CPE198 (Methods of Research)

Synthesis of Related Literature and Studies

Tentative Research Title: Level of Learners Autonomy and Language Learning Strategy: The Experiences of BSED English Pre-service Teachers in MSU Marawi Main
Campus

Author/s and Year Research Title Theory/Framework Research Methods used Summary of Conclusion and Research Gaps
used questions (research design, data Findings recommendation for (What has not been researched
analysis, stat, future research or investigated so far?)
respondents,
instrumentation)
Language Learning The study The findings of Conclusion
1.Daflizar, Strategies and formulated the Research design the current The findings of the The gaps between our
Sulistiyo, U., & Learner Autonomy: following guide The researchers in study showed present study have study and the other study
Kamil, D. (2022) The Case of questions of this study used that the most some practical presented, can be
Indonesian Tertiary this study: quantitative research common educational reflected to the concept
EFL Students design to gather the strategies used implications in EFL of qualitative research
1. What types data needed. by Indonesian teaching and design and experiences
of learning Respondents tertiary students learning. Teachers of the participants who
strategies do The respondents of were should encourage are known as
Indonesian this study were the metacognitive students to autonomous leaners
tertiary EFL 76 English strategies. The engage in various towards their own
students use department students high usage of English learning language learning
most and least of a higher education metacognitive activities and use strategies. The study of
in English institution in strategies may various language Daflizar, Sulistiyo, U., &
language Indonesia. They were be due to learning strategies Kamil, D. (2022),
learning? recruited as the students’ high to promote their Iamudom, T., &
participants of this underlying self-confidence. Tangkiengsirisin, S. (2020)
2. How do the study. They motivation to The teachers and Samaie M. et.al
students comprised 65 females learn English should also design (2015) is focusing on
perceive their and 11 males, aged since they were classroom correlational study or the
abilities in between 18 and 21 doing English activities that significant relationship
autonomous years old, and from major and the allow learner between Language
English three different years recognition of involvement and learning strategies (LLS)
language of study, i.e. year 1, the importance self-reflection, and and Learners Autonomy
learning? year 2, and year 3, of coordinating the use of the (LA). Not just them but
and with their language target language. other related literature
3. To what Intermediate English learning. Their role should shows that there is a
extent do the language proficiency be more as a significant or positive
students on average. To select The findings also facilitator who connection between two.
engage in the participants, a showed that the provide support Language Learning
autonomous convenience participants of and guidance than Strategies and Learners
English sampling technique this study had as an authority autonomy are two
language was used. positive views who control all separate concepts and
learning Instrument about their language learning there are a lot of studies
activities inside The students who autonomous processes. Explicit that was being presented
and outside the agreed to participate learning abilities strategy training through these two
classroom? in this study were concerning their may be needed as different concepts, as
given two sets of English learning a transitional shown to the referred
4. Is there any questionnaires to activities both phase during and related study in this
correlation complete. To collect inside and which control is matrix. The bottom line is
between the data on students’ outside the gradually shifted that the correlational
students’ language learning classroom. from the teacher study between Language
language strategy use, Oxford's Regarding to students and to Learning Strategies and
learning (1990) Strategy outside make them Learners autonomy is
strategy and Inventory for classroom recognize their mainly presented to the
their Language Learning activities, there abilities in the concept of quantitative
perceptions of (SILL) for ESL/EFL were 8 out of 22 process as well as research method
their abilities in learners was used. activities that allow them to take approach, and no data
autonomous The SILL is a self- were practiced responsibilities. have yet been presented
English reporting the most Limitations of the the language learning
language questionnaire aimed frequently study strategies of the of the
learning? to assess the (often or As with any independent learners in
frequency of sometimes) by research, the qualitative way, as well as
5. Is there any students’ language the majority present study has their experiences using
correlation learning strategy use (more than 70%) some limitations. and applying the LLS
between with 5-point Likert of the students. First, it involved used.
students’ scale options, i.e. Regarding inside only a small
language ‘never true of me’, the classroom number of
learning ‘usually not true of activities, four participants from
strategy and me’, ‘somewhat true out of five one higher
the practice of of me’, ‘usually true learning education
autonomous of me’, and ‘always activities were institution in a
English true of me’. claimed to be province in
language The SILL consists of frequently Indonesia. Further
learning 50 items that are practiced by a research should
outside the divided into six major vast majority of involve a bigger
classroom? categories of the students. A number of
strategy, i.e. memory, Pearson participants from a
cognitive, Correlation range of higher
compensation, analysis was education
metacognitive, conducted to institutions in
affective, and social examine the order to increase
strategies. This relationship the
questionnaire was between representativeness
