the effects of self regulated learning strategy on oral communication performance of non english majors at bach viet college

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING
HO CHI MINH CITY OPEN UNIVERSITY

THE EFFECTS OF SELF-REGULATED LEARNING STRATEGY ON
ORAL COMMUNICATION PERFORMANCE OF NON-ENGLISH
MAJORS AT BACH VIET COLLEGE

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of Master of Arts in TESOL

Submitted by LE THI THU DAN

Supervisor: TRAN THI MINH PHUONG, Ph.D.

HO CHI MINH City
October, 2015


MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING
HO CHI MINH CITY OPEN UNIVERSITY
------------------------------------------

LE THI THU DAN

THE EFFECTS OF SELF-REGULATED LEARNING STRATEGY ON
ORAL COMMUNICATION PERFORMANCE OF NON-ENGLISH
MAJORS AT BACH VIET COLLEGE

Major: TEACHING ENGLISH TO SPEAKERS OF OTHER LANGUAGES
Major code: 1286014100010

MASTER OF ARTS IN TESOL

Supervisor: TRAN THI MINH PHUONG, Ph.D.

HO CHI MINH City, 2015


ABSTRACT

The ultimate aim of language learning is communication and self-regulated learning has
displayed strong impacts on learners’ oral communication. In fact, few studies on selfregulated strategy and its impacts on students’ oral communication performance was
conducted, or those studies did focus on motivational aspects rather than metacognitive and
cognitive strategies whose focal roles have been recognized. Thus, the study on ‘The Effects
of Self-regulated Learning Strategy on Non-English Majors’ Oral Communication
Performance’ was satisfactorily carried out. The sample size consisted of 86 preintermediate non-English majors, 43 each in experimental and control groups. The study
involved qualitative and quantitative methods using pre-and-post oral tests with the same
formats to the two groups. Basically, communicative language teaching was applied to the
control group and communicative language teaching plus self-regulated learning strategy was
implemented to the experimental group. The study finds that self-regulated learning strategy
can be operationalized by directly or indirectly infusing metacognitive and cognitive
strategies into the lessons. Remarkably, positive impacts of the self-regulated learning
strategy on students’ oral communication are explored in this study. In addition, students’
positive attitudes towards self-regulated strategy have been revealed through the
questionnaire and interviews. Furthermore, the study highlights self-regulated strategy need
to be put into consideration for future research to to enhance students’oral communication
and to facilitate their lifelong learning.

i

TABLES OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................. I
STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP .......................................................................................... II
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT .......................................................................................................... III
TABLES OF CONTENTS ......................................................................................................... IV
LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES.......................................................................................... V
LIST OF ABRREVIATIONS .................................................................................................... VII
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 1
1.1. BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY .................................................................................... 1
1.1.1. Self-regulated learning in Vietnam ........................................................................... 1
1.1.2. The school context..................................................................................................... 3
1.2. PURPOSES OF THE STUDY .............................................................................................. 6
1.3. RESEARCH QUESTIONS ................................................................................................... 6
1.4. SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY ...................................................................................... 7
1.5. ORGANIZATION OF THE STUDY ................................................................................... 7
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................. 8
2.1. THEORETICAL GROUNDING ........................................................................................... 8
2.2. SELF-REGULATED LEARNING ....................................................................................... 9
2.2.1. Definitions of self-regulated learning.......................................................................... 9
2.2.2. Instruments to measure self-regulated learning........................................................... 11
2.2.3. Challenges to foster self-regulated learning in classroom........................................... 13
2.3. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SELF-REGULATED LEARNING, SELF-DIRECTED
LEARNING AND AUTONOMY ................................................................................................ 13
2.4. SELF-REGULATED LEARNING STRATEGIES .............................................................. 15
2.4.1. Overview of language learning strategy .................................................................... 15
2.4.2. Self-regulated learning strategy in language learning ............................................... 15
2.5. SELF-REGULATED LEARNING STRATEGY AND ORAL COMMUNICATION IN
LANGUAGE LEARNING ........................................................................................................... 16
iv

2.6. CHARACTERISTICS OF SELF-REGULATED LEARNERS ............................................ 17
2.7. THE FRAMEWORK OF THE STUDY................................................................................ 19
2.7.1. Metacognitive strategies in language learning........................................................... 20
2.7.2. Cognitive strategies in language learning .................................................................. 21
2.7.3. Metacognitive and cognitive strategies in language learning .................................... 22
2.8. INSTRUCTIONAL APPROACHES TO DEVELOP SELF-REGULATED LEARNING .. 25
2.9. PROCEDURES TO IMPLEMENT SELF-REGULATED LEARNING STRATEGIES ..... 28
2.9.1. Forethought and planning phase.................................................................................. 29
2.9.2. Monitoring phase ......................................................................................................... 29
2.9.3. Reflection phase .......................................................................................................... 30
2.10. TEACHER’S ROLES IN DEVELOPING SELF-REGULATED LEARNING
STRATEGIES ....................................................................................................................... 32
2.11. BACHMAN’S FRAMEWORK OF ORAL COMMUNICATION COMPETENCE ......... 33
CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY..................................................................... 35
3.1. RESEARCH QUESTIONS ................................................................................................... 35
3.2. DESIGN OF THE STUDY.................................................................................................... 35
3.2.1. The two chosen classes................................................................................................ 37
3.2.2. The procedures of a typical Communicative Language Teaching lesson plan ........... 38
3.2.3. Procedures of self-regulated learning strategy lesson plan ......................................... 40
3.3. MEASUREMENT INSTRUMENT ...................................................................................... 44
3.3.1. Tests............................................................................................................................. 44
3.3.2. Interviews .................................................................................................................... 44
3.3.3. Questionnaire............................................................................................................... 45
3.3.4. Classroom observations ............................................................................................... 47
3.4. VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY OF THE STUDY ............................................................ 47
CHAPTER 4 DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSIONS OF RESULTS ............................. 49
4.1. ANALYZING DATA AND INTERPRETATION ............................................................... 49

