Upload
others
View
7
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF LEARNER AUTONOMY
AND LANGUAGE LEARNING STRATEGIES
BETWEEN THAI EFL LEARNERS IN INTERNATIONAL
SCHOOLS AND THAI PUBLIC SCHOOLS
BY
MISS TIRADA IAMUDOM
A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF
THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF ARTS IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHING
LANGUAGE INSTITUTE
THAMMASAT UNIVERSITY
ACADEMIC YEAR 2017
COPYRIGHT OF THAMMASAT UNIVERSITY
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF LEARNER AUTONOMY
AND LANGUAGE LEARNING STRATEGIES
BETWEEN THAI EFL LEARNERS IN INTERNATIONAL
SCHOOLS AND THAI PUBLIC SCHOOLS
BY
MISS TIRADA IAMUDOM
A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF
THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF ARTS IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHING
LANGUAGE INSTITUTE
THAMMASAT UNIVERSITY
ACADEMIC YEAR 2017
COPYRIGHT OF THAMMASAT UNIVERSITY
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
i
Thesis Title A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF LEARNER
AUTONOMY AND LANGUAGE
LEARNING STRATEGIES BETWEEN
THAI EFL LEARNERS IN
INTERNATIONAL SCHOOLS AND THAI
PUBLIC SCHOOLS
Author Miss Tirada Iamudom
Degree Master of Arts
Major Field/Faculty/University English Language Teaching
Language Institute
Thammasat University
Thesis Advisor Associate Professor Supong Tangkiengsirisin,
Ph.D.
Academic Year 2017
ABSTRACT
The present study aimed to investigate the learner autonomy level and observe
in detail language learning strategies use of Thai EFL learners comparing international
school students and Thai public school students in a tutorial school in Bangkok. 200
senior high school level students, 100 international school students and 100 Thai public
school students, in a tutorial school participated in the study. The study design is mix-
method research. A learner autonomy questionnaire and the Strategy Inventory for
Language Learning (SILL) questionnaire by Oxford (1990) were the quantitative data
collection instruments in this study. Interviews were conducted for more information
in detail as qualitative data collection. The data analysis was carried out through
quantitative analysis techniques (means and standard deviations).
The findings from the learner autonomy questionnaires revealed that Thai
public school students have a high level of learner autonomy similar to those who study
in international school with X = 3.76, SD = 0.52 and X = 3.50, SD = 0.55 respectively.
Moreover, the findings from the SILL questionnaires also showed that Thai public
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
ii
school students employ language learning strategies more than the international school
students with X = 3.58, SD = 0.46 and X = 3.42, SD = 0.49 respectively. The SILL
questionnaire results provided the use of specific strategies as well. The cognitive
strategies are mostly employed by the international school students (X = 3.95, SD =
0.55) whereas the compensation strategies are widely used by Thai public school
students (X = 3.93, SD = 0.57).
Since the participants in this study proved high in terms of learner autonomy
level, it revealed that compensation strategies and cognitive strategies can support
students’ learning so they become effective autonomous learners.
Keywords: learner autonomy, autonomous learning, autonomous learners, language
learning strategies, Thai EFL learners, international school, Thai public school, tutorial
school
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First, my sincere gratitude is devoted to my thesis advisor, Associate Professor
Supong Tangkiengsirisin, Ph.D., for his invaluable help, motivation, and immense
knowledge. His guidance assisted me in all the time of research and writing this thesis.
His immediate help enabled many conveniences through my thesis process which was
really appreciated.
Besides my advisor, I would like to express my deep gratitude to my
committees; Assistant Professor Ketvalee Porkaew, Ph.D. and Assistant Professor
Rosukhon Swatevacharkul Ph.D. for their insightful comment, encouragement, and
motivational questions. I am truly grateful for their kindness and consideration.
Additionally, I would like to express my appreciation to Assistant Professor
Rananda Rungnaphawet, Ph.D., Assistant Professor Saneh Thongrin, Ph.D., and Dr.
Ratikorn Sirisatit for IOC cooperation. Their brilliant and fruitful suggestion enable my
data collection to be effective.
Furthermore, I would like to thank my lovely students who were really pleased
to be my participants and enjoyed every steps of my research. I promise to devote of all
my effort to create a good man as I have said.
My sincere thanks also goes to all LITU staffs for their facilitation and to enable
my Master Degree duration at Thammasat University to be impressive and completely
convenient. Additionally, all of my impression are given to my classmates who filled
my MA life with joy and cheer, especially Ms. Pimrat Fongchamnan with miraculous
friendship and splendid assistance, and also Ms. Tanaporn Ueasiriphan, my shared-
advisor partner in adversity, with active encouragement and support.
Finally, I would like to thank my father and my mother who have taught me to
be patient, eager to learn, and respect the others. Although my mother does not exist to
touch my certificate, she is the most precious motivation of this degree. Moreover, I
would like to thank my cutest sister and brother who always make me smile when I am
frustrated. Finally, many thanks are given to the whole of my family members who
enable me to be me nowadays and fulfil my path with joy, support, and understanding.
Tirada Iamudom
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ABSTRACT i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS iv
LIST OF TABLES (If any) viii
LIST OF FIGURES (If any) ix
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Background of the Study 1
1.2 Problem Statement of the Study 3
1.3 Objectives of the Study 4
1.4 Research Questions 4
1.5 Definitions of Term 4
1.6 Scope of the Study 7
1.7 Significance of the Study 8
1.8 Organization of the Study 9
CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE 10
2.1 Learner Autonomy 10
2.1.1. Definition of Learner Autonomy 10
2.1.2. Components of Learner Autonomy 12
2.1.3. Dimension of Learner Autonomy 16
2.1.4. Approaches for Fostering Autonomy 19
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
v
2.2 Autonomous Learning 29
2.3 Autonomous Learners 31
2.4 Language Learning Strategies 34
2.4.1. Learning Strategies and Learner Autonomy 34
2.4.2. Definition of Language Learning Strategies 35
2.4.3. Features of Language Learning Strategies 38
2.4.4. Classification of Language Learning Strategies 43
2.4.4.1. Direct Strategies 44
2.4.4.2. Indirect Strategies 53
2.5 Educational Curriculum 58
2.5.1. Education Provided in International School in Thailand 58
2.5.2. Education Provided in Thai Public School 58
2.6 Relevant Studies 59
2.6.1. Oversea Research 59
2.6.2. Research in Thailand 63
CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 68
3.1 Research Design 68
3.2 Participants 68
3.3 Research Instruments 70
3.3.1. Learner Autonomy Questionnaire 70
3.3.2. Strategy Inventory for Language Learning Questionnaire (SILL) 72
3.3.3. Face to Face Interview 73
3.3.4 Piloting 74
3.4 Data Collection 74
3.4.1. Quantitative Data Collection for Research Question 1 and 2 74
3.4.2. Qualitative Data Collection for Research Question 2 75
3.5 Research Procedure 75
3.6 Data Analysis 76
3.6.1. Quantitative Data Analysis for Research Questions 1 and 2 76
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
vi
CHAPTER 4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 77
4.1 Result 77
4.1.1. The Investigation of Learner Autonomy Level 77
4.1.2. The Investigation of Language Learning Strategies Use 88
4.2 Discussion 113
4.2.1. The Findings of Learner Autonomy Level 113
4.2.2. The Findings of the English Learning Strategies Use 117
CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 123
5.1 Summary of the Findings 123
5.2 Conclusion 124
5.3 Pedagogical Implications 125
5.4 Limitations of the study 126
5.5 Recommendations of the study 127
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
vii
REFERENCES 128
APPENDICES 137
APPENDIX A: The Index of Item Objective Congruence (IOC)
of Learner Autonomy Questionnaire 138
APPENDIX B: Questionnaires to investigate the Learner Autonomy
(English version) 141
APPENDIX C: Questionnaires to investigate the Learner autonomy
(Thai version) 145
APPENDIX D: Strategy Inventory for Language Learning 7.0 Version
(Original Version) 148
APPENDIX E: Strategy Inventory for Language Learning 7.0 Version
(Adapted Version) 153
APPENDIX F: Strategy Inventory for Language Learning 7.0 Version
(Thai Version) 158
APPENDIX G: Interview Question (English Version) 162
APPENDIX H: Interview Question (Thai Version) 163
BIOGRAPHY 164
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
viii
LIST OF TABLES
Tables Page
2.1. Classification of Language Learning Strategies 43
3.1 Score Rank of Learner Autonomy Questionnaires 70
4.1 Mean of each Domain and Level of Learner Autonomy 78
4.2 Mean of each statement of “Willingness” 80
4.3 Mean of each statement of “Self-confidence” 82
4.4 Mean of each statement of “Motivation” 84
4.5 Mean of each statement of “Capacity” 86
4.6 Mean of each Domain and Level of Language Learning Strategies Use 89
4.7 Mean of each statement of “Memory Strategy” 91
4.8 Mean of each statement of “Cognitive Strategy” 95
4.9 Mean of each statement of “Compensation Strategy” 98
4.10 Mean of each statement of “Metacognitive Strategy” 101
4.11 Mean of each statement of “Affective Strategy” 105
4.12 Mean of each statement of “Social Strategy” 108
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
ix
LIST OF FIGURES
Figures Page
2.1. Components of Learner Autonomy 15
2.2. Four Dimensions of Learner Autonomy 16
2.3. The Six Approaches to Foster Autonomy 19
2.4. A Cycle Model of Self-regulated Learning 30
2.5. Direct Strategies 44
2.6 Memory Strategies 45
2.7 Cognitive Strategies 47
2.8 Flow Chart of the Human Memory System 49
2.9 Compensation Strategies 51
2.10 Indirect Strategies 53
2.11 Metacognitive Strategies 54
2.12 Affective Strategies 55
2.13 Social Strategies 57
3.1 Selecting a Convenient Participants Sampling 69
4.1 The Differences of Language Learning Use by the Participants 112
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
1
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
This chapter illustrates the background of the study to explain what learner
autonomy is and why it is popular in the field of language learning. In addition, the
influences on how a language learner becomes more autonomous is provided, which is
known as language learning strategies. Next, the problem statement of the study is
described to tell why this study needed to be conducted. The objectives of the study are
formulated as well as the research questions. Then, the definition of terms used in this
study are defined; the broad concepts and specific meanings used in this study. After
that, the scope and the significance of the study are provided to show the frame and the
benefits of this study respectively. Finally, this chapter ends with the organization of
the study which outlines the five basic chapters.
1.1. BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY
Language learning is a lifelong journey. No one can learn only in a short period
of time and without facing any obstacle. The trend of English language learning has
been an influence on people all around the world as English has become the key
communicative language. When talking about language learning, the majority of people
will think about where to learn but are rarely concerned about how to learn. In the
classroom, most people always think that the crucial role to conduct the lesson is the
teacher. However, the reality is not always like that. Learner autonomy becomes
popular among the educational systems in Europe and many countries around the world.
It can promote the students to control their own learning, plan their lessons, monitor
their learning process and evaluate their outcomes (Holec, 1981).
According to the trends of ‘learner autonomy’ in the late 1960s in Europe and
North America (Benson, 2013), many related studies were conducted to promote the
ways to foster learner autonomy. The students were the target group of this field as they
have to be responsible in their own learning process. In classrooms, instead of
propelling the class alone, the teachers can play a vital role to promote students’
autonomous learning by using various methods and materials. Students, in an
autonomous class, should be involved with the activities from planning the lesson to
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
2
evaluating the result. It can be said that in autonomous learning classrooms, teachers
and students fulfil each other. To promote autonomy in classrooms, teachers have the
important role towards the methodologies and materials used in the class. Students can
also develop themselves by various sources of learning outside the classroom. In
addition, technological advance nowadays can help to foster autonomy in the
classroom. Some previous studies (e.g. Tayjasanant & Suraratdecha, 2016) reveal that
many schools are going to support this and the way of learning. It cannot only promote
the students themselves, but the gradually step of movement can also foster autonomous
learning in a whole national educational system.
Sometimes the word ‘autonomy’ has been used as ‘independence’ which can
allow the learners to be free from others when they learn, especially in language
learning which requires the self-regulation to acquire the language. This can also mean
‘interdependence’ among learners. If it is talked about in the classroom setting,
‘interdependence’ will refer to the relationship between teachers and friends of the
learners. However, in this study, the Thai EFL students learning in the international
school and Thai public school are investigated on the method they use to learn language
and also what they use to learn. Thus, ‘interdependence’ of the learners are occurred
among themselves and the methods they use to learn. Benson (2013) demonstrated that
autonomous learning cannot be taught but it is able to be encouraged by “providing
learners with the opportunity to make significant choices and decisions about their
learning”. Moreover, in the classroom settings, there are one or more than two teachers
to assist learners process their learning, in contrast, outside the classroom, learners will
have no one to tell what they have to do next or deal with the unexpected problems.
Therefore, to allow learners to acquire appropriate strategies in learning can enhance
their opportunity to learn by themselves alone, and also in the long term profit.
English learning autonomy and language learning strategies are the key
dimensions in learners’ English performance. It is obviously seen that English becomes
more a part of importance in EFL contexts. For Thai learners, the empirical research
reveals that even if Thai students learn English when they are very young, they do not
improve English proficiency when they grow up, especially in communicating with the
foreigners (Lightbown & Spada, 2013). Thai society encourages the children to learn
as much as possible, which lead to many educational problems as shown nowadays; the
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
3
increment of stressfulness among children, the lack of an outstanding talent in children
and so on. So, to promote the learners to become an autonomous learner can encourage
them when they finished the school and have to learn by themselves. They will know
what they should learn and how to learn appropriately and efficiently. One of the
stimulating factors for encouraging the learners’ learning process is learning strategies.
Different individuals have their own ways to learn, so learning strategies they can use
can effect the outcome they gain.
1.2. PROBLEM STATEMENT OF THE STUDY
Many empirical researches have been carried out regarding how learner
autonomy can assist language learners to be successful in language learning and how
language learning strategies are the vital tool to facilitate the learner autonomy process
(Dickinson, 1987; Little, 1991; Wenden, 1991; Oxford, 1990; 2011; 2017). Moreover,
teachers are the main propulsion in a classroom setting to promote learner autonomy of
the students (Zimmerman et al., 1996; Benson, 2013; Fang, 2014; Bekleyen and
Selimoglu, 2016).
As many empirical studies have been conducted in terms of learner autonomy
issues and language learning strategies used by language learners, this study aims to
observe the influence of language learning strategies on the autonomy of language
learners. As Wong (2005) said that with high self-efficacy, it can promote the LLS use
among learners. And, Du (2012) bears out Wong’s finding that cognitive strategies have
correlated with the self-efficacy of learners. Also, with the findings of Nosratina et al.
(2014), they found that metacognitive strategies affect self-efficacy of EFL learners.
The studies mentioned previously were conducted at the university student level outside
Thailand. In addition, many research studies have been conducted to investigate the
autonomy learning readiness of Thai students such as Swatevacharkul (2008), and Thai
teachers and students such as Tayjasanant and Suraratdecha (2016). Both of them found
that there were some obstacles which blocked the development of autonomy among
Thai learners. However, for Littlewood (1999), autonomy can be implemented with
East Asian learners and teachers by learner training and appropriate learning
environments. To Dickinson (1987), self-regulation models should be proposed to both
the learners and teachers who are new to self-instruction. He stated more that to prepare
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
4
the learners well with the necessary materials and resources available, they might
benefit from the learner training program which would introduce them to use of learning
strategies efficiently (Dickinson, 1987). Therefore, this study furthers the observation
of learning autonomy among Thai EFL students, learning in international schools and
Thai public school; the different use of learning strategies used by the participants was
also observed. In 1999, Oxford conducted a study to observe language learning
strategies by using only the questionnaire SILL, which was carried out by Oxford
(1990). Thus, this study further the information about the language learning strategies
use by formulating similar interview questions.
According to the mentioned statement above, this study has the objectives as
following.
1.3. OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
This study aims to:
1. investigate the level of learner autonomy of Thai EFL students learning in the
international school and Thai public school
2. examine the differences of English learning strategies use of Thai EFL students
learning in the international school and Thai public school
1.4. RESEARCH QUESTIONS
The research questions in this study are formulated as following:
1. What is the level of English language learning autonomy of Thai EFL students
learning in the international school and Thai public school?
2. What are the differences of English language learning strategies used by Thai
EFL students learning in the international school and Thai public school?
1.5. DEFINITIONS OF TERMS
Learner Autonomy is a capacity of a language learner to control and take
responsibility for their own learning process, starting from planning, selecting the
method, determining what it can help to learn, and evaluating their learning process.
The 4 main components of learner autonomy which become the framework of this study
are willingness, self-confidence, motivation, and capacity to learn autonomously of the
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
5
participants. A learner autonomy questionnaire is used to measured their level in this
research.
Willingness to take responsibility can be defined as the learners will do
whatever to acquire the language learning as they “see themselves having a crucial role
on their language learning” (Wenden, 1991:53). So, if a learner has enough
responsibility to take charge of his/her learning process, s/he will be confident in their
ability to learn.
Self-confidence in ability as a learner. To Wenden (1991), the students should
be confident and trust in their ability to learn or monitor their own learning. If a learner
believes in their ability to learn and to self-direct or manage their learning, they can
cope with any obstacles they face when learning.
Motivation to learn is a vital part of learner autonomy. It can promote
responsibility among learners and their capacity to be more confident in their ability to
learn. Intrinsic and extrinsic are 2 basic types of motivation. Intrinsic inspires learners
by the goal of learning and it can make the students have willingness to take
responsibility to learn while extrinsic is a reward and punishment which can boost the
sense of well-being and confidence to the students.
Capacity to learn autonomously is the amount of skill autonomous learners are
employing during their learning process. In other words, whether they have much
knowledge and are skillful enough to learn and know how to overcome the learning
difficulties.
Language Learning Strategies (LLS) are the behavior, thought, or action in
which learners engage to enhance their learning acquisition and become successful in
their learning process (Weinstein and Hume, 1998). They are widely and commonly
applied to various aspects of how people learn. LLS are used as a tool to help language
learners become successful in their learning. To Oxford, they are categorized into two
main strategies i.e. direct strategies and indirect strategies (Oxford, 1990). Strategy
Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) is employed to measured learning strategies
of the participants in this study.
Direct Strategies consists of memory, cognitive, and compensation strategy,
which directly influence language acquisition of language learners. They are internal
factors of learners to acquire language and manipulate their own learning.
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
6
Cognitive Strategies are the process of how learners monitor their own
learning. It allows learners to acquire language proficiency through reasoning,
analysing, synthesising, outlining, and organizing the information. To Mitchell (2014),
this kind of strategy assists language learners to organize and integrate the information.
Memory Strategies are the strategies which learners use to memorize the
information they gain. Memory strategies enable learners to regain their knowledge as
powerful mental tools (Oxford, 1990). To Rubin (1987), these kind of strategies enable
learners to gain and retrieve the information to use when it is needed.
Compensation Strategies are the strategies used by learners to find other ways
to express the meaning when they face some obstacle e.g. use context clues to help to
find the meaning of the words they do not know, describe in the detail when they do
not know the exact vocabulary, and so on. These strategies will assist learners to make
up the missing information.
Indirect Strategies consists of metacognitive, social, and affective strategy
(Oxford, 1990). These kinds of learning strategies do not directly impact the language
acquisition of learners as the direct strategies do, but they are the alternatives way to
help learners manipulate direct strategies effectively.
Metacognitive Strategies employ the whole process of learning i.e. planning,
monitoring, and evaluating. Language learners will use these kind of strategies to
control their learning process, which means to take charge of cognitive strategies use.
They potentially assist learners to manage their learning process.
Social Strategies are linked to the interaction when learners use language to
communicate with the others. This strategy will backup language learners with the
knowledge and how to deal with learning obstacles. It underpins learners with the
cooperative and interactive activities which enable learners to communicate with others
in the society effectively.
Affective Strategies are related to learners’ emotions, beliefs, and awareness of
language learning. This kind of strategy lessens learners’ anxiety, encourages learners
to be motivated, and also controls learners’ emotional temperature.
Thai EFL Students in the International School are the Thai students who
have studied in the international school since they were young and have never attended
in Thai education program in any level. In this study, the senior high school students
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
7
are the participants. They were studying in standard course for international curriculum
such as IGCSE, GED, A-Level, and IB. These courses are preparation for the students
to attend the university.
Thai EFL Students in the Thai Public School are the students who have
studied in Thai public school since kindergarten and have never attended in
International program at any level. In this study, the senior high school students are the
participants. The participants in this recent study were studying for specific purposes
such as IELTS and GAT. Both of groups were preparing to attend university. It is noted
that a student who attend bilingual program or English program in Thai school was
excluded from this study.
Tutorial school, where the participants studied, is located in Bangkok. It
provides many courses for the Thai curriculum such as IELTS, GAT, PAT, O-Net and
International curriculum such as IGCSE, GED, A-Level, O-Level, and IB. There are
many classes containing various number of students in each class. The lowest number
of student is one person in private class and the group classes have more than 20 people.
The participants in this study are taken from the group classes.
1.6. SCOPE OF THE STUDY
1. This study is carried out with two groups of participants i.e. Thai EFL students
learning in the international school or Thai public school. The total sampling in
this study was 200randomly selected students out of 387 populations in a
tutorial school in Bangkok. The 200 samples was divided into two groups by
their learning program. Each group consisted of 100 students who studied
supplementary subjects after school and on the weekends. The level of the
participants was in senior high school level. The international schools and Thai
public school are also located in Bangkok.
2. The research focuses on the level of learning autonomy and language learning
strategies which the participants used in English language learning only.
Interviews were carried out to find the differences of language learning
strategies used between Thai EFL students in International school and Thai
public school.
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
8
3. Gender of the students was not taken into consideration in the convenient
sampling. Moreover, a study of Saengaroon (2015) showed that there was no
different use of language learning strategies between male and female. Both of
them use metacognitive as the highest proportion.
4. The English proficiency of the participants was random. The international
school students were taking IGCSE and GED courses which were the same level
as the IELTS and GAT courses taken by the Thai public school students. So,
their proficiency was at a high level.
1.7. SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY
1. The finding of learner autonomy level among Thai EFL students studying in
international school and Thai public school enables teachers in both school
programs to be aware of the degree of autonomy in language learners and can
consider how useful learner autonomy is. Moreover, they can help the students
appreciate and value autonomous learning as an effective way of learning.
2. The findings of language learning strategies use of the participants can guide
the school teachers in both international school and Thai public school to
observe their students lack of use of LLS in order to find the most effective way
in teaching language.
3. The findings of the difference in language learning strategies use of the
participants in two groups can also allow the teachers to know how to promote
learning strategies which can fulfil the students’ English proficiency.
4. The teachers can refer to this study result in terms of the development of the
materials used in education to foster language learners to use the most potent
language learning strategies which are suitable to promote learner autonomy.
5. The findings of this study are also beneficial for the curriculum development in
both international school and Thai public school in order to increase the
efficiency of the educational system and facilitate the students to become more
autonomous.
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
9
1.8. ORGANIZATION OF THE STUDY
This study has been organized into five chapters including introduction,
literature review, methodology, results, and conclusions.
Chapter one consists of background of the study to provide the reader
information about the general concept of learner autonomy and language learning
strategies. Then, the problem statement of the study is given to tell about why this study
was be conducted or if there are any issues tending to be an obstacle of the previous
studies which should be rearranged in the present study. Next, the objective of the study
is provided to show the research purposes, which is followed by three research
questions. After that, the definition of term used in this study are illustrated in order to
give the reader the broad concept of each terms.
Chapter two is the reviewing of related literature. The two main literatures are
reviewed in this study were learner autonomy and language learning strategies. Each
main literature summary consists of the definition and the characteristics related to
language learning and in addition, the factors influencing on how L2 students learn are
also demonstrated in this chapter. The academic literature will be presented along with
the relevant studies.
Chapter three presents the methodology used in the study. The detailed
description of the research design of all instruments used in this study will also be
provided. Moreover, the procedure of the study will be given in this section to show the
steps of how the participants were observed in their autonomy and learning strategies.
Next, the process of data collection is also stated along with the data analysis.
Chapter four focuses on the results of the data analysis. This section will show
the findings of the investigation according to the research questions and objectives.
Next, discussion is also provided to discuss whether the results of the study agree with
the previous studies or not.
Chapter five demonstrates the summary of the study. The conclusion will be
presented after analyzing the data. Finally, recommendations are given to suggest future
research.
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
10
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter reviews literature in 5 main areas along with a summary: (1) learner
autonomy, (2) autonomous learning, (3) autonomous learners, (4) language learning
strategies, and (5) relevant studies.
2.1. LEARNER AUTONOMY
This section gives the information about learner autonomy and related topics.
The subsidiary section will be divided into 3 parts; definition, its components, and its
dimension. Finally, the related studies, conducted in Thailand and oversea, are also
presented.
2.1.1. Definition of Learner Autonomy
Schwartz (1977), as cited in Holec (1981), stated in ‘L’éducation demain’ that
‘autonomy’ is “the ability to assume responsibility for one’s own affairs”. It is “the
ability to take charge of one’s learning” (Holec, 1981:3). Holec stated more that this
‘ability’ cannot be obtained innately, but it comes from formal systematic learning.
Moreover, ‘ability’ to him cannot conduct ‘behavior’; however, it is the power or
capacity to do something. So, ‘autonomy’ is the ability to manipulate behavior in the
given situation and ‘learner autonomy’ is an ability to conduct the learners’ behavior in
the learning process. Holec (1981:3) provided more about to take charge of one’s
learning is to have or to hold the responsibility for all the decisions concerning all
aspects of this learning i.e.
- determining the objectives;
- defining the contents and progressions;
- selecting methods and techniques to be used;
- monitoring the procedure of acquisition properly speaking (rhythm,
time, place, etc);
- evaluating what has been acquired.
Dickinson (1987) stated that autonomy is a term to describe the situation in
which a learner takes control of their responsibility, including decisions about learning.
He defined autonomy as a mode of learning. To him, autonomy is different from self-
instruction as it refers to “a situation in which a learner, with others, or alone, is working
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
11
without the direct control of a teacher which might be just a short period of time”
(Dickinson, 1987:5). Autonomy does not mean “do-it-yourself” or “get-rid-of-the-
teacher” (Grenfell & Harris, 1999). Moreover, to Little (1994:81), autonomy is “a
capacity-for detachment, critical reflection, decision-making, and independent action”.
The capacity for learner autonomy can mean both the way the learners learn and the
way they transferred what they have learned into the wider context. Little (1994) said
that the concept of learner autonomy is the learners enjoys a high degree of freedom
which is limited in specific conditions. To Helec (1981), promoting autonomy does not
mean to learn in a more or less formal educational context, but it is to carry over into
every other area of life which means learners can apply their skill whenever and
wherever they want.
To Littlewood (1996), the term ‘autonomy’ is understood to refer to one
particular kind of autonomy, namely, “learner autonomy”. Here the term may refer to
a capacity for thinking and acting independently that may occur in any kind of situation
(including, of course, a situation where the focus is on learning). Scharle and Szabó
(2000:4) define autonomy as “the freedom and ability to manage one’s own affairs,
which entails the right to make decisions as well.” According to Scharle and Szabó
(2000), the terms autonomy and responsibility are hard to distinguish. In order to foster
learner autonomy, learners need to develop a sense of responsibility while taking an
active role in making decisions about their learning. Benson (2011:58) defined
‘autonomy’ as “the capacity to take control of one’s own learning”.
However, there are some misunderstandings of learner autonomy, seeing it as
the way learners learn without help, but as Holec (1981) said, learners are unlikely to
acquire a degree of autonomy without assistance. To correct and illustrate the term
clearer, Little (1994) provided the 5 negatives of learner autonomy as follows:
1. Autonomy and self-instruction do not have the same meaning. So,
learner autonomy is not limited to learning without a teacher.
2. Autonomy does not mean the teachers have no responsibility.
Moreover, the learners do not allow to continue their learning as good
as they can.
3. Autonomy is not, on the other hand, another kind of teaching method.
4. Autonomy is not a single and easy-described behavior
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
12
5. Autonomy is not steady which can achieve by a learner.
To Little (1994), learner autonomy is a kind of the transfer of responsibility
from the teacher to the learner. So, the learners can generate their own learning
purposes. Little (1994) proposed that the curriculum should come from within the
learners, as a product of their past experience and present and future needs. Thus, Little
(1994, as cited in Grenfell & Harris, 1999:36) concluded the meaning of learner
autonomy entails acceptance of responsibility for one’s learning as follows:
● Creating a personal direction of learning
● Taking at least some of the initiative to form the learning process
● Ameliorating the capacity to evaluate the extent and success of one’s
learning
It is clearly shown that to have learner autonomy in language learning,
‘responsibility’ of learners is important. In the next part, the component of learner
autonomy which enables language learners to have responsibility in their learning will
be discussed.
2.1.2. Components of Learner Autonomy
To Wenden (1991) a learner who wants to have learner autonomy should have
willingness and ability to take charge of their learning. Wenden stated that willingness
and ability of a learner can be promoted by improving their attitudes which consists of
‘learned motivations’, ‘valued beliefs’, ‘evaluations’, ‘what one believes is acceptable’
or ‘responses oriented towards approaching or avoiding’ (Wenden, 1991:52). Wenden
pointed out that the three main components of attitudes towards autonomy are
cognitive, evaluative, and behavioral.
