Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
TEACHER BELIEFS AND PRACTICES IN
COMMUNICATIVE LANGUAGE COMPETENCE TOWARDS
THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN AUTONOMOUS LEARNING MODEL
DWEE CHIEW YEN
UNIVERSITI TUN HUSSEIN ONN MALAYSIA
TEACHER BELIEFS AND PRACTICES IN
COMMUNICATIVE LANGUAGE COMPETENCE TOWARDS
THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN AUTONOMOUS LEARNING MODEL
DWEE CHIEW YEN
A thesis submitted in fulfillment
of the requirement for the award of the degree of
Master of Science
Faculty of Applied Sciences and Technology
UniversitiTun Hussein Onn Malaysia
AUGUST 2017
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
In Stephen Covey’s book entitled ‘The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People’, one of the
habits he mentioned was to ‘begin with the end in mind’. Therefore, I wrote this
acknowledgement long before I completed my master’s thesis as a way of encouraging
myself to complete this journey of self-discovery, together with the people who made it
happen.
To begin with, I would like to express my deepest appreciation to my supervisor,
Dr Elizabeth M. Anthony, without whom my master’s would not have been possible. It
has been a challenging, though fruitful journey. I now understand how it feels like
working and studying part-time. I spent a lot of time feeling lost; but regular emails,
meetings and discussions with Dr Elizabeth never failed to steer me back to the right
direction. She has been most encouraging and meticulous in providing constructive
feedback which helped me to improve the quality of my work. In the process of
collecting data, staying up till the wee hours in the morning writing papers, attending
both local and international conferences and completing my thesis, I have gained so
much in terms of knowledge, research methodologies, experience and meeting like-
minded people. I have also been very fortunate to have been given the opportunity to
travel for conferences and publish papers in journals with the generous financial support
provided by Dr Elizabeth’s FRGS grant (Vot 1477). Thank you so very much.
I would also like to thank my parents and siblings for their love and support,
without which I wouldn’t have been able to concentrate on both my work as well as my
studies. Special thanks also go to my dearest colleagues who helped me immensely by
generously sharing their ideas, feedback and research experience. My heartfelt thanks
also goes to the participants of this study who contributed to this study significantly in
terms of their time, effort and personal experience. To my dear friends who have been
with me throughout this journey, I thank you for your constant prayers and
encouragement.
Finally, I would like to dedicate this piece of work to Julian Zimmert, for his
love, patience and encouragement throughout the ups and downs of my master’s journey.
The pomodoro sessions we had when I was struggling to complete my thesis have been
fruitful. Thank you for showing me that distance is not a barrier, but simply a sign of
how far we have come.
iv
ABSTRACT
There is great impetus for English courses in institutions of higher learning (IHL) at
present due to its functional importance as a tool for individual and national
development, graduate employability and life-long learning. However, it remains a
common complaint among employers that Malaysian fresh graduates lackEnglish
proficiency and critical thinking skills. Thus, this qualitative study sets out to examine
the focus and emphasis on English language proficiency, critical thinking skills and
study skills of five (5) English courses offered by UniversitiTun Hussein Onn Malaysia
(UTHM) through semi-structured interviews, classroom observations and document
analysis. The interviewsconducted with five teachers and ten students were transcribed
using Transana softwarebefore beingcoded for analysis. A grounded theory approach
which emphasises on several stages of data collection and constant comparison of data
was employed to interpret the data. The main findings revealed that teachers in general
think that language proficiency,critical thinkingand study skills are important for tertiary
level English classrooms.However, actual teaching practices were found to differ from
the teachers’ beliefs towards critical thinking and study skillsdue to challenges which
canbe categorised as teacher factors, student factors and institutional factors. Finally,
several important criteria were identified from the findings to form an autonomous
learning model for English language communicative competencecalled the SITE Model.
The findings of this study especially the current beliefs and teaching practices of
teachers as well as the proposed SITE Model may serve as a reference point for
researchers, educators and policy makers to develop effective English language
curriculums for enhancing communicative competence among learners.
v
ABSTRAK
Kursus bahasa Inggeris di institusi pengajian tinggi (IPT) semakin diperlukan kerana
kepentingannya dalam pembangunan individu dan negara, keupayaan graduan untuk
mendapat pekerjaan dan pembelajaran sepanjang hayat. Namun, pihak majikan sering
mengadu bahawa graduan tempatan masih lemah dalam penguasaan bahasa Inggeris (BI)
dan kemahiran pemikiran kritikal (KPK). Oleh itu, kajian kualitatif ini bertujuan untuk
meneroka fokus dan penekanan terhadap penguasaan BI, KPK dan kemahiran belajar dalam
lima (5) kursus BI yang ditawarkan oleh Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia (UTHM)
melalui temubual separa berstruktur, pemerhatian bilik darjah dan analisis dokumen. Sesi
temubual dengan lima orang guru dan sepuluh orang pelajar telah ditranskripsi
menggunakan perisian Transana sebelum dikodkan untuk analisis. Pendekatan grounded
theory yang memberi penekanan kepada beberapa peringkat pengumpulan data dan
perbandingan data secara berterusan digunakan untuk mentafsir data. Kajian ini
mendedahkan bahawa guru-guru secara amnya berpendapat bahawa penguasaan BI, KPK
dan kemahiran belajar adalah penting untuk kelas Bahasa Inggeris di peringkat IPT. Namun,
amalan pengajaran yang sebenar didapati berbeza daripada tanggapan guru terhadap KPK
dan kemahiran belajar disebabkan cabaran-cabaran yang boleh dikategorikan sebagai faktor
guru, faktor pelajar dan faktor institusi. Akhirnya, beberapa kriteria penting telah dikenal
pasti daripada hasil kajian untuk membangunkan satu model autonomi; Model SITE untuk
kecekapan komunikatif BI. Hasil kajian ini terutamanya kepercayaan dan amalan
pengajaran semasa guru-guru serta Model SITE yang dicadangkan boleh digunakan sebagai
titik rujukan untuk para penyelidik, pendidik serta penggubal dasar untuk membangunkan
kurikulum bahasa Inggeris yang berkesan untuk meningkatkan kemahiran berkomunikasi
dalam kalangan pelajar.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TITLE i
DECLARATION ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iii
ABSTRACT iv
ABSTRAK v
TABLE OF CONTENTS vi
LIST OF TABLES xi
LIST OF FIGURES xii
LIST OF APPENDICES xiii
THE STUDY xiv
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Background of the study 1
1.2 The status of English in Malaysia 3
1.3 Problem statement 4
1.4 Aims of the study and research questions 6
1.5 Research objectives 7
1.6 Scope of the study 7
1.7 Significance of the study 8
1.8 Definition of Terms 9
1.8.1 Language proficiency 9
1.8.2 Critical thinking Skills 9
vii
1.8.3 Study skills 9
1.8.4 Learner autonomy 10
1.9 Structure of the thesis 10
CHAPTER2 LITERATURE REVIEW 12
2.1 Introduction 12
2.2 English language teaching in Malaysia: Challenges 12
2.3 English classrooms 14
2.4 English courses in Malaysian universities 14
2.5 Defining critical thinking 16
2.6 Critical thinking and language learning 17
2.7 Study skills and language learning 19
2.7.1 Types of Study Skills 20
2.7.1.1 Repetition-based Skills 20
2.7.1.2 Procedural Skills 20
2.7.1.3 Cognitive-based Study Skills 20
2.7.1.4 Metacognitive Study Skills 21
2.8 Study skills vs learning strategies: 21
same or different?
