(Luận văn thạc sĩ) ứng dụng công cụ google classroom trong việc nâng cao khả năng học tập độc lập của sinh viên không chuyên trong giờ học tiếng anh tại một đơn vị giáo dục của cảnh sát​

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES
****************

NGUYỄN DUY QUYNH

APPLICATION OF GOOGLE CLASSROOM IN PROMOTING
INDEPENDENT LEARNING OF NON-ENGLISH MAJOR STUDENTS
IN ENGLISH CLASS IN A POLICE INSTITUTION

(Ứng dụng công cụ Google Classroom trong việc nâng cao khả năng học tập độc lập của
sinh viên không chuyên trong giờ học tiếng Anh tại một đơn vị giáo dục của Cảnh sát)

M.A THESIS (Applied Program)

Field

: English Teaching Methodology

Code

: 8140231.01

Hanoi - 2020


VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES
****************

NGUYỄN DUY QUYNH

APPLICATION OF GOOGLE CLASSROOM IN PROMOTING
INDEPENDENT LEARNING OF NON-ENGLISH MAJOR STUDENTS
IN ENGLISH CLASS IN A POLICE INSTITUTION

(Ứng dụng công cụ Google Classroom trong việc nâng cao khả năng học tập độc lập của
sinh viên không chuyên trong giờ học tiếng Anh tại một đơn vị giáo dục của Cảnh sát)

M.A THESIS (Applied Program)

Field

: English Teaching Methodology

Code

: 8140231.01

Supervisor : Assoc. Prof. Lê Văn Canh

Hanoi - 2020


DECLARATION

I hereby declare that the thesis entitled “Application of Google Classroom
in promoting independent learning of non-English major students in English class
in a police institution” is the result of my own research except as cited in the

references. Whole or any part of the thesis has not been submitted before in order
to qualify for any other academic degree.

Hanoi, 2020

Nguyễn Duy Quynh

i


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The completion of this research paper could not have been possible without
the participation and assistance of people to whom I would like to express my
sincere gratitude.
My deep gratitude goes first to Associate Professor Lê Văn Canh, my
supervisor, for his continuous support, patience and precious guidance which
helped me in all the time of research and writing of this study.
I would also like to extend my appreciation to all the research participants,
students of class N01.D44, for their eager cooperation and valuable ideas in the
questionnaires and interviews without which the study could not be completed.
In addition, my thanks are also delivered to my colleagues at the
Department of Foreign Languages of the People’s Police Academy for their kind
support and constant source of inspiration.
This last word of acknowledgement I have saved for my beloved parents and
my dear wife who have been with me throughout stressful times, pushing me farther
than I thought I could go.

ii

ABSTRACT
This study was expected to investigate the application of Google Classroom
to promote the independent learning of non-English major students studying in a
police institution. More explicitly, the author attempted to carry out his
intervention throughout one cyclical process of action research and targeted at
examining 1) impacts of the application of Google Classroom on the students’
independent learning in their English class and 2) the students’ opinions towards
the application of Google Classroom in their English learning.
The data were collected from pre-intervention and post-intervention
questionnaires delivered to the participants, and interviews with some of the
students. The time span of the intervention was 14 weeks in total and all findings
indicated in the study were interpreted as the result of one-cycle implementation
of the action research project. It was concluded that the application of Google
Classroom was beneficial to the majority of the students and their independent
learning was positively influenced. The primary evidence was found in
improvement of the students in terms of English task completion and their
increasingly positive feeling and motivation. From the findings of the research, it
is suggested that adapting a new approach in English language teaching should be
considered in the context of the police institution.

iii


TABLE OF CONTENTS
DECLARATION .................................................................................................. i
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .................................................................................. ii
ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................ iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................... iv
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS........................................................................... vii
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES ............................................................... viii

