CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

1.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter attempts to analyze the problem studied in detail and state the two theories
used as the foundation of this study. Section 1.2 of the study looks at the background of
the problem while the statement of the problem is discussed in Section 1.3. The theories
are the focus of Section 1.4. The objectives, research questions and hypotheses are listed
in Section 1.5. The significance of this study is presented in Section 1.6 with the
limitation of the study in Section 1.7. Section 1.8 focuses on the terms that are
dominantly used in this study. The conclusion of the chapter in Section 1.9 ends the
Chapter.

1.2 BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY

The world of learning today is very much different from what it was in the past. The
process of learning has endured vast changes that it is inevitable for students not to trail
its rapid changes. Today’s information age is accompanied by an exponential increase in
factual knowledge with rapid change and modification of that knowledge (LeJeune
2001). Learning, in the information age, demands learners not to be passive or stative
but to progress forward in line with the fast development of the current situation in order
to succeed.
 2

With the constant change in knowledge and technology, it is impossible for

learners to obtain all that they need to know just within the confinement of the four walls
of the classroom or just from the input of teachers in the classroom. While the role of
teachers as the main provider of knowledge in the classroom is important, it is equally
important for the students themselves to take the initiative to obtain new knowledge. In
this new situation, students must know how to learn every day, how to adapt to rapidly
shifting circumstances and how to take independent initiative when opportunity
disappears (Gibbons 2002). The key word is self-directed learning (SDL) and this is the
concept that will be able to help learners to keep up with the constantly changing world.
Learners should be active and moving forward to be at par with the emergence of new
knowledge.

Self-directed learning, a concept that is strongly linked with adult education has
become the objective of university education everywhere. Many universities are now
placing specific emphasis on the development of self-directed learning as one of the
primary goals of university education (Norzaini Azman et al. 2003). Norzaini clarifies
that as self-directed learners, students should have the ability to identify and set goals for
their learning, develop and use a wide range of learning strategies, work independently
and/or with others and persist to overcome obstacles in order to achieve their learning
goals.

More specifically, self-directed learning’s emphasis on personal autonomy,

personal responsibility and personal growth embodies some of the most fundamental
principles of higher education (Wilcox 1996). However, if students are expected to be
self-directed learners, they have to be prepared for it. It is important that students are
prepared with the foundations of self-directed learning that eventually will lead them to
be effective lifelong learners. The interest should be nurtured for the learners to develop a
positive attitude towards learning and their own ability to learn (Schrader-Naef 1999).

Although this is a concept synonymous to adult education, it is no longer limited

to them. This feature is also reflected in the Malaysian Educational Policy. The
importance of self-directed learning can be linked to one of the aims stated in the
 3

National Education Policy (1979) that is to produce more autonomous learners who are
more spiritually and emotionally motivated to learn independently and able to direct their
own learning successfully. Hiemstra (1994) acknowledges that self-directed learning
embodies the view that self-directed learners appear able to transfer learning, in terms of
both knowledge and study skill, from one situation to another. Generally, this ability
enables learners to manage and monitor their own learning.

Jacob and Farrell (2001) in their article “Paradigm Shift: Understanding and
Implementing Change in Second Language Education” touch on the importance of
learner autonomy in language learning. They state that learners should be responsible for
their own learning; the teacher no longer shoulders the entire burden of running the
classroom and a form of democratization takes place with the students taking on more
rights and responsibilities for their own learning. They further explain that eventually, as
learners are aware of their current situation, they will be able to determine the best
possible strategies to be used, develop new strategies or refine present one, so as to
become better learners.

Assessing the view forwarded by Jacob and Farrell, one will see the reflection of
self-directed learning concept embedded in it. Generally speaking, it can be assumed that
self-directed learners whom are said to encapsulate the ability to direct their own learning
should also possess good language learning strategies (LLS). If they are able to plan and
direct their overall learning goals, self-directed learners should be able to direct
themselves in learning a second language.