chosen because it is a students’ of the study and
standardized language provide a more
language learning learning strategy comprehensive
strategy use and their portrait of the
measurement tool perceptions of topic under
that has been used in their abilities in investigation.
many studies around autonomous Second, the data
the world. To assess learning. The were collected
students’ learner results showed only through self-
autonomy, an that there was a report
adapted positive questionnaires.
questionnaire correlation Further research
developed by Chan et between should employ
al. (2002) was students’ other data
employed. For the language collection methods
purpose of this study, learning strategy such as interviews,
two of three sections use and their earning diaries,
of the original perceptions of observations, etc.
questionnaire were their abilities in to enhance the
used. The first section autonomous richness of the
consisted of 11 items English language data and yield a
focusing on students’ learning more
perceptions of their (r=0.235, N=76). comprehensive
abilities in several Moreover, the picture of
areas of English relationship was students’ actual
language learning significant practices of
both inside and (p=.041). language learning
outside the Another Pearson strategies and
classroom. Correlation autonomous
Statistics analysis was learning.
 The data obtained conducted to
through the
examine the
questionnaires were relationship
analyzed using both between
descriptive andstudents’
inferential statisticslanguage
with the help of SPSS.learning strategy
Data Analysis use and their
Specifically, meanpractice of
scores, percentages, autonomous
and standardEnglish language
deviations were used learning outside
where appropriatethe classroom.
for the descriptive The results
data, and the Pearson showed that
Correlation was used there was a
to examine the
positive
correlation between correlation
students’ languagebetween
learning strategy use students’
and their perceptions strategy use and
of their abilities in their practice of
autonomous learning autonomous
and between their English language
learning strategy use learning outside
and the practice of the class
autonomous English (r=0.631, N=76)
language learning
and the
outside the class. correlation was
also significant
(p=.000).
2. Iamudom, T., A Comparison The research Research Design Iamudom and From the results
& Study of Learner questions in To conduct the study, Tangkiengsirisin showing learner
Tangkiengsirisin Autonomy and this study are mix-method research (2020) autonomy levels
, S. (2020) Language Learning formulated as is employed in the investigated the among Thai EFL
Strategies among following: investigation. learner learners in both
Thai EFL Learners autonomy level international
1. What is the Respondents and language school and Thai
level of EnglishThe participants of learning public school, this
language this study were strategies use reflects the
learning convenient sampling among 200 Thai teaching and
autonomy of which come from the EFL learners school curriculum
Thai EFL whole population of comparing may promote the
students 387 senior high international students to rely
learning in the school students in a school students more on
international tutorial school in and Thai public- themselves. With
school and Thai Bangkok. The school students regard to the
public school? participants of this in a tutorial result of language
study were school. learning strategies
2. What are the convenient sampling Employing mix- investigation
differences of which come from the method among the
English whole population of research, the autonomous
language 387 senior high study used learners, it
learning school students in a questionnaires revealed that a
strategies used tutorial school in and interviews high proportion of
by Thai EFL Bangkok. to collect the LLS are used
students data. The among Thai
learning in the Instruments findings students, both in
international The learner revealed that international
school and Thai autonomy Thai public school and Thai
public school? questionnaire used in school students public school. In
this study was had a higher terms of teaching
adapted from MILLA level of learner method, it is great
questionnaire autonomy and for EFL teachers to
(Murase, 2015), employed consider the
learner autonomy language language learning
cart sort (Cooker, learning strategies and
2015), and learner strategies more teach their
autonomy than the students the
questionnaire (Joshi, international strategies
2011). The core school students. appropriate to
concept of the The Thai public their proficiency. It
learner autonomy school students is also great to
questionnaire is mostly used encourage the
based on the four compensation students
components: strategies attempting to use
students’ willingness, whereas the all of the
students’ self- international strategies as it can
confidence, students’ school students promote self-
motivation, and widely used confidence and
students’ ability. cognitive positive
Moreover, the strategies. motivation to the
Strategy Inventory for students, such as
Language Learning affective strategies
(SILL), developed by can help the
Oxford (1990) was learners coping
adapted to be used in with difficulties
this study. and push them
onwards
Statistics/Data
Analysis
The results of the 5-
point Likert scale
questionnaire data
were analyzed by
Descriptive Statistic in
SPSS (IBM Version 23)
to find the mean
score and standard
deviation (SD). In
addition, a qualitative
method is used to
observe the LLS in
depth. The
retrospective
interview was
provided as an
important tool to
explore and elaborate
the aspects of
strategies use. The
approximately 30
minutes semi-
structured interview
 was provided to elicit
participants’
information about
language learning
strategies usage. The
result of six semi-
structured interviews
were content
analyzed by coding
the reasons and some
personal experience
of the participants
related to the
questionnaire
information each
participant had
provided previously.

