Author:
Cho Cho Win Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary

Search for other papers by Cho Cho Win in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7799-6860
Open access

Abstract

Autonomous language learning has drawn many researchers' attention in the field of language teaching and learning due to its relevance to the current education context. Consequently, research on autonomous behaviors of learners in learning English inside and outside the classroom has been remarkably relevant with a view to fostering autonomy in English as a foreign language (EFL) classes. As this area of second language acquisition (SLA) constitutes a niche in the Myanmar EFL context, the aim of this paper is to fill this niche by conducting a quantitative replication study to investigate Myanmar EFL learners' autonomous behaviors. The original questionnaire by Spratt et al. (2002) was adapted and administered online. A total of 60 first-year and second-year English specialization students from a Myanmar university participated in the study. The results showed that learners appear to view their teachers as more responsible for in-class learning and themselves for outside or private learning, and they demonstrated surprisingly little autonomy inside the classroom. Their level of autonomy outside the classroom was significantly higher; however, it still approximated the lower end of the Likert scale, which is indicative of the need to foster learner autonomy in the context investigated. At the same time, the results have raised a need for further research in the same context on the focus of the study and its possibly related aspects impacted by culture, prescribed curricula, etc.

Abstract

Autonomous language learning has drawn many researchers' attention in the field of language teaching and learning due to its relevance to the current education context. Consequently, research on autonomous behaviors of learners in learning English inside and outside the classroom has been remarkably relevant with a view to fostering autonomy in English as a foreign language (EFL) classes. As this area of second language acquisition (SLA) constitutes a niche in the Myanmar EFL context, the aim of this paper is to fill this niche by conducting a quantitative replication study to investigate Myanmar EFL learners' autonomous behaviors. The original questionnaire by Spratt et al. (2002) was adapted and administered online. A total of 60 first-year and second-year English specialization students from a Myanmar university participated in the study. The results showed that learners appear to view their teachers as more responsible for in-class learning and themselves for outside or private learning, and they demonstrated surprisingly little autonomy inside the classroom. Their level of autonomy outside the classroom was significantly higher; however, it still approximated the lower end of the Likert scale, which is indicative of the need to foster learner autonomy in the context investigated. At the same time, the results have raised a need for further research in the same context on the focus of the study and its possibly related aspects impacted by culture, prescribed curricula, etc.

Introduction

In the last few decades, the notion of learner autonomy (LA) defined by Holec (1981) as “a capacity to take charge of one's learning” (p. 3), has become a key concept in the field of language education. The advancements in technology make the idea of autonomous learning one of the most popular educational concepts. This results in many studies that investigate language learners' readiness for and their perceptions of learner autonomy, language learners' autonomous behaviors and the implementations of autonomy-based language learning programs, such as self-access centers and Computer-Assisted Language Learning (CALL) (Benson, 2007, p. 26).

The way to promote and implement autonomy in actual English language classrooms still requires more modification and contextualization for various political and cultural contexts (Benson, 2007). Moreover, there have been discussions that the concept is not easy to be implemented in EFL classrooms due to some political and cultural impacts. Some Asian studies proved that this is due to cultural beliefs that value respect to elders, especially teachers in the case of teaching and learning (Tapinta, 2016) by the findings that Thai EFL learners are not ready for autonomy, being not autonomous enough. For learners and teachers, the same concept may hold different meanings as their roles differ, their perceptions of learner autonomy play a role in providing more practical context-relevant pedagogical recommendations, especially for practicing teachers.

Additionally, promotion of learner autonomy has been established as one of the educational goals also in some Asian countries' higher education institutions and departments (e.g., Brunei, Cambodia and Vietnam) (Haji-Othman & Wood, 2016; Keuk & Heng, 2016; Van Loi, 2016), including some popular public universities in Myanmar (e.g., the University of Yangon, UY). The Myanmar policy makers and institutional managements attempt to meet modern educational challenges due to the education reforms they would like to implement (The Report: Myanmar, 2017).

Myanmar is a country in South Asia, which is also a member country of the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN). As this is a context of English as a lingua franca (EFL), the importance of ELT in ASEAN countries was also mentioned in some studies (e.g., Thailand and the Philippines) (Rañosa-Madrunio, Tarrayo, Tupas, & Valdez, 2016; Tapinta, 2016). The concept of learner autonomy is still novel to both learners and teachers in the Myanmar educational context. As Myanmar is a country with a centralized education system, autonomy is still very limited for most higher institutions. Therefore, learner autonomy and teacher autonomy are still fictional goals under this circumstance. Although educational decisions or education reforms are mainly made by the Ministry of Education (MoE), the MoE and its related departments obtain a share of some autonomy in implementing education reforms because “the MoE has also promised to decentralize decision making, empower head teachers, school managers and parent-teacher associations, as well as improve accountability across the system between township education officers and schools, and vice versa” (The Report: Myanmar, 2017, p. 1).