2.9 Constructivism and language learning 22
2.10 Defining communicative competence 23
2.11 Developing autonomous language learners 23
2.12 Models for learner autonomy 26
2.13 Conceptual Framework 27
2.14 Conclusion 28
CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 29
3.1 Introduction 29
3.2 Research approach 29
3.2.1 The grounded theory approach 31
3.3 Setting and participants 33
viii
3.4 Data collection procedures 35
3.5 Data collection methods 37
3.5.1 Semi-structured interviews 38
3.5.2 Classroom observations 39
3.5.3 Document analysis 40
3.6 Interpretation of the data 41
3.7 Validity and reliability of the data 43
3.8 Conclusion 44
CHAPTER 4 LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY, CRITICAL THINKING 45
SKILLS AND STUDY SKILLS IN ENGLISH
CLASSROOMS
4.1 Introduction 45
4.2 Focus on language proficiency, critical 45
thinking skills and study skills
4.2.1 Focus on English language proficiency 46
4.2.2 Focus on critical thinking skills 50
4.2.3 Focus on study skills 53
4.3 Importance of language proficiency, critical thinking skills 58
and study skills in English classrooms
4.3.1 Importance of language proficiency in English 58
classrooms
4.3.2 Importance of critical thinking skills in English 61
classrooms
4.3.3 Importance of study skills in English 65
classrooms
4.4 Conclusion 69
CHAPTER 5 CHALLENGES FACED BY TEACHERS IN ENGLISH 70
CLASSROOMS
5.1 Introduction 70
ix
5.2 Challenges faced by teachers in English classrooms 70
5.2.1 Teacher factors 71
5.2.1.1 Mismatch between teaching beliefs and 71
teaching practices
5.2.1.2 Lack of readiness among teachers to 72
incorporate critical thinking skills and
study skills among learners
5.2.1.3 Focus on the language gap 73
5.2.2 Learner factors 75
5.2.2.1 Passive attitude and lack of interest among 75
learners
5.2.2.2 Language anxiety among learners 75
5.2.3 Institutional factors 76
5.2.3.1 The curriculum: the gap between theory 77
and practice
5.2.3.2 The relevance and timing of English 78
courses within the university curriculum
5.3 Conclusion 79
CHAPTER 6 LEARNER AUTONOMY AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF 80
AN AUTONOMOUS LANGUAGE LEARNING MODEL
FOR ENGLISH CLASSROOMS
6.1 Introduction 80
6.2 Perception of English teachers towards learner autonomy 80
6.2.1 Teachers’ expectations of autonomous learners 81
6.2.2 Teachers’ role in promoting learner autonomy 81
6.2.3 Skills needed to promote learner autonomy 82
6.2.4 Teaching practices to foster learner autonomy 84
6.3 SITE: An autonomous language learning model for 86
communicative competence
6.4 Conclusion 89
x
CHAPTER 7 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 90
7.1 Introduction 90
7.2 Summary of research findings 90
7.3 Significance of the study 92
7.4 Limitations of the study 93
7.5 Recommendations for future research 94
REFERENCES 96
APPENDIX 107
xi
LIST OF TABLES
3.1 Demographic profile of the interview participants 34
4.1 Interview excerpts related to focus on fluency 46
4.2 Interview excerpts on the passive behavior and lack of 51
critical thinking among students
4.3 Interview excerpts on teachers’ understanding of study skills 53
4.4 Summary of study skills used by students to learn English 57
4.5 Summary of activities used to foster critical thinking 61
6.1 Summary of skills for promoting learner autonomy 83
7.1 Summary of research foci and key findings 90
xii
LIST OF FIGURES
2.1 Conceptual framework of the study 27
3.1 Research framework 31
3.2 Phases involved in the grounded theory approach 32
3.3 Data collection procedures 35
3.4 Triangulation of data in the study 37
6.1 The SITE model 86
xiii
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX TITLE PAGE
A Teacher consent form 107
B Student consent form 108
C1 Semi-structured interview questions round 1 109
(Lecturers/Teachers)
C2 Semi-structured interview questions round 2 111
(Lecturers/Teachers)
D Semi-structured interview questions (Students) 112
E Classroom observation and field notes 114
F Summary of document analysis 119
G1 Lecture plan(Foundation English) 121
G2 Lecture plan (Technical Communication 1) 125
G3 Lecture plan (Academic English) 128
G4 Lecture plan (Effective Communication) 131
G5 Lecture plan (Technical Writing) 135
H Sample Interview Transcript 139
I Inter-rater reliability agreement form 148
J1 Inter-rater agreement (round 1) 154
J2 Inter-rater agreement (round 2) 155
xiv
THE STUDY
This study began in March 2015 when I was in my 2nd
year as an English language
teacher at UniversitiTun Hussein Onn Malaysia. I was very fortunate to have had the
opportunity to talk to Dr Elizabeth M. Anthony the year before about the opportunity to
work on a project. The title, “Teacher Beliefs and Practices in Communicative
Language Competence Towards the Development of an Autonomous Learning Model”,
fascinated me immensely and so I decided to go for it as a part-time master‟s student.
In the process of researching the topic, collecting data and writing papers, I have
learnt a lot through trial and error. It was a lonely journey, to be honest, often working
by day and having to write by night and even weekends. The most rewarding experience
for me during my master‟s journey was the opportunity to attend both local and
international conferences and use them as a platform to share my research with other
like-minded academicians. I first attended a Symposium on „Coaching for Autonomous
Literacy and Language Learning‟ at the University of Munster, 18 March 2016, to
prepare myself for my master‟s research. There, I met many academicians and language
teachers who were interested to explore coaching approaches to develop autonomous
learning skills. I also received a lot of insights through the workshops and coaching
experience shared by fellow participants.
My very first conference, GloBELT 2016, was held at Kremlin Palace located in
Antalya, Turkey on 14-17 April 2016. It was a really humbling experience as I
presented my first paper, “Creating Thinking Classrooms: Perceptions and Teaching
Practices of ESP Practitioners” in front of an international audience. I received really
encouraging feedback from the audience and questions that made me ponder on how I
could improve my research. I was also awestruck as I got the rare opportunity to meet
Professor David Little, an established academician whose work on learner autonomy I
have read so much about. The paper I presented during the conference has been
xv
published by Elsevier‟s open access journal which is Procedia-Social and Behavioural
Sciences in October 2016 (http://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.10.087)
During my second conference at the 5th
World Congress on Technical
Vocational Education and Training (WoCTVET) held on 1st November 2016 in Johor
Bahru, I presented my paper on “Roles and Applications of Study Skills for Tertiary
Level English Courses: Teacher and Student Perspectives”. The review process for the
manuscript has been duly completed in April 2017 and is scheduled to be published in
July 2017 in the Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities (JSSH) under Pertanika
Journals, which is a Scopus indexed journal.
In addition, I have also written a paper with my supervisor entitled“Learner
Autonomy in University English Classrooms: Teachers‟ Perceptions and Practices”
which was submitted in September 2016 and successfully published by the
International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature in January 2017
(http://www.journals.aiac.org.au/index.php/IJALEL/article/view/2882/2448). This
Australian-based peer-reviewed international journal publishes papers under the
scope of English language, linguistics and literature.
The final paper written before I started focusing on the completion of my thesis
was presented at the Indonesia-Malaysia English Language Teaching (IMELT)
conference which was held in Jakarta, Indonesia, in March 2017. The title of the paper
is “Critical Thinking Skills: The Teachers‟ ABC (Attitudes, Beliefs and Confidence)”. It
was yet another enriching experience to share my research findings as well as my
master‟s journey with my audience who were largely made up of pre-service TESL
undergraduates and who were also deeply interested in the topic. I also had the honour
to meet and talk to DrAndrezjCirocki who also specialises in learner autonomy and L2
learning. The paper presented during this conference is scheduled to be published after
the peer review process is completed in August 2017.
All publications mentioned above can be found online using the links provided.
It is a summary of the work I have done so far and I am immensely grateful to my
supervisor, my colleagues, the participants of this study, my family and friends for their
patience, continuous encouragement and support throughout the two and a half years of
my master‟s journey.
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the study
As our world rapidly advances in the fields of science and technology, capable and
dynamic human capital is becoming increasingly important and sought after by prospering
businesses and nations. The situation is no different in Malaysia. However, fresh
graduates in Malaysia are still finding it difficult to secure a job. Why is that so?
According to the latest statistics, Dr Seri Abdul Wahid Omar, a minister at the Prime
Minister’s Department, reported that 161,000 university graduates are among the 400,
000 people who are currently unemployed in Malaysia (Bernama, 2015). This is a serious
issue which needs to be tackled at its core and brings us to the next question: What do
Malaysian undergraduates lack in terms of skills and capabilities? Academic merit alone
nowadays is no longer the main criteria in securing a job (Ismail, 2011). While achieving
excellent results may help a graduate to stand out from the rest, employers today are more
concerned with generic skills possessed by graduates such as the ability to communicate
efficiently, particularly in the English language, as well as critical thinking ability.
Realising this mismatch in terms of the quality of graduates required by the
industry and the quality of graduates produced by local institutions of higher learning, the
Malaysian Ministry of Education has come up with a National Graduate Employability
Blueprint (2012-2017) which attempts to transform and tackle the loopholes in terms of
curriculum and pedagogy in institutions of higher learning (IHL) in order to boost
2
graduate employability in Malaysia. Apart from that, the Ministry of Education has also
identified several generic skills deemed most important for graduates to secure a job. The
seven skills include Communication Skills, Critical Thinking and Problem Solving Skills,
Lifelong Learning and Information Management, Integrity and Professional Ethics,
Teamwork Skills, Entrepreneurship Skills, and Leadership Skills (Ministry of Higher
Education, 2007). Singh, Thambusamy and Ramly (2014) argued that the main concern
for IHLs nowadays is no longer confined to the types of generic skills necessary for
graduate employability, but how and to what degree can those skills be inculcated through
our education system. This is especially important because even though the Ministry of
Education has highlighted the importance of generic skills in all IHLs, till today no clear
guidelines exist on how these skills can actually be embedded across disciplines. The
inculcation of generic skills in the education system is also useful for the promotion of
self-directed learning or learner autonomy which has been emphasised in the Malaysian
Education Blueprint 2013-2025 (2013). However, Singh et al. (2014) found that even
though the industries and universities agree on the skills needed to produce well-rounded
graduates, the actual integration of generic skills in may have been sidelined due to the
largely exam-oriented education system.
As one of the relatively young public IHLs in Malaysia, Universiti Tun Hussein
Onn (UTHM) is constantly striving to produce quality graduates in line with the nation’s
aspirations. As many students who join the university possess low English proficiency i.e.
MUET (Malaysian University English Test) Band 1 or Band 2, the Centre for Language
Studies (CLS), UTHM, offers a number of English language courses to help equip
students with the necessary English language skills for academic purposes as well as
future employment needs. Academic English or English for Academic Purposes was first
introduced in 2006 in UTHM (Mohd Noor & Abd Kadir, 2007) to equip students with
English language skills needed to cope with their courses in university as well as to assist
them in achieving the minimum requirement of Band 3 in the MUET exam. Other courses
such as Effective Communication, Technical Writing and Technical Communication
were also developed to cater to students’ specific needs in university as well as their future
working environment. The latest course added to the list of English courses offered is a
course called Foundation English which was introduced in 2013. It focuses mainly on
3
grammar knowledge and aims to help students become more confident and proficient
English users in reading, listening, speaking and writing.
