide

substantial truth to the claim. This is not just the reality in the primary and the secondary

education but also in the tertiary. There is a decline of passers in all the fields of study in

their respective board examinations according to the Professional Regulatory

Commission (PRC). Low academic achievement in the basic education levels is

contributing variables to the existing problems (Racca & Lasaten, 2016).

Also, the continuous decrease in the language proficiency of the Filipino learners

in English aggravates the conditions. Findings show that a large group of Grade 8

students of the Philippine Science High School in Northern Luzon recorded a satisfactory

level of language proficiency far from the expected advance threshold (Racca &

Lasaten). The result of the study is alarming since our premier schools are behind the
 18

target competence. Language proficiency in poverty-stricken communities and remote

areas are not out of the question.

With the prevailing decline in the proficiency, the Department of Education

mandated the use of English as in Elementary and orders that English be the medium of

instruction in the secondary through its Executive Order 210. Teachers are also required

to conduct remedial classes when necessary. Layaley (2016) pointed out that the problem

must not be left unattended. Learners in their early stage of second language learning

must be properly monitored and guided for the reason that they will not bring more harm

to the system if ever they pursue education.

Makewa, Role, & Taguta (2013) obtained results suggesting that their

respondents' perceived level of proficiency in spoken English was average or moderate.

There are many factors which influence spoken English such as attitude, motivation,

classroom activities, classroom environment and learning resources. English learning

deserves much of the teachers' attention because language learning can bring about

identity changes to learners; therefore, the above factors need to be put into

consideration. Another correlate to language proficiency is the period dedicated to the

mastery of the language. Accordingly, the longer the period spent in studying will mean a

higher level of language proficiency (Magno, 2010).

Ibrahim, Hassali, Saleem, Ul Haq, Khan, & Aljadhey (2013) reported that the

perception of their subject university students ranges from good to moderate regarding

speaking, listening, reading and writing. Takahashi (2014) and Studer & Konstantinidou

(2015) recorded moderate or average mean scores on the overall English language

proficiency self-assessment of their participants. Takahashi (2009) revealed that there is a

 19

positive correlation between self-perceived and actual English proficiency. It suggests

that one's self-assessment reflects his or her abilities in practice. Learners might be

already informed of their proficiency in language due to several evaluations of learning

that is applied in the classroom itself. Regarding English proficiency, some college

students performed very satisfactory in terms of grammar, satisfactory in terms of

spelling and reading comprehension but are not proficient in terms of vocabulary

(Magbanua, 2016).

Investigating the self-assessment of language learners to their abilities is of great

importance not just in continuing professional development but also to the field of work.

Khaleel, Chelliah, Kabir & Iftikhar (2017) found out that self-perceived proficiency and

depression were negatively correlated among employees working in multinational

telecommunication companies. The implication of such findings indicates the need to

monitor the beliefs of the learners to their capabilities seriously.

Relation of Language Learning Strategies to Language Learning Anxiety

Some researchers have already explored the relationship of language learning

strategies to the level of language learning anxiety. Results vary from one another

perhaps because of the several dimensions of the subjects being studied. Most of the

findings indicate that anxiety is indirectly correlated to the use of language learning

strategies. The results suggest that the more frequent use of strategy will mean lower

levels of fear and apprehension towards learning a language (Mohammadi et al. 2013;

Martirossian & Hartoonian 2015). Bidirectional view on the relation of the two variables
 20

is also possible according to the study which means that anxiousness increases the

likelihood of the learners to rely on strategies (Noormohamadi, 2009).

Wu (2010) posited that successful learners of English employ more various

strategies than the poor ones. However, the study further concluded that language

learning strategies were substantial predictors of fluency but not of language anxiety. The

results of the study showed that 90% of the two groups of participants, being divided into

high proficiency level learners and otherwise, both experienced anxiety. This leads to the

idea that language learning strategies may not lower negative attitudes to language

learning yet still affect proficiency significantly.

Comparatively, some researchers have deduced that developments in the speaking

proficiency has significant implications to the speaking anxiety of learners. Succinctly,

more improvements on the proficiency, in terms of oral communication, will lower or

reduce the anxiety of a learner on speaking-related tasks. This is to say that speaking

proficiency and speaking anxiety are negatively correlated (Awan, Azher, Anwar, & Naz,

2010; El-Sakka, 2016).

Similarly, in their investigation of the self-perceived problems encountered by

students in writing, Al Seyabi1 & Tuzlukova (2014) assert that strategies are necessities

to cope with their struggle on contextualized lexical factors of conventional writing that

also focus on grammar and structure. Among others, there is a technique that stands out

popular than the rest. Moreover, formal education on strategies and their usage to develop

the capabilities of the learners in writing are more evident at the tertiary level than the

post-graduate level.
 21

Shabani (2015) concluded that the frequency of language learning strategy use has a

negative correlation to the level of language learning anxiety of the 126 participants in

the conducted study. It is recorded that these learners utilized a wide range of high and

moderate strategy categories with a moderate level of apprehension to their performance.

The study asserts that the more frequent use of learning strategies will mean lower levels

of anxiousness towards language tasks. Relatively, affective factors and strategies help in

boosting the confidence and motivation of second language learners (Ni, 2012).

Accordingly, commendable students who have high levels of self-regard and low

anxiety level are those who receive considerate amount of knowledge. It is noted that

teachers must assure learners to acquire plenty of language input by orienting learners to

several and various means of learning. Similarly, Zare & Riasati (2012) arrived at the

same conclusion. High negative correlation has been recorded between the two subject

variables in a foreign language classroom. English Foreign Language learners tend to

experience low or high levels of anxiety depending on the frequency of language use.

Accordingly, various researchers have shown that there is a substantial and direct

correlation between the level of self-esteem of the second language learners and their

success in applying language learning strategies and vice versa. Self-esteem belongs to

the opposite side of the spectrum compared to language anxiety. Some also assume that

the level of second language learners' self-esteem has a substantial positive correlation to

the level of proficiency. Which means to say, the higher the degree of self-esteem will

mean higher language performance. (Hashemian, 2012).

Ghavamnia, Kassaian, & Dabaghi (2011) opined that educators must also study

the pupils' beliefs on language learning and the strategies they use. Accordingly, there is a
 22

strong relationship between a learner's perception of learning and their ways to acquire

input. Social assistance to learning also plays a vital role in the reduction of anxiety to

earning a language. Fujii (2015) stated that learners with high levels of anxiety need the

assistance of not just the teacher but also their other classmates. It is further suggested

that low-anxious students still need the use of strategies to cope with their day-to-day

activities.

Shi (2017) observed that students with a diverse cultural background in terms of

the listening anxiety they experienced tended to utilize metacognitive strategies and

compensation strategies, while having low preferences on cognitive strategies and social

strategies. The study claimed that there were strong correlations between language

learning strategies and listening anxiety.

Martirossian & Hartoonian (2015) also has indicated that there is a strong and

indirect relationship between strategy use and language anxiety. It is noticeably that if a

learner has frequently used a specific and suitable strategy to regulate language learning

his or her fear of undesirable assessment on their performance. Fadila, Yufrizal, &

Kadaryanto (2015) impressed the essence of developing language learning strategies that

might help second language learners in their learning and acquisition of language. For it

was found out that prominent and sufficient use of strategies that lower anxiousness

might enhance their achievement. If language educators can reduce the apprehensions

and fear of the learners in every language task with an emphasis on strategy use will help

them perform better in class. Fadila, Yufrizal, & Kadaryanto confessed that this

phenomenon might be caused by other factors since there is no significant difference

 23

between two groups of scores. Other factors might have determined the interrelationship

of anxiety coping techniques and language anxiety and proficiency.

However, Nuranifar (2014) claimed that there is no significant relationship

between frequencies of strategy use and language anxiety. As the study examined learners

in varying levels of anxiety (low, moderate, and high), it is found out that these diverse

groups utilized the same coping mechanisms or strategies. One can also glean from this

research that there is no significant difference in the strategy use of students whether or

not they experience low, moderate or high anxiety levels.

Likewise, Chanprasert & Wichade (2015) had the same conclusion in the

relationship of anxiety reducing strategies and learning anxiety. It was also found out that

there seemed to be no statistically significant correlation between the predictor variables

and the criterion variable. That is to say, that apprehension is not related to language

learning strategies. These results are comparable to the previous results cited in the

literature.

Relation of Language Learning Strategies to Perceived Language Proficiency

Language learning strategies (LLS) are originally classified to determine what

motivates learning to the very diverse learners. There are plenty pieces of literature that

display conflicting stands on the issue of whether or not language learning strategies has

significant influence over proficiency. Magno (2010) observed that compensatory

strategies are popular behaviors among the Korean students learning English Foreign

Language. It is further concluded that language learning strategies is not enough to

reverse the decline in the competence of language learners.

 24

On the other hand, Zare (2012) argues that the application of language learning

strategies facilitates and improve language learning and assist language learners in

different ways possible. Learners who are aware of these techniques have more

opportunities to choose and apply them consciously in real life. Sadeghy & Mansouri

(2014) also claim that the employment of various strategies may help master and perform

certain goals.

