1

The learning strategies of successful research graduates: A

survey on the Malaysian PhD holders. Faizah A Majid, Nor Hashima Mohd Shukor, Fatin Aliana Radzi

(Published in Journal for the Enhancement of Learning and Teaching. Vol 5 Issue 1

Summer 2010. pp. 9 – 27. ISSN 1743-3932)

ABSTRACT

Each year the number of research candidates who either opt out or are dismissed due to

poor performance is increasing (IGS, UiTM, 2006). Several factors are identified in the

literature as contributing to the loss of research candidates from the research

programme they enrol in. According to Brown and Atkins (1990, as cited in Faizah

2006), the factors include difficulties with methodological skills, problems of isolation

and more serious commitment given to life outside their research among the part-time

students. Sayed et al (1998) who conducted a longitudinal study on the difficulties faced

by ten research students provided relevant input for best practices in research

supervision. This paper reports on a study conducted in Malaysia with the aim to

investigate the demographic profiles and the strategies employed by 76 successful PhD

graduates (53% female, 47% male) who completed their studies either abroad or locally.

A questionnaire which comprise two parts (Part A: Learning Challenges & Strategies,

and Part B: Demographic Background) was administered to the respondents who were

chosen based on a purposive sampling. The data was analyzed using SPSS. A profile of

the successful PhD graduates is presented along with an exploration of the challenges

they faced and strategies they employed to overcome the challenges during their studies.

The findings have implications on future entry requirements, training, and the type of

support future PhD candidates need.

INTRODUCTION

Previous research has already taught us much about the adult learners and postgraduates

that form the sample for this current study (Habibah, 2002; Faizah, 2004, 2005, 2006;

Hazadiah & Jamiah, 2006). However, while most of the previous research contributed to

a better understanding of the adult learners‟ learning styles, strategies and use of

institutional support, little remains known about postgraduate research candidates‟

strategies in completing their studies. The Ninth Malaysian Plan has an emphasis on

lifelong learning which is impacting many adult learners, encouraging them to make a

comeback in the education system by pursuing further postgraduate studies.

Research may be either a partial or full proportion of a postgraduate programmes, and

hence more and more research candidates are progressing through the University as they

complete their studies. Unfortunately, though they may have completed the coursework

requirements of their courses, many postgraduate students fail to graduate as they have

fail to complete the research component of their programmes. This pattern is replicated

among the postgraduate students for whom research makes up all of their course

requirements. Each year, the number of research candidates who are either opting out or

being dismissed from their courses due to poor performance is showing a rise (IGS,

2

UiTM, 2006). A review of relevant literature supports this trend of discontinuation of

programmes among research student candidates (Sayed et al., 1998; Habibah, 2004;

Faizah, 2005).

Sayed et al. (1998) conducted a longitudinal study of the difficulties faced by ten research

students and discovered a range of issuespertaining to best practice in research

supervision. According to them, the candidates in the study were not familiar with the

process of conducting research, the methodology involved and the conventions of thesis

writing. They further elaborated that these were due to a lack of understanding,

uncertainty of the candidates‟ own capabilities and high levels of anxiety. In relating their

findings to the supervision relationship, Sayed et al. claimed that the candidates in their

study failed to meet the expectation of their supervisors and that they had a learning style

that did not match the supervisor‟s style. To clarify, while the supervisors expected them

to be independent and possess an intellectual capacity suitable to that of a research

candidate at a postgraduate level, the candidates were dependent on their supervisors and

required important decision making to be done by the supervisors.

One reason, therefore, that may account for why research candidates may not survive

their research is their lack of understanding of how the learning process should be when

attempting a piece of independent research under the guidance of a supervisor in

fulfillment of a degree. Hence, the study presented in this paper aims to discover how

research candidates may survive their research degrees by looking at the learning

strategies that the candidates employ. Additionally, the strategies used to overcome the

challenges these students encounter during their research studies will also be investigated

in the attempt to understand the effective learning strategies employed while pursuing a

research programme such as a PhD.

This paper, therefore addresses the following are the research objectives:

a) To ascertain the demographic profiles of successful PhD candidates at UiTM,

Malaysia

b) To understand the challenges faced by the successful PhD graduates in

completing their studies at UiTM, Malaysia.

c) To explore the strategies used by the successful PhD graduates in completing

their studies at UiTM, Malaysia.

This study is very important because it will provide an explanation on how PhD

graduates can succeed in their studies, provide information on the challenges faced by the

successful PhD candidates while pursuing their studies, provide information on the

strategies that can lead to successful PhD completion, and enlighten PhD candidates,

their supervisors, postgraduates‟ coordinator and policy makers on the effective practices

that promote the completion of a PhD. The results of this study should be transferable to

other institutions and are not specific to UiTM, Malaysia.

Operational Definitions

For the purpose of the study, some terms are defined accordingly.

3

a) Learning strategies: Intentional learning facilitation which aims to

“affect the learner‟s motivational or affective state, or the way in which the

learner selects, acquires, organizes, or integrates new knowledge” (Weinstein

& Mayer, 1986, p. 315).

b) Completing PhD: Ability to follow an independent full research programme

with less difficulty. Completion is acknowledged when the thesis is submitted

on time and the Viva Voce passed which in turn leads to the award of a PhD.

c) Survey: An empirical inquiry meant to “collect information from a sample by

asking questions, in order to describe some aspects of the population of which

the sample is a part”. (Fraenkel, & Wallen, 2007, p. 423).

