This article was downloaded by: [Umeå University Library]On: 23 November 2014, At: 14:22Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Open Learning: The Journal of Open,Distance and e-LearningPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/copl20

Investigating Malaysian distancelearners’ perceptions of their Englishproficiency coursesSiew Ming Thang aa Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia , MalaysiaPublished online: 23 Jan 2007.

To cite this article: Siew Ming Thang (2005) Investigating Malaysian distance learners’ perceptionsof their English proficiency courses, Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning,20:3, 243-256

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02680510500298683

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Open LearningVol. 20, No. 3, November 2005, pp. 243–256

ISSN 0268–0513 (print)/ISSN 1469–9958 (online)/05/030243–14© 2005 The Open UniversityDOI: 10.1080/02680510500298683

Investigating Malaysian distance learners’ perceptions of their English proficiency coursesSiew Ming Thang*Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, MalaysiaTaylor and Francis LtdCOPL_A_129851.sgm10.1080/02680510500298683Open Learning0268-0513 print/1469-9958 onlineOriginal Article2005The Open University203000000November 2005Siew MingThangSchool of Language Studies and Linguistics, Faculty of Social Sciences and HumanitiesUniversiti Kebangsaan MalaysiaMalaysiathang@pkrisc.cc.ukm.my

The paper describes a study that investigated Malaysian distance learners’ perceptions of theirEnglish proficiency courses. The approach used in this study was primarily a quantitative approachbased on questionnaires, with a qualitative component based on semi-structured interviewsincluded to add depth and scope to the study. The questionnaires used were adapted from Entwistleand Ramsden’s Course Perception Questionnaire. ANOVA and factor analysis were used for anal-ysing the questionnaire data. The interview data were analysed qualitatively by identifying mainthemes and patterns. While the analysis of the questionnaires and the interview data generatedroughly comparable results, there were some interesting differences. The main difference was thatthe interviews demonstrated that the majority of the 13 distance learners interviewed would prefermore support and guidance rather than greater freedom as evident in the questionnaire data. Theresults of the interviews provide a useful supplement to the quantitative data and give us a betterunderstanding of the factors that influence learners within a distance learning environment.

Keywords: Distance learning; Learner autonomy; Malaysian distance learners; Perceptions of courses; Teaching of ESL; Distance language learning

Introduction

A review of literature on distance education in Malaysia (Alsagoff, 1985; UniversitiSains Malaysia, 1993; Abdul Rahman, 1994; Mohammed, 1999) and my personalobservations of the situation indicate that Malaysian public universities seem to havemade some serious efforts to tackle problems related to distance education. However,they also reveal two disturbing features. First, there appears to be a lack of co-opera-tion among the various participating universities. Second, insufficient attention isgiven to the needs of learners. Research into needs of distance learners is necessary,

*School of Language Studies and Linguistics, Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities, UniversitiKebangsaan Malaysia, Malaysia. Email: thang@pkrisc.cc.ukm.my

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

14:

22 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

244 S. M. Thang

as this will inform the teaching–learning processes and help ‘teachers to adapt to thedifferent background of students, to foster interaction, to personalise interactions,develop feedback, to address student concerns, to provide support and so on’ (White,2003, p. 111). In addition, there is a lack of published research on the needs ofdistance language learners in Malaysia.

This study seeks to remedy that situation by investigating the learning of English ofa group of distance learners in Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM—the NationalUniversity of Malaysia) by looking at their perceptions of their English proficiencycourses. This will facilitate the development of an appropriate programme to meettheir learning needs.

Background

Position of the English language in Malaysia

In 1970, the Education Enactment Bill was implemented. This decreed the replace-ment of English as the medium of instruction by Bahasa Malaysia in all schools exceptthe vernacular primary schools (Chinese and Tamil primary), starting from Primary1. English was still retained as a strong second language and was taught as a subjectfrom Year 1 in all Malay-medium schools and from Year 3 in Chinese and Tamilschools. Up to now (2005) this system is still in operation.

