A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF LEARNER AUTONOMY

AND LANGUAGE LEARNING STRATEGIES

BETWEEN THAI EFL LEARNERS IN INTERNATIONAL

SCHOOLS AND THAI PUBLIC SCHOOLS

BY

MISS TIRADA IAMUDOM

A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF

THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF

MASTER OF ARTS IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHING

LANGUAGE INSTITUTE

THAMMASAT UNIVERSITY

ACADEMIC YEAR 2017

COPYRIGHT OF THAMMASAT UNIVERSITY

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF LEARNER AUTONOMY

AND LANGUAGE LEARNING STRATEGIES

BETWEEN THAI EFL LEARNERS IN INTERNATIONAL

SCHOOLS AND THAI PUBLIC SCHOOLS

BY

MISS TIRADA IAMUDOM

A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF

THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF

MASTER OF ARTS IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHING

LANGUAGE INSTITUTE

THAMMASAT UNIVERSITY

ACADEMIC YEAR 2017

COPYRIGHT OF THAMMASAT UNIVERSITY

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

i

Thesis Title A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF LEARNER

AUTONOMY AND LANGUAGE

LEARNING STRATEGIES BETWEEN

THAI EFL LEARNERS IN

INTERNATIONAL SCHOOLS AND THAI

PUBLIC SCHOOLS

Author Miss Tirada Iamudom

Degree Master of Arts

Major Field/Faculty/University English Language Teaching

Language Institute

Thammasat University

Thesis Advisor Associate Professor Supong Tangkiengsirisin,

Ph.D.

Academic Year 2017

ABSTRACT

The present study aimed to investigate the learner autonomy level and observe

in detail language learning strategies use of Thai EFL learners comparing international

school students and Thai public school students in a tutorial school in Bangkok. 200

senior high school level students, 100 international school students and 100 Thai public

school students, in a tutorial school participated in the study. The study design is mix-

method research. A learner autonomy questionnaire and the Strategy Inventory for

Language Learning (SILL) questionnaire by Oxford (1990) were the quantitative data

collection instruments in this study. Interviews were conducted for more information

in detail as qualitative data collection. The data analysis was carried out through

quantitative analysis techniques (means and standard deviations).

The findings from the learner autonomy questionnaires revealed that Thai

public school students have a high level of learner autonomy similar to those who study

in international school with X = 3.76, SD = 0.52 and X = 3.50, SD = 0.55 respectively.

Moreover, the findings from the SILL questionnaires also showed that Thai public

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

ii

school students employ language learning strategies more than the international school

students with X = 3.58, SD = 0.46 and X = 3.42, SD = 0.49 respectively. The SILL

questionnaire results provided the use of specific strategies as well. The cognitive

strategies are mostly employed by the international school students (X = 3.95, SD =

0.55) whereas the compensation strategies are widely used by Thai public school

students (X = 3.93, SD = 0.57).

Since the participants in this study proved high in terms of learner autonomy

level, it revealed that compensation strategies and cognitive strategies can support

students’ learning so they become effective autonomous learners.

Keywords: learner autonomy, autonomous learning, autonomous learners, language

learning strategies, Thai EFL learners, international school, Thai public school, tutorial

school

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First, my sincere gratitude is devoted to my thesis advisor, Associate Professor

Supong Tangkiengsirisin, Ph.D., for his invaluable help, motivation, and immense

knowledge. His guidance assisted me in all the time of research and writing this thesis.

His immediate help enabled many conveniences through my thesis process which was

really appreciated.

Besides my advisor, I would like to express my deep gratitude to my

committees; Assistant Professor Ketvalee Porkaew, Ph.D. and Assistant Professor

Rosukhon Swatevacharkul Ph.D. for their insightful comment, encouragement, and

motivational questions. I am truly grateful for their kindness and consideration.

Additionally, I would like to express my appreciation to Assistant Professor

Rananda Rungnaphawet, Ph.D., Assistant Professor Saneh Thongrin, Ph.D., and Dr.

Ratikorn Sirisatit for IOC cooperation. Their brilliant and fruitful suggestion enable my

data collection to be effective.

Furthermore, I would like to thank my lovely students who were really pleased

to be my participants and enjoyed every steps of my research. I promise to devote of all

my effort to create a good man as I have said.

My sincere thanks also goes to all LITU staffs for their facilitation and to enable

my Master Degree duration at Thammasat University to be impressive and completely

convenient. Additionally, all of my impression are given to my classmates who filled

my MA life with joy and cheer, especially Ms. Pimrat Fongchamnan with miraculous

friendship and splendid assistance, and also Ms. Tanaporn Ueasiriphan, my shared-

advisor partner in adversity, with active encouragement and support.

Finally, I would like to thank my father and my mother who have taught me to

be patient, eager to learn, and respect the others. Although my mother does not exist to

touch my certificate, she is the most precious motivation of this degree. Moreover, I

would like to thank my cutest sister and brother who always make me smile when I am

frustrated. Finally, many thanks are given to the whole of my family members who

enable me to be me nowadays and fulfil my path with joy, support, and understanding.

Tirada Iamudom

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ABSTRACT i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS iv

LIST OF TABLES (If any) viii

LIST OF FIGURES (If any) ix

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Background of the Study 1

1.2 Problem Statement of the Study 3

1.3 Objectives of the Study 4

1.4 Research Questions 4

1.5 Definitions of Term 4

1.6 Scope of the Study 7

1.7 Significance of the Study 8

1.8 Organization of the Study 9

CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE 10

2.1 Learner Autonomy 10

2.1.1. Definition of Learner Autonomy 10

2.1.2. Components of Learner Autonomy 12

2.1.3. Dimension of Learner Autonomy 16

2.1.4. Approaches for Fostering Autonomy 19

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

v

2.2 Autonomous Learning 29

2.3 Autonomous Learners 31

2.4 Language Learning Strategies 34

2.4.1. Learning Strategies and Learner Autonomy 34

2.4.2. Definition of Language Learning Strategies 35

2.4.3. Features of Language Learning Strategies 38

2.4.4. Classification of Language Learning Strategies 43

2.4.4.1. Direct Strategies 44

2.4.4.2. Indirect Strategies 53

2.5 Educational Curriculum 58

2.5.1. Education Provided in International School in Thailand 58

2.5.2. Education Provided in Thai Public School 58

2.6 Relevant Studies 59

2.6.1. Oversea Research 59

2.6.2. Research in Thailand 63

CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 68

3.1 Research Design 68

3.2 Participants 68

3.3 Research Instruments 70

3.3.1. Learner Autonomy Questionnaire 70

3.3.2. Strategy Inventory for Language Learning Questionnaire (SILL) 72

3.3.3. Face to Face Interview 73

3.3.4 Piloting 74

3.4 Data Collection 74

3.4.1. Quantitative Data Collection for Research Question 1 and 2 74

3.4.2. Qualitative Data Collection for Research Question 2 75

3.5 Research Procedure 75

3.6 Data Analysis 76

3.6.1. Quantitative Data Analysis for Research Questions 1 and 2 76

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

vi

CHAPTER 4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 77

4.1 Result 77

4.1.1. The Investigation of Learner Autonomy Level 77

4.1.2. The Investigation of Language Learning Strategies Use 88

4.2 Discussion 113

4.2.1. The Findings of Learner Autonomy Level 113

4.2.2. The Findings of the English Learning Strategies Use 117

CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 123

5.1 Summary of the Findings 123

5.2 Conclusion 124

5.3 Pedagogical Implications 125

5.4 Limitations of the study 126

5.5 Recommendations of the study 127

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

vii

REFERENCES 128

APPENDICES 137

APPENDIX A: The Index of Item Objective Congruence (IOC)

of Learner Autonomy Questionnaire 138

APPENDIX B: Questionnaires to investigate the Learner Autonomy

(English version) 141

APPENDIX C: Questionnaires to investigate the Learner autonomy

(Thai version) 145

APPENDIX D: Strategy Inventory for Language Learning 7.0 Version

(Original Version) 148

APPENDIX E: Strategy Inventory for Language Learning 7.0 Version

(Adapted Version) 153

APPENDIX F: Strategy Inventory for Language Learning 7.0 Version

(Thai Version) 158

APPENDIX G: Interview Question (English Version) 162

APPENDIX H: Interview Question (Thai Version) 163

BIOGRAPHY 164

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

viii

LIST OF TABLES

Tables Page

2.1. Classification of Language Learning Strategies 43

3.1 Score Rank of Learner Autonomy Questionnaires 70

4.1 Mean of each Domain and Level of Learner Autonomy 78

4.2 Mean of each statement of “Willingness” 80

4.3 Mean of each statement of “Self-confidence” 82

4.4 Mean of each statement of “Motivation” 84

4.5 Mean of each statement of “Capacity” 86

4.6 Mean of each Domain and Level of Language Learning Strategies Use 89

4.7 Mean of each statement of “Memory Strategy” 91

4.8 Mean of each statement of “Cognitive Strategy” 95

4.9 Mean of each statement of “Compensation Strategy” 98

4.10 Mean of each statement of “Metacognitive Strategy” 101

4.11 Mean of each statement of “Affective Strategy” 105

4.12 Mean of each statement of “Social Strategy” 108

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

ix

LIST OF FIGURES

Figures Page

2.1. Components of Learner Autonomy 15

2.2. Four Dimensions of Learner Autonomy 16

2.3. The Six Approaches to Foster Autonomy 19

2.4. A Cycle Model of Self-regulated Learning 30

2.5. Direct Strategies 44

2.6 Memory Strategies 45

2.7 Cognitive Strategies 47

2.8 Flow Chart of the Human Memory System 49

2.9 Compensation Strategies 51

2.10 Indirect Strategies 53

2.11 Metacognitive Strategies 54

2.12 Affective Strategies 55

2.13 Social Strategies 57

3.1 Selecting a Convenient Participants Sampling 69

4.1 The Differences of Language Learning Use by the Participants 112

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

1

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

This chapter illustrates the background of the study to explain what learner

autonomy is and why it is popular in the field of language learning. In addition, the

influences on how a language learner becomes more autonomous is provided, which is

known as language learning strategies. Next, the problem statement of the study is

described to tell why this study needed to be conducted. The objectives of the study are

formulated as well as the research questions. Then, the definition of terms used in this

study are defined; the broad concepts and specific meanings used in this study. After

that, the scope and the significance of the study are provided to show the frame and the

benefits of this study respectively. Finally, this chapter ends with the organization of

the study which outlines the five basic chapters.

1.1. BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY

Language learning is a lifelong journey. No one can learn only in a short period

of time and without facing any obstacle. The trend of English language learning has

been an influence on people all around the world as English has become the key

communicative language. When talking about language learning, the majority of people

will think about where to learn but are rarely concerned about how to learn. In the

classroom, most people always think that the crucial role to conduct the lesson is the

teacher. However, the reality is not always like that. Learner autonomy becomes

popular among the educational systems in Europe and many countries around the world.

It can promote the students to control their own learning, plan their lessons, monitor

their learning process and evaluate their outcomes (Holec, 1981).

According to the trends of ‘learner autonomy’ in the late 1960s in Europe and

North America (Benson, 2013), many related studies were conducted to promote the

ways to foster learner autonomy. The students were the target group of this field as they

have to be responsible in their own learning process. In classrooms, instead of

propelling the class alone, the teachers can play a vital role to promote students’

autonomous learning by using various methods and materials. Students, in an

autonomous class, should be involved with the activities from planning the lesson to

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

2

evaluating the result. It can be said that in autonomous learning classrooms, teachers

and students fulfil each other. To promote autonomy in classrooms, teachers have the

important role towards the methodologies and materials used in the class. Students can

also develop themselves by various sources of learning outside the classroom. In

addition, technological advance nowadays can help to foster autonomy in the

classroom. Some previous studies (e.g. Tayjasanant & Suraratdecha, 2016) reveal that

many schools are going to support this and the way of learning. It cannot only promote

the students themselves, but the gradually step of movement can also foster autonomous

learning in a whole national educational system.

Sometimes the word ‘autonomy’ has been used as ‘independence’ which can

allow the learners to be free from others when they learn, especially in language

learning which requires the self-regulation to acquire the language. This can also mean

‘interdependence’ among learners. If it is talked about in the classroom setting,

‘interdependence’ will refer to the relationship between teachers and friends of the

learners. However, in this study, the Thai EFL students learning in the international

school and Thai public school are investigated on the method they use to learn language

and also what they use to learn. Thus, ‘interdependence’ of the learners are occurred

among themselves and the methods they use to learn. Benson (2013) demonstrated that

autonomous learning cannot be taught but it is able to be encouraged by “providing

learners with the opportunity to make significant choices and decisions about their

learning”. Moreover, in the classroom settings, there are one or more than two teachers

to assist learners process their learning, in contrast, outside the classroom, learners will

have no one to tell what they have to do next or deal with the unexpected problems.

Therefore, to allow learners to acquire appropriate strategies in learning can enhance

their opportunity to learn by themselves alone, and also in the long term profit.

English learning autonomy and language learning strategies are the key

dimensions in learners’ English performance. It is obviously seen that English becomes

more a part of importance in EFL contexts. For Thai learners, the empirical research

reveals that even if Thai students learn English when they are very young, they do not

improve English proficiency when they grow up, especially in communicating with the

foreigners (Lightbown & Spada, 2013). Thai society encourages the children to learn

as much as possible, which lead to many educational problems as shown nowadays; the

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

3

increment of stressfulness among children, the lack of an outstanding talent in children

and so on. So, to promote the learners to become an autonomous learner can encourage

them when they finished the school and have to learn by themselves. They will know

what they should learn and how to learn appropriately and efficiently. One of the

stimulating factors for encouraging the learners’ learning process is learning strategies.

Different individuals have their own ways to learn, so learning strategies they can use

can effect the outcome they gain.

1.2. PROBLEM STATEMENT OF THE STUDY

Many empirical researches have been carried out regarding how learner

autonomy can assist language learners to be successful in language learning and how

language learning strategies are the vital tool to facilitate the learner autonomy process

(Dickinson, 1987; Little, 1991; Wenden, 1991; Oxford, 1990; 2011; 2017). Moreover,

teachers are the main propulsion in a classroom setting to promote learner autonomy of

the students (Zimmerman et al., 1996; Benson, 2013; Fang, 2014; Bekleyen and

Selimoglu, 2016).

As many empirical studies have been conducted in terms of learner autonomy

issues and language learning strategies used by language learners, this study aims to

observe the influence of language learning strategies on the autonomy of language

learners. As Wong (2005) said that with high self-efficacy, it can promote the LLS use

among learners. And, Du (2012) bears out Wong’s finding that cognitive strategies have

correlated with the self-efficacy of learners. Also, with the findings of Nosratina et al.

(2014), they found that metacognitive strategies affect self-efficacy of EFL learners.

The studies mentioned previously were conducted at the university student level outside

Thailand. In addition, many research studies have been conducted to investigate the

autonomy learning readiness of Thai students such as Swatevacharkul (2008), and Thai

teachers and students such as Tayjasanant and Suraratdecha (2016). Both of them found

that there were some obstacles which blocked the development of autonomy among

Thai learners. However, for Littlewood (1999), autonomy can be implemented with

East Asian learners and teachers by learner training and appropriate learning

environments. To Dickinson (1987), self-regulation models should be proposed to both

the learners and teachers who are new to self-instruction. He stated more that to prepare

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

4

the learners well with the necessary materials and resources available, they might

benefit from the learner training program which would introduce them to use of learning

strategies efficiently (Dickinson, 1987). Therefore, this study furthers the observation

of learning autonomy among Thai EFL students, learning in international schools and

Thai public school; the different use of learning strategies used by the participants was

also observed. In 1999, Oxford conducted a study to observe language learning

strategies by using only the questionnaire SILL, which was carried out by Oxford

(1990). Thus, this study further the information about the language learning strategies

use by formulating similar interview questions.

According to the mentioned statement above, this study has the objectives as

following.

1.3. OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

This study aims to:

1. investigate the level of learner autonomy of Thai EFL students learning in the

international school and Thai public school

2. examine the differences of English learning strategies use of Thai EFL students

learning in the international school and Thai public school

1.4. RESEARCH QUESTIONS

The research questions in this study are formulated as following:

1. What is the level of English language learning autonomy of Thai EFL students

learning in the international school and Thai public school?

2. What are the differences of English language learning strategies used by Thai

EFL students learning in the international school and Thai public school?

1.5. DEFINITIONS OF TERMS

Learner Autonomy is a capacity of a language learner to control and take

responsibility for their own learning process, starting from planning, selecting the

method, determining what it can help to learn, and evaluating their learning process.

The 4 main components of learner autonomy which become the framework of this study

are willingness, self-confidence, motivation, and capacity to learn autonomously of the

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

5

participants. A learner autonomy questionnaire is used to measured their level in this

research.

Willingness to take responsibility can be defined as the learners will do

whatever to acquire the language learning as they “see themselves having a crucial role

on their language learning” (Wenden, 1991:53). So, if a learner has enough

responsibility to take charge of his/her learning process, s/he will be confident in their

ability to learn.

Self-confidence in ability as a learner. To Wenden (1991), the students should

be confident and trust in their ability to learn or monitor their own learning. If a learner

believes in their ability to learn and to self-direct or manage their learning, they can

cope with any obstacles they face when learning.

Motivation to learn is a vital part of learner autonomy. It can promote

responsibility among learners and their capacity to be more confident in their ability to

learn. Intrinsic and extrinsic are 2 basic types of motivation. Intrinsic inspires learners

by the goal of learning and it can make the students have willingness to take

responsibility to learn while extrinsic is a reward and punishment which can boost the

sense of well-being and confidence to the students.

Capacity to learn autonomously is the amount of skill autonomous learners are

employing during their learning process. In other words, whether they have much

knowledge and are skillful enough to learn and know how to overcome the learning

difficulties.

Language Learning Strategies (LLS) are the behavior, thought, or action in

which learners engage to enhance their learning acquisition and become successful in

their learning process (Weinstein and Hume, 1998). They are widely and commonly

applied to various aspects of how people learn. LLS are used as a tool to help language

learners become successful in their learning. To Oxford, they are categorized into two

main strategies i.e. direct strategies and indirect strategies (Oxford, 1990). Strategy

Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) is employed to measured learning strategies

of the participants in this study.

Direct Strategies consists of memory, cognitive, and compensation strategy,

which directly influence language acquisition of language learners. They are internal

factors of learners to acquire language and manipulate their own learning.

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

6

Cognitive Strategies are the process of how learners monitor their own

learning. It allows learners to acquire language proficiency through reasoning,

analysing, synthesising, outlining, and organizing the information. To Mitchell (2014),

this kind of strategy assists language learners to organize and integrate the information.

Memory Strategies are the strategies which learners use to memorize the

information they gain. Memory strategies enable learners to regain their knowledge as

powerful mental tools (Oxford, 1990). To Rubin (1987), these kind of strategies enable

learners to gain and retrieve the information to use when it is needed.

Compensation Strategies are the strategies used by learners to find other ways

to express the meaning when they face some obstacle e.g. use context clues to help to

find the meaning of the words they do not know, describe in the detail when they do

not know the exact vocabulary, and so on. These strategies will assist learners to make

up the missing information.

Indirect Strategies consists of metacognitive, social, and affective strategy

(Oxford, 1990). These kinds of learning strategies do not directly impact the language

acquisition of learners as the direct strategies do, but they are the alternatives way to

help learners manipulate direct strategies effectively.

Metacognitive Strategies employ the whole process of learning i.e. planning,

monitoring, and evaluating. Language learners will use these kind of strategies to

control their learning process, which means to take charge of cognitive strategies use.

They potentially assist learners to manage their learning process.

Social Strategies are linked to the interaction when learners use language to

communicate with the others. This strategy will backup language learners with the

knowledge and how to deal with learning obstacles. It underpins learners with the

cooperative and interactive activities which enable learners to communicate with others

in the society effectively.

Affective Strategies are related to learners’ emotions, beliefs, and awareness of

language learning. This kind of strategy lessens learners’ anxiety, encourages learners

to be motivated, and also controls learners’ emotional temperature.

Thai EFL Students in the International School are the Thai students who

have studied in the international school since they were young and have never attended

in Thai education program in any level. In this study, the senior high school students

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

7

are the participants. They were studying in standard course for international curriculum

such as IGCSE, GED, A-Level, and IB. These courses are preparation for the students

to attend the university.

Thai EFL Students in the Thai Public School are the students who have

studied in Thai public school since kindergarten and have never attended in

International program at any level. In this study, the senior high school students are the

participants. The participants in this recent study were studying for specific purposes

such as IELTS and GAT. Both of groups were preparing to attend university. It is noted

that a student who attend bilingual program or English program in Thai school was

excluded from this study.

Tutorial school, where the participants studied, is located in Bangkok. It

provides many courses for the Thai curriculum such as IELTS, GAT, PAT, O-Net and

International curriculum such as IGCSE, GED, A-Level, O-Level, and IB. There are

many classes containing various number of students in each class. The lowest number

of student is one person in private class and the group classes have more than 20 people.

The participants in this study are taken from the group classes.

1.6. SCOPE OF THE STUDY

1. This study is carried out with two groups of participants i.e. Thai EFL students

learning in the international school or Thai public school. The total sampling in

this study was 200randomly selected students out of 387 populations in a

tutorial school in Bangkok. The 200 samples was divided into two groups by

their learning program. Each group consisted of 100 students who studied

supplementary subjects after school and on the weekends. The level of the

participants was in senior high school level. The international schools and Thai

public school are also located in Bangkok.

2. The research focuses on the level of learning autonomy and language learning

strategies which the participants used in English language learning only.

Interviews were carried out to find the differences of language learning

strategies used between Thai EFL students in International school and Thai

public school.

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

8

3. Gender of the students was not taken into consideration in the convenient

sampling. Moreover, a study of Saengaroon (2015) showed that there was no

different use of language learning strategies between male and female. Both of

them use metacognitive as the highest proportion.

4. The English proficiency of the participants was random. The international

school students were taking IGCSE and GED courses which were the same level

as the IELTS and GAT courses taken by the Thai public school students. So,

their proficiency was at a high level.

1.7. SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

1. The finding of learner autonomy level among Thai EFL students studying in

international school and Thai public school enables teachers in both school

programs to be aware of the degree of autonomy in language learners and can

consider how useful learner autonomy is. Moreover, they can help the students

appreciate and value autonomous learning as an effective way of learning.

2. The findings of language learning strategies use of the participants can guide

the school teachers in both international school and Thai public school to

observe their students lack of use of LLS in order to find the most effective way

in teaching language.

3. The findings of the difference in language learning strategies use of the

participants in two groups can also allow the teachers to know how to promote

learning strategies which can fulfil the students’ English proficiency.

4. The teachers can refer to this study result in terms of the development of the

materials used in education to foster language learners to use the most potent

language learning strategies which are suitable to promote learner autonomy.

5. The findings of this study are also beneficial for the curriculum development in

both international school and Thai public school in order to increase the

efficiency of the educational system and facilitate the students to become more

autonomous.

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

9

1.8. ORGANIZATION OF THE STUDY

This study has been organized into five chapters including introduction,

literature review, methodology, results, and conclusions.

Chapter one consists of background of the study to provide the reader

information about the general concept of learner autonomy and language learning

strategies. Then, the problem statement of the study is given to tell about why this study

was be conducted or if there are any issues tending to be an obstacle of the previous

studies which should be rearranged in the present study. Next, the objective of the study

is provided to show the research purposes, which is followed by three research

questions. After that, the definition of term used in this study are illustrated in order to

give the reader the broad concept of each terms.

Chapter two is the reviewing of related literature. The two main literatures are

reviewed in this study were learner autonomy and language learning strategies. Each

main literature summary consists of the definition and the characteristics related to

language learning and in addition, the factors influencing on how L2 students learn are

also demonstrated in this chapter. The academic literature will be presented along with

the relevant studies.

Chapter three presents the methodology used in the study. The detailed

description of the research design of all instruments used in this study will also be

provided. Moreover, the procedure of the study will be given in this section to show the

steps of how the participants were observed in their autonomy and learning strategies.

Next, the process of data collection is also stated along with the data analysis.

Chapter four focuses on the results of the data analysis. This section will show

the findings of the investigation according to the research questions and objectives.

Next, discussion is also provided to discuss whether the results of the study agree with

the previous studies or not.

Chapter five demonstrates the summary of the study. The conclusion will be

presented after analyzing the data. Finally, recommendations are given to suggest future

research.

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

10

CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

This chapter reviews literature in 5 main areas along with a summary: (1) learner

autonomy, (2) autonomous learning, (3) autonomous learners, (4) language learning

strategies, and (5) relevant studies.

2.1. LEARNER AUTONOMY

This section gives the information about learner autonomy and related topics.

The subsidiary section will be divided into 3 parts; definition, its components, and its

dimension. Finally, the related studies, conducted in Thailand and oversea, are also

presented.

2.1.1. Definition of Learner Autonomy

Schwartz (1977), as cited in Holec (1981), stated in ‘L’éducation demain’ that

‘autonomy’ is “the ability to assume responsibility for one’s own affairs”. It is “the

ability to take charge of one’s learning” (Holec, 1981:3). Holec stated more that this

‘ability’ cannot be obtained innately, but it comes from formal systematic learning.

Moreover, ‘ability’ to him cannot conduct ‘behavior’; however, it is the power or

capacity to do something. So, ‘autonomy’ is the ability to manipulate behavior in the

given situation and ‘learner autonomy’ is an ability to conduct the learners’ behavior in

the learning process. Holec (1981:3) provided more about to take charge of one’s

learning is to have or to hold the responsibility for all the decisions concerning all

aspects of this learning i.e.

- determining the objectives;

- defining the contents and progressions;

- selecting methods and techniques to be used;

- monitoring the procedure of acquisition properly speaking (rhythm,

time, place, etc);

- evaluating what has been acquired.

Dickinson (1987) stated that autonomy is a term to describe the situation in

which a learner takes control of their responsibility, including decisions about learning.

He defined autonomy as a mode of learning. To him, autonomy is different from self-

instruction as it refers to “a situation in which a learner, with others, or alone, is working

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

11

without the direct control of a teacher which might be just a short period of time”

(Dickinson, 1987:5). Autonomy does not mean “do-it-yourself” or “get-rid-of-the-

teacher” (Grenfell & Harris, 1999). Moreover, to Little (1994:81), autonomy is “a

capacity-for detachment, critical reflection, decision-making, and independent action”.

The capacity for learner autonomy can mean both the way the learners learn and the

way they transferred what they have learned into the wider context. Little (1994) said

that the concept of learner autonomy is the learners enjoys a high degree of freedom

which is limited in specific conditions. To Helec (1981), promoting autonomy does not

mean to learn in a more or less formal educational context, but it is to carry over into

every other area of life which means learners can apply their skill whenever and

wherever they want.

To Littlewood (1996), the term ‘autonomy’ is understood to refer to one

particular kind of autonomy, namely, “learner autonomy”. Here the term may refer to

a capacity for thinking and acting independently that may occur in any kind of situation

(including, of course, a situation where the focus is on learning). Scharle and Szabó

(2000:4) define autonomy as “the freedom and ability to manage one’s own affairs,

which entails the right to make decisions as well.” According to Scharle and Szabó

(2000), the terms autonomy and responsibility are hard to distinguish. In order to foster

learner autonomy, learners need to develop a sense of responsibility while taking an

active role in making decisions about their learning. Benson (2011:58) defined

‘autonomy’ as “the capacity to take control of one’s own learning”.

However, there are some misunderstandings of learner autonomy, seeing it as

the way learners learn without help, but as Holec (1981) said, learners are unlikely to

acquire a degree of autonomy without assistance. To correct and illustrate the term

clearer, Little (1994) provided the 5 negatives of learner autonomy as follows:

1. Autonomy and self-instruction do not have the same meaning. So,

learner autonomy is not limited to learning without a teacher.

2. Autonomy does not mean the teachers have no responsibility.

Moreover, the learners do not allow to continue their learning as good

as they can.

3. Autonomy is not, on the other hand, another kind of teaching method.

4. Autonomy is not a single and easy-described behavior

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

12

5. Autonomy is not steady which can achieve by a learner.

To Little (1994), learner autonomy is a kind of the transfer of responsibility

from the teacher to the learner. So, the learners can generate their own learning

purposes. Little (1994) proposed that the curriculum should come from within the

learners, as a product of their past experience and present and future needs. Thus, Little

(1994, as cited in Grenfell & Harris, 1999:36) concluded the meaning of learner

autonomy entails acceptance of responsibility for one’s learning as follows:

● Creating a personal direction of learning

● Taking at least some of the initiative to form the learning process

● Ameliorating the capacity to evaluate the extent and success of one’s

learning

It is clearly shown that to have learner autonomy in language learning,

‘responsibility’ of learners is important. In the next part, the component of learner

autonomy which enables language learners to have responsibility in their learning will

be discussed.

2.1.2. Components of Learner Autonomy

To Wenden (1991) a learner who wants to have learner autonomy should have

willingness and ability to take charge of their learning. Wenden stated that willingness

and ability of a learner can be promoted by improving their attitudes which consists of

‘learned motivations’, ‘valued beliefs’, ‘evaluations’, ‘what one believes is acceptable’

or ‘responses oriented towards approaching or avoiding’ (Wenden, 1991:52). Wenden

pointed out that the three main components of attitudes towards autonomy are

cognitive, evaluative, and behavioral.

