International Journal of English Language Education

ISSN 2325-0887
2013, Vol. 1, No. 1
www.macrothink.org/ijele
130
Study of the Communication Strategies Used by
Malaysian ESL Students at Tertiary Level
Raed Latif Ugla
School of Educational Studies, Universiti Sains Malaysia
11700 Gelugor, Penang, Malaysia

Nur Ilianis binti Adnan
School of Educational Studies, Universiti Sains Malaysia
11700 Gelugor, Penang, Malaysia
E-mail: [email protected]

Mohamad Jafre Zainol Abidin
School of Educational Studies, Universiti Sains Malaysia
11700 Gelugor, Penang, Malaysia
E-mail: [email protected]

Received: November 15, 2012 Accepted: December 26, 2012 Published: December 27, 2012
doi:10.5296/ijele.v1i1.2962 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5296/ijele.v1i1.2962

Abstract
This study investigates the kinds of communication strategies (CSs) used by Malaysian ESL
students. The data analysed in this study were collected in Universiti Sains Malaysia. The
study was quantitative in nature where a questionnaire adopted from Dornyei and Scotts
taxonomy of CSs (1995). This questionnaire was used to elicit the findings. The subject
consisted of fifty Malaysia ESL students. The results obtained show different kinds of CSs
used by Malaysia ESL students. The pedagogical and recommendations were provided in this
study.
Keywords: Communication Skills, Communication Strategies (CSs), English as Second
Language (ESL)
International Journal of English Language Education
ISSN 2325-0887
2013, Vol. 1, No. 1
www.macrothink.org/ijele
131
1. Introduction
These days teaching and learning English is very important. The main objective of teaching
English is to allow the learner to communicate orally and effectively. People around the
world learn a foreign language to enable them to communicate effectively. The use of English
as a first international communication means has grown for several decade (Graddol, 2006).
The strategies that are used by English as second language (ESL) learners to overcome the
breakdowns during oral communication are known as communication strategies (CSs). The
aim of this study is to identify the kinds of CSs used by Malaysia ESL students at tertiary
level.
In the past years, the focus on teaching the four skills (writing, reading, listening and
speaking) was the main target in teaching the foreign language but in recent years, the focus
becomes more on the oral communication which includes listening and speaking skills.
Rahman (2010) said that speaking is one of the most important ways to communicate,
sometimes is used to express opinions, provide evidence, interpretations and transition of
information, and the students need them to be able well in daily life and places of work.
Mastering listening and speaking in foreign language enable what may be called the oral
communication.
Some speakers use CSs when there is a problem to convey their ideas and thoughts in the
second language (L2), this happens when the speakers cannot select or use the appropriate
words, idioms, structures, phrases and so on. They face difficulties to communicate their
thoughts in foreign language (FL), all these difficulties because lack of their communication
competence. These strategies will help the speakers to reduce or remove their difficulties
while transferring their thoughts and ideas to the others (Lam, 2006).
2. Problem Statement
This research will attempt to investigate the kinds of CSs used by Malaysian ESL students to
give us a better understanding of their usage of these strategies when they communicate in
English. Non-native speakers cannot master all words and phrases ad terminologies of the
English language. When L2/foreign language speakers face difficulty in expressing their
thoughts, because of their own limited resources of the target language, they use verbal and
non-verbal means to help themselves to overcome the breakdown during oral communication.
Speakers use CSs to ensure that the intended meaning they want to convey is understood
(Tarone, 2005). Malaysian ESL students have some difficulties and problems, but the
situation is different with them, for instance Malaysian ESL students use English during
lessons time and also in daily functions as a means of communication with other people in
their society. Although Malaysian ESL students communicate more in English, they still face
with communication difficulties. Therefore, investigating CSs used by them through the
communication tasks considers a crucial importance in terms of developing their oral
communication skills. Lam (2007) claimed that it is a very important to know the problems
of communication encountered ESL learners as well as CSs they use, to develop their
communication skills.
International Journal of English Language Education
ISSN 2325-0887
2013, Vol. 1, No. 1
www.macrothink.org/ijele
132
3. Literature Review
Corder (1978) defined CS as a systematic technique practiced by the speakers when faced
with difficulty to express the intended meaning. Faerch and Kasper (1983) defined CSs as
conscious plans to overcome the problems facing an individual to reach the intended
meaning of communication process. Stern (1983) claimed that CSs are techniques, which
can be used when there are difficulties in oral communication through (L2). The learners lack
in L2 affects their use of CSs when they communicate orally in the target language. Second
language speakers use CSs to help them to overcome some of the problems facing them in
oral communication due to lack of their language proficiency. Communication strategies also
help them achieve their communication in L2 (Dornyei & Kormos, 1998).
Dornyei and Scott (1995) proposed their taxonomy of CSs which included most of CSs
available in communication strategy (CS) research. According to Dornyei and Scott (1997),
this taxonomy extended on the base of the taxonomies that developed by Tarone (1977) and
Faerch and Kasper (1983) but it dealt with how CSs help the speakers to solve the problems
during oral communication tasks and accomplish mutual understanding. According to
Dornyei and Scott (1997), these strategies achieve what may be called mutual understanding.