3. Samaie M. On the Relationship Research Research Design The results The current study
et.al (2015) between Learner Questions: showed that the was carried out
Autonomy and students had with the purpose
Language Learning 1. How Respondents autonomy in of investigating
Strategies among autonomous The participants of language the possible
Iranian EFL are the Iranian the study comprised learning and relationship of
Students EFL university 150 Iranian EFL male believed that learner autonomy
students in and female they were able and language
language undergraduate and to take learning strategies
learning? M.A students responsibility for among Iranian EFL
majoring English their own students. The
2. Is there any Language Teaching, learning. A majority of the
significant English Language statistically participants
difference Translation and significant showed to have
between English Language difference was autonomy in
Iranian EFL Literature. The found between language learning
male and sampled subjects males and and regarded
female were selected from females in their themselves
students in Ilam Islamic Azad learning strategy capable of taking
terms of their University, Ilam use in favor of responsibility for
language Payam-e-Noor female students. their own learning.
learning University, and Ilam The results also Like other studies,
strategy use? State University. The showed that this study had
participants' age there was a some limitations
3. Is there any ranged from 18 to 40 statistically that should be
significant with the mean of significant pointed out. A
difference 24.160. The positive limitation of this
between participants of this correlation study was the
Iranian EFL study came from between small sample size
male and different regions of students’ which restricts its
female the country and had autonomy and generalizability to
students in different linguistic their language other samples and
terms of their and cultural learning strategy contexts. The
language backgrounds, distinct use. other limitation
learning dialects and native was due to the
strategy use? languages including fact that
Kurdish, Turkish, questionnaire was
Arabic, Lak and Lor. the primary data
collection of this
Instruments study, so further
The data were research can be
gathered through conducted using
administering two other data
questionnaires. 1. collection
Learner Autonomy instruments such
Questionnaire and 2. as Interview,
Oxford’s (1990) diaries, portfolios
Strategy Inventory for and so on
Language Learning
(SILL)

