CHAPTER V

CONCLUSION

5.1 INTRODUCTION

This is the concluding chapter of the study. It contains the discussion of research
findings, implications and recommendations for further study. Section 5.2 presents the
discussion of the research findings. The implications of the study are discussed in
Section 5.4. Section 5.5 concentrates on the suggestions for further studies and the
summary concludes the chapter.

5.2 DISCUSSION OF RESEARCH FINDINGS

The discussion is based on the eight research questions and hypotheses that are
presented in Chapter 4.

5.2.1 Self-Directed Learning (SDL)

Research question 1

What are the levels of pre-university students’ readiness for SDL?

The first research question was aimed to find out the levels of readiness for SDL of the
samples for the study. In order to measure their levels of readiness, Guglielmino’s Self-
Directed Learning Readiness Scale (SDLRS) was used. The following result was
obtained.
 113

TABLE 5.1 The Levels of Readiness for SDL

Level of SDL High Average Low Total sample

7 (4%) 41 (22%) 138 (74%) 186 (100%)

Majority of the samples (138 / 74%) belonged to the low category of readiness
for SDL. 41 or 22% obtained scores in the average category and a mere 7 samples or
4% of the samples obtained scores in the high category. The spread of the samples’
SDLRS scores was aligned with the normal curve and the mean score for this group was
192.9 with a standard deviation of 28.46. The mean score that was obtained was under
the average score set by Guglielmino (1977 in Norzaini Azman et.al 2003). In her work,
Guglielmino had established a mean score of 214 and defined those who achieved score
of 214 and above are considered to be able to self-direct themselves in learning.

The score of 192.9 shows that on the whole, these samples belonged to the
category of low readiness for SDL. According to Guglielmino’s three levels of SDL,
respondents who obtained score of 209 and below are regarded as learners of low
readiness for SDL. Guglielmino describes these learners as those who usually prefer
very structured learning options such lecturing and traditional classroom settings.

There are some possible reasons that might account for the samples’ low score
and the majority being in the low level of readiness for SDL. Firstly, the samples were
pre-university students and they had just finished their high school education. In
schools, students tend to be dependent on teachers for notes and advice for the lesson.
The constant supplying of notes and tips might make the students to become teacher-
dependent. On short term, this is beneficial as the students may obtain desirable results
in the examinations but on the long run, it may not prepare them for the different
approach of learning in higher learning institutions. There is no denying that they might
be some learners that would do extra learning and reading for the love of learning but
the number might be small as shown in Table 5.1.
 114

Despite being in the low category, the concept of SDL was not something new
for these samples. During the Orientation Week, learners were exposed to the types of
learning method and what was expected of them when studying in the pre-university
course and university later on. Perhaps, these learners were in their transition period of
the old system of spoon-feeding to one that required them to see learning as their own
responsibility as well. As noted by Tough (1979 in Brockett and Hiemstra 1994), as
individuals move from the age of ten to adulthood, the proportion of self planned
projects increases and reliance on a group decreases. Since these learners were
approaching adulthood, their low level for SDL could be due to them being on the
transitional period to SDL.

Secondly, the low readiness for SDL could be related to their current level of
education that was the pre-university program and the teaching approach used. In the
pre-university courses, students are exposed to the foundation of their selected course
that they will major in the university. If the students opt to major in certain Science
course, this is the stage where they are exposed to all the matters related to the selected
field, theory and practical. In building a solid foundation in any field, learners may have
to be dependent to the instructors until they are able to grasp all the basic facts that they
will need to know. Thus, the teaching techniques that are most often used in the pre-
university classes are the lecturing and then follow by laboratory experimentation under
the strict guidance of the teacher. As enlighten by Pratt (1988), “they lack either
relevant knowledge, skills and experience or the motivational or self-confidence to
pursue educational goals.”

Teachers often use structured notes to help students learn certain concepts and as
experienced by the researcher, most students too, would prefer to have all the notes
supplied by the teachers than them preparing the notes. As one teacher commented,
“even though it is pre-u lessons and we are supposed to create that semi-u environment
for these kids, we are still spoon-feeding them.” Supporters of SDL often lauded the
effort of teachers as the promoters of this learning method but this is often not the
reality. Hiemstra (1993 in Brockett and Hiemstra 1994) ascribed this action as the
 115

teachers’ creation of barriers to learners assuming personal ownership and thereby

foster resistance to self-direction in learning.

Hiemstra added that at this stage, teachers seem to still follow the traditional
teaching and training situations that limit opportunities for personal involvement. A
strong advocator for SDL, Hiemstra believes there is always a way to merge the method
of traditional learning with SDL. Thus, in this study it could be the action of the
teachers that somehow puts a restrain on the students from using SDL approach.

Thirdly, there is no denying that learners can supplement their own learning by
reading and referencing but in fields that involved hand-on work, most often learners
would wait on the instruction of the teacher before they embark on any experimentation.
Furthermore, as experienced by Beitler (2000) not all subjects are appropriate to be
conducted in a self-directed manner. Beitler quoted accounting as being one of the
subjects and any courses that involved the use of machinery and chemicals, strict
guidance is definitely compulsory. While learners can have the freedom to read about
the experiments in books, but in conducting one, the freedom is in the hand of the
teachers. Also, as the students’ safety is the teachers’ responsibility, most teachers
would curb any actions that could be dangerous to the safety of the students.

