Tài liệu A survey on the relationship between learner autonomy and english proficiency of the institute of international studies efl students

M IN IS T R Y O F E D U C A T IO N A N D T R A IN IN G H A N O I U N IV E R S IT Y DOAN THU HUONG A SURVEY ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LEARNER AUTONOMY AND ENGLISH PROFICIENCY OF THE INSTITUTE OF INTERNATIONAL STUDIES EFL STUDENTS SUBM ITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILM ENT OF REQUIREM ENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF M ASTER IN TESOL S U P E R V IS O R : Assoc. Prof. H anoi A pril 2010 Dr. N G U Y E N V A N DO STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP I certify that the thesis entitled "A Survey on the R elationship betw een L earner A utonom y and English P roficiency o f the Institute o f International Studies EFL S tudents’’ and subm itted in partial fulfillm ent o f the requirem ents for the degree o f M aster o f A rts in TESO L is the result o f m y w ork, except w here otherw ise acknow ledged, and that this thesis o f any part o f the sam e has not been subm itted for higher degree to any other university or institution. The research reported in this thesis w as approved by H anoi U niversity. Signed: Dated: TABLE OF CONTENTS S T A T E M E N T O F A U T H O R S H I P ......................................................................................................................................I T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S ...................................................................................................................................................... IL A C K N O W L E D G E M E N T S ................................................................................................................................................IV A B S T R A C T ............................................................................................................................................................................... V L IS T O F ABBREV I A T I O N S ............................................................................................................................................ V I L IS T O F T A B L E S ................................................................................................................................................................V II L IS T O F F I G U R E S ........................................................................................................................................................... V III C H A P T E R I : I N T R O D U C T I O N ........................................................................................................................................1 1.1 .B a c k g r o u n d t o t h e s t u d y .........................................................................................................................................1 1.2. A ims and re se a rc h q u e s t i o n s ................................................................................................................................3 1.3. S cope of t h e s t u d y ......................................................................................................................................................3 1.4. S ignificance of th e st u d y ........................................................................................................................................3 1.5. O rganizat ion of th e t h e s i s .................................................................................................................................... 4 C H A P T E R 2: L I T E R A T U R E R E V I E W ...................................................................................................................... 6 2.1. LEARNER AUTONOMY.................................................................................................................................................... 6 2.1.1. D efinition o f learner autonom y...........................................................................................................................6 2.1.2. Factors affecting learner autonom y ............................................................................................................ 10 2.2. L an g uage p r o f i c i e n c y ............................................................................................................................................15 2.2.1. D efinition............................................................................................................................................................. 15 2.2.2. C lassification...................................................................................................................................................... 17 2.3. LEARNER AUTONOMY AND LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY........................................................................................... 21 2.4. S u m m a r y .......................................................................................................................................................................25 C H A P T E R 3: M E T H O D O L O G Y ...................................................................................................................................26 3.1. R sear ch m e t h o d s .................................................................................................................................................... 