In spite of the change in policy, English continues to be used widely in high courtsand in the diplomatic service, by the mass media and in local and internationalbusiness, except for transactions involving government departments. English is usedfrequently as a language of social communication amongst upper and middle classesin urban areas, whereas Bahasa Malaysia—or the various local dialects—tends to beused in rural areas (Pillay, 1998). Despite its importance, there has been a growingconcern over the decline in the proficiency levels of students in English. This concernled to the proposal from the Prime Minister to teach science and mathematics inEnglish in all schools up to Form 6. The proposal had a mixed reception. Despiteobjections from certain quarters, especially the vernacular primary schools, thegovernment implemented the change, beginning in 2003.

Dual-mode English proficiency courses (EPCs)

In the 1990s, the English courses offered to on-campus learners and to distancelearners by UKM were similar. The courses offered at the time this research wasundertaken (from 1997 to 1999) were of two types: general English proficiencycourses and higher level English courses. The higher level courses consisted mainlyof English for Specific Purposes (ESP) courses and the advanced level coursescovered topics such as critical thinking, interactive reading, speech communicationand public speaking. Students were placed in the various courses according to theirlevel of proficiency. However, beginning with the 2000–2001 session, the generalproficiency courses were phased out. The new cohort of students was admitted

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

14:

22 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

Malaysian distance learners’ perceptions 245

directly into the ESP courses. The main reason given for this move was that it wasfelt that the newly implemented Malaysian University Entrance Exam (MUET)would ensure that only students with the necessary qualifications in English wouldbe admitted into UKM.

Although the courses offered to distance learners were similar to those offered toon-campus students, some modifications were made in the mode of delivery and thematerials provided to the students. The ‘wrap around approach’, described byRowntree (1992), which is a midway compromise solution in that it does not involveproducing materials from scratch or transforming existing materials, was used inpreparing the materials for these courses. The distance learners were provided withmainly print materials and audiocassettes. The print materials comprised a studyguide (made up of modules) to be used in conjunction with the textbook. The studyguide consisted of instructions and activities to guide the students in the use of thetextbook.

Learner-centred research in distance education

There are three major learner-centred studies in the field of distance language learn-ing that are directly relevant to my study: White (1995, 1997), White (1999) andVanijdee (2003). White (1995, 1997) investigated the strategies used by classroomand distance foreign language undergraduates enrolled in language courses (French,German, Japanese and Chinese) in a dual-mode university in New Zealand. Data onstrategy use was gathered through a questionnaire and the yoked subject technique—a kind of verbal report procedure.

Her results indicated that mode of study was the predominant influence on meta-cognitive dimensions of strategy use, ahead of age and level of study. Her resultsfurther revealed that distance learners made greater use of metacognitive strategiescompared to classroom learners, especially the strategies of self-management, use ofadvance organisers and revision. She proposed that this portrays distance learners asresponding to the demands of a self-instruction mode by developing knowledge ofhow they can manage the process of language learning for themselves.

In another study, White (1999) reported on findings from a longitudinal studytracking the expectations, shifts in expectations and emergent beliefs of ‘novice’ self-instructed language learners of Japanese and Spanish. One of her main findings wasthat ‘novice’ distance learners, having developed particular expectations about self-instruction, were able to further revise and modify them as they gained experience inthe new context.

Vanijdee, in her study (2003) on Thai students using a questionnaire, ThinkAloudprotocols and interviews was able to group the students into two kinds of learners:self-sufficient language learners, who were able to follow the course but displayed alimited degree of learner autonomy, and dynamic distance learners, who were moreproactive in their approach to learning. She concluded that Thai English distancelearners display varying degrees of learner autonomy and that they are generally ‘self-sufficient’.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

14:

22 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

246 S. M. Thang

The present study does not explore the same issues as these studies. However, theresults of these studies will be relevant to the present study in that they provide thetheoretical background for a comparison of patterns related to autonomy, languagelearning strategies and qualities of good distance language learners.

Research design

Scope and objectives of the study

This study investigated distance learners’ and on-campus learners’ perceptions oftheir EPCs in order to acquire a better understanding of the differences in theirperceptions of these courses. The research questions addressed in this paper are asfollows:

1. Are the distance learners’ perceptions of the EPCs different from those of the on-campus learners? If so, in what ways are they different?

2. What are the implications of the above findings for the teaching and learning ofEnglish in an ESL distance learning context?