Fourth, another possibility that may account for the low level is the nature of the
students themselves. Long (1990) pointed that, despite all the extreme focus on the
benefits of SDL, it is a fact that not everyone is ready or prepared for SDL. Long made
the remark to explain for some adults’ lack of ability to conduct their own learning. The
respondents of this study were still in their teens and there was a possibility that they
too belonged to this group of people. SDL is a skill that has to be nurtured and gradually
developed but it does not mean that just about anyone will be suitable for it.

Long (1989) depicts that successful self-directed learners as having the following
characteristics: self-confidence, self-awareness, self-reflectiveness, a strong goal
orientation and an aptitude for systematic procedures. At this stage, there was a
 116

likelihood that these learners might not possess all these characteristics, thus making
them not ready for SDL and possibly they were comfortable being in their current
learning style.

The findings of this study coincide with a study by Choy and Delahaye (2003) on
the youth learners’ learning style. They reported how their samples were not keen to
accept the responsibility of being self-directed learners and prefer to have constant
guidance to help them learn. Undoubtedly, Choy and Delahaye’s youth samples fell in
the category of low level of readiness for SDL. The same outcome was reflected in a
study by Daing Zaidah et al. (2002). They found that there was a positive relationship
between age and level of SDL. Older students (in their study aged 24 and above)
seemed to score high in the SDL score compared to the younger learners. This outcome
proves that maturity is a key factor to readiness for SDL. As the samples of this study
were still in their youth, there was a possibility that their lack of maturity led them to be
categorized as in the low readiness for SDL.

Another reason could be that these learners were not familiar with the concept of
SDL. In his article, Redding (1991) states that, learners whom became successful in
SDL activities most often were able to trace their interest in their selected field to their
pre-teen or teen years. The learners in this study however, were used to the spoon-
feeding or teacher-centered teaching and as this type of learning activity had not been
properly introduced, it is rather predictable to see most of them in the low level of SDL.
If this situation is assessed from Massey’s (1979 in Redding 1991) belief, the pre-teen
years of 8 – 12 years are the time described by highly self-directed learners during
which they encountered a triggering event. Redding described the triggering event as
“the first moment of lasting excitement”. It is often in this period that the keenness in
certain matter is developed build. Had they been introduced to this method of learning
and made to practice it, perhaps a different result would be yielded.

Redding (1991) associated Bronfenbrenner’s ecological theory of child

development in the process of learners to be successful self-directed learners. The micro
 117

level refers to the early childhood period when children were introduced to certain field,
perhaps just to create or build interest in them. The schooling years is referred to as the
meso environment. The child interest could be further developed, nurtured and
enhanced by meeting friends of the same interest. The interest in certain area might be
nurtured and sustained during these phases in one’s life that probably would lead the
learner to pursue the interest through the practice of SDL.

Research question 2
Do students of different demographic background such as gender, races and school
majors have different levels of readiness for SDL?

Hypothesis 1
H0: There is no significant difference between students’ gender and their levels of
readiness for SDL.

The result indicated that there was no significant difference existed between male and
female students and their levels of readiness for SDL (p = 0.465 > 0.05). The result
showed that gender was not a factor that could aid or hinder an individual’s readiness
for SDL. Both sexes would have equal chance to succeed if they decided to partake in
any SDL activities. This outcome replicates a research done by Redding (1991) on a
group of amateur radio operators. Redding wanted to find out what kind of an
association exists between the samples’ SDLRS and sex. The finding showed that there
was no association between SDLRS scores and sex.

Barrett (1991) in a similar study also obtained the same result. Her finding
indicated that gender yielded no significant difference and that the male and female
subjects in her study had a fair chance to succeed in SDL. Gemignani (2002) also
obtained the same outcome in his study as his research indicated that gender was not an
indicator of preparedness for SDL. Daing Zaidah et al. (2002) conducted a study to
measure the readiness level for SDL among 139 virtual students attending online degree
courses in University Tun Abdul Razak (UNITAR) and their study produced the same
 118

result whereby they found that there was no significant difference between male and
female students to their level of readiness for SDL. Nonetheless, in an earlier study,
Guglielmino, Guglielmino and Long (1987) obtained a result dissimilar from Redding,
Barrett and Gemignani’s. Research indicated that the female samples in Guglielmino et.
al (1987)’s study obtain significantly higher scores than the males.

The chi-square analysis supported the t-test result of retaining the hypothesis.
The chi-square analysis did not show evidence of a relationship between gender and
readiness for SDL (2 = 0.728, p = 0.695). In this study, being a male or female was not
a criterion that could determine the success of a learner in this type of learning activity.

Hypothesis 2

Ho: There is no significant difference between students’ races and their levels of
readiness for SDL.

The output showed that there was no significant difference that existed between
students of different races and their levels of readiness for SDL (p = 0.329 > 0.05).

Similar to the previous hypothesis, race was proven to be an insignificant factor

that might determine the success or failure for students if they participated in SDL
activities. Generally, an assumption can be made that all the Malaysian samples in the
present study had a fair chance to succeed in SDL activities. It did not show that certain
race had an advantage in succeeding in this type of learning activities.

