CHAPTER II

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter presents the review of the literature regarding the two areas of research that
are focused in this study. The area of self-directed learning (SDL) begins the discussion
in Section 2.2. This section is divided into several sub-topics to cover related
information about this research field. The topic of language learning strategies (LLS) is
focused in the next section. The section is also divided into several sub-topics to present
information regarding LLS that is relevant to this study.

2.2 SELF-DIRECTED LEARNING

This section is focused to discuss related literature on self-directed learning.

2.2.1 The Definition of Self-Directed Learning

Like some terms, self-directed learning (SDL) has been defined in many ways. Despite
the word “self” this learning activity does not mean that the learner has to learn in
isolation but it describes that learning is the responsibility of the learner.

Lacking a specific term that personified the wholesome meaning of SDL, various
researchers have used different terms to refer to “SDL” but each has similar meanings
and elements. In his own analysis, Hiemstra (1996) has identified as many as 247
different terms used in describing SDL such as “self-education”, ‘self-teaching” and
“autonomous learning”.
 21

Malcolm Knowles (1975), one of the names strongly synonymous to this field
defines SDL as below:

In its broadest meaning SDL describes a process in which individuals take the
initiative, with or without the help of others, to diagnose their learning needs,
formulate learning goals, identify resources for learning, select and implement
learning strategies and evaluate learning outcomes.

Candy (1991) combines both personal attributes and learning activities in his
definition.

Self-direction actually embraces dimensions of process and product and that it

refers to four distinct (but related) phenomena: “self-direction” as the
willingness and capacity to conduct one’s own education ([personal autonomy
and] self-management); self-direction as a mode of organizing instruction in
formal settings (learner-control); and “self-direction” as the individual,
noninstitutional pursuit of learning opportunities in the “natural societal setting”
(autodidaxy).

Pilling-Cormick (1994) chooses to emphasis SDL from the view of learning

process.

SDL is a process where students have the opportunity to play an active role in
developing a system of meanings to interpret events, ideas or circumstances.
They determine their priorities, choose methods and various available resources
to carry out the learning. This process reflects both characteristics of the
learning and facilitating processes and the influence of [learner] control.

Other researchers as Cranton (1992) and Grow (1991/1996) have each

defined this term in their work but the similarities are obvious. Cranton defines
SDL as:
 22

The process of voluntarily engaging in a learning experience, being free to

think or act as an individual during that experience, being free to reflect on
that experience and being able to discern change or growth as result of that
experience, regardless of the setting in which it occurs.

In his extensive work, LeJuene (2001) summarizes the definitions defined by

prominent researchers by highlighting the essential elements in each of them. This is
presented in Table 2.1.

TABLE 2.1 The Essential Elements of SDL

Year Researcher Essential Elements

1975 Knowles - process for learning
- goal for adult learners
- explicit process and set of skills (learning contracts)
for conducting SDL
1977 Guglielmino - personality trait with a component of skills or
ability
1991 Brockett & - personality trait is “self-direction”
Hiemstra - instructional method is “SDL”
1991 Candy - personal attribute (personal autonomy)
- willingness and capacity to conduct one’s own
education (self-management)
- mode of organizing instruction in formal settings
(learner-control)
- individual, noninstitutional pursuit of learning
opportunities in the natural setting (autodidaxy)
1991 Grow - learner traits for taking charge of their own
motivation, goal setting, learning and evaluation
1992 Cranton - process outcome and goal
- learners vary in their capability for SDL
1996 Pilling-Cormick - process where students determine their priorities,
choose methods and resources to carry out their
learning
- special interest in environmental factors that enable
or encourage SDL

Source: LeJuene 2001

 23

For his study, LeJuene defines SDL as “a combination of capabilities and

motivation of the learner to define learning goals and satisfy them.” He further suggests
that SDL represents these criteria:

 traits of the learner that reflect on his or her propensity toward self-directedness,
 capabilities of the learner to undertake a self-directed project,
 the actual process of undertaking the SDL project and
 the individual’s motivation toward the learning project.

Synthesizing the essential elements of SDL, the three core facets of SDL are

 learner formulated goal,

 learner initiated skills and
 learner chosen process.

Each of the researchers has, in some ways, use the above facets in their own
words as their basis for defining SDL.

2.2.2 Background of Self-Directed Learning

SDL is not a new trend in learning. In fact it has existed even from the classical
antiquity in the era of Greek philosophers as Socrates, Plato and Aristotle (Hiemstra
1994). Hiemstra quoted other historical examples whom were successful self-directed
learners such Alexander the Great, Caesar, Erasmus and Descartes.

However, not much has been heard about the great Islamic scholars who were
also self-directed learners such as Ibnu Sina or Avicenna, Al Zahrawi, Al Khawarizmi,
Al Battani and Al Biruni. Ibnu Sina, in his autobiography, stressed that he was more or
less self-taught but that at crucial times in his life he received help (Connor &
Robertson 2003). Ibnu Sina who is also known as the doctor of all doctors did not just
excel in one field but rather became the pioneer of complicated fields as philosophy,
 24

psychology, geology, mathematics, and geology (Monzur 1990). At the time of his life,
sophisticated learning tool had not existed and he obtained his knowledge through the
power of reading. His claim of having to self-teach himself reflects the power of SDL.

Al-Zahrawi or Abulcasis was one of the most renowned surgeons of the Muslim
era. His significant contributions include his famous Medical Encyclopedia (Al-Tasrif)
that covers different aspects of medical science. He was the inventor of several notable
surgical instruments and also had profound knowledge of dentistry.

Although his expertise was limited to the medical field, it was certainly diverse
and not limited to merely one area. Al-Tasrif was later translated into Latin and was
used as the basis of medical knowledge and was used in the European countries for at
least five centuries.

SDL emerges as a research field with the modern pioneer work of Houle (1961
in Hiemstra 1994). In tracing the history of SDL, Hiemstra (1994) explains that:

Effort to understand SDL took place some 160 years ago in the United States
when Craik (1840) documented and celebrated the self-education efforts of
several individuals. It was at about the same time that Smiles (1859) published a
book entitled “Self-Help” that applauded the value of personal development.

With Houle’s pioneer work about 120 years after Craik’s effort, SDL has turned
into one of the most research areas in adult education. Houle’s initial study on 22 adult
learners on their reasons for participating in learning has set groundwork for further
studies. His initial attempt was complimented by the work of Tough, one of his
tutelages whom eventually produced a book on “The Adult’s Learning Projects” in
1979.

In 1975, Knowles’s book Self-Directed Learning was published adding to the

growing interest of this field and two years later, Lucy Guglielmino developed the Self-
 25

Directed Learning Readiness Scale (SDLRS), a research instrument that has been
widely used world wide to measure the level of readiness for SDL.

SDL research went through a period of explosion in the 1980s and early 1990s.
Brookfield (1985) proclaims SDL is an idea that, at least in the world of continuing
education, has come of age. However, as claimed by Brockett et al. (2000 in Stockdale
et al. 2001), in the mid of 1990s, studies in this field slowly declines. Nonetheless, the
declination of work is not a signal of a dying interest of educators and researchers.

In the midst of the peak interest to this field, Long and colleagues established the
annual meeting of International Symposium on SDL. Ever since, it has become the
meeting ground for advocates of SDL from all over the world to meet and exchange
ideas regarding work in this field.

