This document summarizes a study that investigated the learning strategies and challenges faced by successful PhD graduates in Malaysia. It begins with an abstract that outlines the study's objectives to understand the demographic profiles and strategies used by PhD graduates to complete their studies. The introduction provides background on the rising number of research candidates who do not complete their PhD programs and discusses the need to understand effective learning strategies. The literature review then discusses common challenges faced by adult learners and research candidates, including lack of confidence, financial constraints, and difficulties with the research process.

1. 1
The learning strategies of successful research graduates: A
survey on the Malaysian PhD holders.
Faizah A Majid, Nor Hashima Mohd Shukor, Fatin Aliana Radzi
(Published in Journal for the Enhancement of Learning and Teaching. Vol 5 Issue 1
Summer 2010. pp. 9 – 27. ISSN 1743-3932)
ABSTRACT
Each year the number of research candidates who either opt out or are dismissed due to
poor performance is increasing (IGS, UiTM, 2006). Several factors are identified in the
literature as contributing to the loss of research candidates from the research
programme they enrol in. According to Brown and Atkins (1990, as cited in Faizah
2006), the factors include difficulties with methodological skills, problems of isolation
and more serious commitment given to life outside their research among the part-time
students. Sayed et al (1998) who conducted a longitudinal study on the difficulties faced
by ten research students provided relevant input for best practices in research
supervision. This paper reports on a study conducted in Malaysia with the aim to
investigate the demographic profiles and the strategies employed by 76 successful PhD
graduates (53% female, 47% male) who completed their studies either abroad or locally.
A questionnaire which comprise two parts (Part A: Learning Challenges & Strategies,
and Part B: Demographic Background) was administered to the respondents who were
chosen based on a purposive sampling. The data was analyzed using SPSS. A profile of
the successful PhD graduates is presented along with an exploration of the challenges
they faced and strategies they employed to overcome the challenges during their studies.
The findings have implications on future entry requirements, training, and the type of
support future PhD candidates need.
INTRODUCTION
Previous research has already taught us much about the adult learners and postgraduates
that form the sample for this current study (Habibah, 2002; Faizah, 2004, 2005, 2006;
Hazadiah & Jamiah, 2006). However, while most of the previous research contributed to
a better understanding of the adult learners‟ learning styles, strategies and use of
institutional support, little remains known about postgraduate research candidates‟
strategies in completing their studies. The Ninth Malaysian Plan has an emphasis on
lifelong learning which is impacting many adult learners, encouraging them to make a
comeback in the education system by pursuing further postgraduate studies.
Research may be either a partial or full proportion of a postgraduate programmes, and
hence more and more research candidates are progressing through the University as they
complete their studies. Unfortunately, though they may have completed the coursework
requirements of their courses, many postgraduate students fail to graduate as they have
fail to complete the research component of their programmes. This pattern is replicated
among the postgraduate students for whom research makes up all of their course
requirements. Each year, the number of research candidates who are either opting out or
being dismissed from their courses due to poor performance is showing a rise (IGS,

2. 2
UiTM, 2006). A review of relevant literature supports this trend of discontinuation of
programmes among research student candidates (Sayed et al., 1998; Habibah, 2004;
Faizah, 2005).
Sayed et al. (1998) conducted a longitudinal study of the difficulties faced by ten research
students and discovered a range of issuespertaining to best practice in research
supervision. According to them, the candidates in the study were not familiar with the
process of conducting research, the methodology involved and the conventions of thesis
writing. They further elaborated that these were due to a lack of understanding,
uncertainty of the candidates‟ own capabilities and high levels of anxiety. In relating their
findings to the supervision relationship, Sayed et al. claimed that the candidates in their
study failed to meet the expectation of their supervisors and that they had a learning style
that did not match the supervisor‟s style. To clarify, while the supervisors expected them
to be independent and possess an intellectual capacity suitable to that of a research
candidate at a postgraduate level, the candidates were dependent on their supervisors and
required important decision making to be done by the supervisors.
One reason, therefore, that may account for why research candidates may not survive
their research is their lack of understanding of how the learning process should be when
attempting a piece of independent research under the guidance of a supervisor in
fulfillment of a degree. Hence, the study presented in this paper aims to discover how
research candidates may survive their research degrees by looking at the learning
strategies that the candidates employ. Additionally, the strategies used to overcome the
challenges these students encounter during their research studies will also be investigated
in the attempt to understand the effective learning strategies employed while pursuing a
research programme such as a PhD.
This paper, therefore addresses the following are the research objectives:
a) To ascertain the demographic profiles of successful PhD candidates at UiTM,
Malaysia
b) To understand the challenges faced by the successful PhD graduates in
completing their studies at UiTM, Malaysia.
c) To explore the strategies used by the successful PhD graduates in completing
their studies at UiTM, Malaysia.
This study is very important because it will provide an explanation on how PhD
graduates can succeed in their studies, provide information on the challenges faced by the
successful PhD candidates while pursuing their studies, provide information on the
strategies that can lead to successful PhD completion, and enlighten PhD candidates,
their supervisors, postgraduates‟ coordinator and policy makers on the effective practices
that promote the completion of a PhD. The results of this study should be transferable to
other institutions and are not specific to UiTM, Malaysia.
Operational Definitions
For the purpose of the study, some terms are defined accordingly.