Their classification were extended and collected on the base of CS research. Their taxonomy
consisted of three main categories: direct strategies (strategies used by a speaker who faces
problems during communication process), indirect strategies (strategies used by a speaker to
provide the conditions that lead to the mutual understanding) and interactional strategies
which referred to the mutual cooperation which make by two or more speakers to overcome
the problems that face them through communication process.
Many factors that affect the use of CSs have been investigated and proposed by psychologists
of education in the literature. Language proficiency, frequency of speaking English outside of
the classroom and self-perceived English oral proficiency were the main factors that proposed
in the literature which could affect the use of CSs.
Learners level of language proficiency have been affected the use of CSs as mentioned in
previous studies as in the Chen (1990) and Tuan (2001) studies. Learners who have different
levels of proficiency in the target language are dependent on various sources of knowledge to
overcome the problems they face in communicating (Chen, 1990). The same results were
shown in his study that the learners who have high language proficiency used the CSs more
effectively than those who have low proficiency. Chen (1990) and Tuan (2001) also stated
that the learners who have high language proficiency used fewer strategies to communicate
the intended meaning. However, they used some kinds of strategies in oral communication.
According to Nakatani (2006) students who have high oral proficiency use negotiation of
meaning, fluency-oriented and social affective strategies, that are more effective to do the
oral communication, because the students used them to stay conversation continuous and to
gain interaction through negotiation. Students with low proficiency depended on ineffective
strategies such as low activity listener and message abandonment strategies. This means that
the learners who have high language competence were more ability to choose the strategies
best suited to communicate in the target language through the use of their linguistic
International Journal of English Language Education
ISSN 2325-0887
2013, Vol. 1, No. 1
www.macrothink.org/ijele
133
knowledge, while those who have low language competence were unable to do the same
work done by the learners who have high language competence.
The use of English as means of communication more often outside the classroom helps the
students or the learners to be able to use the suitable CSs. According to Clement (1986) the
search for opportunities to increase the area of communication leads to the results of
increased opportunities for communication between different significant intercultural.
Maliki (2010) conducted a study to show the importance of teaching CSs to L2 learners and
to use them in effective way when they encounter communication problems through the oral
communication process tasks. He reported that teaching CS is more important and he
emphasised the need to introduce techniques that can be used to teach these strategies. The
learners could use the techniques while they are interacting with other learners in a foreign
language to get better communication. This study showed evidence about the use and the
existence of CSs as a key element in the teaching of FL.
4. Methodology
This study will use survey design. According to Creswell (2009) survey design represents
quantitative research procedures through which the researchers can administer a
questionnaire to a group of participants who are the sample of the study. This study uses
Dornyei and Scottss taxonomy of CSs (1995) to elicit Malaysian ESL students use of CSs.
The total population of students who study English in the School of Languages, Literacy, and
Translation/ Universiti Sains Malaysia is 115 students. As for the research, 50 ESL students
were chosen. It was convenience sampling in choosing the students.
To investigate the CSs used by Malaysian ESL students, the researcher used a quantitative
method instrument, which is the questionnaire to achieve the above aim. The questionnaire is
adopted from Dornyei and Scotts taxonomy of CSs (1995). The questionnaire is divided into
three main categories (direct strategies, indirect strategies and interactional strategies). A
five-point Likert type scale with the following weights (1=never use this strategy, 2=hardly
ever use this strategy, 3=sometimes used this strategy, 4=often use this strategy and 5=always
use this strategy) was used to get participants responses for each strategy involved in this
questionnaire. The duration of twenty minutes allowed for the participants to complete the
questionnaire of CSs.
The data will be computed in the statistical package for social science (SPSS Statistic 17.0),
which arises from the participants respondents of the questionnaire. The researcher will
compute the data to find out the mean, standard deviation, frequency and the percentage as
well.
5. Data Analysis and Results
The questionnaire administered to a sample of 50 Malaysian ESL students at tertiary level.
Descriptive statistical analyses of their responses to the survey items are shown in this section
which addressed their use of CSs. The participants ranged between 18-20 years.
International Journal of English Language Education
ISSN 2325-0887
2013, Vol. 1, No. 1
www.macrothink.org/ijele
134
The questionnaire administered to a sample of 50 Malaysian ESL students at tertiary level.
Descriptive statistical analyses of their responses to the survey items are shown in this section.
which addressed their use of CSs. The participants ranged between 18-20 years.
Table 1 shows the frequency of gender for Malaysian ESL students, there are 15 males (30.0)
and 35 females (70.0) in the sample, giving a total of 50 responses.
Table 1. The frequency of gender for Malaysian ESL students
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid Male
Female
Total
Missing System
Total
15
35
50
0
50
30.0
70.0
100.0
0
100.0
30.0
70.0
100.0
30.0
100.0