As an English language teacher who has been teaching in UTHM for slightly more
than two years, I realised that many students are still struggling to achieve the minimum
band three in MUET despite having gone through the English language courses offered
by UTHM. I also observed that many students still found it difficult to express themselves
in English although they have been learning English at primary and secondary school
level for 11 years. It is shocking, but true. This is especially evident during tasks that
require them to produce the language, such as report writing or oral presentations.
Nevertheless, this does not apply to everyone as there are a small number of students who
can speak and write in English well. However, the scenario described earlier clearly
demonstrates the serious lack of English proficiency among the majority of UTHM
undergraduates. The question that remains to be answered is: Why? As a teacher and a
researcher, I felt compelled to find out about the current teaching instructions in UTHM’s
English language classrooms so that more can be done to improve the current situation of
undergraduates who are weak in the English despite many years of learning the language.
1.2 The status of English in Malaysia
The status of English in Malaysia has evolved through the years due to historical and
educational factors during pre-independence and post-independence. During the
colonisation period of the British in the 1950s, schools which used English as a medium
of instruction were introduced (Hanapiah, 2004). However, English medium schools
during that particular period were mainly for children of the elite class as the schools were
mostly situated in the town area and incurred high tuition fees. The mastery of English
during that time was mainly important for trade, transport and mass media (Thirusanku &
Yunus, 2014).
After Malaysia achieved independence in the year 1957, Malay was accorded the
status as the national language whereas English became the second most important
language which was mainly used for administration purposes (Darmi & Albion, 2013).
English was eventually replaced by the Malay language as the medium of instruction
beginning 1970 in national schools. Although English continued to be taught as a
4
compulsory subject in primary as well as secondary schools across the nation, it was
undeniable that the switch in the medium of instruction reduced the exposure of
Malaysian students towards English considerably (Darmi & Albion, 2013). In the 1980s,
two main reformations to the education system which focused on the development of
learners’ English language competence were introduced namely the New Primary School
Curriculum (KBSR) and the Integrated Secondary School Curriculum (KBSM). In a
further move to improve the mastery of English among students, English was reintroduced
as a medium of instruction in primary and secondary schools. Unfortunately, this initiative
was abandoned soon after mainly due to the wide gap in achievement between learners
from rural and urban areas as well as disagreement among the Malay and Chinese
communities in Malaysia (Thirusanku & Yunus, 2014).
Even though the status of English has undergone many changes and faced various
obstacles since the days before independence due to historical factors and changes in the
education policy, it is clear that English remains the most important language for
Malaysians to move forward and remain competitive in the local and international job
market even though Bahasa Melayu is the official language in Malaysia (Sarudin, Zainab,
Zubairi, Tunku Ahmad & Nordin, 2013). This is why efforts such as the proposal to make
English a compulsory pass subject in the Sijil Pelajaran Malaysia (SPM) examination, the
introduction of the “To Uphold Bahasa Malaysia and to Strengthen the English Language”
(MBMMBI) policy in 2012 and the National Graduate Employability Blueprint (2012-
2017) have been made by the Malaysian government in the hopes of restoring the status
of English back to its glory days.
1.3 Problem statement
As explained above, the use and importance of the English language in Malaysia has
undergone numerous phases. Contrary to the ideal intentions and efforts envisioned by
the Ministry of Education however, the actual scenario with regards to the mastery of the
English language among students is not very encouraging. Even though students receive
11 years of formal English language classes in primary and secondary schools and
continue to learn English even at tertiary level, an alarming number of Malaysian students
5
remain weak in their command of the English language (Che Musa, Koo & Azman, 2012;
Jalaluddin, Norsimah & Kesumawati, 2008; Singh & Singh, 2008).
One of the possible reasons which led to this situation could be due to the gap
between English language teaching and English communicative requirements. Teachers
and lecturers alike are often left wondering if their students use English beyond the
classroom in any meaningful way. Ismail, Hussin and Darus (2012) have highlighted that
most IHLs in Malaysia provide not more than six hours of instruction in the English
language per week, especially for degree courses which are not conducted in English in a
number of public universities. This may have caused students to have few opportunities
to use English beyond classroom hours and thus contributed to their lack of
communicative competence.
Besides low English proficiency, Malaysian employers are particularly concerned
about graduates’ lack of higher order thinking skills (Malaysia Education Blueprint 2013-
2025, 2013). In fact, a previous study by Yunus, Hamzah, Tarmizi, Abu, Nor and Ismail
(2006) showed that Malaysian undergraduates performed moderately in terms of critical
thinking ability. This is worrying as it shows that Malaysian undergraduates lack critical
thinking skills necessary to stay competitive in the workforce. Realising the importance
of producing well-rounded human capital, progressive steps have already been taken by
Malaysian Ministry of Education over the years to incorporate the critical thinking
component into the education system through the curriculum as well as assessments for
core subjects such as English. In fact, concepts such as student-centred learning, active
learning, project-based learning, and inquiry-based learning which are integral for the
development of learner autonomy have been mentioned in the Malaysian Education
Blueprint 2013-2025 (2013).
One of the reasons why the element of learner autonomy is still sorely missing in
English language classrooms could be due to the exam-oriented system and the traditional
teacher-centred approach in the Malaysian education system (Thang, 2005; Thang &
Alias, 2008; Yunus and Arshad, 2014). In order for a learner-centred approach to be
effective, the roles of learners and teachers have to change. Students are required to play
a more active role by taking more responsibility for their learning and critically select
study skills to help them achieve their goals. Teachers, on the other hand, can help
encourage learner autonomy by facilitating students in applying learning strategies
6
(Çakici, 2015) which have been shown to develop proficient language learners (Oxford,
1990). Thus, the focus on critical thinking and study skills in English classrooms should
be investigated in order to encourage the development of learner autonomy and language
proficiency. Another possible reason which could have led to the lack of learner autonomy
in English classrooms is the “dissonance of instructor beliefs and actual practices of
inculcating those skills employers want” (Singh et al., 2014). Consequently, this calls for
a closer look into teachers’ perceptions as well as the teaching and delivery of the
curriculum.
Due to the situations described earlier as well as the lack of research on teachers’
actual implementation of generic skills within the university curricula (Singh et al., 2014),
there is a pressing need to examine the reality of tertiary level English language
classrooms through the current practices and perceptions of English teachers towards
language proficiency, critical thinking skills and study skills. Understanding the teachers’
perceptions and teaching practices in the process of integrating those skills within English
courses could illuminate the criteria useful for developing autonomy and communicative
competence among local graduates as well as the challenges that come along with it.
1.4 Aims of the study and research questions
The above-mentioned background, self-reflection and paucity of previous research served
as a point of departure in this study to explore the reality of English language classrooms.
Teaching and learning in a language classroom amongst others involves obviously the
teachers, students, resources, pedagogy and methodology. All these factors need to blend
and complement each other to ensure a smooth flow of the lesson and successful teaching
and learning. Thus, this study aimed to assess the current practices and challenges of
teaching instructions and integrate the importance for teachers to focus on the aspects of
language proficiency, critical thinking skills and study skills. An autonomous language
learning model for communicative competence would then be developed based on the
findings. As such, the following research questions guided this study:
(i) What are the English teachers’ beliefs and practices in terms of focus on language
proficiency, critical thinking skills and study skills in English classrooms?
7
(ii) What are the English teachers’ perceptions on the importance of language
proficiency, critical thinking skills and study skills in English classrooms?
(iii) What are the challenges English teachers face in classrooms in the process of
improving the language proficiency, critical thinking skills and study skills of
students?
(iv) What are the criteria which should be included in an autonomous language
learning model?
1.5 Research objectives
The corresponding research objectives based on the research questions put forward in this
study are as follows:
(i) To find out whether English teachers in UTHM focus on language proficiency,
critical thinking skills and study skills of their students in English classrooms in
terms of beliefs and actual teaching practices.
(ii) To investigate the perceptions of English teachers in UTHM on the importance of
language proficiency, critical thinking skills and study skills in English classrooms.
(iii) To examine the challenges English teachers face in English classrooms in the
process of improving the language proficiency, critical thinking and study skills
of students
(iv) To develop an autonomous learning model for English language communicative
competence based on data collected via the grounded theory approach
1.6 Scope of the study
This study mainly involved language lecturers/teachers in UTHM who teach English
courses offered by the Centre for Language Studies in semester 1, 2015/2016. The courses
included Foundation English, Academic English, Technical Communication, Technical
Writing and Effective Communication. On the other hand, the students selected for the
interviews through homogeneous sampling were those who were taking the English
courses taught by the lecturers/teachers who were also the participants for this study.
8
1.7 Significance of the study
The study is important because it contributes to the development of an autonomous
autonomous model for communicative language competence (further described in chapter
6) and new knowledge on English language teaching and learning, specifically the
importance of focusing on areas such as language proficiency, critical thinking skills and
study skills. The findings are also significant for teachers because it could help them to
reflect on their teaching practices and understand ways to empower their students to
become more autonomous learners in the process of English learning.