3. 3
a) Learning strategies: Intentional learning facilitation which aims to
“affect the learner‟s motivational or affective state, or the way in which the
learner selects, acquires, organizes, or integrates new knowledge” (Weinstein
& Mayer, 1986, p. 315).
b) Completing PhD: Ability to follow an independent full research programme
with less difficulty. Completion is acknowledged when the thesis is submitted
on time and the Viva Voce passed which in turn leads to the award of a PhD.
c) Survey: An empirical inquiry meant to “collect information from a sample by
asking questions, in order to describe some aspects of the population of which
the sample is a part”. (Fraenkel, & Wallen, 2007, p. 423).
LITERATURE REVIEW
Challenges facing Adult Learners
Challenges are seen as the “factors that inhibit or prevent people from participating in
activities such as adult education” (Silva et al., 1998, p.2). Hillage and Aston (as cited by
McLeod, 2003) classify challenges into three major categories: attitudinal, physical and
structural.
Attitudinal challenges refer to a personal lack of confidence and motivation. Peer
pressure and the perceptions of irrelevance are also labeled as attitudinal challenges. The
following list provides more examples of attitudinal challenges:
a) Lacking of confidence, fear of failure, lack of confidence in own learning
abilities;
b) Lacking of motivation; prefer to do other things;
c) Peer group culture; surrounded by people who are anti-learning;
d) Low aspirations and lack of role models;
e) Perceptions of irrelevance;
f) Insufficient possession of qualifications;
g) Feelings of inadequacy;
h) Lacking of trust in formal institutions or organizations;
i) Thinking they are too old to learn.
Physical challenges refer to accessibility, geographical division and financial deficit.
The following list provides more examples:
a) Financial constraints – direct and indirect costs (fees, transportation,
books, childcare);
b) Time constraints – too busy with work, family and children;
c) Lacking of good childcare;
d) Lacking of information;
e) Geographical isolation;
f) Disabilities and ill health;
g) Multiple-conflicting responsibilities;
h) Job commitments;
i) Lacking of support.

4. 4
Finally, structural challenges refer to the way the training and education were offered and
“disincentives inherent in the benefit system” (McLeod, 2003). The list below provides
more examples of structural challenges:
a) Lacking of transport;
b) Limited local learning opportunities;
c) Lacking of facilities and equipment;
d) Lacking of knowledge on local learning opportunities;
e) Lacking of knowledge on learning advice sources.
(Azelin, 2007, p.14-15)
These challenges are argued to be common to all adult learners. Research candidates
face an additional set of challenges unique to the nature of the studies.
Challenges Facing the Research Candidates
The PhD is a degree that involves research and it grooms graduate students to become
future scholars (Golde & Gallagher, 1999). Besides coming from different walks of life
and having different needs, the overall graduate student demographics have vastly
changed over the last 20 years. The U.S National Postsecondary Student Aid Survey
(NPSAS) data for 2000 reported that the average graduate student is 33 years old and
20% of all graduate students are over the age of 40 (Woodford, 2005). Hence, a graduate
student is also likely to be laden with personal, family and work responsibilities.
Woodford (2005) identifies six common concerns amongst graduate students. Firstly,
research graduates need role models that they can admire and emulate. According to
Woodford this is more apparent amongst minority students and women as they are more
likely to face greater challenges to attain faculty role models who share similar
experiences. Secondly, graduate students also face challenges when they decide to
conduct interdisciplinary research. Traditional PhD programs include research works that
are conducted within the “established boundaries” of the said discipline (Golde &
Gallagher, 1999). However, interdisciplinary research involves synergizing people and
ideas from other disciplines. Therefore the research student is bound to find himself
going against the “current academic canons” (Woodford, 2005).
The third common concern amongst graduate students, according to Woodford (2005), is
the fear of being categorized as a “single-issue” scholar. This often occurs when research
students chose issues that relate to gender, race, sexual orientation, or the content of
marginalized cultures as topics in their dissertations. The direct consequence of being
labeled a “single-issue scholar” is the assumption made by the faculty that the research
candidate‟s interest is focused solely on that particular topic throughout their career. The
fourth common concern is the burden of being a spokesperson. Most research students
feel uneasy when they are asked to represent a group and speak about experiences or
beliefs in seminars or any formal gatherings.
The fifth concern commonly shared among graduate students is the feelings of isolation.
Graduate students work in isolation and this can lead to loneliness and self-doubt.
According to Woodford (2005), there have been cases where isolation has led to students‟