LITERATURE REVIEW

Challenges facing Adult Learners

Challenges are seen as the “factors that inhibit or prevent people from participating in

activities such as adult education” (Silva et al., 1998, p.2). Hillage and Aston (as cited by

McLeod, 2003) classify challenges into three major categories: attitudinal, physical and

structural.

Attitudinal challenges refer to a personal lack of confidence and motivation. Peer

pressure and the perceptions of irrelevance are also labeled as attitudinal challenges. The

following list provides more examples of attitudinal challenges:

a) Lacking of confidence, fear of failure, lack of confidence in own learning

abilities;

b) Lacking of motivation; prefer to do other things;

c) Peer group culture; surrounded by people who are anti-learning;

d) Low aspirations and lack of role models;

e) Perceptions of irrelevance;

f) Insufficient possession of qualifications;

g) Feelings of inadequacy;

h) Lacking of trust in formal institutions or organizations;

i) Thinking they are too old to learn.

Physical challenges refer to accessibility, geographical division and financial deficit.

The following list provides more examples:

a) Financial constraints – direct and indirect costs (fees, transportation,

books, childcare);

b) Time constraints – too busy with work, family and children;

c) Lacking of good childcare;

d) Lacking of information;

e) Geographical isolation;

f) Disabilities and ill health;

g) Multiple-conflicting responsibilities;

h) Job commitments;

i) Lacking of support.

4

Finally, structural challenges refer to the way the training and education were offered and

“disincentives inherent in the benefit system” (McLeod, 2003). The list below provides

more examples of structural challenges:

a) Lacking of transport;

b) Limited local learning opportunities;

c) Lacking of facilities and equipment;

d) Lacking of knowledge on local learning opportunities;

e) Lacking of knowledge on learning advice sources.

(Azelin, 2007, p.14-15)

These challenges are argued to be common to all adult learners. Research candidates

face an additional set of challenges unique to the nature of the studies.

Challenges Facing the Research Candidates The PhD is a degree that involves research and it grooms graduate students to become

future scholars (Golde & Gallagher, 1999). Besides coming from different walks of life

and having different needs, the overall graduate student demographics have vastly

changed over the last 20 years. The U.S National Postsecondary Student Aid Survey

(NPSAS) data for 2000 reported that the average graduate student is 33 years old and

20% of all graduate students are over the age of 40 (Woodford, 2005). Hence, a graduate

student is also likely to be laden with personal, family and work responsibilities.

Woodford (2005) identifies six common concerns amongst graduate students. Firstly,

research graduates need role models that they can admire and emulate. According to

Woodford this is more apparent amongst minority students and women as they are more

likely to face greater challenges to attain faculty role models who share similar

experiences. Secondly, graduate students also face challenges when they decide to

conduct interdisciplinary research. Traditional PhD programs include research works that

are conducted within the “established boundaries” of the said discipline (Golde &

Gallagher, 1999). However, interdisciplinary research involves synergizing people and

ideas from other disciplines. Therefore the research student is bound to find himself

going against the “current academic canons” (Woodford, 2005).

The third common concern amongst graduate students, according to Woodford (2005), is

the fear of being categorized as a “single-issue” scholar. This often occurs when research

students chose issues that relate to gender, race, sexual orientation, or the content of

marginalized cultures as topics in their dissertations. The direct consequence of being

labeled a “single-issue scholar” is the assumption made by the faculty that the research

candidate‟s interest is focused solely on that particular topic throughout their career. The

fourth common concern is the burden of being a spokesperson. Most research students

feel uneasy when they are asked to represent a group and speak about experiences or

beliefs in seminars or any formal gatherings.

The fifth concern commonly shared among graduate students is the feelings of isolation.

Graduate students work in isolation and this can lead to loneliness and self-doubt.

According to Woodford (2005), there have been cases where isolation has led to students‟

5

suffering depression or dropping out and the problem is even worse for students in

minority groups. Finally, the sixth concern deals with balancing work and lifestyle.

Often, their role models are devoted professors who spend most of their lives engaged in

their work to achieve success. As such, research students worry that they are expected to

toil every waking hour on their studies and at the same time find it almost impossible to

create a balance between their studies and other responsibilities.

Wisker (2001) looks at graduate studies as the “…opportunity for personal skills

development and for professional recognition and status” (p.9). The graduate student, as a

research candidate, not only deals with concepts, ideas and issues that are complex but

also requires good communication skills and time management. Wisker (2001) lists eight

areas of common challenge that are prevalent amongst research candidates as follows:

a) Research questions and areas: unsuitable, lack of information or simply

accruing information without posing questions and suggestions; thus

producing a monotonous and descriptive work;

b) Access to research subjects, contacts and contexts – often, research

candidates face unexpected obstacles even when they have carefully

planned their work in advance. There is always the possibility of changes

involving people, information and situations throughout the duration of the

research that is beyond their control;

c) Personality factors: Barriers in communication due to age, class, gender,

race, work experience, and other factors. Sequentially, this may instigate a

clash of personalities or even neglect by the supervisor;

d) Professional factors: Dealing with an unsuitable supervisor such as one

who has insufficient knowledge in the research area or few genuine

research interests;

e) Organizational factors: Having a supervisor who has quite a number of

research candidates to supervise; one who is occupied with administrative

duties; or one who is unable to effectively manage the research group;

f) Departmental facilities and arrangements: This may result in students

being isolated from others;

g) Lack of genuine research culture: Not having friends or colleagues to

share work with or to talk to; especially during eventful moments like

discoveries, setbacks, developments, strategies and solutions;

h) Life demands and crises: These may cause the research candidate to defer

or slow down the development of his or her research.

