VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI

UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES & INTERNATIONAL

STUDIES

STUDENT’S NAME: VU BAO CHAU

MOTIVATION, DIFFICULTIES AND

SELF-ASSESSMENT OF
FIRST-TIME PRACTITIONERS
IN STUDENT RESEARCH ACTIVITY
 Hanoi, March, 2010

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI

UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES & INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

MOTIVATION, DIFFICULTIES AND

SELF-ASSESSMENT
OF FIRST-TIME PRACTITIONERS IN
STUDENT RESEARCH ACTIVITY

Student: Vu Bao Chau

Supervisor: Nguyen Thanh Ha

 Hanoi, March, 2010

Acknowledgement
First of all, I would like to express my gratitude to my supervisor, Ms.
Nguyen Thanh Ha, whose consultancy and encouragement were an endless
source of support and an indispensable factor in the success story of this
research.

Besides, I want to take this chance to thank Ms. Nguyen Thi Phuong Hoa
for her respectable reminders about Research Ethics and her valuable reference
materials. Also, I hope to send my best regards to teachers of Fast Track
Program, especially Mr. Dang Ngoc Sinh, Ms. Vu Thi Thanh Van and Ms.
Nguyen Thi Minh Hue, who did create the best conditions for me to pursue my
personal interest.

Furthermore, I sincerely appreciate the cooperation of student researchers

from English Department, academic year 2008 – 2009 in finishing the
questionnaires, particularly that of Student A, Student B and Student C for their
enthusiastic and serious participation in the followed-up interviews.

Last but not least, I want to thank all of my beloveds, without whom I
could not have completed this project. Thank my classmates, namely Pham
Thuy Linh and Nguyen Thanh Thuy, for their timely help and deep sympathy.
Thank my friend, Nguyen Minh, for his knowledgeable suggestions and
inspiring consolation. Thank my family members, for their unconditional care
and love.
 ABSTRACT

In the current era of knowledge industry, research is a key factor for any country
to develop sustainably and independently. On realizing this fact, Vietnam has paid
more attention to this activity during the past decade, with special focus on training
researchers in colleges and universities. However, the overall performance of this
activity has not met the regionally and internationally standardized quality. At the same
time, students as insiders are not highly motivated and encounter many difficulties in
the practice of doing research.

For this reason, this research is designed to investigate the context of Student
Research Activity in ULIS, VNU through finding out students’ motivation for doing
research and their perceived difficulties during the process. After carrying out a
multiple-case study on first-time practitioners of student researchers, academic year
2008 – 2009, the researcher found out that the most common motivation for these
subjects was the intrinsic one; furthermore, their most noticeable difficulties include a
lack of research culture, insufficient sources of materials and problems in inter-
personal relationships. Finally, from the suggestions of these students as the main
subjects of this practice, together with the researcher’s study on theories, this research
offers implications to improve Student Research Activity in the future in terms of both
quality and quantity.

i
 TABLE OF CONTENT Pages

Acknowledgement i
Abstract ii
Table of content iii
List of tables and figures v
List of abbreviations v

1. Introduction 1
1.1. Statement of the problem and the rationale for the study 1
1.2. Aims of the study and research questions 3
1.3. Scope of the study 3
1.4. Methodology 4
1.5. Overview of the paper 4

2. Literature Review 5
2.1. Definitions of the terms 5
2.1.1. Research 5
2.1.2. Undergraduate research 6
2.1.3. Basic steps of doing a research project 7
2.2. Benefits of and requirements for student research 8
2.2.1. Benefits of student research activity 8
2.2.2. Requirements for student research activity 11
2.3. Learner motivation 12
2.3.1. Definition of motivation 12
2.3.2. Types of motivation 12
2.4. Difficulties in Student research activity 14
2.4.1. Difficulties recorded on worldwide universities 14
2.4.2. Difficulties recorded in Vietnam’s context 15

3. Methodology 18
3.1. Research design 18
3.2. Research instruments 19
3.3. Settings 20
3.4. Sampling 22
3.5. Procedures 24
3.5.1. Data collection 25
3.5.2. Data analysis 26

4. Results and discussion 27

4.0. Research questions 27
4.1. Case analysis 27
4.1.1. Case 1: Pair of student researchers, Student A and 27
Student B
4.1.1.1. Basic information 27
4.1.1.2. Motivation 29
4.1.1.3. Difficulties 31
Student A 31
Student B 34
37

ii
 Both students
4.1.1.4. Self-assessment 39
4.1.1.5. Suggestions for the Student Research Activity at ULIS, 42
VNU
4.1.2. Case 2: An individual researcher, Student C 44
4.1.2.1. Basic information 44
4.1.2.2. Motivation 45
4.1.2.3. Difficulties 47
4.1.2.4. Self-assessment 50
4.1.2.5. The subject’s suggestions for the Student Research 52
Activity in ULIS, VNU

5. Conclusion 54
5.1. Summary of findings 54
5.2. Implications 55
5.2.1. Implications for higher motivation 55
5.2.2. Implications for fewer difficulties 56
5.3. Limitations of the study 60
5.4. Suggestions for further studies 61

REFERENCE 62
APPENDICES 64

iii
 LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES

Figures and tables Page

1. Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation 13

2. Demographic information about three interviewees 24

3. Students A’s perceived difficulties 38

4. Students B’s perceived difficulties 38

5. Levels of motivation from acknowledged Students’ rights 47

6. Difficulties shared by Student A and Student B in case 1 49

versus those of Student C in case 2

7. Perceived gaining as reported in case 1 versus case 2

52

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ULIS: University of Languages and International Studies

VNU: Vietnam National University

ED: English Department

iv
 CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION

1.1. Statement of the problem and the rationale for the

study

During the past decade, higher education has undergone ‘deep

changes that will shape the academic enterprise for decades to come’ in
many developed countries (MacGregor, 2009). These changes are mostly
concerned with the ‘academic revolution’ on a worldwide scale, which can
significantly be described with the massification of tertiary systems; the
impacts of information and communication technology; the rise of
knowledge economy and generally, a trend of globalization.

Under all the impacts of such violent changes, Vietnam’s education

system is being challenged by the urge to follow the common current of
developing countries towards an expanded access to research-based
universities, which is considered a requisite for sustained economic growth.
As reasoned by Levin (2010)1, such movement may consequently create ‘an
ideal context’ to educate those who have the intellectual breadth and critical-
thinking skills ‘to solve problems, to innovate, and to lead’. Meanwhile,
Vietnam has been reported by Harvard Kennedy School (2008) with a fairly
humble record of achievements in academic field, even in comparison to
their ‘undistinguished Southeast Asian neighbors’. Among the suggested
solutions, doing research was claimed to hold an indispensable role in the
development of the whole country in this era of information and

1
http://opa.yale.edu/president/message.aspx?id=91

1
communication technology, when knowledge is the irreplaceable key to join
the global evolution.

According to Van Thi Ngoc Lan (2001), it is through their research

projects that ‘the practitioners realize their limitations and work on to re-
equip themselves’. This is remarkably true and necessary for researchers of
Social Sciences; on concerning the country’s increasing intellectual
requirements in time of international integration and worldwide cultural
interacts. Moreover, the author emphasized that ‘the productivity of a
researcher directly depends on his or her prior training’, and ‘there also
exists a certain relation between a field’s expansion with the process of
training professionals to maintain it’. These opinions are evident that
training professional researchers from an early stage at university, in other
words, enhancing student research activity, is a winning strategy for any
country who wants to take the driving seat, let alone Vietnam.

After years of practice, the effectiveness of student research among

Vietnam’s universities still appears dubious to many educators, who have
pointed out various drawbacks in implementing this activity. However,
official efforts in finding out possible explanations for such phenomenon are
few and far between. This is a dominant incentive for the researcher to study
the issue from a specific angle – that of the insiders, the student researchers
themselves. In light of Critical Pedagogy2, a teaching approach that enables
‘continuous process of unlearning, learning and relearning, reflection,
evaluation and the impact that these actions have on students’, the researcher
wishes to give a closer look at students’ beliefs and opinions about the
activity, of which they play a crucial part. It is the ultimate result that is

2
http://mingo.info-science.uiowa.edu/~stevens/critped/definitions.htm

2
hoped to be achieved from this project, “Motivation, difficulties and self-
assessment of first time practitioners in Student Research Activity: a
multiple case study on sophomores of English Department, ULIS,
VNU”.

1.2. Aims of the study and research questions

The research is designed as a chance for targeted students to reflect on

their experience of doing research, which is considered new and difficult by
most of their non-researcher counterparts. The researcher is interested in
finding out the factors that encouraged or attracted students in this activity;
their ongoing difficulties and their general impression after the whole
process.

The above aims are expected to be conquered by answering these

three main research questions:

1. What was the subjects’ motivation in doing their 1st research?

2. What difficulties did they have?

3. What are their self-assessments after all the process?

4. What are the subjects’ opinions about the present practice of

Student Research Activity in ULIS, VNU?

1.3. Scope of the study

Participants are current third-year students of English Department,

who took part in the Student Research Activity implemented by ULIS, VNU
in academic years 2008 - 2009. The subjects had not had any firsthand

3
experience prior to this activity, and they worked in groups rather than
individually.

It should also be mentioned that the primary concerns of this research

are the subjects’ motivation, their perceived difficulties and assessment of
their own products. Hence, the question of the subjects’ performance in
terms of methodology or contribution to practical situation is irrelevant to
the researcher’s focus.

1.4. Methodology

The researcher combined qualitative and quantitative methods to

gather data for her research. After a survey with questionnaires, the cases
were deliberately chosen so that they could provide highly in-depth
information of their own situations. Three detailed interviews were carried
out to draw the experience of all subjects. The data was then processed and
implications were made. Lastly, the conclusion was come up to.

1.5. Overview of the paper

The research is divided into five chapters. Chapter I, Introduction,

includes Statement of the problem and the rationale for the study, Aims of
the study and research questions, Scope of the study, Methodology and
Overview of the study. Chapter II, Literature Review, discusses the related
theories, previous studies and the relevance of the present study. Chapter III,
Methodology, reports the participants and instruments of the research.
Chapter IV, Findings and discussions, is for findings and discussions after
processing data. Finally, chapter V, Conclusion, sums up the main issues
presented, indicates the shortcomings of the research and suggests topics for
further research.