Locally, work in this field has emerged through the work of Norzaini Azman et
al. (2000 and 2003), Abu Daud et al. (2001) and Daing Zaidah (2003) that prove the
significance of this research area in Malaysian educational field.

2.2.3 The Importance of Self-Directed Learning

The sudden surge of interest has led to a number of works that explored the multiple
facets of SDL. One of it was the type of learners it is able to produce and its possible
benefits. Discussion as such has added to the significance of learners to practice SDL.

One common association of this field is that it is linked to adult learning. Adult
learners are said to be natural self-directed learners with the ability to set their own
goals for learning, planning and materializing it. Knowles (1973) describes self-directed
learners as possessing the ability to:

1. develop and be in touch with curiosities,

2. formulate questions that are answerable through inquiry,
3. identify data required to answer various kinds of questions,
 26

4. locate the most relevant and reliable sources of the required data,
5. select and use the most effective means of collecting data,
6. organize, analyze and evaluate data to get valid answers to questions and
7. generalize, apply and communicate those answers.

Knowles (1975), Knapper and Cropley (1991), Jarvis (1992) believe that the
activity of SDL is not only a goal of education, but also a necessity to survive in today’s
world (in Norzaini Azman et al. 2003). Knowles (1975) supports his belief with the
following explanation.

1. Those who are able to take the initiative for their learning, learn more
purposefully and with greater motivation. They can increase learning
productivity and often retain learning for longer periods of time.
2. As an essential part of maturing is taking increased responsibility for our own
lives, it becomes evident that SDL is more in tune with the natural progression
of our psychological and cognitive development.
3. As new developments in education (student-centered and independent study,
project work) become commonplace, learners are required to take a greater share
of the initiative for their learning.
4. Our world is changing at an ever-increasing rate. Change is becoming our only
stability. It is no longer realistic to envision the sole purpose of education as
transmitting what is known. Unless we are able to take the initiate for our
learning, we will be unable to keep up with the changes around us.

According to Guglielmino’s (1977 in Long and Agyukum 1984) profile of self-

directed learners, they are said to have the following traits:

1. capable of accepting responsibility for their own learning,

2. view problems as challenges rather than obstacles,
3. possess curiosity and self-discipline,
4. confidence and a strong desire to learn,
5. able to organize their time,
 27

6. able to set appropriate pace for learning,

7. able to develop a plan for completing work,
8. derive pleasure from learning and
9. goal-oriented.

The above description portrays the constructive traits of self-directed learners

and as successful learners; they will be able to gain the benefits of this learning activity.
The following are the benefits of SDL reported in a study by Taylor (1995 in Mardziah
2001).

1. Learners demonstrate a greater awareness of their responsibility in making

learning meaningful and monitoring themselves.
2. Learners are curious and willing to try new things.
3. Learners view problems as challenges, desire change and enjoy learning;
motivated, persistent, independent, self-discipline, self-confident and goal-
oriented.

Candy (1991) lists other benefits of SDL:

1. learner-control responds to the inflexibility of conventional education,

2. learner-control recognizes the way adults actually learns,
3. learner-control reflects the primacy of learning over teaching and allows for
different learning styles,
4. learner-control leads to enhanced learning through increased motivation,
5. learner-control models democratic principles and behavior and
6. learner-control in instructional settings inculcates habits of curiosity and self-
initiated inquiry and encourages the development of autodidactic.

Briefly, the importance of SDL can be viewed based on the type of learners it
can shape and the possible benefits it may bring. Both, somehow, are from the view of
Western researchers. The importance of SDL can also be connected to religious point of
view.
 28

2.2.3.1 Islam and Knowledge

Islam is one religion that stresses on the importance of knowledge and learning. No
other religion or ideology has so much emphasized the importance of “ilm” or
“knowledge” (Sayyid Wahid no date). The first Surah revealed to the Prophet
Muhammad (pbuh) was on knowledge. From the Holy Koran: “Read: In the name of
your Lord who creates, creates man from a clot. Read: And your Lord is the most
bounteous, Who teaches by the pen, teaches man that which he knew not (Surah Al
Alaq 1 – 5).

In the Holy Koran, the word “knowledge” is mentioned 660 times to prove the
significant of knowledge in Islam and to all Muslims. There are also hadiths that
highlighted the importance of knowledge. The acquisition of knowledge is a duty
incumbent on every Muslim, male and female. The pursuit of knowledge is a divine
commandment for every Muslim (Essence of Islam no date). A person who pursues the
path of knowledge, God will direct him to the path of Paradise and verily the superiority
of a learned man over an ignorant worshipper is like that of the full moon over all the
stars. That person who dies while he is acquiring knowledge in order to revive the
knowledge of religion will be only one degree inferior to the Prophet (Pearls of the
Prophet no date).

A learned man is beyond doubt well respected and honored in Islam. In Islam,
knowledge is divided into two categories: Knowledge of the Koran and Knowledge of
the Al-Bayan. Al-Bayan refers to the knowledge of sciences and its related field (Haron
Din 1991). Islam does not limit its followers to learn so long the knowledge gained is
beneficial to the learner and most importantly, is within the principle of the Holy Koran.
There seems to be a plethora of knowledge one can pursue and one has only oneself to
blame for not wanting to do so. For Muslims, their quest for knowledge can be
quenched through the method of SDL. The ability to conduct SDL will lead to open
doors to myriad of knowledge unknown to us before.
 29

2.2.3.2 Confucianism and Knowledge

For the Chinese community, the saying of Confucius of “give me a fish and I will eat
for today, teach me how to fish, I will be able to eat all my life” has become their
mantra. The simple saying encourages everyone to learn or gain knowledge as it can
help a person to live independently and meaningfully. It accentuates the importance of
knowledge and the importance of learners to be active learners and not passive.

2.2.4 Self-Directed Learning (SDL) versus Teacher-Directed Learning (TDL)

Teacher-directed learning is the contrast of SDL. Although SDL is the new trend in
learning, TDL is still valuable in its own way. In Gibbons (2002) TDL is defined as any
increased in a student’s knowledge or skill brought about by initiatives taken by a
teacher, whereas, in SDL, learners gradually take over most of the teaching operations
that are traditional in TDL. In his early work, Knowles (1975) summarizes the
differences between SDL and TDL. He focuses on the difference of focus between the
teacher and learner in learning. The following table presents Knowles’ explanation.
 30

TABLE 2.2 The Differences between Self-Directed Learning and Teacher Directed
Learning.

