THE DEVELOPMENT OF STUDENTS’ LEARNING AUTONOMY IN AN ENGLISH AS A FOREIGN LANGUAGE READING CLASS: Action Research Conducted with the First-Year Students at Politeknik Negeri Bandung.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT

TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF APPENDICES LIST OF DIAGRAMS LIST OF TABLES

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS PREFACE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT iv v vii viii viii x xi xii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION

1.0 Background

1.1 The World of Teaching and Learning English

1.2 Some Research Findings in Language Learning Autonomy 1.3 Scope of The Study

1.4 Research Questions 1.5 Purpose of The Study 1.6 Significance of The Study 1.7 Key Terms

1.8 Organization of The Writing

1 1 2 5 10 10 11 12 13 14

CHAPTER II THEORETICAL CONCEPTS OF THE STUDY

2.0 Introduction 2.1 Autonomy

2.1.1 Learning Strategies

2.1.2 The Characteristics of Autonomous Learners 2.1.3 Experienced Versus Novice Language Learners 2.2 Reading Process

2.2.1 The Characteristics of Experienced Versus Novice Readers 2.2.2 Components of Experienced Versus Novice Learners and

Readers 2.3 Assessment 2.4 Treatment

2.4.1 Acquiring and Learning a Language

2.4.2 Promoting Learning and Reading Strategies

2.4.2.1 Main Activities to Promote Learning Autonomy 2.4.2.2 Teachers’ and Learners’ Roles

2.4.2.3 Teaching Reading

2.4.2.4 Strategies of Guessing Meaning from Context 2.4.2.5 Types of Vocabulary

2.4.3 Supporting Facilities

2.4.3.1 SelfAccess Language Learning 2.4.3.2 Reading Materials

2.5 Summary 16 16 16 19 22 26 29 30 32 33 36 37 40 41 45 47 48 50 51 51 53 54

CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.0 Introduction 3.1 Research Design

3.2 The Procedure of The Study 3.3 Access

3.4 Setting 3.5 The Subjects 3.6 Instrument

3.6.1 The Researcher 3.6.2 Field Notes 3.6.3 Tests

3.6.3.1 Proficiency Test 3.6.3.2 Vocabulary Tests 3.6.4 Questionnaires

3.6.4.1 Closed Questionnaire 3.4.4.2 Open-Ended Questionnaire 3.6.5 Journals

3.6.5.1 KWL Journal 3.6.5.2 Learning Journal 3.6.5.3 Reflective Journal 3.6.5.4 Thinking Process Journal 3.6.6 Informal Interview

3.7 Data Analysis

3.8 Reliability and Validity 3.9 Summary 56 56 58 60 62 62 64 65 65 66 66 66 67 69 69 71 72 72 73 75 78 80 81 86 88

CHAPTER IV REPORT ON THE CONDUCT OF THE STUDY 89

4.0 Introduction

4.1 Preliminary Studies 4.1.1 Preliminary Study 1 4.1.2 Preliminary Study 2

4.1.3 Findings of Preliminary Studies 4.2 Diagnostic Phase

4.2.1 Academic Environment 4.2.1.1 Curriculum

4.2.1.2 Class Context and Facilities 4.2.2 The Students

4.2.2.1 The Students’ Learning Background

4.2.2.2 The Students’ Planning and Learning Focus 4.2.2.3 The Students’ Evaluation and Monitoring 4.2.3 The Students’ Problems

4.2.3.1 The Students’ Perceived Problems

4.2.3.2 The Students’ Problems from The Lecturer’s Perspective

4.2.4 Conclusions of The Diagnostic Phase

89 89 90 91 91 93 93 93 95 96 96 99 102 103 103 103 107

4.3 The Cycles

4.3.1 Cycle 1 Exploring Learning Strategies 4.3.1.1 Instructional Decisions 4.3.1.2 Direct Strategies 4.3.1.3 Indirect Strategies 4.3.1.4 The Students’ Strategies

4.3.1.5 The Development of Learners’ Learning Autonomy 4.3.1.6 The Students’ Problems

4.3.1.7 Conclusion of Cycle 1 4.3.2 Cycle 2 Modeling and Practicing

4.3.2.1 Instructional Decisions 4.3.2.2 Direct Strategies 4.3.2.3 Indirect Strategies 4.3.2.4 The Students’ Strategies

4.3.2.5 The Development of Learners’ Learning Autonomy 4.3.2.6 The Students’ Problems

4.3.2.7 Conclusion of Cycle 2

4.3.3 Cycle 3 Modeling and Empowering The Learners 4.3.3.1 Instructional Decisions

4.3.3.2 Direct Strategies 4.3.3.3 Indirect Strategies 4.3.3.4 The Students’ Strategies

4.3.3.5 The Development of Learners’ Learning Autonomy 4.3.3.6 The Students’ Problems

4.3.3.7 Conclusions of Cycle 3 Summing-Up The Cycles

4.4. Findings

4.4.1 The Students’ Problems 4.4.2 Instructional decisions 4.4.3 The Students’ Strategies

4.4.4 The Development of Learners’ Learning Autonomy 4.5 Summary 108 112 112 118 120 126 128 132 133 135 135 140 142 148 150 153 155 157 157 161 162 170 171 174 176 178 179 179 180 183 185 190

CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS 191 5.0 Introduction

5.1 Conclusion

5.2 Suggestions and Limitation

191 191 195

References 198

LIST OF APPENDICES

A. Instruments

Appendix A 1 Appendix A 2 Appendix A 3 Appendix A 4 Appendix A 5 Appendix A 6

209 211 214 216 217 218

Appendix A 7

B. Examples of Treatments, Fieldnotes and Data

Appendix B Appendix B 1 Appendix B 2 Appendix B 3 Appendix B 4 Appendix B 5 Appendix B 6 Appendix B 7 Appendix B 8 Appendix B 9 Appendix B 10

C. Example of Reading Materials

D. Example of Self-Access Language Learning Modules

CURRICULUM VITAE 219 220 224 229 230 232 234 237 252 254 257 260 303 312 319 LIST OF DIAGRAMS

Diagram 2 Diagram Assessment

Diagram 3 a Design of Action Research Diagram 3 b Design of the Study

Diagram 3 c Design of Analyzing Students’ Perceived Problems in Diagnostic Phase

Diagram 3 d Design of Analyzing Students’ Problems in Diagnostic Phase

Diagram 3 e Design of Analyzing Data in Cycle 1 to 3 Diagram 4a The Program

Diagram 4b The Treatments of Each Cycle

Diagram 4c Cycles of Learners’ Learning Autonomy

36 59 61 82 83 84 109 110 188

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2 Differences of Good and Novice Learners

Table 4.2 a. The Students’ Learning Preferences in Diagnostic Phase Table 4.2 b. The Students’ Learning Strategies in Diagnostic Phase Table 4.2 c. The Students’ Long Term Goals in Diagnostic Phase Table 4 2 d. The Students’ Mid Term Goal in Diagnostic Phase Table 4.2 e. The Students’ Plan and Accomplishment in SALL in

Diagnostic Phase

Table 4.2 f. The Students’ Learning Focus in Diagnostice Phase Table 4.2 g. The Students’ Reading Evaluation in Diagnostic Phase Table 4.2 h. Students’ Reading Monitoring in Diagnostice Phase Table 4.3.1 a Thinking Skills In Cycle 1

Table 4.3.1 b Goal Settings In Cycle 1 Table 4.3.1 c Learning Focus In Cycle 1 Table 4.3.1 d Learning Benefits In Cycle 1

32 96 97 98 99 100 101 101 102 120 120 121 122

Table 4.3.1 e Strategies Adopted In Cycle 1 Table 4.3.1 f Affective Response In Cycle 1 Table 4.3.1 g Levels of Confidence in Cycle 1

Table 4.3.1 h Students’ Perceived Problems In Cycle 1 Table 4.3.1 i Learning Purpose Development In Cycle 1 Table 4.3.1 j Motivation Development In Cycle 1

Table 4.3.2 a Thinking Skills In Cycle 2 Table 4.3.2 b Goal Settings In Cycle 2 Table 4.3.2 c Learning Focus In Cycle 2 Table 4.3.2 d Learning Benefits In Cycle 2 Table 4.3.2 e Strategies Adopted In Cycle 2 Table 4.3.2 f Affective Response In Cycle 2 Table 4.3.2 g Levels of Confidence in Cycle 2

Table 4.3.2 h Students’ Perceived Problems In Cycle 2 Table 4.3.2 i Learning Purpose Development In Cycle 2 Table 4.3.2 j Motivation Development In Cycle 2

Table 4.3.2 k Development of Levels of Confidence In Cycle 2 Table 4.3.3 a Thinking Skills In Cycle 3

Table 4.3.3 b Goal Settings In Cycle 3 Table 4.3.3 c Learning Focus In Cycle 3 Table 4.3.3 d Learning Benefits In Cycle 3 Table 4.3.3 e Strategies Adopted In Cycle 3 Table 4.3.3 f Affective Response In Cycle 3 Table 4.3.3 g Levels of Confidence in Cycle 3

Table 4.3.3 h Students’ Perceived Problems In Cycle 3 Table 4.3.3 i Learning Purpose Development In Cycle 3

Table 4.3.3 j Motivation Development In Cycle 3

Table 4.3.2 k Development of Levels of Confidence In Cycle 3

123 124 125 126 129 131 141 143 144 145 146 147 147 148 150 152 153 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 172 173 174

List of Abbreviations

BSNP Badan Standar Nasional Pendidikan

C1 Cycle 1

C2 Cycle 2

C3 Cycle 3

D III Diploma III

D IV Diploma IV

DP: Diagnostic Phase

EFL English as a Foregin Language

MoNE The Ministry of National Education

SAC: Self Access Center

SALL: Self Access Language Learning

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

1.0

Background

This study deals with investigation of the development of students’ autonomy in an English as a foreign language reading class at a tertiary level of education in Indonesia, especially in non-English departments where these students are expected to read ample English references. English is regarded as one of the foreign languages as stated in the National Language Policy (2000) in Indonesia. Among other foreign languages, it has a special position as it functions as a tool to communicate with international society and to develop Indonesian, especially for the terms in the fields of science and technology (Departmen Pendidikan Nasional, 2000: 220-221).