Judging both concepts of self-directed learning and language learning strategies,

both concepts appear to overlap one another, with the former being more dominant. The
concept of self-directed learning is reflected in Chamot’s (2001) explanation on language
learning strategies that learners have to contribute to their own process to learn a second
language in their own use of learning strategies or the techniques or the procedures that
facilitate a learning task. In this focus, the learners are no longer seen as passive learners,
awaiting instructions and being spoon-fed by the teacher and the teacher no longer
becomes the dominant provider of learning.
 4

Brockett et al.(2000 in Stockdale et al. 2001) lamented that of late there has been
a steady decline in work related to self-directed learning, but it is inarguable how the
concept of self-directed learning is still placed at the heart of learning and a process of
revitalizing it is very much vital. In her article on self-directed learning, Mardziah
(2001) enlightens on how self-directed learning allows learner to be more effective
learners as well as social beings and also it helps learners to pursue their own interests so
that learning becomes more meaningful. In learning a language too, a teacher dependent
method will just produce a receptive learner which is not an ideal condition for language
learners since it is a cumulative process (Michiko 2002). Furthermore, Michiko adds that
it is important for language learners to be autonomous language learners.

Realizing the benefits of self-directed learning and language learning strategies, it

has induced an interest in the researcher to find out the levels of readiness of self-directed
learning of a batch of young adults attending pre-university education in a private college
and also to gauge their ability in using language learning strategies in learning English.

1.3 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

No concept is more central to education than self-directed learning (SDL) (Norzaini

Azman et al. 2000). Briefly SDL is referred to as a course of action that is taken by
learners in conducting or managing their study, either on their own or with the guidance
of others. Learners have their freedom to plan their goals, select their own learning
materials and even access the outcome of their learning. This description pictures the
type of fine learners the learning method is able to generate.

The obvious benefits of SDL are rooted in the concept of learners taking
responsibilities for their own learning and becoming life-long learners (LeJeune 2001).
Taylor (1995 in Mardziah 2001)) found that self-directed learners exhibit several positive
and active traits of learning. Taylor added that self-directed learners view problems as
challenges, desire change and exhibit the enjoyment of learning. They are also more
motivated, persistent, independent, self-discipline, self-confident and goal-oriented.
 5

Considering the benefits, it is unquestionable that it has become one of the aims of
university education. In the United States, it has been introduced to students as early as in
the primary schools and this learning format has been widely adopted in their secondary
school system with the aims of helping students to achieve academic excellent and
literacy and also to help those falling behind in their grades.

In our country, even if SDL research is slow at garnering interest, the concept is
not an unknown one. The concept of lifelong learning is one of the seven aims stated in
Kurikulum Bersepadu Sekolah Menengah (KBSM) and one way of materializing this aim
is by introducing SDL. SDL is also one of the features of Smart School program that
aspires to encourage all students to practice self-paced, self-accessed, and self-directed
learning with the teachers acting as guides by the side to encourage continuous interest in
learning (Telekom Smart School 2000).

In schools, the practice of SDL has been assimilated in individual and group
projects that compel the students to complete certain tasks on their own. Indirectly, the
students have been introduced to SDL under the supervision of the teacher. Hence,
though not obvious, the students have been subtly trained to handle or direct their own
learning that may lead them to become lifelong learners.

Inevitably, students will experience different challenges in learning in the pre-

university and later university level. One is for the students to meet the demand of the
syllabus and the teaching method that are different in school. Most university teachers
want their students to take responsibility for their learning and expect their students to be
self-directed learners who have the skills of self-management (McMullan 2000). Students
have to meet the demand and wish of teachers that students should take responsibility for
their own learning. The key to survive the new situation is to be able to take own
initiative to handle the new situation and the answer lies in the concept of SDL.

The second challenge is the use of English as the medium of instruction. Pre-
university students who enroll in a private college will automatically find themselves in a
 6

context where English is used as the dominant language that maybe is totally different
from the context of their secondary school. According to the content of a Kurikulum
Bersepadu Sekolah Rendah (KBSR) and Kurikulum Bersepadu Sekolah Menengah
(KBSM), English language is offered in both primary and secondary schools and
although students may have had it as part of their school lessons, not all the students who
enroll in the private colleges have the sufficient knowledge of the language. Despite the
eleven years of exposure, some students are still unable to use English effectively and
correctly (Airil 2003). This condition exists in the university and also in the private
colleges where the medium of instruction is mainly English. The existence of students
who enter colleges with a pass in SPM but can neither speak nor write English is the
scenario that looms large in colleges (Lucille 2003).