The current education reforms in Myanmar generally include changing the old basic education system (five years in primary, two years in lower secondary and two years in upper secondary levels) to a K-12 system, which extends schooling by two more years, and developing curricula locally, especially English curricula in collaboration with some international non-government organizations (NGOs) (e.g., Japan International Cooperation Agency, JICA) for the new basic education system. The K-12 system has been already implemented starting from the 2017–2018 academic school year at all primary, secondary and upper-secondary levels in tandem. Along with the implementation, newly-developed English curricula have also been launched. Moreover, the new curricula will be developed in the respective higher education institutions. The English curricula and syllabi at tertiary level are also in the process of development and revision at the moment, aiming for the students who will enter universities in 2023 after completing the new K-12 school system.

Hence, conducting this study that measures Myanmar EFL learners' readiness for autonomy and their autonomous behaviors in learning English is not only to fill the research niche of infrequent research in the Myanmar EFL context but also to make some contributions to the future curricula development of the Myanmar higher education. Along with the aims mentioned above, more importantly, the study made an initial step to research language learner autonomy in Myanmar.

Theoretical background

In this section, the concepts of autonomy developed over time, significant notions about it and the aspects related to it (e.g., motivation) as well as the research in the literature relevant for the current study have been reviewed for theoretical understanding. The key definitions and the associated key terms are presented, mostly based on the theoretical constructs related to the research instruments to be used in the study.

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 this regard, Deci and Ryan's (1985) SDT provides prominent proof to bridge the two concepts. SDT comprises of three main motivational components: intrinsic, extrinsic and amotivational. Deci and Ryan (1985) presented three events that affect learners' motivation which were based on the three causality orientations: first, events supporting autonomy or self-initiation and self-regulation (informational), second, the ones provoking pressure on oneself to produce a particular outcome (controlling), and finally, the ones even weakening one's motivation due to feeling helplessness (amotivating). Subsequently, they named the three as autonomy orientation, control orientation and impersonal orientation. Here, only the first considers more of self-determination because the person with autonomy orientation or intrinsic motivation will show a high degree of self-determination and result in better performance. For instance, Deci, Olafsen, and Ryan (2017) stated,

when individuals understand the worth and purpose of their jobs, feel ownership and autonomy in carrying them out, and receive clear feedback and supports, they are likely to become more autonomously motivated and reliably perform better, learn better, and be better adjusted (p. 20)

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

Associating with what has been presented in the previous section, it can be observed that autonomous learners are by definition motivated learners. Additionally, according to Benson (2001), learners may practice autonomy on their own in their learning process, that is finding ways to learn formally or informally and improve English both inside and outside classroom. However, learners may not notice how they are acting autonomously. This can be clarified with Little's (1991) claim that:

it is unlikely, however, that the learners are particularly aware either that they are fulfilling a need or that they are behaving autonomously. This unconscious autonomy is one of the chief hallmarks of effective learning that takes place independently of formal educational contexts (p. 10).

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.

Research methods

Based on the literature reviewed, the following research questions were formulated to suit the aim of the study:

What characterizes students' perceptions of their own responsibilities and their teacher's responsibilities in learning English?

What are students' dispositions toward their autonomous behaviors outside and inside the classroom in learning English?

What are the relationships between students' perceptions of their own responsibilities, their autonomous behaviors, their motivation, and their perceived ability in learning English?

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.

Results and discussion

According to the descriptive statistics of the scales shown in Table 1, students' perceptions of their motivation remarkably received the highest mean value (M = 4.22, SD = 0.75) among the scales, implying that the English major students in the study are highly motivated to learn English. Besides, when a paired-sample t-test was run for the two scales, students' perceptions of their motivation and students' perceptions of their teacher's responsibility, there was a statistically significant difference (t = 3.122, P < 0.003). Following students' perceptions of their motivation, students' perceptions of their teacher's responsibility and students' perceptions of their ability indicated the second and third highest mean values among the variables, which were almost and closer to 4. In the case of their students' perceptions of their ability, they showed more confidence in their ability in deciding on their private learning process than the in-class process. A conceivable reason for this is due to the centralized education system of Myanmar higher education. The learners probably think that their involvement in decision-making of course content and duration of lessons seems impossible in their context.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics of the Scales

Scale Mean Std. Deviation
Students' perceptions of their own responsibility 3.48 0.47
Students' perceptions of their teacher's responsibility 3.89 0.49
Students' perceptions of their ability 3.54 0.40
Students' perceptions of their motivation 4.22 0.75
Students' autonomous behaviors (outside class) 2.42 0.55
Students' autonomous behaviors (inside class) 2.23 0.60