v

4.1.1. Comparisons in students’ oral communication performance in the pre-tests and
post-tests ..................................................................................................................... 49
4.1.2. Reliability statistics of the questionnaire..................................................................... 53
4.1.3. Descriptive analysis of the questionnaire .................................................................... 53
4.1.4. Students’ level use of SRLS ........................................................................................ 61
4.1.5. The relationship between students’ level use of self-regulated learning strategy and
their oral test results .................................................................................................... 63
4.1.6. Students’ attitudes towards self-regulated learning strategies .................................... 65
4.2. DISCUSSIONS OF THE FINDINGS ................................................................................... 66
4.2.1. Finding from statistic analysis ..................................................................................... 66
4.2.2. Finding from teacher’s observations and interviews with students ............................ 67
4.2.3. Summary of the findings of the research ..................................................................... 71
CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATION ............ 74
5.1. MAJOR CONCLUSIONS ..................................................................................................... 74
5.2. LIMITATIONS ...................................................................................................................... 76
5.3. IMPLICATIONS ................................................................................................................... 77
5.4. RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................................................... 79
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................ 81
APPENDIXES ............................................................................................................................. 98

vi


LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES

FIGURES
Figure 2.1: The directive process of self- regulated learning and achievement ........................... 11
Figure 2.2: A cyclic model of self regulatory learning ................................................................ 31

TABLES
Table 1: The distribution scale of oral test of Bach Viet College ................................................. 5
Table 2: Self-regulated learning strategies .................................................................................. 23
Table 3.1: The structure of experimental design .......................................................................... 36
Table 3.2: The design of the study ................................................................................................ 36
Table 3.3: Communication in the Modern Language Classroom ................................................. 38
Table 3.4: Summary of the a typical CLT lesson plan ................................................................ 39
Table 3.5: The schedule of the intervention................................................................................. 41
Table 3.6: Summary of the main procedures of the SRLS lesson plans ..................................... 42
Table 3.7: The aims of the items in the questionnaire ................................................................. 46
Table 4.1: Summary of the pre-test resultof the EG and CG ....................................................... 49
Table 4.2: Summary of the pre-and-post-oral test results of the CG ........................................... 50
Table 4.3: Summary of the pre-and-post-oral test results of the EG ........................................... 51
Table 4.4: Summary of the post-test results of the EG and CG ................................................... 52
Table 4.5: The descriptive statistics of Metacognitive items ....................................................... 54
Table 4.6: Summary of Item-total statistics of Metacognitive items .......................................... 56
Table 4.7: The descriptive statistics of Cognitive items ............................................................... 56
Table 4.8: Summary of Item-total statistics of Cognitive items .................................................. 58
Table 4.9: The descriptive statistics of Attitude items .................................................................. 59
Table 4.10: Summary of Item-total statistics of Attitudes items ............................................... 60
Table 4.11: The level use of Metacognitive strategies ................................................................ 61
Table 4.12: The level use of Cognitive strategies ......................................................................... 62
Table 4.13: The of level use of Metacognitive and Cognitive strategies ..................................... 63
vii


Table 4.14: The ANOVA regression ........................................................................................... 63
Table 4.15: Model summary ....................................................................................................... 64
Table 4.16: The coefficients in SPSS regression .......................................................................... 64
Table 4.17: Students’ attitudes towards SRLS ............................................................................ 65

viii


LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
CG:

Control Group

CLT:

CommunicativeLanguage Teaching

EFL:

English as a Foreign Language

EG:

Experimental Group

SRL:

Self-regulated Learning

SRLS:

Self-regulated Learning Strategy

Sig. (2- tailed):

Significance (two-tailed)

SPSS:

Statistical Package for the Social Sciences

ix


CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

This chapter deals with the overall picture of the study. In this part, current language
learning and teaching of Vietnamese settings in general and Bach Viet College in particular are
figured out. Together with possible instruments used to measure self-regulated learning
strategies, challenges to implement self-regulated learning strategiesin classrooms are presented.
Especially, research aims, research questions and significance of the study are shed the light on
in this chapter.
1.1. BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY
1.1.1. Self-regulated learning in Vietnam
The idea of the current study originated from multiple folds. The first and foremost
reason to carry out the study is the researcher’s extreme concern to foster self-regulated learning
since self-regulated learning strategy is believed to have positive impacts on students’ oral
communication performance (Cohen, Weaver and Li 1998; Lam, 2009; Qi Wu, 2012; Bekele
2013; Aregu, 2013). Second, a bunch of research has proved strong correlations between selfregulated learning strategy (SRLS) and students’ language achievement; however, whether or not
self-regulated learning (SRL) positively impacts students’ oral communication are still in vague,
and SRL research, especially under quasi-experiment, is completely absent from the literature in
Vietnam. Third, previous studies on SRLS did focus on motivational beliefs rather than actual

strategies, namely metacognitive and cognitive strategies though the two strategies can
significantly enhance students’ speaking achievement (Cohen, 2010). Next, it is said that
Vietnamese students have ranked the fifth in the extra learning and teaching in the world (Người
lao động, 2014), which has raised an urgent ringbell to educators, educational authorities because
it seems that Vietnamese students have been overly dependent upon their teachers and therefore
they lack SRLS. Last but not least, it was resulted from the teacher researcher’s classroom
observations when working with students of the current school. As carefully noted in her
teaching diary, students’ trouble shootings are of (1) lack of necessary skills and strategies (2)
over dependence on their teachers, (3) low motivation in language learning, (4) lack of critical
skills and (5) poor oral performance. Students come to class to receive knowledge rather than
construct it. In fact, CLT is efficient to enhance students’ communication because it is one of the
methods designed to help language learners use the target language in their daily conversations
1


or to enhance their speaking skills (Nurhayati, 2011). CLT approach works with the current
context, indeed. However, when working with students in the previous courses, the teacher
researcher notices that most of the students possess a low level of self-evaluation and reflection
which are necessary for their development. Moreover, most of the students have never known
about goal setting and planning and many of them come to class just to check attendance. In
other words, those students seem to lean on their teacher and make little effort to improve their
learning. As a result, they fail to achieve high in their speaking performance. Besides, few
teachers in the school, to the researcher’s best knowledge, have applied or even known about
SRLS.
In addition to an investigation of students’ attitudes towards SRLS in a college, DakLak,
Vietnam, the finding displays that most participants show their very low level of SRLS although
they have positive attitudes towards SRLS (Tran and Duong, 2013). As such, the scenario has
added to the rooted belief that Vietnamese students are passive learners since the teaching and
learning English in Vietnam is limited to ‘giving students a fish’ and far from ‘teaching them
how to fish’ (Trinh, 2005) and hence, the main task of a teacher of English as a Foreign

Language (EFL) in Vietnamese contexts is to transmit knowledge to his or her students (Trinh,
2005) rather than teaching students to be responsible for or to self-regulate their own learning.
Moreover, that Vietnamese learners are influenced by Confucian perspectives in that there are
“traditional beliefs of relational hierarchy” in classrooms (Humphreys and Wyatt, 2014; Nguyen,
Terlouw, and Pilot, 2006) has ascribed to the aforesaid viewpoint. As a result, Vietnamese
students have not achieved high performance as expected (Dung, 2011). However, Littlewood
(2000) indicates that our preconceptions about Asian learners, including Vietnamese learners do
not reflect their real characteristics, and that students are not that passive but “they would like to
be active and independent” in their learning (Littlewood, 2000, p. 34). This brings a new
direction of thinking about how students learn and want to learn in Vietnam.
Furthermore, Tomlinson and Dat (2004) report that learners would welcome changes to
the culture of their classrooms. It means whether or not Vietnamese students can become
independent and active to self-regulate their own learning is basically of teacher’s accountability
to create active and self-regulatory learning environments. In addition, SRLS, which include
metacognitive strategies grouped and used to engage in conversations and cognitive strategies
used to compensate for linguistic shortcomings in students’speaking practice can better students’
achievement (Cohen, 2010). For that reason, the study has embraced ambitions to (1) test

2


whether or not SRLS positively enhance students’oral communication performance within
English language learning of Vietnamese contexts (2) instruct students in a more self-regulated,
responsible and autonomous way for their language learning to ultimately improve their
academic achievement and facilitate their life long learning (3) make significant contributions
into the teaching and researching of EFL in Vietnam and worldwide. However, it’s better to
clarify the school context where the study was conducted.
1.1.2. The school context
Bach Viet College has put the foci on students’ English working environments for
students’ future jobs; thus, English has been one of the main concerns of the school. Students at

Bach Viet College have different social backgrounds. Most of them, as far as the researcher’s
extent, come from countryside areas or provinces nearby in which they used to be inherited
English of traditional or grammatically focused teaching method. Moreover, English is not put
into account by most students because it is not counted in their university entrance exam.
Thereby, most of them had put English aside for a long time in order to focus on their entrance
exam subjects to be. As a result, their English oral communication competence is generally at an
average to a low level. In addition, the teacher researcher notices that majority of students fail to
pronounce a simple word or even they could not express their simplest ideas in English correctly.
This may explaine for the Grammar-focused or written-test curriculum. In essence, this situation
has been commonly shared among the ESL contexts in Vietnam, which is similar to other
countries in ASEAN (Gordon, 2002; Orsi and Orsi 2002; Riemer, 2002; Cowling, 2007).
In terms of English courses, at the beginning of the school year, students are seated in
Basic One classes to take baby steps to learn, and their final grade of the first semester will
accordingly determine their level of the coming courses. In other words, they are supposed to
fulfill four credits of English which are equivalent to four semesters. Each semester prolongs two
months within eight weeks. Students meet twice a week for their English classes in 135 minutes
without break time. During a semester, students may take two or three 15-minute tests and seat in
a written test in the middle of the course. The written test evaluates students in areas of
Vocabulary, Grammar and skills such as Reading and Listening and Writing and an oral test is
rigorously carried out one week after the end of the course. Hence, teachers could evaluate
students’ progression in different forms of assessment.

