University EFL Learners’ Perceptions of Their Autonomous Learning Responsibilities and Abilities

Abstract

This study investigated the readiness of university students for autonomous learning of English as a foreign language. Data was collected using questionnairs and interviews. The study assessed learners’ readiness for autonomous learning across three dimensions: a) learners’ perceptions of their educational responsibilities; b) learners’ abilities related to autonomous learning and c) the actual autonomous English activities that were practiced by the participants while learning English. The data collected were analyzed quantitatively using the comparisons of means method and the t-test. Data collected through the interviews were analyzed qualitatively using the content analysis procedure. Analysis of the results suggested that as a result of previous educational experiences, the learners dwere habituated by their past educational experiences to place the responsibility for the success or failure of their language acquisition on their teachers. However, the participants reported that they have the ability to learn autonomously if given the opportunity to do so. A t-test showed that in terms of students’ perceptions of their abilities to engage in autonomous learning activities, gender and level of achievement did not play a significant role. Recommendations and implications for training autonomous learners are discussed.

Keywords

Learner autonomy autonomous learning activities autonomous learning abilities

Introduction

‘Give someone a fish, you feed him for a day. Teach him how to fish, you feed him for life’ Chinese Proverb

Within the context of education, this well-known proverb can be taken as a concise expression of the rationale for promoting learning autonomy. Autonomy is ‘the ability to take charge of one’s own learning’ (Holec,1981: 3). Taking responsibility for their own educational progress empowers students and prepares them for life-long learning (Egel, 2009).

The current study focused on investigating the readiness of Palestinian university students for autonomy in learning English as a foreign language. The students in this study are enrolled in two obligatory English courses. To assess students’ readiness for autonomous learning, this study used a questionnaire and interviews as the research instruments. The study measured the participants’ perceptions of (1) their own and their teachers’ responsibilities during their the English classes, (2) their ability to act autonomously while learning English as a foreign language, and (3) their participation in autonomous activities inside and outside their classrooms during their last semester of instruction. In particular, the study posed the following three research questions:

What are the students’ perceptions of their own responsibilities and their teachers’ responsibilities pertaining to autonomous learning?

What are the autonomous activities that students practice inside and outside the classroom and does student achievement have any effect on such practices?

Does students’ capacity for autonomy differ according to gender?

Literature Review

There have been relatively few studies conducted on learner autonomy in teaching English as a foreign language (EFL). Existing studies have investigated the topic from a myriad of different perspectives. For instance Chan, Spratt, and Humphrey (2002), Ming (2009), Littlewood (2000), Yildrim (2008), Ustunluoglu (2009), and Hozayen (2011) focused on the effect of culture and the educational context in which students learn English on learner perceptions and readiness for autonomous learning. These researchers found that students prefer teachers who take responsibility for all classroom activities. The participants in these studies exhibited little autonomy in their learning. The researchers attributed these results to students’ cultural backgrounds and to educational systems premised entirely on “spoon-feeding” knowledge to learners. Teachers’ perceptions also were found to play a role in developing learner autonomy; the researchers concluded that there is a need to help students to develop positive attitudes towards their own autonomy as learners.

Other researchers have investigated the relationship between learner autonomy and English language proficiency. For instance, Dafei (2007), Mineishi (2010), and Maftoon, Daftarifard and Lavasani (2011) concluded that learners’ autonomy and their English proficiency level were positively and linearly correlated. On the other hand, other researchers, including Demirtas and Sert (2010), failed to find a positive correlation between the students’ perceptions of autonomy and their language achievement.

In addition, Tok (2010) and Varol and Yilmaz (2010) examined the relationship between learner autonomy and gender. The authors concluded that although there were no significant differences between the types of autonomous learning activities that males and females engaged in, females tended to engage in a greater number of activities than males. Moreover, Tok’s study found that students at more advanced levels of proficiency engaged much more in autonomous activities than those at elementary or pre-intermediate levels.

Other researchers examined the most effective ways of promoting EFL learner autonomy. For instance, Xhaferi and Xhaferi (2011), Lo (2010), Şirina and Büyükduman (2010), Vickers and Ene (2006), and Bayat (2010) concluded that portfolios, learner diaries, vocabulary notebooks, and learners’ engagement in autonomous classroom activities are effective ways of promoting learner autonomy. Wang (2010) and Pop (2010) and Noytim (2010) also reached the conclusion that computer-aided material such as the Internet, online materials and weblogs promoted learner autonomy. Further, students in these studies reported positive attitudes towards computer-aided autonomous English language learning.