First, a cognitive component consists of beliefs, perceptions, and information
about the object of the attitudes. It means that learners believe in themselves about their
role in language learning process and also their capacity as a language learner. Second,
an evaluative component is about the feeling of language learners such as like and
dislike, approval and disapproval, agreement and disagreement. It means some learners
may love to be responsible for their learning while the others may not. Finally, a
behavioral component is about the action of language learner. It means the more
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
13
evaluative information the learners have, the more responsible in learning process they
become.
Moreover, two attitudes provided to foster learner autonomy are ‘willingness to
take on responsibility’ and ‘confidence in their ability as learners’ (Wenden, 1991). To
Wenden, the students should be confident and trust in their ability to learn or monitor
their own learning. Unless the learners are willing to take responsibility for their
learning, their autonomy will not be developed (Borge and Al-Busaidi, 2012). The
willingness to take on responsibility can be defined as the learners will do whatever to
acquire the language learning as they “see themselves having a crucial role on their
language learning” (Wenden, 1991:53).
Scharle and Szabó (2000) stated that to develop learner responsibility requires
three stages: (1) raising awareness, it should interest and attract learners to the new view
point and new experience in the starting point in order to encourage them to desire to
know more; (2) changing attitudes, a lot of practice and patience should be provided to
the learners in order to let them keep going on the new view point and new experiences;
(3) transferred role, freedom and choices in classroom activities should be given to the
students in order to allow them to be able to have their say in their learning. So, if a
learner has enough responsibility to take charge of his/her learning process, s/he will
be confident in their ability to learn. Confidence in the learners’ capacity as language
learners is therefore important. So, if a learner believe in their ability to learn and to
self-direct or manage their learning, they can cope with any obstacles they face when
learning.
To Littlewood (1996), autonomy is composed of many dimensions .It is divided
into 2 different ways. First of all, it focuses on three main domains; a communicator
(task level), a learner (learning level), and a person (personal level). In addition, to
acquire learner autonomy in three main domains, two components are needed; ability
to acquire knowledge and skill, and willingness to have motivation and confidence in
learning. This means to be a capable learner, knowledge and skill are required.
Moreover, the learners should be motivated and confident in their ability to take
responsibility in their learning process. To Littlewood (1996) learners who have ability
to choose the knowledge and have the necessary skill to carry out whatever alternatives
seem most appropriate are keen to have learner autonomy. For example, if a learner
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
14
know how to learn (which means s/he has the ability to learn) but s/he is lacking
willingness to learn, it is useless. Moreover, some students who are highly motivated
to learn outside the classroom, but who lack knowledge and skill to manage their time,
cannot reach their learning achievement goal. Moreover, some knowledgeable and
skilled learners who lack of responsibility, as s/he may think it belongs to the teacher,
cannot also get the learning achievement.
Furthermore, when learners need to learn language, they will have attitude to
learn. Then, when they have a favourable attitude of language learning, they will have
need or desire to learn it, which is called motivation. Obviously, motivation is also a
vital part of learner autonomy. It can promote responsibility among learners and their
capacity to be more confident in their ability to learn.
According to the self-determination theory (SDT) of Deci and Ryan (2002),
motivation is divided into two main types; intrinsic and extrinsic. Intrinsic refers to the
desire that motivate learners to do something for pleasure and satisfaction. Scharle and
Szabo (2000) identified intrinsic motivation with the goal of learning and it can make
the students have willingness to take responsibility to learn. Conversely, extrinsic refers
to the desire that motivate the learners to finish the task. Scharle and Szabo (2000)
added that extrinsic motivation like a reward and punishment can boost the sense of
well-being and confidence of the students. It focuses on the learners’ learning process
rather than their outcome. For example, monitoring which makes a learner aware of
their effort can be the first step for them to develop their responsible attitude. Self-
evaluation can formulate an idea of their level of proficiency, i.e. strong and weak
points, and plan the directions of progress, i.e. setting their own goals and reach them.
Deci and Ryan stated that extrinsic motivation can promote learner autonomy by
encouraging them to have self-determination and overcome their laziness (Deci &
Ryan, 2002). Motivation will integrate with other factors of learners’ need to promote
autonomy in terms of the propulsion of learning. Thus, to have high motivation,
whehter intrinsic or extrinsic, learners can be successful in learning.
Therefore, it is obviously shown that learners’ willingness to take on their
responsibility and learners’ confidence in their capacity under ‘attitudes’ can promote
learner autonomy (Wenden, 1991). Moreover, this idea meets the same notion of
Littlewood’s that willingness to take their learning responsibility and ability to have
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
15
Originated from
knowledge and skill can encourage a learner to have more learner autonomy
(Littlewood, 1996). Finally, to Lightbown and Spada (2013), a student who has positive
attitudes, which originated from motivation, tends to have willingness to take
responsibility in learning. The components of learner autonomy are illustrated
graphically as following:
Figure 2.1. Components of Learner Autonomy
The 4 main components of learner autonomy mentioned earlier are the
framework of this recent study. The participants are measured their level of willingness,
self-confidence, motivation, and capacity to learn by the questionnaires based on the 4
components. Next, the dimension of learner autonomy will be reviewed to expand the
idea of how learner autonomy relates to the language learners.
Intrinsic
Extrinsic
Learner Autonomy
Ability
Willingness Capacity
Knowledge Skill
Motivation
Attitudes
Confidence Responsibility
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
16
2.1.3. Dimension of Learner Autonomy
According to Littlewood (1996) and Benson (2001, as cited in Murase, 2015),
autonomy is a 'multi-dimensional capacity'. To Benson and Voller (1997), 4 dimensions
of autonomy were proposed as technical, psychological, political, and social, shown in
the figure 2.2. below.
Figure 2.2. Four Dimensions of Learner Autonomy
Previously, the dimensions of learner autonomy were provided by Benson
(1997, as cited in Murase, (2015) into three perspectives; technical, psychological, and
political. After that, the fourth perspective; socio-cultural, was added by Oxford (2003).
Firstly, the technical is the act of learning a language outside the framework of
an education institution and without the intervention of a teacher. To Murase (2015),
this kind of dimension is divided into two sub-dimensions; behavioral and situational.
Language learners use the behavioral dimension by using language learning strategies
in the situation given to take their responsibility. To Oxford (2003), autonomy can be
promoted as a skill for ‘independent learning’ situation e.g. self-access center,
classroom, home-setting, and travel environment. According to Dickinson (1987), he
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
17
stated that autonomy is a term to describe the situation in which a learner takes control
of their responsibility including decisions about learning. Murase (2010, as cited in
Murase, 2015) concluded that in the technical-autonomy dimension, ‘behavioral’
autonomy is the ability to apply cognitive and metacognitive strategies in the learning
of language learners, such as planning and monitoring their own learning process. The
‘situational’ autonomy is the ability to be responsible in a situation where a language
learner has to learn autonomously.
Oxford (2003) stated that if learners decide to learn alone or without any support
of teachers or peers, it can be both motivating and demotivating, depending on the
learning goal and learning style. In other words, if the learner wanted to improve their
reading skill and they are an introvert kind of learner, reading alone is suitable for them.
In contrast, if they wish to practice language speaking skill and they are the extrovert
kind of learner, talking and interacting with the others can fulfill their achievement.
Benson (1997, as cited in Oxford, 2003) claimed that learning strategies can be an
assistant which teachers can give to the learners by learner training or strategy
instruction. However, Oxford (2003) concluded that learning strategies cannot be
effective if the learners lack participation. Thus, technical perspective, which focuses
on the external factors in learning, cannot activate if the psychological one is not applied
(Oxford, 2003).
Secondly, the psychological dimension is the capacity which allows learners to
take more responsibility for their own learning. To Oxford (2003), it focuses on the
characteristics; mental and emotional, of learners. Oxford (2003) stated the ideal
psychological perspective of an autonomous learner as the one who has high attitude
and motivation, self-confidence in his/her capability to take responsibility, and the need
to be successful in language learning. To Deci and Ryan (2002), motivation; intrinsic
and extrinsic, can propel learners to have positive attitudes to learning. To Murase
(2010, as cited in Murase, 2015), in psychological-autonomy dimension, the
‘motivational’ sub-dimension is a learner’ intrinsic and extrinsic motivation to learn
English language. In other words, the learners know how to motivate themselves and
take responsibility in success and failure when learning language. Moreover, the
‘metacognitive’ sub-dimension is a capacity of a language learner to take control of
their thinking such as needs, preferences, strengths, and weaknesses.
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
18
The ‘affective’ sub-dimension is the capacity to know how to cope with the
emotional effect such as stress, anxiety, and self-esteem. So, due to the basic component
of learner autonomy, when learners have high motivation to learn, they will have the
willingness to take their responsibility and be confident in their capability in learning.
Moreover, intrinsic motivation can promote learner autonomy by encouraging people
to learn because they want to get involved in the target language’s culture. A second
language is studied where most people use it in their daily life, whereas learning a
foreign language is done in the setting where the target language is not used for general
communication. In addition, learning strategies have a kind of psychological
perspective to promote L2 learner autonomy as it can enhance learners’ self-planning,
goal-setting, information-seeking, memorizing, retrieving the information, social
interaction, and anxiety coping. O’Malley and Chamot (1990) said that the use of
learning strategies relates to language performance, achievement, proficiency, and
autonomy beliefs. Thus, to Oxford (2003), the psychological perspective provides the
models of motivation and learning strategies as the encouragement for learner
autonomy.
Thirdly, the political dimension is the conditions that allow learners to control
the process and content of learning as well as the institutional context within which
learning takes place. To Oxford (2003), it focused on ideologies, access, and power
structures. She stated further that the political dimension also referred to the specific
situation where the groups of people (related to age, gender, religion, and culture),
institution, and socioeconomic level are affected learners. To Murase (2010, as cited in
Murase, 2015), in political-philosophical autonomy, the ‘positive’ and ‘negative’
freedom referred to the learners’ view where they have the freedom to control their
learning with the teacher’s agreement and with no constraints respectively. The ‘group’
autonomy referred to the awareness of authorities (teachers and parents) which
dominated learners’ learning and the ‘individual’ autonomy referred to the learners’
view to take responsibility in decision-making about concepts, goals, and purposes.
Finally, the socio-cultural dimension is the capacity to interact and collaborate
with others. Oxford (2003:76) added ‘socio-cultural’ perspective as the fourth
dimension of learner autonomy. It focuses on the mediated learning i.e. how language
learners deals with the social interaction when learning. Oxford (2003) stated that with
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
19
the social support or mediation learning can help the learners get through the zone of
proximal development (ZPD). ZPD is the idea of a psychologist, Vygotsky. It divided
the learners who can learn with help and without help. Actually, motivation is not
mentioned as the vital part in this perspective but it is still important because socio-
cultural implies that the learner is motivated to become a self-regulated learner to get
passed the ZPD zone and become an effective learner. In Vygotsky’s theory, learners
who have self-regulation tend to plan, guide, and monitor their own learning process.
These are categorized as metacognitive strategies, which can promote learner
autonomy. To Murase (2010, as cited in Murase, 2015) in socio-cultural autonomy, the
‘social-interactive’ dimension is the view of learning with others such as teachers and
peers and the ‘cultural’ dimension is the view of learning in different cultures. In the
sociocultural sense, practicing language with the community can help new learners to
gain suitable strategies and enable them to be a successful learner in L2 learning
(Oxford, 2003).
2.1.4. Approaches for Fostering Autonomy
Moreover, to promote ‘autonomous learning’, ‘autonomous learning
programs’ need to play a part in this process. From Benson, 6 approaches to
foster autonomy are shown in the figure below.
Figure 2.3. The Six Approaches to Foster Autonomy (Benson, 2011:125)
Autonomy
Resource-based
Approaches
Technology-based
Approaches
Learner-based
Approaches
Classroom-based
Approaches
Curriculum-based
Approaches
Teacher-based
Approaches
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
20
First is resource-based approaches. To Benson (2011) resource-based learning
serves as ‘a cover form for approaches such as self-access, tandem learning, distance
learning, self-instruction, and out-of-class learning’. Benson stated further that material
is a part of learning, so it should emphasis the independent interaction with learning
materials (e.g. Individualized learning or peer teaching). It can be defined as the
learners can learn on their own with the help of adequate resources, e.g. a self-access
center. Sheerin (1991:143, cited in Benson, 2011) defined self-access as “a way of
describing materials that are designed and organized in such a way that students can
select and work on tasks on their own.” At Centre de Recherches et d’Applications en
Langues (CRAPEL), the self-access center (SAC) is one of the resource centers
providing lots of material used to foster autonomous learning for the learners. SAC
refers to design and organization of resources that facilitate independent learning
(Dickinson, 1987). It facilitates language learning by providing areas of group work, a
help-desk and advising services, one-to-one writing support and a language learning
exchange (Benson, 2011).
Another resource promoting learner autonomy is tandem learning. Brammerts (2003,
as cited in Benson, 2011) stated that tandem learning is a way for language learning to
bring certain skills and abilities which another requires. It is the way to work together
with a language learning partner from another country - by telephone, e-mail or other
media. From the partner, the two native languages are exchanged. To Benson (2011),
tandem learning provides the form of class exchange projects, organized by teachers in
different countries. For example, a French class learns German while a German class
learns French. With tandem learning, the language learners will gain extensive
knowledge as they share the same interest with the partners across the country. When
they talk about these things in both languages, they are not only expanding their foreign
language skills and knowledge. However, the tandem class has to be highly well-
organized in order to gain the practical achievements (Benson, 2011).
Unlike self-access center and tandem learning, distance learning and self-
instruction are the two kinds of the ways to promote learner autonomy and require the
autonomous learning skill of each learners (Benson, 2011). As distance learning and
self-instruction do not require the learners to be in educational institutions, most study
at home, at work or wherever they happen to be (Benson, 2011). Self-instruction is a
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
21
way for people to ‘teach themselves’ foreign languages. To White (2003), language
learning at a distance may require learners to become more autonomous in the sense of
having the ability to take charge of their learning. He stated further that a distance
language course must emphasize learning material design and selection for self-study,
which can help learners to develop some skills to become more autonomous. It is clearly
shown that distance learning requires self-instruction as the learners have to learn by
themselves and also without force of the curriculum or teachers. Both of them require
a high degree of learner autonomy to succeed (Benson, 2011). Thus, distance learning
and self-instruction can clearly promote learner autonomy as well.
The last source that Benson mentioned to assist in learner autonomy
encouragement is out-of-class learning. It includes homework, self-access work, extra-
curricular activities and the use of self-instructional materials. Benson (2011) revealed
that out-of-class learning can initiate students in working, so it can provide more
opportunities to the students to express their view creatively more than under the
teachers’ control. He stated more that to access out-of-class learning, degree of learner
autonomy is required.
Second is technology-based approaches. It emphasizes independent interaction
with educational technologies e.g. computers. Benson (2011) divided ‘technology’ into
two main ways; computer and Internet. It seems to be that the most influential
technology recently has been computer. Along with the worldwide system called
Internet, a technology-based approach has become one of the most effective ways of
learning. CALL (Computer-assisted language learning) is an approach used in language
learning as “a tool to aid learners and teachers” in class (Benson, 2013). Edbert (2005:1,
as cited in Benson, 2011) defined CALL as ‘using computers to support language
teaching and learning in some way’. To Beatty (2003), CALL is “any process in which
a learner uses a computer and, as a result, improves his or her language”. CALL can be
media used in English language teaching such as English language newspaper Web
sites, or computer games with heavy English content. With computers, the learners can
learn through sound, animation, video, email, and Internet chat lines. Beatty (2003) said
that CALL will soon become learner immersion in full virtual reality. CALL can help
to promote learner autonomy in terms of making the best use of the computer facilities
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
22
when they have access to them and tried to further their learning after being away from
the computer (Beatty, 2003).
If a computer is like a tool to aid learner in language learning, Internet is like
toolkits to fulfil the complete equipment. Internet is extremely widely used in the world.
It can provide more communication among people across the countries. To Benson
(2011), technology does not serve learning only inside a classroom but also outside the
classroom as so many resources are available with computer or mobile technologies.
Hudson-Smith (2000, cited in Benson, 2011) said that increasing technology in
classroom and learning environments can assist the learners who are moving to take
responsibility for and control of their own learning. Thornton and Sharples (2005, cited
in Benson 2011) conducted a study of Japanese students and the result showed how
they used technology as follows:
- manage time and learning more efficiently
- have learning resources available when they needed
- support reading and writing; and
- blend learning and entertainment.
In those day, mobile phone is not smart as today, twenty-first century, so the
Internet may not effective enough. Nevertheless, it is really smart now which make
Internet be a part of language learning assistance. In Ramamuruthy and Rao (2015), a
study of whether smartphone can promote autonomous learning in an ESL classroom
was conducted and the findings revealed that smartphone use boosted learners' critical
thinking, creative thinking, and communication and collaboration skills. With
computers, the students can practice their knowledge and have a wide range of
assessment to practice by themselves using the facilitator tool called Internet. Many
websites provide exercises and learning activities with which the learners can improve
their language skill at home. Moreover, teachers can use computer and internet to be
the medium when teaching as it can provide more visual mapping or audio which can
promote more effective learning in class. To Benson (2011), self-study and
technological appropriateness are two of the principles in language teaching. Thus, with
CALL, the learners can ameliorate their language learning and evaluate themselves on
their own.
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
23
Third is learner-based approaches. It focuses on the direct outcome of
behavioral and psychological change in learners e.g. various forms of strategies
training. It is true that in many aspects of language learning, a degree of autonomy is
required (Grenfell & Harris, 1999). To them, in other words, if learners want to have
language competence, they need to be capable to act on their own outside of the
pedagogic context. Whereas resource-based and technology-based approaches provide
language learners an opportunity for self-directed learning, learner-based approaches
aim to enable learners to take over control of their learning by giving them the skills
which they have to use to take advantage of these opportunities. To Benson (2011),
learner-based approaches can be promoted by learner development approaches. Benson
(2011) provided six ways to develop learner in learning as follows: (1) provide learners
the language-learning strategies and training, to facilitate learners to learn wherever
they are and whatever they want like distance learning and self-instruction; (2) provide
learners the approaches based on ‘good language learner’, to allow them to get insight
from learning strategies research and cognitive psychology; (3) provide learners the
training program in which they are encouraged to have the experience and have a
chance to know which strategies are suitable for them, to assist learners to consider the
influential factors on their learning and to find their most appropriate learning way; (4)
provide learners with useful theory from the related framework, to allow learners to
know what exactly they have to do to develop themselves; (5) provide learners the
integrated training, to allow them to be able to communicate in L2 and manipulate their
learning effectively; and ; (6) provide learners knowledge of the approaches to promote
their self-directed and self-instruction skill, to allow them to learn independently. Thus,
to Benson (2011), learner development works best if they are integrated with language
learning activities.
Benson (2011) stated further that learner development activities can increase
language learning proficiency by various factors such as learning preference, learning
style, and learning strategies. It can be claimed that to use and apply learning strategies
appropriately can encourage a good language learner (Benson, 2011). As Wenden
(1991:15) stated the reasons why some learners are more successful than others is
because they have learned ‘how to learn’. Moreover, “they have acquired learning
strategies, the knowledge about learning, and the attitudes that enable them to use these
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
24
skills and knowledge confidently, flexibly, appropriately and independently of a
teacher”. So, they become autonomous.
The fourth is classroom-based approaches. This approach, to Benson (2011),
emphasizes the change in the relationship between learners and teachers in the
classroom and learners’ planning and evaluation of their learning process. Classrooms
are also the basic places for the study which can help to promote learner autonomy.
To Dam (2011), the development of learner autonomy in an institutional context
is classified into 6 categories. Firstly, the 'choice', provided by the teachers to let the
learners get involved in learning process, can enhance the motivation. According to this
account, it can (1) heighten awareness of learning, (2) provoke the responsibility-shift
towards the learners, and (3) encourage positive impact on self-esteem. The learners
will be conscious about how to learn in the class and also have confidence in learning.
In addition, the responsibility to conduct the class will shift to the learners instead of
being teacher-centered. Secondly, the learners will feel secure enough to be 'willing' to
learn by the external expectation and demand. The institutional setting and the clear
guidelines of the school will provide learners the confidence and the willingness to
learn in the class. Thirdly, focusing on teaching instead of learning can encourage the
students to take active part in the learning process. Many classroom activities are
provided to the learners to support their learning participation which makes them
become more autonomous by the conduct of self-learning. Fourthly, teachers and
students in class act and speak as themselves in the role relevant in the institutional
learning environment. This can encourage the 'authenticity' in the classroom which
allows learners to become more autonomous by taking part in learning process. Finally,
the 'evaluation', such as reflection and assessment, will provide the evidence of learners'
progress in order to enhance their motivation and heighten their awareness learning.
To Benson (2011), classroom-based approaches aim to foster autonomy by
allowing learners to have participation in decision making processes. Students will be
encouraged to take control of their planning and assessment of classroom learning, so
the learners can express their ideas and also express their potentiality to take charge of
their learning process. In a classroom setting, the change from teacher-centered to
learner-centered is a key of learner autonomy.
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
25
Some teachers may be afraid of changing the traditional teaching method to the
learner-centered one. To Scharle and Szabó (2000), they suggested the solution of this
issue is that the teacher should confront the view of both methods; traditional and
learner-centered approaches. The more room provided to the learners, the more
opportunity they will get to express their ability. Thus, Scharle and Szabó (2000) stated
that if a teacher would like to change the way s/he teaches, patience is the biggest
consideration. It is difficult to change in the dramatic way because some teacher or
parents may not understand. Scharle and Szabó (2000) said that for some teachers, they
may be afraid to lose their authority in class and for the parents, they may worry it is a
weird way to teach as they are not familiar with this kind of teaching. So, to foster
autonomy in the classroom, gradual change is the cleverest way (Scharle and Szabó,
2000).
They suggested further that to share the experiment with the colleagues and
parents is the intelligent way to allow them to understand what is going on and with the
support from the colleagues who comprehend what it is being done, this may also help
this change survive through the critical period (Scharle and Szabó, 2000)
The fifth is curriculum-based approaches. It focuses on the idea of extending,
when learners are used to control over the planning and evaluation of learning, to the
curriculum as a whole. To Benson (2011), students are expected to collaborate in the
decision-making of content and procedure of learning with their teachers. Cotterall
(2000:109, as cited in Benson, 2011) provided 5 course design principles for language
course aiming to foster learner autonomy as follows: (1) the course should reflect
learners’ goals in its language, tasks and strategies; (2) the course task should clearly
show a relation to a simplified model of the language learning process; (3) the course
task should either replicate the real communication or provide the rehearsal of such
tasks; (4) the course should provide discussion practice and strategies training to
facilitate task performance and; (5) the course should promote reflection on learning.
Students can develop their ability to take control of their learning in curriculum-
based approaches at the early stage and then gradually improve their degree of their
responsibility (Benson, 2011). Finally, to Benson (2011), curriculum-based approaches
can enhance learner autonomy degree among language learners by teachers’ attitude,
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
26
skill, and the teacher engagement acting locally and within contexts of professional
development.
The last approach is teacher-based approaches. Normally, teachers are
involved in pedagogical planning and also take managerial and organizational
responsibility in class (Dickinson, 1987). Scharle and Szabó, 2000 says that the teachers
are only able to input the sources of knowledge but they cannot force the learners to
absorb if they do not want to. Compared to the proverbial ‘the horse is thirsty but it
does not drink’, just waiting alongside the river cannot get rid of its thirst. (Scharle and
Szabó, 2000).
To Dickinson (1987), teachers should be involved with the students’ learning in
several ways other than teaching. As autonomous learners have to regulate their own
learning process, to Zimmerman et al. (1996), the teachers’ role of promoting learner
in self-regulated learning is not as common as in the traditional learning classroom. To
them, the teachers should assist the students to (1) self-monitor, (2) analyze learning
task, and (3) set the goals and encourage strategies use to promote learning outcome.
The teachers can have three different roles in the autonomous classroom; facilitator,
counselor and resources (Voller, 1997; cited in Bekleyen & Selimoglu, 2016).
Normally, in a passive classroom setting, the teacher will play the role of director who
plan the lesson, monitors the learners’ learning process and evaluate them by testing.
Nevertheless, in the autonomous learning class, the teachers still are the vital part as a
facilitator who creates and encourages the students’ action, a counselor who take care
of the students’ difficulties and a resources person who provides more supplementary
knowledge to the students when it is needed (Voller, 1997; cited in Benson, 2003).
It is obviously seen that learner autonomy can be promoted with the help of
teachers. The term used to expand the idea of teacher as a facilitator, counselor and
resources in classroom is ‘teacher autonomy’. To Benson (2011), the term ‘teacher
autonomy’ referred to a focus on the teacher as a self-directed learners and practitioners.
To Thavenius (1999:160) ‘teacher autonomy’ was defined as “the teacher's ability and
willingness to help learners take responsibility for their own learning”. Thus, an
autonomous teacher is the one who “reflects on his/her teacher role and who can change
it, who can help her learners become autonomous, and who is independent enough to
help their learners become independent”. Benson (2013) stated that the teachers do not
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
27
leave the students go on their own task, but what is going on in class will rely on
learners’ involvement. As a teacher, it is necessary to support “the students to take
greater control over their learning by becoming more actively involved in it
themselves” (Benson, 2013).
In addition, offering choices and decision making opportunities to learners can
make them get involved in the lesson (Benson, 2013) and they will feel that they are a
part of the learning process. To Candlin and Byrnes (1995, as cited in White, 2003), the
characteristics of a teacher should be as follows: apply the experience to give learners
more choice and expand learning options; make the positive environment in class;
promote risk-taking, to make the effort of change; enable learner to get involved in
learning actively by posing problems; give learners an opportunity to communicate
about learning; provide learners with feedback and evaluation and; encourage learners
to communicate with the others, to confirm what they know. One way of promoting
learners to get involved in learning activities is to encourage them to use learning
strategies as a help when they are learning. To Zimmerman et al. (1996), self-regulatory
approaches will be continued when learners are supported by the teachers when their
learning strategies do not work. Teachers can still evaluate the students as usual but in
the different ways. To Benson (2013), teachers may give them some reflection and
feedback to let them know their mistakes on their own. Teachers and students can
cooperate to design what is to go on the next class. With these ways, teachers play a
vital role in class to foster learner autonomy without losing teacher's’ resonsibility.
Eventually, as a teacher, it is necessary to encourage the learners to build up their
confidence in language learning and also provide them the reliability in learning, which
can support them to learn independently outside the class.
A study of Bekleyen and Selimoglu (2016) has shown how important the
teacher’s role in the classroom to promote autonomous learning is. Bekleyen and
Selimoglu (2016) investigated learner’s behaviors and perceptions about autonomous
language learning of 171 undergraduate students, ranking from the age 18-40 years old,
in a state university of Eastern Turkey. The participants were majoring in English
language and literature. Their English proficiency was over intermediate level. The
questionnaire was the only instrument in this study.
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
28
The result showed that learners were still dependent on the teachers. They also
relied on the lesson plan and what the teachers asked them to do more than monitoring
their own learning. The conclusion was also noted that the teacher's role was very
important to propel the learning process in the classroom of Turkish university as the
students were still waiting for the demand from the teachers as to what they should do
next. Teachers still took responsibility for choosing what classroom activities should
be and the decision about English lessons to learn next. Moreover, the two most popular
learning activities for the participants were ‘listened to English song’ and ‘watched
English movie’, which accounted for 91.3% and 88.9% respectively. This is the first
stage of how learners try to use cognitive strategies as Oxford (1990) said that
metacognitive strategies can support learners to monitor and evaluate their learning, in
order to improve their English language proficiency. From this study, it seemed that a
learner’s autonomy approach has not been acquired by the participants. Bekleyen and
Selimoglu proposed teachers should investigate learner’s awareness and readiness of
learner autonomy before an attempt to enhance learner autonomy was made. They
stated more that teachers should observe learners differences to find the appropriate
ways to promote their autonomy e.g., beliefs, motivation, and learning strategies.
Another study supports Bekleyen and Selimoglu’s (2016) result by confirming
to be facilitator as a teacher in class can increase autonomy. Fang (2014) had done a
research to analyze the teacher’s role in an autonomous learning classroom. Two classes
of the students; majoring in Information Technology, were classified into an
experimental group and control group. The same textbook series and multimedia
equipment for autonomous learning were provided to the two groups during the equal
amount of time. In the experimental group, the teacher focused on guiding the students’
perspective of learning English and instructing them with a clear learning objective.
Moreover, a variety of English content were given to the experimental participants,
along with embedding them in all the aspects of learning process. Meanwhile, in the
control group, the teachers managed the class step by step. The conclusion was, along
well with Zimmerman et al. (1996), that a teacher’s role of assisting learners in self-
regulated learning was to (1) self-monitor, (2) analyze learning task, and (3) set the
goals and encourage strategies use to promote learning outcome. From Fang’s study
result, it is obviously seen that the help of teacher as a facilitator and counselor in the
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
29
class can promote autonomous learning of the students, with the result of performance
assessment of 35% for the experimental group and 18% for the control group. Fang
recommended that not only ‘learner-centered’ is important, but also the providing of
the tools to the teachers is also vital to promote learner autonomy. It is not just great for
the facilitation in class, but also the process of monitoring the learning process of
language learners.