Muniandy and Shuib (2016) suggest that educators must be conscious and aware

of the strategies and styles used by learners because these have substantial implications

for their learning. It has been underscored that meaningful and successful realization of

lesson outcomes will only be fully achieved if the necessary measures on the choice of

techniques and considerations on the learning styles are met by the teachers.

Querol (2010) asserted that better and successful language learning is the product

of the effective use of strategies. Therefore, there is a need to seriously educate the

students about the existence of such techniques and tactics. Teachers must train and

equip learners with specific and definite strategies that suit their levels to develop certain

degrees of proficiency. Affective strategies and social strategies are not the only possible

effective strategies if the learners are found incapable of participating in the meaningful

communication.

Ghavamnia et al. (2011) have concluded that there was a general positive

correlation between the perception of the learners of their proficiency and their use of

language learning strategies. Also, Boroujeni, Roohani, & Sharifi (2014) supported the

predictability of language proficiency in terms of language learning strategies. It is also

found out that among the several language learning strategies metacognition is the most
 25

popular one. This suggests that learners who can manipulate their unique learning process

have more tendency to be more efficient in achieving better results (Zare, 2010).

Comparatively, Al-Qahtani (2013) found cognitive strategies as a more popular set of

learning behaviors than metacognition.

More significantly, in the study of Meshkat & Saeb (2012), all the six categories

of language learning strategies were found essentially correlated to the positive beliefs of

learners regarding their ability to learn and perform. Comparatively, metacognitive

strategies are dominant behaviors or thought patterns utilized by the learners while

cognitive strategies and affective strategies are last to the rank.

On the other hand, Ogenyi (2015) confirmed the varying degrees of association of

different strategies to achievement level. It was found out that significant differences

existed between the achievement mean scores of those who use and those who do not use

a certain category of language learning strategies. For example, users and non-users of

cognitive strategies do not perform the same in class. The same has been concluded to the

rest of the remaining variables.

Similarly, in classrooms where English is taught as a foreign language, language

learning strategies has a statistically significant relationship with the English Foreign

Language learners' proficiency. This suggests that the more the learners adopt learning

strategies will mean higher proficiency. Inversely, the fewer the use of language learning

strategies will mean lower levels of achievement (Gharbavi1 & Mousavi 2012; Wu,

2010)

Suwanarak (2012) reported that social and practical learning strategies are

positively related to the self-efficacy or self-esteem and perceived language proficiency.

 26

In plain words, the higher the proficiency levels of second language learners, the higher

their degree of self-esteem and vice versa. (Hashemian, 2012). However, weak

correlation degrees were found between learning beliefs and some strategies. Memory

strategies and affective strategies are not significantly related to the confidence of a

learner on his or her language proficiency. Results such as slight negative correlation

were recorded between memory strategies and the learners' motivation for their aptitude

(Suwanarak, 2012).

Abdulla (2014) claimed that what separated more excellent learners from the

fewer ones is the use of strategies. Accordingly, these behaviors and thought patterns will

help learners develop desirable proficiency for these hone them to be critical and self-

reliant in their use of the target language to some degree. The paper did not confirm the

substantial prediction of these strategies to the proficiency level and other factors such as

age, gender, styles in learning and experiences in life.

Likewise, Al-Qahtani (2013) only found a singular correlation to language

proficiency in terms of language learning strategies. Though not the most utilized ones,

only social strategies were observed substantial predictors of language performance

disregarding the other two sets of strategies namely: cognitive strategies and

metacognitive strategies. This implies that language learning strategies's relationship to

language proficiency is not yet conclusive as well as unanimous.

Arguably, recent findings of Fadila, Yufrizal, & Kadaryanto (2015) revealed that

strategies that help relieve anxiety do not substantially impact on the language learning

achievement of learners. The study accepted the relative tendency that there might be

other factors that cause the result of the scores. The pieces of literature obtained in this
 27

study justified the need to revisit and investigate the possible impact of language learning

strategies designated by Oxford (1990) on the language learning anxiety and self-

perceived language proficiency.

 28

Chapter 3

Methodology of the Study

This chapter presents the method and techniques, population and sample of the

study, instrument of the study, and the data processing and statistical treatment that will

be applied.

Methods and Techniques Used

The descriptive-correlational method of research was utilized in the study to

determine the implications of language learning strategies on language anxiety and

proficiency. Correlational research is a systematic investigation of the relationship

present between two or more variables. The study made use of a quantitative research

approach in analyzing and understanding the predictor and criterion variables.

Standardized questionnaires on language learning strategies, language anxiety, and

perceived language proficiency were used as primary data gathering tools.

Respondents of the Study

The respondents of the study were the 302 General Academic Strand (GAS)

students in the public high schools in the Municipality of Hagonoy, Bulacan in the school

year 2017-2018. Table 1 shows the distribution of respondents in each corresponding

school.
 29

Table 1

Respondents of the Study

Schools Respondents
A 61
B 83
C 73
D 85
Total 302

Instruments of the Study

This study utilized the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) version

7.0 designed by Oxford (1990) in quantifying the use of language learning strategies of

the respondents. The instrument is a 50-point Likert type questionnaire that ranges from

1(never or almost never true to me) to 5 (always or always true of me). It is reliable as

evidenced by the Cronbach's alpha of .93 to 98. The contents of the instrument assessed

the learners' use of memory (items 1-9) cognitive (items 10-23), compensation (items 24-

29), metacognitive (items 30-38), affective (items 39-44), and, social strategies (items 45-

50) (Leung & Hui, 2011; Magno, 2010; Tam, 2013; Ruba, et al. 2014).

Language learning anxiety was measured using the 20-item Likert-type English

Language Anxiety Scale (ELAS) to describe the attitude of the learners towards language

use. The instrument was originally designed by Pappamihiel (2002) with internal

consistency reliability of .89 (Nandakumar & Rathina, 2017; Ali, 2017). The study

focused on the overall anxiety experienced by the respondents in English as a second

language (items 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 16, 19 and 20) and mainstream classes (items 2, 4, 6,

8, 10, 12, 14, 15, 17, and 18).

 30

On the other hand, self-perceived language proficiency was described

quantitatively by using a standardized 15-item Likert-type instrument as utilized in the

study of Lockley and Farrell (2011). The instrument is reliable as evidenced by the

Cronbach's alpha of .94. The instrument measured the perception of the learners to their

proficiency in reading (items 16 and 21), speaking (items 2, 9, 14. 17, 19, and 20),

listening (items 4, 8 and 12), writing (items 7, 15 and 22), and grammar (items 3, 5, 10,

11, 13 16, 18, 23 and 24). Items 19 and 20 were scored reversely. Out of the score from

the given subsets the overall self-perceived language proficiency was obtained.

Data Gathering Procedure

The questionnaire method was the mode of data gathering. Each of the

respondents was given a structured set of questions. In gathering the data, the researcher

carried out the following procedure:

1. A letter was sent to the Schools Division Superintendent of Bulacan to ask

permission in the conduct of proposed study.

2. With the approval, the researcher distributed the questionnaire to the

respondents personally.

3. The researcher collected the questionnaires personally from the respondents

and checked if all the items were answered.

 31

Data Processing and Statistical Treatment

The data collected were tabulated and processed using Statistical Packages for

Social Sciences (SPSS). In order to analyze and interpret the data gathered, the following

statistical measures were used:

The language learning strategies, language anxiety and perceived proficiency

were quantified using the following scale:

Rating Scale Range Descriptive Evaluation

5 4.50-5.00 Always used/Very high
4 3.50-4.49 Generally used/High
3 2.50-3.49 Sometimes used/Moderate
2 1.50-2.49 Generally not used/ Low
1 1.00-1.49 Not always used/ Very Low

The impact of language learning strategies on the overall language learning

anxiety and self-perceived language proficiency were explored using correlation and

regression analyses.

Chapter 4

Presentation, Analysis, and Interpretation of Data

 32

This chapter presents, analyses, and interprets the data collected in the study. For

an organized presentation and consistent discussion, the data are presented following the

order or sequence of the questions raised in Chapter 1, to wit: (1) language learning

strategies of the learners, (2) learners language anxiety, (3) perceived language

proficiency, (4) impact of language learning strategies on the language anxiety of the

respondents, (5) impact of language learning strategies on the students’ perceived

language proficiency, and (6) implications drawn from the findings of the study.

Language Learning Strategies of the Grade 12 Learners

Strategies are essential unified sets of thought processes and behaviors that aim to

motivate the learning and acquisition of language. Since that learning a language requires

certain conditions to take place, educators must take advantage of these tactics and

techniques to imbibe independence and responsibility to the learners in terms of their

language proficiency. Effective communication skills and performances rely on the

strategies that help one gain linguistic inputs.