Methodology

Research Design

The current study employed quantitative and qualitative research methods. Quantitatively, the t-test, comparison of means, and frequencies were used to analyze the data. The qualitative data were analyzed following content analysis procedures. The current study was conducted in the Fall semester of the 2010/2011 school year. It lasted for 16 weeks. The population of this study consisted of students (140) registered in two English introductory courses (Eng 231 − Level A and Eng 102 − Level C), administered by the Department of Languages and Translation at Birzeit University. All participants were in their first year at the university. Their ages ranged from 18 to 19. There were 80 (57.1%) students registered in ENG 231 and 60 students (42.9%) registered in ENG 102. The distribution between the sexes was equal – there were 70 males and 70 females.

Instrumentation and Materials

A questionnaire was used to examine learners’ readiness for autonomous learning of EFL. The questionnaire was developed by Chan et al. (2002). It was designed to focus on student perceptions of the responsibilities and abilities related to autonomous learning. The questionnaire was modified to suit the educational and cultural context in which the current study was conducted. The final version was comprised of 43 items. It consisted of two main parts. For the first part, the participants were asked to fill in information about their gender and to supply information about the introductory course they were enrolled in (231 or 102). The second part was divided into three sections. Section 1 consisted of 10 statements which reflected the participants’ perceptions of their own and their teachers’ responsibilities during university English classes. Section 2 consisted of 10 statements concerning the participants’ perceptions of their capacity to act autonomously while learning English, (both inside and outside the classroom). Section 3 was comprised of 23 statements which investigated the participants’ autonomous practices.

Follow-up interviews were also conducted with a handful of high and low achievers from each group. In total, 12 students were interviewed – six males (three high achievers and three low achievers) and six females (three high achievers and three low achievers). The purpose of the interviews was to elicit more information about the students’ perceptions of their own and their teachers’ responsibilities, their capacity for autonomous work, and the types of autonomous learning activities they engaged in both inside and outside the classroom. The interviews were semi-structured and conducted in person.

Data Analysis

Data for this study included both quantitative data (questionnaire) and qualitative data (interviews). Qualitative data were analyzed using content analysis procedures (see, for example, Tonkiss, 2004; Bryan, 2008). The results of the questionnaire were analyzed using the Comparison of Means based on Oxford’s (1990) classification of means method. Mean scores that ranged between 1.0 and 2.4 were considered as ‘low’. Mean scores that ranged between 2.5 and 3.4 were regarded as ‘medium’. Mean scores that ranged between 3.5 and 5.0 were regarded as ‘high’. A t-test was used to investigate any significant differences in students’ readiness for autonomy in learning EFL according to their level of achievement (Eng 231- level A, Eng 102- Level C). A t-test was also used to diagnose any significant differences in students’ readiness for autonomy in learning EFL due to their gender.

Results of the Study

The purpose of this study was to investigate the readiness for autonomous learning of 140 freshman EFL students at Birzeit University in Palestine. The results pertaining to the three main research questions are reported below.

Students’ Readiness for Autonomous Learning

As shown in Table 1 below, the percentages of students’ perceptions of their own and their teachers’ responsibilities during English language classes revealed a range of results. Overall, the results suggest that students perceived their teachers as being primarily responsible for the following: student progress during English lessons; deciding the objectives of English coursesl deciding what students should learn next in English lessons; choosing the activities to be used in English lessons; deciding on the time to be spent on each activity; choosing the materials for learning English; stimulating student interest in learning English; and evaluating student learning. These results were substantiated in the subsequent interviews. When asked about their abilities to decide on course objectives and choose course materials, one of the students replied ‘No, I do not think I am capable of designing and setting course objectives and materials.’ However, 65% of the students saw themselves as responsible for their progress outside their classrooms. 52.9% of the participants believed that they shared responsibility with their teachers for identifying language problems. Furthermore, as shown in Table 1, a high percentage of students believed that they shared responsibility with the teacher for deciding what they should learn next in English lessons, choosing the activities to be used in their English lessons, deciding the time to be spent on each activity, choosing the materials for learning English, stimulating interest in learning English and evaluating English progress. In the words of one of the students ‘When the majority of students agree on performing or not performing a particular task, instructors take their opinion into account.’ Another student answered ‘Of course! We’re involved in choosing topics of the articles we read and analyze.’

Table 1.

Students’ Perceptions of Their and Their Teachers’ Responsibilities during English Language Classes).