2.2. AUTONOMOUS LEARNING
If the learner autonomy is a capacity to control one’s own learning process,
‘autonomous learning’ is like a tool to manipulate this capacity (Benson, 2011). He
stated further that it is needed to differentiate the two terms autonomy and autonomous
learning. ‘Autonomy’ is a learner characteristic whereas ‘autonomous learning’ is as a
method of learning (Benson, 2011). So, any activities which can encourage learners to
control their learning can be called ‘autonomous learning’. The term ‘autonomous’ has
been widely known for many decades. The simple definition is provided by the
dictionaries as “having autonomy; the right of self-government of one’s own affairs”
(Longman Dictionary of English Language and Culture, 1998), and “independent and
having the power to make your own decisions” (Cambridge Advanced Learner’s
Dictionary, 2013).
To Cohen and Macaro (2007:40), autonomous language learning refers to
“learning which has as its ultimate goal to produce self-motivated students who take
control of the ‘what, when, and how’ of language learning and learn successfully,
independently of a teacher, and possibly outside the classroom without any external
influence”. Holec (1981) illustrated more that autonomous ability cannot come out
naturally but it occurs by either intrinsic or formal learning. To him, ability cannot
conduct behavior. Moreover, the autonomous learning will occur when the learners are
guided to do something in the given situation not their actual behavior in that situation.
Fang (2014) stated that the autonomous learning ability becoming the important
indicator can promote the individual’s quality of learning. The decision making of what,
how and when to learn is the definition of autonomous learning provided by Lier
(1996), as cited in Ramamuruthy & Rao, 2015. However, autonomous learning is not
the learning process occurring in isolation, it is related to social interaction and promote
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
30
the interdependence of learners, with both peers and teachers (Little, 2000, as cited in
O’Leary, 2014). The gradual move from teacher-centered to learner-centered can be the
first step of change toward autonomous learning (Dam, 1995, as cited in Ramamuruthy
& Rao, 2015). Thus, to promote autonomous learning in students can start with the
small step from the family to the educational system (Tayjasanant & Suraratdecha,
2016).
One well-known trend to promote autonomous learning proposed by
Zimmerman et al. (1996) is self-regulated learning. Supporting learners to be more
autonomous, learners should be able to regulate themselves in language learning.
Mitchell (2014) defined SRL as an aim to help learners find their learning ultimate goal,
monitor their learning process, make decisions, and reach their language achievement.
Mitchell (2014) illustrated more that self-regulated learning (SRL) can assist learners
to become autonomous learners by (1) defining goals for themselves, (2) monitoring
their own behavior, and (3) making decisions and choices of action which can lead to
their achievement. A self-regulated cycle model was proposed to enhance not only
students’ learning, but also the recognition of self-efficiency to control the learning
process (Zimmerman et al., 1996).
Figure 2.4. A Cycle Model of Self-regulated Learning (Zimmerman et al., 1996; p.11)
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
31
As stated earlier, language learners need strategies to learn. When their
strategies efficiency increase, they can develop their learning process closer to
autonomy (Wenden, 1987). No single strategy will work for all students. To
Zimmerman et al. (1996), a strategy will become influential when its implementation
is self-monitored and its outcomes are self-evaluated. The first step of self-evaluation
and monitoring will occur when learners judge their effectiveness using their previous
experience and expected performance outcome. For example, homework is an effective
kind of self-monitoring and self-evaluation method. Students can monitor themselves
as to how much they understand when learning in the classroom. After that, they can
do some self-evaluation if they do not understand, and try to find the solution. The
second step of a self-regulated cycle is when learners analyze their learning tasks and
ameliorate strategies to attain their learning goal. When learners face learning
difficulties, they will set their goal of learning to overcome them. However, when
learners are facing an unfamiliar topic, the teachers should assist them to analyze the
task, set their learning goal, and choose the right strategy. With this way, students can
overcome their difficulties and plan further their learning goal. The third step takes
place when learners try to administer learning strategies and to observe their accuracy
in implementing it. Due to the previously chosen strategies; feedback from their peers
or teachers or self- monitoring, learners will implement their strategies choice to use in
the learning process. Finally, in the last step, learners will monitor their learning
outcomes by relating to the strategies used to define their learning effectiveness. To
Zimmerman et al., by following four cycle steps of self-regulated learning cycle,
learners can be more effective in strategies choice and use each strategy to suit their
personal potentiality; finally they will become an autonomous learner.
2.3. AUTONOMOUS LEARNERS
Most researchers in the language teaching field believe that autonomous
learners are those who control their own learning, observe their learning progress and
assess their own consequences (Benson, 2003). According to Littlewood (1996), the
term “autonomous person” is defined as one who has an independent capacity to make
and carry out the choices which govern his or her actions. From the basic definition “to
take charge of one’s own learning” of Holec (1981:3): determining the objectives;
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
32
defining the contents and progressions; selecting methods and techniques to be used;
monitoring the procedure of acquisition properly speaking (rhythm, time, place, etc.);
and evaluating what has been acquired, the “autonomous learner” is himself/herself
capable of making all those decision concerning the learning with which s/he is or
wishes to be involved. Benson considered autonomous learners “to be able to conduct
the learning process by considering its management and organization” (Benson,
2011:59). Autonomous learners should have the right to make decisions and freedom
to choose their own learning goal and purposes. To Boud (1988), the autonomous
person must be free not only from direction by others external to himself, but also from
his or her own inner compulsions and rigidities.
According to one of the main components of learner autonomy, responsibility
is the first thing that an autonomous learner should have in order to develop their
autonomy skill. To Scharle and Szabó (2000), they provided a characteristic of
autonomous learners while they have to develop their responsibility. Scharle and Szabó
gave one kind of example to represent the responsibility of the students called
‘homework’. Homework is one of the responsibilities in a student’s life and it is almost
always seen that many students avoid homework. According to Scharle and Szabó, a
way of how learners show their responsibility is not always doing homework or
following the teacher's’ instruction, but it can be because they are learning something
from homework or assignments they have got (Scharle and Szabó, 2000). Scharle and
Szabó stated more that team work skill is not usually the target of responsible learners
but they will firstly ask about the purpose and then come up with the suggestion on how
to improve the activities (Scharle and Szabó, 2000).
Moreover, when the responsible learners fail to do the homework, they are
always aware of the mistakes they have done more than worrying about not to do it.
This is because they are monitoring their learning process and try to improve to meet
their learning goal (Scharle and Szabó, 2000). They provided the evidences to support
the idea that there are 3 kinds of autonomous learners-like will do, such as (1)
interrupting teachers’ teaching if they want more explanation, (2) finding out more
detail in the words teacher speak in the class but do not teach, and (3) concentrating on
the lesson which they are not good at. Therefore, to foster the learners’ autonomous
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
33
skill, first of all, it should promote their responsibility and encourage them to take part
in making decisions about their learning (Scharle and Szabó, 2000).
Scharle and Szabó (2000), said that to be a successful learner, it is not the
educational degree they have got, it is when the learners would like to learn more. Once
they graduate, no matter in any degree, they are able to learn again. Thus, to Scharle
and Szabó (2000), to teach a learner to become an autonomous student allows non-stop
learning.
Hedge (2000) characterized autonomous learners as those who:
● know their needs and work productively with the teacher towards the
achievement of their objectives
● learn both inside and outside the classroom
● can take classroom-based material and can build on it
● know how to use resources independently
● learn with active thinking
● adjust their learning strategies when necessary to improve learning
● manage and divide the time in learning properly
● do not think the teacher is a god who can give them ability to master the
language
Furthermore, Wenden (1991) also characterized autonomous learners as those
who:
● are willing and have the capacity to control or supervise learning
● are motivated to learn
● are good guessers
● choose material, methods and tasks
● exercise choice and purpose in organizing and carrying out the chosen
task
● select the criteria for evaluation
● take an active approach to the task
● make and reject hypothesis
● pay attention to both form and content
● are willing to take risks
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
34
Moreover, Omaggio (1987, cited in Wenden, 1998:41-42) stated seven main
attributes of autonomous language learners as those who:
● have insights into their learning styles and strategies
● take an active approach to the learning task at hand
● are willing to take risks
● are good guessers
● attend to form as well as to content, that is, place importance on accuracy
as well as appropriacy
● develop the target language into a separate reference system and are
willing to revise and reject hypotheses and rules that do not apply
● have a tolerant and outgoing approach to the target language
It is obviously seen that to be an autonomous learner, a component cannot solely
be taken. It requires the support from both of internal and external factors among
learners. One sign of an autonomous learner which is stated in every research is working
well with teachers. An autonomous learner has to be able to learn inside and outside the
classroom. The effective method to help them in learning independently is they have to
know how to use available sources and adjust the strategies properly. Autonomous
learners take advantage of the linguistic opportunities in their environment and act by
engaging themselves in second language social practices. They also reflect about their
learning and use effective learning strategies (Paiva, 2011).
2.4. LANGUAGE LEARNING STRATEGIES
This section will discuss language learning strategies (LLS). Many research
studies are conducted in this field to observe how language students learn. First of all,
the broad meaning and features of LLS will be provided via dictionaries and empirical
researchers. And then, the classification of LLS will be illustrated, along with the
relevant studies.
2.4.1. Learning Strategies and Learner Autonomy
Excluding factors like self-regulation, learner attitude and motivation, and
learner’s awareness and knowledge about language learning, Cotterall (1999) stated
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
35
that learning strategies are one of the most important factors in autonomous language
learning. She also claimed that learners will have difficulties in the classroom
promoting autonomous learning if they lack strategies training. It is claimed to be a part
of learner autonomy achievement. If self-regulation is vital to promote learner
autonomy, learners have to be self-regulated to become autonomous learners. This
related to Vygotsky’s concept of self-regulation; his theoretical and practical issues
related to specific sets of learning behavior; cognitive, metacognitive, and social
strategies.
For Wenden (1991), learning strategies for learner autonomy involves teachers
acquiring the knowledge to help learners in planning and implementing their language
learning to become more autonomous. Cohen and Macaro (2007) provided 5 purposes
of language learning strategies: to enhance learning, without strategies, conscious
learning cannot take place; to perform specified tasks, the selection of strategies
depends upon the task and some strategies are appropriate for more than one task; to
solve specific problems, listening strategies might be used when a learner has difficulty
in listening skill; to make learning easier, faster, and more enjoyable, when the learning
strategy pays off in greater success on the task, the students begin to find that use of
this strategy with the given task makes for truly easier, faster and more enjoyable
learning; and to compensate for a deficit in learning, the use of L1 when a learner
cannot understand some words or phrases in L2 in order to acquire the language.
Learners cannot acquire knowledge by using only one learning strategy. Thus, to
become independent in language learning, learning strategies are a vital part. To have
positive attitude, high motivation, and high self-regulation is not enough to promote
learner autonomy in language learners; to be able to use the right learning strategies is
also important to foster language learners be more autonomous.
2.4.2. Definition of Language Learning Strategies
The term ‘strategy’ has been defined as: “a method, plan, or stratagem to
achieve some goal” (New Webster’s Dictionary of the English Language, 1974), “a
particular plan for gaining success in a particular activity” (Longman Dictionary of
English Language and Culture, 1998), and “a detailed plan for achieving success in
situations” (Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, 2013).
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
36
The term ‘learning strategies’ are also defined by the researchers as: “an attempt
to develop linguistic and sociolinguistic competence in the target language” (Tarone,
1980:419). Wenden and Rubin said that it is “strategies which contribute to the
development of the language system which the learner constructs and affect learning
directly” (Wenden and Rubin, 1987:23). In addition, Oxford describes learning
strategies as “steps taken by students to enhance their own learning” (Oxford, 1990:1)
and “specific action taken by the learner to make learning easier, faster, more enjoyable,
more self-directed, more effective, and more transferable to new situations” (Oxford,
1990:8). Wenden stated in 1991 that it is the “mental steps or operations that learners
use to learn a new language and to regulate their effort to do so.” (Wenden, 1991:18).
Grenfell and Harris also defined learning strategies as “the means to achieving the goal
of linguistic competence, the plan or method” (Grenfell and Harris, 1999:37).
“All learners manifest certain preferred learning strategies” (Dickinson, 1987).
The process of learning called learning strategies is processing when they learn.
Alhaysony (2017) stated that language learning strategies enable the learner to improve
their second language learning skill and to become more successful. Learning
Strategies are occasionally confused with skills. However, skills are automatic and out
of awareness while strategies are intentional and deliberate (Oxford, 2011). Chamot
(2005), as cited in Alhaysony (2017), pointed out that LLS (Language Learning
Strategies) are like a tool to facilitate the learners to learn second language more
proficiently. Furthermore, LLS can help to encourage autonomy, and lifelong
independence of learners, Little (1991). It is common that each learner has their own
way to achieve their goal of learning. Some are able to learn by taking a note while the
others just listen to the lecturer and understand the whole thing (Dickinson, 1987).
Rubin and Thompson (1994) provided the basic step to be autonomous learners
by using strategies involving following, planning, monitoring, and evaluating. For the
‘plan’ step, just simply first set the goal of learning and then regulate daily schedules
as the basic way to propel the learning task in everyday life. Then, to monitor the
learning success and follow the regulation set previously can improve their learning by
themselves. After that, evaluate the suitable strategies in learning to push on and cope
with difficulties. With these steps, language learners will be able to take charge of their
own learning effectively (Rubin and Thompson, 1994).
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
37
According to Kuo Lee (2010) when language learners encounter language
learning tasks, they can apply the several different strategies to complete the tasks.
Language learners will be successful in the tasks due to use of an appropriate language
learning strategy (Richard, 1994, as cited in Kuo Lee, 2010.) Kuo Lee (2010) states,
learners process with new information and the learning strategies they use to learn and
understand the new context are investigated by many researchers. For instance, Naiman
et al. (1978), Rubin (1975), and Stern (1975), as cited in Kuo Lee (2010), stated that
some second language learners are more successful than the others although they are
both in the same teaching method and learning environment.
Actually, language learning strategies have been discussed for ages since the
publication of ‘What the “Good Language Learner” Can Teach Us’ by Joan Rubin in
1975. The findings are categorized into subsidiary sections; clarification and
verification, monitoring, memorization, guessing or inductive inference, deductive
reasoning, and practice (Rubin, 1975, as cited in Grenfell and Macaro, 2007). Rubin
added more detail about the process to promote language learning as the opportunity to
practice and the production tasks related to communication. In the meanwhile, other
scholars have examined language learning strategies for being a good language learner.
To Stern (1975), the top-ten language learning strategies for a good language learner
are listed as:
1. A personal learning style or positive learning strategies (Planning Strategy).
2. An active approach to the task (Active Strategy).
3. A tolerant and outgoing approach to the target language and empathy with its
speakers (Empathetic Strategy).
4. Technical know-how about how to tackle the language (Formal Strategy).
5. Strategies of experimentation and planning with the object of developing the
new language into an ordered system and/or revising this system progressively
(Experimental Strategy).
6. Constantly searching for meaning (Semantic Strategy).
7. Willingness to practice (Practice Strategy).
8. Willingness to use language in real situation (Communication Strategy).
9. Self-monitoring and critical sensitivity to language use (Monitoring Strategy).
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
38
10. Developing the target language more and more as a separate reference system
and learning to think in it (Internalization Strategy).
According to Rubin (1975) and Stern (1975), it is obviously seen that to be a
good language learner is not easy. There are many, sometimes complicated, steps while
language learning is progressing. The language learning strategies used are varied and
do not depend only on the individual's personality, but also on the external dimensions
of individuals.
2.4.3. Features of Language Learning Strategies
To be successful language learners, paying attention to the procedure and
strategies that work best in different situations allows learners to control the way they
learn (Rubin and Thompson, 1994). Thus, to know the features of learning strategies
and concentrate on them is necessary. Oxford (1990) provided the characteristics of
language learning strategies in twelve features as shown below.
1. Contribute to the main goal, communicative competence.
2. Allow learners to become more self-directed.
3. Expand the role of teachers.
4. Are problem-oriented.
5. Are specific actions taken by the learners.
6. Involve many aspects of the learners, not just the cognitive.
7. Support learning both directly and indirectly.
8. Are not always observable.
9. Are often conscious.
10. Can be taught.
11. Are flexible.
12. Are influenced by a variety of factors.
The twelve key features of LLS provided by Oxford (1990) illustrated how LLS
work when language learners acquire the process of learning.
Communicative Competence as the Main Goal
To Oxford (1990), learning strategies help learners to participate in
communicative activities. ‘Metacognitive’ strategies enable the language learners to
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
39
regulate their cognition of formulating the learning process. ‘Affective’ strategies
support learners to manage their emotion, belief, attitude and motivation towards
language learning. In addition, ‘social’ strategies encourage learners to interact with
others, which leads them to achieve the communicative competence goal. Other
strategies, e.g. cognitive strategies; such analyzing, memorizing, rehearsal; and
compensation strategies, all help the language learners to promote their communicative
skill.
Greater Self-Direction for learners
As outside the classroom, there are no teachers available to help the students
(Oxford, 1990), if learners can lead themselves in learning, they can acquire language
no matter what difficulties they face. The internal factors of learners such as attitude
and motivation enable learners to learn by themselves and better use strategies
appropriate for them. To Oxford (1990), self-directed students gradually acquire better
confidence, participation, and eventually language proficiency.
New Roles for Teachers
Over the past decades, teachers were categorized as the authority role in the
class. More recently, the role of teachers has been changed from being director to
facilitator instead. According to the advanced technology nowadays, many
technological devices are used in language learning. Learners can interact with the
resources within their own learning process other than only with teachers and peers in
class (Chung, 2013). Teachers can use the idea of ‘SARS’ (Acklam, 1994: p.12, as cited
in Graves, 2013) to promote autonomous classes; select to keep some part, adapt to fit
the lesson to the class, reject to leave out unnecessary part and supplement to fulfill the
requirement. To Oxford (1990), lessening the authority of the teacher in the class does
not mean there is no longer hierarchical authority, but the relationship between teachers
and learners in the classroom will be stronger.
Problem Orientation
Learners cannot avoid learning difficulties. Thus, Oxford stated that learning
strategies are like a tool to cope with those difficulties (Oxford, 1990). For example,
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
40
memory strategies can help learners to remember the word and recall it to be used.
Affective strategies enable learners to cope with their emotion, attitude, and beliefs in
learning language. This can make learners have more trust in themselves to learn and
foster their language performance.
Action Basis
According to the learners’ behavior and the learning style influenced by their
learning performance, LLS are the encouragement acquired by them to enhance their
learning (Oxford, 1990). The activities like taking notes, planning their own learning
process, or find the way to memorize new words, are all the basic action of language
learning strategies used. Learners use LLS to propel their learning action in language
learning activities.
Involvement Beyond Just Cognitive
Cognitive is a process for language learners to monitor their own learning.
‘Metacognitive’ strategy is beyond the process of language learning. It deals with the
mental processing and manipulation of the new language (Oxford, 1990). In addition,
other strategies if mastered can allow language learners to manipulate their own
emotion while learning (affective strategy) and perform well when they interact with
other people (social strategy). Therefore, to master a language, more than one strategy
has be applied.
Direct and Indirect Support of Learning
Of Oxford’s six basic learning strategies, cognitive, memory and compensatory
strategies directly affect the learners, while the other three; metacognitive, social, and
affective strategies are indirectly used. Although learners are indirectly affected, these
strategies are equally important to support learners behavior and finally to enhance their
learning performance.
Observability
Language learning strategies are not obviously seen by the human’s eyes. They
have been observed by the outcome of learners carrying out their learning activities. It
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
41
is difficult for the teacher to see their students’ strategies if s/he does not notice (Oxford,
1990). Moreover, some learning strategies are used outside the classroom where
teachers cannot observe.
Consciousness
Some researchers tend to suggest that learning strategies are conscious, but to
Oxford (1990), she argued that learning strategies, like other kinds of behavior, can
become automatic and using the automatic learning strategies is unconscious. To be
better in strategies use, learners have to be trained and assess themselves to be able to
choose the most appropriate strategies in their learning.
Teachability
While learners’ behavior and their learning style are hard to change due to their
different learning environments, learning strategies are easy to be taught. This can be
done in strategies training (Oxford, 1990). Strategies training enables language learners
to become aware of their learning process and find out which strategies suit themselves.
To Oxford (1990), strategy training should be taken in learners and teachers’ attitude
by the guide of self-direction. Thus, learners can acquire their own learning process by
themselves both inside and outside the classroom.
Flexibility
Each learning strategy is suitable for some learning activities. Some strategies
work better if they are combined with other strategies. Thus, due to the unique
characteristics of each language learner, strategies alternatives are flexibly used in any
learning activities the learners want to acquire.
Factors Influencing Strategies Choice
Learning language is not easy. It cannot be acquired by everyone in various
environments. Many factors can affect language learners’ strategies use when they
learn. Awareness degree, stage of learning, task requirements, teacher attitude, English
proficiency, age, sex, social differences, learning style, motivation, and learning
purposes are all influential factors which impact learners in language learning.
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
42
The learners with higher awareness can be careful of their learning process and
the difficulties they encounter. More advanced learners can also take better charge of
their language learning. Task requirements provided by the teachers, with attitudes to
promote learners’ strategies use, encourage learners to use strategies in order to
accomplish their learning task. Certainly, older learners can acquire more than the
younger ones due to their much more experience. Many recent researchers reveal that
women students use strategies more than men students do. Because each learner has
grown up in a different environment, their social level will affect their thought and
learning view point.
Learning style and motivation, both intrinsic and extrinsic, are also internal
factors of learners themselves which enable them to achieve in language learning.
Highly motivated learners can maximize their learning more effectively than the lower
one can. Furthermore, motivation is a part of language learning purpose in terms of the
propulsion to reach a learning goal. For example, learners whose target learning is to
communicate with others may be not so motivated as those whose goal is to fulfill their
graduation needs. These features of language learning strategies will enable language
learners comprehend more about how they work and to Oxford (1990), they are the
basic background before moving to the new strategy classification system, discussed in
the next section.
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
43
2.4.4. Classification of LLS
Many researchers have classified language learning strategies differently with
different theoretical frameworks (Wenden, 1991; Oxford 1990). In this study, it is
mentioned that Oxford’s language learning strategies (1990) will be employed as the
main framework, shown in the table 2.1.
Language Learning Strategies
Classification
Components
Direct Strategies Cognitive Strategies
Memory Strategies
Compensation Strategies
Indirect Strategies Metacognitive Strategies
Affective Strategies
Social Strategies
Table 2.1. Classification of Language Learning Strategies by Oxford, 1990
According to Oxford (1990), six basic types of L2 learning strategies have been
categorized; cognitive, memory, compensation, metacognitive, affective, and social
strategies. The first three is are direct strategies and the latter three are indirect
strategies. It seems that both direct strategies and indirect strategies support each other.
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
44
Direct
Strategies
Memory
Strategies
Cognitive
Strategies
Compensation
Strategies
2.4.4.1. Direct Strategies
Direct strategies are closely related to the target language used to
manipulate language learning strategies by language learners. The figure 2.5
below will show the visual mapping of direct strategies sub-classified by
Oxford, 1990.
Figure 2.5. Direct Strategies
Oxford (1990) classified memory, cognitive, and compensation learning
strategies into direct learning strategies as they affect the language learners
when they acquire language learning. Oxford (1990) provided the acronym in
each strategy as a memory aid.
Memory Strategies
Memory strategies are sometimes known as ‘mnemonics’. Language
learners use this kind of strategy to remember the words and recall them when
they are needed to be used. Memory strategies enable learners to regain their
knowledge as powerful mental tools (Oxford, 1990). To Rubin, memorization
refers to a strategy focusing on storage and retrieval of language (Rubin, 1987).
They fall into 4 sets; Creating mental linkages, Applying images and sounds,
Reviewing well, and Employing action, as show in the figure 2.6 below.
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
45
Figure 2.6 Memory Strategies (Oxford, 1990)
The first letter of each subsidiary of memory strategies has been formed into the
acronym of the word ‘CARE’. This means to “take CARE of your memory and the
memory will take CARE of you!” (Oxford, 1990; p.38). The ‘creating mental linkages’
links to how learners associate their knowledge in learning. The process e.g., grouping,
association/elaboration, and placing new words into a context, are the main part of this
characteristics. The new information input will be arranged by mnemonic strategies to
be kept in learners’ memory process before they manipulate and retrieve it for use. After
getting the information, learners will monitor their memory well by capturing them into
image and sound. Thus, the ‘applying image and sounds’ characteristic will enable this
propulsion. Using imagery, semantic mapping, using keywords, and representing sound
in memory are all processes to enhance learner goal. The more information they can
associate within their brain, the more effective they can recall to use when needed
immediately. The ‘reviewing well’ category enable language learner to remind the
knowledge. If learners are familiar with the information, they can recall it to use
naturally and automatically. The ‘employing action’ category serves as the
transformation of information into action. It facilitates with kinesthetic intelligent
learners very well.
The memory strategies are useful for language learners to get started in gaining
new information in language learning. As the human brain is mechanical, when learners
acquire language, the process to manipulate knowledge is necessary. Mnemonics can
Memory Strategies
Creating mental
linkages
Applying images and
sounds Reviewing well Employing action
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
46
also help language learners to make a bridge between their area of cognitive strengths
and weaknesses (Mitchell, 2014).
Cognitive Strategies
Cognitive strategies are widely discussed by many researchers (Wenden, 1987;
O’Malley and Chamot, 1990; Oxford, 1990; Hume and Weinstein, 1998; Robinson,
2001; Oxford, 2003; Cohen and Macaro, 2007; Mitchell, 2014; Oxford, 2017). To
Oxford (1990), it is strategy which language learners use in various ways, “ranking
from repeating to analyzing expressions to summarizing” (Oxford, 1990; p.43). They
are the most popular strategies among language learners to manipulate their learning
process and to gain language performance (Oxford, 1990). In addition, Mitchell (2014)
defined cognitive strategies as the ways to assist language learners to acquire language
skill by organizing and integrating information (Mitchell, 2014). Oxford (1990) gave
the memory aid of cognitive strategies as PRAC. The acronym came from the first letter
of four subsidiary sets of this strategies, i.e., Practicing, Receiving and sending
messages, Analyzing and reasoning, and Creating structure for input and output. It is
referred to as “Cognitive strategies are PRACtical for language learning.” (Oxford,
1990; p.43). Due to the well-known quote ‘practice makes perfect’, language learners
will not achieve their better performance if they do not practice their learning. The
figure 2.7below will show how language learners can deal with the cognitive strategies.
Figure 2.7 Cognitive Strategies (Oxford, 1990)
Cognitive Strategies
Practicing Receiving and
sending message
Analyzing and
reasoning
Creating
structure for
input and output
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
47
However, practicing is not easy if learners do it in an incorrect way. It refers to
a strategy focusing on accuracy of use (Rubin, 1987). Oxford (1990) stated the process
of practicing in 5 steps. The easiest way to do practice is ‘repeating’. Especially in
performing vocabulary, to say it out over and over may help language learners
remember it quicker than memorizing. Or when a learner practices listening skill by
watching some movie at least two times and trying to imitate native speakers can both
help the learner to gain more understanding of target language.
Moreover, practicing will be more effective if the learners combine more than
one intelligence method to learn. ‘Practice with sounds and writing system’ can boost
the visual and audio intelligence among the learners to learn language. Some learners
may not understand if the new information is seen at once with the full text. Sounds and
visual material can also foster language learners to get more comprehensive information
and, finally, to achieve their language goal.
‘Recognizing and using formulas and patterns’ and ‘recombining’ process are
two ways of practicing. Language learners are usually familiar with the sentence pattern
they have learned for a while, so from this knowledge, some patterns are very efficient
in realistic use. When one formula or pattern is acquired, it is easy to further the
sentence structure. With the recombining strategy, learners can make longer and deeper
sentence to express the language in detailed aspect.
Finally, learning language is useless if it is not used. The most effective way to
use language is to use it in its natural setting. Talking with native speakers, participating
in conversation, reading books, watching English movie, and so on, are all the ways to
enhance language proficiency. Thus, learners should place themselves in the setting
where it can promote them to use their language practice.
The next ability in cognitive strategies is receiving and sending message. To
gain new knowledge, one valuable source is the book. Reading strategies i.e., skimming
to find the main idea, and scanning to find specific detail are two basic ways to receive
data from books. Moreover, there are a lot of sources providing the information like
print and nonprint resources for the learners to understand the data and produce
messages. Not only the meaning of language should be gained by language learners,
the logical analysis and reasoning are also important for them to learn. For example,
the tactic like top-down strategies should be used to elicit information from general to
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
48
specific. Determining the similarities and differences of sounds, vocabularies and
grammatical pattern also helps learners to acquire it more deeply. Sometimes, the
novice language learners may use the strategies like translating and transforming the
target language into their L1. Translation is a process to transform the information into
mental representation to acquire language by learners (O’Malley and Chamot, 1990).
This can help them to learn in some specific cases and also is a good sign of learning
new language.
The last of the strategies in the cognitive strategies of language learning is
‘creating structure for input and output’. The ways to practice in language learning like
taking notes, summarizing, and highlighting, are all the process of fostering language
outcome. To jot down the main idea and important points into the notebook can help
learners to summarize their own ideas and to recall the information when it is needed.
As data is varied, focusing skill should be done to emphasis only the wanted
information.
With all of the cognitive strategies mentioned earlier by Oxford (1990), students
can monitor their learning process and emphasize what is important in language
learning. To Wenden (1991), she stated that cognitive strategies are the mental process
of how learners acquire and elaborate language. Wenden (1991) suggested that
cognitive strategies have four subsidiary stages; (1) selecting information, (2)
comprehending it, (3) storing it, and (4) retrieving data for use. Cognitive strategies are
inevitably directly related to the human brain. So the brain is the key to human
processing of the input data, especially memorizing, which is one of the functions of
cognitive strategies. The flowchart below will show the memory system of humans,
created by Hunt in 1982.
