Learner autonomy as perceived by teachers and students at nguyen van linh high school a thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of master of arts in TESOL

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING
HO CHI MINH CITY OPEN UNIVERSITY
------------------------------------------

TRAN THI MINH TRI

LEARNER AUTONOMY AS PERCEIVED BY TEACHERS AND
STUDENTS AT NGUYEN VAN LINH HIGH SCHOOL

Major: TEACHING ENGLISH TO SPEAKERS OF OTHER LANGUAGES
Major code: 60 14 01 11

MASTER OF ARTS IN TESOL

Supervisor: Dr. NGUYEN DINH THU

HO CHI MINH City, 2016


STATEMENT OF THE AUTHORSHIP

I certify that this thesis, entitled “Learner Autonomy as Perceived by Teachers and
Students at Nguyen Van Linh High School”, is my own work.
Except where reference is made in the text of the thesis, this thesis contains no material published
elsewhere or extracted in whole or in part from a thesis by which I have qualified for or been
awarded another degree or diploma.
No other person’s work has been used without due acknowledgement in the main text of the
thesis.
This thesis has not been submitted for the award of any degree or diploma in any other
tertiary institution.
Ho Chi Minh City, September, 2016

TRAN THI MINH TRI

i


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to express my deep gratitude to those who have greatly helped and
encouraged me to complete my research. Without their support, it would be very difficult for me to
complete this study. Accordingly, I would like to acknowledge with profound gratitude for the
significant contribution they made.
I would like to express my whole-hearted appreciation and deepest thanks to my
supervisor, Dr. Nguyen Dinh Thu for his enthusiastic help, and dedicated support during the time
of carrying out this research. From the starting point, he has guided and shaped my research
ideas, given me valuable advice and useful materials, especially valuable feedback on every draft
that I wrote. Without his help and guidance, I could not have completed my research paper.
In addition, I own a great debt to five of my colleagues and 133 grade twelfth students
for their contribution to the completion of data collection. Without their willingness, my research
could not have been accomplished.
I am also very glad to acknowledge with gratitude to all of the teachers who have raised me
up with their knowledge.
I am deeply grateful to my parents, sisters and friends for the love and encouragement
they gave me while I was doing my thesis. Especially, my special thanks also go to my husband for
his mental support and sharing of feelings.

ii


ABSTRACT
Learner autonomy has been considered the expected goal of learning and teaching.

The context of Vietnamese high schools, however, may hinder its development. The present study
aims to investigate what learner autonomy is perceived by 133 grade twelve students and five
English teachers at Nguyen Van Linh high school. In this research, questionnaires for students and
teachers are triangulated by interviews with 9 learners randomly invited and all of the teachers. The
findings suggest that either the students or their English teachers perceive that teachers should take
the most of the responsibilities in the classroom although they see that learners have some abilities
to decide many of the activities relating to their learning. Besides, the activities reported by these
two groups of participants show that the students conducted little autonomous learning in their last
semester. Understanding learner autonomy perception from the perspectives of learners and
teachers at high school contexts may assist EFL instructors in this context to achieve the ultimate
goal in teaching a foreign language.

iii


TABLE OF CONTENTS
STATEMENT OF THE AUTHORSHIP.................................................................................. i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...................................................................................................... ii
ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................... iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS ......................................................................................................... iv
LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................... vii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................................ viii
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................1
1. 1 Rationale of the study ............................................................................................................1
1. 2 Statement of the problem .......................................................................................................3
1. 3 Purposes of the study .............................................................................................................4
1. 4 Research questions .................................................................................................................4
1. 5 Significance of the study........................................................................................................5
1. 6 Limitations of the study .........................................................................................................6
1. 7 Overview of the chapters .......................................................................................................7

CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................8
2. 1 Historical background of learner autonomy ..........................................................................8
2. 2 Definitions of learner autonomy ..........................................................................................11
2. 3 Learner autonomy in Asian contexts ...................................................................................13
2. 4 Learner autonomy in Vietnam .............................................................................................16
CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................22
3. 1 Site of research and Participants ..........................................................................................22
3. 1. 1 Site of research ...........................................................................................................22
3. 1. 2 Participants .................................................................................................................23