To answer RQ1 concerning students' perceptions of their own responsibilities and their teacher's responsibilities, a paired sample t-test was conducted. The result displayed that there was a statistically significant difference between students' perceptions of their own responsibility and students' perceptions of their teacher's responsibility, and students tend to place more responsibility on the teacher, evidenced by the fact that the students' perceptions of their teacher's responsibility's mean value (3.89 with SD = 0.49) was significantly higher than that of (3.48 with SD = 0.47) the students' perceptions of their own responsibility scale. Specifically saying, the students seem to perceive their teachers as more responsible for in-class learning and themselves for outside or private learning, which is similar to Yıldırım's (2008) and Tomita and Sano's (2016) findings. This result also coincides with the findings of Üstünlüoğlu (2009), in as much as “they are unwilling to take responsibility and that they continue to see the teacher as a dominant figure who is the decision maker in the classroom” (p. 161). The two assumable reasons for students seeing their teachers as more responsible persons for their in-class learning are due to the Asian culture in which teachers are believed to be the most respected and dominant figures in students' learning and students' low familiarity with autonomous learning. These two conclusions can be backed up by “due to a Thai social value of having respect and, thus, reliance on their superiors, Thai students are not intuitively autonomous or independent” (Tapinta, 2016, p. 106). and “if not instructed specifically, they will not perform tasks. Most are not independent readers” (Haji-Othman & Wood, 2016, p. 85). Another factor affecting the students' sense of responsibility for in-class or curricular decisions, which was also reported as a hindrance to learner autonomy in Borg and Al-Busaidi (2012a, 2012b) as well as Haji-Othman and Wood (2016), can be the state-run education system which students may find difficult in their context.

To respond to RQ2, a paired sample t-test was computed. On average, the students in the study practice little autonomy both inside and outside the classroom, and the mean value (M = 2.42, SD =0.55) of students' autonomous behaviors (outside class) was significantly higher than that (M = 2.23, SD = 0.60) of the students' autonomous behaviors (inside class) (t = 2.56, P = 0.01). Consequently, it can be inferred that students act more autonomously outside than inside class. A likely cause for the students showing more autonomous behaviors for out-of-class learning is the occurrence of learning situations outside the classroom. According to Yıldırım (2008), whether students engage in the possible outside learning activities or not might be related to conditions they are in. In the case of the current study, activities that students practice outside the class were e.g., reading books or magazines in English since 27 out of 60 students do this almost daily and 23 of them a couple of times a week. Some more examples include listening to podcasts in English and listening to and watching English songs, movies and game shows, which are done by a high number students almost every day or week. The students' frequent engagement in these activities seems to lie in their preferences to explore English in a more entertaining and comfortable way, whereas talking to foreigners in English and learning with self-learning applications were chosen by a lower number students despite the availability of these applications. The extent of their autonomous behavior inside the classroom is significantly lower, which can be interpreted in a way that teachers in this context may give only a little share of authority to students in class. This finding confirms the idea expressed in The Report: Myanmar (2017) in as much as autonomy is a novel concept in the Myanmar education system and it needs to be fostered. This result also calls for a need articulated by Little (1996), according to which, sharing authority with students is helpful in promoting learner autonomy.

To answer the last research question, correlation analysis was computed first. Table 2 shows the results of the correlation analysis between the scales; however, only correlations where P < 0.01 are reported. There is a moderate significant correlation (r = 0.371, P = 0.003) between students' perceptions of their own responsibilities and students' perceptions of their ability. This shows that if students think they are capable of doing something, they will take more responsibilities. This is in line with the result of Yıldırım (2008) presenting “There is the perception of greater responsibility where there is the perception of greater ability, or vice versa” (p. 78). Next, there is also a significant moderate correlation (r = 0.356, P = 0.005) between students' perceptions of their own responsibilities and students' perceptions of their teachers' responsibilities. The statistical data can be interpreted that if students take some responsibility in their learning, they also put some responsibility on their teachers. Besides, students' perceptions of their ability and students' autonomous behaviors (inside class) are moderately correlated at (r = 0.386, P = 0.002). A possible justification is that if students feel they are able to do something, they tend to be autonomous inside the classroom probably as a result of their teachers' share of responsibility or authority in deciding on and doing class activities with them as well as having more confidence in carrying out those activities as in Little (1996).

Table 2.

Significant Correlations (P < 0.01) between the Scales

Scale 1 2 3 4 5 6
1 Students' perceptions of their own responsibility ___
2 Students' perceptions of their teacher's responsibility 0.356** ___
3 Students' perceptions of their ability 0.371** ___
4 Students' perceptions of their motivation ___
5 Students' autonomous behaviors (outside class) ___
6 Students' autonomous behaviors (inside class) 0.360** 0.386** 0.497** ___

Apart from correlations, I also wanted to investigate if there was any causal relationship between the scales with the help of regression analysis. Table 3 shows the causal effect that Students' perceptions of their autonomous behaviors inside class and Students' perceptions of their teachers' responsibility have on Students' perceptions of their ability.

Table 3.

Results of Regression Analysis of the Scales with Students' Perceptions of their Ability Being the Dependent Scale (significance level P < 0.01)

Scale β t P
Students' autonomous Behaviors (inside class) 0.41 3.53 0.001
Students' perceptions of teachers' responsibility 0.29 2.54 0.014
R 2 0.23

The results revealed that the two dimensions together explain 23% of students' perceptions of their abilities. This demonstrates that if learners behave autonomously in the classroom, they perceive their teachers as being more responsible, then they will perceive themselves as being more able. As the Beta coefficient pertaining to autonomous behavior in the classroom is stronger than that of teachers' perceived responsibility, the effect of the former is stronger than that of the latter. Table 4 shows the extent to which students' autonomous behavior in the classroom contributes to students' motivation.