26 3.2. researc h q u e st io n and des criptions of v a r ia b l e s ................................................................................... 27 3.2.1. Research question............................................................................................................................................... 27 3.2.2. D escription o f va ria b le s....................................................................................................................................28 3.3 DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENTS.............................................................................................................................. 28 3.3.1. Q uestionnaire....................................................................................................................................................... 29 3.3.2. The TOEFL test.................................................................................................................................................... 31 3.3.3. The Interview ....................................................................................................................................................... 33 3.4. THE SUBJECTS................................................................................................................................................................ 35 3.5. D ata collectio n pr o c e d u r e s ..............................................................................................................................37 3.6. DATA ANALYSIS......................................................................................................................................................... 38 3.6.1. Q uestionnaire data analysis............................................................................................................................ 38 3.6.2. TOEFL test data a n a ly sis................................................................................................................................39 3.6.3. The analysis o f the correlation between two variables: ELP a n d L earner autonom y.................... 39 3.7. CODING SCHEME FOR THE QUESTIONNAIRE............................................................................................................41 C H A P T E R 4: R E S U L T S AN D D I S C U S S I O N ...........................................................................................................42 4. l . T he s tu d e n t s ’ b a c k g r o u n d in f o r m a t i o n ......................................................................................................42 4.2. THE LEVEL OF S TU D EN TS’ A U T O N O M Y .....................................................................................................43 4.2.1. The results o f the questionnaires.................................................................................................................... 43 4.2.2. D iscussion o f the questionnaire re su lts........................................................................................................ 46 4.3. T he st u d e n t s ’ English l a n guage p r o f ic ie n c y ............................................................................................ 49 4.3.1. S tu d e n ts’ TOEFL sco rep s................................................................................................................................. 50 4.3.2. D iscussion o f s tu d e n ts' E L P ........................................................................................................................ 52 4.4. T he s t u d e n t s ’ ELP a n d t hei r lea r n er a u t o n o m y ...................................................................................... 53 4.4.1. The results o f determ ining the form , direction a n d degree o f the correlation by regression analysis.................................................................................................................................................................................54 4.4.2. The results o f determ ining the relationship betw een students ' ELP a n d their Learner autonom y w ith P aired Sam ples T -test............................................................................................................................................ 56 4.4.3. D iscussion o f the results o f the association betw een students ' learner autonom y and their E LP.................................................. .'.................................................................................................. ."...............................58 4.5. S u m m a r y ........................................................................................................................................................................ 59 C H A P T E R 5: I M P L I C A T I O N S AN D C O N C L U S I O N ...........................................................................................60 5.1. 5.2. 5.3. 5.4. I m pl ic a t io n s ..................................................................................................................................................................60 L imitations of t h e s t u d y ....................................................................................................................................... 