5. 5
suffering depression or dropping out and the problem is even worse for students in
minority groups. Finally, the sixth concern deals with balancing work and lifestyle.
Often, their role models are devoted professors who spend most of their lives engaged in
their work to achieve success. As such, research students worry that they are expected to
toil every waking hour on their studies and at the same time find it almost impossible to
create a balance between their studies and other responsibilities.
Wisker (2001) looks at graduate studies as the “…opportunity for personal skills
development and for professional recognition and status” (p.9). The graduate student, as a
research candidate, not only deals with concepts, ideas and issues that are complex but
also requires good communication skills and time management. Wisker (2001) lists eight
areas of common challenge that are prevalent amongst research candidates as follows:
a) Research questions and areas: unsuitable, lack of information or simply
accruing information without posing questions and suggestions; thus
producing a monotonous and descriptive work;
b) Access to research subjects, contacts and contexts – often, research
candidates face unexpected obstacles even when they have carefully
planned their work in advance. There is always the possibility of changes
involving people, information and situations throughout the duration of the
research that is beyond their control;
c) Personality factors: Barriers in communication due to age, class, gender,
race, work experience, and other factors. Sequentially, this may instigate a
clash of personalities or even neglect by the supervisor;
d) Professional factors: Dealing with an unsuitable supervisor such as one
who has insufficient knowledge in the research area or few genuine
research interests;
e) Organizational factors: Having a supervisor who has quite a number of
research candidates to supervise; one who is occupied with administrative
duties; or one who is unable to effectively manage the research group;
f) Departmental facilities and arrangements: This may result in students
being isolated from others;
g) Lack of genuine research culture: Not having friends or colleagues to
share work with or to talk to; especially during eventful moments like
discoveries, setbacks, developments, strategies and solutions;
h) Life demands and crises: These may cause the research candidate to defer
or slow down the development of his or her research.
The study presented in this paper utilizes Hillage and Aston‟s (2001) three categories of
learning challenges to conceptualize the learning challenges of adult learners; while
Woodford‟s (2005) and Wisker‟s (2001) list of common challenges are used to establish
the challenges faced by PhD research candidates in their quest to pursue academic
achievement. Hence, the following table recapitulates the learning challenges faced by
PhD research candidates:

6. 6
Table 1.0 : Learning challenges amongst research candidates
Learning Challenge Barriers
Attitudinal  Lack of role models;
 Fear of irrelevance (perceived as “single-issue
scholar”);
 Feelings of inadequacy (fear of being the
spokesperson);
 Loneliness and self-doubt.
Physical/Material/
Situational
 Balancing work and lifestyle;
 Geographical isolation;
 Discrepancies in research questions and areas;
 Access to research subjects, contacts and
context;
 Personality factors;
 Professional factors;
 Organizational factors;
 Lack of research culture;
 Life demands and crises.
Structural  Difficulties in conducting interdisciplinary
research;
 Feeling of working in isolation.
 Departmental facilities and arrangements;
Source: Adapted from Hillage & Aston (2001), Wisker (2001), & Woodford (2005)
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
This study investigates how research candidates, in particular those pursuing their PhD
programme, can be successful in their research degree. The challenges faced by the
research candidates as both adult learners and research candidates serve as the basis of
the conceptual framework. Challenges as adult learners are drawn from Hillage and
Aston‟s (2001) proposed barriers, whilst the challenges facing research candidates are
drawn from Wisker‟s (2001) and Woodford‟s (2005) lists.

7. 7
In response to these learning challenges, the research candidates will strategize his or her
learning to overcome them. In this study, the learning strategies are classified according
to “direct” and “indirect” strategies (Oxford, 1990). Direct strategies involve memory,
cognitive and compensation strategies, whilst indirect strategies comprise of
metacognitive, affective and social strategies. The following table summarizes each
strategy and provides examples of relevant tasks under each strategy.
Table 2.0: Strategies to accomplish a research dissertation
Strategies Task
Direct Strategies Memory  Posses knowledge-retrieval skill;
 Develop a wide literature research base;
 Organize ideas and discoveries to date;
 Able to contextualize literature and use it to
underpin own work;
 Constantly update literature search and review.
Cognitive  Change and develop ideas from literature;
 Establish procedure for the research;
 Posses analytical, calculation and interpretation
skills;
 Posses evaluative and creative thinking skills.
Compensation  Engage in a research topic that can potentially
produce sound results and be delivered within
given timeframe;
 Acquire necessary facilities and resources;
 Choose appropriate research methodologies and
methods.
Indirect Strategy Metacognitive  Plan a timetable for the completion of stages of
the work;
 Establish ground rules and working procedure
with the supervisor;
 Network planning of critical path analysis;
 Setting objectives;
 Plan future publications from the work;
 Balance of research and teaching for those
involved in the academics;
 Managing time with domestic and other work
commitments.
Affective  Allow/encourage the supervisor to constructively
and critically comment work;

8. 8
 Use support of the supervisor and colleagues as
useful guidance;
 Know what to expect during supervision;
 Balancing rather than collapsing under stress;
 Become self-directed and lifelong learners;
 Organize support groups and networks.
Social  Establish and maintain good working
relationship with the supervisor while avoiding
personality clashes;
 Meet supervisor at regular intervals;
 Seek opportunities to take part in the university‟s
research culture (give papers, attend conferences,
etc.);
 Seek advice from friends and colleagues;
 Put the supervisor‟s role as a facilitator;
 Hold peer- and group-based sessions;
 Able to manage discussions;
 Negotiate some support from work colleagues;
 Gain support from other researchers, family
members and friends;
 Avoid spending all time involved in research at
the expense of losing friends and alienating
family members;
 Share and present work in progress with
colleagues and in seminars or conferences;
 Get work published.
Source: Oxford (1990 )& Woods (2001)
Wisker‟s (2001) list of research skills required for a successful research degree is used to
complement the learning strategies proposed by Oxford (1990). This study relies upon
the assumption that learning challenges and strategies share a causal relationship that will
ascertain a research candidate‟s desired learning goals and as a result, the successful
completion of the candidate‟s research studies. Figure 1.0 represents the conceptual
framework of the present study.