The main findings of the study suggested that achieving language fluency is the
primary goal of English language teachers in English classrooms. It also revealed that
although critical thinking and study skills are generally thought to be important, the actual
teaching practices related to these two aspects were rather limited due to reasons such as
teachers’ focus on course content, teachers’ personal assumptions and lack of readiness
to incorporate those skills. The teachers in general also thought that critical thinking skills
and study skills should be embedded in the curriculum instead of being taught explicitly.
Furthermore, the challenges that teachers face in the process of improving the
language proficiency, critical thinking skills and study skills of the students were
classified as teacher factors, learner factors and institutional factors. The challenges which
have been identified may be useful for relevant authorities such as educators and policy
makers in making the necessary changes in the curriculum, English module development,
teacher training programs and education policies to reflect the development of learner
autonomy and communicative competence.
Finally, this study is significant as it has also identified several important criteria
and proposed an autonomous language learning model to develop communicative
competence among learners. These criteria include skills, interaction, tasks and
empowerment which together form the SITE Model which is explained in detail in
Chapter 6. With further implementation and tests using the model in future research, it is
expected to raise the English language proficiency among Malaysian graduates.
9
1.8 Definition of terms
The following section provides definitions of key terms used in this study.
1.8.1 Language proficiency
In general, language proficiency refers to a learner’s ability to perform certain tasks in a
language competently which normally covers the ability to listen, read, write and speak.
Communicative competence or the ability of an individual to use a language to
communicate successfully is often synonymous with the mastery of a high level of
language proficiency. According to the Common European Framework of Reference
(CEFR) for Languages (Council of Europe, 2001), a very proficient user of a language
should be able to “express him/herself spontaneously, very fluently and precisely” (p. 33)
which indicates that individuals should be able to display both accuracy and fluency
during language use. The term “language proficiency” in this study specifically refers to
English language proficiency.
1.8.2 Critical thinking skills
Critical thinking skills may include an individual’s ability to interpret, analyse, evaluate,
infer, explain and reflect on a problem or task at hand (Facione, 1990). In general, critical
thinking is believed to be useful for learning as it assists learners to achieve better
understanding by actively thinking about their own learning processes and discovering
ways to solve problems by evaluating different perspectives.
1.8.3 Study skills
Study skills are “academic enablers” or any tools, strategies or styles crucial for learning
(Gettinger & Seibert, 2002). Common study skills include but are not limited to the
following: creating mind maps, skimming, note-taking, searching for information,
listening and reading in order to learn (Richardson, Robnolt & Rhodes, 2010). On the
other hand, they can also be categorised as repetition-based skills, procedural study skills,
10
cognitive-based study skills and metacognitive skills according to Gettinger and Seibert
(2002) which are explained in detail in Chapter 2.
1.8.4 Learner autonomy
Learner autonomy can be described as the ability of a learner to be responsible for his or
her learning (Holec, 1981; Little, 1991). However, Benson (2001) discovered much later
that the development of learner autonomy can also be achieved through both
independence (the learner) as well as interdependence (teachers and peers). Therefore, the
researcher views learner autonomy as not simply an act of the development of learner
independence through the interaction and facilitation by teachers and peers but also
individual learning which involves the development of critical thinking and the
application of study skills.
1.9 Structure of the thesis
This dissertation consists of 7 chapters. Chapter 1 amongst others covers the background,
problem statement, research questions, objectives and significance of the study.
Chapter 2 presents a literature review which forms the foundation for this research.
The challenges in English language teaching in Malaysia as well as English classrooms
which include English as a Second Language (ESL) and English for Specific Purposes
(ESP) classrooms in general are reviewed. Studies related to critical thinking skills and
study skills for English language learning are also discussed in this chapter, along with
the concepts of communicative competence and autonomous learning. At the end of the
chapter, a conceptual framework which shows how the concepts in this study are linked
and supported is presented.
Chapter 3 elucidates the research design used in this study. It rationalises the use
of a grounded theory approach and further describes the procedures involved during data
collection, data analysis and the steps taken to ensure the validity and reliability of the
data.
Chapters 4, 5 and 6 present the findings of this research. Chapter 4 gives a detailed
account of the focus and teaching practices in English classrooms in terms of language
11
proficiency, critical thinking skills and study skills which were constructed from teacher
and student interviews, classroom observations and document analysis. Chapter 5 reports
the challenges faced by teachers in English classrooms whereas Chapter 6 recounts the
teachers’ perception and teaching practices to develop learner autonomy in English
classrooms. A model for autonomous learning that was developed based on the findings
is also presented in this chapter
Chapter 7 presents a summary of the research findings. The significance and the
limitations of the study, along with recommendations for future research are also included
in this chapter.
12
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Introduction
This chapter covers a general overview of English language teaching in Malaysia by
elucidating the role played by critical thinking skills and study skills in English
classrooms. Concepts that guide the study such as constructivism, communicative
competence and autonomous language learning will also be discussed. At the end of this
chapter, a conceptual framework of the study is presented to link the ideas covered in this
chapter.
2.2 English language teaching in Malaysia: challenges
English is officially the second language in Malaysia and has been taught as a compulsory
subject to students at both primary and secondary school level. Unfortunately, even after
11 years of schooling, English language proficiency among Malaysian university students
remains at a low level (Yamat, Fisher & Rich., 2014). According to studies carried out by
the Malaysian Ministry of Higher Education (2006), more than half of the MUET
(Malaysia University English Test) scores of Malaysian students were between Band 1
(extremely limited user) to Band 3 (modest user). Although the majority of students are
able to understand instructions and content conveyed in English, many face problems
when it comes to expressing themselves in the language. This is certainly a matter of
13
concern as limited English language proficiency among university graduates lowers their
chances of getting employed (Kaur, Othman & Abdullah, 2008).
The scenario above could be due to a number of problems. One of them is the dire
lack of opportunities for students to use the English language beyond the classroom (Che
Musa et al., 2012). Even within ESL classrooms, students often find it more comfortable
to discuss or speak to their group mates in their mother tongue. It is challenging to
motivate students to speak English fluently when they can get by using only their mother
tongue, which is usually Bahasa Melayu, Mandarin or Tamil.
Another possible reason of the low English proficiency among students is the
exam-oriented education system in Malaysia. English teachers tend to focus more on the
technical aspects such as grammar, reading and writing skills and place less emphasis on
the communicative aspects in their teaching (Koo, 2008; Che Musa et al., 2012) so that
students will be able to score well in national examinations. As a result, students may
view English learning as a means to an end; to pass examinations and not for
communicative reasons. The situation is made worse by English language classrooms
which are still dominated by traditional teacher-centred approaches and drills such as
revision using past-year examination papers, textbooks and exercises (Che Musa et al.,
2012). These methods could discourage students from employing critical thinking skills
in their learning process and instead resort to rote learning as the easy way out.
It is a sad but true fact that how students learn during their primary and secondary
education extends well into their tertiary education, as demonstrated by a study done by
Thang and Alias (2007). The study revealed that the majority of learners at IHLs in
Malaysia are still very much teacher-dependent, relying on their lecturers or teachers as
sources of knowledge or information. On the other hand, Sofi (2003) highlighted that the
problem with English Language Teaching (ELT) in Malaysia is the misalignment between
how English is taught as per the curriculum, how it is taught in reality in classrooms and
how English performance is evaluated. All these factors contribute to the dismal English
language proficiency among Malaysian undergraduates today.
14
2.3 English classrooms
In general, English as a Second Language (ESL) emphasises on all four language skills
namely reading, speaking, listening and writing (Mustafa, 2009). ESL learners, on the
other hand, are learners who are “learning English as a second or additional language as
well as developing literacy skills in English” (NSW Department of Education and
Training, 2004, p.5) There is emphasis on how language works, especially on grammar
and structure of the language in ESL classes. The focus of ESL programs is to produce
learners who are able to communicate in the language, for example, during informal social
interactions and other contexts.
English for Specific Purposes (ESP) programs, on the other hand, possess a
number of characteristics which differentiates it from ESL programs. They are usually
designed to meet specific needs of learners. Courses such as English for Workplace
Communication or English for Business are common examples of ESP. According to
Gatehouse (2001), in order to ensure successful communication, ESP courses should
equip learners with the ability to use specific terminology related to the subject matter or
work context and apply academic skills such as carrying out research.
Essentially, the difference between ESL and ESP lies in general language
acquisition and content language acquisition respectively (Gatehouse, 2001). ESP builds
upon ESL as it requires learners to have a basic foundation of the language, but is designed
so that learners are able to master and utilise skills or vocabulary pertaining to a specific
field with ease. ESP teachers or lecturers can be, at the same time, ESL teachers or
lecturers depending on their students’ needs and proficiency level in English. In contrast,
ESL instructors may also use an ESP approach in their teaching based on their students’
needs and personal teaching experience (Gatehouse, 2001). In this study, all the courses
will henceforth be referred to in general as English courses.
2.4 English Courses in Malaysian Universities
In Malaysia, English for Academic Purposes (EAP), which can be categorised as English
for Specific Purposes (ESP), are generally offered by IHLs (Rahman, 2012). Although
English courses in universities are offered to undergraduates, they are not standardised
15
and are tailored by their respective universities according to what the university thinks
their students need in terms of English language skills. Each English language program is
usually 3 credit hours and classes are typically held once a week. This is insufficient for
students to become proficient in English as time for them to practice or use the language
is extremely limited.