The cross tabulation table illustrated the non-existence of relationship between

races and levels of readiness for SDL ((2 = 4.448, p = 0.616). While there were
samples from each race group in the high category, there was none for the Indian
samples. Probably, it was due to the small number of Indian samples involved in this
study. Thus this outcome would not be able to yield a meaningful result due to the small
representative of samples from this race. Naturally, there were more Chinese students in
the high category as they dominated the total population by 64%.
 119

For the group of International students, no firm conclusion could be made, as the
number representing each country was too small for them to be grouped solely. Perhaps,
having most of the samples being Asians can infer certain significance. Previous
researches as done by Redding (1991) and Guglielmino et al. (1987) had signified that
race does not influence an individual’s readiness for SDL. Thus, a safe conclusion could
be made specifically for this study that all the Asian and African samples had the same
chance to succeed in this type of learning style.

The variable of race was often described as the middle-class, white phenomenon
although there were studies by Guglielmino et al. (1987) that indicated the black
samples scored significantly higher than the whites. Nonetheless, in this study, SDL
was not a factor exclusive to certain race but rather a skill that could be practiced for all.

Hypothesis 3
Ho: There is no significant difference between students’ school majors and their levels
of readiness for SDL.

The findings of the ANOVA analysis showed that there was no significant difference
among students of different school majors and their readiness for SDL (p = 0.667 >
0.05). Despite majoring in different fields, these samples were at the same level in their
readiness for SDL. Perhaps, it indicated that they were still unprepared to conduct SDL
activities.

Each of the fields the students majored in, may have its own characteristics that
demands certain learning approach, nonetheless, for this batch, that did not seem to be
the case. Perhaps, all of them, being, approximately at the same age and levels of
education shared the same characteristic of unpreparedness to conduct their own
learning and thus showed that their field of majors did not generate any significant
difference in their score of SDLRS.
 120

Cross-tabulation was used to demonstrate the relationship between students’

school majors and their levels of SDLRS. It did not show that certain students from one
major dominating a level of SDLRS. The distribution of samples was rather even in all
the categories of SDLRS. There were two samples majoring in Legal Studies in the
high category of SDLRS which was equal to the number of samples in Biotechnology
and Business Studies. Only one sample from Pure Mathematics compared to none in
Information Technology.

On the other hand, students majoring in Legal and Business studies often have to
do a lot of reading on the related concepts and case studies to gain knowledge in their
field of interest. Other than this modest difference among the distribution of samples in
the high category, the number of samples seemed almost evenly distributed in the
average category and the rest dominated the low category. This table supports the view
how these samples shared the same chance to succeed in SDL formats.

Research question 3
What relationship, if any, exists between students’ current academic standings and ESL
results with their levels of readiness for SDL?

Hypothesis 4
Ho: There is no significant relationship between students’ current academic standings
and their levels of readiness for SDL.

The result attained illustrated there was no significant relationship between students’
current academic standings and their levels of SDL (p = 0.921 > 0.05). It could be that
there existed no relationship between learners’ overall achievement in their lesson and
their current levels of SDL. Perhaps, the high academic level was due to the coaching
and tips from the teachers, daily revision and that it was not related to the samples’
ability to conduct SDL.
 121

Norzaini Azman (2000) conducted a study on the levels of readiness for SDL of
a group of undergraduates in National University of Malaysia and in that study she
explored the relationship between SDLRS levels and academic performance. She
reported that SDLRS levels and university GPAs were found to be positively correlated.
It indicated that the students’ academic performance could be used as a variable to
predict their SDLRS’ levels. However, the outcome of this study, is a contrast to
Norzaini’s study.

The cross-tabulation table shows that majority of the samples was in the lower
category of readiness for SDL and only a small fraction was categorized in the high
level of SDLRS. The imbalance distribution of samples in the three categories proved
that the samples’ academic standing had no significant relationship with their levels of
readiness for SDL. None of the samples had his/her semester’s standing in the first
category of 90% to 100% and simultaneously had achieved high SDLRS score. It was
rather peculiar to observe this, as there were samples that had their semester standing in
the top range but were described as average and low self-directed learners. This
outcome confirmed how there existed no relationship between the samples’ current
academic standings and their ability to practice SDL.

Hypothesis 5
Ho: There is no significant relationship between students’ ESL results and their levels of
readiness for SDL?

The outcome showed that there was a high significant relationship between the
students’ ESL results and their levels of readiness for SDL (p = 0.006). It shows that the
samples’ high achievement in English Second Language course was significantly due to
their ability to conduct SDL.

Although, these samples were categorized in the low scale of SDLRS and
described as learners who usually preferred very structured learning options such as
lecture and traditional classroom settings, the result of this hypothesis proved otherwise.
 122

Despite being described as low self-directed learners, the result indicated that they had
the ability to direct themselves in learning English. There was a possibility that the
exposure to the topic of LLS in ESL classes had somehow helped them in improving
their method of learning English. Thus, this could be the reason for the rejection of this
hypothesis.

It is not unusual that some learners are able to participate in SDL in one subject
but not the others as explained by Beitler (2000). Grow (1991) made the claim that
some learners are dependent in all subjects they are taught and others are dependent
only in some subjects. In this case, learners of this study had exhibited their partial
independence to direct themselves in learning English, despite being grouped in the low
readiness for SDL. Cranton (1992) also states that learners tend to vary in their
capabilities in conducting their own SDL. It is natural for learners who have high
interest in certain subject to put momentous effort in that subject as for those without
the interest, would put all their effort to avoid the subject.

