Learner autonomy, language learner autonomy and personal autonomy

Holec (1981) was the first scholar who imported the term learner autonomy into language education. His definition “the ability to take charge of one's own learning” (p. 3) has been dominant in language teaching and learning research, being cited, critiqued and modified by later researchers (e.g., Little, 1991; Littlewood, 1996).

Although Holec's (1981) ideas are still influential as a basis of these theories and frameworks, a variety of concepts on learner autonomy has also been developed by later scholars and researchers with similar or different conceptualizations for learner autonomy. For instance, Dickinson (1987) described autonomy as “situation in which the learner is totally responsible for all of the decisions concerned with his learning and the implementation of those decisions (p. 11)” (as cited in Benson, 2007, p. 22). Here, both Holec and Dickinson acknowledged that taking responsibility is important for learner autonomy. However, Little (1991) defined autonomy as “capacity - for detachment, critical reflection, decision-making, and independent action (p. 4)”. Moreover, Dickinson (1994) described autonomy as “an attitude to learning” (p. 12), which an individual should keep. A person having a positive attitude towards learning can be an autonomous learner although this attitude may not come naturally.

Benson (2001) stated that “many learners will be capable of developing autonomy independently of our efforts as teachers” (p. 109), possibly implying that learners are naturally autonomous as individual persons using personal autonomy. If discussed from the philosophical view, learner autonomy (autonomy in learning) is grounded on the concept of personal autonomy (autonomy in life) (Benson, 2012). Concerning this, Benson (2008) previously underlined the significant role of “personal autonomy”, discussing his belief in the connection between autonomy in life (personal autonomy) and autonomy in learning (learner autonomy). He described “personal autonomy is, in this sense, an attribute of the socially-constituted individual. Individuals must strive to lead autonomous lives and society must strive to respect the freedoms that such lives require” (Benson, 2008, p. 18). Being vital for a person's exercise of autonomy, space for freedom and use of capacity to work or learn independently should be provided. This space probably refers to the situation which demands support for personal autonomy. Therefore, this idea of personal autonomy is correspondingly applicable in general learning as well as language learning. The fact that the two are interconnected is undeniable as autonomy in life is likely to have impacts on individuals' exercise of autonomy in learning (Benson, 2008). Thus, language learner autonomy, which represents a form of learning like learner autonomy, should also be discussed together as a related topic under this aspect.

Regardless of the belief that learners naturally possess and reveal personal autonomy for language learning, some issues arise. One is that simply putting a learner in an autonomy-oriented learning situation may not always have them work independently. For example, Little (1991) claimed that “the learner is probably not aware of his autonomy and is unlikely to reflect much on the progress of his learning” (p. 52). This may happen because a formal education setting is likely to produce some constraints for the exercise of a learner's personal autonomy. For these reasons, to develop learner autonomy, both Holec and Dickinson stated that learners should be trained for “learning competence” (Holec, 2008, p. 3) by providing “learner training” (Little, 1991; Dickinson, 1994). Besides, whether or to what extent learners practice autonomy for their learning might be questioned because individuals may not exploit or use available materials (e.g., dictionaries, books) or social resources (e.g., teachers, peers). To cover this issue, Palfreyman (2014) described “learner autonomy as a capacity for intentional use in context of a range of interacting resources towards learning goals (p. 179).” This definition makes sense in a way that if a language learner is curious or uncertain about a piece of language he encounters, he may intentionally try to exploit any resources he has to get answers or explanations. On the other hand, to be able to act with this intention, he needs to be aware of all resources available and know how to learn independently. For this reason, interventions for learner training were attempted by some researchers (e.g., Little, 1996).

Little (1996) researched the five aspects of learner autonomy postulated by Holec (1981) and related them to the sense of self-instruction. Little (1996) remarked that sharing responsibility in planning teaching-learning activities between teachers and learners proved to be a useful technique in promoting learners' skills in self-instruction. He also accepted that learners' capacity for monitoring the procedure of acquisition and evaluating their learning process can be improved. However, since the formal learning is likely to create constraints for learner autonomy, sharing responsibility with learners in the formal education setting allows some kind of conditioned freedom or “situational freedom” (Benson, 2008, p. 29) for learners. This makes learners work autonomously to certain extent (Little, 1996).

