An investigation into the self regulated learning of english majored students at the faculty of english linguistics and literature university of social sciences and humanities in ho chi minh city

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY – HOCHIMINH CITY
UNIVERSITY OF SOCIAL SCIENCES & HUMANITIES
FACULTY OF ENGLISH LINGUISTICS & LITERATURE

AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE SELF-REGULATED
LEARNING OF ENGLISH MAJORED STUDENTS AT
THE FACULTY OF ENGLISH LINGUISTICS AND
LITERATURE – UNIVERSITY OF SOCIAL SCIENCES
AND HUMANITIES IN HO CHI MINH CITY

Submitted to the
Faculty of English Linguistics & Literature
in partial fulfillment of the Master’s degree in TESOL

By
MAI THỊ THÙY VÂN
Supervised by
NGUYỄN THỊ KIỀU THU, Ph. D.

HO CHI MINH CITY - JANUARY 2012


ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Firstly, I would like to express my gratitude to my thesis supervisor, Dr.
Nguyen Thi Kieu Thu, who read my manuscript with great care, and gave insightful
comments and provided valuable support in the preparation and completion of this
thesis.

I am also grateful to the Post graduate staff members, who organize this
master programme, and the teachers who have dedicated to the courses, and, again,

Dr. Nguyen Thi Kieu Thu, Dean of the Faculty of English Linguistics and Literature
(EF), National University of Social Sciences and Humanities.

Additionally, I would like to send my special thanks to all teachers who gave
me remarks and advice, which are invaluable for the thesis. Particularly, I wish to
thank Dr. Nguyen Thu Huong, whose talks provoked me to start thinking of this
thesis a year ago so that I was better prepared in terms of references and ideas, and
Mr. Vo Duy Minh, M.A., Mr. Pham Nhat Khanh, M.B.A., who spent hours sharing
with me their experiences in conducting a thesis and proof-reading, Ms. Nguyen
Nha Tran, M.A., who were enthusiastic in discussions, and my special friend, Ms.
Stephanie Albert, who always encouraged me. Without these supports my thesis
could not have been possible.

Lastly, my thesis ends in reference to my family. I am greatly indebted to my
parents who, as always, have been wholeheartedly supportive. For the past nine
months, Dad and Mum have been taking great care of everything so that their
daughter could devote all her time to the writing of the thesis.


STATEMENT OF ORIGINALITY

I hereby certify my authorship of the thesis submitted today entitled:

AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE SELF-REGULATED LEARNING
OF ENGLISH MAJORED STUDENTS AT THE FACULTY OF
ENGLISH LINGUISTICS AND LITERATURE – UNIVERSITY OF
SOCIAL SCIENCES AND HUMANITIES IN HO CHI MINH CITY
In terms of statement of Requirements for Theses in Master’s Program
issued by Higher Degree Committee.

Ho Chi Minh City, January 2012

MAI THỊ THÙY VÂN

ii


RETENTION AND USE OF THE THESIS

I, MAI THỊ THÙY VÂN, hereby state that I being the candidate for the degree of
Master in T.E.S.O.L. accept the requirements of the University relating to the
retention and use of Master’s theses deposited in the Library.

In terms of these conditions, I agree that the original of my thesis deposited in the
Library should be accessible for purposes of study and research, in accordance with
the normal conditions established by the Library for the care, loan or reproduction of
the theses.

Ho Chi Minh City, January 2012

MAI THỊ THÙY VÂN

iii


LIST OF FIGURES & TABLES
Figure 3.1: The flowchart of the research process ................................................... 55
Table 4.1: The two groups’ means and standards deviation for Effort
Regulation component .............................................................................. 71
Table 4.2: The two groups’ means and standard deviations for Exam Anxiety

component ................................................................................................ 72
Table 4.3: The two groups’ means and standard deviations for Extrinsic Goal
Motivation component .............................................................................. 73
Table 4.4: The two groups’ means and standard deviations for Peer Learning
component ................................................................................................ 74
Table 4.5: The two groups’ means and standard deviations for Rehearsal
component ................................................................................................ 75
Table 4.6: The two groups’ means and standard deviations for Self-Efficacy
component ................................................................................................ 76
Table 4.7: Differences between the two groups in the components of Effort
Regulation, Extrinsic Goal Motivation and Rehearsal .............................. 77
Table 4.8: Differences in details between the two groups’ responses in the
components of Effort Regulation (a), Extrinsic Goal Motivation (b)
and Rehearsal (c) ..................................................................................... 78
Table 4.9: Differences in details between the two groups’ responses in the
items of #31 and #16 of Extrinsic Goal Motivation component. ................ 79
Table 4.10: Differences in details between the two groups’ responses in SelfEfficacy component .................................................................................. 80
Table 4.11: Differences in details between the two groups’ responses in Peer
Learning component ................................................................................. 81
Table 4.12: Differences in details between the two groups’ responses in Exam
Anxiety component ................................................................................... 83
Table Appendix D.1: Reliability Statistics’ results and Item-total Correlation
Statistics’ results for Exam Anxiety component for two groups (two
times) ....................................................................................................... 128
Table Appendix D.2: Reliability Statistics’ results and Item-total Correlation
Statistics’ results for Exam Anxiety component for two groups ................. 129

iv

Table Appendix D.3: Reliability Statistics’ results and Item-total Correlation
Statistics’ results for Extrinsic Goal Motivation component for two
groups (two times) .................................................................................... 130
Table Appendix D.4: Reliability Statistics’ results and Item-total Correlation
Statistics’ results for Peer Learning component for two groups (two
times) ....................................................................................................... 131
Table Appendix D.5: Reliability Statistics’ results and Item-total Correlation
Statistics’ results for Rehearsal component for two groups....................... 131
Table Appendix D.6: Reliability Statistics and Item-total Correlation
Statistics for seven items of Self-Efficacy component (two times) .............. 132

v


TABLE OF CONTENT

Acknowledgement ........................................................................................... i
Certificate of Originality .................................................................................. ii
Retention and Use of the Thesis ...................................................................... iii
List of Figures and Tables ............................................................................... iv
Table of Content .............................................................................................. vi
Abbreviation .................................................................................................... x
Abstract

....................................................................................................... xi

CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION ............................................................... 1
1.1. Rationale .................................................................................................. 1
1.1.1. Instruments to measure learning strategies ....................................... 1
1.1.2. Measuring learning strategies in Vietnam context ............................ 2

1.2. Theoretical Background ............................................................................ 4
1.3. Statement of the Problems ....................................................................... 6
1.4. Purposes of the Study ............................................................................... 7
1.5. Research Questions ................................................................................... 8
1.6. The Significance of the Study .................................................................. 8
1.7. The Scope of the Study ............................................................................. 8
1.8. Definitions of Terms ................................................................................. 9
1.9. Limitations ............................................................................................... 10
1.10. Summary ................................................................................................ 11
CHAPTER 2 - LITERATURE REVIEW .................................................... 12
2.1. Self-regulated learning .............................................................................. 12
2.1.1. Definition of Self-regulated learning ................................................ 12
2.1.2. Modules of Self-regulated learning .................................................. 15
2.1.2.1. Motivation .............................................................................. 15

vi


2.1.2.2. Learning Strategies ................................................................. 17
2.1.3. Historical overview of the emergence of the concept of selfregulated learning ............................................................................ 21
2.1.3.1. The emergence of self-regulated learning in Psychological
field ................................................................................................. 21
2.1.3.2. Self-regulated learning in Education field ............................... 23
2.1.3.3. Self-regulated learning as a suggestion to further research on
L2 learning/ ESL ............................................................................. 25
2.1.3.4. The emergence of the terms of self-regulated learning ............ 26
2.1.4. Self-regulated learning and Learner autonomy ................................. 27
2.2. Conceptual Framework of Self-regulated learning .................................... 29
2.2.1. Prior models of Self-regulated learning ............................................. 29
2.2.2. Previous studies of Self-regulated learning ....................................... 33

2.2.2.1. Research on self-regulated learning in Math, Science and
English L1 .............................................................................. 34
2.2.2.2. Research on self-regulated learning in distance courses ........... 35
2.2.2.3. Research on self-regulated learning in ESL/EFL learning ....... 36
2.2.2.4. The factors as the predictors for academic achievement .......... 39
2.3. The Framework of the Study ..................................................................... 40
2.3.1. The Module of Motivation ............................................................... 41
2.3.1.1. Exam Anxiety component ....................................................... 41
2.3.1.2. Extrinsic Goal Motivation component ..................................... 43
2.3.1.3. Self-Efficacy component ......................................................... 45
2.3.2. The Module of Learning strategies ................................................... 46
2.3.2.1. Effort Regulation component .................................................. 46
2.3.2.2. Peer Learning component ........................................................ 47
2.3.2.3. Rehearsal component .............................................................. 49
2.4. Summary .................................................................................................. 50
CHAPTER 3 - RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ........................................ 51
3.1. The Survey ............................................................................................... 51

vii


3.2. The Research Process ............................................................................... 52
3.3. Data Analysis Method .............................................................................. 55
3.4. Participants ............................................................................................... 56
3.4.1. The Subjects for the Pilot Questionnaire .......................................... 56
3.4.2. The Subjects for the Research Questionnaire ................................... 57
3.5. Instrumentation ......................................................................................... 57
3.5.1. Questionnaire ................................................................................... 57
3.5.1.1. Pilot Questionnaire .................................................................. 58
3.5.1.2. Research Questionnaire ........................................................... 59

3.5.1.2.1. Items removed ................................................................ 59
3.5.1.2.2. Re-formatting the questionnaire ..................................... 60
3.5.2. Statistic tools ................................................................................... 60
3.5.2.1. Reliability Statistics ................................................................ 60
3.5.2.2. Item-Total Correlation Statistics .............................................. 62
3.5.2.3. Descriptive Statistics ............................................................... 62
3.6. Summary .................................................................................................. 63
CHAPTER 4 - DATA ANALYSIS & DISCUSSION OF RESULTS .......... 64
4.1. Data analysis ............................................................................................ 64
4.1.1. Pilot Questionnaire .......................................................................... 64
4.1.1.1. Effort Regulation component .................................................. 65
4.1.1.2. Exam Anxiety component ....................................................... 65
4.1.1.3. Extrinsic Goal Motivation component ..................................... 66
4.1.1.4. Peer Learning component ........................................................ 66
4.1.1.5. Rehearsal component .............................................................. 67
4.1.1.6. Self-Efficacy component ......................................................... 67
4.1.2. Research Questionnaire .................................................................... 68
4.1.2.1. Effort Regulation component .................................................. 69
4.1.2.2. Exam Anxiety component ....................................................... 70

viii


4.1.2.3. Extrinsic Goal Motivation component ..................................... 71
4.1.2.4. Peer Learning component ........................................................ 72
4.1.2.5. Rehearsal component .............................................................. 73
4.1.2.6. Self-Efficacy component ......................................................... 74
4.2. Findings & Discussion .............................................................................. 75
4.3. Summary .................................................................................................. 83
CHAPTER 5 – CONCLUSION, PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATIONS &

RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................... 85
5.1. Conclusion ................................................................................................ 85
5.2. Pedagogical implications ........................................................................... 87
5.3. Recommendations for further researches .................................................. 90
Bibliography .................................................................................................... 92
Appendix A – Pilot Questionnaire (English and Vietnamese versions) ............ 104
Appendix B – Research Questionnaire (English and Vietnamese versions) ..... 112
Appendix C – Items in Pintrich et al.’s MSLQ from which the research
questionniare adapted ............................................................... 126
Appendix D – Tables of the process of computing Reliability Statistics and
Item-Total Correlation Statistics ............................................... 128

ix


ABBREVIATION

USSH – HCM city

: the University of Social Sciences and Humanities of Ho Chi
Minh city

MSLQ

: the Motivation Strategies for Learning Questionnaire

EFL

: English as Foreign Language

ESL

: English as Second Language

L2

: Language two

L1

: Language one

x


ABSTRACT
This study investigated the self-regulated learning strategies that students
employed in the preparation for the English Entrance Exam. The subjects in the
study already passed the exam to the English Major at the USSH – HCM city for the
academic year of 2010-2011. 321 students were divided into two groups. Group one
consisted of students who got the score of 7 and over for the subject of English in
the entrance exam, the others in group two.
The research applied a questionnaire to investigate these students’ selfregulated learning strategies. The questionnaire consisted of 32 items, distributed
into six components which are, alphabetically, Effort Regulation, Exam Anxiety,
Extrinsic Goal Motivation, Peer Learning, Rehearsal, and Self-Efficacy. The
questionnaire adapted from the MSLQ developed by Pintrich et al. (1994) was used
to explore the differences between the self-regulated learning strategies ultilized by
the two groups of students.
The findings display that group-one students are more active than their
counterparts when regulating their learning strategies for the components of Effort

Regulation, Extrinsic Goal Motivation, Rehearsal, and Self-Efficacy. On the other
hand, group-two students are more active in taking strategies for Peer Learning.
Basing on the findings, the study made some suggestions for improving students’
learning ability. The work also suggests measures to psychologically enhance
students’ capability of regulating their efforts, to orientate student’s motivation and
to urge them into practicing their lessons over and over. Furthermore, teachers
should also tactfully make students positively anxious about their upcoming exam
but such anxiety ought not to press the students so hard that they may suffer nervous
breakdown.

xi


CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

This study reports the survey which aimed to investigate the self-regulated
learning strategies of 321 students when they prepared for the subject of English to
take the Entrance Exam to English major at USSH - HCM city for the academic year
of 2010 - 2011. This chapter introduces the general aspects of the survey. In this
chapter, the sections of Rationale, Theoretical Background, and Statement of the
Problems, Purposes of the Study, Significance of the Study, Scope of the Study,
Terms Definition and Limitations will be discussed in details. The research
questions which were formulated to lead the study are mentioned in section five of
this first chapter.

1.1. RATIONALE
1.1.1. Instruments to measure learning strategies
Since 1990, the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL), developed
by Oxford, has been used as the most famous language-learning strategies'

instrument by EFL researchers (Ayatollahi, 2011, p. 230). Recently, viewing
learning strategies from the self-regulated learning perspective entails a shift of
focus, though (Ayatollahi, 2011, p. 231). It shifts the focus from the actual strategies
and techniques that learners apply to the learners’ innate self-regulatory capacity. It
is believed that this underlying capacity motivates learners to apply personal
strategic learning mechanisms (Tseng et al. 2006). Aware of the Strategy Inventory
for Language Learning, Tseng, Dornyei, and Dierking (2006) found that the
inventory focuses on specific strategic behaviors and can be considered as
behavioral items. These authors wrote:
“We cannot assume a linear relationship between the individual
item scores and the total item scores. For example, one can be a good

1


memory strategy user in general while scoring low on some of the items in
the memory scale, e.g. acting out a new word or using flash cards. Thus ...
(such) scales are not cumulative and computing mean scale scores are
unjustifiable psychometrically” (Tseng et al., 2006, p. 83)
The past twenty years have witnessed a large body of second language
research targeting language-learning strategies (e.g. Anderson 2003; Chamot et al.
1999; Cohen 1998, 2002; Ehrman et al. 2003; Grenfell & Harris 1999; Lan &
Oxford 2003; Macaro 2001; MacIntyre 1994; McDonough 1995, 1999; Nunan 1997;
O’Malley et al. 1985; O’Malley and Chamot 1990; Oxford 1990, 1996; Purdie and
Oliver 1999; Purpura 1999; Wenden 1991; Wenden & Rubin 1987; Yamamori et al.
2003, as cited in Tseng et al. 2006, p. 80). As a result, instruments developed to
measure self-regulated learning strategies are different from the more commonly
used measures or inventories of language learner strategies. Being the pioneers of
this area, Pintrich and his colleagues (1994) have articulated a model of student’s
cognition, which argued that students regulate their cognition by using motivational

strategies in addition to cognitive and meta-cognitive strategies. These researchers,
then, suggest using the MSLQ, developed by Pintrich, Smith, Garcia, and
McKneachie (1991), as an instrument to measure learners’ strategies instead of the
inventory as the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning.

1.1.2. Measuring learning strategies in Vietnam context
Although self-regulation of learning has been shown to be teachable
(Zimmerman & Risemberg, 1997), Pape, Zimmerman, and Pajare (2002) shared the
idea that few teachers systematically help their students improve their selfregulatory processes. Furthermore, these authors believe students may better learn
on their own when their self-regulated learning strategies are instructed. These
authors affirmed:

2


“Students are seldom given much choice in academic tasks or
activities, and they are not typically provided with the explicit modeling of
strategic behaviors necessary to carry out complex learning tasks. They
are hardly ever given the opportunity to establish their own goals for their
academic work, to monitor their progress toward goals that are important
to them, or to observe their progress toward such goals. Further, students
are rarely given the choice of when, where, or with whom they will study”
(Pape, Zimmerman & Pajare, 2002, p. 1)
Self-regulation has been found to be positively correlated to achievement, with
highly self-regulated students being more motivated to use planning, organizational,
and self-monitoring strategies than low self-regulated students (Pintrich & DeGroot,
1990). Stoffa, Kush & Heo (2011) claimed that students who are capable of
monitoring their own meta-cognitive processes can control their learning by
applying individualized cognitive strategies in their own learning. These authors
even added that cognitive learning strategies play a major role in providing students

with methods to gain higher academic achievements (Stoffa, Kush & Heo, 2011, p.
2). Research on cognitive strategies has demonstrated a significant correlation
between cognitive learning strategies and academic performance, including
language learning (MacIntyre, MacMaster & Baker, 2001; Sachs, Law, Chan &
Rao, 2001). Pintrich and DeGroot (1990) found a positive correlation between
motivational beliefs and self-regulated learning. Furthermore, all affective
components were related to academic performance. In line with these findings,
Schunk and Zimmerman (1994) reported that there was a positive relationship
between self-efficacy and academic achievement and that if students are trained to
have higher self-efficacy awareness, then their academic performance also
improves. Clearly, educators, as well as students, must learn how the use of
personalized cognitive strategies contributes to language learning (Stoffa, Kush &
Heo, 2011, p. 2)

3


In Vietnamese context, in general, and in English major of USSH – HCM city
context, in particular, this tendency is expected to be prevalent when Vietnam, to a
certain extent, is still a country under the strong influence of Confucianism. Students
are more likely to demonstrate the habit of “listening and noting” instead of
“studying on their own.” Studying on Asian students’ learning styles, Littrell (2005)
found that for the style of introverted learning, knowledge is something to be
imparted by the teacher rather than discovered by the learners themselves; the
students receive learning from the teacher rather than interpret it (Littrell, 2005, pp.
6 – 7). Sue and Kirk (1972) discovered Asian students are more dependent on
authority Tables, and more obedient and conforming to rules and deadlines.
Furthermore, research has shown that Asian students use different language-learning
strategies than students from other cultural backgrounds (Politzer & McGroarty,
1985; Griffiths, 2003). Studying about students’ language-learning strategies

revealed that cultural factors play an important role in students’ choice of languagelearning strategies (Stoffa et al., 2011). These researchers found that when Chinese
students study in mainland China, Taiwan, or in the United States, they frequently
use comprehension strategies. In contrast, Chinese and Korean students use
infrequently memories strategies. Also, social strategies are also generally unpopular
among Chinese and Japanese subjects. Unfortunately, in such a situation, there is
little study addressing this realm in Vietnam’s context, leaving the self-regulated
learning to be a cavity regardless that it is proven to be closely related to learners’
achievement.

1.2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
According to Zimmerman (1989), self-regulated learners are individuals who
are “meta-cognitively, motivationally, and behaviorally active participants in their
own learning process” (Zimmerman, 1989, p. 4). Self-regulated learners set specific
learning or performance outcomes, and then monitor the effectiveness of their

4


learning methods or strategies and respond to their evaluations (Zimmerman, 1989).
Thus, a main feature of self-regulated learning is meta-cognition. This feature refers
to the awareness, knowledge, and control of cognition; the three processes that make
up meta-cognitive self-regulatory activities are planning, monitoring, and regulating
(Pintrich et al., 1991).

Zimmerman and Paulsen (1995) pinpointed that self-

monitoring is essential for learning improvement, which helps students focus their
attention on and discriminate between effective and ineffective performance and
reveals inadequate learning strategies. It improves time management as well.
Other aspects of self-regulated learning include time management, regulating

one’s own physical and social environment, and the ability to control one’s effort
and attention (Pintrich, 1995; Zimmerman & Risemberg, 1997). Time management
involves scheduling, planning, and managing one’s study time. Research found that
time planning and management training helped students better self-regulate their use
of study time and in turn, improved students’ grade-point average (Zimmerman,
Greenberg & Weinstein, 1994). Seeking to determine a link between student time
management and cumulative grade-point average in college students, Britton and
Tessor (1991) concluded that students’ capability of time management and their
short-range planning were more strongly related to their academic achievement than
their achieved scores.
Self-regulation is neither a measure of mental intelligence that is unchangeable
after a certain point in life nor a personal characteristic that is genetically hereditary
or formed in early life. Students learn self-regulation through experience and selfreflection (Pintrich, 1995). Teachers can teach in ways that help students become
self-regulating learners (Coppola, 1995; McCombs, 1989). Since self-regulation is
not a personality trait, students can control their behaviors and affect in order to
improve their academic learning and performance. In addition, self-regulated
learning is particularly appropriate for college students, as they have great control

5


over their own time schedule, and how they approach their studying and learning
(Pintrich, 1995).
When self-regulated learners find inadequate learning strategies, they will tend
to regulate their learning activities. Regulating refers to “the fine-tuning and
continuous adjustment of one’s cognitive activities” (Pintrich et al., 1991, p. 23).
Regulating activities enhance learning by employing a feedback loop during
learning (Zimmerman, 1989), and self-monitoring training has been found to
enhance performance across a wide variety of academic measures (Mace, Belfiore,
& Shea, 1989). Thus, students can become better learners if they become more

aware of their learning and then choose to act accordingly to that awareness.

1.3. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
According to Zimmermna & Risemberg (1997), self-regulation of learning has
been shown to be teachable, if teachers help their students systematically improve
their self-regulatory processes, their achievement will be surely improved (Pape,
Zimmerman & Pajare, 2002). Many researchers have found that self-regulation is
positively correlated to achievement, with highly self-regulated students being more
motivated to use planning, organizational, and self-monitoring strategies than low
self-regulated students (Pintrich & DeGroot, 1990; Stoffa, Kush & Heo, 2011;
MacIntyre, MacMaster & Baker, 2001; Sachs, Law, Chan & Rao, 2001; Schunk &
Zimmerman, 1994). Unfortunately, in Vietnam context, the learning strategies,
especially self-regulated learning, have been ignored in psychological education.
Moreover, students today are different from those in the past. Sousa (1988) wrote,
“Yesterday’s method worked well for yesterday’s students. However, the student’s
brain today is quite different from the one of fifteen years ago." For example,
“today’s children spend much more time on television and other electronic media
than with their parents” (Sousa, 1988). Learners today are no longer viewed as
passively being “instilled” with information and knowledge; they are actively

6


involved in reorganizing and reconstructing their existing knowledge with newlyabsorbed knowledge (Perkins, 1992). It is therefore paradoxical that people have not
yet paid sufficient attention to this realm despite its teachability and the fact that if
students become more aware of their learning and choose to act on that awareness,
they can become better learners.

1.4. PURPOSES OF THE STUDY
The survey aims to examine the relationship between the self-regulated

learning strategies applied and students’ achievements. Doing the survey, the thesis
author puts self-regulated learning strategies under the two large modules as
suggested by Pintrich et al. (1994), the first one of which is learner’s motivation,
and the second is learner’s learning strategies. For the first module, there are three
components taken into consideration which are Exam Anxiety, Extrinsic Goal
Motivation and Self-Efficacy. The second module is made up by another three
components: Peer Learning, Rehearsal and Self-Regulation.
The survey also aims to give feedbacks to teachers and educators in the
aspect of paying attention to students’ self-regulated learning strategies. McKeachie
(1988) discovered that teachers should help students become aware of alternative
ways of approaching learning situation to assist students to be effective in their
learning. There has also been plenty of research revealing that higher achievers use
more self-regulatory strategies, control their physical environment to meet their
needs, seek help when needed, and use time management skills (Chen, 2002, p. 14).
In line with contemporary theories of self-regulation in educational
psychology, this study also targets the core differences that distinguish groups of
students from their peers in terms of the self-regulated learning strategies applied.
By doing so, the study applies the descriptive statistics into considering the
employment of self-regulated learning strategies between the two groups of students
in question.

7


1.5. RESEARCH QUESTIONS
This study was done under the following research question:
- In what ways did the self-regulated learning affect students’ results of the subject
of English in the entrance exam in terms of the six components in question?
This research question has two sub-research questions:
o How did students who got from 7.00 and over for the subject of English in the

entrance exam regulate their self-learning during the preparation for the exam?
o How did students who got below 7.00 for the subject of English in the entrance
exam regulate their self-learning during the preparation for the exam?

1.6. THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY
The study gives us an insight into the relationship between learners’ selfregulated learning strategies and students’ achievements. This relationship is worth
considering because from the research findings, teachers and/or educators are able to
draw out the reasonable models of self-regulated learning strategies to instruct
students.
The study also gives us in-depth information about the differences of students
in their learning strategies when preparing for their entrance exam in terms of
students’ achievement.

1.7. THE SCOPE OF THE STUDY
This study confines itself to surveying students on six components of,
alphabetically, Effort Regulation, Exam Anxiety, Extrinsic Goal Orientation, Peer
Learning, Rehearsal, and Self-Efficacy. These components are grouped into two
modules. Learners’ motivation module consists of three components: Exam Anxiety,
Extrinsic Goal Orientation and Self-Efficacy and the other the module of learners’
learning strategies include three components of Peer Learning, Rehearsal, and Effort
Regulation.

8


The subject of this research work also limits to the surveyed first-year fulltime English majors studying at the Faculty of English Linguistics and Literature,
USSH – VNU-HCM in the academic year 2010 – 2011. There are totally 321
students involved in the study, consisting of students in 07 classes. Among these
students, 111 students got not less than 7.00 for the English test as part of the
National University Entrance exam, while the remaining 210 students got below

7.00.

1.8. DEFINITION OF TERMS
In this study, the following terms should be understood as they are defined in
this section.
Group of students: In this study, the population consisted of 321 first-year
students for the academic year of 2010 – 2011 at USSH – HCM city. These students
were divided into two groups in the study. ‘Group ONE’ was the selection of the
students who passed the entrance exam for the academic year of 2010 – 2011 with
the average scores of 7.00 and over for the English test, and the rest of students were
labeled ‘group TWO’. The score of 7.00 was taken into this study because it was the
term to distinguish talent students from the other students as the Faculty of English
Literature and Linguistics of the university put forward. Thus, the terms GROUP
ONE and GROUP TWO used in this thesis define the two groups mentioned above.
In chapter three, section 3.6 is the discussion of the two groups in details.
Components: In this thesis, the term component refers to the aspects that
students in the study took to regulate their self-learning. In some other studies, the
term subscale is used instead.
Scale: The term of scale is used for mentioning to something higher than
components in the previously mentioned sense, i.e. cognitive, meta-cognitive, etc.
mentioned chiefly in chapter two are the scales.

9


Modules: In this thesis, this term is used to mention the aspects of learners’
motivation and self-regulated learning strategies.
Other terms are used in their normal definition.

1.9. SUMMARY

In a nutshell, this chapter refers to the general aspects of the study. This
chapter begins with the Rationale, in which the instruments used for measuring
learning strategies and studies about measuring learning activities in Vietnamese
context are discussed. This chapter also mentions the psychology of studying about
learning strategies of students on which is the theory that the study bases. In this
chapter, the research questions, consisted of one main research questions and two
sub-research questions, are also mentioned. This chapter also mentions the problems
that launch the study and the purposes the study wants to get. Next to that, the
chapter acknowledges the significance of the study as well as the scope of study. In
the section of terms definition, the chapter suggests some terms that should be
understood in such a way that readers would not misunderstand from the contents of
the thesis.

10


CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter reviews the theories and literature relevant to the topic under
investigation in the present study. The first section of this chapter discusses the
linguistic notions of Self-regulated learning and the emergence of the terms Selfregulated learning in the environment of ESL/EFL. The second section provides the
conceptual framework of Self-regulated learning in two domains. They are the prior
models of Self-regulated learning and the previous studies on Self-regulated
learning.

2.1. SELF-REGULATED LEARNING
2.1.1. Definition of Self-regulated learning
Since the 1980s, the formulations of self-regulation have been named “selfcontrolled,” “self-instructed,” or “self-reinforced” (Zimmerman, 1986) in seeking to
explain learners’ capability to learn on their own and to understand their motivation
to do so. Phenomenological theorists (McCombs, 1989) who focused on students’

motivation as self-esteem and self-actualization defined it in dimensions such as
self-worth, planning, and goal setting, whereas behaviorists concentrated on selfmonitoring, self-instruction and self-reinforcement. Common to most of these terms,
however, (Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons, 1986) believed that self-observation, selfevaluation, self-improvement were parts of the self-regulatory process of the
students; Zimmerman (1986) had just taken the first step to conceptualize selfregulated learning. It was not until 1989 did Zimmerman define self-regulated
learning as, in terms of phenomenological, social cognitive, volitional, Vygotskian
and cognitive constructivist theories, “self-regulated learners are individuals who are
meta-cognitively, motivationally, and behaviorally active participants in their own

11


learning process” (Zimmerman, 1989, as cited in McMahon, 2001). To understand
the concept of self-regulation, one needs to take various interpretations into account.
Zimmerman (1990), then, confirmed that:
“Definitions of self-regulated learning involve three features: their
use of self-regulated learning strategies, their responsiveness to selforiented feedback out learning effectiveness, and their interdependence
motivational processes. Self-regulated students select and use selfregulated learning strategies to achieve desired academic outcomes on the
basis of feedback about learning effectiveness skill" (Zimmerman, 1990).
Pintrich and De Groot (1990) stated that there were many definitions of selfregulated learning. They also included three main components, which seemed
important to classroom context: first, “self-regulated learning includes students’
meta-cognitive strategies for planning, monitoring, and modifying their cognition"
(Brown, Bransford, Campione & Ferrara, 1983; Zimmerman & Pons, 1986, 1988),
second, “students’ management and control of their effort on classroom academic
tasks,” and third, “their actual cognitive strategies that students use to learn,
remember and understand the material” (Corno & Mandinach, 1983; Zimmerman &
Martinez-Pons, 1986, 1988). He described more exactly that regulating indicated
“the fine-tuning and continuous adjustment of one’s cognitive activities” (Pintrich et
al., 1991, as cited in Chen, 2002).
Pintrich (1995) reaffirmed that students may have different types of selfregulated learning: the first type was of behavior; the second was of motivation; and
the last was of cognition. However, the author believes there is a mixed type of selfregulation in students learning ability. Mih & Mih (2010) also asserted that there

were four types of self-regulation: cognitive, meta-cognitive, motivational, and
emotional.

12


Furthermore, the definition of self-regulation which “refers to the use of
processes that activate and sustain thoughts, behaviors, and affects in order to attain
goals,” later, was confirmed “Self-regulated learning refers to learning that results
from students’ self-generated thoughts and behaviors that are systematically oriented
toward the attainment of their learning goals" (Schunk & Zimmerman, 1997).
Until the 21st century, theorists and experts have provided more
understandable and concrete definitions. Pintrich (2000) defines self-regulated
learning as:
“Self-regulated learning 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 the contextual features in the environment.”
(Pintrich, 2000)
There are, apparently, two inseparable parts in Pintrich’s definition of selfregulation. First is the students must set “goals," and the other is then “to monitor,
regulate, and control [the] cognition, motivation, and behavior” within the limit of
the goals and specific settings. In line with the definition, Zimmerman (2001, 2002)
agrees that “what characterizes self-regulating students is their active participation in
learning from the metacognitive, motivational, and behavioral point of view."
Pintrich and Zusho (2002) reinforced the definition of self-regulated learning, the
construct of which refers “to an active constructive process whereby learners set
goals for their learning and monitor, regulate, and control their cognition,
motivation, and behavior, guided and constrained by their goals and the contextual
features of the environment” (Nicol & MacFarlane-Dick, 2006). As applied in
language learning, self-regulation can be defined more clearly by Schunk and Ertner

(2000) as:
“Self-regulation comprises such processes as setting goals for
learning, attending to and concentrating on instruction, using effective

13