Table 4.

Results of Regression Analysis of the Scales with Students' Perceptions of their Motivation Being the Dependent Scale (significance level P < 0.01)

Scale β t P
Students' autonomous behaviors (inside class) 0.29 2.29 0.025
R 2 0.8

As can be seen in the data, students' autonomous behaviors (inside class) explain 8% of their motivation. This result confirms the fact that if students can act autonomously in the classroom, they will become more motivated to learn, which also coincides with Noels' et al., (2000) recognition that autonomy-supported learning situations enhance learners' motivation.

Conclusion

The purpose of the study was to investigate Myanmar EFL learners' perceptions of learner autonomy and their autonomous behaviors in learning English. The results in the study reflected some of the reviewed literature. It should be noted that autonomy in life and autonomy in learning are importantly related for learners to act independently in their learning. Autonomy-supported learning situations and sharing responsibility with leaners regardless of the curriculum-related restrictions can still assist learners to become more motivated to learn autonomously. Similarly, through these situations, learners will learn how to learn (learner training), which can smoothen the promotion of LA in English language teaching and learning.

The research questions raised could also be answered. As regards RQ1 (What characterizes students' perceptions of their own responsibilities and their teacher's responsibilities?), a conclusion can be made that the students place more responsibility on teachers regarding the class-related decisions while they take more responsibility in their private learning decisions. They appear to perceive that curriculum-related decisions are only concerned with teachers. Concerning RQ2 (What are students' dispositions toward their autonomous behaviors outside and inside the classroom?), the students are likely to practice more autonomy outside the classroom than in class due to the possible independent learning opportunities in this particular context. Although they can get access to certain language learning opportunities, they demonstrate a preference for entertaining learning activities more, which probably can be associated with their young age. Despite acting more autonomously outside than inside the class, they still show a lower level of autonomy in class. This might be related to the classroom atmosphere in which they might be granted little autonomy by their teachers, which might be attributed to having to cover the prescribed curriculum. Here, a suggestion for teachers can be made that they can adapt and integrate the students' preferred outside learning activities in the lessons, which, as a result, would create more situations for students to practice autonomy or extend their capacity of autonomy in the classroom as well. In relation to RQ3 (What are the relationships between students' perceptions of their own responsibilities, their autonomous behaviors, their motivation, and their perceived ability?), the students will take more responsibility if they feel confident in their capability. As a consequence, they will behave more autonomously inside the classroom, which again has an impact on students' motivation or vice versa.

Despite the results presented above, some limitations were inevitable in the current study. First, the generalizability is of question as the sample itself is small. Moreover, as the students showed a high level of motivation in learning English, it may affect their sense of responsibility and autonomy in their learning to some degree. They show some confidence in their ability although they are uncertain, especially about being involved in decisions related to classroom matters. The follow-up interviews might help to understand the reasons behind these. It is, therefore, recommended to carry out further research to shed light on these aspects regarding the focus of the study. All in all, the quantitative data in the study suggest that students are somewhat ready to take on some responsibility because they have a sense of responsibility in some areas of their learning. Thus, as the questionnaire proved to be reliable and valid to answer the research questions, it can be considered adequate for the broader context of the study.

References

  • Benson, P. (2001). Teaching and researching autonomy in language learning. Applied Linguistics in Action Series. Pearson Education Limited.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Benson, P. (2007). Autonomy in language teaching and learning. Language Teaching, 40(1), 2140.

  • Benson, P. (2008). Teachers’ and learners’ perspectives on autonomy. Learner and Teacher Autonomy: Concepts, Realities, and Responses, 1532.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Benson, P. (2012). Autonomy in language learning, learning and life. Synergies France, (9), 2939.

  • Benson, P. , & Lor, W. (1998). Making sense of autonomous language learning: Conceptions of learning and readiness for autonomy. English Centre, University of Hong Kong.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Borg, S. , & Al-Busaidi, S. (2012a). Teachers’ beliefs and practices regarding learner autonomy. ELT journal, 66(3), 283292.

  • Borg, S. , & Al-Busaidi, S. (2012b). Learner autonomy: English language teachers’ beliefs and practices. ELT Research Paper, 12(7), 145.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Csizér, K. , & Kormos, J. (2009). Learning experiences, selves and motivated learning behaviour: A comparative analysis of structural models for Hungarian secondary and university learners of English. Motivation, Language Identity and the L2 Self, 98119.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Deci, E. L. , & Ryan, R. M. (1985). The general causality orientations scale: Self-determination in personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 19(2), 109134.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Deci, E. L. , Olafsen, A. H. , & Ryan, R. M. (2017). Self-determination theory in work organizations: The state of a science. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 4, 1943.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Dickinson, L. (1994). Learner autonomy: What, why, and how. Autonomy in Language Learning, 112.

  • Dickinson, L. (1995). Autonomy and motivation a literature review. System, 23(2), 165174.

  • Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics. Oxford University Press.