In the new environment, these students still have to continue learning the language
and may have to double their effort to learn it in order to follow the lesson successfully or
their study will suffer.

In a wider sense, English is an international language and globally, 700 million

people use English, with half of these with English as a second language (Salmon 2000).
The situation is the same in Malaysia whereby the knowledge of this language will be an
added advantage for the students once they are out looking for jobs. This stresses the
importance of English for the students, now to excel in their studies and later to give
them the extra edge compares to other job seekers.

To excel in their studies, they have to put in their own effort to improve their level
of English. Students will not be able to learn successfully just by depending on teachers
but they too have to progress on their own. The act of improving their language is the
reflection of SDL and being able to learn on their own is vital as learners will not always
have teachers around to help and guide them, when they use the language outside the
classroom (Oxford 1990). Associating the similarities of SDL and language learning
strategies (LLS), it has compelled the researcher to find out if there is any association
linking the students’ levels of SDL and use of LLS.
 7

Therefore, the main aim of this study is to measure the levels of readiness of the
South Australian Matriculation (SAM) pre-university students for SDL and usage of
LLS. Two common problems that plague university students nowadays will be the focus:
their lack of ability to be self-directed learners and their poor grasp of the English
language. Choy and Delahaye (2003) found that the youth learners in their study felt
more comfortable to be dependent learners rather than shouldering the responsibility of
learning. This is definitely the contrast of the aim of university education that has begun
to emphasize of self-directed learning.

Learners’ grasp of the English language is also another matter that has seized the
attention of educators especially in private universities or colleges that use English as the
main medium. The existence of students with poor knowledge of English in classrooms
is not strange in the private higher institutions (Lucille 2003). For these students,
improving their English language through a proper set of language learning strategies is
vital as it will enhance their learning. The outcome of this study will then show these
students’ levels of SDL and also their standard of English. Both skills are imperative for
their success and from the end result; certain plan can be devised to assist them to be
good self-directed learners and also language learners.

1.4 THEORETICAL FOUNDATION

Two theories are used for this study as it involves two different research fields:
 self-directed learning (SDL) and
 language learning strategies (LLS).
An attempt to combine the two theories is made to encapsulate the gist of the present
study.

1.4.1 The Personal Responsibility Orientation (PRO) Model

The first theory used is the Personal Responsibility Orientation (PRO) Model
conceptualized by Brockett and Hiemstra (1991). In their model, Brockett and Hiemstra
view SDL as a process of learning and also a preference for assuming responsibility for
 8

learning. This model also focuses on the characteristics of the learners and this is one of
the research areas that have been dwelled upon. Self-directedness has been studied in
relation to learners’ characteristics such as creativity (Torrance and Mourad 1978), life
satisfaction (Brockett 1985) and self-concept (Sabbaghian 1980).

PERSONAL Orientation" (PRO) Model

FIGURE 1.1 The "Personal Responsibility
RESPONSIBILITY
Source: Brockett and Hiemstra 1991
Reproduced by permission of the authors.

SELF-DIRECTED
Brockett LEARNER
and Hiemstra’s model is based on the assumptions of humanistic
LEARNING SELF-DIRECTION
philosophy that can be linked to the work of Carl Rogers – the theory of Client-Centered
Therapy (CCT) (Ryan 1998). The foundational belief of CCT is that people tend to
SELF-DIRECTION
move toward growth and healing and have the capacity to find their own answers. This
IN LEARNING
tendency is helped along by an accepting and understanding climate, which the therapist
seeks to provide above all else (Ryan 1998). Rogers (1961) viewed the following
elements as being involved in significant learning.

 It has a quality of personal involvement. – The whole person in both feeling and
cognitive aspects being in the learning event.
 9

 It is self-initiated. – Even when the impetus or stimulus comes from outside, the
sense of discovery of reaching out, of grasping and comprehending, comes from
within.
 It is pervasive. – It makes a difference in the behavior, the attitudes, perhaps even
the personality of the learner.
 It is evaluated by the learner. – She knows whether it is meeting her need,
whether it leads towards what she wants to know, whether it illuminates the dark
area of ignorance she is experiencing. The locus of evaluation resides definitely in
the learner.
 Its essence is meaning. – When such learning takes place, the element of meaning
to the learner is built into the whole experience.

