Language learning strategies used by male and female students in learning speaking

Ayu Suhesti(1), Kasmaini Kasmaini(2), Ildi Kurniawan(3),
(1) Universitas Bengkulu, Indonesia
(2) Universitas Bengkulu, Indonesia
(3) Universitas Bengkulu, Indonesia


This research aim at finding out language learning strategies used by male and female students in the fourth semester of the English education study program at Universitas Bengkulu. This research is descriptive quantitative. The population of this research is 117 students of the fourth-semester of English education study program at Universitas Bengkulu in the 2020/2021 academic year, and 52 students are taken as the sample by using purposive sampling. The data were collected by using a questionnaire. The questionnaire consisted of 31 items which represent 6 categories of learning strategies adapted from Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) version 7.0 proposed by Oxford. The collected data is analyzed by using Microsoft Excel 2007 and SPSS version 23. The results showed both males and females used all strategies category. Those are memory, cognitive, compensation, metacognitive, affective and social strategy. The dominant strategy used by male students are cognitive and compensation strategy (M=3.67), while the dominant strategy used by female students is metacognitive (M=3.74). Based on the result, there is no significant difference between males and females in using language learning strategies. Finally, the researchers suggest for lecturers who can use this research as information to design lesson plans in their speaking class. It is also suggested for students to use learning strategy in learning speaking more properly, the students have to find appropriate strategies that should be applied in learning speaking and for next researchers who will conduct the same topic of this research should make the next research more detailed information by involving other instruments.


Language Learning Strategies, Learning Speaking, Male and Female

Full Text:



Al-rickaby, A. K. (2020). A critical discourse analysis of stance and engagement markers in English and Arabic newspaper opinion articles in 2016. Journal of University of Babylon for Humanities, 28(4), 182–194. Retrieved from

Arsyad, S. (2013). A Genre-based analysis on discussion section of research articles in Indonesian written by Indonesian speakers. International Journal of Linguistics, 5(4), 50.

Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge University Press.

He, M., & Rahim, H. A. (2019). Comparing engagement markers in economics research articles and opinion pieces: A corpuSA-based study. GEMA Online Journal of Language Studies, 19(2), 1–14.

Hyland, K. (2001). Bringing in the reader: Addressee features in academic writing. Written Communication, 18, 549-574.

Hyland, K. (2002). Directives: argument and engagement in academic writing. Applied Linguistics, 23(2), 215–239.

Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary interactions: Metadiscourse in L2 postgraduate writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(2), 133–151.

Hyland, K. (2005). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7(2), 173–192.

Hyland, K. (2008). Genre and academic writing in the disciplines. Language Teaching, 41(4), 543-562. doi:10.1017/S0261444808005235

Hyland, K., & Jiang, F. (2016). “We must conclude that…”: A diachronic study of academic engagement. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 24, 29–42.

Irawati, L., Saukah, A., & Suharmanto. (2018). Indonesian authors writing their discussion sections both in English and Indonesian research articles. Cakrawala Pendidikan: Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan, 37(3), 113–121.

Khatibi, Z., & Esfandiari, R. (2021). Comparative analysis of engagement markers in research article introductions and conclusions. Journal of Modern Research in English Language Studies, 8(3), 1–24.

Millán, E.L. (2014). Reader engagement across cultures, languages and contexts of publication in business research articles. International Journal of Applied Linguistics (United Kingdom), 24(2), 201–223.

Parkinson, J. & Adendorff, R. (2004). The use of popular science articles in teaching scientific literacy. English for Specific Purposes. 23, 379-396.

Sahragard, R., & Yazdanpanahi, S. (2017). English engagement markers: A comparison of humanities and science journal articles. Language Art, 2(1), 111–130.

Siddique, A. R., Mahmood, M. A., & Iqbal, J. (2017). Metadiscourse analysis of Pakistani Eenglish newspaper editorials: A corpus-based study. International Journal of English Linguistics, 8(1), 146.

Zarei, G., & Mansoori, S. (2011). A contrastive study on metadiscourse elements used in humanities vs. non humanities across Persian and English. English Language Teaching, 4(1), 42.

Zou, H., & Hyland, K. (2020). “Think about how fascinating this is”: Engagement in academic blogs across disciplines. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 21(6), 713-733.


Article Metrics

 Abstract Views : 0 times
 PDF Downloaded : 0 times


  • There are currently no refbacks.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Journal of English Education and Teaching (JEET) is Indexed in


Creative Commons LicenseJournal of English Education and Teaching is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.