First, a cognitive component consists of beliefs, perceptions, and information

about the object of the attitudes. It means that learners believe in themselves about their

role in language learning process and also their capacity as a language learner. Second,

an evaluative component is about the feeling of language learners such as like and

dislike, approval and disapproval, agreement and disagreement. It means some learners

may love to be responsible for their learning while the others may not. Finally, a

behavioral component is about the action of language learner. It means the more

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

13

evaluative information the learners have, the more responsible in learning process they

become.

Moreover, two attitudes provided to foster learner autonomy are ‘willingness to

take on responsibility’ and ‘confidence in their ability as learners’ (Wenden, 1991). To

Wenden, the students should be confident and trust in their ability to learn or monitor

their own learning. Unless the learners are willing to take responsibility for their

learning, their autonomy will not be developed (Borge and Al-Busaidi, 2012). The

willingness to take on responsibility can be defined as the learners will do whatever to

acquire the language learning as they “see themselves having a crucial role on their

language learning” (Wenden, 1991:53).

Scharle and Szabó (2000) stated that to develop learner responsibility requires

three stages: (1) raising awareness, it should interest and attract learners to the new view

point and new experience in the starting point in order to encourage them to desire to

know more; (2) changing attitudes, a lot of practice and patience should be provided to

the learners in order to let them keep going on the new view point and new experiences;

(3) transferred role, freedom and choices in classroom activities should be given to the

students in order to allow them to be able to have their say in their learning. So, if a

learner has enough responsibility to take charge of his/her learning process, s/he will

be confident in their ability to learn. Confidence in the learners’ capacity as language

learners is therefore important. So, if a learner believe in their ability to learn and to

self-direct or manage their learning, they can cope with any obstacles they face when

learning.

To Littlewood (1996), autonomy is composed of many dimensions .It is divided

into 2 different ways. First of all, it focuses on three main domains; a communicator

(task level), a learner (learning level), and a person (personal level). In addition, to

acquire learner autonomy in three main domains, two components are needed; ability

to acquire knowledge and skill, and willingness to have motivation and confidence in

learning. This means to be a capable learner, knowledge and skill are required.

Moreover, the learners should be motivated and confident in their ability to take

responsibility in their learning process. To Littlewood (1996) learners who have ability

to choose the knowledge and have the necessary skill to carry out whatever alternatives

seem most appropriate are keen to have learner autonomy. For example, if a learner

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

14

know how to learn (which means s/he has the ability to learn) but s/he is lacking

willingness to learn, it is useless. Moreover, some students who are highly motivated

to learn outside the classroom, but who lack knowledge and skill to manage their time,

cannot reach their learning achievement goal. Moreover, some knowledgeable and

skilled learners who lack of responsibility, as s/he may think it belongs to the teacher,

cannot also get the learning achievement.

Furthermore, when learners need to learn language, they will have attitude to

learn. Then, when they have a favourable attitude of language learning, they will have

need or desire to learn it, which is called motivation. Obviously, motivation is also a

vital part of learner autonomy. It can promote responsibility among learners and their

capacity to be more confident in their ability to learn.

According to the self-determination theory (SDT) of Deci and Ryan (2002),

motivation is divided into two main types; intrinsic and extrinsic. Intrinsic refers to the

desire that motivate learners to do something for pleasure and satisfaction. Scharle and

Szabo (2000) identified intrinsic motivation with the goal of learning and it can make

the students have willingness to take responsibility to learn. Conversely, extrinsic refers

to the desire that motivate the learners to finish the task. Scharle and Szabo (2000)

added that extrinsic motivation like a reward and punishment can boost the sense of

well-being and confidence of the students. It focuses on the learners’ learning process

rather than their outcome. For example, monitoring which makes a learner aware of

their effort can be the first step for them to develop their responsible attitude. Self-

evaluation can formulate an idea of their level of proficiency, i.e. strong and weak

points, and plan the directions of progress, i.e. setting their own goals and reach them.

Deci and Ryan stated that extrinsic motivation can promote learner autonomy by

encouraging them to have self-determination and overcome their laziness (Deci &

Ryan, 2002). Motivation will integrate with other factors of learners’ need to promote

autonomy in terms of the propulsion of learning. Thus, to have high motivation,

whehter intrinsic or extrinsic, learners can be successful in learning.

Therefore, it is obviously shown that learners’ willingness to take on their

responsibility and learners’ confidence in their capacity under ‘attitudes’ can promote

learner autonomy (Wenden, 1991). Moreover, this idea meets the same notion of

Littlewood’s that willingness to take their learning responsibility and ability to have

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

15

Originated from

knowledge and skill can encourage a learner to have more learner autonomy

(Littlewood, 1996). Finally, to Lightbown and Spada (2013), a student who has positive

attitudes, which originated from motivation, tends to have willingness to take

responsibility in learning. The components of learner autonomy are illustrated

graphically as following:

Figure 2.1. Components of Learner Autonomy

The 4 main components of learner autonomy mentioned earlier are the

framework of this recent study. The participants are measured their level of willingness,

self-confidence, motivation, and capacity to learn by the questionnaires based on the 4

components. Next, the dimension of learner autonomy will be reviewed to expand the

idea of how learner autonomy relates to the language learners.

Intrinsic

Extrinsic

Learner Autonomy

Ability

Willingness Capacity

Knowledge Skill

Motivation

Attitudes

Confidence Responsibility

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

16

2.1.3. Dimension of Learner Autonomy

According to Littlewood (1996) and Benson (2001, as cited in Murase, 2015),

autonomy is a 'multi-dimensional capacity'. To Benson and Voller (1997), 4 dimensions

of autonomy were proposed as technical, psychological, political, and social, shown in

the figure 2.2. below.

Figure 2.2. Four Dimensions of Learner Autonomy

Previously, the dimensions of learner autonomy were provided by Benson

(1997, as cited in Murase, (2015) into three perspectives; technical, psychological, and

political. After that, the fourth perspective; socio-cultural, was added by Oxford (2003).

Firstly, the technical is the act of learning a language outside the framework of

an education institution and without the intervention of a teacher. To Murase (2015),

this kind of dimension is divided into two sub-dimensions; behavioral and situational.

Language learners use the behavioral dimension by using language learning strategies

in the situation given to take their responsibility. To Oxford (2003), autonomy can be

promoted as a skill for ‘independent learning’ situation e.g. self-access center,

classroom, home-setting, and travel environment. According to Dickinson (1987), he

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

17

stated that autonomy is a term to describe the situation in which a learner takes control

of their responsibility including decisions about learning. Murase (2010, as cited in

Murase, 2015) concluded that in the technical-autonomy dimension, ‘behavioral’

autonomy is the ability to apply cognitive and metacognitive strategies in the learning

of language learners, such as planning and monitoring their own learning process. The

‘situational’ autonomy is the ability to be responsible in a situation where a language

learner has to learn autonomously.

Oxford (2003) stated that if learners decide to learn alone or without any support

of teachers or peers, it can be both motivating and demotivating, depending on the

learning goal and learning style. In other words, if the learner wanted to improve their

reading skill and they are an introvert kind of learner, reading alone is suitable for them.

In contrast, if they wish to practice language speaking skill and they are the extrovert

kind of learner, talking and interacting with the others can fulfill their achievement.

Benson (1997, as cited in Oxford, 2003) claimed that learning strategies can be an

assistant which teachers can give to the learners by learner training or strategy

instruction. However, Oxford (2003) concluded that learning strategies cannot be

effective if the learners lack participation. Thus, technical perspective, which focuses

on the external factors in learning, cannot activate if the psychological one is not applied

(Oxford, 2003).

Secondly, the psychological dimension is the capacity which allows learners to

take more responsibility for their own learning. To Oxford (2003), it focuses on the

characteristics; mental and emotional, of learners. Oxford (2003) stated the ideal

psychological perspective of an autonomous learner as the one who has high attitude

and motivation, self-confidence in his/her capability to take responsibility, and the need

to be successful in language learning. To Deci and Ryan (2002), motivation; intrinsic

and extrinsic, can propel learners to have positive attitudes to learning. To Murase

(2010, as cited in Murase, 2015), in psychological-autonomy dimension, the

‘motivational’ sub-dimension is a learner’ intrinsic and extrinsic motivation to learn

English language. In other words, the learners know how to motivate themselves and

take responsibility in success and failure when learning language. Moreover, the

‘metacognitive’ sub-dimension is a capacity of a language learner to take control of

their thinking such as needs, preferences, strengths, and weaknesses.

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

18

The ‘affective’ sub-dimension is the capacity to know how to cope with the

emotional effect such as stress, anxiety, and self-esteem. So, due to the basic component

of learner autonomy, when learners have high motivation to learn, they will have the

willingness to take their responsibility and be confident in their capability in learning.

Moreover, intrinsic motivation can promote learner autonomy by encouraging people

to learn because they want to get involved in the target language’s culture. A second

language is studied where most people use it in their daily life, whereas learning a

foreign language is done in the setting where the target language is not used for general

communication. In addition, learning strategies have a kind of psychological

perspective to promote L2 learner autonomy as it can enhance learners’ self-planning,

goal-setting, information-seeking, memorizing, retrieving the information, social

interaction, and anxiety coping. O’Malley and Chamot (1990) said that the use of

learning strategies relates to language performance, achievement, proficiency, and

autonomy beliefs. Thus, to Oxford (2003), the psychological perspective provides the

models of motivation and learning strategies as the encouragement for learner

autonomy.

Thirdly, the political dimension is the conditions that allow learners to control

the process and content of learning as well as the institutional context within which

learning takes place. To Oxford (2003), it focused on ideologies, access, and power

structures. She stated further that the political dimension also referred to the specific

situation where the groups of people (related to age, gender, religion, and culture),

institution, and socioeconomic level are affected learners. To Murase (2010, as cited in

Murase, 2015), in political-philosophical autonomy, the ‘positive’ and ‘negative’

freedom referred to the learners’ view where they have the freedom to control their

learning with the teacher’s agreement and with no constraints respectively. The ‘group’

autonomy referred to the awareness of authorities (teachers and parents) which

dominated learners’ learning and the ‘individual’ autonomy referred to the learners’

view to take responsibility in decision-making about concepts, goals, and purposes.

Finally, the socio-cultural dimension is the capacity to interact and collaborate

with others. Oxford (2003:76) added ‘socio-cultural’ perspective as the fourth

dimension of learner autonomy. It focuses on the mediated learning i.e. how language

learners deals with the social interaction when learning. Oxford (2003) stated that with

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

19

the social support or mediation learning can help the learners get through the zone of

proximal development (ZPD). ZPD is the idea of a psychologist, Vygotsky. It divided

the learners who can learn with help and without help. Actually, motivation is not

mentioned as the vital part in this perspective but it is still important because socio-

cultural implies that the learner is motivated to become a self-regulated learner to get

passed the ZPD zone and become an effective learner. In Vygotsky’s theory, learners

who have self-regulation tend to plan, guide, and monitor their own learning process.

These are categorized as metacognitive strategies, which can promote learner

autonomy. To Murase (2010, as cited in Murase, 2015) in socio-cultural autonomy, the

‘social-interactive’ dimension is the view of learning with others such as teachers and

peers and the ‘cultural’ dimension is the view of learning in different cultures. In the

sociocultural sense, practicing language with the community can help new learners to

gain suitable strategies and enable them to be a successful learner in L2 learning

(Oxford, 2003).

2.1.4. Approaches for Fostering Autonomy

Moreover, to promote ‘autonomous learning’, ‘autonomous learning

programs’ need to play a part in this process. From Benson, 6 approaches to

foster autonomy are shown in the figure below.

Figure 2.3. The Six Approaches to Foster Autonomy (Benson, 2011:125)

Autonomy

Resource-based

Approaches

Technology-based

Approaches

Learner-based

Approaches

Classroom-based

Approaches

Curriculum-based

Approaches

Teacher-based

Approaches

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

20

First is resource-based approaches. To Benson (2011) resource-based learning

serves as ‘a cover form for approaches such as self-access, tandem learning, distance

learning, self-instruction, and out-of-class learning’. Benson stated further that material

is a part of learning, so it should emphasis the independent interaction with learning

materials (e.g. Individualized learning or peer teaching). It can be defined as the

learners can learn on their own with the help of adequate resources, e.g. a self-access

center. Sheerin (1991:143, cited in Benson, 2011) defined self-access as “a way of

describing materials that are designed and organized in such a way that students can

select and work on tasks on their own.” At Centre de Recherches et d’Applications en

Langues (CRAPEL), the self-access center (SAC) is one of the resource centers

providing lots of material used to foster autonomous learning for the learners. SAC

refers to design and organization of resources that facilitate independent learning

(Dickinson, 1987). It facilitates language learning by providing areas of group work, a

help-desk and advising services, one-to-one writing support and a language learning

exchange (Benson, 2011).

Another resource promoting learner autonomy is tandem learning. Brammerts (2003,

as cited in Benson, 2011) stated that tandem learning is a way for language learning to

bring certain skills and abilities which another requires. It is the way to work together

with a language learning partner from another country - by telephone, e-mail or other

media. From the partner, the two native languages are exchanged. To Benson (2011),

tandem learning provides the form of class exchange projects, organized by teachers in

different countries. For example, a French class learns German while a German class

learns French. With tandem learning, the language learners will gain extensive

knowledge as they share the same interest with the partners across the country. When

they talk about these things in both languages, they are not only expanding their foreign

language skills and knowledge. However, the tandem class has to be highly well-

organized in order to gain the practical achievements (Benson, 2011).

Unlike self-access center and tandem learning, distance learning and self-

instruction are the two kinds of the ways to promote learner autonomy and require the

autonomous learning skill of each learners (Benson, 2011). As distance learning and

self-instruction do not require the learners to be in educational institutions, most study

at home, at work or wherever they happen to be (Benson, 2011). Self-instruction is a

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

21

way for people to ‘teach themselves’ foreign languages. To White (2003), language

learning at a distance may require learners to become more autonomous in the sense of

having the ability to take charge of their learning. He stated further that a distance

language course must emphasize learning material design and selection for self-study,

which can help learners to develop some skills to become more autonomous. It is clearly

shown that distance learning requires self-instruction as the learners have to learn by

themselves and also without force of the curriculum or teachers. Both of them require

a high degree of learner autonomy to succeed (Benson, 2011). Thus, distance learning

and self-instruction can clearly promote learner autonomy as well.

The last source that Benson mentioned to assist in learner autonomy

encouragement is out-of-class learning. It includes homework, self-access work, extra-

curricular activities and the use of self-instructional materials. Benson (2011) revealed

that out-of-class learning can initiate students in working, so it can provide more

opportunities to the students to express their view creatively more than under the

teachers’ control. He stated more that to access out-of-class learning, degree of learner

autonomy is required.

Second is technology-based approaches. It emphasizes independent interaction

with educational technologies e.g. computers. Benson (2011) divided ‘technology’ into

two main ways; computer and Internet. It seems to be that the most influential

technology recently has been computer. Along with the worldwide system called

Internet, a technology-based approach has become one of the most effective ways of

learning. CALL (Computer-assisted language learning) is an approach used in language

learning as “a tool to aid learners and teachers” in class (Benson, 2013). Edbert (2005:1,

as cited in Benson, 2011) defined CALL as ‘using computers to support language

teaching and learning in some way’. To Beatty (2003), CALL is “any process in which

a learner uses a computer and, as a result, improves his or her language”. CALL can be

media used in English language teaching such as English language newspaper Web

sites, or computer games with heavy English content. With computers, the learners can

learn through sound, animation, video, email, and Internet chat lines. Beatty (2003) said

that CALL will soon become learner immersion in full virtual reality. CALL can help

to promote learner autonomy in terms of making the best use of the computer facilities

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

22

when they have access to them and tried to further their learning after being away from

the computer (Beatty, 2003).

If a computer is like a tool to aid learner in language learning, Internet is like

toolkits to fulfil the complete equipment. Internet is extremely widely used in the world.

It can provide more communication among people across the countries. To Benson

(2011), technology does not serve learning only inside a classroom but also outside the

classroom as so many resources are available with computer or mobile technologies.

Hudson-Smith (2000, cited in Benson, 2011) said that increasing technology in

classroom and learning environments can assist the learners who are moving to take

responsibility for and control of their own learning. Thornton and Sharples (2005, cited

in Benson 2011) conducted a study of Japanese students and the result showed how

they used technology as follows:

- manage time and learning more efficiently

- have learning resources available when they needed

- support reading and writing; and

- blend learning and entertainment.

In those day, mobile phone is not smart as today, twenty-first century, so the

Internet may not effective enough. Nevertheless, it is really smart now which make

Internet be a part of language learning assistance. In Ramamuruthy and Rao (2015), a

study of whether smartphone can promote autonomous learning in an ESL classroom

was conducted and the findings revealed that smartphone use boosted learners' critical

thinking, creative thinking, and communication and collaboration skills. With

computers, the students can practice their knowledge and have a wide range of

assessment to practice by themselves using the facilitator tool called Internet. Many

websites provide exercises and learning activities with which the learners can improve

their language skill at home. Moreover, teachers can use computer and internet to be

the medium when teaching as it can provide more visual mapping or audio which can

promote more effective learning in class. To Benson (2011), self-study and

technological appropriateness are two of the principles in language teaching. Thus, with

CALL, the learners can ameliorate their language learning and evaluate themselves on

their own.

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

23

Third is learner-based approaches. It focuses on the direct outcome of

behavioral and psychological change in learners e.g. various forms of strategies

training. It is true that in many aspects of language learning, a degree of autonomy is

required (Grenfell & Harris, 1999). To them, in other words, if learners want to have

language competence, they need to be capable to act on their own outside of the

pedagogic context. Whereas resource-based and technology-based approaches provide

language learners an opportunity for self-directed learning, learner-based approaches

aim to enable learners to take over control of their learning by giving them the skills

which they have to use to take advantage of these opportunities. To Benson (2011),

learner-based approaches can be promoted by learner development approaches. Benson

(2011) provided six ways to develop learner in learning as follows: (1) provide learners

the language-learning strategies and training, to facilitate learners to learn wherever

they are and whatever they want like distance learning and self-instruction; (2) provide

learners the approaches based on ‘good language learner’, to allow them to get insight

from learning strategies research and cognitive psychology; (3) provide learners the

training program in which they are encouraged to have the experience and have a

chance to know which strategies are suitable for them, to assist learners to consider the

influential factors on their learning and to find their most appropriate learning way; (4)

provide learners with useful theory from the related framework, to allow learners to

know what exactly they have to do to develop themselves; (5) provide learners the

integrated training, to allow them to be able to communicate in L2 and manipulate their

learning effectively; and ; (6) provide learners knowledge of the approaches to promote

their self-directed and self-instruction skill, to allow them to learn independently. Thus,

to Benson (2011), learner development works best if they are integrated with language

learning activities.

Benson (2011) stated further that learner development activities can increase

language learning proficiency by various factors such as learning preference, learning

style, and learning strategies. It can be claimed that to use and apply learning strategies

appropriately can encourage a good language learner (Benson, 2011). As Wenden

(1991:15) stated the reasons why some learners are more successful than others is

because they have learned ‘how to learn’. Moreover, “they have acquired learning

strategies, the knowledge about learning, and the attitudes that enable them to use these

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

24

skills and knowledge confidently, flexibly, appropriately and independently of a

teacher”. So, they become autonomous.

The fourth is classroom-based approaches. This approach, to Benson (2011),

emphasizes the change in the relationship between learners and teachers in the

classroom and learners’ planning and evaluation of their learning process. Classrooms

are also the basic places for the study which can help to promote learner autonomy.

To Dam (2011), the development of learner autonomy in an institutional context

is classified into 6 categories. Firstly, the 'choice', provided by the teachers to let the

learners get involved in learning process, can enhance the motivation. According to this

account, it can (1) heighten awareness of learning, (2) provoke the responsibility-shift

towards the learners, and (3) encourage positive impact on self-esteem. The learners

will be conscious about how to learn in the class and also have confidence in learning.

In addition, the responsibility to conduct the class will shift to the learners instead of

being teacher-centered. Secondly, the learners will feel secure enough to be 'willing' to

learn by the external expectation and demand. The institutional setting and the clear

guidelines of the school will provide learners the confidence and the willingness to

learn in the class. Thirdly, focusing on teaching instead of learning can encourage the

students to take active part in the learning process. Many classroom activities are

provided to the learners to support their learning participation which makes them

become more autonomous by the conduct of self-learning. Fourthly, teachers and

students in class act and speak as themselves in the role relevant in the institutional

learning environment. This can encourage the 'authenticity' in the classroom which

allows learners to become more autonomous by taking part in learning process. Finally,

the 'evaluation', such as reflection and assessment, will provide the evidence of learners'

progress in order to enhance their motivation and heighten their awareness learning.

To Benson (2011), classroom-based approaches aim to foster autonomy by

allowing learners to have participation in decision making processes. Students will be

encouraged to take control of their planning and assessment of classroom learning, so

the learners can express their ideas and also express their potentiality to take charge of

their learning process. In a classroom setting, the change from teacher-centered to

learner-centered is a key of learner autonomy.

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

25

Some teachers may be afraid of changing the traditional teaching method to the

learner-centered one. To Scharle and Szabó (2000), they suggested the solution of this

issue is that the teacher should confront the view of both methods; traditional and

learner-centered approaches. The more room provided to the learners, the more

opportunity they will get to express their ability. Thus, Scharle and Szabó (2000) stated

that if a teacher would like to change the way s/he teaches, patience is the biggest

consideration. It is difficult to change in the dramatic way because some teacher or

parents may not understand. Scharle and Szabó (2000) said that for some teachers, they

may be afraid to lose their authority in class and for the parents, they may worry it is a

weird way to teach as they are not familiar with this kind of teaching. So, to foster

autonomy in the classroom, gradual change is the cleverest way (Scharle and Szabó,

2000).

They suggested further that to share the experiment with the colleagues and

parents is the intelligent way to allow them to understand what is going on and with the

support from the colleagues who comprehend what it is being done, this may also help

this change survive through the critical period (Scharle and Szabó, 2000)

The fifth is curriculum-based approaches. It focuses on the idea of extending,

when learners are used to control over the planning and evaluation of learning, to the

curriculum as a whole. To Benson (2011), students are expected to collaborate in the

decision-making of content and procedure of learning with their teachers. Cotterall

(2000:109, as cited in Benson, 2011) provided 5 course design principles for language

course aiming to foster learner autonomy as follows: (1) the course should reflect

learners’ goals in its language, tasks and strategies; (2) the course task should clearly

show a relation to a simplified model of the language learning process; (3) the course

task should either replicate the real communication or provide the rehearsal of such

tasks; (4) the course should provide discussion practice and strategies training to

facilitate task performance and; (5) the course should promote reflection on learning.

Students can develop their ability to take control of their learning in curriculum-

based approaches at the early stage and then gradually improve their degree of their

responsibility (Benson, 2011). Finally, to Benson (2011), curriculum-based approaches

can enhance learner autonomy degree among language learners by teachers’ attitude,

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

26

skill, and the teacher engagement acting locally and within contexts of professional

development.

The last approach is teacher-based approaches. Normally, teachers are

involved in pedagogical planning and also take managerial and organizational

responsibility in class (Dickinson, 1987). Scharle and Szabó, 2000 says that the teachers

are only able to input the sources of knowledge but they cannot force the learners to

absorb if they do not want to. Compared to the proverbial ‘the horse is thirsty but it

does not drink’, just waiting alongside the river cannot get rid of its thirst. (Scharle and

Szabó, 2000).

To Dickinson (1987), teachers should be involved with the students’ learning in

several ways other than teaching. As autonomous learners have to regulate their own

learning process, to Zimmerman et al. (1996), the teachers’ role of promoting learner

in self-regulated learning is not as common as in the traditional learning classroom. To

them, the teachers should assist the students to (1) self-monitor, (2) analyze learning

task, and (3) set the goals and encourage strategies use to promote learning outcome.

The teachers can have three different roles in the autonomous classroom; facilitator,

counselor and resources (Voller, 1997; cited in Bekleyen & Selimoglu, 2016).

Normally, in a passive classroom setting, the teacher will play the role of director who

plan the lesson, monitors the learners’ learning process and evaluate them by testing.

Nevertheless, in the autonomous learning class, the teachers still are the vital part as a

facilitator who creates and encourages the students’ action, a counselor who take care

of the students’ difficulties and a resources person who provides more supplementary

knowledge to the students when it is needed (Voller, 1997; cited in Benson, 2003).

It is obviously seen that learner autonomy can be promoted with the help of

teachers. The term used to expand the idea of teacher as a facilitator, counselor and

resources in classroom is ‘teacher autonomy’. To Benson (2011), the term ‘teacher

autonomy’ referred to a focus on the teacher as a self-directed learners and practitioners.

To Thavenius (1999:160) ‘teacher autonomy’ was defined as “the teacher's ability and

willingness to help learners take responsibility for their own learning”. Thus, an

autonomous teacher is the one who “reflects on his/her teacher role and who can change

it, who can help her learners become autonomous, and who is independent enough to

help their learners become independent”. Benson (2013) stated that the teachers do not

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

27

leave the students go on their own task, but what is going on in class will rely on

learners’ involvement. As a teacher, it is necessary to support “the students to take

greater control over their learning by becoming more actively involved in it

themselves” (Benson, 2013).

In addition, offering choices and decision making opportunities to learners can

make them get involved in the lesson (Benson, 2013) and they will feel that they are a

part of the learning process. To Candlin and Byrnes (1995, as cited in White, 2003), the

characteristics of a teacher should be as follows: apply the experience to give learners

more choice and expand learning options; make the positive environment in class;

promote risk-taking, to make the effort of change; enable learner to get involved in

learning actively by posing problems; give learners an opportunity to communicate

about learning; provide learners with feedback and evaluation and; encourage learners

to communicate with the others, to confirm what they know. One way of promoting

learners to get involved in learning activities is to encourage them to use learning

strategies as a help when they are learning. To Zimmerman et al. (1996), self-regulatory

approaches will be continued when learners are supported by the teachers when their

learning strategies do not work. Teachers can still evaluate the students as usual but in

the different ways. To Benson (2013), teachers may give them some reflection and

feedback to let them know their mistakes on their own. Teachers and students can

cooperate to design what is to go on the next class. With these ways, teachers play a

vital role in class to foster learner autonomy without losing teacher's’ resonsibility.

Eventually, as a teacher, it is necessary to encourage the learners to build up their

confidence in language learning and also provide them the reliability in learning, which

can support them to learn independently outside the class.

A study of Bekleyen and Selimoglu (2016) has shown how important the

teacher’s role in the classroom to promote autonomous learning is. Bekleyen and

Selimoglu (2016) investigated learner’s behaviors and perceptions about autonomous

language learning of 171 undergraduate students, ranking from the age 18-40 years old,

in a state university of Eastern Turkey. The participants were majoring in English

language and literature. Their English proficiency was over intermediate level. The

questionnaire was the only instrument in this study.

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

28

The result showed that learners were still dependent on the teachers. They also

relied on the lesson plan and what the teachers asked them to do more than monitoring

their own learning. The conclusion was also noted that the teacher's role was very

important to propel the learning process in the classroom of Turkish university as the

students were still waiting for the demand from the teachers as to what they should do

next. Teachers still took responsibility for choosing what classroom activities should

be and the decision about English lessons to learn next. Moreover, the two most popular

learning activities for the participants were ‘listened to English song’ and ‘watched

English movie’, which accounted for 91.3% and 88.9% respectively. This is the first

stage of how learners try to use cognitive strategies as Oxford (1990) said that

metacognitive strategies can support learners to monitor and evaluate their learning, in

order to improve their English language proficiency. From this study, it seemed that a

learner’s autonomy approach has not been acquired by the participants. Bekleyen and

Selimoglu proposed teachers should investigate learner’s awareness and readiness of

learner autonomy before an attempt to enhance learner autonomy was made. They

stated more that teachers should observe learners differences to find the appropriate

ways to promote their autonomy e.g., beliefs, motivation, and learning strategies.

Another study supports Bekleyen and Selimoglu’s (2016) result by confirming

to be facilitator as a teacher in class can increase autonomy. Fang (2014) had done a

research to analyze the teacher’s role in an autonomous learning classroom. Two classes

of the students; majoring in Information Technology, were classified into an

experimental group and control group. The same textbook series and multimedia

equipment for autonomous learning were provided to the two groups during the equal

amount of time. In the experimental group, the teacher focused on guiding the students’

perspective of learning English and instructing them with a clear learning objective.

Moreover, a variety of English content were given to the experimental participants,

along with embedding them in all the aspects of learning process. Meanwhile, in the

control group, the teachers managed the class step by step. The conclusion was, along

well with Zimmerman et al. (1996), that a teacher’s role of assisting learners in self-

regulated learning was to (1) self-monitor, (2) analyze learning task, and (3) set the

goals and encourage strategies use to promote learning outcome. From Fang’s study

result, it is obviously seen that the help of teacher as a facilitator and counselor in the

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

29

class can promote autonomous learning of the students, with the result of performance

assessment of 35% for the experimental group and 18% for the control group. Fang

recommended that not only ‘learner-centered’ is important, but also the providing of

the tools to the teachers is also vital to promote learner autonomy. It is not just great for

the facilitation in class, but also the process of monitoring the learning process of

language learners.

