42
tells her confidence about her ability in listening, factor crucial to enduring the process of listening.
When asked her opinion about Listening Journal, her comments revealed that Listening Journal has encouraged her to improve. She basically stated that she would
rise from her disappointment to learn more not only to avoid future disappointment but also to measure her improvement.
Through observation it is also clear that Participant No.3 was indeed Self- Directed See Appendix E. Table 4.6 summarize an event during the researcher
preparation of the listening activity shows this, that was when the researcher was adjusting volume, trying it with a passage from a CD Participant No.3 received from
the researcher. Participant No.3 was thus Self-Directed.
Events Source
Field Note Meeting 5 to practice on her own using the CD from
Participant No.3 shows that she has decided the researcher
Table 4.6 Evidence of Self Direction 2
Listening Journal directs participants to improve their capacity in listening. In fact, participants did show indications of their being directed, that means self-
direction. It is now clear that Listening journal affects participants to the point of self-direction in the autonomy continuum.
c. Self-Regulation’s Self Monitor
Self-Regulation starts with Self-Monitor. This section clarifies Participants’ position on this checkpoint.
43
Participant No.1’s Listening Journal has put him further even to the stage of Self Monitoring. Despite the fact that his state of learning autonomy was not
observable through observation, from an interview, it was revealed that he sometimes monitored his listening capacity.
In previous section, it has not been concluded that Participant No.1 was self directed. However, seeing that now proofs found that support the assumption that he
was Self-Monitored, although only occasionally visible, his self direction was not debatable. Debatable, however, is the extent of his self-direction towards self-
monitoring.
Events Source Participant No.2 asked to check her
sentence discussion
on the topic’s gist Field Notes on meeting 7
answers, to see if she incorrectly answered the items
Participant No.2 asked for sentence-per- Field Notes on meeting 8
Participant No.2 asked for an explanation Field Notes on meeting 9
Table 4.7 Evidence of Self Regulation
It is agreed previously that he maintains the cycle of being Self Aware. Although not reflected from his Listening Journal, when verbally asked the way he
comprehended the text, he could elaborate it quite clearly. However, he never mentions, asked or not, about the CD the researcher gave as a means of Self Access
Media. It indicates that he was not quite Self Directed, which was necessary to his
autonomous state. There are indications that Participant No.1 was Self-Directed and PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
44
Self-Monitored but there are also indications telling otherwise. It would be misguiding to conclude with absolute confidence that Participant No.1 was indeed
Self Monitored. At this point, the researcher concluded that Participant No.1 was entering Self-Monitor while once in a while, struggling backward with his Self
Direction. Table 4.7 shows that Participant No.2 had even further stepped in the
autonomy continuum See Appendix E. She had been monitoring her learning, on purpose and without force. Throughout three final meetings of the test, Participant
No.2 regularly monitored her progress. It indicates that Participant No.2 has reached initial phase of Self Regulation.
When discussing Participant No.3’s strategies on Monitoring, Clarifying and Evaluating, it has been agreed that she showed no interest in monitoring her
listening process and progress. More to the point, there was nowhere to be found in her Listening Journal indications of Self Monitor. The researcher is left with a
conclusion that Participant No.3 was not Self Monitored. To this point it is clear that Participant No.3 stopped at Self-Direction,
Participant No.1 started to Self Monitor yet not quite Regulated and Participant No.2 just started Self Regulating her learning. In other words, Participant No.2 was the
most autonomous, Participant No.1 was the second most autonomous and Participant No.3 was the least autonomous.
If seen more thoroughly, the act of self-direction and self monitor on some participants, started after meeting 5. That means after half of the program had been
done, participants started to seek ways to use the media provided and other means to improve their listening. It is clearly visible that they were motivated by their