The study presented in this paper utilizes Hillage and Aston‟s (2001) three categories of

learning challenges to conceptualize the learning challenges of adult learners; while

Woodford‟s (2005) and Wisker‟s (2001) list of common challenges are used to establish

the challenges faced by PhD research candidates in their quest to pursue academic

achievement. Hence, the following table recapitulates the learning challenges faced by

PhD research candidates:

6

Table 1.0 : Learning challenges amongst research candidates

Learning Challenge

Barriers

Attitudinal Lack of role models;

Fear of irrelevance (perceived as “single-issue

scholar”);

Feelings of inadequacy (fear of being the

spokesperson);

Loneliness and self-doubt.

Physical/Material/

Situational Balancing work and lifestyle;

Geographical isolation;

Discrepancies in research questions and areas;

Access to research subjects, contacts and

context;

Personality factors;

Professional factors;

Organizational factors;

Lack of research culture;

Life demands and crises.

Structural Difficulties in conducting interdisciplinary

research;

Feeling of working in isolation.

Departmental facilities and arrangements;

Source: Adapted from Hillage & Aston (2001), Wisker (2001), & Woodford (2005)

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

This study investigates how research candidates, in particular those pursuing their PhD

programme, can be successful in their research degree. The challenges faced by the

research candidates as both adult learners and research candidates serve as the basis of

the conceptual framework. Challenges as adult learners are drawn from Hillage and

Aston‟s (2001) proposed barriers, whilst the challenges facing research candidates are

drawn from Wisker‟s (2001) and Woodford‟s (2005) lists.

7

In response to these learning challenges, the research candidates will strategize his or her

learning to overcome them. In this study, the learning strategies are classified according

to “direct” and “indirect” strategies (Oxford, 1990). Direct strategies involve memory,

cognitive and compensation strategies, whilst indirect strategies comprise of

metacognitive, affective and social strategies. The following table summarizes each

strategy and provides examples of relevant tasks under each strategy.

Table 2.0: Strategies to accomplish a research dissertation

Strategies

Task

Direct Strategies Memory Posses knowledge-retrieval skill;

Develop a wide literature research base;

Organize ideas and discoveries to date;

Able to contextualize literature and use it to

underpin own work;

Constantly update literature search and review.

Cognitive Change and develop ideas from literature;

Establish procedure for the research;

Posses analytical, calculation and interpretation

skills;

Posses evaluative and creative thinking skills.

Compensation Engage in a research topic that can potentially

produce sound results and be delivered within

given timeframe;

Acquire necessary facilities and resources;

Choose appropriate research methodologies and

methods.

Indirect Strategy Metacognitive Plan a timetable for the completion of stages of

the work;

Establish ground rules and working procedure

with the supervisor;

Network planning of critical path analysis;

Setting objectives;

Plan future publications from the work;

Balance of research and teaching for those

involved in the academics;

Managing time with domestic and other work

commitments.

Affective Allow/encourage the supervisor to constructively

and critically comment work;

8

Use support of the supervisor and colleagues as

useful guidance;

Know what to expect during supervision;

Balancing rather than collapsing under stress;

Become self-directed and lifelong learners;

Organize support groups and networks.

Social Establish and maintain good working

relationship with the supervisor while avoiding

personality clashes;

Meet supervisor at regular intervals;

Seek opportunities to take part in the university‟s

research culture (give papers, attend conferences,

etc.);

Seek advice from friends and colleagues;

Put the supervisor‟s role as a facilitator;

Hold peer- and group-based sessions;

Able to manage discussions;

Negotiate some support from work colleagues;

Gain support from other researchers, family

members and friends;

Avoid spending all time involved in research at

the expense of losing friends and alienating

family members;

Share and present work in progress with

colleagues and in seminars or conferences;

Get work published.

Source: Oxford (1990 )& Woods (2001)

Wisker‟s (2001) list of research skills required for a successful research degree is used to

complement the learning strategies proposed by Oxford (1990). This study relies upon

the assumption that learning challenges and strategies share a causal relationship that will

ascertain a research candidate‟s desired learning goals and as a result, the successful

completion of the candidate‟s research studies. Figure 1.0 represents the conceptual

framework of the present study.

9

Figure 1.0: The conceptual framework

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Subjects / Participants

The sample population involved in this study is successful PhD graduates teaching in

UiTM, a public university in Malaysia. In UiTM there are currently 496 PhD holders;

439 from Shah Alam and 57 from other branches.

Metler and Charles (2005) recommend that an approximate of 10% of the whole sample

population be sampled to ensure that the results obtained are valid and representative.