Instruments and procedures

A questionnaire entitled ‘The New Course Perceptions Questionnaire’ (NCPQ) wasdesigned for this study. It includes items taken from Entwistle and Ramsden’s CoursePerceptions Questionnaire (CPQ) (Entwistle & Ramsden, 1983) with some modifi-cations to render it more appropriate for the purpose of this study. The CPQ has beenused extensively (in its original and revised forms) in research worldwide in face-to-face and in distance learning contexts, but not in a distance language learningcontext. The NCPQ was designed to measure students’ perceptions of their ESLlearning context—the teaching, assessment and courses. Table 1 describes the scalesof the NCPQ and their meanings.

For the semi-structured interviews, a general interview guide containing a list ofquestions or issues to be explored was used. The key areas covered in the interviewswere: the administration of the course, the support system, individual needs, andother issues that the students perceived as pertinent. Two methods were used in anal-ysing the interview data qualitatively. First, the results obtained from the quantitativeanalyses of the questionnaires were used to derive themes that would be used as aframework to analyse the interviews. Second, the interview data were analysed forother issues that could contribute to a deeper understanding of the interviewees.

For the distance learners, the questionnaires were distributed to them at the end oftheir English proficiency final examination and they were asked to post them backafter their examination. As for the on-campus students, the questionnaires weredistributed and collected by their English proficiency instructors during class hours.

The interviews were conducted over a period of one month. Distance learners whomet the criteria were selected and invited to participate in the interviews. Each inter-view took 1–1.5 hours. The questions were asked in English, but students were

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

14:

22 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

Malaysian distance learners’ perceptions 247

allowed to respond in either English or Malay. The interviews were recorded ontapes, transcribed verbatim and analysed.

Participants

The participants for the research consisted of undergraduates studying at the Univer-siti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM). They included first- and second-year on-campuslearners and distance learners at three different proficiency levels in English (low,average and high) and from three disciplines (arts, science and business administra-tion). Their proficiency levels were determined by their performance in the SijilPeperiksaan Malaysia (SPM) (Malaysian Certificate of Education examination). The‘target group’ was the distance learners. The on-campus learners were included toallow a comparison to be made between the two groups of learners. Altogether 1000copies of the questionnaires were distributed to the distance learners and 500 copiesto the on-campus learners. The distance learners had to post their questionnairesback, whereas the on-campus learners returned their questionnaires to their classinstructors. In view of the less reliable method of collection used on the distancelearners, a much larger number of questionnaires was distributed to them. Theprocedures adopted proved effective: 715 questionnaires were returned, 368 ques-tionnaires (37%) from the distance learners and 347 questionnaires (69%) from theon-campus learners. Most of the on-campus learners were aged 23 or younger,whereas most of the distance learners were between 24 and 40 years of age. Thus, itcan be said that most of the distance learners in the sample were adult learners withworking experience, whereas most of the on-campus learners were recent school-leavers.

The distance learners who were interviewed came from the same sample thatresponded to the NCPQs. Thirteen distance learners were interviewed: of these, nine

Table 1. Scales of the NCPQ and their meanings

Meaning

Scale High scores indicate that:

1. Clear Goals and Standard

• the standards of assessment and the ends of studying are thought to be clearly defined.

II. Workload • students feel themselves to be under excessive pressure from the demands of the curriculum and the assessment methods.

III. Good Teaching • students think that teaching staff are well prepared, confident and offered helped with study problems.

IV. Freedom in Learning

• students think the courses offer a high degree of choice over what is to be studied and how it is to be learnt.

V. Openness to Students

• staff are thought to be friendly and are prepared to adapt themselves to student needs.

VI. Teaching and Learning Components

• the students have a good opinion of the teaching/learning components provided to them.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

14:

22 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

248 S. M. Thang

were teachers; one was a bank clerk and one a finance clerk. The high proportion ofteachers in the interviews is indicative of the high proportion of teachers in the popu-lation of distance learners. The interviewees were drawn from the Klang Valley andBangi region (that is within a vicinity of 100km from UKM). They were randomlyselected. However, efforts were taken to ensure a good distribution of learners fromthe different proficiency levels and disciplines.

Analysis and discussions of results

ANOVA and factor analysis were used for analysing the questionnaire data. Theinterview data were analysed qualitatively by identifying main themes and patterns.While the analysis of the questionnaires and the interview data generated roughlycomparable results, there were also differences between them.