62 R ec o m m en d a tio n s f or f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h ......................................................................................................63 C o n c l u s i o n ...................................................................................................................................................................63 R E F E R E N C E S ......................................................................................................................................................................... 65 A P P E N D IX 1: L E V E L S O F E N G L I S H P R O F I C I E N C Y AN D C O R R E S P O N D I N G S T U D E N T A C T I O N S ....................................................................................................................................................................................74 A P P E N D IX 2: D E S C R I P T I O N S O F S E V E N L E V E L S O F E N G L I S H L A N G U A G E P R O F I C I E N C Y BY W I S C O N S I N A D M I N I S T R A T I V E R U L E ............................................................................................................ 75 A P P E N D IX 3: E N G L I S H P R O F I C I E N C Y L E V E L D E S C R I P T I O N S A D A P T E D F R O M G U ID E L IN E S IS S U E D BY T H E N O R T H C A R O L I N A D E P A R T M E N T O F E D U C A T IO N ..E R R O R ! BO O K M A RK N O T D EFIN ED .76 A P P E N D IX 4.1: ( E N G L IS H V E R S IO N ) Q U E S T I O N N A I R E ........................................................................... 78 A P P E N D IX 4.2: ( V I E T N A M E S E V E R S I O N ) ............................................................................................................82 A P P E N D I X 5: T H E T O E F L T E S T ................................................................................................................................. 86 A P P E N D I X 6: T A B L E O F T O E F L C O N V E R T E D S C O R E .............................................................................110 A P P E N D I X 7: I N T E R V I E W Q U E S T I O N S ................................................................................................................I l l A P P E N D IX 8: C O D I N G S C H E M E F O R T H E Q U E S T I O N N A I R E ............................................................... 112 A P P E N D I X 9: R E S U L T S O F T H E S T U D E N T S ’ B A C K G R O U N D Q U E S T I O N N A I R E .......................114 A P P E N D I X 10: S T U D E N T S ' T O E F L S C O R E S .....................................................................................................115 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to express my thanks to m any people w ho have assisted m y research work. 1 w ish, first o f all, to express m y deepest gratitude to m y supervisor, A ssoc. Prof. Dr. N guyen Van Do for his academ ic guidance, encouragem ent, insightful com m ents and support throughout my research. W ithout his invaluable assistance, m y thesis w ould not have been com pleted. M y special w ords o f thanks also go to the M anagem ent Board o f the D epartm ent o f Postgraduate Studies o f the H anoi U niversity for their consideration and enthusiasm in helping me to pursue the course. M y particular thanks go to Ms. N guyen Thai Ha, M .Ed, for her useful advice, criticism and support while the research w as being done. 1 would also like to thank m y colleagues and students at IIS w ho have helped m e to collect data for this study. Last, but not at all least, I am deeply indebted to all the love, support, great care and encouragem ent that m y fam ily has alw ays provided me in m y professional endeavors. iv ABSTRACT The learning o f E nglish as a foreign language (E FL ) in V ietnam is gaining popularity and im portance as V ietnam opens its doors econom ically and culturally to the w orld at large. This has resulted in a large num ber o f students enrolling in EFL courses at colleges and universities across the country. The purpose o f this study w as to explore w hat relationship betw een students" E nglish language proficiency (E L P) and their learner autonom y was. In order to reach the research purpose, a sam ple o f 50 non-E nglish m ajors at IIS w as chosen. The data o f the subjects w ere collected by m eans o f the questionnaire adapted from Dafei (2007), designed by Z hang and Li (2004), a TO E FL test and an interview as supplem entary inform ation. The adapted questionnaire consists o f 27 questions relating to learning autonom y. The T O E FL test used in this study w as taken from Longman Preparation Course for the TOEFL Test - the Paper Test by D eborah Philips. The collected data from the questionnaire and T O E F L test w ere com puted and analyzed by m eans o f descriptive analysis and Paired Sam ples T-test with SPSS 16.0. The results o f the study revealed that the stu d en ts7 E LP w as not high w hile their learner autonom y w as at the high degree. Furtherm ore, the results o f the research also indicated that stu d e n ts’ E LP w as significantly and positively related to their learner autonom y. Thus, the findings o f the study argues for an understanding o f language learner autonom y in w hich the developm ent o f learner autonom y and the grow th o f target language proficiency are m utually supporting and fully integrated w ith each other. It further argues that only on the basis o f such an understanding can learner autonom y m ove to the centre o f language teaching theory and practice. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS BICS: Basic Interpersonal C om m unicative Skills CALP: C ognitive A cadem ic Language Proficiency CTBS: C om prehensive Tests o f Basic Skills EFL: English as a Foreign Language ELL: English Language L earners ELP: English language proficiency ESL: English as a Second Language IELTS: International English Language T esting Service IIS: Institute o f International Studies LEP: Lim ited English Proficient LP: Language proficiency M: M ean M ELA B: M ichigan E nglish L anguage A ssessm ent B attery N: N um ber o f respondents SAT-9: Stanford A chievem ent Test, ninth edition. SD: Standard D eviation SLA: Second Language A cquisition SRS: sim ple random sam ple TO EFL: Test o f E nglish as a F oreign L anguage TS: TO EFL Score P: Probability value PBT: Paper-based test R: C orrelation coefficient RFEP: R edesignated Fluent E nglish Proficient W TO: W orld Trade O rganization LIST OF TABLES Table 2.1: 1PT Proficiency Levels Table 3.1: The TO EFL PBT test Table 3.2: O bserved M inim um and M axim um TO EFL PBT Section and Total scores. Table 3.3: Background inform ation o f inform ants o f the survey Table 4.1 : The Results o f the questionnaire (Part 2 and Part 3) Table 4.2: The Results o f the Individual Item s o f the Q uestionnaire Table 4.3: IIS Students’ ELP Table 4.4: The R egression o f the Correlation betw een Students’ ELP and Their Learner A utonom y Table 4.5: The Size o f the C oefficient o f the C orrelation betw een Students’ ELP and Their L earner A utonom y Table 4.6: The C oefficients in the Pattern Table 4.7: Means and Standard Deviations o f the students’ ELP and Learner Autonomy Table 4.8: C orrelation o f ELP and Learner A utonom y Table 4.9: Paired t-test A nalysis o f the students’ ELP and L earner A utonom y LIST OF FIGURES Figure 4.1: The Results o f the Individual Item s o f the Q uestionnaire Figure 4.2: Frequency distribution for English language proficiency levels as measured by TOEFL (N= 50) Figures 4.3: Percentage distribution for English language proficiency levels as measured by TOEFL (N— 50) CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION T his chapter introduces lo u r sections relating to background to the study; the aim s and the research questions o f the study; the scope o f the study; the significance o f the study and organization o f the thesis. 1.1. B ackgrou n d to th e study F or a long tim e, E FL learning is considered to be inefficient. S tudents are too teacherd ependent w ithout the initiative to learn on th eir ow n. But the fact is: no school, o r even university, can p ro v id e its pupils w ith all the know ledge and the skills they will need in their active adult lives. M cG arry (1995: 1) notes that "The m ajority o f students are still being taught in w ays w hich prom ote dependence and leave them ill-equipped to apply their school-learnt know ledge and skills to the w orld beyond the classroom ", and from this w e m ay reco g n ise that the role o f the teach er in p rom oting autonom y m ay be central to its success. It is m ore im portant for a young person to have an understanding o f h im s e lf or herself, an aw areness o f the environm ent and its w orkings, and to have learned how to th in k and h ow to learn (T rim , 1988). In this background, learn er a u tonom y is b e c o m in g a buzzw ord w ithin the context o f E FL teaching. L earn er autonom y has g rad u ally com e into existence since the 1970s as a consequence o f a new shift in interest in studies on language learning: learners have gradually been view ed as p roducers o f lan g u ag e and less as learners o f a system im posed on them by society. F o llow ing H olec (1979) it m ay be further assum ed that this shift had its origin in a ch an g in g attitude tow ards the relationship betw een the individual and society: in d ividuals have com e to be seen m ore and m ore as producers rath er than products o f society. A s G rem m o o bserves (1995: 151), the last 25 years have seen an increasing am o u n t o f a ttention to lea rn er autonom y, ind iv id u alized /in d ep en d en t self-directed learning in learning, second language self-access learning system s literature and (e.g. H arding-E sch [Ed.] 1976; A ltm an & Jam es [Eds.] 1980; H olec 1980; 1981; 1985; 1987; 1988; G eddes & S turtridge 1982; M ason [Ed.] 1984; R iley 1985; 1988; 1996; D ick in so n 1978; 1987; 1988; 1992; 1995; W enden & R ubin [Eds.] 1987; B rookes & G rundy [eds.] 1988; E llis & S inclair 1989; L ittle 1989; 1991; 1995; Sheerin 1989; 1991; G athercole [Ed.] 1990; W enden 1991b; Page 1992; E sch 1994; 1996a; 1996b; G ardner & M iller [Eds.] 1996; D am 1995; D ickinson & W enden [Eds.] 1995; Pem berton el a/. [Fids.] 1996; B enson & V oller [Eds.] 1997; C otterall 2000; cited in Finch, 2002). A ccording to B enson (2000: 1, cited in D afei, 2007), in the field o f second and foreign language teach in g and learning, as the theory and practice o f language teaching enters a new century, the im portance o f helping students becom e m ore autonom ous in their learning has becom e one o f its m ore prom inent them es. There are tw'O general argum ents in favor o f try in g to m ake learners m ore autonom ous. First, if they are reflectively engaged w ith th