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
49
Figure 2.8 Flow Chart of the Human Memory System (Hunt, 1982, as cited in
Wenden, 1991)
(1) Selecting Information from Incoming Data
When one has some stimuli from the surrounding environment language is
learned, and the process in the brain will determine what will be kept or left away.
According to the Figure 8, what we see, hear, touch, taste, and smell is sent to the
sensory buffers. If it is decided to be kept, it will be sent to the ‘short-term memory’
part, in contrast, if it is judged to be discarded, it will be permanently lost. During this
process, learners should be encouraged to use a ‘selecting/attending’ strategy to decide
what is being kept or being discarded.
(2) Comprehending and (3) Storing the Information
After selecting the input data - whether it should be kept or not - the next
process is to understand and store it for use in the future. Previously, the information
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
50
received will have been transformed into the meaningful symbols such as a sound, a
word or a syntactic structure, then it will be stored in the long-term memory (Wenden,
1991). When the information is elaborated into details, it is probably transferred into
long-term memory or rapidly disappears. Thus, the ‘rehearsal’ process will help
learners to keep the information. Elaborative processes will work with the rehearsal
strategies to promote the memorization step, which might be mnemonic strategies
(Wenden, 1991).
O’Malley and Chamot defined the term ‘rehearsal’ as “repeating the names of
items or objects that have been heard” (O’Malley and Chamot, 1990; p.45). When the
learners elaborate the data, the strategies used identify patterns in the data, make
relationships, recognize meaning in depth, elicit knowledge from long-term memory
and associate the knowledge to these meanings and classify them (Wenden, 1991). The
term ‘elaboration’ has been defined by O’Malley and Chamot as “linking ideas
contained in new information or integrating new ideas with known information”
(O’Malley and Chamot, 1990; p.45). To them, elaboration can refer to a basic category
for other strategies, such as visuality, summarization, transferation, and deduction
(O’Malley and Chamot, 1990). Finally, learners will acquire the language by using the
existed schema and storing it in long-term memory.
(4) Retrieving the data
As the learners already have the ready-used information in their long-term
memory, it is very easy for them to recall the information to be used again. It can be
said that if the learners understand the data input properly, they can acquire and retrieve
it automatically. The cognitive strategies used during this process are called ‘practice
strategies’ (Wenden, 1991). To Wenden, the practice strategies can “facilitate the
development of automatic and appropriate retrieval”. When learners use ‘practice
strategies’, they will place themselves in the situation that encourages them to use the
language, e.g. watching English movie without subtitles, talking with an English
teacher, reading English novels, and so on. With this means, the learners can retrieve
their English proficiency easier.
However, it is not always the same when the learners cannot retrieve what they
already know. Faerch and Kasper (1993), as cited in Wenden (1991), stated 6 retrieval
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
51
strategies used by learners when they cannot remind themselves of their own schema:
repeat new word several times a day, place themselves in the real situation, try to use
new words in the conversation, compare the word with their mother tongue, correct
their error by thinking of the previous way they used it, and watch English movies or
listen to the native speaker’s talk. With these practices, the learners can elaborate their
own schemata and ameliorate their learning strategies to achieve language proficiency.
To O’Malley and Chamot (1990), if the skill of learning becomes automatic, it can
promote learners to be more autonomous and independent. Thus, by mastering
cognitive strategies, language learners can reach their learning goal.
Compensation Strategies
Many difficulties are found when learners learn language, and compensation
strategies will help them to cope with those obstacles. To Oxford (1990), compensation
strategies are divided into two main parts as shown in the figure 2.9 below.
Figure 2.9 Compensation Strategies (Oxford, 1990)
The acronym GO is devoted to these strategies as a memory aid, which is
referred to as “Language learners can GO far with compensation strategies.” If the
learners are stuck in language trouble, it is hard for them to continue in learning. Good
language learners will use ‘intelligent guessing’ to propel their learning in a clever way.
Compensation Strategies
Guessing intelligently Overcoming limitations in speaking
and writing
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
52
For example, using a context clue is a way to compensate for the lack of knowledge
when the learners do not know the meaning of that vocabulary in that context. These
strategies are not only used in learning L2, but it can be also used when learners learn
two languages which have some kind of similarities, such as English and French.
Learners can use the vocabulary similarity and also the context surrounding if the words
are not similar. For example, if the word ‘acheter’ in French is not familiar but it is in
the context of a supermarket sale, it will likely refer to buying and selling goods. If this
word is used by the customer to require something from the merchant, so its meaning
can be inferred as buying.
Other ways to help language learners to overcome the difficulties in speaking
and writing are varied. Most of learners usually switch L2 to their L1 if they cannot
understand the text. Asking someone for help or guessing from the gesture when an
interlocutor is speaking enables learners to comprehend the conversation more
effectively. Using synonyms and adjusting the messages are also helpful in conveying
the text.
With educated guesses and experience, language learners will overcome their
language learning limitations easily. Compensation strategies will help learners to keep
going on using language, which leads to achievement of their language goals.
The direct strategies section earlier has described the strategies used when
learning new language. It involved memory, cognitive, and compensation. The detail
about their definition and example were also provided. In the next part, indirect
strategies are proposed.
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
53
2.4.4.2. Indirect Strategies
To Oxford (1990), indirect strategies support and manage language without
being directly involved in the target language. They are classified into 3 categorizations;
metacognitive, affective, and social, shown in the visual mapping following:
Figure 2.10 Indirect Strategies
These three strategies will help language learners to manipulate the way they
use in processing language learning. With the support of these three indirect strategies,
language learners will enable themselves to use direct strategies in learning to meet
their ultimate goal. The indepth information about all of the three strategies in the
indirect categorization will be illustrated below. Again, Oxford (1990) provided the
acronym of each strategies as a memory aid.
Metacognitive Strategies
Although the word ‘metacognitive’ seems to similar to ‘cognitive’ strategies
mentioned earlier, they are different. Cognitive describes the strategies of how learner
process their learning; in contrast, metacognitive are the strategies of how learner
process their cognition in their learning (Oxford, 1990; 2003; 2017). O’Malley and
Chamot stated that metacognitive strategies refer to the higher executive skills that may
entail planning, monitoring, and self-evaluation, whereas cognitive strategies are more
Indirect Strategies
Social
Strategies
Affective
Strategies
Metacognitive
Strategies
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
54
direct to individual learning task (O’Malley and Chamot, 1990). These kind of
strategies are also used to overview and self-direct language learning (Rubin, 1987).
The figure 2.11 below will show how metacognitive strategies work.
Figure 2.11 Metacognitive Strategies (Oxford, 1990)
The acronym CAPE comes from the first letters of the words centering,
arranging, planning, and evaluating. These fours words can effectively describe how
metacognitive is as ‘Metacognitive strategies make language learners more CAPE-
able’. To ‘center’ your learning is to provide the focus on language learning.
Overviewing and linking the knowledge with already known material provides the
comprehension in key concept of each language topic. If one learner wants to focus on
any language topic, the ‘paying attention’ strategies will be utilised. After focusing on
what to learn, language learners should ‘arrange and plan’ their learning. Great
preparation is better than doing nothing. First of all, learners should set their goal of
learning and then identify the learning purposes to scope their learning and enhance
their motivation. According to Anderson, as cited in O’Malley and Chamot (1990), that
planning process may be influenced by goals or by input features which is useful for
learning. Due to varieties of practicing, outside classroom settings can also provide the
opportunity to learn language. Thus, this one will link to social strategies (described
later), which focus on how learners interact with other people. Finally, learners should
Metacognitive Strategies
Centering your
learning Arranging and
Planning your
learning
Evaluating your
learning
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
55
‘evaluate’ their learning. The concept, like self-monitoring and self-evaluating will be
a part of this strategy. To know their own errors and mistakes will provide learners
effective ways of solution. The language learners may plan what they want to learn by
using metacognitive strategies and they can change them if they feel like it is not
successful. The next topic is a discussion about affect strategies, which helps learners
to cope with their internal factors.
Affective Strategies
The term affective is defined as specially connected with the emotion
(Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, 2013). The affective strategy is about how
learners deal with their emotions, beliefs, attitudes, and motivation when learning
language. As each learner has different schema and social dimension, their learning
process will be absolutely different. This kind of learning strategy refers to the
identification of one’s mood and anxiety level, feeling towards the reward and good
performance of L2 proficiency (Oxford, 2003). The figure 2.12 below shows the three
main sets of affective strategies; lowering your anxiety, encouraging yourself, and
taking your emotional temperature. The acronym LET comes from the first letter of
each strategy.
Figure 2.12 Affective Strategies (Oxford, 1990)
Affective Strategies
Lowering your anxiety Encouraging yourself Taking your emotional
temperature
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
56
Affective strategies can refer to the theory of intrapersonal intelligence of
Gardner (1983). Learners have to understand themselves and be able to deal with their
thoughts, emotions, strengths and weaknesses (Gardner, 1983). Anxiety is one of the
obstacle emotions in language learning. The serious students cannot get through the
information clearly if they are worrying about something. To lower their anxiety can
be done in many ways e.g., taking some activities to relax, taking deep breathing or
meditating to be more focuses, watching a funny movie, listening to music, and so on.
These simple means can reduce the anxiety in learning seriously among language
learners. Rewards such as doing a good performance can help to encourage learners
when facing anxiety. Reading some positive quote or optimistic statement will foster
their motivation and attitude.
In addition, to be with oneself by taking the emotional temperature is useful.
This strategy is able to cope with the negative emotion occurring during learning
language. If it is hard to avoid it is better to focus on it and analyze it as the normal
thing. Stress, fear, anger, tension, and worry are the emotions which can commonly
occur, while happiness, interest, calmness, and pleasure can also work with the positive
thinking learner. Thus, to be effective in arranging emotion, learners have to know
themselves very well and, eventually, the affective difficulties will be managed by
affective strategies. Affective strategies deal with internal factors of language learners;
the next topic deals with the interaction with other people, social strategies.
Social Strategies
The social strategy is about how learners convey language and communicate
with others. Some learners cannot get along well with others for their own personal
reasons; this will enable them to misunderstand in communication. This issue is also
about the sociocultural context such as age, gender, sex, social level, and so on. As
these factors can affect how people use language, this strategy will influence learners
when learning language. To Chamot (1987), social strategies are the cooperative skill
of language learners working with their peers or native speakers to deal with error and
retain feedback, in order to improve their L2 proficiency. Thus, social strategies will
underpin the interaction and communication activities. The acronym ACE refers to
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
57
‘ACE language learners use social strategies!” (Oxford, 1990). The figure 2.13 below
shows how learners express language by using social strategies.
Figure 2.13 Social Strategies (Oxford, 1990)
To enhance language learning, social strategies will underpin language learners
in terms of ‘positive interdependence’. Interdependence of learners refers to
cooperative activities occurring among learners. When learners are talking to each
other, cooperating skill will take place, both in the role of asking questions and
answering. In addition, social strategies are also related to the culture of the
interlocutors (empathizing). Thus, to comprehend each cultural difference will facilitate
communication.
The three strategies mentioned above are all indirect strategies; metacognitive,
affective, and social. These three strategies, which do not directly involve with the
target language as the direct strategies do, enable language learners to manipulate and
regulate their learning process.
Social Strategies
Asking questions Cooperating with
others
Empathizing with
others
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
58
2.5. EDUCATIONAL CURRICULUM
2.5.1 Education Provided in International Schools in Thailand
In Thailand, there are two main types of international school curriculum; British
and American. In this study, the participants were all in a British curriculum school. In
the senior high school level, the international school students have to take IGCSE
(International General Certificate of Secondary Education) level to graduate in year 12
which is similar to Matthayom 6 for Thai public school students. With IGCSE
certificate, the students can further their study for university by taking an A-level
course, which is similar to GAT and PAT of Thai curriculum. However, IGCSE courses
are divided into many subjects such as Physics, Mathematics, Chemistry, Biology, ICT,
Business Studies, Economics, English, French, including Thai etc. Each subject is
graded from A*, A, B, C, D, E, F, G and U (ungraded). The students have to choose 10
subjects at least to get the certificate and must get no less than C in each subject. After
getting an IGCSE certificate, they graduate from the standard educational curriculum.
However, year 12 is counted as Matthayom 5 for Thai students. So, year 13 is optional
for them to further their A-level study in school or be home-school students. Finally, 5
subjects of A-level passed can be enough to enter them in university. The university
will require the subjects needed to enter, so the students have to consider the faculty
before choosing each subject of A-level study.
2.5.2 Education Provided in Thai Public Schools
Thai public school students have to take GAT (General Aptitude Test), PAT
(Professional and Academic Aptitude Test), and 9 standard subjects to enter the
university. Senior high school students are all required to take GAT and 9 standard
subjects. For PAT, it is optional due to the specific skill of each students such as French,
Japanese, Engineering, etc. GAT is divided into 2 subjects which are critical thinking
and English whereas the 9 standard subjects are Math 1, Math 2, Biology, Physics,
Chemistry, English, Thai Language, and Social Studies. Each student has to choose the
appropriate subjects depend on their desired faculty and university.
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
59
2.6. RELEVANT STUDIES
There are a lot of empirical studies conducted in both the field of learner
autonomy and language learning strategies due to their relationship. As this study aims
to investigate the learner autonomy and language learning strategies used by the That
EFL learner in international and Thai public schools, the related studies were reviewed
as follows:
2.6.1 Oversea Research
As Littlewood (1996) stated in a study to examine the components to promote
learner autonomy, learning strategies are the effective tool for language learners to
foster their self-regulation. Alzahrani and Watson (2016) conducted an experimental
study on how language learning strategies training affected the learner autonomy level
of the Saudi students who took a medical course. The questionnaire and interview were
used to gain the data in this study. The participants were divided into three groups; two
groups for experiment and one group for control. The language learning strategies
training was taught to the experimental group and the traditional method of teaching
was taught to the control group. The result found that after the training course, they had
known how to use learning strategies properly. They could also use them correctly and
suitably by themselves. Although the highest and lowest autonomous participants were
in the experimental group, after training in learning strategies use, they were able to
practice their learning more effectively.
White (1995) carried out research on the relationship between autonomous
learning level and language learning strategies use of distance foreign language learners
and classroom language learners. White said that the distance foreign language learners
were claimed to be higher in self-management than the classroom language learners
because they have to arrange for themselves in the learning process and they had not
any teachers to control their learning. The result revealed that metacognitive and
cognitive learning strategies were mostly used by the distance language learners, more
than the classroom students did. In contrast, the classroom language learners used more
social learning strategies in their learning process than the distance learners did because
they had more chance to interact with their classmates. The metacognitive learning
strategies used by the distance language learner participants in this study can claim the
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
60
relationship with the self-management point of view. Thus, the level of autonomous
learning was dominant in the language learning strategies used by the learners,
especially as to who had what kind of self-management strategy.
Other research focused on how metacognitive strategy was important for
fostering autonomous learning was conducted by Victori and Lockhart (1995).
According to the trend of providing learning training in the field of second and foreign
language study, one of the most influential factors to promote learner autonomy was
metacognition. This study aimed to highlight the unifying role of metacognition in all
levels of learner training. The result found that enhanced metacognition presumably
leads to more autonomous learning through improved self-knowledge, used of more
learning strategies, and taking the chance to contact with the language. The more
metacognitive strategies were used, the more the autonomous learning level would
accelerate the rate of progress.
Chuan (2010) conducted an experimental study of learner autonomy in language
learning. The purpose of this study was to develop the students’ learning performance,
give guidance on their learning strategies, and develop their interest in language
learning. The non-English major freshmen students in Biological Technology and
Mechanical Engineering were the participants of this study. The control group was
taught by the traditional grammar-translation teaching approach, while the
experimental group was taught by the learner development program, which focused on
six basic language learning strategies developed by Oxford (1990). The language
proficiency test and SILL questionnaire were quantitatively conducted whereas
interview and classroom observation were qualitatively used as the research instrument
in this study. The findings disclosed that after learning in the development program, the
participants in the experimental group had become highly autonomous and were able
to use more learning strategies. Metacognitive strategies was still the priority use among
them. Surprisingly, affective strategies were forgotten when the learners were facing
anxiety; instead, they expected the encouragement from the teachers and peer support.
Finally, the result also showed that the participants in the experimental group had the
higher interest in language learning. Therefore, from the result of this study, language
learning strategies were an important propulsion to encourage language learners to
become more autonomous and acquire their language proficiency.
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
61
One year later in 2011, Chuan conducted an experimental study of language
learning strategies and learning outcomes in an autonomy learning environment. Chuan
focused on a listening task for the students in the autonomy learning environment. The
participants were non-English majors from the Department of Mechanical Engineering
and Electronic Engineering students enrolled in 2008. The listening test, SILL
questionnaire, and interview were used as the research instruments in this study. The
finding of language learning strategies used by the participants was high in memory
strategies, followed by compensation, affective, cognitive, social, and metacognitive,
in terms of frequency use. This meant that the participants in this study were low in
planning their learning or evaluating their learning. The data from the interview
revealed that the participants sometimes lacked self-discipline to manage their learning
process. Although metacognitive was very important, the participants said that they
hardly used this to get control of their learning task anyway. Moreover, the listening
proficiency of the participants was positively related to the language learning strategies
use. There tended to be a significant correlation existing between learning strategies
and high achieving learners in this study.
Chen and Pan (2015) also carried out a study of the relationship between learner
autonomy and the use of language learning strategies in a Taiwanese junior high school.
130 ninth grade students of junior high school in central Taiwan participated in this
study. They were studied through an autonomy inventory for language learning and
SILL questionnaires. The result shown the participants did not always use language
learning strategies in their learning process. Moreover, they preferred to use memory
strategies and affective strategies were the least used among the participants.
Metacognitive, which is important in learning autonomy, was less used by the
participant as they lacked English learning motivation and they were afraid to speak
English. The study implication was it was important for the students to get involved in
the learning purpose and material used in the classroom. The study also mentioned that
the learners who had higher levels of learning abilities and engaged more in learning
activities would frequently use language learning strategies.
Ceylan (2015) conducted a study to investigate whether language learning
strategies training had influence on fostering autonomy to the language learners or not.
The participants of this study were prep school students in the academic year 2013-
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
62
2014 at Kocaeli University. The participants were divided into four groups; two control
groups and two experimental groups. The SILL questionnaire was used to gain the
quantitative data previously. The experimental groups were trained in the language
learning strategies training course for two weeks. At the end of the semester, the SILL
and autonomy questionnaires were provided to the participants again to investigate the
development of their LLS use. The results of the study revealed that by employing
language learning strategies training, the participants could be more effective in their
autonomous learning level and also their language proficiency was increased. Thus,
from the results of this study, the learner autonomy and the use of language learning
strategies were related. It was obviously seen that the more strategies the students
employed and the higher the level of autonomous learning the students were, the more
language proficiency they gained.
Liu (2015) conducted a study of how language learning strategies relates to
language proficiency and learner autonomy. 150 university freshmen taking English
classes in central Taiwan were the participants of the study. They were tested by an
English test and SILL questionnaire to gain more indepth data about language learning
strategies they used in their learning process. The learner autonomy questionnaire was
also provided to the participants to gain the autonomous learning data. The result shown
that to study social science, which was their major program, the learning strategies they
mostly used were compensation strategies, followed by cognitive and metacognitive
strategies. The participants used the compensation strategies to fulfill the knowledge
they missed. Moreover, the language proficiency was also related to the learning
strategies the participants used in their learning process. The more learning strategies
they used, the more proficiency they gained.
Negari and Solaymani (2013) carried out a study aimed at investigating the
relationship among Iranian EFL learners’ attitudes to autonomous learning, thinking
styles, and their language learning strategy use. The participants were 102 EFL upper-
intermediate and advanced learners learning English in language institutes of
Hormozgan province. The strategy inventory language learning (SILL) and Attitudes
to Autonomous Language Learning Inventory (AALLI) questionnaires were handed
out to the participants. The result of the study revealed that there was a significant
relationship between learners’ use of language learning strategies and attitudes to
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
63
autonomous language learning, language learning strategies and thinking styles,
attitudes to autonomous language learning and their thinking styles. The findings also
suggested that teachers should be aware of learners’ attitudes to autonomous language
learning, thinking styles and their strategy use.
Nikoopour and Hajian (2015) conducted a study aimed at investigating the
relationship among Big-Five Personality Traits, LLS and learners’ autonomy. The
participants of this study were Iranian students studying English in Islamic Azad
University in Tehran. The learner autonomy, the Neo-Five-Factor Inventory, and SILL
questionnaire were used to gain data in this study. The findings shown that Iranian
students had a significant relationship of the language learning strategies use and their
learning autonomy. This implied that their frequent use of LLS could predict their
autonomous learning proficiency. The findings of this study might lead the teachers to
pay attention to the awareness of the students’ personality traits, their autonomy in
learning, and their language learning strategies use in the classroom, which was the
ultimate goal to enhance their language proficiency.
2.6.2. Research in Thailand
In Thailand, language learning strategies studies have been conducted by many
researchers. Most of them have shown that Thai EFL learners, both of high school level
and university level, used metacognitive strategies when they learned language.
Moreover, some studies provided the result that ‘a good language learner’ tends to use
more learning strategies than those whose proficiency is low. Thus, this part is
discussing about what Thai researchers found about language learning strategies use
among Thai EFL learners.
Sumamarnkul (2006) investigated the use of language learning strategies,
without concerning age, gender, intelligence, aptitude, motivation, personality, English
proficiency, and learning styles. The participants in this study were 71 Science and
Technology students at Thammasat University in total; 26 were male and 45 were
female. They were taking EL396 (English for Science and Technology II) in the second
semester of the 2005 academic year. The instrument was Purpura’s cognitive and
metacognitive strategy use questionnaire in Thai version. The result showed that the
participants used language learning strategies at the moderate level. However, they used
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
64
metacognitive strategy more than cognitive strategy. In other words, they used
metacognitive strategy to formulate a plan, assess the situation, set a goal, and monitor
their learning process, but failed to use strategies to learn and for evaluation. In contrast,
the students used cognitive approach, such as translating linking with prior knowledge
(when they learn new words and new material in English), inferencing (when they learn
new material in English), analyzing contrastively, and applying rules (when they try to
improve their English). Finally, the researcher suggested use of other kinds of
questionnaire to gain data with different kinds of data collection like diaries, dialogue
journal, observation, and interview. Moreover, a qualitative research process like
longitudinal research should be conducted to see any changes.
Tirabulkul (2005) conducted a study of language learning strategies
investigation and also further explored whether strategies used matched those of a good
language learner’s strategies. The participants in this study were 50 out of 57 students
in MA in TEFL Program, Thammasat University, academic year 2004. The strategy
inventory language learning (SILL) questionnaires were used as the instrument. The
result showed that metacognitive strategies were used at the highest proportion among
the participants, followed by compensation, social, cognitive, affect, and memory
strategies. Tirabulkul also found that affective strategy and memory strategy were used
in the medium level, while the others were high. Moreover, the metacognitive strategies
that the participants used matched with those who were the good language learners. The
recommendation of this study suggested to replicate the research with a greater number
of participants and use qualitative data collection to gain more details.
Another study confirming the same result of Tirabulkul was conducted by
Phantharakphong (2009). The study aimed to investigate language learning strategies
of high school students at Chiang Yuen Pitthayakhom School in Mahasarakham and
also explore the differences in the degree of language learning strategy use between
good and poor students. In this study, 105 out of 724 students of the school were the
participants and data was collected by the strategy inventory language learning (SILL)
questionnaires. The results revealed that metacognitive strategies which were one of
the more successful language learning features were found to be the most frequently
used strategies in only good students, followed by social, and affective strategies. In
contrast, a compensation category was the strategy weaker students used most. This
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
65
reflects that there was a difference in the degree of language learning strategy use
between good and poor high school students. In other words, the weaker students
applied two out of six strategies which were compensation and affective respectively at
a high level. Furthermore, other four strategies were employed at a medium level and
no strategies were used at a low level at all. However, the researcher recommended
more research to replicate the study with a greater proportion of the participants and to
use the qualitative data collection.
Not only metacognitive strategy related to a good learner was observed, but the
frequent use of LLS relating to a good learner also was to be investigated. Lamatya
(2010) investigated English language learning strategies used by 168 M. 5 students,
with different English achievement, in the first semester of academic year 2009 at
Chulalongkorn University Secondary Demonstration School (CUD), to compare the
English language learning strategies by 4 groups of students: very high, high, medium
and low English achievement. In addition, she also studied whether there was a
relationship between students’ English language learning strategies and their
achievement in studying English. The Strategy Inventory for Language Learning
(SILL) questionnaires were used as a data collection. The results revealed that the
overall use of English language learning strategies by the participants was at the
moderate level. The most frequent strategy use was Metacognitive strategy category,
followed by Compensation strategy category, Cognitive strategy category, Social
strategy category, and Affective strategy category. The least frequent strategy use was
Memory strategy category. The findings also stated that the participants with very high
and high English achievement used language learning strategies more frequently. It can
be said that the students with high and very high English achievement used English
language learning strategies - Metacognitive, Compensation, Cognitive and Memory
strategies - more frequently than students with medium and low English achievement.
At the end, replication of the study was suggested with different levels and a larger
group of participants and combine various qualitative approaches
The result of Lamatya (2010) bears out with the finding of Thangpatipan (2014).
Thangpatipan (2014) investigated language learning strategies (LLS) used by Thai high
school students in an EP program at a secondary school located in the east of Thailand.
Moreover, she also explored the differences between LLS used by 22 good learners and
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
66
18 poor learners. The Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) questionnaires
were used as a data collection. The findings showed that the use of LLS between good
learners and weaker learners are different; good learners use LLS more than poor ones.
Besides, the participants use 6 LLS at the medium level. In other words, metacognitive
is used the most, followed by memory and social strategies. Further study should be
conducted with the participants in the regular program, in the same school and at the
same level, to see the differences. Moreover, the factors such as, age, sex, personality,
learning styles, attitude should be compared and the qualitative methodology like an
interview should also be employed.
Some research was conducted in the language learning strategies (LLS) in
relation to gender. One found that gender had influence on LLS use while another found
no impact. Qing (2013) conducted research to investigate the use of LLS and examine
the relationship between LLS use and gender and English proficiency; measuring by
student’s grade point average (GPA), study duration in English, and student’s perceived
self-rating. 200 students at Santirat Wittayalai School in Bangkok were the participants
in this study. The Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) questionnaires in
Thai version was used for data collection. The finding showed that metacognitive is the
most popular use among the participants. In addition, males and females used different
LLS; males used more LLS than female. This was because Santirat was a male school
before and the number of males was greater than females. In terms of the participants’
level, the juniors used more LLS than the seniors and the High GPA learner used LLS
differently from low GPA learners.
Saengaroon (2015) conducted a study to investigate English language learning
strategies and explore whether or not a difference exists between female and male
students in the use of English language learning strategies. Two hundred and thirty-
three Thai EFL students, in the second semester of academic year 2015, enrolled at
Rajamangala University of Technology Lanna Tak were selected in the study. The
Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) questionnaire was used as an
instrument in this study. Saengaroon (2015) found that the overall use of English
language learning strategies by the students was at the moderate level. The most
frequent strategy use was metacognitive strategies, followed by memory and social
strategies. The least frequent strategy use was cognitive strategies. In addition, it was
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
67
revealed that there was no statistically significant difference in the overall use of
English language learning strategies between male and female students. Both male and
female students preferred to use metacognitive strategy most frequently whereas they
used cognitive strategy least frequently. Therefore, gender did not influence the use of
LLS between male and female students.
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
68
CHAPTER THREE
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
In this chapter, the detailed description of the research methodology operated in
the study will be presented through six main topics including research design,
participants, research instruments, data collection, research procedures, and data
analysis.
3.1. RESEARCH DESIGN
To conduct the study, a mixed-method research design was employed in the
investigation. This survey study firstly aimed to investigate learner autonomy and their
language learning strategies by collecting data quantitatively with the questionnaires.
In addition, a qualitative technique was employed through the semi-structured
interviews to get the language learning strategies used by the autonomous participants
in depth.
3.2. PARTICIPANTS
The participants of this study were a convenient sampling which came from the
whole population of 387 senior high school students in a tutorial school in Bangkok.
200 students out of these were divided into subgroups to be the participants of the study.
According to Yamane’s (1967) sample calculation, more than 196 participants
out of the population rounded up to 400 were selected as the participants in the study,
with a sampling error less than or equal to 0.05 and reliability equal to 95%. Thus, 200
participants out of 387 students were the participants in this study. After that, they were
classified into two groups: 100 international school students and 100 Thai public school
students, all of them are senior high school students. The 100 international school
students had studied in the international school program since they were young and
never attended a Thai public school. Also, the 100 Thai public school students had
never attended any international school program. It is noted that the students who attend
a Bilingual program or English program in Thai public schools were excluded due to
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
69
the different environment, teachers, and their peers. 200 of the participants were
provided with the questionnaires, a learner autonomy questionnaire and language
learning strategies questionnaire. Subsequently, 4 of them, who had the highest scale
of learner autonomy from the questionnaire, were required to have an interview to get
further information about language learning strategies use in depth. More details of
convenient sampling participants are shown in the figure 3.1
Figure 3.1 Selecting a Convenient Participants Sampling
In a population of 387 senior high school students in a tutorial school
in Bangkok
The researcher identified 2 subgroups
100 International school
students
(Senior high school level)
100 Thai public school
students
(Senior high school level)
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
70
3.3. RESEARCH INSTRUMENTS
3.3.1. Learner Autonomy Questionnaire
The learner autonomy questionnaire used in this study was adapted from the
MILLA questionnaire (Murase, 2015), learner autonomy cart sort (Cooker, 2015), and
a learner autonomy questionnaire (Joshi, 2011). The core concept of the learner
autonomy questionnaire was based on four components; students’ willingness,
students’ self-confidence, students’ motivation, and students’ ability.