Teacher Directed Learning Self-Directed Learning

1. assumes the learner is essentially a
dependent personality and that the
teacher has the responsibility of
what and how the learner should be
taught
2. assumes that the learner’s
experience is of less value than that
of the teacher, the textbook, the
textbook writers and materials
producers as a resource for
learning and that therefore, the
teacher has the responsibility to see
to it that the resource of these
experts are transmitted to the
learner.
3. assumes that students enter into
education with a subject-centered
orientation to learning (they see
learning as accumulating subject
matter and that therefore learning
experiences should be organized
according to units of content)
4. assumes that students are
motivated to learn in response to
external rewards and punishments,
such as grades, diplomas, awards,
degrees and fear of failure
1. assumes that the human being
grows in capacity (and need) to be
self- directing as an essential
component of maturing and that this
capacity should be nurtured to develop
as rapidly as possible
2. assumes that the learner’s
experiences become an increasingly
rich resource for learning, which
should be exploited along with the
resources of experts
3. assumes that the students natural
orientation is task or problem centered
and that therefore learning experiences
should be organized as task
accomplishments or problem solving
learning projects (or inquiry units)
4. assumes that learners are motivated by
internal incentives, such as the need
for self-esteem, the desire to achieve,
the urge to grow, the satisfaction of
accomplishment, the need to know
something specific and curiosity

Source: Knowles 1975

In both practices of learning, teachers are still one of the components of learning
but the role of them differs. In TDL, teachers are the dominant provider but in SDL,
teachers are facilitators. To view the transition of roles of teachers from TDL to SDL
requires one to shift his/her thinking on what teaching and learning used to be. Table
2.3 presents the summary of the roles teachers play in TDL and SDL,
 31

TABLE 2.3 Shifts in Thinking about Teaching and Learning

In teacher-directed learning, the In student-directed learning, the

teacher: teacher:
 decides the course goals and the  teaches students to set their own goals
content to be studied and eventually choose what they will
study
 presents course content to students in  teaches students the skills and
lessons processes involved in setting goals,
making plans and initiating action
 sets exercises and assignments for  negotiates student proposals for
study learning and acting
 monitors completion and assesses  guides students through self-directed
accuracy of student work challenge activities
 tests and grades student performance  reviews students’ assessment of their
work

Source: Gibbons 2002

2.2.5 Self-Directed Learning Models

A number of models have been generated to depict the process learners go through in
SDL. The earliest model was proposed by Tough (1971 in Gearhart 2002) and later by
his student, Knowles (1975). The models developed later were more refined and
interactive (Gibbons 2002). One notable model was by Grow (1991/1996).

2.2.5.1 Staged Self-Directed Learning (SSDL)

Grow (1991/1996) developed the Staged Self-Directed Learning (SSDL) model in

which he described that learners can progress toward greater control of their learning.
This model was created based on certain assumptions:

 the ability to be self-directed is situational: one may be self-directed in one subject -

a dependent learner in another,
 32

 there is nothing wrong with being a dependent learner and

 self-direction can be learned and it can be taught.

Grow’s model is rather practical as it infers that SDL can be learned by all and
all that needs to be done is to go through each of the stages from the earliest to the
advance stage. Grow also recognizes the function of a teacher in each of the stages and
that different types of work demand different types of approaches by the learners. Table
2.4 illustrates the SSDL Model.

TABLE 2.4 Staged Self-Directed Learning Model

Student Teacher Examples

Stage One Dependent Authority, coach Coaching with immediate
feedback. Drill. Informational
lecture. Overcoming
deficiencies and resistance.
Stage Two Interested Motivator, guide Inspiring lecture plus guided
discussion. Goal-setting and
learning strategies.
Stage Three Involved Facilitator Discussion, facilitated by
teacher who participated as
equal. Seminar. Group projects.
Stage Four Self-directed Consultant, Internship, dissertation,
delegator individual work or self-directed
study-group.

Source: Grow 1991/1996

In this model, Grow illustrates the shift of learners’ autonomy in learning from
the teachers’ hands to theirs. Grow’s SSDL model also promotes the development of
thinking and belief that the SDL concept can be actualized through a step-by-step
process. Learners would go through levels of changes as in their roles of learners and
also thinking. For instance, successful stage 3 learners are described to be able to
develop critical thinking, individual initiative and a sense of themselves as co-creators
of the culture that shapes them (Grow 1991).
 33

2.2.5.2 The Personal Responsibility Orientation (PRO) Model

Brockett and Hiemstra (1991) developed the Personal Responsibility Orientation (PRO)
model based on the notion that people take personal responsibility for their own
thoughts and actions. By accepting responsibility for personal learning, it becomes the
first step for learners to take the proactive approach to SDL. This model is illustrated in
Chapter 1 (p8).

Assessing these two models, it can be synthesized that SDL is not an exclusive
style of learning only for certain individuals but it is one that can be practiced or
attempted by anyone. Both models show that the goal to be successful self-directed
learners is an attainable one.

2.2.6 Research Tool

The field of SDL has often been investigated using the quantitative measure of written
questionnaire and the qualitative measure of interviewing. These research tools are
often used to provide greater understanding about the nature of SDL and reasons for
participants to partake SDL activities.

2.2.6.1 Interview

The pioneer modern researcher of SDL, Cyril O. Houle (1961 in Brockett and Hiemstra
1991) used interview technique as a means to explore the reasons of 22 adult learners to
engage in various learning activities. This method provides freedom to the researchers
to explore each of their samples’ unique ways of conducting their own SDL.
Researchers are also able to probe and seek clarification on certain matters that are
unclear or needed to be clarified. The interview can be done in an informal situation to
create a friendly environment for the interviewee. Normally, researchers opt for semi-
 34

structured interview as it allows researchers to inquire further into the answers given by
the subjects.

2.2.6.2 Questionnaire

Perhaps, the most useable tool for SDL is questionnaire. While using questionnaire as
the investigative tool has its benefits, Brookfield (1985) highlighted on the possibility
that such investigative hardware can intimidate learners. This can be true if it is to be
done with certain group like the members of ethnic minorities or immigrants that are
likely to be suspicious of batteries of scales (Brookfield 1985). Nonetheless, one benefit
of questionnaire is that standard and comprehensive information can be collected
through the use of pre-formulated statements.

Currently there are two questionnaires that are widely used to investigate SDL:
Guglielmino’s Self-Directed Learning Readiness Scale (SDLRS) and Oddi Continuing
Learning Inventory (OCLI). Knowles, among the pioneers of SDL, has also developed
his own questionnaire (Knowles Self-Rating Scale) that is still being used today
(Gearhart 2002).

The development of SDLRS has initiated a series of researches in SDL field.

SDLRS is used to measure the level of readiness for SDL, select suitable learners for
SDL programs and screen learners by identifying their strengths and weaknesses in self-
direction in learning (Guglielmino 1977 in Redding 1999). Brockett (1984 in Brookfield
1985) has pointed out that SDLRS is suited to measure the readiness for SDL of adults
who have an average or above average level of formal education attainment and who
rely on books and periodicals for information. Of late, SDLRS has also been used with
young adults as used by Choy and Delahaye (2003) in their study.

OCLI is another questionnaire that is often used to measure self-direction in

learning. Oddi (1984) identified three clusters that were hypothesized to be essential
personality dimensions of self-directed continuing learners. These clusters are the basis
of OCLI. The three clusters are:
 35

 proactive drive versus reactive drive – “ability to initiate and persist in learning
without immediate or obvious external reinforcement”
 cognitive openness versus defensiveness – “openness to new ideas and activities,
ability to adapt to change and tolerance of ambiguity” as opposed to “rigidity, fear
of failure and avoidance of new ideas and activities”
 commitment to learning versus apathy or aversion to learning – “while many
individuals enjoy learning for its own sake, there are also individuals who have
little interest in learning involvement”. Those who fit the personality dimension
of self-directed continuing learners generally fall into the former category.