Analysis of the results of the NCPQs

Scale analysis

The mean scores for the NCPQs range from 4 (indicating strongly agree), 3 (agree),2 (disagree) to 1 (strongly disagree). Before comparing the mean scores of thedistance learners and on-campus learners according to the scales, an analysis of thereliability of the item classification was carried out. Cronbach’s α reliability coeffi-cients for all the scales were above 0.6 except for the scale of Teaching and LearningComponent. Based on their studies, Entwistle and Ramsden (1983) concluded thatα coefficient of above 0.6 is satisfactory. For this reason, the scale of Teaching andLearning Component was omitted because its α coefficient was only 0.44.

Table 2 indicates that general trends with regard to perceptions of the EPCs arevery similar for both groups of learners. For both the distance learners and on-campuslearners, Good Teaching has the highest mean scores, followed by Clear Goals andStandard and Openness to Students. The fact that the mean scores of these threescales hover around 3 is a positive sign, as it suggests approval by both groups oflearners towards the staff and courses of the English Proficiency Department. Lower

Table 2. Mean scores of the distance learners and on-campus learners for the five scales selected

Distance learners On-campus learners

Scale Mean SD* Mean SD*

Clear Goals and Standard 3.07 0.43 2.96 0.42Workload 2.64 0.48 2.56 0.47Good Teaching 3.08 0.46 3.03 0.41Freedom in Learning 2.79 0.52 2.69 0.48Openness to Students 3.06 0.49 2.93 0.47

*SD = Standard Deviation

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

14:

22 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

Malaysian distance learners’ perceptions 249

mean scores for the fourth scale, Freedom in Learning, suggest less satisfaction.Although the mean scores for Workload are the lowest, this is not a truly positive sign,since it is above 2.5, suggesting that both groups of learners found heavy workload aproblem.

A comparison of the mean scores of learners in the two different modes using Anal-ysis of Variance (ANOVA) shows that the mean scores of the distance learners aresignificantly higher for Clear Goals and Standard, Freedom in Learning, Opennessto Students, and Workload [p < 0.05; F(df) = 12.63 (1/693), 6.91 (1/693), 14.21 (1/693), and 5.19 (1/693) respectively]. In addition, they had more positive attitudestowards the staff and the way the courses were run. They also indicated that theyenjoyed more freedom in learning when compared to the on-campus learners. Theirmajor complaint seemed to be the heavy workload, which they found a more seriousproblem than did the on-campus learners. As mentioned earlier, this is not unex-pected as most of them hold full-time jobs. In order to obtain a deeper insight intothe seriousness of this problem, a qualitative tool in the form of interviews wasutilised. The results of the interview data are discussed later in the paper.

Factor analysis

A factor analysis of the NCPQ scales was undertaken. The analysis revealed that thefactor solutions in both the distance learners and on-campus learners were the same.In view of this, a factor analysis of the NCPQ items was undertaken.

The factor analysis of the NCPQ items using varimax ® rotation yielded a four-factor solution for the distance learners which accounted for 52.04% of the varianceand a four-factor solution for the on-campus learners which accounted for 43.14% ofthe variance. Factor III and IV are not discussed in this study as they accounted foronly a small percentage of the variance in both the distance learners and on-campuslearners (for details of these factors, see Thang, 2001).

The resulting pattern factor matrix indicates that most of the items that load highlyon Factor I of the distance learners also load highly on Factor II of the on-campuslearners for all factors and vice versa, except for items in the Teaching and LearningComponent scales which do not fit this pattern.

A careful examination of Factor I of the distance learners and Factor II of the on-campus learners reveals that all of the items (except for item 21) that load highly onboth these factors are teacher-centred. These factors can be described as representingstudents’ evaluation of the extent to which the teachers were successful in improvingtheir teaching and the courses. This pattern seemed to be more distinct in thedistance learners as the percentage of variance accounted for was higher for them. Inmy opinion, it is appropriate to call factors that load highly on both these factors‘Common Factor I: Teacher-centred evaluation of teaching and courses’.