Statistics/Data
Analysis
The statistical
analyses were
conducted using SPSS
version 16 (Released,
 2007). Quantitative
data analyses were
performed in this
study. The
quantitative analysis
involved the
descriptive statistics
including the mean
and standard
deviation of students'
level of learner
autonomy and their
language learning
strategy use was
calculated. Also,
Pearson Product-
Moment correlation
was run to determine
any significant
relationship between
learners' level of
autonomy and their
use of language
learning strategies.
Moreover, in order to
determine any
differences between
male and female
learners in terms of
their language
learning strategy use,
an independent
sample t-test was
conducted.
4 Hawkins M.W Self-directed Theory Used: The study The study focuses on This paper does The UAB English
(2018) learning as related Self-Directed Explores four the Empirical give us two Language
to learning Learning (SDL) Ideas: Research design. strong models Programs can offer
strategies, self- (Grow, 1991; a learning
regulation, and The theory have 1. I will seek to Nakata, 2010) resource center
autonomy in an four stages: define SDL, for use in that encourages
English language with special implementing students to study
program: A local Stage 1 emphasis on SDL training in a independently, as
application with Grow’s first Grow’s (1991) tutoring/self long as we plan to
global implications stage is enacted model of SDL access center, it actively train
when the for use by provides students how to
learner is still educators, in empirical analyze tasks,
dependent on an effort to evidence to back creatively identify
an authority. understand up the idea that and implement
Stage One how it may tutors can play a strategies to meet
learners are apply to the strong, task requirements,
those who, learning purposeful role and evaluate the
either through resource center in training utility of specific
lack of plans at my students to strategies in
motivation or university and become self- context. While
through elsewhere. directed, and tutors do not
profound shows that all of necessarily have to
respect for the 2. I will explore this does tie in learn the nuances
teacher, are intersections of strongly with about how these
extremely Grow’s (1991) decades of concepts fit
teacher- model with the research in the together, training
oriented in basic tenets of field of language students in SDL
learning tasks. Oxford’s (2011, teaching, and can only happen if
2017) strategic strategic, self- we also train
Stage 2 self-regulation regulated tutors on the
A Stage Two model, as well language basics of how to
learner in as widely-held learning in enable learners to
Grow’s (1991) notions of L2 particular become self-
model brings learning (Oxford, 2011, directed, self-
interest in the strategy 2017). regulated,
subject to the development autonomous,
classroom, as for English- strategic learners.
well as a language Additionally, we
measure of learning must also build a
confidence. center that
Consequently, 3. I will promotes
the teacher of investigate how language study
this type of SDL has already through careful
learner “brings been applied use of technology
enthusiasm and and researched and resources that
motivation to in the context allow the student
the class, of adult English to learn not only
sweeping language on-site but also
learners along learners in our while physically
with the field and will removed from
excitement of determine class and the
learning” (1991, what can be learning resource
p. 131 gained from center itself. By
that for this including these
Stage 3 context. elements in our
The third of center’s activities
Grow’s (1991) 4. Finally, if SDL and design,
SDL stages does seem to students can be
moves the be applicable to empowered to
teacher towards a support demonstrate
being a structure such autonomy and
facilitator of as the learning self-regulation as
learning, resource they
entering a center, I will independently
partnership articulate what implement
with the learner guiding principles of self-
to assist their principles I direction and
efforts towards should take to strategic language
mastery of a our team and learning.
subject. A Stage share with
Three learner others outside
has knowledge of UAB.
and skills, but
he or she also
lacks the
knowledge
and/or
motivation to
go forward
independently.
 Stage 4
Stage Four in
Grow’s (1991)
SDL model is
that of a highly
self-directed
learner.
Students at this
stage will use
expert, outside
resources, or
other materials
to pursue their
learning, but
the learners can
and will set
their own goals
and standards.
5. Berg R.D et.al DEVELOPING A The following Research Design The major findings
(2021) SOCIOCULTURALLY- research This study uses a The three of the study hold
APPROPRIATE questions cross-sectional mixed indirect strategy both theoretical
LANGUAGE guided this methods design. This factors are and pedagogical
LEARNING study: study was done in made up of implications. The
STRATEGIES two stages. In the strategies findings of the EFA
QUESTIONNAIRE 1. What are the first stage, a borrowed from and its eight
FOR TAIWANESE factors questionnaire derived the SILL (Oxford, factors provide a
UNIVERSITY underlying from qualitative data 1990); however, dynamic view of
STUDENTS Taiwanese was created and these were how different
university piloted. In the second latent factors strategies emerge
students’ EFL stage, the final that do not and how similar
learning questionnaire was correlate one- strategies may be
strategy use? distributed to to-one with the used in different
learners across three indirect ways or serve
2. What are the Taiwan factors in the different roles
specific items SILL. whereas based on the
that make up Respondents the SILL was particular
the factors of a Participants for this broken up into sociocultural
well designed study were
Social, Affective, context of a
language Taiwanese university and language learning
learning students aged 18 and Metacognitive situation (Oxford,
strategy older who were strategies, the 2017). The findings
inventory for studying or had
current study show that the
Taiwanese studied English. In found support factors cut across
university total, data was
for Problem different language
students? gathered from 852 Solving, Socio- skills. These
voluntary participants
affective, and findings clearly
from nine private andMetacognitive indicate that
national universitiesstrategies. The strategy factors
across Taiwan.
Problem Solving are not necessarily
Participants were
strategies are a skill-dependent or
chosen for both mix of affective, tied to specific
convenience and
social, and areas of language
purposive sampling, metacognitive learning. EFL
as instructors who strategies that teachers should be
were willing to aid in
help learners to aware of their
data collection at overcome learners’ strategy
each institution wereobstacles during use regardless of
identified and
communication the
contacted, and the or learning questionnaire(s)
learners at each English. used. Because
school were of
Additionally, the strategy use is
varying proficiency
Socio-affective rooted in and
levels from beginner strategies are based on a
to advanced and thus both affective learner’s culture
should have varying and social (Bedell & Oxford,
levels of strategy use
strategies that 1996; Donato &
in addition to using help students McCormick, 1994),
varied strategies
communicate those teaching
with others and classes of mixed-
Instruments deal with their nationality
The instrument for feelings. Finally, students must
this study is a the understand that a
questionnaire Metacognitive more generalized
consisting of Likert strategies aid questionnaire like
type scale items and learners in the SILL will likely
several demographic planning for provide better,
items. The their learning, although more
questionnaire was setting goals, general results.
created by eliciting and evaluating
strategies used by their progress in Limitations
students through English. There are some
both qualitative limitations in this
research—writing The five direct study. The first
prompts and factors include limitation is that
interviews—and by learner- primarily only
borrowing from the generated direct strategies
SILL. For the writing strategies and were gathered
prompts, learners are a mix of during the
were asked to write strategies across qualitative data
down strategies they the four collection phase,
use for grammar, language skills, thus necessitating
vocabulary, reading, vocabulary, and the inclusion of
writing, speaking, and grammar. The the indirect
listening. Learners first factor, strategies from the
were given a lead-in Production SILL. Another
of “I strategies, limitation is that it
often/usually/always” focuses on is still a self-report
and asked to circle a helping learners questionnaire and
frequency before to improve their is therefore
writing in a strategy. English skills and limited to
increasing their assuming that
Additionally, a semi- vocabulary for respondents are
structured interview better English answering
guide—similar to the production. The honestly. Cohen
writing prompts, with second factor, (2011) notes that
additional follow-up Face-to-face respondents may
questions concerning Communication be answering the
where, when, how, strategies, are a survey questions
and why strategies mix of listening according to how
were used—was used and speaking they think they
to elicit further data strategies that should behave
about the learners’ aid learners in rather than
strategies. communicating answering
 with other according to how
Statistic speakers in they actually
The finished direct or face-to- behave.
questionnaires were face
collected intact by communication.
the instructors and The third factor,
returned to the first Technology Use
author. strategies, has
Questionnaire data six grammar and
was entered into vocabulary
Microsoft Excel and strategies that
then imported into pertain to
SPSS 25 for analysis. learners using
smartphone
Data Analysis apps or online
tools in order to
Qualitative Coding learn and
The qualitative data improve their
elicited from both English. The
interviews and fifth factor,
writing prompts was Grammar and
analyzed using a Reading
grounded theory strategies,
approach (Saldaña, contains three
2013). Strauss and strategies for
Corbin’s (1998) improving one’s
coding system was grammar and
used to analyze and reading skills.
code the data in While two of the
MAXQDA 12 using strategies in this
open, axial, and factor are
selective coding to similar in their
identify, cross wording, their
compare, and loadings are far
subsume elicited data enough apart
into core categories and their
of strategies. The correlation to
coding was one another is
 performed by the not so high that
second author. it warrants
Because interviews merging them
and writing prompts into one factor.
elicited primarily
direct strategies, the
indirect strategies
from a Chinese
version of the SILL
(Liao, 2000) were
incorporated into the
questionnaire
alongside the learner-
generated strategies.
The combined data
creates a better
questionnaire
capable of collecting
good data about
Taiwanese language
learners’ strategies