Responsibilities	Total Participants
	Yours	Your Teacher’s	Both
1. To ensure you make progress during English lessons	8.6%	50.0%	41.4%
2. To ensure you make progress outside class	65.0%	12.9%	22.1%
3. To stimulate your interest in learning English	15.0%	44.3%	40.7%
4. To identify your weaknesses in English	7.9%	39.3%	52.9%
5. To decide the objectives of your English course	2.9%	88.6%	8.6%
6. To decide what you should learn next in your English lessons	5.0%	83.6%	11.4%
7. To choose what activities to use to learn English in your English lessons	0.7%	74.3%	25.%
8. To decide how long to spend on each activity	6.4%	76.4%	17.1%
9. To choose what materials to use to learn English in your English lessons	2.9%	85.0%	12.1%
10. To evaluate your learning of English	2.9%	85.0%	12.1%

As Table 2 shows, students perceived themselves as capable of autonomous learning if they were allowed to choose the English learning materials they could use outside the classroom (M= 3.51). Participants also identifying weaknesses in English (M= 3.77) and evaluating learning of English (M= 3.81). However, the results reflected the learners’ medium ability regarding the rest of activities listed in the Table 2.

Table 2.

Students Perceptions of Their Abilities to Act Autonomously While Learning English.

Abilities	Mean Scores
11. Choosing English learning activities in class	3.10
12. Choosing English learning activities outside class	3.35
13. Choosing English learning objectives in class	2.75
14. Choosing English learning objectives outside class	3.05
15. Choosing English learning materials in class	3.07
16. Choosing English learning materials outside class	3.51
17. Deciding what you should learn next in your English lessons	2.69
18. Deciding how long to spend on each activity	3.43
19. Identify your weaknesses in English	3.77
20. Evaluating your learning of English	3.81

For instance when identifying weaknesses and what the students need to work on and improve, one of the interviewees stated:

Yes! I am not satisfied with the course objectives. Listening and speaking skills are extremely neglected. Instructors usually offer a list of teaching points which revolve around reading and writing skills. In the current course (ENGC141) we learn how to skim, scan and survey a text to identify points of view, to write topic, body and concluding sentences and draw a comparison between two different things. I cannot deny the importance of such skills but I think communication skills should be practiced and developed.

Another student emphasized this point when she answered:

I think I need to improve my speaking skills but English courses at Birzeit University focus on grammar and reading comprehension. I know what I need as an ESL student, but I’m not allowed to provide any suggestions or to make decisions concerning course objectives and goals.

This shows that students are aware of the areas they need to work on and improve and would like their instructors to focus on them.

The results in Table 3 show the mean of the autonomous English activities practiced by students in the last semester. Those activities were either practiced inside or outside the classroom. Pertaining to the outside of class activities, the ones with the highest means were ‘watching English TV programs’ (M= 3.82), ‘listening to songs in English’ (M= 3.57) and ‘activating prior knowledge while studying’ (M= 3.76). On the contrary, ‘reading newspapers in English’ (M= 1.85), ‘talking to foreigners in English’ (M= 2.30) and ‘using outside resources while studying’ (M= 2.17) had the lowest means. Regarding the in-class activities, the results revealed that ‘addressing questions to the teacher’ by students when they didn’t understand had the highest mean (M= 3.68). However, the other activities had medium mean scores such as: ‘discussing learning problems with classmate’ (M= 3.15), ‘taking opportunities to speak in English inside the classroom’ (M= 2.76) and ‘making suggestions to the English teacher’ (M=2.47).

Table 3.

Students’ Actual Practices of Autonomous English Activities in the Last Semester.

Activity	Mean Score
21. Done assignments in English which are not compulsory?	2.56
22. Noted down new words and their meanings?	3.43
23. Read newspapers in English?	1.85
24. Visited your teacher in office hours to ask about your work?	2.53
25. Read books or magazines in English?	3.30
26. Watched English TV programs?	3.82
27. Listened to English songs?	3.57
28. Talked to foreigners in English?	2.30
29. Practiced using English with friends?	2.69
30. Done grammar exercises?	2.67
31. Done group studies in English lessons?	2.72
32. Asked the teacher questions when you didn’t understand?	3.68
33. Made suggestions to the English teacher?	2.47
34. Planned your lesson/study?	2.60
35. Activated your prior knowledge while studying?	3.76
36. Made inferences about your lesson?	3.51
37. Done classifications while studying?	3.31
38. Summarized your studies while studying?	3.42
39. Taken notes while studying?	3.48
40. Used outside resources while studying?	2.17
41. Worked cooperatively with your friends?	3.37
42. Taken opportunities to speak in English inside the classroom?	2.76
43. Discussed learning problems with classmates?	3.15

Interviews with students confirmed the above quantitative results. The most common activities that students reported using outside of class – such as watching TV or listening to songs – were also on the top of students lists when asked about their practices to enable them learn English outside of class. In their own words:

Student 1:

‘I listen to stories and play games on the British Council Website.’

Student 5:

‘Many programs. I watch most of the TV shows and documentaries on the Aljazeera English.’