Therefore 76 PhD holders, which is 10% of the sample population, were circulated the

the questionnaire. In summary, the participants consist of:

a) 10 successful PhD graduates teaching in UiTM (pilot questionnaire);

b) 76 successful PhD graduates teaching in UiTM Shah Alam (revised

questionnaire).

The 76 respondents were randomly selected from the population of interest. According to

Fraenkel and Wallen (2007, p. 402), in order to obtain a high response rate, the

questionnaire should be “sent to persons in authority to administer the potential

respondents rather than sending it to the respondents themselves”. Hence, the revised

questionnaire was distributed to PhD holders attached to the faculties of Accountancy,

Art and Design, Architecture, Planning and Surveying, Applied Science, Business

Administration, Communication and Media, Civil Engineering, Electrical Engineering,

Mechanical Engineering, and Music through the Assistant Registrar of each faculty. The

10

researchers set an appointment with each Assistant Registrar to send the questionnaire

and collect them when completed.

Table 3.0 shows that from the sample of 76 respondents, 53% were female whilst the

remaining 47% were males. 46% of the total respondents were from the Science and

Technology, while 32% were from the Business and Management cluster, and the Social

Sciences and Humanities cluster represented 22% of the total respondents.

Table 3.0: Demographics of respondents

Number of

Respondents (N=76)

Percent

Gender

Male 36 47

Female 40 53

Age

26-35 12 16

36-45 30 40

46-55 30 40

56-65 2 3

Over 65 1 1

Faculty

Science and Technology 35 46

Business and Management 24 32

Social Sciences and Humanities 17 22

Position

Professor 7 9

Associate Professor 25 33

Senior Lecturer 6 8

Lecturer 34 45

Others 4 5

Pilot Questionnaire

The main purpose of distributing the pilot questionnaire was to ensure that the

questionnaire would be sufficiently comprehensible for the respondents. In addition, it

was also to ensure that there was a need in any case, to conduct the research. Wiersma

(2000) states that “the results of the pilot run should identify misunderstandings,

ambiguities and useless inadequate item…difficulties with the directions may also be

uncovered” (p.172). However, it is important to note that respondents attempting the

pilot questionnaire were successful PhD graduates. In addition, the respondents in the

pilot questionnaire did not attempt the actual questionnaire. This was to ensure that the

11

information obtained from the actual questionnaire was accurate and not rehearsed. The

pilot questionnaire was divided into 2 parts:

i) Part A: Learning Challenges and Strategies,

ii) Part B: Demographic Data.

Part A: Learning Challenges and Strategies

Part A of the questionnaire tackled the issue of challenges faced and learning strategies

employed by successful PhD graduates. It was categorized into several sub-parts, which

were not made known to the respondents. These sub-parts are presented in Table 4.0:

Table 4.0: Pilot Test (Part A: Learning challenges and strategies)

CODES

CATEGORIES

NUMBER OF ITEMS

A Relationship: Supervisor 13

B Relationship: Friends, Family, Employer 12

C Financial/Funding 4

D Time management 4

E Institutional support 8

F Cognitive factors 7

G Affective factors 11

H Emotional support 4

J Prior experiences 4

K Metacognitive factors 10

TOTAL 10 CATEGORIES 77

The items which tap information on the respondents‟ challenges were developed based on

the categories identified from Aston (2001), Wisker (2001) and Woodford (2005). The

following are the specific categories and examples of items developed.

Table 5.0: Categories and examples of items on learning challenges

LEARNING CHALLENGES CATEGORIES EXAMPLES

ATTITUDINAL Financial

I had sufficient funding for my

studies.

Affective factors

I had no problem following an

unstructured learning programme

such as the PhD programme.

Prior experience I had previous experience

conducting research prior to doing

my PhD.

PHYSICAL/MATERIAL/

SITUATIONAL

Relationship

(Supervisor,

I had group support from my

friends who were also doing

12

Friends,Family,

Employer)

research.

Financial/Funding

My institution allowed me to pay

my tuition fees by installments.

STRUCTURAL Institutional support The institution which I enrolled as

a research candidate was

renowned in the research area I

was in.

The items which tap information on the respondents‟ strategies were developed based on

Wisker (2001) and Oxford (1990). The following are their examples.

Table 6.0: Categories and examples of items on strategies

STRATEGIES CATEGORIES EXAMPLES

MEMORY Cognitive factors I was able to conceptualize the

relevant theories I read for the

purpose of my research.

COGNITIVE Cognitive factors I was able to select the relevant

literatures for the purpose of my

research.

COMPENSATION Metacognitive

factors

I presented at least one paper

during my studies.

METACOGNITIVE Relationship

(Supervisor)

I was independent of my

supervisor.

Metacognitive

factors

I ensured I have progressed in my

research work accordingly.

AFFECTIVE Affective factors I always pictured myself as a

successful PhD graduate.

Prior knowledge I was involved in the same

research area since my Master‟s

programme.

SOCIAL Relationship I saw my supervisor as my

mentor.

Emotional support I had group support from my

friends who were also doing

research.

Part B: Demographic Data

In Part B, respondents were required to provide information of their personal details. The

purpose of this section was to ensure that all respondents fit the specific characteristics of

the research. Several examples of the questions are:

a) Age;

b) Gender;

c) Race;

13

d) Professional position while pursuing PhD;

e) Teaching experience.