eir learning, it is likely to be m ore efficient and effective because w hat is learned in educational contexts is m ore likely to serve learn ers’ w ider agendas. Second, if learners are proactively com m itted to their learning, the pro b lem o f m otivation is by d efinition solved; in the particular case o f second and foreign languages, there is a third argum ent. E ffective com m unication depends on a co m plex set o f procedural skills that develop only through use; and if language learning depends crucially on language use, learners w ho enjoy a high degree o f social autonom y in their learning env ironm ent should find it easier than otherw ise to m aster the full range o f discourse roles on w hich effective spontaneous com m unication depends (Little, 2000, cited in D afei, 2007). In oth er w ords, learner autonom y is one o f the m ost im portant issues that determ ine w hether an individual reaches his/her potential or falls short of that potential. Few w ould doubt that learner autonom y in language learning can lead to positive learning outcom es, such as increased proficiency in the target language and the developm ent o f life-long learners. O ne o f the reasons w hy the relationship betw een autonom y and language proficiency has becom e a critical issue in recent years is that researchers are increasingly beginning to understand that there is an intim ate relationship betw een autonom y and effective learning. H ow ever, to date very little research has focused ex p licitly on the relation betw een learner autonom y, the processes o f language learning and the developm ent o f proficiency in the target language (an im portant ex ception is the w ork o f D am and L egenhausen: D am & L egenhausen, 1996, 1997; L egenhausen, 1999, 2001, 2003) and this relationship has largely been explored at the level o f theory, and lacks substantial em pirical support. A nother reason is that w orld-w ide concern w ith accountability in education is increasingly obliging teach ers to dem onstrate the effectiveness o f th eir practices in term s o f proficiency gains. F rom this theoretical background, the researcher o f current study raised a question o f w hat the relationship betw een learner autonom y and E nglish proficiency o f the students at the Institute o f International Studies was. O ne o f the m ost serious problem s that the EFL students at IIS face in their field o f study is th eir inability to com m unicate and handle E nglish after graduating from university. M ost o f them have little degree o f capability in language use and its com ponents, in other w ords, they have low ability or proficiency in E nglish language use and usage. The term "capability" can refer to the ability o f the exam inee to recognize, com prehend, or produce language elem ents, in other w ords, " ... at a given point in tim e the language learner m ay be a listener, speaker or both" (F arhady et a l , 1994). H aving graduated, IIS EFL students in general seem not to be as p roficient and qualified in language u se and com ponents as m ight be expected. In other w ords, they fail to understand fully the context o f language use - the contexts o f discourse and situations. For bo th practical and theoretical reasons, therefore, there is a pressing need for the research er to carry out this study to explore w h at th e relation sh ip betw een lea rn e r a u to n o m y a n d the IIS stu den ts ’ E n glish p ro fic ie n c y is. 1.2. A im s and research questions T he study aim ed to investigate the relationship betw een stu d e n ts’ ELP and their learner autonom y. To achieve this aim , answ ers to the follow ing research questions w as sought: 1. H o w autonom ous are the students at IIS? 2. W h at is the E LP level o f the IIS students? 3. W hat is the relationship betw een the stu d en ts’ E LP and their learner autonom y? 1.3. S cop e o f the study A s the title o f the study has indicated, the focus o f the study is on (1) the stu d e n ts’ ELP at IIS; (2) stu d e n ts’ learner autonom y degree and (3) the relationship betw een the stu d e n ts’ ELP and their learner autonom y. 1.4. S ign ifican ce o f the study A s m entioned earlier in the 'b a c k g ro u n d to the stu d y ’ section, one o f the m ost serious problem s that the EFL students at IIS face in th eir field o f study is their inability to 3 com m unicate and handle English after grad u atin g from university. H aving graduated, the IIS students in general seem not to be as proficient and qualified in language use and com ponents as m ight be expected. N ow adays, in the field o f second and foreign language teaching and learning, helping students becom e m ore autonom ous in their learning has becom e one o f its m ore pro m in en t them es (B enson, 2001:1 quoted in D afei, 2007) and a num ber o f ju stifica tio n s for advocating learner autonom y in language learning have been proposed (F inch, 2002). M oreover, the developm ent o f autonom y im plies better language learning. T his is one o f the three hypotheses w hich alm ost all research in the field o f autonom y is based on, and has im plications for (B enson, 2001:183). A dditionally, according to the Principles and Guidelines that define the ELP and its functions (Council o f Europe 2000/2004), the ELP “is a tool to prom ote learner autonom y” . T herefore, exploring the relationship betw een stu d e n t's ELP and th eir learner autonom y is particularly necessary