2.2. AUTONOMOUS LEARNING

If the learner autonomy is a capacity to control one’s own learning process,

‘autonomous learning’ is like a tool to manipulate this capacity (Benson, 2011). He

stated further that it is needed to differentiate the two terms autonomy and autonomous

learning. ‘Autonomy’ is a learner characteristic whereas ‘autonomous learning’ is as a

method of learning (Benson, 2011). So, any activities which can encourage learners to

control their learning can be called ‘autonomous learning’. The term ‘autonomous’ has

been widely known for many decades. The simple definition is provided by the

dictionaries as “having autonomy; the right of self-government of one’s own affairs”

(Longman Dictionary of English Language and Culture, 1998), and “independent and

having the power to make your own decisions” (Cambridge Advanced Learner’s

Dictionary, 2013).

To Cohen and Macaro (2007:40), autonomous language learning refers to

“learning which has as its ultimate goal to produce self-motivated students who take

control of the ‘what, when, and how’ of language learning and learn successfully,

independently of a teacher, and possibly outside the classroom without any external

influence”. Holec (1981) illustrated more that autonomous ability cannot come out

naturally but it occurs by either intrinsic or formal learning. To him, ability cannot

conduct behavior. Moreover, the autonomous learning will occur when the learners are

guided to do something in the given situation not their actual behavior in that situation.

Fang (2014) stated that the autonomous learning ability becoming the important

indicator can promote the individual’s quality of learning. The decision making of what,

how and when to learn is the definition of autonomous learning provided by Lier

(1996), as cited in Ramamuruthy & Rao, 2015. However, autonomous learning is not

the learning process occurring in isolation, it is related to social interaction and promote

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

30

the interdependence of learners, with both peers and teachers (Little, 2000, as cited in

O’Leary, 2014). The gradual move from teacher-centered to learner-centered can be the

first step of change toward autonomous learning (Dam, 1995, as cited in Ramamuruthy

& Rao, 2015). Thus, to promote autonomous learning in students can start with the

small step from the family to the educational system (Tayjasanant & Suraratdecha,

2016).

One well-known trend to promote autonomous learning proposed by

Zimmerman et al. (1996) is self-regulated learning. Supporting learners to be more

autonomous, learners should be able to regulate themselves in language learning.

Mitchell (2014) defined SRL as an aim to help learners find their learning ultimate goal,

monitor their learning process, make decisions, and reach their language achievement.

Mitchell (2014) illustrated more that self-regulated learning (SRL) can assist learners

to become autonomous learners by (1) defining goals for themselves, (2) monitoring

their own behavior, and (3) making decisions and choices of action which can lead to

their achievement. A self-regulated cycle model was proposed to enhance not only

students’ learning, but also the recognition of self-efficiency to control the learning

process (Zimmerman et al., 1996).

Figure 2.4. A Cycle Model of Self-regulated Learning (Zimmerman et al., 1996; p.11)

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

31

As stated earlier, language learners need strategies to learn. When their

strategies efficiency increase, they can develop their learning process closer to

autonomy (Wenden, 1987). No single strategy will work for all students. To

Zimmerman et al. (1996), a strategy will become influential when its implementation

is self-monitored and its outcomes are self-evaluated. The first step of self-evaluation

and monitoring will occur when learners judge their effectiveness using their previous

experience and expected performance outcome. For example, homework is an effective

kind of self-monitoring and self-evaluation method. Students can monitor themselves

as to how much they understand when learning in the classroom. After that, they can

do some self-evaluation if they do not understand, and try to find the solution. The

second step of a self-regulated cycle is when learners analyze their learning tasks and

ameliorate strategies to attain their learning goal. When learners face learning

difficulties, they will set their goal of learning to overcome them. However, when

learners are facing an unfamiliar topic, the teachers should assist them to analyze the

task, set their learning goal, and choose the right strategy. With this way, students can

overcome their difficulties and plan further their learning goal. The third step takes

place when learners try to administer learning strategies and to observe their accuracy

in implementing it. Due to the previously chosen strategies; feedback from their peers

or teachers or self- monitoring, learners will implement their strategies choice to use in

the learning process. Finally, in the last step, learners will monitor their learning

outcomes by relating to the strategies used to define their learning effectiveness. To

Zimmerman et al., by following four cycle steps of self-regulated learning cycle,

learners can be more effective in strategies choice and use each strategy to suit their

personal potentiality; finally they will become an autonomous learner.

2.3. AUTONOMOUS LEARNERS

Most researchers in the language teaching field believe that autonomous

learners are those who control their own learning, observe their learning progress and

assess their own consequences (Benson, 2003). According to Littlewood (1996), the

term “autonomous person” is defined as one who has an independent capacity to make

and carry out the choices which govern his or her actions. From the basic definition “to

take charge of one’s own learning” of Holec (1981:3): determining the objectives;

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

32

defining the contents and progressions; selecting methods and techniques to be used;

monitoring the procedure of acquisition properly speaking (rhythm, time, place, etc.);

and evaluating what has been acquired, the “autonomous learner” is himself/herself

capable of making all those decision concerning the learning with which s/he is or

wishes to be involved. Benson considered autonomous learners “to be able to conduct

the learning process by considering its management and organization” (Benson,

2011:59). Autonomous learners should have the right to make decisions and freedom

to choose their own learning goal and purposes. To Boud (1988), the autonomous

person must be free not only from direction by others external to himself, but also from

his or her own inner compulsions and rigidities.

According to one of the main components of learner autonomy, responsibility

is the first thing that an autonomous learner should have in order to develop their

autonomy skill. To Scharle and Szabó (2000), they provided a characteristic of

autonomous learners while they have to develop their responsibility. Scharle and Szabó

gave one kind of example to represent the responsibility of the students called

‘homework’. Homework is one of the responsibilities in a student’s life and it is almost

always seen that many students avoid homework. According to Scharle and Szabó, a

way of how learners show their responsibility is not always doing homework or

following the teacher's’ instruction, but it can be because they are learning something

from homework or assignments they have got (Scharle and Szabó, 2000). Scharle and

Szabó stated more that team work skill is not usually the target of responsible learners

but they will firstly ask about the purpose and then come up with the suggestion on how

to improve the activities (Scharle and Szabó, 2000).

Moreover, when the responsible learners fail to do the homework, they are

always aware of the mistakes they have done more than worrying about not to do it.

This is because they are monitoring their learning process and try to improve to meet

their learning goal (Scharle and Szabó, 2000). They provided the evidences to support

the idea that there are 3 kinds of autonomous learners-like will do, such as (1)

interrupting teachers’ teaching if they want more explanation, (2) finding out more

detail in the words teacher speak in the class but do not teach, and (3) concentrating on

the lesson which they are not good at. Therefore, to foster the learners’ autonomous

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

33

skill, first of all, it should promote their responsibility and encourage them to take part

in making decisions about their learning (Scharle and Szabó, 2000).

Scharle and Szabó (2000), said that to be a successful learner, it is not the

educational degree they have got, it is when the learners would like to learn more. Once

they graduate, no matter in any degree, they are able to learn again. Thus, to Scharle

and Szabó (2000), to teach a learner to become an autonomous student allows non-stop

learning.

Hedge (2000) characterized autonomous learners as those who:

● know their needs and work productively with the teacher towards the

achievement of their objectives

● learn both inside and outside the classroom

● can take classroom-based material and can build on it

● know how to use resources independently

● learn with active thinking

● adjust their learning strategies when necessary to improve learning

● manage and divide the time in learning properly

● do not think the teacher is a god who can give them ability to master the

language

Furthermore, Wenden (1991) also characterized autonomous learners as those

who:

● are willing and have the capacity to control or supervise learning

● are motivated to learn

● are good guessers

● choose material, methods and tasks

● exercise choice and purpose in organizing and carrying out the chosen

task

● select the criteria for evaluation

● take an active approach to the task

● make and reject hypothesis

● pay attention to both form and content

● are willing to take risks

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

34

Moreover, Omaggio (1987, cited in Wenden, 1998:41-42) stated seven main

attributes of autonomous language learners as those who:

● have insights into their learning styles and strategies

● take an active approach to the learning task at hand

● are willing to take risks

● are good guessers

● attend to form as well as to content, that is, place importance on accuracy

as well as appropriacy

● develop the target language into a separate reference system and are

willing to revise and reject hypotheses and rules that do not apply

● have a tolerant and outgoing approach to the target language

It is obviously seen that to be an autonomous learner, a component cannot solely

be taken. It requires the support from both of internal and external factors among

learners. One sign of an autonomous learner which is stated in every research is working

well with teachers. An autonomous learner has to be able to learn inside and outside the

classroom. The effective method to help them in learning independently is they have to

know how to use available sources and adjust the strategies properly. Autonomous

learners take advantage of the linguistic opportunities in their environment and act by

engaging themselves in second language social practices. They also reflect about their

learning and use effective learning strategies (Paiva, 2011).

2.4. LANGUAGE LEARNING STRATEGIES

This section will discuss language learning strategies (LLS). Many research

studies are conducted in this field to observe how language students learn. First of all,

the broad meaning and features of LLS will be provided via dictionaries and empirical

researchers. And then, the classification of LLS will be illustrated, along with the

relevant studies.

2.4.1. Learning Strategies and Learner Autonomy

Excluding factors like self-regulation, learner attitude and motivation, and

learner’s awareness and knowledge about language learning, Cotterall (1999) stated

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

35

that learning strategies are one of the most important factors in autonomous language

learning. She also claimed that learners will have difficulties in the classroom

promoting autonomous learning if they lack strategies training. It is claimed to be a part

of learner autonomy achievement. If self-regulation is vital to promote learner

autonomy, learners have to be self-regulated to become autonomous learners. This

related to Vygotsky’s concept of self-regulation; his theoretical and practical issues

related to specific sets of learning behavior; cognitive, metacognitive, and social

strategies.

For Wenden (1991), learning strategies for learner autonomy involves teachers

acquiring the knowledge to help learners in planning and implementing their language

learning to become more autonomous. Cohen and Macaro (2007) provided 5 purposes

of language learning strategies: to enhance learning, without strategies, conscious

learning cannot take place; to perform specified tasks, the selection of strategies

depends upon the task and some strategies are appropriate for more than one task; to

solve specific problems, listening strategies might be used when a learner has difficulty

in listening skill; to make learning easier, faster, and more enjoyable, when the learning

strategy pays off in greater success on the task, the students begin to find that use of

this strategy with the given task makes for truly easier, faster and more enjoyable

learning; and to compensate for a deficit in learning, the use of L1 when a learner

cannot understand some words or phrases in L2 in order to acquire the language.

Learners cannot acquire knowledge by using only one learning strategy. Thus, to

become independent in language learning, learning strategies are a vital part. To have

positive attitude, high motivation, and high self-regulation is not enough to promote

learner autonomy in language learners; to be able to use the right learning strategies is

also important to foster language learners be more autonomous.

2.4.2. Definition of Language Learning Strategies

The term ‘strategy’ has been defined as: “a method, plan, or stratagem to

achieve some goal” (New Webster’s Dictionary of the English Language, 1974), “a

particular plan for gaining success in a particular activity” (Longman Dictionary of

English Language and Culture, 1998), and “a detailed plan for achieving success in

situations” (Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, 2013).

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

36

The term ‘learning strategies’ are also defined by the researchers as: “an attempt

to develop linguistic and sociolinguistic competence in the target language” (Tarone,

1980:419). Wenden and Rubin said that it is “strategies which contribute to the

development of the language system which the learner constructs and affect learning

directly” (Wenden and Rubin, 1987:23). In addition, Oxford describes learning

strategies as “steps taken by students to enhance their own learning” (Oxford, 1990:1)

and “specific action taken by the learner to make learning easier, faster, more enjoyable,

more self-directed, more effective, and more transferable to new situations” (Oxford,

1990:8). Wenden stated in 1991 that it is the “mental steps or operations that learners

use to learn a new language and to regulate their effort to do so.” (Wenden, 1991:18).

Grenfell and Harris also defined learning strategies as “the means to achieving the goal

of linguistic competence, the plan or method” (Grenfell and Harris, 1999:37).

“All learners manifest certain preferred learning strategies” (Dickinson, 1987).

The process of learning called learning strategies is processing when they learn.

Alhaysony (2017) stated that language learning strategies enable the learner to improve

their second language learning skill and to become more successful. Learning

Strategies are occasionally confused with skills. However, skills are automatic and out

of awareness while strategies are intentional and deliberate (Oxford, 2011). Chamot

(2005), as cited in Alhaysony (2017), pointed out that LLS (Language Learning

Strategies) are like a tool to facilitate the learners to learn second language more

proficiently. Furthermore, LLS can help to encourage autonomy, and lifelong

independence of learners, Little (1991). It is common that each learner has their own

way to achieve their goal of learning. Some are able to learn by taking a note while the

others just listen to the lecturer and understand the whole thing (Dickinson, 1987).

Rubin and Thompson (1994) provided the basic step to be autonomous learners

by using strategies involving following, planning, monitoring, and evaluating. For the

‘plan’ step, just simply first set the goal of learning and then regulate daily schedules

as the basic way to propel the learning task in everyday life. Then, to monitor the

learning success and follow the regulation set previously can improve their learning by

themselves. After that, evaluate the suitable strategies in learning to push on and cope

with difficulties. With these steps, language learners will be able to take charge of their

own learning effectively (Rubin and Thompson, 1994).

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

37

According to Kuo Lee (2010) when language learners encounter language

learning tasks, they can apply the several different strategies to complete the tasks.

Language learners will be successful in the tasks due to use of an appropriate language

learning strategy (Richard, 1994, as cited in Kuo Lee, 2010.) Kuo Lee (2010) states,

learners process with new information and the learning strategies they use to learn and

understand the new context are investigated by many researchers. For instance, Naiman

et al. (1978), Rubin (1975), and Stern (1975), as cited in Kuo Lee (2010), stated that

some second language learners are more successful than the others although they are

both in the same teaching method and learning environment.

Actually, language learning strategies have been discussed for ages since the

publication of ‘What the “Good Language Learner” Can Teach Us’ by Joan Rubin in

1975. The findings are categorized into subsidiary sections; clarification and

verification, monitoring, memorization, guessing or inductive inference, deductive

reasoning, and practice (Rubin, 1975, as cited in Grenfell and Macaro, 2007). Rubin

added more detail about the process to promote language learning as the opportunity to

practice and the production tasks related to communication. In the meanwhile, other

scholars have examined language learning strategies for being a good language learner.

To Stern (1975), the top-ten language learning strategies for a good language learner

are listed as:

1. A personal learning style or positive learning strategies (Planning Strategy).

2. An active approach to the task (Active Strategy).

3. A tolerant and outgoing approach to the target language and empathy with its

speakers (Empathetic Strategy).

4. Technical know-how about how to tackle the language (Formal Strategy).

5. Strategies of experimentation and planning with the object of developing the

new language into an ordered system and/or revising this system progressively

(Experimental Strategy).

6. Constantly searching for meaning (Semantic Strategy).

7. Willingness to practice (Practice Strategy).

8. Willingness to use language in real situation (Communication Strategy).

9. Self-monitoring and critical sensitivity to language use (Monitoring Strategy).

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

38

10. Developing the target language more and more as a separate reference system

and learning to think in it (Internalization Strategy).

According to Rubin (1975) and Stern (1975), it is obviously seen that to be a

good language learner is not easy. There are many, sometimes complicated, steps while

language learning is progressing. The language learning strategies used are varied and

do not depend only on the individual's personality, but also on the external dimensions

of individuals.

2.4.3. Features of Language Learning Strategies

To be successful language learners, paying attention to the procedure and

strategies that work best in different situations allows learners to control the way they

learn (Rubin and Thompson, 1994). Thus, to know the features of learning strategies

and concentrate on them is necessary. Oxford (1990) provided the characteristics of

language learning strategies in twelve features as shown below.

1. Contribute to the main goal, communicative competence.

2. Allow learners to become more self-directed.

3. Expand the role of teachers.

4. Are problem-oriented.

5. Are specific actions taken by the learners.

6. Involve many aspects of the learners, not just the cognitive.

7. Support learning both directly and indirectly.

8. Are not always observable.

9. Are often conscious.

10. Can be taught.

11. Are flexible.

12. Are influenced by a variety of factors.

The twelve key features of LLS provided by Oxford (1990) illustrated how LLS

work when language learners acquire the process of learning.

Communicative Competence as the Main Goal

To Oxford (1990), learning strategies help learners to participate in

communicative activities. ‘Metacognitive’ strategies enable the language learners to

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

39

regulate their cognition of formulating the learning process. ‘Affective’ strategies

support learners to manage their emotion, belief, attitude and motivation towards

language learning. In addition, ‘social’ strategies encourage learners to interact with

others, which leads them to achieve the communicative competence goal. Other

strategies, e.g. cognitive strategies; such analyzing, memorizing, rehearsal; and

compensation strategies, all help the language learners to promote their communicative

skill.

Greater Self-Direction for learners

As outside the classroom, there are no teachers available to help the students

(Oxford, 1990), if learners can lead themselves in learning, they can acquire language

no matter what difficulties they face. The internal factors of learners such as attitude

and motivation enable learners to learn by themselves and better use strategies

appropriate for them. To Oxford (1990), self-directed students gradually acquire better

confidence, participation, and eventually language proficiency.

New Roles for Teachers

Over the past decades, teachers were categorized as the authority role in the

class. More recently, the role of teachers has been changed from being director to

facilitator instead. According to the advanced technology nowadays, many

technological devices are used in language learning. Learners can interact with the

resources within their own learning process other than only with teachers and peers in

class (Chung, 2013). Teachers can use the idea of ‘SARS’ (Acklam, 1994: p.12, as cited

in Graves, 2013) to promote autonomous classes; select to keep some part, adapt to fit

the lesson to the class, reject to leave out unnecessary part and supplement to fulfill the

requirement. To Oxford (1990), lessening the authority of the teacher in the class does

not mean there is no longer hierarchical authority, but the relationship between teachers

and learners in the classroom will be stronger.

Problem Orientation

Learners cannot avoid learning difficulties. Thus, Oxford stated that learning

strategies are like a tool to cope with those difficulties (Oxford, 1990). For example,

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

40

memory strategies can help learners to remember the word and recall it to be used.

Affective strategies enable learners to cope with their emotion, attitude, and beliefs in

learning language. This can make learners have more trust in themselves to learn and

foster their language performance.

Action Basis

According to the learners’ behavior and the learning style influenced by their

learning performance, LLS are the encouragement acquired by them to enhance their

learning (Oxford, 1990). The activities like taking notes, planning their own learning

process, or find the way to memorize new words, are all the basic action of language

learning strategies used. Learners use LLS to propel their learning action in language

learning activities.

Involvement Beyond Just Cognitive

Cognitive is a process for language learners to monitor their own learning.

‘Metacognitive’ strategy is beyond the process of language learning. It deals with the

mental processing and manipulation of the new language (Oxford, 1990). In addition,

other strategies if mastered can allow language learners to manipulate their own

emotion while learning (affective strategy) and perform well when they interact with

other people (social strategy). Therefore, to master a language, more than one strategy

has be applied.

Direct and Indirect Support of Learning

Of Oxford’s six basic learning strategies, cognitive, memory and compensatory

strategies directly affect the learners, while the other three; metacognitive, social, and

affective strategies are indirectly used. Although learners are indirectly affected, these

strategies are equally important to support learners behavior and finally to enhance their

learning performance.

Observability

Language learning strategies are not obviously seen by the human’s eyes. They

have been observed by the outcome of learners carrying out their learning activities. It

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

41

is difficult for the teacher to see their students’ strategies if s/he does not notice (Oxford,

1990). Moreover, some learning strategies are used outside the classroom where

teachers cannot observe.

Consciousness

Some researchers tend to suggest that learning strategies are conscious, but to

Oxford (1990), she argued that learning strategies, like other kinds of behavior, can

become automatic and using the automatic learning strategies is unconscious. To be

better in strategies use, learners have to be trained and assess themselves to be able to

choose the most appropriate strategies in their learning.

Teachability

While learners’ behavior and their learning style are hard to change due to their

different learning environments, learning strategies are easy to be taught. This can be

done in strategies training (Oxford, 1990). Strategies training enables language learners

to become aware of their learning process and find out which strategies suit themselves.

To Oxford (1990), strategy training should be taken in learners and teachers’ attitude

by the guide of self-direction. Thus, learners can acquire their own learning process by

themselves both inside and outside the classroom.

Flexibility

Each learning strategy is suitable for some learning activities. Some strategies

work better if they are combined with other strategies. Thus, due to the unique

characteristics of each language learner, strategies alternatives are flexibly used in any

learning activities the learners want to acquire.

Factors Influencing Strategies Choice

Learning language is not easy. It cannot be acquired by everyone in various

environments. Many factors can affect language learners’ strategies use when they

learn. Awareness degree, stage of learning, task requirements, teacher attitude, English

proficiency, age, sex, social differences, learning style, motivation, and learning

purposes are all influential factors which impact learners in language learning.

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

42

The learners with higher awareness can be careful of their learning process and

the difficulties they encounter. More advanced learners can also take better charge of

their language learning. Task requirements provided by the teachers, with attitudes to

promote learners’ strategies use, encourage learners to use strategies in order to

accomplish their learning task. Certainly, older learners can acquire more than the

younger ones due to their much more experience. Many recent researchers reveal that

women students use strategies more than men students do. Because each learner has

grown up in a different environment, their social level will affect their thought and

learning view point.

Learning style and motivation, both intrinsic and extrinsic, are also internal

factors of learners themselves which enable them to achieve in language learning.

Highly motivated learners can maximize their learning more effectively than the lower

one can. Furthermore, motivation is a part of language learning purpose in terms of the

propulsion to reach a learning goal. For example, learners whose target learning is to

communicate with others may be not so motivated as those whose goal is to fulfill their

graduation needs. These features of language learning strategies will enable language

learners comprehend more about how they work and to Oxford (1990), they are the

basic background before moving to the new strategy classification system, discussed in

the next section.

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

43

2.4.4. Classification of LLS

Many researchers have classified language learning strategies differently with

different theoretical frameworks (Wenden, 1991; Oxford 1990). In this study, it is

mentioned that Oxford’s language learning strategies (1990) will be employed as the

main framework, shown in the table 2.1.

Language Learning Strategies

Classification

Components

Direct Strategies Cognitive Strategies

Memory Strategies

Compensation Strategies

Indirect Strategies Metacognitive Strategies

Affective Strategies

Social Strategies

Table 2.1. Classification of Language Learning Strategies by Oxford, 1990

According to Oxford (1990), six basic types of L2 learning strategies have been

categorized; cognitive, memory, compensation, metacognitive, affective, and social

strategies. The first three is are direct strategies and the latter three are indirect

strategies. It seems that both direct strategies and indirect strategies support each other.

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

44

Direct

Strategies

Memory

Strategies

Cognitive

Strategies

Compensation

Strategies

2.4.4.1. Direct Strategies

Direct strategies are closely related to the target language used to

manipulate language learning strategies by language learners. The figure 2.5

below will show the visual mapping of direct strategies sub-classified by

Oxford, 1990.

Figure 2.5. Direct Strategies

Oxford (1990) classified memory, cognitive, and compensation learning

strategies into direct learning strategies as they affect the language learners

when they acquire language learning. Oxford (1990) provided the acronym in

each strategy as a memory aid.

Memory Strategies

Memory strategies are sometimes known as ‘mnemonics’. Language

learners use this kind of strategy to remember the words and recall them when

they are needed to be used. Memory strategies enable learners to regain their

knowledge as powerful mental tools (Oxford, 1990). To Rubin, memorization

refers to a strategy focusing on storage and retrieval of language (Rubin, 1987).

They fall into 4 sets; Creating mental linkages, Applying images and sounds,

Reviewing well, and Employing action, as show in the figure 2.6 below.

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

45

Figure 2.6 Memory Strategies (Oxford, 1990)

The first letter of each subsidiary of memory strategies has been formed into the

acronym of the word ‘CARE’. This means to “take CARE of your memory and the

memory will take CARE of you!” (Oxford, 1990; p.38). The ‘creating mental linkages’

links to how learners associate their knowledge in learning. The process e.g., grouping,

association/elaboration, and placing new words into a context, are the main part of this

characteristics. The new information input will be arranged by mnemonic strategies to

be kept in learners’ memory process before they manipulate and retrieve it for use. After

getting the information, learners will monitor their memory well by capturing them into

image and sound. Thus, the ‘applying image and sounds’ characteristic will enable this

propulsion. Using imagery, semantic mapping, using keywords, and representing sound

in memory are all processes to enhance learner goal. The more information they can

associate within their brain, the more effective they can recall to use when needed

immediately. The ‘reviewing well’ category enable language learner to remind the

knowledge. If learners are familiar with the information, they can recall it to use

naturally and automatically. The ‘employing action’ category serves as the

transformation of information into action. It facilitates with kinesthetic intelligent

learners very well.

The memory strategies are useful for language learners to get started in gaining

new information in language learning. As the human brain is mechanical, when learners

acquire language, the process to manipulate knowledge is necessary. Mnemonics can

Memory Strategies

Creating mental

linkages

Applying images and

sounds Reviewing well Employing action

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

46

also help language learners to make a bridge between their area of cognitive strengths

and weaknesses (Mitchell, 2014).

Cognitive Strategies

Cognitive strategies are widely discussed by many researchers (Wenden, 1987;

O’Malley and Chamot, 1990; Oxford, 1990; Hume and Weinstein, 1998; Robinson,

2001; Oxford, 2003; Cohen and Macaro, 2007; Mitchell, 2014; Oxford, 2017). To

Oxford (1990), it is strategy which language learners use in various ways, “ranking

from repeating to analyzing expressions to summarizing” (Oxford, 1990; p.43). They

are the most popular strategies among language learners to manipulate their learning

process and to gain language performance (Oxford, 1990). In addition, Mitchell (2014)

defined cognitive strategies as the ways to assist language learners to acquire language

skill by organizing and integrating information (Mitchell, 2014). Oxford (1990) gave

the memory aid of cognitive strategies as PRAC. The acronym came from the first letter

of four subsidiary sets of this strategies, i.e., Practicing, Receiving and sending

messages, Analyzing and reasoning, and Creating structure for input and output. It is

referred to as “Cognitive strategies are PRACtical for language learning.” (Oxford,

1990; p.43). Due to the well-known quote ‘practice makes perfect’, language learners

will not achieve their better performance if they do not practice their learning. The

figure 2.7below will show how language learners can deal with the cognitive strategies.

Figure 2.7 Cognitive Strategies (Oxford, 1990)

Cognitive Strategies

Practicing Receiving and

sending message

Analyzing and

reasoning

Creating

structure for

input and output

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

47

However, practicing is not easy if learners do it in an incorrect way. It refers to

a strategy focusing on accuracy of use (Rubin, 1987). Oxford (1990) stated the process

of practicing in 5 steps. The easiest way to do practice is ‘repeating’. Especially in

performing vocabulary, to say it out over and over may help language learners

remember it quicker than memorizing. Or when a learner practices listening skill by

watching some movie at least two times and trying to imitate native speakers can both

help the learner to gain more understanding of target language.

Moreover, practicing will be more effective if the learners combine more than

one intelligence method to learn. ‘Practice with sounds and writing system’ can boost

the visual and audio intelligence among the learners to learn language. Some learners

may not understand if the new information is seen at once with the full text. Sounds and

visual material can also foster language learners to get more comprehensive information

and, finally, to achieve their language goal.

‘Recognizing and using formulas and patterns’ and ‘recombining’ process are

two ways of practicing. Language learners are usually familiar with the sentence pattern

they have learned for a while, so from this knowledge, some patterns are very efficient

in realistic use. When one formula or pattern is acquired, it is easy to further the

sentence structure. With the recombining strategy, learners can make longer and deeper

sentence to express the language in detailed aspect.

Finally, learning language is useless if it is not used. The most effective way to

use language is to use it in its natural setting. Talking with native speakers, participating

in conversation, reading books, watching English movie, and so on, are all the ways to

enhance language proficiency. Thus, learners should place themselves in the setting

where it can promote them to use their language practice.

The next ability in cognitive strategies is receiving and sending message. To

gain new knowledge, one valuable source is the book. Reading strategies i.e., skimming

to find the main idea, and scanning to find specific detail are two basic ways to receive

data from books. Moreover, there are a lot of sources providing the information like

print and nonprint resources for the learners to understand the data and produce

messages. Not only the meaning of language should be gained by language learners,

the logical analysis and reasoning are also important for them to learn. For example,

the tactic like top-down strategies should be used to elicit information from general to

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

48

specific. Determining the similarities and differences of sounds, vocabularies and

grammatical pattern also helps learners to acquire it more deeply. Sometimes, the

novice language learners may use the strategies like translating and transforming the

target language into their L1. Translation is a process to transform the information into

mental representation to acquire language by learners (O’Malley and Chamot, 1990).

This can help them to learn in some specific cases and also is a good sign of learning

new language.

The last of the strategies in the cognitive strategies of language learning is

‘creating structure for input and output’. The ways to practice in language learning like

taking notes, summarizing, and highlighting, are all the process of fostering language

outcome. To jot down the main idea and important points into the notebook can help

learners to summarize their own ideas and to recall the information when it is needed.

As data is varied, focusing skill should be done to emphasis only the wanted

information.

With all of the cognitive strategies mentioned earlier by Oxford (1990), students

can monitor their learning process and emphasize what is important in language

learning. To Wenden (1991), she stated that cognitive strategies are the mental process

of how learners acquire and elaborate language. Wenden (1991) suggested that

cognitive strategies have four subsidiary stages; (1) selecting information, (2)

comprehending it, (3) storing it, and (4) retrieving data for use. Cognitive strategies are

inevitably directly related to the human brain. So the brain is the key to human

processing of the input data, especially memorizing, which is one of the functions of

cognitive strategies. The flowchart below will show the memory system of humans,

created by Hunt in 1982.