For the pilot questionnaire, ten successful PhD graduates currently lecturing in UiTM

were identified. All respondents were given ample time to complete the questionnaire,

thus, there was no issue of respondents being rushed and disingenuous.

Analysis, Reliability and Validity Instruments

The reliability test was performed on the questionnaire to provide an estimation of how

consistent the items were in the instrument used for the study. For this purpose, the

Cronbach‟s coefficient alpha was utilized to measure internal consistency. Learning

challenges was recorded at .872 whilst learning strategies had a value of .842. Both

values indicate that the instrument used in this study is reliable.

For the purpose of reliability and validity of the analysis, the results obtained from the

pilot questionnaire were analyzed and tabulated through SPSS. As this research is a social

science study, it is important to note that values of .3 and above are considered as reliable

and valid (Nunnally, 1967).

The most significant value of .93 was acquired for category F (Cognitive factors). This is

considered the most significant as it provides a preliminary result as to what would be the

most important factor in determining the success of adult learners. However, it was

recognized that one category had to be removed from the questionnaire, which was

category D (time management), due to the low value of .147.

Revised Questionnaire

The revised questionnaire was distributed to 76 UiTM lecturers with PhDs who were

attached to various faculties. The revised questionnaire comprised of two sections, Part A

(learning strategies and challenges) and Part B (personal background). Table 7.0 shows a

detailed breakdown of the two sections in the questionnaire.

Table 7.0: The composition of questionnaire items: Major sections

Part Description No. Of Items

A Learning Challenges 38

Learning Strategies 37

B Personal Background 11

Total Number of Items 86

14

FINDINGS

Research Question 1: What are the demographic profiles of successful PhD candidates?

Profile of a successful PhD candidate

In summary, data findings from the study were used to construct the demographic profile

of successful research graduates. The profile is as follows:

Personal Background

A successful male PhD candidate embarks on his PhD studies between the ages of 41 to

50 years old while a female candidate embarks at an earlier age of between 31 to 40 years

old. Hence, successful female candidates are more likely to pursue their PhD programmes

earlier than the male candidates.

Work Experience

A successful PhD candidate has more than ten years of working experience in the

academic arena and he or she is more likely to be a lecturer in a university.

Duration of Study

A successful PhD candidate who receives sponsorship is more likely to complete his or

her studies within five years as compared to a self-funded, successful PhD candidate who

may take longer to complete his or her studies.

Choice of University

Sponsored PhD candidates who are successful study abroad and they are enrolled as full-

time students. Contrastingly, successful PhD candidates who are self-funded are more

likely to study in local universities and they opt to study on a part-time basis.

Research Question 2: What are the challenges faced by the successful PhD graduates in

completing the study?

A descriptive analysis was performed to identify the means and standard deviation of the

three learning challenges and the findings are presented in Tables 8.0, 9.0 and 10.0.

Opinions about the learning challenges that the successful PhD graduates faced during

the course of their studies were each rated on a Likert scale ranging from “Not relevant”

(0), “Always” (1) to “Never” (4).

15

Table 8.0 Summary of learning challenges

N

Mean

Std. Deviation

ATTITUDINAL 76 2.031 0.414

PHYSICAL 76 1.746 0.363

STRUCTURAL 76 1.735 0.560

OVERALL 76 1.837 0.446

Attitudinal challenges recorded the highest mean score of 2.031 (S.D= 0.414), followed

by physical challenges with a mean score of 1.746 (S.D=0.362) and structural challenges

with a mean score of 1.735 (S.D=0.560). The overall mean score for all three categories

of learning challenges is recorded at 1.837 (S.D=0446).

Table 9.0 Five most common learning challenges

The highest mean score (M = 2.829, SD = 0.755) was identified as belonging to the

attitudinal challenge in which respondents acknowledged that there were many obstacles

that they had encountered during their studies (I had a lot of obstacles during my studies).

The second most common challenge was physical (M = 2.211, SD = 1.436), in which the

respondents indicated lack of assistance from their family members (At least one of my

family members had assisted me in my research). Next, the third most common challenge

in learning was attitudinal (M = 2.158, SD = 1.452); where respondents cited that their

Challenge

Item

Mean

S.D

Attitudinal I had a lot of obstacles during my studies

2.829 0.755

Physical At least one of my family members had assisted

me in my research

2.211 1.436

Attitudinal I was involved in the same research area since

my Master's programme

2.158 1.452

Physical I had no worries about having to have enough

money to fund my studies

2.066 1.024

Attitudinal I had previous experience conducting research

prior to doing my PhD

2.039 0.886

16

area of research in the PhD programme was different from their Master‟s programme (I

was involved in the same research area since my Master's programme).

Table 10.0 Five least common learning challenges

Challenge

Item

Mean

S.D

Physical I was given time-off from work when I needed to

be at the university

0.263 1.660

Physical My colleagues at work were accommodating to my needs as a part-time research student

0.316 1.714

Physical My institution allowed me to pay my tuition fees by installments

0.303 1.876

Physical My colleagues at work reminded me to take breaks once in a while

0.947 1.781

Physical Since I was sponsored, I felt obligated to complete my research

1.079 0.906

Meanwhile, the five least common learning challenges that were reported by the

respondents in the study were also identified and the findings are presented in Table 10.