In response to the policy and the needs for English in national future development, the Ministry of National Education of Indonesia has allowed schools to offer learners English beginning from primary schools. English is a compulsory subject in junior to tertiary levels. The English curriculum for primary to senior high schools has been revised several times including in 2004 and 2006 (Departmen Pendidikan Nasional 2006a, b, c; BSNP, 2008). These two curricula adopt learner-centered learning process to achieve students’ autonomy in learning.

The Ministry of National Education in Indonesia states that the teaching and learning approaches are centralized to the learners’ potentials, levels of

development, needs and environment. They are directed towards the process of lifelong learning and learners’ holistic development by integrating formal, non-formal and innon-formal education in line with developing environmental demands (Departmen Pendidikan Nasional, 2004 and 2006 a, b, and c interpreted by Merawati, 2009).

According to Little (2002), learning autonomy is one of the end goals of education. Learning autonomy is to be enhanced and practiced at schools (Little, 1990) through learner-centered learning process (Nunan, 1996). When learners

leave schools, they are expected to have lifelong learning, helping themselves face their worlds and solve their future problems. To achieve this, the world of education is challenged with various learners’ characteristics, learning environment and cultures; this is depicted in section 1.1. Some research findings in language learning autonomy are discussed in section 1.2 and the scope of this study in section 1.3. The research questions, purposes and the significance of this study are explained in section 1.4, 1.5, and 1.6 respectively. Finally this chapter is closed with a short explanation of some terms used in this study and the organization of the writing.

1.1

The World of Teaching and Learning English

Researchers in the world of teaching and learning English are challenged by various problems. The problems include the mismatches between students’ and teachers’ expectations and responsibilities.

Alwasilah finds that 65.8% of his respondents state that the students are not satisfied with English subject (Alwasilah, 2000: 106). Djiwandono (2008) also discovers that tertiary students of non-English departments get bored with reading comprehension classes, due to the fact that the teaching and learning process are monotonous, encompass teacher-centered teaching styles, and are conducted in large classes. According to Alawasilah’ report (2000), the students are not interested in the teachers’ selection of texts for practicing reading skills; they indicate that the texts are not useful and irrelevant to other activities in accomplishing their studies.

On the other hand, Merawati (2003), and Jati et. al. (2004) have attempted to provide texts dealing with various fields of studies; but unfortunately, most English lecturers encounter difficulties in following their attempt. The lecturers do not have time to develop the materials because they have to teach classes from various fields of studies and still have to collaborate with many lecturers because of their limited knowledge.

Djiwandono (2008) and Merawati (2003) discover a mismatch between students’ and teachers’ expectations. Most tertiary students learn English to

improve their speaking skills because they believe that these are the most important skills to master in their social lives and for their futures. By contrast, the teachers carry out the institutional curriculum focusing on academic reading and writing skills to help the students catch up with the development of science and technology and develop learners’ autonomy.

These mismatch of expectations between the students and the authorities lead the students to blame the teachers and the learning approaches despite the teachers’ efforts to provide the best materials for their students. These are only a few of the many challenges encountered in the world of teaching and learning English in Indonesia.

Philosophically, teaching and learning are very much influenced by the culture of the society (Benson, 2001; Press, 1996) and learning experiences. Papert (1994 in Little, 1998) also indicates that there is an imbalanced learning situation lying deep in the traditions of education. He claims that ‘learning has traditionally been considered subordinate to teaching and it will automatically follow the right method provided by the teachers’. Moreover, researchers leave learning as an academic orphan and only few pay heed to the ‘methods’ of learning (Little, 1998).

The structure of present colonial education system has excessive workload, centralized curricula, expository teaching styles, concentration on knowledge acquisition, examinations emphasizing reproductive knowledge over genuine thinking, and overcrowded classrooms (Benson, 2001). This traditional teaching methodology produces more students who seek knowledge as containers (Benson and Voller, 1997 in Thanasoulas, 2000, Zhang, 2007). As a result, most students see knowledge as something to be transmitted by the teacher rather than discovered by the students. Finally, the students get bored and lose their interests and tend to learn without thinking, think without suspecting and suspect without questioning.

Consequently, language learners apply limited strategies; they rarely ask for clarification, verification, correction, nor cooperate with peers or with more proficient English users (Little, 1994; Dam and Legenhausen, 1996).

Researchers from various Asian countries also find that teaching English as a foreign language in Asia is dominated by a teacher-centered, book-centered, grammar-translation method and emphasizes on rote learning (Liu & Littlewood, 1997 in Zhenhui, 2001). These teaching and learning processes lead Asian language learners to be passive as discovered by Chen (2008), Guo and Zhang (2004) from Taiwan, Akaranithi (2008) from Thailand, and Zhenhui (2001) from China. Chinese and Thai language learners are reserved and silent learners; they do not participate actively in the discussion, give responses nor ask questions (Zhang and Wang, 2008; Akaranithi, 2008), and they obey the elders and their teachers in the classrooms (Akaranithi, 2008) bringing about difficulties in changing their traditional learning habits (Li, 2008). These are also experienced by Indonesian learners; they perceive that too many questions to teachers or elders is assumed improper manner (Lengkanawati, 2004; Ivone and Mutmainnah, 2008).

In addition to shortcoming of the traditional teaching approaches and culture, English as a foreign language in Indonesia (Depdiknas, 2000) is not used for daily communication. Learners have limited exposure to English and therefore are not able to acquire it quickly. Most learners, especially those from remote areas, do not see English as their immediate needs, except for passing the tests. Lack of language exposure might also lead learners to apply receptive language learning strategies when they learn the language outside the classes as experienced by the students of language departments in Iran (Ghazanfari and Tarbiat, 2008).

The world of teaching and learning English faces the challenges of resolving the mismatch between the students’ and teachers’ expectations. English teachers are expected to bring about English proficiency and language learning autonomy within the limitation of the culture, learning experiences, teaching methodology and learning environment. They are expected to reconcile the expectations of students, institutions and societies. Experts in learning autonomy suggest the teachers and students discuss together to decide how the process of teaching and learning is to be carried out in order to enhance future problems solving capacities in the midst of various expectations surrounding them.

1.2

Some Research Findings in Language Learning Autonomy

An autonomous person is a fully functioning body (Roger,1969 in Benson and Voller, 1997). Many experts agree on the definition of learning autonomy as ‘to take charge of one’s own learning’ (Holec, 1981 cited in Oxford, 1990; in Ridley, 1997 in Gardner and Miller, 1999). It is human rights (Palfreyman, 2003 in Palfreyman and Smith, 2003) and the product of interdependence rather than independence (Littlewood, 1999; Harmer, 2003; Palfreyman, 2003) and total autonomy is an ideal but rarely reached (Little, 1996; Nunan, 1997; Gardner and Miller, 1999) because of various influences such as time, context and moods (Benson, 2001).

It is said that ‘you cannot teach a man anything; you can only help him find it within himself’ (Galileo Galilei, 1564-1642 cited in Benson, 2001: 23).

Autonomous learners have willingness, and ability (Littlewood, 1996) and

disposition to learn (Katz, 1987); they have the capability to regulate themselves in learning in two levels i.e. being proactive, and reactive learners (Littlewood, 1999) or collaborate and cooperative (Flannery, 1994). These two levels of self-regulation can occur simultaneously and dynamically (Pintrich, 2004) using various direct and indirect learning strategies (Oxford, 1990) to govern and regulate their thoughts, actions, and feelings (Littlewood, 1999; and Opalka, 2006).

Autonomous language learners are concerned with the language system, pay attention to meaning and construct it, seek opportunities to engage in real

communication, identify problems and pursue learning goals, and make conscious decisions (Ellis, 1994). When reading, they are good guessers, construct meanings maturely from texts and continuously monitor their comprehension. They have clear reading purpose (Nuttall, 1989: 2; Paris, Wasik, and Turner, 1991: 611; Aebersold and Field 1998: 65) and they always refine and revise and evaluate their ideas as they crunch the data to find the gist (Paris, Wasik, and Turner, 1991). They apply ‘top-down and bottom-up strategies’ interactively and simultaneously

using various strategies (Paris, Wasik, and Turner, 1991). These processes allow them to either acquire naturally or learn the language analytically (Littlewood, 1996; Krashen, 1981 as cited in Ellis, 1994; Brown, 1994).

In a language class, a teacher may teach the language and provide strategy training to develop students’ learning autonomy as proposed by Cohen (2003) and Dam (1998). The language is taught either analytically or naturally and the

strategies are presented by individualizing strategy training through modeling, explaning the benefits, practicing extensively (Pearson and Dole, 1987 cited in Cohen, 2003; Cohen, 2003), sharing strategies, and writing journals in the target language (Kent, 1997 and Moon, 1999 as cited in Little, 2007).