4
 CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1. Definitions of the terms

For the convenience of clarity, the key terms used in the current study
will be defined as follows.

2.1.1. Research

At its simplest, research is defined by Nunan (1992, p. 3, as cited in

Nguyen T. T. Minh et al., 2008) as ‘a systematic process of inquiry
consisting of three elements or components: (1) a question, problem or
hypothesis, (2) data, (3) analysis and interpretation of data’.

There are many ways of categorizing research. To name a few, it can

be divided into qualitative and quantitative research with principle being
the kind of data collected (Reichardt & Crook, 1979, Burns, 1999, Verma &
Mallick, 1999); secondary and primary research according to Brown
(2002); descriptive and experimental as theorized by Lauer (2006) with the
main principles being research question and designs to collect data.
Recently, Nipissing University (2008) mentioned research in applied fields
of study together with research – creation activity, which is a fairly
different view on the nature of doing research. Although these categories are
not mutually exclusive, it is necessary to distinguish the main characters of
each research type, so as to avoid confusion and misconception during the
implementation of any project.

5
 2.1.2. Undergraduate Research

According to the Council on Undergraduate Research (1997, as cited

in Wenzel, 2003) undergraduate research is ‘an inquiry or investigation
conducted by an undergraduate’, and this results in ‘an original intellectual
or creative contribution to the discipline.’ This agrees with the opinion of
Vu Cao Dam, who compared research with ‘a quest or discovery in a
totally unknown world, where the findings can hardly be predicted in exact
details’ (Vu Cao Dam, 2008)

In further details, the American Chemical Society’s Committee on

Professional Training (2002, as cited in Wenzel, 2003) developed this
definition by adding more characteristics of this activity. In mentioning that
undergraduate research is carried out with a faculty advisor or mentor,
they considered it ‘an arrangement’ that gives students access to their
mentor’s expertise and resources and at the same time, helps the faculty
mentor to develop a ‘productive research program.’ Moreover, it was also
noticed in the description that ‘undergraduate research should be envisioned
as publishable in a peer-review journal’, because through building up the
achievements of different scholars in the scientific community, the quality of
research will be better monitored and ensured. Lastly, undergraduate
research is expected to result in ‘a comprehensive written report’, which
contributes to the general scientific knowledge base and supports those
researchers who are concerned about the same topics.

In the view of NCUR Board of Governors, undergraduate research is

‘the pedagogy of the 21st century’, a ‘comprehensive curricular innovation

6
and major reform in contemporary American undergraduate education and
scholarship’.

All things considered, the researcher realizes some consistently

common points in these definitions. Firstly, undergraduate research requires
originality and creativity, instead of merely collecting existed information.
Secondly, the faculty mentor or advisor’s support attributes a great part to
the product of a student researcher. Thirdly, undergraduate research
contributes to the sake of the whole scientific community, therefore requires
detailed records to share among interested scholars. Lastly, this activity is
gaining more and more attention from educators, and has become an
indispensable part in the academic success of many leading universities.

For the convenience of addressing this activity, from now on the

researcher will consistently use ‘student research’ as replacement for
‘undergraduate research’, in order to emphasize the subjects of this
project. This term is also more commonly known and used by scholars not
only in Vietnam but also around the world, without affecting the accuracy in
its innate nature.

2.1.3. Basic steps of doing a research project

As theorized by Nunan, cited in Nguyen Thi Thuy Minh et al. (2008),

an activity is qualified as a research on the minimum condition that it is
complied of: (1) a question, (2) data and (3) analysis or interpretation.
Among these, the formulation of a question is vital to others and can cause
researchers, ‘especially those who are new to the research process’
noticeable difficulties.

7
 Issaac and Michael (1995, as cited in Nguyen Thi Thuy Minh et al.,
2008) have listed 10 steps in planning and conducting research, as the
following:

1. Identify the problem areas

2. Survey the literature review relating to it
3. Define the actual problem for investigation in clear,
specific terms
4. Formulate testable hypotheses/ answerable questions and
define the basic concepts and variables
5. State the underlying assumptions which govern the
interpretation of results
6. Construct the research design to maximize internal and
external validity
a. Selection of subjects
b. Control and/ or manipulation of relevant variables
c. Establishment of criteria to evaluate outcomes
d. Instrumentation – selection or development of the criterion
measures
7. Specify the data collection procedures
8. Select the data analysis methodology
9. Execute the research plan
10. Evaluate the results and draw conclusions
(Nguyen Thi Thuy Minh et al., 2008 - P3)

2.2. Benefits and requirements for student research

2.2.1. Benefits of student research activity

In nowadays’ knowledge industry, countries worldwide in general and

the developed ones in particular have realized the link between building
indigenous research capacity and economic growth in a post-industrial

8
knowledge economy, and that university-based research is the most effective
driver of scientific discovery and of economically relevant new technologies
(Levin, 20103). Therefore, undergraduate research can be recognized as the
stepping stone activity in a holistic process of building a country’s research
capacity.

The National Student Research Center [NSRC] has clearly stated the
objectives of this activity in their instructional approach, which are
comprised and rearranged by the researcher in the following summary:

1. Students can be significantly motivated for scholarship by

publishing their scientific journals regularly.

2. Students can create more positive attitudes about science and

careers in scientific professions by exposing themselves to the meaning,
enjoyment, and success after their scientific research learning experiences.

3. Students’ scientific literacy are all increased regardless of their

sex, cultural, ethnic, or economic background, especially in female,
handicapped, disadvantaged, and at-risk students.

4. With the authentic potentials provided for the scientific study

and creative solving of problems affecting their community and world,
students can be encouraged to contribute to the betterment in life’s
quality.

5. All subject areas across the curriculum are potential for

research, and students can choose a relevant topic of interest related to
their own world.

3
http://opa.yale.edu/president/message.aspx?id=91 last retrieved Feb 5th

9
 6. Students can both utilize scientific methods throughout
ongoing scientific research projects and explore concepts, topics, issues,
themes and problems in the school year.

7. Students can develop their own science learning units

including hands-on and inquiry activities in their self-directed study.

8. The skills improved and learnt by students are various based

on different aspects:

a. Science process skills and higher order skills, namely

research, creative problem-solving, conceptualization, comprehension,
hypothesizing, designing plans, observation, measurement, analysis,
evaluation, assessment, drawing conclusions, synthesis, generalizing,
application, and composition.

b. Computer skills to write and edit their projects.

c. Communication skills in cooperative research teams and

in giving formal presentations of the completed research projects to a
school audience, which are videotaped for student/teacher evaluation
at a later date.

d. Telecommunication skills when students of different

institutions collaborate with each other on a local or national scale.

e. Mathematical skills are employed by students as part of

random sampling techniques in collecting survey data, simple
statistics, percents, averages, frequency counts, charts, and graphs in
the analysis of data.

10
 f. Academic writing skills in order for scientific research
papers and abstracts to become grammatically correct, spelling-
mistake free, and scientifically sound.

g. Library research skills to build up a comprehensive

review of literature.

h. Interdisciplinary study skills in applying concepts

learned in all curriculum areas toward the completion and publication
of scientific research projects.

2.2.2. Requirements for student research activity

In comparison with the requirements for a postgraduate research

project presented by Wisker (2001, pp. 9-10), student research makes fewer
intellectual demands of the practitioners as regards ‘dealing with complex
concepts, ethics and issues to do with the handling and interpretation of
different kinds of data’. It also demands a lower level of communication and
expression skills because postgraduate researchers are expected to fully
report what they are doing, both in informal and formal exchanges.

In addition, Dyer (1982), as cited in Wisker (2001), commented that

the choice of research topic in postgraduate research should be heavily
influenced by the staff and, when appropriate, also from outside the
academic institution. As can be seen, this is to ensure that the topic is a
suitable subject for research training, that it is likely to prove a rewarding
investigation, that it is of practical benefit where this is possible, that
competent supervision is available and that the work can be completed
within the time available.

11
 In general, undergraduate researchers have more freedom in choosing
their topic of interest, without considering a range of controlling factors as
their postgraduate counterparts.

(For more information, a table of assessment criteria for student

research applied by Vietnam National University is provided in the
Appendix section).

2. 3. Learner Motivation

2.3.1. Definition of Motivation

According to Gardner (1985), motivation is concerned with the

question, "Why does an organism behave as it does?
Motivation involves four aspects: a goal, an effort, a desire to attain the
goal and a favorable attitude toward the activity in question.

Chandrasegaran (2004) considers motivation as ‘the emotions and

needs that constitute the source of the drive to expend effort required to learn
a second or foreign language’. Furthermore, she elaborates that ‘intensity of
motivation is the strength of the leaners’ interest, desire, or need that
maintains perseverance of effort in the learning process.’

As varied as they are, these definitions revolve around such key

factors as ‘goal’, ‘effort’, ‘energy’ and ‘desire’, which reveals the speaking
nature of this factor in any progress.

2.3.2. Types of motivation

Despite the various definitions, many authors agree with dividing

motivation into “Intrinsic” and “Extrinsic” groups.

12
 In general, intrinsic motivation refers to the fact of doing an activity
for itself, and deriving the pleasure and satisfaction from participation (Deci,
1975; Deci & Rian, 1985). This type of motivation ‘stems from the innate
psychological needs of competence and self-determination’ (p. 4).

Still following Deci’s definition, extrinsic motivation is related to ‘a

wide variety of behaviors’ involved as a means to an end and not for their
own sake (Deci, 1975).

Based on their descriptions, later authors (Vallerand, Blais et. Al,

1989) have postulated a more specific taxonomy of sub-categories from
these two main types, which is summarized by the researcher as followed:

Intrinsic Motivation (IM) Extrinsic Motivation (EM)

IM to know Perform an activity External Behavior is

for the pleasure regulation regulated
and satisfaction through external
that one means
experiences while
learning, exploring
or trying to
understand
something new

IM towards Engage in an Introjected Individual

accomplishments activity for the regulation begins to
pleasure and internalize the
satisfaction reasons for his/
experienced when her own actions
one attempts to
accomplish/ create
something

13
IM to experience Engage in an Identification Behavior
stimulation activity to becomes valued
experience and judged as
stimulating important for the
sensations individual,
(sensory, aesthetic, especially
fun, exciting perceived as
experience) chosen by
oneself.