On the other hand, all the items (except for item 5) of Factor II of the distancelearners and Factor I of the on-campus learners are learner-centred. These factors canbe described as representing students’ evaluations of how successful they werepersonally in adapting to the teaching. It includes students’ perceptions of their own

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

14:

22 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

250 S. M. Thang

independence as learners. These factors are called ‘Common Factor II: Learner-centred evaluation of teaching and courses’. These findings are very illuminating asthey point to the existence of two patterns of evaluation: one focusing on the teacherand the other on the learners themselves. These patterns were more distinct in thedistance learners.

A comparison of mean scores of the distance learners and on-campus learners forCommon Factor I and II were further undertaken. The results show that the meanscores for Common Factor I are higher for the combined distance learners and on-campus learners than the mean scores of Common Factor II. This suggests that bothgroups of learners had a greater faith in their teachers’ capabilities in teaching andpreparing courses than in their own ability to cope with the courses.

However, a comparison of mean scores of the distance learners and on-campuslearners for each factor indicates that the mean score of the distance learners forCommon Factor II is significantly higher than that of the on-campus learners. Thissuggests that the distance learners were more confident of their own abilities to copewith the courses than the on-campus learners.

Summary of results

The results from the quantitative analysis suggest that the distance learners, on thewhole, had much clearer perceptions of the goals and standard expected of them, andhad more positive attitudes towards the staff and courses of the English ProficiencyDepartment than did the on-campus learners. In addition, they were more confidentof their abilities to cope with the courses. They also appeared to prefer more freedomin learning and were able to utilise the teaching materials to a greater extent than theon-campus learners. However, they seemed to find the workload heavier than the on-campus learners.

These findings have serious implications for the teaching and learning of English ina second language-learning context. However, the implications of these findings needto be discussed in the light of findings from the interviews.

Analysis of the results of the interviews

The results obtained from the analyses of the NCPQs were employed to derivethemes (A–F below) that would be used as the framework to examine the interviews.In addition, I was able to derive other themes from these interviews that gave me adeeper understanding of these learners. The key themes from the NCPQs were:

A. Distance learners indicated approval of the staff and courses of the English Proficiency Department

The interview data supported this theme. Interviewees’ answers showed that themajority of them had a favourable opinion of their English language instructors inspite of having only two tutorials per semester. As for the EPCs offered, all but one

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

14:

22 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

Malaysian distance learners’ perceptions 251

student was satisfied. They were, however, unhappy with the modules in their studyguide. Their main complaints were that the modules were not directly related to theexaminations and that they did not have enough time to go through them.

B. Distance learners enjoyed the freedom given in the learning of English

This theme did not emerge very clearly in the interviews. Although studentsexpressed satisfaction at being given an opportunity to study via the distance learningmode, none explicitly expressed enjoyment in learning English this way. All exceptthree of the 13 interviewees felt that insufficient guidance was given. The kind ofsupport they requested included tutorials, project work and teacher-marked assign-ments. Two students even asked for intensive English courses.

C. Heavy workload was a serious problem with the distance learners

Only one student complained about being given too many assignments. The recur-ring complaint was a lack of time to study and to practise English. No one followedthe guidelines provided as to the number of hours they were supposed to spend oneach unit. Instead, all except one student left things to the last moment. To the inter-viewees, heavy workload seemed to include their coursework, their jobs, their familycommitments and responsibilities.

D. Distance learners were confident and had clear perceptions of the goals and standard expected of them

Nine of the 13 students appeared to lack confidence and seemed not to have clearperceptions of the goals and standard expected of them. This appeared in the form ofrequests for more tutorials and other means of support and complaints about noimprovements in their English.

E. Distance learners depended to a large extent on the teaching materials

The interview data clearly supported this theme. However, the interviewees reliedmainly on the textbooks. They considered the modules in the study guide as useless,as the examination was not based on the content. Students indicated some awarenessof the usefulness of activities such as reading newspapers and magazines and listeningto radio and English tapes to improve their English. However, they complained thatthey did not have time to carry out such activities.

F. Distance learners had a higher opinion of their teachers’ capabilities in meeting their needs than in their own abilities in coping with the courses

The interview results supported this theme. Eight interviewees stated explicitlythat they needed more teacher guidance and support in the form of tutorials and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

14:

22 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

252 S. M. Thang

teacher-marked assignments to help them to improve their English. One student evenwanted tutorials during semester break. The results generally indicate a lack of auton-omy among these students.