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

49

Figure 2.8 Flow Chart of the Human Memory System (Hunt, 1982, as cited in

Wenden, 1991)

(1) Selecting Information from Incoming Data

When one has some stimuli from the surrounding environment language is

learned, and the process in the brain will determine what will be kept or left away.

According to the Figure 8, what we see, hear, touch, taste, and smell is sent to the

sensory buffers. If it is decided to be kept, it will be sent to the ‘short-term memory’

part, in contrast, if it is judged to be discarded, it will be permanently lost. During this

process, learners should be encouraged to use a ‘selecting/attending’ strategy to decide

what is being kept or being discarded.

(2) Comprehending and (3) Storing the Information

After selecting the input data - whether it should be kept or not - the next

process is to understand and store it for use in the future. Previously, the information

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

50

received will have been transformed into the meaningful symbols such as a sound, a

word or a syntactic structure, then it will be stored in the long-term memory (Wenden,

1991). When the information is elaborated into details, it is probably transferred into

long-term memory or rapidly disappears. Thus, the ‘rehearsal’ process will help

learners to keep the information. Elaborative processes will work with the rehearsal

strategies to promote the memorization step, which might be mnemonic strategies

(Wenden, 1991).

O’Malley and Chamot defined the term ‘rehearsal’ as “repeating the names of

items or objects that have been heard” (O’Malley and Chamot, 1990; p.45). When the

learners elaborate the data, the strategies used identify patterns in the data, make

relationships, recognize meaning in depth, elicit knowledge from long-term memory

and associate the knowledge to these meanings and classify them (Wenden, 1991). The

term ‘elaboration’ has been defined by O’Malley and Chamot as “linking ideas

contained in new information or integrating new ideas with known information”

(O’Malley and Chamot, 1990; p.45). To them, elaboration can refer to a basic category

for other strategies, such as visuality, summarization, transferation, and deduction

(O’Malley and Chamot, 1990). Finally, learners will acquire the language by using the

existed schema and storing it in long-term memory.

(4) Retrieving the data

As the learners already have the ready-used information in their long-term

memory, it is very easy for them to recall the information to be used again. It can be

said that if the learners understand the data input properly, they can acquire and retrieve

it automatically. The cognitive strategies used during this process are called ‘practice

strategies’ (Wenden, 1991). To Wenden, the practice strategies can “facilitate the

development of automatic and appropriate retrieval”. When learners use ‘practice

strategies’, they will place themselves in the situation that encourages them to use the

language, e.g. watching English movie without subtitles, talking with an English

teacher, reading English novels, and so on. With this means, the learners can retrieve

their English proficiency easier.

However, it is not always the same when the learners cannot retrieve what they

already know. Faerch and Kasper (1993), as cited in Wenden (1991), stated 6 retrieval

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

51

strategies used by learners when they cannot remind themselves of their own schema:

repeat new word several times a day, place themselves in the real situation, try to use

new words in the conversation, compare the word with their mother tongue, correct

their error by thinking of the previous way they used it, and watch English movies or

listen to the native speaker’s talk. With these practices, the learners can elaborate their

own schemata and ameliorate their learning strategies to achieve language proficiency.

To O’Malley and Chamot (1990), if the skill of learning becomes automatic, it can

promote learners to be more autonomous and independent. Thus, by mastering

cognitive strategies, language learners can reach their learning goal.

Compensation Strategies

Many difficulties are found when learners learn language, and compensation

strategies will help them to cope with those obstacles. To Oxford (1990), compensation

strategies are divided into two main parts as shown in the figure 2.9 below.

Figure 2.9 Compensation Strategies (Oxford, 1990)

The acronym GO is devoted to these strategies as a memory aid, which is

referred to as “Language learners can GO far with compensation strategies.” If the

learners are stuck in language trouble, it is hard for them to continue in learning. Good

language learners will use ‘intelligent guessing’ to propel their learning in a clever way.

Compensation Strategies

Guessing intelligently Overcoming limitations in speaking

and writing

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

52

For example, using a context clue is a way to compensate for the lack of knowledge

when the learners do not know the meaning of that vocabulary in that context. These

strategies are not only used in learning L2, but it can be also used when learners learn

two languages which have some kind of similarities, such as English and French.

Learners can use the vocabulary similarity and also the context surrounding if the words

are not similar. For example, if the word ‘acheter’ in French is not familiar but it is in

the context of a supermarket sale, it will likely refer to buying and selling goods. If this

word is used by the customer to require something from the merchant, so its meaning

can be inferred as buying.

Other ways to help language learners to overcome the difficulties in speaking

and writing are varied. Most of learners usually switch L2 to their L1 if they cannot

understand the text. Asking someone for help or guessing from the gesture when an

interlocutor is speaking enables learners to comprehend the conversation more

effectively. Using synonyms and adjusting the messages are also helpful in conveying

the text.

With educated guesses and experience, language learners will overcome their

language learning limitations easily. Compensation strategies will help learners to keep

going on using language, which leads to achievement of their language goals.

The direct strategies section earlier has described the strategies used when

learning new language. It involved memory, cognitive, and compensation. The detail

about their definition and example were also provided. In the next part, indirect

strategies are proposed.

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

53

2.4.4.2. Indirect Strategies

To Oxford (1990), indirect strategies support and manage language without

being directly involved in the target language. They are classified into 3 categorizations;

metacognitive, affective, and social, shown in the visual mapping following:

Figure 2.10 Indirect Strategies

These three strategies will help language learners to manipulate the way they

use in processing language learning. With the support of these three indirect strategies,

language learners will enable themselves to use direct strategies in learning to meet

their ultimate goal. The indepth information about all of the three strategies in the

indirect categorization will be illustrated below. Again, Oxford (1990) provided the

acronym of each strategies as a memory aid.

Metacognitive Strategies

Although the word ‘metacognitive’ seems to similar to ‘cognitive’ strategies

mentioned earlier, they are different. Cognitive describes the strategies of how learner

process their learning; in contrast, metacognitive are the strategies of how learner

process their cognition in their learning (Oxford, 1990; 2003; 2017). O’Malley and

Chamot stated that metacognitive strategies refer to the higher executive skills that may

entail planning, monitoring, and self-evaluation, whereas cognitive strategies are more

Indirect Strategies

Social

Strategies

Affective

Strategies

Metacognitive

Strategies

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

54

direct to individual learning task (O’Malley and Chamot, 1990). These kind of

strategies are also used to overview and self-direct language learning (Rubin, 1987).

The figure 2.11 below will show how metacognitive strategies work.

Figure 2.11 Metacognitive Strategies (Oxford, 1990)

The acronym CAPE comes from the first letters of the words centering,

arranging, planning, and evaluating. These fours words can effectively describe how

metacognitive is as ‘Metacognitive strategies make language learners more CAPE-

able’. To ‘center’ your learning is to provide the focus on language learning.

Overviewing and linking the knowledge with already known material provides the

comprehension in key concept of each language topic. If one learner wants to focus on

any language topic, the ‘paying attention’ strategies will be utilised. After focusing on

what to learn, language learners should ‘arrange and plan’ their learning. Great

preparation is better than doing nothing. First of all, learners should set their goal of

learning and then identify the learning purposes to scope their learning and enhance

their motivation. According to Anderson, as cited in O’Malley and Chamot (1990), that

planning process may be influenced by goals or by input features which is useful for

learning. Due to varieties of practicing, outside classroom settings can also provide the

opportunity to learn language. Thus, this one will link to social strategies (described

later), which focus on how learners interact with other people. Finally, learners should

Metacognitive Strategies

Centering your

learning Arranging and

Planning your

learning

Evaluating your

learning

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

55

‘evaluate’ their learning. The concept, like self-monitoring and self-evaluating will be

a part of this strategy. To know their own errors and mistakes will provide learners

effective ways of solution. The language learners may plan what they want to learn by

using metacognitive strategies and they can change them if they feel like it is not

successful. The next topic is a discussion about affect strategies, which helps learners

to cope with their internal factors.

Affective Strategies

The term affective is defined as specially connected with the emotion

(Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, 2013). The affective strategy is about how

learners deal with their emotions, beliefs, attitudes, and motivation when learning

language. As each learner has different schema and social dimension, their learning

process will be absolutely different. This kind of learning strategy refers to the

identification of one’s mood and anxiety level, feeling towards the reward and good

performance of L2 proficiency (Oxford, 2003). The figure 2.12 below shows the three

main sets of affective strategies; lowering your anxiety, encouraging yourself, and

taking your emotional temperature. The acronym LET comes from the first letter of

each strategy.

Figure 2.12 Affective Strategies (Oxford, 1990)

Affective Strategies

Lowering your anxiety Encouraging yourself Taking your emotional

temperature

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

56

Affective strategies can refer to the theory of intrapersonal intelligence of

Gardner (1983). Learners have to understand themselves and be able to deal with their

thoughts, emotions, strengths and weaknesses (Gardner, 1983). Anxiety is one of the

obstacle emotions in language learning. The serious students cannot get through the

information clearly if they are worrying about something. To lower their anxiety can

be done in many ways e.g., taking some activities to relax, taking deep breathing or

meditating to be more focuses, watching a funny movie, listening to music, and so on.

These simple means can reduce the anxiety in learning seriously among language

learners. Rewards such as doing a good performance can help to encourage learners

when facing anxiety. Reading some positive quote or optimistic statement will foster

their motivation and attitude.

In addition, to be with oneself by taking the emotional temperature is useful.

This strategy is able to cope with the negative emotion occurring during learning

language. If it is hard to avoid it is better to focus on it and analyze it as the normal

thing. Stress, fear, anger, tension, and worry are the emotions which can commonly

occur, while happiness, interest, calmness, and pleasure can also work with the positive

thinking learner. Thus, to be effective in arranging emotion, learners have to know

themselves very well and, eventually, the affective difficulties will be managed by

affective strategies. Affective strategies deal with internal factors of language learners;

the next topic deals with the interaction with other people, social strategies.

Social Strategies

The social strategy is about how learners convey language and communicate

with others. Some learners cannot get along well with others for their own personal

reasons; this will enable them to misunderstand in communication. This issue is also

about the sociocultural context such as age, gender, sex, social level, and so on. As

these factors can affect how people use language, this strategy will influence learners

when learning language. To Chamot (1987), social strategies are the cooperative skill

of language learners working with their peers or native speakers to deal with error and

retain feedback, in order to improve their L2 proficiency. Thus, social strategies will

underpin the interaction and communication activities. The acronym ACE refers to

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

57

‘ACE language learners use social strategies!” (Oxford, 1990). The figure 2.13 below

shows how learners express language by using social strategies.

Figure 2.13 Social Strategies (Oxford, 1990)

To enhance language learning, social strategies will underpin language learners

in terms of ‘positive interdependence’. Interdependence of learners refers to

cooperative activities occurring among learners. When learners are talking to each

other, cooperating skill will take place, both in the role of asking questions and

answering. In addition, social strategies are also related to the culture of the

interlocutors (empathizing). Thus, to comprehend each cultural difference will facilitate

communication.

The three strategies mentioned above are all indirect strategies; metacognitive,

affective, and social. These three strategies, which do not directly involve with the

target language as the direct strategies do, enable language learners to manipulate and

regulate their learning process.

Social Strategies

Asking questions Cooperating with

others

Empathizing with

others

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

58

2.5. EDUCATIONAL CURRICULUM

2.5.1 Education Provided in International Schools in Thailand

In Thailand, there are two main types of international school curriculum; British

and American. In this study, the participants were all in a British curriculum school. In

the senior high school level, the international school students have to take IGCSE

(International General Certificate of Secondary Education) level to graduate in year 12

which is similar to Matthayom 6 for Thai public school students. With IGCSE

certificate, the students can further their study for university by taking an A-level

course, which is similar to GAT and PAT of Thai curriculum. However, IGCSE courses

are divided into many subjects such as Physics, Mathematics, Chemistry, Biology, ICT,

Business Studies, Economics, English, French, including Thai etc. Each subject is

graded from A*, A, B, C, D, E, F, G and U (ungraded). The students have to choose 10

subjects at least to get the certificate and must get no less than C in each subject. After

getting an IGCSE certificate, they graduate from the standard educational curriculum.

However, year 12 is counted as Matthayom 5 for Thai students. So, year 13 is optional

for them to further their A-level study in school or be home-school students. Finally, 5

subjects of A-level passed can be enough to enter them in university. The university

will require the subjects needed to enter, so the students have to consider the faculty

before choosing each subject of A-level study.

2.5.2 Education Provided in Thai Public Schools

Thai public school students have to take GAT (General Aptitude Test), PAT

(Professional and Academic Aptitude Test), and 9 standard subjects to enter the

university. Senior high school students are all required to take GAT and 9 standard

subjects. For PAT, it is optional due to the specific skill of each students such as French,

Japanese, Engineering, etc. GAT is divided into 2 subjects which are critical thinking

and English whereas the 9 standard subjects are Math 1, Math 2, Biology, Physics,

Chemistry, English, Thai Language, and Social Studies. Each student has to choose the

appropriate subjects depend on their desired faculty and university.

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

59

2.6. RELEVANT STUDIES

There are a lot of empirical studies conducted in both the field of learner

autonomy and language learning strategies due to their relationship. As this study aims

to investigate the learner autonomy and language learning strategies used by the That

EFL learner in international and Thai public schools, the related studies were reviewed

as follows:

2.6.1 Oversea Research

As Littlewood (1996) stated in a study to examine the components to promote

learner autonomy, learning strategies are the effective tool for language learners to

foster their self-regulation. Alzahrani and Watson (2016) conducted an experimental

study on how language learning strategies training affected the learner autonomy level

of the Saudi students who took a medical course. The questionnaire and interview were

used to gain the data in this study. The participants were divided into three groups; two

groups for experiment and one group for control. The language learning strategies

training was taught to the experimental group and the traditional method of teaching

was taught to the control group. The result found that after the training course, they had

known how to use learning strategies properly. They could also use them correctly and

suitably by themselves. Although the highest and lowest autonomous participants were

in the experimental group, after training in learning strategies use, they were able to

practice their learning more effectively.

White (1995) carried out research on the relationship between autonomous

learning level and language learning strategies use of distance foreign language learners

and classroom language learners. White said that the distance foreign language learners

were claimed to be higher in self-management than the classroom language learners

because they have to arrange for themselves in the learning process and they had not

any teachers to control their learning. The result revealed that metacognitive and

cognitive learning strategies were mostly used by the distance language learners, more

than the classroom students did. In contrast, the classroom language learners used more

social learning strategies in their learning process than the distance learners did because

they had more chance to interact with their classmates. The metacognitive learning

strategies used by the distance language learner participants in this study can claim the

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

60

relationship with the self-management point of view. Thus, the level of autonomous

learning was dominant in the language learning strategies used by the learners,

especially as to who had what kind of self-management strategy.

Other research focused on how metacognitive strategy was important for

fostering autonomous learning was conducted by Victori and Lockhart (1995).

According to the trend of providing learning training in the field of second and foreign

language study, one of the most influential factors to promote learner autonomy was

metacognition. This study aimed to highlight the unifying role of metacognition in all

levels of learner training. The result found that enhanced metacognition presumably

leads to more autonomous learning through improved self-knowledge, used of more

learning strategies, and taking the chance to contact with the language. The more

metacognitive strategies were used, the more the autonomous learning level would

accelerate the rate of progress.

Chuan (2010) conducted an experimental study of learner autonomy in language

learning. The purpose of this study was to develop the students’ learning performance,

give guidance on their learning strategies, and develop their interest in language

learning. The non-English major freshmen students in Biological Technology and

Mechanical Engineering were the participants of this study. The control group was

taught by the traditional grammar-translation teaching approach, while the

experimental group was taught by the learner development program, which focused on

six basic language learning strategies developed by Oxford (1990). The language

proficiency test and SILL questionnaire were quantitatively conducted whereas

interview and classroom observation were qualitatively used as the research instrument

in this study. The findings disclosed that after learning in the development program, the

participants in the experimental group had become highly autonomous and were able

to use more learning strategies. Metacognitive strategies was still the priority use among

them. Surprisingly, affective strategies were forgotten when the learners were facing

anxiety; instead, they expected the encouragement from the teachers and peer support.

Finally, the result also showed that the participants in the experimental group had the

higher interest in language learning. Therefore, from the result of this study, language

learning strategies were an important propulsion to encourage language learners to

become more autonomous and acquire their language proficiency.

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

61

One year later in 2011, Chuan conducted an experimental study of language

learning strategies and learning outcomes in an autonomy learning environment. Chuan

focused on a listening task for the students in the autonomy learning environment. The

participants were non-English majors from the Department of Mechanical Engineering

and Electronic Engineering students enrolled in 2008. The listening test, SILL

questionnaire, and interview were used as the research instruments in this study. The

finding of language learning strategies used by the participants was high in memory

strategies, followed by compensation, affective, cognitive, social, and metacognitive,

in terms of frequency use. This meant that the participants in this study were low in

planning their learning or evaluating their learning. The data from the interview

revealed that the participants sometimes lacked self-discipline to manage their learning

process. Although metacognitive was very important, the participants said that they

hardly used this to get control of their learning task anyway. Moreover, the listening

proficiency of the participants was positively related to the language learning strategies

use. There tended to be a significant correlation existing between learning strategies

and high achieving learners in this study.

Chen and Pan (2015) also carried out a study of the relationship between learner

autonomy and the use of language learning strategies in a Taiwanese junior high school.

130 ninth grade students of junior high school in central Taiwan participated in this

study. They were studied through an autonomy inventory for language learning and

SILL questionnaires. The result shown the participants did not always use language

learning strategies in their learning process. Moreover, they preferred to use memory

strategies and affective strategies were the least used among the participants.

Metacognitive, which is important in learning autonomy, was less used by the

participant as they lacked English learning motivation and they were afraid to speak

English. The study implication was it was important for the students to get involved in

the learning purpose and material used in the classroom. The study also mentioned that

the learners who had higher levels of learning abilities and engaged more in learning

activities would frequently use language learning strategies.

Ceylan (2015) conducted a study to investigate whether language learning

strategies training had influence on fostering autonomy to the language learners or not.

The participants of this study were prep school students in the academic year 2013-

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

62

2014 at Kocaeli University. The participants were divided into four groups; two control

groups and two experimental groups. The SILL questionnaire was used to gain the

quantitative data previously. The experimental groups were trained in the language

learning strategies training course for two weeks. At the end of the semester, the SILL

and autonomy questionnaires were provided to the participants again to investigate the

development of their LLS use. The results of the study revealed that by employing

language learning strategies training, the participants could be more effective in their

autonomous learning level and also their language proficiency was increased. Thus,

from the results of this study, the learner autonomy and the use of language learning

strategies were related. It was obviously seen that the more strategies the students

employed and the higher the level of autonomous learning the students were, the more

language proficiency they gained.

Liu (2015) conducted a study of how language learning strategies relates to

language proficiency and learner autonomy. 150 university freshmen taking English

classes in central Taiwan were the participants of the study. They were tested by an

English test and SILL questionnaire to gain more indepth data about language learning

strategies they used in their learning process. The learner autonomy questionnaire was

also provided to the participants to gain the autonomous learning data. The result shown

that to study social science, which was their major program, the learning strategies they

mostly used were compensation strategies, followed by cognitive and metacognitive

strategies. The participants used the compensation strategies to fulfill the knowledge

they missed. Moreover, the language proficiency was also related to the learning

strategies the participants used in their learning process. The more learning strategies

they used, the more proficiency they gained.

Negari and Solaymani (2013) carried out a study aimed at investigating the

relationship among Iranian EFL learners’ attitudes to autonomous learning, thinking

styles, and their language learning strategy use. The participants were 102 EFL upper-

intermediate and advanced learners learning English in language institutes of

Hormozgan province. The strategy inventory language learning (SILL) and Attitudes

to Autonomous Language Learning Inventory (AALLI) questionnaires were handed

out to the participants. The result of the study revealed that there was a significant

relationship between learners’ use of language learning strategies and attitudes to

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

63

autonomous language learning, language learning strategies and thinking styles,

attitudes to autonomous language learning and their thinking styles. The findings also

suggested that teachers should be aware of learners’ attitudes to autonomous language

learning, thinking styles and their strategy use.

Nikoopour and Hajian (2015) conducted a study aimed at investigating the

relationship among Big-Five Personality Traits, LLS and learners’ autonomy. The

participants of this study were Iranian students studying English in Islamic Azad

University in Tehran. The learner autonomy, the Neo-Five-Factor Inventory, and SILL

questionnaire were used to gain data in this study. The findings shown that Iranian

students had a significant relationship of the language learning strategies use and their

learning autonomy. This implied that their frequent use of LLS could predict their

autonomous learning proficiency. The findings of this study might lead the teachers to

pay attention to the awareness of the students’ personality traits, their autonomy in

learning, and their language learning strategies use in the classroom, which was the

ultimate goal to enhance their language proficiency.

2.6.2. Research in Thailand

In Thailand, language learning strategies studies have been conducted by many

researchers. Most of them have shown that Thai EFL learners, both of high school level

and university level, used metacognitive strategies when they learned language.

Moreover, some studies provided the result that ‘a good language learner’ tends to use

more learning strategies than those whose proficiency is low. Thus, this part is

discussing about what Thai researchers found about language learning strategies use

among Thai EFL learners.

Sumamarnkul (2006) investigated the use of language learning strategies,

without concerning age, gender, intelligence, aptitude, motivation, personality, English

proficiency, and learning styles. The participants in this study were 71 Science and

Technology students at Thammasat University in total; 26 were male and 45 were

female. They were taking EL396 (English for Science and Technology II) in the second

semester of the 2005 academic year. The instrument was Purpura’s cognitive and

metacognitive strategy use questionnaire in Thai version. The result showed that the

participants used language learning strategies at the moderate level. However, they used

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

64

metacognitive strategy more than cognitive strategy. In other words, they used

metacognitive strategy to formulate a plan, assess the situation, set a goal, and monitor

their learning process, but failed to use strategies to learn and for evaluation. In contrast,

the students used cognitive approach, such as translating linking with prior knowledge

(when they learn new words and new material in English), inferencing (when they learn

new material in English), analyzing contrastively, and applying rules (when they try to

improve their English). Finally, the researcher suggested use of other kinds of

questionnaire to gain data with different kinds of data collection like diaries, dialogue

journal, observation, and interview. Moreover, a qualitative research process like

longitudinal research should be conducted to see any changes.

Tirabulkul (2005) conducted a study of language learning strategies

investigation and also further explored whether strategies used matched those of a good

language learner’s strategies. The participants in this study were 50 out of 57 students

in MA in TEFL Program, Thammasat University, academic year 2004. The strategy

inventory language learning (SILL) questionnaires were used as the instrument. The

result showed that metacognitive strategies were used at the highest proportion among

the participants, followed by compensation, social, cognitive, affect, and memory

strategies. Tirabulkul also found that affective strategy and memory strategy were used

in the medium level, while the others were high. Moreover, the metacognitive strategies

that the participants used matched with those who were the good language learners. The

recommendation of this study suggested to replicate the research with a greater number

of participants and use qualitative data collection to gain more details.

Another study confirming the same result of Tirabulkul was conducted by

Phantharakphong (2009). The study aimed to investigate language learning strategies

of high school students at Chiang Yuen Pitthayakhom School in Mahasarakham and

also explore the differences in the degree of language learning strategy use between

good and poor students. In this study, 105 out of 724 students of the school were the

participants and data was collected by the strategy inventory language learning (SILL)

questionnaires. The results revealed that metacognitive strategies which were one of

the more successful language learning features were found to be the most frequently

used strategies in only good students, followed by social, and affective strategies. In

contrast, a compensation category was the strategy weaker students used most. This

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

65

reflects that there was a difference in the degree of language learning strategy use

between good and poor high school students. In other words, the weaker students

applied two out of six strategies which were compensation and affective respectively at

a high level. Furthermore, other four strategies were employed at a medium level and

no strategies were used at a low level at all. However, the researcher recommended

more research to replicate the study with a greater proportion of the participants and to

use the qualitative data collection.

Not only metacognitive strategy related to a good learner was observed, but the

frequent use of LLS relating to a good learner also was to be investigated. Lamatya

(2010) investigated English language learning strategies used by 168 M. 5 students,

with different English achievement, in the first semester of academic year 2009 at

Chulalongkorn University Secondary Demonstration School (CUD), to compare the

English language learning strategies by 4 groups of students: very high, high, medium

and low English achievement. In addition, she also studied whether there was a

relationship between students’ English language learning strategies and their

achievement in studying English. The Strategy Inventory for Language Learning

(SILL) questionnaires were used as a data collection. The results revealed that the

overall use of English language learning strategies by the participants was at the

moderate level. The most frequent strategy use was Metacognitive strategy category,

followed by Compensation strategy category, Cognitive strategy category, Social

strategy category, and Affective strategy category. The least frequent strategy use was

Memory strategy category. The findings also stated that the participants with very high

and high English achievement used language learning strategies more frequently. It can

be said that the students with high and very high English achievement used English

language learning strategies - Metacognitive, Compensation, Cognitive and Memory

strategies - more frequently than students with medium and low English achievement.

At the end, replication of the study was suggested with different levels and a larger

group of participants and combine various qualitative approaches

The result of Lamatya (2010) bears out with the finding of Thangpatipan (2014).

Thangpatipan (2014) investigated language learning strategies (LLS) used by Thai high

school students in an EP program at a secondary school located in the east of Thailand.

Moreover, she also explored the differences between LLS used by 22 good learners and

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

66

18 poor learners. The Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) questionnaires

were used as a data collection. The findings showed that the use of LLS between good

learners and weaker learners are different; good learners use LLS more than poor ones.

Besides, the participants use 6 LLS at the medium level. In other words, metacognitive

is used the most, followed by memory and social strategies. Further study should be

conducted with the participants in the regular program, in the same school and at the

same level, to see the differences. Moreover, the factors such as, age, sex, personality,

learning styles, attitude should be compared and the qualitative methodology like an

interview should also be employed.

Some research was conducted in the language learning strategies (LLS) in

relation to gender. One found that gender had influence on LLS use while another found

no impact. Qing (2013) conducted research to investigate the use of LLS and examine

the relationship between LLS use and gender and English proficiency; measuring by

student’s grade point average (GPA), study duration in English, and student’s perceived

self-rating. 200 students at Santirat Wittayalai School in Bangkok were the participants

in this study. The Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) questionnaires in

Thai version was used for data collection. The finding showed that metacognitive is the

most popular use among the participants. In addition, males and females used different

LLS; males used more LLS than female. This was because Santirat was a male school

before and the number of males was greater than females. In terms of the participants’

level, the juniors used more LLS than the seniors and the High GPA learner used LLS

differently from low GPA learners.

Saengaroon (2015) conducted a study to investigate English language learning

strategies and explore whether or not a difference exists between female and male

students in the use of English language learning strategies. Two hundred and thirty-

three Thai EFL students, in the second semester of academic year 2015, enrolled at

Rajamangala University of Technology Lanna Tak were selected in the study. The

Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) questionnaire was used as an

instrument in this study. Saengaroon (2015) found that the overall use of English

language learning strategies by the students was at the moderate level. The most

frequent strategy use was metacognitive strategies, followed by memory and social

strategies. The least frequent strategy use was cognitive strategies. In addition, it was

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

67

revealed that there was no statistically significant difference in the overall use of

English language learning strategies between male and female students. Both male and

female students preferred to use metacognitive strategy most frequently whereas they

used cognitive strategy least frequently. Therefore, gender did not influence the use of

LLS between male and female students.

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

68

CHAPTER THREE

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

In this chapter, the detailed description of the research methodology operated in

the study will be presented through six main topics including research design,

participants, research instruments, data collection, research procedures, and data

analysis.

3.1. RESEARCH DESIGN

To conduct the study, a mixed-method research design was employed in the

investigation. This survey study firstly aimed to investigate learner autonomy and their

language learning strategies by collecting data quantitatively with the questionnaires.

In addition, a qualitative technique was employed through the semi-structured

interviews to get the language learning strategies used by the autonomous participants

in depth.

3.2. PARTICIPANTS

The participants of this study were a convenient sampling which came from the

whole population of 387 senior high school students in a tutorial school in Bangkok.

200 students out of these were divided into subgroups to be the participants of the study.

According to Yamane’s (1967) sample calculation, more than 196 participants

out of the population rounded up to 400 were selected as the participants in the study,

with a sampling error less than or equal to 0.05 and reliability equal to 95%. Thus, 200

participants out of 387 students were the participants in this study. After that, they were

classified into two groups: 100 international school students and 100 Thai public school

students, all of them are senior high school students. The 100 international school

students had studied in the international school program since they were young and

never attended a Thai public school. Also, the 100 Thai public school students had

never attended any international school program. It is noted that the students who attend

a Bilingual program or English program in Thai public schools were excluded due to

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

69

the different environment, teachers, and their peers. 200 of the participants were

provided with the questionnaires, a learner autonomy questionnaire and language

learning strategies questionnaire. Subsequently, 4 of them, who had the highest scale

of learner autonomy from the questionnaire, were required to have an interview to get

further information about language learning strategies use in depth. More details of

convenient sampling participants are shown in the figure 3.1

Figure 3.1 Selecting a Convenient Participants Sampling

In a population of 387 senior high school students in a tutorial school

in Bangkok

The researcher identified 2 subgroups

100 International school

students

(Senior high school level)

100 Thai public school

students

(Senior high school level)

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

70

3.3. RESEARCH INSTRUMENTS

3.3.1. Learner Autonomy Questionnaire

The learner autonomy questionnaire used in this study was adapted from the

MILLA questionnaire (Murase, 2015), learner autonomy cart sort (Cooker, 2015), and

a learner autonomy questionnaire (Joshi, 2011). The core concept of the learner

autonomy questionnaire was based on four components; students’ willingness,

students’ self-confidence, students’ motivation, and students’ ability.