Making meanings of the concepts and reaching a fair consensus in the discourse community gradually lead researchers to the next stage of constructing theoretical frameworks and interventions for the concepts to be pedagogically applied in classrooms. In contribution to the field, Nunan (2003) proposed a nine-step framework of autonomy-based curriculum, modifying Holec's (1981) five notions. However, these steps for interventions of autonomy-based English learning programs will be more effective to be used if learners' existing autonomous beliefs and behaviors in learning English and their readiness for autonomy are shed light on before. As regards this, Benson and Lor (1998) underlined and proved the importance of learners' readiness for autonomy before interventions to promote autonomy in EFL classes through their research on Independent Learning Program (ILP). They here defined readiness for autonomy as: “the learners' overall attitudes towards the idea and practice of autonomous learning” (p. 1).

Learner autonomy, motivation, and self-determination

Regarding related terms with learner autonomy, self-determination theory (SDT) and motivation are interrelated concepts providing insights into language education research (Lou, Chaffee, Vargas Lascano, Dincer, & Noels, 2018). Learner autonomy is often discussed jointly with motivation owing to the interrelated nature of the two. According to Gardner and Lalonde (1985), L2 motivation is caused by “the desire (or Wanting) to learn the language, the motivational intensity (or effort expended) to learn the language, and the affective reactions (or attitudes) toward learning the language (p. 389)”. Motivation is also associated with goal setting and its important role to increase L2 motivation is acknowledged (e.g., Dörnyei, 2007; Tremblay & Gardner, 1995). Besides, goal setting is also one of the key functions of learner autonomy in L2 learning (e.g., Nunan, 2003). Tremblay and Gardner (1995) reported that learners who set specific goals related to their L2 learning are more motivated learners. Despite their different meanings and roles in mainstream education or language education, the two terms share a very similar value, they both can be considered as self-driven.

Moreover, learner autonomy is known to be one of the attributional factors for motivation as an autonomy-supported learning environment can enhance learner L2 motivation. For example, Dörnyei and Csizér (1998) included learner autonomy in one of the ten commandments for motivating language learners. The two concepts motivation and autonomy in L2 learning have been studied and discussed separately before. Researchers who explored the links between autonomy and motivation (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Dickinson, 1995; Ushioda, 2008) proved the link between the two concepts. However, the latter itself is a broad term with its different forms and meanings. Simply put, intrinsically motivated learners can be autonomous learners or vice vasa as this type of learners take responsibility for their own learning and believe that their success or failure is mainly the result of their own efforts. Therefore, even in the times of failure, their motivation is maintained during the learning process (Dickinson, 1995).

In addition, according to the SDT, autonomy is listed in one of the psychological needs which are competence, relatedness, and autonomy (Deci et al., 2017). They also confirmed, based on reviewed research, that when these three needs are satisfied, this promotes individuals' autonomous motivation. Similarly, Noels et al., also (2000) acknowledged the benefit of autonomy-supported learning situations in enhancing learners' motivation. Again, Noels' et al. (2019) reported that “research consistently shows that greater perceived autonomy (self-perceptions of autonomy), competence, and relatedness is positively associated with more self-determined and intrinsic motivation” (p. 105), which explains how autonomy leads learner motivation towards the act of self-determination. However, self-determined behaviors may still differ because they may depend on the extent of satisfaction and effects of these three needs (Deci et al., 2017). Therefore, it can be noted that SDT produces insights into the relationship between learner autonomy and motivation for learners' better learning outcomes can be predicted by promoting the two together.

Autonomous learning behaviors

To understand how and if learners use this unconscious autonomy, Spratt et al. (2002) tried to list autonomous learning activities both inside and outside the classroom, having a brainstorming session with a focus group of students. Then, they incorporated its outcome in the questionnaire they developed. Therefore, exploring learners' autonomous behaviors and the autonomous activities learners do to learn English is also relevant for knowing the causes or their beliefs that lead them to learn independently in certain ways at their disposal through their responses in the study.