Basically, Rogers summarized that learners must assume active role in learning, as
self-initiated learners must be self-critical as well as self-reliant. Rogers did not deny the
role of teachers as teachers act as therapist in guiding the learners in conducting their
learning.

Rogers’ idea is clearly echoed in the PRO model. This model is designed to
recognize both the differences and similarities between SDL as an instructional method
and learner self-direction as a personality characteristic. The major components of the
PRO model consist of five dimensions of SDL: personal responsibility, learner self-
direction, self-directed in learning, self-direction in learning and factors within the
social context.

Brockett and Hiemstra’s PRO Model illustrates that the act of SDL begins with
the learners’ understanding that learning is their own personal responsibility. This is
done by learners assuming ownership for their own thoughts and actions towards
learning. Once, an initiation of learning commences, learners will begin this process by
planning, implementing and evaluating their own learning. This idea is captured in what
Brockett and Hiemstra refer to as the self-directed learning component. This component
involves external teaching and learning transactions by learners, teachers and even
learning resources.
 10

Another component of the model is referred to as learner self-direction. This

recognizes individuals’ unique characteristics that prompt them to take the main
responsibility in their learning process. Brockett and Hiemstra name this as the internal
factors of learners. Although the external and internal factors are different, they are
strongly linked to the dimension of self-direction in learning. This component
demonstrates how the act of SDL may work best for certain people and in certain
conditions. The model depicts a circle surrounding the other elements as the final PRO
Model component. It represents the social context in which learning takes place and it
emphasizes how the context of any learning is also a vital element that should not be
ignored.

Using the PRO Model, this study attempts to find out the samples’ levels of
readiness for SDL and its connection with their individual characteristics. The PRO
Model also acknowledges the fact that the activity of SDL may work best for certain
individual and only in certain situation, and thus it is one of the aims of this study to find
out if the samples are able to direct themselves in learning English. The outcome of this
test will support the assumption of self-direction in learning in the PRO Model.

1.4.2 L2 Acquisition Model

The second theory used is the L2 Acquisition Model taken from Ellis (1994). In this
framework, Ellis suggested two factors that may influence learners’ choice of language
learning strategies (LLS). The two factors are “individual learner differences” and
“situational and social factors”. Figure 1.2 illustrates Ellis’s suggestion.
 11

INDIVIDUAL
LEARNER
DIFFERENCES
- beliefs
- affective states
- learner factors
- learning
experience

LEARNERS’ LEARNING
CHOICE OF OUTCOME
LANGUAGE
SITUATIONAL & STRATEGIES - rate
SOCIAL FACTORS - level of
- quantity achievement
- type
- target language
- setting
- task performed
- sex

FIGURE 1.2 L2 Acquisition Model

Source: Ellis 1994

The L2 Acquisition Model illustrates the link of the two factors (“individual
learner differences” and “situational and social factors”) to the learners’ choice of LLS
used and also the outcome as in the learners’ achievement. As shown, this study will look
at the influenced of social factors in their choice of LLS. The social factors examined are
race and gender. The result of the present study will determine if these social factors
will influence the learners’ choice of LLS.

1.4.3 The Combination Model

Even though this study uses two different theories as its basis, there are some elements
that are overlapping in them. An attempt is also made to combine and capture the overlap
or common characteristics in the two theories into one Model that can be used to
personify the gist of this study. This novice attempt is shown in Figure 1.3.
 12

LEARNER INITIATED

LEARNER CHARACTERISTICS

LEARNER CHOSEN MEANS / STRATEGIES

 LEARNER SELF-DIRECTED LEARNING

 LEARNER USAGE OF LANGUAGE
LEARNING STRATEGIES

FIGURE 1.3 The Combination Model

Source: Adaptation from Brockett and Hiemstra 1991 and Ellis 1994

Figure 1.3 illustrates the combination of the PRO and L2 Acquisition Model. The
aim of this model is to combine the common factors in both models that help to illustrate
the steps or stages to be a self-directed learner.