iv


3. 2 Research design ...................................................................................................................25
3. 3 Data collection instruments..................................................................................................26
3. 3. 1 Questionnaires............................................................................................................26
3. 3. 2 Interviews ..................................................................................................................30
3. 4 Data collection procedure ....................................................................................................31
3. 5 Data analysis ........................................................................................................................33
CHAPTER IV: RESULTS .......................................................................................................35
4. 1 Students’ and teachers’ perception of responsibility in language learning process.............35
4. 2 Students’ and teachers’ perceptions of abilities in language learning process ................... 39
4. 3 Students’ and teachers’ perceptions of activities in language learning process ..................41
4. 4 Insights into learner autonomy perceived by the students and their teachers ......................46
4.4.1 Responsibilities perceived by the students and their teachers ....................................46
4.4.2 Abilities for learner autonomy perceived by the students and their teachers .............49
4.4.3 Last semester’s autonomous activities reported by the students and their teachers. ..50
CHAPTER V: DISCUSSIONS ................................................................................................53
5.1 Twelfth graders at Nguyen Van Linh high school’s perceptions about learner autonomy in
terms of responsibilities, abilities and activities. .................................................................53

5. 2 Twelfth graders’ English teachers at Nguyen Van Linh high school’s perceptions about
their learners’ autonomy in terms of responsibilities, abilities and activities .....................57
5. 3 Comparisons on learner autonomy perceived by twelfth graders and their English
teachers at Nguyen Van Linh high school. ..........................................................................60
CHAPTER VI: CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................64
6.1 Conclusions. ..........................................................................................................................64
6. 2 Pedagogical implications ..................................................................................................66
6. 3 Recommendations. ...............................................................................................................67
REFERENCES ..........................................................................................................................69

v


APPENDICES ...........................................................................................................................81
APPENDIX 1a: QUESTIONNAIRE FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS
(ENGLISH VERSION) ...................................................................................81
APPENDIX 1b: QUESTIONNAIRE FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS
(VIETNAMESE VERSION) ...........................................................................84
APPENDIX 2a: QUESTIONNAIRE FOR HIGH SCHOOL TEACHERS
(ENGLISH VERSION) ...................................................................................87
APPENDIX 2b: QUESTIONNAIRE FOR HIGH SCHOOL TEACHERS
(VIETNAMESE VERSION) ...........................................................................90
APPENDIX 3a: INTERVIEW FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS
(ENGLISH VERSION) ...................................................................................92
APPENDIX 3b: INTERVIEW FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS
(VIETNAMESE VERSION) ...........................................................................93
APPENDIX 4a: INTERVIEW FOR HIGH SCHOOL TEACHERS
(ENGLISH VERSION) ...................................................................................94
APPENDIX 4b: INTERVIEW FOR HIGH SCHOOL TEACHERS
(VIETNAMESE VERSION) ...........................................................................95

APPENDIX 5a: INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT WITH STUDENT 3
(ENGLISH VERSION) ...................................................................................96
APPENDIX 5b: INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT WITH STUDENT 3
(VIETNAMESE VERSION) .........................................................................100

vi


LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1: Glenn’s (1992) table for sample size at ± 5% and ± 10% Precision Levels where
Confidence Level is 95% and p=0.5 .............................................................................23
Table 3.2: Sample details in terms of gender .................................................................................25
Table 3.3: Time Framework ..........................................................................................................34
Table 4.1: Students’ and teachers’ perception of responsibility in language learning ..................36
Table 4.2: Overall mean scores of the students and teachers of their perceived ability of
learners ....................................................................................................................... 39
Table 4.3: Independent Samples Test of Students’ and teachers’ perceptions of abilities ............39
Table 4.4: Percentages of students’ and teachers’ perceptions of students’ abilities in terms of
each duty .....................................................................................................................40
Table 4.5: Percentages of students’ and teachers’ perceptions of students’ activities in terms of
each duty .......................................................................................................................42
Table 4.6: Independent Samples Test of Students’ and teachers’ perceptions of activities ..........45
Table 4.7: Independent Samples Test of Students’ and teachers’ perceptions of asked the teacher
questions when they didn’t understand (item 17, section III) .....................................46

vii


LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
B.A:

Bachelor of Arts

CRAPEL:

Centre de Reserches et d’Applications en Langues

EFL:

English as a Foreign Language

ESL:

English as a Second Language

ILTP:

Integrated Learner Training Programme

ITC:

Information and Communication Technologies

LA:

Language Acquisition

LMS:

Learning Management System

TEFL:

Teaching English as a Foreign Language

or SLA: Second Language Acquisition

viii


CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Rationale of the study
In the past few decades, there has been a dramatic surge in the field of language teaching.
In traditional classes, where teachers try to tell their learners what to do for grasping knowledge
and how to apply such knowledge into their future, the power was consistent with teachers
(Estes, 2004). What teachers transfer; however, is limited but what students explore by
themselves is unlimited. Luckily, the new millennium provides them with new technology, with
which students can easily access information that teachers can not satisfy (Brown 2003). Diverse
student populations and learning styles in a mixed-ability class, where learners’ needs are in the
heart of the learning process (Dudley, 2016), require a revolutionary approach so that the
problems of the new century could be solved. A new model for those challenges known as
learner-centered teaching has been valued by many researchers (Brown, 2003; Estes, 2004). In
this kind of approach, learners do not passively receive knowledge any more but they are more
responsible for their own learning process (Brandes and Ginnis, 1996). They have to brainstorm
ideas and take advantages of their learning opportunities, rather than simply response to teachers
(Knowles, 1975). Then taking responsibility for their own learning and self-directing, which has
been defined as autonomy, seems to become the expected goal of teaching and learning
(Areglado 1996, cited in Benson and Huang 2008). This fact has been realized by numerous
researchers and educators (Holec 1981; Cotterall 1995; Zhe 2009; Joshi 2011); therefore, more

and more papers tend to explore issues related to learner autonomy worthwhile.
Holec (1981) was the pioneer in the field of learner autonomy. His work has been seen
as putting the starting point with the definition of leaner autonomy “the ability to take charge of
one’s own learning” (p.3). In his view, this “ability” is not inborn but acquired through a learning
process. Also, it should not be considered as a complete separation from teachers and other
students. In other words, learner autonomy is a term used for a cooperative learning environment
rather than an isolated learning, a learning process rather than an innate skill. Due to the

1


influential attribute, more researchers (Cotterall 1995; Benson and Huang 2008, Zhe 2009; Joshi
2011) have been attracted to different aspects of this issue from theories to practices.
To raise the importance of language learner autonomy, Ellis and Sinclair published a
book in 1989, which aims to help learners take the responsibility for their own learning due to
the following reasons. Firstly, they emphasize that when learners take control of their own
learning, their learning will be more effective due to the fact that they learn what they are ready
to learn. Secondly, they tend to conduct more learning outside the classroom, which helps
improve their language learning. Finally, learners can explore a wide range of learning strategies
to elect the most appropriate one for themselves that assists to organize and monitor their
learning effectively.
Among a great number of other research workers, Little (2007) emphasizes the
fundamental role of learner autonomy when stating that it can “move to the central of language
teaching theory and practice” (p.14). In his view, the growth of learner autonomy and the
development of language proficiency are closely connected. His idea has been supported by
many practical research papers. Dafei’s (2007) investigation of 129 non-English majors at a
teacher college in China showed the significant and positive connection between learner
autonomy and language proficiency. The analysis of the results from the questionnaires for
learner autonomy and the score of the participants indicated that when students were not
significantly different in their proficiency, their learner autonomy was not statistically different.

In other words, their language proficiency’s differences entail their autonomy’s differences.
Furthermore, Hrochová (2012) who investigated 75 secondary students’ out-of-class activities
(which are perceived as a signal of learner autonomy) and their school grade together with their
achievement perception pinpoints the strong and positive relationship. The correlation between
the level of learner autonomy and language proficiency of college students is reported to be
significant by Myartawan & Latief (2013). They selected 120 among 171 English-majored
students in their first semester at a state university in Indonesia for their study. Data were
gathered from available documents indicating the students’ English proficiency and two
questionnaires. The first questionnaire was used for determining behavioral intentions to do

2


autonomous learning of the samples while the second questionnaire related to learner’s selfefficacy regarding autonomous learning. Results from their study revealed strong and positive
relationship between language proficiency and learner autonomy.
Moreover, the importance of learner autonomy in language classes is consolidated by
Mcdevitt (1997) who writes “the end product of education is an independent learner” (p. 34).
He emphasizes that autonomy should be considered as a goal. Due to the fact that teachers could
feed students with knowledge at the time that students are attending some course but they could
not provide them more knowledge when students do not take any courses. The question relating
to how they can direct themselves for language learning owing to their over-aged period of
schooling or their time spending on their family or their work, is really a considerable issue.
Then autonomy is worth noticing as a vital aspect in language teaching and learning for fostering
life-long learning.
Another important value of learner autonomy is learner differences. In a class, different
learners bring their own social variables, such as age, affect, aptitude, cognitive style, gender or
learning styles and so on, which are different from each other, into the classroom (Benson,
2006). The teachers, then, have to deal with a variety of learners in their class. However, it is
hard for them to overcome such divergences in a limited time and fixed curricular. Sun (2013)
suggests that one of the best way to solve the problems of learners’ differences in terms of needs

and preferences is teaching them the way to learn independently. He agrees with Little (1991)
that when students are autonomous in their learning, they will feel what they are learning is
connected to those in their life. Besides, the students’ motivation is enhanced, which encourage
them to take advantage of every opportunity in non-native environment to communicate the
target language.
1.2 Statement of the problem
In the context of Vietnamese high schools, there are numerous constraints for teachers
to increase proficiency levels of their students (Duong, 2006). In her study, Duong (2006)
identifies the model of the classrooms in Vietnam with certain common characteristics. The first