Previous studies

Based on the above discussion of definitions and concepts of learner autonomy, it can be noted that learner autonomy is ideologically and pedagogically recognized as being learner-centered. However, whether it is perceived as learner-centered by EFL learners and teachers in reality can be questioned. There has been a number of studies attempting to gain more understanding on how the concept of learner autonomy is viewed by language learners and teachers, as well as on traits of autonomous learners and how to promote and bring it into classroom practices for the last decades. For example, Spratt et al. (2002) examined the relationship between motivation and autonomy and reported that motivation played a significant role for learners to act autonomously. Csizér and Kormos (2009) reported that the students were not ready for autonomous learning and they needed more support from teachers to become autonomous. Yildirim (2008) investigated students' readiness for learner autonomy, reporting the results that learners seemed to be ready to take more responsibility in many areas of the language learning process. Then, in Tomita and Sano's (2016) mixed-method study, the participants revealed the need for teacher support to increase their autonomy levels regardless of their proficiency levels. These studies inclusively investigated learners' perceptions of learner autonomy regarding their responsibilities, abilities and motivation to learn English autonomously. However, Üstünlüoğlu's (2009) results indicated that students did not perceive themselves autonomous enough in language learning although they appeared to consider themselves able to evaluate, choose materials, decide on the course objectives and identify weaknesses, and teachers lacked the ability to move their students towards autonomous learning, assuming their students are incapable of accomplishing their responsibilities.

All the above studies were conducted at tertiary level and despite different settings, they share similar results that learners perceive their teacher as more responsible in course-related decisions and they themselves are likely to hold more responsibility for outside learning. However, Csizér and Kormos (2009) stated that the students in the study do not show readiness for autonomy as they seem to lack the knowledge of autonomous learning and making decisions for materials and activities. Conversely, Yildirim's (2008) study concluded that learners showed positive responses about their abilities of autonomous learning and most of them were engaged in autonomous learning activities.

According to Üstünlüoğlu (2009), the students reported that teachers do not trust their ability of making decision for choosing materials and activities. The teachers tended to report the same that they are not confident about students' ability to be involved in decision making process for the course. They seem to believe that their students are hesitant to be part of the process. However, teachers also acknowledge that their students are engaged in autonomous learning activities both inside and outside classroom as well as their abilities of autonomous learning to a certain extent. Üstünlüoğlu's (2009) findings in the Turkish EFL context is also in line with those in Borg and Al-Busaidi (2012a, 2012b) and those in Asian studies (e.g., Tapina, 2016; Van Loi, 2016). In these studies, although teachers, in general, show positive attitudes towards learners' involvement in decision making about the course, they do not show their confidence in their learners' abilities in autonomous learning.

All these studies in tandem raise two main questions: why do learners tend to put more responsibility on teachers for curriculum-related decisions and why are not teachers confident about their learners' abilities in autonomous learning despite learners' positive view about their capacity. The former can mainly be related to the limited teacher and learner autonomy. If teacher autonomy is limited by some constraints of curriculum and institutions, as a consequence, learner autonomy is likely to be constrained too. This regard is also underlined by a teacher's report in Üstünlüoğlu (2009). The second question may be associated with teachers' fear of losing their authoritarian role in English teaching (Van Loi, 2016). Thus, in the pilot study, for Myanmar where the ELT curriculum is always mandatory, it is relevant to find out how learners perceive their autonomous abilities to address the first question to a certain extent.

Participants

A Myanmar university was chosen for the research, at which the English major program lasts for four years. There were around 200 English specialization students as a whole population at the time of the investigation. The online survey was distributed among first-year and second-year English specialization students using purposive sampling. As regards first year students, studying at university is a novel phenomenon for them and autonomy can be hypothesized to be crucial in accommodating to the new circumstances. As far as second year students are concerned, it is interesting to investigate how they make their newly acquired skills, their norms and how they proceed with their studies after the initial year. From the point of view of making pedagogical interventions to promote learner autonomy, the patterns of first-year and second-year students' autonomous behaviors had to be investigated. Besides, the students who get admitted to the university are considered to be high performers as they gain Grade 5 (Excellent) in English when they pass their matriculation examination. As a result, they are, in general, regarded as more motivated learners and better at English compared to the remaining English major students in other arts and science universities in Myanmar. Therefore, apart from studying their patterns of autonomous behaviors, their level of motivation was also important for the study to be able to bring some teaching and learning implications for their own context. There were 61 responses in total from both student groups: 42 first-year students (68.8%) and 19 s-year students (31.1%), with the ratio of 15 males and 45 females. One of the students did not mention his or her gender. Their language levels reported ranged from beginner to advanced level, based on their personal judgement as no proficiency tests were used. 38 of them considered their language level to be Intermediate, 14, Pre-intermediate, 4, Advanced, 3, Upper-intermediate and 1, Beginner, and 1 did not report it.