Learners need these strategy trainings because recent research shows that the lack of learning strategies impede learners from achieving the expected English proficiency. For example, learners of English as a foreign language in Iran tend to apply receptive learning strategies when they learn the language outside the language class (Ghazanfari and Tarbiat, 2008). The undergraduate Taiwanese students mostly apply translation strategies as they did in high schools (Chen, 2008). In Turkey, the teacher-centered language instruction leads the first-year student teachers in the English Language Teaching Program to be passive, and they are unlikely to develop the skills necessary to learn how to assess and control their own progress (Sert, 2006).

Korean students have limited English proficiency even though they have good problem-solving skills in reading and mathematics (Lee, 2008). Further, Griva and Tsakiridou (2006) find that non-English department students have applied various learning strategies but they often select the inappropriate strategies either for a particular text types, situation or a task. Pakasi (2008) has endeavoured to develop language learning autonomy of a group of Medical students in Manado through writing journals from any texts they read outside the class. These students seem contented but they do not have clear understanding of the rationale behind the activities. They wrote their journals by copying their friend’s, selected

However, there are researchers who have succeeded in developing language learning autonomy by encouraging learners to apply some learning strategies and assigning tasks to enhance their learning responsibility. For example, Guo and Zhang (2004) have encouraged and assisted their learners to apply learning strategies efficiently and effectively in the classroom; and it rerults in improved EFL outcomes for this group of students in Chinese tertiary education. The

Taiwanese Non-English major students improve their metacognitive awareness and are able to orchestrate their listening strategies after having strategy trainings to regulate their metacognitive strategies (Chen, 2008). This shows that process-based instruction can be integrated successfully in the EFL listening classroom and lead to positive effects on learners’ self-efficacy.

Maryanto (2008) succeeds in increasing vocabulary levels of the students in extensive reading programs of English language education in three universities. He provides strategy training in guessing meaning from context, then allows them to select reading materials outside reading classes and practice meaning guessing. He also encourages the students to present orally, and develop vocabulary tests in reading classes. This program has improved learners vocabulary levels, reading strategies, developed social strategies and lowered learning anxiety.

These findings show that even though EFL learners have high motivation to learn English for socio-cultural and economic reasons, it does not automatically develop learners’ language learning strategies. Good learners are not automatically good language learners and therefore need strategy training in language courses. Limited English exposure also impede inexperienced learners from recognizing their immediate needs which can result in diminished motivation and limited language proficiency; they need abundant English exposure and learn it through using it.

To enhance learning autonomy, teachers are advised to conduct need analysis (Hutchinson and Waters, 1989; Nunan, 1996). Learners have various learning characteristics, experiences and goals. For example Akaranithi (2008) has conducted research dealing with self-directed learning using computer programs in

the classrooms of engineering and architecture students. The engineering students prefer to study writing and reading; while the architecture students like to study listening and speaking. This is due to the nature of their study that leads them to focus on developing certain skills. The engineering students have to write reports and experiment while the architecture students have to present their design orally. This depicts that learners of various fields of studies have their own needs and goals depending on the requirements of their majoring subjects and learning environment. However, Alwasilah finds that the need analysis is often neglected and the

curriculum and the materials are applied on all students in an institution (Alwasilah, 2000: 119).

In addition to the need analysis, to enhance learners’ autonomy in language learning, a language teacher is expected to be interpretive (Voller, 1997), and to act as a scaffold (Wood, Bruner and Ross, 1976 cited in Hammond, 2001), a guide, a facilitator of learning, a counselor, and as a resource (Benson, 2001; Little, 2002; Gardner and Miller, 1999; Sheerin, 1990; Allwright, 1991 cited in Little, 1995). The course is carried out based on learner-centered approach; the teacher negotiates the program and conduct action research together with the learners (Sheerin, 1997; Nunan, 1996; Hutchinson and Waters, 1989; Aebersold and Field, 1998; Roe, Stoodt, and Burns, 1986).

In addition to providing strategy training, a teacher needs to provide various facilities and learning environment with the aim of encouraging and stimulating learners to apply and enrich various learning strategies using various means and various language exposures. The self-access language learning (SALL) can be one of promising facilities to promote autonomy in language learning (Sheerin, 1991 as cited in Gardner and Miller 1999).

However, all of these facilities do not automatically promote learners to develop their learning autonomy (Sheerin, 1997) as discovered by Ivone and Muthmainnah (2008). These researchers have encouraged their fresh language students in Malang to develop their independent learning habits by allowing them to work on their weaknesses or learn for pleasure in Self-Access Center (SAC).

They discover that these learners do not learn in SAC seriously. The probable reasons are firstly, the learners might be accustomed to test-driven learning

purposes and learn only when the subject is tested. Secondly, they do not know how to make use of these facilities to improve their English.

This finding demonstrates that learners need trainings and control to make use of these facilities in enhancing their autonomy in language learning as stated by Sheerin (1997). This strategy has been successfully carried out by Kim (2008) who has improved the students’ motivation to the point that they are willing to continue their self-study after the training ends through Blogs in Self-Access Center in Korea. He has helped students apply their metacogntive strategies - setting up their own language goals, facilitating planned daily study, accessing appropriate

language learning materials based on their own needs, and retaining what they have learned.

SAC does not only have computers with various required programs but also various other facilities and learning programs such as reported by Wu, Lin and Chen (2008). The materials in SAC, both original and specifically designed for self-instruction, have important roles in fostering autonomy in language learning (Dickinson, 1987 cited in Benson, 2001; Gardner and Miller, 1999; Sheerin, 1990).

Nowadays, many language centers establish SACs of various sizes, from modest to very extensive ones. They provide ample English exposures through various means so that learners may select the appropriate materials and means to accelerate their language proficiency and learning strategies.

However, observing a few SACs in Bandung in 2004 - 2007, the researcher found many irregularities. These facilities did not have clear programs and the teachers often abused these facilities. One of the SACs was used to punish learners whenever they broke class rules. Some teachers allowed their students to study in SAC only at the end of the semesters and only to provide these students with different learning situations allowing them to play with games or watch TV programs. Moreover, there were teachers who sent their students to study in SAC

because they were not able to teach for some reasons. The teacher did not give any guidance to make use these SAC facilities to learn the language efficiently.

Considering the findings of various studies and theories presented by various experts of language teaching and learning, the present study attempts to investigate the development of learners’ autonomy in reading class as well as Self-Access Language Learning (SALL). The underlying theories of this study will be explored in detail in Chapter 2.

1.3

Scope of The Study

Assuming that experienced learners apply better learning strategies than the novices, this study focused on the developments of language learning strategies of the non-English department learners when they solved their problems in reading at Politeknik Negeri Bandung, Indonesia. The developments of the students’ learning autonomy were explored through the developments of the four components of learning autonomy i.e. learning purpose, knowledge, skills, and willingness in an English reading class where the lecturer collaborated with the learners and the managing staff of SALL. Since this study focused on the students’ developments, the discussion were focused on the students’ matters.

1.4

Research Questions

This study was conducted to seek answers to the question “what is the trend of development of the learners’ language learning autonomy in the reading class?” This question was, then, further elaborated into the following questions:

1. What are the students’ problems when reading English texts?

2. What instructional decisions are taken as a result of the collaboration among

the related parties?

3. What are the students’ strategies and skills to solve the problems?

4. What are the developments of students’ learning autonomy in reading class?

The data to answer these questions were mostly gathered from closed and open-ended questionnaires, learning journals, students’ reflective journals, tests,

thinking process journals, and field notes. These data were analyzed qualitatively and the findings were confirmed with some observations, interviews, especially informal interview.

The data were collected from a study which had a framework of inductive action research (Wallace, 1998) which had one diagnostic phase and three cycles conducted in two semesters in collaboration with the students and the managing staff of SALL at Politeknik Negeri Bandung. This study required the teacher and the students to negotiate, plan and set goals, act and evaluate results together which was in line with learner-centered approach and allowed the students to learn and practice their learning autonomy (Oxford, 1990; Nunan, 1996; Chamot, et.al 1999; Little, 1995, Voller, 1997; Cohen, 2003).

One of autonomous learners’ characters and good readers is the ability to identify and solve their problems (Holec, 1979, Ridley, 1997; Pintrich, 2004; Pearson, 2004; Wenden, 1987). Therefore, this study concerns with the students’ problems and their strategies to solve their problems.

The first question was to identify the students’ problems either perceived by the students or the teacher. The students’ perceived problems were collected from the students’ journals. The teacher identified the students’ problems by analyzing the students’ journals based on the four components i.e. purpose, knowledge and skills or strategies, and willingness which was explored from the students’ motivation or affective response (Littlejohn, 2008) and confidence. The second question explored the treatments decided after a collaboration among the lecturer, the students and the staff of SALL was conducted in the planning stage. The third question was to identify the students’ strategies to solve their perceived problems which were analyzed from those data collected. The identified problems and the strategies applied, then, became the basis of the next plans and treatments. The fourth question was to find the stages of learners’ autonomy which was analyzed from those four components and students’ perceived problems by means of comparing achievements of these students cross-sectionally and longitudinally.