Analysis of other relevant themes

In this section I will discuss other relevant themes from the interview data that willshed more light on students’ beliefs about language learning. An examination of theinterviews revealed that the interviewees’ views about the best way to improve theirEnglish varied and there was no approach that was consistent with proficiency levelor discipline. There is evidence to suggest that the interviewees realised that Englishis not a ‘studying subject’, like a content course, and that learning English involves alot of practice. However, there is also evidence of a certain degree of ‘naivety’ in someof the students’ beliefs about learning English. As one student put it: ‘Other courseswe can discuss with our coursemates. We understand what we study. In othercourses, not language courses, we can study, we can pass. Language courses? All ourcoursemates are at same [low]standard. So we cannot discuss’. This example showedthat they were aware that there was a difference, but that they lacked insights intowhat the difference actually was. I believe that although a majority of the intervieweeshad some awareness of what constitutes a ‘good language learner’ (Rubin, 1975;Stern, 1975; Naiman et al., 1978; Ellis & Sinclair, 1989a, b, c), they did not appearto have a clear idea of what constitutes a ‘good distance language learner’. Successfuldistance language learners should be able to re-evaluate their role and responsibilityas language learners. They should be able to assess their personal learning needs, havean idea of how to monitor progress, and be able to manage time effectively. Theyshould also be able to use language-learning strategies in effective, flexible andcreative ways. They should also be aware and knowledgeable about their own percep-tions, attitudes and abilities (see Hurd, Beaven & Ortega, 2001; White, 1995, 1997,1999 and Vanijdee, 2003, for more details on the qualities of a ‘good distancelanguage learner’.) However, no such qualities were evident in these interviewees.

Dickinson and Carver (1980) pointed out that in order to be able to study indepen-dently, a learner must make three kinds of preparation: methodological preparation,psychological preparation and practice in self-direction. These students were notgiven such preparation before they started their EPCs, nor did they display awarenessof such preparation. An example of their lack of awareness of what constitutes self-learning was their lack of interest in IT support. Only two students who possessedcomputers indicated some interest. The others, even those who owned a computer,were not in favour of it, claiming that poor students would not be able to afford it.They were also not interested in using the English Resource Centre. These findingsclearly suggest a lack of willingness and capacity for independent learning.

There is also clear evidence of a consumerist approach to language learning. Theyseemed to be overly concerned that they were not getting their money’s worth. Theytended to blame their lack of progress on the items (such as materials, units, tutorials,etc.) that they had paid for.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

14:

22 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

Malaysian distance learners’ perceptions 253

Overall discussion of findings

The results of the NCPQ showed that compared to the on-campus learners, thedistance learners were more confident, had much clearer perceptions of the goals andstandard expected of them, and had more positive attitudes towards the staff andcourses of the English Proficiency Department. However, the only conclusion fromthe questionnaire survey, which was reflected in the interview data, was that thedistance learners generally had a favourable opinion of the staff and the courses of theEnglish Proficiency Department. Beyond that, the findings of the interviews contra-dicted those of the NCPQs in demonstrating that the majority of the 13 distancelearners interviewed would prefer more support and guidance, rather than what therespondents to the NCPQs claimed they wanted—greater freedom. Knowles’ theory(1975) could be used to explain some of these contradictions. I believe that thedistance learners responded in a more positive manner towards the NCPQs than theyreally felt, because as, Knowles (1975) put it, as adults they would like to appearcapable of being responsible for their decisions and their lives, and would prefer to betreated by others as such. Their enthusiasm could also be a result of a desire to showtheir strong support for the distance learning courses. This finding is supported bystudies carried out on distance learners by Kelly and Swift (1983), Fage (1987), Hiola(1988), Hiola and Moss (1990), Stevenson, Sander and Naylor (1996, 1998) andMohammed (1999).

The results of the NCPQs and the interviews further suggest that heavy workloadwas a serious problem for the distance learners. Thus, it seems that competing rolesand needs, which were interpreted by them as ‘heavy workload’ and ‘lack of time’,meant that they were unable to apply positive strategies and approaches to studywhich they had previously learnt (see Thang, 2001, for evidence of this) in the learn-ing of English. However, there is also the possibility that their complaints about heavyworkload and ‘lack of time’ were merely excuses used to justify not spending moretime learning and studying English.