3


characteristic is the classroom with unmovable chairs on which students sit still. Then, the
students in those rooms try to grasp all things that the teachers convey to reproduce most
correctly in the exams. The teachers then make their all best to “pour” the knowledge into the
students’ mind, which is, in her words, something like a so-called full-pitcher and a so-called
empty glass.
These ideas were supported by Pham (2007) when the teachers participating in his study
admitted that the constraints in their teaching at secondary schools are large class size and
students’ lack of motivation to apply English. Especially, these teachers emphasized that the
matter came from the national examination. They stated that they wanted their students to use
English well but the pressure of instructing their students to pass the graduation exam and
university entrance exam seemed more powerful.
Nowadays, following the trend of the world which emphasizes the role of the learners,
the Prime minister issued the decision No. 711/QD-TTg in 2012, approving the Vietnamese
education development strategies for the period of 2011 – 2020 (Vietnamese Prime Minister,
2012). This document indicates that to achieve the strategic objectives, eight solutions need to
be conducted. Among these solutions, one emphasizes the requirement to renovation in teaching
contents and methods, exams, tests and education quality assessment with the aim of enhancing

the activeness, self-discipline, initiative, creativity and self-learning capacity of students.
However, the reality of teaching and learning in Vietnam discussed above mainly focusing on
examination ignores the long-term goal of autonomy (Le, 2013).
In addition, although Zhe (2009, p. 11) points out that learner autonomy “was originated
in adult education, but its recent development has confirmed that it could also be used with
young learners with guided and gradual introduction”, little research has been done to determine
high school students’ autonomy in Vietnam, as appeared in my review of literature in the next
chapter. Thus, it is worth conducting more research to explore learner autonomy in this context.
Besides, it would be insufficient if teachers were not included in the current study due
to the fact that learner autonomy in the educational institutions is developed through a

4


continuum, which often starts from teacher-dependence and ends with learner self-direction
(Dam, 2011). Therefore, teachers play important roles in promoting autonomy among learners
(Little, 1999; Dam, 2011; Nakata, 2014). If the teachers do not realize the optimum benefits that
learner autonomy could bring to the students, they could not find the way to enhance it (Nguyen,
2014). The current study, hence, attempt to explore learner autonomy at Nguyen Van Linh high
school from the view of teachers and students themselves.
1.3 Purposes of the study
With the aim of discovering the perceptions of students and teachers at Nguyen van Linh
high school on learner autonomy and in an attempt to determine whether there is any distinction
between the learners and teachers on this term, the study is carried out to achieve three following
purposes:
1. To investigate the perceptions of grade twelve students at Nguyen Van Linh high
school on learner autonomy.
2. To identify the perceptions of English teachers at Nguyen Van Linh high school on
their learners’ autonomy.
3. To compare learner autonomy perceived by the students and the teachers.

1.4 Research questions
In line with the above purposes, the research paper tries to find out the answers to the
questions:
1. What are grade 12 students at Nguyen Van Linh high school’s perceptions about learner
autonomy?
2. What are the English teachers at Nguyen Van Linh high school’s perceptions about their
learners’ autonomy?

5


3. Are there any differences between learner autonomy perceptions between learners and
teachers at Nguyen Van Linh high school?
1.5 Significance of the study
The study aims to investigate the perceptions of students and teacher on learner
autonomy which is considered as a desired goal in language teaching and learning. Then it
results will be worthy because of the following reasons. First and foremost, it will provide the
English teachers at Nguyen Van Linh high school, an insight into their learners’ autonomy.
Thanks to that, they can understand what students perceive about their roles, how good they
perceive about their capacity and what they actually carry out in their study. This also provides
information about the levels and the readiness for autonomous learning also. Besides, rather
than the English teachers, other teachers from different departments of the school can use the
results in this study to make an implication for their teaching because the first part in the
questionnaire focus on the role of teachers and learners in the learning process. Furthermore,
the study investigates the perceptions of English teachers on learner autonomy and the
differences between the two subjects-learners and teachers, which may help the management
board to determine the suitable way to develop curriculum fostering autonomous learning. Last
but not least, the survey may raise the awareness of teachers and students at Nguyen Van Linh
high school on autonomous learning. This will bring some effects to their study results,
especially to the participants in the study whose are preparing for the graduation exam.