1.5

Purpose of The Study

The main purpose of this study was to discover the problems and the

learners’ strategies to solve their perceived problems when they are reading English texts. It was to document the development of learners’ autonomy in EFL reading class conducted in the classroom and self-access language learning in tertiary level of education. These purposes could be translated into these specific objectives:

1. to find the first-year students’ perceived problems in reading English texts.

2. to obtain some ideas of the students’ handling their problems in response to

the teachers’ treatments to enhance their autonomy in language learning.

3. to find the developments achieved by the students after some treatments,

and finally

4. to have some ideas and ways to help and guide the students of non-English

department to learn English autonomously either inside or outside the classroom by encouraging them to find their own learning strategies, practice, and acquire these strategies.

1.6

Significance of The Study

This study offers some contributions to English teachers, the students, the language center, or the institution staff and authorities, and other researchers. The results of this study might give a light of the developments of learners’ learning autonomy to the English teachers and researchers, so that they were be able to anticipate and reflect their own practices and develop their language teaching techniques. They could also put their capacities into practice and gain experience to facilitate and guide their students in self-access language learning.

The students of this study are expected to be aware of and improve their language learning strategies and their English proficiency. Hopefully, the

treatments will develope their learning strategies and study skills as well. For the language center and the institution staff and authorities who have spent lots of fund and energy to setting out SALL, this study provides some feedback of having

self-access language learning in their institution and sheds a light on directions to

develop this unit. The findings of this study were also useful for other researchers to conduct similar research in order to obtain deeper and better results.

1.7

Key Terms

This section clarifies seven key terms used in this report. These terms are as follows:

Learning autonomy in this study is defined as the students’ ability to make decision about what to learn and how to manage their learning to achieve their objectives. Learners will make decision to what they learn when they have the ability and willingness (Littlewood, 1996). Students who have learning autonomy are those who are able to decide their learning objectives and they also have knowledge, skills, motivation, and confidence to learn either inside or outside the classroom to achieve their objectives. This definition will be explained in detail in chapter 2. This study explored the development of students’ learning autonomy in EFL reading class. The development were analyzed from four components i.e. learning purposes, knowledge, skills and willingness which was explored from the students’ motivation and confidence.

1. Learning purpose was the students’ learning purposes when they were learning

in reading classes and in self-access language learning.

2. Students’ knowledge was explored from the students’ learning benefit. This

was the benefits perceived by the students from their learning activities. This is to analyze the students’ awareness of some knowledge obtained from the treatments or their learning activities.

3. Skills or strategy adopted was the strategies adopted or employed by the

students as a result of their learning activities. The strategy adopted was classified into two types of strategies i.e. indirect and direct strategies. The indirect strategies or metacognitive strategies were to explore the methods applied by the students to manage their language learning. Other strategies included in indirect strategies were social and affective strategies in addition to

how they set their learning purposes. The direct strategies or cognitive strategies explored the qualities of the students’ mental learning processes. These strategies were further classified into strong and weak direct strategies. a. Strong direct strategy is the strategy involving high level cognitive strategy or deep thinking process or deep mental processing of the language such as translation, summarizing; taking note using learners’ words, describing the meanings of words using learners’ words, etc.

b. Weak direct strategy is the strategy involving low-level cognitive strategy or superficial thinking process, such as consulting bilingual dictionaries, word-for-word translation, copying sentences or descriptions. It does not include social and affective strategies to learn the language.

4. The students’ willingness was explored from the students’ motivation and

confidence. Their motivation was evaluated from their affective response or the students’ response towards their learning activities. The students’

confidence was explored their feeling of success.

5. Self-Access Centre (SAC) in this study is limited to those which mostly used

for learning languages or similar to Self-Access Language Learning (SALL) where this study was conducted.

1.8

Organization of The Writing

To communicate this study with ease to the audience, this report is written

relatively consistent with the writing organization suggested by Paltridge & Stairfield (2007 cited in Emilia, 2008). Chapter 1 describes the background of the study, the challenges of teaching and learning EFL, some efforts and research findings in response to the challenges, the scope, the research questions, the purposes and the significances of the study. Chapter 2 discusses some theoretical concept and some findings underlying this study. This chapter presents the concept of autonomy and the characteristics of good learners and novice learners; reading and characteristics of good and novice readers. It also discusses some teaching and learning theories and findings underlying the treatments and learning context that

may influence the results of this study. Chapter 3 presents the methodology of this study, the designs, brief environment where this study is conducted, the instrument used and how to analyze the collected data to answer the research questions. Chapter 4 is devoted to describe the three cycle treatments which each is directly followed by the analysis under themes emerging from the data, under the first and second research questions. This chapter is closed by a discussing answers to the third research questions. Chapter 5 contains the summary of the reports from the research problems, treatments, and results. Finally, the conclusion in relation to the study, the suggestion and limitation of the study are presented.

CHAPTER III

RESEARCH METHODS

3.0 Introduction

The study of learning autonomy is instrinsically linked to learning strategies and learning processes. Oxford (1990) and Chamot et. al (1999) claim that

autonomous and good learners are able to control themselves and have various direct or cognitive strategies and indirect strategies i.e. metacognitive, social and affective strategies. They are good at orchestrating these strategies and have good knowledge of what they want to learn (Pintrich, 2004; Rubin, 1975; Chamot and O’Malley, 1987; and Wenden 1987). They know well about the language, their proficiency, the outcome of their efforts, their roles in language learning process and how to approach the task of language learning (Wenden, 1982 and 1986 in 1987: 22).

This study aims to investigate the development of students’ autonomy in language learning in an EFL reading class over two semesters at Politeknik Negeri Bandung located in West Java, Indonesia. The reading class was run by applying learner-centred approach (see 2.4.2 and 2.4.2.1); the teacher attempted to

accommodate both the students’ and the institution’s expectation. The first question of this study was to discover the students’ problems when reading English texts. The second question was to explore the instructional decisions suitable for the students to improve their learning strategies to solve their problems. The third question was to discover learners’ solving strategies in relation to the treatments. Finally, the fourth question was aimed at exploring the development of the learners’ autonomy along this study.

To answer the research questions, students’ original insight strategies and changes are needed (Cohen, 2007; 253); and for these purposes a study within a framework of action research was conducted. This type of study was selected for at least of seven reasons: First, action research was a flexible type of study i.e. it could be undertaken by individual teachers as well as a group of teachers working

together within one school etc. (Cohen, et.al, 2007: 297: Water-Adams, 2006) because the realization of individual nature of practice is the important (Water-Adams, 2006). Second, Stringer (1996) claimed that action research could be conducted based on every day life activities by a group of people in collaboration to assist others in extending their understanding of their situation and thus resolved problems (Stringer, 1996: 9). Third, Baumfield, Hall, and Wall (2008: 4 – 5) stated that action research allowed individual teacher or researcher to control and select appropriate research tools for the teacher’s environment and use these tools to generate the necessary feedback in a systematic way.

Fourth, the impetus for inquiry could be an issue of concern at an individual teacher level, among a group of colleagues, or across a whole school or group of schools (Baumfield, et.al., 2008: 6). Fifth, action research was employed in anticipation of some changes (Stringer, 1996; Wallace, 1998; Baumfield, et.al., 2008; Chamot, Barnhardt and Dirstine, 1998). Sixth, Fandiño (2007: 3) claimed that learner autonomy could be promoted through action research studies because learner autonomy was concerning with the awareness of and identifying one’s strategies, needs and goals as a learner along with the opportunity to reconsider and refashion approaches and procedures; and these were all in line with the

characteristics of action research. Finally, this type of study was in line with learner-centered approach to promote learners’ learning autonomy (Dam, 1998; Little, 2002; Cohen, 2003; Cohen, 2007: 297; Nunan, 1996; Carr and Kemmis, 1986).

These arguments had encouraged the researcher to conduct inductive action research with the intention that the changes of each cycle could be compared and the paths of development could be investigated. The next sections describe the model of the study, the access and the educational environment, the students, finally the method of collecting and analyzing the scattered data of students journals to establish the validity and reliability of this study are also discussed.

3.1 Research Design

Action research models a process of reflective cycle on professional action (Wallace, 1998: 12 – 13). It focuses on problems and aims at solving problems (Carr and Kemmis, 1986; Cohen, 2007; Stringer, 1996; Baumfield, et.al., 2008). The main characteristic of action research is the spiral activity consisting of

planning, acting, observing, and reflecting (Kemmis and McTaggart, 1988, as cited in Stringer, 1996: 16). The cycles of action research is illustrated as a set of

activities as depicted in figure 3 a. This type of research has two approaches - individual and collaborative approach (Wallace, 1998: 39) and two types of inquiries – inductive and deductive. Inductive action research is conducted when the inquiry is derived from data collection; on the other hand, when the inquiry is to apply the principles of good teaching methodology, deductive action research is carried out (Wallace, 1998).

This study had a collaborative approach; it was carried out in collaboration with the students and the managing staff of SALL at Politeknik Negeri Bandung (Carr and Kemmis, 1986; Allwright, 2003; Dam, 1998; Nunan, 1996; Cohen, 2007; Baumfield, et.al., 2008). It was characterized as inductive action research because the starting point of this research was to explore students’ problems in reading and learning English, find the possible reasons, and provide treatments to students in an available context.