3


Teachers of the school generally have at least 2 years teaching experience and they all
must be active to work with inside and outside activities such as Orientation Days, Cultural
Exchanges, English Speaking club, Fun to Learn English Club and so forth. Regarding teaching
and learning English, the school is unique in their aim to apply communicative language
teaching (CLT) to enable students to use English in daily conversations. However, due to some

reasons such as limited span of the course, the burden of the curriculum, the lack of
environments to practice English, students’ shortages in critical skills, CLT, to the researcher’s
viewpoint, is not enough for students to obtain the expected achievement in oral communication.
Normally, there are two teachers sharing one class and a specific skill and area are in
charge by an individual teacher in a certain day of the schedule. So, the teacher researcher had to
ask permission for fully in charge of the control and experimental classes. In addition, all
students of all majors are required to pass Test of English for International Communication
(TOEIC) from 300 scores onwards, which is one of the prerequisites for college students to
graduate from the school. In general, students at the college have more opportunities to practice
English.
Regarding school settings, its branches are located across districts nearby Ho Chi Minh
City. The current research was carried out in Campus 2 in Go Vap district because this campus is
equipped with more modern and technological equipments such as projectors, microphones,
sound systems, sub-boards, air-conditioners, libraries, CD, VCD players and internet access to
best serve English classes. In other words, students and teachers are satisfactorily facilitated with
the best conditions for the learning and teaching practice.
In order to best facilitate English learning and maximize students’ oral communication,
the school uses many prestigious publications for the English communicative curriculum. There
is a combination of many books namely Smart Choice, Grammar Dimension, Learning to Listen,
Panorama-Building Perspective for Reading to serve Vocabulary, Grammar, Listening and
Reading lessons, respectively. Skills and areas are combined in one lesson; for instance,
Vocabulary and Listening are combined in one and Reading and Grammar are in one. The
sample syllabuses of the CG and the EG are respectively embedded in APPENDIX A and
APPENDIX B.
In terms of oral assessment, based on criteria of Language Testing by Alderson (1991)
with some adaptation to suit the current level of students and the objectives of the course, oral
4


tests are used to assess students’ oral communication. Students’ oral assessment is based on the

distribution Scale of Oral Test, designed by the school as follows:
Table 1: The distribution scale of oral test of Bach Viet College
Criteria
Part 1
Pronunciation

Fluency

Accuracy

Response

I

2 marks

II

1 mark

1 mark

1 mark

1 mark

III

1 mark

1 mark

1 mark

1 mark

Total

Table 1 presented the distribution scale of oral test of Bach Viet College of school year
2014-2015. As we can see, there are three fundamental components assessed: Pronunciation,
spoken production and spoken interaction respectively accounted for 20%, 40% and 40% of the
overall band score of 10. For the first component, students are expected to read aloud a short
reading passage and correctly pronounce the words.
Next, they have five minutes to prepare the topic which is randomly picked by an
individual student and it takes two minutes for him/her to present the random topic. All the
topics are close to the real life situations, embedded in the course syllabus. In this phase, students
are supposed to precisely use grammar, range of vocabulary and meaningful contents of the
topic.
Then, students are asked to respond to the questions by an examiner with higher
expectation of a variety of structures and vocabularies requiring fluency, appropriateness,
precision and ideas. All examiners share the same format of the questions. To validate oral test’s
results, students’ oral performances and examiners’ questions are carefully recorded. The grade
punctuation includes four level of achievement as below:
1-

Excellent = from 9.0 onwards

2-

Good = from 7.0 to less than 9.0

5


3-

Rather good = from 5.0 to less than 7.0

4-

Under average = under 5.0.

At level 4, students are treated as a failure in the exam and have to retake another test. If
they constantly fail in the second, they are supposed to repeat the class in the next semester. The
school context has already been analyzed, which highlights the setting where the study was
conducted. At first, it is necessary to state the purposes of the study.
1.2. PURPOSES OF THE STUDY
The current study aims to examine the effects of SRLS on the oral communication
performance among non-English major students at Bach Viet College using mixed methods. It
also checks the hypothesis of that whether students who are infused with SRLS gain better
achievement in oral tests than their counterparts, who traditionally learn in Communicative
Language Teaching (CLT). In addition, mixed instructional methods and reliable instruments are
used to examine the level use of SRLS use and students’ attitudes towards the SRLS
implementation.
1.3. RESEARCH QUESTIONS
Based on the research aims, the current study seeks to answer the two following
questions:
1. To what extent do the self-regulated learning strategies enhance students’
achievement regarding their oral communication performance?
2. What are students’ attitudes towards the self-regulated learning strategies?
In fact, the first research question aims to explore the extent to which self-regulated

learning strategies, namely meta-cognitive including goal setting and planning, self-evaluation
and cognitive strategies involving rehearsing and memorizing, organizing and transforming,
keeping records and monitoring, reviewing records to enhance students’ oral communication
performance. Students’ attitudes towards applying, usefulness and future use of SRLS are drawn
out in the second research question.