Figure 1: Features of Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation

(Adapted and compiled from Vallerand, Pelletier, Blais, Brière, Senécal &
Vallières, 1992)

2. 4. Difficulties in doing student research

2.4.1. Difficulties recorded on worldwide universities

According to Wisker (2004), students generally encounter different

difficulties during their research, which can be viewed under objective and
subjective angles. Among them, the following are most common:

Lack of a genuine research culture: student may fall into the

situation when they do not have others to work with or talk to, to share
excitement, discoveries, setbacks, problems, developments, strategies and
solutions of the whole research process.

Difficulties with other life demands and crises: these are obstacles
that do not allow students enough time to develop the research.

Inadequate support services and provision of equipment: students

do not have access or devices to the materials and references of their
targeted research.

14
 Limited access to research subjects, contacts and contexts: often
this seems guaranteed at the outset of the work, but situations change.
Sometimes the people, information, scenarios, and so on, disappear, or
students are no longer in a situation to access them.

Inadequate equipment of knowledge about basic steps in carrying

out a research project: research questions and areas do not yield enough
information or have been inappropriately posed – asking for accumulations
of information rather than questioning and suggesting – so the work
becomes dull and descriptive.

Personality factors: neglect by the supervisor, a clash of

personalities, barriers to communication arising from age, class, gender,
race, differences in approach to work

Professional factors: a misinformed supervisor or one without

sufficient knowledge in the area supervised; a supervisor with few genuine
research interests, or ones which differ fundamentally from those of the
student.

Organizational factors: the supervisor having too many students to

supervise, […] too busy with the administration; the supervisor’s inability to
manage their research group or the number of researchers efficiently.

2.3.2. Difficulties recorded in Vietnam’s context

There have been a modest number of research projects and reports

about student research in Vietnam; therefore the researcher only hopes to
introduce a collection of opinions from Vietnam’s educators during the past
decade.

15
 Throughout his report about Research Activity in Sociology in the
year 2001, Bui The Cuong pinpointed the dilematic situation when an
increased number of articles, seminars and sociology construction was
hardly in direct ratio with their quality and professionalism. Another
systematic intricacy was that a majority of social researchers were ‘lazy
readers, doing plain experiments while showing indifference to literature,
easily satisfied with finishing few steps in the research process, turning
themselves into workmen of questionnaires and surveys, lacking
awareness and skills of doing team work’ (Bui The Cuong, pp. 227)

Showing particular concerns about research activity in Vietnam’s

universities, Nguyen Thi Phuong Hoa (2002) remarked that ‘the
organization of student research activities is not seriously respected’. In
reasoning for this remark, she described the context with such facts as
below:

Students are provided with merely ‘classical and generic

knowledge’ about their field studies, therefore they are not confident and
persistent enough to carry out such high-demanding academic enquiry as
research.

Only a very limited percentage of lecturers and professors can

activate meaningful research projects, most of which are self-regulated
therefore not systematically developed. This results in students being unable
to find practically effective topics for their own research.

Students are not stimulated both materially and spiritually to take

part in doing research. A majority of them do not realize the benefits from
this activity in comparison with the efforts and labor spent.

16
 There has not been any systematic program either for compulsory
or voluntary involvement of students (as well as lecturers) in doing research.

In addition to Hoa’s concerns, Nguyen Van Van (2003) called the

attention towards students’ perceptions about doing ‘scientific research’.
First, they are wrongly impressed that research is only for natural sciences.
Second, some believe that research can only be done by academically
prestigious and qualified people, instead of ‘normal students’. The rest
consider research activity a ‘social mission’, which is carried out to win
scores for the whole class’s performance in obeying regulations and
response to the university’s activities.

Additionally, he commented that students are not active and

independent in their study process, which means they are satisfied with the
knowledge provided by lecturers and have little demand for creating or
discovering knowledge of more breadth and depth.

In general, these opinions and findings about student research carry a

negative denotation. This is the main factor that challenges the researcher’s
efforts and interest in studying the hands-on experience of student
researchers. This research does not attempt to evaluate the quality of
students’ final products, but determines to find out the perceptions and
reflection of students about their own research, as regards their motivation
and difficulties during the process.

17
 CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY

3.1. Research design

Qualitative multiple - case study method

The case study represents a specific tradition within the qualitative

research paradigm (Creswell, 1998) and ‘attempts, on one hand, to arrive at
a comprehensive understanding of the event under study but at the same
time to develop more general theoretical statements about regularities in the
observed phenomena’ (Fidel, 1984, p. 274). Because case studies are
intended to take the reader of the research into the world of the subject(s),
case studies can provide a much richer and more vivid picture of the
phenomena under study than other, more analytical methods (Marshall &
Rossman, 1999).

Case studies are used primarily when researchers wish to obtain an in-
depth understanding of a relatively small number of individuals, problems,
or situations (Patton, 1990). Weick (1979) emphasized that this method is
applied to ensure the three primary goals of research: generality, accuracy,
and simplicity – in other words, the understandability of the results. While a
broad study may produce results that can be applied at a general level to a
large number of organizations, the results are unlikely to present an accurate
description of any one organization.

In this study, the researcher applies the multiple-case study method,

which allows exploring the phenomena under study through the use of a
replication strategy. According to this model, if all or most of the cases
provide similar results, there can be substantial support for the development

18
of a preliminary theory that describes the phenomena (Eisenhardt, 1989).
From then on, readers can make generalizations based on their own situation
and make possible applications as well as transference. Besides, this would
be a rich contextualization for such a new and complex issue as the one
being discussed. Another important factor is that multiple – case study
would cast light on the perspective of the insiders, also known as the ‘emic
perspective’ (Mackey & Gass, 2005), one of the researcher’s primary
concerns.

For all these reasons, the main method being used in this study will be
qualitative multiple-case study. It is hoped that this attempt will contribute
valuable findings to the database of research resources in the long term use.

3.2. Research Instruments

First, the questionnaire in use is designed for self-completion, most

of which being “open” questions. This type of question is designed by the
researcher to gain more understanding about the informants, so that their
situations can be better approached and the most suitable participants could
be identified as a result. (This questionnaire is available in the Appendix of
this research).

Second, the researcher conducted in-depth interviews with three

students, who had finished the questionnaires and agreed to give further help
for her analysis. This was expected to be the main instrument in gathering
amplified additional data, at the same time, giving the insiders a real chance
to express their opinions and suggestions without being imposed by
previously designed options as in the case of questionnaire.

19
 This interview was designed in form of a semi-structure one, with a
flexible framework of general questions, allowing the researcher to elaborate
on specific points brought up by the interviewees (Wikipedia, 2009). It
should also be mentioned that the researcher had grouped the questions into
correlating aspects in such a manner that these could be expressed in
different ways for different participants, as suggested by Lindlof & Taylor
(2002, cited in Wikipedia, 2009). All the response from interviewees would
be recorded and transcribed to serve the purpose of meticulous and accurate
analysis.

3.3. Setting

The study was conducted in English Department, University of

Languages and International Study, Vietnam National University (ULIS,
VNU). As a national university, the activity of doing research by institutions
in general and undergraduate research in particular receives considerable
concerns from the administrators.

For this reason, Student Research Activity is held annually for all
interested contemporary students of ULIS, VNU. Participation is not
confined by the candidates’ expertise; therefore a majority of student
researchers would take part without official fulfillment of any research
methodology course.

Accompanied with these criteria are the rights that those who do
research can benefit from, which are publicly known to all students:

1. Student researchers can replace the score of their research

with the score in FINAL EXAMINATION of one subject
among the four linguistic skills (Speaking, Listening,
Reading or Writing), on the condition that they do the

20
 research individually. In case of doing in group, each
member will have additional points in their final paper.
2. Student researchers can increase their accumulated scores
for Obeying regulations according to the university’s
policy.
3. Student researchers are introduced to Research
Methodology and academic writing skill, get ready for the
Graduation Thesis.
4. About financial supports:
a. Each winning project at the level of Course Group
is given VND 50,000
b. Each project being promoted to the level of
Department is given VND 100,000
c. Excellent projects at the level of Department
receive extra supports as below:
First Prize: VND 200,000
Second Prize: VND 150,000
Third Prize: VND 100,000
5. 15 projects being promoted to the level of University is
given VND 100,000
(School’s policy for students doing research, academic year
2008 – 2009, ULIS, VNU)

Students of English Department, whose study is English Language

Teaching, are expected to train and work as teacher – researchers after their
four-year bachelor course. This means they need to build up a high level of
academic English use and a constant access to English materials for
purposes of applied linguistics.

After analyzing the questionnaires, the researcher narrowed down the

potential interviewees and contacted three of them to make appointments for
the interviews. Later, she worked with them in person at B2 block, ULIS and
implemented three in-depth interviews, each lasting for approximately 30

21
minutes in their mother tongue, Vietnamese, for the sake of natural and
convenient expressions. Before this, the informants were guaranteed that
their answers would be treated with the strictest confidence and they were
entitled to be informed about the findings of this research.

3.4. Sampling

In this study, the recruitment of potential subjects followed purposive

sampling, which enables the researcher to select cases to serve his or her real
purpose and objectives so as to discover and gain insight into the chosen
phenomenon (Burns, 2000). While the desired population is relatively
limited in number, those who are capable of giving informative and
meaningful contributions are even harder to be located, as a result of
separate class distributions and different levels of interest to the topic.
Hence, only through purposive sampling that the researcher can seek out
rich sources of information and carry out in-depth analysis of the issue being
discussed.

Three attendants were selected because they manifested significant

and representative features for the successful analysis of the study.

First, they are now third year students. That means in the time of
doing research, they were second-year students and were finishing three
semesters at university. The subjects they had covered included Marxist –
Leninist Philosophy, Political Socio Statistics, Scientific Socialism,
Introduction to Linguistics, Basic Vietnamese Culture, General Psychology,
Basic Informatics, General Geography, Music, apart from the four linguistic
skills of English, namely Speaking, Reading, Listening and Writing. As can
be seen, these subjects could widen students’ background knowledge on a

22
large scale, though would not systematically provide needed skills for doing
research.

Second, their career orientation, which is becoming educators

mainly for high-schools and universities, is expected to make continual use
of research activity so as to produce effective applications in educational
context. This is a distinguished requirement for students of English
Pedagogy Department, compared to those from other fields of training.