This study began from the students’ problems, then followed by a

collaboration between the researcher or the teacher and the head and administration staff of SALL. The teacher also collaborated with the students to plan the materials and learning activities, and ended with a self-evaluation activity. This framework was selected for four reasons; first, it had potentials to answer the research

questions and obtain insights to the problems, either from the points of view of the learners or the researcher. Second, this type of study assisted the researcher in obtaining insight data of what learners did to solve their own perceived problems and applied their strategies to solve their problems. Third, the reflection or

evaluation at the end of each cycle allowed the researcher to identify the

development made by the learners and found the possible causes of the changes.

Reflect Plan

Observe

Act

Reflect Plan

Observe

Act

Reflect Plan

Observe Act

Diagram 3 a. Model of Action Research (Kemmis, presented by Waterworth, P. 2003)

Finally, this type of study facilitated learners develop their learning autonomy for it was in line with learner-centered approach in the negotiated curriculum where negotiation between the teacher and learners was emphasized (Carr and Kemmis, 1986: 171: Nunan, 1996). This model of action research represented the strategies applied by good learners who are familiar with problem-solving strategies (Ellis, 1994; Wenden, 1987; Rubin, 1987).

The implementation of the three cycle study was supported by three reasons; first, the first cycle was used for the orientation stage; the students needed time to adapt themselves with the new learning situation. This was also the time to establish relationship between the teacher and the learners. The second and third cycles were conducted as result of the deeper evaluation from the previous treatments. Second, the three cycles needed three evaluations; these allowed the researcher to investigate the development of the students’ learning autonomy.

Third, the time allocation terminated this study in three cycles for reasons that the students learned English for two semesters or one academic year. This allowed the study to be replicated and improved in other tertiary levels of education in

Indonesia, especially in other polytechnics in Indonesia.

The researcher was the lecturer who directly taught and collaborated with the students and the managing staff of SALL. The treatments focused on pursuing language learning autonomy and improving reading skills by solving the students’ perceived problems. The main variables of this study were the students’ learning behaviors viewed from how they set goals and focused their learning to identify their learning purposes and how they evaluated their learning viewed from their perceived learning benefits, strategies adopted, affective responses and problems. The analysis is based on several data collected from tests, questionnaires, students’ journals, field notes/teacher’s diaries, observations, and interviews.

3.2 The Procedures of The Study

A study needs systematical data collection, analysis, and triangulation. The general frame of this study is illustrated in figure 3 b. This study covered

preliminary studies, a diagnostic phase and three cycles of treatments.

Before the study was carried out, two preliminary studies were conducted at a state polytechnic to try out the instruments such as questionnaires, guiding questions for journals and the questions for interviews. They also served to obtain rough ideas of the learning environment and the students’ problems. To develop a tentative treatments and materials, observations of classroom activities as well as informal interviews with the heads of SALL, civil engineering department and the students were carried out. Academic context was also carefully observed by evaluating the available textbooks in libraries. These data were analyzed and the findings were correlated with the theoretical concepts suggested by experts of reading and learning autonomy. The questionnaires were revised and a pre-designed study was constructed.

Collecting data to find tertiary students’ interests,

problems and perceived problems in reading textbooks, through preliminary studies.

Preparation Pre-designing the study

Finding out the students’ perceived problems, interests in reading texts

Finding out the students’ learning habits and language learning goals in the diagnostic phase.

Revising the pre-design study and planning the first treatment Treatment

Evaluating the result (week 5/ 9 Nov. 06) The body of

the study Planning the second treatment

Treatment

Evaluating the result (week 15/ 25 April 07)

Planning the third treatment

Treatment

Evaluating the result (Week 9/25 July 07)

Analyzing the development of students’ learning autonomy, and drawing conclusion

Diagram. 3 b. Design of the Study

During the diagnostic phase which was conducted for 3 weeks, the students completed proficiency tests in addition to close and open-ended questionnaires. The results of the questionnaires were triangulated with the results of several informal interviews. The data were analyzed and discussed with the students and then the managing staff of SALL to decide and plan the Cycle 1 treatment. When being planned and conducted, an ideal treatment was consulted with theoretical concepts.

Approaching the end of each cycle, the students were asked to write self-observation (Wallace, 1998: 76, 80) or write reflective journals. Treatments and students’ progress were evaluated at the end of each cycle from students’ reflective journal and their tasks (Cohen, 2007; Wenden, 1986) as well as ‘thinking process journals’ taken while they are guessing the meanings of new words from short texts (Nation, 2002: 223; Arden and Close, 1986 as cited in Nation, 2002: 249; Green,

D A T A

A N A L Y S I S

1998:1-2). The problems identified became the basis of the subsequent treatments to achieve some positive development.

The data collected were analyzed and triangulated with some informal talks, and observation written in the teacher’s diaries. To obtain the stages of autonomy development, continuous comparisons were carried out either within each learner across cycles or across learners within each cycle .

3.3 Access

One of the principles and characteristics of action research is undertaken directly in situ (Hult and Lennung, 1980 and McKernan, 1991 as cited in Cohen,

et.al., 2007: 299). To conduct a classroom reading program and self-access

language learning program, it is imperative to find a tertiary level of education which was not only implementing English reading class but also running self-access language learning.

It was advantageous that the researcher was one of the English instructors at the state polytechnic; and I had been teaching in this institution for more than fifteen years. This enabled her to obtain informal permission from my colleagues, the head of SALL, and the assistant director for academic affairs. In addition, she was actively participating in establishing a Self-Access Language Learning (SALL) to enhance students’ autonomy in language learning and language proficiency at this institution.

3.4 Setting

The learning environment plays an important role in enhancing the reading performance of the students (Knuth and Jones, 1991; Mikulecky (1990: 1). School environment may promote the need of reading by means of providing tasks and facilities such as books, journals, and magazines. Some of them are discussed briefly under the classification of setting, institutional English curriculum, civil engineering department, and the class context.

The setting of this study was at Politeknik Negeri Bandung, the second oldest polytechnic in Indonesia. It was a prestigious institution and had been assisting in the establishment of other state and private polytechnics. This

polytechnic had 477 lecturers and instructors and 25 English lectures. In addition, it had 309 supporting staff and 3354 students (data Polban 2006). The majority of the students came from West Java, and the rest came from other parts of Java and outside Java such as Sumatra, Sulawesi, Kalimantan, Papua, West and East Nusatenggara.

In this institution, English as compulsory subject had two main curriculums; one was English for commerce and the other was English for engineering. Since this study was conducted within a class of civil engineering students, the discussion was limited to the English curriculum for engineering. The four credit units for English in engineering department was compulsory; each department had the liberty to conduct it in one, two, three or four semesters. In addition, each

department also had the liberty for additional English credit units when it was really important for the majoring subjects. For example, mechanical engineering

department had eight English credit units in two semesters, electronic engineering department ran six English credit units in three semesters. Civil engineering department ran four credit units in two semesters but very often it was modified without any prior notification to the English teachers.

Since 2004, this department had revised the English curriculum many times in order to improve the students’ English proficiency. The time allocation for English was at times two semesters and at other times four semesters two periods a week (2x50’). The head of civil engineering department made an attempt to

improve the students’ academic reading and technical report writing skills. He ordered English references for the library located on the third floor of

Administration Center building. The writing skills were emphasized in technical report writings intended for the third and fourth semesters.

The physical condition of the classroom alongside with other events may influence the process of teaching and learning in the classroom (Roe, Stoodt and

Burns, 1986: 452; Nunan, 2003: 295) when this study was being carried out. The activities of this study, both the classroom and SALL activities, were carried out at

UPT Bahasa of this institution. The SALL room offerred various facilities such as

computers linked to internet and a printer. It also had hundreds of modules consisting of the four language skills, vocabulary, grammar, magazines, newspapers, manuals, bilingual dictionaries, and monolingual dictionaries. In addition, it had cassette recorders, various video films, a television set with a satelite channel and a DVD player, games and CDs of English computer programs. All these facilities were restricted to premises only.

This study was a longitudinal study and started from the first semester, on 4th September 2006 until the end of the second semester on 25 th July 2007. During this time, it interrupted four times:

1. Idul Fitri at the end of Cycle 1 for two weeks in November 2006

2. Christmas and New Year vacation at the beginning of Cycle 2 for two

weeks in December 2006 and January 2007.

3. A semester break in the middle of Cycle 2 for a month in February 2007.

4. A workshop break at the end of Cycle 2 for four weeks in May 2007.

3.5 The Subjects

This action research required collaboration between the teacher-researcher and other stakeholders or subjects i.e. the students and the managing staff of SALL, because it was conducted in the classroom and SALL. The subjects of this action research were the 25 first-year students of the Civil Engineering Department at a state polytechnic in Bandung. Their ages ranged from 17 to 19 years old, or in average 17.96 years old. The majority came from various places in West Java – Bandung (13), Cimahi (3), Lembang (1), Ciamis (1), Purwakarta (1), Garut (1), Tasikmalaya (1), Cirebon (1), Banjar (1), Bogor (1) and Central Java, Pekalongan (1).

Among these 25 students, 24 attended the English class and one discontinued his study at this polytechnic for personal reasons. At the beginning, the researcher

selected six focal students based on their proficiency tests and vocabulary levels. Two focal students, a male and a female, were chosen for holding the highest proficiency scores; two had fair scores and the other two had the lowest scores. However, the researcher did not inform them that they were the focal learners of this study; this was done to maintain the neutrality of the classroom situation and to avoid psychological effects.

The data of the study were collected from 17 students who were selected because of various aspects. They had completed 75% of the English class and submitted the necessary journals along with most of their assignments.