Instrument

The questionnaire in the study was originally developed and used by Spratt et al. (2002) in Hong Kong. It was later adapted by Tomita and Sano (2016) for a similar study in Japan. The adapted version by Tomita and Sano (2016) was modified for the current study to suit the Myanmar context, especially regarding in-and out-of-class activities because, for instance, self-access centers are not common in Myanmar yet. Therefore, the item asking about this was modified in Tomita and Sano’s (2016) instrument, resulting in 47 items covering all four constructs to measure: 13 items for students' perceptions of their own and teachers' responsibilities, 11 items for their perceptions of their abilities, 1 item for their motivation and 22 items for their autonomous behaviors.

In the current replication study, I made some modifications (discussed below) to the questionnaire items by Tomita and Sano (2016) to suit the Myanmar context. The section introductions were revised to give clear instructions to the participants and the scales were further modified in the current questionnaire. It is a five-point Likert scale questionnaire in which students had to select an option on a scale from 1 to 5 (see Appendix). Thus, the final version of the pilot questionnaire consisted of four sections with 60 items in total, measuring six variables:

1. Learners' perceptions of their own responsibility (13 items): A point (Fairly) between A little and Mainly was added to Tomita and Sano's (2016) four-point Likert scale (Not at all, A little, Mainly, Completely) for the items in their questionnaire. The original question “When you are taking English classes, whose responsibility should it be to:” was changed into “When you are taking English classes, to what extent are you and your teacher responsible to:” in order to make it clearer to the students as they are supposed to give answers about their own responsibilities in learning English in Section 1. Example: When you are taking English classes, to what extent are you responsible to make sure of your progress in a lesson?

2. Learners' perceptions of their teacher's responsibility (13 items): the same items as in Section 1 of the questionnaire were used to discover learners' perceptions of their teacher's responsibility in learning English. Example: When you are taking English classes, to what extent is your teacher responsible to make sure of your progress in a lesson?

3. Learners' perceptions of their abilities (11 items): the previous five-point scale (Very poor, Poor, OK, Good, Very Good) in Tomita and Sano's (2016) study was slightly changed into (Very poorly, Poorly, OK, Well, Very well) to grammatically match the modified question. The previous question used in the questionnaire “If you have the following opportunities, how good do you think you would be at:” was modified as “If you had the following opportunities, how well do you think you would be able to:”. Example: if you had the following opportunities, how well do you think you would be able to choose learning activities for your class?

4. Learners' perceptions of their motivation (5 items): originally, there was only one item measuring learners' motivation, which was “how high is your motivation to learn English?” This item was deleted and five items asking about their motivated learning behavior were included in the current one. Example: Learning English is one of the most important things in my life. The five-point scale here includes Completely agree, Agree, Neither agree nor disagree, Disagree, Completely disagree.

5. Learners' autonomous behaviors outside the classroom (22 items): in Section 4, more items were added to meet learners' current autonomous learning activities outside and inside the classroom after casually asking a few Myanmar students online about their common activities to learn English independently and privately. The original four-point scale (Often, Sometimes, Rarely, Never) was also modified as a five-point scale (Almost Daily, A couple of times a week, A couple of times a month, A couple of times a year, Never). Example: in this academic year, how often have you (outside class) done writing assignments which are not compulsory?

6. Learners' autonomous behaviors inside the classroom (9 items): the same five-point scale (Almost Daily, A couple of times a week, A couple of times a month, A couple of times a year, Never) was used. Example: in this academic year, how often have you (inside class) asked the teacher questions when you did not understand?

The questionnaire was developed in English since all the students passed English with “Excellent” in the matriculation examination, their language level can be considered at least ‘Intermediate’ on average. Based on expert judgement, some items were reworded and modified. Then, an online survey was created with Qualtrics, an online survey tool. In the beginning part of the survey, data related to the participants' gender, course title, year of study, specialization, age and English language level were collected as their biographical information. Besides, the town or city they went to school to was asked in order to find out if different learning experiences in urban or rural regions of the country affect their autonomous learning behaviors. However, this was not focused on in the current study.

Data collection and analysis

Before collecting the data, the researcher first contacted the Head of the English Department of the university to grant her permission to proceed with the survey. Next, as the researcher did not have direct contact with the student participants, she had to send the link of the survey to them via a colleague of hers from the English Department. The colleague passed on the link to the students through each Facebook group of the two student groups and requested them to take part in the survey voluntarily. 61 students responded to the survey. Subsequently, the data were exported into an SPSS data set. SPSS (Statistical Package for Social Sciences) 22.0 was used to analyze the data.