The questionnaire format comprised of two sections. The first section was about
the participants’ background information, i.e. school name and gender. The second
section contained 20 questions related to the learner’s autonomy in English language
learning. The questions were categorized into 5 stages of frequency. The scores are
based on a 5 Likert-scale. They are classified in terms of frequency ranging from 1
"Never" to 5 "Always" as calculated in the table below.
Frequency Score based on Likert-scale
Always 5
Often 4
Sometimes 3
Rarely 2
Never 1
Table 3.1 Score Rank of Learner Autonomy Questionnaires
The rank of the score of learner autonomy questionnaire is between 20 and 100.
The higher score indicates higher level of learner autonomy. The questionnaires had
been proved to have high content validity and high reliability.
The obtained mean sores were evaluated according to the evaluation criteria as
follows:
1.00 - 1.80 means the level of learner autonomy was ‘very low’
1.81 - 2.60 means the level of learner autonomy was ‘low’
2.61 - 3.40 means the level of learner autonomy was ‘moderate’
3.41 - 4.20 means the level of learner autonomy was ‘high’
4.21 - 5.00 means the level of learner autonomy was ‘very high’
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
71
The questionnaire to investigate learner autonomy was also translated into Thai
for ease of response by the Thai public school participants. It is noted that the Thai
version of the questionnaire was proved in reliability of translation by an expert in the
translation field.
Validation Process
Regarding to the validation, the learner autonomy questionnaire was sent to find
its validity by three English language teaching experts to find the congruence between
the study objectives and the questionnaire statements. Then, the obtained data was
calculated using the Index of Item-Objective Congruence (IOC) (Rovinelli &
Hambleton, 1977) of each questionnaire statement.
The formula to calculate the Index of Item-Objective Congruence (IOC) is the
following:
IOC = ∑ R
N
Where
∑ R = Total scores from experts
N = Number of experts
There are three scores from each expert to judge each item as
Item clearly taps objective = 1
Unsure or unclear = 0
Item clearly does not tap objective = -1
Initially, the content validity of the learner autonomy questionnaire, comprising
of 23 items, was 0.83. However, some statements were reviewed due to the comments
of the experts.
First, a comment was the number of question in each component of learner
autonomy should be equal. Thus, item 13 in students’ motivation to learn English and
item 21-22 in students’ ability to learn autonomously were deleted due to the unrelation
to the objectives and the least score of IOC. Second, for item 1 and 3 examples were
added the to provide clearer definition and explanation. Moreover, in item 5, the word
‘self-disciplined’ was suggested by two experts to be changed to ‘self-regulated’. Next,
item 11 was changed from ‘I am a bit lazier when learning without the encouragement
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
72
of a teacher.’ to ‘I learn better when I receive encouragement of a teacher.’ resulting
from an expert’s comment on the word ‘lazier’ as it did not relate to the motivation. For
example, a lazy learner can be a motivated learner. Finally, in item 17, the word ‘note’
was advised to be changed to ‘notice’ and also added ‘seek ways to’ in front of
‘improve’. Therefore, the learner autonomy questionnaire was finally 20 items; 5 for
each component and the content validity was 0.85 which was acceptable according to
Turner and Carlson (2003).
3.3.2. SILL Questionnaire
The Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL), developed by Oxford
(1990) was adapted to be used in this study. It is based on the language learning
strategies of Oxford’s theory in 1990. The questionnaire format comprises of two
sections. The first section is about the participants’ background information, i.e. school
name and gender. The second section is about language learning strategies statements
which are combined from 2 main types of learning strategies according to Oxford
(1990); direct and indirect strategies. They are subsidiarily categorized into 6 kinds of
learning strategies i.e. memory, cognitive, compensation, metacognitive, social, and
affective strategies. Due to the context of Thai EFL learners, 30 items from 50 items of
SILL were adapted. The 30 items of SILL, used in this study, cover six categories of
strategies for language learning: Items 1-5 (adapted from item 3, 5, 6, 7, 8 of SILL)
concern the effectiveness of memory (memory strategies); items 6-10 (adapted from
item 10, 11, 15, 16, 22 of SILL) concern the use of mental processes (cognitive
strategies); items 11-15 (adapted from item 24, 25, 27, 28, 29 of SILL) are the
compensation for missing knowledge (compensation strategies); items 16-20 (adapted
from item 31, 33, 34, 36, 37 of SILL) deal with the organization and evaluation of
learning (metacognitive strategies); items 21-25 (adapted from item 40, 41, 42, 43, 44
of SILL) concern emotional management (affective strategies); and items 26-30
(adapted from item 45, 46, 47, 48, 50 of SILL) deal with interactive learning with others
(social strategies).
The participants responded on a five point Likert scale ranging from 1 "Never"
to 5 "Always". The range of scores for SILL is between 30 and 150. The higher score
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
73
means that the participant is an efficient strategy user, and the lower score means that
the participant is not an efficient strategy user.
Oxford (1999) had done research on the relationships between second language
learning strategies and language proficiency in the context of learner autonomy and
self-regulation through SILL questionnaires. The results showed that metacognitive and
cognitive learning strategies are strongly related to the learner autonomy. Moreover,
the successful learners consciously used certain types of learning strategies.
The SILL questionnaire administered to the participants in this study was also
translated into Thai for understandable response by the Thai public school participants.
The Thai version was checked for the correct translation by an expert in the field of
translation.
It is noted that the LLS questionnaire was not sent for content validity as it is
widely used.
3.3.3. Face to Face Semi-structured Interview
As individuals have their own different language learning strategies, to observe
their LLS in depth, a 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 use. The interview questions were divided into 6 questions about the
language learning strategies use. Each question was related to the six basic learning
strategies categorization by Oxford (1990). The first question was about how
interviewees memorized new English vocabulary, which is related to memory
strategies. The second one was linked to metacognitive strategies and asked about how
interviewees use their schemata to learn English. The third question referred to how
interviewees make up their missing knowledge, which is about compensation strategies.
Next, the questions about how interviewees deal with their emotional problem and
interaction with the others were provided, which were related to affective strategies and
social strategies respectively. Finally, the question were asked about how interviewees
improve their English proficiency skill - their cognitive strategies. The international
participants were asked English language questions and the Thai participants were
interviewed in Thai.
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
74
3.3.4 Piloting
The learner autonomy questionnaire and language learning strategies
questionnaire, both English version and Thai version were piloted with the participants
excluded from the research samples. English version of learner autonomy and language
learning strategies questionnaires were given to 30 senior high school students in the
international school. Meanwhile the Thai version of the learner autonomy and language
learning strategies questionnaire was also provided to 30 senior high school students in
the Thai public school. Each 30 participants of the two subgroups did the pilot study
together at the same time. Both the international school students and Thai public school
students spent about 10-15 minutes doing the learner autonomy questionnaire, while
the language learning strategies task took about 15-20 minutes. After piloting the study
of the two questionnaires, they were brought to calculate the reliability. The Cronbach
Alpha of English version of learner autonomy questionnaire and language learning
strategies questionnaire were 0.73 and 0.74 respectively, and for the Thai version of the
learner autonomy questionnaire and language learning strategies questionnaire, 0.92
and 0.86 respectively.
3.4. DATA COLLECTION
A mixed-method research design was employed in this study, drawing on
different data sources.
3.4.1. Quantitative Data Collection for Research Question 1 and 2
Learner autonomy questionnaires and language learning strategies
questionnaires (Oxford, 1990) written in English were administered to the international
school students and translated into a Thai version and provided to the Thai public
school students. The first questionnaire, learner autonomy, was administered to the
participants to observe the degree of the participants’ learner autonomy level. Then, the
second one, language learning strategies, was provided to investigate the strategies they
use to learn language. In addition, the differences of language learning strategies used
by two groups of participants, international school students and Thai public school
students, were observed.
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
75
3.4.2. Qualitative Data Collection for Research Question 2
The semi-structured interview questions were conducted with 4 participants.
The 4 participants came from the highest learner autonomy level learners (after being
classified by learner autonomy questionnaires) in each group of the whole samples.
Two participants from international school and two from Thai public school were
pleasantly invited to be questioned for indepth information about how they learn
language.
3.5. RESEARCH PROCEDURE
This study was carried out step by step as following:
1. The data collection procedure started with the distribution of the two main
questionnaires; learner autonomy and language learning strategies. They were
given hand-by-hand to the participants of the study in the classroom setting at a
tutorial school in Bangkok. Prior to responding to the questionnaires, the
participants were informed that there would be no right or wrong answers.
2. The learner autonomy questionnaires were firstly provided to the international
school participants and Thai public school participants in different classrooms
at the same time. The time period was about 15 minutes for the students to
complete the questionnaire and encourage them to know about the significance
of the study. Finally, the questionnaires were gathered.
3. After getting back the learner autonomy questionnaires, the language learning
strategies questionnaires were then given to the same participants. Due to larger
number of items in this questionnaire, the time period for the participants to
answer was about 20 minutes. Finally, the questionnaires were collected.
4. The findings of the two questionnaires were calculated into Mean and Standard
Deviation.
5. After concluding the findings of the questionnaire, the scores of each participant
groups, international school students and Thai public school students, were
ranked from the highest to the lowest. The results of the two questionnaires were
ranked in terms of frequency to look at how much learner autonomy the
participants had and which strategies they used the most.
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
76
6. Four participants who had the highest scores from the learner autonomy
questionnaires were interviewed about the language learning strategies they
always use in their learning process. The interview questions made up a semi-
structured interview which could lead to more in-depth detail in their replies.
7. The interviews were tape-recorded and transcribed into text. The 30 minutes
period was spent for these interviews.
8. All of the collected data were analyzed.
3.6. DATA ANALYSIS
The quantitative data obtained from all the questionnaires of this study was
statistically analyzed through descriptive statistics which consists of Means and
Standard Deviation (SD).
3.6.1. Data Analysis for Research Questions 1 and 2
Research question 1 : What is the level of English language learning autonomy
of Thai EFL students learning in the international school and Thai public school?
aimed to investigate the level of learner autonomy of the participants; a 5-point Likert
Scale was used to score the data. Thus, the data was computed to find Mean and
Standard Deviation (SD).
Research question 2 : What are the differences of English language learning
strategies used by Thai EFL students learning in the international school and Thai
public school? aimed to find how Thai EFL learners in the international school and Thai
public school used language learning strategies differently. The Mean and Standard
Deviation (SD) were used to analyze the data from 5-point Likert Scale score in terms
of the level of strategic learners they were. Next, the data of each language learning
strategies category was ranked to find any differences of language learning strategies
use of the participants in both groups.
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
77
CHAPTER FOUR
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
This chapter describes the research findings from both quantitative and
qualitative data analysis according to the two research objectives and two research
questions. The quantitative results are provided by descriptive statistic and divided into
two parts; level of learner autonomy and language learning strategies. In addition, the
qualitative findings are also illustrated to support the findings from the questionnaires.
Next, the discussion of the findings will be also presented.
4.1. RESULT
The quantitative data were collected by two questionnaires in this study; learner
autonomy and language learning strategies questionnaires. Both of them were analyzed
to answer the two research questions to investigate the level of learner autonomy and
the differences of language learning strategies use by the two group of participants.
Moreover, the qualitative data were analyzed to observe the language learning
strategies use in detail. The result will be presented in the order of research objectives.
4.1.1. The Investigation of Learner Autonomy Level
According to the research question 1 : What is the level of English language
learning autonomy used by Thai EFL students learning in the international school and
Thai public school?, the results of the 5-point Likert scale 20-item questionnaire data
were analyzed by Descriptive Statistic in SPSS (IBM Version 23) to find the mean
score and standard deviation (SD).
The analyzed data shows that the grand mean (X) was 3.50 and the Standard
Deviation (SD) was 0.55 for international school students and X 3.76 and SD 0.52 for
Thai public school students. According to the criteria, the range from 3.41 to 4.20
suggests very high level of learner autonomy; therefore, on average, the level of learner
autonomy of both group of participants was at the high level.
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
78
In order to obtain more information, the descriptive statistical analysis was
conducted to further analyze each domain in the learner autonomy questionnaire. The
result are presented in Table 4.1 with the interpretation of the level of learner autonomy.
Participants
Domain
Thai Public
School Students
(n=100)
International
School Students
(n=100)
Willingness Mean (X) 3.85 3.60
SD 0.71 0.76
LA Level High High
Self-confidence Mean (X) 3.75 3.49
SD 0.62 0.76
LA Level High High
Motivation Mean (X) 3.77 3.39
SD 0.51 0.54
LA Level High Moderate
Capacity Mean (X) 3.66 3.51
SD 0.76 0.74
LA Level High High
Total Mean (X) 3.76 3.50
SD 0.52 0.55
LA Level High High
Table 4.1 Mean of each Domain and Level of Learner Autonomy
The table 4.1 displays that on average the Thai EFL learners in Thai public
school had high levels of learner autonomy. Their willingness was at the highest level
of all the domain (X = 3.85, SD = 0.71), followed by the motivation to learn language
(X = 3.77, SD = 0.51). Besides, their self-confidence and capacity to learn
autonomously were also at the high level (X = 3.75, SD 0.62 and X = 3.66, SD = 0.76
respectively).
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
79
Table 4.1 also presents that on average the Thai EFL learners in international
school had high level in every domains of learner autonomy except the motivational
domain. Their willingness ranked the highest proportion (X = 3.60, SD = 0.76). Their
capacity and self-confidence to learn autonomously were also high (X = 3.51, SD =
0.74 and X = 3.49, SD = 0.76 respectively). From the table, motivation of the
participants was in the lowest range; however, it was still in the high level (X = 3.51,
SD = 0.74).
Additionally, the mean of each statement under every domain was examined
with its interpretation of the learner autonomy level to show some remarkable findings
in the table as follows.
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
80
Table 4.2 Mean of each statement of “Willingness”
Participants
Statement of Willingness
Thai Public
School
Students
(n=100)
International
School Students
(n=100)
I believe that I can make a
decision of my way of
learning. (e.g. learning
English with self-access
center)
Mean (X) 3.71 3.70
SD 0.913 1.106
Meaning High High
I am willing to set long-
term goals in learning
English.
Mean (X) 4.07 3.75
SD 0.891 1.167
Meaning High High
I am willing to study plans
that match my goals in
learning English. (e.g.
memorise 5 new
vocabularies each day for
exam)
Mean (X) 3.83 2.56
SD 1.035 1.038
Meaning High Low
I am willing to create
opportunities to use English
outside the classroom.
Mean (X) 3.97 4.11
SD 0.969 1.091
Meaning High High
I can be self-regulated in
learning English. (e.g.
reading English books or
news during free time)
Mean (X) 3.71 3.89
SD 0.998 1.043
Meaning High High
Willingness to take
learning responsibility
Mean (X) 3.85 3.60
SD 0.71 0.76
Meaning High High
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
81
Table 4.2 demonstrates that on average Thai EFL learners in the Thai public
school and the international school were highly willing to take charge of their learning
responsibility (X = 3.85, SD = 0.71 and X = 3.60, SD = 0.76 respectively). From the
item 2 “I set long-term goals in learning English”, it can be indicated that the learners
had the clear goal of learning English which meant they were willing to learn to meet
their goal. Furthermore, they created chances to use English outside the classroom. This
means they intended to practice their English skill more and more. Moreover, arranging
the study plan to match the goal of learning can also show the willingness of the
participants. The results also presented that the participants had self-regulation in their
learning of English and made decisions of the means to learn by themselves.
The next table will present the interpretation of another learner autonomy
component; self-confidence.
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
82
Table 4.3 Mean of each statement of “Self-confidence”
Participants
Statement of Self-confidence
Thai Public
School
Students
(n=100)
International
School Students
(n=100)
I can review what I am
good at in learning English.
(e.g. ‘I am good at
memorizing vocabulary.’)
Mean (X) 3.80 3.34
SD 0.943 1.165
Meaning High Moderate
I can revise my English
study plans if they do not
work well.
Mean (X) 3.68 3.22
SD 0.898 1.124
Meaning High Moderate
I can learn on my own
without a helper.
Mean (X) 3.30 3.66
SD 0.990 1.047
Meaning Moderate High
I always ask my teacher to
explain most of the things I
don’t understand.
Mean (X) 3.98 3.70
SD 0.910 1.010
Meaning High High
I can reflect upon how I
should have studied better
after I finish studying
English.
Mean (X) 3.99 3.54
SD 0.785 1.141
Meaning High High
Self-confidence to learn
independently
Mean (X) 3.75 3.49
SD 0.62 0.76
Meaning High High
Table 4.3 pointed out that on average all of the participants in this study had the
self-confidence to learn independently at the high level (X = 3.75, SD = 0.62 for Thai
Public school and X = 3.49, SD = 0.76 for international school). The results showed
that the students in Thai public school reflect upon how they can improve their English
skill after studying English. Moreover, they also review what they are good at, reported
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
83
at, high level for Thai public school students (X = 3.80, SD = 0.943) but a moderate
level for international school students (X = 3.34, SD = 1.17). The Thai public school
students also review their study plan if the previous one does not work at high level (X
= 3.68, SD = 0.89) while the international school students revise their plan of learning
English at moderate level (X = 3.22, SD = 1.12). The high level of item 4 “I ask my
teacher to explain most of the things I don’t understand” notified that the students got
involved in the classroom activities which is one of the personality traits of autonomous
learners who can take charge of their own responsibility in learning. Although almost
of the items in self-confidence were high, the item 3 “I learn on my own without a
helper” was at the moderate level among Thai public school students (X = 3.30, SD =
0.99). It can be implied that the Thai educational curriculum still provides for the
significant role of teacher in the classroom. It is probable that Thai students rely on the
teachers and peers when they learn English.
The following table will point out about the motivation to learn among the
participants. It will talk about what kind of motivation, intrinsic or extrinsic, affects the
participants’ behavior in learning English.
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
84
Table 4. 4 Mean of each statement of “Motivation”
Participants
Statement of Motivation
Thai Public
School Students
(n=100)
International
School Students
(n=100)
I learn better when I receive
encouragement of a teacher.
Mean (X) 4.17 2.32
SD 0.766 1.384
Meaning High Low
I feel like giving up
learning English.
Mean (X) 2.65 3.83
SD 1.209 1.436
Meaning Moderate High
When I make progress in
learning English, I reward
myself such as: buy new
things.
Mean (X) 3.09 2.34
SD 1.164 1.281
Meaning Moderate Low
I think of the good grade I
will get when I learn
English.
Mean (X) 4.46 3.78
SD 0.758 1.040
Meaning Very high High
I think of having a better
job if I use English well.
Mean (X) 4.48 4.72
SD 0.759 0.570
Meaning Very high Very high
Motivation to learn
English
Mean (X) 3.77 3.39
SD 0.51 0.54
Meaning High Moderate
Table 4.4 displayed that Thai EFL learners in Thai public school have high
motivation to learn English (X = 3.77, SD = 0.51) whereas Thai EFL learners in
international school have motivation to learn English at the moderate level (X = 3.39,
SD = 0.54). For the Thai public school students, the item 4 “I think of the good grade I
will get when I learn English” (X = 4.46, SD = 0.76) and item 5 “I think of having a
better job if I use English well” (X = 4.48, SD 0.76) were at the very high level. In the
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
85
similar way, international school student ranked item 5 at the very high level (X = 4.72,
SD = 0.57). It can be indicated that the extrinsic motivation significantly influenced the
participants. Interestingly, the feeling of giving up learning English for Thai public
school students was at the moderate level (X = 2.65, SD = 1.20). This means that the
participants can cope with the negative feeling to achieve their goal of learning. In
addition, the result from item 1 revealed that the participants will learn better when they
get encouraged by a teacher (X = 4.17, SD = 0.77). Nevertheless, the extrinsic
motivation like the reward was at the moderate level (X = 3.09, SD =1.16). For
international school students, the reward and the encouragement of the teachers are at
the low level in promoting learners’ motivation (X = 2.34, SD = 1.28 and X = 2.32, SD
= 1.38 respectively). However, they sometimes feel like giving up in learning English
(X = 3.83, SD = 1.44).
The next table will display the level of participants’ capacity to learn
autonomously. It will indicate how well they can perform in learning ability and arrange
their learning effectively.
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
86
Table 4.5 Mean of each statement of “Capacity”
Participants
Statement of Capacity
Thai Public
School Students
(n=100)
International
School Students
(n=100)
I notice my strengths and
weaknesses in learning
English and seek ways to
improve them.
Mean (X) 4.03 4.09
SD 0.904 0.854
Meaning High High
I make good use of my free
time in practicing English.
Mean (X) 3.62 3.32
SD 0.951 1.270
Meaning High Moderate
When I have a limited
amount of time available to
study English, I decide in
what order the things need
to be done and do according
to the plan.
Mean (X) 3.66 3.46
SD 0.956 0.989
Meaning High High
Besides the contents
prescribed in the course, I
read extra materials in
advance.
Mean (X) 3.57 3.14
SD 1.027 1.181
Meaning High Moderate
I evaluate the improvement
in my ability to use English
effectively.
Mean (X) 3.44 3.57
SD 1.122 1.121
Meaning High High
Capacity to learn
autonomously
Mean (X) 3.66 3.51
SD 0.76 0.74
Meaning High High
Table 4.5 informs that the Thai EFL learners in Thai public school and
international school have considerably high capacity to learn autonomously (X = 3.66,
SD = 0.76 and X = 3.51, SD = 0.74 respectively). They notice their strengths and
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
87
weaknesses and also seek ways to improve themselves which enables them to know
how to improve their English proficiency by themselves. This means they can manage
their ability to learn by themselves and know how to cope with the obstacles. Moreover,
they can manage the limited time to do the priority tasks. The findings show that the
participants spend their free time to practice English skill and also prepare for lessons
in advance.
The findings to answer research question 1: What is the level of English
language learning autonomy used by Thai EFL students learning in the international
school and Thai public school?, reveal that the learner autonomy level of both Thai
EFL learners in the international school and Thai public school were at the high level.
For the Thai EFL learners in international school, their willingness was the highest
proportion of all the domain under learner autonomy level, followed by capacity, self-
confidence, and motivation, whereas for the Thai EFL learners in Thai public school,
their willingness was at the highest level, followed by motivation, self-confidence, and
capacity to learn autonomously. Both groups of the participants had high willingness to
be responsible for their learning at the same level. However, the total results revealed
that Thai EFL learners in Thai public school and international school process
significantly high of learner autonomy level (X = 3.76, SD = 0.52 compared with X =
3.50, SD = 0.55 respectively).
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
88
4.1.2. The Investigation of Language Learning Strategies Use
According to the research question 2 : What are the differences of English
language learning strategies used by Thai EFL students learning in the international
school and Thai public school?, the results of the 5-point Likert scale 30-item
questionnaire data were analyzed by Descriptive Statistic in SPSS (IBM Version 23) to
find the mean score and standard deviation (SD).
Additionally, in order to get in-depth data, the semi-structured interviews were
applied in the study. 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.
Two Thai public school students (Person A and B) and two international school
students (Person C and D) who had the highest score of learner autonomy level were
given face-to-face interviews. The interviewing questions were relating to the
questionnaire questions and classified into the six learning strategies. From the answers
of the participants, the data provided confirmation of LLS use and more elicited
examples of each LLS.
The analyzed data shows that the grand mean (X) was 3.58 and 3.42 and the
Standard Deviation (SD) was 0.46 and 0.49 respectively. According to the criteria, the
range from 3.41 to 4.20 suggests high level of language learning strategies use;
therefore, on average, the level of language learning strategies use of the Thai EFL
learners in Thai public school and international school was at the high level.
In order to obtain more information, a descriptive statistical analysis was
conducted to further analyze each domain in the language learning strategies
questionnaire and the content analysis was applied to further the detail of how the
English learning strategies were employed by the participants, who claimed to have
high learner autonomy. The result are presented in Table 4.11 with the interpretation of
the level of language learning strategies use.
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
89
Table 4.6 Mean of each Domain and Level of Language Learning Strategies Use
Participants
Learning Strategies Domain
Thai Public
School Students
(n=100)
International
School Students
(n=100)
Memory Strategy
Mean (X) 3.36 2.83
SD 0.69 0.82
Meaning Moderate Moderate
Cognitive Strategy
Mean (X) 3.73 3.95
SD 0.62 0.55
Meaning High High
Compensation Strategy Mean (X) 3.93 3.71
SD 0.57 0.53
Meaning High High
Metacognitive Strategy
Mean (X) 3.81 3.53
SD 0.62 0.74
Meaning High High
Affective Strategy
Mean (X) 3.12 2.80
SD 0.67 0.78
Meaning Moderate Moderate
Social Strategy Mean (X) 3.50 3.70
SD 0.74 0.86
Meaning High High
Total Mean (X) 3.58 3.42
SD 0.46 0.49
Meaning High High
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
90
Table 4.6 illustrates the findings of language learning strategies used by the Thai
EFL learners in Thai public school and international school. It indicates that the
language learning strategies use is at the high level with the grand mean of 3.58 and SD
of 0.46 for Thai public school students and with the grand mean of 3.42 and SD of 0.49
for international school students mentioned earlier. Additionally, the results revealed
that the participants in the Thai public school employ compensation strategy as the
highest proportion (X = 3.93, SD = 0.57). The metacognitive strategy (X = 3.81, SD =
0.62) and the cognitive strategy (X = 3.73, SD = 0.62) are used as the high level as well.
Also, the memory strategy (X = 3.36, SD = 0.69) and the affective strategy (X = 3.12,
SD = 0.67) are used at the moderate level.
The results, in contrast, exhibit that the participants in international school use
cognitive strategy in the largest proportion (X = 3.95, SD = 0.55). The compensation
strategy (X = 3.71, SD 0.53), the social strategy (X = 3.70, SD 0.86), and the
metacognitive strategy (X = 3.53, SD 0.74) are frequently used at the high level
respectively. In contrast, the Thai EFL learners in international school use the memory
strategy (X = 2.83, SD = 0.82) and the affective strategy (X = 2.80, SD = 0.78) at the
moderate level.
Additionally, the mean of each statement under the language learning strategies
domain was examined with its interpretation of the language learning strategies use to
present some remarkable findings.
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
91
Table 4.7 Mean of each statement of “Memory Strategy”
Participants
Memory Strategies Statement
Thai Public
School Students
(n=100)
International
School Students
(n=100)
I connect the sound of a
new English word and an
image or picture of the
word to help me remember
the word.
Mean (X) 3.58 3.32
SD 0.890 1.136
Meaning High Moderate
I use rhymes to remember
new English words.
Mean (X) 3.59 2.76
SD 1.006 1.280
Meaning High Moderate
I use flashcards to
remember new English
words.
Mean (X) 2.91 2.57
SD 1.198 1.241
Meaning Moderate Low
I physically act out new
English words.
Mean (X) 3.23 2.54
SD 1.145 1.290
Meaning Moderate Low
I review English lessons
often.
Mean (X) 3.47 2.95
SD 0.969 1.048
Meaning High Moderate
Total Mean (X) 3.36 2.83
SD 0.69 0.82
Meaning Moderate Moderate
Table 4.7 shows that the Thai EFL learners in Thai public school use the
memory strategy at the moderate level (X = 3.36, SD = 0.69). They connect the sound
of a new word with the image (X = 3.58, SD = 0.89) and also use rhymes (X = 3.59,
SD = 1.02) to help remembering the vocabulary at the high level. The last item “I review
English lessons often’ informs us that rehearsal can help learners to remember the new
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
92
vocabulary (X = 3.47, SD = 0.97). However, the item 3 “I use flashcards to remember
new English words” (X = 2.91, SD = 1.19) and item 4 “ I physically act out new English
words.” (X = 3.23, SD = 1.15) can help learners in learning English at the moderate
level.
Due to the data obtained by the interview, it is revealed that the international
school students use the memory strategies for finding the similar word which has the
similar sound to remember and differentiate them.
“When I memorize the words, I will find the similar word to remember
and its similar sound to match, for example ‘evacuate’ and ‘evaluate’
and match with the meaning.”
The structure and spelling technique are also used to memorize and apply in the
sentences.
“I also memorize the structure and spelling. Or when I need to
remember it to have a test, I will memorize immediately by rehearsal.”
“ I practice with the exercise and use it in the real sentence. I can’t
remember the word if I didn’t use it. Which word that I always saw in
the reading, books, or novel, I will remember it automatically.”
The participants indicated that reading can help them to meet lots of new
vocabulary and ‘practice makes perfect’ is applicable to them. They will try to use it
as frequently as they have a chance to.
“Practice a lot. Use it again and again until I can remember.”
“Apply in real life. Use it a lot. Repeat it again and again.”
“Use it constantly or use sense. Connect to the everyday life in reality.
Use the sense of correction. Remind what I have heard or read
before.”
“Remember it carefully, try to find the difference of their usage and
learn from the sentence even in dictionary or in Google.”
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
93
A participant suggested that to remember the word, teaching others can help to
think about what they have learned.
“Teach the others to remind myself to remember the word.”