and helpful. C arrying out the study, the researcher hopes that its findings w ould help her to know the level o f ELP and degree o f learner au tonom y o f the IIS students and the relationship b etw een them . K now ing this inform ation w ould help the researcher and her colleagues at IIS im prove E nglish teaching and learning process in order to develop stu d en ts’ ELP as well as foster their learner autonom y. 1.5. O rgan ization o f the thesis T his thesis is divided into five chapters. C h a p ter 1, ‘In tro d u c tio n ’, deals w ith the rationale, specific purposes, aim s, research q uestions, scope, significance and o rg anization o f the study. C h a p ter 2, ‘L iterature rev ie w ’, review s the literature relevant to learner autonom y, L anguage proficiency (L P) in general and E nglish language proficiency (E L P) in particular, classification system s o f LP and ELP. It also sum m arizes som e studies on learn er autonom y that have been conducted so far. The results o f previous studies into factors affecting learner autonom y, and the effect o f learner autonom y on successful learning are also enclosed in this chapter. C h ap ter 3, ‘M e th o d o lo g y ’, presents the research m ethodology o f the study. It provides inform ation about the participants, selections o f sam ple, data collection instrum ents, data collection procedures and data analysis. 4 C h ap ter 4, 'R e s u lts and d isc u ssio n ', reports and discusses the m ain findings obtained from the d ata c o llectio n and data analysis w ith the support o f SPSS, version 16.0 in co m p arisio n w ith the results o f p rev io u s studies. C h ap ter 5, 'Im p lic a tio n s and conclusion", sum m arises the findings, p resents the im plications, points out lim itations o f the study and finally gives som e suggestions for further research and conclusion. F ollow ing c h a p te r 5 is a reference o f books or m aterials directly or indirectly quoted in the study. T he a p p en d ices inclu d in g S urface and D eeper levels o f L anguage proficiency. L ev els o f E n glish P ro ficien cy and C orresponding Student A ctions, The L evels o f E n glish L anguage, D escrip tio n s o f Seven Levels o f E nglish L anguage P roficiency by W isco n sin A d m in istrativ e R ule, E nglish Proficiency Level D escriptions adapted from G u id e lin e s issued by the N orth C arolina D epartm ent o f E ducation, q uestionnaire (E n g lish and V ietn am ese versions), T O E F L test, T able o f T O E F L converted S core, In terv iew Q u estio n s, C oding Schem e for the Q uestionnaire and the S tu d en ts' T O E F L S cores w ill be follow ed the reference section. 5 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW W ith the stated research questions in m ind, the follow ing literature review ex p lo res key d efinitions related to the concept o f learner autonom y, factors affectin g learner autonom y, and language proficiency (LP) in general and E nglish language p roficiency (E L P) in particular. It also sum m aries som e studies on learner autonom y and language p roficiency that have been conducted so far. A ll o f these serve as a basis for an investigation into the relationship betw een stu d en ts' language proficiency and learner autonom y w hich is carried out and presented in the next chapter. 2.1. L earn er auton om y O ver the last 20 years, autonom y in language learning has been a topic o f w idespread discussion. Just as ‘com m u n icativ e' and ‘a u th e n tic ’ w;ere the buzzwrords o f the 1980s, learn er autonom y is fast becom ing o f the strategy o f choice in E FL teach in g in the 1990s (B roady and K enning, 1996; Little, 1990). G reat progress has been m ade in the exploration and im plem entation o f the concept o f autonom y. It is understan d ab le because autonom ous learners satisfy w hat dem ocratic societies require (H edge, 2000: 82) and also m eet the needs o f highly technological societies (K now les, 1976, cited in W enden and R ubin, 1987: 9). T herefore, learner autonom y has been attracted a num ber o f attentions o f researchers so far and it is a necessity to explore the basic co ncepts o f learn er autonom y by review ing the m ajo r definitions and factors affectin g learner autonom y. 2.1.1. D efin ition o f learn er autonom y T he term "learner autonom y" w'as first coined in 1981 by H enri H olec, the "father" o f learn er autonom y. M any definitions have since been given to the term , d epending on the w riter, the context and the level o f debate, educators have com e to. It has been considered as a personal hum an trait, as a political m easure or as an educational m ove. T his is because autonom y is seen either (or both) as a m eans or as an end in education. T he concept o f autonom y em erged from the changing socio-political landscape o f the 1970’s, w hich gave rise to an increase in social aw areness, and is based on the concept o f respect for the individual in society (H olec, 1979). W hile it is generally agreed th at learn er autonom y is an im portant and w orthy goal, defining learner au tonom y can be problem atic. There are differing view's as to w hat learner autonom y is and con seq u en tly 6 a nu m b er o f different view s on its im p licatio n for language education (B enson and V oller. 