In order to help educators understand the factors that enhance or inhibit SDL in
their classrooms, Jane Pilling-Cormick (1991 in Pilling-Cormick 1994) created Self-
Directed Learning Test (SDLT). This instrument is used to assess students’ perceptions
of what they are experiencing and feeling during the SDL process (Pilling-Cormick
1994). The questionnaire requires respondents to answer using a combination of Likert
scale and open-ended responses. This instrument was subsequently named the Self-
Directed Learning Perception Scale (SDLPS).

2.2.7 Related Research

As this study uses Guglielmino’s SDLRS as the tool of investigation, the related studies
concentrate on those using SDLRS only.

Guglielmino, Guglielmino and Long (1987) studies concentrated on the

relationship between performance on the job and SDL readiness. Their investigation
was also designed to examine the relationship between SDL readiness and selected
variables as gender, race and age distribution. A mean score of 240 was obtained
displaying an above average readiness for SDL. SDLRS scores of females were found
to be significantly higher than the males. The mean for the female samples (416
respondents) was 243 compared to the males (323 samples) with a mean of 237. In
 36

terms of age distribution, samples in the age of 46 – 55 scored lower than those of the
other age groups. However, the researchers concluded that this result may due to the
lack of randomness in the sample with only 36 samples being in this group. The
respondents were grouped into four ethnic groups: Caucasian, Black, Hispanic and
American Indian. Whilst result revealed no significant difference in the mean score of
SDLRS of the Caucasians and Blacks, insufficient number of samples for the other two
ethnic groups failed to produce meaningful results.

Redding (1991) conducted a study among a group of amateur radio operators

addressing a few research questions to gauge the levels of readiness for SDL.
Independent factors such as gender, age and educational level were tested. 262
American radio operators participated in this study. SDLRS was used to measure the
samples’ stages of readiness and Redding also conducted interviews to provide
additional data. Correlation computation showed that there was an association between
the samples’ becoming radio operators with their stages of readiness for SDL. Redding
indicated that pursuing the career as radio operator might aid them in exploring SDL.
However, the findings also indicated that there was no association between age and
gender of the samples with their levels of readiness for SDL.

Tri Darmayanti (1994) administered SDLRS to test the readiness level of SDL
among 417 students of Universitas Terbuka Indonesia. Tri also tested the relationship
between academic performance and SDLRS. The result illustrated that there was a
significant correlation between students’ academic performance and SDLRS. The
readiness for SDL was average but senior students in the group scored higher on the
SDLRS. In terms of gender, female samples scored higher than did the male students in
the SDLRS scores.

Siaw (2000) used SDLRS to compare the readiness for SDL of business students
in an experimentation study. Two group of samples were involved: one was introduced
to the problem based learning (PBL) concept and the other group was taught in normal
tutorial situation. The latter was labeled as the non PBL group. Analysis of the findings
indicated that there was a significant improvement in the SDL readiness scores after an
 37

eight-month period when one group of learners was exposed to the PBL method. The
PBL group obtained a mean score of 206.9 after the training in PBL compared to the
non-PBL with the mean score of 202.6. The mean score before the training was 198.3
for the PBL group and 199.3 for the non-PBL group.

Gemignani (2002) used SDLRS to investigate the relationship between age

groups and the level of preparedness for SDL among learners at Northeast Wisconsin
Technical College (NWTC). Participants were grouped into four age groups: 18 – 27,
28 – 37, 38 – 47 and 48 – above. The outcome showed that learners in the age group of
48 and above have a higher level or degree of readiness for SDL than the younger
learners. Gemignani also tested the relationship of gender and learner status (full-time
or part-time) with the level of readiness for SDL. Research indicated that gender and
learner status were not the indicators of preparedness for SDL.

Shokar et al. (2002) administered SDLRS to a group of medical students to

establish if the third-year medical students at University of Texas Medical Branch
(UTMB) were more self-directed than average in their approach to learning. The
average score of 214 was used as the reference average score. The outcome showed
that the mean obtained for the group was 235.81 with standard deviation of 19.99. The
mean was significantly higher than the average adult learner mean set by Guglielmino
(1977 in Norzaini Azman et al. 2003). The range of scores for this group was 183 – 284.
Shokar et al. stated that the result showed that, as a group, this sample was more self-
directed than the general adult learners.

Norzaini Azman et al. (2003) conducted a study to examine the level of SDL
readiness of a selected sample of graduates from the Faculty of Education, UKM, using
the Malay version of SDLRS. Other variables were also examined: academic
achievement, age and teaching experience. The result indicated that the sample was
categorized in the higher level of SDLRS. Examining SDLRS against academic
achievement showed that there was no significant relationship between the two
variables. The same outcome was obtained with age factor in which the result indicated
that there was no significant relationship between age and levels of SDL.
 38

2.3 LANGUAGE LEARNING STRATEGIES

This section discusses the related literature in language learning strategies.

2.3.1 The Definition of Language Learning Strategies

Work in the area of language learning strategies (LLS) emerged in the 70s and a
number of researchers had attempted to define the term “language learning strategies”.
Similar to SDL, there is no one standard definition that is used; rather each key figure in
this area defines LLS in his/her own way. Nonetheless, there are some distinct
similarities that exist in each of the defined terms.

Tarone (1983) defines LLS as "an attempt to develop linguistic and

sociolinguistic competence in the target language - to incorporate these into one's
interlanguage competence".

Rubin (1987) later writes that LLS as “ any sets of operations, steps, plans,
routines used by learners to facilitate the obtaining, storage, retrieval, and use of
information, that is what learners do to regulate their learning”

O'Malley and Chamot (1990) defines LLS as "the special thoughts or behaviors
that individuals use to help them comprehend, learn, or retain new information"

Oxford’s (1990) definition for LLS are the “specific actions taken by the learner
to make learning easier, faster, more enjoyable, more self-directed, more effective, and
more transferable to new situations”. Later, she redefines this definition as the
following:

“specific actions, behaviors, steps, or techniques that students (often intentionally)

use to improve their progress in developing L2 skills. These strategies can facilitate
the internalization, storage, retrieval, or use of the new language. Strategies are tools
 39

for the self-directed involvement necessary for developing communicative ability”

(Oxford 1992/1993).

Cohen (1998) defines LLS as “the steps or actions that are consciously selected
by learners and which may result in action taken to enhance the learning or use of a
second or foreign language, through the storage, retention, recall, and application of
information about the language.” One interesting matter is that this is the second
definition of Cohen for LLS as he had attempted to define it earlier.

Other than the differences in the definition given by these researchers, the terms
use to refer to LLS also differ. Some as Rubin (1987) prefer to use the term “learner
strategies” (LS) while Oxford (1990) and Cohen (1998) use “language learning
strategies” (LLS). Nonetheless, both terms refer to the same idea.

2.3.2 Background of Language Learning Strategies

Research in this field began with the modest work of Rubin in 1975. Her study
provides the basis for the other subsequent studies in this field. The focus of the
pioneers’ work (Rubin 1975 and Stern 1975) seemed to be rather limited but they found
some valuable information on the knowledge that learners did use certain sets of
strategies or techniques in order to learn languages.

In her first study, on “What the good language learner can teach us?” Rubin
focused on the learning strategies used by successful language learners. She based her
study on the assumption that such strategies could be taught to the less successful
learners. Her studies confirmed that good language learners possess the following
characteristics:

 are a willing and accurate guesser,

 have a strong drive to communicate,
 are uninhibited and willing to appear foolish,
 40

 are focused on form in language use,

 look for opportunities to practice,
 monitor their speech and that of others and
 pay attention to meaning.