  • Dörnyei, Z. , & Csizér, K. (1998). Ten commandments for motivating language learners: Results of an empirical study. Language Teaching Research, 2(3), 203229.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Gardner, R.C. , & Lalonde, R.N. (1985). Second Language Acquisition: A Social Psychological Perspective. Foreign Language Annals, 3, 383393.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Haji-Othman, N. A. , & Wood, K. (2016). Perceptions of learner autonomy in English language education in Brunei Darussalam. In R. Barnard , & J. Li (Eds.), Language learner autonomy: Teachers’ beliefs and practices in Asian contexts (pp. 7995). IDP Education (Cambodia) Limited.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Holec, H. (1981). Autonomy and foreign language learning. Strasbourg: Council of Europe). Pergamon. (First published 1979).

  • Holec, H. (2008). Foreword. In Lamb, Terry , & Hayo, Reinders (Eds.), Learner and teacher autonomy: Concepts, realities, and response (1st ed., 1, pp. 34). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Keuk, C. N. , & Heng, V. (2016). Cambodian ELT teachers’ beliefs and practices regarding language learner autonomy. In R. Barnard , & J. Li (Eds.), Language learner autonomy: Teachers’ beliefs and practices in Asian contexts (pp. 6278). IDP Education (Cambodia) Limited.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Little, D. G. (1991). Learner autonomy: Definitions, issues and problems. Authentik Language Learning Resources.

  • Little, D. (1996). Learner autonomy: Some steps in the evolution of theory and practice. The Irish Yearbook of Applied Linguistics, 16, 113.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Littlewood, W. (1996). “Autonomy”: An anatomy and a framework. System, 24(4), 427435. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0346-251X(96)00039-5.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Lou, N. M. , Chaffee, K. E. , Vargas Lascano, D. I. , Dincer, A. , & Noels, K. A. (2018). Complementary perspectives on autonomy in self-determination theory and language learner autonomy. Tesol Quarterly, 52(1), 210220.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Noels, K. A. , Lou, N. M. , Chaffee, K. E. , Zhang, Y. S. D. , & Zhang, X. (2019). Self-determination and motivated engagement in language Learning. In M. Lamb , K. Csizér , A. Henry , & S. Ryan (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of motivation for language learning (pp. 95115). Palgrave Macmillan.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Noels, K. A. , Pelletier, L. G. , Clément, R. , & Vallerand, R. J. (2000). Why are you learning a second language? Motivational orientations and self-determination theory. Language learning, 50(1), 5785.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Nunan, D. (2003). Nine steps to learner autonomy (pp. 193204). Symposium.

  • Palfreyman, D. M. (2014). The ecology of learner autonomy. Social dimensions of autonomy in language learning (pp. 175191). London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Rañosa-Madrunio, M. , Tarrayo, V. N. , Tupas, R. , & Valdez, P. N. (2016). Learner autonomy: English language teachers’ beliefs and practices in the Philippines. In R. Barnard , & J. Li (Eds.), Language learner autonomy: Teachers’ beliefs and practices in Asian contexts (pp. 114133). IDP Education (Cambodia) Limited.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Spratt, M. , Humphreys, G. , & Chan, V. (2002). Autonomy and motivation: Which comes first? Language Teaching Research, 6(3), 245266.

  • Tapinta, P. (2016). Thai teachers’ beliefs in developing learner autonomy: L2 education in Thai universities. In R. Barnard , & J. Li (Eds.), Language learner autonomy: Teachers’ beliefs and practices in Asian contexts (pp. 96113). IDP Education (Cambodia) Limited.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • The Report: Myanmar (2017). Major changes to Myanmar’s education sector under way. Oxford Business Group. https://oxfordbusinessgroup.com/overview/back-basics-major-changes-education-sector-are-under-way.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Tomita, K. , & Sano, M. (2016). Developing learner autonomy: The perceptions and needs of Japanese EFL learners. Language Education in Asia, 7(2), 114130.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Tremblay, P. F. , & Gardner, R. C. (1995). Expanding the motivation construct in language learning. The Modern Language Journal, 79(4), 505518.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Ushioda, E. (2008). Motivation and good language learners. In C. Griffiths (Ed.), Lessons from good language learners (pp. 1934). Cambridge University Press.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Üstünlüoğlu, E. (2009). Autonomy in language learning: Do students take responsibility for their learning? Journal of TheoryPractice in Education (JTPE), 5(2), 148169.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Van Loi, N. (2016). Learner autonomy in Vietnam: Insights from English language teachers’ beliefs and practices. In Barnard, R. , & Li, J. (Eds.), Language learner autonomy: Teachers’ beliefs and practices in Asian contexts (pp. 122). IDP Education (Cambodia) Ltd..