The managing staff consisted of the head and one administration staff of SALL. When this study was conducted, the roles of these two staff were to support the various needs namely:

1. to allow the researcher and the students to use SALL facilities,

2. to schedule the time,

3. to manage SALL facilities,

4. to develop the facilities especially the materials to support the activities,

5. to provide other logistic matters such as paper, learning journals and

questionnaire forms.

3.6 Instruments

This section is devoted to discuss the instruments used to collect the data alongside with when and how they were used. The six types of instruments were the researcher, reseacher’s diaries, tests, questionaires, journals, observation and small talks or informal interviews.

3.6.1 The Researcher

The main, or key, instrument is the researcher as claimed by Maxwell (1996: 66 and Merriam, 1988: 19; Lincoln and Guba, 1985 in Cohen, et.al, 2008;p 134). In this study, the researcher was a participant researcher on the lecture who directly taught and collaborated with the students and the managing staff of SALL

(Wallace, 1998; Carr and Kemmis, 1986:p. 171). The lecturer systematically sought and organized data, kept records of what occurred as detail as possible, periodically detached herself from the situation to review records, constantly monitored and recorded for evidence of personal bias and prejudice, focused on the meaning of the students, and described the process as suggested by (Creswell, 1998: 14). To do all these activities, field notes or researcher’s diaries were needed.

3.6.2 Field Notes

Field notes or researcher diaries were taken during the study (Merriam, 1988: 88). They were used to plan the learning activities or ‘record of works’ (Wallace, 1998: 58). They were used when the researcher observed some interesting strategies applied by the students either in SALL or in classroom as suggested by Wallace (1998: 109), although observation yielded limited

information because learning strategies are obviously mostly applied in learners’ minds (Rubin, 1981 in Wenden and Rubin eds. 1987: 75). This instrument was also used to note the interpretation of small talks that took place in an unpredictable situation either when the study was carried out or after it was finished.

They contained the lesson plans, data analysis such as the reflection of methods, theory, purpose, or any other note or question that might be related to other data. Notes were written as soon as possible after small talks or when some students were talking about their strategies in front of the class.

3.6.3 Tests

This study administered two types of tests, proficiency and vocabulary tests. The vocabulary tests had two forms, Vocabulary Level Test and Text Level Test.

3.6.3.1 Proficiency Test

Proficiency test was conducted by UPT Bahasa and all fresh students were required to this test at the beginning of the first semester. Although this test was

carried out by the institution, it was to obtain English proficiency levels of the learners in order to prepare the treatments and materials.

The design and content of this test was similar to TOEFL, hereafter called paper-based TOEFL-Like test because the test was taken from TOEFL Practice tests. It was a multiple-choice test which each question had one correct answer among four choices. This test consisted of three sections, listening comprehension, structure and written expression and reading comprehension. For the purpose of this study reading section is discussed.

The reading comprehension consisted of 50 items in 8 reading passages of general knowledge, and students were given 55 minutes to complete this section. Each reading passage had 5 to 8 questions designed to reveal students performance in scanning for important information, recognizing organization and purpose of a passage, understanding the main idea, major points, important facts and details, vocabulary in context, and pronoun references.

This test was administered by Pusat Bahasa; all fresh students of all

departments were required to take this test on the first week of the first semester supervised by an English lecturer. The supervisors were to distribute the answer sheets and the booklets before the test started and kept the time of each section and collected the answers sheet after the test was over.

The scoring system was based the scoring system provided by the TOEFL Practice book, namely the total correct number of each section was matched with the scoring table of each section. To obtain the final score, the total scores of those three sections were multiplied by 10 then the result was divided into three.

3.6.3.2 Vocabulary Test

This study made use of two types of vocabulary test in which one of them was the Vocabulary Level Test (Nation, 2002) and the other was Text Level Test (Nation, 1988: 2002).

3.6.3.2.1 Vocabulary Level Test

A Vocabulary Level Test (Nation, 2002: 416-422) was administered to obtain the vocabulary levels of the students. It was administered to identify the students’ problems, prepare the suitable reading materials, as well as to select the focal students.

The tests was devised by Nation (1988; 2002) without any modification, Vocabulary Level Test had been piloted in English classes in 2003 and it had been proved to be a reliable test in Cameron’s research (2002).

It consisted of 5 levels, 2000, 3000, academic words, 5000, 10000 words; but for this study only 4 levels were applied, 2000, 3000, academic words and 5000 word levels were used. They were mulitple-choice test of recognition, and the sample of the test item is provided below:

1. business 2. clock 3. horse 4. pencil 5. shoe 6. wall

_____________ _____________ ______4_______

Part of a house Animal with four legs Something used for writing

Each level had six sections consisted of six words and three definitions, or meanings; the words used for the description were at an easier level than that of the intended words. For example the words used to define the meanings of the 2000 word level test, were words of 1000 word level. The 2000 word level was selected as the most frequently occurring words in texts based on a respectable

computerized corpus. These words made up around 82% of the words in any text including academic texts (Nation 2002).

This test was carried out in the diagnostic phase. The tests were copied and distributed to the students and they had to answers the four levels (2000, 3000, academic vocabulary, and 5000) successively for about 45 minutes. The students matched words and the descriptions by writing the number of the word in front of the appropriate description. The vocabulary level of the learners was identified; the

target was 90% correct or about 16 correct words out of 18 words (Nation, 2002: 416-422).

3.6.3.2.2 Text Level Test

This second test was carried out to determine the vocabulary level of the text in books used in this study; it was administered to select the appropriate level of reading materials (Nation, 1988, 2002). The test was carried out by taking a sample of an article of a book proposed as reading material.

This test was administered at the diagnostic phase and throughout the study. While the learners were reading, they underlined any unfamiliar words. The scoring system was that the total underlined words divided by the total words of the text were multiplied by 100%. If the learners underlined more than 5%-6% of the total words, then the text was rendered too difficult for them to read. If they underlined less than 5%, the text was considered appropriate for the students to read. It encouraged readers to apply compensation strategies, or guessing meaning from context strategies, to learn and aqcuire the new words (Nation, 2002: 148).

This type of tests was administered not only to evaluate the difficulty level of the books but also most of the texts used in this study. The students were

required to underline any unfamiliar words whenever they were reading a text. This activity was mostly carried out in cycle 2.

3.6.4 Questionnaires

Questionnaires were expected to help researchers discover insight into learners’ learning styles and strategies (Breen and Mann, 1997; Ridley, 1997). This study applied two types of questionnaires, closed and open-ended questionnaires.

3.6.4.1 Closed Questionnaire

Researchers use closed questionnaires to obtain certain patterns to be observed and comparisons to be made (Cohen et. al., 2000). This study applied three close questionnaires. They were designed to obtain certain learning patterns of

students’ goals, language learning background, preferences, habits, level of interest in learning English beyond the classroom, and reading strategies.

The first close questionnaire was devised to measure students’ levels of interest in English beyond the English class. The content of the questionnaire had been designed by Chamot et. al (1999) with some additional items to expose students’ learning goals (see Appendix A 1). It was distributed together with the open-ended one to be completed, the students simply put a tick in front of the statement. This questionnaire was administered on the first week by explaining the meaning of each statement and asking the students to tick the appropriate statements conveying the level of interest in learning English to the teacher in order to adjust the teaching and learning activities in line with their expectations.

The second questionnaire was devised to obtain information about the students’ reading strategies; it was taken from Chamot et. al. (1999). The questionnaire had these following questions and the students were required to circle one of the four options never, rarely, sometimes, and often; and number 1 was the example (see Appendix A 2). This questionnaire was administered on the third week after they read an authentic text taken from the Introduction of Young Geographer: Use of

Land, written by James (1993). It was perpetrated to help the students reflect what

strategies they applied when they were reading. When the students were completing the questionnaire, each item was explained in Indonesian, followed by some time to think (about 30 second) and put circle.

The third questionnaire was devised by Nunan (1996) and modified by Gardner and Miller (1999: 159-160). The content of this questionnaire was

inquireries on learners’ experience when they learned English (see Appendix A 3). These three questionnaires had been piloted in the second semester students in 2005, and it exposed the necessity for small changes:

- the procedure in administering these questionnaires.

- the possibilities of incorporating Questionnaire 1 with an open-ended

This questionnaire was administered on the second week, before the students were being introduced to the facilities and activities in Self-Access Language Learning. To complete this questionnaire, the students rated how often they learned English using the listed learning strategies. The rating scales were between 0 to 3, as suggested by Gardner and Miller (1999). Next they were required to calculate the total score of the each group and matched them with the provided explanation. Then the results were match to the explanation given by Gardner and Miller (1999: 159-160). Finally, they were required to explain how they learned English and the reasons for their preference.

3.6.4.2 Open-Ended Questionnaire

Researchers use open-ended questionnaire when rich personal data is needed and the number of the participants is small (Cohen et. al., 2000). This study applied one open-ended questionnaire, called personal data. It was used to obtain the students’ name, age, orginines, goals in learning English, their problems when reading English texts and strategies to solve their perceived problems. This questionnaire was used as a triangulation of how they learn English. To prevent misleading answers astray from the researchers’ intention (Cohen, 1986), a semi-structured questionnaire is used.it includes a series of questions as well as

statements and the students were asked to answer, repond to or give comments on them (Cohen, at. al. 2000). The content of this questionnaire is in Appendix A 4.