Oxford, as cited by Muniandy and Shuib (2016), asserts language learning

strategies are the measures in which a language learners take to realize language learning

objectives in a more effective and enjoyable atmosphere. English as a second language

students who are consciously applying techniques in their learning experience are those

who are self-directed of their goals. The knowledge of these methods leads to a higher

probability of development of certain aspects of language. Succinctly, it must be clear to

educators that the current aim of language education today is not just to improve the

capabilities of the learners in communication but also instill on them the responsibility to
 33

direct their course of learning. To shift the reliance on learning to their interpretation and

processing of information is a major step.

The utilization of language learning strategies is a glaring evidence of an

individual's familiarity of oneself (Du, 2012). When one can realize his or her potentials,

personality, traits, abilities and the likes, he or she has the advantage of discretion

regarding which strategy fits features and aspects of learning. The initiative of the learner

to learn is the mark of a self-actualized individual. Self-directed learning is nonetheless

one of the pillars of education that must be strictly founded on the principles of learners.

Several researchers have tried to explore the relationship of language learning

strategies to other constructs and nuances of language. Academic achievement, language

proficiency, language learning anxiety and competences in language are some of the

variables that are investigated in terms of the influences of language learning strategies.

Results are not yet conclusive as displayed by the current and recent pieces of literature.

For those reasons, this paper investigated the language learning strategies used by

the Grade 12 General Academic Strand (GAS) students in the public high schools of the

Municipality of Hagonoy, Bulacan in terms of memory strategies, cognitive strategies,

compensation strategies, metacognitive strategies, affective strategies and social

strategies.

Memory Strategies. As can be gleaned from the analysis of data in Table 2,

language learning strategies (LSS) in terms of memory are sometimes used as evidenced

by the average of 2.99. Memory strategies are "sometimes used" when learners think of

the relationship between their new and background knowledge in English (3.39), try to

remember new words by using them (2.35), remember a word by associating it to mental
 34

image (3.21), associate images or pictures to the sound of the new English word (3. 07),

remember words through rhymes (3.05), remember new words by remembering their

location on pages, boards, or on street signs (2.94) , review lessons in English often

(2.92), act out English words physically (2.66). However, the use of flashcards to

remember new words in English is not used (2.32).

Table 2

Language Learning Strategies in terms of Memory Strategies

Indicators Mean Interpretation

I think of relationships between what I already know and new Sometimes
3.39
things I learn in English. used
Sometimes
I use new English words in a sentence so I can remember them. 3.35
used
I connect the sound of a new English word and an image or Sometimes
3.07
picture of the word to help me remember the word. used
Remember an English word by making a mental picture in Sometimes
3.21
which the word can be used. used
Sometimes
I use rhymes to remember new English words. 3.05
used
Generally not
I use flashcards to remember new English words. 2.32
used
Sometimes
I physically act out new English words. 2.66
used
Sometimes
I review English lessons often. 2.92
used
I remember new English words or phrases by remembering Sometimes
2.94
their location on the page, on the board, or on a street sign. used
2.99 Sometimes
Average
used

Table 3

Language Learning Strategies in terms of Cognitive Strategies

Indicators Mean Interpretation

I say or write new English words several times. 3.03 Sometimes
 35

used
2.69 Sometimes
I try to talk like native English speakers.
used
3.14 Sometimes
I practice the sounds of English.
used
3.13 Sometimes
I use the English words I know in different ways.
used
2.83 Sometimes
I start conversations in English.
used
I watch English language TV shows spoken in English or go to 3.63
Generally used
movies spoken in English.
3.23 Sometimes
I read for pleasure in English.
used
3.00 Sometimes
I write notes, messages, letters, or reports in English.
used
I first skim an English passage (read over the passage quickly) 3.24 Sometimes
then go back and read carefully. used
I look for words in my own language that are similar to new 2.82 Sometimes
words in English. used
2.92 Sometimes
I try to find patterns in English.
used
I find the meaning of an English word by dividing it into parts 3.14 Sometimes
that I understand. used
3.26 Sometimes
I try not to translate word-for-word.
used
2.83 Sometimes
I make summaries of information that I hear or read in English.
used
3.06 Sometimes
Average
used

Cognitive Strategies. Table 3 suggests that cognitive strategies are sometimes

utilized by the respondents as evidenced by the average score of 3.06. "Sometimes used"

cognitive strategies are observed when the learners try not to translate word-for-word

(3.26), skim first or read over the passages quickly (3.24), read English for leisure (3.23),

practice the sounds of English (3.14), find what an English word means by analyzing its

parts (3.14), say or write newly encountered English words multiple times (3.03), write in

English notes, messages, letters, or reports (3.00), try to look for patterns in English
 36

(2.92), start conversations in English (2.83), summarizes the pieces of information that

they hear or read in English (2.83), look for words in their own language that are similar

to new English words (2.82), and try to communicate like native speakers of English

(2.69). Moreover, watching TV shows or movies spoken in English is the cognitive

strategy used by the learners (3.63).

Table 4

Language Learning Strategies in terms of Compensation Strategies

Indicators Mean Interpretation

2.72 Sometimes
To understand unfamiliar English words, I make guesses.
used
When I can’t think of a word during a conversation in 2.95 Sometimes
English, I use gestures. used
I make up new words if I do not know the right ones in 2.89 Sometimes
English used
2.86 Sometimes
I read English without looking up every new word.
used
2.71 Sometimes
I try to guess what the other person will say next in English.
used
If I can’t think of an English word, I use a word or phrase that 3.40 Sometimes
means the same thing. used
2.92 Sometimes
Average
used

Compensation Strategies. Analysis of language learning strategies in Table 4

reveals that compensation strategies are sometimes used by the learners to learn English

as shown by the average of 2.92. Compensation strategies are used sometimes when the

respondents utilize a word or phrase that means the same thing as the English word that

they can't think of (3.40), utilize gestures when they can't think of a word during a

conversation in English (2.95), make up new words if they do not know the right ones in
 37

English (2.89), read English without looking up every new word (2.86), make guesses to

understand English words that are unfamiliar (2.72), and try to guess what others will say

next in English (2.71).

Table 5

Language Learning Strategies in terms of Metacognitive Strategies

Indicators Mean Interpretation

I try to find as many ways as I can to use my English. 3.29 Sometimes used
I notice my English mistakes and use that information to help 3.70
Generally used
me do better.
I pay attention when someone is speaking English. 3.71 Generally used
I try to find out how to be a better learner of English. 3.52 Generally used
I plan my schedule so I will have enough time to study 2.89
Sometimes used
English.
I look for people I can talk to in English. 2.63 Sometimes used
I look for opportunities to read as much as possible in 3.05
Sometimes used
English.
I have clear goals for improving my English skills. 3.20 Sometimes used
I think about my progress in learning English. 3.48 Sometimes used
Average 3.27 Sometimes used

Metacognitive Strategies. Results of the analysis of the data in Table 5 suggest

that language learning strategies in terms of metacognition are sometimes utilized as

indicated by the average of 3.27. "Sometimes used" metacognitive behaviors is exhibited

when they think about their development in learning English (3.48), try to find how they

can use English (3.29), have clear goals for the improvement of their English skills

(3.20), look for possible opportunities where they can read books in English (3.05),

plan their schedule so they will enjoy sufficient periods to study English (2.89), and look

for people they can communicate in English (2.63) On the other hand, metacognitive

strategies are generally used when learners listen attentively to someone who speaks in
 38

English (3.71), notice their lapses in English and use those pieces of information to do

better (3.70), and try to find out ways in order to be a better learner of English (3.52).

Table 6

Language Learning Strategies in terms of Affective Strategies

Indicators Mean Interpretation

I try to relax whenever I feel afraid of using English. 2.91 Sometimes used
I encourage myself to speak English even when I am afraid 2.80
Sometimes used
of making a mistake.
2.47 Generally not
I give myself a reward or treat when I do well in English.
used
I notice if I am tense or nervous when I am studying or using 2.83
Sometimes used
English.
2.10 Generally not
I write down my feelings in a language learning diary.
used
I talk to someone else about how I feel when I am learning 2.38 Generally not
English. used
Average 2.58 Sometimes used

Affective Strategies. As can be observed from the data in Table 6, affective

strategies that focus on the developing positive attitudes to language are used only

sometimes when the respondents try to relax if they fear the use of English (2.91), notice

if they feel nervous when studying or using English (2.83) and encourage themselves to

use the language despite being fearful of committing errors (2.80). However, writing

down feelings in a language learning diary (2.10), talking to someone else of their

emotions concerning learning English (2.38), and giving rewards or treat when

performance is well (2.47) are affective behaviors that are not used. Affective strategies

are utilized in moderation as evidenced by the average mean score of 2.58.

 39

Social Strategies. Data in Table 7 reveal that social strategies are used sometimes

or moderately by the respondents as exhibited by the average mean value of 3.01. Social

behaviors are sometimes used when they ask English speakers for help (3.09), ask an

English speaker to correct them when they speak (3.06), practice English with other

students (3.05), ask a speaker to slow down or repeat whenever they do not understand

something in English (3.04), inquire in English (2.98), and try to learn about the culture

of English speakers (2.81).