1.6 Limitations of the study
The study is limited due to some factors. First of all, the participants in the study are
twelfth graders and teachers from Nguyen Van Linh high school only. The results, therefore,
are valuable among the population but it is hard to generalize them for other population whose
backgrounds are different. Secondly, the study mainly uses questionnaire and interview with
self-report items from the participants as central instruments. This may, thus, affect the validity
of the results due to the fact that the students’ actual behaviors may not be the same as what they
perceived on learner autonomy.

6


1.7 Overview of the chapters
The thesis consists of 5 chapters.
Chapter One introduces the research backgrounds such as the rationale, the purpose of
the study, the research questions, the research significance, the research limitation and the thesis
content.
Chapter Two reviews the literature relevant to learner autonomy in terms of definition
and related study.
Chapter Three reveals the research methodologies employed in this research, which
includes detail descriptions of the research design, the participants, the instruments, the
procedures and the data analysis.
Chapter Four presents the results of the data analysis collected from the research
instruments.
Then Chapter Five discusses the research findings to answer the research questions.
Finally, chapter Six draws the conclusions related to the study, limitations and
recommendations for further research and some pedagogical implications as well.

7

CHAPTER II
LITERATURE REVIEW
To begin the chapter, general historical backgrounds of learner autonomy are
presented. Next, several definitions are reviewed in an attempt to establish a working definition
of learner autonomy for this study. It then summarizes empirical studies relating to learner
autonomy in Asian contexts. Finally, it continues to present autonomous learning research in
Vietnam.
2.1 Historical background
Originally, the term “autonomy” is derived from a combination of ancient Greek words
autos meaning “self,” and nomos, meaning “rule”. Hence, autonomy is considered in terms of
philosophy as the state of self – governing or self-directing. Adapting this term into the field of
second language education somehow keeps its original meanings.
The development of learner autonomy from its first appearance in language learning and
teaching literature, is clearly reviewed by Benson (2013). In his book, Benson explains that the
term “learner autonomy” was first generated to researchers and educators in language teaching
through the modern language project of The Council of Europe, which was founded in 1971.
Among the outcomes of the project, the Centre de Reserches et d’Applications en Langues
(CRAPEL), led by Yves Châlon, significantly contributed to the field of language learning by
introducing the concept of learner autonomy. Therefore, Yves Châlon has been considered as
the father of autonomy. After the death of this leader in 1972, the leadership of project was
assumed by Henri Holec. His report to the project in 1981 then provided influential guides in
the field of autonomous learning (Benson, 2013).
According to Benson (2013), one of the earliest and most popular ideas coping with
learner autonomy is self-access centers. In line with Benson (2013), Gardner and Miller (1999)
claim that self-access may be the most favored approach to enhance learner autonomy and to
shift learner’s dependence on their teacher to their autonomy. The first self-access centers at

8

CRAPEL and the University of Cambridge were the places for learners to access a wide range
of their target language’s material. These kinds of materials were considered as wonderful
sources to assist learners in their self-directed learning. Besides, Little and his college also
provided students with self-access facilities, which were served as language laboratories for
learners to optionally come and study on their own. In these places, learners could use the
materials here to support their current learning. However, Little (2004) found some challenges
when not many learners took the advantages of these facilities. The students entered the
laboratories without knowing how to study by themselves. Instead of promoting students’
activeness, the provided materials designed as a substitute teacher somehow deprive learners of
the initiatives (Little, 2004). Nowadays, with the development of information technology, selfaccess centers often relate to technology-based approach, which takes the advantages of
information explosion and electronic revolution to solve the problems of students with different
levels in the learning process (Morrison, 2008). Benson (2013), however, reminds that selfaccess centers seem not to necessarily promote autonomous development as they have been
expected.
Similarly, to nourish self-directed learning, learner training are thought to be essential
(Dickinson and Carver, 1980; Holec, 1980 cited in Benson, 2013). At CRAPEL, learners were
trained some basic skills for self-directing like self-management, self-monitoring or selfevaluation. It is argued that they needed to have some preparations for the new type of learnercentered learning. They need teaching what is learning how to learn (Benson, 2013). Research
on learner training, therefore, tries to explore effective strategies used by successful learners to
assist less successful learners. As Wenden (1991) points out that successful learners can employ
effective strategies independently. Aljasir (2009) also reveals that strategy uses strongly
correlates with learner autonomy. However, Benson (2001) thinks that the employment of good
learning strategies does not necessarily develop learner autonomy if it could not enhance the
capacity for learning independently.
Benson (2013) also reviews the history of leaner autonomy and individualization. In the
sense of individualization, self-access centers perform quite well the function of