6


1.4. SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY
The study contributes into the rare literature on SRLS in language learning and teaching
within Vietnamese contexts, and the quasi-experimental research has provided more solid and
concrete evidence of the effects of the SRLS towards students’ oral communication, which has
been still in debate in educational research nationwide and worldwide. Moreover, a combination
of metacognitive and cognitive strategies has significant impacts on students’ oral achievement.
In addition, the instructional model of the study can be a reference for EFL teachers to apply in
their classroom since SRLS proves effective to develop students’ language learning skills to
enhance their language achievement.
1.5. ORGANIZATION OF THE STUDY
The study includes five chapters. Chapter one consists of the background of the study,
rationales to carry out the study, school context, theoretical grounding, research aims, research
questions, significance and organization of the study. Chapter two summarizes the literature of
the previous studies on SRLS including definitions, models of the SRLS and implemented model
of SRLS. In this part, each strategy is defined to shed the light on the research design, the
benefits of applying SRLS in language learning. In chapter three, the study focuses on the
research methodology as describing the objectives of the study, measurements and instruments
used in the study. In addition, the reliability and validity of the study are rigorously discussed
herein. Chapter four works out the results, analysis and discussions of the findings of the study.
Along with recommendations, suggestions for further research on SRLS, major conclusions,
contributions and limitations of the study are included in chapter five.

To sum up, chapter one draws out the whole picture of the study as it encompasses the
rationales to conduct the research, school context, possible instruments to measure the variables,
purposes of the research, research questions and significance and organization of the study. In
other words, it is not only an orientation for the coming parts but also the cornerstone of every
aspect of the study.

7


CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

The study is conducted to examine the effects of SRLS on students’ oral communication
performance at a tertiary level. In this SRLS model, metacognitive and cognitive strategies are
believed to positively impact students’ oral communication achievement. The literature review
consists of three major parts. The first encompasses definitions of self-regulated learning. The
second comprises of an overview of SRLS, its historical framework of relevant studies on selfregulated learning and its relation towards academic achievement. This part provides a wider and
deeper perspective into SRLS. Afterward, some justifications are underpinned from the current
research.
2.1. THEORETICAL GROUNDING
In an effort to apply SRLS into classrooms, teachers should be aware of the utmost
position of SRLS towards students’ achievement. In essence, an abundance of theories and
models of SRLS has been displayed by Bandura (1986), Zimmerman and Martinez-Ponds
(1986), Pintrich and De Groot (1990), Schunk and Zimmerman (1994), Zimmerman (1998,
2000), Wang (2004), Nota, Soresi and Zimmerman (2004). Among those, Zimmerman (1989)
assumes SRL belongs to metacognitive, motivational, and behavioral elements. According to
Zimmerman, strategies and motivation and actions are involved to monitor the SRL process.
Later, Zimmerman (1990) emphasizes motivational beliefs and cognitive strategies since the two
elements help increase students’ success. In other words, Zimmerman’s instructional models

encompass volition and learning strategies, namely metacognitive and cognitive strategies. In
this way, self-regulated learners approach learning tasks in a mindful and confident manner.
They set goals proactively and adapt their plans to certain situations and eventually reach their
set goals (Cleary and Zimmerman, 2004). In contrast, if they do not use strategies effectively,
they may come up with failure and anxiety (Kurman, 2006). It can be said that students’
motivational beliefs and strategies can serve as indicators for their success. Similarly, Pintrich
and his colleages argue motivational strategies and learning strategies are the two essential
aspects of SRL (Pintrich and De Groot, 1990; Garcia and Pintrich, 1994). The former are used to
cope with stress and emotions that are sometimes generated during their learning. The latter deal
with understanding, intergration and retention of new information in the learning process.
However, Bandura (1997) focuses on individuals’ motivational processes. In those
processes, individual learners shape their beliefs about their abilities, set positive outcomes and
anticipate different pursuits and goals for themselves. In this sense, he emphazises self-efficasy
8


beliefs have a significant role in regulation and motivation is supported by self-regulatory
strategies, which are cognition and metacognition (Pintrich and De Groot,1990).
Among the aforementioned models, Pintrich’s (2000) model of SRLS fits the objectives
of the present study since it relates the use of SRLS to academic achievement, in which it covers
cognitive and metacognitive aspects and other social, contextual features of the learning
environment. In essence, Pintrich’s is based on Bandura’s (1986) socio-cognitive framework as
different processes of SRLS are classified and analyzed. Self-regulation activities of these phases
are structured into four areas: cognitive, motivational, behavioral, and contextual aspects. In
other words, motivational beliefs, metacognitive and cognitive strategies are mainly focused in
SRLS studies. Besides, Pintrich (2000) highlights the use of strategies and students’
metacognitive and cognitive strategies are turned into actions, into academic skills and into
achievement. In the same vein, Hsiao and Oxford ( 2002) affirm learning strategy is a useful tool
for dynamic and conscious learning that leads to self-regulation and better achievement.
Moreover, Cohen (2010) argues that metacognitive strategies that are grouped and used to