Quantitative Data
Analysis

All quantitative data

from the final
questionnaire was
imported into SPSS
25 for analysis.
Several data
screening procedures
were conducted to
eliminate incomplete
or otherwise
inappropriate
responses, and
6. Vuong, T. K., Factors Affecting The study is Research Design The majority of The study also
& Tran, T. B. T. Learner Autonomy conducted to The author's use of participants found that
(2022). in Tertiary Level answer the mixed methods agreed that the learners can learn
English Learning: A following research in this study learner's independently
Study at Van Lang questions: allowed him to gather attitude was the with the support
University and analyze data most crucial of their
1. What factors using both qualitative internal factor. surroundings,
facilitate and quantitative Besides learning, intrinsic
English- approaches. The there are other motivation,
majored main research design concerns that learning
students to was also the students face on preferences, and
learn on their embedded design. At a daily basis: technology
own initiative? first, only qualitative part-time jobs, advancements.
data was collected. relationship Teachers'
2. What factors The author then issues, and so viewpoints on
impede English- devised on. They may issues impacting
majored questionnaire items devote more learner autonomy
students from to obtain quantitative time and effort are urged to be
learning on data based on this to these than taken into
their own information their schoolwork account. The study
initiative? if they lack also found that
Respondents willpower. learners can learn
The research was Participants independently
conducted at the acknowledged with the support
Faculty of Foreign that their of their
Languages, Van Lang learning self- surroundings,
University, 45 Nguyen regulation might intrinsic
Khac Nhu street, be hindered motivation,
District 1, Ho Chi after spending a learning
Minh City, Vietnam. certain amount preferences, and
Based on the official of time on such technology
data extracted from mental and advancements.
the Faculty of Foreign physical Teachers'
Languages website at activities. For viewpoints on
Van Lang University instance, S8 issues impacting
(2022), there were wrote, " After learner autonomy
more than 2000 working two are urged to be
students majoring in part-time jobs, taken into
the English language I'm too account.
at the time. exhausted and
sleepy to It is inevitable that
Instruments continue this study will have
The author employed studying, even if constraints. First
focus group I know and want of all, there
interviews and a to." Several weren't enough
closed-ended participants, class observations
questionnaire to including S9, to assess and take
collect data for this questioned the into account the
study. Focus groups, usefulness of association with
according to Creswell learning survey results.
(2012), are resources with Second, the author
advantageous regard to of this study failed
because of their close external factors: to consider other
relationships with "Some existing English teachers'
their peers, students learning viewpoints. As a
who are reluctant to textbooks offer result, many
join in 1:1 interviews a lot of literary adjustments are
could feel more at theory and anticipated to be
ease doing so. The knowledge but made in the future
students first few self-study for improved
participated in exercises." The research. The
interview sessions to study also found research
help the author that learners can instrument would
define the issues and learn undergo the first
identify factors independently alteration. In order
related to the with the support to add more
research questions. of their information for
surroundings, discussion, it is
Statistics/Data intrinsic vital to include
Analysis motivation, class observations.
In order to acquire learning Future studies
qualified data, 18 preferences, and should also
students from 3 technology broaden the
classes formed into advancements. sample size to
three groups and Teachers' include students
were asked to join viewpoints on with diverse
the focus groups. issues impacting majors. Teachers
 Some broad learner should also be
questions were autonomy are involved in the
posed, and responses urged to be study of their
were collected and taken into variety of
recorded from all account. viewpoints.
members of the
group. The survey
was then executed
using 285
questionnaires that
were carefully
distributed to 8
classrooms. 233 of
the 260 copies
returned were valid
and used, making up
82% of the copies
initially distributed.
The quantitative data
from the surveys
were processed using
SPSS descriptive
analysis, version 19.
Descriptive statistics
like Means and
Standard Deviations
were used to analyze
the participant
responses.
7. Ates, D., & A Longitudinal The following Research Design According to the Learners’
Yayli, D. (2022). Study of Language research The study uses results, the preferred strategy
Learning Strategy
questions were quantitative and participants in types were
Use by Prep Year
EFL Students.  addressed: qualitative Research the study were observed to
Design. aware of the change at the end
1) What are the significance of of the prep class.
possible effects Respondents learning English For example, at
of prep year The participants were and they applied the beginning
education on the learners enrolled several kinds of learners mostly
differences for the prep year to LLS to be able to used translation or
upon the learn English and who learn English dictionary in order
students’ initial were going to be better. A wide to find out an
and final uses educated in different range of LLS use unknown word,
of the LLS? departments at was reported by but at the end of
universities. They them and their the term this
2) Is there a were chosen on a selection of LLS preference has
difference voluntary basis. In was significantly shifted to use
between the both universities, different from another word that
students’ use of students have very those they they know or try
LLS and their similar prep year preferred before to explain the
proficiency education. 136 starting a prep unknown word
levels? students (74 female; year education. with the
61 male) from PAU They were vocabulary that
3) What and 156 students (60 observed to use they already had.
additional female; 92 male) all strategies According to SILL
insights about from ADU fulfilled the significantly and interview
the use of LLS SILL; and among more frequently results, the most
in four skills of these students 6 than they had infrequently used
English and students from each used them strategies were
their subskills university were asked before receiving affective strategies
can be gained to answer some prep year for learners at
from students’ interview questions. education. The both universities.
own All the students mean scores of It can be said that
statements participated the learners showed learners at both
study were voluntary. that the most universities were
preferred not able to control
Instruments strategies were or overcome their
Two data collection cognitive anxiety or
instruments were (M=7.31) and nervousness even
used to collect the memory though they were
intended data. The (M=5.34) aware of their
first was the SILL, and strategies. These current emotional
the other one was were followed state, Although
the interview. The by the participants in
aim was to catch the metacognitive the study were
participants’ (M=3.68) and selected on
preferences as neatly compensation voluntary basis,
as possible as it is (M= 3,31) their motivation
impossible to figure strategies. The for learning
out LLS use via least preferred English was not
observation only strategies were taken into account
(Cohen, 2011). The social (M=2.73) while choosing
SILL has 50 items that and affective them, therefore it
assess six domains of (M=2.51) can be said that
the LLS. These strategies. these learners may
categories are represent a
derived from the According to the general population
results of preliminary results of of the learners.
studies which made Scheffe post-hoc Last but not least,
use of the SILL analysis, the learners made
(Oxford, 1990) and intermediate additional
Oxford’s detailed group comments about
investigation of other participants how useful the
researchers’ used memory prep class was for
categories (Rubin strategies more them in terms of
1975). than their pre- language learning
intermediate and learning to
Statistics/Data counterparts did learn. In this study,
Analysis at the beginning the researcher
The quantitative data of the fall aimed to find the
were analyzed by semester LLS use of the prep
using descriptive (p˂.05). year students in
statistics with the Furthermore, general and its
SPSS, and the resulting mean relationship with
qualitative data were scores indicate proficiency levels
analyzed through that the before and after
qualitative content intermediate the prep year
analysis by using proficiency level education without
pattern coding for participants any specific
recurrent themes. used cognitive strategy training.
and In further studies,
compensation the LLS use of
strategies more learners can be
often than the investigated after
elementary and giving learners
pre- specific strategy
intermediate training.
proficiency level
learners did.