Motivation is also a pivotal key in SDL. Garrison (1997) explains how

motivation, responsibility and control are central to a comprehensive concept of SDL.
Motivational factor is embedded in the concept of SDL. Having learners to pursue their
own high interest goals involves motivation (Gibbons 2002). Motivation is the dynamic
entity that becomes the spiritual enforcer for learners to be actively involved in their
own studies. The respondents of this study seemed to have put a part of their own work
in learning their lesson rather than depending totally on the teacher.

Furthermore, these learners could be regarded as good speakers and users of

English and their success in this subject was rather explanatory. Basically their
knowledge of English was sufficient enough to help them obtained good results in ESL
subject. Cross-tabulation analysis reported a strong significant relationship between the
samples’ ESL results and their levels of readiness for SDL (r s = -0.223, p = 0.002), thus
providing the support to reject the initial assumption.
 123

5.2.2 Language Learning Strategies (LLS)

Research question 4
What type of LLS, of the six categories, the pre-university students mostly used and
what is their overall mean?

This question was focused on the area of LLS, specifically the types of LLS that were
used by the respondents in learning English. From the findings, the indirect strategies of
metacognitive strategies were ranked first among the other strategies. The average of
3.29 suggested that learners usually used this group of strategies in their learning.
Metacognitive strategies are divided to three categories of:

 centering your learning,

 arranging and planning your learning and
 evaluating your learning.

Examples of strategies under these are over viewing and linking with already
known material, paying attention to details, finding out about language learning,
organizing learning, planning for a language task, monitoring own progress in learning
and also evaluating own progress in learning. The undergraduates of An-Najah National
University also had indicated their preference for metacognitive strategies (Wafa 2003)
which is consistent with the outcome of this study. Despite the difference in educational
level, both groups of learners exhibited the same preference. One possibility for this is
the nature of both groups of learners. Both are second language learners of English and
being one, there are still matters to be learnt about English.

Cognitive strategies received the second highest level with the average of 3.24.
This also suggested that the learners had moderately used these strategies in learning
English. There was only a difference of 0.02 between metacognitive and cognitive
strategies. Strategies grouped under cognitive strategies include repeating, formally
practicing with sounds and writing systems, recognizing and using formulae and
 124

patterns, recombining known items in new ways, practicing the language in a new
situation, taking notes, summarizing, highlighting important points and translating. The
difference of 0.02 implied that the respondents had used both strategies almost
simultaneously in their learning.

Among the six categories of LLS in SILL, cognitive strategies have the largest
group of items. Oxford and Ehrman (1995) explain that cognitive strategies cover
strategies related to practice and to the all-important “deep processing” in which
learners analyze, synthesize and transform new information.

Social strategies were ranked third as the type of strategies that were commonly
used by the learners. Strategies listed under social strategies are asking question for
clarification or verification or correction, cooperating with peers in learning,
cooperating with better users of the new language, developing cultural understanding,
especially when working with peers of different ethnic and also becoming aware of
others’ thoughts and feelings.

It is not unusual that social strategies were one of the top three strategies that
were most used by the samples. The samples’ choice of metacognitive, cognitive and
social strategies as the top strategies could be linked to one of the English class
activities.

These students were commonly required to complete group or pair work in the
English language class. Although the work assigned was a group or pair, constant
reminder was given so that each member would come prepared before they commenced
with their work. This was to avoid any members from coming to the group discussion
unprepared and thus jeopardizing the end product. The group work was normally
delegated that each member was responsible to complete certain part of the total work.
In order to be prepared for the group project, members had to be ready with certain
information before work could be combined. To be prepared with the relevant
information, they would have to select, analyze and organize their work before the
 125

group work could be completed. This was when their metacognitive and cognitive
strategies were useful.

In completing the final work, each member will have to combine his or her ideas
and discussion would preferably be done in an amicable situation. The discussion would
unquestionably involve the act of asking for clarification and possibly correction,
cooperating with each other and understanding each other’s ideas and opinion – of
which are the components of social strategies. If, the students were assigned individual
work, the same strategies were still applicable.

Compensation strategies were ranked fourth. The samples had fairly used
strategies such as using linguistic or other relevant clues to guess the meaning of what
they had read or heard, trying to understand the overall meaning and not necessarily
every single word and finding ways to compensate any limitations that they might have
in the new language. By this, they could gesture, use own mother tongue, mime, select
topics that they were familiar with and to certain extend avoid getting involve in certain
conversation, either partially or totally. Perhaps they did not make use much of these
strategies as most of them were quite proficient in English or it was possible that the
students would just feel comfortable in using their mother tongue whenever they were
lost for words. Another reason could be the use of code switching which was not
unusual among the students in this College.

The fifth ranked strategies were memory strategies. An average of 2.64 implied
that the learners had sometimes used strategies such as associating and elaborating,
placing new words into a context as to help remember the words better, using imagery
and keywords, using physical response or sensation, using mechanical techniques and
reviewing in a structured way. These strategies were meant to help learners to
remember new materials learn such as vocabulary and grammatical rules. Memory
strategies are useful as they help learners to store a large amount of vocabulary needed
to achieve fluency and then retrieve it when needed for communication (Oxford 1990).
As shown by learners in this study, Oxford added that it is common for most of
 126

language learners not to use memory strategies despite it being powerful contributors to
language learning.