This questionnaire had been piloted in preliminary studies in 2005, and it was found that learners completed most items of no 5. However, answers to the question of how they learned the language outside the class could not be identified, and item 9 was added as an alternate instruction.

This open-ended questionnaire was distributed together with the closed one. To complete this questionnaire, the students were required to write their personal data no 1 and 2. Then they completed answers to their learning background and the problems encountered in reading class . While the students were completing this questionnaire, each item was explained, time was given depending on the length

and difficulties of the expected answers, and they were allowed to complete the questionnaire bilingually, in English and Indonesian. When they had finished answering item 8, the questionnaire was collected.

Finally, the researcher distributed blank paper and wrote item no. 9 on the white board. The students wrote a bilingual letter to their friends individually and silently in the classroom.

3.6.5 Journals

Bearing in mind that teacher discover learners’ conscious strategies by means of learners’ diaries or journals (Chamot, 1987, in Wenden and Rubin, eds. 1987: 81) and autonomous learners are aware and responsible for their learning, this study employs journals as the main instruments to explore the development of learners’ autonomy. The journal here looked like diaries (Wenden, 1987; Bailey, 1990; Halbach, 2000), in regard to forms and contents. To prevent learners from writing unintended information for the purpose of this study, they were given examples depending the tasks (Bailey, 1990). This study exploited four journals, KWL journals, learning journal, reflective journal, and thinking process journals.

3.6.5.1 KWL Journal

The first journal was called KWL journal (Hadaway, et. al, 2002; Roe, et.

al., 1986). KWL was the abbreviation of what you Know, what you Want to know

and what you Learn. This journal was designed to obtain information about what the students planned, learned consciously, their problems, and what they were focusing on while they were reading texts in English classes, in particular the language aspects.

According to reading experts, KWL journal can be used to help students comprehend texts. Furthermore, since this was in English class, this journal included a question asking about the English learnt from the text. This journal was designed in such a way that the learners were encouraged to reflect their

had just learnt from the text, identify their problems, and make plans. The guiding questions were written on the white board:

This journal was completed by the students everytime they read English texts in the classroom in Cycle 1 and beginning of Cycle 2. The procedure was as follows:

1. Blank paper was distributed to every student

2. The four KWL questions were written on the board and the lecturer

explained the meaning of each question.

3. The topic and the title of the text were written on the board.

4. Time was provided (about 10 minutes) for the students to think and write

down what they knew about the topic and what more do they wanted to know about it (question no 1 and 2).

5. The text was distributed and time was given to allow the students to read,

and while they were reading they were allowed to ask the teacher questions or discuss with friends.

6. 15 minutes before the class was over, the students were instructed to write

the answers of questions number 3 to 6 in their paper. 7. Before the class was over, their journals were collected.

3.6.5.2 Learning Journal

The second journal was called learning journal or learning log as suggested by Gardner and Miller (1999). This learning journal was used to obtain information about their metacognitive strategies, namely the students’ goals, the reasons for having those goals, how they achieved their goals, and their learning evaluation i.e. what they learned, encountered problems, learning activities, and their plan for the

1. What do you know about the topic?

2. What information do you expect to get from the text? 3. What did you learn from the topic/text?

4. What did you learn from the text to improve your English? 5. Do you have any problems?

Katz, L. 1987. Another Look at What Young Children Should be Learning, Eric Digest, ED 290554.

Khan, S and Pinyana, A. 2004. Investigating Independent Language Learning in Classroom-Based EFL Learners, Document de Recerca, Universitat de Vic. Kim, H. 2008 Fostering College Students’ Language Learning Autonomy Through

Blogs, Globalizing Asia: The Role of ELT, 6th Asia TEFL International Conference.

Knowles, M. 1975. Self-Directed Learning: A Guide for Learners and Teachers, Chicago: Follett Publishing Company.

Krashen, S.D. 1981. Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning, Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Krashen, S.D. and Terrell, T.D. 2000. The Natural Approach: Language Acquisition in the Classroom, England: Prentice Hall Europe.

Kwan, L.L. 1999. “A Tutor-Guided Learning Scheme in a Self-Access center”. The Internet TESL Journal, Vol. V, No. 9, September.

Lee, K. 2008. New Challenge of English Teacher in Korea, Globalizing Asia: The Role of ELT, 6th Asia TEFL International Conference.

Legenhausen, L. 1998. Focus on Learning rather than Teaching – with what result? Focus on Learning rather than Teaching: Why and How? Papers from the IATEFL conference on learner independende, Kraköw, 14 – 16 may 1998, CLCS, Trinity College Dublin 2, Ireland.

Lengkanawati, N.S. 2004. How Learners from Different Cultural Backgrounds Learn a Foreign Language, Asian EFL Journal, March 2004

Li, L. 2008. Developing Learner Atonomy through Group Discussion, Globalizing Asia: The Role of ELT, 6th Asia TEFL International Conference.

Little, D. 1990. Autonomy In Language Learning. In I. Gathercole (Ed.), Autonomy in language learning (pp. 7-15). London: Centre of Information in Language Teaching

Little, D. 1995. Learning as Dialogue: The Dependence of Learner Autonomy on Teacher Autonomy. System, Vo. 23, No. 2, pp. 175 – 181, Great Britain: Elsevier Science Lt.

Little, D. 1996. Strategic Competence considered in relation to strategic control of the language learning process, in Holec, H., Little. D, and Richterich, R. .1996. Strategies in Language Learning and Use, German: Council of Europe Publishing Little, D. 1997. Responding authentically to authentic texts: a problem for self-access

language learning”, in Benson, Phil and Voller, Peter eds (1997) Autonomy and Independence in Language Learning, United Kingdom: Pearson Education Limited Little, D. 1998. Why focus on learning rather than teaching? Focus on learning rather

independence, Kraköw, 14 – 16 May 1998, CLCS, Trinity College Dublin 2, Ireland

Little, D., Dam, L, Timmer, J. 1998. Why focus on learning rather than teaching?, Focus on Learning Rather than Teaching: why and how? Papers from IATEFL

conference on learner independence, Kraków, 14 – 16 May 1998

Little, D. 2002. The European Language Portfolio and learner autonomy, Höfunder og STIL., Dublin: Trinity College

Little, D. 2003. ‘Learner Autonomy and Second/Foreign Language Learning’ in Guide to Good Practice for Learning and Teaching in Languages, Linguistics and Area of Studies’. llas@soton.ac.uk, downloaded 23/1/2006

Little, D., J. Ridley, E. Ushioda. 2003. Towards greater learner autonomy in the Foreign Language Classroom, Authentik

Little, D. 2007. Language Learner Autonomy: Some Fundamental Considerations Revisited, Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, Vol 1, No 1, 2007 Littlejohn, A. 1997. Self-Access Work and Curriculum Ideologies, in Benson, Phil and

Voller, Peter eds (1997) Autonomy and Independence in Language Learning, United Kingdom: Pearson Education Limited. pp. 181-191

Littlejohn, A. 2008. The Tip of the Iceberg: Factors Affecting Learner Motivation, RELC, Vol 39(2) 214-225; SAGE Publications.

Littlewood, W. 1985. Foreign and Second Language Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Littlewood, W. 1996 Autonomy: an Anatomy and a Framework, System, Vol. 24, pp 427-435; Elsevier Science Ltd.

Littlewood, W. 1999. Difining and Developing Autonomy in East Asian Contexts, Applied Linguistics, 20 (1), pp. 71-94.

Maculewicz, M. 2006. Learning How to Teach Autonomous Learning, A Diploma Project (NKJO Ciechanów), downloaded 23/1/2006

Mackey, A. and Gass, S.M. 2005 Second Language Research: Methodology and Design, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

McKay, S.L. 2002. Teaching English As An International Language: Rethinking Goals and Perspectives, in TESL – EJ, Vol 7, No 1, June 2003. Downloaded from http://www.tesl-ej.org 5 May 2010.

McKenna, M.C. and Robinson, R.D. 1993. Teaching Through Text: A Content Literacy Approach to Content Area Reading, New York: Longman Publishing Group Maryanto, A. 2008. How to Synergize Extensive Reading, Vocabulary Building, and

Writing, Globalizing Asia: The Role of ELT, 6th Asia TEFL International Conference.

Maxwell, J.A. 1996. Qualitative Research Design: An Interactive Approach, California: SAGE Publication, Inc.

Merawati, M.V.J. 2003. Improving Reading Strategies and Skills through Guessing Meanings from Context. Master degree thesis, Bandung: Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia.

Mikulecky, B. S. 1990. A Short Course in Teaching Reading Skills, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company

Miles, M.B. and Huberman, A.M. 1994. An Expanded Sourcebook: Qualitative Data Analysis, California: SAGE Publication, Inc.

Nation, I. S. P. 1988. Teaching and Learning Vocabulary, Wellington: Victoria University of Wellington

Nation, I. S. P. 2002. Learning Vocabulary in Another Language, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Nation, I. S. P. 2002. Managing Vocabulary Learning, Singapore: SEAMEO RELC Nation, I. S. P. 2008. Teaching Vocabulary: Strategies and Techniques, United State:

Heinle

Niemiec, C.P. and Ryan, R.M. 2009. Autonomy, competence, and relatedness in the classroom: Applying self-determination theory to educational practice, Theory and Research in Education Vol 7, pp. 133 - 144

Nunan, D. 1996. The Learner-Centred Curriculum, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Nunan, D. 1997.Second Language Teaching & Learning, Massachusetts: Heinle & Heinle Publishers

Nunan, D. Ed. 2003. Practical English Language Teaching, Singapore: Mc Graw Hill Nuttall, C. 1989. Teaching Reading Skills in a Foreign Language, London: Heinemann O’Malley, J.M. 1987. The Effects of Training in the Use of Learning Strategies on

Acquiring English as a Second Language, in Learner Strategies in Language Learning, Wenden and Rubin, eds, 1987, London: Prentice Hall ELT

Olson, D.R. 2003. Psychological Theory and Educational Reform, New York: Cambridge University Press

Opalka, B. 2006. Reflective Learning in the Autonomous Classroom, http://www.iatefl.org.pl. Retrieved 7 July 2006.