Result from the

interview

Except for
listening
practices,
learners
preferred
cognitive
strategies most
both at the
beginning and at
the end of the
term. This was
followed by
metacognitive
and memory
strategies.
Learners
mentioned
compensation
strategies only
in speaking,
reading and
listening. The
least preferred
strategies were
social and
affective
strategies.
When we
compare
learners’
 strategy use
based on pre
and post-study
interview
results, it is clear
that learners
preferred more
8. Rezalou A. & Strategies for the following Research Design Students used The results can be
Altay I.F (2022) Developing research The selected design all strategies at useful for EFL
Autonomy by EFL questions were of the current study is a moderate teachers in
Learners and its answered in comparative and level. Spearman training less
Relation to Foreign this study: correlational. The correlation test successful
Language researcher used a showed that language learners.
Achievement 1. What are the quantitative method there is a All language
most used for this study. correlation learning strategies
language between using were used at a
learning Respondents independent moderate level in
strategies by Participants of this three groups of this study. It was
students? study were 150 strategies and reported that
English Language students’ grade students used
2. Is there any Teaching students point average. metacognitive
correlation (117 female and 33 The correlation strategies more
between using male). Through between than other
strategies by simple random students’ grade strategies. Other
students and sampling, participants point average learning strategies
foreign were selected for this and also depend
language study. The sample metacognitive somewhat on
achievement? was selected from a strategies was them, as they
total of 240 students stronger than relate to the
3. Are gender studying at Hacettepe any other two thinking process.
and age factors University in Turkey. strategy groups. In other words, all
effective in Students of the As a result, it language learning
using strategies second, third and can be strategies are
by students? fourth classes were understood that related to each
selected for this metacognitive other. As the main
study. Students were strategies were conclusion, it can
in the age range of18 preferred more be said that
to 22 years and older. than other autonomous
 strategies by the learners used
Instrument students. metacognitive
The researcher used a Observing the strategies more
questionnaire to results of the than less
collect quantitative Spearman successful
data. This correlation test learners. There are
questionnaire was between three inevitable
developed by Chan, groups of limitations to any
Spratt, and strategies and second/foreign
Humphreys (2002) students’ GPA, it language research.
and adapted and can be Therefore,
modified by the understood that interviews or
researcher (see there is a think-aloud
Appendix-A). The significant protocols can be
questionnaire correlation used to further
consists of two between investigate of
sections. First section strategies and using strategies by
was about the students’ grade the students to
students’ point averages achieve reliable
demographic (p <0.01). Also, a results in other EFL
information. In the significant contexts.
second section, 30 difference was Reviewing the
items that include not found findings of this
cognitive, between using study, two
metacognitive, and strategies and suggestions can be
social strategies the age factor. made for further
relevant to the research: •
developing learner Replication of this
autonomy were study with a larger
included. Piloting of number of
this questionnaire participants to
was done with 50 obtain more
students. reliable results. •
This study can be
Statistic/Data carried out with
Analysis action research to
simultaneously
For ranking the practice and
 strategies, descriptive control developing
statistics and to find student
any relation between autonomy.
students’ foreign
language success and
autonomy Spearman
rank correlation
coefficient test was
used. For finding any
significant difference
between gender
factor and using
strategy, and to
determine the effect
of the age factor on
using strategy
respectively Mann
Whitney U and
Kruskal-Wallis tests
were used by the
researcher