Third, the attendants were first-time practitioners in the activity of

academic year 2008 – 2009, with no previously and official first-hand
experience with doing research within ULIS.

Fourth, the two cases varied in many aspects from each other’s,
which promised to contribute rich and diverse data. The students were from
different classes and worked in different forms, one in group and the other
individually.

Last but not least, these students were voluntary to take part in the
research and showed commitment in providing reliable as well as detailed
information about the targeted issues raised by the researcher.

In short, the information about subjects of this case study can be

described in the following table:

Age Years of Ordinal Program of Career orientation

23
 studying number training
English of
present
academic
year
Student 21 >11 3rd Fast Track University lecturer
A
Student 21 13 3rd Fast Track Media related
B
Student 32 9 3rd Main Stream Teacher
C

Figure 2: Demographic information about three interviewees

3.5. Procedures

3.5.1. Data collection

The data collection procedure basically consisted of four main steps,

each of which was taken at different time. The steps would be listed as
follow:

Step 1: Contact second-year student researchers of English

Department, academic year 2008 - 2009.

Based on the list of student researchers from the previous year, the
researcher found out those who matched the generically described features
of participants and contacted them.

Step 2: Distribute a questionnaire to the selected subjects.

24
 The questionnaire was designed to find out specific information about
the subjects and orient them towards the main issues in discussion.

Step 3: Invite two groups of student researchers to join an in-depth

interview.

These two groups manifested significant features of the researcher’s

concerns as well as their deep interests in the survey questions. Therefore,
the researcher explained the aims of the research to them, guaranteed
confidentiality and anonymity of their participation in the research and asked
them to join the following semi-structured interview.

Step 4: Interview and record all the interviews with the participants.

The informants were interviewed separately regardless of whether

they had worked with someone or not. This is to ensure the confidentiality as
well as create an open atmosphere for all subjects, preventing them from
giving socially accepted answers or reactions. The recording would then be
played for the interviewees to add extra information if desired.

3.5.2. Data analysis

Following is the outline of the data analysis procedure:

Step 1: Take note and transcribe the data collected

This act is to serve the purpose of a meticulous and accurate analysis

as well as interpretation of information, reducing the risk of leaving out
crucial piece of information or badly organized emerging issues.

Step 2: Categorize data from follow-up interviews

25
 Information provided by the interviewees was grouped into different
categories according to different issues and was reported in a systematic
order as drawn out by the research questions.

Step 3: Present the information

Based on the transcribed recordings from interviews carried out with

the chosen students, the researcher was able to attain the structure as well as
main opinions of each student about the issues discussed. Some cross-checks
were made with the literature review to locate any emerging issues. After
this preparation is done, ideas were organized to give a vivid story of the
whole process.

For the convenience of getting each case thoroughly conveyed, the

researcher is going to describe each case one by one, with comparisons and
contrasts integrated. Some opinions from the informants will be cited when
necessary during the report.

26
 CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

4.0. Research questions

1. What was the subjects’ motivation in doing their 1st

research?

2. What difficulties did they have?

3. What are their self-assessments after all the process?

4. What are the subjects’ opinions about the present practice

of Student Research Activity in ULIS, VNU?

4.1. Case analysis

4.1.1. Case 1: A pair of student researchers, Student A and

Student B

4.1.1.1. Basic information

These two students, A and B, are classmates from Fast Track

Program, who decided to implement a research project together in the event
of the Student Research contest last academic year (2008 – 2009). Unlike
most students in their class, this pair was determined to complete their
research instead of giving up in midway.

Both of them have studied English for more than ten years, with
Student B specifying the number of 13 years in this language. On being
asked, they both claimed to be very confident with their English competence
and thought it was adequate to do research.

27
 The career orientations of these students were quite different. While
Student A would continue her chosen field of English Language Teaching
(ELT), student B did not consider teaching as a high possibility, and
intended to go on with Journalism instead. As a result, Student A thought
that she would have to do research quite often in the future career, i.e. to be a
lecturer at university; whereas her partner, Student B thought that she
“would not have anything to do with research at all”, as a news reporter or
journalist.

The subjects originally chose to cooperate with each other for some
reasons. First, they had been partners in class’s assignments and projects for
nearly two years, having got used to each other’s style and characters, so
they thought they were capable of cooperating in “something hard and big”,
said student A. Second, as reasoned by Student B, she believed in her
partner’s knowledge and responsibility, which ensured her of a successful
product. Third, they both shared an interest about one problem area, and
determined to look deeper into that topic “with a view to improving or
suggesting some change for later courses of students”.

Last academic year was the first time these two students implemented
a research project. Student A said that she did not study any research
handbook; she just read the thesis of juniors from previous years or directly
emailed to ask them some questions and went on with her topic. Meanwhile,
student B did study some methodology materials provided by her supervisor,
“but I didn’t read them all, just enough to know the most important
concepts”.

28
 None of them regularly attended the research workshops held by
teachers of the Department, with Student A attending one, and Student B
none, per the total number of five. Student A said that the time schedule for
such events were “too changeable”, and she could not manage to change
hers accordingly in order not to miss them. “That is not to mention they were
timed to take place too far away from each other, for example one about
Literature Review began first, but one about Methodology came one month
later – if we had just waited to attend all of these before doing, we would
never have met the deadline of submitting our research”, expressed Student
A about her confusion. As explained by Student B, she did not find these
workshops helpful, and she could read by herself all the information
presented.

4.1.1.2. Motivation

The topic of their research was “Effectiveness of using listening

diary among first year students”. Although asked separately, they shared
the same reason for choosing that topic, which was because they themselves
had previously experienced this activity in Listening Class, and realized it
was “highly unproductive”, said Student A and “doubtfully effective”, said
Student B. So they attempted to do research to see whether that situation was
common for other classes of students, and to propose some solutions for the
matters within that research scope. As can be seen, they had a strong
intrinsic motivation to know, which encouraged them to learn more about
the situation that they were concerned about.

Apart from that, Student A emphasized that she did not want to “give
up easily” on doing a research with an excuse of time limitation “like what I

29
did when I was a first year student”. She said that in the beginning year at
university, she believed in the “rumors among students that doing research
was very complicated and difficult, as well as time-consuming”, therefore
she did not continue her topic, which she felt “bitterly regretful” soon later.
Then Student A also had an intrinsic motivation towards accomplishment,
attempting to finish what she thought should have been done in the past.

At the same time, Student B confided that “I am naturally quite

curious and inquisitive, so I want to know what it feels like to do a research,
what steps are there in doing so”. With this intrinsic motivation to
experience stimulation, Student B aimed at experiencing a new activity that
she did not know when she was a high-school student in the past.

As regards the extrinsic motivations, both students said that the

“Rights of Students doing research” as acknowledged by the university’s
administration were not the driving force for their decision. While they
similarly appreciated the opportunity to become experienced and get
prepared for doing Thesis (though Student A particularly described it as “an
imaginary cake”, because “as a second year student I had no idea of the
conditions to make one eligible for doing such thesis at all”), other factors
did not call their attention. Student A even pointed out that they were doing
in group, which literally meant they were withdrawn from the first right for
student researchers, and Student B thought she “could still do well without
the exemption or additional points for the final test.” To her, the opportunity
to familiarize with doing thesis was a “somewhat groundless condition”,
because at that time as a second-year student she had no information about
the accomplishments as well as requirements that made one eligible to doing

30
a graduation thesis. “I want to do it for the matter of liking research itself”,
said her.

Student A and Student B shared another motivation, which was the

encouragement from each other. “Yes, I got some motivation, especially the
emotional one, from my partner”, told Student B. Also, Student A seemed
happy about their past cooperation: “You know, we were quite naïve to do
everything together – eat, sleep, and do research – she came to my house in
most of our free time. So we wasted quite a lot of time, with little
productivity. However, those were really relaxing and memorable moments,
and I felt motivated a lot”. She went on about the time when “almost every
member in our class had given up, not to mention some difficulties, and I
was a little bit nervous. Yet, she [my partner] was quite determined, later,
we reminded each other to carry on till the last minute”.

4.1.1.3. Difficulties

As a surprising finding to the researcher, two subjects showed some

obviously different opinions about the difficulties they encountered, as well
the extent they were affected by such. One serious problem for one was
lightly thought of by the other. Moreover, the stress to which these subjects
were exposed was not the same. For this reason, the researcher is going to
present their stories separately, with comparisons and contrasts where
necessary.

Student A

Student A cited Lack of genuine research culture as the most typical

difficulty regarding the professional aspects of doing research. She said the

31
most serious problem was that they did not know where to get start. “On
seeing our juniors delivering their questionnaires everywhere, we came up
with a short-sighted thought that we also need to make a list of questions
and give it to students around the department, without basing on any
theoretical foundation.” However, she added, their supervisor did not agree
with distributing the papers, asking them to review the literature before
doing anything else - and that was when another matter occurred: “We
turned out to be very confused, as to not knowing what ‘Literature Review’
is all about”, told Student A. So in general, she claimed that not
understanding the logic order of each basic step in doing research made
them come into a “hard time”. Furthermore, she confessed that “we hadn’t
known about research methodology before hand, and we carried out with
whatever knowledge we had, mostly through trial and error.” As can be
seen, they were unsure about their method, and could neither control the
accuracy of the information being given. “With hindsight, I now believe that
a lot of questionnaires we gathered back contained fallacies”, said student A
when she mentioned their data collection process.

Student A went on to talk of her experience as “being left alone in a

thick forest”, because they could not ask for supervisor’s support in solving
the new problems. “On reading any guidebook for solutions to difficult
matters, they simply wrote ‘Ask supervisor’ as a favorite response, so we
patiently waited up for her opinions before doing anything” – student A
mentioned this situation to illustrate their “frozen period” of waiting for
feedbacks from supervisor after each major step. In providing the reasons for
choosing that supervisor, Student A said “we saw that she was a new
teacher, therefore may spare enough time for us. We just needed someone

32
who we could talk to and meet regularly, not someone experienced, with
high reputation but often get too busy with big projects and programs”. It
turned out that they did not have the chance they had expected, and resorted
to the “scattered help” of other teachers or senior students – anyone they
could come to, for each matter they came across.