Similar to results obtained from other studies carried out with Asians (Lukmani,1972; Warden & Lin, 2000), the interviews undertaken in this study reveal that all 13interviewees seemed to be more extrinsically than intrinsically motivated to studyingat a distance. Furthermore, the interviewees appeared to be aware of the importanceof learning English, and indicated that they were extrinsically motivated to pass theirEnglish examinations. However, there was no evidence of a desire to perform well inEnglish. Students were spending minimal time studying English and this was donemostly at the last minute.

There is also evidence in the interview data to support Tudor’s view (1996, p. 41) that

the learners may be relatively ill-prepared for assuming a self-directive role in languagestudy, either because they lack the necessary knowledge and skills, or simply because theirprior learning experience or their culturally-based expectations of language study have ledthem to assume that language learning is an essentially teacher-driven undertaking.

The interviewees’ strong disapproval of the modules in the study guide (because theexamination questions were not based on them) is a clear indication of their lack of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

14:

22 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

254 S. M. Thang

awareness of the different purposes of the English proficiency examinations andmodules. They did not realise that language examinations are to assess skills, notcontent (Little, 1991, p. 40). As for modules, they did not realise that these weredesigned to help them to identify specific learning objectives, and to provide relevanttasks, keys and feedback so that they could learn more effectively on their own. Theinterview data also reveals their limited understanding of the difference betweenlearning a language and learning content, and how to study English effectively ontheir own.

These findings differ from those of White (1995, 1997, 1999) and Vanijdee (2003).In White’s studies she found a progressive development towards autonomy amongher distance learners and a gradual development of awareness of how they canmanage the process of language learning for themselves. Vanijidee, on the other hand,found her students to be generally self-sufficient. The findings of this study clearlysuggest that measures need to be undertaken to ‘train’ the distance learners in UKMto become more successful distance language learners.

Implications for the distance teaching and learning of ESL

There were some interesting disparities between the quantitative findings from thequestionnaires and the qualitative interviews. What I would like to suggest is thatwhile the distance learners are aware of the appropriate approaches to studying ingeneral (as revealed in Thang, 2001), they may not be able to apply them to the learn-ing of English due to extenuating circumstances, such as lack of awareness oflanguage learning and language learning processes. To overcome the problems, themost important step is to change their attitude towards the learning of English. Thisinvolves challenging some of their beliefs regarding the learning of English, andpromoting greater language and language processes awareness, and autonomy amongstudents. In order to achieve this they would need to acquire more effective languagelearning strategies and study skills. They should also be aware of their own personallearning strengths and weaknesses and cognitive learning styles. In addition, there isa need for them to learn to manage their role and responsibilities as distance learnerseffectively. Introducing a learner training scheme and revising the study guides cancontribute towards achieving these goals. The study guides need to reflect the needsof distance learners by including tasks that promote appropriate strategy developmentand study skills. The materials developed should also offer greater choices of materi-als and greater flexibility in utilisation of these materials to cater to different learningstyles and different learning needs.

The approach implemented by the Open University in the UK is a good exampleto follow. They develop courses that incorporate strategy development and learnertraining (Hurd et al., 2001). White (2003, p. 155) pointed out that in this approach,‘learners are encouraged to develop awareness of themselves as learners, of the tech-niques that work for them, and to make decisions within the structures provided bythe course’. A similar approach is implemented by the Sukhotai Thanmathirat OpenUniversity in Thailand (Vanijdee, 2003).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

14:

22 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

Malaysian distance learners’ perceptions 255

Acknowledgements

I would like to express my gratitude to Cynthia White, Massey University, NewZealand and to Monica Shelley of the Open University, United Kingdom for theirhelpful comments on earlier drafts of this paper.

References

Abdul Rahman, Z. (1994) Factors related to completion of distance education courses in the off-campus degree program at University Sains Malaysia. Unpublished dissertation for the degreeof Doctor of Education, Carolina State University.

Alsagoff, S. A. (1985) A study of learning styles, student characteristics and faculty perceptions ofthe distance education programme at USM. Unpublished dissertation for the degree ofDoctor of Education, University of Washington.