Student 7:

‘I listen to English songs and watch English programs and series in order to become more familiar with the American culture.’

Activities that got the lowest mean were also supported by students interviews. For instance when students were asked about practicing English outside the classroom they explained:

Student 3:

‘I did not lose my mind yet.’

Student 5:

‘… to show off.’

Autonomous Learning and Achievement

One of the aims of the current study was to examine the relationship, if there was any, between the participants’ readiness for autonomous learning and their English achievement. In the current study, learners’ achievement was determined by their scores on a placement test administered by the Department of Languages and Translation for all freshmen students. Based on their performance on the placement test students it as will enroll either in the remedial course preparing them to take the university credited courses or in the university credited one. Those who are allowed to enroll in the credited courses directly (without taking the remedial one) were considered to be high achievers, while those registered in the remedial English course were considered to be low achievers as far as proficiency in English is concerned. To investigate the relationship between autonomous learning and achievement learners’ responses to the three sections of the questionnaire concerning the responsibilities, abilities and activities related to autonomous learning were analyzed.

According to the results displayed in Table 4, the difference in the perceptions of responsibilities among low achievers compared to high achievers appeared the most in items 1, 3 and 10. While low achievers perceived making progress during English lessons as their teachers’ responsibility, high achievers perceived it as a shared responsibility with their teachers. Moreover, high achievers perceived, stimulating their interest in learning English as a shared responsibility with their teachers. On the other hand, low achievers perceived stimulating their interest in learning English as their teachers’ responsibility. Evaluating students’ learning of English was perceived by high achievers as a shared responsibility with their teachers, compared with low achievers who perceived it as their own teachers’ responsibility. Regarding the rest of the items, both high and low achievers perceived themselves as their teachers’ responsibility, except item 4 which was viewed as a shared responsibility with their teachers, and item 2 which was perceived as their own responsibility.

Table 4.

Learners’ Perceptions of Their Own and Their Teachers’ Responsibilities and Achievement.

Item	Responsibility
	Level of achievement	Yours	Your Teacher’s	Both
1. To ensure you make progress during English lessons	High	6.3%	40.0%	53.8%
1. To ensure you make progress during English lessons	Low	11.7%	63.3%	25.0%
2. To ensure you make progress outside class	High	72.5%	10.0%	17.5%
2. To ensure you make progress outside class	Low	55.0%	16.7%	28.3
3. To stimulate your interest in learning English	High	16.3%	41.3%	42.5%
3. To stimulate your interest in learning English	Low	13.3%	48.3%	38.3%
4. To identify your weaknesses in English	High	8.8%	36.3%	55.0%
4. To identify your weaknesses in English	Low	6.7%	43.3%	50.0%
5. To decide the objectives of your English course	High	1.3%	87.5%	11.2%
5. To decide the objectives of your English course	Low	5.0%	90.0%	5.0%
6. To decide what you should learn next in your English lessons	High	5.0%	80.0%	15.0%
	Low	5.0%	88.3%	6.7%
7. To choose what activities to use to learn English in your English lessons	High	0%	71.2%	28.8%
	Low	1.7%	78.3%	20.0%
8. To decide how long to spend on each activity	High	7.5%	72.5%	20.0%
8. To decide how long to spend on each activity	Low	5.0%	81.7%	13.3%
9. To choose what materials to use to learn English in your English lessons	High	1.2%	80.0%	18.8%
	Low	5.0%	91.7%	3.3%
10. To evaluate your learning of English	High	2.5%	41.2%	56.3%
	Low	10.0%	46.7%	43.3%

Abilities to Act Autonomously and Achievement

A t-test, as shown in Table 7, has been administered in order to discover if there were any significant differences in students’ perceptions of their abilities to act autonomously due to their level of achievement.

As displayed in Table 5 below, results of the t-test showed that no statistically significant differences (sig=0.09 ≥ 0.05) were found in students’ perceived abilities to act autonomously in learning English as a foreign language due to the achievement variable. However, slight differences were found when students’ means of their responses to the items related to their perceptions of abilities were compared as shown in Table 6.

Table 5.

Level of Achievement and Autonomous Learning.

		N	Mean	Standard Deviation	Standard Error Mean	Significance
Abilities to act autonomously	High	60	3.33	0.63	0.070	0.09
	Low	80	3.15	0.66	0.085

Table 6.

Students’ Abilities and Autonomous Learning.