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ...................................................................... 1
1.1. Rationale of the study .................................................................................. 1
1.2. Aims of the study .......................................................................................... 3
1.3. Scope of the study ......................................................................................... 4
1.4. Methods of the study .................................................................................... 4
1.5. Significance of the study .............................................................................. 6
1.6. Organization of the thesis ............................................................................ 7
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW .......................................................... 8
2.1. An overview of independent learning......................................................... 8
2.1.1. Definition of independent learning ............................................................. 8
2.1.2. Influential factors in developing independent learning ............................ 10
2.1.3. Characteristics of independent learners in higher education .................... 13
2.2. Tassinari's Dynamic Autonomy Model (DAM) for independent learning
............................................................................................................................. 14
2.2.1. An introduction of DAM model ................................................................ 14
2.2.2. Components of DAM model ..................................................................... 15
2.3. An overview of Google Classroom ............................................................ 17
2.3.1. What is Google Classroom? ...................................................................... 17
2.3.2. Advantages of GC in English language teaching ..................................... 19
2.3.3. Relationship of GC and independent learning .......................................... 21

iv


2.4. Davis's Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) for evaluation of GC
effectiveness........................................................................................................ 22
2.4.1. An introduction of TAM model ................................................................ 22
2.4.2. Application of TAM model adopted for measuring efficacy of GC......... 23
2.5. Previous studies .......................................................................................... 24
CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ........................................... 26

3.1. Context of the research .............................................................................. 26
3.1.1. Context of the police institution ................................................................ 26
3.1.2. Current English teaching and learning for non-English major students at the
Academy .............................................................................................................. 27
3.2. Design of the research ................................................................................ 28
3.2.1. Rationale for the use of action research .................................................... 28
3.2.2. Procedure of the action research ............................................................... 29
3.3. Participants of the research....................................................................... 36
3.4. Instruments of the research....................................................................... 36
3.4.1. Description of the questionnaires .............................................................. 36
3.4.2. Semi-structured interview ......................................................................... 38
3.5. Procedures of data collection .................................................................... 38
3.6. Procedures of data analysis ....................................................................... 39
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION .............................................. 40
4.1. Pre-intervention .......................................................................................... 40
4.1.1. The feasibility of the application of GC .................................................... 40
4.1.2. The action-oriented dimension before the intervention ............................ 40
4.1.3. The social and affective dimension before the intervention ..................... 45
4.2. Intervention and Post-intervention .......................................................... 46
4.2.1. Research question 1: How did the application of Google Classroom affect the
students’ independent learning in their English class? ............................................. 46
4.2.2. Research question 2: What were the students’ opinions towards the application
of Google Classroom in their English learning? ...................................................... 51
v


4.3. Summary of the findings ........................................................................... 54
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION ......................................................................... 56
5.1. Conclusion ................................................................................................... 56
5.2. Pedagogical implications from the findings ............................................. 56

5.3. Limitations of the study ............................................................................. 57
REFERENCES .................................................................................................. 59
APPENDICES ...................................................................................................... I
APPENDIX 1 ......................................................................................................... I
APPENDIX 2 ....................................................................................................... II
APPENDIX 3 ...................................................................................................... VI
APPENDIX 4 ...................................................................................................... XI
APPENDIX 5 .....................................................................................................XII
APPENDIX 6 ................................................................................................... XIV
APPENDIX 7 ................................................................................................... XVI
APPENDIX 8 ................................................................................................... XIX
APPENDIX 9 ................................................................................................ XXIV
APPENDIX 10 ........................................................................................... XXVIII
APPENDIX 11 .............................................................................................. XXIX
APPENDIX 12 .............................................................................................. XXXI
APPENDIX 13 ........................................................................................... XXXIII

vi


LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AR:

Action Research

DAM:

Dynamic Autonomy Model

EFL:

English as a Foreign Language

GC:

Google Classroom

ICT:

Information and Communication Technology

TAM:

Technology Acceptance Model

vii


LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
Table 1: Mean scores of the 5 items in Planning component ........................................41
Table 2: Mean scores of the 6 items in Choosing materials and techniques component ..42
Table 3: Mean scores of the 6 items in Completing tasks component ..........................43
Table 4: Mean scores of the 4 items in Evaluating component.....................................44
Table 5: Mean scores of the 3 items in Cooperating component ..................................45
Table 6: Mean scores of the 3 items in Dealing with feeling and motivation component .46
Table 7: Mean scores of the 4 items in Planning component after application of GC ......47
Table 8: Mean scores of the 4 items in Choosing materials and techniques component
after application of GC ..................................................................................................47
Table 9: Mean scores of the 5 items in Completing tasks component after the

application of GC...........................................................................................................48
Table 10: Mean scores of the 3 items in Evaluating component after application of GC ..49
Table 11: Mean scores of the 3 items in Cooperating component after the application
of GC ............................................................................................................................. 50
Table 12: Mean scores of the 3 items in Dealing with feeling and motivation
component after the application of GC .........................................................................51
Table 13: Mean scores of the 13 items on the students' perception of GC application in
English learning .............................................................................................................52
Figure 1: Student factors involving in independent learning. .......................................11
Figure 2: Hierarchy of enabling environment. .............................................................. 12
Figure 3: The Dynamic Autonomy Model ....................................................................16
Figure 4: Examples of classes on Google Classroom ...................................................18
Figure 5: Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) .........................................................23
Figure 6: Cyclical AR model based on Kemmis and McTaggart .................................29
Figure 7: Students’ difficulty in choosing materials, resources and techniques,
strategies for learning English .......................................................................................42
Figure 8: The competence of evaluating materials, resources and techniques, strategies
for learning English .......................................................................................................44
Figure 9: Following the English learning plan, post-intervention.................................47
Figure 10: The participants’ perspective on eagerness before and after GC intervention..51

viii


CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1. Rationale of the study
English language teaching, learning and using in today’s world has
witnessed tremendous development of English varieties worldwide, featured by
dominance of English in a modern technology era of borderless communication.

According to Crystal (2005, 2011), digital revolution in an online world has given
birth to a new branch of linguistics called “Internet Linguistics”. As an
international language, or a lingua franca, English is now spoken by over two
billion people all over the world (Parupalli, 2019), whereas 379 million of them
are native English speakers (Statistics, 2019). In higher education, increase of
demand in using English as a teaching and learning medium is considered to be a
parallel and unavoidable process resulting in improvement of international
academic communication worldwide (Balan, 2011). More opportunities of
learning and using English through various sources requires English as a foreign
language (EFL) teachers and students to implement a shifting focus from teachercentered approach to student-centered approach. Learners at all education levels
have chances to get access to English contents outside of traditional class
environment with their own control of time, activities and engagement, such as
using the Internet, podcasts, online group discussions, TVs, electronic
dictionaries, Skype, online news with multimedia (Nomass, 2012). For
appropriate adaptation of those changes, it is necessary for EFL teachers in
Vietnam to pay more attention to English students’ self-regulation, including their
independent learning competence. Article 40 of Vietnamese Education Law stated
methods of education in higher education, which also highlighted the importance
of independent learning: “Training methods in higher education must be brought
into play to foster the learners’ ability to be active learners, to study and to do
research by themselves, and to foster their practical abilities, self-motivation,
creative thinking, and ambition” (National Assembly of Vietnam, 2005:2).
1


In an attempt to inspire students’ engagement in English learning and ignite
their independent learning skill, the author has discussed with many of nonEnglish major students who are following the training curriculum at the police
institution in which he has worked for six years. While some students carry out
active learning in English lessons and focus on using English for better job
opportunities, there are a large number of students indifferent to improvement of

self-regulation, stating that they learn English under constraint of training
curriculum, not for other advantages. A considerable group of students reported
that English, as a compulsory subject, is the most struggling one. Due to the dual
objective of professional training knowledge in English (cognitive development)
and practical language skills (linguistic development) within a course, many
students reported that they need to remember a large number of vocabularies
relating to police activities, for examples, crime scene investigation, drug-related
crime, covert surveillance, cybercrime, human trafficking, forensic science and so
on. Although supporting for the importance of English in today’s society, many
of them showed unwillingness in English for the primary reason of its no use in
their prospective career as police officers. Also, non-English major students in the
institution tend to blame lack of communicative opportunities after in-class
participation for their passive learning. The author believes that only practicing
English in classroom is basically not enough. What makes an active student
different from a passive participant is his or her collaborative attitudes and actions,
eager to explore a subject by himself or herself with support of peers, mentors, or
facilitators. As Lam (2013) explained, the majority of Vietnamese students cannot
develop the independent learning skill, following the passive methodology, silent
atmosphere and unresponsive students. As a result, the existing situation
motivates the author to implement a model of teaching and learning which support
students’ independent learning in English classes.
At present, teaching and learning English is processed in an era where vast
amounts of information are being accessed and transmitted electronically or
2