Student A said that she had no serious problem with time

management, even during the process of implementing their research. She
did not work part-time, and did not involve in any activity besides studying
in class. “I own the reputation for being well-organized. You know, unlike
most of my classmates, I rarely stayed up late to finish assignments. So I
could still manage and focused on this research without being distracted by
other missions”.

Though, Student A sounded concerned about the financial matter. “It

cost quite a sum to print and photocopy the questionnaires, including the
times when we made mistakes and had to pay for reprinting everything”.
Student A admitted to “being too greedy in delivering these papers to many
big halls”. Things did not end there, because in the end they had some part
printed in color, which “increased the total expense a little bit.” She made
an emphasis that they could cut the actual expense into halves thanks to
working in group, but “anyway, that sounds not a wise investment for an
average student”.

When being asked about the cooperation between two members in the
group, Student A seemed quite contented. “It was generally very good”. She
thought that the work was divided quite equally, when she “pioneered in
studying the literature review” and later, they two sit together, discussing the

33
value of each idea being accumulated. Student A did mention a “small
quarrel”, when she disagreed with her partner’s expressions for the sake of
academic writing. “But we soon overcame, and it didn’t matter to the whole
process” – said Student A, to strengthen her claim that she had no problem
in cooperating with her partner.

Student B

The first difficulty that struck on Student B was that she could not
find good materials to build up the Literature Review. Two main sources of
reference for them could not prove usefulness. While books of the targeted
topic were not available in library, the resources online were either
unauthentic or inaccessible because they required users to have a bank
account. Without adequate theory, she did not know how to choose a good
method for the current research, and was afraid that their research would
come into a standstill.

Many things followed this first hindrance, and Student B said that
sometimes she suffered from stress and felt discouraged to carry on, when it
casted light on her that their instrument was not efficient to produce
meaningful outcomes, moreover, they had to reluctantly accept the
questionnaire that they gathered although not every informant was
cooperative in answering responsibly and critically. “It’s not easy to
continue doing something that you already know brings few contributions
and bears little meaningfulness.”

Apart from the professional aspects of doing research, it is also

recorded that Student B had problems with cooperation. B was upset when

34
not being able to make her ideas understood by her partner. At the same
time, she found it hard to resist her partner’s suggestion, which she
considered “irrelevant and unnecessary for the topic”. “Unlike working on
one’s own”, she clarified, “an idea can’t just be omitted without objection,
and I simply failed to persuade my partner into doing that”.

At this point, Student B mentioned one difference between working in

group of two and working in bigger group, which is “when you have only
two people, there won’t be anyone standing in between to keep balanced,
once conflicts happen”. This was her problem, because she felt that she had
to “give in” when the conflict seemed impossible to compromise, and she
thought it was “…somehow unfair, because doing research itself was
laborious enough, and my partner should have sympathized with me better”.
Yet, on talking more about this problem, student B called the researcher’s
attention towards her assumption that “maybe sometimes she also gave in to
me, but without my noticing. It’s just a personal feeling of being oppressed”.

Then she made an extra point, emphasizing that “the give-in thing is
just one part of the problem”. The other part, according to her, was the
division of work within the group. Sometimes she felt that she had to do
more work, although the work could not be “tangibly judged as unequal”.
As admitted by Student B, each of them got involved too deeply in every
single step and could not feel “peaceful” if leaving any part of such “an
important project” to the other without “closely checking”. Consequently,
they sit together doing every part – “we read, discussed over each point;
then one watched while the other typed into the computer”. As a “fast
typist”, Student B was in charge of formatting the final project, which was
considered by her as a trivial but meticulous and stressful mission. “And

35
once your partner does not even recognize that, blaming you for one thing
or another, you know, it’d make you ready to blow up”. A quarrel between
them before the submission date, when they did not agree with each other
over the writing style of the research, was the last straw. On judging the
seriousness of this incident, student B said: “At that time all the work had
been finished, so the quarrel did not affect the final result, but it did affect
my emotion a lot. The most dominant feeling was that of unfair, or
imbalance, you know…”

Besides, Student B expressed unease when talking about their

supervisor. Sharing the same unexpected incident about their supervisor’s
time budget with Student A, she pointed out that the loosely maintained
contact between two sides tore her down during the process of doing
research. She did not feel that she had gained enough from her supervisor,
“because most questions that we wanted to ask her were delayed from time
to time, so we had to figure out by ourselves and this was quite desperate”.
Additionally, Student B was not satisfied with her supervisor’s correction.
“You know, we really wish to learn the standard things about doing
research, but she gave too generic and seldom comments and brought us
some ideas to improve at the very last minute, a couple of days before
submitting. We could not afford to fix anything at that point, so we hardly
made use of what she suggested”. On one hand, Student B remarked that
“my supervisor couldn’t regulate her own time, so understandably had no
chance to help us with our research”, on the other hand she exclaimed on
their supervisor’s knowledge and enthusiasm. She seemed appreciative of
each “precious chance” to meet their supervisor in person to share their
difficulties and receive instructions. “We were really like a desert lusting for

36
water, so even a single rain drop would already heighten my spirit”, she
confided.

Student B was having a part-time job at the time of her research

activity, and she could not possibly drop it at will. At the same time, she was
compelled to studying in class (one following the Fast Track Program), the
workload of which was always a headache for an ordinary, non-researcher
student. The whole process of meeting with partner, reviewing theory,
designing the instruments and collecting data for their research also
consumed a major part of her time budget. Student B said that she was able
to manage her routine, “but with hard efforts”. The result of this, though,
was her feeling hard pressed and less energetic then she was normally.

Financial problem was not considered a difficulty towards Student B:

“Although we had to spend a lot on distributing questionnaires and
contacting people via mobile phones, it’s not a big deal to me. I don’t do
research because of the money awards, either”.

Both students

All things considered, it can be seen that two students differed in their
perceived difficulties, as well as the extent to which they were affected by
such. In the following figures, the researcher is going to visualize these
subjects’ difficulties in correlation with each other (the order of importance
follows the downward trend of the pyramids).

37
Figure 3: Student A’s perceived difficulties

Figure 4: Student B’s perceived difficulties

38
 4.1.1.4. Self-assessment

Two subjects’ level of satisfaction with their work:

Both Student A and Student B voiced a relatively positive judgment

towards their final product. They claimed to be quite satisfied with the
efforts put into it, although the levels of satisfaction were not exactly similar.

Student A claimed that she “couldn’t do better”, even if she had been
allotted some extra time, and she was contented with the efforts put into
their research, giving a mark of 8.5 on the scale of 10. She even shared her
own feeling that “from the moment we handed in that project, we had
already born in mind it could never make way to the final round”, and that
“on seeing what had turned out, I suppose the judges must have
overestimated that full-of-mistakes-project”. However, she clearly called the
researcher’s attention to a thought about other peers’ researches: “anyway,
it’s not too bad in comparison with some other researches I knew”. Despite
some dissatisfaction raised by other students about other projects, she
strongly suggested that “projects should be grouped into suitable categories
before being compared with each other, for example I don’t want to put one
applied research and one basic research on the same scale, then start up
wonderings about each one’s method”. On saying that, she still mentioned a
basic research project that “is some strange combination and can’t be
considered secondary based on what I’ve read about types of research”.

Meanwhile, Student B expressed that “it felt like I had invested a

piece of my life – with all my heart and soul, into that project”. However,

39
she pointed out a contradiction lying in the fact that the “laborious efforts”
made by her partner and her did not necessarily prove the quality or
contribution of that product. “The more I read, the more I became aware of
our weakness in methodology, so it appeared clear to me that our research
carried not much applicability into the current context of our university. It’s
a sad feeling to know that you did not ‘chip in’ anything new despite a long
time seeking for its traces”. For all these reasons, Student B said that she had
to “reluctantly accept” the “honorable” second prize award, and marked a
7.5 on the ladder of 10 for her satisfaction.

Student B mentioned her peer’s research project “that I knew quite

well the whole process of making it” with a hint of admiration, and said she
would also follow that research’s methodology if she did any other project in
the future. Other than that, she did not want to comment on the school’s
assessment of some other researches “that were too problematic to be called
a scientific product”.

Two subjects’ perceived gaining from their first-hand experience

As far as knowledge is concerned, Student A thought that the biggest

benefits she gained from this activity was being able to identify each step in
a correct order, “now that I know where to start, instead of bumping into
every direction before coming back badly wounded”. Also, she claimed to be
more confident with finding and choosing materials critically.

Like her partner, Student B also felt that she had gained valuable
experience about research methodology; at the same time, she got a deeper
understanding about the topic of her research. Yet, she said that “I don’t

40
think it helps much with the academic writing style, because research
writing contains a lot of terminology, which mean I can’t apply that
vocabulary into writing for other purposes.” Moreover, Student B realized
that her computer skills in formatting a Microsoft Word document had been
improved, and she had gather “quite a few tricks” in analyzing and
visualizing the data productively and accurately.

On being interviewed about what they had gained for their personality
in particular, Student A emphasized the need to rely more on one’s own
while Student B’s opinions revolved around the matter of handling
relationships between people.

To be specific, Student A said that “I learn to be more patient, more

persistent and not to give up easily at anything difficult. Also, I need to be
more active instead of waiting for the help from outside. Besides, she
thought that she needed to be open to friends, because “helping them with
their problems may bring solutions for your own ones”. Student A added
that her partner did not plan to do research in the following academic year.
Instead of being discouraged, she preferred to work alone because she
wanted “to have something of my own”. Though aware of the difficulties
that an individual researcher may meet, “I’d overcome soon”, she confirmed.

As regards Student B, she reminded herself to be more careful in

choosing supervisor next time, which means “considering their personal
traits, for example whether they are well-organized and in control of their
daily life, mainly through observing them in class, instead of deciding
simply on intimate relationships with teachers or their reputation from the
past”. Furthermore, Student B shared her feeling that “actually I had

41
expected a bit more from my partner, in completing both content and format
of the research”, and except for the conflict towards the end of the process,
she did receive a lot of support from her partner. “Partners are all different
from person to person, you know, so I don’t think I can draw any
‘partnership lesson’ for other time in the future – just experience it, though”.
After that, she shared a reason for not going on another research with her
partner: “it’s mainly because of my personality, i.e. not feeling comfortable
with doing something similar with someone familiar for too long. I want
some change, trying other activities that make me enjoy ‘with all my heart
and soul’, and with less efforts”.