1997). For a defin itio n o f autonom y, D im itrios T hanasoulas quotes H olec (1981: 3, cited in B enson & V oller, 1997: 1) w ho describes it as “the ability to take charge o f one's learning", notin g that this ability “ is not inborn but m ust be acquired either by ‘n a tu ra l’ m eans or (as m ost often happens) by form al learning, i.e. in a system atic, deliberate w ay", and pointing out that “to take charge o f o n e 's learning is to have and to hold, the responsibility for all the decisions co ncerning all aspects o f this learning: (a) determ ining the objectives; (b) defining the contents and progressions; (c) selecting m ethods and techniques to be used; (d) m o nitoring the procedures o f acq u isitio n ; (e) ev aluating w hat has been acquired (H olec, 1981:3). A dditionally, L ittle (1991:4) considers it essentially as a capacity for “ detachm ent, critical reflection, decision-m aking and independent action” , w hich m ean s that the learner needs to develop the aw areness about w hat and h ow he learns. E ven in this sim ple d efinition it is clear that "autonom y" is not any one specific th in g - it is a capacity, and like any other capacity, it w ill grow w ith practice, or be lost through inactivity. As L ittle (1991: 4) explained, cast in a new perspective and regarded as u n d erstanding the purpose of th eir learning program m e, explicitly accepting responsibility for their learning, sharing in the setting o f learning goals, taking in itiatives in planning and executing learning activities, and regularly review ing their learning and evaluating its effectiveness, learners, autonom ous learners, th at is, are ex p ected to critically reflect on and take charge o f their ow n learning. T o Little, the autonom ous learner tak es a (pro-) active role in the learning process, generating ideas and av ailin g h im se lf o f learning opportunities, rather than sim ply reactin g to various stim uli o f the teacher. In other w ords, the autonom ous learner is a self-activated m aker o f m eaning, an active agent in his ow n learning process. H e is not one to w hom things m erely happen; he is the one w ho, by his ow n volition, causes things to happen (R athbone, 1971: 100 cited in C andy, 1991: 271). H ow ever, learner autonom y does not m ean that the teach er becom es red u n d an t abdicating his/her control o v er w hat is tran sp irin g in the language learning process. Instead, learner autonom y involves a dynam ic process learned at least partly through educational experiences and interventions (C andy, 1991. cited in T hanasoulas, 2000: 115). 7 T h e concept o f autonom y is explained by L ittlew ood (1996: 97) as "‘learn ers' ability and w illin g n ess to m ake choices independently". He goes on to elaborate by su g g estin g that ability depends on possessing both know ledge about the alternatives from w hich choice have to be m ade and necessary skills for carrying out w hatever choices seem m ost appropriate. W illingness depends on having both the m otivation and confidence to take responsibility for the choices required. W enden (1991:15), how ever, takes it as skills and describes autonom ous learners as those “ w ho have acquired the learning strategies, the know ledge about learning, and the attitu d es that enable them to use these skills and know ledge confidently, flexibly, appropriately and independently o f a teacher". As B enson (1997) rightly argues, au tonom y should be view ed from m ultiple perspectives, e.g., technical, psychological, socio-cultural and political-critical and au tonom y is a m ultidim ensional construct o f capacity that w ill take d ifferent form s for d ifferent individuals, and even for the sam e individual in different co n tex ts o r at d ifferent tim es” (B enson, 2 0 0 1 :47). B enson and V oller (1997) conclude that learner autonom y has been used in at least five w ays in language education: (a) for situations in w hich learners study entirely on their ow n; (b) for a set o f skills w hich can be learned and applied in self-directed learning; (c) for an inborn capacity w hich is suppressed by institutional education; (d) for the exercise o f learn ers' responsibility for th eir ow n learning; (e) for the right o f learners to d eterm ine the direction o f their ow n learning (B enson and V oller, 1997:1-2). N o m atter how people view learner autonom y, its essence is that learners take responsibility for th eir ow n learning and en joy the freedom o f choice. H ow ever, the freedom is never absolute, but alw ays conditional and constrained (Little, 1991), so that autonom ous learners are interdependent (B oud. 1988), w hich indicates that th ere exists a continuum o f degrees in learner autonom y. This is due to the fact that the ex ten t to w hich learners achieve autonom y depends on a variety o f factors, such as the lea rn ers’ ability to take responsibility, personal constructs, teacher support, p eer support, a v ailability and flexibility in learning environm ent (Little, 1991; N u n an , 1996; M cD evitt, 1997). T hese factors, indeed, have continua in them selves. F or exam ple, H iggs (1988:42) agrees that “ som e learners are m ore ready for independent learning than others". 