Table 2 presents the means and standard deviations for each direct communication strategy
used by Malaysian ESL students respectively. From the output shown in the table, the
retrieval strategy gets the highest mean score (M=3.3800, SD=1.24360), while the omission
strategy gets the lowest mean score (M=2.4400, SD=1.01338) among other direct strategies.
Table 2. The Means and Standard Deviation of Most Frequently Use of Direct CSs By
Malaysian ESL Students
Types of CSs N Range Minimum Maximum Mean Std.
Deviation
Retrieval

Use of all Purpose Words

Code-Switching

Circumlocution/Paraphrase

Message-Reduction

Message-Abandonment

Self-Repair

Message-Replacement

Word-Coinage

Foreignizing

Omission
50

50

50

50

50

50

50

50

50

50

50
4.00

4.00

3.00

4.00

4.00

4.00

4.00

4.00

4.00

4.00

4.00
1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00
5.00

5.00

5.00

5.00

5.00

5.00

5.00

5.00

5.00

5.00

5.00
3.3800

3.3600

3.1200

3.0000

3.0000

2.8800

2.7200

2.6400

2.6200

2.5600

2.5400
1.24360

1.36666

1.11831

1.27775

1.56492

1.18907

1.32542

0.98478

1.12286

1.37262

0.99406
International Journal of English Language Education
ISSN 2325-0887
2013, Vol. 1, No. 1
www.macrothink.org/ijele
135

Mime

Other Repairs

Restructuring

Approximation/Generalization

Self-Rephrasing

Use of Similar Sounding
Word

Literal Translation

Mumbling

Valid N (listwise)

50

50

50

50

50

50


50

50

50

4.00

4.00

4.00

4.00

4.00

4.00


4.00

3.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00


1.00

1.00

5.00

5.00

5.00

5.00

5.00

5.00


5.00

4.00

2.4600

2.4400

2.3400

2.3200

2.1200

2.0400


1.9400

1.4400

0.78792

1.01338

1.09935

1.36187

0.96129

1.10583


0.95640

0.73290

Table 3 presents the means and standard deviations for each indirect communications strategy
used by Malaysian ESL students respectively. From the output shown in the table, the use of
fillers strategy gets the highest mean score (M=3.9000, SD=1.14731), verbal strategy makers
while the verbal strategy makers gets the lowest mean score (M=2.4200, SD=1.14446)
among other indirect strategies.
Table 3. The Means and Standard Deviation of Most Frequently Use of Indirect CSs By
Malaysian ESL Students
Types of CSs N Range Minimum Maximum Mean Std.
Deviation
Use of fillers
Feigning
Understanding
Self-
Repetition
Verbal Strategy
Makers
Valid N
(listwise)
50
50