Table 7

Language Learning Strategies in terms of Social Strategies

Indicators Mean Interpretation

If I do not understand something in English, I ask the speaker Sometimes
3.04
to slow down or say it again. used
Sometimes
I ask English speakers to correct me when I talk. 3.06
used
Sometimes
I practice English with other students. 3.05
used
Sometimes
I ask for help from English speakers. 3.09
used
Sometimes
I ask questions in English. 2.98
used
2.81 Sometimes
I try to learn about the culture of English speakers.
used
3.01 Sometimes
Average
used

As can be observed in the summary of language learning strategies' average mean

scores in Table 8, metacognitive behaviors recorded the highest average of 3.27. This

suggests that the learners are slightly more inclined to manipulate the learning process to

achieve their desired goals than other strategies. The result of the study in terms of
 40

metacognition concurs with the findings of Muniandy & Shuib (2016), Shabani (2015),

Mohammadi, et al (2013) and Noormohamadi (2009). On the other hand, affective

behaviors are found the least used set of strategies by the respondents as evidenced by the

average mean score of 2.58. This connotes that the learners are slightly less endorsed to

techniques that manage emotions, attitudes, perception, and motivation towards language

learning. Noormohamadi (2009), Yilmaz (2010), Mohammadi, et al. (2013), Tam (2013),

and Boroujeni, Roohani, & Sharifi (2014) gained the same descriptive data in terms of

affective behaviors. Language learning strategies as a whole are utilized sometimes as

manifested by the general average of 2.97.

Table 8

Summary of the Average Mean Scores of Language Learning Strategies

Language Learning Strategies Average Interpretation Rank

Metacognitive 3.27 Sometimes used 1st
Cognitive 3.06 Sometimes used 2nd
Social 3.01 Sometimes used 3rd
Memory 2.99 Sometimes used 4th
Compensation 2.92 Sometimes used 5th
Affective Strategies 2.58 Sometimes used 6th
General Average 2.97 Sometimes used

The results suggest that these sets of learning strategies in language are used in

moderation. The Grade 12 GAS students are not yet highly equipped with means of

independent learning. The findings call for the further program that will endorse the

learner to learning models.

The Respondents' Level of Language Learning Anxiety

 41

Attitude towards learning a language is one of the nuances that need attention.

The apprehension, nervousness, fear, and anxiousness of a learner are behaviors that

debilitate the development of proficiency and competence in language (Nandakumar &

Rathina, 2017; Mamhot et al. 2013; Guimba & Alico 2013; Humphries, 2011). If certain

measures are not devised to aid the given predicament, the overall national achievement

in language proficiency will be put at stake. Language learning anxiety is an unwanted

condition that places a learner on reservations because of self-inflicted fear. Several

researchers asserted that most of the students learning a second or foreign language

experience anxiety at some point in their academic pursuit. Khattak, Jamshed, Ahmad, &

Baig (2011) argued that such phenomenon could be caused by undeveloped schemata

needed for further complex lessons in language. Conversely, if an individual failed to

learn the rudiments of language, he or she might probably struggle to acquire more

complicated lessons that require sound background knowledge.

The investigation of the learners' anxiety of language learning was limited on two

dimensions: the anxiety experienced in English as a second language classes and

mainstream classes. English as a second language classes referred to the classes which

subject was to study and develop language-related skills in English. Oral Communication

Skills in Contexts, English for Academic and Professional Purposes, and Reading and

Writing Skills are some examples of English as a second language classes in the senior

high school. On the other hand, mainstream classes are the course programs in which

English is only the medium of communication but not the primary subject of study.

Practical Researches 1& 2, Inquiries, Investigations and Immersions, Introduction to the

Philosophy of the Human Person, and Understanding Culture, Society, and Politics are
 42

some of the examples of mainstream classes. For those claims, this paper assessed the

level of language learning anxiety of the Grade 12 students in the Municipality of

Hagonoy, Bulacan to gain a bird's eye view of the problem being explored.

Table 9

Language Anxiety for English as Second Language Classes

Indicators Mean Interpretation

In ESL classes, I forget how to say things I know. 3.23 Moderate
In ESL classes, I tremble when I know I’m going to have to 3.35
Moderate
speak in English.
In ESL classes, I start to panic when I have to speak English 3.21
Moderate
without preparation.
In ESL classes, when I speak English, I feel like a different 2.96
Moderate
person.
In ESL classes, even when I’m prepared to speak English I get 3.42
Moderate
nervous.
In ESL classes, I’m afraid that my teachers are ready to correct 3.03
Moderate
every mistake I make.
In ESL classes, sometimes I can’t express my true feelings in 3.40
Moderate
English and this makes me uncomfortable.
In ESL classes, I get nervous and confused when I’m speaking 3.25
Moderate
English.
ESL classes, there are so many rules in English, I feel like I 2.97
Moderate
can’t learn them all.
In ESL classes, I’m afraid that native English speakers will 3.11
Moderate
laugh at me when I speak English.
Average 3.19 Moderate

English as a Second Language Classes. As can be gleaned from the data in

Table 9, language learning anxiety in terms of English as a second language classes is

moderately experienced as evidenced by the average of 3.19. Moderate English as a

second language language learning anxiety is displayed when the learners get nervous

even though they have prepared for the task (3.42), cannot voice out their feelings in
 43

English which makes them uncomfortable (3.40), tremble when they are aware that they

will speak in English (3.35), get nervous and confused when speaking in English (3.25),

forget how to say what they know (3.23), start to panic when they need to speak in

English unprepared (3.21), are afraid that native speakers will laugh at them when they

speak English (3.11), are afraid that their teachers are ready to correct their mistakes

(3.03), feel like they cannot learn all the rules in English (2.97), and feel like a different

person when they speak in English (2.96).

Table 10

Language Anxiety for Mainstream Classes

Indicators Mean Interpretation

In regular classes, I forget how to say things I know. 3.11 Moderate
In regular classes, I tremble when I know I’m going to have 3.34
Moderate
to speak in English.
In regular classes, I start to panic when I have to speak 3.17
Moderate
English without preparation.
In regular classes, when I speak English, I feel like a 2.93
Moderate
different person.
In regular classes, even when I’m prepared to speak English, 3.43
Moderate
I get nervous.
In regular classes, I’m afraid that my teachers are ready to 3.07
Moderate
correct every mistake I make.
In regular classes, I can’t express my true feelings in English 3.32
Moderate
and this makes me uncomfortable.
In regular classes, I feel very self-conscious about speaking 3.13
Moderate
English in front of native speaking students.
In regular classes, I get nervous and confused when I’m 3.20
Moderate
speaking English.
In regular classes, there are so many rules in English, I feel 3.05
Moderate
like I can’t learn them all.
Average 3.18 Moderate
It can be analyzed from the data in Table 11 that language learning anxiety is

moderately experienced by the Grade 12 General Academic Strand (GAS) students as

 44

indicated by the general average of 3.19. Very little difference can be observed between

the anxiety experienced in English as a second language classes and regular or

mainstream classes in favor of the former. The results are in harmony with the findings of

Chanprasert & Wichadee (2015), Salim, et al. (2017), and Shabani (2012). This implies

that the learners experienced moderate degrees of fear, apprehension, nervousness, and

anxiousness towards performing language-related tasks.

Table 11

Language Learning Anxiety for English as a Second Language and Mainstream Classes

Dimensions Average Interpretation

ESL classes 3.20 Moderate
Mainstream classes 3.18 Moderate
General Average 3.19 Moderate

The Learners' Self-Perceived Language Proficiency

Self-perceived language proficiency refers to the confidence of a learner to his or

her competences in different components of language. The perception of a learner to his

or her ability is founded on self-esteem, self-efficacy, and self-evaluation. There is a great

need for every learner to monitor the development of their proficiency in the language to

keep track if objectives are met.

Unsurprisingly, the self-assessment to English language proficiency relates to the

actual capabilities of a student. According to Takahashi (2009), there is a substantial

positive relationship between the perception of a learner to his or her language

proficiency and the actual. The perceptions of learners to their knowledge of language

reflect their language mastery in practice. Khaleel et al. (2017) underscore the necessity
 45

to give enough attention to the construct for its effect extends to the attitude of an

individual to his future career. Individuals

Reading. As can be perceived from the data presented in Table 12, self-perceived

language proficiency in terms of reading is high as exhibited by the average mean value

of 3.58. High reading proficiency is displayed when they can read well in English (3.71)

and feel confident in their reading ability (3.63). On the other hand, a moderate

perception is exhibited when the respondents are good at reading English (3.41).

Table 12

Self-perceived Language Proficiency in Terms of Reading

Indicators Mean Interpretation

I can read well in English. 3.71 High
I feel confident in my ability to read English. 3.63 High
I am good at reading in English. 3.41 Moderate
Average 3.58 High

Speaking. As can be observed in Table 13, the perception of the respondents on

their speaking proficiency is moderate as shown by the average of 3.28. Moderate

proficiency perception on speaking is observed when they feel confident in their speaking

ability in English (3.24), don't feel nervous when communicating to native speakers

besides English teachers (3.33), are good at speaking in English (2.99), feel that they can

speak well in English (2.98). Perceived speaking proficiency is high when they think of

grammar before they speak (3.77) and don't feel nervous when communicating with

English teachers in English (3.52).