The questionnaire format comprised of two sections. The first section was about

the participants’ background information, i.e. school name and gender. The second

section contained 20 questions related to the learner’s autonomy in English language

learning. The questions were categorized into 5 stages of frequency. The scores are

based on a 5 Likert-scale. They are classified in terms of frequency ranging from 1

"Never" to 5 "Always" as calculated in the table below.

Frequency Score based on Likert-scale

Always 5

Often 4

Sometimes 3

Rarely 2

Never 1

Table 3.1 Score Rank of Learner Autonomy Questionnaires

The rank of the score of learner autonomy questionnaire is between 20 and 100.

The higher score indicates higher level of learner autonomy. The questionnaires had

been proved to have high content validity and high reliability.

The obtained mean sores were evaluated according to the evaluation criteria as

follows:

1.00 - 1.80 means the level of learner autonomy was ‘very low’

1.81 - 2.60 means the level of learner autonomy was ‘low’

2.61 - 3.40 means the level of learner autonomy was ‘moderate’

3.41 - 4.20 means the level of learner autonomy was ‘high’

4.21 - 5.00 means the level of learner autonomy was ‘very high’

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

71

The questionnaire to investigate learner autonomy was also translated into Thai

for ease of response by the Thai public school participants. It is noted that the Thai

version of the questionnaire was proved in reliability of translation by an expert in the

translation field.

Validation Process

Regarding to the validation, the learner autonomy questionnaire was sent to find

its validity by three English language teaching experts to find the congruence between

the study objectives and the questionnaire statements. Then, the obtained data was

calculated using the Index of Item-Objective Congruence (IOC) (Rovinelli &

Hambleton, 1977) of each questionnaire statement.

The formula to calculate the Index of Item-Objective Congruence (IOC) is the

following:

IOC = ∑ R

N

Where

∑ R = Total scores from experts

N = Number of experts

There are three scores from each expert to judge each item as

Item clearly taps objective = 1

Unsure or unclear = 0

Item clearly does not tap objective = -1

Initially, the content validity of the learner autonomy questionnaire, comprising

of 23 items, was 0.83. However, some statements were reviewed due to the comments

of the experts.

First, a comment was the number of question in each component of learner

autonomy should be equal. Thus, item 13 in students’ motivation to learn English and

item 21-22 in students’ ability to learn autonomously were deleted due to the unrelation

to the objectives and the least score of IOC. Second, for item 1 and 3 examples were

added the to provide clearer definition and explanation. Moreover, in item 5, the word

‘self-disciplined’ was suggested by two experts to be changed to ‘self-regulated’. Next,

item 11 was changed from ‘I am a bit lazier when learning without the encouragement

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

72

of a teacher.’ to ‘I learn better when I receive encouragement of a teacher.’ resulting

from an expert’s comment on the word ‘lazier’ as it did not relate to the motivation. For

example, a lazy learner can be a motivated learner. Finally, in item 17, the word ‘note’

was advised to be changed to ‘notice’ and also added ‘seek ways to’ in front of

‘improve’. Therefore, the learner autonomy questionnaire was finally 20 items; 5 for

each component and the content validity was 0.85 which was acceptable according to

Turner and Carlson (2003).

3.3.2. SILL Questionnaire

The Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL), developed by Oxford

(1990) was adapted to be used in this study. It is based on the language learning

strategies of Oxford’s theory in 1990. The questionnaire format comprises of two

sections. The first section is about the participants’ background information, i.e. school

name and gender. The second section is about language learning strategies statements

which are combined from 2 main types of learning strategies according to Oxford

(1990); direct and indirect strategies. They are subsidiarily categorized into 6 kinds of

learning strategies i.e. memory, cognitive, compensation, metacognitive, social, and

affective strategies. Due to the context of Thai EFL learners, 30 items from 50 items of

SILL were adapted. The 30 items of SILL, used in this study, cover six categories of

strategies for language learning: Items 1-5 (adapted from item 3, 5, 6, 7, 8 of SILL)

concern the effectiveness of memory (memory strategies); items 6-10 (adapted from

item 10, 11, 15, 16, 22 of SILL) concern the use of mental processes (cognitive

strategies); items 11-15 (adapted from item 24, 25, 27, 28, 29 of SILL) are the

compensation for missing knowledge (compensation strategies); items 16-20 (adapted

from item 31, 33, 34, 36, 37 of SILL) deal with the organization and evaluation of

learning (metacognitive strategies); items 21-25 (adapted from item 40, 41, 42, 43, 44

of SILL) concern emotional management (affective strategies); and items 26-30

(adapted from item 45, 46, 47, 48, 50 of SILL) deal with interactive learning with others

(social strategies).

The participants responded on a five point Likert scale ranging from 1 "Never"

to 5 "Always". The range of scores for SILL is between 30 and 150. The higher score

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

73

means that the participant is an efficient strategy user, and the lower score means that

the participant is not an efficient strategy user.

Oxford (1999) had done research on the relationships between second language

learning strategies and language proficiency in the context of learner autonomy and

self-regulation through SILL questionnaires. The results showed that metacognitive and

cognitive learning strategies are strongly related to the learner autonomy. Moreover,

the successful learners consciously used certain types of learning strategies.

The SILL questionnaire administered to the participants in this study was also

translated into Thai for understandable response by the Thai public school participants.

The Thai version was checked for the correct translation by an expert in the field of

translation.

It is noted that the LLS questionnaire was not sent for content validity as it is

widely used.

3.3.3. Face to Face Semi-structured Interview

As individuals have their own different language learning strategies, to observe

their LLS in depth, a retrospective interview was provided as an important tool to

explore and elaborate the aspects of strategies use. The approximately 30 minutes semi-

structured interview was provided to elicit participants’ information about language

learning strategies use. The interview questions were divided into 6 questions about the

language learning strategies use. Each question was related to the six basic learning

strategies categorization by Oxford (1990). The first question was about how

interviewees memorized new English vocabulary, which is related to memory

strategies. The second one was linked to metacognitive strategies and asked about how

interviewees use their schemata to learn English. The third question referred to how

interviewees make up their missing knowledge, which is about compensation strategies.

Next, the questions about how interviewees deal with their emotional problem and

interaction with the others were provided, which were related to affective strategies and

social strategies respectively. Finally, the question were asked about how interviewees

improve their English proficiency skill - their cognitive strategies. The international

participants were asked English language questions and the Thai participants were

interviewed in Thai.

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

74

3.3.4 Piloting

The learner autonomy questionnaire and language learning strategies

questionnaire, both English version and Thai version were piloted with the participants

excluded from the research samples. English version of learner autonomy and language

learning strategies questionnaires were given to 30 senior high school students in the

international school. Meanwhile the Thai version of the learner autonomy and language

learning strategies questionnaire was also provided to 30 senior high school students in

the Thai public school. Each 30 participants of the two subgroups did the pilot study

together at the same time. Both the international school students and Thai public school

students spent about 10-15 minutes doing the learner autonomy questionnaire, while

the language learning strategies task took about 15-20 minutes. After piloting the study

of the two questionnaires, they were brought to calculate the reliability. The Cronbach

Alpha of English version of learner autonomy questionnaire and language learning

strategies questionnaire were 0.73 and 0.74 respectively, and for the Thai version of the

learner autonomy questionnaire and language learning strategies questionnaire, 0.92

and 0.86 respectively.

3.4. DATA COLLECTION

A mixed-method research design was employed in this study, drawing on

different data sources.

3.4.1. Quantitative Data Collection for Research Question 1 and 2

Learner autonomy questionnaires and language learning strategies

questionnaires (Oxford, 1990) written in English were administered to the international

school students and translated into a Thai version and provided to the Thai public

school students. The first questionnaire, learner autonomy, was administered to the

participants to observe the degree of the participants’ learner autonomy level. Then, the

second one, language learning strategies, was provided to investigate the strategies they

use to learn language. In addition, the differences of language learning strategies used

by two groups of participants, international school students and Thai public school

students, were observed.

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

75

3.4.2. Qualitative Data Collection for Research Question 2

The semi-structured interview questions were conducted with 4 participants.

The 4 participants came from the highest learner autonomy level learners (after being

classified by learner autonomy questionnaires) in each group of the whole samples.

Two participants from international school and two from Thai public school were

pleasantly invited to be questioned for indepth information about how they learn

language.

3.5. RESEARCH PROCEDURE

This study was carried out step by step as following:

1. The data collection procedure started with the distribution of the two main

questionnaires; learner autonomy and language learning strategies. They were

given hand-by-hand to the participants of the study in the classroom setting at a

tutorial school in Bangkok. Prior to responding to the questionnaires, the

participants were informed that there would be no right or wrong answers.

2. The learner autonomy questionnaires were firstly provided to the international

school participants and Thai public school participants in different classrooms

at the same time. The time period was about 15 minutes for the students to

complete the questionnaire and encourage them to know about the significance

of the study. Finally, the questionnaires were gathered.

3. After getting back the learner autonomy questionnaires, the language learning

strategies questionnaires were then given to the same participants. Due to larger

number of items in this questionnaire, the time period for the participants to

answer was about 20 minutes. Finally, the questionnaires were collected.

4. The findings of the two questionnaires were calculated into Mean and Standard

Deviation.

5. After concluding the findings of the questionnaire, the scores of each participant

groups, international school students and Thai public school students, were

ranked from the highest to the lowest. The results of the two questionnaires were

ranked in terms of frequency to look at how much learner autonomy the

participants had and which strategies they used the most.

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

76

6. Four participants who had the highest scores from the learner autonomy

questionnaires were interviewed about the language learning strategies they

always use in their learning process. The interview questions made up a semi-

structured interview which could lead to more in-depth detail in their replies.

7. The interviews were tape-recorded and transcribed into text. The 30 minutes

period was spent for these interviews.

8. All of the collected data were analyzed.

3.6. DATA ANALYSIS

The quantitative data obtained from all the questionnaires of this study was

statistically analyzed through descriptive statistics which consists of Means and

Standard Deviation (SD).

3.6.1. Data Analysis for Research Questions 1 and 2

Research question 1 : What is the level of English language learning autonomy

of Thai EFL students learning in the international school and Thai public school?

aimed to investigate the level of learner autonomy of the participants; a 5-point Likert

Scale was used to score the data. Thus, the data was computed to find Mean and

Standard Deviation (SD).

Research question 2 : What are the differences of English language learning

strategies used by Thai EFL students learning in the international school and Thai

public school? aimed to find how Thai EFL learners in the international school and Thai

public school used language learning strategies differently. The Mean and Standard

Deviation (SD) were used to analyze the data from 5-point Likert Scale score in terms

of the level of strategic learners they were. Next, the data of each language learning

strategies category was ranked to find any differences of language learning strategies

use of the participants in both groups.

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

77

CHAPTER FOUR

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

This chapter describes the research findings from both quantitative and

qualitative data analysis according to the two research objectives and two research

questions. The quantitative results are provided by descriptive statistic and divided into

two parts; level of learner autonomy and language learning strategies. In addition, the

qualitative findings are also illustrated to support the findings from the questionnaires.

Next, the discussion of the findings will be also presented.

4.1. RESULT

The quantitative data were collected by two questionnaires in this study; learner

autonomy and language learning strategies questionnaires. Both of them were analyzed

to answer the two research questions to investigate the level of learner autonomy and

the differences of language learning strategies use by the two group of participants.

Moreover, the qualitative data were analyzed to observe the language learning

strategies use in detail. The result will be presented in the order of research objectives.

4.1.1. The Investigation of Learner Autonomy Level

According to the research question 1 : What is the level of English language

learning autonomy used by Thai EFL students learning in the international school and

Thai public school?, the results of the 5-point Likert scale 20-item questionnaire data

were analyzed by Descriptive Statistic in SPSS (IBM Version 23) to find the mean

score and standard deviation (SD).

The analyzed data shows that the grand mean (X) was 3.50 and the Standard

Deviation (SD) was 0.55 for international school students and X 3.76 and SD 0.52 for

Thai public school students. According to the criteria, the range from 3.41 to 4.20

suggests very high level of learner autonomy; therefore, on average, the level of learner

autonomy of both group of participants was at the high level.

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

78

In order to obtain more information, the descriptive statistical analysis was

conducted to further analyze each domain in the learner autonomy questionnaire. The

result are presented in Table 4.1 with the interpretation of the level of learner autonomy.

Participants

Domain

Thai Public

School Students

(n=100)

International

School Students

(n=100)

Willingness Mean (X) 3.85 3.60

SD 0.71 0.76

LA Level High High

Self-confidence Mean (X) 3.75 3.49

SD 0.62 0.76

LA Level High High

Motivation Mean (X) 3.77 3.39

SD 0.51 0.54

LA Level High Moderate

Capacity Mean (X) 3.66 3.51

SD 0.76 0.74

LA Level High High

Total Mean (X) 3.76 3.50

SD 0.52 0.55

LA Level High High

Table 4.1 Mean of each Domain and Level of Learner Autonomy

The table 4.1 displays that on average the Thai EFL learners in Thai public

school had high levels of learner autonomy. Their willingness was at the highest level

of all the domain (X = 3.85, SD = 0.71), followed by the motivation to learn language

(X = 3.77, SD = 0.51). Besides, their self-confidence and capacity to learn

autonomously were also at the high level (X = 3.75, SD 0.62 and X = 3.66, SD = 0.76

respectively).

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

79

Table 4.1 also presents that on average the Thai EFL learners in international

school had high level in every domains of learner autonomy except the motivational

domain. Their willingness ranked the highest proportion (X = 3.60, SD = 0.76). Their

capacity and self-confidence to learn autonomously were also high (X = 3.51, SD =

0.74 and X = 3.49, SD = 0.76 respectively). From the table, motivation of the

participants was in the lowest range; however, it was still in the high level (X = 3.51,

SD = 0.74).

Additionally, the mean of each statement under every domain was examined

with its interpretation of the learner autonomy level to show some remarkable findings

in the table as follows.

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

80

Table 4.2 Mean of each statement of “Willingness”

Participants

Statement of Willingness

Thai Public

School

Students

(n=100)

International

School Students

(n=100)

I believe that I can make a

decision of my way of

learning. (e.g. learning

English with self-access

center)

Mean (X) 3.71 3.70

SD 0.913 1.106

Meaning High High

I am willing to set long-

term goals in learning

English.

Mean (X) 4.07 3.75

SD 0.891 1.167

Meaning High High

I am willing to study plans

that match my goals in

learning English. (e.g.

memorise 5 new

vocabularies each day for

exam)

Mean (X) 3.83 2.56

SD 1.035 1.038

Meaning High Low

I am willing to create

opportunities to use English

outside the classroom.

Mean (X) 3.97 4.11

SD 0.969 1.091

Meaning High High

I can be self-regulated in

learning English. (e.g.

reading English books or

news during free time)

Mean (X) 3.71 3.89

SD 0.998 1.043

Meaning High High

Willingness to take

learning responsibility

Mean (X) 3.85 3.60

SD 0.71 0.76

Meaning High High

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

81

Table 4.2 demonstrates that on average Thai EFL learners in the Thai public

school and the international school were highly willing to take charge of their learning

responsibility (X = 3.85, SD = 0.71 and X = 3.60, SD = 0.76 respectively). From the

item 2 “I set long-term goals in learning English”, it can be indicated that the learners

had the clear goal of learning English which meant they were willing to learn to meet

their goal. Furthermore, they created chances to use English outside the classroom. This

means they intended to practice their English skill more and more. Moreover, arranging

the study plan to match the goal of learning can also show the willingness of the

participants. The results also presented that the participants had self-regulation in their

learning of English and made decisions of the means to learn by themselves.

The next table will present the interpretation of another learner autonomy

component; self-confidence.

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

82

Table 4.3 Mean of each statement of “Self-confidence”

Participants

Statement of Self-confidence

Thai Public

School

Students

(n=100)

International

School Students

(n=100)

I can review what I am

good at in learning English.

(e.g. ‘I am good at

memorizing vocabulary.’)

Mean (X) 3.80 3.34

SD 0.943 1.165

Meaning High Moderate

I can revise my English

study plans if they do not

work well.

Mean (X) 3.68 3.22

SD 0.898 1.124

Meaning High Moderate

I can learn on my own

without a helper.

Mean (X) 3.30 3.66

SD 0.990 1.047

Meaning Moderate High

I always ask my teacher to

explain most of the things I

don’t understand.

Mean (X) 3.98 3.70

SD 0.910 1.010

Meaning High High

I can reflect upon how I

should have studied better

after I finish studying

English.

Mean (X) 3.99 3.54

SD 0.785 1.141

Meaning High High

Self-confidence to learn

independently

Mean (X) 3.75 3.49

SD 0.62 0.76

Meaning High High

Table 4.3 pointed out that on average all of the participants in this study had the

self-confidence to learn independently at the high level (X = 3.75, SD = 0.62 for Thai

Public school and X = 3.49, SD = 0.76 for international school). The results showed

that the students in Thai public school reflect upon how they can improve their English

skill after studying English. Moreover, they also review what they are good at, reported

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

83

at, high level for Thai public school students (X = 3.80, SD = 0.943) but a moderate

level for international school students (X = 3.34, SD = 1.17). The Thai public school

students also review their study plan if the previous one does not work at high level (X

= 3.68, SD = 0.89) while the international school students revise their plan of learning

English at moderate level (X = 3.22, SD = 1.12). The high level of item 4 “I ask my

teacher to explain most of the things I don’t understand” notified that the students got

involved in the classroom activities which is one of the personality traits of autonomous

learners who can take charge of their own responsibility in learning. Although almost

of the items in self-confidence were high, the item 3 “I learn on my own without a

helper” was at the moderate level among Thai public school students (X = 3.30, SD =

0.99). It can be implied that the Thai educational curriculum still provides for the

significant role of teacher in the classroom. It is probable that Thai students rely on the

teachers and peers when they learn English.

The following table will point out about the motivation to learn among the

participants. It will talk about what kind of motivation, intrinsic or extrinsic, affects the

participants’ behavior in learning English.

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

84

Table 4. 4 Mean of each statement of “Motivation”

Participants

Statement of Motivation

Thai Public

School Students

(n=100)

International

School Students

(n=100)

I learn better when I receive

encouragement of a teacher.

Mean (X) 4.17 2.32

SD 0.766 1.384

Meaning High Low

I feel like giving up

learning English.

Mean (X) 2.65 3.83

SD 1.209 1.436

Meaning Moderate High

When I make progress in

learning English, I reward

myself such as: buy new

things.

Mean (X) 3.09 2.34

SD 1.164 1.281

Meaning Moderate Low

I think of the good grade I

will get when I learn

English.

Mean (X) 4.46 3.78

SD 0.758 1.040

Meaning Very high High

I think of having a better

job if I use English well.

Mean (X) 4.48 4.72

SD 0.759 0.570

Meaning Very high Very high

Motivation to learn

English

Mean (X) 3.77 3.39

SD 0.51 0.54

Meaning High Moderate

Table 4.4 displayed that Thai EFL learners in Thai public school have high

motivation to learn English (X = 3.77, SD = 0.51) whereas Thai EFL learners in

international school have motivation to learn English at the moderate level (X = 3.39,

SD = 0.54). For the Thai public school students, the item 4 “I think of the good grade I

will get when I learn English” (X = 4.46, SD = 0.76) and item 5 “I think of having a

better job if I use English well” (X = 4.48, SD 0.76) were at the very high level. In the

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

85

similar way, international school student ranked item 5 at the very high level (X = 4.72,

SD = 0.57). It can be indicated that the extrinsic motivation significantly influenced the

participants. Interestingly, the feeling of giving up learning English for Thai public

school students was at the moderate level (X = 2.65, SD = 1.20). This means that the

participants can cope with the negative feeling to achieve their goal of learning. In

addition, the result from item 1 revealed that the participants will learn better when they

get encouraged by a teacher (X = 4.17, SD = 0.77). Nevertheless, the extrinsic

motivation like the reward was at the moderate level (X = 3.09, SD =1.16). For

international school students, the reward and the encouragement of the teachers are at

the low level in promoting learners’ motivation (X = 2.34, SD = 1.28 and X = 2.32, SD

= 1.38 respectively). However, they sometimes feel like giving up in learning English

(X = 3.83, SD = 1.44).

The next table will display the level of participants’ capacity to learn

autonomously. It will indicate how well they can perform in learning ability and arrange

their learning effectively.

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

86

Table 4.5 Mean of each statement of “Capacity”

Participants

Statement of Capacity

Thai Public

School Students

(n=100)

International

School Students

(n=100)

I notice my strengths and

weaknesses in learning

English and seek ways to

improve them.

Mean (X) 4.03 4.09

SD 0.904 0.854

Meaning High High

I make good use of my free

time in practicing English.

Mean (X) 3.62 3.32

SD 0.951 1.270

Meaning High Moderate

When I have a limited

amount of time available to

study English, I decide in

what order the things need

to be done and do according

to the plan.

Mean (X) 3.66 3.46

SD 0.956 0.989

Meaning High High

Besides the contents

prescribed in the course, I

read extra materials in

advance.

Mean (X) 3.57 3.14

SD 1.027 1.181

Meaning High Moderate

I evaluate the improvement

in my ability to use English

effectively.

Mean (X) 3.44 3.57

SD 1.122 1.121

Meaning High High

Capacity to learn

autonomously

Mean (X) 3.66 3.51

SD 0.76 0.74

Meaning High High

Table 4.5 informs that the Thai EFL learners in Thai public school and

international school have considerably high capacity to learn autonomously (X = 3.66,

SD = 0.76 and X = 3.51, SD = 0.74 respectively). They notice their strengths and

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

87

weaknesses and also seek ways to improve themselves which enables them to know

how to improve their English proficiency by themselves. This means they can manage

their ability to learn by themselves and know how to cope with the obstacles. Moreover,

they can manage the limited time to do the priority tasks. The findings show that the

participants spend their free time to practice English skill and also prepare for lessons

in advance.

The findings to answer research question 1: What is the level of English

language learning autonomy used by Thai EFL students learning in the international

school and Thai public school?, reveal that the learner autonomy level of both Thai

EFL learners in the international school and Thai public school were at the high level.

For the Thai EFL learners in international school, their willingness was the highest

proportion of all the domain under learner autonomy level, followed by capacity, self-

confidence, and motivation, whereas for the Thai EFL learners in Thai public school,

their willingness was at the highest level, followed by motivation, self-confidence, and

capacity to learn autonomously. Both groups of the participants had high willingness to

be responsible for their learning at the same level. However, the total results revealed

that Thai EFL learners in Thai public school and international school process

significantly high of learner autonomy level (X = 3.76, SD = 0.52 compared with X =

3.50, SD = 0.55 respectively).

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

88

4.1.2. The Investigation of Language Learning Strategies Use

According to the research question 2 : What are the differences of English

language learning strategies used by Thai EFL students learning in the international

school and Thai public school?, the results of the 5-point Likert scale 30-item

questionnaire data were analyzed by Descriptive Statistic in SPSS (IBM Version 23) to

find the mean score and standard deviation (SD).

Additionally, in order to get in-depth data, the semi-structured interviews were

applied in the study. The result of six semi-structured interviews were content analyzed

by coding the reasons and some personal experience of the participants related to the

questionnaire information each participant had provided previously.

Two Thai public school students (Person A and B) and two international school

students (Person C and D) who had the highest score of learner autonomy level were

given face-to-face interviews. The interviewing questions were relating to the

questionnaire questions and classified into the six learning strategies. From the answers

of the participants, the data provided confirmation of LLS use and more elicited

examples of each LLS.

The analyzed data shows that the grand mean (X) was 3.58 and 3.42 and the

Standard Deviation (SD) was 0.46 and 0.49 respectively. According to the criteria, the

range from 3.41 to 4.20 suggests high level of language learning strategies use;

therefore, on average, the level of language learning strategies use of the Thai EFL

learners in Thai public school and international school was at the high level.

In order to obtain more information, a descriptive statistical analysis was

conducted to further analyze each domain in the language learning strategies

questionnaire and the content analysis was applied to further the detail of how the

English learning strategies were employed by the participants, who claimed to have

high learner autonomy. The result are presented in Table 4.11 with the interpretation of

the level of language learning strategies use.

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

89

Table 4.6 Mean of each Domain and Level of Language Learning Strategies Use

Participants

Learning Strategies Domain

Thai Public

School Students

(n=100)

International

School Students

(n=100)

Memory Strategy

Mean (X) 3.36 2.83

SD 0.69 0.82

Meaning Moderate Moderate

Cognitive Strategy

Mean (X) 3.73 3.95

SD 0.62 0.55

Meaning High High

Compensation Strategy Mean (X) 3.93 3.71

SD 0.57 0.53

Meaning High High

Metacognitive Strategy

Mean (X) 3.81 3.53

SD 0.62 0.74

Meaning High High

Affective Strategy

Mean (X) 3.12 2.80

SD 0.67 0.78

Meaning Moderate Moderate

Social Strategy Mean (X) 3.50 3.70

SD 0.74 0.86

Meaning High High

Total Mean (X) 3.58 3.42

SD 0.46 0.49

Meaning High High

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

90

Table 4.6 illustrates the findings of language learning strategies used by the Thai

EFL learners in Thai public school and international school. It indicates that the

language learning strategies use is at the high level with the grand mean of 3.58 and SD

of 0.46 for Thai public school students and with the grand mean of 3.42 and SD of 0.49

for international school students mentioned earlier. Additionally, the results revealed

that the participants in the Thai public school employ compensation strategy as the

highest proportion (X = 3.93, SD = 0.57). The metacognitive strategy (X = 3.81, SD =

0.62) and the cognitive strategy (X = 3.73, SD = 0.62) are used as the high level as well.

Also, the memory strategy (X = 3.36, SD = 0.69) and the affective strategy (X = 3.12,

SD = 0.67) are used at the moderate level.

The results, in contrast, exhibit that the participants in international school use

cognitive strategy in the largest proportion (X = 3.95, SD = 0.55). The compensation

strategy (X = 3.71, SD 0.53), the social strategy (X = 3.70, SD 0.86), and the

metacognitive strategy (X = 3.53, SD 0.74) are frequently used at the high level

respectively. In contrast, the Thai EFL learners in international school use the memory

strategy (X = 2.83, SD = 0.82) and the affective strategy (X = 2.80, SD = 0.78) at the

moderate level.

Additionally, the mean of each statement under the language learning strategies

domain was examined with its interpretation of the language learning strategies use to

present some remarkable findings.

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

91

Table 4.7 Mean of each statement of “Memory Strategy”

Participants

Memory Strategies Statement

Thai Public

School Students

(n=100)

International

School Students

(n=100)

I connect the sound of a

new English word and an

image or picture of the

word to help me remember

the word.

Mean (X) 3.58 3.32

SD 0.890 1.136

Meaning High Moderate

I use rhymes to remember

new English words.

Mean (X) 3.59 2.76

SD 1.006 1.280

Meaning High Moderate

I use flashcards to

remember new English

words.

Mean (X) 2.91 2.57

SD 1.198 1.241

Meaning Moderate Low

I physically act out new

English words.

Mean (X) 3.23 2.54

SD 1.145 1.290

Meaning Moderate Low

I review English lessons

often.

Mean (X) 3.47 2.95

SD 0.969 1.048

Meaning High Moderate

Total Mean (X) 3.36 2.83

SD 0.69 0.82

Meaning Moderate Moderate

Table 4.7 shows that the Thai EFL learners in Thai public school use the

memory strategy at the moderate level (X = 3.36, SD = 0.69). They connect the sound

of a new word with the image (X = 3.58, SD = 0.89) and also use rhymes (X = 3.59,

SD = 1.02) to help remembering the vocabulary at the high level. The last item “I review

English lessons often’ informs us that rehearsal can help learners to remember the new

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

92

vocabulary (X = 3.47, SD = 0.97). However, the item 3 “I use flashcards to remember

new English words” (X = 2.91, SD = 1.19) and item 4 “ I physically act out new English

words.” (X = 3.23, SD = 1.15) can help learners in learning English at the moderate

level.

Due to the data obtained by the interview, it is revealed that the international

school students use the memory strategies for finding the similar word which has the

similar sound to remember and differentiate them.

“When I memorize the words, I will find the similar word to remember

and its similar sound to match, for example ‘evacuate’ and ‘evaluate’

and match with the meaning.”

The structure and spelling technique are also used to memorize and apply in the

sentences.

“I also memorize the structure and spelling. Or when I need to

remember it to have a test, I will memorize immediately by rehearsal.”

“ I practice with the exercise and use it in the real sentence. I can’t

remember the word if I didn’t use it. Which word that I always saw in

the reading, books, or novel, I will remember it automatically.”

The participants indicated that reading can help them to meet lots of new

vocabulary and ‘practice makes perfect’ is applicable to them. They will try to use it

as frequently as they have a chance to.

“Practice a lot. Use it again and again until I can remember.”

“Apply in real life. Use it a lot. Repeat it again and again.”

“Use it constantly or use sense. Connect to the everyday life in reality.

Use the sense of correction. Remind what I have heard or read

before.”

“Remember it carefully, try to find the difference of their usage and

learn from the sentence even in dictionary or in Google.”

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

93

A participant suggested that to remember the word, teaching others can help to

think about what they have learned.