engage in conversations and cognitive strategies that are used to compensate for linguistics
shortcomings in students’ speaking practice. In addition, “a combination of cognitive and
metacognitive strategy training more effectively enhances learning” (Purpura, 1999, p. 311).
Thereby, metacognitive and cognitive strategies, the spirit of the current study, are thoroughly
clarified and analyzed to suit the purposes of the study.
2.2. SELF-REGULATED LEARNING
2.2.1. Definitions of self-regulated learning
There have been numerous definitions of self-regulated learning, which makes it difficult
to adopt the best one. Since 1990s, the formation of self-regulation has been named “selfcontrolled”, “self-instructed”, or “self-reinforced” (Zimmerman,1986) to explain learners’
capacity to learn on their own and to understand their motivation to do so. In this sense, SRLS is
learners’ strong motivation to monitor their positive emotions to learn on their own. In the same
vein, SRL varied from autonomous learning to self-planned learning or self-education and selfefficacy (Hiemstra, 2004). Lemos (1999) assumes SRL as ability, capacity and strategies
(Pintrich, 1999) or as a process (Pintrich, 2000; Zimmerman, 2000). It means that self-regulated
learners possess strong volition, motivation and ability strategies to handle with tasks. In other
words, self-regulated learning in this sense is learners’ motivation for their continuous learning.
Besides, self-regulated learning is viewed as self-regulated thoughts, feelings and behaviors that
9


are oriented and “cyclically adapted” to attain the pre-set goals (Zimmerman, 2000, p. 14).
Generally, self-regulated learning in the above definition closely relates to learners’ motivation,
capacity and volition to continue their leanring process. Apart from dissimilar perspectives,
thoughts, feelings and actions are interconnected to metacognitive, motivational and behavioral
dimensions, which is the common point among the theorists. In other words, SRL is treated as a
psychological construct that describes how learners metacognitively, motivationally and
behaviorally improve their learning (Zimmerman and Schunk, 2001a). In brief, metacognitive,
motivational, and behavioral dimensions are the common points among the aforementioned
theorists. However, these definitions seem to emphasize motivational dimention rather than
actual strategies that may directly impact students’ performance.
Pintrich (2000a) defines SRL as "an active, constructive process whereby learners set

goals for their learning and then attempt to monitor, regulate, and control their cognition,
motivation, and behavior, guided and constrained by their goals and the contextual features in the
environment" (p. 453). Pintrich (2000b) relates SRL and academic achievement in a multifaceted
approach:
… Self-regulated learning is that it is an active, constructive process whereby learners set goals
for their learning and then attempt to monitor, regulate, and control their cognition, motivation,
and behavior, guided and constrained by their goals and their contextual features in the
environment. These self-regulatory activities can mediate the relationships between individuals
and the context, and their overall achievement…(p. 453).

At best, SRLS, according to Pintrich (2000), takes place when students engage their
meta-cognition, cognition, motivation and resource management to ultimately enhance their
performance.
Later, Zumbrunn, Tadlock and Roberts (2011) contend SRL is a process that assists
students in managing their thoughts, behaviors and emotions in order to successfully navigate
their learning experience. They argue that this process “occurs when a student’s purposeful
actions and processes are directed towards the acquisition of information or skills” (Zumbrunn,
Tadlock and Roberts, 2011). This is added to Dörnyei’s (2005) belief as he states self-regulation
in second language learning is “the degree to which individuals are active participants in their
own learning” (p. 191).

10


In fact, the current research takes the spirit of Pintrich and Zimmerman’s model when the
authors assert SRLS is a directive process that learners transform their mental abilities into
actions, into academic skills and into achievement (Zimmerman,

2000). It is more

comprehensive to illustrate the model as the cycle below:
Figure 2.1: The directive process of self-regulated learning and achievement

Action

Academic
skills

Mental
abilities

Achievement

Figure 2.1 displays the directive process of self-regulated learning and achievement by
Zimmerman (2000). As the figure shows, SRLS is a directive process that directly or indirectly
impacts students’ achievement. In this sense, Zimmerman and Pintrich share the common point
as they assume SRL is not solely a mental process but it turns into actions and accordingly into
achievement and thus self-regulated learners proactively use efficient strategies to improve
specific skills and performance by planning, monitoring and managing their activities to achieve
their learning goals (Oxford and Schramm, 2007; Zimmerman, 2002). At best, a self-regulated
learner is the one who can flexibly use metacognitive, cognitive strategies and make good use of
resource management strategies to effectively and efficiently manage their learning activities,
create more favorable environments for their learning and ultimately reach their goals. However,
resource management strategy displays its minor role in enhancing students’ achievement
(Mohebi, Beykmohammadi and Farsani, 2011). In addition, resource management strategy is
limited to students of the current context since students are hardly possible to decide what to
learn and who to learn with. Consequently, in this paper, resource management strategy is not
put into consideration.