 46

Table 13

Self-perceived Language Proficiency in Terms of Speaking

Indicators Mean Interpretation

I think about grammar before I speak. 3.77 High
I feel confident in my ability to speak English. 3.24 Moderate
I can speak well in English. 2.98 Moderate
I am good at speaking in English. 2.99 Moderate
I don’t feel nervous when talking in English to
3.52 High
English teachers.
I don’t feel nervous when talking to native
speakers besides English teachers, for example 3.33 Moderate
ex- change students or when on holiday.
Average 3.28 Moderate

Listening. Table 14 shows that in terms of listening self-perceived language

proficiency is moderate as evidenced by the average of 3.42. The moderate level of

listening is exhibited when they can listen well in English (3.33) and are good at listening

to English (3.33). Moreover, high listening proficiency is recorded on their confidence in

their listening abilities in English (3.60).

Table 14

Self-perceived Language Proficiency in Terms of Listening

Indicators Mean Interpretation

I am good at listening to English. 3.33 Moderate
I feel confident in my ability to listen to English. 3.60 High
I can listen well in English. 3.33 Moderate
Average Weighted Mean 3.42 Moderate
Writing. The data in Table 15 suggest that in terms of writing self-perceived

proficiency is recorded moderate as indicated by the average of 3.22. The respondents'

moderate perceptions on writing proficiency are displayed when they feel confident in
 47

their writing ability in English (3.47), are good at writing in English (3.09), and can write

well in English (3.09).

Table 15

Self-perceived Language Proficiency in Terms of Writing

Indicators Mean Interpretation

I feel confident in my ability to write English. 3.47 Moderate
I am good at writing in English. 3.09 Moderate
I can write well in English. 3.09 Moderate
Average 3.22 Moderate

Grammar. Analysis of the data in Table 16 reveals that there is moderate self-

perceived proficiency in grammar as indicated by the average mean value of 3.19.

Moderate perceived language proficiency in grammar is exhibited when the learners are

confident of their knowledge in forming the present tense (3.32), are confident of their

knowledge to compare in English (3.26), are confident that they know how to use modals

(3.25), are confident of their knowledge on forming the past tense (3.22), are confident

that they know how to utilize the future perfect continuous tense (3.20), are confident that

they can use the past perfect tense (3.10), are confident of their knowledge to use the

conditional (3.02), and are confident that that they know how to use the passive voice

(2.93). However, confidence in the use of who, which, that, what, whatever, whoever,

whichever suggests high perceived proficiency in grammar (3.57).

Table 16

Self-perceived Language Proficiency in Terms of Grammar

Indicators Mean Interpretation

 48

I am confident that I know how to use who, which,

High
that, what, whatever, whoever, whichever. 3.57
I am confident that I know how to make
Moderate
comparisons in English. 3.26
I am confident that I know how to form the present
Moderate
tense. 3.32
I am confident that I know how to use the
Moderate
conditional 3.02
I am confident that I know how to use the future
Moderate
perfect continuous tense. 3.20
I am confident that I know how to use the passive
Moderate
voice. 2.93
I am confident that I know how to use the past
Moderate
perfect tense. 3.10
I am confident that I know how to form the past
Moderate
tense. 3.22
I am confident that I know how to use modals. 3.25 Moderate
Average Weighted Mean 3.19 Moderate

As can be gleaned from the data in Table 17, reading and listening rank first and

second respectively. The findings imply that the learners are more confident in their

receptive skills compared to their productive skills since that speaking and writing rank

third and fourth. On the other hand, grammar is the least endorsed component of self-

perceived language proficiency. The results of the study confirm the notions that English

as a second language learners can hardly acquire knowledge or mastery of the target

language.

Table 17

Summary of the Self-Perceived Language Proficiency Components

Components Average Interpretation Rank

 49

Reading 3.58 High 1st

Listening 3.42 Moderate 2nd
Speaking 3.28 Moderate 3rd
Writing 3.22 Moderate 4th
Grammar 3.19 Moderate 5th
General Average 3.42 Moderate

The self-perceived language proficiency of the learners is moderate as indicated

by the general average value of 3.42. The findings imply that the learners' assessment of

their proficiency in language yielded dominant average scores. Makewa et al. (2013),

Ibrahim, et al. (2013), Takahashi (2014) and Studer & Konstantinidou (2015) obtained

the same assessment of English language proficiency as perceived by the respondents.

Impact of the Learners' Language Learning Strategies on their Language Learning

Anxiety

In the conduct of the study, the first hypothesis states that language learning

strategies do not impact significantly on the language learning anxiety of the learners.

The data collected were subjected to regression analysis to determine the extent of impact

the predictor variables cause on the criterion variable.

Results of the regression analysis in Table 18 reveal that language learning

strategies in terms of memory, cognitive, compensation, affective and social strategies if

they feel nervous when studying or using English (2.83) and encourage themselves to use

the language despite being fearful of committing errors (2.80). However, writing down

feelings in a language learning diary (2.10), talking to someone else of their emotions

concerning learning English (2.38), and giving rewards or treat when performance is well
 50

(2.47) are affective behaviors that are not used. Affective strategies are utilized in

moderation as evidenced by the average mean score of 2.58.

To contribute to the language learning anxiety experienced by the Grade 12

students but not to a significant extent as evidenced by the Beta coefficients of .107,

-.014, .022, .095 and .78 respectively with p-values which exceed the .05 alpha. Only

metacognitive strategies are found significant since the p-value of .044 is less than .05

alpha. The B coefficient connotes that in every unit increase in the extent of

metacognitive strategy use will decrease language learning anxiety by .181.

However, the obtained F-ratio of 1.805 is not found significant since the

associated probability of .097 exceeds .05 alpha. The results suggest that, except

metacognitive strategies, the utilized sets of language learning strategies of the

respondents are not substantial predictors of the anxiety conditions of the Grade 12

learners in the public high schools in the Municipality of Hagonoy, Bulacan.

Thus, the study accepted the null hypothesis which states that language learning

strategies do not impact significantly on the language learning anxiety of the learners.

The results of the study are corroborated by the findings of Nuranifar (2014) and

Chanprasert & Wichandee (2015) in which the relationship between the subject variables

was also insignificant.

Moreover, the analysis has emphasized that the data also reveal that metacognitive

strategies are the significant determinant of the anxiety conditions of the students as

shown by the B coefficient of -.181 with the associated probability equal to .044

significant at .05 level.

 51

Table 18

Regression Analysis of Learning Strategies Impact on Language Anxiety

Unstandardized Standardized
Variables Coefficients Coefficients
B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
(Constant) 2.777 .292 9.506 0
Memory .131 .089 .107 1.471 .142
Cognitive -.017 .114 -.014 -.145 .885
Compensation .021 .066 .022 .317 .751
Metacognitive -.181 .089 -.163 -2.024 .044*
Affective .132 .086 .095 1.534 .126
Social .085 .079 .078 1.074 .284
R-squared = .035
F-value = 1.809
p-value = .097
alpha = .05

Nuranifar (2014) stated that the lack of correlation between anxiety and language

use might be attributed to the resignation of the learners to learn. Accordingly, learners

who are overwhelmed by anxiety tend to not invest in coping strategies. Also, teachers

are asked to orient learners more about these techniques so that they may have a variety

of choice.

According to Chanprasert & Wichandee (2015), opportunities to practice the

target language, especially in oral communication, may help reduce apprehension of the

overall language experience. However, the unremarkable relation between strategy use

and anxiety may be explained by the reaction or attitude of the students to the latter.

Learners have already adjusted to such conditions and have taken them as a point of

motivation and encouragement.

 52

Impact of the Learners' Language Learning Strategies on their Self-perceived

Language Proficiency

In the course of the investigation, the study hypothesized that language learning

strategies do not impact significantly on the learners' self-perceived language proficiency.

A regression analysis was employed to determine the possible relationship between the

variables.

As can be gleaned from the results, the obtained Beta coefficients of .120

(memory), .346 (cognitive), .301 (metacognitive), and .139 (social) suggest that the four

factors contribute significant impact on the self-perceived language proficiency of the

respondents. Compensation and affective strategies also contribute to the degree of

anxiety but are not substantial as indicated by .034 and .078 respectively. The B

coefficient results indicate that in every unit increase in the extent of strategy use in terms

of memory, cognitive, metacognitive and social strategies will mean .114, .321, .260,

and .119 respective increase to the self-perceived language proficiency of the

respondents.