9 Han L. (2022) A Study on To inquire the Research Design firstly, from the In the present
Developing Learner influence and The study uses data analysis, study, the reading
Autonomy Through application of quantitative research students’ circle method is
the Reading Circle the reading design to explore the learning attitude applied to explore
Method circle method application of the and interest the effect on
on the reading circle method have been developing learner
development of in promoting learner enhanced autonomy. It is
learner autonomy. through the concluded that the
autonomy, the participation of reading circle
following Respondents the reading approach is
research The research was circle. According proved effective in
questions are carried out among to the analysis, promoting the
proposed. 1) 116 freshman most of the cultivation of
Does the undergraduates from students learner autonomy,
application of three classes who (77.59%) which is mainly
reading circle mostly majored in actively embodied in
influence the science and cooperated with helping learners to
cultivation of engineering. The other group increase their
learner three classes were members to interest and
autonomy? taught by the same complete the motivation,
teacher. The teaching tasks of the facilitating
2) In what materials were the reading circle. learners to
way(s) does the same, and the Besides, more improve their
reading circle teaching periods than half of the learning capability
facilitate the were identical as students and strategies.
cultivation of well. At the end of (52.86%) held In the present
learner the course, students that their study, the reading
autonomy? were required to fill interest in circle method is
out an online English language applied to explore
3) What are the questionnaire. learning has the effect on
strengths and been increased developing learner
weaknesses of Instruments by participating autonomy. It is
the application On the basis of the in group reading concluded that the
of reading working definition of circle activities. reading circle
circle in the learner autonomy In addition, approach is
cultivation of proposed by Han many students proved effective in
learner (2013), the (64.29%) agreed promoting the
autonomy? researcher designed a that doing group cultivation of
questionnaire to reading circle learner autonomy,
explore the activities helped which is mainly
application of the to promote their embodied in
reading circle method autonomous helping learners to
in promoting the learning ability. increase their
cultivation of learner In brief, interest and
autonomy. The students’ motivation,
questionnaire learning attitude facilitating
consists of 20 closed and interest learners to
items. The closed have been improve their
items were designed promoted learning capability
to explore the through doing and strategies.
changes of students’ the reading Second, language
learning attitude and circle tasks. teachers need to
interest (5 items), Secondly, have the
students’ learning students’ knowledge of
capacity and learning what learner
strategies (9 items), capability and autonomy is, what
and students’ use of learning roles teachers
learning environment strategies have should play, and
and resources (5 been improved how teachers play
items). The five-point and developed these roles well to
Likert scale was through themeet the needs of
applied to weigh each participation of each individual
closed item in the the readinglearner. Only if
questionnaire (1 = circle. Forlanguage teachers
strongly disagree; 2 = instance, 69.82 have relevant
disagree; 3 = unsure; percent of
knowledge,
4 = agree; 5 = students awareness, and
strongly agree). reported thatcomprehensive
their ability of understanding of
Statistics/Data making the above issues,
Analysis presentations in can language
class has been teachers
After the improved; 62.06 effectively
questionnaires were percent of
promote the
collected, the data students cultivation of
were analyzed by believed thatlearner autonomy.
using SPSS 25.0. The their ability to Third, language
inter-rater reliability use academic teachers need to
of the 20 closed items words has been guide and
was analyzed, and improved bysupervise learners
the Cronbach's Alpha participating in in completing the
was 0.953, indicating reading circle
reading circle
that the activities. tasks, so that
questionnaire had language teachers
good reliability. From Thirdly, can offer
the factor analysis of students’ assistance and
KMO and Bartlett's cooperation, support when
test as is shown in communication learners have
Table 2, the KMO was and reflection questions or
0.904, and the ability have also problems. This can
 significance level was been improved help to ensure the
0.000 (P through the efficacy of the
participation of application of the
the reading reading circle in
circle activities. the teaching
Most of the practice.
students
(68.96%) could
discuss and
complete the
group tasks in
different roles of
the reading
circle. And many
students
(68.97%)
reported that
their
communication
ability has been
increased.
10 Lu Y. & Berg Taiwanese Gardner’s socio- This study, Research Design The first Future studies
R.D (2019) University educational then, proposes The study uses research should sample
Students’ Ideal L2 models the following quantitative research question sought from multiple
Selves and research design to investigates to examine the schools and
Autonomy: Does questions: Taiwanese university composition of different
High School English majors’ ideal Taiwanese geographical
Program Make a 1. What L2 selves and their university areas. It may be
Difference? variables levels of autonomy to English majors’ that different
comprise examine whether any L2 motivational types of
Taiwanese relationships exist self systems and universities—
university among the variables autonomy. The private, normal, or
English majors’ of these measures results showed national—or
motivational and whether they that the geographical areas
self-systems differ or are affected questionnaire —urban or rural—
and autonomy? by the high school used by Taguchi may have an
program that the et al. (2009), impact on
2. Are there learners attended. with the motivation and
any exception of the autonomy. This
correlations Respondents travel study is also
among or The subjects for this orientation limited by the
relationships study are 96 variable, was sample size.
between the Taiwanese university valid and all Future studies
variables of the English majors from a factors achieved should increase
motivational private university in reliable the sample size in
self-system and central Taiwan. There measures. order to be able to
autonomy? are 46 males and 50 Similarly, the generalize the
females, ages 18-25 three autonomy findings to a larger
3. Do the (m = 20.6). Divided by factors— population and
motivational year, there are 25 motivation, further conduct a
self-systems freshmen, 27 learning confirmatory
and levels of sophomores, 22 strategies, and factor analysis.
autonomy juniors, and 22 metacognition— This study is also
among these seniors. They self- all reached somewhat limited
learners vary reported that they acceptable in that it used
between had studied English levels of existing
students who for an average of 11.5 reliability. questionnaires
went to years, but only two The second instead of fielding
normal, had studied abroad research and validating a
comprehensive, before. They self- question new
and vocational rated their examined questionnaire.
high schools? proficiency level as 9 whether there However, the
beginners, 27 post- were any autonomy
beginners, 27 lower- relationships questionnaire was
intermediate, 30 among the validated with
intermediate, and 3 variables in the Taiwanese
upper-intermediate. L2MSS and students, and the
Only 47 had autonomy L2MSS
previously taken the measures. As questionnaire has
TOEIC (Test of English the findings been used and
for International show, the validated in
Communication) and criterion multiple studies as
scored 225-985. Of measures, as well among a
the 96 subjects, 32 well as the ideal Chinese
had graduated from L2 self, the population. Future
normal high schools, ought-to self, studies should
12 had graduated instrumentality- continue to
from comprehensive promotion, examine these
programs, and 52 had attitude toward variables in the
graduated from learning, Taiwan context
vocational high attitude toward across different
schools. the L2 age groups and
community, and education levels.
Instruments assimilation EFL teachers and
Two questionnaires were all researchers should
were used for this significantly and continue to
study. The first was a strongly investigate
modified version of correlated with motivation and
the Chinese all three autonomy and
questionnaire from autonomy promote
Taguchi et al. (2009). factors. autonomous
The questionnaire The results of a learning that will
was converted to MANOVA and benefit learners in
Traditional Chinese correlation the long term.
and the language was analyses showed
slightly modified by that elements of
the first author—an motivation and
experienced Chinese- autonomy were
English translator— related,
for a Taiwanese supporting
audience. In addition, previous
because their literature, and
“findings justify the that while
replacement of differences
integrativeness with existed among
the ideal L2 self” (p. the students
78), those three who had gone to
items were removed normal,
from the comprehensive,
questionnaire. The and vocational
first part of the schools, none of
questionnaire was the differences
rated on a scale were significant.
measuring from 1
(strongly disagree) to
6 (strongly agree).
The second part of
the questionnaire
was rated on a scale
from 1 (not at all) to 6
(very much). This
scale was found to be
highly reliable with a
Cronbach’s Alpha
of .920.