4.1.1.5. Two subjects’ suggestions for the Student Research

Activity at ULIS, VNU

The fact that two subjects implemented a project together partly

explains their common ideas in suggesting improvements for the current
activity in ULIS. Therefore, the researcher is going to present these in a
combined form, from both informants.

With their own impression about the “hardship” of finding related

theory, the students strongly suggested that there should be more written
documents for the school’s and department’s libraries. “I remember raising
this once, but the dean only ‘politely agreed’ to work on it soon”, said
Student B. Meanwhile, Student A hoped that the librarians could be more
supportive and sympathetic with student researchers, instead of adding up to
their stress. “You know, there was a time when we had planned to meet there
[at the library] in order to work together and reach the documents more
easily. It was raining hard, so you understand how I felt on seeing a closed

42
door after 8 a.m. without any notice about its closing reasons.” – shared
student A about a “typical story”.

As commented by Student B, “the supervisors – they seem all

engaged elsewhere, and accept to supervise you just because of personal
relationships between two sides, rather than because they are interested in
your topic or they really want to improve your research methodology”.
Therefore she wished that the school could organize a “board of professional
supervisors”, with teachers who are “available and capable of instructing
and supporting their students in doing research, both theoretically and
emotionally”.

Student A expressed doubts about what she had gained – “mostly

through trials and errors, as I have said”– so she thought it would be “more
meaningful” if their project was commented in details, about “the weak
points, the strong points, even the directions for us to correct”. She said that
she had waited a long time for the final result, “not for the prizes or awards
but for the feedbacks from the judges”. But she could only manage to ask
them in person, for “a couple of general comments, no more, no less”. Then
their self-realized problems in methodology seemed to remain mostly
unsolved.

Student B, who was a class vice-monitor, showed her concerns about

the policy for students doing research. She suggested that the conferences
held at the end of each school year should be open not only to
representatives of class’s management board, but for related students as well
– “the insiders, who need to voice their real difficulties and ask for supports
or advice”. “Otherwise”, continued student B, “they would hardly feel

43
motivated to take part in such activity, no matter how widely it is spread,
especially when the prizes couldn’t even cover their printing expenses”.

4.1.2. Case 2: An individual student researcher - Student C

4.1.2.1. Basic information

Student C is from Main Stream Program, and she carried out a

research individually on last academic year (2008 – 2009). Unlike case 1 of
Student A and Student B, there was no one other than her who did research
as a second year student of Main Stream Program, English Pedagogy
Department at the same time of her research.

Student C had finished a course at college and was previously a

teacher for secondary school in Tuyen Quang before continuing her
education at ULIS, VNU. She has studied English for nine years in total, and
claimed to be very confident with her English competence, especially it was
considered “certainly adequate to do research”.

For her particular situation, Student C has been fixed in her career
orientation, which is to work as a teacher. She also plans to become a
lecturer at university in the long run, which means her work involves a lot of
research activity. In the past, she did make annual proposals for her
secondary school about the ways to improve study activities for children of
minority groups. However, she had not had any firsthand experience with
doing student research at ULIS, VNU.

Student C said that she had not been taught anything about doing
research during the years at college or even when she had entered ULIS,

44
VNU. She self-studied the methods and combined with her experiences of
teaching at secondary school. Student C did not attend any workshop for
student researcher “because of family business”, but she did receive and
study the research guides from such meetings. Her supervisor was the only
source of her consultancy, whenever she had queries about doing research.

4.1.2.2. Motivation

Student C’s topic of research was “Similarities and differences in

marriage customs between Vietnamese and British people”, and she
claimed it to be a basic research. As she explained, this research did not aim
at finding out about any problematic situation, but just “served the purpose
of studying a topic of interest and introducing it to others”.

The first and foremost reason for Student C to choose this topic was
her personal interest. “I’m myself a married student with some experience of
my own, and my close friend got married to a British husband. So I wanted
to make comparisons between the two, simply because I like the marriage
topic”. Secondly, at that time she was having a course of General
Geography, which introduced the brief information about the US and the
UK, therefore she came across new knowledge that she found interesting
and became curious in “having a closer look at it”. As can be seen, her most
dominant motivation was an intrinsic motivation to know.

Unlike two students mentioned in the previous case, Student C was

not influenced by others, “I had asked several classmates to do this
together, but they soon gave up so I carried on by myself” - this shows that

45
she did not have the partner’s motivation that Student A and Student B
shared for doing a research.

Furthermore, Student C showed an indifference to the “Rights of

Students doing research” that were in practice for students of ULIS, VNU.
She had not thought of the right to replace the score of her research with the
score in final examination of one subject among the four linguistic skills,
because “I supposed that right was only for those who could win a prize, not
for every candidate”. Besides, she laughed when mentioning the right of
getting extra accumulated points for obeying school regulations, because she
was the monitor of the class, member of the Student Union and some other
organizations, which means she had gained all the possible rewarding
benefits without doing research. Student C also said that she planned to sit
for the Graduation Exam instead of doing thesis, so she had little purpose of
gaining experience for research methodology. Lastly, she said that she did
not take the money rewards into account when implementing the research,
partly because it was “not sounding impressive”, and partly because she did
not have any financial crisis.

For the convenience of a broader view at the subjects’ evaluation for

these students’ rights, the researcher is presenting the following chart, which
summarizes the difference in the level of motivation that three subjects
received from each factor.

46
Figure 5: Levels of motivation from acknowledged Students’ rights in doing research

As can be seen, Student C had only one intrinsic motivation that drove
her into doing research. Extrinsic factors had little or no effect on her
decision and procedure of doing research.

4.1.2.3. Difficulties

Different from what the researcher has found out and presented in the
Literature Review, which listed many typical hindrances for an individual
researcher, Student C experienced almost no stressful moments during her
project.

Unlike Student A and Student B, who encountered serious problems

in finding materials for Literature Review, Student C reported a difficulty in
collecting data. The matter was not that she lacked reference books related
to the topic, but that she could not “contact the subjects in Britain for face-

47
to-face interviews, in order to ask their opinions about the reasons for the
differences between two cultures of Vietnam and Britain”. That was the only
difficulty regarding professional aspects of doing research mentioned by this
subject.

Student C did not have to work as a secondary school’s teacher during

the time at ULIS, however, she was married and a mother of a small child,
so she had to take care of her family every weekend. Her study program was
the one for Main Stream students, with a “relatively enjoyable amount of
work compared to that of students in E1 and E20” [classes following Fast
Track Program]. All in all, student C claimed that she did manage her time
budget quite well, with special thanks to her husband’s support and
encouragement. Therefore she “rarely felt stress with the tasks being carried
out in class as well as my own project”. She closely followed the schedule of
submitting outline, first version and final version as required by the
Department without missing any deadline.

While the relation with supervisor was a primary source of concerns

for Student A and Student B, Student C described a very productive and
friendly relation between the chosen supervisor and her. As she said, that
supervisor corrected her project every time she sent it within an “acceptably
long time”. Also, she reported to be redirected by her supervisor when she
made some irrelevant steps in the content of the research, so she was able to
adjust without suffering from press about time. Student C complimented on
her supervisor for this person’s “knowledge, enthusiasm, personality and the
true interest in my topic”, and satisfied with the cooperation between them.

48
 Generally, Student C had only one difficulty in common with Student
A and Student B. What seemed to bother the other two did not affect her
performance, as far as she could perceive it. Clearly illustrated in the chart
below is the difference between the difficulties shared by Student A and
Student B in case 1 and those of Student C in case 2, without mentioning
Limited Time Budget - the only common difficulty between two cases and
the factors are arranged in the order of decrease in seriousness.

Figure 6: Difficulties shared by Student A and Student B in case 1

versus those of Student C in case 2

49
 4.1.2.4. Self-assessment

The subject’s satisfaction with her work:

Student C was “quite satisfied”, giving an estimated 8 over 10 scores,

with the fact that she had been able to find out what she wanted to know
throughout her research, regardless of whether it was highly judged by other
peers or the markers or not: “to tell the truth, I didn’t care what prize there
was for me, as long as I’d finished doing what I like”.

Student C did not compare her research with others, as she thought
that there was no principle for comparing between hers, i.e. a basic research,
with other students’, i.e. applied linguistic ones. However, she showed a
suspicion towards the applicability of such projects. “I’ve read some applied
research like that in the library, but find not everything they say is true.”
What’s more, she remarked that “such theory can’t help much if piled up in
the library after each season of research activity”, and questioned: “Why
don’t they apply it to improve our school’s context? It makes little sense to
implicate new things that would never be tested or come into effect”. In
general, therefore, she was content with doing basic research to enlarge her
common knowledge.

This appears as a significant difference in findings between the two

cases. While the project by Student A and Student B proved to have better
methods and more detailed Literature Review, they showed remarkably less
“mere satisfaction” (Student C, Interview) than their counterpart, whose

50
research revealed some weaknesses and problematic misconceptions about
research tools and research methodology.

The subject’s perceived gaining from her first-hand experience

Student C reconfirmed that she did not plan to do a graduation thesis,

and she did not mention research skills as what had been learnt after the
period. Instead, she claimed to have better understood the similarities and
differences between two countries’ marriage customs, not to mention other
aspects of the theme Culture. And this, i.e. the gaining of background
knowledge about culture, was considered the most important achievement
that she had made. Besides, her academic writing was reported to be
improved due to learning from the styles and vocabulary from culture books.

On concerning her plan after doing that research, Student C said that
she did not determine to carry out another project in the following year,
because “I only continue once I’ve found a topic interesting enough.
Although my future career requires such thing about [research]
methodology, I’m quite bored with it so I don’t want to try hard right from
now on”. Also, she said she would prefer to work in group with someone
else, so that they could gather more ideas; moreover, other tasks, including
the manual ones, “for example you go do interviews and I give out the
questionnaires”, would be better shared among members. These can be
regarded as her practical experience in taking part in the research activity.