The least used strategies were affective strategies with a score of 2.44, which
suggested the learners as low users that either generally not used or never or almost
never used these strategies. The term “affective” refers to emotions, attitudes,
motivations and values (Oxford 1990). Oxford describes good language learners are
often those who know how to control their emotions and attitudes about learning. She
adds that negative feelings can stunt progress and positive emotions and attitudes can
make language learning more effective and enjoyable. Examples of these strategies are
lowering anxiety, encouraging oneself by taking risks wisely and rewarding oneself,
writing a language learning diary and talking about one’s feelings with someone else.

It is rather puzzling to think of why the samples did not make use much of these
strategies. Perhaps it is related to the culture of the Asians that prefer to keep one’s
feeling to oneself. A Westerner created SILL and naturally it will reflex the values of
the Westerners. An American would normally prefer straight forwardness in dealing
with problems as it gets to the point more quickly compares to the Asians that prefer the
opposite (Murphy et al. 1997). Another possibility could be that the learners themselves
were fluent and confident speakers of the language to experience any anxieties about
using the language. It is often those who experience the uncertainty that prefer to talk it
over whilst the confident ones would not find any cause for it. Generally, there were
students who talk about their insecurity in learning and using English but the number
was rather small and most would tend to keep quiet.

This research question had also intended to find out the overall mean of these
learners’ use of LLS. On the whole, the mean score obtained was 2.98 that denoted the
learners as medium users. In general, the score depicted that the students sometimes
used all the strategies identified in SILL. It could be implied that the learners used all
the SILL strategies moderately in their learning.
 127

Research question 5
What are the students’ current levels of LLS?

The outcome for this research question is shown in the following table.

TABLE 5.2 The Levels of Usage for SILL

Level of SILL High Medium Low Total sample

33 (18%) 135 (72%) 18 (10%) 186 (100%)

Contrasting to the SDLRS levels of these samples, they seemed to attain a better
level in SILL Almost three-quarter (n = 135 / 72%) of the samples were at the medium
level of SILL and only 18 samples or 10% was in the low category of SILL. 33 (18%)
students (compared to only 7 in SDLRS) were classed in the high category of SILL.

One component of ESL II is the topic of LLS that is meant to expose the students
to variety of LLS that can be used to help them improve their levels of English.
Although most of the students that enrolled in private Colleges are believed to be
proficient in English but as second language speakers, there are still rooms for
improvement. As most of the students would opt to further their lesson overseas, the
need to improve is much emphasized. It is not unheard that students had to drop out of
certain course due to their standard of English and that they seemed to speak English
but a trained ear would detect that it is without proper grammar construct.

The exposure to the various types of LLS has dual functions; first is due to the
need to help improve the students’ current levels of English and second is to prepare
them for IELTS tests.
 128

While some of the learners are reasonably proficient in English, there are some
who are not. Lucille Dass (2003) in her article “Poor English affects college students”
describes this condition rather well. She said:

Many school leavers seeking college education and their anxious parents, do so
without actually giving serious thought to the English proficiency they bring
with them. They seem oblivious to the implications of undertaking demanding
academic program taught entirely in English when they have a poor showing in
English. The results can be disastrous.

The topic on LLS is aimed at helping students with low proficient in English as it
can help them to improve their English standard. An improvement in English means
these learners will be able to follow the lesson well and achieve at least a satisfactory or
better pass in the IELTS tests they have to take. IELTS tests can be quite a demanding
paper for those with insufficient skills and knowledge of English.

Having the majority of the learners in the medium range may indicate that the
exposure to the topics on LLS have been quite effective that they claimed to have used
quite a variety LLS. Nonetheless, the remaining 18 (10%) samples that were
categorized in the low category were not the indication that they were poor learners, but
possibly they might have used limited types of strategies. Hopefully, this exercise
would expose the learners to other ways of learning to enhance the normal strategies
they have been using.

Research question 6
Do students of different gender and races use different types of LLS?

Hypothesis 6
Ho: There is no significant difference between students’ gender and the type of LLS
used.
 129

Previous studies have proven that there was a difference in the use of LLS between
male and female students. (Oxford and Ehrman 1995). Nonetheless, in the present
study, a dissimilar outcome was generated. The null hypothesis above was rejected, as
there was no significant difference between the male and female students in their use of
LLS. Thus, for this group of students, gender was not a factor that led to their using
different type of LLS. Either they were male of female students; they seemed to be
using the same LLS in learning English. This is illustrated in the following table.

TABLE 5.3 Analysis of Students’ Gender and Type of LLS Used

Type of Strategies P value Result

Memory strategies 0.743> 0.05 Rejected
Cognitive strategies 0.581 > 0.05 Rejected
Compensation strategies 0.270 > 0.05 Rejected
Metacognitive strategies 0.156 > 0.05 Rejected
Affective strategies 0.871 > 0.05 Rejected
Social strategies 0.398 > 0.05 Rejected

This outcome definitely differed than the usual outcome of other researchers as
Green and Oxford 1993 (in Oxford and Burry-Stock 1995) that certified there was a
difference between the use of strategies between students of different gender. In another
research, Oxford and Nyikos (1989) asserted that female students tend to use more
strategies and more often than the males. Muhamed Amin’s study (2000) on the LLS
used by Malaysian secondary students reported the same outcome whereby female
students were reported to use more LLS than the males. However, Wafa (2002) research
shown the same outcome with this study as her study indicated no significant difference
for gender and use of LLS.
 130

Hypothesis 7
HO: There is no significant difference between students’ races and the types of LLS
used.