The second
instrument was a
validated autonomy
questionnaire from
Huang and Wang
(2015). This
questionnaire,
created by sampling
from 2,312
Taiwanese learners
across junior, senior,
and vocational high
schools as well as
university freshmen,
included measures of
motivation, learning
strategy usage, and
metacognitive
awareness. This
instrument was
measured on a scale
from 1 (strongly
disagree) to 5
(strongly agree). This
scale achieved an
acceptable
Cronbach’s Alpha
of .866. The
autonomy variables
included motivation
(α = .718), learning
strategies (α = .819),
and metacognition (α
= .841).

Statistics/Data
Analysis

These questionnaires
were served using
Google Forms, an
online survey
website. Subjects
were given access to
the questionnaire
through a link and
given one hour to
complete the
questionnaires. Most
respondents finished
the questionnaires in
less than 30 minutes.
The data was then
downloaded to
Microsoft Excel,
organized, and
imported into SPSS
23 for data analysis.
The procedures
include Cronbach’s
Alpha for reliability,
variable means,
canonical correlation
analysis, and a
 MANOVA to examine
the impact of high
school program on
the variables. The
L2MSS variable travel
orientation was not
included in the
analyses due its low
reliability score.

B. From what you have presented so far about the research articles related to your chosen title, what has not been researched or investigated relevant to the topic? and
how do you plan to go over with it?

Most of the presented articles make use of Oxford's (1990) Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) to determine the language learning strategies used to the
following respondents or participants, also to assess students’ learner autonomy, an adapted questionnaire developed by Chan et al. (2002). Majority of the study shows
that there is a positive correlation between Language learning strategies and Learner’s autonomy. But none have asked and investigated the experiences of the
respondents using and applying the language learning strategies in being an independent or autonomous learner. The raw data collected is mainly based on the provided
questionnaires and quantitative data method. After reading all of the gaps presented through the following study above, we found out that the data that was being
collected through the provided questionnaire and the answers have already been present they just have to fill in their respective answers. In this study, we would like to
investigate directly the language learning strategies of the EFL tertiary students of being an independent learner when it comes to their respective experiences and
perception about the usage of such strategies, and their views about being an autonomous learner.

Submitted by: Angelbert P. Cunado &

Sittie Sumaya Basher