50

50
50

4.00
3.00

3.00

4.00
1.00
1.00

2.00

1.00
5.00
4.00

5.00

5.00
3.9000
2.6800

2.6600

2.4200
1.14731
0.79385

0.68839

1.14446

Table 4 presents the means and standard deviations for each interactional communication
strategy used by Malaysian ESL students respectively. From the output shown in the table,
repair strategy gets the highest mean score (M=4.0200, SD=1.37752) while the guessing
strategy gets the lowest mean score (M=1.4800, SD=0.95276) among other interactional
International Journal of English Language Education
ISSN 2325-0887
2013, Vol. 1, No. 1
www.macrothink.org/ijele
136
strategies.
Table 4. The Means and Standard Deviation of Most Frequently Use of Interactional CSs By
Malaysian ESL Students
Types of CSs N Range Minimum Maximum Mean Std.
Deviation
Response: Repair
Asking for Clarification
Asking for confirmation
Indirect Appeal for Help
Response: Confirm
Response: Reject
Interpretive Summary
Asking for Repitition
Direct Appeal for help
Response: Repeat
Response: Rephrase
Own accuracy Check
Expressing Non-
Understanding
Response: Expand
Comprehension check
Guessing
Valid N (listwise)
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50

50
50
50
50

4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
2.00
4.00
3.00
4.00
4.00
3.00
4.00
3.00
4.00

3.00
4.00
3.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00

1.00
1.00
1.00

5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
4.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
4.00
5.00
4.00
5.00

4.00
5.00
4.00
4.0200
3.9800
3.1800
3.1400
3.0200
3.0000
2.9400
2.9400
2.8800
2.8200
2.8000
2.7400
2.7400

2.4600
2.0000
1.4800
1.37752
0.86873
1.39518
0.98995
0.84491
1.29363
0.93481
1.40567
1.00285
0.66055
1.06904
0.77749
1.06541