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Yıldırım, O. (2008). Turkish EFL learners’ readiness for learner autonomy. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 4(1), 6580.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

APPENDIX

Learner Autonomy Questionnaire (Adapted from Chan, Spratt, & Humphreys, 2002) (Adapted from Tomita & Sano, 2016)

Dear participants,

I am Cho Cho Win, a lecturer at National Centre for English Language situated in Panglong Hall, University of Yangon. I am currently doing a PhD course in Language Pedagogy at Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary. Through this survey, I would like to request your views of the roles of teachers and learners in English language learning as well as your activities to attempt to learn English inside and outside class. The information obtained from this questionnaire will also be of great help in designing an effective learning programme for my final research project. Please answer the items honestly, I can guarantee that all your answers will remain anonymous and confidential. Your time and participation are sincerely appreciated. Could you please give me your opinions as indicated? Thank you very much!☺

Background Information

Section 1: In this part of the questionnaire, there will be questions about various aspects of learning English in the classroom. Please indicate with the help of the rating scale to what extent you and your teacher are responsible for these aspects of learning. Choose one of the scales (Not at all, A little, Fairly, Mainly and Completely) for both “Yours” and “Your teacher's” to describe the extent of your own responsibility and your teacher's responsibility for each item below.

Question: When you are taking English classes, to what extent are you and your teacher responsible to:

Not at all A little Fairly Mainly Completely
1. make sure of your progress in a lesson?  A. Yours
B. Your teacher’s
2. make sure of your progress in your self-study? A. Yours
B. Your teacher’s
3. stimulate your interest in learning English? A. Yours
B. Your teacher’s
4. identify your weakness in your English? A. Yours
B. Your teacher’s
5. increase your effort in learning English? A. Yours
B. Your teacher’s
6. decide the aims of your English course? A. Yours
B. Your teacher’s
7. decide the content of an English lesson? A. Yours
B. Your teacher’s
8. choose activities for a lesson? A. Yours
B. Your teacher’s
9. decide the duration of each classroom activity? A. Yours
B. Your teacher’s
10. choose materials to be used in your English course? A. Yours
B. Your teacher’s
11. evaluate your progress in learning English? A. Yours
B. Your teacher’s
12. evaluate your English course? A. Yours
B. Your teacher’s
13. decide what to learn in your self-study? A. Yours
B. Your teacher’s

Section 2: In this section, I would like to know your opinions on your “Abilities” in these aspects of learning English. Please indicate how well you think you would be able to do in the following aspects of learning English if you were given opportunities to do them. Please make the choices (Very poorly, Poorly, OK, Well, Very well) that describe you the most.

Question: If you had the following opportunities, how well do you think you would be able to:

Very poorly Poorly OK Well Very Well
14. choose learning activities for your class?
15. choose learning activities outside class?
16. choose learning aims for your class?
17. choose learning aims for your self-study?
18. choose the content of a class?
19. evaluate your course?
20. choose learning materials for your class?
21. identify weakness in your English?
22. evaluate the progress of your learning?
23. choose learning materials to be used outside class?
24. decide the duration of each activity in your self-study?

Section 3: The items in this section are mainly concerned with your “Motivation” in learning English. Please indicate whether you (completely agree, agree, neither agree nor disagree, disagree, completely disagree) to the items below. 

Completely agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Dis- agree Completely disagree
25. Learning English is one of the most important things in my life.
26. I can honestly say that I am really doing my best to learn English.
27. I am determined to learn English as well as possible.
28. I am willing to work hard at learning English.
29. It is very important for me to learn English.

Section 4 : In this section, I have the items related to your learning “Activities and Behaviors” to learn English both inside and outside class.

Please choose the answer (Almost Daily, A couple of times a week, A couple of times a month, A couple of times a year, Never) that describes you the most.

In this academic year, how often have you (outside class):

Almost Daily A couple of times a week A couple of times a month A couple of times a year Never
30. learnt grammar with grammar books on your own?
31. done assignments which are not compulsory?
32. done reading assignments which are not compulsory?
33. noted down new words and their meanings when reading a book?
34. read newspapers in English?
35. sent emails in English?
36. read books or magazines in English?
37. watched TV programs in English?
38. listened to the radio or podcasts in English?
39. listened to songs in English?
40. talked with foreigners in English?
41. done English self-study in a group?
42. watched movies in English?
43. written a diary in English?
44. used the websites in English?
45. revised your written work without being told to do so?
46. downloaded and learnt with self-learning mobile applications?
47. joined English conversation clubs?
48. watched international game shows or variety shows with English subtitles?
49. played games in English?
50. learnt English through English teaching websites or YouTube channels?
51. learnt and talked with foreigners in English on language exchange mobile applications?

In this academic year, how often have you (Inside Class):

Almost Daily A couple of times a week A couple of times a month A couple of times a year Never
52. asked the teacher questions when you did not understand?
53. taken notes in English?
54. made suggestions about class activities or assignments to the teacher?
55. taken opportunities to speak in English?
56. discussed problems you have in learning English with your classmates?
57. led a discussion in English in a group-work activity?
58. led a conversation in English in a pair-work activity?
59. checked answers of vocabulary or grammar exercises with a friend?
60. asked for feedback from the teacher on your performance in speaking or writing activity?

Thank you very much for your time and participation!

  • Benson, P. (2001). Teaching and researching autonomy in language learning. Applied Linguistics in Action Series. Pearson Education Limited.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Benson, P. (2007). Autonomy in language teaching and learning. Language Teaching, 40(1), 2140.