Based on the findings, all five learning challenges were from the category of physical

challenges. Most of the successful research candidates did not face any challenges when

they require more time to be at the university (I was given time-off from work when I

needed to be at the university) as indicated by the low mean score (M = 0.263, SD =

1.660). They also indicated that they received strong support from their colleagues at

work (My colleagues at work were accommodating to my needs as a part-time research

student) and that financial assistance was hardly considered as an obstacle (My institution

allowed me to pay my tuition fees by installments).

In summary, attitudinal challenges had been identified as the most common learning

challenges confronted by successful PhD graduates. MacKeracher, Suart and Potter

(2006) describe these challenges as “problematic” as they could have a negative bearing

on the learners. Most respondents reported facing obstacles during their studies and were

not involved in the same research area during their Master‟s programme. Moreover, lack

of support from family members, a physical challenge, was also identified as a learning

challenge in this study.

17

Research Question 3: What are the strategies used by the successful PhD graduates?

Summary of learning strategies

Learning strategies consist of two major categories which are the „direct‟ and „indirect‟

strategies (Oxford, 1990). According to Oxford (1990), „Direct‟ strategies are further

classified under three types of categories; namely memory, cognitive, and compensation,

whilst „indirect‟ strategies are subdivided into three other categories which are

metacognitive, affective, and social. A descriptive analysis was conducted on the data

from the present study and the findings on the types of strategies, overall mean scores,

rating of usage are presented in Table 11.0. The respondents‟ opinions about the learning

strategies that they frequently used during the course of their studies were each rated on a

Likert scale ranging from “Always” (4) to “Never” (1).

Table 11.0 Summary of learning strategies used by successful PhD graduates

Learning Strategies

N

Mean

S.D

Direct Strategies

Memory 76 3.597 0.440

Cognitive 76 3.599 0.430

Compensation 76 3.346 0.776

TOTAL DIRECT 76 3.514 0.549

Indirect Strategies

Metacognitive 76 3.530 0.329

Affective 76 3.400 0.372

Social 76 3.194 0.400

TOTAL INDIRECT 76 3.375 0.367

Based on the findings, research candidates used the „direct‟ strategies slightly more (M =

3.514, SD = 0.549) than the „indirect‟ strategies (M = 3.375, SD = 0.367). However, the

difference between the two mean scores is not significantly high and thus, both strategies

can be deduced as almost equally being applied by the research candidates.

Further analysis was performed on the data to identify the most and least commonly used

strategies amongst the research candidates in the study (refer Table 12.0 and 13.0).

18

Table 12.0 Most commonly used learning strategies

Strategy

Item

Mean

SD

Indirect: Metacognitive

I made sure I had things to discuss with my

supervisor prior to the consultation

3.789 0.471

Indirect: Metacognitive

I checked my work before showing it to my

supervisor 3.724 0.665

Direct: Memory

I saw how the literatures could develop my research 3.711 0.537

Direct: Cognitive

I always evaluate the relevance of the contents of the

literatures with my research

3.684 0.496

Direct: Cognitive

I was able to select the relevant literatures for the

purpose of my research

3.671 0.500

A metacognitive strategy scored the highest mean (M = 3.789, SD = 0.471) which

indicates that most successful research candidates are well-prepared for consultations

with their supervisors (I made sure I had things to discuss with my supervisor prior to the

consultation). Next on the list of most commonly used learning strategies is another

metacognitive strategy, checking work before showing it to their supervisor (M = 3.724,

SD = 0.665). Similarly, successful research candidates exhibit work efficiency (I checked

my work before showing it to my supervisor). Oxford (1990) stresses that metacognitive

strategies are used to coordinate the learning process; therefore, they are highly effective

strategies that are used to centralize, arrange plan and evaluate the research candidates‟

learning.

The remaining three most commonly used strategies were from the category of direct

strategies. Direct strategies involve mental processing during learning, involving

memory, cognitive and compensation strategies (Oxford (1990). A memory strategy was

recorded as the third most common strategy (M = 3.711, SD = 0.537) where successful

research candidates are able to contextualize literature and use it to underpin their own

work (I saw how the literatures could develop my research). Meanwhile, the fourth and

fifth most commonly used learning strategies were both identified as cognitive strategies.

19

Table 13.0: Least commonly used learning strategies

Strategy

Item

Mean

SD

Indirect: Social

I shared my personal problems with my supervisor 2.092 0.882

Indirect: Affective

I needed to be directed what to do in each semester of

my studies 2.487 1.172

Indirect: Social

I had the emotional support from my research friends

whenever I needed it 2.789 1.123

Indirect: Social

I had the emotional support from my supervisor

whenever I needed it 2.855 1.029

Indirect: Social

I had group support from my friends who were also

doing research 2.974 1.143

Table 13.0 presents the least commonly used strategies amongst the respondents in the

present study. All five learning strategies were identified as indirect strategies, in which

incidentally, four out of five of the indirect strategies belonged to social strategies. Most

research candidates revealed that were not likely to share their personal problems with

their supervisors (M = 2.092, SD = 0.882) and that they prefer to plan their own studies

than be told what to do by their supervisors (M = 2.487, SD = 1.172). The next three least

common strategy used by the research candidates concerned moral support from research

colleagues (M = 2.789, SD = 1.123), supervisor (M= 2.855, SD = 1.029), and friends (M

= 2.974, SD = 1.143).