Further analysis of Table 19 reveals an F-value of 25.250 with the associated p-

value of .000. Since that the associated probability does not exceed .05 alpha, it is,

therefore, safe to conclude that the combined effect of the language learning strategies

namely memory, cognitive, compensation, metacognitive, affective, and social strategies

form a set of significant predictors on the self-perceived language proficiency. Hence, the

decision is to reject the null hypothesis which states that language learning strategies do

not impact significantly on the students' perceived language proficiency. The findings are
 53

also observed in the studies of Meshkat & Saeb (2012), Boroujeni et al. (2014),

Ghavamnia et al. (2011), and Querol (2010).

Table 19

Regression Analysis of Learning Strategies’ Impact on Self-perceived Language Proficiency

Unstandardized Standardized
Coefficients Coefficients
Variables
Std.
B Error Beta T Sig.
(Constant) 1.752 .188 9.319 .000
Memory .114 .058 .120 1.985 .048*
Cognitive .321 .074 .346 4.354 .000*
Compensation .026 .043 .034 0.605 .546
Metacognitive .260 .057 .301 4.516 .000*
Affective .084 .055 .078 1.515 .131
Social .119 .051 .139 2.330 .020*
R-squared = .339
F-value = 25.250
p-value = .000
alpha = .05

According to Ghavamnia et al. (2011), the positive learning beliefs of the learners

may be attributed to their active use of strategies in learning. Since that learning

strategies are deliberate methods students applied to promote self-directed, independent

and responsible learning attitudes, educators must have the means to inform the students

of the existing tested strategies.

Meshkat & Saeb (2012) emphasized that the learning beliefs of the learners

regarding motivation and expectation are significantly related to their use of strategies.

This implies that students who utilize strategies frequently are those with a positive

outlook in their experience of language tasks.

 54

Boroujeni et al. (2014) supported the positive and substantial correlation between

the utilization of language learning strategies and language proficiency. Likewise, among

others, metacognitive strategies are the most significant predictors of proficiency as also

found in the findings of this paper. This implies that the behaviors of the learners to

manipulate and organize the learning experience are effective practices to improve the

capabilities and beliefs of the students on their language education.

Implications Drawn from the Findings of the Study

The following were the implications drawn based on the findings of the study:

1. The knowledge of language learning strategies suggests an understanding

of one's initiative to learn and acquire language in specific ways.

Orientation to these behaviors and techniques is a necessity for every

educational institution to promote independent and responsible approaches

for learning.

2. The understanding of a learner's feelings towards learning a language is a

perennial topic. A thorough exploration of the learners' predicaments and

issues is a need for both learners and educators for these psychological

conditions affect their mindset and consciousness. Teachers are asked to

be considerate of the dispositions of the students.

3. The beliefs of the learners of their abilities in language are the reflection

of their self-assessment of existing knowledge. Such awareness adds to the

conceptualization of an individual to his educational pursuits. Conversely,

 55

their positive outlook on their proficiency invites confidence and certainty

on their actual performance and skills.

4. The impact of language learning strategies on language proficiency

perceptions underscores the attention of students and teachers to the

endorsed outlets of learning in the classroom. Since language learning

strategy use depends on the learning styles and preferences of the learners,

it is a must to be sensitive to the facets of individuality they possess.

Programs, seminars, and classroom lessons are essential avenues to

address the demands of education in the present time.

Chapter 5
 56

Summary, Conclusions and Recommendations

This chapter presents the summary of findings, conclusions, and

recommendations concerning the impact of language learning strategies on the language

learning anxiety and self-perceived proficiency of the learners enrolled to the General

Academic Strand (GAS) program of the public high schools in the Municipality of

Hagonoy, Bulacan.

The research design utilized by the study was the descriptive-correlational

framework in which standardized instruments were the main tool for data gathering. The

respondents of the study were 302 Grade 12 GAS students in the Municipality of

Hagonoy, Bulacan.

The following null hypotheses were subjected to testing at 0.05 level of

significance.

"Language learning strategies do not have a significant impact on the language

anxiety of the learners."

"Language learning strategies do not have a significant impact on the students'

perceived language proficiency."

The results were obtained using the Statistical Packages for Social Sciences

(SPSS) for data processing. The findings were exhibited using the necessary tables and

figures. The results were analyzed, evaluated and interpreted using statistical procedures

such as descriptive and regression analysis to describe the variables and to determine the

impact of language learning strategies to the language learning anxiety and self-perceived

language proficiency of the Grade 12 learners. Language learning strategies, language

 57

learning anxiety and the perception of the learners' proficiency were quantified using

weighted mean procedures. Using the aforementioned procedures, the findings of the

study may be summarized as follows;

Summary of Findings

Problem 1: The language learning strategies of the learners

The language learning strategies of the Grade 12 learners were used sometimes as

evidenced by the general weighted mean value of 2.97. The LSS of the respondents were

"sometimes used" in terms of memory, cognitive, compensation, metacognitive, affective,

and social as evidenced by the weighted mean values of 2.99, 3.06, 2.92, 3.27, 2.58, and

3.00 respectively.

Problem 2: Students' language learning anxiety

The learners' language learning anxiety on both English as a second language and

mainstream classes were moderately experienced as exhibited by the general weighted

mean score of 3.19.

Problem 3: Students' self-perceived language proficiency

The learners' self-perceived language proficiency was moderate as indicated by

the general weighted mean value of 3.42. The respondents' self-assessed proficiency on

language was moderate in terms of listening, speaking, writing, and grammar as

evidenced by the average values of 3.42, 3.28, 3.22, and 3.19 respectively. On the other

hand, "high" self-perception of proficiency was exhibited regarding reading as indicated

by the weighted mean value of 3.58.

 58

Problem 4: Impact of language learning strategies on the language anxiety of the

respondents

Results of the regression analysis revealed that all language learning strategies,

except metacognitive, exerted insignificant contributions to the language learning anxiety

conditions of the respondents as evidenced by the Beta coefficients of .107, -.014, .022, .

095 and .78 respectively with p-values which exceed the .05 alpha. On the other hand,

metacognition is solely found significant since the associated probability of .044 does not

exceed the alpha. The B coefficient connotes that in every unit increase in the extent of

metacognitive strategy use will decrease language learning anxiety by .181.

However, the obtained F-ratio of 1.805 does not imply substantial impact since

the associated probability of .097 is greater than the set alpha of .05. The findings reveal

that the learners' language learning strategies are not significant predictors of the anxiety

conditions in the public high schools in the Municipality of Hagonoy, Bulacan. This gives

enough reason for the study to accept the hypothesis of no significance that language

learning strategies do not impact significantly on the language learning anxiety of the

learners.

Noteworthy, the data also revealed that metacognitive strategies are a significant

determinant of the anxiety conditions of the students as shown by the B coefficient of

-.181 with the associated probability equal to .044 significant at .05 level.
 59

Problem 5: Impact of language learning strategies on the students' perceived

language proficiency

The obtained Beta coefficients of .120 (memory), .346 (cognitive), .301

(metacognitive), and .139 (social) suggest that the four factors exhibit significant impact

or contribution on the self-perceived language proficiency of the respondents; however,

compensation and affective strategies also contribute to the degree of anxiety but are not

substantial in nature as indicated by .034 and .078 respectively. The B coefficient results

indicate that in every unit increase in the extent of strategy use in terms of memory,

cognitive, metacognitive and social strategies will cause .114, .321, .260, and .119

respective increase to the Grade 12 students' self-perceived language proficiency.

The further analysis reported an F-value of 25.250 with the associated p-value of .

000. Since that the associated probability does not exceed .05 alpha, the study has

concluded that the combined effect of the language learning strategies namely memory,

cognitive, compensation, metacognitive, affective, and social strategies form significant

sets of predictors on the learners' self-perceived language proficiency. Hence, the

decision is to reject the null hypothesis which states that language learning strategies do

not impact significantly on the students' perceived language proficiency.

Problem 6: Implications are drawn from the findings of the study

The following were the implications drawn based on the findings of the study:

1. The knowledge of language learning strategies suggests an understanding of

one's initiative to learn and acquire language in specific ways. Orientation to

these behaviors and techniques is a necessity for every educational institution

to promote independent and responsible approaches for learning.

 60

2. The understanding of a learner's feelings towards learning a language is a

perennial topic. A thorough exploration of the learners' predicaments and

issues is a need for both learners and educators for these psychological

conditions affect their mindset and consciousness. Teachers are asked to be

considerate of the dispositions of the students.

3. The beliefs of the learners of their abilities in language are the reflection of

their self-assessment of existing knowledge. Such awareness adds to the

conceptualization of an individual to his educational pursuits. Conversely,

their positive outlook on their proficiency invites confidence and certainty on

their actual performance and skills.

4. The impact of language learning strategies on language proficiency

perceptions underscores the attention of students and teachers to the endorsed

outlets of learning in the classroom. Since language learning strategy use

depends on the learning styles and preferences of the learners, it is a must to

be sensitive to the facets of individuality they possess. Programs, seminars,

and classroom lessons are essential avenues to address the demands of

education in the present time.

Conclusions

In the light of the findings of the study, the following conclusions were drawn:

1. Moderation in the use of every set of language learning strategies indicate the

various ways in which a learner utilize to meet goals in language education.