  • Benson, P. (2008). Teachers’ and learners’ perspectives on autonomy. Learner and Teacher Autonomy: Concepts, Realities, and Responses, 1532.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Benson, P. (2012). Autonomy in language learning, learning and life. Synergies France, (9), 2939.

  • Benson, P. , & Lor, W. (1998). Making sense of autonomous language learning: Conceptions of learning and readiness for autonomy. English Centre, University of Hong Kong.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Borg, S. , & Al-Busaidi, S. (2012a). Teachers’ beliefs and practices regarding learner autonomy. ELT journal, 66(3), 283292.

  • Borg, S. , & Al-Busaidi, S. (2012b). Learner autonomy: English language teachers’ beliefs and practices. ELT Research Paper, 12(7), 145.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Csizér, K. , & Kormos, J. (2009). Learning experiences, selves and motivated learning behaviour: A comparative analysis of structural models for Hungarian secondary and university learners of English. Motivation, Language Identity and the L2 Self, 98119.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Deci, E. L. , & Ryan, R. M. (1985). The general causality orientations scale: Self-determination in personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 19(2), 109134.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Deci, E. L. , Olafsen, A. H. , & Ryan, R. M. (2017). Self-determination theory in work organizations: The state of a science. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 4, 1943.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Dickinson, L. (1994). Learner autonomy: What, why, and how. Autonomy in Language Learning, 112.

  • Dickinson, L. (1995). Autonomy and motivation a literature review. System, 23(2), 165174.

  • Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics. Oxford University Press.

  • Dörnyei, Z. , & Csizér, K. (1998). Ten commandments for motivating language learners: Results of an empirical study. Language Teaching Research, 2(3), 203229.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Gardner, R.C. , & Lalonde, R.N. (1985). Second Language Acquisition: A Social Psychological Perspective. Foreign Language Annals, 3, 383393.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Haji-Othman, N. A. , & Wood, K. (2016). Perceptions of learner autonomy in English language education in Brunei Darussalam. In R. Barnard , & J. Li (Eds.), Language learner autonomy: Teachers’ beliefs and practices in Asian contexts (pp. 7995). IDP Education (Cambodia) Limited.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Holec, H. (1981). Autonomy and foreign language learning. Strasbourg: Council of Europe). Pergamon. (First published 1979).

  • Holec, H. (2008). Foreword. In Lamb, Terry , & Hayo, Reinders (Eds.), Learner and teacher autonomy: Concepts, realities, and response (1st ed., 1, pp. 34). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Keuk, C. N. , & Heng, V. (2016). Cambodian ELT teachers’ beliefs and practices regarding language learner autonomy. In R. Barnard , & J. Li (Eds.), Language learner autonomy: Teachers’ beliefs and practices in Asian contexts (pp. 6278). IDP Education (Cambodia) Limited.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Little, D. G. (1991). Learner autonomy: Definitions, issues and problems. Authentik Language Learning Resources.

  • Little, D. (1996). Learner autonomy: Some steps in the evolution of theory and practice. The Irish Yearbook of Applied Linguistics, 16, 113.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Littlewood, W. (1996). “Autonomy”: An anatomy and a framework. System, 24(4), 427435. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0346-251X(96)00039-5.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Lou, N. M. , Chaffee, K. E. , Vargas Lascano, D. I. , Dincer, A. , & Noels, K. A. (2018). Complementary perspectives on autonomy in self-determination theory and language learner autonomy. Tesol Quarterly, 52(1), 210220.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Noels, K. A. , Lou, N. M. , Chaffee, K. E. , Zhang, Y. S. D. , & Zhang, X. (2019). Self-determination and motivated engagement in language Learning. In M. Lamb , K. Csizér , A. Henry , & S. Ryan (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of motivation for language learning (pp. 95115). Palgrave Macmillan.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Noels, K. A. , Pelletier, L. G. , Clément, R. , & Vallerand, R. J. (2000). Why are you learning a second language? Motivational orientations and self-determination theory. Language learning, 50(1), 5785.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Nunan, D. (2003). Nine steps to learner autonomy (pp. 193204). Symposium.

  • Palfreyman, D. M. (2014). The ecology of learner autonomy. Social dimensions of autonomy in language learning (pp. 175191). London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Rañosa-Madrunio, M. , Tarrayo, V. N. , Tupas, R. , & Valdez, P. N. (2016). Learner autonomy: English language teachers’ beliefs and practices in the Philippines. In R. Barnard , & J. Li (Eds.), Language learner autonomy: Teachers’ beliefs and practices in Asian contexts (pp. 114133). IDP Education (Cambodia) Limited.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Spratt, M. , Humphreys, G. , & Chan, V. (2002). Autonomy and motivation: Which comes first? Language Teaching Research, 6(3), 245266.