There are several elements that make up this Model. The first element “learner
initiated’ represents how this learning activity actually begins with the learner own effort.
This implies how this is a voluntarily action. Once this initiative is made, the learner will
start to choose his own ways or strategies in learning which includes learning a language.
The act of choosing the methods or strategies of study is referred to as “learner chosen
means / strategies”. The chosen action will complement the initiative. At this level, the
learner may decide if he wants or needs to obtain help from other people.
 13

The type of methods or strategies employed by the learner may depend on his
individual characteristics as his gender, age and race. The broken line represents how the
chosen methods or strategies may, to certain extent, be influenced by the individual
characteristics. This explains the influence of variables such as race, gender and personal
achievement that may lead to learner choosing different types of methods of studying or
strategies in language learning. The next element envisages the aim of these activities
that are to produce a self-directed learner. The learner possesses the ability to be an
active learner with or without the help of a teacher. The final element is the circle that
encloses the four elements. The circle symbolizes how the learning activity is often done
in certain context or situation, either formal or informal.

1.5 PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

The purpose of this study is to find out the levels of readiness for SDL of South
Australian Matriculation (SAM) students in Taylor’s College and whether students of
different gender, race and school majors have different levels of preparedness for SDL.
The study will also explore whether there is any relationship between the students’ levels
of preparedness for SDL and their levels of LLS as high, medium or low LLS users. This
study will be also be focused into the research area of LLS by finding out the LLS that
are commonly used by these learners and its relationship with their English Second
Language (ESL) result.

The average mean obtained by respondents of SILL questionnaire reflects how

frequent learners use LLS in general. Oxford classifies users of LLS into three categories
as the following:

 High (define as learners who always or almost always used or generally used
LLS)
 Medium (depict as learners who sometimes used LLS)
 Low (portray as learners who generally not used or never or almost never used
LLS).
 14

Therefore, it is also the aim of this study to find out how frequent these language
learners use LLS by looking at the categories these learners are in.

1.5.1 Objective of the study

Objective 1 – 3 are related to self-directed learning (SDL)

1. to find out the levels of readiness of the pre-university students for SDL as
measured by Guglielmino’s Self-Directed Learning Readiness Scale (SDLRS)

2. to ascertain if students of different demographic background such as gender,

race, school majors are different in relation to their levels of readiness for SDL

3. to learn if there is any relationship between the students’ current academic

standings and English Second Language’s (ESL) results with their levels of
readiness for SDL

Objective 4 – 8 are related to language learning strategies (LLS)

4. to determine which type of LLS, of the six types in SILL, that is dominantly
used by these students and also to find out their overall mean as measured by
Oxford’s Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL)

5. to find out the samples’ current user levels of LLS (high, medium or low) as
estimated by SILL

6. to verify whether there is a specific type of LLS that is used by certain race and
gender

7. to investigate if there is any relationship between the students’ ESL results with
their SILL scores
 15

8. to examine if there is any relationship between the students’ user levels of LLS,
as measured by SILL, with their levels of readiness for SDL, as determined by
SDLRS (SILL and SDLRS)

1.5. 2 Research question and hypothesis of the study

Based on the objectives, the following research questions and hypotheses are formulated
for investigation.

Research questions 1 – 3 are based on self-directed learning (SDL).

1. What are the levels of pre-university students’ readiness for SDL?

2. Do students of different demographic background such as gender, race and school

majors have different levels of readiness for SDL?

Hypotheses 1 – 3 are formulated based on research question 2.

Hypothesis 1
Ho: There is no significant difference between students’ gender and their levels of
readiness for SDL.

Hypothesis 2
Ho: There is no significant difference between students’ race and their levels of
readiness for SDL.

Hypothesis 3
Ho: There is no significant difference between students’ school majors and their
levels of readiness for SDL.
 16

3. What relationship, if any, exists between students’ current academic standings

and ESL results with their levels of readiness for SDL?

Hypotheses 4 – 5 are devised based on research question 3.

Hypothesis 4
Ho: There is no significant relationship between students’ current academic
standings and their levels of readiness for SDL.

Hypothesis 5
Ho: There is no significant relationship between students’ ESL results and their
levels of readiness for SDL.

Research questions 4 – 8 are based on language learning strategies (LLS).

4. Which type of LLS, of the six categories, the pre-university students mostly use
and what is their overall mean?

5. What are the students’ current user levels of LLS?

6. Do students of different gender and race use different types of LLS?

Hypotheses 6 – 7 are constructed on research question 6.