9


individualization, which let learners be free from the teachers and allow them to decide their

own needs and find their own methods to fulfill them. Researchers at CRAPEL state that
individualization also relates to programmed individualized learning, which allows learners to
make decisions and work on their own ways but they have to follow their teacher’s materials.
This mode of instructions, however, is assumed to reduce the chance to develop learner
autonomy. These early ideas emphasize the role of individual learners and isolate learners from
their teacher and their friends.
On the other hand, the recent trend has taken the importance of social factors into
considerations (Benson, 2001). Learners only develop themselves when they interact with other
learners or with their teacher (Little, 1999). Little also takes the example of the infants with their
mother to demonstrate the language development. He asserts that social interaction and
communication have strong relationship. And the strong tool for people to communicate is
language. This idea quite correlates with those from the Soviet psychologist Lev Vygotsky. In
Vygotsky’s (1978) constructivist theory of language acquisition, children develop their metacognition like planning, monitoring or evaluating thanks to social interaction via the means of
language. Wang (2014) suggests that a strong relationship between constructivism learning
theory and learner autonomy. According to Wang, the latter depends on and fully reflects the
former. Learners come to class not to receive knowledge from the teacher but they come to learn
how to acquire them thanks to the aid of learning materials, the teacher or their partners.
Reinders (2010) also indicates that the common things between constructivism learning theory
and learner autonomy are their central roles of learners to construct, reorganize and share the
knowledge. In the context of formal learning, classrooms are recognized as “social context”,
where learners can cooperate with others to make decisions together and to enhance their learner
autonomy (Kohonence, 1992 cited in Benson, 2013). Therefore, learner autonomy should be
promoted by working with the teacher and other learners. The term “interdependence” is
understood in this sense. Benson (2013) refuses to use the term “independence” because it just
shows the opposite meaning of the traditional teaching approach, which much relies on the
teacher for almost everything but it cannot show the usefulness of collaboration towards learner
autonomy in classroom context.

10

2.2 Definitions of learner autonomy
Due to its importance and influence, learner autonomy has received a considerable
attention from researchers and educators in the field of language teaching during the last
decades. Little (1991) asserted that it has recently become a “buzzword”, which has been agreed
by Benson (2007) to be in the center of references and published works throughout the world.
Many scholars agree with its ultimate goal in the learning process. Its definition; however, have
been developed in various aspects and in various contexts by different researchers, which results
in no standard definitions of learner autonomy.
Regarding learner autonomy’s definition, it is worth starting with Holec (1981), one of
the earliest defenders of autonomy in language teaching and learning and the most widely cited
researchers in the field. He emphasized that “learner autonomy” is the “ability to take charge of
one’s own learning” (Holec 1981, p.3). Holec also employed other terms for “ability” as
“capacity”, which is “not inborn but must be acquired either by ‘natural’ means or (as most often
happens) by formal learning, i.e. in a systematic, deliberate way” while “take control of” or
“take responsibility for” can be replaced for “take charge of” (Benson, 2007). He clarified that
taking charge in learning means taking responsibility for making decisions relating to their own
learning. These decisions should be made in the learning process in terms of goals determining,
content selecting, methods and techniques adopting as well as products assessing.
In line with Holec in the role of learners’ capacity in learning independently, Dickinson
(1995), yet, adds one more element to the concept. To his view, learner autonomy is a construct
of “both an attitude towards learning and a capacity for independent learning” (P. 166). He also
expands the attitude as the willingness to be responsible for making all the decisions relating to
students’ own learning. As an active student, he or she can also set up or change their goals to
meet their needs. However, the research emphasizes that when students acquire full autonomy,
they completely separate from their teachers to work on their own (Dickinson, 1987).
Agreeing with Dickinson (1995), Littlewood (1996) defines an autonomous learner as
“one who has an independent capacity to make and carry out the choices which govern his or