Abilities	Means
	Low	High
11.Choosing English learning activities in class	2.71	3.38
12. Choosing English learning activities outside class	3.35	3.35
13. Choosing English learning objectives in class	2.60	2.87
14. Choosing English learning objectives outside class	3.06	3.05
15. Choosing English learning materials in class	2.80	3.27
16. Choosing English learning materials outside class	3.48	3.53
17. Deciding what you should learn next in your English lessons	2.46	2.86
18. Deciding how long to spend on each activity	3.38	3.47
19. Identifying your weaknesses in English	3.81	3.75
20. Evaluating your learning of English	3.83	3.80

Table 6 displays the score means of the items that reflected learners’ abilities to act autonomously inside and outside their classrooms according to their level of achievement. The results show both high and low achievers perceived themselves as highly able to evaluate their learning of English and identify their weaknesses in English if they were given the chance to do so. Furthermore, both high and low achievers found themselves at least able to choose English learning objectives in class and to decide what they should learn next in their English lessons.

Practices of Autonomous English Learning Activities and Achievement

According to Table 7, results of the t-test showed that statistically significant differences (sig= 0.000 ≤ .05) were found among learners’ practices of autonomous English learning activities in the last semester due to the achievement variable. The difference was in favor of high achievers, as the mean of their practices of autonomous activities (M= 3.12) was higher compared with low achievers (M=2.74).

Table 7.

Learners’ Practices of Autonomous English Learning Activities.

		N	Mean	Standard Deviation	Standard Error Mean	Significance
Practices of Autonomous Activities	High	60	3.12	0.60	0.06	0.000
Practices of Autonomous Activities	Low	80	2.74	.530	.060

Autonomous Learning and Gender

According to the results displayed in Table 8 below, the differences in the perceptions of the responsibilities among female and male students appeared the most in items 1 and 4. Male students perceived making progress during English lessons as their teachers’ responsibility while female students saw it as a shared responsibility with their teachers. Moreover, male students perceived identifying their weaknesses in English as their teachers’ responsibility, However, female students perceived it as a shared responsibility with their teachers. As to the rest of the items, both female and male students perceived them as their teachers’ responsibility, except item 2 which was viewed as their own responsibility, and item 10 which was perceived as a shared responsibility with their teachers.

Table 8.

Responsibilities Related to Autonomous Learning of English and Gender.

Item	Responsibility
	Gender	Yours	Your Teacher’s	Both
1. To ensure you make progress during English lessons	Males	8.6%	55.7%	35.7%
1. To ensure you make progress during English lessons	Females	8.6%	44.3%	47.1%
2. To ensure you make progress outside class	Males	67.1%	14.3%	18.6%
2. To ensure you make progress outside class	Females	62.9%	11.4%	25.7%
3. To stimulate your interest in learning English	Males	12.9%	45.7%	41.4%
3. To stimulate your interest in learning English	Females	17.1%	42.9%	40.0%
4. To identify your weaknesses in English	Males	7.1%	47.1%	45.7%
4. To identify your weaknesses in English	Females	8.6%	31.4%	60.0%
5. To decide the objectives of your English course	Males	4.3%	87.1%	8.6%
5. To decide the objectives of your English course	Females	1.4%	90.0%	8.6%
6. To decide what you should learn next in your English lessons	Males	7.1%	82.9%	10.0%
	Females	2.9%	84.3%	12.9%
7. To choose what activities to use to learn English in your English lessons	Males	1.4%	75.7%	22.9%
	Females	0%	72.9%	27.1%
8. To decide how long to spend on each activity	Males	5.7%	77.1%	17.1%
8. To decide how long to spend on each activity	Females	7.1%	75.7%	17.1%
9. To choose what materials to use to learn English in our English lessons	Males	2.9%	85.7%	11.4%
	Females	2.9%	84.3%	12.9%
10. To evaluate your learning of English	Males	4.3%	42.9%	51.4%
	Females	7.1%	42.9%	50.0%

Abilities to Act Autonomously and Gender

According to results shown in Table 9 (α = .75 ≥ 0.05), there were no statistically significant differences in the learners’ abilities to act autonomously while learning English as a foreign language due to gender. That is, both males and females perceive themselves as having the abilities to learn autonomously.

Table 9.

Acting Autonomously and Gender.

		N	Mean	Standard Deviation	Standard Error Mean	Significance
Abilities to act autonomously	Male	70	3.24	0.63	0.075	0.75
Abilities to act autonomously	Female	70	3.27	0.67	.080

Table 10.

Practices of Autonomous Learning and Gender.

		N	Mean	Standard Deviation	Standard Error Mean	Significance
Practices of Autonomous Activities	Male	70	2.86	0.59	0.071	0.04
Practices of Autonomous Activities	Female	70	3.06	0.59	0.071

Practices of Autonomous Learning Activities and Gender

According to the above table, results of the t-test showed that statistically significant differences (sig= 0.04 ≤ .05) were found among learners’ practices of autonomous English learning activities in the last semester due to gender. The difference was in favor of female students, as the mean of their practices of autonomous activities (M= 3.06) was higher compared with male students (M=2.86).