In summary, successful PhD graduates applied both direct and indirect learning strategies

during their studies. However, metacognitive strategies were identified as the most

commonly applied strategy amongst the respondents in this study. Metacognitive strategy

involves monitoring progress during the learning process, while making changes and

adapting strategies when failure is expectable (Winn & Snyder, 1998).

DISCUSSIONS

The objectives of the research are to i) ascertain the demographic profiles of successful

PhD candidates at UiTM, Malaysia, ii) understand the challenges faced by the successful

PhD graduates in completing their studies at UiTM, Malaysia, and iii) explore the

strategies used by the successful PhD graduates in completing their studies at UiTM,

Malaysia. The following is the summary of the findings which have helped achieve the

objectives.

20

This study has formulated a demographic profile of successful research candidates and

the learning strategies that are frequently used by them. In general, a successful research

candidate is in his or her middle adulthood. A typical male doctoral holder is between the

ages of 46 to 55 years old whilst a female doctoral holder is slightly younger, at between

the ages of 36 to 45 years old. More than half of the respondents (67% had more than ten

years of teaching experience as compared to 16% who only had between five to ten years

of teaching experience). This strongly suggests that a successful research candidate has

no less than ten years of working experience in the academics before they embark on a

doctoral dissertation. Research candidates who receive financial assistance, such as

scholarships, are more likely to pursue their PhD abroad, become full-time students at the

university and complete their studies within three to five years. However, self-funded

PhD research candidates prefer to study in local universities, are registered as part-time

students and take more time to complete their studies.

Attitudinal challenges were found to be the most common learning challenges faced by

research candidates. Some of the attitudinal challenges included obstacles during studies,

taking up a new research area and insufficient research experience. The second most

common learning challenges encountered by the research students were of physical

challenges that include lack of support from family members and having sufficient funds

to finance their studies. However, some physical challenges were also found to be the

least common challenges in learning while they were pursuing their PhD studies.

Respondents did not have any difficulties seeking time-off from work to be at the

university and they received moral support from colleagues at work and financial support

from the university by means of a flexible fee payment.

In terms of the overall learning strategies, respondents in this study seemed to apply both

direct and indirect learning strategies although direct strategies were found to have a

slightly higher mean score (M = 3.514, SD = 0.549) than indirect strategies (M = 3.375,

SD = 0.367). Cognitive strategies were found to have the highest mean score (M = 3.599,

SD = 0.430), followed by memory (M = 3.597, SD = 0.440) and metacognitive (M =

3.530, SD = 0.329) strategies. However, when further analysis were conducted on each

item of direct and indirect strategies, two metacognitive strategies emerged to be the top

two commonly applied strategies by successful research candidates. The strategies are

described by Cohen (1990) as “strategies for dealing with strategies”; research candidates

ensured that their meetings with the supervisor were properly organized and well-

prepared. Another item that emerged as the third most commonly applied learning

strategy was a memory strategy (M = 3.711, SD = 0.537) where successful research

candidates used their schematic knowledge to develop their research. The fourth and fifth

most frequently used learning strategies were from the cognitive strategies. The

respondents, who were successful research candidates, were able to relate the contents of

literature and select literatures that were relevant to their research work. Meanwhile, four

items were listed as the least commonly used strategies and these items were identified as

social strategies. Respondents maintained a strictly professional relationship with their

supervisors and did not require any emotional support from their research colleagues and

the supervisor. One item, identified as an affective strategy, was also one of the least

21

commonly used strategies. The respondents emphasized that they did not want to be

directed what to do every semester throughout their PhD studies.

IMPLICATIONS

The findings have implications on future entry requirements, training, and the type of

support future PhD candidates need. For a start, as the demographic profile of successful

research graduates are those who have sufficient number of years teaching before

embarking on their PhD, it is wise to suggest experiences in the academic line as an entry

requirement. The findings have suggested that the experiences they have gained could

facilitate their studies in terms of psychologically, and cognitively. This is also evident

when the findings also reveal the types of challenges they faced and the strategies they

employed to overcome the challenges as well as to progress in their research work.

Wisker (2001) commented that doing graduate studies such as PhD is an “…opportunity

for personal skills development and for professional recognition and status” (p.9). He

further elaborates that research candidates deal with concepts, ideas and issues that are

complex and they require good communication skills and time management. It is

experience that could assist them to handle these academic and personal challenges.

Next, as the attitudinal challenges were found to be the most common learning challenges

faced by research candidates, it is recommended some trainings which expose the

prospective research candidates to research methodology and life as a research candidate

be provided. Some of the identified attitudinal challenges included obstacles during

studies, taking up a new research area and insufficient research experience. Additionally,

exposure to the learning strategies could also be provided. As the research has revealed

the importance of several direct and indirect strategies to the research candidates, relevant

strategy trainings should be offered to the research candidates. It is also wise to organize

sharing sessions with successful research graduates who could enlighten the prospective

research candidates with their experiences as a research candidate. The sharing sessions

could at least enable the prospective candidates to anticipate the kind of life they may

have when they embark on their PhD. Woodford (2005) claims that research graduates

need role models that they can admire and emulate. He further elaborates that this is more

apparent amongst minority students and women as they are more likely to face greater

challenges to attain faculty role models who share similar experiences.