digitally. With rapid development and application of digitalization, many models
of English teaching and learning regarding to information and communications
technology (ICT) have been proposed by researchers, which also deals with
independent learning. One of the tools for active learning is Google Classroom

(GC), the virtual platform developed and announced by Google in 2014. It is
emphasized that GC can bring effective supports towards changing the focus from
teacher-centered approach to learner-centered one, opening to inquiry, dialogue,
and autonomous learning on the part of learners as active participants
(Shaharanee, Jamil, & Rodzi, 2016). Besides, it has been shown that GC has a
high potential to engage low English proficiency learners (Bakar & Noordin,
2018) and “generate greater participation and interaction between students, and
between students and their teachers” (Heggart & Yoo, 2018: 140). In general, the
fact that researches have indicated positive responses from participants about
benefits of GC in English teaching and learning, consolidates the author’s belief
of adapting GC to impact on learner independence. In addition, advantages of
technology in education are always welcomed at the police training institution,
with the ultimate purpose of making good studying environments for students.
However, to the best knowledge of the researcher, there is few comprehensive
researches in application of GC in English teaching and learning at higher
education institutions in Vietnam. Furthermore, no study on GC application in
promoting students’ English learning competence has been conducted at the
police training institution. Personally, the author decided to choose GC in his
study among many other ICTs with a hope that it benefits non-English major
students to improve their independent learning skills.
1.2. Aims of the study
The study “Application of Google Classroom in promoting independent
learning of non-English major students in English class in a police institution”
was conducted to self-evaluate the impacts of the English teaching with support
of Google Classroom on the independent learning skills of non-English major
3


second-year police students at the People’s Police Academy. The following
objectives have been set in order to fulfil this aim: 1) To implement the application

of Google Classroom under core components of independent learning into an
actual English learning curriculum; 2) To collect and analyze data from the
students’ responses of the usefulness of Google Classroom and its impacts on their
independent learning as well. To its end, the research questions addressed in the
present study are as follows:
1. How did the application of Google Classroom affect the students’ independent
learning in their English class?
2. What were the students’ opinions towards the application of Google Classroom
in their English learning?
1.3. Scope of the study
Independent learning plays a vital role in the process of learning and using
English either in daily communicative work or study. It would be challenging for
EFL teachers if they do not pay much attention to the active role of students in
learning progress. In the present study, the author does not mean to cover all the
aspects of relating concepts. Because of time constraint, this action research was
conducted to testify perceptions of 32 second-year non-English major police
cadets at the People’s Police Academy about their independent learning skills
before and after the application of GC during their second English semester. The
research was carried out at the beginning of the first semester of the academic
year 2019-2020. The author was also a participant in his research, playing the role
of an English teacher assigned to be in charge of the class in English lessons. The
instruments used in data collection comprise of survey questionnaires and semistructured interview to achieve aims of the research. In addition, GC activities
were adapted as a kind of blended learning so that students could follow both inclass lessons and online participation in GC contents.
1.4. Methods of the study
The research approach that the author employed is action research,
following the procedures guided by steps in the action research cycle by Kemmis
4


and McTaggart (1988, as cited in Burns, 2010). To come to the analysis and

findings, the questionnaires, and semi-structured interview were adapted as the
data collection instruments. The action taken in the study was application of GC
designed for the duration of 14 weeks. The author adapted Technology
Acceptance Model (TAM) initiated by Davis (1989) to scale the effectiveness of
GC application in the research. Also, the Dynamic Autonomy Model (DAM) by
Tassinari (2012) was adapted to measure independent learning of the participants.
The four stages of action research proposed by Kemmis and McTaggart (1988, as
cited in Burns, 2010) were conducted as follows:
Stage 1: Planning
At the beginning, the pre-intervention questionnaire, adapted from the
DAM model (Tassinari, 2012) and a preparation online survey about availability
of preliminary technical requirements were distributed to participants for the
purpose of initial understanding and measuring of the participants’ self-awareness
of their own English learning. The data was then used for finding an appropriate
plan to tackle the problem. From the responses, it is reasonable and appropriate to
adopt necessary changes through use of technological applications such as GC.
Stage 2: Acting
In the second semester in which the action research was conducted, the
English course was delivered to students in parallel mode: face-to-face English
class was kept as scheduled and online topics in GC were added as extra activities
for independent learning.
Stage 3: Observing
In this stage, the author composed an online observation rubric integrated
into GC topics to evaluate responses of students in discussion and assignments to
find out existing issues. While attending face-to-face class, the researcher also
noted down existing issues that students had on their learning progress in GC and
their recommendations of editing the lesson plans more appropriate to them. This
contributes to a look insight of efficacy of English lessons because with close
5

observation of students’ learning products in GC, the author could decide what
activities should or should not be done next in other units.
Stage 4: Reflecting
After the 14-week implementation of GC practice plan, the postintervention questionnaire was surveyed to participants, aiming at measuring
students’ perceptions on effectiveness of the application of GC towards their
independent learning skills. Three among the participants were randomly chosen
to participate in the semi-structured interview, enabling the author to collect more
supportive in-depth statistics. The research instruments would benefit to path the
way of analysis process, contribute to find the answers of all research questions.
1.5. Significance of the study
First, understanding how participants of the research perceive and selfregulate their independent learning in English class can help teachers and
administrators design appropriate adjustments for the improvement of this
competence. Several of the current researches have been attempting to enhance
autonomous learning in Vietnam at different educational levels (Dang, 2010;
Thanh, 2011; Dang, 2012; Lam, 2013; Le, 2013; Ly, 2018). However, to the best
knowledge of the researcher, no comprehensive research in students’ independent
learning skills in English learning and teaching has been conducted in all police
training institutions in Vietnam. Thus, this study is hoped to provide an initial
analysis of independent learning skills of police cadets in the Academy in
particular and in Vietnamese police institutions in general.
Second, this action research provides necessary insights into effectiveness
of the application of GC from local students’ opinions, directly contributing to the
English teaching and learning for non-English major cadets at the People’s Police
Academy when enrolling in English class. Although many educational
researchers and stakeholders in Vietnam have acknowledged the important role
of technology-based methods in improvement of self-regulated learning, limited
empirical study has been found focusing on applying GC application for
6

improving this aspect of English competence in Vietnamese higher education. By
conducting this study, it is hoped that the findings may support EFL teachers to
have a closer look at the recent situation of applying GC as a blended learning
tool to motivate students’ independent learning efforts.
1.6. Organization of the thesis
This thesis paper is organized into five chapters as follows:
Chapter 1: Introduction
The first chapter presents background, rationale, aims, research questions,
significance, scope, and design of the present study.
Chapter 2: Literature Review
This chapter reviews relevant literature on independent learning, its construct and
characteristics, presents an overview of applications of GC, its relationship with
independent learning and introduces two recent models for evaluation of learner
independence and technology acceptance as well.
Chapter 3: Research Methodology
It presents the research context, detailed description of the research design, the
methodology that was employed in the research, its participants, instruments of
data collection, ethical considerations, data collection and analysis procedure.
Chapter 4: Results and Discussion
The fourth chapter underlines a significant analysis of obtained data, followed by
a discussion on the findings of the study.
Chapter 5: Conclusion
The final part, Chapter 5 highlights the main findings of the research, its
limitations, and recommendations for future research in the field.

7


CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1. An overview of independent learning
Independent learning and independent learning skills are significant topics
in educational studies at present. As stated by Broad (2006:119), independent
learning “is not a new concept, nor is it a concept where there is universal
agreement on its meaning”. The initial theoretical framework of the study relates
to definition, construct, and characteristics of independent learning.
2.1.1. Definition of independent learning
Independent learning and independent learning strategies are multifaceted
constructs which have been concerned by different researchers in the field of EFL
practice and other educational practices as well. As Benson (2006) argued, the
20th and 21st centuries were marked by a significantly emerging interest in
autonomous learning. However, it is still problematic to find an exact definition
of “independent learning” because it is a broad concept in educational studies,
often understood as other synonymous terms with various possible interpretations,
for examples, “self-regulated learning” (Pintrich, 2000), “self-directed active
learning” (Birenbaum, 2002), “self-access learning” (Chia, 2005), “studentcentered learning” (Black, 2007), “learning to learn” (Black et al., 2006), “learner
autonomy” (Benson, 2001; Asuman, 2010; Kim, 2013). A collection of terms
referring to “independent learning” was also introduced by Kesten (1987, as cited
in Broad, 2006:119): “autonomous learning, independent study, self-directed
learning, student-initiated learning, project orientation, discovery and inquiry,
teaching for thinking, learning to learn, self-instruction and life-long learning”.
Meyer et al., (2008) agreed that the terms “self-directed learning” or “learning
how to learn” are sometimes used interchangeably with independent learning.
Since synonymous terms mentioned share the same or similar notions with
independent learning, recent researches have lengthy discussions and
explanations regarding the definition of independent learning. Despite the matter
8

of different wording, to a great extent, all these terms basically describe the same
theme and process which is synonymous with independent learning. Previous
studies on independent learning have proven that students must be in charge of
learning as active participants to manage their learning, taking responsibility for
all the decisions concerning all aspects of their learning process. Focusing on
students themselves rather than relying on teachers’ support have been targeted
and emphasized (Perry et al., 2006; Quality Improvement Agency, 2008). Other
researchers have come to the similar conclusion, that independent learning deals
with the ability to take control of one’s learning (Holec, 1991, as cited in Qi, 2012)
or self-responsibility of students for their own learning through making
independent choices (Fotiadou, Mavroidis & Angelaki, 2017). Nevertheless,
recent studies have shown that independent learning covers more than just selfawareness or learning in isolation. According to Sam et al., (2012), Thomas
(2014), Hendrick (2016), independent learning does not only involve learners
working individually. Instead, it is carried out by students, either on their own or
with others (including teachers, peers, etc.) for social interaction. It does not mean
less instructions from tutors but rather particular instructions with the goal of
learner independence.
In higher education, while definition of independent learning and the role
of teachers and learners have been debating issues in foreign language teaching
and learning, it is reasonable that independent learning needs to be promoted as a
part of an ongoing, lifelong educational process, contributing to the gradual
growth of students’ capabilities (Harvey & Chickie-Wolfe, 2007; Evrim, 2009;
Sam et al., 2012; Minakova, 2013). In the context of university study, due to the
variety of English teaching and learning strategies, it is important to equip a
common definition for which EFL teachers and students agree on its meaning and
interpretation. Without such a definition, as Souto & Turner (2000) claimed,
misconceptions or misinterpretations would occur. In the current research, the
terms “independent learning”, “learner autonomy”, “autonomous learning” and
9

other aforementioned terms are used interchangeably. From the author's
viewpoint, independent learning is the shift of responsibility for the learning
process from the teacher to the student. This shift in responsibility involves
students having a comprehensive understanding of their learning, being motivated
to learn, working actively with teachers and peers to formulate their learning
environment. It means a lot more than students working solely on their own, rather
it emerges when students play a significant part in choosing their learning plans,
discovering learning resources, finding problems, deciding their learning methods
and strategies, reflecting on the outcome of their learning process.
2.1.2. Influential factors in developing independent learning
Independent learning has been viewed differently by contemporary studies
in the aspect of its key elements, covering influences of socio-cultural factors on
education in general and students’ learning in particular. It is not a simple concept
but covers nexus of elements relating to students as a key subject or an active
agent of learning process and environment elements surrounding them.
Thanasoulas (2000) focused on internal elements consisting of learners’ cognitive
and metacognitive strategies, attitude, motivation, and self-esteem. In the book
titled “Fostering independent learning: practical strategies to promote student
success”, Harvey & Chickie-Wolfe (2007:3) introduced factors relating to
students involving independent learning (see Figure 1). In the dynamic system, a
factor can mutually impact other factors. These factors comprise of holding
positive learning motivations and emotions; setting goals, methods and strategies
for learning; building academic skills; attending to and concentrating on
instruction; employing effective cognitive and metacognitive strategies to assess
learning and its efficacy; monitoring performance; conducting good time
management; establishing productive working environment; using resources
effectively; and collaborating for assistance from others when needed.
In addition to the internal student factors shown in Figure 1, the external
elements are factors influencing students’ independent learning.

10


Figure 1: Student factors involving in independent learning.
(Source: Harvey & Chickie-Wolfe, 2007:3)

Harvey & Chickie-Wolfe (2007:4) showed the interaction of students and
environmental elements, branching in instructional factors, familial factors, social
factors and others. Meyer et al., (2008) also listed the external factors including
development of person-to-person relationship among family members, local
community, teachers and students, along with an “enabling environment” in
which ICT has an important role to play. The “enabling environment” indicates
that students do not necessarily study in isolation. Instead, they can seek
supportive collaboration with other people for their development. Independent
learners are “able to set up a favorable climate of learning for themselves by
collaborating with peers, instructors and resource persons” (Usuki, 2000:4).
Meyer et al., (2008) also proposed a hierarchy model of environmental support
needed for independent learning (see Figure 2). The model bases on five subelements: the physical environment, the time environment, the peer environment,
material resources and tutor resources. As shown in the Figure 2, physical
environment is the base in which independent learning takes place, for examples,
11


classroom, library, blended learning or online learning. At the top of the hierarchy
is the resources from tutoring, which refers to characteristics of teachers, tutors
and their instructions. The hierarchy proposes that independent learning needs all
these ingredients to be facilitated for its effectiveness. However, educational
institutions should spend more attention and effort in creating better infrastructure
for independent learning, taking advantages of ICT to connect the five factors,
enabling students to explore their learning with reasonable supports of teachers

and peers rather than relying on teachers’ materials and resources.

Figure 2: Hierarchy of enabling environment.
(Source: Meyer et al., 2008:23)

Blidi (2017:13) also mentions the following influential factors affecting
learner autonomy: 1) voluntariness (learners voluntarily join an independent
learning program or engaging in any form of self-learning activities); 2) learner
choice (learners can practice making decisions); 3) flexibility (learners can change
learning variables, such as objectives or contents according to their needs and
interests); 4) teacher’s role (teachers keeps a supportive role as a facilitator to
formulate goals more clearly, and provides feedback, encouragement, and
reinforcement for learners); and 5) peer support (peer scaffolding is necessary
when learners interact and collaborate with their classmates).

12


In the current research, it is necessary to choose certain influential factors
or set up parameters in a way that it can best fit the research context of the police
institution where the author and participants are working in and the English
curriculum as a compulsory subject that the participants must accomplish. Due to
preset English learning curriculum, coursebooks, in-class time allocation and
lesson objectives, students have no means to change them, which limits their
choice and flexibility as mentioned by Blidi (2017:13). Regarding external factors
of independent learning, the hierarchy model proposed by Meyer et al., (2008) is
appropriate to the research context, whereas the influences of family and social
community on students are not discussed in the current research.
2.1.3. Characteristics of independent learners in higher education
A significant review of the international literature on independent learning

or learner autonomy discussed about characteristics of independent learners in
higher education (Quoc Lap, 2005; Meyer et al., 2008; Borg & Al-Busaidi, 2012;
McDonough, 2012; Healey, 2014; Tapinta, 2016; Yeung, 2016). Research
findings to date indicate that characteristics of independent learners are divided
into cognitive skills, metacognitive skills and affective (motivational) skills
(Meyer et al., 2008). Cognitive skills include memory, attention and problemsolving. Students need time and effort to reach certain level in their cognitive
development, such as being able to connect new knowledge and prior knowledge
in meaningful ways, before they can administer independent learning.
Metacognitive skills are associated with students’ understanding of how learning
occurs, for examples, students are able to self-assess how they learn or complete
an English assignment, to seek supports from other people. Metacognitive
elements are “the ability or capacity to take control, rather than responsibility,
over the management of one’s learning, for instances, learning processes,
resources and language use” (Little, 1991, as cited in Quoc Lap, 2005:24). Benson
(2006) also mentioned metacognitive skills to goal setting, planning, problemsolving, self-monitoring and evaluation. In addition, affective and motivational
13


skills relate to feelings and emotions, such as developing a value system, then
internalizing and acting on these values (Meyer et al., 2008), include learner’s
attitudes, willingness, readiness, and self-confidence (Quoc Lap, 2005).
McDonough had the same notion of motivational and affective factors, that a
learner’s intrinsic motivation to learn is influenced by emotional states, beliefs,
interests, goals and habits of thinking (McDonough, 2012:33). Yeung (2016)
discusses about affective characteristics of independent learners, including
motivation as the primary impetus for independent learning, self-confidence to
take charge of responsibility and independence from tutors.
It can be summarized that successful independent learners are able to
manage their motivation, affect, behavior, time management, cognition, academic
skills, and context, through out three phases of self-regulation, namely

preparation, performance, and appraisal (Harvey & Chickie-Wolfe, 2007:4).
2.2. Tassinari's Dynamic Autonomy Model (DAM) for independent learning
Independent learning process is believed to play a vital role in students’
success and lifelong learning. However, it seems to be a complex task to measure
independent learning of a student exactly at one moment of time. As Nunan
(2003) argued, there are different degrees and levels of learner autonomy. Also,
“dependent learners” and “independent learners” are not categorically different,
but they exist on a continuum of independent learning skills (Meyer et al., 2008;
Rickabaugh, 2012). In this paper, the author adapted Tassinari's (2012) Dynamic
Autonomy Model (DAM) as one of the theoretical frameworks for the purpose of
autonomous learning self-evaluation of non-English major students at the police
institution. The DAM model is perceived to be appropriate for the aims and
context of the current research, focusing on the internal student factors as stated
by Harvey & Chickie-Wolfe (2007), Meyer et al., (2008) and Blidi (2017).
2.2.1. An introduction of DAM model
The DAM model is proposed and developed by Maria Giovanna Tassinari,
director of the Center for Independent Language Learning (CILL) at the Freie
14


Universität Berlin (Tassinari, 2015). The model with detailed descriptors of selfassessment items can be accessed online via the official website of the CILL
center (Tassinari, 2012), either in German as original language or in English as a
translated version. The framework underpinning the DAM model is rooted from
contemporary descriptions of learner autonomy and characteristics of autonomous
learners, relevant to language learning contexts. The DAM model has been
adapted in current studies of English language both in Vietnamese context (Loi,
2017; Han, 2018; Phuong, 2019) and in foreign contexts (Berndt, 2012; Tamimi,
2017; Palfreyman, 2018; Wahyuni et al., 2020).
2.2.2. Components of DAM model
According to Tassinari (2012), learner autonomy is a complex construct

that entails various dimensions and components. In addition to cognitive,
metacognitive and affective factors as mentioned in the previous section, the
DAM model also mentions two more dimensions: action-oriented dimension and
social dimension, which cover the same spheres as of cognitive and metacognitive
factors. Those dimensions are identified in details according to Tasssinari (2012,
2015) and Han (2018), including the cognitive and metacognitive dimension
(knowledge, awareness, and learners’ beliefs); the affective and motivational
dimension (learners’ feelings, emotions, motivation); the action-oriented
dimension (skills, decisions, learning behaviors) and the social dimension
(learning, negotiating learning with teachers, partners, advisors or native
speakers). Dimensions of the DAM model are spheres of abilities, skills, and
actions (see Figure 3). They are expressed initially by verbs, concentrating on
their action-oriented and process-oriented characteristics: managing my own
learning, planning, choosing materials and methods, completing tasks,
monitoring, evaluating (action-oriented dimension); cooperating (social
dimension); structuring knowledge (cognitive and metacognitive dimension);
dealing with my feelings, motivating myself (affective, motivational dimension).

15