9. 9
Figure 1.0: The conceptual framework
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Subjects / Participants
The sample population involved in this study is successful PhD graduates teaching in
UiTM, a public university in Malaysia. In UiTM there are currently 496 PhD holders;
439 from Shah Alam and 57 from other branches.
Metler and Charles (2005) recommend that an approximate of 10% of the whole sample
population be sampled to ensure that the results obtained are valid and representative.
Therefore 76 PhD holders, which is 10% of the sample population, were circulated the
the questionnaire. In summary, the participants consist of:
a) 10 successful PhD graduates teaching in UiTM (pilot questionnaire);
b) 76 successful PhD graduates teaching in UiTM Shah Alam (revised
questionnaire).
The 76 respondents were randomly selected from the population of interest. According to
Fraenkel and Wallen (2007, p. 402), in order to obtain a high response rate, the
questionnaire should be “sent to persons in authority to administer the potential
respondents rather than sending it to the respondents themselves”. Hence, the revised
questionnaire was distributed to PhD holders attached to the faculties of Accountancy,
Art and Design, Architecture, Planning and Surveying, Applied Science, Business
Administration, Communication and Media, Civil Engineering, Electrical Engineering,
Mechanical Engineering, and Music through the Assistant Registrar of each faculty. The

10. 10
researchers set an appointment with each Assistant Registrar to send the questionnaire
and collect them when completed.
Table 3.0 shows that from the sample of 76 respondents, 53% were female whilst the
remaining 47% were males. 46% of the total respondents were from the Science and
Technology, while 32% were from the Business and Management cluster, and the Social
Sciences and Humanities cluster represented 22% of the total respondents.
Table 3.0: Demographics of respondents
Number of
Respondents (N=76)
Percent
Gender
Male 36 47
Female 40 53
Age
26-35 12 16
36-45 30 40
46-55 30 40
56-65 2 3
Over 65 1 1
Faculty
Science and Technology 35 46
Business and Management 24 32
Social Sciences and Humanities 17 22
Position
Professor 7 9
Associate Professor 25 33
Senior Lecturer 6 8
Lecturer 34 45
Others 4 5
Pilot Questionnaire
The main purpose of distributing the pilot questionnaire was to ensure that the
questionnaire would be sufficiently comprehensible for the respondents. In addition, it
was also to ensure that there was a need in any case, to conduct the research. Wiersma
(2000) states that “the results of the pilot run should identify misunderstandings,
ambiguities and useless inadequate item…difficulties with the directions may also be
uncovered” (p.172). However, it is important to note that respondents attempting the
pilot questionnaire were successful PhD graduates. In addition, the respondents in the
pilot questionnaire did not attempt the actual questionnaire. This was to ensure that the

11. 11
information obtained from the actual questionnaire was accurate and not rehearsed. The
pilot questionnaire was divided into 2 parts:
i) Part A: Learning Challenges and Strategies,
ii) Part B: Demographic Data.
Part A: Learning Challenges and Strategies
Part A of the questionnaire tackled the issue of challenges faced and learning strategies
employed by successful PhD graduates. It was categorized into several sub-parts, which
were not made known to the respondents. These sub-parts are presented in Table 4.0:
Table 4.0: Pilot Test (Part A: Learning challenges and strategies)
CODES CATEGORIES NUMBER OF ITEMS
A Relationship: Supervisor 13
B Relationship: Friends, Family, Employer 12
C Financial/Funding 4
D Time management 4
E Institutional support 8
F Cognitive factors 7
G Affective factors 11
H Emotional support 4
J Prior experiences 4
K Metacognitive factors 10
TOTAL 10 CATEGORIES 77
The items which tap information on the respondents‟ challenges were developed based on
the categories identified from Aston (2001), Wisker (2001) and Woodford (2005). The
following are the specific categories and examples of items developed.
Table 5.0: Categories and examples of items on learning challenges
LEARNING CHALLENGES CATEGORIES EXAMPLES
ATTITUDINAL Financial I had sufficient funding for my
studies.
Affective factors I had no problem following an
unstructured learning programme
such as the PhD programme.
Prior experience I had previous experience
conducting research prior to doing
my PhD.
PHYSICAL/MATERIAL/
SITUATIONAL
Relationship
(Supervisor,
I had group support from my
friends who were also doing

12. 12
Friends,Family,
Employer)
research.
Financial/Funding My institution allowed me to pay
my tuition fees by installments.
STRUCTURAL Institutional support The institution which I enrolled as
a research candidate was
renowned in the research area I
was in.
The items which tap information on the respondents‟ strategies were developed based on
Wisker (2001) and Oxford (1990). The following are their examples.
Table 6.0: Categories and examples of items on strategies
STRATEGIES CATEGORIES EXAMPLES
MEMORY Cognitive factors I was able to conceptualize the
relevant theories I read for the
purpose of my research.
COGNITIVE Cognitive factors I was able to select the relevant
literatures for the purpose of my
research.
COMPENSATION Metacognitive
factors
I presented at least one paper
during my studies.
METACOGNITIVE Relationship
(Supervisor)
I was independent of my
supervisor.
Metacognitive
factors
I ensured I have progressed in my
research work accordingly.
AFFECTIVE Affective factors I always pictured myself as a
successful PhD graduate.
Prior knowledge I was involved in the same
research area since my Master‟s
programme.
SOCIAL Relationship I saw my supervisor as my
mentor.
Emotional support I had group support from my
friends who were also doing
research.
Part B: Demographic Data
In Part B, respondents were required to provide information of their personal details. The
purpose of this section was to ensure that all respondents fit the specific characteristics of
the research. Several examples of the questions are:
a) Age;
b) Gender;
c) Race;