Finally, the institutions could provide relevant support to the research candidates as they

pursue their PhD studies. As financial issue was identified as the obvious physical

challenge faced by the respondents when they did their PhD, it is recommended that the

institutions could provide flexibility in terms of fee payment and/or provide opportunities

for the research candidates to make an income as they study. The examples of such

opportunities are research and teaching assistantship. Additionally, the institutions could

also provide necessary trainings to the supervisors in providing support to the research

candidates. The findings of the study have revealed that the successful research

candidates have identified several traits and strategies of their supervisors. This

information could be passed on the prospective supervisors in the institutions‟ attempts to

assist the candidates through ways which they are authorized.

22

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

The study adopted a quantitative approach; hence a limited instrument was used in the

research design. Therefore, it suggested that further research can be conducted involving

more instruments, such as interviews, diaries and observations, to gain a more in-depth

perspective of research candidates‟ challenges and learning strategies. It is also admitted

that since the findings are self-reported, a triangulation of data could help validate the

self-reported data. Hence, the use of more than one instrument is recommended.

Whilst the study involved a relatively homogenous group, future research could involve

research candidates from other cultures or professions. It would be interesting to see

whether the profiles developed from this study are applicable to other cultures or research

candidates who are not academics. In addition, future research could also be conducted to

include unsuccessful research candidates so as to make comparisons between the use of

strategies and challenges faced by both groups. Likewise, the views of the research

supervisors could also be included to complete the investigation.

REFERENCES

Azelin, M. N. (2007). Challenges facing adult learners: A case study of postgraduate

students. Unpublished Master‟s dissertation. UiTM: Shah Alam.

Creswell, W. J. (2005). Educational research planning: Conducting & evaluating

quantitative and qualitative research. New Jersey. Pearson Ed.

Faizah, A. M. (2004). Characteristics of adult learners and their academic reading

strategies: A case study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. UKM: Bangi.

Faizah, A. M. (2005). Been there, done that! : What can be learnt from the successful

postgraduate. Paper presented at the International Seminar of Learning and

Motivation. UUM.Penang.

Faizah, A. M. (2006). Adult learners‟ anxiety in on-line language learning. In A.

Pandian, Y. L. Koo & K. Peter (Eds.), Innovation and intervention in ELT.

UPM Press.

Fraenkel, R.J. & Wallen, N.E. (2007). How to design and evaluate research in education.

6th

Ed. McGraw-Hill: Boston.

Golde, C. M. & Gallagher, H. A. (1999). The challenges of conducting interdisciplinary

research in traditional doctoral programs. Ecosystems, 2, 281-285.

Habibah, A. (2002). Voices in the wilderness: Challenges of adult students. Paper

presented at the International Conference on University Learning and Teaching.

UiTM. Shah Alam.

23

Hazadiah, M. D, & Jamiah, B. (2006). A qualitative approach to adult learners‟

understanding of a supportive learning environment: A case study. Malaysian

Journal of University Education, 1,1. 33-46.

Hillage, J., & Aston, J. (2001). Attracting new learners: a literature review. In Learning

and skills development. Retrieved July 3, 2006 from

http://www.lsda.org.uk/files/pdf/1079.pdf

IGS. (2006). Statistics on postgraduate students. Universiti Teknologi MARA: Shah

Alam.

MacKeracher, Suart & Potter. (2006). Barriers to participation in adult learning.

Retrieved on February 15, 2007 from

http://www.nald.ca/library/research.sotfr/barriers/barriers.pdf.

McLeod, D. (2003). Widening adult participation: a review of research and

development. In Learning skills development agency. Retrieved April 15, 2005 from

http://www.LSDA.org.uk

Mertler, C.A. & Charles, C.M. (2005). Introduction to educational research (5th

ed.).

Boston: Allyn & bacon.

Nunally,J.C. (1967). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Oxford, R. (1990). Learning strategies – What every teacher should know.

Massachussettes: Heinle and Heinle.

Sayed, Y., Kruss, G. & Saleem, B. (1998). Students‟ experience of postgraduate

supervision at the University of the Western Cape. Journal of Further and Higher

Education, 22(3), 275-285.

Silva,T., Cahalan, M., & Lacierno-Pacquet, N. (1998). Adult education participation

decisions and barriers: review of conceptual frameworks and empirical studies. In US

Dept. of Education. National Centre for Education Statistics. Washington. Working

paper No. 98-10. Retrieved Nov, 10, 2006 from

http://nces.gov/pubsearch/pubsinf.asp?pubid=8910.

Weinstein, C. E. & Mayer, R. E. (1987). The teaching of learning strategies. In M. C.

Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching. New York: MacMillan

Publishing.

Wiersma, W. (2000). Research methods in education. Boston:Allyn and Bacon.

Wisker, G. (2001). The postgraduate research handbook: Succeed with your MS, MPhil,

EdD and PhD. New York: PALGRAVE MACMILLAIN.

24

Woodford, B. (2005). How to mentor graduate students: A guide for faculty at a diverse

university. Seattle, WA: The Graduate School, University of Washington.

Yin, R. (1984). Case study research. Beverly Hills: SAGE.