 61

2. Moderate language learning anxiety conditions of the learners suggest that

apprehension, fear, anxiousness, and nervousness were experienced on

average bases.

3. Average self-perceived language proficiency shows that the learners are

moderately optimistic and confident of their capabilities in English. The null

hypothesis that language learning strategies do not impact significantly on

language learning anxiety has been accepted.

4. The null hypothesis that language learning strategies do not impact

significantly on the students' self-perceived language proficiency has been

rejected.

5. The findings drew several implications that may help learners and teachers

realize the need for a comprehensive awareness of language learning

strategies, language learning anxiety, and self-perceived language proficiency.

Recommendations

Based on the findings and conclusion of the study, the following

recommendations are hereby offered:

1. That the teachers create outlets for the learners to practice various strategies

that may suit their learning styles and preferences.

2. That the learners be aware of the existing methods, techniques, practices in

language education to excellently meet learning objectives.

 62

3. That teachers, school principals, and head teachers assess the anxiousness,

fear, and apprehensions experienced by the learners and find ways to help

relieve such debilitating conditions.

4. That future researchers conduct experimental investigations on the practical

and deliberate impact of language learning strategies to the anxiety and

proficiency of English as a second language learners.

 63

References

Abdulla, A. A. (2010). The role of language learning strategies (LLS) and the effect of
different individuals in learning target or second language. International Journal
of Language and Linguistics, 2(3), 197-202.

Ahmad, A. & Safaria, T. (2013) Effects of self-efficacy on students’ academic

performance. Journal of Educational, Health and Community Psychology, 2(1), 22-
29.

Al Seyabi1, F. & Tuzlukova, V. (2014). Writing Problems and Strategies: An

Investigative Study in the Omani School and University Context. Asian Journal of
Social Sciences & Humanities, 3(4), 37-48.

Ali, M. A. (2017). English language anxiety: Development and validation of a brief

measure. International Journal of Psychology and Educational Studies, 4 (2), 42-
53.

Al-Qahtani, M.F. (2013). Relationship between English language, learning strategies,

attitudes, motivation, and students’ academic achievement. Education in Medicine
Journal. 5(3), 19-29.

Awan, R., Azher, M., Anwar, M., & Naz, A. (2010). An investigation of foreign language
classroom anxiety and its relationship with students’ achievement. Journal of
College Teaching & Learning, 7(11), 33-40.

Boroujeni, A.J., Roohani, A., & Sharifi, M. (2014). Language learning strategy use and
prediction of foreign language proficiency among Iranian EFL learners. RALs,
5(1), 44-61.

Cascallar, E., & Henning, G. (2011). Research reports: A preliminary study of the nature
of communicative competence.

Chanprasert, C. & Wichadee, S. (2015). Exploring language learning anxiety and anxiety
reducing strategies of the first-year students taking a foreign language course.
Journal of Social Sciences, Humanities, and Arts, 15(1), 131-156.

Du, M. (2012). A study of the relationship between English self-concept and language
learning strategies. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 3(3), 508-517.

El-Sakka, S.M. (2016). Self-regulated strategy instruction for developing speaking

proficiency and reducing speaking anxiety of Egyptian university students.
Canadian Center of Science and Education, 9(12), 22-33.
 64

Fadila, A., Yufrizal, H., & Kadaryanto, B. (2015). Language anxiety, strategy coping, and
students’ achievement. FKIP UNILA, 4 (9), 1-15.

Gharbavi1, A. & Mousavi, S.A. (2012). Do language proficiency levels correspond to

language learning strategy adoption? Canadian Center of Science and Education,
5(7), 110-122.

Ghavamnia, M., Kassaian, Z., & Dabaghi, A. (2011). The relationship between language
learning strategies, language learning beliefs, motivation, and proficiency: A study
of EFL learners in Iran. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 2(5), 1156-
1161.

Goulao, M.F. (2014). The relationship between self-efficacy and academic achievement
in adults’ learners. Athens Journal of Education. 1(3), 237-246.

Guimba, W.D. & Alico, J.C. (2015). Reading anxiety and comprehension of grade 8
Filipino learners. International Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences. 44-59.

Hashemian, M. (2012). On the interplay of self-esteem, proficiency level, and language

learning strategies among Iranian L2 learners.

Humphries R. (2011). Language anxiety in international students:

how can it be overcome? Griffith Working Papers in Pragmatics and Intercultural
Communication 1(2), 65‐77.

Ibrahim, Z., Hassali, M., Saleem, F., Ul Haq, M., Khan, T., & Aljadhey, H. (2013).
Perceptions and barriers towards English language proficiency among pharmacy
undergraduates at Universiti Sains Malaysia. Pharmacy Education, 13 (1): 151 –
156.

KayaoĞlu, M.N & SaĞlamel, H. (2013). Students’ perceptions of language anxiety in

speaking classes. Journal of History Culture and Art Research. 2(2), 142-160.

Khaleel, M., Chelliah, S., Kabir, M., & Iftikhar, U. (2017). Impact of self-perceived
English language proficiency on job anxiety and job depression of employees
working in multinational telecommunication companies. International Journal of
Applied Business and Economic Research, 15(16), 241-254.

Khattak, Z, Jamshed T., Ahmad, A., & Baig, M. (2011). An investigation into the causes
of English language learning anxiety in students at AWKUM. Procedia Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 15, 1600–1604.
 65

Lasala, C. B. (2014). Communicative competence of secondary senior students:

Language instructional pocket. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 134,
226-237.

Lee, C. K. (2010). An overview of language learning strategies. ARECLS, l (7), 132-152.

Leung, Y.B. & Hui, A. A. (2011). Language learning strategy of Hong Kong Putonghua
learners. Educational Research Journal, 26(1), 17-39.

Leyaley, R.V. (2016). The English language proficiency of freshmen students in the
institute of teacher education, Kalingaapayao State College. International Journal
of Advanced Research in Management and Social Sciences, 5(2), 257-278.

Liang, T. (2009). Language Learning Strategies --- The Theoretical Framework and Some
Suggestions for Learner Training Practice. English Language Teaching, 2(4), 199-
206.

Liu, H. J. (2010). Foreign language anxiety in university classes: A study of its

relationship with English reading performance. Providence Forum: Language and
Humanities, 4(1), 173-194.
Lockley, T., & Farrell, S. (2011). Is grammar anxiety hindering English speaking in
Japanese students? JALT Journal, 33(1), 175-189.

Lucas, R., Miraflores, E., Go, D. (2011). English language learning anxiety among
foreign language learners in the Philippines. Time Taylor International. 7, 94-119.

Magbanua, V.J. (2016). English proficiency of college students. International Journal of

Scientific and Research Publications. 6(11), 2250-3153.

Magno, C. (2010). Korean students‘language learning strategies and years of studying

English as predictors of proficiency in English. TESOL Journal. 2, 39-61.

Makewa, L.N. Role, E., & Tuguta, E. (2013). Students’ perceived level of English
proficiency in secondary schools in Dodoma, Tanzania. International Journal of
Instruction. 6(2), 35-52.

Mamhot, A.A., Martin, M.V. & Masangya, E.A. (2013). A comparative study on the
language anxiety of ESL and EFL learners. Philippine ESL Journal. 10, 200-231.

Martirossian, A. & Hartoonian, A. (2015). Lowering foreign language anxiety through

self-regulated learning strategy use. Canadian Center of Science and Education.
8(12), 209-222.

Merç, A. (2011). Sources of foreign language student teacher anxiety: a qualitative

inquiry. Turkish Online Journal of Qualitative Inquiry, 2(4). 80-94.
 66

Meshkat, M. & Saeb, F. (2012). The relationship between high school students’ beliefs
about language learning and their use of language learning strategies. Issues in
Language Teaching (ILT), 1(2), 273-296.

Mohammadi, E., Biria, R., Koosha, A., & Shahsavari, M. (2013). The relationship
between foreign language anxiety and language learning strategies among
university students. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 3(4), 637-646.

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.

Nandakumar, B & Rathina, K. V. (2017). Relationship between English language related

academic stress and English language anxiety of secondary school students. The
International Journal of Indian Psychology. 4(4), 162-171.

Ni, H. (2012). The effects of affective factors in SLA and pedagogical implications.
Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 2(7), 1508-1513.

Noormohamadi, R. (2009). On the relationship between language learning strategies and

foreign language anxiety, Journal of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied
Linguistics, 13(1), 39-52.
Nuranifar, Y. (2014). Strategies to cope with second language learning anxiety: The case
of Iranian pre–university students. Journal of Novel Applied Sciences, 3, 1493-
1502, 2014.

Ogenyi, L. C. (2015). Strategy use and language performance by second language

learners in Nigeria. Advances in Literary Study, 3, 65-78.

Querol, M. B. (2010). College students’ use of affective and social language learning
strategies: A classroom-based research. Philippine ESL Journal, 5, 22-37.

Raftari, S. & Alawi, S. (2012). A Review of the most popular language learning
strategies’ evaluation instruments. Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 4(4),
1-5.