Additionally, table 4.7 also illustrates that the Thai EFL learners in international
school conduct the memory strategy at the moderate level (X = 2.83, SD 0.82). They
use the sound and an image to match the new vocabulary when they remember the new
word at the moderate level (X = 3.32, SD = 1.14). They also moderately use rhymes to
help in rehearsing the new word (X = 2.76, SD = 1.28). Moreover, the frequency of
lesson review is gradual (X = 2.95, SD 1.05). Surprisingly, flashcards and physically
acting out to remember the new word are at the low level (X = 2.57, SD 1.24 and X =
2.54, SD = 1.29 respectively).
Based upon the interview observation, the participants mostly used sound to
connect the new word. A Person C said:
“I usually speak out when I have to memorize the new vocabulary and
sometimes I draw a mind-mapping to connect the picture with the words.
It’s very effective to because I can remember it for a long time”.
Meanwhile, the Person D indicated that practicing enabled her to be more
effective in remembering the words as she added
“I practice and use it in everyday life. I will have a notebook of
vocabulary and I will write down within the day I have learned the new
words. Furthermore, I will review the new words as fast as possible as
if I leave them for a little bit long, I will forget”.
Moreover, to remember the word long-term, the practicing technique is always
used. The participants believed that to practice and use the new words in their real life
can encourage them to revise and remember. They therefore agreed that applying new
vocabulary in reality is absolutely effective. As Person C said:
“Use it frequently, try to apply in a sentence or writing. Doing
something while thinking of a word. Remind it frequently as it can re-
correct to be more precise and accurate.”
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
94
with support by the Person D as:
“Practice it a lot. Try to use in the reality. If I did the exercise, I will
look at the correction and do it again”.
In addition, memory strategies are also applied when the participants encounter
the words which have similar meaning but are different in terms of use, as they have to
remember the exact meaning of each words and try to distinguish them. However,
applying vocabulary in their real life seemed to be the most effective method for them.
The pronunciation is also important to Person C, who added:
“Memorize. Look at the example sentence. Match the couple of word
which is suitable to each other. I guess sometimes. Beware of the sound.
And I also use familiarity.”
while Person D indicated that to remind themselves what the teachers have taught and
what is heard can be helpful:
“memorize what I am taught. Learn it like it is the new word. Look at it,
memorize and use it in the reality.”
It is obviously seen that the Thai public school students often make relationship
between the new vocabulary and its sound. Sometimes, they said it out loud to involve
the hearing system to help in remembering. The questionnaire data is supported by the
interview data in terms of how the participants use memory strategies. Moreover, they
rarely remember the new words physically or use other material such flashcards
according to the low level of the mean score from the questionnaire.
The next table will display the analysis of cognitive strategies from the
questionnaires and also the support from the interview questions as well.
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
95
Table 4.8 Mean of each statement of “Cognitive Strategy”
Participants
Cognitive Strategies Statement
Thai Public
School Students
(n=100)
International
School Students
(n=100)
I say or write new English
words several times.
Mean (X) 3.47 3.47
SD 0.926 1.068
Meaning High High
I try to talk like native
English speakers.
Mean (X) 4.14 4.10
SD 0.829 0.859
Meaning High High
I watch English language
TV shows spoken in
English or go to movies
spoken in English.
Mean (X) 4.09 3.65
SD 0.944 1.132
Meaning High Very High
I read for pleasure in
English.
Mean (X) 3.46 4.61
SD 1.058 0.680
Meaning High High
I try not to translate word-
for-word.
Mean (X) 3.49 3.92
SD 1.040 1.098
Meaning High High
Total Mean (X) 3.73 3.95
SD 0.62 0.55
Meaning High High
Table 4.8 displays that the Thai EFL learners in Thai public school use cognitive
strategy at the high level (X = 3.73, SD = 0.62). The result revealed that they try to talk
like native English speakers (X = 4.14, SD = 0.83) which is the way to practice speaking
skill to be more practical. Moreover, watching English movies (X = 4.09, SD = 0.94)
and reading for pleasure in English (X = 3.46, SD = 1.06) can help learners to practice
for more skill in English. Item 1 “I say or write new English words several times” (X =
3.47, SD = 0.93) and item 5 “I try not to translate word-for-word” (X = 3.49, SD = 1.04)
indicate the high level of use by the participants.
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
96
The interview data shows that the Thai public school participants emphasis on
practicing as they think that to keep using and applying English language in their real
life can absolutely foster their English proficiency. Person A said:
“I also practice grammar, write a lot and let the teacher correct it for
me.”
With the support of Person B as :
“ I try to use English as much as possible. I also practice grammar,
write a lot and let the teacher correct it for me.”
Moreover, talking with native speakers can also encourage them to be more
fluent in English as Person B said:
“Try to talk with native. Talk to friends in foreign country, facetime,
line.”
In addition, supported by useful materials, the participants will gain more
confidence to use English. Both of the interviewed participants agreed that reading in
their free time can foster their knowledge and the ability to use English . They said:
“I watch movie by looking at English subtitle. I read for pleasure in
English. Read more, for pleasure, novel or topic that I like.”
“I always read the English books in my free time such as comics,
novel, or cartoon. It helps me a lot in increasing my vocabulary
knowledge and the correct sentence structure.”
Table 4.8 also informs of the cognitive strategy use by the Thai EFL learners in
the international school which revealed the high level use of this strategy (X = 3.95, SD
= 0.55). This strategy ranked the highest proportion of use by the participants. Reading
for pleasure is the effective way to promote cognitive strategy of the learners as it
ranked in the very high level (X = 4.61, SD = 0.68). Talking like native speakers can
also be a means to acquire English language (X = 4.10, SD = 0.86). By not trying to
translate word-for-word (X = 3.92, SD = 1.09), watching English movies (X = 3.65, SD
= 1.13), and repeating and writing new English words several time (X = 3.47, SD 1.07)
can also assist the learners as the way to manipulate their learning process and to gain
language performance.
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
97
For the international school participants, cognitive strategy is the highest
proportion of learning strategy they apply to their language learning. Based on the
interview questions, the participants’ replies revealed that they attempt to use and
practice their English skill as the Thai public students do.
“I try to highlight what I have to learn and set the goal to reach it. For
listening and speaking skill, I talked to myself unconsciously. Also, I
watched and pronounced the English lesson many times.”
“I think to be fluent in English, I have to practice in every skill
consistently.”
Moreover, they try to collect the knowledge by reading as much as possible
even from their lesson book or reading in their free time.
“I think reading is the most effective way to improve my English as I got
a lot of vocabulary and grammar from reading an English book.
Moreover, reading the lesson about specific topic such as tense can also
help me to progress my English skill.”
“For reading, I read an English book which is in my favorite topic in
my free time. If I cannot understand it at all, I will read the English book
that written in Thai to allow me to understand the basic context and
apply it to my daily life.”
Furthermore, some of them try to review what they have read, using ways such
as summarizing and highlighting, which are components of how cognitive strategy is
employed.
“Sometimes, I summarized the story to check my understanding and take note
of the vocab I don’t know.”
“For writing, I takes note in my diary. I narrate myself of what I have found in
a day.”
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
98
The following table will illustrate compensation strategies employed by the
participants. The Mean score and Standard Deviation is from the questionnaires and in-
depth data is elicited from interview questions.
Table 4.9 Mean of each statement of “Compensation Strategy”
Participants
Compensation Strategies Statement
Thai Public
School Students
(n=100)
International
School Students
(n=100)
To understand unfamiliar
English words, I make
guesses.
Mean (X) 4.30 3.97
SD 0.785 0.797
Meaning Very High High
When I cannot think of a
word during a conversation
in English, I use gestures.
Mean (X) 3.94 3.60
SD 0.993 1.015
Meaning High High
I read English without
looking up new words.
Mean (X) 3.51 3.55
SD 0.927 0.892
Meaning High High
I try to guess what the other
person will say next in
English.
Mean (X) 3.77 3.12
SD 0.962 1.066
Meaning High Moderate
If I cannot think of an
English word, I use a word
or phrase that means the
same thing.
Mean (X) 4.11 4.31
SD 0.852 0.720
Meaning High Very High
Total Mean (X) 3.93 3.71
SD 0.57 0.53
Meaning High High
Table 4.9 shows that the Thai EFL learners in the Thai public school use
compensation strategy at the high level (X = 3.93, SD = 0.57). They try to understand
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
99
the unfamiliar word in English by making guesses at the very high level (X = 4.30, SD
= 0.79). They also try to compensate for the unknown word with the another word or
phrases that have the same meaning (X = 4.11, SD = 0.85). They use gestures when the
cannot think about the word in English to help in communication (X = 3.94, SD = 0.99).
In addition, they try to make guesses what the interlocutors will say (X = 3.77, SD =
0.96) and also try not to look up the word when reading (X = 3.51, SD = 0.93).
Based upon the interview data, for the international school students, they use
compensation strategy by explaining the word in description and sentences. They also
try to use a similar meaning word to replace the unknown word.
“ I use the compensation word or the easier word. I try to use another
word that can explain the idea. I think it is better than saying nothing
or avoid using.”
“I try to use synonym while I’m writing or talking.”
While talking, gestures are used to explain the further meaning of the content.
“Sometimes, I use gesture instead of thinking the new word.”
“I always use gestures along with the explanation when I cannot think
about the exact word I would like to say.”
Additionally, if they do not know what the exact meaning of the word is, they
make guesses and use the context to help.
“I make guess when I’m reading or get help from the context and the
whole main idea of the story.
Table 4.9 also revealed that the Thai EFL learners in the international school
use compensation strategy at the high level (X = 3.71, SD = 0.53). The very high level
of compensation strategy was used when they cannot think of an English word, they
will use another word or phrase to communicate instead (X = 4.31, SD = 0.72).
Moreover, they try to understand the unfamiliar word by making guess (X = 3.97, SD
= 0.79) and also use the gestures to help in conversation (X = 3.60, SD = 1.02). The
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
100
result also found that the participants try to read English book without looking up words
in the dictionary (X = 3.55, SD = 0.89). In contrast, the item 4 “I try to guess what the
other person will say next in English” is at the moderate level. This is probably due to
the relationship of the students. For example, sometimes it is hard to predict what the
interlocutor will say if there is no familiarity.
Based on the further answers via interviewing, the data revealed that the
participants employed compensation strategies at the very high level as English is not
familiar for them and they did not use it in their daily life. Thus, the influence of L1 is
important for them when using English as they have to try to compensate for the
unknown words with gesture and other explanation while speaking; as both of the
interviewed participants said:
“I use similar meaning of word and try to explain in sentence. When I
cannot think of the English words I use gesture. When I’m talking to a
foreigner, I use the easier word and explain more.
“I will always use its synonym.”
“If I don’t know the word, I avoid using it. I will use gesture and try to
describe in explanation. I will give an example of what I’m going to
say.”
In addition, context clues are also helpful when they are reading. They stated
that they can help them to understand the meaning of the unknown word.
“When I’m reading and I don’t know the meaning, I will use the
context clue to help me to understand the story.”
The next table will expose metacognitive strategies with Mean and Standard
Deviation scores from the questionnaire and supporting data from interview.
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
101
Table 4.10 Mean of each statement of “Metacognitive Strategy”
Participants
Metacognitive Strategies Statement
Thai Public
School Students
(n=100)
International
School Students
(n=100)
I notice my English
mistakes and use that
information to help me do
better.
Mean (X) 3.90 4.07
SD 0.823 0.769
Meaning High High
I try to find out how to be a
better learner of English.
Mean (X) 4.10 3.88
SD 0.798 1.018
Meaning High High
I plan my schedule so I will
have enough time to study
English.
Mean (X) 3.57 2.83
SD 1.008 1.190
Meaning High Moderate
I look for opportunities to
read as much as possible in
English.
Mean (X) 3.67 3.32
SD 0.911 1.222
Meaning High Moderate
I have clear goals for
improving my English
skills.
Mean (X) 3.82 3.59
SD 0.936 1.016
Meaning High High
Total Mean (X) 3.81 3.53
SD 0.62 0.74
Meaning High High
Table 4.10 shows that the Thai EFL learners in the Thai public school use
metacognitive strategy at the high level (X = 3.81, SD = 0.62). They try hard to find the
way to be a better English learner (X = 4.10, SD = 0.79). They also notice their mistakes
and use this information to improve their skill (X = 3.90, SD = 0.82). In addition, they
have clear goals for improving English skill (X = 3.82, SD = 0.94) and plan their
schedule to manage the time to learn English (X = 3.57, SD = 1.01). Because an
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
102
effective way of learning is practicing, the results also presented that the participants
find the way to read as much as possible in English (X = 3.67, SD = 0.91).
Meanwhile, from the interview data, the international school students applied
the metacognitive strategy by reviewing what they have learned and also the mistakes.
This can help them to plan what they have to do with their English learning.
“I review the note and recheck what is correct or wrong. Correct the
mistakes. Be careful more about the repetition of mistakes.”
“I pay attention to the lesson and review it. Them I apply the
usefulness of what I have learned to my recent English use.”
“I try to notice myself, what I’m weak, what I’m strong at. Then I will
review my mistake and also improve my skill by setting a goal of
learning.”
Besides reviewing the learning process and the mistakes, they also evaluate
their knowledge as well.
“Moreover, I always seek the opportunity to use the language.
However, I speak English mostly when I’m at school, so it’s very great
to me to practice English. But sometimes I talk to my friends in
English. When we talk, we don’t care much about grammar, but when
we write a message to each other, we are more careful about it. So, I
can see what the mistakes are and correct it.”
“Grammar was my error. As in everyday life, I did not mind about the
grammar when I was talking to my friends. This may lead to the error
in my writing. So, I plan to study grammar course and review more
about the grammar lesson. I try not to use it in the incorrect way and
ask sometimes my teachers to correct it for me.”
Table 4.10 also shows that the Thai EFL learners in the international school use
metacognitive strategy at the high level (X = 3.53, SD = 0.74). They notice the mistakes
and try to find the improvement of their English skill (X = 4.07, SD 0.77). Besides, they
try to find out how to be a better learner of English (X = 3.88, SD = 1.02) and also have
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
103
clear goals for improving their English proficiency (X = 3.59, SD = 1.02). The moderate
level of item 3 “I plan my schedule so I will have enough time to study English” (X =
2.83, SD = 1.20) and item 4 “I look for opportunities to read as much as possible in
English” (X = 3.32, SD = 1.22) indicated that they have planned to learn English and
find more chance to practice English skill such as reading.
According to the interview data, the results found that the Thai public school
students operate the metacognitive strategy by setting goals for their learning and
following the plan.
“Learn and apply it to the job. I learn English to get the opportunity to
practice and improve my English skill. Try to survey how English is
important in my future career and then set the long-term goal to achieve
it.”
“Plan everyday task. It’s like the collection of knowledge that I have
gathered it little by little and one day it will be useful for me.”
They have also self-evaluate to watch out for where they have done the mistakes
and not let them reoccur.
“I review the lesson. I review my vocabulary tanks, the content I have
studied, and the strategies I use to learn.”
“I learn from the mistake. I can remember what I am wrong in the past.
So, I can manage what I have to do without doing the mistake again.”
As metacognitive skills require organizing and planning skill, the participants
of this study revealed that they employed this kind of strategy by self-monitoring and
self-evaluating of their English learning process.
“As I know the weak point of myself that I can’t understand lots of vocab
as it is my struggle, so I practice a lot. I listen to the content that can
increase my vocab, read subtitle in the movie to look for vocab and
match it with what the speaker said. Match the action of the actress and
vocab. If I don’t know its meaning, I will guess what it was.”
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
104
“My vocab is my trouble, so I try to further my vocab tank by watching
English movie without subtitle, reading for pleasure to gain more
vocabulary knowledge.”
Moreover, they also plan their language tasks further to check their evaluation
progress as well.
“ I have also set the goal of learning by limiting the time and taking a
standard test to check my English proficiency such as CU-TEP, TU-
GET, or IELTS. And this kind of the test will classified my skill into the
categories such listening, speaking, writing, and reading. Then I can
know that which part is my weak point and I can improve it more often.”
The next table will indicate Mean and Standard Deviation score of affective
strategies from the questionnaire and some quotes from the semi-structured interview
questions.
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
105
Table 4.11 Mean of each statement of “Affective Strategy”
Participants
Affective Strategies Statement
Thai Public
School Students
(n=100)
International
School Students
(n=100)
I encourage myself to speak
English even when I am
afraid of making a mistake.
Mean (X) 3.84 3.92
SD 0.896 1.098
Meaning High High
I give myself a reward or
treat when I do well in
English.
Mean (X) 3.06 2.52
SD 1.081 1.291
Meaning Moderate Low
I notice if I am tense or
nervous when I am
studying or using English.
Mean (X) 3.19 3.12
SD 1.152 1.200
Meaning Moderate Moderate
I write down my feelings in
a language learning diary.
Mean (X) 2.27 1.82
SD 1.230 1.258
Meaning Moderate Low
I talk to someone else about
how I feel when I am
learning English.
Mean (X) 3.25 2.62
SD 1.019 1.270
Meaning Moderate Moderate
Total Mean (X) 3.12 2.80
SD 0.67 0.78
Meaning High Moderate
Table 4.11 exhibits that the Thai EFL learners in the Thai public school use
affective strategy at the moderate level (X = 3.12, SD = 0.67). The sole high level use
of affective strategy is due to item 1 “I encourage myself to speak English even when I
am afraid of making a mistake” (X = 3.84, SD = 0.89). The others item are all at the
moderate level. The participants notice their feelings whether they are tense or nervous
(X = 3.19, SD = 1.15). Besides, they talk to the others about the feeling of learning
English (X = 3.25, SD = 1.02) and write down their feelings in a diary (X = 2.27, SD =
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
106
1.23). They also give themselves a reward when they do well in learning English (X =
3.06, SD = 1.08).
From the interview data, the international school students have used recreation
to overcome their anxieties and stress when they encounter difficulties in learning
English.
“I change the practicing process such as if I am stressed with the
vocabulary, I will stop reading and watch the movie instead. I will do
what I like but change it to English language. Watch the favorite movie
with English subtitle.
“I relaxed myself by doing my favorite activities such as listening to
the sing, watching the funny stories, and so on.”
Moreover, they sometimes reward themselves when they have reached a
learning goal.
“Sometimes, I will reward myself if I can done one of my learning goal
such as buying a pen or a highlighter.”
Additionally, they try to motivate themselves with the success they would like
to get if they can do well.
“Try to motivate myself due to the goal of learning English that I can
do it one day.”
“I always talk to myself and motivate myself to pay attention.”
Sometimes, they encourage themselves to learn English by asking help from
their peers.
“I will make an agreement with my friends to do a great task of
learning English and reward each other and it really works.”
They also rely on mental recreation such as meditation to keep them calm and
be ready for learning.
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
107
“Sometimes, I do the meditation to keep my mind in peace or write in
the diary.”
Table 4.11 also points out that the Thai EFL learners in the international school
use affective strategy at the moderate level (X = 2.80, SD = 0.78). It is the least language
learning strategy use by the participants. The high level of item 1 “I encourage myself
to speak English even when I am afraid of making a mistake” (X = 3.92, SD = 1.09)
indicated that the students in the international program are not afraid of using English
whether it is correct or not due to their environment of facing lots of native teachers
and friends. Item 3 “I notice if I am tense or nervous when I am studying or using
English” (X = 3.12, SD = 1.20) and item 5 “I talk to someone else about how I feel
when I am learning English” (X = 2.62, SD = 1.27) were at the moderate level of use.
This can mean that the participants do not focus on their feelings when they use English
as they are not concerned about mistakes. The sole low level of item 4 “I write down
my feelings in a language learning diary”( X = 1.82, SD = 1.26) suggested that the
participants may use another kind of exposure when they feel hard during learning
English.
Based upon the interview data, it was revealed that the Thai public school
students had dealt with their anxiety when learning English by relaxing with their
favorite activities and trying the another way of learning which is less stressful.
“I try to overcome the anxiety by relaxing. If reading is too hard, I
found another relaxing way to learn such as listening to music or
watching movie instead. I try to use it more frequently to make me
familiar with it and make it easier.”
“ I will let it go at first and take a rest. I think to be with something
tough for a long time is not good but I am not demotivated by leaving
it. I will take a rest to overcome my anxiety and then I will be back to
overcome the difficulties again when I am positive enough. ”
Moreover, they also talk to others about their stress in learning English and
also motivate themselves.
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
108
“I use English by talking to friends via line, or face to face in English.
Or sometimes I talk to my teacher about my learning difficulty. They
will suggest and encourage myself to go on.”
The next table will display the social strategies Mean and Standard Deviation
scores. Moreover, the interview data will also support how the participants employ
learning strategies.
Table 4.12 Mean of each statement of “Social Strategy”
Participants
Social Strategies Statement
Thai Public
School Students
(n=100)
International
School Students
(n=100)
If I do not understand
something in English, I ask
the other person to slow
down or say it again.
Mean (X) 4.12 3.85
SD 0.879 1.086
Meaning High High
I ask to correct my English
with other students.
Mean (X) 3.56 3.59
SD 1.183 1.207
Meaning High High
I practice English with
other students.
Mean (X) 3.23 3.60
SD 1.024 1.214
Meaning Moderate High
I ask for help from English
speakers.
Mean (X) 2.95 3.88
SD 1.234 1.076
Meaning Moderate High
I try to learn about the
culture of English speakers.
Mean (X) 3.66 3.59
SD 1.007 1.288
Meaning Moderate High
Total Mean (X) 3.50 3.70
SD 0.74 0.86
Meaning High High
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
109
Table 4.12 illustrates that the social strategy use of Thai EFL learners in Thai
public school is at the high level (X = 3.50, SD = 0.74). They ask the interlocutors to
slow down their speaking or repeat the conversation when they cannot understand (X
= 4.12, SD = 0.88) and also ask their peers to correct their English (X = 3.56, SD =
1.18). This means social strategy can help L2 learners interact with the others. In
addition, to learn about the culture of English native speakers can promote learners in
learning English at the high level (X =3.66, SD = 1.01). The results also show that they
practice English with the other students (X = 3.23, SD = 1.02) and they ask for help
from English speakers (X = 2.95, SD = 1.23).
According to the interview data, the international school students employ the
social strategies by having interactions with others, especially with their peers and
teachers.
“Talking to the teachers and friends can improve everything such as
vocabulary, phrase and the way they structure the sentence.”
Moreover, some of them are trying to improve their English skill by using it
with their family at home.
“In my case, I keep on talking with my family. I try to use English as
much as possible at home, with my father and my sisters. And this helps
me a lot to improve my English proficiency.”
The participants agreed that using English with others encouraged them to be
familiar with the language and provided them with more self-confidence to
use English whenever they would like to.
“It make me used to English. Make me have more confidence to use
English. No hesitate to use and not afraid to try to use English.”
“Because I can ask for the correction and I can practice how to use
English naturally. Maybe what I have learned in class is not applicable
in all of the situation I have to face. So, to talk with native speaker as
frequently as possible enable me to use English automatically.”
Although speaking with native speakers can improve their communicative skill,
the participants think that their grammatical skill does not improve much as no native
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
110
speakers will correct their mistakes when talking. Moreover, it seemed to be that
pronunciation will not be developed.
“But for grammatical correction, mine is worse because no native
speaker correct it for me. “
“Talking to the native speakers can partly improve the speaking skill but
not for the pronunciation. Although you try to imitate how native
speakers say, it didn’t succeed without exposing the language.”
Table 4.12 presents the social strategy use at the high level by Thai EFL learners
in the international school (X = 3.70, SD = 0.86). They ask for help when they learn
English from English speakers (X = 3.88, SD = 1.08) and if they cannot understand
what the interlocutor said, they will ask him or her to slow down or say it again (X =
3.85, SD = 1.07). Moreover, practicing English with other students (X = 3.60, SD =
1.21) and asking for correction with peers (X = 3.59, SD = 1.21) can be social strategies
to assist learners to achieve language performance. Interestingly, to learn the culture of
English speakers is also ranked at high level as it enables EFL learners to comprehend
the language beyond just linguistic competence (X = 3.59, SD = 1.29).
Due to the data obtained by interview, for social strategy, the participants have
cooperated with the others such as their teachers and their peers. They try to find the
opportunity to use English with native speakers to practice their skill, especially
speaking and listening skill.
“Sometimes I try to talk with my friends. We chat in English. Although
at first we talk English and Thai together, but it make me be more
confident to use English.”
“I sometimes talk with my foreigner teacher in class and outside the
class when I hand in my homework or ask something about the project.
Sometimes, I talk to my pen friends in America. We know each other by
Tinder and I think I am better in English by talking with them”
The Thai public school students revealed that they use social strategy by talking
mostly to their friends, such as oversea friends and also the foreigners whom they meet
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
111
online. However, they stated that their chance to speak English in class is less because
of there is only one teacher.
“In my class, I don’t have much chance to speak English as there are
lots of students in class and only one teacher.”
They also agreed that to use English by observing the English culture can help
them to understand more about the language.
“Talking with native speakers cannot promote only the improvement of
English skill, but it can also promote the involvement of the culture, the
living of that person, and also help to understand what they are going
to do which is affected to their language use.”
The participants in this recent study indicated that using English with the
native speakers can encourage them to be familiar with the language and never afraid
of using English when they face the native speakers.
“Because I have a chance to speak, both of listening and speaking.
Although the grammar was wrong, I can communicate with the others
naturally. If I speak wrong, they can correct my English as well.”.
“ I think it can lessen my stress to communicate with the others who
speak English. It enable me to be familiar with English and try to use
more and more English. It makes me not to be afraid to the foreigners
anymore. And this is why my English will be improved.”
According to the research question number 2: “What are the differences of
English language learning strategies used by Thai EFL students learning in the
international school and Thai public school?”, the finding shows that Thai EFL learners
in the international school use different language learning strategies from those in the
Thai public school. Moreover, the level of language learning strategies use of Thai EFL
in the Thai public school is higher than the students in the international school (X =
3.58, SD = 0.46 and X = 3.42, SD = 0.49 respectively). The figure 4.1 presents the
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
112
different language learning strategies among Thai EFL learners in international school
and those in Thai public school.
Figure 4.1 The Differences of Language Learning Use by the Participants
In terms of language learning strategies frequency use, Thai EFL learners in
international school utilised the cognitive strategy the most (X = 3.95, SD = 0.55),
followed by compensation strategy (X = 3.71, SD = 0.53) which has a similar number
to the social strategy use (X = 3.70, SD = 0.86). The two least used language learning
strategies of the international school students were memory strategy (X = 2.83, SD =
0.82) and affective strategy (X = 2.80, SD = 0.78) respectively.
In contrast, Thai EFL learners in the Thai public school preferred the use of
compensation strategy (X = 3.93, SD = 0.57) at the highest proportion. The
metacognitive strategy (X = 3.81, SD = 0.62) was used second most frequently,
followed by cognitive strategy (X = 3.73, SD = 0.62). The social strategy was also used
at the high level (X = 3.50, SD = 0.74). Finally, the memory strategy (X = 3.36, SD =
0.69) and the affective strategy (X = 3.12, SD = 0.67) were used at the moderate level.
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
113
To sum up, Thai EFL learners in the international school preferred to use the
cognitive strategy when they learn English whereas Thai EFL learners in the Thai
public school preferred the compensation strategy to assist them in their English study.
4.2. DISCUSSION
The discussion of this study is presented in relation to the three research
questions. This part discusses the level of learner autonomy and the overall use of
English language learning strategies employed by Thai EFL learners in international
school and Thai public school. Moreover, the idea about that language learning
strategies can promote learner autonomy is illustrated.
4.2.1. The Finding of Learner Autonomy Level
The findings of learner autonomy level among Thai EFL learners in the
international school and the Thai public school revealed that they are on average at the
high level. The three main components of learner autonomy, willingness to take charge
of their responsibility, self-confidence to learn autonomously, and capacity to learn
autonomously are on average at the high level for Thai EFL learners in both school
types. Although another main component of learner autonomy; motivation to learn, was
on average at the high level among Thai EFL learners in Thai public school, it was at
the moderate level among Thai EFL learners in the international school. This may be
due to the different environment for learning English. As the international school
requires the students to use English at all times, the teachers are all native speakers, and
the peers almost always speak in English; this enables the students to use English
language automatically.
From the statements of motivation in the questionnaire “I learn better when I
receive encouragement of a teacher.” and “When I make progress in learning English,
I reward myself such as: buy new things.” It is shown clearly that extrinsic motivation
(Deci and Ryan, 2002) which are external factors (e.g. reward or punishment) did not
much impact on the Thai EFL learners in the international school. According to Scharle
and Szabo (2002), the extrinsic motivation focuses on the learners’ learning process
rather than their outcome. Thai EFL learners in an international school do not mind the
outcome in terms of how accurate their English is, they just want to be able to
communicate with the others. It does not mean they are not motivated to learn, but their
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
114
motivation is almost all come from their intrinsic motivation rather than extrinsic. In
contrast, the statement “I learn better when I receive encouragement of a teacher.”
Was ranked at high level among Thai EFL learners in the Thai public school. From this
can be assumed that Thai students in Thai public school lean heavily on the teachers,
due to the important role of the teacher in Thai culture. The statements of motivation in
the questionnaire such as “I think of the good grade I will get when I learn English.”
and “I think of having a better job if I use speak English well” apparently display that
the Thai EFL learners in the international school have their goals of learning which can
install in them willingness to take responsibility to learn. Meanwhile, these two
statements about motivation of Thai EFL learners in Thai public school are also at the
very high level. Therefore, it can be concluded that the good grade and more
opportunity to get a better job are the really vital factors to propel the participants to
learn English effectively.