0.90821
1.08797
0.95276

6. Discussion
Kinds of CSs Used By Malaysia ESL Students at Tertiary Level
Among different direct CSs strategies, Malaysian ESL students used retrieval, use of all
purpose words, code-switching, circumlocution/paraphrase, message-reduction, message
abandonment, self-repair, message-replacement, word-coinage, foreignizing and omission
moderately. On the other hand, they used mime, other repairs, restructuring,
approximation/generalisation, self-repairing, use of similar sounding word, literal translation
and mumbling in a very low rate. It is believed that Malaysian ESL students have problem
with poor vocabulary, since they use these strategies in low rate, and they also do not use
non-verbal strategies more such as mime which is much more important strategy which keeps
the conversation open when there is difficulty during communication task.
Among the indirect CSs, the Malaysian ESL students used fillers strategy more often than
others. They used foreignizing understanding and self-repetition moderately. They use verbal
strategy makers in a very low rate. The interactional CSs which used more often by them,
namely response: repair and asking for clarification. They used the strategies namely: asking
for confirmation, indirect appeal for help, response: confirm, response: reject, interpretive
International Journal of English Language Education
ISSN 2325-0887
2013, Vol. 1, No. 1
www.macrothink.org/ijele
137
summary, asking for repetition, direct appeal for help, response: repeat, response: rephrase,
own accuracy check and expressing non-understanding moderately. They used response:
expand comprehension check and guessing in a very low rate. These evidences show that
Malaysian ESL students use interactional strategies more than the other kinds of CSs to solve
their difficulties during communication, since they have much more opportunities to use
English in their every day lifes functions and they also have more interaction situations with
English speakers in their society. This supports the psycholinguistic theory developed by
Faerch and Kasper (1983), which assumed that the speakers try o solve their communication
breakdowns and difficulties through interaction, which goes through psychological process to
reach the intended goal of communication. Table 5.0 (refer appendix) shows the kinds of CSs
used by Malaysian ESL students.
Malaysian ESL students used mime strategy at low rate, which means that those students do
not use their hands, facial expression, gestures and body movements during oral
communication in the target language. Malaysian ESL students least frequently used self
repair strategy, which means that those students do not have many grammatical mistakes,
since this strategy associated with both grammar and linguistics aspects. Approximation
strategy was another strategy least frequently used by Malaysian ESL students as this strategy
uses to facilitate speech production by enabling the learners use an alternative word that
generalises semantic features of the intended meaning.
7. Conclusion
This study aims to investigate CSs used by Malaysian ESL students at tertiary level. The
result shows that Malaysian students did not face many difficulties or breakdowns during
their communication in English because they use most of CSs in low level. This study
suggests a need to incorporate CSs into the English language programs at different levels of
education in order to enhance ESL students ability in oral communication.
Acknowledgement
The authors would like to acknowledge all the authors of articles cited in this paper. In
addition, the gratefully acknowledge USM, Universiti Sains Malaysia for their support and
encouragement.
References
Bialystok, E., & Kellerman, E. (1987). Language strategies in the classroom. In B. K. Das
(Ed), Communication and learning in the classroom community.
Chen, S. Q. (1990). A Study of Communication Strategies in Interlanguage Production By
Chinese EFL Learners. Language Learning, 40(2), 155-187. Retrieved September 19, 2011
from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467
Clement, R. (1986). Second Language Proficiency And Acculturation: An Investigation of
The Effects of Language Status and Individual Characteristics. Journal of Language and
Social Psychology 5, 271-290.
International Journal of English Language Education
ISSN 2325-0887
2013, Vol. 1, No. 1
www.macrothink.org/ijele
138
Corder, S. Q. (1978). Language-learner language. In Jack C. Richards (ed). Understanding
Second and Foreign Language Learning. Rowley, Mass: Newbury House. pp. 71-91.
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods
Approaches. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Publications.
Dornyei, Z. (1995). On the Teachability of Communication Strategies. TESOL Quarterly, 29,
1, 55-81.
Dornyei, Z., & Scott, M. L. (1997). Communication Strategies in A Second Language:
Definitions and taxonomies. Language Learning, 47, 173-210. Retrieved September 19, 2011
from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/0023-8333.51997005/pdf
Dornyei, Z., & Kormos, J. (1998). Problem-Solving Mechanisms in L2 Communication: A
psycholinguistic Perspective. Studies in Second Language Acquistion, 20, 349-385.
Faerch. C., & Kasper, G. (1983). Strategies in Interlanguage Communication. London:
Longman.
Faerch. C., & Kasper, G. (1983). Plans and Strategies in Foreign Language Communication.
In Faerch, C., & Kasper, G. (Eds.), Strategies in Interlanguage Communication. Harlow,
England: Longman.
Graddol, David (2006). English Next: Why Global English May Mean the End of English as
a Foreign Language. London: British Council. Retrieved October 13, 2011 from
http://www.britishcouncil.org/files/documents/learning-research-english
Lam, W. Y. K. (2006). Gaughing The Effects of ESL Oral Communication Strategy Teaching:
A multi-method approach. e-FLT, 3(2), 142-157. Retrieved September 15, 2011 from
e-flt.nus.edu.sg/v3n22006/lam.htm
Maleki, A. (2010). Techniques to Teach Communication Strategies. Journal of Language
Teaching and Research, 1(5), 640-646.
Nakatani, Yasuo. (2006). Developing An Oral Communication Strategy Inventory. The
modern Language Journal, 90, 151-168.
Rahman, M. Mojibur. (2010). Teaching Oral Communication Skills: A Task-based Approach.
ESP World, Issue 1(27), Volume 9. Retrieved September 22, 2011 from
http://www.esp-world.info
Stern, H. (1983). Fundamental Concepts of Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Tarone, E. (1977). Conscious Communication Strategies in Interlanguage: A Progress Report.
On TESOL 1977. Washington, D.C: TESOL.
Tarone, E. (2005). Speaking in a second language. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research
in second language teaching and learning. pp. 485-502.
Tuan, H. J. (2001). Is Extroversion-Intriversion Tendency A Variable in The Choice of
International Journal of English Language Education
ISSN 2325-0887
2013, Vol. 1, No. 1
www.macrothink.org/ijele
139
Strategies in Communication? Proceedings of the Eighteenth Conference on English
Teaching and Learning in the Republic of China Taipei: Crane. pp. 306-324.


Copyright Disclaimer
Copyright reserved by the author(s).
This article is an open-access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the
Creative Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/).