In the same year, Stern (1975) conducted a study on “What can we learn
from the good language learner?” and listed the following characteristics of good
language learners.

 have positive learning strategy,

 have active approach to the learning task,
 are tolerant and has outgoing approach to the target language,
 have a technical know-how to tackle a language,
 have own strategies of own experimentation and planning,
 are constantly searching for meaning,
 are willing to practice,
 are willing to use language in real communication,
 are self monitoring and have critical sensitivity to language use and
 have developed target language as a separate system and learning to think in
it.

Both researchers had the aim of finding out the strategies used by the good
language learners with the idea that these strategies might be used by the less successful
language learners (Bremmer 1999).

Naiman et al.’s (1978) study also focused on the strategies that were significant
to successful language learning. They identified the following as the learning strategies
of good language learners.

 actively involve themselves in the language learning process by identifying and

seeking preferred learning environments and exploring them,
 41

 develop an awareness of language as a system,

 develop an awareness of language as a means of communication and interaction,
 accept and cope with the affective demands of L2 and
 extend and revise L2 system by inferencing and monitoring.

Earlier researches seem to focus only on the strategies used by good language
learners. Later researches are more defined as they also aim to produce models and
taxonomy for LLS. This is discussed in the later section.

2.3.3 The Importance of Language Learning Strategies

Similar to SDL, the incorporation of LLS in learning languages will benefit the learners.
Michiko (2003) states that a teacher-centered approach to instruction, in which teachers
control all aspects of teaching and learning, has discouraged second-language learners
from being self-directed and has created receptive students. The introduction of LLS in
classroom will be able to enhance the learning of second-language learners (L2) as they
will have the ability to direct themselves in learning English.

Rubin (1987) explains that students who use effective strategies are better able to
work outside the classroom by themselves, once the teacher is not around to direct them
or provide them with input. She adds that if students are dependent on teachers to shape
language to suit them and to provide them with proper input, they can not begin to take
charge of their own learning when the teacher is not there.

Fedderholdt (1998) asserts that the ability of learners to developing skills in three
areas, metacognitive, cognitive, and socio-affective can help language learners to build
learner independence and autonomy whereby he can take control of his own learning.
Lessard-Clouston (1997) states that LLS contribute to the development of the
communicative competence of the students. This statement is supported by Oxford
(1990) as to her “LLS” are especially important for language learning because they are
 42

tools for active, self-directed movement, which is essential for developing

communicative competence”.

2.3.4 Characteristics and Features of Language Learning Behaviors

There are certain criteria that characterize language learning behaviour. The first
attempt to identify the characteristics was done by Wenden (1987) and later this
knowledge was further enhanced by Oxford (1990).

2.3.4.1 Anita Wenden’s characteristics

Anita Wenden (1987) states that there are six criteria that generally appear to
characterize the language learning behaviour.

 Strategies refer to specific actions or techniques; they are not characteristics

that describe a learner’s general approach.
 Some strategies will be observable and others will not be observable.
 Strategies are problem oriented.
 Strategies are language learning behaviors that contribute directly and
indirectly to learning.
 Sometimes, the strategies may be consciously deployed.
 Strategies are behaviours that are amenable to change.

2.3.4.2 Rebecca Oxford’s features of LLS

Rebecca Oxford (1990) describes the characteristics of LLS as possessing the following
common features.

 The main goal of the strategies is to contribute to communicative

competence. As we know, most of the languages learning activities are oriented
towards the broad goal of communicative competence.
 43

 Learning strategies allow learners to become more self-directed. This is

important because they will not always have teacher around to guide them as
they use the language outside the classroom.

 Learning strategies expand the role of teachers. Traditionally teachers are

expected to be authority, director, manager etc. In this case teachers need to help
learners to be more independent and they need to identify students’ learning
strategies. Finally, they accept new roles such as guider, diagnostician,
consultant, advisor etc.

 Learning strategies are problem oriented, since these strategies are tools to be
used to solve problems or to accomplish a task or to meet an objective. For
example a learner can use reasoning or guessing strategies to understand a
reading text better.

 Learning strategies are action based, for they are specific actions taken by the
learner in order to enhance their learning. Some examples are taking notes,
planning for a language task, self-evaluating etc.

 Learning strategies involve many aspects of the learner, not just cognitive,
since they are beyond cognition. Besides cognitive functions such as mental
processing and manipulation of the new language, strategies also include
metacognitive functions (such as planning, evaluating, arranging one’s own
learning) and emotional and social functions as well.

 Learning strategies support learning both directly and indirectly. Those

involve direct learning and use of the subject matter are called direct strategies
and those contribute indirectly to learning, including metacognitive, affective
and social strategies, are called indirect strategies.

 Learning strategies are not always observable to the human eye. For example,
while many aspects of co-operating with someone else to achieve a learning goal
 44

are observable, it is impossible to observe a learner’s act of making mental

associations.

 Learning strategies are often conscious, for most of them are conscious efforts
of learners to take control of their learning. However, after a certain amount of
use and practice, learning strategies, like any other skill or behaviour, can
become automatic.

 Learning strategies can be taught. They are teachable and the main concern of
this work is strategy training that can be considered as an essential part of
language education.

 Learning strategies are flexible, that is, they are not always found in predictable
sequences or in precise patterns. Individual learner can choose, combine and
sequence the strategies in a way he or she wants. But in some cases, such as in
reading a passage, learners use some strategies in a predictable way, for example
learners first preview the text by skimming or scanning, then read it more
closely by using guessing etc.

 Learning strategies are influenced by a variety of factors. Some examples of

these factors might be degree of awareness, learning stage, task requirements,
teacher expectations, age, sex, nationality/ethnicity, learning style, personality
traits, motivation level, purpose for learning and the language itself.

Assessing the above work of Wenden and Oxford, Radha (1996) came up with
her analysis of the common features of LLS that are mentioned in both key figures in
this field. Outlined are the nine main features.

 Enhances communicative competence

Using learning strategies provides learners with opportunities to use
meaningful, authentic language in real situations encouraging them to achieve
communicative competence. Using learning strategies enables them to plan
 45

and evaluate their progress and in the process self-confidence and motivation
in them.
 Encourages self-directed learners
With the use of learning strategies, learners will now have to take
responsibility for their learning instead of waiting to be spoon-fed. In this way,
learners move towards SDL.

 Involves problem-solving
Using learning strategies helps learners to overcome many language learning
problems they encounter. For example, memory strategies can be used to help
remember important idea; social strategies help to foster peer learning while
metacognitive strategies help by breaking down complex ideas into smaller,
more manageable parts
 Enhances learning by specific actions
Learning strategies are specific actions or steps employed by learners to
enhance learning. Examples are taking notes and associating. It does not
simply mean risk taking.
 Involves processes beyond cognition
Learning strategies go beyond cognitive processes like analyzing and reasoning
to include meta-cognitive functions like centering learning, arranging and
planning for learning. Affective and social functions are also important as they
concern emotions that affect mental processing.
 Contributes to learning directly and indirectly
Some learning strategies are directly involved in the learning of a new task or
example, using linguistic clues to guess meaning, translating from L1 to
understand materials in L2. They can also be involved indirectly when a
learner creates and seeks opportunities to learn for example, listening to the
radio or keeping a diary.
 Involves varying degrees of observability
It is not always easy to describe learning strategies as some are not observable.
If they were to ask a question to clarify an area of doubt, that would be
 46

observable but if they were to create mental links to understand a difficult

word, it would not be accessible for observation.
 Employs conscious or unconscious action
It would be a fallacy to assume that learning strategies are conscious actions
employed when there is something new to be learnt. In reality, learning
strategies often can be automatic and the learners used them automatically.