13. 13
d) Professional position while pursuing PhD;
e) Teaching experience.
For the pilot questionnaire, ten successful PhD graduates currently lecturing in UiTM
were identified. All respondents were given ample time to complete the questionnaire,
thus, there was no issue of respondents being rushed and disingenuous.
Analysis, Reliability and Validity Instruments
The reliability test was performed on the questionnaire to provide an estimation of how
consistent the items were in the instrument used for the study. For this purpose, the
Cronbach‟s coefficient alpha was utilized to measure internal consistency. Learning
challenges was recorded at .872 whilst learning strategies had a value of .842. Both
values indicate that the instrument used in this study is reliable.
For the purpose of reliability and validity of the analysis, the results obtained from the
pilot questionnaire were analyzed and tabulated through SPSS. As this research is a social
science study, it is important to note that values of .3 and above are considered as reliable
and valid (Nunnally, 1967).
The most significant value of .93 was acquired for category F (Cognitive factors). This is
considered the most significant as it provides a preliminary result as to what would be the
most important factor in determining the success of adult learners. However, it was
recognized that one category had to be removed from the questionnaire, which was
category D (time management), due to the low value of .147.
Revised Questionnaire
The revised questionnaire was distributed to 76 UiTM lecturers with PhDs who were
attached to various faculties. The revised questionnaire comprised of two sections, Part A
(learning strategies and challenges) and Part B (personal background). Table 7.0 shows a
detailed breakdown of the two sections in the questionnaire.
Table 7.0: The composition of questionnaire items: Major sections
Part Description No. Of Items
A Learning Challenges 38
Learning Strategies 37
B Personal Background 11
Total Number of Items 86

14. 14
FINDINGS
Research Question 1: What are the demographic profiles of successful PhD candidates?
Profile of a successful PhD candidate
In summary, data findings from the study were used to construct the demographic profile
of successful research graduates. The profile is as follows:
Personal Background
A successful male PhD candidate embarks on his PhD studies between the ages of 41 to
50 years old while a female candidate embarks at an earlier age of between 31 to 40 years
old. Hence, successful female candidates are more likely to pursue their PhD programmes
earlier than the male candidates.
Work Experience
A successful PhD candidate has more than ten years of working experience in the
academic arena and he or she is more likely to be a lecturer in a university.
Duration of Study
A successful PhD candidate who receives sponsorship is more likely to complete his or
her studies within five years as compared to a self-funded, successful PhD candidate who
may take longer to complete his or her studies.
Choice of University
Sponsored PhD candidates who are successful study abroad and they are enrolled as full-
time students. Contrastingly, successful PhD candidates who are self-funded are more
likely to study in local universities and they opt to study on a part-time basis.
Research Question 2: What are the challenges faced by the successful PhD graduates in
completing the study?
A descriptive analysis was performed to identify the means and standard deviation of the
three learning challenges and the findings are presented in Tables 8.0, 9.0 and 10.0.
Opinions about the learning challenges that the successful PhD graduates faced during
the course of their studies were each rated on a Likert scale ranging from “Not relevant”
(0), “Always” (1) to “Never” (4).

15. 15
Table 8.0 Summary of learning challenges
N Mean Std. Deviation
ATTITUDINAL 76 2.031 0.414
PHYSICAL 76 1.746 0.363
STRUCTURAL 76 1.735 0.560
OVERALL 76 1.837 0.446
Attitudinal challenges recorded the highest mean score of 2.031 (S.D= 0.414), followed
by physical challenges with a mean score of 1.746 (S.D=0.362) and structural challenges
with a mean score of 1.735 (S.D=0.560). The overall mean score for all three categories
of learning challenges is recorded at 1.837 (S.D=0446).
Table 9.0 Five most common learning challenges
The highest mean score (M = 2.829, SD = 0.755) was identified as belonging to the
attitudinal challenge in which respondents acknowledged that there were many obstacles
that they had encountered during their studies (I had a lot of obstacles during my studies).
The second most common challenge was physical (M = 2.211, SD = 1.436), in which the
respondents indicated lack of assistance from their family members (At least one of my
family members had assisted me in my research). Next, the third most common challenge
in learning was attitudinal (M = 2.158, SD = 1.452); where respondents cited that their
Challenge Item Mean S.D
Attitudinal I had a lot of obstacles during my studies 2.829 0.755
Physical At least one of my family members had assisted
me in my research
2.211 1.436
Attitudinal I was involved in the same research area since
my Master's programme
2.158 1.452
Physical I had no worries about having to have enough
money to fund my studies
2.066 1.024
Attitudinal I had previous experience conducting research
prior to doing my PhD
2.039 0.886