  • Tapinta, P. (2016). Thai teachers’ beliefs in developing learner autonomy: L2 education in Thai universities. In R. Barnard , & J. Li (Eds.), Language learner autonomy: Teachers’ beliefs and practices in Asian contexts (pp. 96113). IDP Education (Cambodia) Limited.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • The Report: Myanmar (2017). Major changes to Myanmar’s education sector under way. Oxford Business Group. https://oxfordbusinessgroup.com/overview/back-basics-major-changes-education-sector-are-under-way.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Tomita, K. , & Sano, M. (2016). Developing learner autonomy: The perceptions and needs of Japanese EFL learners. Language Education in Asia, 7(2), 114130.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Tremblay, P. F. , & Gardner, R. C. (1995). Expanding the motivation construct in language learning. The Modern Language Journal, 79(4), 505518.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Ushioda, E. (2008). Motivation and good language learners. In C. Griffiths (Ed.), Lessons from good language learners (pp. 1934). Cambridge University Press.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Üstünlüoğlu, E. (2009). Autonomy in language learning: Do students take responsibility for their learning? Journal of TheoryPractice in Education (JTPE), 5(2), 148169.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Van Loi, N. (2016). Learner autonomy in Vietnam: Insights from English language teachers’ beliefs and practices. In Barnard, R. , & Li, J. (Eds.), Language learner autonomy: Teachers’ beliefs and practices in Asian contexts (pp. 122). IDP Education (Cambodia) Ltd..

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Yıldırım, O. (2008). Turkish EFL learners’ readiness for learner autonomy. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 4(1), 6580.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Collapse
  • Expand
  • Top

The author instruction is available in PDF.
Please, download the file from HERE

 

Senior editors

Editor(s)-in-Chief: Helga DORNER

Associate Editors 

  • Csíkos, Csaba (Eötvös Lorand University, Hungary)
  • Csizér, Kata (Eötvös Lorand University, Hungary)
  • Dorner, Helga (Central European University, Hungary)

 

Editorial Board

  • Basseches, Michael (Suffolk University, USA)
  • Billett, Stephen (Griffith University, Australia)
  • Cakmakci, Gültekin (Hacettepe University, Turkey)
  • Damsa, Crina (University of Oslo,Norway)
  • Dörnyei, Zoltán (Nottingham University, UK)
  • Endedijk, Maaike (University of Twente, The Netherlands)
  • Fejes, Andreas (Linköping University, Sweden)
  • Guimaraes, Paula (University of Lisbon, Portugal)
  • Halász, Gábor (Eötvös Loránd University, Hungary)
  • Hansman, Catherine A. (Cleveland State University, USA)
  • Kroeber, Edith (Stuttgart University, Germany)
  • Kumar, Swapna (University of Florida, USA)
  • MacDonald, Ronald (University of Prince Edward Island, Canada)
  • Marsick, Victoria J. (Columbia University, USA)
  • Martensson, Katarina (Lund University, Sweden)
  • Matei, Liviu (Central European University, Hungary)
  • Matyja, Malgorzata (Wroclaw University of Economics, Poland)
  • Mercer, Sarah (University of Graz, Austria)
  • Nichols, Gill (University of Surrey, UK)
  • Nokkala, Terhi (University of Jyvaskyla, Finland)
  • Ostrouch-Kaminska (Uniwersytet Warminsko-Mazurski, Poland)
  • Pusztai, Gabriella (University of Debrecen, Hungary)
  • Ramesal, Ana (Barcelona University, Spain)
  • Reischmann, Jost (Bamberg University, Germany)
  • Rösken-Winter, Bettina (Humboldt, Germany)
  • Ryan, Stephen (Waseda University, Japan)
  • Török, Erika (Pallasz Athéné University, Hungary)
  • Wach-Kakolewicz, Anna (Poznan University of Economics and Business, Poland)
  • Watkins, Karen E. (University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia)

 

 

 

Journal of Adult Learning, Knowledge and Innovation
Editorial Office
Eötvös Loránd University
Faculty of Education and Psychology
Institute of Research on Adult Education and Knowledge Management
Address: 1075 Budapest, Kazinczy u. 23-27. HUNGARY

E-mail: jalki@ppk.elte.hu

2020  
CrossRef Documents 0
CrossRef
Cites
8
CrossRef H-index 4
Days from submission to acceptance 130
Days from acceptance to publication 222

 

2019  
WoS
Cites
4
CrossRef
Documents
14

 

Journal of Adult Learning, Knowledge and Innovation
Publication Model Gold Open Access
Submission Fee none
Article Processing Charge none
Subscription Information Gold Open Access

Journal of Adult Learning, Knowledge and Innovation
Language English
Size A4
Year of
Foundation
2016
Volumes
per Year
1
Issues
per Year
2
Founder Eötvös Loránd Tudományegyetem
Founder's
Address
H-1053 Budapest, Hungary Egyetem tér 1-3.
Publisher Akadémiai Kiadó
Publisher's
Address
H-1117 Budapest, Hungary 1516 Budapest, PO Box 245.
Responsible
Publisher
Chief Executive Officer, Akadémiai Kiadó
ISSN 2631-1348 (Online)

Monthly Content Usage

Abstract Views Full Text Views PDF Downloads
Feb 2022 0 0 0
Mar 2022 0 0 0
Apr 2022 0 0 0
May 2022 0 0 0
Jun 2022 0 0 0
Jul 2022 0 77 36
Aug 2022 0 21 10