The English courses offered by each university also differ according to the
prerequisites and conditions set by the university. In the case of Universiti Putra Malaysia
(UPM), for example, undergraduates have to register for English language courses
according to their MUET achievements. MUET is a compulsory exam taken by students
to measure their English language proficiency in terms of reading, speaking, listening and
writing before entry into tertiary education. (Malaysian Examinations Council, 2006).
According to the Malaysian Examinations Council (2006), students who score band 1 are
extremely limited users of English whereas students who score Band 2 are limited users
of English. In UPM, students with a low proficiency (band 1 and 2) are required to take a
course called English for Academic Purposes before registering for two university
language courses and one elective English language course. In contrast, students who
achieve a high band in MUET (band 5 and 6) only need to sign up for a minimum of one
English language course (Darmi and Albion, 2014).
In UTHM, students with a band 1 or band 2 in MUET need to register for an
ESL course called Foundation English, before proceeding with the other ESP courses.
Students with a high band in MUET are exempted from taking this course but are required
to take the other ESP courses such as Academic English, Technical Writing and Effective
Communication. Other universities such as Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka (UTeM)
and Universiti Teknologi Mara (UiTM) also offer similar courses called Foundation
English and Preparatory Course for MUET respectively to prepare students for the MUET
examination.
A common problem encountered when it comes to English courses offered by
universities is the lack of standardisation in terms of instruction and teaching materials.
In Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia (UTHM) for example, English language teachers
or lecturers are usually provided with a general course outline and expected to come up
with their own teaching materials. Although modules are provided for a number of courses,
not all teachers employ these as they may prefer using other materials or adapt the
16
modules according to their students’ needs. These differences in teaching materials and
instruction could directly or indirectly affect students’ level of English competency and
critical thinking skills.
To sum up, these are some of the problems faced in English language teaching in
Malaysian universities. In order to overcome the problems mentioned, ways should be
sought in order to promote English language communicative competence among students.
The following sections present several elements which are relevant for the development
of an autonomous model for English classrooms such as critical thinking, study skills,
constructivism, communicative competence and learner autonomy.
2.5 Defining critical thinking
Learning and thinking have long been regarded as lifelong processes which are
interrelated (Chaffee, 1994). This statement is backed up by Bailin and Siegel (2003) who
proposed that critical thinking (CT) should be the primary goal of education. While the
short-term objective of training students to become critical thinkers is to make them better
students, the far more important goal is make them high-functioning and productive adults
who are able to contribute to the development of a nation (Abrami, Bernard, Borokhovski,
Wade, Surkes, Thamin & Zhang, 2008).
Although critical thinking is considered as a rather complex and multifaceted
concept, it has been widely defined by educators and theorists worldwide, along with the
evaluation criteria, skills and dispositions that go along with it (Siegel, 2010). Abrami et.
al (2008) defined critical thinking as the ability of an individual to engage in a purposeful,
self-regulatory thinking process. Halvorsen (2005), on the other hand, describes thinking
critically as viewing things from “various perspectives, to look at and challenge any
possible assumptions that may underlie the issue and to explore its possible alternatives”.
In terms of Bloom’s taxonomy, the three highest levels of thinking which are analysis,
synthesis and evaluation are believed to represent critical thinking skills (Kennedy,
Fischer & Ennis, 1991). One of the most high profile definitions on critical thinking was
developed by the Delphi Panel which consisted of 46 experts in critical thinking. Together,
they came up with an agreed statement on critical thinking:
17
“We understand critical thinking to be purposeful, self-regulatory judgment
which results in interpretation, analysis, evaluation, and inference, as well as
explanation of the evidential, conceptual, methodological, criteriological, or
contextual considerations upon which that judgment is based. CT is essential as
a tool of inquiry. As such, CT is a liberating force in education and a powerful
resource in one's personal and civic life.” (Facione, 1990, p. 2)
In the statement above, critical thinking is narrowed down to six skills namely
interpretation, analysis, evaluation, inference, explanation and self-regulation (Facione,
1990; Abrami et. al, 2008). All these skills are believed to assist learners in achieving
better understanding by actively thinking about their own learning process and
discovering how to solve problems by evaluating different perspectives.
2.6 Critical thinking and language learning
Even though thinking and language development go hand-in-hand, a lot is left to be
desired when it comes to efforts in integrating critical thinking skills into English
language teaching in Malaysia. A study by Yunus et. al (2006) involving 3025
respondents from 7 public universities and 2 private universities from Malaysia revealed
that undergraduates performed moderately in terms of critical thinking ability. This is a
cause for concern which sparks the need to reevaluate our education system, especially at
tertiary level.
As with all skills, practice is essential in order to improve critical thinking
(Facione, 2011). A few methods which have been identified to promote critical thinking
include group activities such as discussion, debate and case studies. However, carrying
out activities like these take time away from lecture, which is a traditional method widely
used by educators to deliver curriculum content (Wallace & Jefferson, 2015). In Malaysia
where the education system is still very much exam-oriented and result-based, teachers
or lecturers usually play the role of an instructor instead of a facilitator (Mohamad & Mat
Daud, 2013). The reason why Malaysian undergraduates in general lack critical thinking
skills could be attributed to the teacher-centred approach, also known as the spoon feeding
approach. From a young age, students are expected to listen to their teachers in class and
18
do what they are told instead of questioning what they have been taught or have deep,
meaningful discussions.
Based on the literature reviewed, it is important to incorporate critical thinking
skills into English classes for several reasons. According to Masduqi (2011), many ELT
experts believe that critical thinking skills should be promoted in English classes in order
to enhance the English language competency of students. Shirkani and Fahim (2011)
postulated that when learners are able to incorporate critical thinking skills into language
learning, they will be better able to monitor and assess their own learning. In addition,
they believe that critical thinking is able to enrich learners’ learning experience and make
it more meaningful. Critical thinking has also been shown to be highly correlated to
learning achievement (Rafi, 2010).
Liaw (2007), on the other hand, stresses that while it is necessary for critical
thinking skills be taught in an ESL classroom, this does not translate into students lacking
the ability to think critically. However, she emphasised that it is important for language
teachers to guide students in developing critical thinking skills while learning English to
enable them to advance in today’s increasingly competitive workplace.
The studies above show that there is a dire need for critical thinking to be
inculcated in English classrooms in order to improve the language proficiency of learners
and enhance the whole language learning experience. However, lecturers/teachers may be
ill-informed on ways to include critical thinking as part of their teaching and this could
affect students’ ability to apply critical thinking skills in their learning (Lauer, 2005;
Rajendran, 2013). In a Malaysian context, Choy & Cheah (2009) found that even though
lecturers/teachers in institutions of higher learning believe that they are teaching critical
thinking, there seemed to be a lack of understanding on how they could help students to
develop critical thinking.
The literature in this section suggests for more research to be done to find out
about the teaching practices of educators involved in the teaching and learning of English
and the development of critical thinking among learners. This way, institutions of higher
education can take into account the findings of the research in order to review and make
the necessary changes to the current English courses available.
19
2.7 Study skills and language learning
According to O’ Donoghue (2005), study skills refer to strategies or techniques which
allow an individual to utilise time, resources and academic potential to its maximum
capacity. Gettinger and Seibert (2002) described study skills as “academic enablers”, or
tools crucial for learning. On the other hand, ineffective study skills have been shown to
lead to poor academic achievement. It was found that students who do not perform well
in their studies are mostly passive in their learning and tend to possess a limited number
of study skills (Gettinger & Seibert, 2002). Over the years, study skills have more or less
remained the same, covering skills such as creating mind maps, skimming, note-taking,
searching for information, listening and reading in order to learn (Richardson et al., 2010).
Students should be equipped with study skills as these can be applied in both the
academic environment and working environment. Hoover and Patton (1995) associate
study skills with the ability to obtain, record, organise, synthesise, recall and utilise
information. These skills are practical even after a graduate enters the working world.
Cotterell (2001) supports the importance of study skills for employment as they are ‘part
of a broader process of personal, academic and professional development’ which extends
into working life.
Some of the most common study skills involve time management, essay writing,
presentation, note-taking and revision for examinations (Wingate, 2006). Many
universities offer study skills as separate courses students can take as part of learning
support programs but Wingate (2006) suggests that when study skills are taught
independently of subject content and the learning process, they are ineffective. Previous
studies often recommend that study skills be taught according to context to make it easier
for students to apply them in the learning process (Kiewra, 2002; Petersen, Lavelle &
Guarino, 2006). On the other hand, Sinfield (2000) examined if study skills empower
students and the results show positive relationship between the two variables. The study
shows that students are often anxious and require support from teachers and classmates
to ensure that they are on the right track. Study skills help keep them on track and provide
them with proper skills to execute common academic tasks.
20
2.7.1 Types of study skills
Gettinger and Seibert (2002) categorised study skills into four clusters namely repetition-
based skills, procedural study skills, cognitive-based study skills, and metacognitive skills.
Each cluster of skills is briefly explained below according to Gettinger and Seibert’s
(2002) study:
2.7.1.1 Repetition-based skills
As the name suggests, this type of study skill involves rereading or rehearsal of
information. One common example would be language drills. Repetition-based study
skills are reportedly most helpful for chunks of information which are frequently used
such as multiplication tables or new vocabulary and are most commonly taught to children.