16. 16
area of research in the PhD programme was different from their Master‟s programme (I
was involved in the same research area since my Master's programme).
Table 10.0 Five least common learning challenges
Challenge Item Mean S.D
Physical I was given time-off from work when I needed to
be at the university
0.263 1.660
Physical My colleagues at work were accommodating to
my needs as a part-time research student
0.316 1.714
Physical My institution allowed me to pay my tuition
fees by installments
0.303 1.876
Physical My colleagues at work reminded me to take
breaks once in a while
0.947 1.781
Physical Since I was sponsored, I felt obligated to
complete my research
1.079 0.906
Meanwhile, the five least common learning challenges that were reported by the
respondents in the study were also identified and the findings are presented in Table 10.
Based on the findings, all five learning challenges were from the category of physical
challenges. Most of the successful research candidates did not face any challenges when
they require more time to be at the university (I was given time-off from work when I
needed to be at the university) as indicated by the low mean score (M = 0.263, SD =
1.660). They also indicated that they received strong support from their colleagues at
work (My colleagues at work were accommodating to my needs as a part-time research
student) and that financial assistance was hardly considered as an obstacle (My institution
allowed me to pay my tuition fees by installments).
In summary, attitudinal challenges had been identified as the most common learning
challenges confronted by successful PhD graduates. MacKeracher, Suart and Potter
(2006) describe these challenges as “problematic” as they could have a negative bearing
on the learners. Most respondents reported facing obstacles during their studies and were
not involved in the same research area during their Master‟s programme. Moreover, lack
of support from family members, a physical challenge, was also identified as a learning
challenge in this study.

17. 17
Research Question 3: What are the strategies used by the successful PhD graduates?
Summary of learning strategies
Learning strategies consist of two major categories which are the „direct‟ and „indirect‟
strategies (Oxford, 1990). According to Oxford (1990), „Direct‟ strategies are further
classified under three types of categories; namely memory, cognitive, and compensation,
whilst „indirect‟ strategies are subdivided into three other categories which are
metacognitive, affective, and social. A descriptive analysis was conducted on the data
from the present study and the findings on the types of strategies, overall mean scores,
rating of usage are presented in Table 11.0. The respondents‟ opinions about the learning
strategies that they frequently used during the course of their studies were each rated on a
Likert scale ranging from “Always” (4) to “Never” (1).
Table 11.0 Summary of learning strategies used by successful PhD graduates
Learning Strategies N Mean S.D
Direct Strategies
Memory 76 3.597 0.440
Cognitive 76 3.599 0.430
Compensation 76 3.346 0.776
TOTAL DIRECT 76 3.514 0.549
Indirect Strategies
Metacognitive 76 3.530 0.329
Affective 76 3.400 0.372
Social 76 3.194 0.400
TOTAL INDIRECT 76 3.375 0.367
Based on the findings, research candidates used the „direct‟ strategies slightly more (M =
3.514, SD = 0.549) than the „indirect‟ strategies (M = 3.375, SD = 0.367). However, the
difference between the two mean scores is not significantly high and thus, both strategies
can be deduced as almost equally being applied by the research candidates.
Further analysis was performed on the data to identify the most and least commonly used
strategies amongst the research candidates in the study (refer Table 12.0 and 13.0).

18. 18
Table 12.0 Most commonly used learning strategies
Strategy Item Mean SD
Indirect:
Metacognitive
I made sure I had things to discuss with my
supervisor prior to the consultation
3.789 0.471
Indirect:
Metacognitive
I checked my work before showing it to my
supervisor
3.724 0.665
Direct:
Memory
I saw how the literatures could develop my research 3.711 0.537
Direct:
Cognitive
I always evaluate the relevance of the contents of the
literatures with my research
3.684 0.496
Direct:
Cognitive
I was able to select the relevant literatures for the
purpose of my research
3.671 0.500
A metacognitive strategy scored the highest mean (M = 3.789, SD = 0.471) which
indicates that most successful research candidates are well-prepared for consultations
with their supervisors (I made sure I had things to discuss with my supervisor prior to the
consultation). Next on the list of most commonly used learning strategies is another
metacognitive strategy, checking work before showing it to their supervisor (M = 3.724,
SD = 0.665). Similarly, successful research candidates exhibit work efficiency (I checked
my work before showing it to my supervisor). Oxford (1990) stresses that metacognitive
strategies are used to coordinate the learning process; therefore, they are highly effective
strategies that are used to centralize, arrange plan and evaluate the research candidates‟
learning.
The remaining three most commonly used strategies were from the category of direct
strategies. Direct strategies involve mental processing during learning, involving
memory, cognitive and compensation strategies (Oxford (1990). A memory strategy was
recorded as the third most common strategy (M = 3.711, SD = 0.537) where successful
research candidates are able to contextualize literature and use it to underpin their own
work (I saw how the literatures could develop my research). Meanwhile, the fourth and
fifth most commonly used learning strategies were both identified as cognitive strategies.