“Teach the others to remind myself to remember the word.”

Additionally, table 4.7 also illustrates that the Thai EFL learners in international

school conduct the memory strategy at the moderate level (X = 2.83, SD 0.82). They

use the sound and an image to match the new vocabulary when they remember the new

word at the moderate level (X = 3.32, SD = 1.14). They also moderately use rhymes to

help in rehearsing the new word (X = 2.76, SD = 1.28). Moreover, the frequency of

lesson review is gradual (X = 2.95, SD 1.05). Surprisingly, flashcards and physically

acting out to remember the new word are at the low level (X = 2.57, SD 1.24 and X =

2.54, SD = 1.29 respectively).

Based upon the interview observation, the participants mostly used sound to

connect the new word. A Person C said:

“I usually speak out when I have to memorize the new vocabulary and

sometimes I draw a mind-mapping to connect the picture with the words.

It’s very effective to because I can remember it for a long time”.

Meanwhile, the Person D indicated that practicing enabled her to be more

effective in remembering the words as she added

“I practice and use it in everyday life. I will have a notebook of

vocabulary and I will write down within the day I have learned the new

words. Furthermore, I will review the new words as fast as possible as

if I leave them for a little bit long, I will forget”.

Moreover, to remember the word long-term, the practicing technique is always

used. The participants believed that to practice and use the new words in their real life

can encourage them to revise and remember. They therefore agreed that applying new

vocabulary in reality is absolutely effective. As Person C said:

“Use it frequently, try to apply in a sentence or writing. Doing

something while thinking of a word. Remind it frequently as it can re-

correct to be more precise and accurate.”

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

94

with support by the Person D as:

“Practice it a lot. Try to use in the reality. If I did the exercise, I will

look at the correction and do it again”.

In addition, memory strategies are also applied when the participants encounter

the words which have similar meaning but are different in terms of use, as they have to

remember the exact meaning of each words and try to distinguish them. However,

applying vocabulary in their real life seemed to be the most effective method for them.

The pronunciation is also important to Person C, who added:

“Memorize. Look at the example sentence. Match the couple of word

which is suitable to each other. I guess sometimes. Beware of the sound.

And I also use familiarity.”

while Person D indicated that to remind themselves what the teachers have taught and

what is heard can be helpful:

“memorize what I am taught. Learn it like it is the new word. Look at it,

memorize and use it in the reality.”

It is obviously seen that the Thai public school students often make relationship

between the new vocabulary and its sound. Sometimes, they said it out loud to involve

the hearing system to help in remembering. The questionnaire data is supported by the

interview data in terms of how the participants use memory strategies. Moreover, they

rarely remember the new words physically or use other material such flashcards

according to the low level of the mean score from the questionnaire.

The next table will display the analysis of cognitive strategies from the

questionnaires and also the support from the interview questions as well.

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

95

Table 4.8 Mean of each statement of “Cognitive Strategy”

Participants

Cognitive Strategies Statement

Thai Public

School Students

(n=100)

International

School Students

(n=100)

I say or write new English

words several times.

Mean (X) 3.47 3.47

SD 0.926 1.068

Meaning High High

I try to talk like native

English speakers.

Mean (X) 4.14 4.10

SD 0.829 0.859

Meaning High High

I watch English language

TV shows spoken in

English or go to movies

spoken in English.

Mean (X) 4.09 3.65

SD 0.944 1.132

Meaning High Very High

I read for pleasure in

English.

Mean (X) 3.46 4.61

SD 1.058 0.680

Meaning High High

I try not to translate word-

for-word.

Mean (X) 3.49 3.92

SD 1.040 1.098

Meaning High High

Total Mean (X) 3.73 3.95

SD 0.62 0.55

Meaning High High

Table 4.8 displays that the Thai EFL learners in Thai public school use cognitive

strategy at the high level (X = 3.73, SD = 0.62). The result revealed that they try to talk

like native English speakers (X = 4.14, SD = 0.83) which is the way to practice speaking

skill to be more practical. Moreover, watching English movies (X = 4.09, SD = 0.94)

and reading for pleasure in English (X = 3.46, SD = 1.06) can help learners to practice

for more skill in English. Item 1 “I say or write new English words several times” (X =

3.47, SD = 0.93) and item 5 “I try not to translate word-for-word” (X = 3.49, SD = 1.04)

indicate the high level of use by the participants.

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

96

The interview data shows that the Thai public school participants emphasis on

practicing as they think that to keep using and applying English language in their real

life can absolutely foster their English proficiency. Person A said:

“I also practice grammar, write a lot and let the teacher correct it for

me.”

With the support of Person B as :

“ I try to use English as much as possible. I also practice grammar,

write a lot and let the teacher correct it for me.”

Moreover, talking with native speakers can also encourage them to be more

fluent in English as Person B said:

“Try to talk with native. Talk to friends in foreign country, facetime,

line.”

In addition, supported by useful materials, the participants will gain more

confidence to use English. Both of the interviewed participants agreed that reading in

their free time can foster their knowledge and the ability to use English . They said:

“I watch movie by looking at English subtitle. I read for pleasure in

English. Read more, for pleasure, novel or topic that I like.”

“I always read the English books in my free time such as comics,

novel, or cartoon. It helps me a lot in increasing my vocabulary

knowledge and the correct sentence structure.”

Table 4.8 also informs of the cognitive strategy use by the Thai EFL learners in

the international school which revealed the high level use of this strategy (X = 3.95, SD

= 0.55). This strategy ranked the highest proportion of use by the participants. Reading

for pleasure is the effective way to promote cognitive strategy of the learners as it

ranked in the very high level (X = 4.61, SD = 0.68). Talking like native speakers can

also be a means to acquire English language (X = 4.10, SD = 0.86). By not trying to

translate word-for-word (X = 3.92, SD = 1.09), watching English movies (X = 3.65, SD

= 1.13), and repeating and writing new English words several time (X = 3.47, SD 1.07)

can also assist the learners as the way to manipulate their learning process and to gain

language performance.

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

97

For the international school participants, cognitive strategy is the highest

proportion of learning strategy they apply to their language learning. Based on the

interview questions, the participants’ replies revealed that they attempt to use and

practice their English skill as the Thai public students do.

“I try to highlight what I have to learn and set the goal to reach it. For

listening and speaking skill, I talked to myself unconsciously. Also, I

watched and pronounced the English lesson many times.”

“I think to be fluent in English, I have to practice in every skill

consistently.”

Moreover, they try to collect the knowledge by reading as much as possible

even from their lesson book or reading in their free time.

“I think reading is the most effective way to improve my English as I got

a lot of vocabulary and grammar from reading an English book.

Moreover, reading the lesson about specific topic such as tense can also

help me to progress my English skill.”

“For reading, I read an English book which is in my favorite topic in

my free time. If I cannot understand it at all, I will read the English book

that written in Thai to allow me to understand the basic context and

apply it to my daily life.”

Furthermore, some of them try to review what they have read, using ways such

as summarizing and highlighting, which are components of how cognitive strategy is

employed.

“Sometimes, I summarized the story to check my understanding and take note

of the vocab I don’t know.”

“For writing, I takes note in my diary. I narrate myself of what I have found in

a day.”

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

98

The following table will illustrate compensation strategies employed by the

participants. The Mean score and Standard Deviation is from the questionnaires and in-

depth data is elicited from interview questions.

Table 4.9 Mean of each statement of “Compensation Strategy”

Participants

Compensation Strategies Statement

Thai Public

School Students

(n=100)

International

School Students

(n=100)

To understand unfamiliar

English words, I make

guesses.

Mean (X) 4.30 3.97

SD 0.785 0.797

Meaning Very High High

When I cannot think of a

word during a conversation

in English, I use gestures.

Mean (X) 3.94 3.60

SD 0.993 1.015

Meaning High High

I read English without

looking up new words.

Mean (X) 3.51 3.55

SD 0.927 0.892

Meaning High High

I try to guess what the other

person will say next in

English.

Mean (X) 3.77 3.12

SD 0.962 1.066

Meaning High Moderate

If I cannot think of an

English word, I use a word

or phrase that means the

same thing.

Mean (X) 4.11 4.31

SD 0.852 0.720

Meaning High Very High

Total Mean (X) 3.93 3.71

SD 0.57 0.53

Meaning High High

Table 4.9 shows that the Thai EFL learners in the Thai public school use

compensation strategy at the high level (X = 3.93, SD = 0.57). They try to understand

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

99

the unfamiliar word in English by making guesses at the very high level (X = 4.30, SD

= 0.79). They also try to compensate for the unknown word with the another word or

phrases that have the same meaning (X = 4.11, SD = 0.85). They use gestures when the

cannot think about the word in English to help in communication (X = 3.94, SD = 0.99).

In addition, they try to make guesses what the interlocutors will say (X = 3.77, SD =

0.96) and also try not to look up the word when reading (X = 3.51, SD = 0.93).

Based upon the interview data, for the international school students, they use

compensation strategy by explaining the word in description and sentences. They also

try to use a similar meaning word to replace the unknown word.

“ I use the compensation word or the easier word. I try to use another

word that can explain the idea. I think it is better than saying nothing

or avoid using.”

“I try to use synonym while I’m writing or talking.”

While talking, gestures are used to explain the further meaning of the content.

“Sometimes, I use gesture instead of thinking the new word.”

“I always use gestures along with the explanation when I cannot think

about the exact word I would like to say.”

Additionally, if they do not know what the exact meaning of the word is, they

make guesses and use the context to help.

“I make guess when I’m reading or get help from the context and the

whole main idea of the story.

Table 4.9 also revealed that the Thai EFL learners in the international school

use compensation strategy at the high level (X = 3.71, SD = 0.53). The very high level

of compensation strategy was used when they cannot think of an English word, they

will use another word or phrase to communicate instead (X = 4.31, SD = 0.72).

Moreover, they try to understand the unfamiliar word by making guess (X = 3.97, SD

= 0.79) and also use the gestures to help in conversation (X = 3.60, SD = 1.02). The

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

100

result also found that the participants try to read English book without looking up words

in the dictionary (X = 3.55, SD = 0.89). In contrast, the item 4 “I try to guess what the

other person will say next in English” is at the moderate level. This is probably due to

the relationship of the students. For example, sometimes it is hard to predict what the

interlocutor will say if there is no familiarity.

Based on the further answers via interviewing, the data revealed that the

participants employed compensation strategies at the very high level as English is not

familiar for them and they did not use it in their daily life. Thus, the influence of L1 is

important for them when using English as they have to try to compensate for the

unknown words with gesture and other explanation while speaking; as both of the

interviewed participants said:

“I use similar meaning of word and try to explain in sentence. When I

cannot think of the English words I use gesture. When I’m talking to a

foreigner, I use the easier word and explain more.

“I will always use its synonym.”

“If I don’t know the word, I avoid using it. I will use gesture and try to

describe in explanation. I will give an example of what I’m going to

say.”

In addition, context clues are also helpful when they are reading. They stated

that they can help them to understand the meaning of the unknown word.

“When I’m reading and I don’t know the meaning, I will use the

context clue to help me to understand the story.”

The next table will expose metacognitive strategies with Mean and Standard

Deviation scores from the questionnaire and supporting data from interview.

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

101

Table 4.10 Mean of each statement of “Metacognitive Strategy”

Participants

Metacognitive Strategies Statement

Thai Public

School Students

(n=100)

International

School Students

(n=100)

I notice my English

mistakes and use that

information to help me do

better.

Mean (X) 3.90 4.07

SD 0.823 0.769

Meaning High High

I try to find out how to be a

better learner of English.

Mean (X) 4.10 3.88

SD 0.798 1.018

Meaning High High

I plan my schedule so I will

have enough time to study

English.

Mean (X) 3.57 2.83

SD 1.008 1.190

Meaning High Moderate

I look for opportunities to

read as much as possible in

English.

Mean (X) 3.67 3.32

SD 0.911 1.222

Meaning High Moderate

I have clear goals for

improving my English

skills.

Mean (X) 3.82 3.59

SD 0.936 1.016

Meaning High High

Total Mean (X) 3.81 3.53

SD 0.62 0.74

Meaning High High

Table 4.10 shows that the Thai EFL learners in the Thai public school use

metacognitive strategy at the high level (X = 3.81, SD = 0.62). They try hard to find the

way to be a better English learner (X = 4.10, SD = 0.79). They also notice their mistakes

and use this information to improve their skill (X = 3.90, SD = 0.82). In addition, they

have clear goals for improving English skill (X = 3.82, SD = 0.94) and plan their

schedule to manage the time to learn English (X = 3.57, SD = 1.01). Because an

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

102

effective way of learning is practicing, the results also presented that the participants

find the way to read as much as possible in English (X = 3.67, SD = 0.91).

Meanwhile, from the interview data, the international school students applied

the metacognitive strategy by reviewing what they have learned and also the mistakes.

This can help them to plan what they have to do with their English learning.

“I review the note and recheck what is correct or wrong. Correct the

mistakes. Be careful more about the repetition of mistakes.”

“I pay attention to the lesson and review it. Them I apply the

usefulness of what I have learned to my recent English use.”

“I try to notice myself, what I’m weak, what I’m strong at. Then I will

review my mistake and also improve my skill by setting a goal of

learning.”

Besides reviewing the learning process and the mistakes, they also evaluate

their knowledge as well.

“Moreover, I always seek the opportunity to use the language.

However, I speak English mostly when I’m at school, so it’s very great

to me to practice English. But sometimes I talk to my friends in

English. When we talk, we don’t care much about grammar, but when

we write a message to each other, we are more careful about it. So, I

can see what the mistakes are and correct it.”

“Grammar was my error. As in everyday life, I did not mind about the

grammar when I was talking to my friends. This may lead to the error

in my writing. So, I plan to study grammar course and review more

about the grammar lesson. I try not to use it in the incorrect way and

ask sometimes my teachers to correct it for me.”

Table 4.10 also shows that the Thai EFL learners in the international school use

metacognitive strategy at the high level (X = 3.53, SD = 0.74). They notice the mistakes

and try to find the improvement of their English skill (X = 4.07, SD 0.77). Besides, they

try to find out how to be a better learner of English (X = 3.88, SD = 1.02) and also have

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

103

clear goals for improving their English proficiency (X = 3.59, SD = 1.02). The moderate

level of item 3 “I plan my schedule so I will have enough time to study English” (X =

2.83, SD = 1.20) and item 4 “I look for opportunities to read as much as possible in

English” (X = 3.32, SD = 1.22) indicated that they have planned to learn English and

find more chance to practice English skill such as reading.

According to the interview data, the results found that the Thai public school

students operate the metacognitive strategy by setting goals for their learning and

following the plan.

“Learn and apply it to the job. I learn English to get the opportunity to

practice and improve my English skill. Try to survey how English is

important in my future career and then set the long-term goal to achieve

it.”

“Plan everyday task. It’s like the collection of knowledge that I have

gathered it little by little and one day it will be useful for me.”

They have also self-evaluate to watch out for where they have done the mistakes

and not let them reoccur.

“I review the lesson. I review my vocabulary tanks, the content I have

studied, and the strategies I use to learn.”

“I learn from the mistake. I can remember what I am wrong in the past.

So, I can manage what I have to do without doing the mistake again.”

As metacognitive skills require organizing and planning skill, the participants

of this study revealed that they employed this kind of strategy by self-monitoring and

self-evaluating of their English learning process.

“As I know the weak point of myself that I can’t understand lots of vocab

as it is my struggle, so I practice a lot. I listen to the content that can

increase my vocab, read subtitle in the movie to look for vocab and

match it with what the speaker said. Match the action of the actress and

vocab. If I don’t know its meaning, I will guess what it was.”

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

104

“My vocab is my trouble, so I try to further my vocab tank by watching

English movie without subtitle, reading for pleasure to gain more

vocabulary knowledge.”

Moreover, they also plan their language tasks further to check their evaluation

progress as well.

“ I have also set the goal of learning by limiting the time and taking a

standard test to check my English proficiency such as CU-TEP, TU-

GET, or IELTS. And this kind of the test will classified my skill into the

categories such listening, speaking, writing, and reading. Then I can

know that which part is my weak point and I can improve it more often.”

The next table will indicate Mean and Standard Deviation score of affective

strategies from the questionnaire and some quotes from the semi-structured interview

questions.

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

105

Table 4.11 Mean of each statement of “Affective Strategy”

Participants

Affective Strategies Statement

Thai Public

School Students

(n=100)

International

School Students

(n=100)

I encourage myself to speak

English even when I am

afraid of making a mistake.

Mean (X) 3.84 3.92

SD 0.896 1.098

Meaning High High

I give myself a reward or

treat when I do well in

English.

Mean (X) 3.06 2.52

SD 1.081 1.291

Meaning Moderate Low

I notice if I am tense or

nervous when I am

studying or using English.

Mean (X) 3.19 3.12

SD 1.152 1.200

Meaning Moderate Moderate

I write down my feelings in

a language learning diary.

Mean (X) 2.27 1.82

SD 1.230 1.258

Meaning Moderate Low

I talk to someone else about

how I feel when I am

learning English.

Mean (X) 3.25 2.62

SD 1.019 1.270

Meaning Moderate Moderate

Total Mean (X) 3.12 2.80

SD 0.67 0.78

Meaning High Moderate

Table 4.11 exhibits that the Thai EFL learners in the Thai public school use

affective strategy at the moderate level (X = 3.12, SD = 0.67). The sole high level use

of affective strategy is due to item 1 “I encourage myself to speak English even when I

am afraid of making a mistake” (X = 3.84, SD = 0.89). The others item are all at the

moderate level. The participants notice their feelings whether they are tense or nervous

(X = 3.19, SD = 1.15). Besides, they talk to the others about the feeling of learning

English (X = 3.25, SD = 1.02) and write down their feelings in a diary (X = 2.27, SD =

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

106

1.23). They also give themselves a reward when they do well in learning English (X =

3.06, SD = 1.08).

From the interview data, the international school students have used recreation

to overcome their anxieties and stress when they encounter difficulties in learning

English.

“I change the practicing process such as if I am stressed with the

vocabulary, I will stop reading and watch the movie instead. I will do

what I like but change it to English language. Watch the favorite movie

with English subtitle.

“I relaxed myself by doing my favorite activities such as listening to

the sing, watching the funny stories, and so on.”

Moreover, they sometimes reward themselves when they have reached a

learning goal.

“Sometimes, I will reward myself if I can done one of my learning goal

such as buying a pen or a highlighter.”

Additionally, they try to motivate themselves with the success they would like

to get if they can do well.

“Try to motivate myself due to the goal of learning English that I can

do it one day.”

“I always talk to myself and motivate myself to pay attention.”

Sometimes, they encourage themselves to learn English by asking help from

their peers.

“I will make an agreement with my friends to do a great task of

learning English and reward each other and it really works.”

They also rely on mental recreation such as meditation to keep them calm and

be ready for learning.

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

107

“Sometimes, I do the meditation to keep my mind in peace or write in

the diary.”

Table 4.11 also points out that the Thai EFL learners in the international school

use affective strategy at the moderate level (X = 2.80, SD = 0.78). It is the least language

learning strategy use by the participants. The high level of item 1 “I encourage myself

to speak English even when I am afraid of making a mistake” (X = 3.92, SD = 1.09)

indicated that the students in the international program are not afraid of using English

whether it is correct or not due to their environment of facing lots of native teachers

and friends. Item 3 “I notice if I am tense or nervous when I am studying or using

English” (X = 3.12, SD = 1.20) and item 5 “I talk to someone else about how I feel

when I am learning English” (X = 2.62, SD = 1.27) were at the moderate level of use.

This can mean that the participants do not focus on their feelings when they use English

as they are not concerned about mistakes. The sole low level of item 4 “I write down

my feelings in a language learning diary”( X = 1.82, SD = 1.26) suggested that the

participants may use another kind of exposure when they feel hard during learning

English.

Based upon the interview data, it was revealed that the Thai public school

students had dealt with their anxiety when learning English by relaxing with their

favorite activities and trying the another way of learning which is less stressful.

“I try to overcome the anxiety by relaxing. If reading is too hard, I

found another relaxing way to learn such as listening to music or

watching movie instead. I try to use it more frequently to make me

familiar with it and make it easier.”

“ I will let it go at first and take a rest. I think to be with something

tough for a long time is not good but I am not demotivated by leaving

it. I will take a rest to overcome my anxiety and then I will be back to

overcome the difficulties again when I am positive enough. ”

Moreover, they also talk to others about their stress in learning English and

also motivate themselves.

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

108

“I use English by talking to friends via line, or face to face in English.

Or sometimes I talk to my teacher about my learning difficulty. They

will suggest and encourage myself to go on.”

The next table will display the social strategies Mean and Standard Deviation

scores. Moreover, the interview data will also support how the participants employ

learning strategies.

Table 4.12 Mean of each statement of “Social Strategy”

Participants

Social Strategies Statement

Thai Public

School Students

(n=100)

International

School Students

(n=100)

If I do not understand

something in English, I ask

the other person to slow

down or say it again.

Mean (X) 4.12 3.85

SD 0.879 1.086

Meaning High High

I ask to correct my English

with other students.

Mean (X) 3.56 3.59

SD 1.183 1.207

Meaning High High

I practice English with

other students.

Mean (X) 3.23 3.60

SD 1.024 1.214

Meaning Moderate High

I ask for help from English

speakers.

Mean (X) 2.95 3.88

SD 1.234 1.076

Meaning Moderate High

I try to learn about the

culture of English speakers.

Mean (X) 3.66 3.59

SD 1.007 1.288

Meaning Moderate High

Total Mean (X) 3.50 3.70

SD 0.74 0.86

Meaning High High

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

109

Table 4.12 illustrates that the social strategy use of Thai EFL learners in Thai

public school is at the high level (X = 3.50, SD = 0.74). They ask the interlocutors to

slow down their speaking or repeat the conversation when they cannot understand (X

= 4.12, SD = 0.88) and also ask their peers to correct their English (X = 3.56, SD =

1.18). This means social strategy can help L2 learners interact with the others. In

addition, to learn about the culture of English native speakers can promote learners in

learning English at the high level (X =3.66, SD = 1.01). The results also show that they

practice English with the other students (X = 3.23, SD = 1.02) and they ask for help

from English speakers (X = 2.95, SD = 1.23).

According to the interview data, the international school students employ the

social strategies by having interactions with others, especially with their peers and

teachers.

“Talking to the teachers and friends can improve everything such as

vocabulary, phrase and the way they structure the sentence.”

Moreover, some of them are trying to improve their English skill by using it

with their family at home.

“In my case, I keep on talking with my family. I try to use English as

much as possible at home, with my father and my sisters. And this helps

me a lot to improve my English proficiency.”

The participants agreed that using English with others encouraged them to be

familiar with the language and provided them with more self-confidence to

use English whenever they would like to.

“It make me used to English. Make me have more confidence to use

English. No hesitate to use and not afraid to try to use English.”

“Because I can ask for the correction and I can practice how to use

English naturally. Maybe what I have learned in class is not applicable

in all of the situation I have to face. So, to talk with native speaker as

frequently as possible enable me to use English automatically.”

Although speaking with native speakers can improve their communicative skill,

the participants think that their grammatical skill does not improve much as no native

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

110

speakers will correct their mistakes when talking. Moreover, it seemed to be that

pronunciation will not be developed.

“But for grammatical correction, mine is worse because no native

speaker correct it for me. “

“Talking to the native speakers can partly improve the speaking skill but

not for the pronunciation. Although you try to imitate how native

speakers say, it didn’t succeed without exposing the language.”

Table 4.12 presents the social strategy use at the high level by Thai EFL learners

in the international school (X = 3.70, SD = 0.86). They ask for help when they learn

English from English speakers (X = 3.88, SD = 1.08) and if they cannot understand

what the interlocutor said, they will ask him or her to slow down or say it again (X =

3.85, SD = 1.07). Moreover, practicing English with other students (X = 3.60, SD =

1.21) and asking for correction with peers (X = 3.59, SD = 1.21) can be social strategies

to assist learners to achieve language performance. Interestingly, to learn the culture of

English speakers is also ranked at high level as it enables EFL learners to comprehend

the language beyond just linguistic competence (X = 3.59, SD = 1.29).

Due to the data obtained by interview, for social strategy, the participants have

cooperated with the others such as their teachers and their peers. They try to find the

opportunity to use English with native speakers to practice their skill, especially

speaking and listening skill.

“Sometimes I try to talk with my friends. We chat in English. Although

at first we talk English and Thai together, but it make me be more

confident to use English.”

“I sometimes talk with my foreigner teacher in class and outside the

class when I hand in my homework or ask something about the project.

Sometimes, I talk to my pen friends in America. We know each other by

Tinder and I think I am better in English by talking with them”

The Thai public school students revealed that they use social strategy by talking

mostly to their friends, such as oversea friends and also the foreigners whom they meet

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

111

online. However, they stated that their chance to speak English in class is less because

of there is only one teacher.

“In my class, I don’t have much chance to speak English as there are

lots of students in class and only one teacher.”

They also agreed that to use English by observing the English culture can help

them to understand more about the language.

“Talking with native speakers cannot promote only the improvement of

English skill, but it can also promote the involvement of the culture, the

living of that person, and also help to understand what they are going

to do which is affected to their language use.”

The participants in this recent study indicated that using English with the

native speakers can encourage them to be familiar with the language and never afraid

of using English when they face the native speakers.

“Because I have a chance to speak, both of listening and speaking.

Although the grammar was wrong, I can communicate with the others

naturally. If I speak wrong, they can correct my English as well.”.

“ I think it can lessen my stress to communicate with the others who

speak English. It enable me to be familiar with English and try to use

more and more English. It makes me not to be afraid to the foreigners

anymore. And this is why my English will be improved.”

According to the research question number 2: “What are the differences of

English language learning strategies used by Thai EFL students learning in the

international school and Thai public school?”, the finding shows that Thai EFL learners

in the international school use different language learning strategies from those in the

Thai public school. Moreover, the level of language learning strategies use of Thai EFL

in the Thai public school is higher than the students in the international school (X =

3.58, SD = 0.46 and X = 3.42, SD = 0.49 respectively). The figure 4.1 presents the

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

112

different language learning strategies among Thai EFL learners in international school

and those in Thai public school.

Figure 4.1 The Differences of Language Learning Use by the Participants

In terms of language learning strategies frequency use, Thai EFL learners in

international school utilised the cognitive strategy the most (X = 3.95, SD = 0.55),

followed by compensation strategy (X = 3.71, SD = 0.53) which has a similar number

to the social strategy use (X = 3.70, SD = 0.86). The two least used language learning

strategies of the international school students were memory strategy (X = 2.83, SD =

0.82) and affective strategy (X = 2.80, SD = 0.78) respectively.

In contrast, Thai EFL learners in the Thai public school preferred the use of

compensation strategy (X = 3.93, SD = 0.57) at the highest proportion. The

metacognitive strategy (X = 3.81, SD = 0.62) was used second most frequently,

followed by cognitive strategy (X = 3.73, SD = 0.62). The social strategy was also used

at the high level (X = 3.50, SD = 0.74). Finally, the memory strategy (X = 3.36, SD =

0.69) and the affective strategy (X = 3.12, SD = 0.67) were used at the moderate level.

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

113

To sum up, Thai EFL learners in the international school preferred to use the

cognitive strategy when they learn English whereas Thai EFL learners in the Thai

public school preferred the compensation strategy to assist them in their English study.

4.2. DISCUSSION

The discussion of this study is presented in relation to the three research

questions. This part discusses the level of learner autonomy and the overall use of

English language learning strategies employed by Thai EFL learners in international

school and Thai public school. Moreover, the idea about that language learning

strategies can promote learner autonomy is illustrated.

4.2.1. The Finding of Learner Autonomy Level

The findings of learner autonomy level among Thai EFL learners in the

international school and the Thai public school revealed that they are on average at the

high level. The three main components of learner autonomy, willingness to take charge

of their responsibility, self-confidence to learn autonomously, and capacity to learn

autonomously are on average at the high level for Thai EFL learners in both school

types. Although another main component of learner autonomy; motivation to learn, was

on average at the high level among Thai EFL learners in Thai public school, it was at

the moderate level among Thai EFL learners in the international school. This may be

due to the different environment for learning English. As the international school

requires the students to use English at all times, the teachers are all native speakers, and

the peers almost always speak in English; this enables the students to use English

language automatically.

From the statements of motivation in the questionnaire “I learn better when I

receive encouragement of a teacher.” and “When I make progress in learning English,

I reward myself such as: buy new things.” It is shown clearly that extrinsic motivation

(Deci and Ryan, 2002) which are external factors (e.g. reward or punishment) did not

much impact on the Thai EFL learners in the international school. According to Scharle

and Szabo (2002), the extrinsic motivation focuses on the learners’ learning process

rather than their outcome. Thai EFL learners in an international school do not mind the

outcome in terms of how accurate their English is, they just want to be able to

communicate with the others. It does not mean they are not motivated to learn, but their

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

114

motivation is almost all come from their intrinsic motivation rather than extrinsic. In

contrast, the statement “I learn better when I receive encouragement of a teacher.”

Was ranked at high level among Thai EFL learners in the Thai public school. From this

can be assumed that Thai students in Thai public school lean heavily on the teachers,

due to the important role of the teacher in Thai culture. The statements of motivation in

the questionnaire such as “I think of the good grade I will get when I learn English.”

and “I think of having a better job if I use speak English well” apparently display that

the Thai EFL learners in the international school have their goals of learning which can

install in them willingness to take responsibility to learn. Meanwhile, these two

statements about motivation of Thai EFL learners in Thai public school are also at the

very high level. Therefore, it can be concluded that the good grade and more

opportunity to get a better job are the really vital factors to propel the participants to

learn English effectively.