The result of the high level of willingness to take responsibility and have the
self-confidence to learn autonomously among the participants support what Wenden
has stated: that students should be confident and trust in their ability to learn or monitor
their own learning (Wenden, 1991). Wenden also states that a learner who wants to
have learner autonomy should have willingness and ability to take charge of their
learning. These two factors are the main components of learner autonomy. According
to the statement of willingness “I make decision of my way of learning.” the students
have to design their own process when learning English, such as choosing which
resources to learn with and to find the opportunity to acquire language. It is shown
furthermore in the mean score of the statement “I create opportunities to use English
outside the classroom.” and “I am self-regulated in learning English”. This
demonstrate the intention of the participants to spend their time practicing English
effectively. They make an attempt to be open-minded and use English even outside the
classroom. With progress resulting from regular practice, it can enable learners to
achieve their goal.
Additionally, the statement “I set long-term goals in learning English” was
reported in high level for both school types of the participants, and the statement “I
make study plans that match my goals in learning English.” was at the low level among
the participants who studied in international school. This is probably because the plan
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
115
they have accessed is what the school curriculum has dictated. They may think it is not
their responsibility to plan their study themselves as the school will already provide it
to them. Nevertheless, it can be stated that to have high willingness to take
responsibility can promote learner autonomy among the learners.
Due to the high level of willingness of the participants, it can promote them to
have high self-confidence to learn autonomously as well. Thus, the findings show the
high level of self-confidence among Thai EFL learners in both international school and
Thai public school. The statements “I review what I am good at in learning English.”
and “I revise my English study plans if they do not work well” are at moderate level
among international school students whereas they are at the high level among the Thai
public school students. Interestingly, Thai learners in the Thai public school paid more
intention to reviewing their English learning than the international students who are
more familiar with English. It may be their familiarity which leads them have less
intention to review what they have learn. English for international students is like a
bridge to learn. They have no necessity to learn what English language is but they learn
the content lesson via English. Thus, to review their lesson, they will spend more focus
on the content than the language they use. This may be the reason why their level of the
two statements about reviewing their English proficiency is lower than that of the
participants who were in Thai public school.
On the contrary, Thai EFL learners in the Thai public school learn English as a
language as they learned others lesson content in Thai. They therefore reviewed their
English lesson as a content that they have learned and understood in class and lead the
mean score of the two statements about reviewing at high level. In contrast, the
statement “I learn on my own without a helper.” is at high level among the international
students but at the moderate level among those in the Thai public school. It is clearly
shown that Thai curriculum allows the students to get help; teachers, peers, resources,
and so on. English for international school students is common, so the learners may
think that they do not need any helper. For example, when they are reading for pleasure,
international students may skip the word that they do not know the meaning of and get
the whole content instead while some Thai students will look up the word in the
dictionary or ask someone to help them about the meaning of every words. Clearly, it
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
116
is a different learning process when comparing those who are familiar with English and
others who learn English as a subject.
Another statement “I ask my teacher to explain most of the things I don’t
understand” shows the characteristics of autonomous learners. As Scharle and Szabo
(2000) stated, one thing an autonomous learner does when they do not understand the
lesson is that they will interrupt the teacher’s teaching and ask for more information. It
is a way of taking responsibility and making decision about their learning as they do
not wait for the unclear point to be passed and never to find out the missing information.
Even better, an autonomous learner will find out more details than what the teacher said
in class, but does not teach by themselves when they are outside the classroom. In
addition, the findings for the statement “I reflect upon how I should have studied better
after I finish studying English” illustrate that self-confidence in their ability to learn
can promote them to be an autonomous learner as well. Reflecting what they have
learned during the class can enable the learners to know what are their strengths and
weaknesses. Eventually, it leads to the attempt to figure out the solution and
improvement as well.
Additionally, the results showing the capacity to learn autonomously among the
participants in both the international school and the Thai public school were all in the
high level. The statement “I notice my strengths and weaknesses in learning English
and seek ways to improve them” was in the highest proportion for both school students
types. This is in line with the research of Wenden (1991) which stated an autonomous
learner was one who was willing and has the capacity to control or supervise learning,
and select the criteria for evaluation. It is also concurred with Omaggio (1987, as cited
in Wenden 1998) that an autonomous learner will have insights into his/her learning
styles and strategies. Thus, it can be concluded that to know the strength and the
weakness of themselves will enable the language learners to achieve their goal in
learning autonomously. Moreover, the statement “When I have a limited amount of time
available for study English, I decide in what order the things need to be done and do
according to the plan” was ranked at high level for both types of the participants. This
is supported by Hedge (2000) who said that an autonomous learner can manage and
divide the time in learning properly. In contrast, the statement “I make good use of my
free time in practicing English” was at the moderate level among the Thai EFL learners
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
117
in the international school. This is possibly from their routine use of English. As they
speak English every day and most of the time, they may think it is not necessary to
spend their free time to use more English or think that the activities they spend their
time with are not about practicing English. For example, if they are in an English
speaking family, English is used daily. So, there is no need for them to find the way to
practice more. On the other hand, for Thai students who do not use English as their
daily life, they may look to find the chance outside class and spend their free time with
practicing English, such as reading English cartoon or watching English movies which
can make them better in English proficiency.
Furthermore, the statement “I evaluate the improvement in my ability to use
English effectively” was also at high level. This confirmed the idea of Omaggio (1987,
as cited in Wenden 1998) that an autonomous learner will have a tolerant and outgoing
approach to the target language and the idea of Wenden (1991) that they will select the
criteria for evaluation by themselves. Thus, to be an effective autonomous learner, the
students should be able to evaluate themselves and know how to improve their
weakness. Also the statement “Besides the contents prescribed in the course, I read
extra materials in advance.” Was reported at the high level among the international
students while it was at the moderate level among the Thai public school students. This
is because of the curriculum provided to each group of the students. Commonly, the
international students feel like homework is boring and they are lazy about doing it. It
depends on the skill and the willingness to learn outside the class. Generally, however,
results in this study were in line with what Hedge (2000) found that an autonomous
learner learns both inside and outside the classroom.
4.2.2. The Findings of the English Learning Strategies Use
The results of English learning strategies use among Thai EFL learners in both
international school and Thai public school were different. Even though both their level
of strategies use was high, they used different learning strategies to learn English. The
Thai EFL learners in the international school used cognitive as the most frequent
strategy whereas those in the Thai public school used compensation strategy at the top
frequency.
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
118
The finding that Thai EFL learners in international school use mostly cognitive
strategy is in line with what White (1995) and Samaie et al (2015) have found. White
(1995) conducted research to investigate the different use of LLS among distant
learners and in-class learners. White found that the distant learners who claimed to have
higher self-management and learner autonomy level used metacognitive and cognitive
learning strategies more them in-class learners did. Moreover, Samaie et al (2015)
examined Iranian EFL students and found that cognitive strategies were commonly
used by the participants which was mostly correlated with their autonomous level such
as practicing, repeating, reviewing, translating, reasoning, and analyzing the language,
and strategy use was in relation to their learner autonomy level.
As Oxford (1990) stated, cognitive strategy is about practicing, receiving and
sending message, analyzing and reasoning, and creating structure for input and output,
and this means that the international school students in this study can monitor their
learning process and emphasize what is important in language learning. In other words,
they know how to select the critical information such as from the statement “I watch
English language TV shows spoken in English or go to movies spoken in English.” and
“I read for pleasure in English.”, how to comprehend it such as “I try not to translate
word-for-word.”, how to store it such as “I say or write new English words several
times.”, and how to retrieve it such as “I try to talk like native English speakers.”. With
all this method, the cognitive strategy is promoted to use among the participants to
ensure they achieve their potential in English skill.
In contrast, the findings of how Thai students in the Thai public school use
language learning strategies is in conflict with Sumamarnkul (2006), Tirabulkul (2005),
Phantharakphong (2009), Lamatya (2010), Thangpatipan (2014), Qing (2013), and
Saengaroon (2015). They all found that Thai EFL learners in the Thai public school use
metacognitive strategy the most while this present study found that the participants in
Thai public school use compensation strategy at the highest level.
Surprisingly, this result does not concord with any previous studies which have
examined the learning strategies use among Thai school students. However, there was
a study by Liu (2015) which investigated Taiwan students. Liu found that the most
frequent learning strategies that the participants used were compensation strategies.
They employed the compensation strategies in order to fulfill the knowledge they had
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
119
missed. This is in line what this study has found. In the Liu study, the participants were
Taiwanese who are similar to the participants of this recent study as they are the EFL
learners. The similar context of EFL learners who are Taiwanese or Thai students
enables language learners to similarly attempt to find the compensation knowledge
when using a foreign language like English. So, it can be said that Thai students in Thai
public school would like to compensate and replace their English word or phrases with
others one when they do not know how to say in the exact word. For example, from the
statements “When I cannot think of a word during a conversation in English, I use
gesture.” and “If I cannot think of an English word, I use a word or phrase that means
the same thing” we can see that they explain clearly how Thai students react when they
are compensating for their unknown knowledge. The finding of compensation use
among Thai public school students also bears out what Oxford (1990) said that guessing
intelligently is an effective way to compensate for the unknown knowledge, as in the
statements “To understand unfamiliar English words, I make guesses.” and “I try to
guess what the other person will say next in English.”. To make guesses what the
interlocutor has said using an unfamiliar word by looking at his/her gesture or the
context is an intelligent way of flowing communication. If one just said ‘I don’t know’
or ‘I don’t understand’, the conversation will hardly continue. To use gesture in helping
to translate the meaning can also help to flow the communication as well “When I
cannot think of a word during a conversation in English, I use gestures.”. It can
overcome the limitations in speaking (Oxford, 1990).
Moreover, Oxford said that it does not help to overcome limitation in only
speaking, but also writing as the statement “I read English without looking up new
words.” This can encourage learners to acquire language by using context clue and
overcome the difficulties in learning language as well.
Although the overall use of learning strategies among both Thai students in
international school and in Thai public school was at the high level, there were some
differences in terms of the way they acquire strategies in learning English. Even if
cognitive strategy was widely used among Thai EFL learners in the international
school, it was used less among those who were in the Thai public school. This may be
the effect of Thai curriculum and the teachers in class. As Thai students are familiar
with the traditional way of learning, the teachers always are the role model and the
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
120
leader in class. Cognitive strategy, which is mostly used among language learners to
manipulate their learning process and to gain language performance (Oxford, 1990), is
therefore used less among Thai public school students because they are not widely
encouraged to plan and monitor their learning process. Another reason is Thai public
school students are not trained to use learning strategies since the young age as Mitchell
(2014) also stated; cognitive strategy is the way to assist language learners to acquire
language skill by organizing and integrating information.
Furthermore, the English skill is a vital factor to further the study among the
learners. From the statement “I read for pleasure in English.” international school
students rate this one at the very high level which means they are confident to use their
English skill in their free time and outside the classroom. Meanwhile, Thai public
school students rate this statement at the high level which means they attempt to
improve their English skill, but not so much as the international school students did.
The other statements from the questionnaire such as “I say or write new English words
several times”, “I try to talk like native English speakers”, “I watch English language
TV shows spoken in English or go to movies spoken in English”, and “I try not to
translate word-for-word” all show the high level of cognitive strategy acquired by the
participants in both school types. This mean the participants in this study used cognitive
strategy frequently to improve their English skill. Based on the interview result,
cognitive strategy use also concurs with Mitchell (2014), proposing that it can assist
language learners to acquire language skill by organizing and integrating information.
The participants keep practicing a lot. They repeat the knowledge they have studied in
the realistic use, formally practicing with sounds and writing. Moreover, they try to
practice naturalistically to improve their language skill as much as possible. Apart from
practicing, the participants take notes and summarize to create the structure for input
and output. Analyzing and reasoning processes are also employed by the students in
translating which is a process to transform the information into mental representation
to acquire language (O’Malley and Chamot, 1990).
The previous research in Thailand indicated that metacognitive strategy is
mostly acquired by Thai students in a Thai curriculum school. Even though the
participants in this study used compensation strategy more than metacognitive strategy,
they used metacognitive strategy in the higher level similar to Thai learners in
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
121
international school. Conversely, the international school students used social strategy
to help them achieve language skill more than Thai public school students did. Due to
the different environment of the school types, international school provides more native
speakers to the students to encourage them to use English more than in a Thai public
school. For example, the international school students have to use English in their class,
discuss the lesson with their foreign teachers, and always talk to their friends in English.
In contrast, Thai public school students have limited chance to speak English in an
English class which sometimes is the only in the class where the teacher is a foreigner.
A Thai English-teacher usually teaches English by translating into Thai. Thus, the
opportunity to use English among the two groups of the participants are not similar and
leads to the different use of social strategy among them. As shown in the moderate level
of the statement “I practice English with other students.” and “I ask for help from
English speakers.” answered by Thai public school students, it is clearly shown that
there is not many English native speakers around them to allow them to practice
English. Interestingly that statement “I try to learn about the culture of English
speakers” is at high level for both groups of the participants. This means to get involved
and to understand the culture of native speakers enables language learners to more
easily acquire the language they have to learn. For example, if we comprehend an
English man’s behavior, we can understand more about the expressions they use in
conversation. So, it is advantageous for the language learners to understand the culture
of the target country when they learn its language.
Additionally, the findings revealed that the participants in this study used the
memory strategy and affective strategy least; both groups were at the moderate level.
The results bear out with the research of Tirabulkul (2005) and Lamatya (2010) which
provided that among the six learning strategies, the participants acquired memory
strategy and affective strategy at the lowest level. Furthermore, the study of Chuan
(2010) revealed that the affective strategy was forgotten when the participants face the
problem of anxiety in learning English. This is probably because the learners can panic
when they talk to the native speakers or unfamiliar speakers. Some participants may
choose to avoid using English in an unfamiliar situation rather than trying to use it. Due
to the uncomfortability of using English, some learners keep away from any situation
in which they feel nervous. Observed from the interview questions, the results of
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
122
memory strategy use by the participants of this are in line with what Oxford (1990)
found. The participants used the creating of mental linkages by grouping the new
vocabulary which has similar form together. Then they associate and elaborate the new
vocabulary in their practicing. They also try to place the new words into a context.
Moreover, they also apply sound to help them remember the words. They also do
structures reviewing by writing down points in their notebooks. Furthermore, they try
to employ the mechanical technique by saying it out and using it in reality.
According to the differences of language learning strategies use among Thai
EFL learners in the international school and the Thai public school who participated in
this study, it reflects the process of their learning, both inside and outside the school.
The result of LLSs use by the international school students can reflect the way they
have been taught. Due to the highest use of cognitive strategy, it reflects on how they
create their way of learning such as, practicing, analyzing and reasoning deductively,
transferring the idea, summarizing the lesson, and highlighting the necessity. As the
international curriculum requires the students to think on their own path rather than
leading them in a limited way of learning, this encouraged the students to consider about
their learning process. The other strategies use among the international school students
was also high, especially use of compensation, social, and metacognitive strategies.
They used direct strategies rather than the indirect ones as it directly affected their
language learning process.
On the one hand, Thai public school students acquired mostly compensation
strategy as they have not so much chance for English language interaction as the
international school students have. So their proficiency in use of English naturally may
be less than those who study using English all the time. However, it is interesting to
see some more specific strategies that our participants employed in order to learn
English. Our research could be used to help teachers think of new ways to teach their
students learning strategies, or possibly show their students some new techniques to
help them become more proficient in English.
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
123
CHAPTER FIVE
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The last chapter is divided into three main parts. The first part presents a
summary of the findings. The second part deals with the implications of the study.
Finally, the last part demonstrates the limitations and recommendations for further
research.
5.1 SUMMARY OF THE FINDINGS
The findings related to the two research objectives were as follows.
5.1.1 The findings of learner autonomy levels of the participants showed in the
high level. Both Thai EFL learners in the international school and the Thai public school
were autonomous learners. The Mean and Standard Deviation of learner autonomy
level for Thai EFL learners in the international school were 3.50 and 0.55 respectively
whereas The Mean and Standard Deviation of learner autonomy level for Thai EFL
learners in the Thai public school were 3.76 and 0.52 respectively. It is obviously seen
that Thai EFL learners in both Thai public school and international schools have high
levels of learner autonomy.
5.1.2 The findings for language learning strategies use comparing Thai
international school students and Thai public school students revealed difference. In
terms of the level of strategic learners, Thai EFL learners in the Thai public school are
more strategic than those who are studying in the international school with the Mean
and Standard Deviation of 3.58 and 0.46, and 3.42 and 0.49 respectively. The use of
English language learning strategies among the two school types of the participants
were different. Thai EFL learners in international schools use cognitive strategy in the
highest proportion while those in Thai public schools use much compensation strategy.
In addition, three strategies; compensation strategy, social strategy, metacognitive
strategy, were used in the high level whereas memory strategy and affective strategy
were used in moderate level among Thai EFL learners in the international school. For
Thai EFL learners in the Thai public school, they used metacognitive strategy and
cognitive strategy at a high level whereas they used memory strategy and affective
strategy at the moderate level.
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
124
5.1.3 The findings on how language learning strategies are used among the
autonomous learners showed that every strategy was vital to foster their English
proficiency especially compensation strategy for Thai public school students and
cognitive strategy for international school students. All of the interviewees stated that
practicing is the really helpful way to learn. Whether to review former knowledge or to
attempt to use the new input, practicing enables learners to improve their potentiality.
Moreover, learning outside the classroom is as essential as inside the school. The
attempt to apply the knowledge in reality enables learners to be more skillful. Talking
with friends, teachers, and native speakers can assist learners to apply social and
affective strategies. The more difficulties they have found, the more solving skill they
acquire. In addition, they will know the strength and weakness of themselves which can
lead to solutions. This enables learners to self-monitor their mistakes and then self-
evaluate to be more effective in learning English. Therefore, it can be said that the more
strategies the students acquire, the more learner autonomy they have.
5.2. CONCLUSION
This recent study aimed to investigate learner autonomy level and language
learning strategy use among 200 Thai EFL learners in the international school and Thai
public school. The participants were also studying in a tutorial school in Bangkok. This
study has shown that Thai EFL learners are autonomous as the Mean and the Standard
Deviation from the findings are high. Although it is known that the Thai educational
curriculum may not promote learner autonomy as much as the international curriculum,
the findings of this study was different. Thai EFL learners in the Thai public school
were ready to be autonomous learners. However, it might be that the participants in this
study were in the tutorial school, so their learner autonomy may be higher because of
the learners themselves, not from the curriculum.
In addition, due to the fact that LLSs can be used among the students, the
investigation and observation of LLSs can be useful in the language teaching field. To
observe LLSs of the students in different school types is possibly adapted to the way
the teachers in each school teach. This means it can affect the skills that they can
observe in their students while learning. Actually, it is very beneficial to know LLSs of
the students as the teachers can develop them in the appropriate way to enable them to
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
125
achieve in language learning. Eventually, in EFL learning, LLSs are necessary for the
learners as they can support learners’ achievement in learning new language, especially
when it is not the language used commonly in their society. To know learners’ LLSs is
able to help them foster their language learning success.
5.3 PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATIONS
From the results showing learner autonomy levels among Thai EFL learners in
both international school and Thai public school, this reflects the teaching and school
curriculum may promote the students to rely more on themselves. Thai teachers, in the
past, are commonly known as the authorities in class. However, the findings of this
study showed a high level of learner autonomy among the Thai students in Thai public
schools. This suggests a change of the teaching method of Thai teachers. Many
approaches provided by technological advance have helped the teachers to improve the
materials and the resources for the students. Additionally, the results showing
motivation and self-confidence ranked at lower level among the Thai public school
students, even it was still rated at the high level. The teachers who want to promote
autonomous learning in the Thai high school context should change their role from an
authority who controls all language learning processes to a facilitator or counselor who
provides help, support and guidance during their learning processes. Although Thai
students are familiar with the traditional way of learning, which relies on the teachers
so much, self-confidence should be promoted to the learners to assist them to believe
in their ability, their knowledge, and their skill to learn independently. Eventually, they
will pick up good attitudes towards being an autonomous learner from the teachers.
With regard to the result of language learning strategies investigation among the
autonomous learners, it revealed that a high proportion of LLS are used among Thai
students, both in international school and Thai public school. In terms of teaching
method, it is great for EFL teachers to consider the language learning strategies and
teach their students the strategies appropriate to their proficiency. It is also great to
encourage the students attempting to use all of the strategies as it can promote self-
confidence and positive motivation to the students, such as affective strategies can help
the learners coping with difficulties and push them onwards.
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
126
Moreover, in terms of maintaining the use of language learning strategies, the
language teachers should also accustom their students to these strategies in order to
enable them to use the strategies automatically when learning language. It is obviously
seen that language learning strategies can pave the way for the students to be lifelong
learners because they know how to learn. This concept also matches how learner
autonomy works. So, with the suitable methods, the students can pave their own way
of learning and eventually become autonomous learners.
Furthermore, in view of the teaching material design and tasks, the different
result of learning strategies use among the students in both types of school presented in
this study suggests the language teachers should design their materials and tasks to
fulfill what the students lack. The result of previous studies have shown that
metacognitive strategies are used mostly among Thai learners; however, in this study,
Thai learners in the Thai public school employed mostly compensation strategies. This
can lead to the implementation of other strategies which can support each other. Finally,
the students will achieve their potential in language learning by acquiring suitable
strategies of their own.
5.4 LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY
The following limitations are based on the findings and conclusions of this
current study.
5.4.1 This study investigated only Thai EFL students, learning in the
international school and the Thai public school, attending a tutorial school in Bangkok.
It was a convenient way to get close to the participants. The results may not be able to
be generalized to the whole population of Thai EFL students learning in the
international schools and Thai public schools.
5.4.2 This study investigated the learner autonomy level of Thai EFL learners
in the international school and the Thai public school, who were in a tutorial school in
Bangkok. The limitation of the participants in this study is that they were studying in a
tutorial school which may affect the results in terms of learner autonomy level. Due to
the considerable competition in Thai society, the students have to compete, both with
themselves and the others, in the educational world. So, those who come to further their
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
127
study in a tutorial school may be more autonomous automatically and this could lead
to the high score of learner autonomy level shown in the findings.
5.4.3. Another limitation of this study is that it investigated and compared the
use of English language learning strategies by Thai EFL learners in the international
school and the Thai public school, both male and female. It should be possible to
investigate any differences between the two genders of the participants as there is some
research stating that males and females use different learning strategies.
5.5 RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE STUDY
5.5.1 This study was conducted with the participants in a tutorial school in
Bangkok, which could affect the result of learner autonomy levels as learners are high
in competitiveness. Thus, a further study should enlarge the participant sampling to
involve normal school.
5.5.2 The findings obviously show that Thai EFL learners in Thai public school
have high levels of learner autonomy. It is probably because the schools are located in
Bangkok, where there is a highly competitive environment in education. Thus, further
study should be conducted with Thai EFL learners in more than two Thai public
schools. They can be probably be located in sub-urban areas or rural areas in order to
investigate the learner autonomy level of the students, and where the researcher can
also find ways to promote this issue to them as it is claimed to be an effective tool for
learning achievement.
5.5.3 Other factors such as personality, the learners’ attitude and learners’
English proficiency can probably influence the selection of appropriate learning
strategies. Thus, research on a variety of variables affecting the selection of language
learning strategies use and what factors contribute to students’ English learning
achievement would also be interesting to conduct.
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
128
REFERENCES
Alhaysony, M. (2017).Language Learning Strategies Use by Saudi EFL Students: The
Effect of Duration of English Language Study and Gender. Theory and
Practice in Language Studies, 7, 18-28.
Alzahrani, S. & Watson, J. (2016). The Impact of Online Training on Saudi Medical
Students'Attitudes, Awareness, Use of Language Learning Strategies in
Relation to their Developing Autonomy. SiSAL Journal, 7(No.1), 4-15.
Beatty, K. (2003). Computer-assisted Language Learning. In D. Nunan, Practical
English Language Teaching (pp. 247-266). McGraw-Hill.
Bekleyen, N., & Selimoglu, F. (2016). Learner Behaviors and Perceptions of
Autonomous Language Learning. The Electronic Journal for English as
a Second Language, TESL-EJ 20.3.
Benson, P. (2003). Learner Autonomy in the Classroom. In D. Nunan, Practical
English Language Teaching (pp. 289-308). McGraw-Hill.
Benson, P. (2011). Language Learning and Teaching Beyond the Classroom: An
Introduction to the Field. In P. B. Reinders, Beyond the Language
Classroom (pp. 1-16). Palgrave Macmillan.
Benson, P. (2011). Teaching and researching autonomy. Harlow, England New York:
Longman/Pearson.
Benson, P. (2013). Learner Autonomy. Tesol Quarterly, 47(4), 839-843.
Benson, P. and Voller, P. (1997). Introduction: Autonomy and Independence in
Language Learning. In P.Benson & P.Voller (Eds.), Autonomy &
Independence in Language Learning. London: Longman, 1-12.
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
129
Borg, S. (2012). Learner Autonomy: English Language Teachers’ Beliefs and
Practices. British Council.
Boud, D. (1988). Developing student autonomy in learning. London New York: Kogan
Page Nichols Pub. Co.
Chang, C. S. (2010). An Experimental Study of Learner Autonomy in Language
Learning.
Chang, C. S. (2011). An Experimental Study of Language Learning Strategies and
Learning Outcomes in Autonomy Learning Environment, Vol. 6, pp.
105-134.
Chen, H. & Pan, H. (2015). Learner Autonomy and the Use of Language Learning
Strategies in a Taiwanese Junior High School. Journal of Studies in
Education, 5(No.1), 52-64.
Chung, I-F. (2013). Are Learners Becoming More Autonomous? The role of Self-
Access Center in EFL College Students’ English Learning in Taiwan.
Asia-Pacific Edu Res (pp. 701-708).
Cohen, A. & Macaro, E. (2007). Language Learner Strategies : thirty years of research
and practice. Oxford New York: Oxford University Press.
Cotterall, S. (1999). Key Variables in Language Learning: What Do Learners Believe
about Them? System, 27, 493-513.
Dam, L. (2011). Developing learner autonomy with school kids: Principles, practices,
results. In D. Gardner, Fostering Autonomy in Language Learning (pp.
40-51). Faculty of Education at Zirve University, Gaziantep, Turkey.
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
130
Deci, E. L. & Ryan, R. M. (2000). Self-Determination Theory and the Facilitation of
Intrinsic Motivation, Social Development, and Well-Being. American
Psychologist, 55, 68-78.
Dickinson, L. (1987). Self-instruction in Language Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Fang, Z. (2014). A Discussion about College Teachers' Roles in English Viewing,
Listening and Speaking Autonomous Learning. International Forum of
Teaching and Studies, Vol. 10 No.1.
Finnegan, E., Vadakekalam, T. & Finnegan, M. (1975). New Webster's Dictionary of
the EnglishLlanguage. Chicago: Consolidated Book Publishers.
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of Mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York:
Basic Books.
Graves, K. (2003). Coursebooks. In D. Nunan, Practical English Language Teaching
(pp. 225-246). McGraw-Hill.
Grenfell, M. & Harris, V. (1999). Modern Languages and Learning Strategies : in
theory and practice. London New York: Routledge.
Hedge, T. (2000). Teaching and Learning in the Language Classroom. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Holec, H. (1987). Autonomy and Foreign Language Learning. Council of Europe.
Lai, C., Yeung, Y. & Hu, J. (2015). University student and teacher
perceptions of teacher roles in promoting autonomous language learning
with technology outside the classroom. Computer Assisted Language
Learning, 29(No.4), 703-723.
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
131
Lamatya, Y. (2010). A Study of English Language Learning Strategies of M.5 Students
with Different English Achievement. Bangkok, Thailand: Language
Institution, Thammasat University.
Lee,K. (2010). A comparison of language learning strategies adopted by secondary
and university students in Hong Kong. International Journal of Business
and Social Science, 2(11),29-34.
Lightbown, Patsy M., & Spada, N. (2013). How Languages are Learned (4th ed).
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013.
Little,D.(1991). Learner Autonomy1:Definitions,issues,and
problems. Dublin: Authentik.
Little, D. (1994). Autonomy in language learning : Some theoretical and practical
considerations. In A. Swarbrick, Teaching modern languages (pp. 81-
87). Routledge.
Littlewood, W. (1996). "Autonomy": An Anatomy and a Framework. System, 24, 427-
435.
Liu, H.-j. (2015). Learner Autonomy: The Role of Motivation in Foreign Language
Learning. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 6, 1165-1174.
Malley, J. & Chamot, A. (1990). Learning Strategies in Second Language Acquisition.
Cambridge England New York: Cambridge University Press.
McIntosh, C. (2013). Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary. Cambridge:
Cambridge Univ. Press.
Mitchell, D. (2014). What Really Works in Special and Inclusive Education : using
evidence-based teaching strategies. London New York: Routledge.
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
132
Mockiene & Usinskiene, O. (2016). Significance of Autonomous Learning and
Prerequisites for its Success. Language in Different Contexts, 251-259.
Murase, F. (2015) In Everhard, C. & Murphy, L. Assessment and autonomy in
language learning (pp. 35-63). Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire
New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Nikoopour, J. & Hajian, M. (2015). An Exploration on the Relationship among
Learners' Autonomy, Language Learning Strategies and Big-Five
Personality Traits. IOSR Journal of Humanities And Social Science
(IOSR-JHSS), 20(2), 66-71.