Discussion

Autonomous Learning and Responsibilities

Regarding the learners’ overall perceptions of the responsibilities related to autonomous learning the results revealed that learners perceived their teachers as responsible for most of the areas related to their learning. This is not surprising at all considering the spoon-feeding and teacher-centered instructional practices that has overwhelmed the Palestinian education system for a long time. These results are consistent with the results reached by Chan, Spratt and Humphrey (2002), Yildirim (2008) and Ustunluoglu (2009). It is worth noting that their studies were conducted in different educational contexts.

The roles of the teachers in these cultures seems to be similar. At least in the Palestinian educational context such results are not surprising. Palestinian students view their teachers as solely responsible for their learning. These learners are not encouraged to take control and become autonomous learners. This is due in large part to the nature of the teaching/learning process in the Palestinian context. Learners come from schools where they are used to the spoon-feeding style of teaching. Teachers usually control the teaching process without engaging students. This might justify the reasons behind learners’ view of deciding the objectives of English lessons, the materials to be used and what should be learnt in their English classes as their teachers’ main responsibility.

Most, if not all, of the EFL teachers in Palestine are English language and literature majors who are graduates of English language and literature departments without any formal teacher training. This lack of teacher training that the current in-service teachers suffered from might be one of the main reasons that they adopted the spoon-feeding teaching style without trying to challenge and engage students. This traditional approach by teachers will definitely fail to promote autonomous learning among students.

Participants’ perceptions of who is responsible for ensuring their progress during English lessons, stimulating their interest in learning English and evaluating their progress are different according to the participants’ levels of achievement in English Proficiency. Low achievers (those who have unsatisfactory command of the English language) viewed the previous activities as their teachers’ main responsibilities. On the other hand, high achievers (those who have a satisfactory command of the English language) viewed them as a shared responsibility with their teachers. It seems that doing well in learning English motivates students to be responsible and to take some control over their learning. Some research, such as Schmenk’s (2006), calls this an ‘automization process’, where high achievers start accepting some responsibility for their own learning. Low achievers continue to depend on their teachers entirely. Thus, improving students’ achievement in English and focusing on their strengths is critical for motivating them, and consequently assisting them to become autonomous learners responsible for their own learning or at least sharing the responsibility with their teachers.

Learners’ readiness for autonomy was also found to be different based on the participants’ gender. Females perceived that both ensuring making progress during English lessons and identifying their weaknesses as a shared responsibility with their teachers. On the contrary, males perceived both areas as their teachers’ responsibility. Such results could be explained on the basis that in the Palestinian culture girls are raised in a way that promotes the sense of shared responsibility for oneself and others, especially close family members. Furthermore, girls are motivated by the need to be educated and be successful as a means towards having a decent life. Education for them is the only way of securing their future. Further, 95% of the English majors are female students. It could be argued that females’ sense of responsibility toward their progress in learning English, and in identifying their strengths and weaknesses was due to their intrinsic motivation and linguistic abilities to learning English as a foreign language.

Autonomous Learning and Abilities

Participants’ perceptions of their abilities to act autonomously when learning English as a foreign language were positive. Learners perceived themselves as capable, if they were given the chance, to act autonomously when learning English as a foreign language. Such abilities need to be explored and nurtured by EFL teachers who are willing to provide their students with the opportunity to act autonomously and take charge of their own learning. Training students to be autonomous learners will definitely contribute to and improve their English skills. For instance, EFL teachers could train their students to use self-assessment to gauge their learning and improvement. Xhaferi and Xhaferi (2011), Lo (2010), Şirina and Büyükduman (2010) found using portfolios, for example, as a self-assessment and reflective tool was effective in enhancing autonomous learning.

In addition, learners’ perceptions of their abilities to act autonomously are not affected by their level of achievement or gender. The results of the t-tests showed that neither student’s level of achievement nor their gender had a statistically significant relationship with learners’ perceptions of their abilities. This might be due to the expectations that students at university level will act as independent individuals. The irony is that culturally speaking males and females (even during their studies at university) continue depending on their families in all aspects including financial and emotional support. Students perceive themselves to be acting autonomously but at university they depend on their teachers and at home they depend on their parents. If that is the case, then they should depend on themselves not on their teachers and parents. Perception is not enough.