Dickinson, L. & Carver, D. (1980) Learning how to learn, English Language Teaching Journal,XXXV(1), 1–6.

Ellis, G. & Sinclair, B. (1989a) Learning to learn English—a course in learner training—learners’ book(Cambridge, Cambridge University Press).

Ellis, G. & Sinclair, B. (1989b) Learning to learn English—a course in learner training—teacher’s book(Cambridge, Cambridge University Press).

Ellis, G. & Sinclair, B. (1989c) Learning to learn English—a course in learner training (Cambridge,Cambridge University Press).

Entwistle, N. J. & Ramsden, P. (1983) Understanding student learning (London, Croom Helm).Fage, J. (1987) Foundation studies counselling and teaching—a case study illuminating the

practice of integrated teaching and counselling for new learners, in: M. Thorpe & D. Grugeon(Eds) Open learning for adults (Harlow, Longman).

Hiola, Y. (1988) Investing face-to-face tutorial provision in the Universitas Terbuka of Indonesia.Unpublished PhD thesis, Cardiff University.

Hiola, Y. & Moss, D. (1990) Characteristics of distance learners at the Universitas Terbuka (OpenUniversity) Indonesia, Distance Education, 11(1), 116–124.

Hurd, S., Beaven, T. & Ortega, A. (2001) Developing autonomy in a distance language learningcontext: issues and dilemmas for course writers, System, 29, 341–355.

Kelly, P. & Swift, B. (1983) Post-foundation tuition: learner perspectives, Teaching at a Distance,24, 35–41.

Knowles, M. (1975) Self-directed learning: a guide for learners and teachers (New York, AssociationPress).

Little, D. (1991) Learning autonomy: definitions, issues and problems (Dublin, Authentik LanguageLearning Resources).

Lukmani, Y. (1972) Motivation to learn and language proficiency, Language Learning, 22, 261–274.Mohammed, N. (1999) The effectiveness of the distance education programme in MARA

Institute of Technology. Unpublished PhD thesis, Cardiff University.Naiman, N., Frohlich, M., Stern, H. H. & Todesco, A. (1978) The good language learner (Toronto,

Ontario Institute for Studies in Education).Pillay, H. (1998) Issues in the teaching of English in Malaysia, The English Teacher Online. Available

online at: http://www.jalt-publications.org/tlt/files/98/nov/pillay.html (accessed 31 May 2005).Rowntree, D. (1992) Exploring open and distance learning (London, Kogan Page).Rubin, J. (1975) What the ‘good language learner’ can teach us, TESOL Quarterly, 9, 41–51.Stern, H. H. (1975) What can we learn from the good language learner? Canadian Modern

Language Review, 31, 304–318.Stevenson, K., Sander, P. & Naylor, P. (1996) Students’ perceptions of the tutor’s role in distance

learning, Open Learning, 11(2), 22–30.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

14:

22 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

256 S. M. Thang

Stevenson, K., Sander, P. & Naylor, P. (1998) How do Open University students expect to betaught at tutorials? Open Learning, 13(2), 42–46.

Thang, S. M. (2001) Learners’ conceptions of their learning processes and their perceptions oftheir English as a Second Language courses in a tertiary distance learning context. Unpub-lished PhD thesis, University of Nottingham.

Tudor, J. (1996) Learner-centredness as language education (Cambridge, Cambridge UniversityPress).

Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM) (1993) Conference on distance education (Pulau Pinang, UniversitiSains Malaysia).

Vanijdee, A. (2003) Thai distance English learners and learner autonomy, Open Learning, 18(2),75–84.

Warden, C. A. & Lin, H. J. (2000) Existence of integrative motivation in an Asian EFL setting,Foreign Language Annals, 33(5), 535–547.

White, C. (1995) Autonomy and strategy use in distance foreign language learning: researchfindings, System, 23(2), 207–221.

White, C. (1997) Effects of mode of study on foreign language learning, Distance Education, 18(1),178–196.

White, C. (1999) Expectations and emergent beliefs of self-instructed and language learners,System, 27, 443–457.

White, C. (2003) Language learning in distance education (Cambridge, Cambridge UniversityPress).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

14:

22 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014