The result of the high level of willingness to take responsibility and have the

self-confidence to learn autonomously among the participants support what Wenden

has stated: that students should be confident and trust in their ability to learn or monitor

their own learning (Wenden, 1991). Wenden also states that a learner who wants to

have learner autonomy should have willingness and ability to take charge of their

learning. These two factors are the main components of learner autonomy. According

to the statement of willingness “I make decision of my way of learning.” the students

have to design their own process when learning English, such as choosing which

resources to learn with and to find the opportunity to acquire language. It is shown

furthermore in the mean score of the statement “I create opportunities to use English

outside the classroom.” and “I am self-regulated in learning English”. This

demonstrate the intention of the participants to spend their time practicing English

effectively. They make an attempt to be open-minded and use English even outside the

classroom. With progress resulting from regular practice, it can enable learners to

achieve their goal.

Additionally, the statement “I set long-term goals in learning English” was

reported in high level for both school types of the participants, and the statement “I

make study plans that match my goals in learning English.” was at the low level among

the participants who studied in international school. This is probably because the plan

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

115

they have accessed is what the school curriculum has dictated. They may think it is not

their responsibility to plan their study themselves as the school will already provide it

to them. Nevertheless, it can be stated that to have high willingness to take

responsibility can promote learner autonomy among the learners.

Due to the high level of willingness of the participants, it can promote them to

have high self-confidence to learn autonomously as well. Thus, the findings show the

high level of self-confidence among Thai EFL learners in both international school and

Thai public school. The statements “I review what I am good at in learning English.”

and “I revise my English study plans if they do not work well” are at moderate level

among international school students whereas they are at the high level among the Thai

public school students. Interestingly, Thai learners in the Thai public school paid more

intention to reviewing their English learning than the international students who are

more familiar with English. It may be their familiarity which leads them have less

intention to review what they have learn. English for international students is like a

bridge to learn. They have no necessity to learn what English language is but they learn

the content lesson via English. Thus, to review their lesson, they will spend more focus

on the content than the language they use. This may be the reason why their level of the

two statements about reviewing their English proficiency is lower than that of the

participants who were in Thai public school.

On the contrary, Thai EFL learners in the Thai public school learn English as a

language as they learned others lesson content in Thai. They therefore reviewed their

English lesson as a content that they have learned and understood in class and lead the

mean score of the two statements about reviewing at high level. In contrast, the

statement “I learn on my own without a helper.” is at high level among the international

students but at the moderate level among those in the Thai public school. It is clearly

shown that Thai curriculum allows the students to get help; teachers, peers, resources,

and so on. English for international school students is common, so the learners may

think that they do not need any helper. For example, when they are reading for pleasure,

international students may skip the word that they do not know the meaning of and get

the whole content instead while some Thai students will look up the word in the

dictionary or ask someone to help them about the meaning of every words. Clearly, it

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

116

is a different learning process when comparing those who are familiar with English and

others who learn English as a subject.

Another statement “I ask my teacher to explain most of the things I don’t

understand” shows the characteristics of autonomous learners. As Scharle and Szabo

(2000) stated, one thing an autonomous learner does when they do not understand the

lesson is that they will interrupt the teacher’s teaching and ask for more information. It

is a way of taking responsibility and making decision about their learning as they do

not wait for the unclear point to be passed and never to find out the missing information.

Even better, an autonomous learner will find out more details than what the teacher said

in class, but does not teach by themselves when they are outside the classroom. In

addition, the findings for the statement “I reflect upon how I should have studied better

after I finish studying English” illustrate that self-confidence in their ability to learn

can promote them to be an autonomous learner as well. Reflecting what they have

learned during the class can enable the learners to know what are their strengths and

weaknesses. Eventually, it leads to the attempt to figure out the solution and

improvement as well.

Additionally, the results showing the capacity to learn autonomously among the

participants in both the international school and the Thai public school were all in the

high level. The statement “I notice my strengths and weaknesses in learning English

and seek ways to improve them” was in the highest proportion for both school students

types. This is in line with the research of Wenden (1991) which stated an autonomous

learner was one who was willing and has the capacity to control or supervise learning,

and select the criteria for evaluation. It is also concurred with Omaggio (1987, as cited

in Wenden 1998) that an autonomous learner will have insights into his/her learning

styles and strategies. Thus, it can be concluded that to know the strength and the

weakness of themselves will enable the language learners to achieve their goal in

learning autonomously. Moreover, the statement “When I have a limited amount of time

available for study English, I decide in what order the things need to be done and do

according to the plan” was ranked at high level for both types of the participants. This

is supported by Hedge (2000) who said that an autonomous learner can manage and

divide the time in learning properly. In contrast, the statement “I make good use of my

free time in practicing English” was at the moderate level among the Thai EFL learners

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

117

in the international school. This is possibly from their routine use of English. As they

speak English every day and most of the time, they may think it is not necessary to

spend their free time to use more English or think that the activities they spend their

time with are not about practicing English. For example, if they are in an English

speaking family, English is used daily. So, there is no need for them to find the way to

practice more. On the other hand, for Thai students who do not use English as their

daily life, they may look to find the chance outside class and spend their free time with

practicing English, such as reading English cartoon or watching English movies which

can make them better in English proficiency.

Furthermore, the statement “I evaluate the improvement in my ability to use

English effectively” was also at high level. This confirmed the idea of Omaggio (1987,

as cited in Wenden 1998) that an autonomous learner will have a tolerant and outgoing

approach to the target language and the idea of Wenden (1991) that they will select the

criteria for evaluation by themselves. Thus, to be an effective autonomous learner, the

students should be able to evaluate themselves and know how to improve their

weakness. Also the statement “Besides the contents prescribed in the course, I read

extra materials in advance.” Was reported at the high level among the international

students while it was at the moderate level among the Thai public school students. This

is because of the curriculum provided to each group of the students. Commonly, the

international students feel like homework is boring and they are lazy about doing it. It

depends on the skill and the willingness to learn outside the class. Generally, however,

results in this study were in line with what Hedge (2000) found that an autonomous

learner learns both inside and outside the classroom.

4.2.2. The Findings of the English Learning Strategies Use

The results of English learning strategies use among Thai EFL learners in both

international school and Thai public school were different. Even though both their level

of strategies use was high, they used different learning strategies to learn English. The

Thai EFL learners in the international school used cognitive as the most frequent

strategy whereas those in the Thai public school used compensation strategy at the top

frequency.

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

118

The finding that Thai EFL learners in international school use mostly cognitive

strategy is in line with what White (1995) and Samaie et al (2015) have found. White

(1995) conducted research to investigate the different use of LLS among distant

learners and in-class learners. White found that the distant learners who claimed to have

higher self-management and learner autonomy level used metacognitive and cognitive

learning strategies more them in-class learners did. Moreover, Samaie et al (2015)

examined Iranian EFL students and found that cognitive strategies were commonly

used by the participants which was mostly correlated with their autonomous level such

as practicing, repeating, reviewing, translating, reasoning, and analyzing the language,

and strategy use was in relation to their learner autonomy level.

As Oxford (1990) stated, cognitive strategy is about practicing, receiving and

sending message, analyzing and reasoning, and creating structure for input and output,

and this means that the international school students in this study can monitor their

learning process and emphasize what is important in language learning. In other words,

they know how to select the critical information such as from the statement “I watch

English language TV shows spoken in English or go to movies spoken in English.” and

“I read for pleasure in English.”, how to comprehend it such as “I try not to translate

word-for-word.”, how to store it such as “I say or write new English words several

times.”, and how to retrieve it such as “I try to talk like native English speakers.”. With

all this method, the cognitive strategy is promoted to use among the participants to

ensure they achieve their potential in English skill.

In contrast, the findings of how Thai students in the Thai public school use

language learning strategies is in conflict with Sumamarnkul (2006), Tirabulkul (2005),

Phantharakphong (2009), Lamatya (2010), Thangpatipan (2014), Qing (2013), and

Saengaroon (2015). They all found that Thai EFL learners in the Thai public school use

metacognitive strategy the most while this present study found that the participants in

Thai public school use compensation strategy at the highest level.

Surprisingly, this result does not concord with any previous studies which have

examined the learning strategies use among Thai school students. However, there was

a study by Liu (2015) which investigated Taiwan students. Liu found that the most

frequent learning strategies that the participants used were compensation strategies.

They employed the compensation strategies in order to fulfill the knowledge they had

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

119

missed. This is in line what this study has found. In the Liu study, the participants were

Taiwanese who are similar to the participants of this recent study as they are the EFL

learners. The similar context of EFL learners who are Taiwanese or Thai students

enables language learners to similarly attempt to find the compensation knowledge

when using a foreign language like English. So, it can be said that Thai students in Thai

public school would like to compensate and replace their English word or phrases with

others one when they do not know how to say in the exact word. For example, from the

statements “When I cannot think of a word during a conversation in English, I use

gesture.” and “If I cannot think of an English word, I use a word or phrase that means

the same thing” we can see that they explain clearly how Thai students react when they

are compensating for their unknown knowledge. The finding of compensation use

among Thai public school students also bears out what Oxford (1990) said that guessing

intelligently is an effective way to compensate for the unknown knowledge, as in the

statements “To understand unfamiliar English words, I make guesses.” and “I try to

guess what the other person will say next in English.”. To make guesses what the

interlocutor has said using an unfamiliar word by looking at his/her gesture or the

context is an intelligent way of flowing communication. If one just said ‘I don’t know’

or ‘I don’t understand’, the conversation will hardly continue. To use gesture in helping

to translate the meaning can also help to flow the communication as well “When I

cannot think of a word during a conversation in English, I use gestures.”. It can

overcome the limitations in speaking (Oxford, 1990).

Moreover, Oxford said that it does not help to overcome limitation in only

speaking, but also writing as the statement “I read English without looking up new

words.” This can encourage learners to acquire language by using context clue and

overcome the difficulties in learning language as well.

Although the overall use of learning strategies among both Thai students in

international school and in Thai public school was at the high level, there were some

differences in terms of the way they acquire strategies in learning English. Even if

cognitive strategy was widely used among Thai EFL learners in the international

school, it was used less among those who were in the Thai public school. This may be

the effect of Thai curriculum and the teachers in class. As Thai students are familiar

with the traditional way of learning, the teachers always are the role model and the

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

120

leader in class. Cognitive strategy, which is mostly used among language learners to

manipulate their learning process and to gain language performance (Oxford, 1990), is

therefore used less among Thai public school students because they are not widely

encouraged to plan and monitor their learning process. Another reason is Thai public

school students are not trained to use learning strategies since the young age as Mitchell

(2014) also stated; cognitive strategy is the way to assist language learners to acquire

language skill by organizing and integrating information.

Furthermore, the English skill is a vital factor to further the study among the

learners. From the statement “I read for pleasure in English.” international school

students rate this one at the very high level which means they are confident to use their

English skill in their free time and outside the classroom. Meanwhile, Thai public

school students rate this statement at the high level which means they attempt to

improve their English skill, but not so much as the international school students did.

The other statements from the questionnaire such as “I say or write new English words

several times”, “I try to talk like native English speakers”, “I watch English language

TV shows spoken in English or go to movies spoken in English”, and “I try not to

translate word-for-word” all show the high level of cognitive strategy acquired by the

participants in both school types. This mean the participants in this study used cognitive

strategy frequently to improve their English skill. Based on the interview result,

cognitive strategy use also concurs with Mitchell (2014), proposing that it can assist

language learners to acquire language skill by organizing and integrating information.

The participants keep practicing a lot. They repeat the knowledge they have studied in

the realistic use, formally practicing with sounds and writing. Moreover, they try to

practice naturalistically to improve their language skill as much as possible. Apart from

practicing, the participants take notes and summarize to create the structure for input

and output. Analyzing and reasoning processes are also employed by the students in

translating which is a process to transform the information into mental representation

to acquire language (O’Malley and Chamot, 1990).

The previous research in Thailand indicated that metacognitive strategy is

mostly acquired by Thai students in a Thai curriculum school. Even though the

participants in this study used compensation strategy more than metacognitive strategy,

they used metacognitive strategy in the higher level similar to Thai learners in

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

121

international school. Conversely, the international school students used social strategy

to help them achieve language skill more than Thai public school students did. Due to

the different environment of the school types, international school provides more native

speakers to the students to encourage them to use English more than in a Thai public

school. For example, the international school students have to use English in their class,

discuss the lesson with their foreign teachers, and always talk to their friends in English.

In contrast, Thai public school students have limited chance to speak English in an

English class which sometimes is the only in the class where the teacher is a foreigner.

A Thai English-teacher usually teaches English by translating into Thai. Thus, the

opportunity to use English among the two groups of the participants are not similar and

leads to the different use of social strategy among them. As shown in the moderate level

of the statement “I practice English with other students.” and “I ask for help from

English speakers.” answered by Thai public school students, it is clearly shown that

there is not many English native speakers around them to allow them to practice

English. Interestingly that statement “I try to learn about the culture of English

speakers” is at high level for both groups of the participants. This means to get involved

and to understand the culture of native speakers enables language learners to more

easily acquire the language they have to learn. For example, if we comprehend an

English man’s behavior, we can understand more about the expressions they use in

conversation. So, it is advantageous for the language learners to understand the culture

of the target country when they learn its language.

Additionally, the findings revealed that the participants in this study used the

memory strategy and affective strategy least; both groups were at the moderate level.

The results bear out with the research of Tirabulkul (2005) and Lamatya (2010) which

provided that among the six learning strategies, the participants acquired memory

strategy and affective strategy at the lowest level. Furthermore, the study of Chuan

(2010) revealed that the affective strategy was forgotten when the participants face the

problem of anxiety in learning English. This is probably because the learners can panic

when they talk to the native speakers or unfamiliar speakers. Some participants may

choose to avoid using English in an unfamiliar situation rather than trying to use it. Due

to the uncomfortability of using English, some learners keep away from any situation

in which they feel nervous. Observed from the interview questions, the results of

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

122

memory strategy use by the participants of this are in line with what Oxford (1990)

found. The participants used the creating of mental linkages by grouping the new

vocabulary which has similar form together. Then they associate and elaborate the new

vocabulary in their practicing. They also try to place the new words into a context.

Moreover, they also apply sound to help them remember the words. They also do

structures reviewing by writing down points in their notebooks. Furthermore, they try

to employ the mechanical technique by saying it out and using it in reality.

According to the differences of language learning strategies use among Thai

EFL learners in the international school and the Thai public school who participated in

this study, it reflects the process of their learning, both inside and outside the school.

The result of LLSs use by the international school students can reflect the way they

have been taught. Due to the highest use of cognitive strategy, it reflects on how they

create their way of learning such as, practicing, analyzing and reasoning deductively,

transferring the idea, summarizing the lesson, and highlighting the necessity. As the

international curriculum requires the students to think on their own path rather than

leading them in a limited way of learning, this encouraged the students to consider about

their learning process. The other strategies use among the international school students

was also high, especially use of compensation, social, and metacognitive strategies.

They used direct strategies rather than the indirect ones as it directly affected their

language learning process.

On the one hand, Thai public school students acquired mostly compensation

strategy as they have not so much chance for English language interaction as the

international school students have. So their proficiency in use of English naturally may

be less than those who study using English all the time. However, it is interesting to

see some more specific strategies that our participants employed in order to learn

English. Our research could be used to help teachers think of new ways to teach their

students learning strategies, or possibly show their students some new techniques to

help them become more proficient in English.

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

123

CHAPTER FIVE

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The last chapter is divided into three main parts. The first part presents a

summary of the findings. The second part deals with the implications of the study.

Finally, the last part demonstrates the limitations and recommendations for further

research.

5.1 SUMMARY OF THE FINDINGS

The findings related to the two research objectives were as follows.

5.1.1 The findings of learner autonomy levels of the participants showed in the

high level. Both Thai EFL learners in the international school and the Thai public school

were autonomous learners. The Mean and Standard Deviation of learner autonomy

level for Thai EFL learners in the international school were 3.50 and 0.55 respectively

whereas The Mean and Standard Deviation of learner autonomy level for Thai EFL

learners in the Thai public school were 3.76 and 0.52 respectively. It is obviously seen

that Thai EFL learners in both Thai public school and international schools have high

levels of learner autonomy.

5.1.2 The findings for language learning strategies use comparing Thai

international school students and Thai public school students revealed difference. In

terms of the level of strategic learners, Thai EFL learners in the Thai public school are

more strategic than those who are studying in the international school with the Mean

and Standard Deviation of 3.58 and 0.46, and 3.42 and 0.49 respectively. The use of

English language learning strategies among the two school types of the participants

were different. Thai EFL learners in international schools use cognitive strategy in the

highest proportion while those in Thai public schools use much compensation strategy.

In addition, three strategies; compensation strategy, social strategy, metacognitive

strategy, were used in the high level whereas memory strategy and affective strategy

were used in moderate level among Thai EFL learners in the international school. For

Thai EFL learners in the Thai public school, they used metacognitive strategy and

cognitive strategy at a high level whereas they used memory strategy and affective

strategy at the moderate level.

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

124

5.1.3 The findings on how language learning strategies are used among the

autonomous learners showed that every strategy was vital to foster their English

proficiency especially compensation strategy for Thai public school students and

cognitive strategy for international school students. All of the interviewees stated that

practicing is the really helpful way to learn. Whether to review former knowledge or to

attempt to use the new input, practicing enables learners to improve their potentiality.

Moreover, learning outside the classroom is as essential as inside the school. The

attempt to apply the knowledge in reality enables learners to be more skillful. Talking

with friends, teachers, and native speakers can assist learners to apply social and

affective strategies. The more difficulties they have found, the more solving skill they

acquire. In addition, they will know the strength and weakness of themselves which can

lead to solutions. This enables learners to self-monitor their mistakes and then self-

evaluate to be more effective in learning English. Therefore, it can be said that the more

strategies the students acquire, the more learner autonomy they have.

5.2. CONCLUSION

This recent study aimed to investigate learner autonomy level and language

learning strategy use among 200 Thai EFL learners in the international school and Thai

public school. The participants were also studying in a tutorial school in Bangkok. This

study has shown that Thai EFL learners are autonomous as the Mean and the Standard

Deviation from the findings are high. Although it is known that the Thai educational

curriculum may not promote learner autonomy as much as the international curriculum,

the findings of this study was different. Thai EFL learners in the Thai public school

were ready to be autonomous learners. However, it might be that the participants in this

study were in the tutorial school, so their learner autonomy may be higher because of

the learners themselves, not from the curriculum.

In addition, due to the fact that LLSs can be used among the students, the

investigation and observation of LLSs can be useful in the language teaching field. To

observe LLSs of the students in different school types is possibly adapted to the way

the teachers in each school teach. This means it can affect the skills that they can

observe in their students while learning. Actually, it is very beneficial to know LLSs of

the students as the teachers can develop them in the appropriate way to enable them to

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

125

achieve in language learning. Eventually, in EFL learning, LLSs are necessary for the

learners as they can support learners’ achievement in learning new language, especially

when it is not the language used commonly in their society. To know learners’ LLSs is

able to help them foster their language learning success.

5.3 PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATIONS

From the results showing learner autonomy levels among Thai EFL learners in

both international school and Thai public school, this reflects the teaching and school

curriculum may promote the students to rely more on themselves. Thai teachers, in the

past, are commonly known as the authorities in class. However, the findings of this

study showed a high level of learner autonomy among the Thai students in Thai public

schools. This suggests a change of the teaching method of Thai teachers. Many

approaches provided by technological advance have helped the teachers to improve the

materials and the resources for the students. Additionally, the results showing

motivation and self-confidence ranked at lower level among the Thai public school

students, even it was still rated at the high level. The teachers who want to promote

autonomous learning in the Thai high school context should change their role from an

authority who controls all language learning processes to a facilitator or counselor who

provides help, support and guidance during their learning processes. Although Thai

students are familiar with the traditional way of learning, which relies on the teachers

so much, self-confidence should be promoted to the learners to assist them to believe

in their ability, their knowledge, and their skill to learn independently. Eventually, they

will pick up good attitudes towards being an autonomous learner from the teachers.

With regard to the result of language learning strategies investigation among the

autonomous learners, it revealed that a high proportion of LLS are used among Thai

students, both in international school and Thai public school. In terms of teaching

method, it is great for EFL teachers to consider the language learning strategies and

teach their students the strategies appropriate to their proficiency. It is also great to

encourage the students attempting to use all of the strategies as it can promote self-

confidence and positive motivation to the students, such as affective strategies can help

the learners coping with difficulties and push them onwards.

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

126

Moreover, in terms of maintaining the use of language learning strategies, the

language teachers should also accustom their students to these strategies in order to

enable them to use the strategies automatically when learning language. It is obviously

seen that language learning strategies can pave the way for the students to be lifelong

learners because they know how to learn. This concept also matches how learner

autonomy works. So, with the suitable methods, the students can pave their own way

of learning and eventually become autonomous learners.

Furthermore, in view of the teaching material design and tasks, the different

result of learning strategies use among the students in both types of school presented in

this study suggests the language teachers should design their materials and tasks to

fulfill what the students lack. The result of previous studies have shown that

metacognitive strategies are used mostly among Thai learners; however, in this study,

Thai learners in the Thai public school employed mostly compensation strategies. This

can lead to the implementation of other strategies which can support each other. Finally,

the students will achieve their potential in language learning by acquiring suitable

strategies of their own.

5.4 LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY

The following limitations are based on the findings and conclusions of this

current study.

5.4.1 This study investigated only Thai EFL students, learning in the

international school and the Thai public school, attending a tutorial school in Bangkok.

It was a convenient way to get close to the participants. The results may not be able to

be generalized to the whole population of Thai EFL students learning in the

international schools and Thai public schools.

5.4.2 This study investigated the learner autonomy level of Thai EFL learners

in the international school and the Thai public school, who were in a tutorial school in

Bangkok. The limitation of the participants in this study is that they were studying in a

tutorial school which may affect the results in terms of learner autonomy level. Due to

the considerable competition in Thai society, the students have to compete, both with

themselves and the others, in the educational world. So, those who come to further their

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

127

study in a tutorial school may be more autonomous automatically and this could lead

to the high score of learner autonomy level shown in the findings.

5.4.3. Another limitation of this study is that it investigated and compared the

use of English language learning strategies by Thai EFL learners in the international

school and the Thai public school, both male and female. It should be possible to

investigate any differences between the two genders of the participants as there is some

research stating that males and females use different learning strategies.

5.5 RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE STUDY

5.5.1 This study was conducted with the participants in a tutorial school in

Bangkok, which could affect the result of learner autonomy levels as learners are high

in competitiveness. Thus, a further study should enlarge the participant sampling to

involve normal school.

5.5.2 The findings obviously show that Thai EFL learners in Thai public school

have high levels of learner autonomy. It is probably because the schools are located in

Bangkok, where there is a highly competitive environment in education. Thus, further

study should be conducted with Thai EFL learners in more than two Thai public

schools. They can be probably be located in sub-urban areas or rural areas in order to

investigate the learner autonomy level of the students, and where the researcher can

also find ways to promote this issue to them as it is claimed to be an effective tool for

learning achievement.

5.5.3 Other factors such as personality, the learners’ attitude and learners’

English proficiency can probably influence the selection of appropriate learning

strategies. Thus, research on a variety of variables affecting the selection of language

learning strategies use and what factors contribute to students’ English learning

achievement would also be interesting to conduct.

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

128

REFERENCES

Alhaysony, M. (2017).Language Learning Strategies Use by Saudi EFL Students: The

Effect of Duration of English Language Study and Gender. Theory and

Practice in Language Studies, 7, 18-28.

Alzahrani, S. & Watson, J. (2016). The Impact of Online Training on Saudi Medical

Students'Attitudes, Awareness, Use of Language Learning Strategies in

Relation to their Developing Autonomy. SiSAL Journal, 7(No.1), 4-15.

Beatty, K. (2003). Computer-assisted Language Learning. In D. Nunan, Practical

English Language Teaching (pp. 247-266). McGraw-Hill.

Bekleyen, N., & Selimoglu, F. (2016). Learner Behaviors and Perceptions of

Autonomous Language Learning. The Electronic Journal for English as

a Second Language, TESL-EJ 20.3.

Benson, P. (2003). Learner Autonomy in the Classroom. In D. Nunan, Practical

English Language Teaching (pp. 289-308). McGraw-Hill.

Benson, P. (2011). Language Learning and Teaching Beyond the Classroom: An

Introduction to the Field. In P. B. Reinders, Beyond the Language

Classroom (pp. 1-16). Palgrave Macmillan.

Benson, P. (2011). Teaching and researching autonomy. Harlow, England New York:

Longman/Pearson.

Benson, P. (2013). Learner Autonomy. Tesol Quarterly, 47(4), 839-843.

Benson, P. and Voller, P. (1997). Introduction: Autonomy and Independence in

Language Learning. In P.Benson & P.Voller (Eds.), Autonomy &

Independence in Language Learning. London: Longman, 1-12.

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

129

Borg, S. (2012). Learner Autonomy: English Language Teachers’ Beliefs and

Practices. British Council.

Boud, D. (1988). Developing student autonomy in learning. London New York: Kogan

Page Nichols Pub. Co.

Chang, C. S. (2010). An Experimental Study of Learner Autonomy in Language

Learning.

Chang, C. S. (2011). An Experimental Study of Language Learning Strategies and

Learning Outcomes in Autonomy Learning Environment, Vol. 6, pp.

105-134.

Chen, H. & Pan, H. (2015). Learner Autonomy and the Use of Language Learning

Strategies in a Taiwanese Junior High School. Journal of Studies in

Education, 5(No.1), 52-64.

Chung, I-F. (2013). Are Learners Becoming More Autonomous? The role of Self-

Access Center in EFL College Students’ English Learning in Taiwan.

Asia-Pacific Edu Res (pp. 701-708).

Cohen, A. & Macaro, E. (2007). Language Learner Strategies : thirty years of research

and practice. Oxford New York: Oxford University Press.

Cotterall, S. (1999). Key Variables in Language Learning: What Do Learners Believe

about Them? System, 27, 493-513.

Dam, L. (2011). Developing learner autonomy with school kids: Principles, practices,

results. In D. Gardner, Fostering Autonomy in Language Learning (pp.

40-51). Faculty of Education at Zirve University, Gaziantep, Turkey.

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

130

Deci, E. L. & Ryan, R. M. (2000). Self-Determination Theory and the Facilitation of

Intrinsic Motivation, Social Development, and Well-Being. American

Psychologist, 55, 68-78.

Dickinson, L. (1987). Self-instruction in Language Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Fang, Z. (2014). A Discussion about College Teachers' Roles in English Viewing,

Listening and Speaking Autonomous Learning. International Forum of

Teaching and Studies, Vol. 10 No.1.

Finnegan, E., Vadakekalam, T. & Finnegan, M. (1975). New Webster's Dictionary of

the EnglishLlanguage. Chicago: Consolidated Book Publishers.

Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of Mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York:

Basic Books.

Graves, K. (2003). Coursebooks. In D. Nunan, Practical English Language Teaching

(pp. 225-246). McGraw-Hill.

Grenfell, M. & Harris, V. (1999). Modern Languages and Learning Strategies : in

theory and practice. London New York: Routledge.

Hedge, T. (2000). Teaching and Learning in the Language Classroom. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Holec, H. (1987). Autonomy and Foreign Language Learning. Council of Europe.

Lai, C., Yeung, Y. & Hu, J. (2015). University student and teacher

perceptions of teacher roles in promoting autonomous language learning

with technology outside the classroom. Computer Assisted Language

Learning, 29(No.4), 703-723.

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

131

Lamatya, Y. (2010). A Study of English Language Learning Strategies of M.5 Students

with Different English Achievement. Bangkok, Thailand: Language

Institution, Thammasat University.

Lee,K. (2010). A comparison of language learning strategies adopted by secondary

and university students in Hong Kong. International Journal of Business

and Social Science, 2(11),29-34.

Lightbown, Patsy M., & Spada, N. (2013). How Languages are Learned (4th ed).

Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013.

Little,D.(1991). Learner Autonomy1:Definitions,issues,and

problems. Dublin: Authentik.

Little, D. (1994). Autonomy in language learning : Some theoretical and practical

considerations. In A. Swarbrick, Teaching modern languages (pp. 81-

87). Routledge.

Littlewood, W. (1996). "Autonomy": An Anatomy and a Framework. System, 24, 427-

435.

Liu, H.-j. (2015). Learner Autonomy: The Role of Motivation in Foreign Language

Learning. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 6, 1165-1174.

Malley, J. & Chamot, A. (1990). Learning Strategies in Second Language Acquisition.

Cambridge England New York: Cambridge University Press.

McIntosh, C. (2013). Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary. Cambridge:

Cambridge Univ. Press.

Mitchell, D. (2014). What Really Works in Special and Inclusive Education : using

evidence-based teaching strategies. London New York: Routledge.

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

132

Mockiene & Usinskiene, O. (2016). Significance of Autonomous Learning and

Prerequisites for its Success. Language in Different Contexts, 251-259.

Murase, F. (2015) In Everhard, C. & Murphy, L. Assessment and autonomy in

language learning (pp. 35-63). Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire

New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

Nikoopour, J. & Hajian, M. (2015). An Exploration on the Relationship among

Learners' Autonomy, Language Learning Strategies and Big-Five

Personality Traits. IOSR Journal of Humanities And Social Science

(IOSR-JHSS), 20(2), 66-71.