19. 19
Table 13.0: Least commonly used learning strategies
Strategy Item Mean SD
Indirect:
Social
I shared my personal problems with my supervisor 2.092 0.882
Indirect:
Affective
I needed to be directed what to do in each semester of
my studies
2.487 1.172
Indirect:
Social
I had the emotional support from my research friends
whenever I needed it
2.789 1.123
Indirect:
Social
I had the emotional support from my supervisor
whenever I needed it
2.855 1.029
Indirect:
Social
I had group support from my friends who were also
doing research
2.974 1.143
Table 13.0 presents the least commonly used strategies amongst the respondents in the
present study. All five learning strategies were identified as indirect strategies, in which
incidentally, four out of five of the indirect strategies belonged to social strategies. Most
research candidates revealed that were not likely to share their personal problems with
their supervisors (M = 2.092, SD = 0.882) and that they prefer to plan their own studies
than be told what to do by their supervisors (M = 2.487, SD = 1.172). The next three least
common strategy used by the research candidates concerned moral support from research
colleagues (M = 2.789, SD = 1.123), supervisor (M= 2.855, SD = 1.029), and friends (M
= 2.974, SD = 1.143).
In summary, successful PhD graduates applied both direct and indirect learning strategies
during their studies. However, metacognitive strategies were identified as the most
commonly applied strategy amongst the respondents in this study. Metacognitive strategy
involves monitoring progress during the learning process, while making changes and
adapting strategies when failure is expectable (Winn & Snyder, 1998).
DISCUSSIONS
The objectives of the research are to i) ascertain the demographic profiles of successful
PhD candidates at UiTM, Malaysia, ii) understand the challenges faced by the successful
PhD graduates in completing their studies at UiTM, Malaysia, and iii) explore the
strategies used by the successful PhD graduates in completing their studies at UiTM,
Malaysia. The following is the summary of the findings which have helped achieve the
objectives.

20. 20
This study has formulated a demographic profile of successful research candidates and
the learning strategies that are frequently used by them. In general, a successful research
candidate is in his or her middle adulthood. A typical male doctoral holder is between the
ages of 46 to 55 years old whilst a female doctoral holder is slightly younger, at between
the ages of 36 to 45 years old. More than half of the respondents (67% had more than ten
years of teaching experience as compared to 16% who only had between five to ten years
of teaching experience). This strongly suggests that a successful research candidate has
no less than ten years of working experience in the academics before they embark on a
doctoral dissertation. Research candidates who receive financial assistance, such as
scholarships, are more likely to pursue their PhD abroad, become full-time students at the
university and complete their studies within three to five years. However, self-funded
PhD research candidates prefer to study in local universities, are registered as part-time
students and take more time to complete their studies.
Attitudinal challenges were found to be the most common learning challenges faced by
research candidates. Some of the attitudinal challenges included obstacles during studies,
taking up a new research area and insufficient research experience. The second most
common learning challenges encountered by the research students were of physical
challenges that include lack of support from family members and having sufficient funds
to finance their studies. However, some physical challenges were also found to be the
least common challenges in learning while they were pursuing their PhD studies.
Respondents did not have any difficulties seeking time-off from work to be at the
university and they received moral support from colleagues at work and financial support
from the university by means of a flexible fee payment.
In terms of the overall learning strategies, respondents in this study seemed to apply both
direct and indirect learning strategies although direct strategies were found to have a
slightly higher mean score (M = 3.514, SD = 0.549) than indirect strategies (M = 3.375,
SD = 0.367). Cognitive strategies were found to have the highest mean score (M = 3.599,
SD = 0.430), followed by memory (M = 3.597, SD = 0.440) and metacognitive (M =
3.530, SD = 0.329) strategies. However, when further analysis were conducted on each
item of direct and indirect strategies, two metacognitive strategies emerged to be the top
two commonly applied strategies by successful research candidates. The strategies are
described by Cohen (1990) as “strategies for dealing with strategies”; research candidates
ensured that their meetings with the supervisor were properly organized and well-
prepared. Another item that emerged as the third most commonly applied learning
strategy was a memory strategy (M = 3.711, SD = 0.537) where successful research
candidates used their schematic knowledge to develop their research. The fourth and fifth
most frequently used learning strategies were from the cognitive strategies. The
respondents, who were successful research candidates, were able to relate the contents of
literature and select literatures that were relevant to their research work. Meanwhile, four
items were listed as the least commonly used strategies and these items were identified as
social strategies. Respondents maintained a strictly professional relationship with their
supervisors and did not require any emotional support from their research colleagues and
the supervisor. One item, identified as an affective strategy, was also one of the least

21. 21
commonly used strategies. The respondents emphasized that they did not want to be
directed what to do every semester throughout their PhD studies.
IMPLICATIONS
The findings have implications on future entry requirements, training, and the type of
support future PhD candidates need. For a start, as the demographic profile of successful
research graduates are those who have sufficient number of years teaching before
embarking on their PhD, it is wise to suggest experiences in the academic line as an entry
requirement. The findings have suggested that the experiences they have gained could
facilitate their studies in terms of psychologically, and cognitively. This is also evident
when the findings also reveal the types of challenges they faced and the strategies they
employed to overcome the challenges as well as to progress in their research work.
Wisker (2001) commented that doing graduate studies such as PhD is an “…opportunity
for personal skills development and for professional recognition and status” (p.9). He
further elaborates that research candidates deal with concepts, ideas and issues that are
complex and they require good communication skills and time management. It is
experience that could assist them to handle these academic and personal challenges.
Next, as the attitudinal challenges were found to be the most common learning challenges
faced by research candidates, it is recommended some trainings which expose the
prospective research candidates to research methodology and life as a research candidate
be provided. Some of the identified attitudinal challenges included obstacles during
studies, taking up a new research area and insufficient research experience. Additionally,
exposure to the learning strategies could also be provided. As the research has revealed
the importance of several direct and indirect strategies to the research candidates, relevant
strategy trainings should be offered to the research candidates. It is also wise to organize
sharing sessions with successful research graduates who could enlighten the prospective
research candidates with their experiences as a research candidate. The sharing sessions
could at least enable the prospective candidates to anticipate the kind of life they may
have when they embark on their PhD. Woodford (2005) claims that research graduates
need role models that they can admire and emulate. He further elaborates that this is more
apparent amongst minority students and women as they are more likely to face greater
challenges to attain faculty role models who share similar experiences.
Finally, the institutions could provide relevant support to the research candidates as they
pursue their PhD studies. As financial issue was identified as the obvious physical
challenge faced by the respondents when they did their PhD, it is recommended that the
institutions could provide flexibility in terms of fee payment and/or provide opportunities
for the research candidates to make an income as they study. The examples of such
opportunities are research and teaching assistantship. Additionally, the institutions could
also provide necessary trainings to the supervisors in providing support to the research
candidates. The findings of the study have revealed that the successful research
candidates have identified several traits and strategies of their supervisors. This
information could be passed on the prospective supervisors in the institutions‟ attempts to
assist the candidates through ways which they are authorized.

