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 self￾regulated 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 pre￾intermediate 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

STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP

I certify that this thesis, entitled “The Effects of Self regulated Learning Strategy on Non –

English Majors’ Oral CommunicationPerformance” is my own work.

Except where reference is made in the text of the thesis, this thesis does not contain material

published elsewhere or extracted in whole or in part from a thesis by which I have qualified

for or been awarded another degree or diploma.

No other person’s work has been used without due acknowledgement in the main text of the

thesis.

This thesis has not been submitted for the awarded of any degree or diploma in any other

tertiary institution.

Ho Chi Minh City, October 2015

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to exhibit my deepest gratitude to the dearest people who were willing to

stand by me during the time I was writing my thesis. Without them, the thesis would have

been hardly possible to complete.

First of all, I would express the warmest thank to the professors, who devotedly

worked with the TESOL 7 courses and the greatest thank to the Graduate School of Ho Chi

Minh City Open University for their timely and enormous support throughout the semesters.

Next, my special thanks are sent to my supervisor, Dr. Tran Thi Minh Phuong, who

was always there to ‘take me back’ whenever I get lost in the thesis direction and encouraged

me to protect my conviction in conducting the thesis. Indeed, my thesis could not be as good

as expected without her support.

Also, I am sincerely thankful for the enthusiastic colleagues of Bach Viet College

where I carried out the experiment for my thesis. I also thank TESOL7 classmates during the

valuable and memorial time working with them.

Then, I owe my family for their endless love to me, especially my parents. They are

the most motivation for me to try harder. Also, I appreciate my dear friends, who offered

help, gave me encouragement in writing the thesis.

I wish the best for all the people I am indebted to.

iii

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 self￾regulated 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