 Encourages flexibility
Learning strategies can be individualized to suit different learning styles, levels
of motivation etc. For instance, when confronted with a reading comprehension
task, some learners read the passage, skim and scan before answering the
question. Yet, others look at the questions, understand the key words and then
zero in on the words in the passage to answer the questions

2.3.5 Taxonomy of Language Learning Strategies

The extensive development on studies related to LLS has led this field to be more
distinctive. From the beginning of just compiling inventories of a good language
learner, it has grown substantially to a strong basis with the development of more
sophisticated taxonomies on strategies in language learning.

Presently, there are two taxonomies that have been used interchangeably in
studies of LLS. O’Malley and Chamot (1990) have identified twenty-two learning
strategies that are categorized into three main categories (metacognitive, cognitive and
social-affective).

In Oxford’s taxonomy, LLS are branched into two broad categories of direct and
indirect strategies. These broad categories are further classified as metacognitive,
affective, social, memory, cognitive and compensation strategies.

2.3.5.1 O’Malley and Chamot’s Taxonomy.

 47

In this taxonomy, three types of strategy are distinguished:

 cognitive strategies
These refer to the steps or operations used in problem-solving that require
direct analysis, transformation or synthesis of learning materials (Rubin
1987). They have an operative or cognitive-processing function (Ellis 1994).
 metacognitive strategies
These refer to the use of knowledge about cognitive processes and constitute
an attempt to regulate language learning by means of planning, monitoring
and evaluating. They have an executive function (Ellis 1994).
 social /affective strategies
These refer to the ways in which learners elect to interact with other learners
and native speakers (Ellis 1994).

TABLE 2.5 Learning Strategy Definitions
Learning strategy
Metacognitive
 Advance organizers
 Directed attention
 Selective attention
 Self-management
 Advance preparation
 Self-monitoring
 Delayed production
 Self-evaluation
Cognitve
 Repetition
 Resourcing
 Directed physical Relating new information to physical actions, as
response
48
Description
Making a general but comprehensive preview of
the concept or principle in an anticipated
learning activity.
Deciding in advance to attend in general to a
learning task and to ignore irrelevant distractors.
Deciding in advance to attend to specific aspects
of language input or situational details that will
cue the retention of language input.
Understanding the conditions that help one learn
and arranging for the presence of those
conditions.
Planning for and rehearsing linguistic
components necessary to carry out an upcoming
language task.
Correcting one’s speech for accuracy in
pronunciation, grammar, vocabulary or for
appropriateness related to the setting or to the
people who are present.
Consciously deciding to postpone speaking to
learn initially through listening comprehension.
Checking the outcomes of one’s own language
learning against an internal measure of
completeness and accuracy.
Imitating a language model, including overt
practice and silent rehearsal.
Defining or expanding a definition of a word or
concept through use of target language reference
materials.
with directives.
 49

 Translation Using the first language as a base for

understanding and/or producing the second
language.
 Grouping Reordering or reclassifying and perhaps labeling
the material to be learned based on common
attributes.
 Note taking Writing down the main idea, important points,
outline or summary of information presented
orally or in writing.
 Deduction Consciously applying rules to produce or
understand the second language.
 Recombination Constructing a meaningful sentence or larger
language sequence by combining known
elements in a new way.
 Imagery Relating new information to visual concepts in
memory via familiar easily retrievable
visualizations, phrases or locations.
 Auditory representation Retention of the sound or similar sound for a
word, phrase or longer language sequence.
 Key word Remembering a new word in the second
language by
- identifying a familiar word in the first
language that sounds like or otherwise
resembles the new word and
- generating easily recalled images of
some relationship between the new word.
 Contextualization Placing a word or phrase in a meaningful
language sequence.
 Elaboration Relating new information to other concepts in
memory.
 Transfer Using previously acquired linguistic and/or
conceptual knowledge to facilitate a new
language learning task.
 Inferencing Using available information to guess meaning of
new items, predict outcomes or fill in missing
information.
Social/affective
 Cooperation Working with one or more peers to obtain
feedback, pool information or model a language
activity.
 Question for Asking a teacher or other native speaker for
clarification repetition, paraphrasing, explanation and/or
examples.

Source: Chamot 1987

 50

2. 3. 5.2 Oxford’s Taxonomy of Language Learning Strategies

Ellis (1994) describes Oxford’s (1990) taxonomy as the most comprehensive

classification of learning strategies to date. He further explains that Oxford’s taxonomy
is comprehensive, as she has incorporated every strategy previously mentioned in the
other studies within her taxonomy. Generally, Oxford’s taxonomy is presented in a
hexagonal shaped box that signifies that all the strategies are interrelated to one another.
She classifies the strategies into two broad strategies: direct and indirect and in each
category, it is classified to three individual groups.

 direct strategies: memory, cognitive and compensation

 indirect strategies: metacognitive, affective and social

memory strategies
(direct)

cognitive strategies social strategies

(direct) (indirect)

compensation affective strategies

strategies (indirect)
(direct)

metacognitive strategies
(indirect)

FIGURE 2.1 : Interrelationships between Direct and Indirect Strategies among the Six
Strategy Group

Source: Oxford 1990

 51

Oxford’s symbolic hexagonal shaped explicates that these strategies support one
another and that each strategy group is capable of connecting with and assisting every
other strategy group. For example, the metacognitive category helps students to regulate
their own cognition by assessing how they are learning and by planning for future
language tasks, but metacognitive self-assessment and planning often require reasoning,
in which is itself a cognitive strategy.

The following tables illustrate the six strategy groups that are subdivided into a
total of 19 strategy sets.
 52

TABLE 2.6 Direct Strategies

DIRECT STRATEGIES
StrategiesI. Memory

A. Creating mental 1. Grouping

linkages 2. Associating/elaborating
3. Placing new words into a context
B. Applying images 1. Using imagery
and sounds 2. Semantic mapping
3. Using keywords
4. Representing sounds in memory
C. Reviewing well 1. Structured review
D. Employing action 1. Using physical response or sensation
2. Using mechanical techniques
StrategiesII. Cognitive

A. Practicing 1. Repeating
2. Formally practicing with sounds and writing systems
3. Recognizing and using formulas and patterns
4. Recombining
5. Practicing naturalistically
B. Receiving and 1. Getting the idea quickly
sending messages 2. Using resources for receiving and sending messages
C. Analyzing and 1. Reasoning deductively
reasoning 2. Analyzing expressions
3. Analyzing contrastively (across languages)
4. Translating
5. Transferring
D. Creating structure 1. Taking notes
for input and 2. Summarizing
output 3. Highlighting
A. Guessing 1. Using linguistic clues
intelligently 2. Using other clues
B. Overcoming 1. Switching to the mother tongue
limitations in 2. Getting help
speaking and 3. Using mime or gesture
writing 4. Avoiding communication partially or totally
5. Selecting the topic
6. Adjusting or approximating the message
7. Coining words
 53