Even though this set of skills is easy to carry out, there is little room for learners to interact
with the content in a meaningful way.
2.7.1.2 Procedural skills
Procedural skills help students by structuring their study materials and study routines in
order to optimise their study time. Students are better able to study and complete their
work on time with effective implementation of these skills.
2.7.1.3 Cognitive-based study skills
Cognitive-based study skills enhance the learning experience of students by assisting
them in processing information. These skills are designed to help learners activate their
prior knowledge before studying new material, form connections between new concepts
or information to what learners already know and develop new schemata so that learning
becomes more meaningful. An example of a tool used for cognitive-based study skills is
known as cognitive organisers. These are also known as cognitive maps which show the
relationship between ideas in a visual format. Other skills included in this category include
21
summarisation and generation of questions using the learners’ own words and personal
experience.
2.7.1.4 Metacognitive skills
Metacognitive skills help students to learn better by facilitating them in choosing,
monitoring and deploying study skills. Being able to reflect on their own learning allows
learners to learn more independently and effectively. Self-questioning techniques is one
of the examples of metacognitive skills which can be explicitly taught to students to
improve their metacognitive capability as well as academic performance.
2.8 Study skills vs learning strategies: same or different?
Study skills and learning strategies are sometimes used interchangeably to mean the same
thing i.e. learning how to learn. According to the review of the literature however, few
researchers have attempted to make the distinction between learning strategies and study
skills. Nisbet and Stucksmith (1986) argue that strategies are more advanced than skills,
and that they are processes which are required to manage and apply skills. On the other
hand, Ellis and Sinclair (1989) differentiate study skills and learning strategies by
suggesting that study skills are more often than not product-oriented whereas learning
strategies are process-oriented. For example, study skills are seen as a means to an end
because people relate these skills as a way for students to pass examinations. Learning
strategies, in contrast, are seen as ways for an individual to exude more control over their
own learning.
Even though slight differences between study skills and learning strategies exist,
these two terms will be used interchangeably in this study. This is because although the
motivation behind the two may be different, the ultimate aim of both is to equip students
with skills to become more autonomous in their learning. As Hurd (2005) observed,
autonomous learning is widely considered to be facilitated by appropriate study skills and
learning strategies used by learners.
22
2.9 Constructivism and language learning
Jones & Brader-Araje (2002) proposed that teaching instruction and curriculum design
are greatly influenced by social constructivism and educational constructivism as these
two seem to have greatly benefited current educational practices. Constructivism is a
theory of learning which views learning as a process where new knowledge is actively
created based on learners’ prior knowledge (Piaget, 1973; Vygotsky, 1978; Bruner, 1996).
A few principles of learning based on constructivism are summarised as below:
(i) Learning is an active process of meaning-making gained in and through
our experience and interactions with the world
(ii) Learning opportunities arise as people encounter cognitive conflict,
challenge, or puzzlement, and through naturally occurring as well as
planned problem solving activities
(iii) Learning is a social activity involving collaboration, negotiation, and
participation in authentic practices of communities
(iv) Where possible, reflection, assessment, and feedback should be
embedded “naturally” within learning activities
(v) Learners should take primary responsibility for their learning
and “own” the process as far as possible
(Wilson, 2012)
Based on the principles stated above, it can be inferred that constructivism
encourages learner autonomy, metacognition and experiential learning. Knowledge
is not seen as something which is disseminated by teachers in the classroom, rather
it is “the outcome of experience mediated by one’s own prior knowledge and the
experience of others” (Ryder, 2008). In constructivism, therefore, the teachers’ task
is to develop activities which allow learners to actively learn through their own
experience. However, since constructivism is a theory, specific ways of
implementing a constructivist-based teaching in the classroom still requires further
research in order to bridge the gap between theory and practice.
23
Potential benefits of implementing constructivism-based teaching in
classrooms based on the literature available so far are the development of higher
order thinking skills as well as relevance to job market demands (Wilson, 2012).
This is because learners who are taught using the constructivist’s approach tend to
be frequently exposed to problems which resemble situations in actual settings and
are given more opportunities to sharpen their thinking skills.
2.10 Defining communicative competence
Introduced by Dell Hymes in the 1960s, communicative competence is not a new concept
but is generally accepted as the goal of language learning (Savignon, 1997). Hymes’s
(1971) definition of communicative competence encompasses multiple features of
communication. Simply put, communicative competence requires that the learner not only
possesses knowledge of the language such as syntax, morphology and phonology, but also
understands when and how to use the language in different contexts.
In a more recent review of several concepts of communicative competence by
other researchers, Lailawati (2005) concluded that communicative competence involves
knowledge, skill, adaptation and appropriateness which are necessary for learners to
communicate effectively. Yamat et al. (2014), on the other hand, pointed out that despite
the implementation of the Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) approach in
Malaysia’s education system, there is a mismatch when it comes to the assessment of
students’ language performance. Even though the CLT approach emphasises on fluency
in communication for daily use, students are generally tested for language accuracy
through school examinations. This could be one of the reasons as to why students are still
weak in English even at tertiary level.
2.11 Developing autonomous language learners
Facilitating students in developing language skills, critical thinking skills and study skills
require not just effort from the teacher, but also the learners themselves. The switch from
a teacher-centred classroom to a learner-centred classroom makes it more important than
ever for students to take charge of their own learning (Anthony, 2010), in other words, to
24
become autonomous learners. The concept of learner autonomy is not something new as
it was already a fundamental part of the Council of Europe’s language education since the
year 1979 (Little, 2006).
Whether it is in terms of language learning or language use, Little (2007) claims
that the aim of learning is to create autonomous learners. An autonomous learner can be
described as an individual who is able to manage and take responsibility for his or her
own learning (Holec, 1981; Little, 1991). Nevertheless, this does not mean that the role
of the teacher is relinquished. In fact, Benson (2001) asserts that learner autonomy can
also be fostered through facilitation by teachers as well as peer support. Instead of being
the sage on the stage, a teacher plays a primary role in developing autonomous learners
by facilitating students to make learning happen. The teacher will share information when
required, but will spend most of the time in the classroom getting students to be involved
in authentic and challenging tasks such as problem-based learning. Three pedagogical
principles facilitate the development of autonomy in language learners. They are:
• Learner involvement – engaging learners to share responsibility for the learning
process (the affective and the metacognitive dimensions);
• Learner reflection – helping learners to think critically when they plan, monitor
and evaluate their learning (the metacognitive dimensions);
• Appropriate target language use – using the target language as the principal
medium of language learning (communicative and metacognitive dimensions)
(Little, 2006, p.2)
To put those three principles into practice, Little (2006) has provided a few
suggestions on what teachers can do in the classroom to promote learner autonomy. Firstly,
the teacher should use the target language to teach in the classroom and expect students
to also put the target language into practice. The teacher should also guide the students in
setting their personal learning goals, selecting suitable learning activities and working in
groups using the target language. Another thing which could be done is to encourage
students to maintain a learning portfolio where students document their learning so that it
can be constantly reviewed. Finally, the teacher should facilitate the students to keep track
of their individual and class improvement through regular evaluation sessions in the target
96
REFERENCES
Abrami, P. C., Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Wade, A., Surkes, M. A., Tamim, R., &
Zhang, D. (2008). Instructional interventions affecting critical thinking skills and
dispositions: A stage 1 meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 78(4),
1102-1134.
Ahmad, N., Yaakub, R., Rahim, M. A., & Rohani, P. (2004). Towards Learner Autonomy
in Teaching English in Malaysia. Retrieved from
http://eprints.usm.my/135/1/Towards_Learner_Autonomy_In_Teaching_Engli
sh_In_Malaysia.pdf
Allan, J., & Clarke, K. (2007). Nurturing supportive learning environments in higher
education through the teaching of study skills: to embed or not to
embed? International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education,
19(1), 64-76.
Alrabai, F. (2014). A Model of Foreign Language Anxiety in the Saudi EFL Context.
English Language Teaching 7 (7), 82-101.
Anthony, E. M. (2010). Problem-Based Learning in Undergraduate English for Specific
Purposes Context: Language Use and Development. University of Bristol:
Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis.
Bailin, S., & Siegel, H. (2003). Critical thinking. In N. Blake, P. Smeyers, R. Smith, & P.
Standish (Eds.), The Blackwell guide to the philosophy of education, (p.181-193).
Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Baylor, A. L., & Ritchie, D. (2002). What factors facilitate teacher skill, teacher morale,
and perceived student learning in technology-using classrooms? Computers &
education, 39(4), 395-414.
Benson, P. (2001). Teaching and researching autonomy in language learning. London:
Longman.
97
Bernama. (2015, May 12). Graduates Among 400,000 Unemployed in Malaysia. The New
Straits Times. Retrieved on October 28, 2015 from
https://www.nst.com.my/news/2015/09/graduates-among-400000-unemployed-
abdul-wahid
Bissell, A. N., & Lemons, P. P. (2006). A new method for assessing critical thinking in
the classroom. BioScience, 56(1), 66-72.
Borg, S., & Al-Busaidi, S. (2012). Learner autonomy: English language teachers’ beliefs
and practices. ELT Journal, 12(7), 1-45.
Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative
research journal, 9(2), 27-40.