ANOVA analysis was carried out to test each of the strategies in SILL: memory,
cognitive, compensation, metacognitive, affective and social strategies. Unlike the
result of the studies mentioned earlier, the hypothesis null of this study was retained.
There did not seem to be any significant difference between race and the type of LLS
used. The p value yielded for each strategy of SILL was greater than the significant
level (0.05). Table 5.4 shows the p value for each strategy.

TABLE 5.4 Analysis of Students’ Races and Type of LLS Used

Type of Strategies P value Result

Memory strategies 0.071 > 0.05 Rejected
Cognitive strategies 0.959 > 0.05 Rejected
Compensation strategies 0.594 > 0.05 Rejected
Metacognitive strategies 0.988 > 0.05 Rejected
Affective strategies 0.201 > 0.05 Rejected
Social strategies 0.542 > 0.05 Rejected

Earlier studies done on the race factor produced an interesting account. In his
study, Politzer (1983) found that Asian and Hispanic students differed in the kinds of
strategies used as the former preferred rote memorization whereas the latter opted for
more social and interactive strategies. It was with the knowledge of this that this
hypothesis was formulated and tested as perhaps it would generate a similar outcome as
it involved the three main races in Malaysia and the small number of students of foreign
nationalities.
 131

Utilizing SILL in their study, Rosna and Sharifah (1994) had described the
Malay samples in their study as passive and non-participative, the Indians did not favor
affective strategies and the Chinese, being the majority in their study, did not show their
stance on any strategy. The result of the present study was somehow the opposite from
the two researches done as it was proven that there did not seem to be any significant
difference among all the races with the type of LLS they used.

However, for this group of students, race was not the element that could
influence their choice of LLS. Perhaps their recent introduction to the topic was a
reason for the lack of significant difference among the races. The samples might be on
the same level of assimilating the knowledge of LLS in learning English that generally
they were still on the verge of trying out the strategies taught and thus had not put their
stance on certain strategies. Maybe, a certain pattern might develop later on once they
had become familiar with all the strategies that a certain collective style unique to
certain race would emerge.

Both the outcome for hypotheses 6 and 7 did not support the L2 theory that
stresses how social factors such as gender and race have an influence in the learners’
choice of LLS.

Research question 7
What relationship, if any, exists between students’ ESL results and their SILL scores?

Hypothesis 8
Ho: There is no significant relationship between students’ SILL scores and their ESL
results.

The result showed that there was a strong relationship between the students’ scores in
ESL and their levels of SILL. The assumption here is that if the students’ scored high
marks in ESL, there were strong possibilities that they were in the high level of SILL
and vice versa.
 132

As mentioned earlier, these students were in their second semester and they were
taking ESL II of which, one of the topics in it is LLS. As not all the students enrolled in
the College are well proficient in English, this topic is rather important. Furthermore,
these students need to be prepared for the IELTS examination and they would need
more than their normal means of learning to achieve the required band of passing before
they will be alleged qualified to apply for places in overseas universities, if they decided
to do so.

It could be accepted that the exposure to the topic of LLS has simultaneously
helped to expose them to the variety of other ways of learning English and facilitated
the students in improving their English. They being proficient speakers, presumably,
helped to score good marks in the ESL subjects. Furthermore, among all the subjects
learnt, English was one that they were familiar with. Although the syllabus coverage is
definitely not similar to the ones in school, it should not be a barrier for them to excel in
ESL classes.

Additionally, the basic minimum exposure of eleven years of learning English in

schools would have initiated the learners to use certain kind of techniques or strategies
in learning English. Cross tabulation outcome sustained the rejection of this hypothesis
(rs = -0.398, p = 0.000).

Research question 8
What relationship, if any, exists between students’ scores in SILL and SDLRS?

Hypothesis 9

Ho: There is no significant relationship between students’ scores in SILL and SDLRS.

The outcome of this hypothesis is rather vital as it would show whether there was a link
between their scores in both questionnaires. This would reflex the students’ ability in
directing themselves in studying. If they obtained high scores in both questionnaires, it
might show that the samples’ SDL is not situational. As mentioned by Grow (1991), not
 133

all learners are ready to take responsibility for their own learning. He added that the
ability to be self-directed is “situational” as one may be self-directed in one subject and
a dependent learner in another. The finding is somewhat interesting as it shows whether
students who are naturally good at directing and planning their studies are also able to
direct themselves in learning English.

The finding of this analysis was rather peculiar as this hypothesis was retained.
The reason for the peculiarity was this outcome was the total opposite of the previous
hypothesis tested. In the previous hypothesis, it was indicated that there was a strong
significant between the respondents’ ESL scores and their SILL levels. It would be just
logical to assume that the outcome be just similar. However, the result indicated just the
opposite that there was no significant relationship between the learners’ SILL and
SDLRS’ scores. The one reason that could be used to explain for this bizarre outcome
was perhaps this is the reflection of the complexities of youth learning (Choy and
Delahaye 2003).