11

her actions. This capacity depends on two main components: ability and willingness” (p. 428).
Later, he distinguishes the capacity between reactive and proactive levels. In terms of reactive
level, learners can “organize their resources autonomously in order to reach their goal” under
clear instructions from teachers (Littlewood 1999, p. 75). At proactive level, students are able
to create their own instructions and follow them to obtain their purposes. Therefore, learner
autonomy should be examined in terms of attitudes and behavior.
Little (1999) also agree that learner autonomy basically refers to the capacity for
independent learning but the ability for autonomous skills are not “inborn”, but are taught or
trained by teachers (Holec 1985, 1987 cited in Benson, 1996). In his concept, he considers the
capacity for critical reflection on learners’ own learning leading to awareness one of the most
important elements. His definition takes “the nature of the cognitive capabilities underlying
effective self-management of learning” into consideration (Benson, 2001, p. 49). Learner
autonomy can be interpreted as not only the ability to be responsible for one’s own learning,
but also the capacity for effectively self-managing the learning by controlling psychological
factors that affect their learning. In order to become autonomous, students must obtain cognitive
and meta-cognitive skills for making decisions on their learning process effectively.
In general, there are a number of dimensions in defining learner autonomy but it “is
interpreted differently by different cultures and nations” (Ivanovska, 2015, p. 355). In the local
context as Vietnamese education, Phan (2015) analyzes and synthesizes different definitions
from the experts in the field to construct a concept of learner autonomy suited to this context.
From her exploration, she concludes that learner autonomy should consist of two components.
The first component is learners’ attitude, which can be understood as the awareness of
responsibility in the learning process and willingness to communicate. It indicates the roles
perceived by the learners, themselves, in their own learning process. They must see themselves
have an active role, so they are willing to take some responsibilities for making some important
decisions in their learning such as learning objectives, kinds of materials, activities and so on.
The second component of Phan’s definition relates to the learners’ ability to conduct
autonomous learning activities. She clarifies that this ability consists of four elements - goal

12


setting, planning, implementing, and evaluating. She points out that goal setting relates to what
learners want and believe they need to learn. Planning can be carried out for group work in class
or out of class. Implementing relates to what students do to fulfil the tasks. Evaluating occurs in
class when they present their products and give feedbacks on what they have done.
In conclusion, there are numerous definitions given to the term “learner autonomy”.
However, different research workers look at the term from different perspectives; therefore,
there is no consensus on a universal definition. Regarding to the Vietnamese educational
context, I employ Phan’s (2015) definition as a working definition for my thesis. In this
definition, learner autonomy refers to “the learner’s attitude and ability to take responsibility
for his or her own learning in the target language” with the assistance of the teachers, not the
isolation of the learners (Phan, 2015, p. 52) due to the fact that it is suitable for Vienamese
context and is quite compatible with other researchers’ in field. First, it correlates to the
definition of Holec (1981), mentioning the ability to take responsibilities in the learning process.
Second, it involves learners’ attitudes as another important component, which is in line with
Dickinson (1995) and Littlewood (1996).
2.3 Learner autonomy in Asian contexts
As discussed above, although there is no consensus on the definitions of learner
autonomy, no one can deny the benefits it brings to education. However, when the idea
historically originated from Western countries are employed in non-Western cultures, debates
have been raised (Gremmo & Riely, 1995; Benson, et al., 2003). Due to Confucian heritage on
China and other China-influenced countries, learner-teacher relationship in most Asian
countries are different from that in Western countries (Nguyen, et al., 2006). In terms of power
distance, students and teachers in Confucian Heritage cultures tend not to share an equal
relationship (Ellis, 1995), which gives priority to dependency rather than independence;
hierarchy rather than equality (Sullivan, 2000). More specifically, Asian teaching mainly
follows the traditional teacher-centered approach, and teachers have long been authoritative

figures who are responsible for looking after and taking control over the classroom and the