III. Compensation strategies

8. Using a circumlocution or synonym

Source: Rebecca Oxford 1990

TABLE 2.7 Indirect Strategies

INDIRECT STRATEGIES
StrategiesI. Metacognitive

A. Centering your 1. Overviewing and linking with already known material

learning 2. Paying attention
3. Delaying speech production to focus on listening
B. Arranging and 1. Finding out about language learning
planning your 2. Organizing
learning 3. Setting goals and objective
4. Identifying the purpose of a language task
5. Planning for a language task
6. Seeking practice opportunities
C. Evaluating your 1. Self-monitoring
learning 2. Self-evaluating
II. Affective

A. Lowering your 1. Using progressive relaxation, deep breathing or

anxiety meditation
2. Using music
3. Using laughter
B. Encouraging 1. Making positive statements
yourself 2. Taking risks wisely
3. Rewarding yourself
Strategies

C. Taking your 1. Listening to your body

emotional 2. Using a checklist
temperature 3. Writing a language learning diary
4. Discussing your feelings with someone else
A. Asking 1. Asking for clarification or verification
questions 2. Asking for correction
 54

StrategiesIII. Social
B. Cooperating 1. Cooperating with peers
with others 2. Cooperating with proficient users of the new language
C. Empathizing 1. Developing cultural understanding
with others 2. Becoming aware of other’s thoughts and feelings

Source: Rebecca Oxford 1990

2.3.6 Research Tool

Research on LLS has been classified into three general categories: studies to define and
classify strategies, studies to describe strategies in greater detail and the types of tasks
with which the strategies are effective and studies to validate the influence of strategies
processing on learning (Vidal 2002). In exploring each category, certain research tool or
tools will be used. This sections explores the types of methods or tools that are
commonly used by researchers in conducting their studies.

2.3.6.1 Observation and intuition

Cohen (1998) explains that observational methods rely on participant or non-participant

observers to produce the data – whether from structured observation schedules, from
ethnographic field notes or from other methods. Normally, observational methods are
productive if the researcher is searching for a behavioristic proof for something.
However, in the case of learning strategies which is more of internal activities, this
method may not be the best method of obtaining data.

Rubin’s (1975) contribution to this field began with her study that combined
observation and intuition methods. It was based on this study that Rubin was able to
generate the characteristics of good language learners.

In conducting their study, Naiman et al. (1978) partly used the method of
observation to collect data. Although their research has opened up a new field in second
 55

language research, nonetheless, they too claimed that by observing the learners, they
were not able to learn much on what really happened in the process of learning.
Consequently, they suggested that asking the learner directly would bring about more
fruitful results.

2. 3.6.2 Interview

Researchers may elicit valuable information on the learners’ use of LLS through
interviewing. The researchers may lead learners to discuss a certain area of interest,
while probing in certain areas that need more clarification. In this method, learners are
given a lot of leeway in answering the questions as suited to their learning behaviour. In
semi-structured interviews, the researchers may set her own focused questions but
learners should be given the freedom to answer the questions as appropriate to her
situation.
Different types of interviews will generate different types of outcome. If the
questions used are highly structured, the data collected will be standardized and
uniformed. However, if unstructured and semi structured types of questions are used,
the researchers and learners may have a lot of freedom to venture into areas that
previously were not planned. Eventually, researchers may also obtain valuable
information from the interviews.

Noor Azima (1994) used interview as one of her methods in conducting a survey
to identify the learning strategies of twenty non-native ESL lecturers. She constructed
eleven sets of questions to be posed to the subjects. Some of the questions were rather
probing questions as they led the subjects to certain answers. From her study, she found
out that the subjects believed that strategies such as “resourcing” and
“contextualization” to be the most useful ones. The subjects appeared to exhibit a
similar pattern in the strategies used as they reported on the frequent use of these
strategies: be independent, creative, search for the opportunities to use the language and
use mnemonics.
 56

2.3.6.3 Questionnaire

Many researchers use questionnaire as a means of collecting data. The method is fairly
simple but is able to collect a great deal of information, if the questions are designed per
se. There are many types of questionnaire that have been created for this reason, from
the simple structured questionnaire designed by Ellis and Sinclair (1989) “What Sort of
Language Learner are You?” to Oxford’s SILL (1990).

In Ellis and Sinclair’s questionnaire, subjects have to answer nine simple

questions by ticking in appropriate column of “usually”, ”sometimes”, “(almost) never”
and “don’t know”. Once completed, subjects can gauge their knowledge of their own
learning by reading the comments based on their scores. There are also lists of
suggestions of strategies that students could use to help them becoming better learners.
Ellis and Sinclair created this questionnaire as part of their “Learning to learn English”,
a book to help students to plan their own learning. Although straightforward, it
manages to give some valuable insight to the students of their strategies of learning and
how to improve them.

Items in various forms of SILL were based on the author’s strategy system and
additional items were adapted from early surveys and strategy lists by O’Malley,
Chamot and Rubin (Oxford 1990). As SILL has undergone successive revisions, it is
able to cover the range of strategies in Oxford’s taxonomy (Muhamed Amin 2000). The
use of SILL has also enabled researchers to conduct factor analysis studies. In general,
the reliability of SILL is high as shown in the previous studies conducted using SILL
among Asian subjects as from Korea, Taiwan and China (Oxford and Burry-Stock
1995).

Rosna and Sharifah (1994) used SILL in their study to investigate the types of
LLS used by students at a tertiary level and also to find out if variables such as gender,
race and programme of study influenced their choice of LLS. Result indicated that the
sample preferred to use metacognitive strategies in their learning but not cognitive
strategies as they were ranked the lowest. In terms of the independent variables of
 57

gender, female students tend to favor affective strategies than the male, but no
significant differences were observed in other factors. Race had a significance effect on
affective strategies especially among the Malay sample. Nonetheless, Rosna and
Sharifah declined to make any generalization due to the biased representation of the
respondents in their study.

2.3.6.4 Diary study

Researchers may also use diaries to collect data especially if the research is done over a
period of time. This method is similar to the normal practice of keeping a diary as the
learner is instructed to write about the LLS that she used in her study. In this method,
the learner is asked to keep track of the specific strategies that she used in certain
learning activity that is assigned by the researcher. The diaries will then be collected
after some period of time to be analyzed.

Fedderholdt (1998) used diary studies as her method of finding out whether her
15 subjects employed certain LLS in their own learning. After a short introduction of
the main groups of O’Malley and Chamot’s LLS, the subjects were instructed to write
what they had done on a daily basis and then to write their own self-evaluation of how
well they had done and why. The diaries had to be submitted to Fedderholdt for reading
and comments. Through this method, she found out that generally her subjects did not
plan their studies, did not monitor their own progress and did not expect to do the
evaluation themselves. She became aware that the students had limited understanding of
what LLS are and had very little awareness of their roles as language learners. Through
this study she was able to train her students of the importance of LLS.

2.3.6.5 Verbal report

Another viable method to be used is verbal reports. This method depends highly on the
verbalized account of a learner’s mental process in completing certain process.
Numerous insights about the strategies used by learners have been obtained from these
 58

methods as they provided verbal report data before, during and after performing
language learning or language using tasks (Cohen 1998).