No Author Found. (1998). Longman dictionary of English language and culture.

Harlow: Longman

Nosratinia, M. Saveiy, M. & Zaker, A. (2014). EFL learners’ self- efficacy, net

cognitive awareness, and use of language learning strategies; How are

they associated in theory and practice in language studies, Vol. 4 (4).

1080-1092.

O'Leary, C. (2014). Developing Autonomous Language Learners in HE: Social

Constructivist Perspective. In G. Murray, Social Dimension of

Autonomy in Language Learning (pp. 15-37). Japan: Palgrave

Macmillan.

Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language Learning Strategies: What Every Teacher should

Know. Newbury House/Harper Collins, NY.pp. 1-22.

Oxford, R. L. (2003). In Palfreyman, D. & Smith, R. Learner Autonomy Across

Cultures:language education perspectives (pp. 75-91). New York:

Palgrave Macmillan.

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

133

Oxford, R. L. (2011). Teaching and Researching Language Learning Strategies.

Harlow, England N.Y: Pearson/Longman.

Oxford, R. L. (2017). Teaching and Researching Language Learning Strategies : self-

regulation in context. New York, N.Y: Routledge.

Paiva, V.L.. (2011). Identity, motivation and autonomy in second language acquisition

from the perspective of complex adaptive systems. Identity, Motivation

and Autonomy in Language Learning. 57-72.

Phantharakphong, P. (2009). Language Learning Strategies used by Good and Poor

High School Students at Chiang Yuen Pitthayakhom School in

Mahasarakham. Bangkok, Thailand: Language Institution, Thammasat

University.

Qing, Y. Y. (2013). A Survey Study of Language Learning Strategies used by EFL

Learners at Santirat Wittayalai School in Bangkok. Bangkok, Thailand:

Language Institution, Thammasat University.

Ramamuruthy, V., & Rao, S. (2015). Smartphones Promote Autonomous Learning in

ESL Classrooms. Malaysian Online Journal of Educational

Technology, Volume 3, Issue 4.

Robinson, P. (2001). Cognition and Second Language Instruction. Cambridge New

York, N.Y: Cambridge University Press.

Rubin, J. (1975). What the “good language learner” can teach us. TESOL Quarterly,

9(1), 41-51.

Rubin, J. (1987). “Learner Strategies: Theoretical Assumptions, Research History and

Typology”. In A.Wenden and J. Rubin (Eds.), Learner Strategies in

Language Learning, pp. 15-30. Hertfordshire: Prentice Hall.

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

134

Rubin, J. & Thompson, I. (1994). How to Be a More Successful Language Learner :

Toward learner autonomy. Boston, Mass: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.

Rundell, M. (2007). Macmillan English Dictionary for Advanced Learners. Oxford:

Macmillan.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2002). An overview of Self-determination Theory: An

organismic dialectical perspective. In E. L. Deci & R. M. Ryan (Eds.),

Handbook of self-determination research. 3-33. Rochester, NY: The

University of Rochester Press.

Saengaroon, J. (2015). Gender and English Language Learning Strategies of

Undergraduates at Rajamangala University of Technology Lanna Tak.

Bangkok, Thailand: Language Institute, Thammasat University.

Samaie, M. et al (2015). On the Relationship between Learner Autonomy and Language

Learning Strategies among Iranian EFL Students. International Journal

of Educational Investigations, 2(6), 96-109.

Scharle, A. & Szabó, A. (2000). Learner autonomy : a guide to developing learner

responsibility. Cambridge New York: Cambridge University Press.

Stern,H.(1975).What Can We Learn from the Good Language Learner? Canadian

Modern Language Review,31(4),304-318.

Sumamarnkul, W. (2006). A Survey Study on L2 Learning Strategy of Science and

Technology Students at Thammasat University. Bangkok, Thailand:

Language Institute, Thammasat University.

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

135

Swatevacharkul, R. (2008). An Investigation on Readiness for Learner Autonomy,

Approaches to Learning of Tertiary Students and the Roles of English

Language Teachers in Enhancing Learner Autonomy in Higher

Education. Bangkok: Dhurakijpundit University.

Tarone, E. (1980). Communication strategies, foreign talk, and repair in interlanguage.

Language Learning, 30, 417-428.

Tayjasanant, C., & Suraratdecha, S. (2016). Thai EFL Teachers and Learners' Beliefs

and Readiness for Autonomous Learning. 3L: The Southeast Asian

Journal of English Language Studies, Vol 22(3), 153-169.

Thangpatipan, K. (2014). A Survey Study of Language Learning Strategies Use by Thai

High School Students in an English Program. Bangkok, Thailand:

Language Institute, Thammasat University.

Thavenius, C. 1999. Teacher autonomy for learner autonomy. In Learner Autonomy in

Language Learning: Defining the Field and Effecting Change, S.

Cotterall and D. Crabbe (eds), 159–163. Frankfurt: Lang

Tirabulkul, N. (2005). A Study of Language Learning Strategies of Students in the MA

Program for the TEFL Program, Thammasat University. Bangkok,

Thailand: Language Institute. Thammasat University.

Victori, M. & Lockhart, W. (1995). Enhancing Metacognitive in Self-directed

Language Learning. System, 23(No.2), 223-234.

Weinstein, C. & Hume, L. (1998). Study strategies for lifelong learning. Washington:

American Psychological Association.

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

136

Wenden, A. (1987). “Conceptual Background and Utility”. In A. Wenden and J. Rubin

(Eds.), Learner Strategies in Language Learning, pp. 3-13.

Hertfordshire: Prentice Hall.

Wenden, A. (1991). Learner Strategies for Learner Autonomy : planning and

implementing learner training for language learners. New York:

Prentice Hall.

Wenden, A. (1998). Metacognitive Knowledge and Language Learning. Applied

Linguistics, 19(4), 515-537.

Wenden, A. & Rubin, J. (1987). Learner Strategies in Language Learning. Englewood

Cliffs, N.Y: Prentice/Hall International.

White, C. (1995). Autonomy and Strategy Use in Distance Foreign Language Learning:

Research Findings. System, 23(No.2), 207-221.

White, C. (2003). Language learning in distance education. Cambridge England:

Cambridge University Press.

Zimmerman, B., Bonner, S. & Kovach, R. (1996). Developing self-regulated learners

: beyond achievement to self-efficacy. Washington, DC: American

Psychological Association.

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

137

APPENDICES

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

138

APPENDIX A

The Index of Item Objective Congruence (IOC)

of Learner Autonomy Questionnaire

Item Objective Opinion scores of expert

Total Score

IOC

Value

Content

Validity

Expert

1

Expert

2

Expert

3

1 Students’

willingness

0 1 1 2 0.67 Yes

2 Students’

willingness

1 1 1 3 1 Yes

3 Students’

willingness

1 1 1 3 1 Yes

4 Students’

willingness

1 1 1 3 1 Yes

5 Students’

willingness

1 1 1 3 1 Yes

6 Students’

confidence

1 1 0 2 0.67 Yes

7 Students’

confidence

1 -1 -1 -1 -0.33 No*

8 Students’

confidence

1 0 0 1 0.33 No*

9 Students’

confidence

1 1 1 3 1 Yes

10 Students’

confidence

1 1 1 3 1 Yes

11 Students’

motivation

-1 1 1 1 0.33 No*

12 Students’

motivation

1 1 1 3 1 Yes

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

139

Item Objective Opinion scores of expert

Total Score

IOC

Value

Content

Validity Expert

1

Expert

2

Expert

3

13 Students’

motivation

1 -1 -1 -1 -0.33 No*

14 Students’

motivation

1 1 1 3 1 Yes

15 Students’

motivation

0 1 1 2 0.67 Yes

16 Students’

motivation

1 1 1 3 1 Yes

17 Students’

capacity

1 1 1 3 1 Yes

18 Students’

capacity

1 1 1 3 1 Yes

19 Students’

capacity

1 1 1 3 1 Yes

20 Students’

capacity

1 1 1 3 1 Yes

21 Students’

capacity

0 -1 0 -1 -0.33 No*

22 Students’

capacity

0 0 1 1 0.33 No*

23 Students’

capacity

0 0 1 1 0.33 No*

● Item 1 is added the word ‘believe that’.

● Item 2, 3, and 4 are added the word ‘am willing to’ to emphasis the

willingness of responsibility among learners.

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

140

● Item 7 and 8 are remained as some words are changed to provide more

understanding and relating to the objectives of the study, suggested by the

experts. The word ‘can’ is added into the sentence due to the clearer meaning

of self-confidence.

● Item 11 and 23 are remained as the sentences were changed into the new

sentence which can provide the meaning clearer. Item 11 is changed from ‘I

want teacher’s help’ into ‘I can learn better when I receive encouragement of

the teacher’. Item 23 is changed from ‘I improve my English ability’ into ‘I

evaluate the improvement in my ability to use English effectively’.

● Item 13, 21, and 22 were deleted as the suggestion of the experts.

The content validity is equal to 0.78.

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

141

APPENDIX B

Questionnaires to Investigate the Learner Autonomy

(English version)

Instruction: In order to investigate the level of learner autonomy in learning

English of the Thai EFL learners who are studying in the international school in

Bangkok, the questionnaire was created to gather the information about how much you

are autonomous learners.

The statement is divided into two parts; personal information and the 20

statements. The information you provide will be kept strictly confidential and will be

used for research purposes only.

Please rate the item along with the fact applied to you.

5 means I always do.

4 means I often do

3 means I sometimes do.

2 means I seldom do.

1 means I never do.

_____________________________________________________________________

Part I: Personal Information

School Name

_______________________________________________________________

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

142

Part II: Learner Autonomy Investigation

No. Questionnaire

Statements

Frequency

Always

(5)

Usually

(4)

Sometimes

(3)

Seldom

(2)

Never

(1)

1. I believe that I can make

a decision of my way of

learning. (e.g. learning

English with self-access

center)

2. I am willing to set long-

term goals in learning

English.

3. I am willing to make

study plans that match

my goals in learning

English. (e.g. memorise

5 new vocabularies each

day for exam)

4. I am willing to create

opportunities to use

English outside the

classroom.

5.

I can be self-regulated in

learning English. (e.g.

reading English books or

news during free time)

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

143

No. Questionnaire

Statements

Frequency

Always

(5)

Usually

(4)

Sometimes

(3)

Seldom

(2)

Never

(1)

6. I can review what I am

good at in learning

English. (e.g. ‘I am good

at memorizing

vocabulary.’)

7. I can revise my English

study plans if they do not

work well.

8. I can learn on my own

without a helper.

9. I always ask my teacher

to explain most of the

things I don’t

understand.

10. I can reflect upon how I

should have studied

better after I finish

studying English.

11. I learn better when I

receive encouragement

of a teacher.

12. I feel like giving up

learning English.

13.

When I make progress in

learning English, I

reward myself such as:

buy new things.

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

144

No. Questionnaire

Statements

Frequency

Always

(5)

Usually

(4)

Sometimes

(3)

Seldom

(2)

Never

(1)

14. I think of the good grade

I will get when I learn

English.

15. I think of having a better

job if I use speak English

well.

16. I notice my strengths and

weaknesses in learning

English and seek ways to

improve them.

17. I make good use of my

free time in practicing

English.

18. When I have a limited

amount of time available

for study English, I

decide in what order the

things need to be done

and do according to the

plan.

19. Besides the contents

prescribed in the course,

I read extra materials in

advance.

20. I evaluate the

improvement in my

ability to use English

effectively.

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

145

APPENDIX C

Questionnaires to Investigate the Learner Autonomy (Thai version)

สวนท 1: ขอมลสวนบคคล ชอโรงเรยน ___________________________________________________________________ ค ำสง

แบบสอบถามประกอบดวยขอความเกยวกบการเรยนรดวยตนเอง จ านวน 20 ขอ โปรดท าเครองหมาย ( ) ลงในชองทตรงกบสภาพความเปนจรงของทานในปจจบนโดยมระดบดงน

5 หมายถง ใชมากทสด 4 หมายถง ใชมาก 3 หมายถง ใชปานกลาง 2 หมายถง ใชนอย 1 หมายถง ใชนอยทสด

สวนท 2: ควำมสำมำรถในกำรเรยนรดวยตนเอง

ขอ ขอควำม ระดบกำรใช

มำกทสด (5)

มำก (4)

ปำนกลำง (3)

นอย (2)

นอยทสด (1)

1. ขาพเจาเชอวาสามารถเลอกวธการเรยนภาษาองกฤษดวยตนเองได (เชน เลอกทจะเรยนในศนยการ

เรยนรดวยตนเอง)

2. ขาพเจามความตงใจในการตงเปาหมายการเรยนภาษาองกฤษในระยะยาว

3. ขาพเจาตงใจวางแผนการเรยนภาษาองกฤษใหสอดคลองกบเปาหมายการเรยนของขาพเจา (เชน ทองศพทใหไดวนละ 5 ค าเพอจะน าไปใชสอบ)

4. ขาพเจาสามารถหาโอกาสทจะไดใชภาษาองกฤษนอกหองเรยนได

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

146

ขอ ขอควำม ระดบกำรใช

มำกทสด (5)

มำก (4)

ปำนกลำง (3)

นอย (2)

นอยทสด (1)

5. ขาพเจาสามารถจดการการเรยนภาษาองกฤษ เชน อานหนงสอหรอขาวภาษาองกฤษในเวลาวาง

6. ขาพเจาพจารณาวาขาพเจามความสามารถในการเรยนภาษาองกฤษดานไหน (เชน ขาพเจามความสามารถในการจ าค าศพทตางๆ ไดด)

7. ขาพเจาแกไขแผนการเรยนทขาพเจาตงไวกอนหนาเมอแผนนนไมไดผล

8. ขาพเจาเรยนรภาษาองกฤษดวยตนเองโดยไมตองพงพาตวชวยอน

9. ขาพเจาถามครผสอนในสงทไมเขาใจ

10. ขาพเจาไตรตรองวาจะท าเชนไรใหตนเองเรยนไดดขนหลงจากการเรยนภาษาองกฤษในแตละครง

11. ขาพเจาจะสามารถเรยนไดดหากไดรบการสนบสนนจากครผสอน

12. ขาพเจารสกทอแทกบการเรยนภาษาองกฤษ

13. ขาพเจาใหรางวลกบตนเองเมอขาพเจามความกาวหนาในการเรยนภาษาองกฤษ (เชน ซอ

สงของใหตนเอง)

14. ขาพเจาคดวาอยากจะไดเกรดทดในการเรยนภาษาองกฤษ

15. ขาพเจาคดวาจะไดงานทดถาใชภาษาองกฤษไดด

16. ขาพเจารจดแขงและจดออนในการเรยนภาษาองกฤษของขาพเจา และขาพเจาพยายามหา

หนทางเพอแกไขจดออนนนๆ

17. ขาพเจาฝกฝนภาษาองกฤษในเวลาวาง

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

147

ขอ ขอควำม ระดบกำรใช

มำกทสด (5)

มำก (4)

ปำนกลำง (3)

นอย (2)

นอยทสด (1)

18. ขาพเจาวางแผนในสงทตองท ากอนและหลงเมอมเวลาจ ากดในการเรยนภาษาองกฤษ พรอมกบท า

ตามแผนการนน

19. ขาพเจาอานบทเรยนภาษาองกฤษเพมเตมนอกเหนอจากทเรยนในหอง

20. ขาพเจาประเมนความคบหนาของการใชภาษาองกฤษใหมประสทธภาพของตนเอง

ขอบคณส าหรบความรวมมอ

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

148

APPENDIX D

Strategy Inventory for Language Learning 7.0 Version

(Original Version)

Questionnaire

Language Learning Strategies Used by the International and Thai Public School

Students in a Tutorial School in Bangkok, Thailand

_____________________________________________________________________

_________

Part I: Personal Information

School

Name________________________________________________________________

___

Directions

This form of the Strategy Inventory for Language Learner (SILL) version

7.0 is designed to gather information about how you, as a student of English as a

foreign language, do during learning English.

The information you provide will be kept strictly confidential and will be used

for research purposes only.

There are 50 statements of how you learn language. Please read each

statement carefully, answering in terms of how often you use the strategy by putting a

tick ( ) in the blanket. There are no right or wrong answer to these statements.

5 means I always use this strategy.

4 means I often use this strategy.

3 means I sometimes use this strategy.

2 means I seldom use this strategy.

1 means I never use this strategy.

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

149

Part II: Language Learning Strategies Statements

No. Language Learning Strategies Frequency of Strategy Use

Always

(5)

Often

(4)

Sometimes

(3)

Seldom

(2)

Never

(1)

1. I think of relationships between what

I already know and new things I learn

in English.

2. I use new English words in a

sentence so I can remember them.

3. I connect the sound of a new English

word and an image or picture of the

word to help me remember the word.

4. I remember a new English word by

making a mental picture of a situation

in which the word might be used.

5. I use rhymes to remember new

English words.

6. I use flashcards to remember new

English words.

7. I physically act out new English

words.

8. I review English lessons often.

9. I remember new English words or

phrases by remembering their

location on the page, on the board, or

on a street sign.

10. I say or write new English words

several times.

11. I try to talk like native English

speakers.

12. I practice the sounds of English.

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

150

No. Language Learning Strategies Frequency of Strategy Use

Always

(5)

Often

(4)

Sometimes

(3)

Seldom

(2)

Never

(1)

13. I use the English words I know in

different ways.

14. I start conversations in English.

15. I watch English language TV shows

spoken in English or go to movies

spoken in English.

16. I read for pleasure in English.

17. I write notes, messages, letters, or

reports in English.

18. I first skim an English passage (read

over the passage quickly) then go

back and read carefully.

19. I look for words in my own language

that are similar to new words in

English.

20. I try to find patterns in English.

21. I find the meaning of an English

word by dividing it into parts that I

understand.

22. I try not to translate word-for-word.

23. I make summaries of information that

I hear or read in English.

24. To understand unfamiliar English

words, I make guesses.

25. When I cannot think of a word during

a conversation in English, I use

gestures.

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

151

No. Language Learning Strategies Frequency of Strategy Use

Always

(5)

Often

(4)

Sometimes

(3)

Seldom

(2)

Never

(1)

26. I make up new words if I do not

know the right ones in English.

27. I read English without looking up

new words.

28. I try to guess what the other person

will say next in English.

29. If I cannot think of an English word,

I use a word or phrase that means the

same thing.

30. I try to find as many ways as I can to

use my English.

31. I notice my English mistakes and use

that information to help me do better.

32. I pay attention when someone is

speaking English.

33. I try to find out how to be a better

learner of English.

34. I plan my schedule so I will have

enough time to study English.

35. I look for people I can talk to in

English.

36. I look for opportunities to read as

much as possible in English.

37. I have clear goals for improving my

English skills.

38. I think about my progress in learning

English.

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

152

No. Language Learning Strategies Frequency of Strategy Use

Always

(5)

Often

(4)

Sometimes

(3)

Seldom

(2)

Never

(1)

39. I try to relax whenever I feel afraid of

using English.

40. I encourage myself to speak English

even when I am afraid of making a

mistake.

41. I give myself a reward or treat when I

do well in English.

42. I notice if I am tense or nervous when

I am studying or using English.

43. I write down my feelings in a

language learning diary.

44. I talk to someone else about how I

feel when I am learning English.

45. If I do not understand something in

English, I ask the other person to

slow down or say it again.

46. I ask to correct my English with other

students.

47. I practice English with other students.

48. I ask for help from English speakers.

49. I ask questions in English.

50. I try to learn about the culture of

English speakers.

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

153

APPENDIX E

Strategy Inventory for Language Learning 7.0 Version

(Used Version)

Questionnaire

Language Learning Strategies Used by the International and Thai Public School

Students in a Tutorial School in Bangkok, Thailand

_____________________________________________________________________

Part I: Personal Information

School Name

_________________________________________________________________

Directions

This form of the Strategy Inventory for Language Learner (SILL) version

7.0 is designed to gather information about how you, as a student of English as a

foreign language, do during learning English.

The information you provide will be kept strictly confidential and will be used

for research purposes only.

There are 50 statements of how you learn language. Please read each

statement carefully, answering in terms of how often you use the strategy by putting a

tick ( ) in the blanket. There are no right or wrong answer to these statements.

5 means I always use this strategy.

4 means I often use this strategy.

3 means I sometimes use this strategy.

2 means I seldom use this strategy.

1 means I never use this strategy.

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

154

Part II: Language Learning Strategies Statements

No. Language Learning Strategies Frequency of Strategy Use

Always

(5)

Often

(4)

Sometimes

(3)

Seldom

(2)

Never

(1)

1. I connect the sound of a new English

word and an image or picture of the

word to help me remember the word.

2. I use rhymes to remember new

English words.

3. I use flashcards to remember new

English words.

4. I physically act out new English

words.

5. I review English lessons often.

6. I say or write new English words

several times.

7. I try to talk like native English

speakers.

8. I watch English language TV shows

spoken in English or go to movies

spoken in English.

9. I read for pleasure in English.

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

155

No. Language Learning Strategies Frequency of Strategy Use

Always

(5)

Often

(4)

Sometimes

(3)

Seldom

(2)

Never

(1)

10. I try not to translate word-for-word.

11. To understand unfamiliar English

words, I make guesses.

12. When I cannot think of a word during

a conversation in English, I use

gestures.

13. I read English without looking up

new words.

14. I try to guess what the other person

will say next in English.

15. If I cannot think of an English word,

I use a word or phrase that means the

same thing.

16. I notice my English mistakes and use

that information to help me do better.

17. I try to find out how to be a better

learner of English.

18. I plan my schedule so I will have

enough time to study English.

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

156

No. Language Learning Strategies

Frequency of Strategy Use

Always

(5)

Often

(4)

Sometimes

(3)

Seldom

(2)

Never

(1)

19. I look for opportunities to read as

much as possible in English.

20. I have clear goals for improving my

English skills.

21. I encourage myself to speak English

even when I am afraid of making a

mistake.

22. I give myself a reward or treat when I

do well in English.

23. I notice if I am tense or nervous when

I am studying or using English.

24. I write down my feelings in a

language learning diary.

25. I talk to someone else about how I

feel when I am learning English.

26. If I do not understand something in

English, I ask the other person to

slow down or say it again.

27. I ask to correct my English with other

students.

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

157

No. Language Learning Strategies Frequency of Strategy Use

Always

(5)

Often

(4)

Sometimes

(3)

Seldom

(2)

Never

(1)

28. I practice English with other students.

29. I ask for help from English speakers.

30. I try to learn about the culture of

English speakers.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

158

APPENDIX F

Strategy Inventory for Language Learning 7.0 Version (Thai)

แบบสอบถำมกลวธกำรเรยนภำษำองกฤษ

____________________________________________________________________

สวนท 1 ขอมลสวนบคคล

ชอโรงเรยน ________________________________________________________

ค ำสง

แบบสอบถามกลวธการเรยนภาษาองกฤษ เวอรชน 7.0 มวตถประสงคเพอเกบและรวบรวมขอมลเกยวกบวธการเรยน

ทนกเรยนไทยใชเรยนภาษาองกฤษเปนภาษาทสอง

ขอมลทผตอบแบบสอบถามใหจะถกเกบไวเปนความลบและจะเปดเผยเฉพาะในงานวจยนเทานน

แบบสอบถามประกอบดวยขอความเกยวกบวธการเรยนภาษาองกฤษ จ านวน 50 ขอ โปรดท าเครองหมาย ( ) ลงใน

ชองทตรงกบสภาพความเปนจรงของทานในปจจบน โดยมระดบดงน

5 หมายถง ใชมากทสด

4 หมายถง ใชมาก

3 หมายถง ใชปานกลาง

2 หมายถง ใชนอย

1 หมายถง ใชนอยทสด

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

159

สวนท 2 กลวธกำรเรยนภำษำองกฤษ

ขอ กลวธกำรเรยนภำษำองกฤษ ระดบกำรใช

มำกทสด

(5)

มำก

(4)

ปำนกลำง

(3)

นอย

(2)

นอยทสด

(1)

1. ขาพเจาเชอมโยงเสยงของค าศพทกบภาพของค านน

เพอใหจ าค าศพทได

2. ขาพเจาใชเสยงสมผสเพอใหจ าค าศพทใหมได

3. ขาพเจาใชบตรค าเพอใหจ าค าศพทได

4. ขาพเจาแสดงทาทางประกอบเพอใหจ าค าศพทได

5. ขาพเจาทบทวนบทเรยนภาษาองกฤษบอยๆ

6. ขาพเจาพดหรอเขยนค าศพทใหมๆ ซ าๆ หลายๆ ครง

7. ขาพเจาพยายามใชส าเนยงใหใกลเคยงกบเจาของภาษา

8. ขาพเจาดรายการโทรทศนหรอ ภาพยนตรเปน

ภาษาองกฤษ

9. ขาพเจาอานงานเขยนตางๆ เปนภาษาองกฤษ

10. ขาพเจาหลกเลยงการแปลภาษาองกฤษแบบค าตอค า

11. ขาพเจาใชวธการเดาเมอเจอค าศพททไมคนเคย

12. ขาพเจาจะใชทาทางประกอบในการสนทนาถานกค าศพท

ภาษาองกฤษไมออก

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

160

ขอ กลวธกำรเรยนภำษำองกฤษ ระดบกำรใช

มำกทสด

(5)

มำก

(4)

ปำนกลำง

(3)

นอย

(2)

นอยทสด

(1)

13. ขาพเจาอานภาษาองกฤษโดยทไมเปดความหมายทกค า

14. ขาพเจาพยายามเดาวาผสนทนาจะพดอะไรตอไปในบท

สนทนา

15. ถาขาพเจานกค าศพทไมออก จะใชค าหรอวลอนทม

ความหมายใกลเคยง

16. ขาพเจาสงเกตขอผดพลาดของตวเองในการใช

ภาษาองกฤษและน าขอผดพลาดนนมาพฒนาตนเอง

17. ขาพเจาพยายามหาวธทจะเรยนภาษาองกฤษไดดยงขน

18. ขาพเจาวางแผนตารางเพอจะไดมเวลาเรยนภาษาองกฤษ

ใหดขน

19. ขาพเจาพยายามหาโอกาสทจะอานบทความภาษาองกฤษ

ใหไดมากทสด

20. ขาพเจามเปาหมายชดเจนในการพฒนาทกษะ

ภาษาองกฤษ

21. ขาพเจาใหก าลงใจตนเองเมอตองพดภาษาองกฤษ แมใน

ใจจะกลวกตาม

22. ขาพเจาใหรางวลตวเอง เมอใชภาษาองกฤษไดด

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

161

ขอ กลวธกำรเรยนภำษำองกฤษ ระดบกำรใช

มำกทสด

(5)

มำก

(4)

ปำนกลำง

(3)

นอย

(2)

นอยทสด

(1)

23. ขาพเจาสงเกตวาตวเองจะกงวลและเครยดเมอตองใช

ภาษาองกฤษ

24. ขาพเจาเขยนบรรยายความรสกในสมดบนทกประจ าวน

25. ขาพเจาพดคยกบผอนถงเรองการเรยนภาษาองกฤษ

26. ถาขาพเจาไมเขาใจค าหรอประโยคใดในภาษาองกฤษ

ขาพเจาจะขอใหผพด พดชาลงหรอพดซ าอกรอบ

27. ขาพเจาขอใหเพอนชวยแกภาษาองกฤษทใชผดให

28. ขาพเจาฝกฝนภาษาองกฤษกบเพอนคนอน

29. ขาพเจาขอความชวยเหลอจากชาวตางชาต

30. ขาพเจาพยายามเรยนรวฒนธรรมของคนทใช

ภาษาองกฤษเปนภาษาประจ าชาต

ขอบคณส าหรบความรวมมอ

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

162

APPENDIX G

Interview Questions (English Version)

1. What techniques do you use to remember new vocabulary? (MEMORY)

2. How do you apply your previous English knowledge to your current studying?

(METACOGNITIVE)

3. What would you do if you cannot find an English translation of Thai word

when you speak in English? (COMPENSATION)

4. What do you do when you feel English is difficult to learn? (AFFECTIVE)

5. How you think practicing with native speakers can help you to have

opportunities to improve your English skill? (SOCIAL)

6. What do you think would help you to become more fluent in English?

(COGNITIVE)

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

163

APPENDIX H

Interview Question - ค ำถำมสมภำษณ (Thai Version)

1. คณใชวธใดในการจ าค าศพทใหมๆ

2. คณใชความรทมอยกอนแลวมาเชอมโยงกบความรทไดเรยนใหมอยางไร

3. คณจะท าอยางไรเมอคณนกค าศพทภาษาองกฤษทจะพดไมออก

4. คณท าอยางไรเมอพบวาการเรยนภาษาองกฤษนนยาก

5. คณคดวาการฝกภาษาองกฤษกบชาวตางชาตจะสามารถชวยใหคณมโอกาสในการพฒนาทกษะภาษาองกฤษไดอยางไร

6. คณคดวาอะไรจะชวยใหคณพฒนาการใชภาษาองกฤษไดคลองขน

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC

164

BIOGRAPHY

Name Tirada Iamudom

Date of Birth October 15, 1989

Educational Attainment

2011: Bachelor’s Degree of Arts, French major.

2017: Master’s Degree of Arts, English Language

Teaching

Work Position Teacher

Work Experiences

Area Interest

2012-present

Tutorial Teacher

Invent Academy

2015-present

Tutorial Teacher

MAC Education Company

Learner Autonomy

Teacher Autonomy

Language Learning Strategies

Ref. code: 25605921042494VRC