Bruner, J. S. (1996). The culture of education. Harvard University Press: Cambridge.
Çakici, D. (2015). Autonomy in Language Teaching and Learning Process. İnönü
University Journal of the Faculty of Education. 16(1), 31-42.
Case, R. (2005). Moving critical thinking to the main stage. Education Canada, 45(2),
45-49.
Chaffee, J. (1994). Thinking critically. 4th ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing Grounded Theory 2nd Edition. The Dorset Press: Great
Britain.
Che Musa, N., Koo, Y. L., & Azman, Z. (2012). Exploring English language learning and
teaching in Malaysia. GEMA Online™ Journal of Language Studies, 12(1), 35-
55.
Choy, S. C., & Cheah, P. K. (2009). Teacher Perceptions of Critical Thinking among
Students and Its Influence on Higher Education. International Journal of teaching
and learning in Higher Education, 20 (2), 198-206.
Cotterell, S. (2001). Teaching study skills and supporting learning. Basingstoke: Palgrave
Macmillion.
Cotton, K. (1991). Teaching thinking skills. Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory,
School Improvement Program.
Council of Europe. (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages:
Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research Design - Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Thousand oaks, California: SAGE Publications, Inc.
98
Dam, L. (1995). Learner Autonomy 3: From Theory to Classroom Practice. Dublin:
Authentik.
Dang, T. T. (2012). Learner autonomy: A synthesis of theory and practice. The Internet
Journal of Language, Culture and Society, 52-67.
Darmi, R., & Albion, P. (2013). English language in the Malaysian education system: its
existence and implications. In Third Malaysian Postgraduate Conference (Mpc)
2013, 175-184.
Darmi, R. & Albion, P. (2014). Assessing the Language Anxiety of Malaysian
Undergraduate English Language Learners. Proceeding of the Global
Conference On Language Practice & IT (GLIT 2014), 47-57.
Dewey, J. (1991). How we think. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books.
DiCicco-Bloom, B., & Crabtree, B. F. (2006). The qualitative research interview. Medical
Education, 40, 314-321.
Dörnyei, Z. (2011). Research Methods in Applied Linguistics. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Dörnyei, Z., & Ushioda, E. (2013). Teaching and researching: Motivation. Routledge.
El Hussein, M., Hirst, S., Salyers, V., & Osuji, J. (2014). Using grounded theory as a
method of inquiry: Advantages and disadvantages. The Qualitative Report 19,
1-15.
Ellis, G., & Sinclair, B. (1989). Learning to Learn English: A Course in Learner.
Cambridge University Press.
Ertmer, P. A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for
technology integration? Educational technology research and
development, 53(4), 25-39.
Facione, P. A. (1990). Critical Thinking: A Statement of Expert Consensus for Purposes
of Educational Assessment and Instruction. Millbrae: CA Press.
Facione, P. (2011). Think critically. Boston, MA: Prentice Hall.
Foroutan, M., Nooreen, N., Gani, S. H., & Baki, R. (2013). The Relationship Between
Language Learning Autonomy Extent and Learning Styles in Malaysian
Context. World Applied Sciences Journal, 24(3), 395-402.
Fassnacht, C. & Woods, D.K. (2006). Transana (Version 2.61b). University of Wisconsin:
Madison, WI, USA
99
Gardner, R. C. (2001). Language Learning Motivation: The Student, the Teacher, and the
Researcher. Texas Papers in Foreign Language Education, 6(1), 1-18.
Garrison, D. R., & Cleveland-Innes, M. (2005). Facilitating cognitive presence in online
learning: Interaction is not enough. The American Journal of Distance
Education, 19(3), 133-148.
Gatehouse, K. (2001) Key Issues in English for Specific Purposes (ESP) Curriculum
Development. The Internet TESL Journal, 7(10), 1-10.
Gettinger, M. & Seibert, J.K. (2002). Contributions of study skills to academic
competence. School Psychology Review, 31(3), 350-365.
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. London:
Weidenfeld and Nicholson.
Gregersen, T. S. (2003). To Err Is Human: A Reminder to Teachers of Language-
Anxious Students. Foreign Language Annals, 36(1), 25-32.
Halvorsen, A. (2005). Incorporating critical thinking skills development into ESL/EFL
courses. The internet TESL journal, 11(3), 1-5.
Hanapiah, M. F. (2004). English language and the language of development: A Malaysian
perspective. Jurnal Kemanusiaan, 106-120.
Hoepfl, M. C. (1997). Choosing qualitative research: A primer for technology education
researchers. Journal of Technology Education, 9 (1), 47-63..
Holec, H. 1981. Autonomy in Foreign Language Learning. Oxford: OUP.
Hoover, J. J., & Patton, P. R. (1995). Teaching students with learning problems to use
study skills: A teacher’s guide. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed
Hurd, S. (2005). Autonomy and the distance language learner. In: Holmberg, Boerje;
Shelley, Monica and White, Cynthia eds. Distance education and languages:
evolution and change. New perspectives on language and education (p. 1-19).
Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Hussein, A. (2015). The use of triangulation in social sciences research: Can qualitative
and quantitative methods be combined?. Journal of Comparative Social
Work, 4(1), 1-12.
Hymes, D. (1971). On communicative competence. In C. J. Brumfit & K. Johnson (Eds.),
The communicative approach to language teaching (p. 5-26). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
100
Khan, W. B., & Inamullah, H. M. (2011). A study of lower-order and higher-order
questions at secondary level. Asian Social Science, 7(9), 149-157.
Ismail, N., Singh, D. S. R., & Abu, R. (2013). Fostering Learner Autonomy and Academic
Writing Interest via the Use of Structured E-Forum Activities Among ESL
Students. Edulearn13 Proceedings, 4622-4626.
Ismail, N. A. (2011). Graduate Characteristics and Unemployment: A Study among
Malaysian Graduates. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 2(16),
94-102
Ismail, N., Hussin, S., & Darus, S. (2012). ESL Tertiary Students’ Writing Problems and
Needs: Suggested Elements for an Additional Online Writing Program (IQ-Write)
for BEL311 Course. The International Journal of Learning, 18(9), 70-80.
Jabareen, Y. (2009). Building a conceptual framework: philosophy, definitions, and
procedure. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 8(4), 49-62.
Jalaluddin, N. H., Norsimah, M. A., & Kesumawati, A. B. (2008). The mastery of English
language among lower secondary school students in Malaysia: A linguistic
analysis. European Journal of Social Sciences, 7(2), 106-119.
Januin, J. (2007). Exploring readiness for language learning autonomy among distance
learners in Sabah, Malaysia. Asian Journal of Distance Education,5(1), 16-26.
Jones, M. G., & Brader-Araje, L. (2002). The impact of constructivism on education:
Language, discourse, and meaning. American Communication Journal, 5(3), 1-10.
Kaur, N., Othman, N.H., & Abdullah, M. K. K. (2008). Lexical competence among
tertiary students: teacher-student perspectives. The English Teacher 37, 90-104.
Kaur, R. & Sidhu, G. (2010). Learner autonomy via Asynchronous Online Interactions:
A Malaysian perspective. International Journal of Education and Development
using ICT, 6(3), 88-100.
Kennedy, M., Fisher, M. B., & Ennis, R. H. (1991). Critical thinking: Literature review
and needed research. Educational values and cognitive instruction: Implications for
reform, 2, 11-40.
Khambete, P., & Athavankar, U. (2010). Grounded Theory: An Effective Method for User
Experience Design Research. IDC Design Research Journal-'Design Thoughts,
11-24.
101
Kiewra, K.A. (2002). How classroom teachers can help students learn and teach them
how to learn. Theory into practice, 41(2), 71-80.
Kim, B. (2001). Social Constructivism. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on
learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved November 8, 2015, from
http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/
Koerber, A., & McMichael, L. (2008). Qualitative Sampling Methods A Primer for
Technical Communicators. Journal of business and technical
communication, 22(4), 454-473.
Koo Yew Lie. (2008). Language, culture and literacy: Meaning-making in global
contexts. Bangi: Penerbit Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia.
Lailawati, M. S. (2005). Communication Competence: A Malaysian Perspective. Human
Communication, 11(3), 303-312.
Lauer, T. (2005). Teaching critical-thinking skills using course content material. Journal
of College Science Teaching, 34(6), 34-44.
Lawrence, J., & Tar, U. (2013). The use of grounded theory technique as a practical tool
for qualitative data collection and analysis. The Electronic Journal of Business
Research Methods, 11(1), 29-40.
Leech, N. L., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2007). An array of qualitative data analysis tools: A
call for data analysis triangulation. School psychology quarterly, 22(4), 557-584.
Leung, L. (2015). Validity, reliability, and generalizability in qualitative
research. Journal of family medicine and primary care, 4(3), 324-327.
Little, D. (1991). Learner autonomy. 1: Definitions, Issues and Problems. Dublin:
Authentik.
Little, D. (2006). Learner autonomy: Drawing together the threads of self-assessment,
goal-setting and reflection. Retrieved May 3, 2015 from
http://www.ecml.at/mtp2/ELP_TT/ELP_TT_CDROM/DM_layout/00_10/06/06
%20Supplementary% 20text.pdf.
Little, D. (2007). Language learner autonomy: Some fundamental considerations revisited.
Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 1(1), 14-29.