Hypothesis 6
Ho: There is no significant difference between students’ gender and the types of
LLS used.

Hypothesis 7
Ho: There is no significant difference between students’ race and the types of
LLS used.
 17

7. What relationship, if any, exists between students’ ESL results and their SILL
scores?

Hypothesis 8 is based on research question 7.

Hypothesis 8
Ho: There is no significant relationship between students’ ESL results and
their SILL scores.

8. What relationship, if any, exists between students’ scores in SILL and SDLRS?

Hypothesis 9 is generated from research question 8.

Hypothesis 9
Ho: There is no significant relationship between students’ scores in SILL and
SDLRS.

1.6 THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

The outcome of the study is able to provide useful information regarding the samples
readiness for SDL that consequently will lead them to be lifelong learners as targeted in
the KBSM philosophy. Although only a small number of samples are included in this
study, it is hoped to give them a glimpse of the learning method that they will have to
face in the next level. Positively, it is an exposure of what is expected of them in the
tertiary level education. Hopefully it will ease their transition to SDL, which is common
to new students adjusting to university environment.

Consequently, the outcome is also beneficial to the teachers as to remind them of

their continuous role to train students to be self-directed learners. Teachers should realize
the importance of SDL and the suitable learning method that can be adapted to achieve it.
Teachers should be the catalyst to guide students to be self-directed learners that will
enhance their learning and eventually lead them to be lifelong learners.
 18

The findings of the study will also provide an insight of the strategies use by the
students in learning English. ESL teachers (importantly in this College) may use this
knowledge to assist them in helping the students in improving their English language
skills - whenever needed. The information obtained is valuable to help the selected
samples and it can also be used for the future students in the ESL classes.

1.7 LIMITATION OF THE STUDY

This study involves a small number of students and focuses to only one institution. Thus,
the findings of this study are only unique to this study and a generalization is
inapplicable. Two questionnaires are used in this study and whilst both instruments have
a high validity and reliability content, there is still a tendency that the sample may not
give the best answer to describe themselves but one that may please the researcher or one
that just looks or sounds good for them.

1.8 DEFINITION OF THE TERM

The interest in researches in SDL has resulted with numerous creative terms that have
been used by researchers to refer to SDL. Hiemstra (1996) reported that there are variety
of unique ways used to refer to SDL, among others are self-planned learning, self-
directed learner, self-taught adults and self-direction in adult learning. Nonetheless, this
study will use only the term “self-directed learning” or SDL referring to the process of
learning throughout the discussion in this topic. In this work, the abbreviation of SDL is
used as to avoid frequent repetition.

For this study, the definition given by Knowles will be used as the base of SDL.
Knowles (1975) describes it as “….. a process in which individuals take the initiative,
with or without the help of others to diagnose their learning needs, formulate learning
goals, identify resources for learning, select and implement learning strategies and
evaluate learning outcomes”.
 19

There are times when the term “self-directed learner” is used but it is used in a
different light from “self-directed learning”. At any time, the term “self-directed learner”
is used in this work; it functions as a noun that refers to a person practicing SDL.

Another important term that is also used regularly in this study is “language
learning strategy” or LLS. The word “strategy” generated from ancient Greek
“strategia” meaning generalship or the art of war (Oxford 1990). Although researchers
commonly used the term “strategy” but most would use different terminology as
“learner strategies” (Wenden and Rubin 1987), learning strategies (O’Malley and
Chamot 1990) and others such as Oxford (1990) use “language learning strategies”.
Despite the difference, the definitions are related. However, this study will use the term
set by Oxford (1990).

Oxford (1990) defines LLS as “…. specific actions taken by the learner to make
learning easier, faster, more enjoyable, more self directed, more effective and more
transferable to new situations.”

In this work, the abbreviation of LLS will be used to replace the whole term of
language learning strategies.

1.9 CONCLUSION

Briefly, this study is focused to find out the samples readiness for SDL and their usage of
LLS. Several independent variables such as gender and race will be tested against SDL
and LLS to find out if there is any significant difference and relationship between the two
variables. Despite the possible limitations, the outcome of this study will be able to
provide knowledge on the students’ preparedness for SDL and teachers will be able to
use this information to help them to be self-directed learners that in due course will help
them to be lifelong learners.