Oxford, R. 1990. Language Learning Strategies. Massachusetts: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.

Oxford, R.L. 1994. Language Learning Strategies: An Update, Eric Digest, ED. 376707 Oxford, R.L and Nykos, M (1989) Variables Affecting Choice of Language Learning

Strategies by University Students, The Modern Language Journal, Vol. 73, No. 3. Pakasi, J. 2008. Reading Portfolio and ESP: Moving Toward Autonomy and Lifelong

learning, Globalizing Asia: The Role of ELT, 6th Asia TEFL International Conference.

Palfreyman, D. 2003. Introduction: Culture & Learner Autonomy, in Plafreyman, D and Smith, R.C. eds. 2003 Learner Autonomy Across Cultures Lanugage Education Perspectives, Great Britain: Palgrave Macmillan Ltd.

Palfreyman, D. and Smith, R.C. Eds. 2003. Learner Autonomy Across Cultures Lanugage Education Perspectives, Great Britain: Palgrave Macmillan Ltd.

Paris, S. G., Wasik, B. A., and Turner, J. C. 1991. ‘The Development of Strategic Readers’, in Barr, R. and Kamil, M. L. (eds.), Handbook of Reading Research, (609-723), New York: Longman

Pearson, N. 2004. The Idiosyncrasies of out-of-class language learning: A study of mainland Chinese students studying English at tertiary level in New Zealand, Proceedings of the Independent Learning Conference.

Pennycook, A. 1994. The Cultural Politics of English as an International Language, in Book Review by Newfield, Tim. Teacher Talking to Teacher, Vol III, No. 3, Oct, 1995, (pp. 21 – 23) downloaded 4 May 2010.

Pintrich, P.R. 2004. A conceptual Framework for Assessing Motivation and Self-Regulated Learning in College Students, Educational Psychology Review, Vol. 16, No. 4 December 2004.

Press, M.C. 1996. ‘Case study: ethnicity and attitudes towards autonomy’. In Benson, P. 2001. Teaching and Researching Autonomy in Language Learning. 193-199, England: Pearson Education Limited.

Polban. 1999. Kurikulum Bahasa Inggris Politeknik Negeri Bandung, Bandung: Politeknik Negeri Bandung.

Polban. 1999. Kurikulum Teknik Sipil Politeknik Negeri Bandung, Bandung: Politeknik Negeri Bandung.

Polban. 1999. Kurikulum Teknik Energi Politeknik Negeri Bandung, Bandung: Politeknik Negeri Bandung.

Read, J. 2001. Assessing Vocabulary, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press Reinders, H. 2007. Current Approaches to Assessment in Self-Access Language

Learning, TESL-EJ, December 2007, Vol. 11, No. 3

Richard-Amato, P.A. and Snow, M.A. Eds. 2003 Academic Success for English Language Learners: Strategies for K12 Mainstream Teachers, New York: Pearson Education, Longman

Ridley, J. 1997. Reflection and Strategies In Foreign Language Learning, Frankfurt, Germany: Peter Lang GmbH.

Roe, B. D., Stoodt, B. D. and Burns, P. C. 1986. Second School Reading Instruction: The Content Areas (3rd edn.). New Jersey: Houghton Mifflin Company

Scott, D. and Usher, R. 1999. Researching Education, London: Cassell

Sert, N. 2006. EFL Student Teachers’ Learning Autonomy, Asian EFL Journal, Vol 8 issue 2, June 2006

Sheerin, S. 1990. Self- Access. Hong Kong: Oxford University Press

Sinclair, J. et.al. eds. 1995. Collins Cobuild English Dictionary. London: HarperCollins Publisher.

Smith, R.C. 2003. Pedagogy for Autonomy as (Becoming-) Appropriate Methodology, in Palfreyman, D. and Smith, R.C. Eds. 2003. Learner Autonomy Across Cultures Lanugage Education Perspectives, Great Britain: Palgrave Macmillan Ltd. Songsiri, M. 2007. An Action Research Study of Promoting Students’ Confidence in

Speaking English. School of Education, Faculty of Arts, Education and Human Development, Victoria University.

Spiegel, D. L. 1998. Reader Response Approaches And The Growth Of Readers, Language Arts, Vol. 76, No. 1, September 1998

Spratt, M., Humphrey, G, and Chan, V. 2002. Autonomy and motivation: which come first? Language Teaching Research, Vol. 6, No. 3, 2002, pp. 245 - 266

Stringer, E.T. 1996. Action Research: A Handbook for Practitioners, New Delhi: Sage Publications

Sudibyo, B. 2005. Peraturan Menteri Pendidikan Nasional Republik Indonesia, No 11, 2005. Tentang Buku Teks Pelajaran, Jakarta: Pusat Perbukuan.

Sudibyo, B. 2006. Peraturan Menteri Pendidikan Nasional Republik Indonesia, No 22, 2006. Tentang Standard Isi untuk Satuan Pendidikan Dasar dan Menengah. Jakarta.

Swales, J.M. 1990. Genre Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Tajadini, M. 2008. Teachers’ Interpretation of the Notion of “Learner-centeredness” in EFL Teaching Context, Globalizing Asia: The Role of ELT, 6th Asia TEFL International Conference.

Thanasoulas, D. 2000. “What is Learner Autonomy and How Can It Be Fostered?”. The Internet TESL Journal, Vol. VI, No. 11, November.

Thompson, I. 1987. Memory in Language Learning, in Learner Strategies in Language Learning, Wenden and Rubin, eds, 1987, London: Prentice Hall ELT

Victori, M. ed. 2000. “Views on self-access language learning: A talk with Leslie Dickinson, Lindsay Miller, Gill Sturtridge and Radha Ravindran’. Links and Letters 7 (165-180)

Victori, M. and Lockhart, W. 1995. Enhancing Metacognitive in Self-directed Language Learning, System, Vol. 23, No. 2: pp 223-234

Voller, P. 1997. Does the Teacher have a role in Autonomous Language Learning, in Benson, P. and Voller, P. Eds. (1997) Autonomy and Independence in Language Learning, United Kingdom: Pearson Education Limited

Vygotsky, L. 1978. Interaction between Learning and development, in Richard-Amato, P.A. and Snow, M.A. Eds. 2003 Academic Success for English Language Learners: Strategies for K12 Mainstream Teachers, New York: Pearson Education, Longman

Wallace, M. J. 1998. Action Research for Language Teachers, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Water-Adams, S. 2006. Action Research in Education. Retrieved from http://w.w.w.edu.plymouth.ac.uk 22/07/2010

Weil, N. 2008. Vocabulary Size, Background Characteristics, and Reading Skill of Korean Intensive English Students, Asian EFL Journal, Vol 10, No 4: Conference Proceedings

Wenden, A. 1986. Incorporatting Learner Training in The Classroom, System, Vol 14, No 3

Wenden, A. 1987. Conceptual Background and Utility, in Learner Strategies in

Language Learning, Wenden and Rubin, eds, 1987, London: Prentice Hall ELT Wells, G. 1999. Dialogic Inquiry: Toward a Sociocultural Practice and Theory of

Education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Yang, Y. 2008. Indirect Strategies in Language Learning and Teaching, Sino-US English Teaching, Vol. 5, No. 9, September 2008.

Zhang, J. 2007. Reconsider Confucius’ Enlightening Reflection; Implication on Heuristic Teaching, Sino – US English Teaching, July 2007, Vol. 4 No. 7 (Serial No 43) page 32 - 38

Zhang, J. And Wang. J. 2008 The Cognitive Interpretation of Silence in Chinese College English Classroom and Possible Solution, Globalizing Asia: The Role of ELT, 6th Asia TEFL International Conference.

Zhenhui, R. 2001. ‘Matching Teaching Styles with Learning Styles in East Asian Contexts’. The Internet TESL Journal, Vol. VII, No. 7, July.

Teaching Materials

Gow, P. Ed. 2006. Various Traditions Associated With Ramadhan and Leabaran, Bandung Advertiser, 26 September – 10 October 2006

Gow, P. Ed. 2006. Ramadhan, Bandung Advertiser, 26 September – 10 October 2006 Gow, P. Ed. 2006. Ngabuburit: Fasting Tradition in Bandung, Bandung Advertiser, 26

September – 10 October 2006

Hariyanto, S (retold) 1995. Nasreddin: The Wise Man, Yogyakarta: Kanisius

Harsaputra, I. 2006. Paranormals called in to end mudflow, Jakarta Post, 10 September 2006

James, B. 1993. Young Geographer: Use Of Land, New York: Thomson Learning, Wayland Ltd.

Kirn, E. and Hartman, P. 1996. Methods of Education: East versus West, Interaction two: A Reading Skills Book, Singapore: Mc GrawHill.