There appears a distinction between the perceived gaining reported in

the two cases, which can be generally conveyed in the below diagram:

51
 Figure 7: Perceived gaining as reported in case 1 versus case 2

4.1.2.5. The subject’s suggestions for the Student Research

Activity at ULIS, VNU

In Student C’s opinion, the Student Research Activity being carried

out at ULIS, VNU is “widely advertised but still does not receive the active
response from students”. In reasoning for this, she took her own example, as
a monitor she had to try “persuading, even luring them [my classmates] into
doing research. However, they didn’t give it a thought at all, because they
just want to practice the four linguistic skills and have no demand for
widened background knowledge or studying any abstract fact”. Going on
with her story, Student C said that her supposedly partners from the
beginning gradually quitted the activity because they did not want to skim

52
through too many books “just in order to find out a piece of information
then put into the correct citation”. The biggest motivation that many of her
classmates found “attractive”, i.e. replacing the mark at the Final
Examination, was still not compatible to the hardships that they were
expected to overcome before getting it.

To suggest for a more active and productive participation of students

in this activity, Student C said that a detailed list of benefits for students
should be publicized. At the same time, she recommended, “they [the
authority] had better prove to the students that their products can be
applied into improving their own situation if of good quality and able to
solve a practical issue”. In order to do so, continued Student C, there should
be a stricter frame for evaluating students’ projects, and “the university need
focus their time as well as money only on those researches that show high
applicability and standard methodology”. Otherwise, students would keep
submitting “their pseudo-science in the name of Science” products. To make
matter worse, such products “still get mark 9 and 10; still receive big noisy
applause from public audience”, which further complicates the “already-
complicated picture of Scientific Research Movement as a whole”.

53
 CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION

5.1. Summary of findings

Firstly, the study pinpoints the fact that students’ motivation for doing
research is mostly intrinsic. Meanwhile, the extrinsic factors, especially the
benefits offered by school’s administration were not regarded as a
remarkable source of motivation.
Secondly, firsthand practitioners encountered many difficulties during the
process of research. In the context of ULIS, VNU, these difficulties belong
to the following categories:
Inadequate equipment of knowledge about basic steps
Inadequate support services and provision of equipment
Limited access to research subjects, contacts and contexts
Personality factors
Professional factors
Organizational factors
Thirdly, from the perspective of the insiders, the research puts forwards
some implications with a purpose of improving motivation for the majority
of student to do research in the future and suggesting solutions for the
difficulties likely to hinder students’ progress.

5.2. Implications

The later parts of the interviews with three subjects have provided a
variety of potentially beneficial suggestions from the angle of the insiders.
Together with her own study and analysis, the researcher hopes to

54
summarize all possible implications into the following categories, i.e.
implications for higher motivation and implications for fewer difficulties in
the Student Research Activity.

5.2.1. Implications for higher motivation among student

researchers

 Students should be introduced to the research activity in more

various ways to reduce the misconceptions about the nature of
doing research.
 Students should be well informed in details about the benefits
that they can gain from doing research, as well as the benefits
they are able to contribute to the activity itself.
 Students should receive constant supports and understanding
from related stakeholders, i.e. the university’s administration,
the library’s managers, etc.
 Students with certain achievements in the activity should be
adequately acknowledged and rewarded. At the same time,
supervisors with contributions and enthusiasm towards
students’ success should be appropriately recognized and
stimulated.
 Students should be allowed more chances to raise their voice
from internal situation so that their needs are timely responded.

55
 5.2.2. Implications for fewer difficulties during students’ doing
research

Students should be offered supports on various aspects and in various

types:

Professionally

 Students should be introduced to a board of supervisors with

suitable conditions that allow them to locate enough time and
effort for each project under supervision.
 Students should be oriented towards practical or meaningful
topics of research that serve their interest at the same time.
 Workshops for student researchers should be reconsidered
about schedule, place and related organizational factors so that
more students can manage to attend and ask for help.
 Students should be enabled to get easier access to reference
materials. One particular suggestion is for a common account
online for potential resources, i.e. www.eric.ed.gov so that they
can register and find valuable as well as update information for
the topic of their interest.
 Students’ projects should be provided with feedbacks and
recommendations from both the judges and peers in the
scientific community for better ways of improvements and
exchanging experience.

56
 Personally

Students can save themselves from a lot of difficulties if they have a

deep awareness of possible troubles as well as establish a well-prepared
attitude towards issues in doing research, namely relationship with
supervisor and personal and emotional issues

Handling relationship with supervisor

As the first step in doing research, choosing supervisor is considered

by Wisker (2004) to be essential for a good quality research project.
Therefore, she advised students to “set up contacts in advance and develop a
working link with a prospective supervisor”. Students should also pick a
person who is interested in the same ideas and area but can contribute
different skills or contacts, to be their supervisor. Also, they need to
establish a “credible and viable research outline”, as well as carry out
discussion during the internal process. Then, it is important that they
consider the methodology possibly being used in order to study the matter
they have located.

According to this author, most of the troubles may be better stamped

out if students objectively identify what they should expect from their
supervisor, which is synthesized as below:

- to supervise – guide as to structure, scope, decisions about

methodology and so on. […]

- to read your work thoroughly, and in advance

- to be available when needed

57
 - to be friendly, open and supportive

- to be constructively critical

- to have a good knowledge of the research area

- To structure the supervision, and ongoing relationship

- To know how to ask open questions, how to draw out ideas and
problems and how to elicit information, even if the student find
communication difficult

- to have sufficient interest in their research to put more information

such as reading, resources and contacts their way

- to encourage you to attend appropriate conferences and introduce

you to others in their field

- to be sufficiently involved in their success to help you focus on

directing your work later for a publication, promotion or job

Last but not least, students need to ensure that they have clear
working relations with their supervisor, and should not intrude on their
personal lives. Moreover, they should manage to keep the balance between
friendship and a professional working relationship so that neither side “relax
too much and forget to concentrate on the timing and management of each
aspect of the research” (Wisker, 2004).

58
 All things considered, a combination of sound research practices and
clear relationships with supervisor would result in autonomy, negotiation
and the development of shared responsibilities.

In addition to the help from supervisors, student researchers can also

make use of their counterpart network of people working in the same field or
sharing with them the same interest in research.

[…]The sharing of key questions, about procedures, systems and ideas,

depending on the context, can be immensely useful for students who
might otherwise feel rather isolated. Not only does a group help
students feel supported and discuss issues, developments, problems
and breakthroughs, but it can also provide a perfect kind of
opportunity for that very exploratory talk […]
(Wisker, 2004. p. 107)

Handling personal and emotional issues

“Being able to manage a variety of roles and tasks at any one time is a
feat of flexibility and diversity” (Wisker, 2004, p. 69).

In order to minimize the stress and the disappointments that can be

caused by the demands of different factors, researchers are advised by
Wisker to plan ahead and spot the time when there is a conflict between
interest and effort so that they can negotiate and balance their activities.

There are some ways to manage time effectively and reduce the stress
from research, according to Wisker. Here are the most outstanding steps:

- Negotiate with people at work place and explain the demands of your
research without bothering them or requesting special privileges
- Try and gain support of family members and friends – explain the
demands and negotiate the pressure and support needed

59
 - Do not spend too much time on research and forget about friends or
alienate with family. Researchers should balance between the
pleasures and demands rather than putting off social activities and
domestic responsibilities
(Wisker, 2004, p.71)

As theorized by this author, it would furthermore be a good idea if

researchers can make use of the help from people around them. Other people
unrelated to the research can introduce researchers to other contacts or
suggest other approaches or interpretation. Friends and relatives can also
provide different forms of support, for example, in “clarifying
methodology”, “interpreting data”, “learning new skills”, “overcoming
intellectual hurdles”, helping to spot neglected issues or “providing
professional, psychological and emotional support in times of pressure”.

5.3. Limitations of the study

Despite the researcher’s great efforts and her supervisor’s appreciable

supports, the research still bears a number of shortcomings. First, the scale
of the research is quite limited due to the controlling criteria; it involves only
11 questionnaire respondents and 3 objects for detailed follow – up
interviews after the stage of interpreting questionnaires. Second, it is carried
out in a limited period of time, which hinders deeper investigations into
specific facets. Third, the validity of the solutions should have been tested
through means of case studies and experiments, for which the researcher is
not able to afford. It is hoped that the meticulous and serious conduction
carried out by the researcher can remunerate for the mentioned shortcomings
and reduce the unexpected effects on the results.

60
 5.4. Suggestions for further studies

It is highly recommended that further studies on problems in Student

Research are conducted on a broader scale with more target population.
Another worth noting point is the closer look at students’ attitude and
conceptions about the features of doing research and the benefits brought
from such activity. It would also be of greater help to observe the practical
role of supervisors in instructing students to boost their autonomy and
awareness of ethical issues in research and science.

61
 REFERENCE

Buffalo State. (n.d.). About Undergraduate Research. Retrieved 10 1, 2009, from About
Undergraduate research: http://www.buffalostate.edu/undergraduateresearch/x457.xml

ERC. (2008). Students' Needs in Doing Research. Retrieved 10 27, 2009, from
http://www.saga.vn/Giangduong/Phuongphapluankhoahoc/11653.saga

Eisenhardt, Kathleen M. (1989). Building Theories from case study research. Academy of
Management Review, Oct 1989

Fidel, R. (1984). The case study method: A case study. Library and Information Science
Research

Florian H. Müller & Johann Louw. (2004, 5 20). Conditions of university students’ motivation
and study interest. Retrieved 12 3, 2009, from Education online:
http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/00003572.htm

Gardner, R. a. (1972). Attitudes and Motivation in Second Language Learning. Newbury House.

Harvard Kennedy School (2009). Vietnam Higher Education: Crisis and Response. Retrieved
from www.viet.net/.../2009.../014924.html

Jakobovist, L. A. (1970). Foreign Language Learning: A Psycholinguistic Analysis of the Issues.

Newbury House.

Levin, Richard C. (2010). The rise of Asia University. Retrieved from

http://opa.yale.edu/president/message.aspx?id=91

Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (1999). Designing qualitative research (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.

Nguyen Thi Phuong Hoa (2001). Một vài suy nghĩ nhỏ về vấn đề tổ chức nghiên cứu khoa học ở
nhà trường đại học. Retrieved from http://www.phuonghoa.edu.vn/

Nguyen Van Van (2003). Mấy suy nghĩ về hoạt động nghiên cứu khoa học của
sinh viên Trường ĐH Luật TP HCM. Tạp chí khoa học pháp luật , 14.