Recca, R. & Lasaten, R. (2016). English language proficiency and academic performance
of Philippine science high school students. International Journal of Languages,
Literature and Linguistics. 2(2), 44-49.

Ruba, H., et al. (2014). Strategy inventory for language learning. European Journal of
Psychological Research. 1(1), 10-27.

Russel, A. (2010). Assessment of Strategy Inventory of Language Learning (SILL) in

students learning a second language.
 67

Sadeghy, A. & Mansouri, A. (2014). The relationship between learners` goal- oriented
and self-regulated learning and their endorsement of L2 learning strategies.
International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World. 5(2),
574-593.

Salim, W., Subramaniam, V., & Termizi, A. (2017) Foreign language anxiety (FLA) in
English language classroom. International Journal of Languages, Literature and
Linguistics, 3(1), 5-12.

Shabani, M.B. (2015). On the relationship between foreign language anxiety and
language learning strategies among Iranian EFL learners. International Journal of
Educational Investigations, 2(2), 9-23.

Shi, Y. (2017). Listening anxiety in English learning among international students in a

secondary school in the UK.

Studer, P. & Konstantinidou, L. (2015). Language attitudes and language proficiency of

undergraduate students in English-medium instruction. Publié dans Bulletin VALS-
ASLA, 3, 215-231.

Suwanarak, K. (2012). English language learning beliefs, learning strategies and

achievement of Masters Students in Thailand.

Takahashi, A. (2009). Self-perception of English Ability: Is it related to proficiency

and/or class performance? University of Birmingham.

Takahashi, H. (2014). Nonnative English-speaking teachers’ self-perceived language

proficiency levels, anxieties, and learning strategies. International Journal of
Christianity and English Language Teaching, 1, pp. 24-44.

Tam, K.C. (2013). A study on language learning strategies (LLSS) of university students
in Hong Kong. Taiwan Journal of Linguistics. 11(2), 1-42.

Wu, K.H. (2010). The relationship between language learners’ anxiety and learning
strategy in the CLT classrooms. International Education Studies. 3(1), 174-206.
Xia, Y. (2014). Language theories and language teaching—from traditional grammar to
functionalism. Journal of Language Teaching and Research. 5, 559-565.

Zare, P, & Riasati, M.J. (2012). Language learning strategies among EFL/ESL learners: A
review of literature. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science. 2(5),
162-169.
 68

Zare, P. (2010). An investigation into language learning strategy use and gender among
Iranian undergraduate language learners. World Applied Sciences Journal, 11(10),
1238-1247.
 69

Appendix A

Permission Letters
70
 71

Appendix B

Instruments of the Study

Dear Respondent,

The undersigned researcher is asking for your full cooperation in the conduct of
this study. Please respond to the following survey questionnaires in order to gather the
necessary information for the thesis paper entitled: The Impact of Language Learning
Strategies on the Language Anxiety and Proficiency of the Grade 12 Learners.

Please answer in terms of how well each statement describes you by ticking (/) the
corresponding box. Do not answer how you think you should be, or what other people do.
There are no right or wrong answers to these statements. Use the following scale:
1= Never or Almost Never True of Me
2= Usually Not True of Me
3= Somewhat True of Me
4= Usually True of Me
5= Always or Almost Always True of Me

Part A 1 2 3 4 5
1. I think of relationships between what I already know
and new things I learn in English.
2. I use new English words in a sentence so I can
remember them.
3. I connect the sound of a new English word and an
image or picture of the word to help me remember the
word.
4. I remember an English word by making a mental
picture in which the word can be used.
5. I use rhymes to remember new English words.
6. I use flashcards to remember new English words.
7. I physically act out new English words.
8. I review English lessons often.
9. I remember new English words or phrases by
remembering their location on the page, on the board,
or on a street sign.

Part B
10. I say or write new English words several times.
11. I try to talk like native English speakers.
12. I practice the sounds of English.
 72

13. I use the English words I know in different ways.

14. I start conversations in English.
15. I watch English language TV shows spoken in
English or go to movies spoken in English.
16. I read for pleasure in English.
17. I write notes, messages, letters, or reports in English.
18. I first skim an English passage (read over the passage
quickly) then go back and read carefully.
19. I look for words in my own language that are similar
to new words in English.
20. I try to find patterns in English.
21. I find the meaning of an English word by dividing it
into parts that I understand.
22. I try not to translate word-for-word.
23. I make summaries of information that I hear or read in
English.

Part C
24. To understand unfamiliar English words, I make
guesses.
25. When I can’t think of a word during a conversation in
English, I use gestures.
26. I make up new words if I do not know the right ones
in English
27. I read English without looking up every new word.
28. I try to guess what the other person will say next in
English.
29. If I can’t think of an English word, I use a word or
phrase that means the same thing

Part D
30. I try to find as many ways as I can to use my English.
31. I notice my English mistakes and use that information
to help me do better.
32. I pay attention when someone is speaking English.
33. I try to find out how to be a better learner of English.
34. I plan my schedule so I will have enough time to
study English.
35. I look for people I can talk to in English.
36. I look for opportunities to read as much as possible in
English.
37. I have clear goals for improving my English skills.
38. I think about my progress in learning English.
 73

Part E
39. I try to relax whenever I feel afraid of using English.
40. I encourage myself to speak English even when I am
afraid of making a mistake.
41. I give myself a reward or treat when I do well in
English.
42. I notice if I am tense or nervous when I am studying
or using English.
43. I write down my feelings in a language learning diary.
44. I talk to someone else about how I feel when I am
learning English.

Part F
45. If I do not understand something in English, I ask the
speaker to slow down or say it again.
46. I ask English speakers to correct me when I talk.
47. I practice English with other students.
48. I ask for help from English speakers.
49. I ask questions in English.
50. I try to learn about the culture of English speakers.

Please tick (/) the appropriate box to indicate your agreement/disagreement with the
following statements. Use the scale below:
1= completely disagree
2= disagree
3=neutral
4= agree
5=completely agree

Particulars 1 2 3 4 5
1. In ESL classes, I forget how to say things I know.
2. In regular classes, I forget how to say things I
know.
3. In ESL classes, I tremble when I know I’m going
to have to speak in English.
4. In regular classes, I tremble when I know I’m
going to have to speak in English.
5. In ESL classes, I start to panic when I have to
speak English without preparation.
6. In regular classes, I start to panic when I have to
speak English without preparation.
7. In ESL classes, when I speak English, I feel like a
different person.
8. In regular classes, when I speak English, I feel like
a different person.
 74

9. In ESL classes, even when I’m prepared to speak

English I get nervous.
10. In regular classes, even when I’m prepared to
speak English, I get nervous.
11. In ESL classes, I’m afraid that my teachers are
ready to correct every mistake I make.
12. In regular classes, I’m afraid that my teachers are
ready to correct every mistake I make.
13. In ESL classes, sometimes I can’t express my true
feelings in English and this makes me
uncomfortable.
14. In regular classes, I can’t express my true feelings
in English and this makes me uncomfortable.
15. In regular classes, I feel very self-conscious about
speaking English in front of native speaking
students.
16. In ESL classes, I get nervous and confused when
I’m speaking English.
17. In regular classes, I get nervous and confused
when I’m speaking English.
18. In regular classes, there are so many rules in
English, I feel like I can’t learn them all.
19. In ESL classes, there are so many rules in English,
I feel like I can’t learn them all.
20. In ESL classes, I’m afraid that native English
speakers will laugh at me when I speak English.

Please tick (/) the appropriate box to indicate your agreement/disagreement with the
following statements. Use the scale below:
1= completely disagree
2= disagree
3=neutral
4= agree
5=completely agree

1 2 3 4 5
1. I can read well in English.
2. I think about grammar before I speak.
3. I am confident that I know how to use who, which,
that, what, whatever, whoever, whichever.
4. I am good at listening to English.
5. I am confident that I know how to make
comparisons in English.
6. I feel confident in my ability to read English.
7. I feel confident in my ability to write English.
 75

8. I feel confident in my ability to listen to English.

9. I feel confident in my ability to speak English.
10. I am confident that I know how to form the present
tense.
11. I am confident that I know how to use the
conditional (i.e. if-clause)
12. I can listen well in English.
13. I am confident that I know how to use the future
perfect continuous tense. (I’ll have finished reading
this book by the end of this month.)
14. I can speak well in English.
15. I am good at writing in English.
16. I am confident that I know how to use the passive
voice.
17. I am good at speaking in English.
18. I am confident that I know how to use the past
perfect tense.
19. I feel nervous when talking in English to English
teachers.
20. I feel nervous when talking to native speakers
besides English teachers, for example ex- change
students or when on holiday.
21. I am good at reading in English.
22. I can write well in English.
23. I am confident that I know how to form the past
tense. (“He walked home.”)
24. I am confident that I know how to use modals.
(may, must, could, should, would, have to, be able
to)

Thank you for your time, cooperation and contribution to my study.

 76

Curriculum Vitae