11

2.2.2. Instruments to measure self-regulated learning
In an attempt to clarify and classify methods and instruments to measure SRLS, Winne
and Perry, (2000) distinguish two types of

instruments measuring SRLS as follows: (1)

instruments to measure SRL as an aptitude, which describes characteristics of stable selfregulated students and predicts their future behaviors and (2) instruments to measure SRL as an
activity in order to collect information during the self-regulating process.
The first cluster of instruments used to measure SRL as an aptitude include self-reporting
questionnaires, structured interviews and teacher judgments (Winne and Perry, 2000).
•

Self-reporting questionnaire is a priority of the study due to its facility in design,
administration and interpretation of results. Among SRLS questionnaires, the
Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ) by Pintrich and De
Groot (1990) was prominent. The objective of MSLQ is to measure motivational
components and the use of learning strategies (namely cognitive, metacognitive
and resource management strategies) in a specific subject. The main reason for
using MSLQ is that it covers most of the components embedded in the SRLS
including both motivational and strategic strategies. However, Wang and Wang
(2007)’s version is currently chosen since it matches the objectives of study as it
involves specific components to examine the level use SRLS of students and it
relates SRLS to students’ achievement. In addition, attitudes towards SRLS are
also explored with this tool.

•

Structured interview is a useful tool to collect students’ attitudes and feelings

towards a certain subject. Zimmerman and Martinez-Ponds (1986) have
developed a structured interview to assess SRL. It encompasses specific
components of

SRLS such as rehearsing, organization and transformation.

Interview questions are designed by the researcher to provide more concrete
information of the participants in this study.
Other instruments are also built up to measure SRL as an activity: To collect students’
reports on their thoughts, mental processes and cognitive strategies they put into play of a task,
think aloud is used to take students’ verbal responses (Zimmerman and Martinez-Ponds, 1986).
In the current study, the triangulation instruments: questionnaire, observation, verbal interviews
are going to be explored to the full.

12


All in all, measuring SRL raises challenges to researchers (Schraw and Impara, 2000;
Winne, Jamieson, Noel and Muis, 2002; Winne and Perry 2000) since it is difficult to “assume a
linear relationship between the individual item scores and the total item scores. For example, one
can be good at cognitive strategy in general but scoring low on some items in the cognitive scale
and such scales are not cumulative and computing mean scale scores are unjustifiable in terms of
psychometry (Tseng, Dorneyi, and Schmitt, 2006). Thus, to ascertain the reliability of the
measurement, a combination of various tools is used to measure the variables. Another possible
difficulty when conducting a SRLS experiment is how to foster SRLS and how to deal with its
challenges.
2.2.3. Challenges to foster self-regulated learning in classroom
Teaching SRLS is ideal for language students to self-regulate, to be responsible for and to
enhance their language achievement (Cohen, 2010). However, it is demanding for teachers to
engage students in SRLS activities since providing opportunities and giving support for students

to self-regulate their learning is really a master stroke (Paris and Winograd, 1990). Many authors
find that the major obstacle in helping students become self-regulated learners is the time
required to teach students specific strategies (Boekaerts and Cascallar, 2006), which enables
students to recieve new information and to effectively prepare for tasks (Paris and Winograd,
1990). In addition, teachers may find it difficult to control outside factors such as social identity
or learning styles, which can have major impacts on students’ development and those factors
often have little to do with teacher’s instructions (Cleary and Chen, 2009). Conversely, students
who are consistent with intellectual ability may be more engaged in SRL (Wang and Holcombe,
2010).
As such, teaching SRLS requires teachers to be self-regulatory in their own learning and
teaching, thoroughly grasp characteristics of SRLS to efficiently instruct those to students, be
flexible according to certain activities and tasks and reflective on their work in order to improve
the teaching performance. To the personal view, applying SRLS in Vietnamese contexts displays
more challenges due to the traditionally inherent practice. However, the more challenges of the
tasks, the higher self-regulation level teachers will exhibit. The challenges and obstacles arising
from the current SRLS practice are also noticed in chapter five.

13


2.3. SELF-REGULATED LEARNING STRATEGIES
2.3.1. Overview of language learning strategies
Learning strategy is useful for learners to better their language proficiency (Hsiao and
Oxford, 2002). A learning strategy involves a series of “purposeful actions and processes
directed at acquiring skill or information” (Clearly, 2006, p. 309). One of the earliest researchers
in this field, Rubin (1975) views learning strategies as techniques or devices a learner may use to
intake knowledge. And learning strategies include "specific actions taken by learners to make
learning easier, faster, more enjoyable, more self-directed, more effective, and more transferrable
to new situations" (Oxford, 1990, p. 8). Effective learners are those who engage skillful
strategies and better use learning strategies during learning (Dörnyei, 2005), whereas ineffective