22. 22
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
The study adopted a quantitative approach; hence a limited instrument was used in the
research design. Therefore, it suggested that further research can be conducted involving
more instruments, such as interviews, diaries and observations, to gain a more in-depth
perspective of research candidates‟ challenges and learning strategies. It is also admitted
that since the findings are self-reported, a triangulation of data could help validate the
self-reported data. Hence, the use of more than one instrument is recommended.
Whilst the study involved a relatively homogenous group, future research could involve
research candidates from other cultures or professions. It would be interesting to see
whether the profiles developed from this study are applicable to other cultures or research
candidates who are not academics. In addition, future research could also be conducted to
include unsuccessful research candidates so as to make comparisons between the use of
strategies and challenges faced by both groups. Likewise, the views of the research
supervisors could also be included to complete the investigation.
REFERENCES
Azelin, M. N. (2007). Challenges facing adult learners: A case study of postgraduate
students. Unpublished Master‟s dissertation. UiTM: Shah Alam.
Creswell, W. J. (2005). Educational research planning: Conducting & evaluating
quantitative and qualitative research. New Jersey. Pearson Ed.
Faizah, A. M. (2004). Characteristics of adult learners and their academic reading
strategies: A case study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. UKM: Bangi.
Faizah, A. M. (2005). Been there, done that! : What can be learnt from the successful
postgraduate. Paper presented at the International Seminar of Learning and
Motivation. UUM.Penang.
Faizah, A. M. (2006). Adult learners‟ anxiety in on-line language learning. In A.
Pandian, Y. L. Koo & K. Peter (Eds.), Innovation and intervention in ELT.
UPM Press.
Fraenkel, R.J. & Wallen, N.E. (2007). How to design and evaluate research in education.
6th
Ed. McGraw-Hill: Boston.
Golde, C. M. & Gallagher, H. A. (1999). The challenges of conducting interdisciplinary
research in traditional doctoral programs. Ecosystems, 2, 281-285.
Habibah, A. (2002). Voices in the wilderness: Challenges of adult students. Paper
presented at the International Conference on University Learning and Teaching.
UiTM. Shah Alam.

23. 23
Hazadiah, M. D, & Jamiah, B. (2006). A qualitative approach to adult learners‟
understanding of a supportive learning environment: A case study. Malaysian
Journal of University Education, 1,1. 33-46.
Hillage, J., & Aston, J. (2001). Attracting new learners: a literature review. In Learning
and skills development. Retrieved July 3, 2006 from
http://www.lsda.org.uk/files/pdf/1079.pdf
IGS. (2006). Statistics on postgraduate students. Universiti Teknologi MARA: Shah
Alam.
MacKeracher, Suart & Potter. (2006). Barriers to participation in adult learning.
Retrieved on February 15, 2007 from
http://www.nald.ca/library/research.sotfr/barriers/barriers.pdf.
McLeod, D. (2003). Widening adult participation: a review of research and
development. In Learning skills development agency. Retrieved April 15, 2005 from
http://www.LSDA.org.uk
Mertler, C.A. & Charles, C.M. (2005). Introduction to educational research (5th
ed.).
Boston: Allyn & bacon.
Nunally,J.C. (1967). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Oxford, R. (1990). Learning strategies – What every teacher should know.
Massachussettes: Heinle and Heinle.
Sayed, Y., Kruss, G. & Saleem, B. (1998). Students‟ experience of postgraduate
supervision at the University of the Western Cape. Journal of Further and Higher
Education, 22(3), 275-285.
Silva,T., Cahalan, M., & Lacierno-Pacquet, N. (1998). Adult education participation
decisions and barriers: review of conceptual frameworks and empirical studies. In US
Dept. of Education. National Centre for Education Statistics. Washington. Working
paper No. 98-10. Retrieved Nov, 10, 2006 from
http://nces.gov/pubsearch/pubsinf.asp?pubid=8910.
Weinstein, C. E. & Mayer, R. E. (1987). The teaching of learning strategies. In M. C.
Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching. New York: MacMillan
Publishing.
Wiersma, W. (2000). Research methods in education. Boston:Allyn and Bacon.
Wisker, G. (2001). The postgraduate research handbook: Succeed with your MS, MPhil,
EdD and PhD. New York: PALGRAVE MACMILLAIN.

24. 24
Woodford, B. (2005). How to mentor graduate students: A guide for faculty at a diverse
university. Seattle, WA: The Graduate School, University of Washington.
Yin, R. (1984). Case study research. Beverly Hills: SAGE.