8 From the above w e can clearly see that autonom y d o e sn 't im ply learning in isolation, learning w ithout a teach er o r learn in g o utside the classroom . N o r does au to n o m y im ply p articular skills and b eh av io rs and p articular m ethods o f organizing the teach in g and learning process. L earn er au to n o m y is characterized by a readiness and capacity to take charge o f o n e ’s o w n learn in g in the service o f o n e 's need and purposes. From this point o f view , au to n o m y in v o lv es abilities and attitudes that people possess, and can develop to various degrees. A ccording to T h an aso u las (2000), the relevant literature is riddled w'ith innum erable definitions o f au to n o m y and oth er synonym s for it, such as 'independence' (Sheerin, 1991), 'language aw aren ess' (L ier, 1996), 'self-direction' (C andy, 1991), 'andragogy' (K now les, 1980; 1983) etc., w hich testifies to the im portance attached to it by scholars. M any p ractitio n ers v iew the co n stru ct o f learn er autonom y as being sy n o n y m o u s w ith self-access and esp ecially w ith tech n o lo g y -b ased learning. E ven now adays autonom y is often associated w ith learn in g in isolation, outside the classroom and w'ithout a teacher. T his is a very p artial view . Since the capacity o f taking charge o f o n e ’s o w n learning is not innate but m u st be learned and developed, there is m uch need for guidance. A utonom y and a u to n o m o u s learning are not synonym s w ith ‘self-in stru ctio n 1, 'se lf access', 'self-study', 'o u t-o f-class learning' or 'distance learning'. These term s basically describe various w ay s and d eg rees o f learning by o n e’s self, w hereas au to n o m y refers to the abilities and attitu d es (o r w h a te v er w e think the capacity to control o n e 's ow n learning consists of). T he p o in t is, then, that learning in isolation is no t the sam e as having the c ap acity to d irect o n e 's o w n learning. A lso, autonom ous learners m ay well be better than o th ers at lea rn in g by th em selv es (hence the connection), b ut they do not n ecessarily have to learn by th em selv es. T hese tw'o concepts, how ever, do n ot have to exist com pletely in d ep en d en tly , as the ability to be able to w'ork in isolation can play a role in au to n o m o u s learning. A s m entioned above, th ere have been m any different definitions o f learn er autonom y. H o le c 's defin itio n is c h o sen as the b asis in this study. The reason for this choice is that autonom ous learn in g is seen by H olec as a double process. O n the one hand, it entails learning the foreign language; on the other, learning how to learn. T h u s autonom ous learning reaches b ey o n d a school context: it is a life-long process o f constantly d eveloping aw areness. It is o f co n seq u en ce to note that autonom y is a p ro cess, not a 9 product. O ne d o es not becom e autonom ous; one only w o rk s to w ard s autonom y. It is necessary to em p h asize that no learner can be said to be com p letely au to n o m o u s or com pletely dependent. N am ing som eone an autonom ous learner m ay not be valid at all tim es. E ven th ough one displays som e autonom ous d isp o sitio n s at a certain subject, s/he m ay not be as au to n o m o u s as at another subject. The p rem ise behind ‘‘c ap acity ” is that even au to n o m o u s learners are not autonom ous all o f the tim e. T herefore, w e can portray learner au tonom y across a continuum . A t one end o f the c o n tin u u m w e hav e dependent learners w ho do not have the opportunity to develop learn er independence. O n the other end we have the learners w ho have all the characteristics needed for autonom y. R esearch states th a t m ost o f the students are som ew here b etw een the continuum . (B enson and V oller, 1997; Sinclair. 2000, cited in K Ó se, 2006). H ow ever, for the purpose o f this study is to investigate the relatio n sh ip b etw een learner autonom y and language proficiency, the w orking d e fin itio n in this thesis, w hich is developed on the basis o f H o le c 's definition, is: a construct o f capacity fo r m aking inform ed decisions about o n e ’s own learning; a process that enables learners to take responsibility fo r their own learning: to choose and apply their own learning strategies or styles eventually leading to the effective m anagem ent o f learning: to evaluate and assess their own work; to learn how to learn fi-om their own successes a n d failures and can use this know ledge in any learning situation she/he m ay encounter at any stage in her/ his life; h o ld positive attitude; be w illing to learn in collaboration with others. N evertheless, to get a better insight into learner au to n o m y , factors affectin g learner autonom y from p rev io u s studies w ill be addressed in the n ex t section. 2.1.2. F actors a ffe c tin g learner au ton om y B ecause o f the p u rp o se o f this study is to investigate the link betw een learn er au to n o m y and E L P, the p rev io u s researches on factors affecting learn er au tonom y should be review ed. D ue to the lack o f space, this section w ill n o t rep eat the factors such as learners' ages, learn in g experiences, confidence, so ciety and education, le a rn e r’s interests, and learn er belief, etc., w hich have been b o o ste d in the literature on this subject. It w ill on ly discuss the m ost crucial factors like m otivation, le a rn e r’s m etacognitive k n o w ledge, teacher role and socio-cultural factor. M otivation is p ro b ab ly the m ost im p o rtan t ch aracteristic that students b rin g to a learning task. C o rd e r (1967) said, "given m o tivation, anyone can learn a language". T he phrase brings o ut the im portance o f m otivation and the w ay it can o vercom e 10