At this level, perhaps it shows that they were still not ready to carry the
responsibility of learning but at the same time, they did have the yearning to try new
things. May be there were reasons for this. Lack of confidence or not wanting or afraid
to make mistakes at certain level had become the restrain to conduct SDL. Another
possibility was that they had had the formal exposure to LLS in ESL class but not SDL
in learning English on the whole. They might have the knowledge of the strategies or
techniques to be used to improve English, perhaps rather sufficiently to obtain good
results in the ESL class. Nonetheless, to conduct SDL, even in just learning English
would require a different set of training. Thus, this could explain the missing link
between these two variables.

This shows that the learners’ ability to practice SDL in learning English was
rather partial. They seemed to have the mean to direct themselves in the ESL class but
not outside the class. If they possessed that ability, a different result would have been
obtained in this testing.
 134

5.3 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

This study was conducted with the aim of finding out the levels of readiness for SDL
among a group of pre-university students and its relationship with the students’ usage of
LLS.

From the findings, it was noted that on the whole, these students were in the low
category of SDLRS – a tool for measuring the readiness for SDL. The students’ level of
SDLRS was also tested against other independent variables as gender, race, school
major, current academic standing, ESL results and the students’ SILL score. SILL is a
structured questionnaire that was used to measure the learners’ usage of LLS.

These students were found to be medium users of the LLS with the preference
for metacognitive strategies. A probe in the preference of students’ of different races
produced an unusual result as there was no significant difference that existed among
them. Between the male and female students generated an outcome that was a contrast
to the normal outcome of other studies. In the present study, there did not seem to be
any significant difference between the male and female respondents.

In testing the nine hypotheses, some of the results proved to reflex the samples’
complex personality as youth learners (Choy and Delahaye 2003). While gender, race,
school major and current academic standing had no significant difference in the
samples’ level of preparedness for SDL, the samples’ ESL results showed to have an
influence in the learners’ level of SDL. An exploration was also conducted in the field
of LLS and it was found that there was a highly significant relationship between the
learners’ SILL scores and their ESL results. This outcome was rather expected as these
learners had been exposed to the topic of LLS in their ESL II class. Nonetheless, on the
whole, the skills and training taught conceivably were rather insufficient to facilitate
these learners to fully conduct their own SDL in learning English.
 135

5.4 IMPLICATION OF THE STUDY

It is undeniable that the practice of SDL bears plenty advantages to the benefits of the
learners. In a dynamic field such as education, the practice of SDL has become more
important. The synthesized findings lead to the following implications.

1. understanding of the concept of SDL

2. benefits of practicing SDL
3. importance of motivation in SDL
4. teachers’ role in promoting SDL
5. strategy training for LLS
6. module for self-directed language learning

Understanding the concept SDL. Despite the myriad advantages and benefits
of SDL, not every learner – young and adult – is ready for it. Quoting Grow (1991) “
…. being dependent learner is not a defect but it can, however be a serious limitation”.
Thus, it is beneficial to expose learners to the concept of SDL and for teachers to
prepare students to be more self-directed. Whilst, SDL brings abundance of advantages
for some learners, it may be a frustration experience for others. Perhaps by guiding
learners through the stages of SDL as proposed by Grow may ease the transition period
from the TDL method to SDL method. Learners have to be exposed to the benefits of
practicing SDL and convinced that becoming a self-directed learner is an attainable
goal.

Benefits of practicing SDL. On the short term basis, the ability in conducting
SDL can help them to obtain better results as their additional reading will be the added
advantage for them in obtaining better result in the examination. On the long run, this
ability will make them responsible for their own learning and eventually become life-
long learners. The ability to practice SDL can also be a kit for survival in their
university days. It is common to find students struggling to adapt the different style of
 136

learning in the university and an early exposure, possibly, will alert them of what is
expected of them.

Knowles (1975) describes a self-directed learner as one who is able to plan and
conduct his/her own learning. Presently, this is what anticipated and demanded of them
but on the long run, perhaps the ability to learn on their own can incite the love for
learning that can hopefully be a skill that is instilled in them. Learning in the
information age, is not confounded in schools but also outside of schools. The ability to
practice SDL would be able to keep them on par with the changes in the influx of
information that might be important to them. It may not just be learning skills for own
satisfaction as pursuing certain hobbies, but it may cover the field of expertise in their
job. Nelson (2001) describes that being a lifelong learner in today’s changing society is
not an option and suggested that the earlier SDL skills are developed the better off the
learner will be in the long run.

Regy Loknes (2000 in Salmon 2000), Senior Learning and Development

Advisor for Shell, explains that a change of learning mindset is needed. He explains that
future recruits need to be able to “know how they learn, know what they need to learn
and be open and receptive to learning from others without negative responses and
criticism”. Learning, as enlighten by Loknes, is more an inherent skill as it is not only
to be used in schools but also outside as in the workplace. As technology changes
almost at the moment of speaking, the users too would have to accommodate the
changes. In certain field such as biotechnology and medicine, changes and new
development are vital and new discoveries means advancing to a better future. A
practitioner of any field would find it a necessity to be updated of these changes. Some
can do it easily as by reading but some may have to do the hand-on work as in the
technology field. Regardless of field, both would require knowledge of SDL.