Littlewood, W. (1996). “Autonomy”: An anatomy and a framework. System. 24(4), 427-
435.
102
Littlewood, W. (1999). Defining and developing autonomy in East Asian contexts.
Applied Linguistics, 20(1), 71-94.
Liaw, M. L. (2007). Content-based Reading and Writing for Critical Thinking Skills in
an EFL Context. English Teaching and Learning, 31(2), 45-87.
Macaro, E. (1997). Target language, collaborative learning and autonomy. Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters.
MacIntyre, P. D., & Gardner, R. C. (1991). Methods and results in the study of anxiety
and language learning: A review of the literature. Language Learning, 41, 85-
117. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1991.tb00677.x
MacIntyre, P. D. (2007). Willingness to communicate in the second language:
Understanding the decision to speak as a volitional process. The Modern
Language Journal, 91(4), 564-576.
Maesin, A., Mansor, M., Shafie, L. A., & Nayan, S. (2009). A study of collaborative
learning among Malaysian undergraduates. Asian Social Science, 5(7), 71-76.
Malaysia Education Blueprint 2013-2025. (2013). Preliminary Report. Preschool to Post-
Secondary Education. Putrajaya, Malaysia: Ministry of Education.
Malaysian Examinations Council. (2006). Malaysian University English Test: regulations,
test specifications, test format and sample questions. Retrieved December 14,
2014 from http://www.mpm.edu.my/documents/10156/c5c332ab-3d97-4959-
83c0-09866eea0774
Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. (2006). Designing qualitative research (4th ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Masduqi, H. (2011). Critical thinking skills and meaning in English language teaching.
TEFLIN Journal, 2(2), 185-200.
Ministry of Higher Education, Malaysia (MoHE). (2006). Towards excellence, report by
the committee to study, review and make recommendations concerning the
development and direction of higher education in Malaysia. Kuala Lumpur:
UnivisionPress Sdn. Bhd.
Ministry of Higher Education. (2007). The National Higher Education Strategic Plan
(2007-2010). Putrajaya, Malaysia: Ministry of Education.
Mohd Noor, S. N. F & Abd. Kadir, Z. (2007). Students’ learning preferences of English
for academic purposes-A KUiTTHO Affair. In: The Second Biennial International
103
Conference on Teaching and Learning of English in Asia : Exploring New
Frontiers (TELiA2). 1-11. Retrieved January 29, 2016 from:
http://repo.uum.edu.my/3270/1/Si1.pdf
Mohamad, F. & Mat Daud, N. (2013). The Effects of Internet-assisted Language Learning
(IALL) on the Development of ESL Students’ Critical Thinking Skills. World
Applied Sciences Journal 21 (Special Issue of Studies in Language Teaching and
Learning), 50-56, DOI: 10.5829/idosi.wasj.2013.21.sltl.2137
Mustafa, D. (2009). ESL or EFL? TESL or TEFL? Retrieved November 1, 2015 from
http://eprints.usm.my/9995/1/Nina_1.pdf
Mustaffa, R. (2006). The effects of culture on students' learning styles. 3L: Language,
Linguistics and Literature. The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language
Studies, 12, 83-94.
Nisbet, J., & Shucksmith, J. (1986). Learning strategies. Taylor & Frances/Routledge.
NSW Department of Education and Training. (2004). ESL Guidelines for Schools.
Retrieved November 1, 2015 from
https://www.det.nsw.edu.au/policies/curriculum/schools/esl_guide/pd04_23_ES
L_Guidelines.pdf
Nunan, D. (1997). Designing and adapting materials to encourage learner autonomy. In
P. Benson & P. Voller (Eds.), Autonomy and independence in language learning
(p. 192 - 203). Harlow: Longman.
O’ Donoghue, R. (2006). Study Skills: Managing your learning. Galway: Access Office,
NUI Galway.
Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Leech, N. L. (2004). Enhancing the interpretation of “significant”
findings: The role of mixed methods research. The Qualitative Report, 9, 770 –
792.
Oxford, R. (1990). Language Learning Strategies: What every teacher should know.
Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods (3rd Edition). London:
Sage.
Petersen, R., Lavelle, E., & Guarino, A. (2006). The relationship between college
students' executive functioning and study strategies. Journal of College Reading
and Learning, 36(2), 59-67.
104
Piaget, J. (1973). To understand is to invent: the future of education. Grossman: New
York.
Purcell, K., Rainie, L., Heaps, A., Buchanan, J., Friedrich, L, Jacklin, A., Chen, C., &
Zickuhr, K. (2012). How teens do research in the digital world. Pew Internet and
American Life Project Report. Retrieved 15 September 2016 from
http://www.pewinternet.org/files/oldmedia//Files/Reports/2012/PIP_TeacherSur
veyReportWithMethodology110112.pdf.
Rafi, M. S. (2010). Promoting Critical Pedagogy in Language Education. International
Research Journal of Arts & Humanities (IRJAH), 37, 63-73
Rahman, M. M. (2012). The English Language Needs of Computer Science
Undergraduate Students at Putra University, Malaysia: A Focus on
Reading. English for Specific Purposes World, 34(12), 89-102.
Rajendran, N. S. (2013). Teaching & Acquiring Higher-Order Thinking Skills: Theory &
Practice. Penerbit Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris.
Richardson, J. S., Robnolt, V. J., & Rhodes, J. A. (2010). A History Of Study Skills: Not
Hot, But Not Forgotten. Reading Improvement, 47(2), 111-123.
Rudd, R. D. (2007). Defining Critical Thinking. Techniques, 82(7), 46-49.
Ryder, M. (2008). The Cyborg and the Noble Savage: Ethics in the war on information
poverty. In R. Luppicini & R. Ladell (eds.), Handbook of research on technoethics
(p. 232-249). IGI Global.
Sarudin, I., Zainab, M. N., Zubairi, A. M., Tunku Ahmad, T. B., & Nordin, M. S. (2013).
Needs assessment of workplace English and Malaysian graduates’ English
language competency. World Applied Sciences Journal, 21, 88-94.
Savignon, S. (1997). Communicative competence: theory and classroom practice: texts
and contexts in second language learning (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Scharle, Á., & Szabo, A. (2000). Learner autonomy: A guide to developing learner
responsibility. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Şendağ, S., & Odabaşı, H. F. (2009). Effects of an online problem based learning course
on content knowledge acquisition and critical thinking skills. Computers &
Education, 53(1), 132-141.
Siegel, H. (2010). Critical Thinking. International Encyclopedia of Education, 6, 141-
145.
105
Shirkhani, S. & Fahim, M. (2011). Enhancing critical thinking in foreign language
learners. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 29, 111-115.
Singh, G. K. G., & Singh, S. K. G. (2008). Malaysian graduates’ employability
skills. UNITAR e-Journal, 4(1), 15-45.
Singh, P., Thambusamy, R.X., & Ramly, M. A. (2014). Fit or Unfit? Perspectives of
Employers and University Instructors of Graduates’ Generic Skills. Procedia-
Social and Behavioral Sciences 123, 315-324.
Staib, S. (2003). Teaching and measuring critical thinking. Journal of nursing
education, 42(11), 498-508.
Strauss, A.L. & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and
Procedures for developing Grounded Theory. Sage Publications Ltd: London.
Thang, S. M. (2005). Investigating Malaysian distance learners’ perceptions of their
English Proficiency Courses. Open Learning, 20(3), 243-256.
Thang, S.M., & Alias, A. (2007). Investigating readiness for autonomy: A comparison of
Malaysian ESL undergraduates of three public universities. Reflections on English
Language Teaching Journal, 6(1), 1-18.
Thirusanku, J., & Yunus, M. M. (2014). Status of English in Malaysia. Asian Social
Science, 10(14), 254-260.
Tsiplakides, I., & Keramida, A. (2009). Helping students overcome foreign language
speaking anxiety in the English classroom: Theoretical issues and practical
recommendations. International Education Studies, 2(4), 39-44.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Harvard University Press: Cambridge.
Wallace, E. D., & Jefferson, R. N. (2015). Developing cskills: assessing the effectiveness
of workbook exercises. Journal of College Teaching & Learning (Online), 12(2),
101-105.
Widodo, H. (2006). Approaches and procedures for teaching grammar. English
teaching, 5(1), 121-141.
Wingate, U. (2006). Doing away with ‘study-skills’. Teaching in Higher Education, 11(4),
457-469.
Wilson, B. G. (2012). Constructivism in practical and historical context. Trends and
issues in instructional design and technology, 3, 45-52.
106
Wong, J.K.K. (2004). Are the Learning Styles of Asian International Students Culturally
or Contextually Based? International Education Journal, 4(4), 154-166.
Wright, I. (2002). Challenging Students with the tools of critical thinking. Social Studies,
93(6), 257-261.
Yamat, H., Fisher, R., & Rich, S. (2014). Revisiting English language learning among
Malaysian children. Asian Social Science, 10(3), 174-180.
Yunus, A. S. M., Hamzah, R., Tarmizi, R. A., Abu, R., Nor, S. M., Ismail, H., & Bakar,
K. A. (2006). Problem solving abilities of Malaysian university
students. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education,
17(2), 86-96.
Yunus, M. M., & Arshad, N. D. M. (2014). ESL Teachers’ Perceptions toward the
Practices and Prospects of Autonomous Language Learning. Asian Social
Science, 11(2), 41-51.