No Author Found. (1998). Longman dictionary of English language and culture.
Harlow: Longman
Nosratinia, M. Saveiy, M. & Zaker, A. (2014). EFL learners’ self- efficacy, net
cognitive awareness, and use of language learning strategies; How are
they associated in theory and practice in language studies, Vol. 4 (4).
1080-1092.
O'Leary, C. (2014). Developing Autonomous Language Learners in HE: Social
Constructivist Perspective. In G. Murray, Social Dimension of
Autonomy in Language Learning (pp. 15-37). Japan: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language Learning Strategies: What Every Teacher should
Know. Newbury House/Harper Collins, NY.pp. 1-22.
Oxford, R. L. (2003). In Palfreyman, D. & Smith, R. Learner Autonomy Across
Cultures:language education perspectives (pp. 75-91). New York:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
133
Oxford, R. L. (2011). Teaching and Researching Language Learning Strategies.
Harlow, England N.Y: Pearson/Longman.
Oxford, R. L. (2017). Teaching and Researching Language Learning Strategies : self-
regulation in context. New York, N.Y: Routledge.
Paiva, V.L.. (2011). Identity, motivation and autonomy in second language acquisition
from the perspective of complex adaptive systems. Identity, Motivation
and Autonomy in Language Learning. 57-72.
Phantharakphong, P. (2009). Language Learning Strategies used by Good and Poor
High School Students at Chiang Yuen Pitthayakhom School in
Mahasarakham. Bangkok, Thailand: Language Institution, Thammasat
University.
Qing, Y. Y. (2013). A Survey Study of Language Learning Strategies used by EFL
Learners at Santirat Wittayalai School in Bangkok. Bangkok, Thailand:
Language Institution, Thammasat University.
Ramamuruthy, V., & Rao, S. (2015). Smartphones Promote Autonomous Learning in
ESL Classrooms. Malaysian Online Journal of Educational
Technology, Volume 3, Issue 4.
Robinson, P. (2001). Cognition and Second Language Instruction. Cambridge New
York, N.Y: Cambridge University Press.
Rubin, J. (1975). What the “good language learner” can teach us. TESOL Quarterly,
9(1), 41-51.
Rubin, J. (1987). “Learner Strategies: Theoretical Assumptions, Research History and
Typology”. In A.Wenden and J. Rubin (Eds.), Learner Strategies in
Language Learning, pp. 15-30. Hertfordshire: Prentice Hall.
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
134
Rubin, J. & Thompson, I. (1994). How to Be a More Successful Language Learner :
Toward learner autonomy. Boston, Mass: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
Rundell, M. (2007). Macmillan English Dictionary for Advanced Learners. Oxford:
Macmillan.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2002). An overview of Self-determination Theory: An
organismic dialectical perspective. In E. L. Deci & R. M. Ryan (Eds.),
Handbook of self-determination research. 3-33. Rochester, NY: The
University of Rochester Press.
Saengaroon, J. (2015). Gender and English Language Learning Strategies of
Undergraduates at Rajamangala University of Technology Lanna Tak.
Bangkok, Thailand: Language Institute, Thammasat University.
Samaie, M. et al (2015). On the Relationship between Learner Autonomy and Language
Learning Strategies among Iranian EFL Students. International Journal
of Educational Investigations, 2(6), 96-109.
Scharle, A. & Szabó, A. (2000). Learner autonomy : a guide to developing learner
responsibility. Cambridge New York: Cambridge University Press.
Stern,H.(1975).What Can We Learn from the Good Language Learner? Canadian
Modern Language Review,31(4),304-318.
Sumamarnkul, W. (2006). A Survey Study on L2 Learning Strategy of Science and
Technology Students at Thammasat University. Bangkok, Thailand:
Language Institute, Thammasat University.
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
135
Swatevacharkul, R. (2008). An Investigation on Readiness for Learner Autonomy,
Approaches to Learning of Tertiary Students and the Roles of English
Language Teachers in Enhancing Learner Autonomy in Higher
Education. Bangkok: Dhurakijpundit University.
Tarone, E. (1980). Communication strategies, foreign talk, and repair in interlanguage.
Language Learning, 30, 417-428.
Tayjasanant, C., & Suraratdecha, S. (2016). Thai EFL Teachers and Learners' Beliefs
and Readiness for Autonomous Learning. 3L: The Southeast Asian
Journal of English Language Studies, Vol 22(3), 153-169.
Thangpatipan, K. (2014). A Survey Study of Language Learning Strategies Use by Thai
High School Students in an English Program. Bangkok, Thailand:
Language Institute, Thammasat University.
Thavenius, C. 1999. Teacher autonomy for learner autonomy. In Learner Autonomy in
Language Learning: Defining the Field and Effecting Change, S.
Cotterall and D. Crabbe (eds), 159–163. Frankfurt: Lang
Tirabulkul, N. (2005). A Study of Language Learning Strategies of Students in the MA
Program for the TEFL Program, Thammasat University. Bangkok,
Thailand: Language Institute. Thammasat University.
Victori, M. & Lockhart, W. (1995). Enhancing Metacognitive in Self-directed
Language Learning. System, 23(No.2), 223-234.
Weinstein, C. & Hume, L. (1998). Study strategies for lifelong learning. Washington:
American Psychological Association.
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
136
Wenden, A. (1987). “Conceptual Background and Utility”. In A. Wenden and J. Rubin
(Eds.), Learner Strategies in Language Learning, pp. 3-13.
Hertfordshire: Prentice Hall.
Wenden, A. (1991). Learner Strategies for Learner Autonomy : planning and
implementing learner training for language learners. New York:
Prentice Hall.
Wenden, A. (1998). Metacognitive Knowledge and Language Learning. Applied
Linguistics, 19(4), 515-537.
Wenden, A. & Rubin, J. (1987). Learner Strategies in Language Learning. Englewood
Cliffs, N.Y: Prentice/Hall International.
White, C. (1995). Autonomy and Strategy Use in Distance Foreign Language Learning:
Research Findings. System, 23(No.2), 207-221.
White, C. (2003). Language learning in distance education. Cambridge England:
Cambridge University Press.
Zimmerman, B., Bonner, S. & Kovach, R. (1996). Developing self-regulated learners
: beyond achievement to self-efficacy. Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
137
APPENDICES
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
138
APPENDIX A
The Index of Item Objective Congruence (IOC)
of Learner Autonomy Questionnaire
Item Objective Opinion scores of expert
Total Score
IOC
Value
Content
Validity
Expert
1
Expert
2
Expert
3
1 Students’
willingness
0 1 1 2 0.67 Yes
2 Students’
willingness
1 1 1 3 1 Yes
3 Students’
willingness
1 1 1 3 1 Yes
4 Students’
willingness
1 1 1 3 1 Yes
5 Students’
willingness
1 1 1 3 1 Yes
6 Students’
confidence
1 1 0 2 0.67 Yes
7 Students’
confidence
1 -1 -1 -1 -0.33 No*
8 Students’
confidence
1 0 0 1 0.33 No*
9 Students’
confidence
1 1 1 3 1 Yes
10 Students’
confidence
1 1 1 3 1 Yes
11 Students’
motivation
-1 1 1 1 0.33 No*
12 Students’
motivation
1 1 1 3 1 Yes
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
139
Item Objective Opinion scores of expert
Total Score
IOC
Value
Content
Validity Expert
1
Expert
2
Expert
3
13 Students’
motivation
1 -1 -1 -1 -0.33 No*
14 Students’
motivation
1 1 1 3 1 Yes
15 Students’
motivation
0 1 1 2 0.67 Yes
16 Students’
motivation
1 1 1 3 1 Yes
17 Students’
capacity
1 1 1 3 1 Yes
18 Students’
capacity
1 1 1 3 1 Yes
19 Students’
capacity
1 1 1 3 1 Yes
20 Students’
capacity
1 1 1 3 1 Yes
21 Students’
capacity
0 -1 0 -1 -0.33 No*
22 Students’
capacity
0 0 1 1 0.33 No*
23 Students’
capacity
0 0 1 1 0.33 No*
● Item 1 is added the word ‘believe that’.
● Item 2, 3, and 4 are added the word ‘am willing to’ to emphasis the
willingness of responsibility among learners.
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
140
● Item 7 and 8 are remained as some words are changed to provide more
understanding and relating to the objectives of the study, suggested by the
experts. The word ‘can’ is added into the sentence due to the clearer meaning
of self-confidence.
● Item 11 and 23 are remained as the sentences were changed into the new
sentence which can provide the meaning clearer. Item 11 is changed from ‘I
want teacher’s help’ into ‘I can learn better when I receive encouragement of
the teacher’. Item 23 is changed from ‘I improve my English ability’ into ‘I
evaluate the improvement in my ability to use English effectively’.
● Item 13, 21, and 22 were deleted as the suggestion of the experts.
The content validity is equal to 0.78.
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
141
APPENDIX B
Questionnaires to Investigate the Learner Autonomy
(English version)
Instruction: In order to investigate the level of learner autonomy in learning
English of the Thai EFL learners who are studying in the international school in
Bangkok, the questionnaire was created to gather the information about how much you
are autonomous learners.
The statement is divided into two parts; personal information and the 20
statements. The information you provide will be kept strictly confidential and will be
used for research purposes only.
Please rate the item along with the fact applied to you.
5 means I always do.
4 means I often do
3 means I sometimes do.
2 means I seldom do.
1 means I never do.
_____________________________________________________________________
Part I: Personal Information
School Name
_______________________________________________________________
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
142
Part II: Learner Autonomy Investigation
No. Questionnaire
Statements
Frequency
Always
(5)
Usually
(4)
Sometimes
(3)
Seldom
(2)
Never
(1)
1. I believe that I can make
a decision of my way of
learning. (e.g. learning
English with self-access
center)
2. I am willing to set long-
term goals in learning
English.
3. I am willing to make
study plans that match
my goals in learning
English. (e.g. memorise
5 new vocabularies each
day for exam)
4. I am willing to create
opportunities to use
English outside the
classroom.
5.
I can be self-regulated in
learning English. (e.g.
reading English books or
news during free time)
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
143
No. Questionnaire
Statements
Frequency
Always
(5)
Usually
(4)
Sometimes
(3)
Seldom
(2)
Never
(1)
6. I can review what I am
good at in learning
English. (e.g. ‘I am good
at memorizing
vocabulary.’)
7. I can revise my English
study plans if they do not
work well.
8. I can learn on my own
without a helper.
9. I always ask my teacher
to explain most of the
things I don’t
understand.
10. I can reflect upon how I
should have studied
better after I finish
studying English.
11. I learn better when I
receive encouragement
of a teacher.
12. I feel like giving up
learning English.
13.
When I make progress in
learning English, I
reward myself such as:
buy new things.
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
144
No. Questionnaire
Statements
Frequency
Always
(5)
Usually
(4)
Sometimes
(3)
Seldom
(2)
Never
(1)
14. I think of the good grade
I will get when I learn
English.
15. I think of having a better
job if I use speak English
well.
16. I notice my strengths and
weaknesses in learning
English and seek ways to
improve them.
17. I make good use of my
free time in practicing
English.
18. When I have a limited
amount of time available
for study English, I
decide in what order the
things need to be done
and do according to the
plan.
19. Besides the contents
prescribed in the course,
I read extra materials in
advance.
20. I evaluate the
improvement in my
ability to use English
effectively.
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
145
APPENDIX C
Questionnaires to Investigate the Learner Autonomy (Thai version)
สวนท 1: ขอมลสวนบคคล ชอโรงเรยน ___________________________________________________________________ ค ำสง
แบบสอบถามประกอบดวยขอความเกยวกบการเรยนรดวยตนเอง จ านวน 20 ขอ โปรดท าเครองหมาย ( ) ลงในชองทตรงกบสภาพความเปนจรงของทานในปจจบนโดยมระดบดงน
5 หมายถง ใชมากทสด 4 หมายถง ใชมาก 3 หมายถง ใชปานกลาง 2 หมายถง ใชนอย 1 หมายถง ใชนอยทสด
สวนท 2: ควำมสำมำรถในกำรเรยนรดวยตนเอง
ขอ ขอควำม ระดบกำรใช
มำกทสด (5)
มำก (4)
ปำนกลำง (3)
นอย (2)
นอยทสด (1)
1. ขาพเจาเชอวาสามารถเลอกวธการเรยนภาษาองกฤษดวยตนเองได (เชน เลอกทจะเรยนในศนยการ
เรยนรดวยตนเอง)
2. ขาพเจามความตงใจในการตงเปาหมายการเรยนภาษาองกฤษในระยะยาว
3. ขาพเจาตงใจวางแผนการเรยนภาษาองกฤษใหสอดคลองกบเปาหมายการเรยนของขาพเจา (เชน ทองศพทใหไดวนละ 5 ค าเพอจะน าไปใชสอบ)
4. ขาพเจาสามารถหาโอกาสทจะไดใชภาษาองกฤษนอกหองเรยนได
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
146
ขอ ขอควำม ระดบกำรใช
มำกทสด (5)
มำก (4)
ปำนกลำง (3)
นอย (2)
นอยทสด (1)
5. ขาพเจาสามารถจดการการเรยนภาษาองกฤษ เชน อานหนงสอหรอขาวภาษาองกฤษในเวลาวาง
6. ขาพเจาพจารณาวาขาพเจามความสามารถในการเรยนภาษาองกฤษดานไหน (เชน ขาพเจามความสามารถในการจ าค าศพทตางๆ ไดด)
7. ขาพเจาแกไขแผนการเรยนทขาพเจาตงไวกอนหนาเมอแผนนนไมไดผล
8. ขาพเจาเรยนรภาษาองกฤษดวยตนเองโดยไมตองพงพาตวชวยอน
9. ขาพเจาถามครผสอนในสงทไมเขาใจ
10. ขาพเจาไตรตรองวาจะท าเชนไรใหตนเองเรยนไดดขนหลงจากการเรยนภาษาองกฤษในแตละครง
11. ขาพเจาจะสามารถเรยนไดดหากไดรบการสนบสนนจากครผสอน
12. ขาพเจารสกทอแทกบการเรยนภาษาองกฤษ
13. ขาพเจาใหรางวลกบตนเองเมอขาพเจามความกาวหนาในการเรยนภาษาองกฤษ (เชน ซอ
สงของใหตนเอง)
14. ขาพเจาคดวาอยากจะไดเกรดทดในการเรยนภาษาองกฤษ
15. ขาพเจาคดวาจะไดงานทดถาใชภาษาองกฤษไดด
16. ขาพเจารจดแขงและจดออนในการเรยนภาษาองกฤษของขาพเจา และขาพเจาพยายามหา
หนทางเพอแกไขจดออนนนๆ
17. ขาพเจาฝกฝนภาษาองกฤษในเวลาวาง
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
147
ขอ ขอควำม ระดบกำรใช
มำกทสด (5)
มำก (4)
ปำนกลำง (3)
นอย (2)
นอยทสด (1)
18. ขาพเจาวางแผนในสงทตองท ากอนและหลงเมอมเวลาจ ากดในการเรยนภาษาองกฤษ พรอมกบท า
ตามแผนการนน
19. ขาพเจาอานบทเรยนภาษาองกฤษเพมเตมนอกเหนอจากทเรยนในหอง
20. ขาพเจาประเมนความคบหนาของการใชภาษาองกฤษใหมประสทธภาพของตนเอง
ขอบคณส าหรบความรวมมอ
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
148
APPENDIX D
Strategy Inventory for Language Learning 7.0 Version
(Original Version)
Questionnaire
Language Learning Strategies Used by the International and Thai Public School
Students in a Tutorial School in Bangkok, Thailand
_____________________________________________________________________
_________
Part I: Personal Information
School
Name________________________________________________________________
___
Directions
This form of the Strategy Inventory for Language Learner (SILL) version
7.0 is designed to gather information about how you, as a student of English as a
foreign language, do during learning English.
The information you provide will be kept strictly confidential and will be used
for research purposes only.
There are 50 statements of how you learn language. Please read each
statement carefully, answering in terms of how often you use the strategy by putting a
tick ( ) in the blanket. There are no right or wrong answer to these statements.
5 means I always use this strategy.
4 means I often use this strategy.
3 means I sometimes use this strategy.
2 means I seldom use this strategy.
1 means I never use this strategy.
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
149
Part II: Language Learning Strategies Statements
No. Language Learning Strategies Frequency of Strategy Use
Always
(5)
Often
(4)
Sometimes
(3)
Seldom
(2)
Never
(1)
1. I think of relationships between what
I already know and new things I learn
in English.
2. I use new English words in a
sentence so I can remember them.
3. I connect the sound of a new English
word and an image or picture of the
word to help me remember the word.
4. I remember a new English word by
making a mental picture of a situation
in which the word might be used.
5. I use rhymes to remember new
English words.
6. I use flashcards to remember new
English words.
7. I physically act out new English
words.
8. I review English lessons often.
9. I remember new English words or
phrases by remembering their
location on the page, on the board, or
on a street sign.
10. I say or write new English words
several times.
11. I try to talk like native English
speakers.
12. I practice the sounds of English.
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
150
No. Language Learning Strategies Frequency of Strategy Use
Always
(5)
Often
(4)
Sometimes
(3)
Seldom
(2)
Never
(1)
13. I use the English words I know in
different ways.
14. I start conversations in English.
15. I watch English language TV shows
spoken in English or go to movies
spoken in English.
16. I read for pleasure in English.
17. I write notes, messages, letters, or
reports in English.
18. I first skim an English passage (read
over the passage quickly) then go
back and read carefully.
19. I look for words in my own language
that are similar to new words in
English.
20. I try to find patterns in English.
21. I find the meaning of an English
word by dividing it into parts that I
understand.
22. I try not to translate word-for-word.
23. I make summaries of information that
I hear or read in English.
24. To understand unfamiliar English
words, I make guesses.
25. When I cannot think of a word during
a conversation in English, I use
gestures.
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
151
No. Language Learning Strategies Frequency of Strategy Use
Always
(5)
Often
(4)
Sometimes
(3)
Seldom
(2)
Never
(1)
26. I make up new words if I do not
know the right ones in English.
27. I read English without looking up
new words.
28. I try to guess what the other person
will say next in English.
29. If I cannot think of an English word,
I use a word or phrase that means the
same thing.
30. I try to find as many ways as I can to
use my English.
31. I notice my English mistakes and use
that information to help me do better.
32. I pay attention when someone is
speaking English.
33. I try to find out how to be a better
learner of English.
34. I plan my schedule so I will have
enough time to study English.
35. I look for people I can talk to in
English.
36. I look for opportunities to read as
much as possible in English.
37. I have clear goals for improving my
English skills.
38. I think about my progress in learning
English.
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
152
No. Language Learning Strategies Frequency of Strategy Use
Always
(5)
Often
(4)
Sometimes
(3)
Seldom
(2)
Never
(1)
39. I try to relax whenever I feel afraid of
using English.
40. I encourage myself to speak English
even when I am afraid of making a
mistake.
41. I give myself a reward or treat when I
do well in English.
42. I notice if I am tense or nervous when
I am studying or using English.
43. I write down my feelings in a
language learning diary.
44. I talk to someone else about how I
feel when I am learning English.
45. If I do not understand something in
English, I ask the other person to
slow down or say it again.
46. I ask to correct my English with other
students.
47. I practice English with other students.
48. I ask for help from English speakers.
49. I ask questions in English.
50. I try to learn about the culture of
English speakers.
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
153
APPENDIX E
Strategy Inventory for Language Learning 7.0 Version
(Used Version)
Questionnaire
Language Learning Strategies Used by the International and Thai Public School
Students in a Tutorial School in Bangkok, Thailand
_____________________________________________________________________
Part I: Personal Information
School Name
_________________________________________________________________
Directions
This form of the Strategy Inventory for Language Learner (SILL) version
7.0 is designed to gather information about how you, as a student of English as a
foreign language, do during learning English.
The information you provide will be kept strictly confidential and will be used
for research purposes only.
There are 50 statements of how you learn language. Please read each
statement carefully, answering in terms of how often you use the strategy by putting a
tick ( ) in the blanket. There are no right or wrong answer to these statements.
5 means I always use this strategy.
4 means I often use this strategy.
3 means I sometimes use this strategy.
2 means I seldom use this strategy.
1 means I never use this strategy.
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
154
Part II: Language Learning Strategies Statements
No. Language Learning Strategies Frequency of Strategy Use
Always
(5)
Often
(4)
Sometimes
(3)
Seldom
(2)
Never
(1)
1. I connect the sound of a new English
word and an image or picture of the
word to help me remember the word.
2. I use rhymes to remember new
English words.
3. I use flashcards to remember new
English words.
4. I physically act out new English
words.
5. I review English lessons often.
6. I say or write new English words
several times.
7. I try to talk like native English
speakers.
8. I watch English language TV shows
spoken in English or go to movies
spoken in English.
9. I read for pleasure in English.
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
155
No. Language Learning Strategies Frequency of Strategy Use
Always
(5)
Often
(4)
Sometimes
(3)
Seldom
(2)
Never
(1)
10. I try not to translate word-for-word.
11. To understand unfamiliar English
words, I make guesses.
12. When I cannot think of a word during
a conversation in English, I use
gestures.
13. I read English without looking up
new words.
14. I try to guess what the other person
will say next in English.
15. If I cannot think of an English word,
I use a word or phrase that means the
same thing.
16. I notice my English mistakes and use
that information to help me do better.
17. I try to find out how to be a better
learner of English.
18. I plan my schedule so I will have
enough time to study English.
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
156
No. Language Learning Strategies
Frequency of Strategy Use
Always
(5)
Often
(4)
Sometimes
(3)
Seldom
(2)
Never
(1)
19. I look for opportunities to read as
much as possible in English.
20. I have clear goals for improving my
English skills.
21. I encourage myself to speak English
even when I am afraid of making a
mistake.
22. I give myself a reward or treat when I
do well in English.
23. I notice if I am tense or nervous when
I am studying or using English.
24. I write down my feelings in a
language learning diary.
25. I talk to someone else about how I
feel when I am learning English.
26. If I do not understand something in
English, I ask the other person to
slow down or say it again.
27. I ask to correct my English with other
students.
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
157
No. Language Learning Strategies Frequency of Strategy Use
Always
(5)
Often
(4)
Sometimes
(3)
Seldom
(2)
Never
(1)
28. I practice English with other students.
29. I ask for help from English speakers.
30. I try to learn about the culture of
English speakers.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
158
APPENDIX F
Strategy Inventory for Language Learning 7.0 Version (Thai)
แบบสอบถำมกลวธกำรเรยนภำษำองกฤษ
____________________________________________________________________
สวนท 1 ขอมลสวนบคคล
ชอโรงเรยน ________________________________________________________
ค ำสง
แบบสอบถามกลวธการเรยนภาษาองกฤษ เวอรชน 7.0 มวตถประสงคเพอเกบและรวบรวมขอมลเกยวกบวธการเรยน
ทนกเรยนไทยใชเรยนภาษาองกฤษเปนภาษาทสอง
ขอมลทผตอบแบบสอบถามใหจะถกเกบไวเปนความลบและจะเปดเผยเฉพาะในงานวจยนเทานน
แบบสอบถามประกอบดวยขอความเกยวกบวธการเรยนภาษาองกฤษ จ านวน 50 ขอ โปรดท าเครองหมาย ( ) ลงใน
ชองทตรงกบสภาพความเปนจรงของทานในปจจบน โดยมระดบดงน
5 หมายถง ใชมากทสด
4 หมายถง ใชมาก
3 หมายถง ใชปานกลาง
2 หมายถง ใชนอย
1 หมายถง ใชนอยทสด
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
159
สวนท 2 กลวธกำรเรยนภำษำองกฤษ
ขอ กลวธกำรเรยนภำษำองกฤษ ระดบกำรใช
มำกทสด
(5)
มำก
(4)
ปำนกลำง
(3)
นอย
(2)
นอยทสด
(1)
1. ขาพเจาเชอมโยงเสยงของค าศพทกบภาพของค านน
เพอใหจ าค าศพทได
2. ขาพเจาใชเสยงสมผสเพอใหจ าค าศพทใหมได
3. ขาพเจาใชบตรค าเพอใหจ าค าศพทได
4. ขาพเจาแสดงทาทางประกอบเพอใหจ าค าศพทได
5. ขาพเจาทบทวนบทเรยนภาษาองกฤษบอยๆ
6. ขาพเจาพดหรอเขยนค าศพทใหมๆ ซ าๆ หลายๆ ครง
7. ขาพเจาพยายามใชส าเนยงใหใกลเคยงกบเจาของภาษา
8. ขาพเจาดรายการโทรทศนหรอ ภาพยนตรเปน
ภาษาองกฤษ
9. ขาพเจาอานงานเขยนตางๆ เปนภาษาองกฤษ
10. ขาพเจาหลกเลยงการแปลภาษาองกฤษแบบค าตอค า
11. ขาพเจาใชวธการเดาเมอเจอค าศพททไมคนเคย
12. ขาพเจาจะใชทาทางประกอบในการสนทนาถานกค าศพท
ภาษาองกฤษไมออก
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
160
ขอ กลวธกำรเรยนภำษำองกฤษ ระดบกำรใช
มำกทสด
(5)
มำก
(4)
ปำนกลำง
(3)
นอย
(2)
นอยทสด
(1)
13. ขาพเจาอานภาษาองกฤษโดยทไมเปดความหมายทกค า
14. ขาพเจาพยายามเดาวาผสนทนาจะพดอะไรตอไปในบท
สนทนา
15. ถาขาพเจานกค าศพทไมออก จะใชค าหรอวลอนทม
ความหมายใกลเคยง
16. ขาพเจาสงเกตขอผดพลาดของตวเองในการใช
ภาษาองกฤษและน าขอผดพลาดนนมาพฒนาตนเอง
17. ขาพเจาพยายามหาวธทจะเรยนภาษาองกฤษไดดยงขน
18. ขาพเจาวางแผนตารางเพอจะไดมเวลาเรยนภาษาองกฤษ
ใหดขน
19. ขาพเจาพยายามหาโอกาสทจะอานบทความภาษาองกฤษ
ใหไดมากทสด
20. ขาพเจามเปาหมายชดเจนในการพฒนาทกษะ
ภาษาองกฤษ
21. ขาพเจาใหก าลงใจตนเองเมอตองพดภาษาองกฤษ แมใน
ใจจะกลวกตาม
22. ขาพเจาใหรางวลตวเอง เมอใชภาษาองกฤษไดด
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
161
ขอ กลวธกำรเรยนภำษำองกฤษ ระดบกำรใช
มำกทสด
(5)
มำก
(4)
ปำนกลำง
(3)
นอย
(2)
นอยทสด
(1)
23. ขาพเจาสงเกตวาตวเองจะกงวลและเครยดเมอตองใช
ภาษาองกฤษ
24. ขาพเจาเขยนบรรยายความรสกในสมดบนทกประจ าวน
25. ขาพเจาพดคยกบผอนถงเรองการเรยนภาษาองกฤษ
26. ถาขาพเจาไมเขาใจค าหรอประโยคใดในภาษาองกฤษ
ขาพเจาจะขอใหผพด พดชาลงหรอพดซ าอกรอบ
27. ขาพเจาขอใหเพอนชวยแกภาษาองกฤษทใชผดให
28. ขาพเจาฝกฝนภาษาองกฤษกบเพอนคนอน
29. ขาพเจาขอความชวยเหลอจากชาวตางชาต
30. ขาพเจาพยายามเรยนรวฒนธรรมของคนทใช
ภาษาองกฤษเปนภาษาประจ าชาต
ขอบคณส าหรบความรวมมอ
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
162
APPENDIX G
Interview Questions (English Version)
1. What techniques do you use to remember new vocabulary? (MEMORY)
2. How do you apply your previous English knowledge to your current studying?
(METACOGNITIVE)
3. What would you do if you cannot find an English translation of Thai word
when you speak in English? (COMPENSATION)
4. What do you do when you feel English is difficult to learn? (AFFECTIVE)
5. How you think practicing with native speakers can help you to have
opportunities to improve your English skill? (SOCIAL)
6. What do you think would help you to become more fluent in English?
(COGNITIVE)
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
163
APPENDIX H
Interview Question - ค ำถำมสมภำษณ (Thai Version)
1. คณใชวธใดในการจ าค าศพทใหมๆ
2. คณใชความรทมอยกอนแลวมาเชอมโยงกบความรทไดเรยนใหมอยางไร
3. คณจะท าอยางไรเมอคณนกค าศพทภาษาองกฤษทจะพดไมออก
4. คณท าอยางไรเมอพบวาการเรยนภาษาองกฤษนนยาก
5. คณคดวาการฝกภาษาองกฤษกบชาวตางชาตจะสามารถชวยใหคณมโอกาสในการพฒนาทกษะภาษาองกฤษไดอยางไร
6. คณคดวาอะไรจะชวยใหคณพฒนาการใชภาษาองกฤษไดคลองขน
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC
164
BIOGRAPHY
Name Tirada Iamudom
Date of Birth October 15, 1989
Educational Attainment
2011: Bachelor’s Degree of Arts, French major.
2017: Master’s Degree of Arts, English Language
Teaching
Work Position Teacher
Work Experiences
Area Interest
2012-present
Tutorial Teacher
Invent Academy
2015-present
Tutorial Teacher
MAC Education Company
Learner Autonomy
Teacher Autonomy
Language Learning Strategies
Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC