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 --- LE THI THU DAN THE EFFECTS OF SELF-REGULATED LEARNING STRATEGY ON ORAL COMMUNICATION PERFORMANCE OF NON-ENGLISH

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

tests are used to assess students’ oral communication Students’ oral assessment is based on the distribution Scale of Oral Test, designed by the school as follows:

Table 1: The distribution scale of oral test of Bach Viet College

Part 1

Criteria

Total

Table 1 presented the distribution scale of oral test of Bach Viet College of school year 2014-2015 As we can see, there are three fundamental components assessed: Pronunciation, spoken production and spoken interaction respectively accounted for 20%, 40% and 40% of the overall band score of 10 For the first component, students are expected to read aloud a short reading passage and correctly pronounce the words

Next, they have five minutes to prepare the topic which is randomly picked by an individual student and it takes two minutes for him/her to present the random topic All the topics are close to the real life situations, embedded in the course syllabus In this phase, students are supposed to precisely use grammar, range of vocabulary and meaningful contents of the topic

Then, students are asked to respond to the questions by an examiner with higher expectation of a variety of structures and vocabularies requiring fluency, appropriateness, precision and ideas All examiners share the same format of the questions To validate oral test’s results, students’ oral performances and examiners’ questions are carefully recorded The grade punctuation includes four level of achievement as below:

1- Excellent = from 9.0 onwards

2- Good = from 7.0 to less than 9.0

3- Rather good = from 5.0 to less than 7.0

4- Under average = under 5.0

At level 4, students are treated as a failure in the exam and have to retake another test If they constantly fail in the second, they are supposed to repeat the class in the next semester The school context has already been analyzed, which highlights the setting where the study was conducted At first, it is necessary to state the purposes of the study

1.2 PURPOSES OF THE STUDY

The current study aims to examine the effects of SRLS on the oral communication performance among non-English major students at Bach Viet College using mixed methods It also checks the hypothesis of that whether students who are infused with SRLS gain better achievement in oral tests than their counterparts, who traditionally learn in Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) In addition, mixed instructional methods and reliable instruments are used to examine the level use of SRLS use and students’ attitudes towards the SRLS implementation

2 What are students’ attitudes towards the self-regulated learning strategies?

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

1.4 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

The study contributes into the rare literature on SRLS in language learning and teaching within Vietnamese contexts, and the quasi-experimental research has provided more solid and concrete evidence of the effects of the SRLS towards students’ oral communication, which has been still in debate in educational research nationwide and worldwide Moreover, a combination

of metacognitive and cognitive strategies has significant impacts on students’ oral achievement

In addition, the instructional model of the study can be a reference for EFL teachers to apply in their classroom since SRLS proves effective to develop students’ language learning skills to enhance their language achievement

1.5 ORGANIZATION OF THE STUDY

The study includes five chapters Chapter one consists of the background of the study, rationales to carry out the study, school context, theoretical grounding, research aims, research questions, significance and organization of the study Chapter two summarizes the literature of the previous studies on SRLS including definitions, models of the SRLS and implemented model

of SRLS In this part, each strategy is defined to shed the light on the research design, the benefits of applying SRLS in language learning In chapter three, the study focuses on the research methodology as describing the objectives of the study, measurements and instruments used in the study In addition, the reliability and validity of the study are rigorously discussed herein Chapter four works out the results, analysis and discussions of the findings of the study Along with recommendations, suggestions for further research on SRLS, major conclusions, contributions and limitations of the study are included in chapter five

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

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW

The study is conducted to examine the effects of SRLS on students’ oral communication performance at a tertiary level In this SRLS model, metacognitive and cognitive strategies are believed to positively impact students’ oral communication achievement The literature review consists of three major parts The first encompasses definitions of self-regulated learning The second comprises of an overview of SRLS, its historical framework of relevant studies on self-regulated learning and its relation towards academic achievement This part provides a wider and deeper perspective into SRLS Afterward, some justifications are underpinned from the current research

2.1 THEORETICAL GROUNDING

In an effort to apply SRLS into classrooms, teachers should be aware of the utmost position of SRLS towards students’ achievement In essence, an abundance of theories and models of SRLS has been displayed by Bandura (1986), Zimmerman and Martinez-Ponds (1986), Pintrich and De Groot (1990), Schunk and Zimmerman (1994), Zimmerman (1998, 2000), Wang (2004), Nota, Soresi and Zimmerman (2004) Among those, Zimmerman (1989) assumes SRL belongs to metacognitive, motivational, and behavioral elements According to Zimmerman, strategies and motivation and actions are involved to monitor the SRL process Later, Zimmerman (1990) emphasizes motivational beliefs and cognitive strategies since the two elements help increase students’ success In other words, Zimmerman’s instructional models encompass volition and learning strategies, namely metacognitive and cognitive strategies In this way, self-regulated learners approach learning tasks in a mindful and confident manner They set goals proactively and adapt their plans to certain situations and eventually reach their set goals (Cleary and Zimmerman, 2004) In contrast, if they do not use strategies effectively, they may come up with failure and anxiety (Kurman, 2006) It can be said that students’ motivational beliefs and strategies can serve as indicators for their success Similarly, Pintrich and his colleages argue motivational strategies and learning strategies are the two essential aspects of SRL (Pintrich and De Groot, 1990; Garcia and Pintrich, 1994) The former are used to cope with stress and emotions that are sometimes generated during their learning The latter deal with understanding, intergration and retention of new information in the learning process

However, Bandura (1997) focuses on individuals’ motivational processes In those processes, individual learners shape their beliefs about their abilities, set positive outcomes and anticipate different pursuits and goals for themselves In this sense, he emphazises self-efficasy

beliefs have a significant role in regulation and motivation is supported by self-regulatory strategies, which are cognition and metacognition (Pintrich and De Groot,1990)

Among the aforementioned models, Pintrich’s (2000) model of SRLS fits the objectives

of the present study since it relates the use of SRLS to academic achievement, in which it covers cognitive and metacognitive aspects and other social, contextual features of the learning environment In essence, Pintrich’s is based on Bandura’s (1986) socio-cognitive framework as different processes of SRLS are classified and analyzed Self-regulation activities of these phases are structured into four areas: cognitive, motivational, behavioral, and contextual aspects In other words, motivational beliefs, metacognitive and cognitive strategies are mainly focused in SRLS studies Besides, Pintrich (2000) highlights the use of strategies and students’ metacognitive and cognitive strategies are turned into actions, into academic skills and into achievement In the same vein, Hsiao and Oxford ( 2002) affirm learning strategy is a useful tool for dynamic and conscious learning that leads to self-regulation and better achievement Moreover, Cohen (2010) argues that metacognitive strategies that are grouped and used to engage in conversations and cognitive strategies that are used to compensate for linguistics shortcomings in students’ speaking practice In addition, “a combination of cognitive and metacognitive strategy training more effectively enhances learning” (Purpura, 1999, p 311) Thereby, metacognitive and cognitive strategies, the spirit of the current study, are thoroughly clarified and analyzed to suit the purposes of the study

2.2 SELF-REGULATED LEARNING

2.2.1 Definitions of self-regulated learning

There have been numerous definitions of self-regulated learning, which makes it difficult

to adopt the best one Since 1990s, the formation of self-regulation has been named controlled”, “self-instructed”, or “self-reinforced” (Zimmerman,1986) to explain learners’ capacity to learn on their own and to understand their motivation to do so In this sense, SRLS is learners’ strong motivation to monitor their positive emotions to learn on their own In the same vein, SRL varied from autonomous learning to self-planned learning or self-education and self-efficacy (Hiemstra, 2004) Lemos (1999) assumes SRL as ability, capacity and strategies (Pintrich, 1999) or as a process (Pintrich, 2000; Zimmerman, 2000) It means that self-regulated learners possess strong volition, motivation and ability strategies to handle with tasks In other words, self-regulated learning in this sense is learners’ motivation for their continuous learning Besides, self-regulated learning is viewed as self-regulated thoughts, feelings and behaviors that

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

Pintrich (2000a) defines SRL as "an active, constructive process whereby learners set goals for their learning and then attempt to monitor, regulate, and control their cognition, motivation, and behavior, guided and constrained by their goals and the contextual features in the environment" (p 453) Pintrich (2000b) relates SRL and academic achievement in a multifaceted

approach:

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

At best, SRLS, according to Pintrich (2000), takes place when students engage their meta-cognition, cognition, motivation and resource management to ultimately enhance their performance

Later, Zumbrunn, Tadlock and Roberts (2011) contend SRL is a process that assists students in managing their thoughts, behaviors and emotions in order to successfully navigate their learning experience They argue that this process “occurs when a student’s purposeful actions and processes are directed towards the acquisition of information or skills” (Zumbrunn, Tadlock and Roberts, 2011) This is added to Dörnyei’s (2005) belief as he states self-regulation

in second language learning is “the degree to which individuals are active participants in their own learning” (p 191)

In fact, the current research takes the spirit of Pintrich and Zimmerman’s model when the authors assert SRLS is a directive process that learners transform their mental abilities into actions, into academic skills and into achievement (Zimmerman, 2000) It is more comprehensive to illustrate the model as the cycle below:

Figure 2.1: The directive process of self-regulated learning and achievement

Figure 2.1 displays the directive process of self-regulated learning and achievement by Zimmerman (2000) As the figure shows, SRLS is a directive process that directly or indirectly impacts students’ achievement In this sense, Zimmerman and Pintrich share the common point

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

Academic skills

Achievement

Mental abilities

Action

2.2.2 Instruments to measure self-regulated learning

In an attempt to clarify and classify methods and instruments to measure SRLS, Winne and Perry, (2000) distinguish two types of instruments measuring SRLS as follows: (1) instruments to measure SRL as an aptitude, which describes characteristics of stable self-regulated students and predicts their future behaviors and (2) instruments to measure SRL as an activity in order to collect information during the self-regulating process

The first cluster of instruments used to measure SRL as an aptitude include self-reporting questionnaires, structured interviews and teacher judgments (Winne and Perry, 2000)

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

• Structured interview is a useful tool to collect students’ attitudes and feelings towards a certain subject Zimmerman and Martinez-Ponds (1986) have developed a structured interview to assess SRL It encompasses specific components of SRLS such as rehearsing, organization and transformation Interview questions are designed by the researcher to provide more concrete information of the participants in this study

Other instruments are also built up to measure SRL as an activity: To collect students’ reports on their thoughts, mental processes and cognitive strategies they put into play of a task, think aloud is used to take students’ verbal responses (Zimmerman and Martinez-Ponds, 1986)

In the current study, the triangulation instruments: questionnaire, observation, verbal interviews are going to be explored to the full

All in all, measuring SRL raises challenges to researchers (Schraw and Impara, 2000; Winne, Jamieson, Noel and Muis, 2002; Winne and Perry 2000) since it is difficult to “assume a linear relationship between the individual item scores and the total item scores For example, one can be good at cognitive strategy in general but scoring low on some items in the cognitive scale and such scales are not cumulative and computing mean scale scores are unjustifiable in terms of psychometry (Tseng, Dorneyi, and Schmitt, 2006) Thus, to ascertain the reliability of the measurement, a combination of various tools is used to measure the variables Another possible difficulty when conducting a SRLS experiment is how to foster SRLS and how to deal with its challenges

2.2.3 Challenges to foster self-regulated learning in classroom

Teaching SRLS is ideal for language students to self-regulate, to be responsible for and to enhance their language achievement (Cohen, 2010) However, it is demanding for teachers to engage students in SRLS activities since providing opportunities and giving support for students

to self-regulate their learning is really a master stroke (Paris and Winograd, 1990) Many authors find that the major obstacle in helping students become self-regulated learners is the time required to teach students specific strategies (Boekaerts and Cascallar, 2006), which enables students to recieve new information and to effectively prepare for tasks (Paris and Winograd, 1990) In addition, teachers may find it difficult to control outside factors such as social identity

or learning styles, which can have major impacts on students’ development and those factors often have little to do with teacher’s instructions (Cleary and Chen, 2009) Conversely, students who are consistent with intellectual ability may be more engaged in SRL (Wang and Holcombe, 2010)

As such, teaching SRLS requires teachers to be self-regulatory in their own learning and teaching, thoroughly grasp characteristics of SRLS to efficiently instruct those to students, be flexible according to certain activities and tasks and reflective on their work in order to improve the teaching performance To the personal view, applying SRLS in Vietnamese contexts displays more challenges due to the traditionally inherent practice However, the more challenges of the tasks, the higher self-regulation level teachers will exhibit The challenges and obstacles arising from the current SRLS practice are also noticed in chapter five

2.3 SELF-REGULATED LEARNING STRATEGIES

2.3.1 Overview of language learning strategies

Learning strategy is useful for learners to better their language proficiency (Hsiao and Oxford, 2002) A learning strategy involves a series of “purposeful actions and processes directed at acquiring skill or information” (Clearly, 2006, p 309) One of the earliest researchers

in this field, Rubin (1975) views learning strategies as techniques or devices a learner may use to intake knowledge And learning strategies include "specific actions taken by learners to make learning easier, faster, more enjoyable, more self-directed, more effective, and more transferrable

to new situations" (Oxford, 1990, p 8) Effective learners are those who engage skillful strategies and better use learning strategies during learning (Dörnyei, 2005), whereas ineffective individuals fail to do so (O' Malley, Chamot and Kupper, 1989) In one word, students who make use of learning strategies better understanding information and effectively deal with certain tasks; whereas, students who do not know or use learning strategies often learn passively and constantly fail in school In fact, higher language achievers seem to use more strategies than lower achievers (Zeidner, Boekaerts and Pintrich, 2000; Zimmerman and Schunk, 2001a) In short, learning strategy drives students to be more active in their learning and SRLS is needed for students to get success in their learning

2.3.2 Self-regulated learning strategy in language learning

Self-regulated learning is an important predictor of language achievement (Zumbrunn Tadlock and Roberts, 2011) So far, many researchers strongly support students’ use of SRL in language learning since SRL not only serves students’ language learning but also compensates for the shortage in their ability (Zimmerman, 2001; Cohen, 2010) In this sense, students who employ SRLS better can gain higher achievement than their opponents Consequently, it is extremely important to equip students with SRLS (Noels, 2005); wheareas, few teachers effectively prepare students to learn on their own (Zimmerman, Bonner and Kovach, 2006; Zimmerman, 2001) and this drawback has been shared among Vietnamese language teaching contexts (Trinh, 2005) In a study to investigate the relationship between SRLS and achievement

of students of a major public university in Turkey, İnan (2013) finds that there are positive correlations between achievement and (1) three dimensions of SRLS (motivation and action to learning, planning and goal setting and strategies for learning and assessment), (2) motivation (Pintrich, Smith, Garcia and McKeachie, 1991) and (3) meta-cognitive and cognitive strategies

(Mayer, 1996; Yigzaw and Fentie, 2013) In a Vietnamese context, the finding from Tran and Duong (2013)’s research to investigate students’ attitudes towards SRLS among non English majors of a college in Dak Lak, Vietnamshows that students’ attitudes towards SRLS positively correlate their academic achievement

In a nutshell, SRLS play a focal role in language achievement However, SRLS, as fas as the researcher’s knowledge, are hardly ever conducted in the language learning and teaching context in Vietnam By teaching students to be more self-regulatory, teachers may experience greater success in promoting academic achievement and motivation in language learning since it can improve students’ skills and strategies to prepare for challenging tasks and assessments (Graham and Harris, 2005) Learning a language takes a lot of time and effort for students to obtain a certain level; therefore, it is necessary for teachers to teach students about strategies to self-regulate their own learning since SRLS can save a lot of time for students to deal with challenging tasks (Schunk and Zimmerman, 1998)

Overall, SRLS, namely meta-cognitive and cognitive strategies are used to help students deal with speaking tasks in order to obtain oral communication achievement in their learning English

2.4 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN REGULATED LEARNING,

SELF-DIRECTED LEARNING AND AUTONOMY

The three ‘look alike’ terms: “self-regulated learning”, “autonomy” and “self-directed learning” are sometimes misunderstood due to their somewhat similar attributes, the three terms; hence, are clearly defined and distinguished

“Self-regulated learning” is the term “used by a loosely affiliated group of North American educational psychologists”, studied by constructivists, who focus on “cognitive aspects of learning” (Benson, 2011, p 43) Self-regulated learning is a metacognitive process for language learners to obtain achievement (Corno, 2001) or “a directive process through which learners transfer their mental abilities into academic skills and into achievement” (Zimmerman,

1998, as cited in Benson, 2011; Zimmerman, 2000) In brief, self-regulated learning is learning that is guided by metacognition, strategy use and motivation

“Self-directed learning” is favorably used in Adult education in North America It refers

to “learners’ global capacity” to carry out “a broad field of the inquiry into the processes of non

institutional learning” It can be interpreted that self-directed learning focuses on leaners’ general abilities to handle with their own learning process whereas self-regulated learning is basically a cognitive process to manage their learning (Benson, 2011) and “autonomy” relates to “the particular personal or moral qualities associated with self-directed capacity” (Benson, 2011, p 37) Hence, self-directed learning is comprised in “autonomy” in a logical way

Little (2007) states that “learner autonomy now seems to be a matter of learners doing things not necessarily on their own but for themselves” or learner autonomy is the ability to “take charge of one’s own learning” Later, “ability” and “take charge of” are often replaced by

“capacity” and “take responsibility for”, respectively (p 14) These words are substituted, but its semantic meanings remain unchanged This ability was further explained not to be “inborn but must be acquired” by formal education practices (Holec, 1981, p 3) Thus, learners’ ability to perform actions for themselves and their proactive learning are what link the two terms In addition, Leaver (2009) assumes SRL as an umbrella concept which might result in a person who autonomously learns at different levels In this way, SRL is the determiner of autonomy However, many other researchers treat “self-regulated learning” as a component of “autonomy”

As Benson (2011) remarks:

Self-regulated learning is somewhat narrower than autonomy and it has exercised strong influence on North American research on learning strategies than it has on the theory of autonomy However, the literature review on self-regulated learning is a potentially rich source of insights into the cognitive aspects over learning which deserves to be explored more fully in the literature review on autonomy in language learning (p.44)

In short, self-regulated learning emphasizes autonomy and control by individuals who are able to monitor, direct, and regulate actions toward goals of information acquisition, expanding expertise, and self-improvement” (Paris & Paris, 2001) and self-directed learning is “one’s personal or moral qualities associated with self-directed capacity” (Benson, 2011, p 37),

embedded in “autonomy”

2.5 SELF-REGULATED LEARNING STRATEGY AND ORAL

COMMUNICATION IN LANGUAGE LEARNING

A strong relationship between SRLS and oral communication performance has been proved and combining cognitive and metacognitive strategies shows its significance towards students’ communicative competence (Purpura, 1999) In fact, communicative competence may

involve the interactions between metacognitive and cognitive strategies and language competence (Bachman, 1990) Cohen (1998) finds that learners who are instructed to use cognitive, metacognitive, compensatory, affective and social and memory obtain a positive effect

on their oral communication In addition, a study to test the effects of metacognitive strategies and students’ oral performance in a secondary English class in Hong Kong by Lam ( 2009) shows a positive correlation in terms of students’ oral discussion tasks Further, Qi Wu (2012)’s study shares the result of the relationship between oral English competence and SRLS, including metacognitive, cognitive, social and effective strategies among Chinese English learners The study also reveals that Chinese college students have employed different strategies to deal with tasks and those who more frequently use SRLS perform better than others who less often employ SRLS in their oral practice In addition, in a study to infuse metacognitive strategies in order to enhance speaking performance among 32 foreign language university students in the US by Cohen, Weaver and Li (1998) reveals the superior results of the experimental group after the treatment and those students better use metacognitive strategies than the control group (as cited

in Nakatani, Yasuo; Goh, Christine, 2007)

Later, Bekele (2013) examines the effects of enhancing self-regulated learning in the teaching of spoken communication among the second year students in the College of Business and Economics of Bahir Dar University The result displays the experimental group surpasses the control group in both speaking efficacy and performances However, there are no studies in Vietnam, to the researcher’s knowledge, implementing self-regulated strategies to enhance students’ oral communication performance at a tertiary level Thus, to fill in the gap in the literature, the study was implemented to test the effects of metacognitive and cognitive strategies

on oral communication performance of non-English major students at Bach Viet College

2.6 CHARACTERISTICS OF SELF-REGULATED LEARNERS

Self-regulation is neither a long term measure of mental intelligence of a certain point of life nor a personal characteristic that is a genetical attribute (Pintrich, 1995) In other words, it is not a personality trait, so students can control their behaviors to improve their academic performance (Pintrich, 1995) Later, Zimmerman views self-regulated students as those who actively take part in their learning process using metacognitive, motivational and behavioral processes ( 2001) to monitor their learning

Self-regulated learners are, in fact, distinctive from their peers Many research show that self-regulated students are more engaged in learning than their opponents These learners often

seat themselves in front of classrooms (Labuhn, Zimmerman and Hasselhorn, 2010), raise questions and voluntarily give answers to questions (Elstad and Turmo, 2010) Moreover, they are willing to seek for additional resources for their learning (Clarebout, Horz and Schnotz, 2010) They know how to adjust learning environments for their effective learning (Kolovelonis, Goudas and Dermitzaki, 2011) They are more likely to seek out advice (Clarebout, Horz and Schnotz, 2010), information (De Bruin, Thiede and Camp, 2001) and positive learning atmospheres (Labuhn at el, 2010) than their counterparts who are less self-regulatory Recent studies expose that self-regulated learners perform better on academic tests and measures of students’ performance and achievement (Schunk and Zimmerman, 2007; Zimmerman, 2008) Thus, it can be concluded that SRL can make the difference between academic success and failure of students (Graham and Harris, 2000; Kistner, Rakoczy and Otto, 2010)

Generalized from the previous studies, five basic characteristics differentiating regulated students with non-or-lessself-regulated individuals are those who:

self-(1) know how to apply cognitive strategies to attend to, transform, organize, elaborate, and recover information (Winne, 1995; Zimmerman, 2001);

(2) are likely to apply metacognitive strategies such as planning, controling, and directing their mental process toward achievement oftheir set goals (Corno, 2001);

(3) possess strong motivation and adjust their emotions to obtain their pre-set goals or adapt themselves in specific learning situations (Weinstein, Husman and Dierking, 2000)

(4) can make their own learning plans and create favorable learning environments (Corno, 2001; Winne, 1995; Zimmerman, 2001)

(5) own strong volition and can minimize inside and outside distractions in order to maintain their concentration to complete tasks (Weinstein, Husman and Dierking, 2000; Zimmerman, 2001)

In brief, self-regulated learners are able to utilize metacognitive strategies and cognitive strategies to turn mental process into actions into academic skills and into achievement In one hand, they know how to set goals, make learning plans and evaluate their progress On the other hand, they are likely to employ cognitive strategies to help them attend to, transform, organize, elaborate and recover information to deal with task difficulties In addition, they show their strong motivation, volition, positive emotion to continue their learning, seek for more favorable

learning environments to overcome difficulties to gain the set goals Additionally, good regulated students possess abilities to identify goals for a specific task, select appropriate strategies to achieve the goals, adjust the strategies as they progress and reflect on their performance and achievement By doing so, they can form a positive look for their future learning (Schunk, 1990) They can realize their own strengths and weaknesses and have a repertoire of strategies to develop the strengths and compensate for the weaknesses As a result, self-regulated learners attain good learning ability and accordingly higher performance, as opposed to those with low achievers who show a lack in these variables (Zimmerman, 1998) As such, it is vital to instruct appropriate SRLS to students since SRLS can help compensate for learners’ weaknesses (Zimmerman, Bonner and Kovach, 2006) to enhance achievement

self-2.7 THE FRAMEWORK OF THE STUDY

Learning strategies involves all strategies that are directly related cognitive or indirectly attached to metacognitive Cognitive deals with clarification, practice, memorizing, and monitoring, and metacognitive works with planning, setting goals and self-management (Rubin, 1987)

The current study on ‘the effects of SRLS on students’ oral communication performance’ was conducted with the following reasons First, many prior research in this field, to the researcher’s knowledge, basically focus on motivational factors rather than metacognitive and cognitive strategies though metacognitive and cognitive strategies show its paramount position towards students’ academic achievement Second, oral tests but not written ones are used in this study because the syllabus is attentive to students’ oral communication, accounted for 70% of the total evaluation and 30 % is sent to the written test Moreover, a written test is conducted in week five of the course, which is inefficient for the researcher to implement the experiment in such limited span of time In contrast, oral test is conducted one week after the end of the course, so students have more time to practice the strategies and review what they have learnt to confidently perform in the test Third, learners’ goals of communication and uses of strategies may shift from being a metacognitive process to a cognitive one and vice versa (Cohen, 2010) Moreover, the interactions between metacognitive and cognitive strategies and language competence are employed to better communication competence (Bachman, 1990) Thus, one of the objectives of the study is to fill in the gap in the literature review to focus on actual strategies rather than motivational factors In addition, studies on SRLS have never been conducted in EFL Vietnamese contexts Consequently, this study checks whether or not SRLS, namely,

metacognitive and cognitive strategies positively impact students’ oral communication performance

In terms of the framework of the current study, Pintrich and De Groot (1990)’s SRLS model is utilized to operationalize to the experimental class since it fits the objectives of the study when relating metacognitive and cognitive strategies to students’ achievement Three strategies of SRLS, namely (1) metacognitive, (2) cognitive and (3) resource management

strategiesare as follows:

(1) Metacognitive strategies which students use to plan, monitor, and reorganize their cognition;

(2) Cognitive strategies that are, rehearsal, elaboration, and organization which students use

to learn, remember, and fully comprehend concepts of the subjects;

(3) Resource management strategies that are time and resource management which students use to monitor and accomplish their assignments (Pintrich and De Groot, 1990)

Basing on the categories of SRLS by Wang (2004), the questionnaire of SRLS was built

up to measure the level use of SRLS among the participants These categories evolved from Pape and Wang (2003)’s SRL categories which were regrouped from Zimmerman and Martinez-

Ponds (1986)’ classification of SRLS

Indeed, these strategies are important to students’ academic performance (Zimmerman, 2002; Schunk and Zimmerman, 2001a) However, in a study on the relationship between Iranian EFL learners’ goal oriented of SRL and their writing performance by Mohebi, Beykmohammadi, and Farsani (2011), the finding shows no relation between resource management strategies and students’ writing performance Moreover, as earlier explained, due to the limitations of the current context, resource management strategies were not put into account of the current study

To elicit the strategies used in the current study, metacognitive and cognitive strategies as an individual and as a whole were shed more light on

2.7.1 Metacognitive strategies in language learning

Metacognitive strategy is defined as the awareness of and knowledge about one's own thinking (Zimmerman, 2001), which students use to control their cognitive process to handle with task challenges (Pintrich and De Groot, 1990) Metacognitive strategies include goal setting and planning and self-evaluation used to control and monitor an individual’s learning process (Pintrich,1999) Metacognition is generally assumed to comprise two components: metacognitive

regulation and metacognitive knowledge (Flavell, 1987; Schraw and Moshman, 1995) However,

in educational settings, the latter was employed since it relates self-regulatory processes which students use to control their cognition, motivation, and behaviour to students’ achievement (Pintrich and De Groot, 1990) In addition, many research display a trong relationship between oral proficiency and metacognitive strategies among language learners（Qi Wu, 2012; Goh, 1998; Malcolm, 2009; Vandergrift, 2005) Lam (2009) uses a multi-method approach in her study to examine the effects of metacognitive strategy on oral discussion performance within secondary students in an ESL oral classroom in Hong Kong The result reveals that the experimental class generally outperforms the control class in terms of English proficiency and task effectiveness

Besides, many authors share the assumptions of metacognitive strategies (Pintrich, 2004) Students who (1) possess metacognition are viewed as proactive participants in the learning rather than passive receivers of knowledge (2) are able to control, monitor and self-regulate their learning at hands (3) know how to set goals for their learning and evaluate their ongoing process

to determine whether a change is needed Furthermore, they make use of different techniques to improve their learning strategies and reflect what they have done through a period of time These techniques fall into the following categories: planning a course of study, monitoring, and evaluating their work (Archer, 2001), and controling their cognition (Pintrich, 1999) Also, Akyol and Garrison (2011) define metacognition as “a set of higher knowledge and skills to monitor, regulate and manifest cognitive processes of self and others” (p 184) In other words, metacognitive strategies comprise of executive processes in planning, monitoring comprehension and productions and evaluating how well they have been achieved their learning objectives (O' Malley & Chamot, 1987) In a nutshell, metacognition is a required cognitive ability to achieve deep and meaningful learning that enhances learners’ achievement Metacognitive refers to one’s abilities to control various cognitive activities (Brown, Bransford, Ferrara, and Campione, 1983)

2.7.2 Cognitive strategies in language learning

Cognitive strategies are defined as the “internal processes by which learners select and modify their ways of attending, learning, remembering and thinking” (Gagne, Briggs and Wager, 1988, p 67) According to Chomsky, these internal processes enable learners to use language creatively and through them “we can produce and understand sentences which we have never come across before, in order to meet the unpredictable demands of daily communications” (Littlewood, 1992, p.39) In other words, cognitive strategies are methods used by learners to

deal with tasks (Pintrich and De Groot, 1990) in order to improve their performance Cognitive strategies exhibit significant predictors to learners’ achievement (Zimmerman & Martinez-Ponds, 1990; Zimmerman, 1994; Pintrich, 2000; Schunk, 2001; MacIntyre, MacMaste and Baker, 2001; Yigzaw and Fentie, 2013) In fact, students’ cognition about learning can be placed within the theory of metacognition (Pintrich and De Groot, 1990) Overall, some categories of students’ cognitions about learning can be identified as (1) cognitions about what learning and knowledge constitute (Schommer, 1990), (2) cognitions about the learning environment (Elen and Lowyck, 1998), (3) cognitions about one’s strengths and weaknesses as a learner (Bandura, 1997), (4) cognitions about variables which influence learning performance (Weiner, 1986) Cognitive strategies go beyond the processes that are naturally required for carrying out a task (Pressley, Harris and Marks, 1992) Cognitive strategies basically are generalised as follows:

(1) Rehearsal and memorizing ( repeating themselves to what they are reading or hearing); (2) Organizing and transforming (categorizing or groupingknowledge/ materials, and critical thinking on what have on);

(3) Keeping records and monitoring (recording events or results);

(4) Reviewing records (rereading notes, textbooks prior tests or exams) (Zimmerman & Martinez-Ponds, 1990) regrouped from Wang C (2004)

These components are important for learners to control over their learning In this study, the metacognitive and cognitive strategies are treated as one due to the most effective combination

2.7.3 Metacognitive and cognitive strategies in language learning

Due to the emergence of cognitivism in educational psychology since 1960, learners are encouraged to be responsible for their own learning and thus they are no longer considered as passive individuals who just receive knowledge, but proactively engage in organizing their already exisiting knowledge and constructing new information (Perkins, 1992) In essence, students’ deficiencies in learning are ascribed to a lack of metacognitive strategies and an inability to compensate for the shortage of the selves and metacognition can help enhance students’ self-control (Shapiro, 1984) and create willingness for personal changes (Curry, 1983)

However, it is often insufficient if learners who lack fundamental skills solely possess metacognitive strategies to facilitate their learning (Zimmerman, 2001) They need to use cognitive strategies to overcome challenges to deal with tasks and maintain their positive emotions to continue the learning Hence, the interactions between metacognitive and cognitive strategies and language competence may be established (Bachman, 1990) and learners are

required to use both metacognitive and cognitve learning strategies for their learning process to attain achievement (Schoenfeld, 1992) In addition, Purpura (1999), Grabe (2009), Cohen (2010) and Bachman and Palmer (2010) assume metacognitive strategies are not disassociated from cognitive strategies since and “a combination of cognitive and metacognitive strategy training more effectively enhances learning” (Purpura, 1999, p 311) In this sense, metacognitive and cognitive strategies go ‘hand-in-hand’ In other words, the two terms are either separately used as the independent one or interwoven as a whole As such, students are involved in setting goals and making plans for their learning process, monitoring, regulating and controling their cognition (Pintrich, 1999), motivation and behaviour (Wolters, Pintrich and Karabenick, 2003) Such

‘active constructive’ process is called SRL (Pintrich, 2003) The current study intentionally operationalizes metacognitive and cognitve strategies to test whether or not SRLS enhance students’ oral communication so that it can provide more concrete evidence to the previous studies on the positive impacts of SRLS on language learners’ oral communication

There are six specific components of metacognitive and cognitive strategies: goal setting and planning, self-evaluation, organizing and transforming, keeping records and monitoring, rehearsing and memorizing and reviewing records All of the categories are classified in Table 2

Table 2: Self-regulated learning strategies Categories

Students’ setting of educational goals or sub-goals and planning for sequencing, timing and completing activities related to those goals

I studied two weeks before exam and pace myself

2 Self evaluation

Student’s initiated evaluations of the quality or progress of their work

I had a lots of interesting ideas about topic of my future job

3 Rehearsing and

memorizing

Student’s initiated efforts to memorize material by overt or covert practice

I wrote the new words and read aloud over and over to remember

4 Organizing and

transforming

Student’s initiated overt and convert rearrangement of instructional materials to improve learning

I made my outline before presenting the topic

5 Keeping records and monitoring

Student’s initiated efforts to record events or results

I took notes teacher’s comments on my speaking

6 Reviewing records

Student’s initiated efforts to reread notes prior exams

I rehearsed the topics before the exams

Table 2 presents the categories and subcategories of SRLS by Zimmerman and Ponds, 1990, regrouped from Wang (2004) with some adaptation to fit the objectives of the study Besides, the definitions of terms remain unchanged compared to the original one to keep the unique meanings of the terms Moreover, the examples of sub-categories are adapted in order

Martenez-to suit the current situations Additionally, it is necessary Martenez-to make clarifications on the modules

of metacognitive and cognitive strategies to see the characteristics of the individual components more clearly

(1) Goal setting and planning is a vital step for students to self-regulate their learning Goal setting and planning are the two distinctive terms but in reality they are complementary processes (Schunk, 2001) Planning helps learners think out, establish and manage their goals and strategies to get success Planning is taken place in three steps: setting goals for learning tasks, establishing strategies to achieve the goal, and determining how much time and effort will be needed to achieve the goal (Schunk, 2001) Teaching students to approach academic tasks with a plan is a feasible method to promote self-regulation learning (Pressley and Woloshyn, 1995; Schneid, 1993) Besides, goals are viewed as standards to regulate an individual’s actions (Schunk, 2001) In the classroom, goals may be simply to talk about a topic students have just learned or solely

to complete a task There are two types of goals, short term attainable goals and long term goals (Zimmerman, 2004) In fact, the former is viewed as a tool to reach the latter For example, setting objectives to certain tasks or a lesson is regarded as the short term goal

to achieve high scores in the exam, treated as the long term goal During this process, students employ cognitive strategies to deal with the tasks In fact, setting short term goals is effective for students to track their progress (Zimmerman, 2004) to reach long term goals In the operationalization, goal setting and planning and self-evaluation were instructed to students in the first session of the course and other strategies were eventually infused into the lessons

(2) Self-evaluation: To become SRL learners, students must be self-responsible to monitor their learning to reach the pre-set goals (Kistner, Rakoczy and Otto, 2010) At the same time, students are expected to evaluate their progress by reflecting the strategies used to handle with particular tasks They also evaluate the effectiveness of the strategies and of their overall performance to make some adjustment in the use of strategies or the pre-set goals (Schraw and Moshman, 1995) In fact, students are more likely to become self-regulated learners when they are able to evaluate their own learning and be independent from teachers’ assessments (Winne and Hadwin, 1998)

(3) Rehearsal and memorizing involve repeating what learners are reading or hearing (Zimmerman, 2004) They can repeat the lines in a reading text, spelling letters of a word or listing ideas of a topic Avoid trying to memorize an entire speech Students are likely to forget some lines and the speech may be stiff However, memorizing a quotation, an opening paragraph, or a few concluding remarks can bolster their confidence and strengthen the talk

(4) Organization and transformation are strategies students use to arrange information in order to memorize the lessons or ideas or they translate the target language into their mother tongue (Zimmerman, 2004)

(5) Keeping records and monitoring are used to make an outline, note cards, or visual aids to help them deliver the talk This is probably the most effective and the easiest delivery mode It gives students something to refer to and still allows for eye contact and interaction with the audience (Thill and Bovee,1999)

In summary, good self-regulated learners are those who are able to set short and long term goals for their learning, monitor their learning process to reach their goals They are also likely to employ multiple cognitive strategies and adjust those strategies, seek help from others, self-evaluate their performance and make progress for their learning To do so, explicit

instructions of cognitive strategies and metacognitive strategies to students are the requirements for EFL teachers (Baker and Brown, 1984; Pressley, 2000)

2.8 INSTRUCTIONAL APPROACHES TO DEVELOP SELF-REGULATED

LEARNING

In order to foster SRLS among students, teachers are expected to employ appropriate skills, techniques and strategies to teach their students In fact, a wide range of literature has displayed instructional strategies for language teachers to develop SRL in classrooms (Cleary and Zimmerman, 2004; Boekaerts and Corno, 2005; De Corte, Mason, Depaepe, and Verschaffel, 2011; Stoeger and Ziegler, 2011; Tonks and Taboada, 2011; Andreassen and Braten, 2011) These strategies include direct instruction and modeling, guided and independent practice, social support and feedback, and reflective practice

Direct instruction and modeling

Direct instruction involves explicitly explaining different strategies to students, showing them how the strategies are used and what skills are involved in the strategies and when, how and why to use this or that strategy is made clear by teachers (Zimmerman, 2008) The main features of direct instruction are modeling and demonstrations, but incorporating the two creates the best one to foster SRL (Levy, 1996) These steps involve planning, elaborating strategies to accomplish tasks and reflecting on what have been done (Schunk and Zimmerman, 1998) In essence, teacher’s behaviors are assimilated to students and students follow the same processes (Boekaerts and Corno, 2005) Direct instruction is suitable for learners who fail to independently use SRLS effectively (Zimmerman, 2000) and modeling is the most recommended instruction for teaching SRL (Graham and Harris and Troia, 1998) This instructional model is mostly used

in the operationalization, which is exposed in the lesson plans

Guided Practice

Guided practice is another way to foster SRL (Lee, McInerney and Liem, 2010) First, teachers provide guidance and then leave students practice independently and students can receive feedback from others and teachers, afterwards During the guided practice, teachers eventually shift responsibilities of employing strategies, reflecting and evaluating performances

to students Then, teachers make comments on students’ use of strategies and their overall

performance (Lee et al., 2010) For instance, when talking about a topic of your house, with teacher’s first instructions, students know to use rehearsing strategy for their speaking They list the headlines of the talk to form a picture in their minds and then present their ideas according to what are going on their minds Next time, whenever coping with similar tasks or activities, they could make choice of the strategies on their own to complete the tasks without teacher’s first instructions.However, teachers have to carefully observe and offer help when necessary It is strongly believed that guided practice is the good way for teachers and students to interact with each other and for teachers to grasp students’ strengths and weaknesses

Independent practice

Independent practice naturally follows guided practice (Onrubia, 1996) The procedure of independent practice is somehow the same as the guided practice, but the former emphasizes feedback on strategy effectiveness The common aim is to transfer responsibility, control of initiating, applying and evaluating strategies to students (Onrubia, 1996) In this process, students are given opportunities to practice strategies on their own, foster autonomous learning (Schunk and Zimmerman, 2007) and better academic achievement In fact, this instruction is essential for students to self-regulate their learning (Valle, Gonzalez Cabanach, Vieiro and Suarez, 1998) At best, combining guided and independent practice can create positive learning environment for students to self-regulate their learning

Social support and feedback

Social support from teachers or peers plays an important role for students to become regulated learners Feedback often involves information about what students did (not do) well (Zimmerman and Schunk, 2001) Teacher’s feedback can be classified into two categories: general and specific feedback When teachers immediately react to students’ overall performance with general praises (i.e well done!’, ‘great!), they are providing with general feedback Specific feedback involves specific information about student’s performance with constructive comments for further improvement So, specific feedback serves a corrective function (Lee, 2003) For instance, when students present a topic of their last vacation, using simple present, so teachers first acknowledge student’s efforts, then point out the mistakes and explain the reason why they should use the simple past but not the simple present If so, students can recognize their mistakes and later pay more attention to the tense use In this way, teachers provide more specifically

self-positive and constructive feedback to help contribute to students’ self-regulated learning (Whipp, and Chiarelli, 2004)

Self-reflective practice

Self-reflective practice is basically viewed as metacognition enables teachers to explore possible reasons for the effectiveness of an instructional strategy used in classrooms In this instruction, students independently practice and reflect the strategies used for certain tasks, evaluate the effectiveness of strategy use and the performance Students make some adjustment

to their pre-set goals if needed and create a more favorable learning environment Ultimately, it accommodates students to self-regulate their learning (Gibson, Hauf and Long, 2011) In fact, self-reflective practice generally involves the characteristics of the above instructional models Thus, self-reflective practice is the most used in the teacher researcher’s instructions

Briefly, the above instructional approaches can be classified into three: direct, indirect and integrated instructions These approaches have been widely used due to its significance In essence, direct and explicit strategy instructions are the powerful approaches, but students may fail to incorporate the SRLS into their academic routines without guided and independent practice (Lee et al., 2010) In addition, Block and Pressley (2002) contend cognitive and metacognitive strategies should be taught through modeling, scaffolding, guided practice and independent instructions Thus, to better the effectiveness of the SRLS, the teacher-researcher combined multiple approaches to compensate for the shortage of individual approaches and make use of different techniques for efficient instructions

2.9 PROCEDURES TO IMPLEMENT SELF-REGULATED LEARNING

procedures of the operationalisation are clearly showed in the lesson plan The teacher researcher provides considerate comments on students’ performance and the uses of the trained strategies Consequently, students become more conscious of their academic progress rather than just be aware of their learning outcomes (Zimmerman, Bonner and Kovach, 2006) SRLS can be exercised in-class tasks (Pajares, 2008) to enhance students’ learning performance and lifelong learning (Pajares, 2006) In addition, skills and areas should be taught together so that students can engage a greater use and a variety of cognitive strategies (Tierney and Shanahan, 1991) In this sense, the current study has embedded at least two skills or one skill and one area in a lesson

so that students have more opportunities to make best use of strategies when handling with tasks

In general, models of SRL are separated into three phases: (1) Forethought and planning, (2) performance monitoring, and (3) reflections on performance (Pintrich and Zusho, 2002; Zimmerman, 2000) The three phases reflects metacognitive and cognitive strategies

2.9.1 Forethought and planning phase

Forethought and planning phase is the first and foremost step in the SRL process, treated

as a platform for actions (Reis, 2004) In this phase, students internalize the problems they are coping with, their desired learning outcomes so that they can create suitable goals for their learning process Besides, they ask themselves a lot of questions sush as when, where, why and how to start their study and who to study with (Reis, 2004) As such, the frequent questions they often ask are what goals of the task are, what strategies are more effective with this type of task and how much and how well they have completed the tasks Moreover, students generally make acquainted with metacognitive strategies in this phase They analyze tasks and set specific goals toward the tasks Coping with unfamiliar topics, students are unable to employ the best ways to approach the tasks and accordingly they fail to set suitable goals for the tasks (Zimmerman,

2000, Pintrich and Zusho, 2002;) As previously mentioned, there are short term goals for specific tasks and long term goals for the learning outcomes In fact, self-reaction, self-observation, and self-judgment affect student abilities to the two goals and maintain positive emotions (Schunk, 1990) and if students have properly accomplished the forethought and planning phase, it shapes a positive outlook towards their academic performance without concerning about extrinsic rewards (Schunk, 1990) As such, most of the time, the teacher researcher and students worked for the short term goals so as to achieve the long term set at the beginning of the course

2.9.2 Monitoring phase

In monitoring phase, cognitive strategies are emphasized so that students can monitor the effectiveness of the used strategies, which motivates them to accomplish the ongoing process (Zimmerman, 2000; Pintrich and Zusho, 2002) Students are trained with cognitive strategies to handle with the difficulties of tasks (Pintrich and De Groot, 1990) There are three important points in the monitoring phase They are attention, self-instruction and self-monitoring (Schunk and Zimmerman, 1998) First, students have to attentively focus on the learning no matter how the distraction of the environments is or even the instructions get them confused It means that they have ability to direct themselves in the learning schemes (Paris and Winograd, 2001) Next, students who are good at self-instruction know whether they are being distracted from the learning atmosphere, whether or not they should take a break to reduce frustrations so that they regain the energy to stay on the tasks Third, self-monitoring plays crucial roles in students’ progress, especially, in important tasks since it helps to deal with students’ problems or performance when students deal with certain tasks However, it must take a lot of time for students, so students should make use of the trained strategies (Schunk and Zimmerman, 1998)

In short, it is necessary for students to question themselves: whether they are using the strategy

as planned, whether they are staying focused on the tasks, if the strategies they use work with these tasks or whether or not they adjust the used strategies

2.9.3 Reflection phase

Reflection on performance is used to evaluate their performance on the hands-on tasks regarding its efficiency of the used strategies During this stage, students manage their emotions about the outcomes of the learning experience by self-reflection (Pintrich and Zusho, 2002; Zimmerman, 2000) Students can reflect and evaluate their reactions to their performance and goals based upon their learning outcomes In this phase, they assess their achievements or failures and adjust their self-efficacy or pre-set goals For example, they ask themselves whether they have accomplished what they have planned and what strategies they have used to deal with tasks effectively In addition, students adapt or adjust themselves to create more favorable learning environments (Schunk and Zimmerman, 1998) In fact, self-reflection is extremely important for students’ self-regulation Good self-regulated students are those who know how to monitor their learning, evaluate the effectiveness of the use of strategies, compare their learning outcomes to their pre-set goals, attentively listen to feedback from others and especially continuously self-reflect the ongoing process (Schunk and Zimmerman, 1998) The self-

reflective process mainly involves cognitive strategies like rehearsal, organization or metacognitive strategies such as planning, goal settings (Reis, 2004) In addition, Ertmer and Newby (1996) assume self-reflection creates the link between what good learners know about learning (metacognitive knowledge) and what they do about learning (self-regulation) If so, learners raise questions for themselves such as do I use this strategy properly and effectively? What problems did I cope with when using this strategy? How well did I complete the tasks? Do

I achieve the goals I have set before? In other words, questioning is the central of reflection process

self-Through self-reflection, some justifications to their current and future planning and goals are made, initiating the SRL cycle in figure 2.2 as below

Figure 2.2: A cyclic model of self regulatory learning

Figure 2.2 illustrates the cyclic model of self regulatory learning by Zimmerman et al., (1996) The cycle, in fact, requires a lot of practice and when students have acquired the SRLS, they can save a lot of time to deal with challenging tasks (Schunk and Zimmerman, 1998) Opposed to poor self-regulated individuals, good self-regulated students possess abilities to (1) identify goals for a specific task, (2) select appropriate learning strategies to achieve those goals then (3) implement monitor and modify those strategies as they progress (4) and reflect on their performance so that they can form positive insight for their future academic learning (Schunk, 1990) In sum, good self-regulated students can effectively employ the forethought and planning, performance monitoring and self-reflection phases to their learning process to obtain achievement With the demanding and complex processes and phases of SRLS, many teachers may be afraid of the implementation process at first, but once they have mastered the process, it

Forethought

& Planning

Monitoring Reflection