62
National Conference on Undergraduate Research. Undergraduate research. Retrieved 10 2009,
from http://www.ncur.org/ugresearch.htm

Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park,
CA: Sage.

The National Academies Press (2003). Fostering Highschool Students' Motivation to Learn.
National Academies of Science.

Undergraduate Research Advisory Committee (2006, 1 31). Undergraduate Research. Retrieved

11 27, 2009, from College of Arts and Sciences, Winthrop University:
http://www2.winthrop.edu/artscience/undergradresearch/Underg... - 38k

Vietnam National University, University of Social Science & Humanity (2001). Kỉ yếu Hội nghị
các nhà khoa học trẻ ĐHQGHN lần thứ 2, 12.2002, p. 362-365

Vu Cao Dam (2008). Phương pháp luận nghiên cứu khoa học. Hà Nội: Nhà xuất bản Thế Giới.

Vu The Dung (2005). Nghiên cứu khoa học trong sinh viên - cách tiếp cận mới. Tuoi Tre Chu
Nhat , 32.

Weick, K. E. (1979). The social psychology of organizing (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Wenzel, T. (2003). Definition of Undergraduate Research. Retrieved October 15, 2009, from
Bates College: http://www.bates.edu

Wikipedia (2009). Semi-structured interviews. Last retrieved February 2010 from

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-structured_interview
Wisker, G. (2004). The Post Graduate Research Handbook . Palgrave.

63
APPENDIX 1: FRAMEWORK FOR EVALUATING GRADUATION THESIS

TRƯỜNG ĐẠI HỌC NGOẠI NGỮ - ĐHQG HN

KHOA TIẾNG ANH

PHIẾU CHẤM KHÓA LUẬN TỐT NGHIỆP QH2004.F1.E (K38)

Họ và tên sinh viên: Lớp:
Tiểu ban:
Giáo viên hướng dẫn/phản biện:
Tên khóa luận:

Tiêu chí, thang điểm đánh giá NỘI DUNG khóa luận:

Tiêu chí Điểm tối đa Điểm chấm

1. Tính cấp thiết của đề tài: Đề tài luận văn xuất phát từ 1 điểm
nhu cầu thực tế của giảng dạy và nghiên cứu

2. Mục đích nghiên cứu rõ ràng, phạm vi nghiên cứu 1 điểm

phù hợp

3. Sự phù hợp giữa tên đề tài, mục đích nghiên cứu và 1 điểm
nội dung khóa luận

4. Tính hợp lý và độ tin cậy của phương pháp nghiên 1.5 điểm
cứu

5. Ýnghĩa khoa học và thực tiễn của khóa luận

a. Giá trị khoa học: tổng hợp và phân tích 1.5 điểm
có đánh giá, phê phán tài liệu tham khảo có liên
quan và phù hợp với nhiệm vụ của đề tài

b. Ý nghĩa thực tiễn: Những kết luận và đề

xuất của đề tài có khả năng áp dụng vào giải
quyết những vấn đề thực tiễn trong giảng dạy 1.5 điểm
và nghiên cứu

6. Trình bày của khóa luận

a. Khóa luận trình bày theo đúng yêu cầu 1 điểm

về hình thức: có đầy đủ các phần, phông chữ,
cỡ chữ... theo hướng dẫn

b. Ngôn ngữ của khóa luận phù hợp với

văn phongkhoa học, không có lỗi vềhình thái
ngôn ngữ (ngữ pháp, chính tả, v.v.) 1.5 điểm

Tổng số điểm nội dung

64
APPENDIX 2: QUESTIONNAIRE FOR STUDENT RESEARCHERS (2008 –
2009)

STUDENT RESEARCH
I am Vu Bao Chau from E1-K41, ULIS, VNU. I would like to ask you some information
so that some of you can help me further in my research about Motivation, difficulties and Self-
assessment of first-time practitioner students in doing research. Please give your answers
sincerely because it will determine the success of my study. Thank you very much for your help.
1. What major are you in now? ……………………………………………………….

2. How long have you studied English? ……………………………………………...

3. What’s your career orientation? ……………………………………………………

4. Was it the first time you did research last year? Yes/ No (please circle)

5. Did you work alone with your research? Yes/ No (please circle)

6. Were you taught anything about doing research? Yes/ No (please circle)

7. Did you take part in the Workshops for student researchers? Yes/ No (please circle)

8. Did you study research guides before starting? Yes/ No (please circle)

9. Did you consult anyone about doing research? Yes/ No (please circle)

10. What’s the topic of your research? …………………………………………………

11. Did you have difficulties with doing research? Yes/ No (please circle)

If you choose No, please skip question 13.

12. Circle the number that best describes the extent of motivation you had when doing
research last year

1 2 3 4 5
Little Motivated Highly
motivated motivated

13. Circle the number that best describes the number of difficulties you had when doing
last year’s research

1 2 3 4 5
Few Many A lot

65
 Are you willing to participate in my study? Yes/ No (please circle)
Firstly, if you say Yes, it will be a big favor and I would really appreciate.
Secondly, it is a very good chance for you to reflect on your own performance when
you take part in the research activity. Particularly, your help in this study contributes
substantially to people’s understanding of first-time practitioners’ opinions and
feelings about this practice; besides, you would have a chance to raise your voice for
your own better condition in the future.
If yes, please let me know some of your personal information so that I can contact
you later.
Your name:
Class: Phone number: Email:

Thank you very much!

66
APPENDIX 3: FRAMEWORK OF INTERVIEW QUESTIONS FOR
PARTICIPANTS

INTERVIEW QUESTIONS

Part I: Research question 1: “What was the subjects’ motivation in doing their
1st research?”

1) Regarding the Rights of students doing research announced by ULIS, VNU,

please range from 1 to 5 (from the least to the most motivating factor).

1. Student researchers can replace the score of their research with the
score in FINAL EXAMINATION of one subject among the four linguistic
skills (Speaking, Listening, Reading or Writing), on the condition that
they do the research individually. In case of doing in group, each member
will have additional points in their final paper.
2. Student researchers can increase their accumulated scores for
Obeying regulations according to the university’s policy.
3. Student researchers are introduced to Research Methodology and
academic writing skill, get ready for the Graduation Thesis.
4. About financial supports:
1. Each winning project at the level of Course Group is given
VND 50,000
2. Each project being promoted to the level of Department is
given VND 100,000
3. Excellent projects at the level of Department receive extra
supports as below:

• First Prize: VND 200,000

• Second Prize: VND 150,000

• Third Prize: VND 100,000

67
 5. 15 projects being promoted to the level of University is given VND
100,000
2) Is there any other factor/ reason that encouraged you to do research? Please
specify

Part II - Research question 2: “What difficulties did they have?”

1) Which steps of doing a research did you have the most difficulties?

A. Identify the problem areas

B. Survey the literature review relating to it

C. Define the actual problem for investigation

D. Formulate research questions and define the basic concepts and variables

E. State the underlying assumptions which govern the interpretation of results

F. Construct the research design to maximize internal and external validity

G. Specify the data collection procedures

H. Select the data analysis methodology

I. Execute the research plan

J. Evaluate the results and draw conclusions

2) What do you think were the cause(s) of your difficulties?

Part III – Research question 3: “What is their self-assessment after all the
process?”

1) Were you happy with the result?

2) Were you happy with your efforts put into the research?

3) (For individual) Did you plan to do research again? If no, why?

4) (For group) Did your group plan to cooperate for another time? If no, why?

68
 Part IV – Research question 4: “What is the subjects’ opinions about the
present activity of Student Research?”

What is your opinion about the research activity in the context of ULIS, VNU?

APPENDIX 4: EXCERPT OF INTERVIEW WITH STUDENT C

[…]
Interviewer (I): Did you gain anything after doing research?
Interviewee (C): when I had to read many books about cultures, it improved my
knowledge about that topic, then I learnt the writing styles about such cultural topics.
I: Was the effect clearly seen?
C: Well, just a higher result for Academic Writing, no big deal.
I: Is that all?
C: Let’s see. About computer skills? – I knew before then already! And about such
things as APA, I had read all about it before doing research, as it was compulsory, right?
I: Well, yeah. So in one word, what was the best thing you’ve gained?
C: Vocabulary and background knowledge about cultural topics.
I: One last question, what is your opinion about the present Student Research
Activity at our university?
C: I think that such projects had better be applied into the context; otherwise piling
them up in the library would be really useless and wasteful.

69
 I: From your own perspective, do you think it’s being actively welcomed by many
students?
C: it’s “advertised” quite often by the Student Union, however, as a monitor who
usually attends their meetings, I see that they “force” each class to submit at least one or
two projects; otherwise no one would do. For a simple example, at the time I did research
last year, hardly anyone was involved – only E1, E20 and only me from Main Stream.
I: Why do you think so few students took part?
C: I think they were not motivated and interested
I: Why not?
C: Although it was said that there were very big awards, many rewarding points for
Obeying Regulations, which was the most impressive, and I myself had to go persuading
them about all those things, I even promised not to make them do any class’s mission,
they still didn’t do.
I: What were their reasons?
C: They said that their writing skill was bad; and they simply needed to improve
their linguistic skills. Doing research means reading a lot of books to find suitable ideas
and put into correct quotations, so they couldn’t manage to do all such laborious task.
I: Do you have any suggestion for the betterment of this activity?
C: I think about the money or score awards, the more the better, especially for
students. The point is, whether students are enthusiastic to take part.
I: If allowed, what would you propose to the university to have products with better
quality?
C: If so, then the administrators themselves should only mark and store those with
high applicability. For example, when coming there I saw countless books of research,
how to improve this, how to solve that, blah blah, but I think there’s nothing being
applied into our context until now. The problems are still there. Books keep piling up,
nothing more. As I see it, that’s called “pseudo-science in the name of Science”. Then the
authors of such products still get mark 9, mark 10 and big applauses, no big deal.
Agree? If you read a lot and become familiar, you would find many things seemingly
sound but in fact are really dubious about validity and reliability or such. Isn’t it a kinda
“pseudo-science”?
I: Well, how about your research? How do you judge its practicability?
C: It’s another story, then. Mine was done just to find out about an issue, not to
apply into the practice of anything…
I: In short, the research activity should be done with practical purposes, isn’t it?

70
C: Exactly!
[…]

71