Importance of motivation. LeJuene (2001) describes a self-directed learner as a

motivated learner. Motivation and responsibility are two important ingredients that can
generate successful learners. This study showed that currently these samples were in the
 137

low level of readiness but an exposure to this practice is hoped to slowly transform the
learners’ constant dependent to the teacher to at least learners with semi-dependent on
the teachers.

Perhaps, constant motivation and encouragement from the teachers in the college
would be able to initiate and maintain learners’ effort towards learning and eventually
practicing SDL. Learners should be made aware that learning is also their responsibility
and that there are multiple ways and methods that they can learn other than just from the
teachers in classrooms.

Teachers’ role in promoting SDL. In making SDL as the goal of learning,

teachers have to alter their roles in class from being the sole providers of information to
the facilitators of information. For teachers to change their roles could be a demanding
task. Teachers have to go through the process of altering their current mindset to
another paradigm of thinking. Mezirow (1981 in Brockett and Hiemstra 1991) has
described 12 activities fundamental to the enhancement of learners becoming more self-
directed. Mezirow explains that some of the activities involve helping learners
participate in various activities such as assessment of personal needs, planning
subsequent learning activities, securing or creating necessary learning resources and
assessing personal progress in achieving learning goals. These activities should be done
with teachers as facilitators. Schuttenberg and Tracy (1987 in Brockett and Hiemstra
1991). believe there are many different roles a facilitator should assume, including that
of a leader, collaborator, or colleague, in promoting varying types of self-directed
behavior. In other words, a facilitator is not just a classroom teacher but also can be a
counselor, consultant, tutor and resource locator A sort of partnership between learners
and facilitators should be formed to accelerate the process of facilitating learning.

As good as it sounds, the transition of teacher to facilitator, student to self-

directed learner, may not be a smooth one without proper planning. Teachers need to be
trained to be a true facilitator. Teachers too, need to understand the concept of SDL to
be good facilitators to the learners. As different learners may go through different phase
 138

of transitional process to be self-directed learners, teachers as facilitators have to be

alert to the need of the learners. Some may find a niche in the new process of learning;
some may be lost and frustrated. These are the implications that may emerge in the
transitional process. It can be an extra burden for both parties before they can find it
beneficial.

Strategy training for LLS. Another significant implication of this study is on

the type of LLS used by the learners. This is advantageous to the ESL teachers as it
enlightens them on the types of strategies used by them and teachers will be able to
know of how to expose or train them to use other types of strategies. Teachers may also
find out the type of LLS used by the successful learners and use this knowledge to help
the less successful learners. This aim is aligned with the goals of LLS research as
described by Chamot (2001). In an earlier work Chamot (1999) explains that LLS
instructions can help students of English become better, confident and more motivated
learners.

Tudor (1999) suggested that the teaching of LLS should be structured in such
manner as to help learners to broaden their understanding of language learning and
thereby, to be better able to function self-directively in their own language study –
language education serving to promote learner empowerment. The idea of training
learners to use LLS is the reflection of SDL in which learners would take on the
responsibility for their own learning.

Module for self-directed language learning. Other than just attending the
normal classes or the extra English class run by the English Language Center at the
College, a module for self-directed language learning can be devised. Lessons can be
made interesting with the incorporation of English learning websites that are easily
accessible in the College vicinity. Learning can also be made flexible as to suit the
learners’ time and need. Through this type of learning, learners do not have to attend
formal classes but a meeting with the mentor at certain selected time would be more
 139

suitable. Perhaps, this would foster the idea that their learning is also their responsibility
and their effort is accountable to make it a success.

5.6 SUGGESTION FOR FURTHER STUDIES

As we are aware that the ability to practice SDL is important, it is imperative that more
researches are done regarding this field as to boost the importance of this skill to others.
The following are the suggestions for further studies in SDL.

1. Other than just involving a limited number of students and in only one place,
perhaps more students can be involved in a study to find out their levels of
readiness for SDL. More information can be gathered when the sample size is
larger and a generalization can be made for the selected group.

2. Such study can also be done to compare the readiness for SDL of the students in
different programs of learning. The present study involves only one study
program. The manner of different study program, perhaps, may have its own
impact to the learners’ readiness for SDL.

3. The same study can also be done involving more colleges or universities, either
public or private. There are possibilities that it would generate interesting
findings as different higher learning institutions may have different approach to
study and thus influence the manner of the students in their study.

4. This study looks at the students’ level of SDLRS with SILL; perhaps future
studies can be conducted to see if there is any relationship between students’
SDLRS with their ability to conduct SDL in other subjects.

5. There were a number of foreign students involved in this study; nonetheless the
number is too small for any generalization to be made. Perhaps if there are more
 140

foreign students involved, comparison of readiness for SDL can be done in

relation of races.

6. Majority of the samples in this study were students of science-related fields,

perhaps if there was an equal number of art and science students, a study may
yield some interesting findings.

5.7 CONCLUSION

This concluding chapter is focused on the discussion on the findings. The possible
reasons for such outcomes were discussed in this Chapter. The implication of the study
is discussed as to stress the importance of SDL for learners in this College. A few
suggestions are also made for further studies.