There are three types of verbal reports:

 self-report: learners’ description of what they do, characterized by generalized

statements about learning behaviour,
 self-observation: the inspection of specific, not generalized, language behaviour,
either introspectively, i.e. within 20 seconds of the mental event or
retrospectively and
 self-revelation: “think-aloud,” stream of consciousness disclosure of thought
processes while the information is being attended to.

Either done retrospectively or concurrently, verbal report tasks are able to yield
rich information regarding the strategies used. One common method used is the self-
revelation or the think-aloud protocol. Cordova (2003) states that think-aloud activity
allows a researcher to find out how a person approaches a problem or task and describes
the problem solving techniques or interpretations he or she uses. He adds that this
method provides rich, qualitative information about how a person reasons his or her
actions in specific situations.

Although, often used in the field of cognitive psychology, the nature of this
method suits the characteristics of LLS as the actions or activities of the mind and
hidden from our eyes. Employing thinking-aloud protocol for researchers of LLS, has
given researchers the insight of learners’ mind by asking them to talk out loud on the
strategies or steps that they have in their mind. This activity is normally taped to be
analyzed by the researcher.

Despite its usefulness, this method has its drawbacks. As the observer is present
during the taping session, the tendency for the learners to be influenced by the observer
is great. There is a possibility that learners may just quote the actions that they are
 59

aware of and not the underlying unconscious process (Cordova 2003). He adds that one
other likelihood is that learners may not be able to quote all the strategies that they plan
in their mind due to certain limitation in their language ability.

Radha (1996) used think-aloud protocol as the primary instrument to elicit the
information used by her subjects in her study. She selected six ESL students of varying
levels: beginner, intermediate and advanced. Each subject was given six language
activities to be completed. Subjects were instructed to talk aloud on the strategies that
they used in order to arrive to the answer that they got. To ensure the concreteness of
the information obtained, Radha conducted interviews as the secondary method for
verification approach.

A notable outcome from Radha’s work is her detection of new strategies used by
the learners. She categorizes them in specific category based on Oxford’s LLS scheme.

 The first strategy “reviewing well by reading to commit to memory” was grouped
under memory strategy group as learners were seen reading a passage many times
to make themselves familiar with the passage – especially when they were
confronted with a difficult passage.
 The second strategy “overcoming limitations as going by the sound of it” was
categorized under compensation strategy. Radha stated that it is common to find
Malaysian learners saying something is right just because it sounds right or because
they have heard it said that way before.
 The third new strategy “evaluating learning by self-questioning” was placed under
metacognitive strategy. In Oxford’s taxonomy, “asking questions” is a part of
“social strategy” but in this context, the learners were not directing the questions to
any persons in particular. Radha concluded that this strategy was not seen as a
social strategy but as the Malaysian learners’ way of evaluating their learning by
questioning their answers and correcting them.

2. 3.6.6 Computer technology

 60

A rather new method to find out about LLS is using computer technology. The program
has been designed in such a way that they can monitor and record certain types of
strategy use, provide both instant feedbacks for the user and easily analyzed data for the
researcher (Muhamed Amin 2000). Chapelle and Mizuno (1989 in Muhamed Amin
2000) conducted an exemplar of such research using word-processing working files as
raw data to investigate five language learning strategies used by students as they
worked on learner-controlled CALL grammar lessons.

2.3.7 Related Research

The section looks at some other researches that used SILL as the instrument in their
studies.

Chang (1990) carried out a study to find out the type of LLS used by overseas
Chinese students during their sojourn in the US and how their LLS use related to an
array of personal and background variables such as levels of English oral proficiency,
academic major and gender. The outcome specified that among the six types of LLS,
the samples favored compensation strategies the most and affective strategies the least.
It is interestingly noted that students of different English oral proficiency did not differ
significantly from one another in the frequency of their overall LLS use. Nonetheless,
the academic major of the samples seemed to have strong effects on their use of LLS.
Students majoring in Humanities, Social Science and Education employed more usage
of LLS compared to students majoring in Science. Gender factor also did not
significantly affect their use of overall LLS.

Liston (1995) investigated on the possibility of gender difference in LLS used

among ESL students at the University of Alaska Anchorage. Utilizing SILL to a group
of 52 samples, the study conducted showed that gender was not a factor that led to
differences in LLS use.
 61

Bremmer (1998) used SILL to conduct a survey of the LLS used by a group of
Hong Kong learners. The aim of the study was to investigate levels of strategies use
among the group of 149 subjects studying at the City University of Hong Kong.
Bremmer found that among the six types of strategies, compensation and metacognitive
were the most used while affective and memory strategies were the least used. The
mean score for compensation strategies was 3.36 indicating them as medium users
while the mean score for memory was 2.85, which is also in the medium category

Mohsen (1998) used SILL to investigate whether students of different gender and
school majors used different LLS. A total of 602 samples from Baptist University were
involved in this study. Both variables were found to have significant difference in the
use of LLS. There was significant difference in five groups of strategies (cognitive,
compensation, metacognitive, affective and social strategies) that showed the male and
female samples used different types of LLS. However, it was found that there was no
significant difference between students of different majors as in Science, Arts and
Communication and the types of strategies used.

Osanai (2000) attempted to investigate whether or not differences exist between

female and male students and also between Latino and Asian students in the use of LLS.
SILL was used as the tool of measurement. The findings indicated that there was no
statistically significant gender difference in the use of LLS as a whole. Nonetheless,
female students tend to use strategies more often than the males, especially in the social
and affective strategies. There was also no significant difference between the uses of
LLS between the two groups of samples. Students who major in
Science/Computer/Health Science reported to use more strategies than Business/Law
students. Statistically, there was no significant difference between Latino and Asian
students in their use of strategies. Nonetheless, Latino students generally reported using
strategies more frequently than their Asian counterparts. The Latino learners were found
to use more metacognitive and social strategies that the Asian learners.

Wafa (2000) conducted a study on 99 male and female students studying at An-
Najah University, Palestine in their use of LLS. Wafa concentrated on the variables of
 62

gender and proficiency. In general, results showed that gender and proficiency produced
no significant differences on the use of strategies. SILL analysis also showed that the
samples fell in the range of high to medium users of LLS. They preferred to use
metacognitive strategies and the least used strategies were the compensation strategies.

Premvadee (2002) conducted a study on the LLS used by English major students
at the Faculty of Arts, Chulalongkorn University in Bangkok. The outcome indicated
that the subjects used LLS moderately (3.26). Among the six types of strategies, it was
found that they used compensation strategies the most (3.50). Analysis was done on
whether learners that had been abroad might perform differently in SILL, but result
indicated that the tested variable did not have any stance in the sample’s performance in
SILL. The group that had been abroad had a mean score of 3.29 while the other group
obtained a mean of 3.22.

2.4 CONCLUSION

This chapter looks at the related literature regarding the two research areas: self-directed
learning and language learning strategies. Some common features are rather obvious as
in the non-existence of one specific definition to express each idea. Similarities are clear
in the methods used to investigate the use of SDL and LLS. Researchers in both fields
use interview and questionnaire as their main instruments to complete their research.
Models and taxonomies relevant are also presented in this chapter. Few of the
researches conducted in this study have been quoted to support the importance of
conducting another study of the same subject matter.