13


whole learning process as well (Holec, 1987). Therefore, students in this region tend to be
passive and dependent on their teachers, rather than actively enroll in their own learning process
to make their own decisions. This trait of Asian educational systems may hinder the
development of leaner autonomy in Asian cultures (Chan, 2003; Lamb, 2004).
In spite of such stereotype on the development of learn autonomy in Asian countries, it
is, necessary to consider numerous studies on learner autonomy conducted around Asia such as
Japan, Thailand, Malaysia or China. In an attempt to prove that learner autonomy is also suitable
to different cultures, including East Asia, Littlewood (1999) carried out a cross-cultural study
on students’ attitudes towards English learning. In the study, he investigated students in eight
East Asian countries and three European countries about three cultural sources influencing
students’ learning approaches. They were the collectivism, high distance power and types of
achievement motivation in East Asia. Data from his study suggest that these students show their
strong wish to actively engage in exploring knowledge. Also, they indicated positive attitudes
towards sharing goals in group work activities.
With reference to learner autonomy in Japanese educational context, Usuki (2001)
indicated the positive attitudes towards their roles in the learning process. Data from interviews
and journals written by the first year English majored students at a Japanese private university
suggested that students were aware of their roles as active and autonomous learners and they
expressed their wish to have opportunities interacting with others in their classroom learning.
However, their awareness seemed to be different from their actual behaviors owing to the
educational system.
In Thailand, a study was carried out by Vanijdee (2003) to explore English distance
students’ attitudes in Thai towards learner autonomy. Data from questionnaire, ThinkAloud
protocols and interviews indicated that the students’ degree of autonomy varied from selfsufficient language learners to dynamic distance language learners. While the former group
showed their limited degree of autonomy, the latter one seemed more proactive in their language

learning.

14


In search of the situation in China, Gieve and Clark’s (2005) conducted an empirical
study in relation to learners in China and Europe. The researchers compared reflections
written by Chinese undergraduates studying English as a part of the UK university degree with
those of European students found that the Chinese students actually valued the benefits of
autonomous study as much as European students and claimed to make equally good use of the
opportunity. Also, Wang (2011) carried out a survey research among 150 English majors in
some Chinese universities to check the suitability of learner autonomy in a non-Western cultural
situation. With the questionnaire asking students to give their beliefs about language learning,
the study revealed the results contrasting to the previous stereotype, which considered Chinese
students as passive language learners. Surprisingly, the participants expressed their strong
desire to take responsibility for their own language learning in the learning process.
In the context of Malaysia, Thang (2009) investigates undergraduates from three public
universities and one private one to find out their perception on learner autonomy. He used
questionnaires to collect data from a large number of participants, including 817 undergraduates
who belonged to different ethnic groups in Malaysia. After analyzing the results of the
questionnaires, he reveals that although students from public universities prefer teacher-center
approaches, private university students show their tendency to autonomous learning.
The evidences from the empirical research show positive results on learner autonomy
preferences in Asian context. Asian students appreciate freedom as well as chances to take
control their own learning (Benson, 2006). Therefore, learner autonomy is not only for Western
countries, but can also be aroused in non-Western contexts. As cited by Aoki and Smith (1999),
it is
“not whether autonomy itself is appropriate, but how negotiated versions of autonomy
can be best enabled in all contexts, in varying ways, in educative counterbalance
to more authoritarian, teacher-dominated arrangements.” (Aoki and Smith, 1999, p. 3)

While many research papers have attempted to look into the problems of non-Western
cultures, it seems to have not sufficient materials to support the practice of learner autonomy in

15


the context of Asian high school students, where freedom is limited by a wide range of
constraints (Nakata, 2014).
In her study, Nakata (2011) used both quantitative data from questionnaire and
qualitative data from focus group interview to investigate the perception of the high school
English teachers in Japan, in terms of their readiness for promoting learner autonomy. Eighty
English teachers answering the questionnaire expressed some main problems which they have
to face including students’ unreadiness for autonomous learning, the practice of grammartranslation method to support students for their university entrance exam and other restrictions
to their professional development. Besides, four interviewed teachers showed that the high
school teachers in Japan see the significance of promoting autonomy among their learners but
they seem not to be ready for it. From the results, Nakata encouraged high school teachers to
cooperate with their colleagues as well as reflect on their own teaching practice to solve the
problems in their teaching context.
In the same situation, where the educational system in Iranian high schools is considered
as test-driven and collectivist, Mohamadpour (2013) carried out an investigation, aiming to
explore the awareness of learner autonomy and their readiness to become autonomous. The
study also compared the issues among high and low English proficient students. Data collected
by questionnaire with thirty females and in-depth interview with seven volunteers pointed out
that their awareness of learner autonomy is rather low, but different between high English
proficient students and their low English proficient counterparts. In the other words, their
English proficiency, measuring by PET, is significantly correlates with their autonomy.
Showing the interest in the degree of learner autonomy and language learning strategy
uses among high school students in a junior high school in central Taiwan, Chen & Pan (2015)
carried out a survey with the use of questionnaire. Findings from 130 grade nine students
revealed that the students are medium autonomous learners and they tended to use the language

learning strategies infrequently. The researchers also found that there was a correlation between
the two issues among the participants. Eventually, they suggested that teachers should create

16