Autonomous Learning Activities

There are a myriad of learning activities, inside and outside classrooms, which learners could engage in to improve their English language proficiency. Pertaining to the outside-of-class activities, results showed learners were highly engaged in watching English TV programs, listening to English songs and activating prior knowledge while studying. Technology has made it easy for students to have access to various English programs. It appears that students take advantage of this ease of access for entertainment in their leisure time not to learn English, but for fun. Learning and acquiring English through such programs is a by-product. Training students to take advantage of such resources, especially the internet, will assist them in becoming autonomous learners outside and inside classrooms.

Other external resources that students could be encouraged to take advantage of to improve their English skills are reading English newspapers and talking to foreigners. As the results of the study showed such activities had the lowest means. Such a result is not at all surprising. These students had been taught English by teachers who had no formal training in teaching English as a foreign language. In addition, the English language skills (listening, speaking, reading and writing) are not taught appropriately at all. The author had observed a large number of English classrooms each year. Through those observations it became clear that the teaching of English as a foreign language was at best mediocre.

Students’ engagement in the learning process is essential in an effective learning process. For example their practice of addressing questions to the teacher when they did not understand had the highest mean as the data showed. Scharle and Szabó, (2000) consider such activities to be autonomous since learners are not merely passive recipients of knowledge. However, the other in-classroom activities, such as making suggestions to the English teacher, had medium means. These results are positive in the sense that students are active participants in the learning process. But making suggestions is not enough. However, this result is surprising given the traditional approach that their untrained teachers use.

Well-trained teachers are expected to motivate, inspire and improve students’ achievement. High achieving students, as the results showed, practiced more autonomous learning activities than low achievers. This result might be justified by the claim that high achievers might have higher motivation toward learning English as a foreign language that contributed positively to their achievement. Moreover, in order for them to maintain their high level of achievement they resorted to autonomous activities. Therefore, it is critical to have well-trained qualified teachers who are motivating and inspiring. The results of the study reveal an environment in which students have been taught by untrained teachers. Imagine if those students had been instructed by a group of well-trained teachers who had been equipped with the state of the art development in K-12 education. I believe we would see better than expected results if this were the case.

The differences in practicing autonomous activities due to gender were also investigated. Females practiced more autonomous activities to learn English than males as the results of the t-test showed. Such results might be attributed to a conclusion that females might be more interested in learning English compared with male students. As mentioned earlier in this paper, 90% of the students in the English department at the university where the author teaches who are majoring in English are females. Another reason for practicing more activities to improve one’s English might be that female students believe that having a good command of English adds to their sophistication, elegance and prestige. So their belief was that speaking a foreign language, especially English, makes them appear to be cool and special.

In conclusion, the current study emphasized the need for training and raising students’ awareness of the benefits of becoming autonomous learners. Such a vital topic needs to be explored and investigated at all levels and in diverse educational contexts. The current study reinforced the need for more scientific research, showed how the educational context affects the understanding and implementation of autonomous learning strategies in and outside the classroom, and the critical need for integrating autonomous learning in the process of learning and teaching. Further research is needed in different contexts to compare the results.

Footnotes

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

References

American Psychological Association (1997) Learner-centered Psychological Principles: A Framework for School Reform and Redesign. Washington, D C: American Psychological Association. Available at: http://www.apa.org/ed/governance/bea/learner-centered.pdf

Bayat

(2010) The effects of out-of-class use of English on autonomy perception. In: Gardner

(ed.) Fostering Autonomy in Language Learning. Gaziantep: Zirve University. Available at: http://ilac2010.zirve.edu.tr

Benson

(2006) Autonomy in language teaching and learning. Language Teaching 40(01) 21–42.

Brown

(2003) Learner-centered conditions that ensure students’ success in learning. Education 124(1): 99–107. Available at: http://www.ebsco.com

Brown

(2003) From teacher-centered to learner centered curriculum: improving learning in diverse classrooms. Education 124(1): 49–54. Available at: http://www.ebsco.com

Bryman

(2008) Social Research Methods (3rd edn). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Carlile

Jordan

(2005) IT works in practice but will it work in theory? The theoretical underpinnings of pedagogy. Emerging Issues in the Practice of University Learning and Teaching. O’Neill

Moore

McMullin

(eds). Dublin: AISHE.

Chan

Spratt

Humphrey

(2002) Autonomous language learning: Hong Kong tertiary students’ attitudes and behaviour. Evaluation and Research in Education 16(1):1–18.

Cheng

Lin

(2010) Exploring students’ perceptions of self-access English learning. Procedia –Social and Behavioral Sciences 2: 2676–80.

10.

Dam

(2011) Developing learner autonomy with school kids: principles, practices, results. In: Gardner

(ed.) Fostering Autonomy in Language Learning. Gaziantep: Zirve University. Available at: http://ilac2010.zirve.edu.tr

11.