individuals fail to do so (O' Malley, Chamot and Kupper, 1989). In one word, students who make
use of learning strategies better understanding information and effectively deal with certain
tasks; whereas, students who do not know or use learning strategies often learn passively and
constantly fail in school. In fact, higher language achievers seem to use more strategies than
lower achievers (Zeidner, Boekaerts and Pintrich, 2000; Zimmerman and Schunk, 2001a). In
short, learning strategy drives students to be more active in their learning and SRLS is needed for
students to get success in their learning.
2.3.2. Self-regulated learning strategy in language learning
Self-regulated learning is an important predictor of language achievement (Zumbrunn
Tadlock and Roberts, 2011). So far, many researchers strongly support students’ use of SRL in
language learning since SRL not only serves students’ language learning but also compensates
for the shortage in their ability (Zimmerman, 2001; Cohen, 2010). In this sense, students who
employ SRLS better can gain higher achievement than their opponents. Consequently, it is
extremely important to equip students with SRLS (Noels, 2005); wheareas, few teachers
effectively prepare students to learn on their own (Zimmerman, Bonner and Kovach, 2006;
Zimmerman, 2001) and this drawback has been shared among Vietnamese language teaching
contexts (Trinh, 2005). In a study to investigate the relationship between SRLS and achievement
of students of a major public university in Turkey, İnan (2013) finds that there are positive
correlations between achievement and (1) three dimensions of SRLS (motivation and action to
learning, planning and goal setting and strategies for learning and assessment), (2) motivation
(Pintrich, Smith, Garcia and McKeachie, 1991) and (3) meta-cognitive and cognitive strategies
14


(Mayer, 1996; Yigzaw and Fentie, 2013). In a Vietnamese context, the finding from Tran and
Duong (2013)’s research to investigate students’ attitudes towards SRLS among non English
majors of a college in Dak Lak, Vietnamshows that students’ attitudes towards SRLS positively
correlate their academic achievement.
In a nutshell, SRLS play a focal role in language achievement. However, SRLS, as fas as
the researcher’s knowledge, are hardly ever conducted in the language learning and teaching

context in Vietnam. By teaching students to be more self-regulatory, teachers may experience
greater success in promoting academic achievement and motivation in language learning since it
can improve students’ skills and strategies to prepare for challenging tasks and assessments
(Graham and Harris, 2005). Learning a language takes a lot of time and effort for students to
obtain a certain level; therefore, it is necessary for teachers to teach students about strategies to
self-regulate their own learning since SRLS can save a lot of time for students to deal with
challenging tasks (Schunk and Zimmerman, 1998).
Overall, SRLS, namely meta-cognitive and cognitive strategies are used to help students
deal with speaking tasks in order to obtain oral communication achievement in their learning
English.
2.4. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SELF-REGULATED LEARNING, SELFDIRECTED LEARNING AND AUTONOMY
The three ‘look alike’ terms: “self-regulated learning”, “autonomy” and “self-directed
learning” are sometimes misunderstood due to their somewhat similar attributes, the three terms;
hence, are clearly defined and distinguished.
“Self-regulated learning” is the term “used by a loosely affiliated group of North
American educational psychologists”, studied by constructivists, who focus on “cognitive
aspects of learning” (Benson, 2011, p. 43). Self-regulated learning is a metacognitive process for
language learners to obtain achievement (Corno, 2001) or “a directive process through which
learners transfer their mental abilities into academic skills and into achievement” (Zimmerman,
1998, as cited in Benson, 2011; Zimmerman, 2000). In brief, self-regulated learning is learning
that is guided by metacognition, strategy use and motivation.
“Self-directed learning” is favorably used in Adult education in North America. It refers
to “learners’ global capacity” to carry out “a broad field of the inquiry into the processes of non
15


institutional learning”. It can be interpreted that self-directed learning focuses on leaners’ general
abilities to handle with their own learning process whereas self-regulated learning is basically a
cognitive process to manage their learning (Benson, 2011) and “autonomy” relates to “the
particular personal or moral qualities associated with self-directed capacity” (Benson, 2011, p.

37). Hence, self-directed learning is comprised in “autonomy” in a logical way.
Little (2007) states that “learner autonomy now seems to be a matter of learners doing
things not necessarily on their own but for themselves” or learner autonomy is the ability to “take
charge of one’s own learning”. Later, “ability” and “take charge of” are often replaced by
“capacity” and “take responsibility for”, respectively (p. 14). These words are substituted, but its
semantic meanings remain unchanged. This ability was further explained not to be “inborn but
must be acquired” by formal education practices (Holec, 1981, p. 3). Thus, learners’ ability to
perform actions for themselves and their proactive learning are what link the two terms. In
addition, Leaver (2009) assumes SRL as an umbrella concept which might result in a person who
autonomously learns at different levels. In this way, SRL is the determiner of autonomy.
However, many other researchers treat “self-regulated learning” as a component of “autonomy”.
As Benson (2011) remarks:
Self-regulated learning is somewhat narrower than autonomy and it has exercised strong
influence on North American research on learning strategies than it has on the theory of
autonomy. However, the literature review on self-regulated learning is a potentially rich source of
insights into the cognitive aspects over learning which deserves to be explored more fully in the
literature review on autonomy in language learning (p.44).

In short, self-regulated learning emphasizes autonomy and control by individuals who are
able to monitor, direct, and regulate actions toward goals of information acquisition, expanding
expertise, and self-improvement” (Paris & Paris, 2001) and self-directed learning is “one’s
personal or moral qualities associated with self-directed capacity” (Benson, 2011, p. 37),
embedded in “autonomy”.
2.5. SELF-REGULATED LEARNING STRATEGY AND ORAL
COMMUNICATION IN LANGUAGE LEARNING
A strong relationship between SRLS and oral communication performance has been
proved and combining cognitive and metacognitive strategies shows its significance towards
students’ communicative competence (Purpura, 1999). In fact, communicative competence may
16