Dafei

(2007) An exploration of the relationship between learner autonomy and English proficiency. Asian EFL Journal 24(4): 24–34.

12.

Demirtas

Sert

(2010) English education at university level: who is at the centre of the learning process. Research on Youth and Language 4(2): 159–72.

13.

Egel

(2009) Learner autonomy in the language classroom: from teacher dependency to learner independency. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 1: 2023–26.

14.

Gobel

Mori

(2006) Motivation and gender in the Japanese EFL classroom. System 34(2): 194–210.

15.

Groû

Wolff

(2001) A multimedia tool to develop learner autonomy. Computer Assisted Language Learning 14(3–4): 233–49.

16.

Holec

(1981) Autonomy and foreign language learning. Oxford: Pergamon.

17.

Hozayen

( 2011) Egyptian students’ readiness for autonomous language learning. In: Gardner

(ed.) Fostering Autonomy in Language Learning. Gaziantep: Zirve University. Available at: http://ilac2010.zirve.edu.tr

18.

Lai

(2009) Language strategy use and English proficiency of university freshmen in Taiwan. TESOL Quarterly 43(2): 255–80.

19.

Little

(2003) Learner autonomy and second/foreign language learning. Available at: http://www.lang.ltsn.ac.uk/resources/goodpractice.aspx?resourceid=140

20.

Littlewood

(2000) Do Asian students really want to listen and obey? ELT Journal 54(1): 31–36.

21.

( 2010) Implementing reflective portfolios for promoting autonomous learning among EFL college students in Taiwan. Language Teaching Research 14(1): 77–95.

22.

Maftoon

Daftarifard

Lavasani

(2011) Good language learner: from autonomy perspective. Linguistic and Literary Broad Research and Innovation 2(1): 104.

23.

Mineishi

(2010) East Asian EFL learners’ autonomous learning, learner perception on autonomy and portfolio development: in the case of educational contexts in Japan. International Journal of Arts and Sciences 3(17): 234–41.

24.

Ming

(2009) Investigating autonomy of Malaysian ESL learners: a comparison between public and private universities. 3L: language, linguistics & literature. The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies 15: 97–124.

25.

Ministry of Education and Higher Education (2010) Commission for Developing the Teaching Profession–CDTP. Ramallah, Palestine: Ministry of Education.

26.

Murphy

(2011) Autonomy and context: a tale of two learners. In: Gardner

(ed.) Fostering Autonomy in Language Learning. Gaziantep: Zirve University. Available at: http://ilac2010.zirve.edu.tr

27.

Neupane

(2010) Learner autonomy: concept and considerations. Journal of NELTA 15(1–2): 114–20.

28.

Noytim

(2010) Weblogs enhancing EFL students’ English language learning. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 2: 1127–32.

29.

Pop

(2010) The impact of the new technologies in foreign language instruction our experience. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 2: 1185–89.

30.

Scharle

Szabo

(2000) Learner Autonomy: A Guide for Learner Responsibility. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

31.

Şirina

Büyükduman

( 2010) Learning portfolio (LP) to enhance constructivism and student autonomy. Procedia–Social and Behavioral Sciences 3: 55–61.

32.

Thanasoulas

(2000) What is learner autonomy and how it can be fostered? The Internet TESLJ Journal VI (11). Available at: http://iteslj.org

33.

The Oslo Accords Between Israel and Palestine (1993) Declaration of Principles On Interim Self-Government Arrangements. Oslo, Norway.

34.

Tok

(2011) Autonomous language learning: Turkish tertiary students’ behaviours. In: Gardner

(ed.) Fostering Autonomy in Language Learning. Gaziantep: Zirve University. Available at: http://ilac2010.zirve.edu.tr

35.

Tonkiss

(2004) Analysing text and speech: content and discourse analysis. In: Seale

(ed.) Researching Society and Culture (2nd edn). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

36.

Ustunluoglu

(2009) Autonomy in language learning: do students take responsibility for their learning? Journal of Theory and Practice in Education 5(2): 148–69.

37.

Varol

Yilmaz

(2010) Similarities and differences between female and male learners: inside and outside class autonomous language learning activities. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 3: 237–44.

38.

Vickers

Ene

(2006) Grammatical accuracy and learner autonomy in advanced writing. ELT Journal 60(2): 109–16.

39.

Wang

(2010) How to develop college students’ autonomous English learning skills –take reading course in joint-program in HCFT as an example. English Language Teaching 3(3): 221–28.

40.

Xhaferi

(2011) Developing learner autonomy in higher education in Macedonia. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 11: 150–54.

41.

Yildirim

(2008) Turkish EFL learners’ readiness for learner autonomy. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies 4(1): 65–80.